The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-28 00:00:00

r UF.SDAY EVF..N LNG JULY 28, af;s7

trine that the tenure of land was an evil, and saemedto think
it an injustice to th., state w' en land got 'nto privat 3 hands.
If it was ight that the disaffection in the army was but a
reflex of what was passing in the national mind, the course
which they would have a right to pursue was clear. There
were two modes of governing India—the one by an over-
whelming force, which would involve an increased army, the
disbanding of the native troops, and the abandonment of all
our schemes of education and improvement. The other was
by associating the natives in our system, by adopting the
course adopted by the Humans in their Asiatic provinces. He
was sorry to see that Lord Ellenborough seemed to approve
of the first of these courses, which was all but impossible. It
was not the system which he advocated to introduce what
was called a European system into India. No one who knew
India would think of introducing self-government or repre-
sentative institutions--nothing but a despotism would suit
India. But what ho himself and Indian reformers said was,
that Indian, interests ought to be considered equally with
European interests. India would be more useful to us as a
rich and thriving ally, not as a weak and powerless de-
pendent. He wished that the right hon. member for Buck-
inghamshire hid called attention earlier to this subject. Both
sides of the house seamed to think India as caviare. He had
never vituperated the Indian service—(oh, oh)—he respected
,it—but as long as it retained its rococo doctrine of centuries
paSt—it would never reach the point it ought. But now that
the statesmen on bath sides seems determined that a wise
policy should be adopted in India—this would do more than
ever had yet been done to redeem the affections of the Indian
population.
Mr. CAMPBELL considered that the Government of this
country should not be embarrassed by discussions such as tho
present, but that they deserved the credit of the country for
the energetic steps they had taken. The right hon. gentle-
man objected to the annexation of Oude ; if, like himself, he
had travelled there 15 years ago, and had been in danger of
losing his head, he would have told a different story. He re-
gTe tted the speech of the right hon. gentleman opposite ; he
had never heard a more unpatriotic or injudicious speech ;
and he recommended him to destroy every copy he could
meet with.
Mr. WHITESIDE protested against the doctrine that the
subject was not then to be discussed in the House of Com-
mons. If this was not the time when it was to be discussed,
what was the time ? Were they not to di,euss war when they

were at war. This was not the doctrine 'respecting India of
Fox and Burke. '1 ho right hon. gentleman opposide had
contradicted himself when he characterised the movement as •
a miserable revolt, and then said that it came home to all the
interests in the country. He had the good fortune to know
Sir C. Napier. He had often discussed Indian matters with
him. Sir C, Napier might sometimes express himself in a de-
cided manner, but was he wrong ? He had written a minute
history of the revolt, which had occurred immediately after
his arrival. He first found that the Sopoys received a multi-
tude of letters, such as they never received before. He then
received a communication from Sir Colin Campbell; informing
him of the imminent movement -in his own troops which he
had checked by such decided measures as rendered revolt im-
possible. Sir C. Napier found that things were going on so
similarly in his own troops, that he had no doubt of the
movemement intended among his own troops.- He took- mea-
sures accordingly, and suspended the order he received from
the Governor-General, for which he received a reprimand,
which caused his instant resignation: Sir C. Napier left on
record his opinion that Delhi should be defended by 10,000
picked men. He never said that the Bengal army was in a
state of disorganisation ; on the contrary, ho said that it con-
tained some of the finest troops in the world, but he found
a different system of promotion in the Bombay army, where
promotion by seniority proceeded on a diffzest principle,
and it was upon this that he acted in his 'conduct towards
the two armies. Brigadier Jacob has pointed out eight evils
which rendered discipline impossible in the Bengal army—
not only in extraordinary mutinies, but in its every day can-
duct: Col. Ja vb with this view, described the manner of
mounting gnarct of the sentries. The first thing a Sopoy did
was to strip naked, dabble in the water, and then go to
sleep, an I it was out of his blanket that he wont without his
musket, when the sepoy on guard called out to him to relieve
him. He thought that the papers, barren as they were, con-
tained more things which threw light on the cause of the
mutiny. H 3 did not think that the missionary proceeding;
had anything to do with the movement, as the Hindoos took
especial pleasure in religious discussion, besides which, the
Americans, who had no territories in India, had successful
missions. Lord Canning had said that the mi-sionaries were
right in urging the Government to promote education. True,
it was difficult for any Christian to say that he would not
encourage the missionaries, but the question was whether the
cour.,,e taken was not likely to be really injurious to the cause.
Lord Ellenborough was too energetic a man for these times,
for if he thought a thing was right he would do it. (Hear,
hear.) Many deputations had waited on the honourable
gentleman, wuo had received them very politely, and
promised nothing. For his part, if the existing evils were
remedied he should rot care what were the means taken, but
he hoped that positive steps would be taken to remedy those
evils.

Mr. V. SMITH did not mean when he said "a miserable"
mutiny, to imply a contemptible one, but a calamitous one.
He had not said that it was only a military mutiny.
Lord J. RUSSELL. - Sir, I am one of those who had no
wish that this house originally should have entered into' this
discussion. Sir, the hon.land lea nod gentleman who has
just sat down has truly said that this is an awful calamity;
but I cannot conceive anything less tending to the advan-
tage of this country or of India if this discussion
arising out of it is to end to night, as the hon. gentleman
seems to wish it may, and the hon. and learned gentleman
who has just spoken confidently predicates that it will.
From what I gather from the speech of the hon, and learned
gentleman, ho finds fault with the government fer what
they omitted to do, and rather thinks that the right
hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Central is in-
corepetent to fill the office he holds. The right hen. gentle-
man who moved for papers pointed.. out tho evils which
afflicted Indi,t, and expressed his opini n that the Govern-

ment should place itself mo•e in connection with India, and
show the people of that country that it had no interest in the

violation of treaties—no interest in ills disturbance of the

country. 3ut what is to be the result of all this. Is it to
be as tae hon. and learned gentleman the member for Ennis-
killen seemed to point out, a vote of censure on the proceed-
ings of the Government, or what the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckingham intimated, some strong measure
declaring that the Government of India had hitherto been a
tyranny ? I admit that the awful calamity which has hap-
pened in India is enough to affect the heart of every man in
this metropolis But is it enough that the House of Commons
should have a debate pointing out every sort of evil, new
blaming the East India Company, now the Govern Lent, now
Lord Dalhousie f,,r the policy he has pursued for the last ten
years, and that they shall separate without any decitration
wh ttever as to what is to be done. That appears to mo not
the course which the House of Commons ought to pursue. I
should be very sorry indeed, the debate having been brought
ou, that we should separate without some deelarat'en upon
this important subject. The right hon. gentleman has very
ably, and in a most eloquent speech, stated what ho thinks
is the responsibility of the Government in the Matter ; he has
pointed out the injustice done to the native in setting aside
the rule of adoption, the disturbance of landowners in their
titles—he pointed out the disquietude of the soldiets with
respect to their pea :essions and the occupation of their lands
—but the right hon. gentleman on all the tellies on which he
dwelt, with great knowledge and great felicity, never ven-
tured to say that the great mass of the people of India
were suffering under oppression. What are tie general
merits of the case ? I do not mean to say that iu some of
the inatanoes mentioned both by the right honourable gen-
tleman, and by the honourable and 1 arned gmtleruaa, the
Governor-General of India may not have bent in the wrong.
I am not prepared, and the house, probably, is not pre-
pared, to come to a definite judgment on that. One thug
however, has always struck me as the result of Lord Welles-
ley's dksabing the native princes, and that is that if they had
carried things to an extreme, a violent revolutionary war must
have ensued, but which was prevented by their being taken
into our protection. lam quite sure that to leave every one
of them at full liberty, and to assist their troops when their
own people were driven by tyranny into resistance, is not a
course wo ought to have taken. Then it may be said that
thou.4ll a revision of the titles of land is an arbitrary proceed-
ing, yet if those titles aro falsely held, I do not think it would
be just to abstain front such an inquiry. It is impossible for
us to say at this moment that injustice has been done by Lord
Dalhousie to the people of the annexed territory, or whether,
on the contrary, ho has not done great good. The question
of the soldiers' grievances, undoubtedly, requires grave con-
sideration ; nor am I readyito say that different governments
have fully investigated the matter, and I believe that Lord
Wellesley himself objected to the system of disciplining the
llndian army. But it must be admitted that we could not

hold India with native troops alone; and perhaps one of the
worst proceedings is that of taking officers from the army
and employing them in the civil service, in which Lord Ellen-
borough and Sir C. Napier were as much in fault as any one.
The natural result of that is laxity of discipline. In the olden
times of Warren Hastings and Clive, the men who went out
there spent their lives in India, and were entirely absorbed in
the habit of Indians ; they were consequently likely to have
a considerable influence over the minds of the natives. But
now young men who went out to India hoped to get back to
England ; they kept up a correspondence both by lettecs
and newspapers with the old country and did not sympathise
with India at all. I own that we have trusted too much to
our native troops. Three hundred thousand have been spoken
of as composing our Indian army. I should say that an army
of 50,000 British and 100,000 natives would be quite as
efficient. I think that the giving great facilities for
justice and improving the land and spreading education
is the proper way to improve India, and I believe that in that
the company have not been much to blame. The hon. and
learned gentleman said that justice was of no country, and
went on to find fault with the Government because they said
that a person in India who changed his religion should not
forfeit his estates. I always understood that one of the most
barbarous laws which formerly afflicted Ireland was the law
which made Roman Catholics formerly unable to possess
land. I think the first question on which the House of Com-
mons ought to express an opinion, is that it ought to support
the Queen's Government in this matter, so as to strengthen
the efforts they aro making. (Hear.) We should also support
measures which would tend to invigorate India. The Queen's
Government must first resort to fore to put the mutiny
down. We ought to do everything we could to lend it a help-
ing hand in this matter ; and feeling as I do upon this sub-
ject, I shall make no apology for proposing the following
amendment: —" That an humlie address be presented to her
Majesty to assure her Majesty that this house will cordially
support her Majesty in aay measures for suppressing the dis-
turbances in India and any measures that may be requisite
for the permanent establishment of tranquillity in that im-
portant portion of her Majesty's dominions." Some expres-
sion of opinion like that appears to me to bo necessary, and if
it is for this house to move in the question, it should be to
assure her Majesty that it will support such measures as
will ensure that her Majesty's subjects may live under a just
and beneficent rule. (Cheers.)
Mr. MANGLES was of opinion that the motion of
the right hon. gentleman conveyed little or no information to
the house, and that the arguments he had advanced could be
easily refuted. He had not expected that the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Buckinghamshire would have gone into
the causal of the present state of things in India. The India.),
Government which might be supposed to have the earliest
means of ascertaining those causes, were not informed of
them, but the right hon, gentleman seemed to have no diffi-
pulty in the matter. The right hon. gentleman said that
this was not a mere mutiny, but a revolt on the part of the
Indian population. But, so far from the native princes siding
with the natives, they had been found supporting the Gov Tn-
ment, and the same remark applied to the landowners and
zomindars, who were loyal and had rendered assistance
ttotraet
Indian Government. The fact alto strongly stood
no revolt.
revolt.
where there had been no sepoys there h.adotbeeerns,
h nthe ca, eof
(rittr.) lathes() particulars, therefore,
- Ist hon, gentleman broke down. "In'nthe Pnujaub, also,
the rig..
the native no,pulation were with us. This was our most re-
and if that people were opposed. to us on ac-
cent conqueu, they ought to be the first to rise up ; but
count of conques,
he had been informes..l that to a man the population of the
,rour, and they were rendering us as.
Punjaub were iu our fa, ,is. The causes of disaffection"
sistance against the mutiny. ~ad dwelt were as well known
on which the hon. gentleman ... the right hon. gentle_
to the committee of 1853
(of '- nen.t--ov(ehrejeasr., herrahre)—fobuunt-
man was a member) at this
he now sought to introduce them as di
e. Mangles) denied.
: en&e succes-
leman on
dation of those causes, however, ho (Mr. .
Stress had been laid by the right bon.
the abandonment of the principle of adoption in