Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, vol 1 | Page 7

the minds of all
the intelligent natives of India a feeling of confidence and hope, and
that whatever may be done by them in the way of agitation will be
rather for the purpose of offering information in the most friendly and
generous spirit, than of creating opposition to any Government
legislation. However, the question of delay is one which the House in
all probability will be called upon to decide on another occasion.
But passing from that subject, I now come to the principle upon which
the right hon. Gentleman founded his Motion. The speech of I he right
hon. Gentleman was throughout that of an advocate of the Indian
Government, as at present constituted; and, if Mr. Melville had said

everything that could possibly be dragged into the case, he could not
have made it more clearly appear than the right hon. Gentleman has
done that the Government of India has been uniformly worthy of the
confidence of the country. My view of this matter, after a good deal of
observation, is, that the Indian Government, composed of two branches,
which the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to amalgamate into
one, is a Government of secrecy and irresponsibility to a degree that
should not be tolerated in a country like this, where we have a
constitutional and Parliamentary Government, I have not the least idea
in any observations which I may make either in this House or
elsewhere of bringing a charge against the East India Company--that is
to say, against any individual member of the Board of Directors, as if
they were anxious to misgovern India. I never had any such suspicion. I
believe that the twenty-four gentlemen who constitute the Board of
Directors would act just about as well as any other twenty-four persons
elected by the same process, acting under the same influences, and
surrounded by the same difficulties--having to act with another and
independent body-- the Board of Control. Neither am I hostile to the
Board of Control, because I think that the duty imposed upon it is
greater than any such body can properly perform. The right hon.
Gentleman, the enormous labours of whose office could not be
accomplished by any one man, coming into office in December, and
having to propose a new Government for India in the month of May or
June, must have found it extremely difficult to make himself master of
the question. But beyond this the House should bear in mind, that
during the last thirty years there has been a new President of the Board
of Control every two years. Nay, in the course of last year there were
no less than three Presidents of the Board of Control. Thus that Board
seems framed in such a manner as to make it altogether impossible that
any one man should be able to conduct it in the way which it ought to
be conducted. Beyond this, the President of that Board has to act in
conjunction with the Court of Directors. Without saying anything
which would impute blame to any party, it must be obvious that two
such bodies combined can never carry on the government of India
wisely, and in accordance with those principles which have been found
necessary in the government of this country. The right hon. Gentleman
has been obliged to admit that the theory of the old Government of

India was one which could not be defended, and that everybody
considers it ridiculous and childish. I am not at all certain that the one
that is going to be established is in any degree better. It was in 1784
that this form of government was established, amid the fight of factions.
In 1813 it was continued for twenty-years longer, during a time when
the country was involved in desperate hostilities with France. In 1833
another Bill, continuing that form of government, passed through
Parliament immediately after the hurricane which carried the Reform
Bill. All these circumstances rendered it difficult for the Government,
however honestly disposed, to pass the best measure for the
government of India. But all the difficulties which then existed appear
to me wholly to have vanished. Never has any question come before
Parliament more entirely free from a complication of that nature, or one
which the House has the opportunity of more quietly and calmly
considering, than the question now before them.
I should have been pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had given the
House the testimony of some two or three persons on his own side of
the question. But, as he has not done so, I will trouble the House by
referring to some authorities in support of my own views. I will first
refer to the work of Mr. Campbell, which has already been quoted by
the right