establish a uniform legal system for a mixed community of Englishmen, Hindus, and Mohammedans, whose religion and customs differ so widely from each other. I am desirous to elevate the character of the natives, and would gladly, in all cases, where it is practicable, extend the same rights to them as to Englishmen; but I will not sanction a system of uniformity which is to be produced by abrogating the rights that Englishmen at present possess in India. Let it not be supposed I am arguing, that now, when Englishmen are to be allowed to go all over India, they shall be accompanied by the protection of English law wherever they proceed; I wish the privilege to be continued only in the three presidencies, where a great number of Europeans are congregated together."

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson made a gallant stand for the independence of the Supreme Court; but he admitted that "there were evils connected with the mode in which its jurisdiction was exercised," and proposed to confine it to those persons who lived in the town of Calcutta. The courts, he observed, were established with a view to protect the Europeans at the presidencies. "No one," he said, "on this side of the house, has ever proposed to place British subjects in a more favourable position than native subjects. The question is merely this, whether we shall disturb a settlement of a hundred years' duration, under which native, as well as British, subjects have enjoyed the protection of English law? It is not we who contend for an invasion of the existing order of things, but you who wish to overturn British law in the English factories, where European subjects are not foreigners, but the original settlers, and where they have enjoyed the protection of British law for a hundred years. That law was established for them, and it is the natives who, preferring its security, have come to live under its protection. With a view, therefore, to preserve this valued right to the old British settlements, I move the insertion, after the word 'other,' these words: 'residing under the local limits of the settlements of Fort William, Madras, and Bombay, respectively.”” Mr. Shiel (who also disclaimed arguing the question as if British subjects in India ought to have exclusive privileges), having inveighed against the power given by the clause to the executive government, as establishing "absolute despotism in India," called up Mr. Charles Grant, whose sentiments deserve the utmost attention, inasmuch as they virtually proclaim that the very measure which has been adopted by the Indian Government was one of the express objects of the clause.

"No man is more desirous than I am," said the right hon. gentleman, "to give the natives of India a liberal constitution; but I think it is impossible for any one to look at the state of that country, and say that, at the present moment, it is prepared to receive the free institutions of England. The hon. and learned member must allow me to observe, that he has exhibited his fervour in behalf of a handful of foreigners in India, and has excluded from his comprehensive liberality the millions of natives of that country. The question is, whether we are to place Englishmen in a more favourable situation than the natives of India-whether the millions of the latter are to be amenable to laws to which we cannot venture to subject a few Englishmen. The principle which I laid down, when I introduced this measure to the House, was this, that, ultimately, there should be no distinction between Englishmen and the native subjects. I am willing to proceed by degrees to the attainment of my ultimate object; but I will not yield the great principle, that English subjects shall be amenable to the same tribunals as natives. I know of no chartered rights which give Englishmen, in India, the privilege of saying that they will not be

amenable to the same laws as the people about them. I never will consent to such a system as this."

Mr. O'Connell, coming to the relief of Mr. Sheil, observed: "The right hon. gentleman says, that his object is to place natives and British subjects on an equal footing. There are, however, two modes of equalizing them; one is by elevating the natives to the standard of the British, which is an object we all approve of; and the other is by bringing down the British to the level of the natives, and at this we all revolt. The only way in which we ought to equalize British and native subjects is, to allow the former to retain all the privileges they now possess, and to extend those of the latter."

Mr. Macaulay defended the concession of this large authority to the Governor-general in Council. "The Governor-general in Council,” he said, “has now the power of legislating for 100,000,000 of people, and we are discussing the propriety of giving a similar power with respect to a few thousands. We may call this liberty, if we please; but it is the tyranny of the larger number. Nothing, in my opinion, can be more impolitic than to grant peculiar privileges to a small number of persons in a great community, and to allow them, as it were, to move about in an atmosphere of liberty of their own. I find an additional reason for giving the Governor-general in Council complete control over British subjects in India, in the fact that the power of deportation is to be abolished, and that all Englishmen will henceforth proceed to India withou previous license. For my own part, I can conceive nothing more absurd, than to give the Governorgeneral in Council complete control over a great nation, with the exception of a handful of persons in it, who, on account of the accident of colour and descent, are to be at liberty to draw a line, and defy the government to enter their magical circle. This is an anomaly which cannot be suffered to exist. At present, in India, liberty we cannot have;-despotism we must have;-but let us avoid that worst of all evils, a partial despotism."

Mr. Warburton said, if the protection of British law could at once be extended to the natives of India, he would be disposed to take the same view of the question as Mr. O'Connell; but when it was allowed, on all hands, that this was impossible, he thought it wise to get rid of a distinction which established two classes in the community.

Mr. Charles Buller observed, that persons going to India ought to conform to the government established there; and that the laws which are considered good enough for the natives ought also to be good enough for them. He hoped the committee would not consent to the continuance of a favoured class in India, which must necessarily excite the jealousy of the natives.

The Attorney-general also observed, that nothing could be more unwise than the establishment of "a privileged class" in India; and

Lord Sandon said, he should vote with his Majesty's ministers; that there would be this great advantage in having the same laws for Europeans as for the natives, that it will give us an additional security for their goodness; because, if European subjects feel themselves oppressed, they will make remonstrances here; and whatever is done for their relief will also be a relief to the natives. "It is of great importance,” he added, to strip adventurers, going from this country, of the notion that they are to have a greater degree of protection than the natives."

66

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 114 to 33.

Now it is abundantly clear, from the declarations and admissions of the speakers of all parties, that it was their opinion, that the natives of India

were to be placed on the same footing as Europeans in judicial proceedings, and that they ought to be. Then the right of appeal to the King's from the Company's courts, granted by the statute of 1813 to European defendants, in civil suits, must either have been abrogated or extended likewise to natives. The inconveniences of the latter measure are obvious, and the judges of the Supreme Court themselves have, in effect, denounced it; the Indian. Government, therefore, with Sir Charles Metcalfe at its head, empowered and plainly instructed by Parliament, abolished the unequal preference which an European defendant enjoyed over a native plaintiff in the local courts.

Now, wherein consists the grievance? The "privileged class," in the interior, no doubt, found their advantage in this distinction, which opened a door to gross oppression where there was a desire to abuse it for that end. But their complaints would not have been heard, for decency's sake, if they had not been encouraged by an influential class at Calcutta.

In all ages, an attack upon "the craft" has stirred up opposition in its fiercest form. That of the law is not exempted from this general sensitiveness. This rescission of appeals to the Supreme Court came home at once to the "business and bosoms" of barristers, attorneys, and officers of the court. Any where but at Calcutta, decorum would have restrained these gentlemen from being foremost in opposition to such a measure; but at Calcutta, where, it is notorious, the public, European and native, are lawyer-led, it was not to be expected that regard to appearances would be permitted to smother the sentiments of a just indignation. Accordingly, the leading speakers at the meeting of the 18th June were barristers; the ipse dixit of the leader was sufficient authority to their audience for believing that they had met for an object which was "the common cause of all,”—natives, of course, included; and although the bitter personalities, the intemperate invectives, the daring threats, which disfigured the orations of the legal speakers, denoted something more than zeal for "a common cause," the resolutions passed unanimously. The incidents of the meeting were, indeed, somewhat incongruous with our notions of unanimity. It is described as the most noisy, tumultuous, and disorderly ever known in Calcutta; one gentleman of the bar charged another with uttering an untruth; it produced three meditated duels, a motion for a criminal information in the Supreme Court, and an exhibition of articles of the peace by one barrister against another; and lastly, it has filled the presidency papers with a mass of criminatory and recriminatory matter, with reference to individuals engaged in its proceedings, which it is disgusting to read. Yet the meeting was unanimous !

After the statement we have given of the question, let the reader (patiently, if he can) consider the manner in which this measure was spoken of at the meeting by men capable, at least, of knowing better; who described it as an invasion of the rights of half a million of people; as a step to the establishment of despotism; as an attempt to create " a division between the native and English inhabitants of India," for sinister purposes; as a plot, a conspiracy, to depress the natives, and to prevent their union with Europeans, by robbing the latter of their birth-rights, and subjecting

them to "the abominations of the Mofussil Courts!" In short, there never, perhaps, were exhibited more barefaced specimens of perverse and fallacious argument than will be found in the speeches we refer to: they might very well pass for examples of irony or burlesque. Have these gentlemen so soon forgot the sentiment of Sir Charles Metcalfe, which they so much lauded, in his reply to the Press address: "to legislate differently for natives and for Europeans, in matters of right and liberty, would be extremely unwise and unjustifiable policy?"

Previous to the meeting, long and elaborate disquisitions were written and published, to show the illegality, the iniquity, and the impolicy of this simple and just measure. As one of the legal gentlemen is to be despatched to this country, with a salary of £2,000 a year, for the recovery of his health and to watch the petition for the disallowance of the obnoxious act, we shall, probably, have them re-edited here; but they are tissues of mere fallacies, special pleading, and declamation. It would be strange, indeed, if the writers, whose profession it is to make out good cases for those who want them, without reference to their intrinsic quality, could not make a good case for themselves. The objections are unanswerably met in the reply of the government to the memorial of the malcontents, which will be found in our Journal for October last.* It will be seen that the memorialists proceeded upon an entire misconception of the existing law (which runs through all the speeches), believing that appeals to the Supreme Court had been authorised in criminal trials; that plaintiffs, as well as defendants, might appeal in civil suits; and that the Supreme Court, when sitting on appeals from the Mofussil Courts, administered English law, and proceeded on principles different from those to which the Mofussil Courts were bound to conform: notions which, the reader will have perceived, were the result of an entire ignorance of the right really given by the Charter Act of 1813.

One word upon the shameful manner in which an individual was selected for personal attack by the speakers at the meeting. Admitting, for argument's sake, that Mr. Macaulay, as the fourth ordinary member of council, prepared this law; admitting that he suggested and even pressed it; the measure was the deliberate act of "the Governor-general in Council;" -that Governor-general was Sir Charles Metcalfe, his decision being confirmed by Lord Auckland. Why then should Mr. Macaulay, as one, and a junior, member of the Legislative Council, be dragged forth and, as it were, assassinated by "spoken daggers?" The whole proceeding presents the image of a mob of vulgar rioters, vociferating about imaginary wrongs, and attacking the first person who comes in their way, in the slightest degree connected with the subject of those "wrongs."

Last vol. p. 57.

THE INDIAN ARMY.

THE BOMBAY ARMY.*

THE soldiers of the Bombay army are an assemblage of men from all the countries between Cape Comorin and the Punjab, and of almost all the tribes inhabiting that vast space. From this extraordinary mixture, results, not (what I think would be expected) confusion, but a subordination, harmony, and emulation in the performance of their duties, which, without meaning to disparage other native soldiers, is not to be found anywhere, where the men are more connected by caste and country.

The chief causes of this are, I believe, an impartial distribution of rewards and promotion, without any regard to caste or tribe; each is alive to a preference which is generally given to the most deserving, and the others, stimulated, strive to eclipse the favoured class, which they can alone hope to do, by attention to their duties. This emulation, therefore, the equality of their numbers, the impartiality of their officers, and the constant opposition of their views and interests, appear to me effectually to secure their obedience and fidelity to the Government. Impelled by these motives, they have been known to volunteer duties, such as dragging guns, digging trenches, &c., which the soldiers of other native armies have considered derogatory to their profession, and refused to perform.

But the best proof of what is here adduced, is the fact that, since the formation of the army (the foundation of which is the oldest in India), an instance of insubordination or disaffection in a corps was never heard of; on the contrary, in the most trying and most critical periods, their conduct has been distinguished by loyal, zealous, and affectionate attachment to their officers, and the most unshaken fidelity to the Government and service.

The Bombay army may be generally divided into seven classes, derived from distinction of country or faith :

1st. The Poorubies, or men from Hindostan proper;

2d. Mahrattas from the Deccan and Kokun;

3d. Gujuratties;

4th. Mussulmans;

5th. Jews;

6th. Christians and Hindus from the coasts of Coromandel, Malabar, Kanara; and,

Lastly, the Purwarries.

It may be observed here, that all these classes will admit a much more minute division.

The Mussulmans are from all the countries enumerated; but I have thought it best to mention them separately, whatever may be their origin.

The class deservedly mentioned first, from their superior qualities for their profession, are the Poorubies, or, as the name denotes, East-country men. These men, when they quit their own provinces, are also termed Purdesees, i. e. strangers, or foreigners. They are generally of the same castes and country with those composing a large proportion of the Bengal army,—apparently formed expressly to be soldiers,-high in stature, large-limbed, possessing great strength, and mostly well-made. They unite with mild dispositions, a high sense of honour and the most romantic bravery.

The Poorubies, serving with the Bombay army, are mostly allured to the "To the Editor:-Sir, The accompanying sketch was written, to the best of my recollection, about the year 1813. It may no longer be strictly applicable to the distinguished body to whom it refers; but, I think, I dare assert the description to have been tolerably correct at that time. A. B."

Asiat. Journ. N.S. VOL.22. No.85.

C