therefore is this, that they did not give such copious and
particular directions as were sufficient, in every possible
emergency, for the guidance of a functionary, who was fifteen
thousand miles off. Now, Sir, I am ready to admit that, if the
papers on our table related to important negotiations with a
neighbouring state, if they related, for example, to a
negotiation carried on with France, my noble friend the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston.) might well have been
blamed for sending instructions so meagre and so vague to our
ambassador at Paris. For my noble friend knows to-night what
passed between our ambassador at Paris and the French Ministers
yesterday; and a messenger despatched to-night from Downing
Street will be at the Embassy in the Faubourg Saint Honore the
day after to-morrow. But that constant and minute control, which
the Foreign Secretary is bound to exercise over diplomatic agents
who are near, becomes an useless and pernicious meddling when
exercised over agents who are separated from him by a voyage of
five months. There are on both sides of the House gentlemen
conversant with the affairs of India. I appeal to those
gentlemen. India is nearer to us than China. India is far
better known to us than China. Yet is it not universally
acknowledged that India can be governed only in India? The
authorities at home point out to a governor the general line of
policy which they wish him to follow; but they do not send him
directions as to the details of his administration. How indeed
is it possible that they should send him such directions?
Consider in what a state the affairs of this country would be if
they were to be conducted according to directions framed by the
ablest statesman residing in Bengal. A despatch goes hence
asking for instructions while London is illuminating for the