THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.
[PART 01' A LETTER FROM A WELL-INFORMED CORRESPONDENT.]
You say some good —not much, to be sure, but you need have said none at all—of Lord MUNSTER. If he were chosen Governor-General, will venture to assert that he would stand lower in the scule of capa- city-than any man appointed to the office since WARREN HASTINGS first filled it, now sixty years ago. I could pick you out a hundred captains and subalterns of the Indian army, with more knowledge of India, and fitter qualities for administration, than the noble Lord. He is known in India, and known only for being rather below mediocrity than otherwise; and the appointment, there at least, would be laughed at. His notions are those of a Tory ; and he would act upon them at a moment when great and bold reforms are called for in the local govern- ment. But if his principles were ever so right, he has not capacity enough to carry them out. Think of such an appointment, at such a moment as this, to be made by a Reform Ministry ! think of naming the King's Tory son, to please the King, after the odium already earned by time Reform Ministry for preserving the integrity of the Pension- list to please him. Remember too the back-stairs part Lord MUNSTER played in the attempt to get back the Duke of WELLINGTON, and conse- quently to swamp the Reform Bill. Why, if he were appointed, the patronage of promotion in India would be at the disposal of the Duke of WELLINGTON, as the patronage of the Horse Guards and a great deal of the Colonial patronage now is. This would be a precious means of promoting the cause of English as well as Indian Reform. It seems to me, that the best Governor for India would be Lord MULGRAVE. He is a- Liberal; a man of talent; and, as his adminis- tration of Jamaica proved, a man of firmness. Further than public report, however, I know nothing of him—indeed I never saw him. If a Lord is to be chosen, he seems fitter than any other Lord that is available.
With respect to the servants of the Company, there are a few excep- tions, but generally they have been trained in a bad school of exclusive privileges, and are scarcely more fit to carry on a system of liberality than so many Turkish Bashaws. The few that have been tried, such RS Sir JOHN M‘PlIERSON, Sir GEORGE BARLOW, and Mr. ADAM, have been utter failures. Even WARREN HASTINGS, with his corruption, his peculations, and his despotism, is no exception ; Sir THOMAS Mimeo, mother man of talent, was but a mere Company's Governor— that is, the vigorous, unrelenting agent of a bad system.