§ LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence respecting British and Native systems of Government in India. It spoke well for the future prosperity of that country that our representative in India did not shrink from calling upon his officers to inquire into and report upon the popularity of our rule. Self-knowledge was as important in a State as it was in an individual; and we might consider ourselves under an obligation to Sir John Lawrence for giving us an opportunity of seeing ourselves, even if through a somewhat 406 distorted medium, as our subjects in India see us. This was a fitting time to turn our attention to the question. Ten years ago the Government of India was transferred from a corporation, which had enjoyed it for more than 250 years, to the Crown. True, in 1784 a Minister was appointed, with a seat in Parliament and with great authority in Indian matters; but up to 1858, when the transfer took place, practically all that Parliament did was to give advice to the Company. He would not complain of the very decided opinion expressed by the Governor General in the demi-official circular which he issued to his officers in connection with this subject; but he was disposed to regret the interpretation placed on the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranborne) which originated the inquiry. That interpretation, he thought, was calculated to mislead those to whom the circular was addressed. The noble Viscount was represented to have said, he doubted—
Whether the system of British administration in India possessed, in the estimation of the Natives, any superiority over the method of government pursued in the independent States.Now all that the noble Viscount asserted in his speech was, not that Native rule was, in the estimation of the Natives, superior to British rule; but that British rule was not as perfect as it was supposed to be, but, on the contrary, was susceptible of great improvement. It was also to be regretted that the question was placed as it was before the officers whose opinion was invited; and that they should have been called on to express an opinion on the merits of rule in Native States as compared with rule in British States, for this excellent reason that such a thing as a Native State governed on a system peculiar to the Natives did not exist. Take, for example, the cases of Travancore and Putiala, quoted as excellent specimens of Native administration; now what was the history of Travancore? why so disordered was the Government in 1811, that the British resident, at the solicitation of the Native authorities, assumed the management of the State. Colonel, afterwards Sir Thomas, Monro, was sent there as Prime Minister and during his administration, and that of his successor, which extended over sixteen or seventeen years, the foundation of the prosperity of the country was laid. As to Putiala, it was the very child of British rule, and its good government was the fruit of the advice, occasionally of the 407 direct interference, of such men as Sir George Clark and the two Lawrences. The same might be said of many other Native States. If, therefore, we would be just to ourselves, we ought to institute a comparison not between our Government, and that of the Native States as they at present exist, but that of a State like the Punjab before our influence had extended so far. What was the condition of the Punjab under the rule of Runjeet Singh, one of the most able, energetic, and liberal-minded of Native rulers? An acute and critical French traveller, M. Jacquemont, who always expressed himself with great freedom on the subject of British rule, and who must be regarded as a most impartial witness, wrote in these terms—One must have travelled in the Punjab to know what an immense benefit to humanity the English dominion in India is. I cannot witness the frightful evils of such a system without ardently desiring to see the English extending their frontier from the Sutlej to the Indus, and the Russians occupying the other bank.This was a very important testimony, for it came from 8 perfectly independent witness, as to the comparative merits of English and Native rule. In investigating this subject we ought to take into consideration the state of helpless decrepitude into which the Native Governments had fallen before we set foot in the country. That decrepitude was owing to the operation of a despotism the most complete and degrading that had ever been devised—he alluded to the despotic Government which owed its origin to the Brahmins. Every spark of public spirit and national feeling was under its influence extirpated. The surplus wealth of the country was, through the interested avarice of the priests, collected into a few favoured spots; but left so completely unprotected by natural or artificial means as to present to the unscrupulous adventurer a booty, the value of which was in no way diminished by the absence of all risk in its acquisition. The consequence was that the first foreign invader that set foot in the country overturned the Hindoo Government, which fell to pieces like a house of cards. It was a consoling fact that, in almost every instance where we had established our authority in India, we had displaced, not the ancient-Hindoo rulers, but men who were just as much invaders as ourselves. This was an answer to those who cited as a proof of the ill-success of our system the fact that the 408 Natives of Mysore would prefer the rule of their old hereditary chiefs to British rule. They seem to forget that but for the ascendancy of the British, the choice would be not between the Government of an hereditary chief and the Government of the English, but between the Government of a Mahomedan, like Hyder Ali; a Mahratla, like Sevajee, or a Sikh, like Runject Singh. The real difference between Native rule and British rule was this — British rule was progressive, whereas Native rule was retrogressive. British rule had a capacity for improvement; Native rule had not. British rulers were aware of great faults and defects in their Government, and were always devising means by which to rectify those faults; but Native rulers were either unconscious of defects in their system of government or, if conscious of them, took no steps to remove them. Now, the vital question was, what were the real defects of our rule in India? We knew that it possessed great merits. We were aware, for instance, that we had protected the Natives from foreign invasion, and that property was as secure in India as in Europe, if not more so. That peace reigned throughout a country where for centuries anarchy had prevailed. That the Thug or the Dakoit was as rare as a highwayman on Hampstead Heath. That railroads traversed what a few years ago were pathless jungles. That upwards of 50,000,000 of letters were delivered annually in a country where only the other day not so many thousands were conveyed at enormous cost and with great irregularity; and above all, we knew that we had revived in the minds of the Natives a belief in the existence of such a thing as the impartial administration of justice. We were aware, too, that a certain amount of discontent and disaffection must always prevail. That one kind of discontent and disaffection was rather a mark of good government than the contrary; for it was a sign that the people were beginning to awake from their lethargy, and becoming conscious that there was a condition better than that which they had been accustomed to. That another kind of discontent existed in the minds of those who felt that we had supplanted them, who regarded every law we passed, every school we opened, and everything we did calculated to promote the happiness of the people, as an additional offence committed by us. Just as in the olden time a priest had said of printing, "We must 409 root out this printing or it will root us out," so there were Brahmin or Mahomedan priests, who said in their hearts, We must root out these English, or they will root us out. Yet, making due allowance for such feelings and such considerations, if he were asked whether we were losing ground in the affections and confidence of the people of India, he was afraid that he should be obliged to reply in the affirmative. Mr. Roberts, one of the most experienced men in India, remarked that the gulf was widening every day between the governors and the governed, which, of course, meant a want of sympathy between the two classes. This opinion was confirmed by Sir Robert Montgomery and Sir Richard Wingfield, who, above all men, had done their very utmost to bridge over this gulf. The question—"What is the defect of our government in the East?" was not a difficult one to answer. It appeared to him that we had shown a tendency to impose on the subject-race laws and institutions which were not suitable to them; that we had forgotten the fact that India was not a one nation, but many nations, numbering 150,000,000 of people, some of whom were scarcely removed from mere animals, while others were, in point of intellectual capacity, at least, capable of bearing a comparison with the foremost youth of this country. This tendency tainted the whole of our administration in India, and led to hasty and ill-considered legislation. It affected our financial system, our sanitary measures, and even those which were intended to develope the resources of India, and to improve the moral and material condition of its people. Down to 1858 there were certain checks upon the Indian Government in this respect. During that period we were extending our rule, and we considered it desirable to conciliate the people and avoid giving them offence; and if we did introduce new laws we gave the people time to get accustomed to them. Their feelings were not then wounded, as they were now, by the rapid introduction of new laws. In Lord Wellesley's correspondence there would be found scarcely a single Minute relating to the internal administration of the British possesssions; and Lord Hardinge is alleged to have made it a stipulation that he should have nothing to do with civil questions. Such was not the case at present, and the whole time of the officers of the Indian Government appeared to be devoted 410 to the manufacture of laws for the Natives. For this purpose there was a machine going at the head-quarters of every Presidency, and one great machine at Calcutta, all of which turned out laws with mischievous rapidity. A paper in the Library of that House, entitled, Reports of the Course of Legislation during the official year of 1866–7, contained a list of thirty-three Bills to be introduced. He would not trouble the House by stating the objects of all of them, but he might mention, by way of example, that one of the measures affected the law of inheritance throughout the whole of India, a second consolidated and amended the law relating to the stamp duties, or, in other words, increased very largely the cost of justice. A third was to provide for the uniformity of weights and measures throughout India. Bills of this character, touching the prejudices and affecting the usages of the people of England, would give rise to no apprehension, because everybody in this country knew that no Bill of the kind could possibly pass into law unless a very large majority of the people approved of it, and not until ample opportunity had been afforded of understanding its scope and discussing its merits. But nothing of that sort was the case in India, where, on the contrary, out of the 150,000,000 people under the sway of the Indian Government not more than 1,000,000—and that was making a very liberal allowance—had the romotest idea of what was going to be proposed for them in the way of legislation. Again, as an instance of the undue severity of the criminal law in India, he would refer to the Cotton Frauds Act, which was, in fact, an Act for the benefit of the rich merchants of this country. Well, no doubt, it was right to check the adulteration of raw cotton; but was it not a little unfair to the ignorant ryot to throw him into gaol, because he was guilty of "mixing one quality of cotton with another quality of the same variety," while the wealthy merchants of this country might, with impunity, send out to India shipload after shipload of cotton goods literally rotting from the deleterious substances applied to them, and utterly unfit for any purpose other than to proclaim throughout the length and breadth of the land—from the bazaars of Calcutta to the bazaars of Bokhara—that the honour of the British merchant belonged to the things of the past? He should like to say one word with respect to the criminal and civil procedure 411 in the British possessions in India. These possessions were divided into regulation provinces and non-regulation provinces, the latter being about one-third of the whole. The difference between the two classes of provinces might be illustrated by saying that in the non-regulation provinces they could, but in the regulation provinces they could not, "temper the wind to the shorn lamb." That was to say, that, in the former, the executive had power to adapt the laws to the peculiarities and characteristics of the people, whereas, in the latter, they had no such power. It was notorious that our rule in the regulation, as compared with our rule in the non-regulation provinces, was considered oppressive. In the old provinces, however, the people had grown up under the system and had become accustomed to it; but the mistake had been made of extending the regulation principle to the non-regulation provinces, where the people were less tractable and less likely to accommodate themselves to new and unsuitable laws. Sir Robert Montgomery expressed the dread with which he viewed the approach of what he termed the regulation wave. One of the most marked effects of that system was that the public officers were confined to their offices from morning to night, and had no time whatever to make themselves acquainted with the feelings and habits of the Natives. He would ask how England would like to be governed by rulers who knew nothing about her customs and sentiments but what they learnt from sitting in the Old Bailey, or in the Court of Queen's Bench? It might be said, and very truly, that a great deal had been done in developing the resources of India by the formation of railways and canals, and by the cultivation of tea and coffee; but there were circumstances attending that development calculated to make the Government unpopular. Among those circumstances was the enormous increase in the price of the necessaries of life. This increase of price extended all over India. The Madras Report for 1865–6 stated that the chief articles of food had steadily advanced in price, and were 50 per cent higher than they were five years ago. In a statement sent from Nagpore it was mentioned that during the last six years prices had risen cent per cent in all districts, in many 500 per cent, and in one 700 per cent. It was also reported from the Punjab that a considerable rise had taken place in the price of wheat. This advance in prices had, 412 according to the Madras Report, an unfavourable effect on the health of the people, especially of the lower orders. Sir Richard Temple reported that the extent to which women embraced hard out-door labour was a proof of the struggle that was necessary to earn a subsistence. Mr. Roberts, in his paper, which was included among those which had been produced, said he had long been under the impression that the mortality among the Natives was excessive, and this confirmed the notion that prevailed so much among the Natives that sickness had increased under our rule. It was quite true that wages had risen considerably in some parts, but not as generally as was supposed. The pay of the Sepoys had not risen at all, and when it was remembered that whereas only a few years ago the pay of the Sepoy was considerably in excess of the wages of an ordinary labourer, and that now it is considerably below that mark, little surprise would be excited by the announcement that the Native army is in anything but a satisfactory or contented state. The stimulus given to trade had also had the effect of draining the country for several years past of its supplies of grain. It had been exported to the Mauritius and other places, and very frequently none could be procured when it was required. Another article which had enormously increased in price, and was almost as necessary as food, was fuel. In India, where there was scarcely any coal or iron, there was an enormous and rapidly increasing consumption of timber and fuel consequent on the construction of railroads, canals, and works of that description; the hills were being denuded of forests, and an engineer officer had given it as his opinion that if some check were not imposed, upon the wholesale clearings in the Coorg mountains, Tanjore, which was regarded as the very garden of the East, would be rendered a perfect desert. He might be told that a great deal had been done to secure proper forest conservancy, that experienced officers had been appointed to look after this matter; but he spoke advisedly when he said that, practically, nothing had been done to repair the mischief which the cutting down of forests and jungles was producing throughout India. The practical inference was, not to discourage the prosecution of public works, but that, as soon as the main lines of railway were completed, Government should turn its attention to what was most important if not more 413 important—namely, the improvement of the ordinary communications of the country, and to works winch might be carried on without the evil effects referred to. For example, instead of spending millions in the construction of costly canals, the benefits of which must necessarily be local, it would be a wiser policy if advances of money were made for the construction of smaller works, such as wells, dams, and tanks, which might be constructed by the Natives themselves, which required no large and expensive engineering staff, and no contractors bent on making large profits. The expenditure involved in these works, instead of being confined to particular spots, would have the great merit of being spread evenly throughout the country. To turn to another subject, one might suppose that if there were any means by which we could ingratiate ourselves among the Natives it would be by our superior knowledge of medicine. We had acted in regard to this very much as with regard to other matters, as if the constitution of the Native was exactly like our own, and the consequence was that there was not, beyond the Presidency towns, a single hospital or dispensary that had the confidence of the people of India except, perhaps, the HomŒopathic Hospital in Benares. Again, what had we done with reference to smallpox? We knew how to protect the Natives of India from its ravages; and yet we not only neglected to provide the requisite measures, but we prohibited by law what was better than nothing—namely, the practice of inoculation. The Bengal Sanitary Commission reported that before the adoption by the Bengal Government of the Prohibitory Act, 85 per cent of the population had been protected by inoculation, so that the effect of this Act was that if a Native inoculated his child he ran the risk of being put into prison, and if he did not do so the child ran the risk of being carried off by the smallpox. Then, again, look at the sanitary regulations recently promulgated; we discovered, not long ago, that we had been killing our English soldiers at the rate of 70 per 1,000, through the neglect of the most obvious rules of health, and so we suddenly turned round and inflicted on the people of India a collection of regulations, which, if enforced in England, would provoke a riot in every town, and have not led to a similar result in India, only because the people are patient and longsuffering. He would give a single instance. One of the regulations was this— 414If there be any trees on the village site or within 100 yards round it, cut off every year those branches within 20 feet of the ground, and lop and prune away branches within 12 yards of the ground.Now, there was scarcely a village in India in which were not to be found trees of a peculiar character, such as the ficus religiosa, the ficus Indica, trees which afforded a grateful shade, and which were regarded by all classes as objects of religious veneration; and yet the branches of these trees—which the Natives themselves would rather die than touch—were to be ruthlessly cut away upon the absurd plea that they affected injuriously the health of the inhabitants. He further wished to say a few words respecting our financial system in India, and more especially with regard to the system of taxation which had been introduced within the last few years; and in doing so he would pass over the glaring injustice of imposing the same taxes upon the province of Bombay, the land revenue of which was settled the other day, as upon the province of Bengal where the revenues had been settled many years before, and was consequently very much more light. He referred to such taxes as the Income and Licence Tax. If those taxes produced a very considerable amount of revenue to the Exchequer, there might be some excuse for levying them; but the fact was that for the last eight or ten years they had not realized more than £1,000,000 per annum from a country nearly as large as Europe. Then there was the Salt Tax. Now salt was, of course, as great a necessary in India as in any other country, and yet in the north of India we levied a duty upon that article which amounted to 2,000 per cent on its cost. This was a very important consideration at the present moment, when we were bullying—for he could use no other word—the Rajah of Cashmere, and were, in the opinion of some persons, taking the first steps towards annexing his country, because he happened to be levying a rather large transit duty upon an article which we coveted—namely, the wool grown in Thibet. This enormous tax upon salt was the most unjust imposition which any ruler, whether Native or foreign, had ever laid upon the poor of India, since it almost deprived them of the use of a necessary of life. It was impossible to doubt that the defects in our system of Government, to which he had thus briefly alluded, were very much increased by the fact that we neglected to take counsel with the Natives, and by the 415 disinclination we showed to employ them in the administration of the country. The Native sentiment on this head was set forth so distinctly and so admirably in a petition which was presented a year or two back by the landholders of the Alygurh district to the Government of the North-West Provinces, with respect to the disposal of the education fund, that he trusted the House would allow him to read a few extracts from it. In the petition, which must be regarded as expressing the opinion of every Native Indian, the petitioners said—That while your petitioners pay for the expenses of education, it is obviously a hardship that they should not be allowed to take any part in the management of the system, or exercise any control over the disbursement of the funds. It is very mortifying to them to find that they are not consulted on any points connected therewith, and that, notwithstanding their having to provide funds, they know nothing as to the manner and purposes in which those funds are expended.They go on to propose that a committee, consisting of landowners and presided over; by district officers, be appointed. They urge that the following important advantages will result from these propositions:—That the admission of Natives to the executive management will make them conversant with the details of the education system, will show them the real motives the Government have in view in educating the people, and, having this knowledge, they will reject all those unfounded prejudices and suspicions, the existence of which is not unknown to the Government; that the higher classes will become warmly interested in the pursuit of knowledge, and will heartily co-operate in diffusing its benefits far and wide; that the Natives will become better acquainted with the liberal views and intentions of Government, and that eventually our schools and colleges will be filled with a much greater number of children of respectable families than are found in them at present—a result most important and beneficial to the Government and to the public.That petition expressed the feelings of the Natives throughout the land, not only with regard to money devoted to educational purposes, but with regard to many other subjects. He would give one or two examples of what could be done by working through the Natives. When the cholera made its appearance in the town of Lahore some few years ago, it was considered desirable to whitewash the houses, and more especially those of the poorer classes, and accordingly an order was issued to that effect, and an officer was deputed to see how far that order was carried out. The order was not carried out at all. Here and there a little whitewash was sprinkled on the walls, but speaking generally it was disregarded. 416 About the same time it was considered very desirable that the ramparts of the town and the waste lands in its vicinity should be turned into gardens for the use of the people; but the project failed, in consequence of the impossibility of raising the requisite funds. In the course of time, however, Natives of distinction were appointed honorary magistrates, with certain specified powers, which enabled them to assume an honourable and influential position. And what was the result of those appointments? He had the authority of a distinguished Indian officer for saying that the next time the cholera approached them and the order to whitewash the houses was issued, it was carried into effect within twenty-four hours; and again, when it was proposed to establish gardens in the neighbourhood of the town the sum of £10,000 was subscribed for the purpose in a very short time. Seeing what good results had flowed from the appointment of Native magistrates in the cases to which he had referred, it seemed indispensable that we should establish some machinery by means of which we might ascertain and carry with us the public opinion of the Natives of India. Some scheme of the kind, suggested in a paper by Sir Robert Montgomery, combined with a system of rewards so strongly recommended by Sir Donald Macleod, would be of the greatest advantage to our Indian Government. In conclusion, then, he would say that it appeared to him that the great defect in our administration was that we endeavoured to impose our rules and institutions upon a people not fitted to receive them. We should check, therefore, our legislative machinery, and devote more attention to the Executive. It appeared to him to be of comparatively little importance whether or not a Bill for the regulation of inheritances in India were introduced for the next fifty years, so long as justice was to be obtained cheaply and promptly. Whether the introduction of a uniform system of weights and measures was deferred until, at least, we had ourselves adopted such a system, so long as our officers had leisure to enforce the honest use of those already in existence. The Native mind, it had been truly said, centred in men and not in systems; we should therefore think more about training our officials than about manufacturing a perfect system of Government. He had endeavoured to show what could be done with the Natives if we 417 treated them properly. Because Russia on the north and France on the south were advancing to our frontiers, it was not wise that we should think of nothing but defending those frontiers, and of maintaining what was called our military prestige. He believed that at no time had there been a less inclination on the part of foreign Powers to interfere with our rule in India that at the present moment. There was a period when we looked with feelings of fear and jealousy upon the movements of those Powers. Such feelings, however, he was glad to say, were passing away, and giving place to something akin to generous rivalry. He might be considered credulous, but he cared not—not because he was in-different to the danger arising from a foreign foe; not because he was unmindful that we should dwell with our friends as if one day they might become our enemies, but because he had a firm belief in the great truth—a truth too apt to be forgotten because it had become a truism—that, whether in Europe or in Asia, in Ireland or in India, the only security and safety for our rule was to be found in the happiness and contentment of the people; and that it would avail us nothing in the time of our need, that we had spent thousands upon thousands on the fortifications of Peshawur, or millions upon an Abyssinian Expedition, if in the hour of their supreme distress we allowed our Native subjects to perish wholesale—by the slow process of starvation — within sight of the walls of Calcutta. It appeared to him that the time when we could hold India in subjection by what Lord Erskine called the knavery and strength of civilization, had long passed away. It was quite impossible—and this might be said to our credit—because we had educated and were still educating the people of India, because we were setting our own example before their eyes, and were teaching them the history of our own institutions — it was quite impossible for us to hope to rule them in any other way but in the true spirit of our own institutions. He believed sincerely that we were making the great mistake of endeavouring to rule them in the letter, and not in the spirit of our own institutions; and it was because he entertained this opinion that he had ventured thus to trespass on the time of the House.
§ MR. SMOLLETTsaid, it was not his intention to follow the noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) in his very discursive speech. His object 418 rather was to call the attention of the House to the very extraordinary manner in which the Correspondence originated which that noble Lord had made the text of his address to them. On the 24th of May, 1867, a debate was brought on in that House upon the succession to the Mysore Raj, and on that occasion the noble Viscount the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) supported the policy which Her Majesty's Ministers had adopted on that subject, and he incidentally mentioned in his speech—quoting the authority of Sir George Clark on the point—that on many occasions in India great multitudes of people were transferred from Native to European rule without their feelings being in any way consulted; and he added that that transfer was sometimes made in a manner flattering neither to their temper nor their taste. In making observations of that nature and in arguing from them the noble Viscount was only stating a perfect truism. The facts thus referred to were undeniable, and Sir John Lawrence must have known those facts. The noble Viscount did not say that, through its vices and defects, our rule brought famine and misery in its train, but that, although the British Government was unpalatable in many cases to the people of India, nevertheless, every opportunity was taken for extending that rule and bringing fresh nations under our authority. When generous sentiments of that nature towards the people of India were enunciated by ordinary persons, with the name, perhaps, of Brown, Jones, or Robinson, nobody thought anything of them, and they passed unnoticed; but when they emanated from a noble Viscount who held a high position in the Ministry of the Earl of Derby they produced a great sensation. When the noble Viscount's speech reached India, the Viceroy seemed almost to have been frightened out of his propriety, and to have thought that the noble Viscount had been teaching nothing less than treason. Accordingly, his Excellency could not help taking the very earliest opportunity of producing an antidote to that seditious speech, and be adopted a very peculiar mode of meeting the noble Viscount's statements. In his own language, Sir John Lawrence said that as there appeared so much to be said on the opposite side of the question he had caused a confidential circular to be issued by his Under-Secretary in the Foreign Department, calling upon various officers of mark throughout our Indian Empire to submit 419 to him an expression of their respective opinions on that matter. Now he thought it was a very silly thing for a Viceroy of India to treat the speech of the noble Viscount in that fashion; but his Excellency took a very peculiar way of his own in bringing that subject before the subordinate officers of his political department. He availed himself of the opportunity, in sending that semi-official circular, to state to those subordinate officers his own opinions, and he stated them very tersely indeed. His Excellency said that he was of opinion that the masses of the people in India were incontestably more prosperous under our rule, "sua si bona norint"—which, when translated, meant, "if they were not great jackasses," and were also more happy than they could be under Native rulers. But his Excellency did not stop there. He told his subordinates that that was a good opportunity for proving the truth of his opinion by the collection of statistics from all parts of India. Now, when a man occupying the high position of the Viceroy thus indicated to his subordinates the nature of his own opinions and the nature of the opinions which he expected them to submit to him, it was not wonderful that in the Correspondence which was sent in he should get a great amount of information entirely confirmatory of his own views. The only wonder was that he should have found one or two gentlemen in India who stated views that were opposed to his own, and that in the case of Mysore—the country to which that Correspondence related—he received from a very high official in that State an answer wholly at variance with his own views, and one which must have filled his Excellency with something like dismay. He would ask why or for what purpose the Viceroy thus fumed and fretted when he read the speech of the noble Viscount? His ostensible object seemed to have been to endeavour to confute its statements. That was alleged to have been his primary object, but the real object was something a little different. He (Mr. Smollett) thought the Viceroy wanted to have in that compilation of papers, a concentration of opinion on which he might on some future occasion found an appeal to the English people: he wished to have a lever by which he might be enabled to say to them, "If you desire to govern the people of India on the true Benthamite principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the only way in which you can do this is by 420 seizing all the Native States and annexing them to your territory, and by subduing those that are really independent." The plain inference to be drawn from the statements of Sir John Lawrence and his satellites was, that the decision come to last year by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India connected with Mysore was a very fallacious judgment. Sir John Lawrence was a man who had always been famed for his friendliness to the policy of annexation. His Excellency seemed to have been foiled by the curious answer sent in by Lieutenant Colonel T. Clark from Mysore. Let them look at the way in which that Correspondence had been printed and circulated in India and had been received in that country. Let them also look at the way in which it was treated now by the advocates of annexation. He would not quote any extracts from the Indian newspapers; but would refer to what was published in the City of London on Monday last. On the 23rd of March, a letter appeared in the The Times, dated Calcutta, February 24th, from the Calcutta correspondent of the leading journal, and in that letter reference was largely made to that official Correspondence. The writer said it had attracted great attention in India, and considerable attention also in Mysore; that the people of Mysore were all agog about that Correspondence; that the coffee-planters of that district — and there were a great number of them—had taken alarm. Those coffee-planters were said to have been representing that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India, by his recognition of a native young man as the successor in the Raj of Mysore, had committed a gross breach of faith. They said that their titles to their possessions in that country were now questioned. They stated that their possessions were not saleable—or, at least, not saleable at their true value—in consequence of our continuing the native Government of Mysore. And the writer said that the officials in Mysore sympathized with the poor plundered planters. That they might well do, for their situations were not permanent, and therefore they grumbled. It was by no means improbable that they might at some distant period claim compensation for loss of property. But the writer closed with the significant notification that these things were sure to be the source of no little future trouble to the authorities at Calcutta and in this country. The meaning of that was simply this—that 421 these troubles would be made a lever at some peculiar period with a view to endeavouring to have the decision of the right hon. Baronet reversed—a decision approved at the time by every hon. Member, he believed, except, perhaps, the hon. Member for the Wick boroughs (Mr. Laing). That was, in his opinion, the real reason why that Correspondence was compiled; and he believed that it was not drawn up with a view to refuting the opinions of the noble Viscount the Member for Stamford. Now, in the course of the debate last year, he had told the right hon. Baronet that he entirely approved his policy; but that, if he intended to carry it out, he must be firm, and he did not think that firmness was one of the chief characteristics of the right hon. Baronet. On that occasion he also said that, in his opinion, the great majority of the people of Mysore approved his policy. He thought now that if the right hon. Baronet would stand firm, he need not fear any trouble hereafter on the subject. The story of the planters, which had been dwelt upon so much as the cause of future trouble, was mere rubbish. He knew many of them in this country, and was in the habit of associating with them; and, as far as his knowledge extended, every one of them was friendly to a Native dynasty in Mysore. Last year he had ventured to state that if a plebiscite were taken in Mysore, ninety-nine out of every 100 of the Native inhabitants would vote for the continuance of the Native dynasty; and, if there was any doubt about it then, there could be no doubt about it now. Lieutenant Colonel Clark, whom he had known for many years, and whose opinion was entitled to great consideration, said—
I am bound to say that the people generally believe, however erroneous that belief in my opinion may be, that they would be much happier under a Native ruler than they are under the present régime. This feeling has been increasing in intensity of late years.Colonel Clark added that the principal reason for this feeling was, that we had been introducing the forms of our Courts of Law into that country, and that they were unpopular. Colonel Clark admitted the commercial advantages which had rerulted to Mysore — that the country was prosperous—and he said—But the people still regard us as exacting and unsympathizing masters.He added, moreover,—The great mass of the people sigh for the return of their old forms and institutions, which, 422 with some slight modifications, are admirably adapted to their requirements.With that opinion of Colonel Clark, he thought the right hon. Baronet should adhere to his determination, and listen to no efforts which might be made by annexationists with a view to induce him to alter his policy. He might rely upon it that in remaining firm he would receive the support of the House and the country; and the best thing he could possibly do was to consign the Correspondence collected and sent by Sir John Lawrence to the waste paper basket.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the censure passed on the Governor General of India was undeserved. He (Mr. Fawcett) believed he had collected those papers from the best motives, and a more able collection of State papers had never been gathered together. Although a political opponent, he was grateful to the late Secretary of State for India for his admirable speech which had brought this Correspondence into existence. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought it could not be denied that these officials had, at all events, not hesitated to say boldly in what respects our administration in India could be improved. He knew not which to admire most — their wonderful ability or their extraordinary candour; and they urged with most consummate skill the views of the noble Viscount, and pointed out that the Governor General had somewhat misunderstood him. There could be no doubt that our rule had made India materially more prosperous; but it did not follow that the people were more happy. One need not necessarily follow the other. Our rule in India had greatly increased the prosperity of India in three distinct ways—first, it had undoubtedly given greater security to property; secondly, we had improved the means of locomotion; and, thirdly, which was the most important, we had made the cultivators of the soil more prosperous and contented; and we might say that giving security of tenure and proprietary rights in the soil had increased the loyalty of the people of India. It was said by our officials that the reason why the people of India were not happy was because our administration in that country was often unsympathizing and uncompromising; in fact, that our fault seemed to be much more of the head than the heart, and that India was suffering from an excess of centralization. The fact was too frequently ignored that the rules of political economy were not, like the laws of 423 motion, capable of universal application. In fact that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) were carried out to an unfortunate extent in India. What was considered economical and good for England was considered equally so for India. The great point insisted on by the officials in this Correspondence was, that we should never make the people of India—however prosperous they might become—so contented with our rule as they might be, until the Natives of rank and ability were more fully admitted to social honours and municipal offices than they were at present. By so doing we should diminish the rigidity of our centralization system, and make our laws, as it were, the bond of feeling and custom between us and the different nations which lived under our rule in India. Sir Robert Montgomery, alluding to the spread of education in India, implied that we incurred a great responsibility; because if we educated the people, and developed their intellect, and gave them a desire to take part in the administration of the country, our injustice to them was heightened if we stamped out that desire thus created. In one of the despatches it was said we erred not so much from bad intention as from want of sympathy; but he ventured to say, that as the people of India became educated, and were fully admitted to share in the government of the country, our sympathy with them would increase—for sympathy was produced by respect. In speaking of our shortcomings towards India, we must not dwell so much on this or that bad law, or point to the fact that some Native Princes had been perhaps too hastily and unduly annexed to our Government; but we had much to answer for in speaking opprobriously of the people of India as set of niggers. To make them contented with our government, we must not only give them good laws and an equitable system of taxation, but we must respect them as they deserved to be respected. We ought not to consider them as a barbarous race; but consider that when England was in a state of barbarism, India had a civilization of her own, and that she possessed a remarkable language that had produced an illustrious literature. The test of the efficiency and excellence of our rule in India was, whether we had done our duty in preparing the people of India ultimately to govern themselves, so that when we left that country we might say that we had discharged our duty by giving them 424 so much of our civilization that in future they might become a greater and a happier nation than they were before they felt the effects of our dominion.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI should not wish to prolong this debate by a single word if I had not a personal reason. But as the Viceroy of India has been good enough to spread throughout the length and breadth of India that I took occasion to doubt whether the system of British administration possessed, in the estimation of the Natives, any superiority over the method of government pursued in the independent States, I hope that I may be allowed to say in this place that I never said anything of the kind. I have no doubt the Viceroy drew his impression from an imperfect Report; but what I said was of a much more modest character. What I said was—
I am not denying that our mission in India is to reduce to order, to civilize and develop, the Native Governments we find there. But I demur to that wholesale condemnation of a system of government which would be utterly intolerable on our own soil, but which has grown up among the people subjected to it. It has a fitness and congeniality for them impossible for us adequately to realize: but which compensates them to an enormous degree for the material evils which its rudeness, in a great many cases, produces.I once heard it stated on eminent authority that nothing was more disagreeable than repeating one's own words except eating them, and I should not have done so but for the unfortunate prominence given to another version of these remarks. I venture to express my agreement with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Smollett), and to doubt whether it is desirable that the speeches of Members of Parliament should be made the subject of comment in official papers. I think it would be better if official papers contained remarks only upon matters which had previously appeared in official documents. With reference to this debate I must say that I am much pleased if I have been the humble instrument of bringing out these papers, and also of bringing before the House the remarkable and able speech of the noble Lord the Member for Taunton, which will be a valuable addition to the literature we possess in these papers. The sum and substance I take to be this:—You must have a despotism in India; you are naturally frightened at this despotism, because it is uncongenial to your feelings and repellant to your traditions, and therefore you surround that despotism with every imaginable check. It 425 has now come to this—that there is no despotic power in India in anyone beneath the Governor General, and his despotism must be exercised entirely through the law. The consequence is that every agent of this despotism of yours is worried, hampered, and fettered by eternal regulations. You have all the disadvantages of a system in which the people take comparatively small, if any, part in their own Government, and you have not the undoubted advantage of the elasticity and vigour which are given by a patriarchal system of Government. I believe that these evils are only in their germ at the present time; but we see their tendency, and we see their result as stated by the noble Lord—that these regulations produce such an amount of employment in the way of writing and drawing up Returns, that the time of the officials of India is taken up to such an extent that they cannot mix with those who are under their charge, and ascertain the real state of public opinion among those whom they govern. That evil is, I fear, growing rapidly—the evil of over-regulation. If you wish to apply a remedy it will be done by getting rid of some of the departmental distrust which is an essential part of our Government at home. In India the departmental distrust is out of place. It would be better to rim the risk of a few mistakes—of an occasional great blunder—to trust men more on the spot where they are conducting their Government, and to feel certain in the long run that the elasticity, the freshness, and vigour which belong to your Government, will more than repay you for any occasional losses which may occur in particular instances. That appears to me to be the sum and substance of this controversy. I will only say further that I trust that the critical Members of this House will not think that these Indian debates, thinly attended as they are sometimes, are waste of time. I believe the best service which any of us who take an interest in India can render is to stimulate in every way the somewhat languid attention of the people of this country to the affairs of India; and that we shall never thoroughly fulfil the tremendous responsibility we have assumed towards that country until there is more familiarity in the minds of the people of this country with the distant and somewhat unintelligible affairs of that great Empire.