66

in the preservation of tranquillity in the British dominions in the East; I might go much farther, and say that they have a direct interest in the very reverse; for example, while the Burmese war was being carried on, the merchants in India made immense fortunes by the expenditure of the Company in military stores, provisions, hiring of transports, &c.; a great portion of the twelve or fifteen millions sterling which the war cost, passed through their hands. But when the contest had terminated, how did they act? Did they say to the Company's Government, you have been at an immense expense in preserving the city of Calcutta from being attacked by the Burmese, by making a diversion on the enemy at Rangoon and Arracan ; you had a full treasury previous to the war, and you had not only to expend the surplus money in hand, but, in order to preserve your western dominions from internal insurrection, and your eastern frontier from external aggression, you were obliged to borrow ten or twelve millions sterling, a great part of which we acknowledge to have received; we therefore think it but just that we should contribute in a moderate proportion to the liquidation of the debt, particularly as our native brethren are already very heavily taxed for the expenses of the state;" did the Indian European merchants act in this noble manner? No; they grasped at every thing they could, while the contest lasted; applauded the Government for its spirited perseverance, but

The war being over and the expenditure lightened,
They pocketed the cash, and the Company slighted.

The imposition of a stamp tax in the city of Calcutta, raised a hue and cry, which was re-echoed by the London agents; alarming and false petitions were presented to Government; and the great firms of Messrs. So and So,

did all but " sit dhurna," after the manner of their Benares brethren, when a house tax was about to be imposed. I mention this circumstance to shew that a war in India is beneficial for the European merchants, who will not contribute for its support, but, with all their pretended philanthropy and liberality, are as ready to shift the burthen off their own shoulders as they are to—

“Make hay while the sun shines."

Supposing that some Europeans in the service of Runjeet Singh were to stir up that potentate to war; that a few of the newly arrived "colonists" were to instil "leprous drops" into the ears of the despots who have been dethroned, for the purpose of causing a disturbance in India; will any one who knows any thing of human nature, assert that it would not be acceptable to the Indian merchants?

Granting that they were compelled to pay a portion of the expenditure, they would look forward to greater gains ; the very men who are now peaceful shopkeepers in Calcutta, would instantly become camp suttlers, and those who have mixed in the various classes of European society in India, must have heard the frequent observation, "Oh! we want a war with some one to set the rupees afloat."

We see, therefore, that there are several cogent reasons for the policy pursued by the Company ;-First, the holding out to their European civil and military servants inducements to consider England and not India as their home, has prevented the deterioration of the dominant race, and preserved them from exhibiting before their inferiors that senility which so rapidly ensues in a tropical climate, and before which human genius, wisdom, and energy, become prostrate;* a continued accession of vigorous mind

* Colonel Hopkinson mentions that during thirty-one years' service in India, during which time he had an opportunity of seeing children in great numbers, of European blood, yet he could not recollect above one instance where one of these children attained maturity.

has therefore been constantly brought into action for the government of India, going hand-in-hand with the improved spirit of the age, and operating as fresh stimuli to leaven the mighty mass of mortality over which it circulates, as vast avalanches from the cloud-capt Himalaya perennially descend to purify the mountain torrent, quicken the languid tributary streams, and give renovated impulse to the majestic waters, which sweep over thousands of miles in eagerness to join their parent source. Secondly, there arose the necessity of preserving internal tranquillity, in a state so vast, so extraordinary, and so complicated as that of British India, where the political fermentation has not yet subsided, and where, as has been rightly observed, the bulk of the people are too imperfectly acquainted with the structure of our social institutions, not to couple the acts of individual or unofficial Englishmen with the policy of their rulers, a necessity which, as Mr. Holt Mackenzie says in his recent evidence, "requires that a much greater power must be left to the executive government of the Indian empire than would be fairly claimed or exercised at home-a power of deportation similar to that vested in the secretary of state by the alien act with regard to foreigners; a power," says Mr. Mackenzie, "which I do not think could be altogether taken away from the local Government." But it is said, this power checks mercantile enterprize. Those who make use of the argument, and at the same time boast of the great progress which the freetrade has made in India since 1814, must have most accommodating consciences; at one moment they cry out "look what the private merchant has done since the trade was thrown open, look at the immense indigo cultivation!" the next moment they turn short round and bawl as lustily, "Oh! it is impossible that free-trade can flourish while the power of deportation exists with the

Indian authorities." I reply to these gentlemen by again quoting the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie, whose testimony before the Committee was certainly not biassed in favour of his late honourable masters: he says, "the experience of the Indian merchants of the principles of the government, has rendered them very little apprehensive of any misuse of the existing power of deportation." Mr. Mackenzie adds: "only two cases have occurred during fifteen years." These I suppose were Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Arnott; not two merchants or traders, but two talented political writers, a class of men of whom it is well said by the noble bard,—

“Their breath is agitation, and their life
A storm, whereon they ride, so sink at last;
And yet so nursed and bigotted to strife,
That should their days, surviving perils past,
Melt to calm twilight, they feel o'ercast
With sorrow and supineness, and so die :
E'en as a flame unfed, which runs to waste

With its own flickering; or a sword laid by,
Which eats into itself, and rusts ingloriously."

But so chary of their power have the Indian government been, that I am informed by a gentleman now in London, and writing violently, under the auspices of a certain parliamentary aspirant, that himself and two other political writers in India whom I might name, were trying to force the government to deport them. Two of the trio have shifted the scene of action to England, and the other is pursuing a more moderate, and, as he will ultimately find, a more beneficial course for his country, if that be his object, and a more profitable one for himself.

Mr. Holt Mackenzie does not stand alone in his opinion; he is supported even by Mr. Rickards, who says: "It has been thought necessary hitherto to guard the natives of India against violence and oppression on the part of Europeans by prohibiting their going into the interior, and

perhaps, as matters now stand, that prohibition is necessary."* However, as it does not appear probable that the Company would undertake the government of India if divested of this power, guarded as its exercise is by the commanding effect of public opinion in England and in India, I pass to the consideration of the third branch of the subject, namely, the restrictions which have existed, and still exist, to the purchase of land in India by Europeans. T. H. Baber, Esq., whose warm attachment to the natives of India, as well as to genuine freedom, needs no comment, says in his evidence before the Lords (6th April 1830) :

:

"I should be very apprehensive that Europeans settling and occupying land would be extremely prejudicial to the interests of the natives.

"Q. By occupying land, do you mean holding by lease?— A. Yes; holding it on any terms.

"Q. In what way would it be prejudicial to the natives, if the natives let the land to the people on their own terms; the question not referring to the indiscriminate introduction of Europeans, but a person wishing to establish himself for the purpose of carrying on business ?— A. From the tendency of the strong to oppress the weak, which I have seen wherever Europeans have been in the interior, at a distance from European stations; and the people would not complain against them nine times in ten, partly through fear, and partly from want of the means to subsist themselves from their cultivations and homes, and to pay their road expenses, &c.

"Q. So that if any person, be his character what it might, should apply for permission to establish himself, it would be wise policy, in your opinion, to refuse him permission ?—A. Certainly; and another objection is, I think, that whatever the character of the European was, his superior intelligence would give him such a decided superiority over the native operatives, that the whole industry of the country would centre in him."

I might quote whole pages of testimony such as Mr. Baber's to shew the grounds of the Company's policy; whether such humane principles deserve the opprobrium

* Evidence before the Lords, Q. 3976.