§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, the first Motion I have to sub- 238 mit to your Lordships is, that there be laid upon the table of this House the Arms Act which has been recently passed by the Legislative Council of India. I believe the circumstances under which that Act was passed are these:—There had been a most unusual importation of arms into Calcutta, and it appeared that the purchases of those arms had been to a great extent made by Natives. This naturally very much alarmed the Europeans, inasmuch as they had before them the ill use which had been made of their arms by Natives in all parts of the country, as there was reason to suppose that there existed a combination to massacre all the Europeans in Calcutta, and as moreover there were present in that place 1,000 or 1,500 persons, natives of Oude, who were servants of the King of Oude. Under these circumstances it was very naturally suggested to the Government that it would be desirable to disarm the Natives in Calcutta for the security of the Europeans, who are few in number, and had but a small military force for their protection. The Government declined, but said they would introduce an Arms Act, and that is the Act which I wish to see and to have placed before you. That Act, as I understand, adhering to a principle very recently attempted to be introduced into the legislation of India, places the Europeans and the Natives—the persons who abuse arms for the purpose of destroying us, and the Europeans who wish to have arms for their protection—on exactly the same footing; and it went to this extent, that Europeans were not to be possessed of arms unless by the consent of a magistrate. Now, in the Mofussil, that is, in the provinces, the magistrates being to a great extent Natives, the Europeans are compelled by the Act to go to persons of this description, many of whom are suspected of being traitors, and many of whom have really proved themselves to be traitors, for permission to retain the arms necessary for their protection. Now, my Lords, my apprehension is (my noble and learned Friend at the table will correct me if I am wrong) that, according to the Bill of Rights, every Englishman is permitted to have arms for his own defence. [A noble LORD: Being Protestants.] Being Protestants—and why? Because at that time the Roman Catholics were suspected of traitorous designs, and there was reason why they should not have arms and why Protestants should for their own safety possess 239 them. Now, is there not the same reason for confiding to Europeans in India a similar privilege, and for excluding, under present circumstances, the Native population? Yet at this moment the Government of India consider it expedient, in accordance with what they call a principle, to place both these classes of persons on exactly the same footing, and to subject Europeans to the disadvantage of not being allowed to possess arms unless by the consent of a Native magistrate, if they should happen to live in the interior of the country. My Lords, that resolution of the Legislative Council appears to me to rest upon a total misapprehension not only of our position at the present moment, but of the position which for years the Europeans necessarily must hold with respect to the Natives of India. Our position in India is like that of the Normans in Saxon England. We must be armed, or it is impossible for us to protect ourselves. Instead of having a measure subjecting both English and Natives to a law of this description, the permanent law of India ought to be, that every Englishman should be possessed of arms under a penalty for neglect of the ordinance; and, if a resident in India, he should even be compelled to enrol himself in some corps for occasional discipline and drill. It is impossible for us to preserve in security the lives and property of Europeans in India unless we, for a time at least, assume the appearance of an armed militia. My Lords, it is not surprising that this fatuity on the part of the Government, acting upon a principle which never can be adopted in India (least of all at the present time), and subjecting our countrymen who are now fighting for their lives to this indignity, should have produced throughout the whole European population a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction and disgust. Of course there can be no objection to the production of this Act. But then there is another Act, of which we have a copy, because it was laid upon the table of the House at a very late period of the last Session—I believe after I had discontinued my attendance here—I mean the Act relating to the Indian press. We had laid before us at the same time the speech of the Governor-General in proposing that Act, and also some Minutes of the Legislative Council in order to explain the circumstances under which it was passed. Before I say a word regarding this Act for the suppression (for practically it is a suppression) of the English press in India, I wish 240 your Lordships distinctly to understand the difference which exists between the press in India and the press at home. In. this country the press is emphatically the press of the people of England. It advocates their interests: it is supported by them. Different opinions may be expressed by the editors of different newspapers; but they all endeavour to impress upon their readers that their object is the general interest of the people, and if they did not it would be impossible for them to exist. A newspaper must pay, and it cannot pay unless it relies for support upon the masses by whom it is to be purchased and read. But the press of India is in a totally different position. In the first place there are two kinds of journals—Native and English. The English press is not the press of the people of India. It is the press of the stranger, the press of the Government, the press of the governing class. It advocates their interests. I do not say that it may not occasionally also advocate the general interest of the country; but that is not the particular object of the English press; it is to represent the interests of those by whom it is especially supported—the governing class—and these interests the English journals may have to support in direct contradiction to the general interests of the people of India. The Native press, on the other hand—erroneously as we think, traitorously as it has lately seemed—takes up what it conceives to be the cause of the population generally, and is opposed to the personal interest of the governing classes. Being published in the English language, the English press is perfectly innocuous as regards the people of India until the articles it contains are translated; meanwhile it has no more influence on the people of India than the English journals would have upon the people of this country if they were published in Greek or Latin. On the other hand, the Native press has no influence whatever upon us, for by us it is not read. However, there can be no doubt that, although upon the people of India the English press can have no effect whatever until its articles are translated and have received a general circulation through the Native press, the Native princes (and I think probably all the more considerable persons in India) obtain for themselves, as I have been informed, not through the European press of India, but directly, translations of all the articles relating to the interests of 241 India which appear in the English newspapers. That source of information may and must remain open under all circumstances, whether it produces benefit or mischief. Now, there can be no doubt that the state of things in India was so serious—there had been mutinies—more mutinies were expected—these mutinies had assumed the character of revolution—there was so much appearance of danger—that I do think the Government was perfectly justified in considering whether it would not be necessary to restrain the indiscretion of the press in publishing that which might be injurious to the public service. My Lords, I know there are several points on which that indiscretion—I will use no harsher term—has assumed much prominence; I think, therefore, nothing could be more proper than that the Government, entering into confidential communications with the editors of all those newspapers published at Calcutta, should have distinctly stated their views as to the danger of discussion upon particular topics, and should have ascertained whether the editors were willing to come into some arrangement respecting the publication of newspapers leading to the prevention of that danger, distinctly intimating that if those gentlemen were not disposed to acquiesce in the suggestion made to them, the Government would take its own course by way of legislation on the subject. No such communication took place. The Governor-General went down on the 13th of June to the Legislative Council; he made a speech; he proposed a Bill, and in the course of the same day that Bill became law—but by the strangest inconsistency its operation did not commence till after the lapse of fourteen days; so that all the dangers which were depicted as arising from the disaffection of the Native press and the indiscretion of the European press were allowed to increase and to produce the mischief which might be effected during fourteen days of exasperation, those days covering the 23rd of June, the anniversary of Plassy, which was considered the most dangerous day for that country on account of the excitement of the Native mind. Now, let me inform your Lordships what the provisions of that Act are. First of all, no printing press was to be kept without a licence from the Government, under a penalty of £500, or two years' imprisonment, or both; two years' imprisonment being death to an European in India—death! worse than death, because including every suffering 242 that can be inflicted upon the body. Secondly, the Act conferred the power of searching for and seizing unlicensed presses. Then applications for licences were to be granted under such conditions, if any, as the Governor-General in Council, or the Governor-General, might think fit to prescribe, and such licences might be revoked at pleasure. The conditions might be exactly whatever the Governor-General chose. The Governor-General might, if he thought fit, under this Act, require that there should be a previous censorship; and very much better would it have been if he had determined upon taking that course, because a previous censorship, conducted with intelligence, would have altogether prevented the mischief apprehended from the indiscretion of the newspapers. The course which has been adopted allows the mischief, and only attempts to prevent it by punishment subsequently to the issue of publications which may have been injurious; but I think, in the state of real danger which existed, that the censorship would have been infinitely preferable to the course which has been followed. The Act provides that, if the editor of a newspaper agrees to certain conditions, the penalty for violating such conditions shall be a fine of £500 and two years' imprisonment. It further provides that books, &c, printed at a licensed press shall have the printer's and publisher's names, and that copies shall be sent to the magistrates. Besides this, the Governor-General may prohibit the circulation of any book, newspaper, or printed paper, wherever printed; and whoever knowingly imports, publishes, or circulates, or causes to be published or circulated, any such newspaper or printed paper, is liable to the penalty of £500 and two years' imprisonment. Now, these being the provisions of the Act, it is necessary to see what were the conditions required from the editors. Those conditions were:—" 'That no book, pamphlet, newspaper, or other work' shall contain any observations' impugning the motives or designs of the British Government, either in England or India, or in any way tending to bring' it 'into contempt,' 'weaken its authority,' or that of 'its servants, civil or military.' Nor anything 'having a tendency to create suspicion' in the Native mind of interference with their religion. Nor to weaken the friendship of Native Princes towards us. 'The above conditions apply equally to original matter and to matter copied 243 from other publications.'" Now, of these conditions, I think that which requires that nothing shall be published which has a tendency to create suspicion in the Native mind of interference with their religion, and also that which requires that nothing shall be published which may tend to weaken the friendship of Native Princes towards us, are perfectly legitimate; nor do I understand that these conditions have in any case been violated. I know myself the extreme danger which is created by the circulation of opinions as if they were the views entertained by the Government with regard to Native Princes. No one in my time ever threw the slightest suspicion upon the views of the Government with regard to the religion of the people; but I know well the danger of saying anything which may weaken the friendship of the Native Princes. If that provision had not been introduced, or if the editors of newspapers, acting in conformity with the opinion of the Government, had not abstained from publishing statements which might have weakened the friendship of the Native Princes, I really know not what might have been the condition of our Indian empire at the present time. We owe the safety of our communications in an extensive district altogether to the fidelity of the Rajahs of Rawah and Gwalior; but if, instead of abstaining from making observations upon the conduct of those Princes, the Indian newspapers had expressed doubts of their fidelity, and, in the spirit which too much animates persons in that country, had expressed a hope that when our rule was re-established there would be further and further annexations, I assure you that every part of Central India, chiefs as well as subjects, would have been in arms against us. I therefore entirely agree with the Government in the necessity of making that condition, and also in the necessity of making the condition with respect to the religion of the Natives; but observe how these conditions fail in meeting requirements which are equally, or nearly equally pressing, and how, on the other hand, the Act itself and the conditions imposed under it go altogether, in some respects, beyond the necessity of the case. No doubt inconvenience may result—under some circumstances there may be more than inconvenience—from the dissemination through the press in India of observations tending to bring the Government of that country into contempt. But the provisions of this Act are not con- 244 fined to the general conduct of the Government in India, but they apply to the conduct of the Government of this country in so far as it affects the Indian empire. All that the Government of India have to do is to preserve their own safety, and to leave us to ourselves; but, instead of confining themselves to this object, they make the penalties attach to any newspapers or books whatever, wherever printed, and also to newspapers which republish papers printed elsewhere. Indeed, in a recent case a newspaper was either warned or suppressed—I do not remember which—for republishing in India an article from a newspaper called The Press, published in this country. Now, observe what the effect of this provision really is. This law prohibits the press of India from speaking freely on the subject of the position of Englishmen in that country, and also with reference to the conduct of the Government there; and, as far as it can, it extends its coercion to the press of this country, for it provides for prohibiting the publication of anything which has been published in England that may not suit the views of the Government of India, and from the day of such prohibition any English gentleman in India who receives a book or a newspaper so prohibited and circulates it will be liable to a penalty of £500, and to two years' imprisonment. Why, my Lords, the things most injurious to the Government of India are the debates which sometimes take place in this House—such debates as took place on the first day of this Session, and such as many more that may be expected during its progress. Is nothing to be said during those debates which is not laudatory of the Government here and in India? Is nothing whatever to be said impugning the conduct of the Government here, or the policy of the Government of India? If, however, in any one of those debates anything is said of such a nature, the Governor-General may require that the English newspapers containing them shall be taken to him, and, on finding anything objectionable in the report of any speech in either House of Parliament, he may prohibit the circulation of such newspaper, and any gentleman who knowingly receives The Times or Daily News of a certain date, after that prohibition, is subject to a penalty of £500 and two years' imprisonment. My Lords, I do not know whether it is the object of this provision, but certainly its effect, if fully carried out—and from the 245 warning given to a newspaper for republishing a paragraph from an English newspaper I have no doubt it is intended fully to carry it out—its effect will be to deprive us in this country of knowing through the press what are the opinions of our countrymen in India, and to deprive them of what is still more important, the opportunity of knowing what we think of them. It will establish a system of mutual ignorance. The Governor-General said, when he imposed the law, that it was directed against the Native press; that the Native press had published that which was injurious to the State; that he could not say the same of the English press; but that he could not see any solid standing-ground on which a line might be drawn marking out the difference between one and the other. That, again, is following out the insane principle of treating in India—and especially at the present time—Natives and Europeans upon the same footing. But, although the Governor-General may not have been able to find this solid standing-ground, it seems be has found in the Native press a stepping-stone from which to direct his weapons against the press both in India and in this country. Suppose that two persons, one a Native and the other an Englishman, were taken before a magistrate in India charged with offences. Suppose the proof against the Native was decisive, while that against the Englishman was extremely slight, and that the judge should say to the Native, "Pandy"—that is what we call the Natives now—"you are convicted upon the clearest evidence; your offence is of the deepest dye; I cannot say the same of the Englishman, whose offence is very light, but I have no solid standing-ground on which a line may be drawn; I cannot make any distinction between you, and therefore you must both be subject to the same punishment." Can you call that justice? Do you think that the Europeans with their pride in the liberty of the press they enjoy in their own country would suffer that? But observe that while this Act does that which is unnecessary, while it aims at the freedom of the English press as well as that of the press of India, it fails altogether in doing that which is necessary. Neither in the Act nor in the conditions is there one word with respect to the dissemination of information with respect to the movements of troops. At a moment like this that of all things is the most important to prevent. If you look back to 246 the despatches of the Duke of Wellington you will see how grievously he felt the injury on this point done by the freedom and indiscretion of the press. I know its indiscretion in India. I know I was obliged almost to violate the law in order to preserve that absolute secresy which I know to be necessary to the success of military movements. Yet, in respect to this Act there is no condition to prevent the publicity of every military movement in India. We still give through our press full information to the enemy. There is not a single newspaper which does not contain the most minute details of every movement of the smallest detachment, which does not disclose all our difficulties by stating where we have guns, and where we have not; where we have ammunition and where not; and where troops are withdrawn to, some being described as sent to one place and some to another. There is not one piece of information which the enemy would give a mint to possess that our press is not now allowed to give to that enemy in India. Therefore, I say, that it is not for a public object that publicity is not desired by the authorities in India, but it is for the purpose of protecting the Government from the free observations of those who censure its conduct. I have already stated that the most serious injury which the press can commit is still allowed to exist. Though there were eleven cases of warning given for the suspension of European newspapers, the Government have not given warning in one instance to any Native newspaper, though it is perfectly well known that the Native newspapers are full of the most virulent invectives against Europeans. Still, that is permitted. There is another thing permitted, which I deeply regret and view with great alarm. It is very natural, no doubt, that officers and gentlemen in India, having heard and seen what they have of the horrors committed, in many cases against their friends and dearest relatives, should write with very great excitement, and should indicate a disposition which, if carried out, would be totally inconsistent with all possibility of a settled and peaceful Government of India. But not one of their letters is ever excluded from the European press, and no attempt is made to check what has so great a tendency to excite public feeling against the Natives. It is great indiscretion on the part of the editors, as well as of the Government, not to prevent the publica- 247 tion of such letters. Therefore, I say, that the Government does more injury by allowing, through the medium of the press, our enemies to know every movement of our troops, and by allowing every excited man to publish his feelings to the Natives, than by permitting the press to remain as it was even under the former system.
I must be permitted to allude to the feeling which exists in India on the subject of the conduct of the Natives. There is no one who can feel more deeply than I have the atrocity of the crimes committed in India. No one feels more than I do that it is absolutely necessary to give future security to Englishmen in that country by punishing in the most exemplary manner all who should be convicted of having perpetrated those crimes. The crime of the soldier who attacks his officer is to my view the crime of parricide. The crime of a man who violates a woman is so horrible that for my part I should wish that in the legislation of all the world the punishment—the inexorable punishment—for it, were death. But could any one have contemplated the possibility of a crime so extensively committed in India—the crime of torturing and murdering children? There is something so revolting to human nature in such a crime that I cannot understand how any mercy could possibly be shown for so horrible an offence. I would persecute with unremitting and untiring zeal the perpetrators of those horrible crimes. God would not forgive us if we pardoned them. But I do entreat your Lordships, and the people of this country, and our countrymen in India, to recollect that for punishment to produce real effect there must be discrimination. To produce the effect punishment, even of the greatest offences, must appear to be inflicted after ample investigation from the judicial administrators of the law. It must not appear to be the result of the wild vengeance of a private individual. They must recollect that what we have to do in that country is not to appear as the avengers of a great wrong, and when we have accomplished it to depart; we have to inflict retributive justice with all the solemnity which accords with an empire which is to remain. If it be desired that our empire in India should be, as I trust it will, eternal, it can rest only upon mutual confidence between the governors and governed. I trust that in the hour of victory, if we should triumph, we shall be found as jealous of our honour as we have been in the hour of difficulty and dis- 248 aster. By consenting to act upon this principle we shall, I trust, retain throughout the whole of this great contest that which we have found so valuable, which it is most important to us to possess, the sympathy and good-will of all the nations of Europe. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
That there be laid before this House,Copy of the Arms Act lately passed by the Legislative Council of India: Also,Return of all Native and European Newspapers licensed under the Act of the Legislative Council of India passed on the 13th of June last: And also,Copies of all Letters of Warning addressed to the Editors of any such Native and European Newspapers respectively, and of all Revocations of the Licenses, if any, of such Newspapers, and of all Correspondence relating to the Restitution thereof.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Earl, in pursuance of his notice, has directed his attention chiefly to the subjects of the Arms Act and of the Act which places restrictions on the press in India; but he began by stating that alarm had been felt in Calcutta for the safety of that place, in consequence of alleged large importations of arms. This circumstance, however, was fully investigated, and it was ascertained that such was not the case, and that there was nothing to warrant any real alarm as to the safety of Calcutta. The Arms Act to which the noble Earl referred contains provisions with respect to the importation of saltpetre and gunpowder, and with respect to dealing in arms, but as the noble Earl has not alluded to that part of the measure, it is not necessary for me to go into it. The other part of the measure I do not think in any way meets the description which the noble Earl gave of it. The Act does not immediately compel the Europeans and Natives to give up their arms, or to obtain licences to carry them; but it enables the Governor-General in Council to proclaim any district, reserving to himself the power of exempting from the operation of the Act any persons or classes of persons whom he may think fit to exempt. I know that at Calcutta, there was a very general wish that martial law should be at once established, and general disappointment took place that that was not done. It has been said that Sir Colin Campbell desired the establishment of martial law, but was thwarted by the Governor-General. There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. Sir Colin Campbell never had any idea of the kind; and the best proof 249 that such a step was unnecessary is that the two great Mahomedan festivals, from which so much danger was apprehended, passed over without disturbance. With respect to the defence of the lives and property of the inhabitants, their Lordships would recollect the ridicule with which on a former occasion the noble Earl treated the idea of persons going about with revolvers in their hands and under their umbrellas to defend Calcutta. But the noble Earl's objection to the Act is, that Europeans are comprehended within its provisions as well as Natives, and he says that this is not the policy we ought to pursue—but our policy should be to make the English be like the Normans and the Natives like the Saxons. I cannot agree in that opinion, which I think is perfectly inconsistent with that portion of the noble Earl's speech in which he observed that without mutual feelings of kindness the Government of India could not be carried on. Nothing could be more inconsistent with such an opinion than the announcement in this House by one of its most eloquent Members, and one, too, who is supposed to know more about India than most men, that the few resident English there should act as Normans, and that the millions of Natives should be treated like conquered Saxons. A suggestion was made to Lord Canning that Christians should be exempted from the Act, but, most properly I think, he felt that, since many of the Native rajahs, zemindars, and their retainers, had exposed their lives and property in order to stand by the cause of the Government, any Act subjecting them to a disarmament from which all Europeans and Christians were expressly exempted would have been a most unwise and impolitic measure. Supposing the Act proclaimed in any district, can your Lordships imagine that it would be difficult for a loyal Englishman who wishes to be exempted to give at once the only notice required with regard to the number of arms which he possesses and which he desires to retain? It must be obvious that every Englishman worthy of the name will be very glad to comply with the Act in that respect, and nothing more will be required of him, for the Act provides that in a proclaimed district, wherever any person makes a return of the arms in his possession and requests to be allowed to retain them, he will receive a licence enabling him to do so. There can be no objection, surely, to such an Act. The 250 noble Earl, leaving the subject of the Arms Act, proceeded to comment upon the restrictions placed on the press, and that question he seemed rather to darken by the statement that Lord Canning had made an attack upon the British press at home. I deny that statement. I believe Lord Canning would be infinitely less likely than the noble Earl himself to object to the freest discussion of public questions in the press, or to the widest circulation of anything tending to the enlightenment of every class of British subjects. Nobody but a madman would think of fettering the press at home; and the day on which such a question shall arise, if we can venture to contemplate such a thing, will be a day dark and gloomy in the annals of England. But the English press in India, as partly stated by the noble Earl, stands on a perfectly different footing from the press at home. Nothing, indeed, can be more dissimilar. The noble Earl stated that the press here represented the people. That is so true that I believe there is no class who, if they have any numbers or sympathies with them, and have intelligence enough to express their opinions, will not find themselves represented in some way or other by a portion of the aggregate press of this country. It is to be remembered, moreover, that our press is assisted and controlled by the Houses of Parliament and by the public meetings which are constantly held all over the country. The press certainly influences and assists in the formation of public opinion, but public opinion daily reacts upon the press, checking and controlling it in a variety of ways. A wholly different state of things exists in India. The noble Earl must have read the Minute of Sir Thomas Munro, and, although he may not entirely agree with it, yet the authority of Sir Thomas Munro is not to be put aside, especially when he points out what dangers may accrue in India from the errors of the English press, referring particularly to the mischiefs which might be produced among the Sepoys in our pay. It is worthy of remark that the noble Earl has treated the Act relative to the press as if it were a permanent provision adopted for ever in India, whereas, in the letter already presented to Parliament and by the Act itself, it is clearly confined to one year, and is intended merely to apply to the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances in which India is now placed. Lord Canning himself alludes to the reluctance which 251 any English statesman must feel in placing restrictions on the press; but I may state that the Indian press, by an Order issued by the noble Earl himself, when Governor-General, is now prevented from obtaining that official information which it formerly used to possess. Since the promulgation of that Order everybody connected with the Government of India has refrained from writing in the press or giving it intelligence, and hence the absence of any security except the loyalty and judgment of its managers for the wise and sober exercise of its power.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHThe noble Earl has misapprehended the object and effect of my Order. What I did may be explained in few words. I found gentlemen in India—official gentlemen—who thought that public documents which came into their hands as servants of the Government were theirs to dispose of or make public for their own purposes whenever they pleased. I saw such infinite dangers to the Government in the prevalence of that custom—a custom which it would be impossible to tolerate in any country, and which, if it existed here, the noble Earl himself would say ought to be put down—that in clear and distinct terms I told the public functionaries what their duty was, and desired them to do it.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIf the Order was confined to the prevention of the publication of official information by subordinate servants of the Government, I do not think there could be any objection to it.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHThe Order was rendered necessary by the conduct of one of the most responsible persons in the country.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe effect has been this, to prevent any public official from forming any connection with the press.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHNo official has a right to publish public documents,
§ EARL GRANVILLEExactly. But there is a difference between that, and an official making use of the press as a channel through which to communicate to the public such news, arguments, or explanations as it ought to know. There would be nothing wrong, for example, in a police magistrate, in the event of an accusation being brought against him, publishing a defence of his conduct in the newspapers. As the head of the Depart- 252 ment of Education, I would regard the publication by myself of anything calculated to promote the cause for which the department was instituted as perfectly legitimate, while I would condemn as criminal and dishonourable on my part the disclosure of matters decided in the Cabinet. But, however that may be, I wish to direct the attention of your Lordships to the fact that of late years the English press in India, with few exceptions, has been most violent in its attacks upon the Government, holding it up to contempt in every possible way. The noble Earl says it writes for Englishmen alone. I am told that is not the fact; it is read extensively by Natives acquainted with English; its articles are translated in the Native journals, and the evils it has produced in this way have been of a very grave character. For example, the Bombay papers stated that the Government had determined to annex the territory of Baroda.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHWhen was that statement made?
§ EARL GRANVILLEI do not know the precise date.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHWas it before or after the passing of the Act relative to the press?
§ EARL GRANVILLEBefore it. But the date of some of the articles is precisely that which made it necessary to give them this warning. For instance, the Calcutta papers announced that part of the deficiency in the public revenue was to be met by a reduction of the allowances granted to Native princes. Such statements were of course productive of much mischief. Besides their effect upon the Natives, I think Lord Canning had reason to complain of them upon another ground. He was in the habit of sending to the Calcutta papers all the information which he received of an authentic character, and yet it was no unusual thing to find in the same journals, by the side of the official intelligence obtained from the Government, news of an entirely opposite character, for which there was no foundation whatever, and calculated to cause great detriment to the English cause. That was conduct which could not be overlooked. I have heard it said that the Indian Government have acted with greater rigour towards the English than towards the Native press. The fact is, I believe, that except in one or two instances, where it has been found necessary to take an editor into custody, the Native 253 press has submitted itself peaceably to the instructions issued by Government, whereas the English press, with that firmness which characterises us all, only became more violent than ever. It became absolutely necessary that the Government should proceed against the English press, for it would have made itself a laughing-stock to the whole of India if, after having passed such an Act, it had refrained from putting it into execution. I am the more anxious to state the grounds upon which I think the conduct of the Government quite defensible, and, indeed, imperatively called for by a sense of public duty, because I believe there is no doubt that it is this Act which has caused all the virulent attacks which have been made upon Lord Canning since the promulgation of the restrictions. The noble Earl said that the Government passed the Act to defend itself. Now, there were no personal attacks upon Lord Canning in the press previous to the passing of the Act, and therefore there could be no vindictive feeling on the part of the Governor-General. I find in a July number of one of the leading Calcutta papers, smarting under the infliction of a "warning," a statement to the effect that up to the time of the restrictions every European in India gave not only his support, but his sympathy to Lord Canning. That, it seems to me, stands rather in contradiction to the bitter accusations which now are made as to acts of the Governor-General previous to that date; it shows, at all events, the estimation in which Lord Canning was held previous to the passing of the Act relative to the press. I believe that Lord Canning, receiving representations—not from those surrounding him in Calcutta, but from the highest military and civil authorities in each of the Presidencies—as to the dangerous tendency of much of the writing both in the English and the Native press, was more than justified in passing a temporary restrictive Act at a time when all the energy of the Government was required to defend the English cause. I have now said what I had to say relative to these two subjects; but I cannot sit down without referring to the closing remarks of the noble Earl. Nothing, I am sure, could be more admirable, or more useful, especially coming from one so well acquainted with India. I believe that there is no question of showing mercy to any one man guilty of mutiny, murder, violation of women, or infanticide; 254 but it is most important that punishment should be administered as a public act, and preserved from all character of private vengeance. I was glad to hear the noble Earl affirm so firmly and positively principles which so entirely justify Lord Canning's policy with regard to the punishment of the guilty, and the showing, I will not say mercy, but justice to the innocent. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the only means of insuring good government in India is to produce and encourage confidence between the people and their rulers. If our government is to continue, our only object must be the happiness of those whom we govern. That object is perfectly compatible with the best interests of the English nation, and I believe that when these events are calmly considered, and, at all events, when history shall pronounce its verdict, nothing will so entirely justify Lord Canning as the calmness and the firmness with which he resisted the pressure to which he was subjected to induce him to place Europeans and Natives on a different footing. His conduct in this respect will, when this disastrous mutiny has been suppressed, enable the Government to resume its former course, and to be administered without its being regarded by the Natives as a tyrannical and hostile power. This calmness and courage Lord Canning has displayed in the highest degree. I have seen letters in which he has been accused of every compatible and incompatible deficiency which a man could exhibit under such circumstances; but I am bound to say that in some of these very letters, written before Delhi was taken or Lucknow reached, I have seen imputations of actual cowardice cast upon both General Wilson and General Havelock, the results of whose operations have shown that not only was every bit of caution which they displayed absolutely necessary, but that their objects could have been attained only by the most heroic dash on their parts. On the other hand, my Lords, I have seen letters—from young men, it is true, whose opinions are not worth much, but still showing that the conversation which they hear is not all on one side—defending Lord Canning's character and conduct, and complaining of the unfairness of the attacks to which he has been subjected. I have also seen letters from some of the ablest Indian officers, praising in the highest terms the courage and the coolness of Lord Canning. I have seen letters 255 from civilians who have passed their whole lives in India, holding exactly the same language, and stating that the real cause of Lord Canning's unpopularity among a certain portion of the Calcutta people is the singular calmness and absence of fidget with which he has applied all his energies to the work in hand. Do you wish to know what General Mansfield thinks? General Mansfield said, by the first mail, that he could only judge Lord Canning to be one of the best men of business that he had ever met; by the second mail he wrote that, having had some opportunity of ascertaining facts, his belief was that the one calm head in Calcutta was that upon Lord Canning's shoulders. What does Sir Colin Campbell say of him? Sir Colin Campbell thinks that the English in India are fortunate in having at their head at this moment so able a chief, so perfect a gentleman, and such an admirable man of business as Lord Canning. I think that to some imputations Lord Canning is justly liable. I think that, at a moment when great panic existed in Calcutta, he was rash in intrusting himself to troops whose fidelity might be suspected; but it was at a time when he felt that, as as our dominion in India depended upon the belief in our self-confidence and courage, it was of the greatest importance that the head of the Europeans in that country should not be thought to be deficient in those qualities. And I am quite sure that among Englishmen even too great an indifference to personal danger is not likely very long to tell against Lord Canning. I have thought it right to say thus much in justice to Lord Canning. With regard to these two Acts, I admit that possibly there may be defects in their details, but I cannot see the justice of the accusations which the noble Earl has brought against them, and I certainly believe that by the means of these measures the principle of conciliating the Native has been carried out, without in the slightest degree endangering the lives, or the property, or the proper pride of the European residents.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHIf I understood the noble Earl correctly, he expressed the opinion that Lord Canning is more favourable to the liberty of the press than I am.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMore favourable to free discussion.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHFree discussion! I thought it was about 256 the press that we were talking. As to that, Lord Canning, a Liberal, was the author of this Act. After I had been in India three days I was subjected to much more abuse than Lord Canning. I saw the danger arising from the indiscretion of the press, and it was not for want of suggestions from home that I did not adopt some measure against it. One of the Directors, I recollect, suggested to me that it would be advisable to impose some restrictions upon the press, and that a measure for that object would receive cordial support in the Court. To tell the real truth, however, I rather suspected the quarter from which the communication came, and I thought that I had difficulties enough without engaging in a conflict with the press. Therefore I bore the abuse as I could, and my only revenge was, that after my first three months' residence in India I never read a word that appeared in the newspapers. I was determined not to allow them to disturb that tranquillity of mind which I knew to be essential to carrying on the public business. The noble Earl opposite has spoken of some prosecutions under the Act. There have been three prosecutions, I understand, of the newspapers whose excesses led to the passing of the Act. In the first two cases the gentlemen who conducted the prosecution on the part of the Crown came to terms with the persons who were placed in the dock, and agreed to take a verdict of one rupee damages. In the third case there was a verdict for the defendant. Of Lord Canning I have said nothing. I have made no attack upon him. I have only dealt with the Legislative Acts of the Council of India. Before the breaking out of the insurrection Lord Canning was personally extremely popular. He laid himself out to obtain popularity, and he succeeded. Every one did him the justice to say that he was a conscientious, hardworking man, and, I believe, no jobber—a wonderful merit in that country—and really did all he could to perform the duties of Governor-General. That was the general impression. My own belief is that no man ever went out to India with a more sincere desire to do his duty to the country which he had to govern; but there can be no doubt that at the present moment he has not the confidence either of the people of Calcutta or of the Europeans generally throughout India. I attribute that to this, that he has attempted to do that which has failed everywhere, and which 257 never can succeed—he has attempted to carry on his Government in a spirit opposed to the feelings of all those on whom alone he could depend for support.
§ EARL GREYI heard the close of the speech delivered by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) with the greatest pleasure. He laid down in most admirable language the rule which ought to be followed by the Government and people of this country in their conduct towards the Natives of India in the present unfortunate state of affairs. I cordially agree with him in what he said as to the necessity of severely punishing the guilty. I agree no less cordially with his opinion of the equal necessity of discrimination in the infliction of that punishment. I agree with him, if possible, still more in what he said as to its being absolutely necessary, if we wish our empire in India to continue, that nothing should be done to forfeit the confidence of the great mass of the Indian people. It is as clear as daylight that if it once becomes the opinion of the great body of that people that the government of their country is carried on by England for purposes inconsistent with their welfare—if you once create in their minds a feeling that we regard them with hostility, the days of our power are numbered. No efforts we can make, no exertions, no army which we can employ, can enable us to coerce the millions of India if hatred of our dominion, and a desire to shake off the yoke, should be really excited in their minds. Therefore I heard with great satisfaction what the noble Earl said upon this subject; because I know that any observations of his will have great force, not only in this country, but among the British inhabitants of India. But, my Lords, great as was the satisfaction with which I heard this part of the speech of the noble Earl, I confess that it did not remove the regret which I felt at his having brought on this discussion at all. It seems to me that in the present state of India, looking to the difficulties with which Lord Canning as Governor-General has to contend, this plain rule is binding upon every man who has the honour of a seat, either in this or in the other House of Parliament, namely, that we should not upon any account, by any incautious word which we may utter in places from which every word that we may say goes to the furthest extremity of the world, do anything which can diminish the moral power of the man who is in- 258 trusted with the great authority of the Governor-General of India—and therefore that even if Lord Canning has made mistakes, we in this House ought not, nor ought Gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, to dwell on those mistakes, or to hold them up in language which is likely to diminish the confidence which is placed in him by those whom he has to govern, unless it is clearly necessary to do so in order to avert some evil, or to attain some important public object. If there is such an object to be attained, if by exposing some great fault in conduct, we can hope to correct it for the future, and to bring about an amendment of the policy of the Government, it is our duty to speak, but otherwise, we ought for the present to abstain from commenting even upon real mistakes, because by doing so we might weaken the hands of the Governor-General at a time when it is most important that they should be strengthened. I contend, that this is the principle which ought to govern our conduct, and if so I cannot believe that the cases which the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) has brought forward furnish sufficient reasons for hostile comment in this House. Without attempting to enter fully into the argument in defence of those measures for checking the sale of arms which have been pretty well defended already by my noble Friend (Earl Granville), I cannot help saying that on the noble Earl's own showing it appears to me that the acts in question are not deserving the censure which he has passed upon them. Can anybody doubt that, under the circumstances in which India has been placed during the last few months, the Government ought to have some power of checking the sale of arms? It seems to me the very first thing that ought to have been done. Is it quite impossible that there may be Europeans so guilty and so deserving of the severest condemnation that may be heaped on them as to be parties to supplying the Natives in rebellion against them with arms? Have we never heard that some of the subjects of a State which was trembling for its existence have been base enough to sell arms and supplies to its enemies? Has that not happened in the United States and Holland? Has it not happened even in our own country? Was there no ground for suspecting British subjects to have been concerned in selling powder to the Kafirs to be used against the British troops? I maintain that some power of 259 checking the sale of arms is absolutely indispensable to a Government in time of war. The only question, therefore, is whether the power taken by Lord Canning by the law which he passed was too large. The noble Earl, if I rightly understood him, objects to that law, because it applied to the white residents in India as well as to the Natives. I cannot concur in that objection. I think in the present state of India it would be in the highest degree unwise to make a distinction by law, with respect to the right of possessing arms, between one colour and the other. No doubt in exercising the powers of the law, and in deciding who shall or shall not be allowed, a great distinction must practically be made between Natives and Europeans, but it would be a very different thing and most mischievous, to establish such a distinction by law. I think the distinction of colour and of origin is a distinction that must be practically acted upon in a great degree in a country in the position of India. He would take an illustration from the application of the Irish Arms Act. The Act as it was passed applied to every man in the country; but all those who were thought proper persons to possess arms were allowed to retain them by applying for a licence to the authorities. In like manner they must make a practical distinction in India; but not make a distinction by a general law, which would have the effect not only of insulting and of wronging many Natives who have been our faithful friends, but also of depriving the Government of power in some cases where it might be most wanted. Is it impossible that in India as in Africa imprudence or a guilty desire of gain might have led white men to sell arms which might have come into the hands of our enemies? Then, with regard to the act relating to the press, I think the noble Earl himself made out most conclusively the necessity for a suspension of the liberty of the press in India. There is no man who values more highly than I do the liberty of the press, but circumstances may occur in which we may pay too dearly for the boon. In India, in such a crisis as the present, I can conceive nothing more impolitic than to permit the unrestricted liberty of the press to exist. I can conceive a state of circumstances in which it might have had the effect of arraying against us those Native Princes and brave men in India on whose support we have mainly depended. But I go further, 260 I believe that in countries in the state which India now is the greatest difficulty and danger we have had to encounter is that which arises from the disposition of small minorities, who, finding themselves in a situation of great peril, press on the authorities the adoption of very unwise and impolitic measures. We have seen it formerly in the West Indies during slave insurrections, when the great difficulty was to keep the white people in order and prevent them from driving the whole coloured population into hostility. So it was at the Cape, and so it is in every country which is in this unfortunate situation. The natural fear which seizes small minorities who have been dominant when attacked by a portion of the majority, is apt to make them confound together the whole class of the population, of which a part only may be realty hostile. Suspicion and fear create a desire for measures of indiscriminate severity, and the greatest danger of a Government in such cases is, that those fears of the ruling minority may drive it to have recourse to measures which will combine the whole of the rest of the population against it. I believe I am not in error in saying that this state of feeling has of late been shown very conspicuously among the white inhabitants of Calcutta. While our countrymen in the East have deserved the highest credit for the manner in which they have generally conducted themselves during this trying season, I am afraid that some at least of the inhabitants of Calcutta are hardly entitled to the same praise, and that have yielded to panic, terror, and to the violence which terror suggests. I cannot help thinking that there has been a disposition among them to urge on the Government measures which would have been extremely unwise, and must have led to very bad effects. I say, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should be armed with very stringent powers in this emergency. The only real point which the noble Earl seems to me to have against the conduct of Lord Canning is, that he would have done better if he had established a censorship. In this I am disposed to agree with the noble Earl. In dealing with the press, I much doubt whether any restrictions short of a censorship are of real use, and I believe that when perfect freedom cannot be granted to the press, it is wiser to come at once to a censorship. But granting that Lord Canning may have erred in this, surely it is not, an error for which he deserves to 261 be blamed, he rather deserves credit for the desire he has shown to reduce to the minimum the restrictions, which for the public safety he thought it necessary to impose on the press. I have thought it my duty to make these few observations, because in this great crisis I think it is of national importance that the authority of the Indian Government should be maintained, and because the present Governor-General seems to me, so far as I have the means of forming a judgment of his conduct, to be fully entitled to the encomium which my noble Friend who spoke last has pronounced upon him.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he rose to repeat what he had said at the close of last Session on a similar occasion—that he could not too strongly protest against the attack made by the noble Earl opposite upon his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), and against the principle which he had laid down that it was a vicious practice to discuss Indian subjects at this time in their Lordships' House. If the noble Earl really believed in the impropriety of that practice, he should have sat down immediately after giving that advice, and not have gone on violating his own suggestion. There was a contradiction between the noble Earl's advice and his conduct. But, be that as it might, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought they should really be abdicating their duties, and forgetting all the purposes for which their Lordships' House existed, if in such a momentous crisis as this they were to be content, at the bidding of the noble Earl, to sit there with their mouths closed until the Government gave them permission to speak. The noble Earl could not have chosen a more unhappy moment for making his suggestion; for he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was there to express his belief that if the advice tendered by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) months ago had been followed many of the unfortunate circumstances they had now to deplore would not have occurred, and much of the fury of the rebellion would have been more successfully encountered. He felt therefore it was the duty of their Lordships, and that in discharging that duty they were doing a service to the country, to discuss these matters, temperately if they could, and without party feeling or prejudice of any kind. But they were certainly not called on by any of the circumstances of the case to abdicate their constitutional functions and keep 262 silence on such occasions. He thought the noble Earl misunderstood his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) in reference to the disarming Act. What his noble Friend said was that he objected to putting the rebellious Indians on the same footing as the loyal Europeans. They were antagonists, and fighting, not for theories or party questions, but for their very existence; and what astonished the people of this country was that the Governor-General, for some reason which he had not explained, put the belligerents on the same footing. He did not intend to discuss the abstract question whether Natives and Europeans were to be placed upon the same footing, although, if he correctly gathered the meaning of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), that was the tendency of his opinion. But we being in the minority in India, and the Natives being in an enormous majority, if to the advantage of superior numbers we conferred upon them all the advantages which the laws conferred upon Europeans the natural result would be a speedy termination to our rule. Whether that were the wise course or not he was not prepared to say, because that was not the time to discuss it; but he rose, as he had had occasion to rise before, to protest against the declaration of the noble Earl, which had not been quite borne out by his honourable career in public life, for he had always mixed in public questions, and he had always been ready to give his valuable advice; neither was it consistent with the conduct of his great ancestor, who, throughout the French war, gave his opinions to the Government on every event that took place.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he so entirely concurred in the views expressed by the President of the Council, and of the noble Earl below him (Earl Grey), that he should not have risen, but that he wished to correct a mistake into which the noble Earl who spoke last had fallen. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had never objected to the discussion of any event or political question at the proper time, neither had his noble Friend (Earl Grey). What he said, and what his noble Friend also said, was, that it was not the duty of any Member of Parliament or pub-lie man to weaken the authority of the Government in India when that authority was placed in circumstances of extreme difficulty and danger, while at the same time it was intended to continue the government of that country in the same 263 hands. To that opinion he still adhered He objected to sending out to the Indian world the idea that the public of this country were dissatisfied with the conduct of those who were entrusted with the management of public affairs in India, and yet intended to leave those affairs to be administered by the same hands. He thought the explanations that had been given were satisfactory. It was clear that the free sale of arms and a free press were totally incompatible with a state of civil war.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLNothing can be generally more irregular than referring on one night of a debate to that which had taken place upon another, and I never for a moment think of referring to previous debates. But on the present occasion I assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) that it is only with the view of setting him right upon one or two points that I must refer to the mis-statements that have been made, and that have been principally derived, I think, from the pamphlet to which he has called our attention. I refer to the conduct of Lord Canning with regard to the disbandment of the two regiments in India, the circumstances of which, I think, are greatly misstated in the pamphlet to which the noble Earl has referred. With respect to the disbandment of the 19th and 34th Regiments, the first took place on the 30th of March, and the other on the 6th of May. Now, the accusations brought against Lord Canning are twofold—first, that he allowed an injudicious delay to take place between the mutiny and the punishment—and secondly, with regard to the nature of the punishment, as being too lenient. The narrative in that pamphlet, and the narrative in the noble Earl's speech, apply to the whole of the interval which elapsed between the mutiny and the sentence being carried into effect. In short, the charge was that there was nothing that could legitimately have accounted for that delay. Now, I believe that statement to be entirely at variance with the facts. With regard to the mutiny of the 19th (for that must be clearly distinguished from the mutiny of the 34th, which was accompanied by very different circumstances), that mutiny of the 19th Regiment took place on the 26th or 27th of February. It was but a momentary panic, and almost immediately passed away. There had been great misconduct on the part of the officers in commanding the regiment, and in the interval that elapsed 264 between the mutiny of the 19th Regiment and the final disbandment both the officers and the men manifested most unmistakable signs of regret for what had taken place. The delay in punishing that mutiny was not owing to any vacillation or hesitation on the part of Lord Canning, but to these causes—First, that there was but, one European regiment within 400 miles, and it was impossible that Lord Canning could have proceeded to extreme measures towards those regiments which had mutinied without the assistance of European troops. Within five days after he heard of these transactions a steam vessel was sent off to Rangoon for troops to reinforce him. In the meanwhile a court-martial sitting upon the conduct of the 19th Regiment, and as soon as its report was received and European troops had arrived, Lord Canning came to the conclusion that it was necessary to disband that regiment. A complaint has further been made against Lord Canning that the simple disbandment of the regiment was not a sufficiently severe punishment for the offence; but I hardly know in what other form the sentence could have been shaped. No man had been guilty of any individual violence. The whole regiment had refused in a body to give up their arms, and I am not aware what other punishment could possibly have been inflicted, unless, indeed, Lord Canning for the offence had resorted to those severe measures which were afterwards had recourse to at Meerut, and which originated the most painful part of the whole recent outbreak. In reverting to that subject I cannot but say that, in the whole experience of that mutiny, so far from condemning Lord Canning for disbanding that regiment, I think it goes to prove that his conduct was most judicious, and, as was afterwards proved, most safe. Just look at the circumstances in which those men were placed. By the policy of our military system in Bengal we have encouraged the Hindoos to set the highest value upon their distinctions of high caste. We then distributed cartridges amongst them, against the use of which they had a prejudice derived from their caste regulations; and when the mutiny broke out at Meerut to no less than ten years' imprisonment in irons were those troops of cavalry sentenced. There could have been no idea of justice in such a sentence. At all events the outbreak of the mutiny was owing to the severity of the sentence upon those men; and, considering that at 265 that time no successful mutiny had taken place, he was justified by his recent experience in deciding that the more lenient course was the best. But this, after all, is mere matter of opinion—with regard to the facts there has been no misstatement whatever. As respects the 34th Regiment there has been an important misconception. The mutiny in that regiment had been of a far more serious character. The men stood by and allowed their officers to be ill-treated; some of them even assisted in the attack, and committed the most grave offences. But the interval between the mutiny and the punishment was occupied in an inquiry into all the facts. A court-martial began to sit on the 1st of April. It sat regularly every week (there being necessarily intervals between the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses) until the 18th of April. And what was the finding of that court-martial? It was sent to Lord Canning by Brigadier-General Hearsey on the 18th of April, and I cannot conceive a report more embarrassing to the Governor-General than that. The finding of the court-martial was not a general finding, but that a part of the regiment had been mutinous—that is to say, the Hindoos—but that the Sikhs and Mahomedans were perfectly faithful. That report was received by Lord Canning on the 14th of May. His Minute is dated the 30th of April, and I am sure the House will be of opinion that he came to a wise decision. He decided that it would be highly injudicious to make any distinctions of creed on the part of the Government, and subsequent events have shown that no such distinction could have been safely made. But the most important inaccuracy into which the noble Earl opposite was led was this—that the resolution to disband the 34th Regiment arose from the example set by Sir Henry Lawrence at Lucknow. As the noble Earl has read from that pamphlet, I will just read a passage from a document in possession of the House that will disprove that statement. The narrative of the pamphlet is that Lord Canning was excited by the example of Sir Henry Lawrence, and never would have done anything without his example. Now it so happens that Lord Canning's order with respect to disbanding the regiment was dated on the 80th of April, and the mutiny at Lucknow did not take place till the 3rd of May. I think that is a satis- 266 factory answer to the charge that Lord Canning was stimulated by the example of Sir Henry Lawrence. But this is not all. The facts of the case throw an important light upon the opinion which has been expressed with regard to the nature and character of the punishment awarded to those regiments There is really no contrast between the opinion of Sir Henry Lawrence and the opinion of Lord Canning. That very regiment which mutinied at Lucknow, and against which Sir Henry Lawrence acted with so much energy, was disbanded by Lord Canning. So that Lord Canning actually did that which Sir Henry Lawrence had only threatened to do. The news first came to the Government respecting the mutiny at Lucknow, dated the 4th of May. The statement is that they were informed by Sir Henry Lawrence that the regiment was to be disbanded, but that those men who had not mutinied should be readmitted. This shows, at all events, that there was no great difference between the opinions of Lord Canning and Sir Henry Lawrence. When the news first came Lord Canning found fault with Sir Henry Lawrence for being too lenient, and said he thought it would be better to disband the regiments, but that the men who had not been implicated should be replaced in the ranks. There was a feeling about discharging soldiers one day and taking them back the next that it tended to weaken the hands of the commanders. Thus I think the statement of a contrast between the opinions of Sir Henry Lawrence and Lord Canning to be at variance with the facts. I disagree, of course, with those who maintain that the conduct of the Governor-General is not a fit subject for discussion in this House. On the contrary, I think that it is; but at the same time I think it right to state any fact within my knowledge that may set right any point of debate in this House. I think everybody who will go over the blue-book and the red pamphlet will see that in that pamphlet the facts are very greatly mis-stated.
§ EARL GRANVILLEhere interposed and said, he was sure it would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know at the earliest possible moment that a telegraphic despatch had just been received from India. The substance of that despatch he was happy to have in his power at once to communicate to their Lordships. The noble Earl then proceeded to read to their 267 Lordships one or two paragraphs from the despatch, announcing the safe arrival of a convoy of provisions at Lucknow, and the fact that troops were being moved up quickly to its relief.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI am happy to hear this intelligence, though I certainly was in hopes that we should have received news of the entire relief of the garrison of Lucknow. With regard to the subject of the present discussion, I was about to say that I am always very willing to receive correction when I am wrong. Respecting the pamphlet I am very glad to receive information. I do not intend by any means to defend every statement in that pamphlet, but my contention was that there had been a very considerable and unnecessary delay with regard to the disbanding of the 19th Regiment. At the same time I did not complain of the penalty inflicted on the 19th Regiment as being an inadequate penalty. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) says, that it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the circumstances of the two regiments. What I did complain of was that in the case of the 19th Regiment a long period elapsed before the sentence was executed. But with regard to the. 34th Regiment, I complained that not only had a long period elapsed, but that an inadequate punishment had been at last imposed, and I said that whereas the 19th had expressed a simple refusal and afterwards shown regret, the acts of the 34th were of a much more violent character. The men not only made attacks upon two of their officers, but a considerable portion of the troops joined in the mutiny and did actual violence upon their officers. Now, I complained that after the long delay that had taken place the punishment on those two regiments was precisely the same—that those very men who with the butt-ends of their muskets knocked down their officers not only received no signal punishment, but for the space of six weeks were allowed to do duty (with a sufficient force, no doubt, to control them), and at the end of that period they were simply disbanded; and thus those men who should have suffered death were allowed to depart, and swell the ranks of the enemy.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHI should be glad to know at what period it was determined to send the 84th Regiment back to Rangoon?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLI am glad! by the question of the noble Earl to have 268 an opportunity of correcting another misstatement of that pamphlet, which I believe to be one of the most inaccurate publications ever submitted to the public notice. The only paper which I can find having any reference to the sending back of the 84th Regiment to Rangoon (which was not, in fact, to remain there, but to be exchanged for others) is dated the 8th of May—that is the earliest. The statement in the pamphlet is, that Lord Canning meant to send back the 84th altogether; but in the blue-book there is an order of the 8th of May asking when a steamer could be provided by the Peninsular and Oriental Company to carry back the 84th to Rangoon. Two days after the 84th were taken back in a great hurry, leaving all their baggage. The reason of their going away was to send back other troops in their stead.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHI said that there was some interval between the disbandment of the 19th and the 84th Regiments, and that there was an intention to send the 84th Regiment back to Rangoon. That is all.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o' clock till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.