The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-16 00:00:00

with eyes open and months agape, stood bewildered,
not knowing whom to blame. That was a true picture
of the present Home Government for India. Should we
allow this state of things to continue t It was neces-
sary to draw a distinction. They had two things to do
in the arrangement of the Government for India. First,
they had to arrange the machinery which should bring
to bear upon the actual governors of India the opinion
of the Parliament and people of England, and their
responsibility to that opinion. This was what was called
the Home Government. They had also to constitute
the Government of India which should carry out their
plans when they had been duly matured in England. 1
Fer the first operation they did not require any know-
ledge of the people of India: All that was requisite
was a general knowledge of the
principles of human
nature. They wanted to bring to bear on their officials
in India a responsibility towards the people of England ;
and if they accomplished that they would do suffioient
for the good government of India as far as the Home
Government was conoerned. By the double government,
however, under which it was hardly possible to know
who was answerable for any act performed by the
Home Government of India, they had done their utmost
to destroy all responsibility and all efficiency in that
Government. They were bound, then, to get rid of such
a state of things as soon as possible. The question next
arose, ought they to go back to the East India Corn-
pany I True, that Company wore very much in the
habit of praising themselves, and when nobody else
would praise one it was as well to praise oneself. (A.
.laugh.) But, looking to the career of that body until
the Parliament of England interfered to restrain it, was
ever a worse or more rapacious Government than that
of the East India Company known in the history of the
world I Hon, gentlemen might refer on this matter to
the pages of a great defender of the Company —Lord
Macaulay, in whose " Life of Clive" they would find
that the whole object of their Government was money !
—money to the directors in the shape of dividend,money
to their servants in the shape of large fortunes ; and that
they had crushed and trampled upon the unhappy people
of Hindostan as if they bad been diet beneath their
feet, except that they were dirt out of which
they could dig gold. Therefore, judging them from their
past history, the Court of Directors were not fit persons
to be trusted with the future gpvernment of India. But
the Directors represented the Court of Proprietors. On
what principle were they electee The Court ef Proprie-
tors consisted of persons who possessed Elet India stock
and in a certain proportion to the amount of stock which
they individually held was the number of their voter. He

want of responsibility, of the difficulties of governing
India, and did they then succeed because they were
right, or because they were wrong I He entered into a
laboured defence of the conduct of the Court of Direc-
tors, who had always shown great intelligence, industry,
and knowledge of their business, and of the people of
India. He cited the opinione of Mr. Mill, Lord Macau-
lay, and others, to chow that the directors proved
themselves more competent to manage the affairs of
India than the Board of Control, and that the system of
double government was more fees from party influences
and better fitted for the circurnetances than any other.
Cou!d the directors be charged with want of promptitude
or skill in their arrangements during the late crisis in
any one particular ? If they were to discard the com-
pany, what would they get 1 He read a multitude of
quotations from former debates to show that any substi-
tute would be truckling to the Government of the day,
its mere tool and dependents. The Duke of Wellington
had borne testimony to the purity and excellence of the
government of the company. He denied that the change
in our army administration daring the Crimean war had
any analogy to the immense changes now proposed in
the government of a great empire, yet this was the only
argument which the noble lord could find for introducing
his proposition at such a time. Was a great government
to be overthrown by such an analogy ? He charged upon
the home Government the initiative of all the measures
which had brought so many calamities on India, and it
was to shift the blame from those who deserved it
that the present bill was introduced. He replied at
length to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
disproving his statements as to the comparatively small
importance of India to the empire, and as to the con-
duct of the men who first established our rale in that
country. The great argument in favour of the proposed
bill was, that it would bring to bear upon Indian mat-
ters the influence of public opinion through Parliamen•
tary discussion. The very thing that Mr. Mill •depre•
cated. There was no public opinion in India, and he
denied that the people of England could have any
influence in operating upon the legislature so as to make
its action beneficial in the administration of the aff_sire
of India. (Rear.) The whole argument upon this
point rested upon a perfect fallacy. The same argument
bad been employed with respect to the management
of the affairs of our colonies. But what had bean the
result ? Triers was once a Minister of England who was
a man of eloquence, who was surrounded by able Mini-
store, by scholars and by wits—he was high in the ear-
fidence of his Sovereign, was popular in the country,
and supported by immense majorities in b)th houses of
the legislature. He adopted a policy which he believed
to be in accirdance with the opinioas of the people of
En laud, and he drenched the American soil with blood,
and lost a magnificent country to his king. (Cheer'.)
What did they see now I A proud republic stand on
the ruins of an empire of which it was the conqueror.
What had become of the Minister who brought about
these results 1 He was classed among the men who,
made giddy by ambition, mistook popular applause for
the safe and guiding rules of policy in the administration
of the affairs of a great country. (Cheers.) But it was
said that the people of Eugland, in fact, appointed the
Ministers of the Crown. Did they I What, all of
thorn ? Thy made, perhape, the first Minister of the
Crown, but what of the rest I He appealed to the hearts
and consciences of tho:e, who heard him whether the
arguments or statements of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on this point were founded on fact ?
Were appointments even under the wholesome in-
fluence !and operation of a free House of Commons in
a free country always those they could applaud! Were
they always made in deference to the moral feelings, the
enlightened opinion, the utility of the public service, the
honour oft he Crown, or the advantage of the State!
(Loud and repeated cheers.) Was the House of Com•
mons satisfied in dealing with this question as men of
business and common sense that it would be a safe thing
to pass this bill ? This government had lasted a good
time, no doubt it had. The noble lord at the head of
the Government said that the change might be easily
made, that we might destroy the Government gen'ly
and at once without the least effort. He (Mr. White-
side) agr cad with him there. It was a law of the
Almighty that the work of construction should be diffi-
cult and slow, but that the work of destruction was
easy. The skill of the architect and the labour of a❑ age
might erect the edifice, the labourer with his rude pick-
a3e could easily destroy its beauty. 'This building has
stood for a long time. Let them strengthen its founda-
tiow, enlarge its basis, improve if they could the inhabi-
tants of the building ; but he implored the house, while
yet there was time, to stay their hand, and not upon the
arguments they had heard overthrow the useful and
venerable structure. (Loud and repeated cheering
followed the close of the address of the hon. and learned
member.)