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

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 suzerainty as lord 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 taken without
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 not precisely, in a popular 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

inferior-but independent princes to whom I have already
alluded, and they were more than touched, they were
terrified to the last degree, when the annexation of the
Raj of Berar took place. What man was safe ? What
feudatory, what freeholder who had not a child of his own
loins, was safe throughout India? (Hear, hear.) These
were not idle fears; they were extensively acted upon and
reduced to practice. The resumption of jagheers and of
inams commenced for the first time in India. There have
been, no doubt, impolitic moments when attempts have
been made to inquire into titles, but no one hail ever
dreamt of abolishing the law of adoption; therefore no
authority, no Government, hail ever been in a position to
resume jagheers and inams the holders of which had left
no natural heirs. Here was a new source of revenue ; but
while all these things were acting upon the minds of these
classes of Hindoos, the Government took another step to
disturb the settlement of property, to which I must now
call the attention of the house.
The house is aware, no doubt, from reading the evidence
taken before the committee of 1853, that there are great
portions of the land of India which are exempt from the
land tax. Being free from land tax in India is far more
than equivalent to freedom from the land tax in this
country, for, speaking generally and popularly, the land
tax in India is the whole taxation of the State ; and it is
not a light impost, therefore, by any means. There are
large portions of the land in India which enjoy this free-
dom. The origin of these grants is difficult to penetrate,
but they are undoubtedly of great antiquity. They are of
different kinds. Besides the private freeholds, which are
very extensive, there are large grants of land free from the
land tax, with which mosques and temples have been en-
dowed. One of the greatest sources of our success in
India in old days was that whenever a tyrant, a Mussul-
man chief, seized and confiscated their lands and we were
appealed to, we came in as vindicators of public right,
and we invariably guaranteed the security of property, as
in the case of the jagheeres and inams. However, an
able, an amiable man, under the pressure no doubt of
pecuniary distress in the public revenue, was so ill-advised
as to question these titles. Our power was then supposed,
as far as Bengal was concerned, to be established. The
Governor General of that day was advised to institute an
inquisition into those titles. It was alleged that there
were fraudulent claims of exemption. There were
fraudulent claims in England, and, no doubt, in India, the
scene of so many revolutions and conquests, there may
have been claims fictitiously made. But the house will
recognise at once the wise policy which would Vrevent a
Government at any time entering into the dangerous
ground of examining the titles of landed estates in that
country. ( Hear, hear.) Even in England, the process, if
carried on, would produce revolution, and would, under
any circumstances, arrive at results of the most startling
character. (Hear.) Any person in possession of church
land or of a royal manor, who could not prove that the
land was rightfully held by the persons from whom he
inherited it, might have his whole property confiscated.
( Hear, hear. )

For thirty years that system was tried in Bengal, and
after some experience the discontent was found so great
that it •.vas entirely dropped. But under the new system
which was established in India that plan of investigating
titles was at once embraced, as a proof of a powerful Go-
vernment, vigorous Executive, and most fruitful source of
public revenue. Therefore commissions were issued to
inquire into titles to landed estates in the Presidency of
Bengal and adjoining country. They were also issued in
the Presidency of Bombay, and surveys were ordered to be
male in the newly-settled provinces, in order that these
commissions might be conducted, when the surveys were
completed, with due efficiency. Now, there is no doubt
that during the last nine years the action of these com-
missions of inquiry into the freehold property of landed
estates in India has been going on at an enormous rate,
and immense results have been obtained. Ot course it is
excessively difficult to arrive at very precise calculations on
such matters, clouded in mystery, but from information
placed before me, and in which I have great confidence,
am induced to believe the amount obtained by the Govern-
ment of India in this manner—that is, by the resumption
of estates from their proprietors—is not less in the Presi-
dency of Bengal alone than 500,0001. a year. Conceive
what a capital is represented by such an annual revenue !
Conceive the thousands and tens of thousands of estates
that must have been resumed by the Government from the
proprie►ors to obtain such a result. (Hear, hear.) This
is in Bengal alone, but the commission has also been
issued in the Presidency of Bombay, and has been hard at
work there. I have been informed—and I would not men-
tion the results unless I had a profound conviction that
they are strictly true—that the amount of freehold land
resumed by the Government of Bombay is not less than
370,0001. a year. The Presidency of Madras remains, of
which I know nothing. The North-Western Provinces,
mapped out and surveyed, would probably, but for the
recent affairs, have been subjected to the same process.
I ask the house for a moment to pause and consider
what a revolution in property has been going on under
the new system in India, when a sum exceeding two-
thirds of a million of pounds sterling per annum has
been obtained by the Government as rental of land alma
lutely taken from the proprietors of the country. (Hear,
hear.)

Again, the Government of India had further endea-
voured to better their financial condition by curtail-
ing guaranteed pensions, or by converting them into
terminable annuities. Such conduct was pursued
towards the descendant of the Nabob of Arcot, who
now receives but 1501. a year in the room of the
4,0001. or 40,0001. his father received before him :
Conceive 1501. being offered to a man who expected to
receive as much as, according to what we have just heard,
40,0001. a year. (Hear, hear.) Let me read upon this
subject a passage from those minutes which are the key-