§ LORD LYVEDENsaid, he had a petition to present to their Lordships the import- 1157 ance of which was sufficient to justify him in giving a short abstract of its contents. He would only premise that, though he concurred in many of the statements made by the petitioners, he did not agree with the prayer. The petition was from Inhabitants and Taxpayers of Calcutta and Bengal Proper, complaining of the System of Government in India, and praying for relief. It had received the signatures of 1,433 names, not of individuals only, but of some of the most considerable firms engaged in commerce in Calcutta; it had also received the signatures of many wealthy Natives, and of almost all the barristers and solicitors in Calcutta. It was, therefore, in every point of view, entitled to their Lordships' attention. The petitioners began by stating—what he was afraid was indisputably true—that the financial embarrassments of India consequent upon the mutiny had led the Government to resort to successive loans, to put a stop to public works, and to impose new taxes which were exceedingly injurious to the commerce of India. These embarrassments led Her Majesty's Government to pursue the unusual course of sending out a Finance Minister to India, which had never been done before; that the late able financial administrator, Mr. "Wilson, had, with the consent of the Council, imposed an income tax which was altogether new in the country, and had also imposed a licence tax, which would reach down to the humblest artisan. Seductions of the expenditure were also recommended, but these must necessarily be a work of time. Yet, in spite of this additional taxation (the petitioners went on to state), and in spite of the recommended reduction of expenditure, the Secretary of State for India had been induced to make a considerable addition to the Mysore grant—the grant awarded to the descendants of Tippoo Sahib. They went on to say that this addition amounted to nearly half a million sterling, which was one-half of the estimated produce of the newly-imposed income tax. But he (Lord Lyveden) was bound to state, having read the papers presented to the other House of Parliament—he was sorry that no papers on the subject had been presented to this House—that this was an exaggerated estimate, and that as regarded the capitalization of the revenues granted to the Mysore Princes in general he did not think it was a profuse grant. But he was surprised at the share allotted to certain of 1158 those Princes, because he could state of his own knowledge, having been a party to the arrangements made in 1855 and 1857, that those Princes, when he introduced them to Her Majesty, to an audience of leave, expressed their perfect satisfaction to him with what had been done on their behalf. At the same time he must express his concurrence in opinion with those who dissented from the way in which this arrangement was carried out; and for this reason, that no more dangerous course could be pursued than one which should invite Native Princes or petitioners to resort to this country with appeals against the decisions of the Governor General of India. He regretted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India had been induced, in this instance, to depart from the universal rule that no regard should be paid to petitions that were not transmitted through the Governor General, and the answers returned through him by the Indian Department here. It was obvious that in that way alone the authority of the Governor General could be maintained, and a stop put to the abuse which was beginning to prevail of persons coming over to this country to prosecute in person their alleged claims against the Indian Government. When such persons returned successful to India an impression was produced in India, which they all here knew to be perfectly false, that everything was to be done by the pressure of personal application to Ministers here, where nothing was to be gained by application to the Government in India. The petitioners then proceeded to complain that, having applied to the Legislative Council of Calcutta for information with respect to this grant, their petition had been rejected. He thought this was a just ground of complaint, because if we thought fit to maintain a petty parody of a Parliament in India, it was a hardship that persons in that country could not obtain what every Member of Parliament in this country could procure, and in this instance had procured, from the Minister here. The petitioners then proceeded to complain of a more important matter—the excess of the military expenditure. They said that expenditure was greatly in excess of the wants of the country, and that the Estimates of England were kept down at the cost of India. In that complaint he entirely sympathized. He feared that it not only had been done, but that it would often be done in future. He re- 1159 garded it as an unconstitutional proceeding. They specified that 20,000 men were charged to the Indian revenue for depots of soldiers nominally intended for India, but which were in reality part of the national defences of this country. He was aware that since this petition had been framed a reduction was made in the cost of those depots; but still the charge itself continued to he made, and he considered it was an unjust charge. "When the petitioners came to the prayer of their petition they asked that a return of the accounts and expenditure should be made up and laid before the public. This, he might remark, was what was much complained of in this country. There was the greatest difficulty in obtaining correct accounts of the Indian finances; "sketch estimates" were sent over which never answered their purpose, for they never turned out to be accurate. The petitioners then went on to complain that the whole revenues of India were subject to the sole control of the Secretary of State for India, and they prayed that some check might be applied to this. In that prayer he fully sympathized; but in what way the remedy was to be accomplished was a very difficult question. The petitioners also prayed—but in that prayer he could not concur—that the members of the Indian Council at home should be eligible to seats in Parliament. That proposition was fully discussed in 1858, and was rejected by the House of Commons for obvious reasons. He believed the Council of India to be a cumbrous and useless machine, and often a hindrance to the Government. He believed the object would have been better obtained if they had nominated a Council of six or of eight persons to form a Council of Advice to the Secretary of State; but whether few or many he would say, without any sort of disrespect to those gentlemen, that it would add greatly to the difficulty of Government if those gentlemen were to have seats in Parliament, where they might get up and contradict the Secretary of State. This evil was felt in the last days of the Court of Directors, when gentlemen of official authority got up to contravene the opinion of the Minister for India; and the evil would be still greater if those assailants should be members of his own Council. There was one other point on which he wished to address a word to their Lordships. The petitioners prayed that the Legislative Council of India might be enlarged by the admission of cer- 1160 tain qualified non-official members. Now, the Governor General and the Secretary of State bad already the power of enlarging that Council, which, however, they had never thought fit to exercise. A discussion must take place on this subject hereafter; and, therefore, he would only say now that in the measure which he understood the Government were about to introduce for the regulation of the Legislative Council the Secretary of State would not be deterred, even by the prayer of this petition, from taking a decided and manly course, though it might lead to reduce rather than enlarge the Council. That Council was introduced in the Bill of 1853, and passed without much discussion; in fact, the only person who foresaw the evils that had since arisen from the formation of the Council was his noble Friend near him (Lord Broughton), for whose opinion, having served his apprenticeship under him in Indian affairs, he entertained a high respect, and he stated what had since occurred, that it would form a prolific source of agitation and disturbance. No one entertained a higher respect for representative Government than himself. In this country he was, perhaps, disposed to carry it farther than many of their Lordships; but it did not follow that it was to be adopted in all countries and under all circumstances. It was a saying that if there were a rock in the middle of the sea, and six Englishmen were cast upon it, they would immediately attempt to establish representative Government. Now, in India there was an enormous Native population. You dared not establish a representative Government in that country, but in its place an unreal mockery of representation had been set up. One Member was sent from each Presidency to Calcutta. If the Governor had either some troublesome or some useless person that he wanted to get rid of he might send him to represent the Presidency in the Legislative Council, but be could in no way be said to be the elected Member. He would not prolong the discussion now, but would inquire when the measure relative to the Legislative Council of India would be introduced, which would afford more ample opportunity for operations?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that before noticing the allegations in the petition presented by his noble Friend, he would say, in answer to a question put by him, that he was not able to state precisely the time when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood) 1161 would introduce into the other House of Parliament the Bill which he had in preparation in reference to the Legislative Council of India. The Bill was, however, in a forward state of preparation, and he trusted that in a very short time his right hon. Friend would be able to introduce it. In these circumstances it would he improper in him to say anything with respect to the nature of the measure, The first grievance alleged in the petition presented by his noble Friend had reference to the recent arrangement made in the case of the Mysore Princes. He understood that his noble Friend did not concur in the whole of the complaint urged upon this point; but he complained that certain papers had not been laid on the Table of their Lordship's House, though they had been given to the other House of Parliament. The reason why these papers had been produced in the other House was that they had been moved for there, and that there was a technical objection to present by command to one House papers that had been produced on Motion in the other. If his noble Friend chose to move for them, there was no objection to their being produced in this House also. The petitioners stated that a sum of half a million sterling—or a quarter of the new income tax—had been given to the Princes of Mysore, the descendents of Hyder Ali. The fact was that a stock had been created to the amount of £429,000, the interest of which was to be appropriated to the descendants of Tippoo Sahib, in lieu of the revenues of certain districts, which under the Treaty of 1799 were to be applied to the maintenance of the Mysore family. These districts were estimated to produce seven lacs of rupees. About £50,000 a year had hitherto been paid to these Princes, and the result of the new arrangement would be that provision was made for an income of about £17,000 a year. There was in addition a sum of £83,000 appropriated to the payment of the debts the family had incurred at Calcutta, and to enable them to remove to other separate houses instead of the joint residence they had hitherto occupied at Russapugla, near Calcutta. There was a further charge of £12,000 a year granted to members of the family for life; but the recipients were chiefly very aged persons, and the amount was, therefore, liable to rapid diminution. He did not understand his noble Friend to object to the capitalization which had taken place by this arrangement, but he seemed to think 1162 that the stipends paid to the members of the Mysore family was too high. He had only to say that no arrangemant could have been carried out different from that which had been effected. It was necessary to have the consent of all the members of the family to the agreement, and unless they were prepared to repudiate the Treaty of 1799 he thought they could not reasonably object to what had been done. His noble Friend took exception to the arrangement on the ground that it had been entered into with Gholab Mohamed in this country and by the Home Government without being referred to the consideration of the Governor General. Now, his right hon. Friend did not invite the Prince to the discussion of the subject; but when it was brought before him, and considering that communications regarding it had often passed between the Home Government and that of India, he thought it afforded an excellent opportunity of settling the matter. He was sure that his right hon. Friend meant no slight upon the Government of India, for no man was more sensible than he was of the necessity of maintaining the dignity and authority of the Governor General of India. The petitioners next complained of the existing character of the Legislative Council of India; and he must say he was surprised to hear what fell from his noble Friend on that subject. He said that the Legislative Council of India was a kind of Parliament, and that, if that were the case, it ought to have all the functions of a Parliament. He (Earl de Grey) denied that the Legislative Council in any way resembled a Parliament. It was simply the Council of the Governor General, and had nothing in it of the character of a Parliament. The petitioners next complained of the expenditure of the depots for Indian soldiers in this country being charged upon the finances of India, and his noble Friend complained of the military expenditure of India being very large. He concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that the military expenditure was great, and that it ought to be reduced; and he was happy to say that measures were being taken to have it reduced, but he did not agree with the petitioners in thinking that the expense of the depots should fall upon this country. These depots were used for the purpose of having soldiers on hand to recruit the regiments in India as necessity required, and such an arrangement was called for to keep the regiments in a state of efficiency.
1163 The men in those depots consisted of recruits, and, though their presence in this country gave so many more additional men to the numerical force at home, they added but little to the military strength of the country. The Commander-in-Chief had, however, ordered that they should be reduced, but they could not be altogether dispensed with consistently with the efficiency of the regiments in India. The next point to which his noble Friend alluded was the necessity of accurate accounts of Indian expenditure being annually laid before Parliament. In his remarks on this subject he entirely concurred, and he could only say that his right hon. Friend was doing all in his power to satisfy the wish that existed for full and satisfactory information on the expenditure of India. And here he wished to state, in reference to a matter on which a noble Baron not now in his place (Lord Monteagle), had more than once expressed an opinion, namely, that the Returns required by the Act of 1853, showing the moral and material progress of India ought to be produced—he wished to state that in the course of a few days papers on that subject would be laid on the Table of the House. The petitioners complained that the Secretary of State for India in this country had the power to make any charges on the revenue of India that he chose. That was entirely inaccurate. The Secretary of State for India had, no doubt, certain powers, but they were not so extensive as had been stated by the petitioners, he could make no charge on the revenue of India without the approval of a majority of the India of the Council; and this very grant to the Mysore Princes, for instance, had received that approval. He hardly thought their Lordships would be prepared to take away from the Home Government all power regarding financial matters in India. As respected the prayer of the petitioners on the subject of the Legislative Council, he could not now go into details on the subject, as it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure having reference to that Council; but this he could say, that if the prayer of the petition was that there should be created in that country a little Parliament which should represent, not the people of India—because that was impossible—but the comparatively small European community, that was a prayer which he trusted would never be complied with, as to grant it would be to set up not a free Govern- 1164 ment but rather an oligarchical tyranny altogether inconsistent with the true interests of India.
THE DUKE OF AKGYLLsaid, he did not rise to refer to the future policy to be pursued with regard to India; but in consequence of some of the observations which had fallen from his noble Friend behind him (Lord Lyveden), he felt it necessary to allude to circumstances which took place before either that noble Lord or his noble Friend who had just spoken (Earl de Grey) were Members of their Lordships' House. He referred to the inquiry of the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1853, and to the alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council of India which was made in the same year. He agreed with his noble Friend who had last addressed their Lordships that no change was intended by that Act which should have the effect of converting that Council into more of a Parliament than it had been. He believed that since the Act of 1773—at all events, since the Act of 1784, and still more by the Act of 1794—legislative powers, in the full sense of the word, had been possessed by the Legislative Council of Calcutta, and to such an extent as that it would have been utterly impossible for the Government at home to order it to pass any law. He thought his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) would agree with him that it would have been ultra vires in the Court of Directors to insist on the Governor General and the Legislative Council passing any particular law whatever. The question, then, was as to the change made by the Act of 1853. He could not look to it without adverting to another change, which had been made previously to that year. He believed that between the years 1773 and 1833 there was not only a small Parliament in Calcutta, but a small Parliament in each of the Presidencies. The relation between those Presidencies and the Government at Calcutta was somewhat obscure; but it would appear that they had the power of legislating for their own territories, subject to the sanction of the supreme central Government at Calcutta, and subject, of course, to the sanction of the Court of Directors. By the Act of 1833 that power of initiating was taken away altogether from the minor Presidencies, and they were centralized under the Government of Calcutta. The change made in 1853 was one having for its object, not to enlarge the powers of the Parliament in India, but to 1165 amend what bad boon done in 1833. It was repeatedly urged by the witnesses examined before the Committee of that year, that if the Imperial Parliament did not restore to the minor Presidencies those powers which were taken away in 1833, it ought, at least, to allow those Presidencies a representation in Calcutta. The ease, then, stood thus—in 1833, all power of legislation was taken from the minor Presidencies; and the question was whether that power should be restored, and if not, whether they should not be allowed a representation in Calcutta. So far from there being no recommendation to the Government to adopt the latter course, the whole weight of the evidence taken by the Committee was in favour of it. Now came the question whether the effect of the measure of 1853 had been to add to or materially alter the powers of the Legislative Council. He believed his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) would admit that there was nothing in the wording of the Act itself giving additional powers to the Council; but he understood from him that a legal opinion taken by him at the time stated that the mere fact of adding to the number of the body made a material change in its character. With great respect for the legal opinion, he believed that view of the Act to be unfounded. At all events, he felt certain of this—that it was not the intention of the Government in 1853 to add to the powers of the Legislative Council. It was intended to add to the number of the members, and to give to the minor Presidencies a right of representation, but certainly not to alter the character of the Assembly. If that was a fair statement of the effects of the Act of 1853, there was not a little Parliament in Calcutta at present any more than there had been for the last fifty or sixty years. It seemed to him, then, that what they had to consider was whether the forms of that Council where what they ought to be, and whether it was expedient that the forms of the British Parliament should be travested by sixteen gentlemen sitting round a green board. In discussing the question whether the publicity of the proceedings was desirable their Lordships must remember that in India they had to deal with a free press—with a press that was not only free, but he was afraid he must add, in some instances, licentious. That being so, he thought it right that they should maintain the publicity of the discussions of the Legislative Council, because 1166 it afforded the Government its only opportunity of replying to the attacks which were made on it in the public press. While he admitted that there were faults in the Legislative Council, he could not forget that it had discussed very grave subjects—look, for instance, at the manner in which it had dealt with the question of the taxation of India, than which a more important and difficult topic was never debated in any country. In that case the result of publicity was that the speech of Mr. Wilson, which was almost as formal a one as he could have made in the House of Commons, had tended materially to lessen the difficulty of establishing the financial scheme, and to convince the people that some such measure was necessary notwithstanding the opposition of no less a person than Sir Charles Trevelyan. And now, with respect to the subject which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of their Lordships, he would observe that incidental discussions of very great importance sometimes arose in that House; but it occasionally occurred that noble Lords did not think it worth while to take a part in those discussions, because there was no question before them or no division to be taken. In the present instance, though the discussion was to a certain extent incidental, yet, as their Lordships were to be called on before the end of the Session to consider a measure having reference to the Legislative Council of India, he thought it right that they should come to the consideration of that measure with a full knowledge of the existing law, and of the alteration which had been made by the Act of 1853.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships with but very few words; but I must take this opportunity of expressing to the House my deep regret that I was ever led to accept the alteration in the law with respect to what is now called the Legislative Council of India. I did not foresee the, evils which would accrue from the establishment of that Council as it now exists; but a noble Friend of mine now present (Lord Broughton) did see them. I remember my noble Friend coming round to me during the progress of the Bill, and in a very earnest manner representing these dangers. Formerly the Governor General and the Executive Council disposed of all the legislative business in a very short time, no one being present but themselves. I remember 1167 myself, when Governor General, in a case of necessity passing a Bill in half an hour. But, at the same time, I was quite sensible of the great difficulty in the way of the Governor General and the Council at Calcutta legislating in a satisfactory manner on matters relating to Madras and other distant parts of India; I was aware of the desire of the minor Presidencies to have a representation in that Legislative Council; and I thought that the alteration in the Council was allowable because it would permit it to be reinforced by men capable of giving information relative to those Presidencies. But what have these changes led to? The Executive Council is now compelled to sit in public with the members added to it. The whole together constitute a Legislative Council, and those persons who have been added to the Assembly outvote the Government. The difference between this and the former state of things is the difference between a majority and a minority, which seems to me to be very important in matters of legislation. I have regretted from the first the course which this Council has pursued. I have observed its tendency to nibble at the religion of the people, and at the customs of the country. To the Legislative Council and the imprudence of its action, as much as to any other cause, I attribute the occurrence of the mutiny; for by nibbling at the religion of the people they prepared the public mind of the country to accept the monstrous fictions published with a view to that rebellion. Their conduct recently seems to me utterly inconsistent with the duty attached to such a high office. Having committed an error the first thing to be done is frankly to acknowledge it, and the next to redeem it. I acknowledge my error, and I hope the Government will endeavour to redeem the mistake which has been committed, and that they will have the courage to do what is obviously right. I feel perfectly satisfied that the continuance of the Council constituted as at present, assuming the functions to which it lays claim, is inconsistent with the honour, the dignity, and the strength of the Government of India. I trust Her Majesty's Government, if they entertain that opinion, will act upon it, and, come what may, that they will determine to do what they think right.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexpressed his astonishment that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) should have 1168 justified by implication the course taken by the Legislative Council.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend entirely misunderstood him. He had given an historical account of the reasons which induced the Government of 1853 to constitute the existing Legislative Council, but he had expressed no opinion whatever with regard to the course recently taken by the Council, which he admitted was open to grave exception.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas happy to have elicited the explanation, because the noble Duke, by justifying the original appointment of the Council, and refraining from expressing any opinion with regard to their recent conduct, appeared by implication to approve the steps which they had taken. The course of action pursued by the Council struck him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) as being so bad that he could not understand how it was that the Government had so long delayed the introduction of a measure on this subject, and the speech of the noble Lord who first answered on behalf of the Government (Earl de Grey) was little calculated to afford encouragement. The noble Earl had not given the House to understand on what day, or even in what week, the Bill would be introduced. Though the end of April had almost arrived, the House of Commons was only about to enter on the consideration of some most important measures relating to other subjects, and August would probably be reached before a Bill relating to the Legislative Council of India would find its way to their Lordships' House, The noble Duke promised on the 11th of March, when be (the Marquess of Clanricarde) made a Motion on the subject, that before a Bill was introduced the fullest information would be laid on the table of both Houses; but, although on that understanding he had been induced to withdraw his Motion, no papers on this subject had yet been presented to Parliament. He believed that the more advantageous course would be to introduce the measure in that House, where there were several noble Lords who had been officially connected with India, and who from their experience and knowledge were peculiarly qualified to discuss the subject. An opinion appeared to exist that because we had succeeded in crushing the mutiny, and in abolishing the East India Company as a ruling power, we had no further duties to discharge in connection with the Government of India; but, for his part, he believed it would not 1169 be possible long to retain possession of that vast empire unless its condition engaged immediate and serious consideration. The existence of the Civil Service of India, with its ancient privileges, lay at the root of the question; and as long as that service was maintained on its present footing it would be impossible to put the right men in the right places. To keep our hold of India it would be necessary to enlist on our side and to conciliate a great proportion of the intelligence and wealth of the Native population.
§ EARL GREYhoped the suggestion made by the noble Marquess would not be lost sight of. In general Bills were more advantageously introduced in the other House; but a measure with regard to which special information was possessed by many Members of their Lordships' House would be discussed with as much utility as in the House of Commons, where the state of the order-book rendered it extremely improbable that a Bill such as that which was contemplated could receive attention for a long time to come. The subject was one of extreme and urgent importance. He could conceive nothing more dangerous or hurtful to British power in India than the continuance of that miserable farce—for he could designate it by no other name—of the Legislative Council. He agreed with the noble Duke that it was of great importance that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing the measures proposed by the Government; but it was decidedly inconvenient that the objections to those measures should emanate from their own officers, and from persons engaged in the public service. That a Judge should be the leader of Opposition was intolerable, nor could the servants of the Government be the organs through which even just objections to the measures of the Government would be brought forward without interfering with discipline, and with the authority which ought to be concentrated in the supreme authority. At the same time he thought that some machinery ought to be, and might be, devised by which the public opinion of measures of the Government might be made known, any objections to them might be stated, and the answer of the Government to such objections might be made public. It was, in his opinion, a fault in the Act of 1833, that it abolished all power of legislation in the minor Presidencies, and centralized the legalization of the immense empire of India at Calcutta. It was, no doubt, 1170 necessary that the central Government should exercise a general control over legislation, more especially such as affected the finances; but he had no doubt that, without any improper interference with that control, much useful legislative work might be disposed of in the minor Presidencies. He hoped that this subject would very seriously engage the attention of the Government, and that if they were prepared to deal with it, they would consider the propriety of introducing the measure, having that object in this rather than in the other House of Parliament.
§ LORD LYVEDEN, in reply, mentioned, as an instance of the differences which might arise between the Legislative Council at Calcutta and the Secretary of State for India, that The Times of Saturday last contained a report of the speech of the Secretary of State, expressing his disapproval of a measure which was before the Council with regard to contracts between ryots and indigo planters; and, also, an announcement that that measure had passed the Legislative Council by a large majority.
THE EARL OF ELLEN BOROUGHsaid, he was not aware that that Bill had passed the Council. He asked the noble Earl opposite whether such a measure was not inconsistent with the pledge given by the Government in September last?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that he had not seen the statement that had been referred to by the noble Baron. No doubt the measure in question was inconsistent with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
§ House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.