The Press. — London, England, 1857-08-01 00:00:00

740 VretuVings znpaliantent. HOUSE OF LORDS—MONDAY. THE SESSION. Lord DERBY called the attention of the house to be absolute necessity which existed for fixing some day after which no new bill, except it were one of Pressing importance, should be read a second time. After some little discussion it was agreed that after August the 7th no bill, except it were of the nature indicated, should be read a second time. INDIAN ARMY. Lord CLANRICARDE in a speech of considerable length called the attention of the house to the in subordinate condition of the Indian army, and con cluded by moving for certain correspondence bearing on the subject. The Duke of ARGYLL stated that the papers moved for had been already laid on the tahle of the Lower House, and would also be laid before their lordships. With regard to the subject in general on which the Marquis of Clanricarde had spoken, the house might be sure that the Government were determined to put down the insurrection with a high hand, and to spare no exertion to maintain our Indian empire. HOUSE OF COMMONS—MONDAY. lONIAN ISLANDS. Mr. LADOUCHERE, in reply to a question put by Sir De Lacy Evans, said he had received no official ihformation upon the subject, but he had learnt from private letters that intemperate language had been used and great excitement exhibited in the Assembly of the lonian Islands, but no formal resolution had been come to that would justify the extreme measure of prorogation. INDIA. Mr. Disuszu, pursuant to notice, called the attention of tho house to the state of affairs in India. After noticing the suddenness of the intelli gence of the mutiny among the native troops, which had taken the Government by surprise, their im pression being that it would speedily pass away, he observed that even after they had time to consider the events the house had been told by a principal member of the Cabinet—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the result of its mature opinion, that the revolt of the Bengal army was " a sudden impulse occasioned by a superstitious feeling." It was of the greatest moment that the house should have a clear notion of the cause of these events. It was said to be only a military mutiny; bat it was of primary importanoe•to know whether it was a military mutiny or a national revolt. He presumed, therefore, to address the house upon two points of inquiry —first, what were the causes of the present state of affairs in India; and, when the house had arrived at a conclusion upon that point, what were the proper measures which, under the circumstances, should be adopted. The house no doubt was well acquainted with the opinions of Sir Charles Napier, of Lord Melville, also of one of the most rising soldiers of the day, Colonel Jacobs, as to the unsatis factory state of the Bengal army. The opinion of Lord Dalhousie was too important to be passed over, but the late Governor-General of India in his minute gave only the following incidental notice of the condition of the native soldier : The position of the native soldier in India has long been such as to leave hardly any circumstance of his condition In need of improvement. This was Lord Dalhousie's opinion. For his part, Mr. Disraeli regarded the present mutiny as an ex position less of professional grievances than of general discontent. The fact was, that of late years a great change had taken place in the government of India In old days, and for a considerable time—indeed, until, I would say, the last ten years—the principle of our go vernment of India, if I may venture to describe it in a sentence, was to respect nationality. We often talk now of our conquest of India, and sometimes we are told that it is necessary to reconquer that country. The conquest of a country inhabited by 150,000,000 men, in many instances of warlike habits, could at no time have been an easy achievement. Its difficulty must certainly be increased to us now after what has occurred, and therefore I think it is of some importance that upon this grave and common idea of conquering India we should have as correct opinions as circumstances justify. I deny that in a vulgar sense we have ever conquered India. We have taken a part in the military operations which have very frequently been conducted upon a great scale in India. The annals of oar warfare in India are glorious. Our arms have been victorious in many Dingle fields and many brilliant cam• THE PRE S S, Avartm 1, 1857. paigns. We have often triumphed over powerful sove reigns and baffled most skilful and dangerous con federacies. But we have conquered India only in the same sense in which William of Orange conquered Eng land. We have been called in by populations suffering under tyranny, and we have entered those kingdoms and principalities to protect their religion and their property. It will be found in that wonderful progress of human events which the formation of our Indian empire presents that our occupation of any country was preceded by a solemn proclamation and concluded by a sacred treaty, in which we undertook to respect and maintain inviolate the rights and privileges, the laws and customs, the property and religion, of the people. Such was the principle upon which our Indian empire was founded, and it is a proud as well as a politic passage in the history of Englishmen that that principle has been until late years religiously observed. It was by a policy founded upon this principle that our power in India was established : A strict observance of our treaties, the rigid maintenance of the laws and customs of the people, and, above all, a faithful respect for our guarantees of their land and a scrupulous adhesion to our engagements not to tamper with their religion—these were the sources of our strength, e.nd upon these our great Indian statesmen always in sisted. But of late years a new principle appears to have been adopted in the government of India. If the old principle—the principle upon which our empire was created and established, and which prevailed until very recent times—was a respect for nationality, the new system seems to be the reverse, and may be described as one which would destroy nationality. Everything in India has been changed. Law and manners, customs and usages, political organisations, the tenure of property, the religion of the people—everything in India has either been changed or attempted to be changed, or there is a sus picion among the population that a desire for change exists on the part of our Government. Now, taking the last ten years, I would range under three beetle the various causes which have led, in my opinion, to the great discon tent among all classes of that country with our rule. I would describe them thus—first, our forcible destruction of native princes ; next, our disturbance of the settlement of property—( Hear)—and thirdly, our tampering with the religion of the people. (Hear, hear.) The new policy was inaugurated about the year 1818. In that year the financial condition of India was most unsatisfactory, and affairs had come to such a point that it was necessary the revenue should be increased : About this time a very important incident occurred although it did not at the time attract as mach attention IN its consequences justified—the death of a native Indian prince without natural heirs. The territories of this prince were not of first-rate importance, although they were not without value ; his revenues were by no means consider• able, yet they were not to be despised ; he was a prince to whom the respect and interest of a large portion of the Indian races were directed. He was one of the great Mahratta family. After the fall of the Mahratta empire it had become a point of high policy with our Government that from the ruins of that empire independent Mahratta States should be formed, and that the heads of that family should all be placed upon the Musnud as a means of grati • Eying the feelings of the defeated Mahratta people, and of claiming their sympathies for the new order of things. Such was the position of the Rajah of Sattara—a name which probably is unknown to many, but which at one time occasioned some interest in this house, and respecting whom many papers were laid upon this table. The death of the Rajah of Sattara was fixed upon as the incident by which our new Indian policy was to be inaugurated. The Rajah of Sattara, as I have already reminded the house, died without natural heik, but the house must also re member that a Hindoo dynasty like that of Setters can never become extinguished. The law of adoption prevails in India, and has prevailed from the most ancient times. The law of adoption is, in fact, the very corner-stone of Hindoo society, and men who have no natural heirs adopt one as a matter of course, and as one of the great duties of life. Indeed, according to the Hindoo religion, the deceased Hindoo in another world can look for no happi ness unless certain duties are fulfilled, certain ceremonies performed, in this by his heir, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that he should appoint an heir in order to insure the fulfilment of those duties and the performance of those rites. Hence, adoption in India is not only a simple right, but a religious duty; the whole framework of Indian society is established upon that principle. The Rajah of Sattara, dying without natural heirs, had before his death selected an heir, who was nominated with all the solemn ceremonies peculiar to the occasion, whose adoption was notified to the British Resident and published to the people by salvoes of artillery, and was received by them with per fect approbation. The Governor-General of India, however, in pur suance of the vigorous and novel policy which he had determined to establish in India, took the decided step of abolishing the low of adoption. He did not recog nise the individual who had been proclaimed to all /ladle as the son and successor of the deceased prince ; b: claiming the equivocal right of suzera i n ty as l or d pall mount, he ordered his troops to enter the Raj, and divi Rajah of Sattara was absorbed into the dominions of tiq East India Company. This step was not t a k en w ith o ut considerable difficulty. The Governor General of that day was a young man, an energetic man, but one not expe rienced in Indian life, for at that period he had only been a few months in the &it. The most experienced Indian statesmen protested against his conduct, and warned him of its consequences. They knew it was not merely a ques ta= Westing a small territory, bet tbat it was a policy which would involve most important invasions of law, custom, and right. The Governor of Bombay, contiguous to which presidency was Sattara, was at that time Sir G. Clerk, now the secretary of the Indian Board. I believe all will agree, however differing in opinion upon points of Indian policy, that Sir G. Clerk has shown himself in many instances to be a most consummate and experienced states. man. He protested against that policy, and warned the Indian Government against its consequences. I have been told, on authority so high that I cannot doubt it, that at the last extremity he proposed that the annexation should be postponed till it could be subjected to the arbitration of the highest authority in Indian matters in this country, Mr. Mountatuart Elphinstone ; but his proposal was rejected. ( Hear.) lam bound to say that the Directors of the East India Company on that occasion evinced considerable character, skill in prescience, and, in many instances, no small ability. Unfortunately, there was a majority in favour of the new policy ; but there remain on record the dissents of six members of the court— men without exception of great Indian experience, and, as their dissents show, men of great ability, of thoughtful minds, and of practical wisdom. (Hear, hear.) I have not those dissents by me, but I call to mind the names of such men as Mr. St. George Tucker, Mr. Melville, and Captain Sheppard, whose names are appended to them. The protest of Captain Sheppard, which may be found in the Sattara papers, contains language which I recommend to the serious attention of the house, for it contains words of wisdom that would have become any statesman of any country in the world. (Hear.) The question of Setters passed. Whatever may have been the passing murmurs they were altogether disregarded, and from that moment, without ceasing, the system of annexation took place, or was attempted, in every instance in which a native prince died without natural heirs. (Hear, hear.) The principle of adoption, which I have before said was the very corner• stone of Indian society, was systematically set aside by the Government, and the opposite principle became the basis of a new policy. (Hear, hear.) This system of annexation thus commenced in 131.8 was not confined to the simple violation of the law of adoption. Lord Dalhousie's minute, under the "Minor Political Events," states one or two facts which conveyed an impression of what had been going on in India much more vividly than mere spoken words. For instance, on one occasion it is written : Early in 1948, the Rajah of Ungool, a petty chieftain in tho Jungle liehals, resisted the authority of the Government. His Raj was taken from him, and he has since died in exile. These are Raje that were not obtained by violating the law of adoption, but they are instances which show that the system of annexation was pursued by every means and on every pretext. The Rajah of Sikkim, a hill chieftain on the borders of Nepaul, in order to enforce certain claims which he alleged against the Government of India, had the audacity to seize the person of the political officer at Darjeeling, when travelling under the Rajah's safeguard within his dominions. Military preparations were made ; the agent was released, and all the territories which the Rajah possessed within the plains wore confiscated, and have been retained. In Scinde, Meer All Morad, of Khyrpore, was accused of having forged a clause in a treaty whereby he had wrongfully obtained possession of lands which of right belonged to the British Government. A full and fair investigation was made. The Aram had every opportunity afforded to him of defending himself; but his guilt was proved beyond a doubt. The lands were taken from him, and his power and influence were reduced to insig niticance. I mention these cases, which were not accompanied by a violation of the laws of adoption, to illustrate the system that was now pursued with such vigour in India. The annexation policy had been in force for five or six years, when, in 1834, one of the greatest of the native sovereigns died—the Rajah of Berar : A prince with a territory of 80,000 square miles—a population of from 4,000,000 to s,ooo,ooo—with land the richest in India, and most highly cultivated—whose trea sures were great, and who had been a faithful ally, for never had it been alleged that he had violated the conditions of any treaty. He died without natural heirs, and in pursuance of the new policy it was determined to annex that vast and wealthy country to our dominions. (Hear, hear.) General Lowe, our Resident at the Court of Berar, protested strongly against the proposal : The Raj of Barer, with its 80,000 square miles, its population of 4,000 000 or 5,000,000, and its treasures, was seized notwithstanding the protest of General Lowe. The troops of the British Government were ordered into the territory, the furniture and jewels of the Queen were seized. It was understood that the Queen had a private treasure of her own to a large amount, and though it was proved that it was entirely her own private property, having belonged to the Queen mother, a woman of great abilities, who had once been regent of the kingdom, yet it was seized, and by the British Government. Now, closely connected with this policy of annexa tion, on plea of failure of heirs, was the great question of the settlement of property in India : The principle of the law of adoption is not the preroga ,tiye of princes and principalities in India ; it applies to °eery man in Hindostan who has landed property and who releases the Hindoo religion. The great feudatory, or jaghedar, who holds his lands by public service to his lord ; and the emindar, who holds his land free of all land tax, who corresponds, if no t p rec i se ly, i n a p o pular sense at least, with our freeholder—both of these classes — classes most numerous in India—always, on the failure of their natural heirs, find in this principle the means of obtaining successors to their estates. Those classes were all touched by the annexation of Sattara, they were touched by the annexation of the territories of the tea