HC Deb 17 July 1833 vol 19 cc797-807

The House resolved itself into the committee on the Bill for renewing the East India Company's Charter.

Clauses from 58 to 80 were agreed to.

On the 80th Clause which enacted that the British subjects of his Majesty should not reside in certain parts of India without a licence, having been read,

Mr. Charles Grant

said, that by this clause Europeans might go to any part of India. It was proposed, that all the territories possessed by the Company before 1800 should be open to Europeans without licence; but that, to the territories obtained since that period, Europeans should not be admissible, except upon licence from the local governments.

Mr. Hume

said, that such an enactment would exclude Europeans from two thirds of India.

Mr. Macaulay

said, that these new provinces could not be opened to Europeans, except with considerable danger.

Mr. Charles Grant

said, that power was given to the Governor-General, with the concurrence of the Court of Directors, to open any part of India, without restriction.

Mr. Hume

would not trust to the Court of Directors.

Mr. Buckingham

expressed his great regret that there should be any restraint at all in the admission of Europeans into any part of India.

Mr. Robert Grant

said, the restrictions had been imposed from the fear of injury to the natives themselves; but he hoped, by the cautious experiment now about to be made, that they would be able gradually to adopt such measures as would safely allow them to do away with all limitation whatever.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

approved of the clause, because he thought it would be dangerous at present to allow the free intercourse of Europeans with the nations of the upper part of India.

Mr. Hume

differed from the hon. Gentleman, and moved an Amendment which would have the effect of taking off all restraints upon residence in India, subject to a due obedience to the law. If a police were necessary it should be established.

Mr. Wynn

approved of the restriction. They were to make a beginning by the present Bill, and he had no doubt that in the course of a short time they would be able to go further.

The Committee divided on the Amendment.—Ayes 20; Noes 111: Majority 91.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Charles Grant

said, he had an Amendment of some importance to propose to this clause. As it stood at present it contained positive enactments for the extinction of slavery; but as positive enactments on such a subject might cause considerable difficulty, in consequence of slavery in the East Indies depending in some degree on the distinction of castes, and the rights of families, he should propose "that the Governor-General in Council should be required forth with to frame laws and regulations for the extinction of slavery, due regard being paid to the laws of marriage, and the rights and authorities of fathers and heads of families, and to report such laws and regulations to the Court of Directors before the 1st of January, 1835, and every succeeding year; and that the Court of Directors should within fourteen days of their receipt lay them before Parliament."

Sir Robert Inglis

thought that the greatest care should be had in dealing with this matter. We were by a solemn engagement bound to observe all the rights of masters of families, whether preserved by the Gentoo or Mahommedan laws, in Malabar the soil was almost exclusively cultivated by slaves, they were considered to be complete properly, and if they were to be emancipated, some compensation would be required. It should also be remembered, that the slaves of India were people of particular castes while the slaves of the West Indies were brought within the memory of man from a distant country. In India too there was a variety of methods by which a man might be reduced to slavery, and all these matters would require to be taken into consideration, for a thoughtless proceeding on this point affronting the prejudices of the people might cost us our empire in India.

Mr. O'Connell

objected to the Amendment as going ton far; it would keep whole castes in slavery. It was proper to preserve parental and marital rights but the clause went too tar.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

regretted that the clause had been introduced, for it would be likely to throw the whole country into a flame. It ought to be specifically stated how far the clause was to extend, for if it were to throw open the harems of the Mahommedans and the zenanahs of the natives to the inspection of the Company's officers, it would lead to the most disastrous consequences. He disapproved of any legislation as to slavery in the East, for it was a wanton meddling with the prejudices of the natives.

Mr. Fowel Buxton

could not consent to the doctrine that the Legislature might not put an end to slavery in the British dominions wherever it might exist. He placed confidence in the discretion of the Board of Control, knowing that his right hon. friends connected with it, were averse from slavery, and, he trusted, that the time was not far distant, when the name of slave should be unknown in the British Empire.

Mr. Buckingham

said, that slavery in the East Indies was totally different from slavery in the West. Slavery existed in very different degrees in different parts of India. In Malabar it was in its worst form; in other parts of India the slaves were the members of the family. The natives generally had a very high idea of the sanctity of their harems; and if they were interfered with, it would unite all classes against our Government. The subject, therefore, could not be beneficial.

Mr. Charles Grant

said, that the clause had no reference to domestic slavery, but only to predial slavery.

Mr. Macaulay

said, that there was no danger whatever of interfering with the domestic rights of the people, as they were expressly reserved from infraction, by those words of the clause, which related to parental and other rights. It was undoubtedly desirable to get rid of predial slavery, and certainly the safest way to accomplish it, was to leave it to the Governor General to make laws for its gradual abolition.

Mr. Charles Buller

thought, that the harem and the zenanah would hardly escape violation by this clause. The strong feelings as to castes which prevailed amongst the Hindoos would make this a very difficult subject to deal with.

The Clause was agreed to.

On Clause 89, being read which provides for the ecclesiastical establishment of India,

Mr. Charles Grant

said, that the duties of the Bishop of India who was first appointed when the charter was last renewed, had been found far beyond the strength of the eminent men who had filled the see to execute them. It was proposed, therefore, without adding to the expense, to increase the number of dignified clergymen in India. At present the Bishop of Calcutta had 5,000l. a-year, and each of the three archdeacons had 2,000l. a-year, it was proposed to appoint two bishops each with 2,500l., an arch-bishop with 5,000l. a-year, and three archdeacons with 300l. a-year, making on the whole rather less than was now paid.

Mr. O'Connell

opposed the clause, because it went to establish a state religion in India.

Mr. Hume

said, it would probably be better to leave the Church Establishment as it stood for the present, in case any wish to change it should produce a stronger opposition than was expected. At any rate it would be better to postpone the clause.

Mr. O'Connell

would certainly take the opinion of the House upon the clause. The United Kingdom contained three great denominations of Christians. The Protestants, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholics. And it was a matter for consideration, whether they should erect an establishment in India for one only of these persuasions. He did not object to the Protestants in India paying for bishops of their own, as the Roman Catholics in Ireland paid for their bishops. He did not desire to have a Roman Catholic Establishment; for a salary had been given to a Roman Catholic Bishop in one part of the empire, and the consequence was, that instead of the harmony which used to prevail between the clergy and the people, there was almost a civil war.

Mr. Macaulay

was not an advocate for episcopacy; but he supposed the expense was the evil. ["No! No!"] Was it, then, the difference between an archdeacon and a Bishop? If 11,000l. was to be paid, was it of much importance how it should be distributed? If 20,000l. were asked for, it would be a different thing, and the hon. member for Middlesex might talk with some consistency of "increasing the evil," but the only thing increased by this proposition was the efficiency of the establishment. Was that an evil? But then, it was said, that it was going upon the principle of the Irish establishment,—an indefensible enormity. Did hon. Gentlemen consider the magnitude of the religious establishments of the Pagans and Mohammedans drawing from the State several millions? They ought not to complain of this small sum being appropriated to the support of the religion of their fellow-subjects. Instead of being a parallel case with that of Ireland, it was more like that of France, where Napoleon gave a large income to the many and a small income to the few. Not only were Mohammedanism, Paganism, and the Church of England, supported in India, but Presbyterianism and Catholicism. It was only within these few days that a despatch passed through his hands, authorizing the repairs of a Catholic church in Bombay. Why, then, object to 11,000l. being given to the Church of the dominant nation, when every religion was supported out of the revenues of the State in proportion to its extent? It was not, however, now proposed to lay on this burthen, but only to make it advantageous.

Mr. O'Connell

did not look to the sum, but to the principle of establishing one form of Christianity in India in preference to another. It was too late to discuss the clause, and, therefore, he would move, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Sir Robert Inglis

hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the Motion, and said, he considered the provision for the Establishment insufficient; but he would support it, as he thought he was not likely to get anything better.

Mr. Sinclair

must take the liberty to protest against the doctrine of his hon. friend, that the religion of the Church of England was the religion of the empire. In England it was the religion of the law, and of a majority of the people; in Ireland it was the religion of the law; in Scotland, it was not the religion either of the law or of the people. In Scotland there was another establishment as efficient, though more poor; and if his hon. friend visited Scotland, he would find himself a dissenter there, and would attend the ministrations of a Bishop, who enjoyed no income from the national purse. He did not by any means undervalue the deserts of the sister Church; but as India was divided into four Presidencies, he should be glad to see in one of them a fair trial given to the development of Presbyterian energy and zeal. Give to the Church of Scotland half the sum allotted to episcopacy in a district of similar extent: with this, they would send out three times the number of Christian ministers, and accomplish ten times as much good. If it should prove otherwise, after an experiment of a few years, he would cheerfully consent to sec the grant withdrawn. As to the Pagan and Mahometan establishments, we had not introduced but found them there, and could not abolish those rites which the natives had so long adhered to, and would not relinquish the faithful and disinterested missionaries, the Schwarzes and Marshmans, who took neither purse nor scrip at the public expense, but were supported by the spontaneous contributions, and cheered by the prayers of their Christian friends, were the men by whom the principles of the Gospel would chiefly, though not exclusively, be maintained or revived amongst our own countrymen in India, or disseminated as a blessing to the native population. Me also thought it was an anomaly to place the new prelates under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Calcutta; he believed, that it was at least more usual that they should all be placed directly under a Metropolitan. The Finance Committee had recommended the withdrawal of public aid from ministers of the Presbyterian Church; and if the friends of that establishment should be called upon to support the clergy of their own denomination in India, the same rule might surely apply to the richer members of the sister Church. He hoped, however, that attention would be paid to both objects; and in that case he should not oppose the new arrangement of the existing revenues being appropriated to episcopal purposes, though he should have certainly resisted their augmentation.

Mr. Robert Grant

opposed the Motion. He contended, that the establishment of chapels was occasioned by the fact stated by Mr. Burke, that the great majority of the Christians in India were really unbaptised. The natives had thus an opportunity of saying, "How is it that you have no means of extending the benefits of your religion to your countrymen? We have our pagodas and our institutions; how is it that you do nothing: for the instruction of your coreligionists?"

Mr. Wilks

admitted, that the illustrious men who had, in India, successively occupied the situation of Bishop, had been distinguished for their zeal and their piety. But being-desirous to see the triumph of Christian principles in that country, he wished no Church establishment there. In an empire containing 100,000,000 of people, there were not above 40,000 individuals belonging to the Church of England. Could it be necessary to appoint three Bishops for them? They ought not to forget, that the great object of promoting the progress of Christianity had not been accomplished either by the chaplains or by the Bishops who had been sent out. The establishment of a Bishop in Canada, instead of promoting christianity, placed at hazard our dominion over that colony; whilst the Bishops who had been sent to the West Indies, had increased the irritation which before existed there. The progress of Christianity in India was owing, not to the Bishops, but to the missionaries sent out by the Missionary and other societies in England. It was the missionary labours in India which had exalted the character of our religion in that part of the world. It was Dr. Morrison to whom we were indebted for our best information on the subject of the language of China? It was to Dr. Carey that we were indebted for the translation of the Scriptures into the Indian tongue; and it was to Dr. Marsland, in conjunction with Dr. Carey, supported by the voluntary contributions of pious people in this country, that we were indebted for the firm root Christianity had begun to take in Bengal? Let the Episcopalians do the same, and let them be put upon the same footing as other Christian sects in India.

Mr. Gillon

said, anomalous as the state of the Church Establishment was in Ireland, the condition of things proposed to be set up in India was ten times more absurd. If the House agreed to that, of what use would it be for the hon. and learned member for Dublin to complain of the Catholics of Ireland having to pay for Protestant Bishops, when the Treasury Bench would be able to say, "why, look at India; there 100,000,000 of Mohammedans and Pagans are supporting the Protestant establishment of 40,000 Englishmen." He looked upon the pro- position as one fraught with danger, and he trusted his Majesty's Ministers would withdraw it.

Mr. Wynn

said, if the arguments urged against this proposition were good for anything, they were good against, having any Church Establishment whatever. The natives of India had a plain interest in the maintenance of a Church establishment, for it would be prejudicial to them, that those who were to govern them should be without religious instruction. Was it desirable, that the young men who went out to India should be left to their own zeal for obtaining religious knowledge? There were not many Gentlemen who would say that religion had not an important and necessary operation upon morality. If so, could it be a matter of indifference to the natives of India that those who were to exercise rule over them should be without religion? An hon. Member said, that some of the chapels had only a congregation of forty or fifty; but was it desirable that the many stations, where there were not above forty or fifty Europeans, should be without the means of cherishing the principles of religion? With chaplains scattered over India, it was of great consequence that individuals should be appointed to superintend their conduct. But a Bishop was also necessary to consecrate churches, and to admit to holy orders. This last was an important point, and a number of native converts,—those by whose means the Christian religion might be most effectually spread in India,—had received ordination from the hands of the Bishops. He said also, that they were bound to supply the means of religious worship to those who went to rule in India. Why establish a Supreme Court? Because when you sent out Englishmen to India, accustomed to English law, it was desirable that they should have Judges to administer that law. Yet he had not heard any proposal made to tax Europeans for the payment of the Judges. Why, then, tax them for the maintenance of those who were to instruct them in the religious doctrines, in which they would have been instructed, had they remained in England? An hon. Member had spoken of the danger which might result from its being represented to the Sepoys, after a disastrous day, that their countrymen were taxed to maintain the religion of foreigners; but we might just as well talk of abandoning India, be- cause it might be represented to them that their countrymen were taxed to pay the officers who commanded them, and kept them in subjection to Europeans. He could enter into the feelings of that man who said, that our whole empire in India was founded upon injustice, and that we, the inhabitants of a distant island, had no right to levy taxes for the government of India; and the only answer was, that it had so happened, and that it was for the happiness of India that we should continue to possess the government, rather than, by throwing everything loose, allow contending chiefs to fight for empire, or plunder in that arena. It was a necessary consequence that the country must bear whatever expenses were necessary for its good government; and the maintenance of the ceremonies of our religion among those who were to administer the government, was necessary for maintaining their morality, and was therefore necessary to the welfare of the people of India.

Mr. Sheil

observed, that the question now before them was, whether they should report progress, a point which seemed to be lost sight of. Mr. Lushington had asserted, that the extension of the episcopal establishment would not be beneficial to India.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he would consent to proceed with the other clauses of the Bill, provided the House would agree to postpone the clause now before them.

The Committee divided on the Motion that the Chairman report progress: Ayes 37; Noes 120—Majority 93.

Mr. Hume

then moved, that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Pryme

objected to the adjournment. The Established Church had done considerable good in India, and it ought to be supported.

Mr. Charles Buller

thought the subject of too much importance to be proceeded with, and be therefore would support the Motion for adjournment.

The Committee again divided: Ayes 36; Noes 124—Majority 88.

List of the AYES.
ENGLAND. Grote, G.
Aglionby, H. A. Halcomb, John
Brotherton, J. Hawkins, J. H.
Buckingham, J. S. Harvey, D. W.
Buller, C. Hume, J.
Ewart, W. Hutt, W.
Lowther, Colonel Sinclair, G.
Richards, J.
Romilly, J. IRELAND
Romilly, E.
Strutt, E. Bellew, R. M.
Turner, W. Blake, M.
Vincent, Sir F. O'Connell, D.
Warburton, H. O'Connell, M.
Wason, R. O'Connell, J.
Wilks, J. O'Connor, Fergus
Wood, Alderman O'Dwyer, A. C.
Young, G. T. Ruthven, E.
SCOTLAND. Sheil, R. L.
Murray, G. A. Vigors, N. A.
Mr. Warburton

said, he thought his friends had adopted a proper course in moving the postponement of the clause, considering that they had proposed to allow the other clauses to be discussed, passing over this. If the two new twin Bishops were allowed to be appointed, the consequence would be, that in a short time a Message would be sent down, stating the inadequacy of their income, and they would be saddled gradually with further expenses,

Mr. O'Dwyer

hoped the House would now see the necessity of adjourning the debate.

Lord Sandon

objected to the postponement of the debate, the wish for which he ascribed to the desertion and inattention of the gallery. He thought it unfair to proceed by a succession of vexatious motions for adjournment. He might have hoped that the Opposition would not follow the example of the Tories on the Reform Bill. They had begun their attacks at a quarter past eleven.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he had not any pretensions to the eloquence of the noble Lord, but he had been listened to with some attention, which he attributed principally to his brevity. The noble Lord had ascribed this vexatious opposition, as he called it, to the Irish Members. He, therefore, thought it his duty to press his Motion. The discussion had been calm and temperate till the noble Lord introduced his own acrimony into it.

Mr. Secretary Stanley

said, that the debate had been calmly and temperately conducted until the two divisions were forced upon the House by the hon. and learned Member's friends. It was not surprising, that some acrimony should arise when, at a quarter-past eleven o'clock, the question of postponement was introduced. If the time of the House had been occupied in the fair discussion of the question, they might have made considerable progress.

Mr. Charles Grant

admitted the calmness of the discussion. If hon. Gentlemen were not inclined to proceed, he would not press the immediate consideration of the clause; but he put it to them again, whether they should not postpone their objections till the discussion upon the Report.

Mr. Aglionby

said, admitting that there might be a vexatious movement for an adjournment, there might also be a vexatious opposition to that adjournment. It was not with any motive of getting rid of the Bill that he had voted for the postponement. He objected, therefore, to the use of the words "vexatious opposition."

The House resumed. The Committee to sit again.