HL Deb 19 May 1856 vol 142 cc313-22

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee on the Government of our Indian territories. A Committee on the same subject sat in 1853, but since then, for some reason he was not aware of, its services had not been called into requisition. The professed object of that Committee was to inquire into the working of the India Act of 1833. At the end of the Session of 1833 the Speech from the Throne expressed the confident expectation that the system of Government established by that Act would prove to have been wisely framed for the happiness and welfare of the people of India. That, then, was the subject the Committee of 1853 had to inquire into. But what did the Committee do? It occupied itself in inquiring into all that related to place, patronage, and power; but on all subjects relating to the material and social condition of the people of India, and on all points relating to their happiness or misery, there was not a shadow of investigation; therefore, if there were no other reason, that would be a sufficient ground for the resumption of the labours of the Committee. Her Majesty's Ministers intimated their intention of bringing in a Bill in 1853, without having completed the inquiry, without indeed having examined into more than three at most of the eight heads into which the Government by their programme had pledged them to inquire. Such a course was a violation of all former precedent. The consequence was, that a Bill had been carried, which had been very well characterised by a petition from India, as containing no provision calculated to improve the condition of the people nor any definite promise to redress the grievances of which they had complained. What was the plea for rushing thus precipitately, and because precipitately, thus ignorantly, into legislation? There had been whispers of a letter from the Governor General of India, declaring that inquiry would endanger British rule in India. So that the power which had overthrown Hyder and Tippoo, which had hurled the Great Mogul from his throne, which had sustained the loss of a whole army in a foolhardy expedition against a warlike neighbour, was to be endangered by an inquiry carried on 10,000 miles from India, and conducted by those most interested in preserving our sway in that country. The plea was however admitted, and Parliament passed the crude and ill-considered Bill of 1853, by which the East India Company were re-invested with irresponsible power. Parliament had legislated without inquiry, and had, at the same moment, burked inquiry, and yet there were subjects well worthy of Parliamentary investigation. Their Lordships' table had groaned with petitions from all parts of India, complaining of the excessive amount of taxation, of the barbarous mode of assessment of the revenue, of the cruelty with which the collection was made, of the absence of due provision for the education of the people, of the disgraceful condition of the local courts of justice arising from delay, expense, and inefficiency, of the neglect of public works, such as canals, roads, bridges, and waterworks. What had Parliament gained by burking inquiry? It put off for a time the evil day of inquiry, but it was afterwards discovered, not by any inquiry set on foot by the Government, but by the casual visit of a private traveller that there existed in India a system of torture by Government officers for Government purposes, and there also transpired the appalling fact that it had existed for these last fifty years, and that its existence was known to the East India Company and to the covenanted servants of the Company, but had been concealed, not only from Parliament and from the people of this country, but also from the Governor General, from the governors of the provinces, and from Her Majesty's responsible advisers, who, but for the juggle of a double government, would have been responsible for the atrocities in question—if, indeed, such atrocities could have existed under a responsible Government. This discovery had brought much obloquy upon this country, and the eyes of the whole civilised world were upon us. One foreign author, who had visited India, said that from one end of the country to the other he had never heard but one word—" Revenue!—Revenue!—Revenue!" Let their Lordships have an inquiry whether this word "revenue" might not have something to do with the horrible system of torture. He trusted that they would not be content with the apology and extenuation that torture existed in India because it had been customary. The Court of Directors, in a despatch dated the 12th of September, 1855, said that torture existed because it had been handed down from the less civilised and less humane nations that preceded us. Is such a miserable plea to be admitted in the Government of a country which has been upwards of half a century in our possession. If our Indian Government had been based upon an European model, these disgraceful acts could not have been committed. But our rule was founded upon the principle of Asiatic despotism, which meddled with everything, and extracted nineteen-twentieths of the produce of the soil. That the Turks, Arabs, and Affghans had resorted to such practices for the collection of revenue was no excuse for us. But he doubted whether these barbarians were so black as the Directors had painted them. Take, for example, the worst of them, Tamerlane or Timour the Lame, "the scourge of God," as he had been called. By reference to his "Institutes" it will be found that he had ordained that the collection of taxes should be enforced, when necessary, by menaces and threats, but never by whips and scourges. Timour also ordained that taxes should not be levied in a manner productive of ruin to the subjects or depopulation to the country. If a Committee were appointed, one subject of their inquiry would be the condition of the public works. It would be found, notwithstanding the improvements lately so ostentatiously set forth that the roads were in nearly the same disgraceful condition, and that the people were in the same state of despondency for want of a market, in consequence of the neglect of the roads in 1856, as they were in the year 1846. There is as little protection from famine, for want of irrigation, to the great majority of the people in 1856 as in 1846. Of the necessity of such works as these he presumed none of their Lordships were ignorant. Millions of the inhabitants of Asia depended upon works of irrigation alone. Our more wise predecessors in India were well aware of the necessity of those works; but for three-quarters of a century they had been neglected. Since the accession of the able nobleman who had lately left the government of India (the Marquess of Dalhousie), something had been done; but what was that something? There were one or two, or perhaps more, great works of irrigation in the Punjab; there was the great Scinde Canal, the great Ganges Canal in the province of Agra, and there was the Eastern Coast Canal in Madras; there were the extensive works of navigation and irrigation in the three great southern rivers of India—the Godavery, the Kistnah, and the Cauvery. But what did all this amount to? Here were seven localities, affecting, at the very most, twenty out of the 120 provinces into which India was divided. Seven localities benefited in a territory more than twelve times as large as great Britain; and those seven localities had been improved at the expense of the whole community. For the very little that had been done he did not hold the noble and distinguished Marquess responsible. He was sent out to India to administer a system sanctioned by the Government and by Parliament, but which was not the less a system at variance with every principle of political science. All that zeal, enterprise, and energy could do that noble Lord had done; but he (the Earl of Albemarle) contended that it was a system under which no country ever did, or ever could, prosper. The construction of public works formed no part of a wholesome and well-regulated Government. Such works came within the province of private enterprise and private capital. But in a country where the Government was despotic and extortionate, in a country where the taxes were very variable, arbitrary, multitudinous, and excessive, where nineteen shillings out of every pound of the whole revenue of the country were taken by the Government, where the Government appropriated to itself everything it could get, and where the administration of justice was in a most miserable condition—in such a country no monied man in his senses would possibly embark in those works. There was one more point connected with this subject—no public works alone could possibly have any effect unless accompanied by measures of such a nature as he believed impossible to be established under the existing form of government. There could be no greater proof of this than was afforded by the districts in the immediate vicinity where these works were taking place. Take, for instance, Tanjore, where most extensive works of irrigation were carrying on; and by referring to the Torture Report it will be found that in that district the most atrocious acts of cruelty are perpetrated both for the extortion of confession and the collection of revenue. With regard to the administration of justice he would now speak, because that would properly form the subject of discussion when he brought forward another Motion, the terms of which he had already placed on the table. But he would simply refer their Lordships to an observation which had been made by men well conversant with the subject, that the administration could not be satisfactorily conducted in consequence of the paucity of the officers. There were only seventy-four officers in the Presidency of Madras, which contained 22,000,000 people. It was the opinion of Mr. Elliot, one of the members of the Government, that the present system of Government was such that an increase of officers was impossible; and yet, without such an increase, he believed that the abolition of torture could not be effected. He felt that he had now stated sufficient to justify him in asking their Lordships to appoint a Committee to resume their labour just where the Committee of 1853 left it. The noble Earl concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee on the Government of Indian territories. Moved—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 85, for the better government of Her Majesty's Indian Territories.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that he did not suppose that it was the intention of the noble Lord to press his Motion upon their Lordships, but that he had taken a legitimate mode of giving their Lordships a statement of his views connected with the government of India—a question in which the noble Earl took a very great interest. It did not appear to him (Earl Granville) that the noble Earl had sufficiently made out a case for adopting the course he now proposed. The noble Earl had complained of what he called the hasty manner in which the present Act for the government of India was passed, it having become the law before the Government had had sufficient time to conclude the investigation which the state of India demanded. Their Lordships were, however, aware that the subject of the government of India had been inquired into by two Committees of Parliament, which Committees sat during two Sessions of Parliament and went deeply and widely into the subjects brought before them. The noble Earl had also stated that he understood the Government were much influenced by a letter received from Lord Dalhousie, in which that noble Lord strongly expressed his opinion that great inconvenience would arise from any greater delay taking place and the whole of the people of India being left under a Government of an unstable character and only of a provisional kind. He did not think that a reference to that letter was a very happy illustration of the Motion by the noble Earl—by which, soon after the passing of that Act, he proposed that their Lordships should appoint a Committee to do exactly that which Lord Dalhousie deprecated—namely, creating in the minds of the people of India a belief that there was an intention on the part of Parliament to make some great and immediate changes in regard to the government of that country. The chief ground on which the noble Earl based his Motion was with regard to public works. He (Earl Granville) was not fully possessed of a knowledge of all the details in reference to that subject, but he believed that the only question under the able and energetic management of the late Governor General was, whether we should push on these works by means of borrowed money, instead of allowing it to be said that there had been the slightest delay or want of energy in carrying them on. The determination of Lord Dalhousie was to force on the works, and, accordingly, in every part of India, they were carried on by money borrowed at high interest. So far, therefore, from there having been any neglect in that respect, it was one of the brightest points connected with the administration of Lord Dalhousie. The noble Earl had again adverted to the question of torture; but the noble Earl had not ventured to say that since the fact of torture had been proved to exist the Government at home or in India had neglected any means in their power in the most searching manner to inquire into the practice, and to take all possible steps to put a stop to it. But with regard to the constitution of the Government of India this torture case did not appear to him to have any bearing at all. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) remarked the other day that he never heard during his administration of the government of India of any case of torture taking place in that country. The opinion held by those possessing the soundest knowledge was, that the government of India, to be carried on with effect, must be carried on in India itself; and it was a point not to be forgotten by their Lordships that whatever change they might be disposed to make in the Government of India, no change could be made in the great experiment now being made—that of admitting the civil servants by open competition—till the result of that experiment had been fully established. The noble Earl, while professing not to speak on the subject of judicial proceedings in India, had yet brought forward certain vague charges in connection with that subject. What the noble Earl ought to do was to bring forward some particular case of hardship, and to show that under the present state of things no efforts were being made likely to produce amendment. Believing, as he did, that it was a great evil to unsettle the minds of all India by Committees of Inquiry into charges of a vague and general character, the only effect of which would be to lead the Natives of that country to suppose that they were living under an unstable form of Government, he could not agree to the Motion of the noble Earl, and he trusted that he would not press it upon the acceptance of the House.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, that he was quite ready, in the event of a Committee being proposed with a view to organic changes, to concur in the view just taken by the noble Earl; for there could be no doubt that to entertain questions of that kind would tend to unsettle the minds of the people of India. But he should be extremely sorry to suppose that their Lordships were precluded from making any inquiry into the internal administration of India because they declined to enter into a discussion of organic changes. He thought there might be occasionally great advantage in directing the eye of the public of this country to the internal administration of India, and he should be extremely sorry to preclude the possibility; of such, matters being investigated by Committees of that House. He had in his possession an official paper, laid before their Lordships the other day, purporting to contain an account of the finances of India, and he must say that in that paper alone he saw enough to justify a Committee of this kind. He found it stated, for example, that the cost of collection of the revenue, chiefly derived from land in the North-Western Provinces, was 9¼ per cent; in Bengal, 10 per cent; in Bombay, 13 per cent; in the Punjab, 14½ per cent; and in Madras, 17 per cent. Now, he really thought that, where there was so great a difference in the cost of collection as in one case, 9¼ per cent, and in another 17 per cent, there was a good case for inquiry. In the North-Western Provinces £95,000 of Customs was collected at a cost of £72,000, leaving £23,000 of net revenue. In Bengal, the receipts from the Customs were £768,000; in Bombay, £295,000; but the expense of collecting the small amount at Bombay was considerably greater than that of collecting the large amount in Bengal. Such things as these were matters for inquiry, and might be investigated without impairing in any way the respect and efficiency of the Government of India. He would most earnestly suggest, what he had done two years ago, the appointment of an independent audit for India. This was done by every country that desired to have its affairs conducted with propriety and honesty; and he would recommend the Government, without any delay, to bring in a Bill to establish a board of audit, having no dependence on the Government of India, to examine the accounts of that country, and to place before the House a clear and intelligible statement. In a few days he hoped to call the attention of the House to the mode in which the Directors carried out the Act of Parliament requiring them to lay on the table of Parliament an annual account of the charges of India. The paper which had been presented, and to which he had already referred, was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and he regarded this as one among other points which called for the strict vigilance of Parliament. The Governor General and the other Governors had private secretaries, and it was necessary that these should be either civil or military servants of the Company, because it was indispensable that they should speak the native languages. It was consequently impossible for a Governor General to have any English gentleman with fresh views of Indian affairs. Now he (the Earl of Ellen-borough) thought it to be very desirable that the Governor General should be assisted by a gentleman having the qualifications and holding something like the position of an Under-Secretary of State in England, and on whose knowledge the Governor General might very confidently rely. It was impossible that the Governor General could attend to everything, beginning business as he did two or three hours before English gentlemen were out of their beds, and finding it impossible to do more than just to finish the business which had arisen during the day. It was impossible for him ever to give two or three hours together for the consideration of one subject, and he was quite satisfied that he would be materially assisted by a gentleman such as he had alluded to. What was wanted was a clear, fresh unbiassed mind; it was prejudice which he wanted to get rid of. He did hope that it would not be understood that by not agreeing to this Motion they were not precluded from taking into consideration the internal Administration of India.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he quite agreed with the noble Earl. The paper referred to was not only incomplete, so that it was impossible for any person in England to form a clear idea of the affairs of India, but very great mistakes had been committed. On a late occasion, at the India House, the Chairman of the India Company went into an elaborate account of the state of the finances and of the deficit of the last two years. The Chairman endeavoured to show that the deficit was caused by the money expended for public works during that period, but he made the amount laid out on public works at variance with that given in the accounts placed on their Lordships' table. The returns made the total expended for that purpose during the year 1853–54, £621,413; but Colonel Sykes made the amount no less than £2,525,000. There was a great discrepancy also in the two statements with respect to the amount laid out in the year 1854–55, the return making the amount £1,648,460, and Colonel Sykes £2,997,500, and he thought that this was a matter which called for inquiry, for ever since the year 1784 the debt of India had gone on increasing steadily. The finances of India were administered in such a way as to lead to the unsatisfactory conclusion that sooner or later the taxpayers of the United Kingdom would have to pay the cost. He thought that these were matters for inquiry, but he could not agree with the noble Earl who last spoke, that a more extensive inquiry in reference to the foundations on which the Government in India rested was not desirable. That was a most serious question, for the Government in India certainly did not rest on the affections of the people, and unless some step were taken to improve that Government, in accordance with every principle that history, theory, and experience pointed out as the only solid foundation of government, British rule in India could not last longer than it could be maintained by force of arms. There was this peculiar circumstance to be borne in mind, that by the education and information afforded to the Natives principles of the most liberal and, he might also say, republican nature were instilled into their minds; and therefore it was impossible that the present state of things could last long. The Natives of India must be brought into the Government, or the Government never could be safe. Every year petitions were presented, detailing the grievances of the people of India. They held public meetings and had a free press, and it was, therefore, impossible that the present state of things should go on. The only effectual means of reducing the expenditure of the Indian administration was by employing the Natives instead of the more expensive Europeans. Many high authorities—including the Duke of Wellington—had borne testimony to their administrative powers, and there could be no doubt they were capable of filling many offices, the duties of which they would be glad to discharge. Why should not the Natives be allowed to administer justice in its higher branches, which many of them were well qualified by their learning to do? The Europeans, however, had a monopoly of everything that was good. As soon as the people of this country could be made to see that it was their money of which the Court of Directors were disposing, they would demand a reform in the administration of that country. The income of India was really the income of the Crown, and upon the people of this country might devolve the duty of discharging the debt of India.

Resolved in the negative.