IDOLATRY IN INDIA. (Hansard, 26 July 1838)

§ Mr. Baines

had some questions to put to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control upon a subject which involved the character and honour of this country. He had given notice of his intention to put those questions some months before, but had never had an opportunity. They concerned he thought the honour of the East-India Company. His first question was, whether, in the year 1833, there had not been sent out to India an instruction to the following effect, namely, "that the interference of British functionaries in the interior management of native temples, in the customs, habits, and religious proceedings of their priests and attendants, in the arrangement of their ceremonies, rites, and festivals, and generally in the economy of heathen worship, shall cease; that the pilgrim-tax shall be everywhere abolished; and that, in all matters relating to their temples, their worship, their festivals, and their religious practices, the native subjects be left entirely to themselves"? The next question was, whether, although five years had now elapsed since the instruction went out, it had not been uniformly disobeyed? The next inquiry was, how it was, that no attention had been paid to the instruction, since it was so strict and imperative? The next inquiry was, whether any further order had been sent out to enforce the first order, and, if so, what was its date? Lastly he wished to know whether there would be any objection to place on the table a copy of the last order, and whether any measures had been taken to enforce it, so that for the future the people of this country might have some ground upon which they might rely, to hope that the grievance complained of would be redressed?

§ Sir J. Hobhouse

said, that before he gave an answer to the questions that had 647 been put to him, he ought to preface it by expressing his pleasure at the discreet line of conduct which his hon. Friend had pursued, as he could assure his hon. Friend that he had done very well indeed in not making this subject a matter of public discussion, as he must be aware, as well as he (Sir J. Hobhouse) was, that this was one of the most delicate subjects that could be treated of with reference to our Indian government. He thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend had acted perfectly wisely in not making a separate and entire debate on this subject. The questions put by his hon. Friend were of such a nature that he thought he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to them. It was perfectly true, that in 1833 a dispatch had been sent from this country to the government of India with the purport and intention ascribed to it by his hon. Friend. It was perfectly true, with reference to his other question, that this dispatch had not hitherto been acted upon. With reference to the other question, whether or not the court of directors had subsequently taken any steps to carry their former orders into effect? he had to inform his hon. Friend, as he had done before when a similar question had been put to him, that the court of directors had sent out two despatches, directing that their former order should be carried into effect with as little delay as convenient. Nevertheless, he had to confess that there still remained something to do with respect to this subject, and he was free to own that in his opinion the time was come when the court of directors must issue from this country a dispatch in more positive terms than had hitherto been used, and which should prevent the possibility of any mistake or misapprehension as to its intention. Having these opinions, he had no hesitation in saying that he had pressed on the court of directors the necessity of taking such a course. Within a few days—he might say hours—the subject had been discussed in the court of directors, and he could assure his hon. Friend that he should make a point, as responsible Minister of the Crown, and he hoped the court of directors would agree with him, but at any rate he would say distinctly that he should make a point of using that discretion which, by the act of Parliament, belonged to him in his position as President of the Board of Control, to direct such a dispatch to be sent to India as would render it impossible for 648 any functionary there to make a mistake. He could assure his hon. Friend that there should, as far at least as depended upon the home authority, be no mistake as to the compulsory attendance of any functionary, military or civil, upon a worship of which he conscientiously disapproved. There should be no compulsory participation in such worship; and he would take care, and he trusted the court of directors would agree with him, to have such a dispatch sent out to India as would perfectly satisfy the most tender conscience. Having said thus much, there only remained for him to refer to that part of his hon. Friend's statement which related to laying any dispatch that might be sent out on the table of the House. His hon. Friend, if he considered it, must see that this would be not only a very inconvenient, but at the same time an unconstitutional course to pursue, to lay on the table dispatches before they were sent out, or seen, or acted upon. He had, however, no hesitation in saying, that he should, when the proper time came, have not the least objection to making these dispatches public. He had not only no objection, but in justification of himself on this most important subject, he thought it necessary that there should be no secret, no concealment as to what had been done by himself and the Government, and in fact, he should make the dispatches public, not only to satisfy the public, but in order to show that he at least had a proper sense of the duties imposed upon him.