afraid,' he said, in defending the general policy of his Bill, 'to trust Parliament with an insight into Indian affairs. Parliament will do fully as well as the Directors.' An amendment, hostile to the proposed measure, moved by Mr. T. Baring, evoked from Sir G. Cornewall Lewis a statesmanlike disquisition on the subject, which put the case for the transfer in its most convincing aspect. The petition against the Bill, he said, was based on two fallacies; one, that it was by the Company that the East Indian Empire had been acquired; another, that the administration of the Company had been extraordinarily good. A very slight historical retrospect sufficed to expose the futility of these assumptions. As for the pretension to administrative excellence, there had never been a worse government than that of the East India Company from 1758 to 1784. Its good character had been earned since Parliamentary control had compelled it to be good. Pitt's contrivance of the Board of Control had secured the much-needed subordination. Dundas had completed it in 1793. The petition fallaciously assumed that the government of India since the battle of Plassey had remained unchanged; but, in truth, there had been continuous change — a continuous absorption by the State of powers which could not safely be wielded by a corporation. The Company's powers, mercantile and administrative, had been constantly curtailed. Their China monopoly went in 1813; their other trade privileges had followed in 1833. On the last oc-
