The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

174 ministration, he asserted that any one who would go through " Mill's History of India " must come to the conclusion that the Government under the Board of Control was corrupt, demoralising, and mischievous, and he read the high euloginm pronounced by that historian upon the Company's government. In con clusion, he called upon the house to stay its hand, and, although it might enlarge the basis of the edifice which had stood so long, not, upon the arguments urged for that object, to overthrow it. Mr. Lowe contended that the direct agency of the Court of Directors could be eliminated without in convenience ; that a council could exercise more influence upon the mind of the President than a court sitting in Leadenhall-street, and which had been deprived of political power and all important duties. The effect of the indirect agency of the Court of Directors, he showed, was to produce dciay and embarrassment, and to prsvent the Government being placed in the proper hands—namely, those of the Queen's Ministers. Pointing out some anoma lies in the present system, lie contended that, looking at the immense interests at stake, with the convic tion forced upon their minds by recent events of the unfitness of the existing machine, the Government were bound not to defer this measure at a time when the Indian administration peculiarly required unity and efficiency. Mr. LIDDELL opposed the measure. Mr. SLANEY supported it. Mr. CRAW FORD, who had seconded the amendment of Mr. Baring, said he was aware of the anomalies of the present system, and was not unprepared to consider them ; but he had looked for better expla nations than he had received of the policy of the proposed measure. In referring to preceding or ganic changes in the constitution of the East India Company, he had omitted to state that all those changes had been preceded by a committee of that house, and, looking at the nature of this bill, he thought there should have been a previous inquiry. He objected to the number of the council, to the exclusion of the members from Parliament, to vesting the whole power of the present Secret Committee in the president and council, and to the enormous patronage which the bill would place at the command of the Government. Neither the house nor the country were, in his opinion, sufficiently at present in possession of the facts of the case. Sir H. Ilswtissosi approved the principle of the measure, deprecated delay, but declined to commit himself to any support of the details of the bill, with many of which he could not agree. Sir J. WALSH maintained that the double-govern ment system, with all its complications, was better than a single and autocratic authority. Nothing , WAG simpler or more prompt than a despotism, but he was not prepared to purchase its advantages by the sacrifice of 'all constitutional cheeks. No charge has been made out against the Company, and no cause really shown for their abolition. Proceeding to criticise the details of the measure, he expressed bis belief that it was introduced by the Minister merely to satisfy a momentary impulse of popular clamour. Mr. A. Mims and Mr. WILD supported the bill. Mr. D. SEYMOUR insisted that the present system deserved the epithet "'cumbrous," and that in the present state of affairs, after the administration in India had been improved and simp:ified, it should not be allowed to continue any longer. The minds of the natives of India, he said, might be re assured upon the subject of. their religion, which would not be interfered with by the Government, and as to their employment in offices of trust. The set tlement of independent Englishmen in India, to which the Company were opposed, would be en couraged by adopting the suggestion of Sir C. Met calfe, who oonsidered colonisation indispensable to the prolongation of British rule in India. Mr. ADAMS observed that no charge of mismanage ment had been alleged against the East India Com pany ; the only accusation against the present system was the distance between Cannon-row and Leadrn hall-street. He thought this difficulty might be got over by bringing the two offices into the same building. The delays of the Circumlocution-office were complained of in other departments besides the India-house. Whatever need there might be here after for a change, the time, he thought, was most inopportune for such a measure, the effect of which upon the war in India would be most disastrous. Mr. ELLIOT opposed the bill. Colonel SYKES rtoved that the debate be adjourned, and this motion was carried upon a division by 280 to ;t2. Tll E PRE SS, VEBRUARY 20, 1855. Island under the immediate authority of the Crown. With regard to the Hudson's Bay Company, all lie said was that he should be prepared to produce papers that would show what steps her Majesty's Government had taken in the matter. Mr. ROEnucK said he would make a motion on the subject on Tuesday. lie regretted that the hon. gentleman had been misrepresented. THE NATIONAL GALLERY._ Lord ELcuo suggested that it would be more con venient to take the discussion on the motion of the C)ancellor of the Exchequer on another occasion. Mr. WILsoN said his right hon. friAnd had ad journed the motion to Thursday, the 25th instant. The Clerks of Petty Sessions (Ireland) bill was read a second time. After some further business, the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock, HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY. GENFMAT. WINDHAM. The Doke cf CAMBRIDGE explained that in his remarks the previous evening he had intended to say that while no blame was to be attached to General Windham for the defeat at Cawnpore, some blame was to be attached to the conduct or certain other persons, " whose case was in the hands of the com mander in•chief in India." The Church of England Special Services Bill was considered in committee, and some verbal amend ments made. Clause 3, on the motion of the Bit.hop of Llandaff, was ordered to stand over till the report. The Trustees Relief Bill went through committee, and their lordships adjourned at seven p.m. HOUSE OF CONEWONS-TUF:3DAY. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to an inquiry by Mr. Griffith whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to suggest to that of France the publi cation in the Moniteur of the letter from the French Ambassador expressing the regret of the Emparor for the appearance of certain addresses in that paper, asked the house whether it was its wish that those friendly and confidential relationg which now happily subsisted between England and France should be maintained, or whether it desired to infuse into those relations a spirit of irritation, bitterness, and ani mosity by personal attacks in that house upon the Emperor of the French and the French nation. If the house chose to pursue the latter course, it must take the responsibility of doing so upon itself; if, on the other hand, it attached importance to the main tenance of friendly relations, he entreated the house to discourage these incessant personal attacks upon the Emperor, who was the spontaneous choice of the French nation. It was not, he said, the intention of her Majesty's Government to pursue the course referred to in the inquiry, which would be highly improper and excessively absurd. Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to Mr. Milnes, statel that Watts, the engineer of the Cagliari, had been delivered over to the British Consul, and placed in the British Hospital at Naples. . . . Mr. GROGAN moved for a select committee to inquire into the system of management of the Dublin Metro politan I'olice Force. Mr. H. HERBERT opposed the motion. The Go- vernment, he said, were prepared to lay hills upon the table which would remedy any abuses under the present system, and the appointment of a committee would be an obstacle to the discussion of the subject. After some remarks by Mr. VANCE the motion was negatived upon a division by 200 to 105. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. -EXPLANATION. Mr. LAnotierfEßE wished to correct a misunder standing which had gone forth to the public upon en important point in the answer that he gave to the question ache member for Sheffield in regard to the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company. He was represented to have said that it was the intention of the Government forthwith to take the whole of the territory from the company. What he said was, that immediate steps would be taken to bring Vancouver's THE REBF.LTION IN INDIA. Mr. BAILLIF. called attention to " the causes which have led to the rebellion in her Majesty's dominions in the East." He began by referring to the various hypotheses upon which the different Indian poli ticians had endeavoured to account for the mutiny of the Bengal army, and the causes to which they had ascribed it. On one hand it was called a military mutiny, on the other a national revolt. The general opinion which prevailed was that this rebellion had had its origin in a conspiracy on the part of a portion of the Mahomedan population of the country ; that the greased cartridges was an incident adroitly taken advantage of by the conspirators to secure the sym pathy a►,d support of the Indian sepoys, and that that proceeding was to a great degree successful. They believed that this conspiracy was suggested to the native population by the favourable opportunity which presented itself in consequence of the state and condition to which the Government of India was reduced by the course of policy which had of late years been pursued, and by the reckless disregard of consequences with which that policy had been carried into effect. Eminent Indian statesmen had re corded their opinion that the wholesale annexation of native States was alike impolitic and unjust. He cited condemnations of that policy by the late Duke of Wellington, Sir T. Munro, Mr. M. Elphinstone, and Lord Ellenborough, and enumerated the States which since 1833, when the annexation policy com menced, had been incorporated with the British dominions in India:— First of all we began with the small State o f Coorg ; that was f 'Rowed by the annexation of Sattara; then came, at no great distance of time, the annexation of the immense territory of the Ameers of Scinde, next the annexatton or the I'unjaub, after that of the territory of Pegu, then oP Nagpore, and fi nally the seizure of the kingdom of ()al, All these territories, and some other small er pr i nc i palities, had been annexed to our Indian empire within that short period without the addition to the army of a single litiro• peau soldier. Mr. Baillie then adverted to the circumstances at. tending tho annexation of Oude while we wero engaged in a war with Persia, and when the number of European troops in India had been reduced ; a n d he declared that the manner in which that measure had been carried into effect, by the derangement a n d dislocation of all the ancient machinery of adininis• tration in that province, reflected the greatest dis. credit upon Lord Dalhousie and upon the Govern.. ment The annexation of Outle was no ordinary operation. It was not a mere transference of power from the King of Outle to the. Governor-Gencial, but it was the dislocation of all the machinery by which the government had been conducted iu that country for ages. The government of Oude had been carried on by the feudal nobility of India. The great feudal chiefs, the Chtiekletlars, commanded large districts of the country, and they maintained bodies of troops in their pay, numbering from UAW to 10,i)0 men each. Could it be supposed that those men, with arms in their hands, would allow themselves to be swept away by the British Government without attemptin; resistance ? Besides, the annexation of Oude involved an alteration in the tenure of land winch more or less affected the position of every Oude sepoy in the Bengal army, for they were all the sons of farmers or small proprietors in Oude. What was the effect? No sooner did the chiefs of Oude hear of the intentions of the British Government thin they petitioned the King of Oude to be allowed to resist, offering to bring 100,000 men into the field with suitable artillery. The King of Oude refused, and issued a proclamation instead, announcing his submission to the British Government. That step for the moment paralysed the efforts of the chiefs ; but they immediately entered into correspondence with the sepoys in the force under Sir J. Outram, which was on the frontiers of Oude, and they received the assurance of those men that in the event of a resistance in Oude they would not fire a shot against their countrymen. In the meanwhile the Governor•Ueeeral and his council were in a fool's paradise—they were perfectly at their ease; but there was one man in India who was not at his ease, who warned the Government, wholpointed out the folly of the course they were pursuing and the dangerous consequences that must inevitably result. That man was the late lamented Sir H. Lawrence. Sir H. Lawrence published an article in the Calcutta Review, in which he said : The King of Oude employed 59,0110 soldiers; his chiefs and officials at least as many more. Of these vast numbers one. fifth at the utmost have found ernploNment in the police and irregular corps. Yet these levies. with half a drzeu regular corps, form the whole army of occupation. This seems a grave mistake. Why not at least make a change? Why not move Rome of the I'unjanh reghnents that have beau keeping constant watch and ward nu the Indus for seven years to Oude. and send some uftha King's people to the uorth•west? The King had some B,ovo artillery; of these about WO may have obtained em ployment; the rest—old and young—are on the world. Surely, if there was danger in employing Sikhs in /84'J it would be well to remove smite portion of the Oude levies from Oude, where such materials for mischief still remain. In the province are 176 forts, besides innumerable smaller strongholds, many of them sheltered within thick jungles. In these forts are 4 , 6 guns. Forts and guns should all be in the hands of Government, or the forts should b , razed. Many a foolish fellow has been urged on to his own ruin by the possession of a paltry fort, and many paltry mud fort has repulsed British troops. . . . • Tile 80,000 or 90,000 disbanded Oude soldiers are the brethren of th• British sem& The earliest days of annexation are not th,, safest- The warning voice of Sir H. Lawrence was raised in vain. He gave no opinion regarding the wisdom of the annexation policy, but he complained of the faulty manner in which it had been carried out. Some of these acts might be,eothers were not, measures of necessity ; but he confined himself to what ho con sidered to be the immediate cause of the late disasters in Ir.dia—the annexation of Oude. He traced the history of this measure, in which, he said, Lord Dal housie had been merely an instrument, and con demned in severe terms the plea or pretext fur he izin; the possessions of the King of Oude—nainely, , the oppressiveness of his government,—which, in his opinion, was more disgusting than open violence : Was there no such thing as misgovernment in Iltitislt territory in India? The people of this country had been so long accustomed to look with favourable eyes upon our role in India—they had been so kng accustomed to regard it as a mild paternal despotism exercised for the benefit of the people of India— that their minds had been somewhat shocked by the disclosures which had lately been made as regarded oppression to the natives, and their faith had been somewhat shaken in the paternal nature of the government. Now, from whom bad those revelations come? Why, from men of the highest authority in India, and who held the highest positions in that country. Sir C Napier had been one of the first to reveal the real con dition of the Bengal army, and he had told us that we were resting upon a volcano which might at any time burst and overwhelm us, but his advice was unheeded. Civilians, too,. of the highest rank had revealed the state and condition of their own government, and first and foremost of those who had done so stood one name, the name of a gentleman which had repeatedly been quoted in the debate upon the previous evening, a gentleman who, although, in his