HC Deb 24 February 1825 vol 12 cc652-6
Mr. Hume

rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice. The practice to which he had to advert was one which, though it could not be said to obstruct our trade with India, was calculated to limit the advantages which we might derive from our possession of that country. It was well known that the India Company, by itself, or its governors and presidents, had the power of banishing any person who interfered with the trade of that country. This power continued until the 53 Geo. III., by which the trade was, in a great measure, thrown open to all British subjects trading from England. The preamble of that act set forth the advantages which might be derived from an opening of the India trade (with the exception of that to China) to the enterprise of British capital and industry. If he understood this act rightly, it was intended to give a vent to the capital of Great Britain, but the practice which had since grown up, was, he thought, quite in opposition to the spirit of that act. It was understood, that all those who went to India were to be subject to the regulations of the company; but those regulations ought not to be in opposition to the spirit of the law. That law declared, in substance, that no man was to be removed by the mere freak or whim of any governor or president in India, and that such removal should only be ordered in cases where the presence of the particular individual was considered as likely to disturb the tranquillity of any part of that country. He would, in a short time, move for an account of the number of persons to whom permission to remain in the country had been refused; but at present he would confine himself to a complaint against the power which the company exercised under this law. He knew that nearly half of those at present trading and residing in India had not a regular licence to remain. They had been permitted to remain and to trade; but it mattered not, in his opinion, whether a man had a licence to remain or not; he ought, if he was settled there, to be allowed to remain; and it was an act of injustice, and against the spirit of the act, to send him away. Many persons who had been settled in India, and had a prosperous trade there, had had their prospects entirely ruined by being sent out of the country. This had been the case, in many instances, under the government of Mr. Adam and lord Amherst. They had sent several individuals out of the country, without trial or cause assigned. Many of those persons had been long settled in it, and their banishment was an act of great cruelty and injustice. He knew it was said, that the exercise of such a power was justified by the act of parliament. If it were so, such an act was against justice and policy. It was not necessary for his purpose, to detail acts of this kind, which had originated in personal feelings and motives. Leaving such cases out of consideration, he would assert, that the effects of the general practice was, that no person in any of the presidencies dare express his opinions, if those persons should be hostile to the government. Some governors were, he knew, more liberal in this respect than others. Lord Hastings, for instance, did not think it beneath him, to submit his conduct to the opinions of the European population in India; and though the proceedings of the noble lord, in this instance, was not quite pleasing to the government at home, yet it showed his liberal feeling on the subject. The conduct of governor Adam and of lord Amherst in this respect was quite different. They had sent away from India certain individuals, for the expression of opinions, through the medium of the press; and had enacted such restrictions on the press in general, that a great gloom was cast over the public mind in that country; and the fear of deportation was so prevalent, that no man dared to express his real sentiments upon what was passing. The consequence was, that the people of this country were, generally speaking, as ignorant of what was passing in India as of what was doing in Japan. A war was now raging in India, and yet the English public knew scarcely any thing about it. The effects of this system of restriction on the press were seen in the deportation of Mr. Buckingham from India, and in the atrocious conduct pursued towards Mr. Arnot. After such conduct, if the persons at present connected with the press, wished to remain in India, they must remain silent on all subjects the discussion of which might be displeasing to the government there. He had in his possession two notes sent to individuals connected with the press of India, cautioning them against any notice of the case of Mr. Buckingham, or of the conduct of the government in general. Such a system was contrary to the spirit of the regulations established when the courts of Calcutta were formed in 1775. It had been lately the fashion to say, that the British possessions in India hung by a thread. This he denied. He thought that while we maintained an army of 250,000 men in that country, it was impossible that we should lose our possessions there But the best way to ensure the permanence of our power there, would be to allow public discussion and exposure of delinquencies through the medium of the press. If that were prevented, mischiefs of the most serious nature would ensue. It was the most impolitic course which could be pursued to prevent Englishmen from embarking their capital in that country, and of establishing there a regular system of colonization. He knew that that word would startle the prejudices of many persons, but still it was a system, which, in the result, would be found most advantageous to our interests in that country. He should now move, That there be laid before this House, an account of the number of British-born or other European subjects, whose removal from the different presidencies of India has been at any time officially threatened, or actually carried into effect, by the civil authorities there, or by orders from the court of Directors; distinguishing whether such persons had been in the king's or company's service, or residing in India, with or without a licence; and stating the names of such persons so threatened or actually transported, the dates of such occurrences, and the alleged cause of such threatened or actual transportation; and stating also whether the same have been attended with personal arrest or imprisonment, and for what period and where; and whether preceded or followed by judicial proceedings of any description, in India or in England, since 1784."

Mr. Wynn

said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. member through the extensive field over which he had travelled. The important question of the civilization of India was too extensive to be taken up collaterally. Whenever it was submitted to the House, he should not hesitate to declare his opinion. With respect to the present question, the House were bound to respect the laws as they now existed. By the act of 1793, it was declared a misdemeanor for any man to be in India without the licence of the East India Company. The act of 1813, which opened the trade of India very considerably, reserved the same power, and commanded the same prohibitions. As the law existed, a governor-general was bound, when he permitted a European subject not having a licence to settle in India, to enter a special reason upon record for so permitting him. This was the most easy and natural mode of proceeding; for every gentleman would see that it would be very hard indeed upon the governor-general to call upon him to state his reasons for sending an individual away. The hon. member had also said, that no person could go to India without the special leave of the court of Directors; thereby insinuating that it was matter of some difficulty to obtain it. He held in his hand a list of the applications which had been made for such leave since 1814. The number of applications in that time was 963: of these 743 had met with a successful issue from the court of Directors, and 41 with the same from the Board of Control; so that, in the whole period, there had not been more than 179 refusals. The hon. member had found fault with the act, because it provided that a man without a licence might be removed by the governor-general. Now, no man could be removed by the governor-general alone, but only by the governor-general in council. Every member of the council had a right to state his opinion with regard to the propriety of removal, and thus there was some control upon that arbitrary exercise of power against which the hon. member had declaimed. With respect to the motion itself, he was extremely willing to give all the information it sought in substance; but he felt it due to the individuals themselves not to return names which might individually affect persons who, after a number of years, could not contemplate such a disclosure. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment, for "a return of all persons removed from India, or ordered to quit India, since 1784, by any of the governments there, on the ground of being found in India without a licence from the court of Directors of the East India Company, or other lawful cause:—also, a return of all persons whose licence or permission to reside in India has been revoked by any of the governments, specifying the ground of such revocation, and distinguishing such persons as have been removed from India by order of such governments; stating whether such removal has been preceded by personal arrest or imprisonment, for what period and where, and whether the same has been preceded or followed by any judicial proceeding in India or England."

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.