The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-08 00:00:00

GOYERNMENT OF INDIA.

The CHAIRMAN laid before the Court the following
report of the Court of Directors, relative to the two bills
now baize Parliament for the future government of
India :

"It is the duty of your directors to lay before the pro-
prietors the two bills which have been introduced into
Parliament by the late and the present Ministry, for
divesting the East India Company of all participation
in the government of India, and framing a new scheme
of administrative agency.
"Onformer occasions when the Ministers of the Crown
have submitted measures to Parliament for altering, in
any manner, the constitution of the Indian government,
the substance of the measures has been officially commu-
nicated to the Court of Directors, and an opportunity
allowed to them of offering such remarks as their know-
ledge and experience in Indian affairs might suggest.
The corespondence being afterwards laid before the Court
of Proprietors, formed the most appropriate report
which the directors could make to their constituents on
the measures under consideration by the Legislature. In
the present instance, this opportunity not having been
aftirded to them, it appears desirable that they should
adopt the present mode of laying before the proprietary
body the observations which it is entitled to expect from
its executive organ, on the bills now before Pa, liament,
and on the present pasture of the company's affairs.
"The directors cannot but advert with feelings of
satisfaction to the altered tone which public discussion
has assumed in regard to the character of East India
Company, and the merits of the administration in which
tile company has borne so important a part. The int: n-
lion of proposing the abolition of the company's govern-
anent was announced in the midst of, and it may be sur-
mised, in deference to, a clamour, which represented the
government of India by the company as characteristic
by nearly every fault of which a civilised government
can be accused, and the company as the main cause of
the recent disasters. But in the parliamentary discus-
sions which have lately taken place there has been an
almost universal acknowledgment that the rule of the
company has been honourable to themselves and beneficial
to India ; while no political party, and few individuals
of any consideration, have alleged anything seriously
disparag ng to the general character of the company's
administration. So far, therefore, the stand made by
the company against the calue.niee with which they
have been assailed, may be considered to have been sue-
s :seal.
"But the admission generally made, and made expli-
citly by the proposers of bath the bills, that the exist-
ing system works well, has not bad the effect of induc-
Lig doubt of the wisdom of hastily abolishing it. Neither
does it seem to have been remembered that, if the sys-
tem has worked well, there must be some cause for its
having done so, and that it would be worth while to
consider what these are, in order that they might be re-
tained in any new system. If the constitution which has
made the Indian Government what it is must be abo-
lished, because it is thought defective in theory, what is
substituted should at least be theoretically unobjection-
able. But the constitution of the Ea,t Indian Company,
however anomalous, is far more in accordance with the
acknowledged principles ef good government than either
of the proposed bills.
"The nature of the case is, indeed, itself so auoma-
leue, that something anornal ,us was to be expected in
the means by which it could be successfully dealt with.
All English institutions and modes of political ac-
tion are adapted to the case of a nation geverning itself.
In India the case to be provided for is that of the go
vernment of one nation by another • sepa-ated from it
by half the globe ; unlike it in everything which charac-
terises a people ; as a whole, totally unacquainted with
it ; and without time or means for acquiring knowledge
of it or its affairs.
" History presents only two instances in which these
or similar difficulties have been in any considerable de-
, gree surmounted. One is the Roman Empire ; the other
is the government of India by the East India Company.
"The means which the bills provide for overcoming
tbese difficulties consist of the unchecked power of a
rolnister. There is no difference of moment in this re-
spect, between the two bills. The minister, it is true, is
to have a council. But the most despotic rulers have
councils. The difference between the council of a despot
and a council which prevents the ruler from being a
despot is, that the one is dependent on him, the otter
independent; that the one has some power of its own,
the other has not. By the first bill, the whole council
is nominated by the Minister; by the second, one-half t
o it
is
nominated by him. The functions to be entrusted
are left, in both, with souse slight exceptions, to the
Minister's own discretion.
" The Minister is indeed subj .ct to the control of Par-
liament and the British nation. But though Parliament
and the nation exercise a salutary control over their own
affairs, it would be contrary to all experience to suppose
that they will exercise it over the affair; of 100 millions
of Hindoos and Mahonsedans. Habitually, they will
doubtless be hereafter, as they have been heretofore, in-
different and inattentive to Indian affairs, and will leave
them entirely to the minister. The consequence will be
that, in the exceptional cases in which they do interfere,
the interference will not be grounded on knowle ige of
the subject, and will probably be for the most part con-
fined to cases where an Indian question is taken up from
el
party motivee, as the means of injuring a Minister ; or,
opposed
to
some Indian malcontent, generally with obj ets
good government, succeeds in interesting the '
sympathises of the pubic in his favour. For it is not the
people of India, but rich individuals and societies repre-
senting elites interests. who have the means of engaging
the car of the public through the press,and throuqh
agents in Parliament. And it is important
to remark,
that by the provisions of either of the bills the House of
Commons will be rendered even 1. as coinP etb t point
f knowledge of Indian affairs, than at preseealt,nsaiinace by
i
both bills all the members of the Council f
be excluded from it.
"The government of dependencies by a Minister and
subordinates, under the sole control of Parliament, is
not a new experiment in England. That f irm of colonial
government I,st the United States, and had nearly
lost all the colonies of any considerable population and
importance. The colonial administration of this country
has only ceased to a snbj,ct of general condemnati,
since the principle has been adopted of leaving
all the important colonies to manage their own affairs
—scourge which cannot be followed with the people of
India. If the control of Parliament has not prevented