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

_I B_s_7_

trine that the tenure of land was an evil, and seemed to think
it an injustice to the. state vv,en land got into privet. hands.
If it was sight that th• 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, eshic'i 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
wis sorry to see that Lord Ellenborough seemed to approve
of the first of these courses, which was all bat 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 he 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. Ho wished that the right hon. member for Buck-
inghamshire lied called attention earlier to this subject. Both
sides of the house seemed 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 both sides seems determined that a wise
policy should be adopted in India—this would do more than
ever lied yet been done to redeem the affections of the Indian
population.
.Mr. CAMPBELL considered that the Government of this
country should notbe embarrassed by discussions such as the
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, Pike himself, he
had travelled there 1r years ago, and had been in danger of
losing his head, he would have told a different story, He re-
gretted the speech of the right hon. 4,rentlemau 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 tee time when it was to be discussed,
what was the time ? Were they not to die cuss war when they
were at war. This was not the doctrine respecting India of
Fox and Burke: The right hon. gentleman opposide had
contradicted himself when lie 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 ? Ho had written a minute
history of the revolt, which had occurred immediately after
his arrival. He first found that the Sepoys 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 disore•anisation ; on the contrary, he 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 °llea different 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 con-
duct. Col, Ja -ob with this view, desaribecl the manner of
mounting guars of the sentries. The first thing a Sepoy did
was to strip naked, dabble in the water, and then go to
sleep, and it was out of his blanket that he went without his
musket, when the sepoy on guard callel 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. He did not think that the missionary proceedings
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
course 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, wno had received them very politely, and
premised nothing. For his part, if the existing evils were
remedied he should cot 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. and learned gentleman who has
just sat down has truly said that this is an awful calamity;
but I cannot conceive anything less tending to 06-advan-
tage of this country wor 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 he finds fault with- the government for what
they omitted to do, and rather thinks that the right
hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Control is in-
competent to fill the office be holds. The right hon. gentle-
man who moved. for papers pointed out the evils which
afflicted India, and expressed his opini in that the Govern-
ment should place itself moie in connection with India, and
show the people of that country that it had no interest in the
violation of treaties—no interest in the disturbance of the
country. 3ut what is to be the result of all this. Is it to
be as tie 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 debas.o pointing out every sort of evil, now
blaming the East India Company, now the Government, now
Lord Dalhousie far the policy lie has pursued for the last ten
years, and that they shall separate without any declaration
wh itever as to what is to be done. That appears .to me not
the course which the House of Commons ought to pursue. I
should be very sorry indeed, the debate having been brought
on, that we should separate without some declaration upon
this important subject. The right hon. gentleman has very
ably, and in a most eloquent speech, stated what he 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 pf adoption, the disturbance of landowners in their
titles—he pointed out the disquietude of the soldiers with
respect to their pox essions and the occupation of their lands
—but the right hon. gentleman on all the topics 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 in some of
the instances mentioned both by the right honourable gen-
tleman, and by the honourable and Earned gentleman, the
Governor-General of India may not have been in the wrong.
I am not prepared, and the house, probably, is not pre-
pared, to come to a definite jndgment on that. One thing
however, has always.struck me as the result of Lord Welles-
ley's clisaliing 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 the!r being taken
into our protection. lam quite sure that to leave every one
of them at full liberty, and to assist tueir troops when their
own people were di iven by tyranny into resistance, is not a
course we ought to have taken. Then it may be said that
thoush a revision of the titles of land is an arbitrary proceed.
ing, yet if those titles are falsely held, I do not think it would
be just to abstain from 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, he has not done great good. The question
of the soldiers' grievances, undoubtedly,.requires grave con-
sideration ; nor am I readylto say that different governments
have fully investigated the matter, and I believe that Lord
Wellesley himself objected to the system of disciplining the
Indian army. But it must be admitted that wo 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, midi 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 End fault with the Government because they said
that a person iu India who changed his religion should not
forfeit his estates. I always understsod 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 are 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-
lug 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 humble address be presented to her
Majesty to assure her Majesty that this house will cordially
support her Majesty in aiy 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 likethat appears to me to be 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 bo
easily refuted. Ho had not expected that the right lion, gentle-
man the member for Bueltioghamshire would have gone into
the causes of the present state of thinss in India. The lud:al
Government which might be supposed to have the earliest
means of ascertaining those causes, wore not informed of
'them, but the right hon. gentleman seemed to have no diffi-
culty 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 ali-
ment, and the same remark applied to the landowners and
zemindars, who were loyal and had rendered assistance to the
Indian Government. The fact also strongly stood out that
where there had been no sepoys there had been no revolt.
(Hear.) I u these particulars, therefore, as in others, thecaeloef
the right hon. gentleman broke down. In the Punjaub
o,et ,
os
the native population were with us. This wa
eds otuerume
en
re-
cent conquest, and if that people were opp
count of conquest they ought to be the first to rise up , but
he had been informed that to a man the population of the
Punjaub were in our favour, and they were rendering
as-
sistance against the mutinous. of "
The causes
disaffection" us
on which the hon. gentleman had dwelt were as well known
to the committee of 1853 (of which the-right hon. gentle.
man was a member) as at this moment—(hear, hear)—but
he now sought to introduce them as discoveries. The foun-
dation of those causes, however, he (Mr. Mangles) denied.
Stress had been laid by the right hon. gentleman on
the abandonment of the principle of adoption in the bums-