HC Deb 09 May 1826 vol 15 cc1004-14
Lord John Russell

rose, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a petition of considerable importance, affecting the government of India, and most seriously affecting the talents and fortune of the petitioner, Mr. Buckingham. The case had, on a former occasion, been brought before the House by his hon. friend, the member for Durham; and at that time, the answer given to it was, that it was then under the consideration of a court of law, and therefore it would be highly improper in that House to interfere. At the time when this answer was given, he himself considered it a very weak and unsatisfactory one; but since then, circumstances had occurred, which had totally done away with that objection, weak as it was. The ruin which the petitioner then apprehended, in consequence of the acts of which he complained, had since fallen upon him: but he would proceed, as briefly as he could, to detail the principal facts of the petitioner's very hard case. In the year 1814, Mr. Buckingham received a licence to proceed to Calcutta, to reside there. At that period, the marquis of Hastings, the governor-general, had abolished the censorship of the press, and had left the editors of newspapers free to act upon their own responsibility; at the same time prescribing certain rules to which they were to conform. The petitioner stated, that, for the space of five years, he conducted a daily newspaper at Calcutta, without having been even convicted in a court of law, although the juries in that country were composed of the servants of the government, from whom strict impartiality was not of course to be expected. However, the petitioner was never brought to trial but on one occasion, and then for reflecting on the conduct of the six secretaries, in a letter from a correspondent, and on that indictment he was immediately, and without hesitation, acquitted. He afterwards went on with his journal; and after having invested 20,000l. of his own money in establishing it, he made it a property worth 40,000l. It paid annually a sum equal to 4,000l. sterling in postage, to the revenue of Bengal. After he circulated nearly 2,000 copies daily of this journal, brought it into high repute, and had himself obtained the esteem of all his associates, he all at once received notice, that he had given offence to the government in India, by publishing articles which he ought not to have published, and that he must immediately quit the country. Now these articles were such, that, although they might not indeed have been permitted to have been promulgated in countries where the government was a perfect despotism, still they would have been tolerated without objection in any country where the least freedom of the press prevailed. However, shortly after he had received this notice, his licence was abrogated; and, in that order, was involved the total ruin of the petitioner; the only ground for which was an article in the Calcutta Journal, respecting the appointment of a Presbyterian minister, which was no sooner noticed than annulled. As to the tone and manner of that article, it was such that, considering the circumstances, would, in this country, so far from being considered dangerous to the peace of the community, be regarded as deficient in bitterness, in severity, and political spirit. But Mr. Buckingham was obliged to depart from India, and leave behind him the property which his talents and his industry had accumulated. No sooner had he left India, than certain regulations were brought before the Supreme court there, ordering, amongst other things, that the proprietor of every journal should have a licence, liable to be revoked at the pleasure of the government; but one of the judges, sir Francis M'Naghten said, he should object to these regulations, if they were made to extend to any existing journal. But, what followed? Within one month after Mr. Buckingham's departure, an order was given to suspend the publication of the journal. He had come home to England, and, at considerable expense, had sent out materials for printing, and other purposes, in order to support his establishment in India, which had been attended with considerable expense; but an order in the mean time had been issued to suspend the publication of his journal, which order destroyed his property. After various negotiations with the government, only one person could be found who would be allowed to carry on the newspaper, and that was Dr. Mostyn, the son-in-law of one of the members in council, and thus was his property destroyed, and the copy-right of his journal transferred to a person not of his own choice. He therefore thought, if ever there was a man who had a right to complain, it was Mr. Buckingham. He stated, that the consequence of this treatment had been, that he had not only lost the 20,000l. which he had embarked, but that he wss also in debt to the amount of 10,000l., on account of the acts and proceedings of the Indian government. Such being the statement of Mr. Buckingham's case, he had only one or two remarks to make. It had been said, that the measures of the marquis of Hastings had led to these transactions; but he had seen communications from that noble marquis, in which the removal of Mr. Buckingham was condemned, because, he said, whatever might have been the tendency of Mr. Buckingham's writings, of wilful and deliberate offence to the government, he never was guilty. As to the propriety or inexpediency of a free press in India, that was a question into which he did not mean to enter at present. He should confine himself strictly to the wrongs which the petitioner had suffered; and he complained of it as gross injustice, that, because the marquis of Hastings had thought fit to abolish the censorship, and try the experiment of a free press, under certain regulations; and because that experiment had not succeeded, that, therefore, the whole loss should fall upon the petitioner. It appeared to him, that the marquis of Hastings had not acted with due foresight in abolishing the censorship, and substituting in its stead an arbitrary power over the writings of editors. He could easily believe that, so long as the marquis re- mained as governor, an editor would have nothing to fear, unless he abused the freedom which was allowed him; but the case was quite different when others succeeded the governor-general. When there were two parties, the governor in council, invested with absolute power, and the other, the editors of journals, wielding the power of public opinion; if the former had the power to crush the newspapers, a time would come when that power would be abused. However, there could be no doubt that Mr. Buckingham had been most hardly dealt with, in having had his property altogether destroyed, without compensation, because it suited the views of the government to destroy the freedom of the press. This was a case of individual grievance which imperatively demanded the attention of the House, and he would therefore move, "That the petition be referred to a select committee, to examine the matter thereof."

Mr. Wynn

said, that this question had been brought forward on a former occasion by the hon. member for Durham, and at that period Mr. Buckingham had given notice of an action against Mr. Adam, the governor-general, by whom Mr. Buckingham had been sent away. Unfortunately, the death of Mr. Adam had since taken place; a circumstance which he considered one of the greatest losses the service in India had ever sustained. At the same time, he must express his complete conviction, amounting in fact almost to a certainty, that had that action proceeded, the result would have been most triumphant to Mr. Adam. It appeared to him, that it was rather unusual to move for a committee on such a subject as the noble lord had expressed his intention of doing, unless some previous notice had been given. The ordinary course was to give notice to the House of such an intention; and of this course the noble lord himself must see the propriety. He remembered no instance of a select committee having been moved for without previous notice. The whole question appeared to him to hinge on this consideration: Is the press in India to be as free as it is in this country? On this point he was ready to meet the noble lord at any time, and contend for its impossibility. The noble lord had adverted to the passages published by Mr. Buckingham, and had said, that although they might not be tolerated at Vienna or Madrid, they would pass freely at Pan's or London. In this he was quite willing to go along with the noble lord, and say, that under a free representative government, such writings could produce no mischief; and if the noble lord thought it would be expedient to abolish the present form of government, and establish a representative government in its stead, he could understand his principle. If a representative government were to be established, then let there be a free press; but it was the very essence of a free press, that it could not co-exist with absolute authority. Let them not examine at large what the government of India was, but how it was administered. It was known that it was administered by foreigners; all natives being systematically excluded. It was impossible, therefore, that such a state of things could exist with a free press. Now, suppose that fact to be simply stated without any comment, that in their own country the people were excluded from all participation in the government, such a statement alone would operate as a firebrand throughout the whole country. He could only say, that unless we were prepared to go the length of altering the whole system, and change the government fundamentally, there must remain some check over the press. With us, and in France and Holland, there was a check—there was a public assembly; and, if the charges were valid, they would be brought forward, and an opportunity would be given to defend them. But what defence could a governor-general set up? Suppose, in the case alluded to, that of the making an appointment—suppose it were said, the person we had selected was an improper one; could that be done without lowering his authority? The noble lord had said, that the marquis of Hastings had abolished the censorship, and thought fit to try the experiment of a free press. Now, he would beg leave to read to the House the Regulations under which the charge was made. The Regulations ran thus: "The editors of newspapers are prohibited from publishing any matter coming under the following heads:—1st. Animadversions on the measures and proceedings of the honourable Court of Directors, or other public authorities in England, connected with the government of India; or disquisitions on political transactions of the local administration, or offensive remarks levelled at the public conduct of the members of the council, of the judges of the Supreme Court, or of the lord bishop of Calcutta. 2nd. Discussions having a tendency to create alarm or suspicion among the native population, of any intended interference with their religious opinions or observances. 3rd. The republication, from English or other newspapers, of passages coming under any of the above heads, or otherwise calculated to affect the British power or reputation in India. 4th. Private scandal, and personal remarks on individuals, tending to excite dissentions in society."

These regulations contained an express direction how a newspaper was to be conducted, and warned a proprietor what course he was to avoid. That warning, however, Mr. Buckingham had, from the very first, disregarded and despised. He seemed to think, that as lord Hastings freed the press from some restraints, he had determined to make it wholly free; and although repeatedly informed, that such was not the intention of the government, he persisted in acting as if it was so. Mr. Buckingham threw out an insinuation, that he did not think it was the intention of the government to abide by the declarations it had sent forth on these occasions. But, was it for an instant to be supposed, that Mr. Adam, a member of the government, and acting under the express injunctions of the governor-general, would issue repeated manifestoes, which he did not mean to carry into execution? Mr. Buckingham had been warned over and over again. In 1820, he was told what would be the certain consequence of the course he was pursuing; and when he still persisted, he was again, in 1821, assured, that if he once more offended, his licence would be withdrawn, and he would be compelled to quit the country. Undismayed, however, by all threats; unaffected by all warnings; disregarding all advice; he still continued his course of libel against the government; and then, and not till then, Mr. Adam compelled him to quit the country—a course, to which he was driven by Mr. Buckingham himself, and which he could not avoid, with any regard to the dignity of the governor-general, or the character of consistency, which ought to be maintained in a government. The whole question, in fact, turned upon whether the opinions entertained of the Indian government in the minds of the natives were to be supported by a regulated press, or wholly destroyed by a free one? For, although a free press undoubtedly was a great blessing, under a fair representative government at home, it became a very dangerous engine abroad. And it should never be forgotten, that the government of India did not depend upon the opinions entertained of it abroad, but on the character it was able to maintain in the eyes of those who ruled at home. The regulations for the government of the press had been laid on the table of the House, and it was in the discretion of any members, if they were dissatisfied with them, to move, that they be altered or repealed. But, as long as they continued in force in India, the duty of the governor-general called upon him to uphold and support them. A great deal had been said upon the conduct of the government towards Mr. Buckingham and his property, after his departure from India; but he was convinced he would be able to show there was nothing in that conduct, inconsistent with justice to the individual, or a sound policy in those who were called upon to regulate his actions. The Calcutta Journal had been pronounced a publication dangerous to the state, and it became necessary to suppress it; but it must be obvious, that it was impossible to do that, especially if the proprietor, who had blindly determined to persist in his course of mischief, was still allowed to hold a control over its affairs, or regulate the tone of its publications by the means of his friends or connexions. He was, therefore, compelled to dispose of the materials of his journal altogether, and the licence, which warranted its publication, was withdrawn. That licence was not, however, granted, as was asserted, by any adherent of the government. Upon the whole, he could not concur with the noble lord, that any grievance had been inflicted upon the petitioner greater than he justly merited; but if it was still considered that the subject required more ample discussion, he would be prepared to enter fully into its merits, whenever it was brought forward in a regular manner.

Mr. Scarlett

begged to remind the House, that the petitioner could not maintain, in our courts of law, an action against the Indian government for any injury which he had received from it in the exercise of its power, and that his only remedy therefore lay in the supreme authority of that House. He confessed he was very strongly struck by one of the statements in the petition. Banishment might be nothing in the opinion of some mem- bers; but, would the House of Commons bear to be told, without inquiry into the matter, that the most valuable part of the petitioner's property had been taken from him, without any consideration being tendered for the same, and then presented as a free gift to the son-in-law of one of the members of the very government under which such an extraordinary transfer of property took place? According to this statement the government of India had not only banished the petitioner from India, but had absolutely annihilated the property which he had left behind him, by transferring it to another. If such a statement, were correct, it appeared to him that the conduct of the Indian government had not only been oppressive, but corrupt. If the noble lord who had presented the petition would take the hint which had been given him, and would move to refer the petition to a select committee, he for one would gladly support such a motion.

Mr. Wynn

observed, that the licence of the Calcutta Journal had been withdrawn, and had never been granted to any other individual. The licence which had been granted to Dr. Mostyn, the individual referred to in the petition, and a friend of the petitioner, was a licence to print a paper to be entitled "The Scotchman in the East."

Mr. John Smith

found fault with the East India Company, because it had allowed its servants not only to deprive Mr. Buckingham of his property, but also to leave him incumbered with debts incurred in acquiring that property. Every attempt which Mr. Buckingham had made to obtain redress had been treated with disdain and contempt; and even when he desired to obtain from its compassion such a remuneration as would only secure bread to himself and to his large family, he was met with the declaration, that he had been deservedly punished, and had no claim of any description on the East-India Company. He would support any motion of which the object was inquiry into Mr. Buckingham's case; and he would do so in the hope that the House would see justice done to that unfortunate individual.

Mr. Astell

said, he had hoped that this question had been finally settled by the late decision at the East-India-house; but as it was again mooted, he must again repeat that Mr. Buckingham's punishment was only the result of his misconduct. So far was Mr. Buckingham from being an ill-used individual, that he even consi- dered him a highly-favoured individual, in consequence of the number of times which he had transgressed, and had been pardoned. After the repeated warnings which had been given to Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Adam would have been unworthy of his situation, if he had tolerated any longer what he must call the insolence of Mr. Buckingham. He reminded the House, that, on a late ballot at the East-India-house, it was proved, that out of 2,000 proprietors of East-India stock, only 127 had approved of Mr. Buckingham's conduct—a clear proof, in his opinion, that the public took no interest in his claim for remuneration and redress.

Dr. Phillimore

said, that every gentleman who had heard the speech of his right hon. friend, must be convinced, that no ground was laid for the charges which Mr. Buckingham had brought against the Indian government. By the law as it now stood, no man could reside in the territory of the East-India Company without receiving a special licence to do so. It was equally the law, that the governor-general could revoke that licence, if he so thought fit. Now, what had been the conduct of Mr. Buckingham? He had established a newspaper in 1815, which began by attacking, first the character of private individuals, and next the measures of public men, and which ended by arraigning in most unmeasured terms, the transactions of the government in the Nizam's country, and of the army in the territory of the king of Oude. These attacks were regularly translated and circulated in the native languages of India. Now, in a country which we held solely by the influence of opinion, was it possible that we could retain our supremacy, if individuals were allowed to arraign the government unreservedly in newspapers? The noble lord who presented the petition had said, that lord Hastings had given a free press to India. Now, lord Hastings had done no such thing. His lordship had abolished the antecedent censorship, but had erected a tribunal, to which all newspapers were, after publication, to be referred for its approval. The notices which Mr. Buckingham had received, that any future in-fraction of the regulations of government would be punished by his dismissal, had been frequent. In 1821, this notice had been repeated in the most, unequivocal, manner. It had been said that, since his return, lord Hastings had declared that he had no intention of strictly enforcing these notices; but the proceedings of the council in India, at which lord Hastings presided, left no room for doubt on the subject, and it was by his acts, not by any intention which he now thought fit to express, that the late governor-general must be judged. The notice which Mr. Buckingham received stated, that if he persisted in abusing the government his licence would be annulled, and he would be compelled to quit the country. In 1822, he committed a similar offence in traducing the government of India respecting the kingdom of Oude. Lord Hastings then communicated to him a notice, that, although the long-tried forbearance of the government had been found ineffectual, he was disposed to give him the advantage of one more warning; and he was therefore finally apprized, that if he should again venture to impeach the validity of the statute under the authority of which the present or any future government should act, his licence would be cancelled, and he would be ordered forthwith to depart from India. In January 1823, very soon after this last notice, the marquis of Hastings left India; and no sooner was he gone, than Mr. Buckingham repeated his attacks upon the government. Mr. Adam acted immediately with a promptitude which did him infinite credit, and ordered Mr. Buckingham out of the country. In all that had been done there was no undue exercise of authority. The punishment which had been inflicted on Mr. Buckingham was strictly conformable to the law; and if it had been severe, he had no one to complain of, because he had brought it upon himself. When the House considered the vast importance of our possessions in India, and the delicate tie by which they were held—that a handful of Europeans exercised supreme sway over many millions of the native people, and that our empire was maintained by opinion alone—they must see that if the same freedom of discussion were allowed to prevail in that country as we enjoyed in this, and if individuals were permitted to traduce the government through the means of the press, it would be impossible to retain the power which this country held in India.

Mr. Trant

said, that if the question were solely confined to the removal of Mr. Buckingham from India, perhaps he might be disposed to concur in the propriety of his removal. But looking at the whole of the conduct which had been adopted to- wards that individual, part of which, from his connection with the government of India, he had had an opportunity of observing, he must say, that a case never occurred to him by which he had been so perplexed; but, upon a review of the whole of it, he was by no means satisfied that justice had been done towards that individual. It was necessary, no doubt, that very extensive power should be vested in the government of India, but some exercise of that power, beyond proper limits, might occur; some stretch of authority might arise; and he must add, that in the case of Mr. Buckingham, such a stretch had arisen. He regretted to differ from those with whom he generally acted, but felt that he was called upon by a sense of duty, after a careful review of the whole conduct adopted towards Mr. Buckingham, to vote for the motion of the noble lord.

The House divided: Ayes 43. Noes 40. A committee was accordingly appointed.