Lords Sitting of 15 February 1858

THE INDIAN MUTINY—PUNISHMENT OF MUTINEERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) whether the Government here have issued any instructions to the Indian Government with respect to the treatment and punishment of mutineers? I am led particularly to ask the question to-day because I have read in the newspapers this morning a telegraphic despatch from Bombay, signed by the Secretary of the Government, which contains a statement, that on the 13th of January, at a place the name of which, as is usual in these telegraphic despatches, is not to be recognised, Sir Hugh Rose tried and executed 149 mutineers. I will not question the justice of inflicting that punishment on mutineers; I consider mutiny to be, perhaps, the greatest crime which can be committed against the State, because it is that which most injuriously affects the welfare of the people; but I confess I do greatly question the policy of making death the invariable and indiscriminate punishment even of such a crime as mutiny in any country, but more espe-

  1361
  cially in India. The other day I read in another volume of the Despatches of the Duke of Wellington, with which the present Duke has recently favoured the public—a volume as interesting as any of those which have preceded it—these words, written by the late Duke of Wellington sixty years ago, in reference to the people of India:—
  "There is a contempt of death in the Natives, high and low, occasioned by some of the tenets of the religion of both sects, which makes that punishment a joke, and I may say an honour, instead of what it is in our country."
  I believe that to be a perfectly correct statement of the general feeling of the people of India. This is certainly the fact, that, in reading the accounts of the execution of many hundreds of the mutineers, there have not been above three or four cases in which the sufferer has evinced the smallest apprehension of death, and has not met it with a degree of firmness which, in a better cause, we should term heroism. While this is the national character of the Natives of India—while the sufferers evince this heroism—instead of preventing the commission of similar offences, you rather add grace and dignity to the cause in which they have so nefariously engaged. I saw the other day in one of the large books recently distributed among your Lordships these words, written by a gentleman (Mr. Money) who has obtained a favourable reputation in India, which I road because they give in good language that which is my own opinion. He is speaking of some executions which he had ordered:—
  "One or two executions, I believe, strike terror and do good, but I hope not to have many. I am confident that the daily repetition of such scenes (where the people are against us), only hardens and aggravates."
  That is most distinctly the opinion which I entertain. I am quite certain that to familiarise the people with this punishment, by bringing it daily before their eyes, is the least likely mode of deterring from the repetition of the crime; and when we consider the number of persons implicated in this mutiny—from 90,000 to 100,000—it is quite evident that it is contrary to the feelings of all mankind to inflict the punishment of death uniformly in all cases. No doubt there were many instances in which the commission of the crime was attended with circumstances of peculiar brutality and atrocity, which make it absolutely necessary that death, and death alone, should be the punishment.
  1362
  There are Crimea so revolting to humanity that they can alone be met and punished in that manner; hut I am quite confident that, with the view to the prevention of crime, it is necessary to act in the spirit in which General Neill acted at Cawnpore, and to inflict a punishment which shall affect the feelings of all the survivors; and that punishment I believe to be not death nor merely transportation—to which in some cases it is very inconvenient to resort—but that ignominious punishment of flogging which no man can bear with the same degree of firmness with which he can meet the infliction of death. One is directed to the mind, the other to the body; and the same man who will meet death with perfect coolness cannot bear—his nature will not permit him to bear—the punishment of a severe flogging. I say then, let these men, when they are taken, be subject to that punishment, and go forth with the stigma and degradation of such a punishment, objects to be observed of all, recipients of a punishment justly due to their crime. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this into their serious consideration. I observe that, with the exception of a few days, since the capture of Delhi there have been four, or five, or six executions every day. It is quite impossible ever to hope to re-establish civil government in that country if the ordinary proceedings of law is to be the infliction of death. It will produce a blood feud between the Natives and ourselves which will make it impracticable to re-establish civil government in that country. I speak with as great abhorrence of the crime of mutiny and all the crimes which have been committed in India as can be entertained by the noble Earl or any one of your Lordships. I know that the punishment of death has been most justly inflicted, that in many cases it has been unavoidable, and that it is right that in many more it should still be inflicted; but I am confident that the Government must consider the policy of not resorting to that punishment on all occasions, of varying the punishment which is to be inflicted, and of inventing and inflicting a punishment which shall operate on the minds of the Natives, and prevent the crime, by telling upon the feelings of the survivors.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am not in a position to give any information as to the circumstances under which the execution referred to by the noble Earl, as having been ordered by Sir Hugh Rose,

  1363
  took place, as the only information the Government have received is by the telegram, which gives no details. I can give no explanation until full information of the facts of the case has been received. The noble Earl asks whether any instructions have been sent from home as to the exact mode of punishing the mutineers. No instructions have been sent, and it is not usual to send instructions from home to the Government in India on such a subject. At the same time we see that the opinions of the Governor General are in entire accordance with those of Her Majesty's Government, and they would appear, from what he has stated, to agree also with the noble Earl's views. There can be no doubt that mutiny by every nation of the civilized world is deemed one of those crimes which, for the safety of the State, is punishable, and in most cases ought to be punished, by death. There can be no doubt also that, for the considerations so well expressed by the noble Earl, the effect of restoring to so indiscriminate a punishment as the infliction of death in hundreds and thousands of cases would fail to produce the effect—which is so desirable, and which is the object of punishment to produce—on the minds of others, and so prevent the repetition of the crime. No doubt, in all cases it is undesirable to resort to the punishment of death in so promiscuous and indiscriminate a manner as the noble Earl has described; but much more so among those who, although belonging to an effeminate race, have shown the most remarkable coolness—I may almost say of bravado—in meeting death. Such spectacles cannot fail to produce the worst effect upon those who witness these executions, and by enlisting sympathy rather tend to encourage others in the same course. What the noble Earl has said about the infliction of the punishment of flogging is also worthy of consideration. But there is this danger; if the flogging happens not to be very severe, the punishment loses its efficacy; if, on the contrary, it is severe and is applied to a very large number of persons, there is a risk of enlisting the sympathies of the people with the sufferer in the same manner as when the punishment of death is inflicted upon large numbers. There are cases, of course, in which it will be necessary to inflict the punishment of death; but I am inclined to think that when we have to deal with a large number of criminals among such a population as
  1364
  that of India, the punishment of transportation across the seas must be the most effectual. I think that, to an Asiatic, the punishment of transportation and to be loaded with irons would be, in many cases, much more dreaded than the punishment of death. Upon this subject I believe the opinion of the Governor General coincides with the noble Earl's, for I know he has already sent an expedition to the Andaman Islands to see how far the sentence of transportation can be carried out there. The Government have also communicated with the other colonies, to see whether some of them may not be made available for that purpose, and how far it may be desirable to carry out such a plan; and it is very probable that the attention of Parliament will be called to this subject. With the general principles laid down by the noble Earl the Government entirely concur, and they will carefully watch how punishment ought to be applied, and what effect it is likely to produce.

GENERAL WINDHAM.—EXPLANATION.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: After the circumstances which every one knows have taken place at Cawnpore, great doubts and uncertainty have been felt in some quarters as to the real merits of the arrangements taken by the officer in command there. I have been anxiously waiting for some statement from India to clear up these doubts; and, as a statement has come to hand most satisfactory with regard to that officer, I am sure your Lordships will rejoice with me that my gallant friend, Sir Colin Campbell, has exonerated General Windham from all blame. I am afraid, however, that blame is imputed to some other quarter. The case will, no doubt, receive every consideration by the Commander in Chief in India, who will dispose of it with his usual tact and judgment. I have received a letter from Sir Colin Campbell, which, in the handsomest manner, exonerates General Windham from all blame; and I have reason to believe that Sir Colin is likely to recommend him for a higher command than that which he now holds.
BANKRUPTCY COMMISSIONS.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM, in rising to move for Returns as to the number of days the Commissioners of Bankruptcy sat last year, the number of adjudications they had

  1365
  given, and the distances at which they resided from their respective courts, said he hoped the House would not conceive that he intended the least disrespect towards those able and learned persons; but it was not a small matter where the Commissioners lived. Of course no one would object to their living a reasonable distance off—say three or four or even nine or ten miles out in the county; but there were cases, he believed, in which the Commissioners lived at a very great distance, He had heard that a Commissioner, who ruled over a district some 200 or 300 miles distant, persisted in living in London, and defended his practice, as others living forty or fifty miles off did, on the ground that the railway made it easy for them to go from the one place to the other; but the suitors did not think so. They found great inconvenience in the practice, and particularly in this respect, that when the time approached for the Commissioner to set off by the railroad, he would adjourn the court; and then the suitors, who probably had come twenty or thirty miles, were obliged to go home, and come back the next day. This they complained of as a great hardship. There was another objection to the conduct of the Commissioners, on which these Returns would throw some light. It was said that the Commissioners, being anxious to go away for two or three days a week, instead of one or two days a week, would crowd upon the paper, as business for three or four hours, what ought to be business for three or four days. Now, this was a great hardship to the suitors both legal and mercantile, who were kept waiting in the court for hours together, as they never knew when their case would come on, and durst not, therefore, go away. Those complaints might, perhaps, be set right by the good sense of the individuals, and, in the hope that it might be so, he had abstained from giving any names, or even affording a clue to discover those who were complained of. He took this opportunity of stating that a great mistake appeared to prevail about the purport of the Bill which he introduced to their Lordships' notice the other day, as if it were intended only as a piece of humanity for the unfortunate debtor. He stated most distinctly that it was for the benefit of the unfortunate creditor that he introduced it. The doctrine which he maintained thirty years ago, and which he maintained still, was, that the creditor was prima facie right, and the debtor was
  1366
  prima facie wrong; and that, whereas, in all other cases where punishment was inflicted, they were to assume that the party was not guilty till he was proved guilty, it was necessary in the administration of the bankruptcy and insolvent law to act in some degree upon the opposite principle, calling upon the debtor to exculpate himself, and to show that the creditor had no ground of complaint against him in respect of his conduct. The only question was, as to the means by which this might be effected; and he believed these consisted in the transfer of the jurisdiction that was now exercised by the Insolvency Court to the Court of Bankruptcy; because the facts proved that, out of 4,000 persons imprisoned, it used to be for an average of two months—though he believed the period was now reduced to one month—of those 4,000 persons imprisoned seven-tenths were discharged without any inquiry whatever, because their discharges were unopposed; and two-tenths more were discharged, though they were opposed; so that nine-tenths of them ought never to have been imprisoned at all. But the creditors gained nothing by this; for during the imprisonment all the insolvent's property had been secreted or made away with, because the Insolvent Court had not, like the Bankruptcy Court, any power of seizing of property. The grievance to the imprisoned debtor was obvious, but it was not merely a grievance to him; the evidence of the keepers of prisons clearly showed, the insolvents who were sent there associated with the worst characters, and were far from leaving the gaol the same persons they entered it; in fact, the keepers of the gaols did not hesitate to ascribe to this practice a considerable portion of that demoralization which had been lately complained of among the mercantile and trading classes. His belief was, that if these cases were handed over to the Bankruptcy Court, with one addition—namely, beside giving it the power of penal imprisonment which the Insolvent Court had, the presence of some one on the part of the public to increase the stringency of examination. This would be the greatest possible check to fraud which the Legislature could devise, and the law would be placed on a much more satisfactory footing.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Returns asked for by his learned and noble Friend as to the number of days the Commissioners had sat, and adjudications they had made, had already been ordered on a

  1367
  Motion of his own, but a repetition of the order would do no harm. With regard to the residences of the Commissioners, he would abstain from making any observations till the facts were before them. He might say, however, with reference to the Commissioners who attended the Court in London, that it was a matter of no moment whatever whether they lived in suburban villas without the town or in the town itself; our social habits of late years had made that almost a necessity, and the distance of a few miles would not be unreasonable. With regard, however, to those who lived at a great distance from their Court he entirely concurred in the observations of his noble and learned Friend, that it was at least a practice calculated to give rise to great suspicions on the part of the suitors, who might be led to think that there was sometimes undue anxiety to conclude an inquiry in order to be in time for the railway. But if it was found that a Commissioner lived in London, having his family there, and had a lodging at the place where his duties were discharged, and was accustomed to remain there for the discharge of those duties during the week, coming to London, perhaps, on Saturday, and returning on Monday, he thought that was a matter with which they could have nothing to do. Everything, however, depended on the state of the facts.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.