it disturbed much, really settled nothing; and that,
considering the late period of the session, and
considering that a parliamentary committee had for two
years been sitting to investigate the condition of India,
and up to that moment had not fulfilled its office, they
should wait for increased information, virtually continue
the existing act for the government of India, and
hesitate before passing a permanent measure which was
not adequate to meet the necessities of the case. That
was the question before the house. Precedents were not
wanting for the course which Lord Stanley had
proposed. In 1813 and 1833, periods respectively of
continental war and domestic revolution, Lord Grey,
Lord Grenville, and Mr Charles Wynn, had advocated
a similar policy. In 1833 the five great grievances
urged were precisely those now urged in 1853. And
he asked why did we hear of these again? The fact of
itself showed the necessity for deliberation. Nobody
came forward to declare that those grievances do not
now exist; and if Parliament did not feel an interest in
India, India would soon be lost to the country. He
denied that the house was indifferent on the question
of India. Every speaker during the preceding four
nights' debate had a local or administrative knowledge
of Indian affairs. (Cries of dissent from the ministerial
benches.) He was perhaps wrong. He would except
himself and the first Lord of the Admiralty, and he
would then say that all the members who bad spoken
in this debate were either connected with India, or had
local experience in Indian affairs. It was remarkable
that the highest authorities contradicted themselves.
One gentleman, a director, said that it was a great
mistake to suppose the Court of Directors did not
exercise a boná fide authority; and another, of equal
knowledge and experience, said it was nonsense to talk
about the Indian Company, and that the real power lay
with the President of the Board of Control. A third
great authority, himself a former Secretary of the Board,
and for some time a member of the Council in India,
said it was wasting time and breath to talk either of
the Board of Control or of the Court of Directors,
because the Governor–General was alone tlie government
of India. At a time wlien the state of India was
most perilous, and when this country was governed by
a strong ministry, the Duke of Wellington and Sir
Robert Peel selected as Governor–General of India, at
the greatest personal sacrifice, one of their colleagues
and sent him to the scene of imperial danger. That
nobleman succeeded in everything he undertook, but
in the very heart of his enterprise he was abruptly
recalled from his government, and by whom? By
his sovereign? By her majesty's ministers? By the
President of the Board of Control? Not at all—but
by the Court of Directors. This was a startling fact.
Lord Ellenborough, the selected minister of her
Majesty's government, was recalled by the directors
with every circumstance of shame, and the next
day his sovereign elevated him in the peerage,
and rewarded him with a red ribbon. Mr. Disraeli
wanted to know, then, who were the real governors of
India, and where was the responsibility? He objected
to the system of nominees, which he would beg to
remind the house was no new proposition. In 1833
the plan that certain members of the board should be
named by the government was proposed, and met with
the most strenuous opposition from the right hon.
member for Edinburgh, who was as great an authority
then as at present. The right hon. gentleman now
as warmly supported the identical proposition. He
(Mr. Disraeli) preferred the existing system on the
whole to that proposed, which had all the former's
defects and none of its advantages. The bill had
received no real support from any member of the
house who did not happen to be in office, the right
hon. member for Edinburgh excepted; and he had
never made a more agreeable speech or a feebler defence.
Mr. Disraeli proceeded to satirise Sir James Graham
and Sir Charles Wood, levelling at the latter some
sarcasms about his promised annual budget of the
Indian finances. Addressing himself lastly to the
question of delay, he declared the authorities against it
to be worth nothing, and especially alluded to the
reason given for legislation in the present session, that
the Reform Bill is to be brought forward next Easter.
He hoped the house would remember the circumstances
under which this argument against delay was made.
It was two years since the noble lord the member for
the City of London had announced his readiness to
prepare a measure of parliamentary reform. He did
not know what would be the fate of the amendment,
but in going into the lobby with his noble friend he
should be supported with the consciousness that he was
doing his duty to his constituents, as he would be thus
connecting their names with a course of policy which
he thought would be honourable to themselves and;
beneficial to the country.—Lord J. RUSSELL said he
could not avoid remarking on the lesson which Mr.
Disraeli seemed to give to his party at the commencement
of his address. The right hon. gentleman having,
no clear view to set before his party, the more intelligent
of that party had thought it necessary to act for
themselves. He could not comprehend the meaning of the
amendment, so fallacious were its terms and so false its
intentions. He understood, however, that a continuance
bill for two years was the ultimate object; and
here he agreed with Mr. Bright that a determined
agitation during the intervening time might overturn
the government of the East India Company, but he
(Lord John Russell) asked, would it not overturn
British rule altogether? He thought the noble lord
(Stanley) had not calculated the devastation which he
might create if he was successful in a motion which
was neither conservative nor reforming. He (Lord J.
Russell) contended that it was fair to cite the authority
of Lord Hardinge or Lord Dalhousie upon the subject.
He came then to the question of double government.
He did not pretend that a double government was in
itself the most perfect form; but it was not wise and
expedient now to abolish it. He showed how Mr.
Disraeli had overlooked some important provision
when he objected to the nomination of directors by the
Crown, and the propositions generally relating to the
board. The introduction of competitions instead of
patronage was a strong recommendation of the measure.
With regard to British rule in India, he pointed back
to the history of the last seventy years, to show that
it had not been in vain. He believed that the British
government should be permanent in India, and in
order not to place it in jeopardy, he should move
against the amendment and support the bill. The
house then divided, when the numbers were:—For
the amendment, 140; against it, 322; majority, 182.
The bill was then read a second tmie.
On Friday, July 1, the house having gone into committee,
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving
That the Advertisement should be Reduced to 6d.
stated, that with respect to the stamp duty on supplements,
the new duty on supplements should be irrespective
of whether they contained news or advertisements.
He also should propose that the supplement should
signify a single sheet, or, in other words, an enlargement
of 50 per cent, to newspaper space—Mr. M. GIBSON
moved as an amendment, "That all duties now
chargeable on advertisements be repealed, in accordance
with a resolution of that house of the 11th day
of April last."—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
justified the sixpenny duty upon the ground that
it was fair in principle and moderate in proportion to
the services performed. He denied that any special
boon was intended to the large monopolists, and
be believed the smaller papers would prospectively
profit by the reduction of the duty. With regard to the
penny stamp upon newspapers, he had instituted
inquiries at the Post–Ofiice, and found that the £400,000
so received, fairly paid for the actual labour created by
the postal transmission of newspapers. The money,
therefore, was fairly earned, although he would not say
it was wise to levy it in that particular form. He
admitted the impolicy of the paper duty, owing to the
peculiar manner in which it pressed upon the manufacture
of paper, and which, therefore, was a fit tax for
repeal, if the house so willed. With the advertisement
duty the case was altogether different. This was simply
a tax upon trade and labour, and he asked the committee
whether it was prepared to abolish all taxes of
that nature? If not, there was no argument for the
Dickens Journals Online