New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-11

conquered India; they Lad only a'aueo themselves
Of the quarrels, civil and religious, between the
native populations and the native princes to raise
themselves, few and weak as they were, to a con-
trolling position. It was not their own strength
that had made them rulers Of India, only their
skill and art in playing off one part Of the
native population against the other. And it
it was upon this prime pie that until within the last
ten ytars, the whole administration Of affairs on the
part Of the English had been conducted. That
adminstT alton bad been based upon the principle,
not of settrg aside but Of UNFOLDING the religions,
the laws the distribution of property, and all ex-
istDg privileges, exactly as they were when the
English placed themselves at the head Of affairs.
The allowing the existence Of independent
States, with armies of their own was part OF this
system. A faithful observance Of the treaties en-
tered into with those States, the rigid maintenance
of the laws and customs of the people, above all,
a scrupulous adhesion to the guarantees given TO
the landed propretors and the priesthOods of the
popular religions formed the stone on which
the edifce Of English power in India bad been
| erected.
But within ten years past, according to Mr..
the reverse of the old one. The object seemed to
have been not to maintain Indian nationality, but to
destroy it. These assaults upon the nationality Of
India be discussed under three head.: First the
absorption of native prncipaties; second the dis
turbance Of the settlement Of property; third tam
pering with religion. Under the first head, Mr..
Disraeli specified the annexation Of the ter
N 4ha hat
there were no legal hers-the Government refusing
to recognize the custom Of adoption universally
prevalent in Ipdia-and the annexation Of Dude
aud several smaller territories on ether pretexts,
generally the misgOvernment Of the reigOing
princes. These proceedings bad given shock Of
alarm to the two hundred princes still existing in
India with population Of sixty millions under
their control.
Under the second head were specified the refusal
of the Government to recognize the principle of in
heritaDce by adoption in of succession to pri-
vate estates; the steps recently taken to get rid Of
exemptions from the land tax under which many
estates wtre claimed to be held, and the changing
from perpetual pensions into mere aunuities the
amounts which had been assigned to the former
rulers when the English obtained the sovereignty of
certain portions of India.
With respect to interference with the religious
prejud ces ofthe HindOos, Mr. Dsrae has no Obec-
ticn to the missionary system as such. He could
not join in the charge that the missionary enter
prise has caused the present troubles. Missionaries
were LO novelty in India. So long as the mission
aries were mere missionaries, and nothing more
they occasioned no jealousy on the part Of the ma
tives. What be complained of was, that the mis-.
sionaries have been taken, or seemed to have been
taken, urder the patronage of the Government,
and that the system of public education introduced
into India has been employed for prOselytizing
purposes. He thought the introduction of tho
Bible into the Indian schools and the attempt at
female education in India, very bad things; but
what he principally complained of was, the law
providing that DO man should lose his property on
account Of change in his religion, and the law al
loving HiDdOO widows to marry second time.
The speech of Mr.. Disraeli, an elaborate and
carefully prepared lecture on Indian affairs-apd
very arfuly addressed from beginning to end to the
ld.as, feelings and sympathies of the Conser-
yatve section of the HOuse-seems to have taken
che Government orators rather by surprise The
President of the Board of Control and the Chair.
man of the Court of Directors replied to it, but in
rather rambling and inefficient manner Con-
siderable complaint was made that in such mo.
ment of difficulty and anxiety-and when the prac-
teal question, IS Mr.. Disraeli seemed to admit at
the conclusion Of his speech, was not how the diff
Guilty was got into, but how TO get out Of it-so
many topics of complaint should have been intro
duced
The answer put in to Mr. Disraeli's view of the
origin OF the Bengal mutiny was, that no cOnnec.
ton was shOwn between that mutiny and the
causes to which it was ascribed 1t was con-
fined entirely to the soldiers. The Indian princes
had taken no part in it; on the contrary, sew
ersl Of them had volunteered their aid to put it
down. The pIoprietors had taken no part in it.
Tie priesthood had taken no part in it. 1t was, 50
far as appeared, a simple military revolt But
upon the matter Of the alleged recent change in the
policy of the Indian Administration, Mr. Disrael
was not very distinctly met. Such change Of
policy was neither admitted nor denied, and as to
the specifications, disposition was evnced to dis.
cuss them rather as isolated facts each standing
upon its own merits than as parts of system.
In the matter of interferences with the religious
prejudices of the natives, the President of tho
Board of Control seemed determined not to be out
done by Mr.. DisIaeli. He, too, was willing to
tolerate missionaries; but the practice on the part
Of military and civil servants Of the Company, in
acting the part of missionaries, by distributing
tracts and otherwise, he thought very objection
able, and seemed to intimate that the Government