HL Deb 23 July 1858 vol 151 cc2007-20

Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.

LORD WROTTESLEY moved the omission of the words, in page 4, line 17, which provide that the Councillors who are required to have served or resided for a cer- tain time in India shall not have last left India more than ten years next preceding the date of their appointment. The noble Lord said those words had been introduced as an Amendment, on the bringing up of the Report on the Bill, and in his opinion they would operate injuriously, by disqualifying for the office of Councillors men who might be peculiarly well fitted for the discharge of its duties. He objected, moreover, to all restrictions upon the freedom of election.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

also thought that those words ought to be omitted from the Bill.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he should insist on the retention of those words. They would ensure the advantage of recent experience in the Council, and it should be remembered that they would only apply to nine out of the fifteen councillors. The remaining six members of that body could be selected without any reference to such a povision. He thought they might as well omit the clause altogether as adopt the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 29.

THE EARL OF DERBY moved the omission of the words, "with the concurrence of a majority of the Council," in the clause relating to the appointment of the members of Council in India. The effect of that Amendment would be that the selection in that case would be left to the Secretary of State, uncontrolled by his Council.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, he believed that greater unity and vigour of Administration would be secured by leaving the appointment of the members of Council in India in the hands of the Governor General.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, enacting that, except for preventing or repelling actual invasion, the revenues of India shall not "without the consent of Parliament," be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the frontiers.

LORD CRANWORTH

wished to remind the noble Earl that "the consent of Parliament" meant an Act of Parliament; while the consent of "both Houses of Parliament" would be inferred by Addresses to the Crown.

EARL GRANVILLE

had asked more than once what was meant by the words "consent of Parliament," but he never received an answer, He should like to hear from the noble Earl opposite what was meant by the term.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, the consent of Parliament might mean either an Act of Parliament or a Resolution passed by both Houses.

EARL GRANVILLE

thought it should be distinctly stated in the Bill what was meant by the words.

THE EARL OF DERBY

proposed a clause to follow the 62nd, the object of which was to enable any person provisionally appointed Governor General to exercise his powers before taking his seat in Council. It was to provide for the case of a person who at the time of his appointment might not be at Calcutta, and to render it unnecessary that he should proceed thither before proceeding to discharge his duties. The clause was as follows:— In case the person who shall be entitled under any provisional appointment to succeed to the office of Governor General of India upon a vacancy therein, or who shall be appointed absolutely to assume that office, shall be in India upon or after the happening of the vacancy, or upon or after the receipt of such absolute appointment, as the case may require, but shall be absent from Fort William in Bengal, or from the place where the Council of the Governor General of India may then be, and it shall appear to him necessary to exercise the powers of Governor General before he shall have taken his seat in Council, it shall be lawful for him to make known by Proclamation his appointment, and his intention to assume the said office of Governor General, and after such Proclamation, and thenceforth until he shall repair to Fort William or the place where the Council may assemble, it shall be lawful for him to exercise alone all or any of the powers which might be exercised by the Governor General in Council, except the power of making Laws and Regulations; and all acts done in the exercise of the said powers, except as aforesaid, shall be of the same force and effect as if they had been done by the Governor General in Council: Provided that all acts done in the said Council after the date of (such Proclamation, but before the communication thereof to such Council, shall be valid, subject nevertheless to revocation or alteration by the person who shall have so assumed the said office of Governor General; and when the office of Governor General is assumed under the foregoing provision, if there be at any time before the Governor General takes his seat in Council no Vice-President of the Council authorized to preside at meetings for making Laws and Regulations (as provided by Section Twenty-two of the Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty), the senior ordinary Member of Council then present shall preside therein, with the same powers as if a Vice President had been appointed, and were absent.

Motion agreed to. Clause added.

THE EARL OF DERBY

then moved the insertion of the following clauses after Clause 67:— After the commencement of this Act, such of the Directors as have been elected by the General Court of the said Company, or who shall from time to time be so elected, shall be the Directors of the said Company, and the major part of such Directors for the time being shall form a Court of Directors; and where the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of Ten Directors is now requisite, the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of the major part of the Directors for the time being shall be sufficient; and to the intent that the number of Directors may be reduced to Six, Two Directors only shall be elected by the General Court of the said Company at each biennial election to fill the vacancies occasioned by the expiration of the term of office of Directors; and so much of the said Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty as requires any of the Directors to be persons who have resided Ten Years in India shall be repealed, and in the oath to be taken by a Director of the said Company, under Section Thirteen of the said Act, the words 'in the administration of the Government of India in trust for the Crown' shall be omitted. It shall no longer be obligatory on the Directors to summon Four General Quarterly Courts in every year as heretofore. Except claims of mortgagees of the Security Fund hereinbefore mentioned, the said Company shall not, after the passing of this Act, be liable in respect of any claim, demand, or liability which has arisen, or may hereafter arise, out of any treaty, covenant, contract, grant, engagement, or fiduciary obligation made, incurred, or entered into by the said Company before the passing of this Act, whether the said Company would, but for this Act, have been bound to satisfy such claim, demand, or liability out of the revenues of India, or in any other manner whatsoever.

Motion agreed to. Clauses added.

Further Amendments made.

On Motion, That the Bill do pass,

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, before this Bill leaves I wish to address a few words to your Lordships on a subject which, though not making any part of the Bill, is closely connected with the government of our Indian empire; but to which, nevertheless, very little allusion has been made in the course of the discussions—I mean the subject of religion, and the singular and responsible position which England holds as a Christian nation ruling over a nation of heathens. My Lords, I make no complaint that the Bill is silent on this important subject. It could not be otherwise. The purpose of the Bill is to frame a government, not to declare how that government is to be administered—to create a machinery which is to be worked elsewhere. I also agree in the principle that has been so often laid down, that India must be governed in India, and not not from England. Still, my Lords, the subject to which I allude is one on which strong and conscientious convictions are entertained by a very large portion of the community, who deeply feel the anomalous and responsible position in which we are placed as a Christian nation ruling over a vast population of idolaters. My Lords, we are as far as possible from desiring any open attempt on the part of Government either to overthrow the false religion with which, unhappily, we have to deal, or to establish that which we know to be true. So far are we from desiring any such interference that we should think nothing gained by the conversion of the whole peninsula, supposing that it could possibly be effected through bribery or compulsion. But, while we grant to the religion of the Natives complete toleration, it is not necessary to conceal or compromise our own, or to let it appear to be a matter of indifference to us whether the Natives become converts to truth or not. And undoubtedly there is in this country a strong opinion prevailing that the course which has hitherto been pursued may wisely and safely be modified. My Lords I venture to specify a few points which I trust will be hereafter observed in the administration of affairs in India. First, that no distinction of caste be any longer recognized. Secondly, that in all schools to which aid is given by the Government the Bible shall be read—not commented upon for its doctrines, but read for its facts. Thirdly, that all connection on the part of the Government with the rites and customs of an idolatrous religion be entirely abolished, even if the object of such connection be simply the preservation of order; that those lands which have hitherto been employed for idolatrous purposes, and of which I believe the Company have become trustees, should be made over entirely to the Natives themselves, so that this nation may be altogether released from any participation in things which are detestable in themselves, and scandalous to the reputation of a Christian country. Fourthly, that Native converts to Christianity should be admitted to all employments the duties of which they can adequately fulfil. In measures like these there is nothing that ought to excite the suspicion of the Natives, nothing contrary to the most perfect toleration, nothing savouring of proselytism—it is merely an acknowledgment of the religion we ourselves profess. And surely, my Lords, we ought to look forward to the time when, under the providence of God, India shall form no excep- tion to the multitude of countries in which truth has prevailed against falsehood, and the Gospel has triumphed over idolatry and superstition, so that in the end it may appear why a remote country like England should have been allowed to have dominion over the vast territory of India.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, after what has fallen from the most rev. Prelate, I may be permitted to observe, that while I think that due protection ought to be given to the professors of all religions in India, and nothing should be done to discourage the efforts of Christian missionaries in that country; on the other hand, I am quite certain that it is essential to the interests, the peace, and the well-being of India, if not also to the very existence of our empire in India, that the Government should carefully abstain from doing anything except to give indiscriminate and impartial protection to all sects and all creeds; and that nothing could be more inconvenient or more dangerous on the part of the State than any open and active assistance to any, or any attempt to convert the Native population from their own religions, however false and superstitious. My Lords, I hope I misunderstood the most rev. Prelate when he said that he should recommend the Government not in the slightest degree to recognize the distinction of caste. On that subject I will say, as far as the interest of the public service is concerned, it is not desirable that the same indulgence and punctilious deference for the caste of the Natives entering that service as was previously observed should be continued for the future; but to say that you will not recognize caste at all in India is to say that you will not recognize that which is intimately interwoven with all the cherished feelings, habits, associations, and most vital principles of the people. Therefore, my Lords, while in the public service I certainly would not allow prejudices of caste to interfere with the discharge of the duties which any person may voluntarily take upon himself, I say it is the bounden duty of the Government to pay that attention to caste which even in this country we pay, though not in the same degree, to the different ranks of society, and which any Government must, more or less, respect, if it would not be brought into constant collision with all classes of its subjects. There was one topic touched upon by the most rev. Prelate in his observations with which I entirely concur. Wherever pro- perty in land or in any other form has been assigned to religious purposes, however repugnant to our feelings, provided they do not violate every principle of morality and decency, I think that that property ought to continue to be scrupulously applied to the ends to which it was dedicated. But I agree with the most rev. Prelate that it is most desirable that the Government and its officials should, as far as possible, separate themselves from any active interference in the detailed management of the property devoted to the support of idolatrous ceremonies in India. When I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Department I introduced this principle into Ceylon, and required the arrangements under which the Government officials in that island had previously acted in regard to the Native rites and ceremonies to be modified, while the management of the funds applicable to such purposes was handed over to those with whose opinions they better accorded. I think the Government did its duty with credit then, as it will do its duty with credit now, by withdrawing as much as possible from any active participation in the detailed management of property of this description, while it at the same time strictly maintains the existing application of the endowments.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I wish, my Lords, to explain that in speaking of caste I entirely referred to the public services.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

My Lords, I think it due to the feelings of the country, which though recently silent, has by no means been asleep on this subject, that some expression of opinion should be given by your Lordships before the Bill to regulate the future government of India leaves this House. To nothing which has just fallen from the noble Earl can any exception be reasonably taken. I am exceedingly gratified, and I believe the public will also be gratified, with the sentiments which he has enunciated. Those sentiments are very much in accordance with the petition which I had the honour to present to your Lordships signed by the representatives of all the bodies in this country engaged in the diffusion of Christian knowledge and in the encouragement of missionary operations. In that petition there is nothing violent, nothing fanatical. The demand of the petitioners is confined to what is strictly moderate and reasonable. What they require is the assertion of the most unbounded religious liberty in India; that the professors of all religions without distinction, should be put upon a footing of perfect equality. They say that in that country in the eye of the law the professors of all religions must be placed on a footing of equality; and they maintain that in the selection of candidates for the public service, there must be no rule but that of fitness for the public service. No man must be chosen or rejected simply because he is a Hindoo, a Parsee, a Mahommedan, or a Christian: all must have an equal claim to serve the State. I believe it would be prejudicial rather than otherwise if the Government were to come forward and give any direct assistance to the propagation of Christianity. What the petitioners ask is that the Government should neither promote that faith by active measures, nor in any way retard it—that it should neither be a favourer nor an opponent of Christianity. They expect that reasonable protection shall be given to all sects who conduct themselves with propriety. They hope the Government will not be ashamed to avow by its acts and in its official documents that it is a Christian Government; that it looks upon Christianity as the best form of religion and the best basis of all civilization; but that, neither directly nor indirectly—by force, bribery, or any other such inducement, great or small—will it endeavour to turn any Native from the religion to which he belongs. And this was the concluding prayer of the petitioners:— That all existing lets and hindrances being removed, and no new ones being opposed, free scope and action be given to the diffusion of Christianity through Her Majesty's territories in the East Indies. My Lords, it is said that the neck of the rebellion is broken, and many of the guerrilla bands which disturb the peace of India are composed of persons who were not engaged in the original mutiny. I have seen letters from India from persons of the highest authority, expressing the opinion that something in the nature of an amnesty might now be proclaimed, so as to avoid the risk of driving large masses of men to desperation. There is another point to which I would call your Lordships' attention, and the attention of Her Majesty's Government. One of the brightest traits in the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough's) administration of India was the invariable deference and respect he evinced for the feelings of the people, and the noble and generous manner in which he extended over them the shield of his protection. I regret to find from letters I have recently received that there has recently been growing up a strong antipathy between the Europeans and the Natives in India. The older civilians and military men, indeed, know their duty too well to give way to such a feeling; but the young officers who go to that country imbibe the worst prejudices, and I am told that the common language in which they speak of the Natives is, "vile and detestable niggers." I fear it will be long before the confidence which formerly prevailed between European and Native will be again restored; perhaps half a century may elapse before an Englishman will be able to settle down in security in the interior provinces of India. But I wish, my Lords, to read an extract from a letter just received from Benares, which shows that a state of things now exists in that country which demands the most vigorous interposition of the Government. It is as follows:— Benares is very quiet, and, as usual, with few troops; but we are better without them. The other day the sons of the Rajah of—got a horsewhipping from some officers for not salaaming; and I expect we shall have many such scenes. There is a great dislike and contempt of the Natives among the newly arrived portion of the European forces. It will be well if it goes no further. The writer continues:— I know the young men; they are very quiet and gentlemanlike, with a taste for drawing and mechanics, and could not have been guilty of intentional insolence. There is a very bad spirit growing up among the Europeans towards the Natives, the most faithful among whom must become utterly disgusted if we do not take care. My Lords, I believe that the Asiatics will submit to much—to rapine, violence, spoliation, and oppression—but submit to insult they will not; and I know of no one single tiling that is more likely to retard the civilization of that country and endanger the peace and security of our empire than the continuance of such a state of things. A great many preach the Gospel with their mouths and others preach it by their lives. I am glad to see the Gospel advanced by both these means; but I am quite sure that no one single thing will more tend to advance civilization, even more than the exertions of the missionaries themselves, than that the language and conduct of all persons should be in harmony with the Gospel. The noble Earl will excuse me for having brought forward this subject, but I felt that a continuance of the present state of things would produce such serious results that I could not help expressing a hope that he will direct his atttention to the subject.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, I perfectly agree with the noble Earl that in the present state of India one of the most alarming circumstances is the great and constantly increasing animosity between the Natives and the Europeans. I greatly regret that I am compelled to admit that that animosity is, in a very great measure, owing to the extreme severity of the punishment which has been inflicted upon the Natives. I do trust that the example set by Sir John Lawrence with respect to punishment will be followed throughout the entire country. Sir John Lawrence has with great propriety introduced a regulation by which it is required that no man's life shall be taken away (if that should be necessary) without the concurrence of three persons, and I hope the same course will be adopted generally as long as hostilities last. But the Government of India last year thought fit to pass a law to restrict the press of India. That law has been very naturally carried into effect for the protection of the Government from hostile comment and observation. I wish I could say that the protection of the Government had been extended to the people. It has not. Every one of those editors whose mouths have been closed against the Government has been permitted to use from day to day language most exasperating to the whole people of India. They are described as contaminated by every vice. From day to day the regiments which have been disarmed are threatened with extermination in a manner that is likely to produce the most terrible effects. If it is necessary to prevent the press from libelling the Government, a restriction should also be imposed upon the press to prevent it from libelling the people of India. I am satisfied that if the press of India be not thus restricted the results will be most dangerous. If we allow the press thus to libel the people it is idle to expect that young officers arriving in India will not have their minds poisoned by the stories which they read day by day in the newspapers. With regard to a most important matter—that of the future policy of the Government with respect to religion in India—I ask your Lordships to permit me to read a few sentences from the last authoritative exposition of their policy, dated only on the 13th of April last, in a letter from the Court of Directors to the Governor General, published for the information of your Lordships. In that letter are these words:— The Government will adhere with good faith to its ancient policy of perfect neutrality in matters affecting the religion of the people of India; and we most earnestly caution all those in authority under it not to afford by their conduct the least colour to the suspicion that that policy has undergone or will undergo any change. It is perilous for men in authority to do as individuals that which they officially condemn. The real intention of the Government will be inferred from their acts, and they may unwittingly expose it to the greatest of all dangers, that of being regarded with general distrust by the people. We rely upon the honourable feelings which have ever distinguished our service for the furtherance of the views which we express. When the Government of India makes a promise to the people there must not be afforded to them grounds for a doubt as to its fidelity to its word.

VISCOUNT MELVILLE

thought, that as long as they employed a Native army it would not be easy to abstain from giving some countenance to the religious ceremonies of the Natives.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

Before your Lordships pass this Bill I hope I may be permitted to make one or two remarks. I understand that the point to which my most rev. Brother alluded was the practice that has existed for some years, of the Government taking into its own hands the management of the lands by which the heathen temples are supported. That practice has not as yet altogether ceased, and the result is, that these lands are kept in a far better state, and the heathen temples are, therefore, much better maintained than if the lands were under the control of those who would squander the proceeds and use them to their own advantage. The Government ought no longer to be responsible for the maintenance of that religion in any way. This is a matter of some importance, and we know that, notwithstanding what we have often heard, some change in this respect is desirable. The ancient traditional policy and management in India, as to religion, is not, indeed, likely to be altered; but there is a deep feeling in the hearts of religious people in this country that in that policy for many years back there has been some mistake. I do not mean to say that exaggerated statements were not from time to time made upon this subject during the pressure of the calamities of last year. But I think that when all allowance is made for exaggeration it will still be found that there is a deep- seated feeling in the hearts of Englishmen that we do require some change in some of these matters, and I think the speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Government shows that we really are disposed to look this matter fairly in the face. It would not, I think, satisfy the feeling of the English nation if this year were to pass over without our future administration of India bearing upon it the shadow of that great event which has so deeply afflicted the nation, and which we cannot but regard as being in some degree a visitation from God. No doubt, my Lords, we ought to exercise the utmost impartiality towards our heathen fellow-subjects. No doubt we ought to show the greatest forbearance to them. No doubt the Church of England and the Christian religion itself can never be advanced by a policy of mere force and power on the part of the Government. But we ought to show to the people of India that we wish to give them, not only Christian justice and Christian civilization, but, above all, ultimately the inheritance of Christian truth.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

I think, my Lords, that we can have very little doubt what the conduct of a Christian Government ought to be; but I confess that I heard with some misgivings the extract which was read by the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), especially when accompanied with the emphasis which the noble Earl threw upon certain expressions which are well capable of being understood in two different ways. If by the "neutrality" which was referred to nothing more was meant than that there should be no attempt on the part of the Government as a Government, directly or indirectly to interfere with the religious belief of its heathen subjects, I for one cannot object to that word being taken in its fullest sense. But if by "neutrality" is secretly meant that there shall be stamped on the English Government and their representatives in India an aspect of entire indifference as to whether this religion or that is to prosper and abide—if by "neutrality" is meant that their characters are to exhibit that happy indifference as to Christianity which shall impress on the heathen mind the conviction that they care not whether they are Christians or heathens, then I believe that such neutrality would be fatal and false to the religion we profess, and that ultimately it would destroy the empire that has been entrusted to us. It seems to me that the distinction is plain and in- telligible between making the Indian people feel that we do not by force and fraud, by policy or by violence, interfere with their religious belief, because our own religion teaches us that such interference would be wrong, and impressing them with the conviction that we withhold our interference because we have ourselves no distinct preference for our own faith. One seems to me to be the line of Christian truth, and the other to be the line of a wicked neutrality; and I am only most anxious that nothing should go forth to mar the impression that we do not mean the English Government in India to be ashamed of its Christianity; but that we wish it to make due provision for the supply of the Christian necessities of its own troops and civil servants, because it believes Christianity to be true, and is not afraid in the face of its heathen subjects to show that it believes it to be true, and that it builds its own expectations of its continued prosperity upon the blessing of that God whom it professes to serve. I trust that that is the only sense in which neutrality as to the Christian religion is to be admitted into the future Government of India; and I think it the more important to declare this, because I cannot but feel that there have been in times past many instances in which neutrality was understood to mean carelessness about the truth of Christianity and a fear to avow in the face of heathendom that we were ourselves firm believers in the Christian revelation.

EARL GRANVILLE

I think that the meaning of the words quoted by the noble Earl is very obvious—that the Government is not to interfere in any manner with the religion of its subjects in India; that it is not in its official capacity to use either force or corruption for the purposes of proselytism. I may say that it gave me great pleasure to hear the declaration which was made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. I think that it was most useful and important—most useful with regard to the influence which it will produce upon the opinions of people in this country, and most important not only with respect to the temporal interests of the government in India, but as indicating the most advantageous system for the gradual spread of Christianity in that large kingdom. With regard to the policy of mercy which has been advocated this evening, I feel no distrust of Her Majesty's Government in that respect, and I am quite sure that there need be no fear of Lord Canning. It gives me great satisfaction to find the general concurrence which is now expressed by all in regard to that discrimination of punishment and to those principles of mercy for which the noble Lord made himself so very conspicuous last autumn, and then subjected himself to so much rebuke.

On Question, Resolved, in the Affirmative.

Bill passed accordingly and sent to the Commons.

"Dissentient,— 1. Because the Bill establishes a Home Administration for India at once inefficient, unconstitutional, and expensive. 2. Because the Council it gives to the Secretary of State is too numerous for either deliberation or action, while the parties composing it consist mainly of the very individuals who were engaged in conducting that form of Government which the Bill itself condemns and supersedes. 3. Because the Measure provides that a moiety of the Council shall be chosen on the vicious and long-condemned principle of self-election. 4. Because the Members for Council are virtually appointed for life; and besides being endowed with large salaries and ample pensions, are moreover paid by a great patronage, for the dispensation of which they are wholly irresponsible. 5. Because the Government provided by this Bill, partaking largely of the character and composition of its condemned predecessor, holds out little hope that the misgovernment which has driven the people of India into rebellion will be abandoned. 6. Because the Members constituting the Council of India, while drawing large salaries and enjoying extensive patronage, are, contrary to Parliamentary precedent and sound principle, not prohibited from holding other offices of emolument, or engaging in commercial transactions; thus interfering with their efficiency as Public Servants, and exposing them to the suspicion of jobbing and corruption. 7. Because the Council constituted by the Bill, cumbrous, expensive, and inefficient, can have no other effect than either to thwart the Secretary of State, or to screen him from Parliamentary responsibility, while efficient and experienced Under Secretaries would have afforded more effectual and constitutional advice and assistance in the discharge of his duties. ALBEMARLE.

House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.