HC Deb 15 April 1859 vol 153 cc1803-8
MR. KINNAIRD

said, before he referred to the subject respecting which he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the Government on the subject— the disturbances in Travancore—he was anxious to allude to what had fallen in the debate of the previous evening from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith). His right hon. Friend observed that Viscount Canning had put aside the advice tendered him by both extremes, that he had put aside the advice tendered him by Sir John Lawrence, as well as that tendered him by Sir Archdale Wilson, to treat with the King of Delhi. His right hon. Friend, he thought, in making that statement, had overlooked two important facts—namely, that Sir John Lawrence had never given Viscount Canning any advice on the subject, and that not Sir Archdale Wilson but General Reid had been in command at the period to which he alluded. A similar statement had been made by a noble Lord in "another place" on a former occasion; a communication from Sir John Lawrence to that noble Lord had followed, and he should appeal to the noble Lord the Secretary for India to say whether facts had not come within his cognizance which clearly demonstrated the justice of the position which he (Mr. Kinnaird) had now taken up. He had that very morning received a communication from Sir John Lawrence with respect to the point at issue, which the House, in justice to an absent man, would perhaps allow him to read. The facts of the case, as stated by Sir John Lawrence, were as follows:— The King of Delhi made overtures which had been referred by General Reid to Sir John Lawrence, who suggested in reply that they should be accepted on conditions which the King could not comply with, and the matter dropped. The reason why those overtures had been entertained at that early time for a moment was, that had the King been in a position by his innocence of blood-guiltiness to accede to those conditions the best possible results might have been produced, the neck of the mutiny would have been broken, the lives of thousands of our countrymen who died in the struggle which ensued would have been saved, a most distinguished general (General Nicholson) would have been spared to his country, and millions of money would have been economized. What Lord Canning had really done months after these negotiations had ended, was to write to the Lieutenant Governor of Agra to say that no negotiations should be entered into with the King of Delhi without his sanction. That communication, however, had had no effect whatever on the siege of Delhi, as, in the meanwhile Sir John Lawrence had sent down troops and munitions of war which had enabled Sir A. Wilson to storm the fortress successfully. Lord Canning's message, in fact, could only have reached Sir A. Wilson a few hours before the storming of Delhi took place, and the scene of operations was so distant from Calcutta that whether he wished or not he could have had no influence on the siege. He (Mr. Kinnaird) thought it his duty to state these facts, in order that his right hon. Friend might have an opportunity of explaining and correcting the observations which had fallen from him the evening before. Having done so, he should proceed to advert to the subject which he had given notice it was his intention to bring under the consideration of the noble Lord the Secretary of India—the disturbances which prevailed at Travancore. Before he entered into the details of that question, however, he begged to say a few words with respect to the difficulty of obtaining public documents officially from India. When he asked the noble Lord opposite a question, or moved for papers connected with that country, he was met by the unsatisfactory reply that no official account had been received at the India House. He thought that one of the good results which were to follow from the change of Government was that, by greater publicity, the action of that House was to be brought more speedily and directly to bear on the Government. But, if the official documents on which hon. Members might form a judgment could not be obtained, a very serious disadvantage would be incurred he had, for example, long had in his possession a most important report on education lately issued in Calcutta, but when he had moved for that report, that it might be laid on the table of the House, he had been told that it had not been received. Now, that was precisely what happened under the old régime when Mr. Holliday's Report on the Bengal police had been moved for. Again, when the Indian papers were full of the reports of the aggressions made by one class of Hindoos at Travancore on another class, in consequence of caste prejudices, and in defiance of the Queen's Proclamation, which assured to all equality in the eyes of the law and complete liberty of opinion and action, and when he had asked for an official account of those transactions he had got the same answer, that no account had been received. He understood that the late disturbances near Nagercoil, in South Travancore, had arisen between the Soodrees and other high castes on the one hand, and the Shanars and other low castes on the other, and not between the heathens and Christians as such. The result was, that eleven chapels and schoolrooms had been burnt down, and that the bungalows inhabited by European missionaries had been threatened, and obliged to be watched day and night by Native Christians. The Shanars had also been themselves beaten unmercifully, their houses plundered and burnt, and some had fled for fear even their lives would be endangered. The subject of contest between the castes was the upper cloth which many of the Shanars, contrary to old customs, had begun to wear, and which the Soodras would not permit. The practical point was, therefore, whether the Government would permit one caste thus to tyrannize over another, or whether all should have liberty to dress, build their houses, and so forth, as they pleased. He rejoiced to learn that in the late disturbances in Tinnevelly right had prevailed, and that all the Queen's subjects were to have an equal right to use the Queen's highway, and he claimed a similar right for all with respect to their dress. But the papers stated that General Cullen, the Resident at Travancore, was of a different opinion, and he (Mr. Kinnaird) hoped the noble Lord would seriously inquire into his conduct in this matter; for it was said that the Shanars, when they carried their complaints to the Dewan, were unceremoniously dismissed by him because they wore the upper cloth, and that the Soodras boasted aloud that they had full liberty granted them by the Rajah and Dewan to maltreat the low caste people, and that that liberty was confirmed by the proclamation. They said also, that the Queen's will was, that no Hindoos should become Christians; consequently, that missionaries were acting contrary to the Queen's proclamation in staying in India, and that therefore it was their duty to drive them away at once. He hoped he should have an assurance from the noble Lord that such an interpretation of the proclamation, infringing; the commonest rights of men, was not for a moment to be tolerated, and that, if those facts were as stated, some steps would be taken to induce General Cullen to fulfil his duty in Travancore in respecting the rights of all classes, and causing them to be respected; and he again begged to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Papers on the recent disturbances at Travancore have been received, and whether he will lay them on the table?

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he trusted the House would at once permit him to answer the call made upon him. He must complain that the hon. Member (Mr. Kinnaird) had not given him notice of his intention to allude to the statement he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had made on the previous evening with respect to Sir John Lawrence. In that statement he did not for a moment mean to cast the slightest reproach upon Sir John Lawrence. All he did was to state that he believed the moderate firmness of his noble Friend the Governor General of India was such that he ventured on one occasion to repudiate the advice of even such a man as Sir John Lawrence. It was in no detriment to Sir John Lawrence, but the contrary, that he had made that remark on the previous evening, and the House would remember that in the very same speech, he said he admired the character of Sir John Lawrence in common with all the world. The statement to which the hon. Member had taken exception was made by him (Mr. Vernon Smith) from his recollection of an impression he had received on reading a passage in a Blue-book presented to the House; but now that the hon. Member had assured the House that Sir John Lawrence had said there was no foundation for the statement, nobody could, of course, for one moment hesitate to accept that assurance.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that since he had entered the House he had offered privately to the right hon. Gentleman to put the matter off till Monday, if that would be more convenient to him, but the right hon. Gentleman had told him that he thought he should not be in the House on that day. That being so, he thought he had not been wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LIDDELL

said, that he had had a notice on the paper to ask a question, and he must complain of the turn which the order of business had taken, by which a great number of topics were being discussed on the Motion for adjournment, which stood on the paper for consideration after the questions had been put.

MR. SPEAKER

said, when the Motion for adjournment was disposed of, it would be competent for hon. Members to put the questions which stood on the paper in their names.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) had brought under the notice of the House the mortality and disease in a detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad, because the correspondence on the subject showed that an interval of a year and nine months had elapsed between the discovery that that disease and mortality were referable to the bad order of a drain and the application of a remedy. He should be glad to hear that a certain responsibility—one extending to the outlay of a certain sum of money—would be vested in officers so as to remedy defective drainage, in such cases as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. He would take that opportunity to refer to the omission, both in that House and "elsewhere," in the Vote of Thanks of the previous evening of all mention of the services of the Royal Artillery in India. Before Lucknow the Royal Artillery had fifty-six field guns and forty-six siege guns, and two brigadier officers belonging to the corps (Colonel Wood and Colonel Barker), had greatly distinguished themselves. The corps was one of the most distinguished in the service; and probably the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would take some notice of the omission to which he had referred.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

The eloquent and graceful speeches of the noble Lord last evening, the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, in which they bore testimony to the enduring and victorious services of the army in India have afforded me the liveliest gratification. My motive for silence on the occasion of that Vote of Thanks was this,—I was apprehensive that any language which I might employ would appear to attach any undue importance to the services of that profession to which I have the honour to belong, in the suppression of the mutiny, since the number were small in proportion to those of the army. It has been to me, therefore, a deep pleasure to observe an inadvertent omission at that time, now repaired, the tribute and award of the thanks of the House in the general to the naval officers, seamen, and marines, and the particular introduction of the name of Captain Sotheby, the worthy successor of the heroic William Peel, as the highest honour this House can confer, and from its impartiality touching every heart in the naval brigade.