MR. GRANT DUFFrose to call the attention of the House to the expediency of transferring the seat of Government in India to some place more eligible than Calcutta. When they had so recently laid that great man, Lord Canning, in the grave, he thought it was not inopportune to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it was not possible to make arrangements for carrying on the central administration of India in some spot which would induce a smaller sacrifice of European life. If the death of Lord Canning had been an isolated event, no argument could have been drawn from it, but it was by no means an isolated event. He would refer the House to a letter which appeared a few days since in the leading journal, signed "Mountaineer," in which it was said, "Wilson, Ritchie, and Lord Canning are dead; Mr. Laing is ill; Mr. Beadon has been indisposed; Colonel Baird Smith is dead, Lady Canning is dead, Lady Wells is dead, Lord and Lady Dalhousie are dead." It was not surprising that Calcutta should be unhealthy, standing as it did upon a delta, with salt water on one side and a lake upon the other, raised but a little above the level of the sea, with a supply of water which, if copious, was far from wholesome. All deltas were unhealthy, and the only great city so situated besides Calcutta was the notoriously unhealthy city of New Orleans. Sir R. Martin spoke of Calcutta as enjoying three seasons—the hot season, during which all new arrivals suffered; the cold season, in which all old Indians suffered; and the wet season, in which everybody Buffered. "It was true that it might 1190 be said that Calcutta had risen from a small village into a great city, with a trade of £20,000,000 annually, and that until recently we had lost no Governor General in India, except Lord Cornwallis, who was an old man and infirm in health when he arrived. As to the first argument, it might be replied, that according to the opinion of many old Indians, whether from a change of habits among the residents, or from the extension of the city, Calcutta was becoming more and more unhealthy. With respect to the second argument, he might be reminded that we should be in future sending out a greater number of men of mature age to carry out the working of our new institutions in India. In was also said that it was important that the seat of Government should be within easy reach of reinforcements from this country; but they were told that next year the Government subsidy to the Peninsular and Oriental Company would cease, and that Company's steamers would also cease to run to Calcutta. Mr. Marshman, the great advocate of Calcutta, had given several reasons why that city should be continued as the seat of Government, but none of them appeared to be unanswerable. The removal of the records, which was put forth as a difficulty, was merely a matter of detail. But it was said that it would be impossible to remove the Financial Secretary, the Treasury, and the Mint from Calcutta; but he could not perceive the impossibility, especially as he believed there was also a mint at Bombay. It might be that in removing the seat of Government from Calcutta private interests might suffer; but even if that were the case, it could not be set against a strong public necessity. It was said that it would be expensive to erect new public buildings in the new seat of Government, and to throw away the money that had been expended in Calcutta but he was informed that most of the Government buildings in Calcutta were merely rented. The time might come before long when we should be so committed to the chance capital of Calcutta that we must accept it as an accomplished fact; but he did not think that that period had yet arrived. No doubt Calcutta would always remain, not only a great commercial centre, but a great military post which must be held strongly with a view to the preservation of our Indian Empire; but that was no sufficient reason why it should continue to be the seat of Government. The Commander-in-Chief was generally at 1191 Simlah, Calcutta being about the last place which he thought of entering. But if Calcutta were no longer to be the capital, what other place should be chosen in its stead? To Agra, Simlah, and Mussoorie there were strong objections. Bombay, too, though healthier than Calcutta, had not such a decided advantage in that respect as to justify its selection as the new capital. There remained, however, Poonah, one of the most salubrious of our military stations in all India. It had a great historic name as the seat of power of the Peishwah, once the head of the Mahratta Confederacy. It was only eighty miles from Bombay, and was not likely to be cut off, even temporarily, from communication with the sea, which must ever be the true basis of our power in India. These and other advantages induced him to think Poonah entitled to the preference. He did not, however, pretend to speak dogmatically on that point, nor even to assert absolutely that they ought to leave Calcutta. But he hoped, that if that capital were to be retained, good reasons would be shown for doing so. He trusted also that at least the Council would no longer be obliged to remain in Calcutta, but would be permitted, as contemplated by the Act of last Session, to move from time to time, so that the most valuable European lives need not necessarily be exposed to the unhealthiness of that capital during the worst part of the wet season.
§ MR. GREGSONsaid, that having resided for some years in Calcutta, he could speak from personal experience of its climate, which he thought had been represented as worse than it really was. He fully shared the feeling of universal regret excited by the untimely deaths of the last two Governor Generals, which the hon. Gentleman had instanced as proving the deleterious effects of the climate; but he (Mr. Gregson) believed they were only isolated cases. Lord Dalhousie had suffered from a constitutional complaint, and had worked very hard—perhaps too hard—in this country before proceeding to India. Lord Canning, he understood, was perfectly well when he arrived at Marseilles on his way home; but he caught a very severe cold, and having undergone immense anxiety and some exhaustion in India, his system was unable to resist the attack. The deaths of these distinguished persons were therefore rather due to the wear and tear of mind, occasioned by the labours and responsibilities of office, than to the 1192 climate. As to the letter in The Times from "Mountaineer," he knew from private information that its author had never resided at Calcutta, but spoke of it in entire personal ignorance. There was as good water at Calcutta as could be found in all the world. The hon. Member had referred to the evidence of Sir R. Martin, who had lived as a physician for years in Calcutta. He did not know a healthier man than Sir R. Martin himself, who certainly spoke of the comparative healthiness of the capital at different seasons of the year. It was impossible to transfer the whole system of the Indian Government to the Upper Provinces. Allusion had been made to the evidence of Mr. Marshman, who had been so many years in India. He stated, that if the seat of Government were removed for the sake of health, it must be removed to the hills; but if they were to remove all the officers, Government would collapse. Besides, there were diseases in the hills which would render it unadvisable for the Government to reside there all the year round. Lady Canning died of the hill fever, coming from the hills. The Governor General ought not to be in the hills, secluded from all society. As a proof that the climate at the seat of Government in India was not so bad as had been represented, he could name several Governors General who had lived many years after their return to this country. Warren Hastings, Lord Cornwallis, Lord Teignmouth, Lord Wellesley, the Marquis of Hastings, Lord William Bentinck, all lived many years—Lord Teignmouth 38, Lord Wellesley 37 years— after they left India; and there was Lord Ellenborough, who was still living, and he was happy to say looked extremely well, when he saw him in the House of Lords the other evening. The Secretary of State for India had now in his Council five men who had been in India more than thirty years. Sir James Hogg, formerly a Member of that House, had been thirty-three years in Calcutta; Mr. Elliot Macnaghten, Mr. Ross Mangles, Sir Frederick Currie, all twenty-five to thirty years at Calcutta. Then there were Governors of Bengal—Mr. Wilberforce Bird, who was thirty years at Calcutta, and died at seventy-two; Sir Frederick Halliday, thirty years at Calcutta, and who was more like a farmer than a man who had been long in India. The late Governor of Bengal, Sir Frederick Currie, was still in perfect health. Then there were the 1193 Indian judges—Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Lawrence Peel, Sir James Colville, Sir Arthur Buller, who had been all ten years in Calcutta to entitle them to their pensions. The hon. Member then read a letter from a gentleman who must have been ten years in Calcutta, and who gave it as his opinion that Calcutta was on the average just as healthy as any other part of India. He described the Government House at Barrackpore, the grounds extending over 260 acres, and the drives as most attractive and beautiful. He could also from experience speak of the climate of Calcutta as salubrious, and he did not think it was at all desirable that any change should be made in the seat of Government.
§ MR. ADAMsaid, he was glad that this subject had been brought forward, though it was not likely to be attended with any immediate practical result. No one would deny, that if we had just obtained possession of India, Calcutta was the last place that would have been selected for the capital. It was the most distant point of the empire and the most difficult of access; and although the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) had given so glowing an account of its salubrity that any one would be led to believe that it was the healthiest place in the world, and that hon. Members who were suffering from the labours of the Session could not do better than hasten to Calcutta to seek the restoration of their health, he could hardly admit the truth of the picture. Readmitted that the question of the seat of Government must be decided, not on considerations of health alone, but also by reasons of policy; and he thought that the question of distance alone was sufficient to settle the question against Calcutta. In his opinion, no better place could be chosen than Poonah, the climate of which, although like that of all other parts of India, uncomfortably hot during the summer, was during the cold weather and the rains most charming. He did not wish to press the Government for any immediate decision upon this subject, but he hoped that they would take it into their most serious consideration.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that all must regret the risk to which our officials were exposed by service in India in consequence of the unhealthiness of the climate; but this risk was not confined to Calcutta, which was not the most peculiarly unhealthy part of our Indian Empire. Al- 1194 though we had recently lost Lord Canning and Mr. Wilson, we had also been deprived of the services of Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay, Sir Henry Ward, the Governor of Madras, Colonel Baird Smith, who had spent most of his time in the North West Provinces, and Generals Anson and Barnard, who had both lived in the most healthy parts of India. The question of the removal of the capital of a great empire could only be decided upon grave and serious considerations; and, as it appeared to him, the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject had not come to any conclusion in his own mind either as to the policy of removing the capital, or as to the place to which it should be removed. He had himself decided against both the Hills and Bombay; and although he appeared rather to favour Poonah, yet the arguments which he had advanced against Bombay would apply equally to Poonah. Governors General of India would, of course, upon sanitary considerations, be inclined to select for the seat of Government the healthiest spot in the empire, and yet the last four Governors General had all given their opinions against the removal of the capital from Calcutta. Lord Ellenborough and Lord Hardinge were both examined before the Committee of 1853, when Lord Hardinge said—
I should not advise a change of the seat of Government from Calcutta. With the prospect of having railways and electric telegraphs, and also looking to the other great consideration, that the present seat of Government is not liable to be attacked, is close to the sea, ready to receive reinforcements, and far removed from those emergencies and crises which will occur in India, such as occurred on the North Western frontier when I was there, the further the Government is kept from these emergencies the better for the tranquillity of India.Both the succeeding Governors General, Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning, have expressed similar opinions. Under these circumstances he thought that the House would be of opinion that no sufficiently strong reasons had yet been advanced for making a change in the capital of India. The loss of Lord Canning might partly have been occasioned by the circumstances of the time having required that he should remain for a very long time continuously at the seat of Government at Calcutta. Such a necessity did not exist in ordinary periods, and it was hoped and anticipated that in future, in quiet times, the Governor General would be able to visit other parts of the empire, and make himself acquainted both with the country 1195 and with those who were carrying on the Government in various parts of India. On the whole, he hoped that the House would be of opinion that it was not at present desirable to change the capital of our Indian empire.