Alabama and Tennessee. ....552 Trade of New Orleans.

SOUTHERN AND
AND WESTERN

REVIEW.

Established January 1, 1846.*

J. D. B. DE BOW, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

VOL. IX, O. S.

JULY, 1850.*

2d SERIES, VOL. III, No. 1-3d SERIES, VOL. I, No. I.

ART. L-GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH INDIA.

THE HOME GOVERNMENT.-BY W. ADAM, Esq.†

www

INTRODUCTION; PROPRIETORS OF STOCK; COURT OF DIRECTORS; BOARD OF CONTROL; PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

THE acquisition of India by England, whether we regard the means employed, the results actually produced, or the consequences still future; whether we regard its influence on the conquering or the conquered race on the civilization of Asia, or on the character of England-is one of the most extraordinary and fruitful events of modern times. Its history yet remains to be written; not in the spirit of party warfare, nor in the interests of national policy-not with the special pleading of the casuist, nor with the meager details of the statisticianbut in the spirit of a sound philosophy, and with an enlarged apprehension of the rights and duties, the prospects and destinics, of society. The government of India, that is, the system adopted by England for the administration of the affairs of that dependency, would constitute one part of such a history, profoundly interesting and important, when truly and fully understood; but obscure and complicated, from the nu merous checks and counter checks, means and agencies, that have been brought into operation, and presenting great difficulty to one who,

*The table of contents of this number is now, and will hereafter be, published upon the second page (inside) of cover.-ED.

† Mr. Adam has lived many years in India, and had every opportunity of investigating its affairs. His residence is now in Louisiana. The affairs of India must be of great interest to the South, taking in view the so-much-talked of competition from that quarter in our staples.

1

VOL. I.

through these multifarious particulars, attempts to penetrate to its cssential and characteristic features. It is somewhat hazardous to make this attempt within the brief scope which the present occasion affords, and the reader must therefore be warned, that only the most superficial views of the frame-work of the English government of India, and of the principles which it embodies, will be presented; correct, it is not doubted, as far as they go, but still imperfect-suggestive, it may be, of some serious reflection to the thinking: but, to do justice to the subject, requires far more ample and extended illustration,

Giving a population of one hundred or one hundred and fifty millions, to be governed by a nation of twenty-six millions, at the distance of half the circuit of the globe, professing different religions, speaking different tongues, having different manners, customs and institutions, belonging to different kinds of civilization, and to long and widely-separated divisions of the human race, what are the principles of government that should be adopted? what the best form of government that can be devised and administered? When this problem is offered for solution, the first thought that occurs to an honest mind, is, that the political and social relations between these two divisions of mankind are unnatural and vicious, and that no wisdom or ingenuity can frame a system of government, adapted to each circumstance, that shall be just to both-undegrading to the one and uncorrupting to the other. They stand in the relation of conquerors and conquered; of arbitrary rulers and subject masses; of masters and slaves-without common associations, or mutual sympathies, or identical interests; and, as this is a relation, in their case, which God has not established, which nature does not sanction, and which reason will not justify, so every attempt, by forms and systems of government, to confirm, perpetuate and sanctify it, must prove futile and unavailing. There is no right way of doing a wrong thing; and while the relation itself is allowed to continue, the mode of acting under that relation must partake of its vicious and unnatural character.

Still, the relation exists, and the question recurs, What are the conceivable, the practicable, or the actual, modes of exercising the authority which it confers? One mode is that of transferring the authority of the dominant power from its original seat to the conquered country. This was the course pursued by Baber, the founder of the dynasty of the house of Zimur, in India, who, after ruling Cabul twenty-two years, conquered India, and made it the principal seat of his government, 'while Cabul was governed by delegated authority, as a subordinate dependency. It was the course also pursued by the king of Portugal, in the early part of this century. When driven from his native throne

by the French, he made Brazil the seat of his government. This mode has a direct tendency to identify the interests of the conquerors and conquered, and constitutes the true explanation of the firm hold which the Mohammedans have retained of India long after their authority has passed away. But this is a mode of governing India which the crown of England could not adopt, and to which the people of England would not submit. A second mode may be conceived-that of granting a kind of independence to the conquered country, by establishing over it a new dynasty in the person of a member of the family that reigns in the conquering country; and, at the same time, creating a kind of dependence on the latter, by exacting an annual tribute and commercial advantages, or by treaties offensive and defensive. This would resemble, in some respect, the connection that has subsisted between certain European States; that, for instance, which Napoleon, by means of his brothers, attempted to establish between France and Holland, Spain, &c. But it does not appear that such an arrangement, with regard to India, has ever entered into the plans of any English statesman. The third and only other mode that need now be mentioned, is that of governing the conquered and more populous country by the delegated authority of responsible agents, removed from time to time, and exercising their authority with a strict regard to the instructions and interests of the conquering and less populous country. This, as all are aware, is the course that England has pursued with all her colonies; and it is the course she has pursued with India, which is not a colony, but an immense, dependent empire, and which is thus made to receive her deputed rulers, at second hand and at successive periods, from a distant and dominant country.

A delegated government may exist under various forms. The delegation of power may be made by the supreme authority of the State, with or without the concurrence of the popular will. It may be made to one or to many. It may or may not consist with the enjoyment of political rights and franchises by the people over whom the delegated authority is to be exercised, qualifying and abridging the exercise of that authority. Peculiar circumstances is each case determine the constitution and character of a delegated government; and, in the instance of India, a very extraordinary combination of circumstances has produced a very irregular, and, in some respects, unprecedented, system of government. A company of merchants, trading to the East Indies, conquered India; and, although the commercial character of that company has ceased, yet the proprietors of its stock, consisting of individ uals of both sexes and of all classes and conditions, are the nominal rulers of India, and formally entrusted with its political government.

But the proprietors of India stock, constituting the East India Company, exercise most of the powers conferred on them through the medium of a Board of Directors, elected from among themselves, and thus practically made the sovereigns of India. The acquisition of territory by the company, and the exercise of political power by its directors, early roused the jealousy of the ministers of the crown, and, accordingly, a Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India exists, expressly appointed by the crown, to control the proceedings and measures of the directors of the company. But the ministers of the crown, including of course the minister who presides over the Board of Control, are responsible to parliament, and parliament is responsible to the nation at large; and there are thus, in England, five organizations or powers that are entitled to participate in the government of India, in a manner more or less direct and formal: first, the proprietors of stock; second, the directors of the company; third, the ministerial board; fourth, parliament, and, fifth, the constituency of the united kingdom, who elect members of parliament. The Court of Directors is the central authority, around which the others revolve, and which they watch-but it is the joint operation of them all that constitutes what is called the home government of India, and a few words, devoted to illustrate the separate power and influence of each, will serve to give precision and accuracy to the views of the reader.

The miscellaneous character of the proprietors of East India stock has already been stated; and this arises from the fact, that the purchase of stock, unless in exceptional cases, is never regarded as an instrument for influencing the condition of India by the power it confersbut, either as a safe investment of capital, or as a means of obtaining valuable appointments, in India, for relatives. Hence, proprietors of stock are found residing all over the kingdom, from Caithness to Cornwall, in Europe, America and India, as well as in England, aliens as well subjects of the crown, merchants, lawyers, clergymen, civilians and soldiers, women as well as men. This heterogeneous body is required to hold quarterly meetings at the India house, in London; but it is evident that only those residing in the metropolis, or its vicinity, can, in general, attend-and they are, for the most part, under the influence of the enormous patronage-power possessed by the directors-and thus these quarterly meetings of proprietors have become mere occasions for awarding the behests of their own servants, the directors. Proprietors have one, two, three, or four votes, according as their stock amounts to £1,000, £3,000, £6,000, or £10,000 sterling; and, besides the regular quarterly meetings, a special mecting must be summoned, on the demand of nine or more proprietors, each holding £500 stock. At these