The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

that, seventeen reports of committees were successively
presented to Parliament. That was the Parliamentary
history of that time. In 1784 Mr. Burke described the
Parliamentary result of these inquiries to this effect, and
it showed how far the character which the company
gave of its administration was true. Mr. Burke's
resolution in 1781 was to this effect, that the East
India Company was found totally corrupted and per-
verted from the purposes of its institution, whether of
war or of peace. All their treaties had only given cause of
breaches of faith, and that at home the servants of the
company had obtained by nefarious practices the mastery
of the body by which they ought to have been governed.
When this was discovered, certain alterations were made,
but the company refused to support them, and they sanc-
tioned the scenes of robbery and plunder which had been
brought out in evidence before the committees of that time.
That was a faithful picture of those times, and the senti-
ment that had got abroad in these times of gratitude and
devotion to the company was totally unknown. The evi-
dence before those committees showed that no civilised
company on the face of the earth was more rapacious and
corrupt than the East India Company, from the year 1758
to the year 1781. Then came the period when it was
placed under Parliamentary control. Before that it was a
mere trading concern, and open to the charges to which he
had alluded, and which were damnatory of the East India
Company as a political body, and he confessed he could not
reed without surprise the character which the East India
Company had given of themselves, founded as it was since
the company had been planed under the Board of Control
and the Governor-General of India, and subjected to pub-
lic opinion the control of Parliament. All that could be
said in favour of the company dated from 1784. It was by
confounding the acts of two periods, before and after Par-
liamentary control, that the company was enabled to take
to themselves this character. Then, lot them follow their
Parliamentary history from 1784. Upon looking at it, it
would be found that Mr. Burke and Mr. Pitt very nearly
annihilated the company at that time. Tho bill with that
object passed the House of Commons, and was thrown out
in the House of Lords, on ace cunt of the alarm of the King,
who thought it was intended to invest his Ministers with
dictatorial powers. But Mr. Pitt, after throwing out
the Government of Mr. Fox, introduced another bill,
the effect of which was to institute the Board of Con-
trol, the establishment of which totally altered
the character of the company, which up to that
time was a trading and sovereign power. The
effect of that measure was to place the company in a purely
subordinate situation, and from that time the company
was placed completely under that department of Govern-
ment. In 1793 Mr. Dundee, then President of the Board
of Control, brought in another bill, the effect of which was
to bring to complete perfection the system of double go-
vernment. That originated in 1781. That Minister re-
newed the charter for 30 years, and after the expiration of
that period the Government of the day determined to abo-
lish the monopoly of the East India trade, and that was
effected in 1813. That, in fact, was the first great stone
struck out of the edifice of the East India Company. That
he thought would not have been done if Parliament bad
been of opinion that a boundless debt of gratitude was due
to the East India Company. But they retained the mono-
poly of the China trade for 20 years longer. At last Go-
vernment came to the conclusion that the whole of the
trading powers of the company should be abolished, and
that they should bo prohibited from trading with India and
with China, but that the sovereign and governing powers
should be priserved. That was in 1833. They then lost
altogether their peculiar character of traders. These
changes resulted in a constant diminution of the power of
the co :Tally. Again, in 1833, when the question was re-
opened, nothing seas said of the sentimental view of the
The whole of the trade of China and India was
thrown open, and the company then obtained a renewed
lease of 20 years, ending in 1853, during which the com-
pany was the mere ghost of the former company. Then
came another renewal of the charter in 1853. There were
circumstances in operation at that time favourable to the
company. The previous twenty years had been tranquil,
and there was an improved spirit, in consequence of the
vigilance of Parliament ; but, even under these favour-
able circumstances, Parliament did not renew the charter
without a further diminution of power. One-third of the
directors were to be the nominees of the Crown, and no
further change was then insisted upon, the principle being
that a joint-stock company having a common fund to
administer should allow those who had an interest in
it a voice in its management. It was only reasonable that
those who had an interest in the fund should have some
control over its management. The constituency who
elected the present Court of Directors was a mere extended
body, having no sort of connection with the affairs and
interests of India. It was nothing more than the spectre
of the original body, who carried on trade with India and
China. The fallacy which pervaded the petition of the
East India Company was speaking of that company as if it
wore a body one and endurable--as if it wore unchanged
in character and functions, while there was as great a
change as had taken place in the constitution between the
Heptarohy and the reign of Queen Victoria: (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) It was the merest and most transparent
sophism—it was offering an insult to the understanding to
attempt to palm upon this house arguments of that nature.
The next question they had to consider was, whether the
present state of things called upon the house to acquiesce
in the independent cantina ince ef the East India Company.
From the year 1793, and before that date, the East India
Company had been renewed for periods of ten years,
(Hear, hear.) In 1853 Parliament did not seem inclined
to grant another 20 years' lease, and the manner in which
the company was continued was, that its existence was
prolonged until Parliament should otherwise determine.
Now, practically, every law was in this form; even the
Habeas Corpus Act itself exi tea only until Parliament
otherwise enacted, and there was not a single privilege
which was not held upon a similar understanding. There-
fore, the East India Company might he considered as if its
term was to be renewed from time to time in perpetuity.
That was practically the result, until Parliament should
determine otherwise. Ho (the Chancellor of the Ezell?,
quer) entirely concurred in the proposition which had
been laid down by his noble friend, that there was no
ground for implying any blame to the East India Com.
pany as to the origin of the East India Company. He
did not believe it was possible to show that any vigilance
on the part of the East India Company could have guarded
against the recurrence of these disasters, or that when
that mutiny occurred, it would have been possible to sup-
pose that any measures would have been more proper or
more effectual than those which had been adopted. But
this he did say, that the present state of things ha]
brought forcibly under the view of the Executive Govern-
ment—and he heartily shared in that conviction---the
clumsiness, and inefficiency and defectiveness of the whole
Government of India. It wan not in times of tranquillity
that the stronger or weaker parts of a system of govern-
ment were detected. It was only when a stress of bad
weather came about that one was able to try the firmness
of the ship. He could not, therefore, understand the
difficulty which hon. gentlemen felt in comprehending
how institutions should be for a certain time stable, but
that when a crisis occurred a Government should come
forward and ask for a change in their institutions. He
confessed he did not understand bow, when the Home
Government was created expressly by the authority of
Parliament, the East India Company should still be con
sidered an independent power. They were the breath of
the nostrils of Parliament ; they had no power but what
Parliament conferre I upon them, which was circurn-
ecribed by innumerable restrictions and limitations. There
was the Board of Control, and there was also the Court of
Directors. These two bodies acted and re-acted upon each
other in a manner which was accurately defined by Act of
Parliament. There was nothing which Parliament might
not at any moment remodel. Well, these authorities were
embarrassed by needless delays ; they were subject to fre-
quent procrastinations; they divided responsibility; they
threw obscurity upon the seat of power. (Hear, hear.)
Whenever Parliament conferred power, it also required
responsibility. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
would venture to state the converse of the proposition, and
maintain, that whenever Parliament exacted responsibility,
it should also concentrate power. (Hear.) Why had Par-
liament so much difficulty in these questions ? Something
went wrong; recourse was had to the President of the Board
of Control. He said, " Oh, the matter has been referred to
the Court of Directors, or to the Governor-General." They
said the matter has been referred to the President of the
India Board, ho cannot give a clear answer. (Laughter,
and hear, hear.) They might perhaps say there was a dif-
ference of opinion between them. Then a discussion arose,
and the opportunity for action was lost. The Parliament
failed to grasp what it sought to hold, and without enter-
taining any unkind feeling against the hon. gentleman, the
chairman, who had a seat in the house, or the vice-chair-
man of the board (Sir F. Currie), he must say that their
disputes had not been of a satisfactory description, and ho
begged to say what he did with all sincerity, but he could
not conceive that it would bo more satisfactory to Parlia-
ment if they were able distinctly to fix upon the executive
authority in this country the clearest responsibility of any
act affecting the Indian Government. Upon these grounds
he conceived that the present system might be abolished,
and that our Parliamentary authority should be established
in Indian affairs upon the ground laid down by the First
Minister. The right hon. gentleman defended the proposed
council from the charge made by the hon. member for
Huntingdon, namely, that they would not be in the same
independent position as the directors ; and he then pro-
ceeded to show that in making the changes explained by
Lord Palmerston there would be no interference with the I
existing patronage in India. If that course should be ob-
jected to it was a mattes which could be hereafter consi-
dered. Well, but then there remained the question of the
cadetships. He thought that, looking at the provisions of
the bill, it could not be said that it conferred any increased
patronage on the Government. He could Rot coincide with
the views of those who said that the Government would
take away the power of the directors merely for the pur-
pose of having the distribution of patronage in its own
hands. He believed that at present the practice of the
Court of Directors was to divide the patronage among the
individual members of the court, and by the proposal
of the Government, if it wore agreed to, the moue
bers of the new council would be, in like manner, ea_
trusted with the distribution of patronage in connection
with the President of the Council. That was, in fact, the
only change as to the distribution of patronage which this
measure would effect. There would be, as he had stated,
no change in the mode of appointing persons to the civil
service; the highest offices iu India would continue to be,
as at present, in the hands of the Government, and the
cadetships would be divided between the President of the
Council and the members of that conncil, just as they were
at present, among the members of the Court of Directors.
It could not, therefore, be said that this measure made any
very giest change in the present mode of distributing
patronage ; but he could not conclude his observations on
this subject without saying that he could not help de-
preeating the idea that the East India Company should
be maintained merely for the purpose of ng distributi
pa-
tronage in a particular form. He should wish to
sea
all
appointments in India dist! Hinted among persons who
wished to exercise the power entrusted to them for the
benefit of the people of India. (Rear, hear.) An i he
confessed he could not hear without the deepest regret the
patronage of India talked of as a heritage of
o le of
England, evithout any reference to the benefit and people
welfare
of the people of India. Indeed, the distribution of that
patronage ambng a certain section of the people of Eng-
land was talked of as a matter right ; while, of course, the
, interests of the people of India were left entirely out of
cousideralien. There had been many arguments urged
against the bill of a similar nature, but he could notbe-
lieve bat that the house would test the question at issue
onits own merits, and by looking to the groat object which
all ought to have in view.- namely, as to how Indian go-
vernment might be best administered in future—and that
they would not bo turned aside by the dilatory argu-
ments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) in support
of his amendment. The hon. gentleman had shrunk
from meeting the motion for leave to introduce the
bill by a direct negative. What he asked the house
to aflinn was, that the present was not an expedient
time to make any alteration in the government of
Ladle. Well, he could have understood the hon. gentle-
man if he had argued the question on its merits—if ho hail
said that the present government of India was a good ono,
and that it was meant to be coeval with the British consti-
tution. He could understand an argument like that, but t
he could not understand a gentleman coming forward and

1 saying, " Here is a government upon which condemnation
is proposed to be passed, and what I ask of Parliament is
to postpone its decision on the question submitted toit."
Why, all that had pissed in Parliament that night would
be known throughout the whole world. The hon. gentle-
man did not say that the arguments against the existing
system were not true; but he simply asked the house to
postpone its decision. Well, he would ask whether even
in the interest of the East India Company itself there could
be a more inconvenient course than that they were asked
to adopt ? Here was a bill brought forward by his noble
friend at the head of the Government, and who had ably
explained all its main features. The friends and advocates
of the East India Company had not the courage to say
that the arguments against the existing system were not
true. They would not say that that Government should
be maintained even for a few years to come. They would
not defend any of its anomalies; but many said that this
was not the time. Arguments of that sort could lead to
no satisfactory result. (Hear, hear.) They did not place
the company in a better or a more secure position—they
did not contribute to the security or the strength of the
Government in India—and he believed that the house
would not consent upon such grounds to the amendment
of the hon. gentleman the member for Huntingdon. In-
deed, apart from these reasons, it would be a most unusual
course for the house to refuse permission to the Govern-
ment to lay a bill before it which had reference to one of
the greatest questions of the day, and particularly when
that bill might, if the Government had chosen, have
been introduced in the House of Lords without asking
the permission of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Any n;1,1.
bar of the Government might have laid the bill on the
table of that house without asking the consent of Parlia-
ment : but the Government felt that on such a subject it
was duo to the Legislature to proceed at every stage of
his question with the fullest deliberation. That house
had the privilege no doubt of refusing leave to introduce a
bill if it thought proper, but he would remind hon. mem-
bers that it was a privilege which ought to be used with
moderation, and ho hoped that upon that occasion it would
not be used to refuse to the Governmentpermission simply
to lay upon the table of the house a bill affecting large and
important interests. They did not ask the house at that
stage to assent to the principle of that measni e; all that
they wished was to lay it upon the table, in order that its
principle and its provisions might be subsequently fully
discussed and considered ; and he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) could not but believe that, looking at the great
interests at stake, the house would permit a bill to be in-
traduced for improving the machinery by which the admi-
nistration of an immense empire was in future to be car-
ried on. (Hear, hear.) In fact, the principle of the mea-
sure, as explained by his noble friend, had been wholly
untouched, if not completely misunderstood. His noble
friend had said that if the Government did not believe
that the bill would improve the Government bf India, they
would not have introduced it. The Government further
said that it left the whole of the iefe,rnal administration
of India precisely where it was. T.Li did not make any al-
teration in the powers of the Governor-General, in the
powers of the governors of presidencies, in the position of
the civil servants in India, in finance administration, in
collection of the revenue, or the administration of justice
in the courts of law. In these respects the administration
in India was left entirely unfettered. What his noble
friend (Lord Palmerston) asked was simply to consolidate
and concentrate the Government of India in this, and by
means of that change to simplify and render mere effective
the whole administration of India so far as such a change
could effect that object. Such a change would in his
belief, lea l'to a greater co.,centration of power in India,
and would give a reality of strength to all the de-
partments of Government in that country, which could
not fail to have the most beneficial effect, while as to the
time at which the measure was introduced, he would
merely say, that it was upon great emergencies that such
measures were called for, and that this measure ought to
be tried on its own merits. (Cheers.)
Mr. MANGLES said he had intended to confine his obser-
vations to the point whether this was a proper time to bring
forward such a measure ; but after listening to the very able
speech of the right hon. gentleman, he could not help making
a few observations on some parts of that speech which he
confessed had surprised him. Ho was well aware of the
great historical knowledge and attainments of the right hon.
gentleman, and yet there were some statements in his speech
so glaringly incorrect and f o widely different from the real
facts, that he felt compelled to answer them. The right hon.
gentleman had denied that at present India was of any direct
advantage to this country. Now it was impossible for any
on., who knew the facts to deny that England derived great
and immediate advantages from its connection with India
under the existing form of government. A very large sum,
varying from three to five millions annually, was sent from
India to this country, not as tribute, but in the payment of
dividends on the stock of the company, in the payment of
pensions to retired civil servants of the Indian Government,
iu the payment of officers of the Indian army on half-ways
and in addition large sums on account of the Queen's troops,
and the transmission of stores. Probably, upon an average,
not less than five millions yearly were sent from India for
these purposes, and could it be said then that the present
connection of Great Britain and India was of no immediate
advantage ? The right honourable gentleman had denied
that India had been conquered by the East India Company,
and had challenged the advocates of the company to show
that they had any bright pages in their annals until they
came under Parliamentary control. An honourable
gentleman had quoted some bitter words from the
speeches of Mr. Burke on the occasion of well
known impeachments; but he (Mr. Mangles)_ would in repty read some passages from Lord Macaulay's " Memoirs of Clive
and Hastings," in which the words were of a more sacchariae
character. (Great laughter.) Thelhon. gentleman proceeded
to quote from the memoirs referred to, far the purpose of
showing that, at yucca isive periods from 1765, both Clive and
Hastings had interfered to put down abuses ; and there could
be no reforms without abuses—(laughter)—that these great
statesmen had introduced reforms into Indian administration
which had afterwards been fully carried out by MunrotsEl-
phinstono, Cornwallis, Metcalfe, and others, long before Far'
liameut had any control over the Government of India; ands
bringing down the history of the administration of that com-
pany to the period when the Indian and the Malsomedari.
equally regard with gratitude and respect the statue of Lord
William Bsntinek, he contended that there were at least as
many bright pages in the history of the East India Company
before it was subject to Parliamentary control as there had
been sieve. (flear, hear.) The Government had very inap-
propriately brought forward this bill (luring the mutiny's
He was no alarmist ; ho believed the mutiny would be Pat
down, but at present the whole province of Oude *as up in
arms, and many other parts of India were in an unsettled
state, and any proposition for a change, under such eircume
stances, must have a bad effect on the people of India. Tka
honourable member for Devoupart had spoken with just
warmth against those who ca led for an indiscriminate nuts'
score of the whole peope of India, and very properly de-
fended the te aipsrate conduct of Lord Canning. But those
were the very mon who petitioned against the rule of Lord
Canning and the government of the East India Company
Would not the people of India naturally say that if a
change were made in accordance with the demands of the
petitioners, that that change would be detrimental
to the interests of the people of India. (Hear, hear.)
He would admit frankly that the Government of India
went too far in former days in sanctioning the abomination,'
of the Hindoo religion ; but lie thought persons were noW
disposed to go further in the opposite direction. Both sys-
tems were bad. Formerly Hindoe superstitions were not only' countenanced but actually paid for—prayers for rain, for ex'
ample—by the British Government. Much of this has bees
altered ; and although we were bound to withdraw undue and
wrong concessions, yet the people of India should not be led
to believe that we were not only going to withdraw undue cone
cessions, but to make religious aggressions upon them. The
pulpit and the platform had already done much to alarm the
people of India on that point. The Church Missionary Society
in a paper which they had lately issued deprecated the exist-
ing system of tolerationand hoped thatthe existing neutrality
would no longer continue. And now, when the Government
called for a change, he entertained strong fears that the pro-
position would fill the minds ef the Indian le with &lane, lest it should have the effect of bringing thempeo unpder a rule less
tolerant than what they experienced un or the East In°
Company. (Heir.)
Mr. ROEBUCK moved the adjournment of the debate t*
Monday, and the motion was agreed to.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. FITZGERALD, leave was given to
bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the prosentmea"
of public money by grand juries in Irel4nd.
HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
Mr. BENTINCK moved that the select committee on bar',
bours of refuge do consist of 22 members, and that Admires
Duncombe and Sir James Elphinstono be added. He cony.'
plaiued that as the committee was at present constitute°
there was not a nautical manin it.
Mr. WILSON thought the motion was unnecessary, ~,1
the committee had neatly finished its labours. It
m; sat the whole of last session, and was expected to make
report by Easter. He admitted that Lord John He e, rare,
was a nautical member, had met with an accident, and if
noble lord did not speedily recover, as he hoped he would, he
would then arrange with the hon. gentleman opposite for the
appointment of some other nautical member on the COG'
mittee.
After some discussion,
Mr. WILSON said he wou'd not, seeing the opinion of
house to be in favour of the motion, further oppose it.
The motion was then agreed to.
The house then adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

CRYSTAL PALACE.—ONR SHILLING DAY, Fridays
Feb. 12.—Admiesions on payment, 341
; ditto by
season tickets, 179 ; total vi,itora. 520.
[A.DvitaTisemENT.l—Holloway's Ointment and Poi
indisputable Remedies for the Cure of Bad Legs and
Old Wounds.—lf these medicines are used aecording tO
the directions given with them," there is no wound, beet
leg, or ulcerous eore, however obstinate or long standing,
hut will yield to their healing and curative propertit%,
Numbers of persons who have bk • patients in several off"
the large hospitals, and under the care of eminent for.
aeons, without deriving the slightest benefit, have been
cured
1"1
cured by oway's Ointment and Pills. For glAud°;
swellings, tumour, scurvy, and diseases of the
"fis
..:
there is no r* dicine that can be used with so good ll'
efftet,—Sold by all inelicine vendors throughout to!'
W,,rld, aid at Profe4sor Holloway's Establishmenvf
244, Strand, London.

BIRTHS.
HowARD—Oa the 12th inst., at 21, Denbigh-pace, 'Mgr(leg:
road, the wife of Alfred George Howard, solicitor, °
son.
MARJORIBANKS- On the 12th inst., at 15, Great Stanbor,
street, Mayfair, the wife of Edward Marjoribaoko,
Esq., of a son.

MARRIAGES.
0 GRAHAM —ADAMS —fhi the 4th inst., at St. John's. Ilea':
stead, Walter Graham, Esq., of Porchester-square,„'l of
park, the youngest son of the late Wm. Graham, -r4s'l".ll,
Cubby-hill, near Longtown, Cumberland, to Susa.: Selo-
eldest daughter of James Adams, Esq of college
St. John's-wood.

CAPELL— DEATH S. ear,
On the 24th Dee. last, on board H.M.S. Madago-
g
Rio do la Plata, of yellow fever, the Hon. Randolph CaP- -
third s,n of the Earl and Countess of Essex, aged 26-
Coox —On tho 2Gth Jan., at Madeira, Grego
op, Cook,
late of the firm of Shoolbrod and Cook, Tottenham-e°
road.

Es
PATTY -On the 9th inst., at Brighton, James Patel, -q.,
late of Hammersmith.
SLOPER. —On tha Bth inst., at Devizes, Wilts, the ROT. sal a4P
Sloper, aged 83.
of
UPWARD—On the 9th inst., John Walter Upward,
16, Carleton-road, Maida-vale, and of the StockEzch'-'
aged 71.

LONDON : Painted and Published by MITRDO
of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at 2714 Sun CHR°BO' if
112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in thv
of itidalesex, Saturday, February 13, 1858'