individual the sentiments he has subsequently avowed; namely, that the strictures upon public measures, which afterwards appeared in the journal, proceeded from "full confidence of the sincerity of the public professions (namely those of Lord Hastings), by which the Government of India invited the exercise of public comment on their acts;" or the declaration he published little more than a twelve

month after his letter to the Governor General, "that the Calcutta Journal was the only zealous and determined advocate of free discussion, the only channel for the full, fair, and free exercise of public opinion, and that as it had set out with the advocacy of freedom of opinion [which was not the case], so it had continued uniformly to maintain what it first professed;" and that, "neither the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment, the prospect of gain, or the dread of ruin, the smiles of the few, or the neglect of the many; nothing, in short, but an honest conviction, and a conscientious belief could ever prevail on its editor to profess any other sentiments than those which had uniformly been expressed by him, and would be uniformly maintained, as long as the liberty of the press should be left to him in India, and he might be spared

to exercise it."*

A very short time elapsed before another attack was made in the journal upon the Madras Government, and which was succeeded by a third. Whereupon the editor was again admonished by the Governor General in Council, who, expressing his regret at observing the little impression made by that indulgence which the editor had so gratefully acknowledged, warued him of the certain consequence of again incurring the displeasure of

Government.

The editor's reply to this communi

* Pamphlet printed (but not published) for the private information of the author's friends, 13 August 1821. It consists of 79 octavo pages, and is called a Brief Statement, &c.

cation is well deserving of consideration, as illustrative of the true spirit and progress of his opposition and disobedience. Forgetting altogether the solemn pledge he had given to be guided in future by the spirit of the instructions he had received, and affecting to understand the Governor General's address, before inserted, as a virtual abrogation of those instructions, he contended that the press in India was free, and, in justification of this assertion, he added, that, “in the exercise of this freedom, he had ventured to call in question even the policy and liberality of the Court of Directors, in some of its former, and still more of its recent acts, as applied to the immediate administration of Lord Hastings himself."

The mode in which the Governor General treated this infringement of his orders, accompanied by no apology, but by a species of insult, was by a lenient endeavour to reimpress upon

the mind of the offender the certain consequences of such proceedings in regard to his own personal interests, and their evil influence in general. He concluded with observing, “Independently of other injurious consequences to which an injudicious and perverted use of the discretion vested in the editors of newspapers may lead, it has the manifest tendency to raise a question as to the expediency of the liberal measures sanctioned by Government with regard to the press, and to the revival of those restrictions, which common prudence on the part of the editors would render altogether unnecessary.”

Little more than a month after this correspondence, a letter was published in the Calcutta Journal directly calculated to spread disaffection among the native troops, wherein the writer, after complaining of the rate of exchange at which the troops in the Nizam's country were paid, attempted to show that the officers, through whom the pay was issued, derived an illicit profit from selling or receiving the good

currency, which was sent there from the Company's treasury, and issuing a base currency to the troops; and he concluded wth recommending that the Government should openly deduct a certain portion of the pay of the troops, instead of depriving them of it clandestinely. The Government was satisfied with calling for the name of the author of this groundless charge, but the editor was suffered to escape without notice.

had in view the object of compelling the Government, for some secret purpose of his own, to resort to coercive steps; for on the 3d July 1821, he had the temerity to state publicly that a certain "infamous prospectus,' (as he termed it) of a hostile newspaper, was circulated, post free, by authority of Government. Before the correspondence which took place in consequence of this act of the editor was concluded, he published certain remarks upon the Bishop of Calcutta (the pious, learned and amiable Dr. Middleton) containing insinuations so extremely disrespectful to his public character, that his lordship felt it to be his duty to complain to the Governor General in Council. A justification of himself (though he confessed his ignorance of the author of the remarks), and an avowal of his conviction that the discussion of the subject "might be productive of public benefit," were the only effects of remonstrance on the part of Government. Notwithstanding lenity and forbearance had hitherto seemed only to produce fresh acts of contumacy, the Governor General made a further effort to divert the offender from the course he was pursuing. The sentiments contained in the communication to the editor, deserve to be recorded in illustration of the subject under consideration.

On the 6th Nov. 1819, appeared another letter, which being submitted to the Advocate General, that officer gave it as his opinion that the production was "a libel not only highly offensive in its terms, but mischievous in its tendency." Government accordingly determined that a prosecution should be commenced against the editor. But in consideration of the professions made by him in a private letter to Lord Hastings, and the urgent intercessions in his favour, the proceedings were waived upon the editor's consenting, 1st. to instruct his counsel to let the motion made against him in the Supreme Court pass without opposition; 2dly. to address to the Governor General in Council an apology, comprehending, in distinct and unequivocal terms, the professions contained in his private letter, for the purpose of the same being read in court by the Advocate General, as the ground of the instruction to that officer to drop the prosecution. These conditions, notwithstanding the publication of the letter in question had been justified by the editor, in spite of the principles professed by him, and in direct opposition to his subsequent declaration, that the fearless advocacy of freedom of opinion had been uniformly maintained in defiance of punishment, or even ruin, were complied with, and the prosecution was accordingly dropped.

It would be tedious to specify minutely the subsequent proceedings of the editor of this Journal, in which it seems impossible to doubt that he

"When certain irksome restraints which had long existed upon the press in Bengal were withdrawn, the prospect was indulged that the diffusion of various information, with able comments which it would call forth, might be extremely useful to all classes of our countrymen in public employment. A paper conducted with temper and ability on the principles professed by you, at the outset of your undertaking, was eminently calculated to forward that view. The just expectations of Government have not been answered.

Whatsoever advantages have been attained, they have been overbalanced by the mischief of acri

monious dissentions spread through the medium of your journal.

'Complaint upon complaint is continually harassing Government regard. ing the impeachment which your loose publications cause to be inferred against individuals. As far as could be reconciled with duty, Government has endeavoured to shut its eyes on what it wished to consider thoughtless aberrations, though perfectly sensible of the practical objection which attends these irregular appeals to the public. Even if the matter submitted be correct, the public can afford no relief, while a communication to the constituted authorities would effect such redress; yet the idleness of recurrence to a wrong quarter is not all that is reprehensible, for that recurrence is to furnish the dishonest conclusion of sloth or indifference in those bound to watch over such points of the general interest. Still the Government wished to overlook minor editorial inaccuracies. The subject has a different complexion, when you, Sir, stand forth to vindicate the principle of such appeals, whatsoever slander upon individuals they may involve; and when you maintain the privilege of lending yourself to be the instrument of any unknown calumniator. Government will not tolerate so mischievous an abuse. It would be with undissembled regret that the Governor General in Council should find himself constrained to exercise the chastening power vested in him; nevertheless he will not shrink from its exertion where he may be conscientiously satisfied that the preservation of decency, and the comfort of society require it to be applied." This intimation followed: "Should Government observe that you persevere in acting on the principle which you have now asserted, there will be no previous discussion of any case in which you may be judged to have violated those laws of moral candour and essential justice, which are equally binding on all descriptions of the

community. You will at once be apprized that your license to reside in India is annulled, and you will be required to furnish security for your quitting the country by the earliest convenient opportunity."

Notwithstanding this solemn warning, and the reiterated promises of the editor, in reply to this communica tion, to attend in future to the defined restrictions on the press, he continued to make his paper the receptacle of almost every species of writing prohibited by the restrictions of Government; and at length divested himself of that respect which he had hitherto professed towards the head of the Government, by indulging in sarcastic reflections upon the Gover nor General himself. This offence was passed over, though it was strongly maintained in the Council that mischievous effects would proceed from bringing the person of the chief of the Government into discussion with impunity, whereby his authority might be weakened, and his administration brought into contempt. A proposition to the effect of disabling the editor from further defiance of the Government, upon the publication of the well-known letter of Colonel Robison, was supported by all the members of council, except the Governor General, and was consequently negatived.

The fate of the officer just named, who was tried by a court-martial, and ordered to quit the country, alarmed the editor of the journal, who, in a letter to Lord Hastings,* deprecated the apprehended displeasure of his Lordship, by protestations of his "undisguised and deep regret" at the occurrence; and by representing that "it could hardly be possible the Government should visit a deficiency of judgment" in the editor, "with a punishment that the law reserves only for the highest degree of moral turpitude." In a subsequent letter, he

Dated 7 May, 1829.

Dated 29 May, 1892, addressed to his Lordship's private secretary.

speaks of his Lordship's "just though still indulgent construction of his professions, the sincerity of which the editor trusts he will never have occasion to call in question ;" and he concludes thus: "And I do with sincerity pledge myself to exercise that additional scrutiny and caution which his Lordship requires; and, having so pledged myself, I shall, I trust, be conscientiously zealous to fulfil his expressed expectations. I beg, therefore, you will do me the favour to assure his Excellency the Governor General that he may repose himself on my attention to these points."

It will hardly be believed that henceforward the articles published in the journal surpassed in offensiveness of character the preceding examples; that two months after the solemn declaration just quoted, there appeared a violent attack upon a distinguished officer by name, and a distinct charge against the Government of an undisguised and indefensible job in an appointment given to him; and that a month afterwards, the editor made a distinct and unqualified declaration, that the resolutions and orders of Government imposing restraints on the press in India, were, "in point of fact, and in point of law, mere waste paper;" and an order of Government, prohibiting the discussion of any particular topic, was to be regarded merely as a request, "to be complied with or not, according to the reasonableness and the propriety of the demand."* This additional boldness produced only an additional proof of the Governor General's forbearance, and an additional warning to the editor.

During the few months forming the remaining part of Lord Hastings' administration, almost every number of the journal contained some new attack on the measures and character of that nobleman. In less than a month after his Lordship's resignation, a pa

* Calcutta Journal, 31st August, 1822.

ragraph was inserted reflecting upon an appointment made by his successor, which that personage brought before the council, and proposed to withdraw the editor's license of residence, which was unanimously approved by the Board, and carried into execution.

This long narrative would be disproportioned to the slender details afforded to other topics in this sketch of Lord Hastings' history, were it not indispensible in order to facilitate a clear perception of the subject, and to justify his Lordship not only from the censure which has been attempted to be fixed upon him, but from the prejudice that may hereafter be raised against his character, from a mistaken idea of his motives, language, and conduct, in regard to the emancipation of the Indian press. To suppose the motive of Lord Hastings, in removing the censorship, to be a mere thirst of applause, would betray an egregious misapprehension of his character; to conclude that his expressions will bear the unlimited sense ascribed to them by the editor of the Calcutta Journal, and that his Lordship meant at once to assimilate the Indian press to that of England, is to refuse to the Marquess the common benefit which ordinary experience and discernment impart to the plainest understanding; and to pretend that his conduct towards the conductors of the press has been tyrannical and oppressive, is to be guilty of an abuse of language which even disappointment and mortification can in no degree excuse.

Whatever question may exist respecting that discretionary power entrusted to a Governor General of India, which Lord Hastings was authorised by law to employ, but did not actually exert, it has no concern whatsoever with his Lordship's conduct. The legislature doubtless deemed the British subject secure from wrong, by the provisions of a statute,* which

21 Geo. III. c. 70.