peated infractions of treaty hy this treacherous ally, and the spirit of unceasing intrigue displayed by him, even after the humiliation he underwent in June 1817, warranted a severe and remarkable lesson in Bajee Row to the chiefs of India. The mere removal of the individual from the seat of imperial sway, for the purpose of elevating any other member of the same family, would have impressed the minds of other princes with the notion that the personal chastisement of the individual was to be the ultimate consequence of the most implacable and persevering hostility. Such a persuasion would nourish a belief that the maintenance of existing forms of government was indispensible to our system, and hostile advisers would easily tempt their instruments into mischievous courses by the assurance that they might always save themselves by a timely accommodation, however justly or deeply they might incur our resentment. The Marquess had hoped that the treaty of Poonah would have subdued or abated the spirit of the Peishwa; but a contrary effect followed, and no choice seemed left to the British Government, but to extinguish the source which produced that intractable spirit, and shew that we could controul the chiefs of the Mahratta nation, and maintain the public tranquillity, more effectually than since the first Bajee and Balajee united this destructive race against the peace and welfare of India.

It has been speciously represented, that a very plausible counter-statement might be made, on the Mahratta side, in answer to the manifesto of Mr. Elphinstone; that a parallel might be drawn between the conduct of these Indian princes, however freely stigmatized with the epithets, treacherous and faithless, and that of European powers, which is not only tolerated, but even applauded; that a

* Blacker, 254,

weak state, in resisting a more powerful one, must have recourse to measures which, though they expose it to the imputation of treachery, are only prompted by a natural desire to balance force by artifice; lastly, that the Mahrattas openly act upon interested principles, and never even affect to regard any arguments but those which accord with their own narrow views of political expediency. Admitting the speciousness of these and other propositions which might be urged by a native diplomatist, the interests of that body which had committed to his Lordship the direction of its affairs, and the general welfare of India, imposed upon the Governor General the necessity of acting as he did, after other expedients had been fruitlessly tried, and of deposing a prince, whom no treaties or engagements could bind, and whose political existence was incompatible with the permanent settlement of the country.

Although the Sattara Raja, whose principality now occupies that station in the political horizon lately filled by the mischievous court of Bajee Row, is regarded by the Mahratta families, in some degree, as their hereditary and legitimate chief, yet their entire independence of the family has been secured by transferring the obligations of allegiance, exclusively, to the British Government.

In detailing the events of the war, and the principles which regulated the conduct of Lord Hastings, we have purposely made no use of a document, the value of which cannot be appreciated by the perusal of detached passages. We now refer to that masterly exposition of the subject given by his Lordship in a reply to the address of the inhabitants of Calcutta, on his return to that Presidency in 1818; wherein the whole series of events touched upon in the preceding pages, the motives which influenced the Governor General in his transactions with the native princes, and the secret springs which managed their courts,

are exhibited in a manner so perspicuous, distinct, and forcible, that it deserves to be regarded as the most satisfactory manifesto ever published to the world.*

It is now time to detach our consideration from the topics which have so long detained it, and, dismissing concerns of a military and political character, to fix our attention upon the other parts of Lord Hastings' administration.

The vigour and decision which distinguished all his Lordship's political measures, were not more remarkable than the moderation and prudence which guided him in dealing with the prejudices and superstition of the Hindoo people. We may cite as an example, his conduct in regard to that barbarous rite practised among them (which does not satisfactorily appear to be absolutely enjoined by the ancient lawgivers of Hindostan), denominated anoomarana (or anugama nam), whereby widows become suttees, or voluntary sacrifices upon the funeral piles of their husbands, This practice was discouraged, and even for bidden, by the Moghul government; and the Peishwa was in the habit of personally exerting himself to dissuade widows from becoming suttees, making suitable provision for those who yielded to his arguments. But his Lordship justly concluded that the government of a brahmin prince could not be liable to misrepresentation, and to the imputations of interfering with the religious opinions of the Hindoos, which would infallibly attach to us in similar endeavours, unless the greatest caution was used in dissuading those who were bent upon the sacrifice, His approbation was cordially bestowed upon all judicious efforts to this end; and he recommended strongly to the Court of Directors the policy of assigning a provision to those females who had been rescued from the flames.

*This paper may be seen in the Asiatic Journal, vol. vii. p. 176.

Lord Hastings appears upon this point to have adopted implicitly the course of policy of his predecessor, whose opinion as to the cases where interposition should be allowed on the part of the Government, is expressed in the following extract from a letter to the Register of the Nizamut Adawlut, dated 5th December,

1812:*

"The Governor General in Council accordingly conceives that the interposition of the public officers, in cases of this nature, should be confined to the following points: 1st, To preclude, as far as possible, all compulsory means towards Hindoo women on the part of their relatives, of Brahmins or others, in order to cause them to burn themselves. 2dly. To prevent the criminal use of intoxicating drugs or liquors for the accomplishment of that object. 3dly. To ascertain whether the women have attained the age, as fixed by the Hindoo law, at which they were permitted to burn themselves. 4thly, To enquire, as far as the nature of the case will properly admit, whether they are in a state of pregnancy. 5thly. To prevent the ceremony from proceeding in cases, in which, on any of the above grounds, it may be repugnant to the principles of the Hindoo law."

Like all other subjects which admit of a great contrariety of sentiment, this question has led different persons, with equal means of observation, into opposite extremes of opinion; and whilst one individual in authority declares the toleration of the practice

ર

a reproach to our Government, and that the entire and immediate abolition of it would be attended with no sort of danger;"t another deprecates any attempt at abolition ;‡ and a third even regards the interference of the police as the cause of increasing the number of suttees.

* Papers laid before Parliament respecting Hindoo widows, printed 10 July, 1821, p. 31. † Papers, &c. printed 19 June, 1823, p. 69. Ibid, p. 63. Papers, &c. 1821, p. 241.

fellow-subjects, to be narrowed only by special and urgent cause assigned. The seeing no direct necessity for those invidious shackles might have sufficed to make me break them. I know myself, however, to have been guided in the step by a positive and well-weighed policy. If our motives of action are worthy, it must be wise to render them intelligible throughout an empire, our hold on which is opinion.

"Further. It is salutary for Supreme Authority, even when its intentions are most pure, to look to the controul of public scrutiny. While conscious of rectitude, that authority can lose nothing of its strength by its exposure to general comment. On the contrary, it acquires incalculable addition of force.

"That government which has nothing to disguise, wields the most powerful instrument that can appertain to sovereign rule. It carries with it the united reliance and effort of the whole mass of the governed; and let the triumph of our beloved country in its awful contest with tyrant-ridden France, speak the value of a spirit to be found only in men accustomed to indulge and express their honest sentiments."*

The

On the 19th August, 1818, the censorship was removed, and certain restrictions were substituted, which were notified to the editors of newspapers, in the form of resolutions, by the Governor General in Council. editors were thereby prohibited from publishing, 1st. Animadversions upon the public measures of the Home or Indian Government, or offensive remarks upon the public conduct of certain high authorities; 2d. Discussions tending to excite alarm or suspicion among the natives; 3d. Republications of similar matter, or that should be calculated to affect the British power in India; 4th. Private scan

Reply to the Address of the British Inhabitants of Madras, 24 July, 1819.

dal and personal remarks on individuals. The editors were at the same time distinctly informed, that "they would be held personally accountable for whatever they might publish in contravention of the rules communicated, and would be proceeded against in such manner as the Governor General in Council might deem applicable to the nature of the offence, for any deviation from them.”

These rules and restrictions composed the limitations of those liberal principles in the speech just quoted, which else might be held to sanction a scope to publication which no good government can tolerate. The language of Lord Hastings is an expansion of that noble maxim, In civitate liberá linguam mentemque liberas esse debere. But the indifference of the Roman Emperor would ill befit the chief of a state constituted as our Indian empire; and a remedy must be found against the abuse of liberty, adapted to the peculiar circumstances of our anomalous government.

The peculiarity of this Government as it regards the efficient controul of the press over it, may here deserve a little consideration. What is called the public in India, is a body of Europeans in the proportion, at the utmost, of one to 50,000 natives,* most of whom are more or less dependent upon the Government, which exercises over them a species of power

Lord Castlereagh, in 1812, estimated the number of natives, under British authority, in India, at 50 millions, and the civil officers of the Company at 1,600. But our power now extends over at least 80 millions. The computation on the text is given from a quarter entitled to great regard, as representing the proportion of British subjects in the Presidency of Fort-William, not in the immediate service of his Majesty or the Company, or paid and supported by Government. Beyond the precincts of Calcutta and its suburbs, the proportion is less than one to 100,000; the number of such British European subjects being about 300, and the native population being estimated at from 45 to 50 millions. A statement published in this Journal (vol. xv. p. 442), exhibits the extent and population of the states of Hindostan in 1820, distinguishing the British possessions, our allies and tributaries, and independent states.

precluding the notion of a constitutional check. The European community of India is composed of, 1st. civil and military officers; 2d. Persons residing in India by license, which may be withdrawn by the Local Government without a reason assigned; 3dly. Traders of a lower class, and handicraftsmen, either licensed, like the former, or unlicensed, and therefore at the entire mercy of the Government, against which they are hourly offending. It is a mockery to claim for a community so constituted the political privileges and functions of the independent body of the people of England. The fallacy and absurdity of all the arguments, in favour of an unbounded free press in India, will appear when it is considered, that the same efficient check, which is exercised in this country, would require that the civil and military servants of the King and Company should constitute themselves judges of the measures which it is their province only to execute.

These difficulties are interwoven in the system of our Indian Government. They are not adverted to in order to invalidate the reasoning of Lord Hastings, or to reflect upon the wisdom or expediency of the measure in question; but with the view of showing more clearly the real motives and objects of the individual who took advantage of the concession thus liberally granted, to establish what he termed a "free press" in the Company's territories.

Six weeks after the abolition of the censorship, a newspaper, entitled the Calcutta Journal, was set up in India, by a person who arrived at Calcutta in the early part of that year, with a license* as a free mariner, "there to continue and provide for himself in the seafaring way," during the pleasure of the Company, or their Court of Directors, or the Governor General, or Governor, or other chief officers.

*The license of the Editor of the Calcutta Journal was not obtained, through causes which it is needless to mention, till 19th October 1818.

The usual covenant was executed by this individual with the Company, on the due observance of which his li cense of residence depended, whereby he engaged "to behave and conduct himself, from time to time, in all respects conformably to all such rules and regulations as now are or hereafter may be in force, and which shall be applicable to him or his conduct, and which he ought to obey, observe, and conform to."

The first number of the journal was published on the 2d October, 1818; and on the 28th May following, there appeared in it a wanton attack upon the Governor of the Presidency of Fort St. George, in which his continuance in office was represented as a public calamity, and his conduct in administration asserted to be governed by despotic principles, and influenced by unworthy motives.

The notice taken of this offensive article was by an official communication from the Governor General in Council to the editor, pronouncing it to be a violation of the obvious spirit of the instructions (copy of which was forwarded to him), and intimating that any repetition of a similar offence would forfeit the countenance of Government, and subject him to be proceeded against under the 36th sec. of the act 53 Geo. III. c. 155; in other words, to be sent away from the country.

In acknowledging the receipt of this communication, the editor used the following expressions: "The marked indulgence which his Lordship in Council is pleased to exercise towards me, in remitting on this occasion. the exercise of the powers vested in him by law, will operate as an additional incentive to my future observance of the instructions issued, before the commencement of the Calcutta Journal, to the editors of the public prints of India, of which I am now fully informed, and which I shall henceforth make my guide."

Who would be prepared, after this statement, to expect from the same