Two hundred years ago, this month, there was a debate in the British House of Commons regarding the entry of missionaries into India. It is long and tendentious. I have done few of the annotations that I had hoped to do; and may never get to it. Certainly not until winter. What is most notable are the polemics against the Hindoos that were current back then, and are mostly still current today in missionary circles.
Happy reading! (if you have the patience).
PS: you may want to read this for some context.
( The Chaplains’ Plot: Missionary Clause Debates of 1813
and the Reformation of British India
Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. and Myron C. Noonkester)
Bennie R. Crockett, Jr. and Myron C. Noonkester)
House of Commons Parliamentary debates June 22, 1813
From Google Books, “The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to
the Present Time, Volume XXVI comprising of the time between the 11th
of May and the close of the session, 22nd of July 1813, Printed by
T.C. Hansard, London, 1813, print pages 827-873.
The resolution debated below was adopted by a vote of 89-36. It should be noted that in 1813, there were
658 Members of Parliament per Wiki.
EAST INDIA COMPANY’S AFFAIRS—PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA. ]
The order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on
the 13th resolution of the Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company,
Lord Castlereagh rose and said, that, before he
proceeded to make his next motion, which would be, that the House do now
proceed to discuss the 13th Resolution, he was anxious to offer a few
observations upon it. He was the more particularly called upon to do this,
because there was no point on which greater misconception and misrepresentation
had gone forth, then on this particular resolution. A very general idea had
been entertained, that it was intended to encourage an unrestrained and
unregulated resort of persons to India, for religious purposes; precisely on
the same ground, as it was imagined, that an unrestricted and unlimited
commercial intercourse would be permitted to that country. The House must now be aware that government
never contemplated the uncontrolled admission of persons into India, for the
purpose of commerce; and, he would add, that it never entered the minds of
those who had drawn up the 13th Resolution, that an unrestrained and
unrestricted resort of persons, with religious views, would be consonant with
the tranquillity and security of the British dominions in India. They did,
however, think, that no danger would arise from allowing a certain number of
persons, under the cognizance of the Court of Directors, who were again controlled
by the Board of Commissioners, to proceed, as missionaries, to India. He
thought, as the House had adverted to the interests of religion, in one of the
resolutions entered into at the renewal of the Charter, in 1793, and as the
subject had been frequently alluded to in the course of their debates, that it
would seem as if they were less disposed to the cause of Christianity, on the
present occasion, if a proposition of the nature contained in this resolution
had not been submitted to the legislature.
His Lordship then contrasted the present resolution with that agreed
to in 1793, and argued that the present was preferable, as it provided a
salutary controul, both with respect to the number of persons going out, and to
their character, which was omitted in the other. As to the dread which some
gentlemen seemed to suppose would be created amongst the Hindoos, by the
appearance of missionaries in India, he saw no just ground for any apprehension
of the kind. He did not think the Hindus would be more alarmed by the
appearance of Christian ministers amongst them, than they were by an
intercourse with the professors of Mahometanism, or of the various sects into
which the country was divided. — There was the less foundation for such an
opinion, when it was recollected, that controul would exist to prevent too
numerous a body of missionaries proceeding to that country. At the same time,
when he considered the length of the voyage, and the expense which individuals
proceeding to Hindostan must incur, he was inclined to believe, that the spirit
of proselytism was not so exuberant in our times, as to tempt any very alarming
body of persons to proceed on religious missions to that country. Under proper
controul no evil was likely to occur. What progress Christianity might make, it
was impossible for him, who had never been in India, to say. Great advantages
he thought, might be obtained from such an intercourse with the people, as
might lead them away from many immoral and disgusting habits; such as the
sacrifice of women, for instance. This might be a accomplished more speedily
than by direct measures of the government, which were not always advisable. He hoped, therefore, it would be discussed
discreetly and completely: and concluded by moving the adjourned Resolution.
Sir
Henry Montgomery
rose to state his objections. He said that in a residence of 20 years in India
he had never known an instance of any convert being made to Christianity, nor
had he even heard of any, except one was converted by that very respectable
individual Mr Schwartz. It was said, indeed, that that gentleman, who by the bye,
was a politician, had many converts: it was true that he was followed by
several persons of the lowest class, in the scarce season; and these were
called rice Christians. Neither the Portuguese, the Dutch, or even the
Mahometans, had ever made any converts except by force. There were, indeed,
many Christians in India, as they were Jews, Parsees, and persons of other
religions; not that they were converted Hindoos, but descendants of those with
settled there. The attempt to introduce Christianity had never succeeded, but
it had been productive of endless massacres and mischiefs, and was the cause of
the expulsion of the Portuguese from the country both there and in Japan. The
Dutch, who succeeded them, were obliged to trample on the cross before they
were admitted into the country. These transactions were not forgotten by the
natives. The Romish priests had begun
with persuasion, and they had ended with force; had they any reason to suppose
that we should not do the same?
The religion of the Hindus was pure and unexceptionable; their
custom of exposing children made no part of their religious code. Those to whom
he had spoken of it excused it from the miserable state of the country at that
time, and from the fear that a certain age they would fall into the hands of
the Musselmen. Neither was the women limit burning themselves on the
death of their husbands any more a religious right than suicide was apart of
Christianity. It might be, or it ought to be, prohibited by proclamation of the
government. As to what had been said of
the dancing girls and their indecent postures, he had never seen any thing of
them or they had no effect upon him. If gentlemen would look at home, and only
attend to the number of loose women that they would see in the street that night, they would have work
enough [a laugh.]
He considered the account of Dr. Buchanan
as an imposition on this country and a libel on India. If we wish to convert
the natives of India, we ought first to reform our own people there, who at
present only gave them an example of lying, swearing, drunkenness, and other vices.
In the Decan, where he decided, with a capital containing 300,000 inhabitants,
and 600,000 in the rest of the district, there were only 88 commitments for
every species of crime in 10 years; whereas in the city of London alone, there
were 1663 commitments in the last year. He thought the good to be done to the morals
of the people very little, and the danger great. The insurrection of Vellore
had arisen from a suspicion of a design to change the religion of the country.
This, at first, originated merely in the alteration of the form of a cap from
square to round; but it was insinuated by the Portuguese, and other evil
disposed persons, that it was a prelude to a total subversion of their
religious rites and customs. The missionaries were not the cause of the unhappy
affair at Vellore; but if missionaries were to be allowed to act without
restriction in India, this feeling would revive, and there would be a
repetition of the scene of Vellore in every part of India.
The accounts furnished by the missionaries of the number of conversions
were not implicitly to be relied on; for instance, he held a missionary
publication in his hands, in which the baptisms of 25 men were stated; but upon
enquiry it would be found that these 25 men belong to his Majesty's 24th
Regiment, who were probably all baptised
before leaving this country. He had lived 20 years in India, and he had lived
10 years in this country since, and he thought the moral character of the
Hindoos a great deal better than the moral character of the people of this
country in general, taking them high and low. He was more anxious to save the
lives of the 30,000 of his fellow countrymen in India, than to save the souls
of all the Hindoos by making them Christians at so dreadful a price.
The hon. Frederick
Douglas [1]addressed
the House for the first time. He contended that religion was not the original
cause of the disturbances at Vellore, though it was afterwards called in. He
talked missionaries ought rather to be tolerated than encouraged; and that a
number of chaplains belonging to the established religion ought to be
appointed, with fixed residences, that the civil government might always be
able to lay their hands on them. He could not but pay great deference to the
facts quoted by the hon. baronet, especially when he considered how great a
length of time that individual had resided in India; but in all that had been
said by him, he had not heard anything that ought to induce the House to reject
the plan proposed in the Resolution before them.
[1] Re: Frederick Douglas:
“After voting thrice for Catholic relief in his first session, he made a maiden
speech (22 June 1813) in favour of tolerating rather than encouraging the
propagation of Christianity in India, ‘with great and general approbation and
cheering’, his father was told. The Speaker sent his congratulations to the
latter, who reported: ‘when I carried it to Lady Glenbervie she burst into
tears and sunk on her knees with fervent expressions of gratitude and
thankfulness to God’. He added:
What a blessing to have lived to see the son of my
dearest wife, the only male descendant in the second degree of such a
father-in-law as Lord Guilford, launched in the world (a Member of the House of
Commons for the hereditary borough of the North family), one of the most
popular young men in the best society of London, of acknowledged principles of
religion and honour and already at the age of little more than 22,
distinguished as an elegant writer and a promising public speaker.
Mr. Wilberforce [2] rose and spoke as follows: (from
the original edition, printed for J. Hatchard, Piccadilly.)
[2] Re: Wilberforce: “On
22 Mar. 1813, and at greater length on 22 June, by which time he had government
favour, he introduced another cause which he had been obliged to put by in 1793
in favour of slave trade abolition: the conversion of India to Christianity. He
had made known his views on this before, notably to Perceval, but the renewal
of the East India Company charter now presented an occasion for a set piece,
probably his best preserved speech, exposing the anomalies of the Hindu
religion. He had hoped the established Church would have taken the lead in
proselytizing, but finding the dissenters more enterprising he supported their
missions too. He carried his point by 89 votes to 36. On 1 July 1813 he
vindicated the case for the missionaries by 54 votes to 22. He used the same
tactics as he had in the slave trade question, but this time found less
apparent opposition and government paid heed to him. He was now reckoned a
friend by them.”
I have listened
with no little pleasure to the hon. gentleman, who, for the first time, has
just been delivering his sentiments; and I cordially congratulate him on the
manifestation of talents and principles which, I trust, will render him a
valuable access and to this House, and to his country; but before I proceed to
the more direct discussion of the question before us, he will allow me to
express my dissent from his opinion, that it might be advisable to employ our
regular clergy as missionaries. It was a proposition, indeed, which naturally
recommended itself to the mind of any one, who, like my hon. friend and myself,
being attached, on principle, to the church of England, and being deeply
impressed with a sense of the blessings which we ourselves derive from it, are
of course and designers of communicating the same blessings to others of our
fellow-subjects.
I grant that it
is much to be regretted, and among the Roman Catholics it has been the reproach
of the Protestant churches, that they have taken so little interest in the
conversion of the heathen nations; and I may take this opportunity of declaring
it as my opinion, that it is much to be regretted, that our excellent church
establishment contains within itself no means of providing fit agents for the
important work of preaching Christianity to the heathen. Nor is this a new
opinion: on the contrary, I had the honour of stating it many years ago to two venerable
and most respected prelates, the late archbishop of Canterbury and the late
Bishop of London; and they expressed themselves favourably of a proposition
which I submitted to their consideration, that there should be a distinct
ordination for missionaries, which should empower them to perform the offices
of the church in foreign countries, but should not render them capable of
holding church preferments, or even of officiating as clergymen in this
kingdom. It is obvious, that the qualifications required in those who discharge
the duties of the ministerial office in this highly civilised community, where
Christianity also is the established religion of the land, are very different
from those for which we ought chiefly to look, in men whose office it will be
to preach the gospel to the heathen nations, which they will find unacquainted
with the first principles of religion and morality; from the qualifications
which we should require in instructors who will probably be cast among
barbarians, and besides having to encounter the grossest ignorance and its
attendant vices, will also have to endure great bodily hardships and
privations. But this is not the time for enlarging farther on this point, or on
the suggestion of my hon. friend. It will not, I know, escape him, passing over
other objections to the measure, that it necessarily implies, that the
missionaries who are to officiate in India, are to be expressly commissioned
and employed by the state, or by the East India Company; whereas, I am
persuaded, we shall all concur in thinking, that it ought to be left to the
spontaneous benevolence and zeal of individual Christians, controuled of course
by the description of government, to engage in the work of preaching the Gospel
to the natives in our Indian territories; and that the missionaries should be
clearly understood to be armed with no authority, furnished with no commission,
from the governing power of the country.
Allow me, Sir
before we proceed further, to endeavour to do away a misconception of the 13th
resolution, which appears generally to prevail, that the only object it has in
view is, to secure, to such missionaries as the Board of Control shall
sanction, permission to go to India, and to remain there, so long as they shall
continue to exercise the duties of their office in a peaceable and orderly
manner. This undoubtedly is one object of the Resolution, but by no means the
only, perhaps not the principal, one. I bid you to observe, that the very terms
of the Resolution, expressly state, that "we are to enlighten and inform
the minds of the subjects of our East Indian Empire." And after much reflection, I do not hesitate
to declare, that, from enlightening and informing them, in other words, from
education and instruction, from the diffusion of knowledge, from the progress
of science, more especially from all these combined with the circulation of the
Holy Scriptures in the native languages, I ultimately expect even more than
from the direct labours of missionaries, properly so called.
By enlightening
the minds of the natives, we should root out their errors without provoking
their prejudices; and it would be impossible that men of enlarged and
instructed minds could continue enslaved by such a monstrous system of follies
and superstitions as that under the yoke of which the natives of Hindostan now
groan. They would, in short, become Christians, if I may so express myself,
without knowing it.
Before I enter
further into the argument, more especially after what we have lately heard from
several of my opponents, it is due to myself, as well as respectful to the
House, to state, that though I cannot, like them, speak of India from my own
personal observation, yet that I do not presume to address them on this
important question, without having studied it with the most strenuous and
persevering diligence. That my attention has been long directed to the subject,
will indeed sufficiently appear, when I remind the House, that I had the
honour, in 1793, of moving the Resolution of late so often referred to, which
declared it to be the duty of the legislature to defuse among our East Indian
fellow-subjects the blessing of useful knowledge and moral improvement; a
Resolution which, with little or no opposition, was repeatedly sanctioned by
the approbation of the House : and I can truly declare, that I have never since
lost sight of this great object, though various circumstances concurred in
preventing my again bringing it before the House : above all, that of my being,
for almost the whole of that period, engaged in the pursuit of an object of a
kindred nature.
Before I enter
into the argument, let me also clear away another misconception which has
sometimes prevailed, by distinctly and most solemnly assuring the House, that
in the work of conversion, I abjure all ideas of compulsion; I disclaim all use
of the authority, nay, even of the influence, of government. I would trust
altogether to the effects of reason and truth, relying much on the manifest tendency
of the principles and precepts of Christianity to make men good and happy, and
on their evident superiority in these respects, more especially when the minds
of the natives shall become more enlarged and instructed than they are at
present, over the monstrous and absurd superstitions of their native faith.
And now, Sir, let me enter into the discussion, by assuring
the House, that there never was a subject which better deserve the attention of
a British Parliament than that on which we are now deliberating. Immense
regions, with a population amounting, as we are assured, to sixty millions of
souls, have providentially come under our dominion. They are deeply sunk, and
by their religious superstitions fast bound, in the lowest depths of moral and
social wretchedness and degradation. Must we not then be prompted by every
motive, and urged by every feeling that can influence the human heart, to endeavour
to raise these wretched beings out of their present miserable condition, and
above all to communicate to them those blessed truths which would not only
improve their understandings and elevated their minds, but would, in ten
thousand ways, promote their temporal well-being, and point out to them a sure
path to everlasting happiness?
But our
opponents confidently assure us, that we may spare ourselves the pains; for
that the natives of Hindostan are so firmly, nay, so unalterably, attached to
their own religious opinions and practices, however unreasonable they may
appear to us, that their conversion is utterly impracticable.
I well know,
Sir, and frankly acknowledge, the inveterate nature of the evils with which we
have to contend; that their religious system and customs have continued with
little alteration, for perhaps thousands of years; that they have diffused themselves
so generally throughout their institutions and habits, as to leaven, as it
were, the whole mass both of their public and private lives: but, nevertheless,
Sir, I boldly affirm, that this position, that their attachment to their own
institutions is so fixed that it cannot be overcome, is a gross error,
abundantly falsified by much, and even by recent, experience. I beg the House
to attend to this point the more carefully, because it serves as a general test
by which to estimate the value of the opinions so confidently promulgated by
the greater part of those gentlemen who have spoken of Indian affairs, both in
this House and out of it, from personal experience. This is a persuasion
universally prevalent among them; and if it can be disproved, as easily, as it
will shortly I trust appear to you to be, it will follow, that these gentlemen,
however respectable where their understandings have fair play, in point both of
natural talents and acquired knowledge (and no man admits their claim to both
more willingly than myself), are here under the influence of prejudice, and are
not therefore entitled to the same degree of weight as if they were free from
all undue bias.
And first, Sir,
it might afford a strong presumption against the absolute invincibility of the
religious principles and customs of the Hindoos, that great and beneficial
reforms have been effected in various other most important instances in which
their existing systems were, so far as we know, equally dear to them, and which
were conceived to be equally unchangeable; for even in these, their religion
was more or less implicated, because as I before remarked, it has been most
artfully diffused throughout all their other institutions.
In proof of
this assertion, it may be sufficient to specify that mighty change introduced
about twenty years ago, by which the British government granted to all classes
of landholders an hereditary property in their estates; a privilege till then
unknown in Asia: the rents to be paid to the government, which, as sovereign of
the country, was proprietor of the soil throughout all India, were equitably
and unalterably settled; and I ought not to be omit to state, that care was
taken to secure to the inferior occupants, no less than to the great
chieftains, the secure possession of their properties without any increase of
their rents. [3]
Again: the most
important reforms have been introduced into the judicial system; and in the
military, even the most confirmed religious principles and habits have in some
particulars been quietly overcome, and have fallen into disuse, with little or
no observation. Nay, the general spirit
of our government, as it respects the natives, has for some time been such, as
even that passionate lover of liberty, sir [sic]
William Jones, dared not to anticipate in the case of the natives of India;
whom with pain, he, but a few years before, had pronounced to be given up to a
unmitigated and unalterable despotism.
But it is not
only where their religion has been indirectly concerned, that it has appeared
that their institutions are susceptible of the same changes which have taken
place in every other country; but also, in many instances in which religion has
been directly in question. How also can
we account for that immense number of Mahometans, estimated at from ten to
fifteen millions, scattered over India, most of whom are supposed by the best
judges to be converts from the Hindoo faith? And let me remind you of the stern
and persecuting spirit of Mahometanism, and of the increased difficulty which
would be thereby occasioned; since it is now an established truth, that
persecution counteracts here own purpose and promotes the prevalence of the
religion she would suppress.
Again: what
shall we say of the whole nation of the Seiks, so numerous, as to be supposed
able to raise 200,000 horse, who within a few centuries have forsaken that
Hindoo faith, and freed themselves from its burthensome restrictions?*
*Sir J. Malcolm’s highly
interesting publication concerning the Seiks, suggests many most important
considerations respecting the mischiefs which, if not provided against by
timely precautions, may hereafter result from the galling and severe pressure
of the system of Castes on the lower orders of India.
The followers
of Budha also, who rejected Caste, are very numerous; and within the pale of
the Hindoo faith itself, different sects spring up from time to time as in
other countries. Mr. Orme says, “Every
province has fifty sects of Gentoos, and every sect adheres to different
observances.”
But we have
still surer grounds of hope; we have still better reasons than these for
believing, that there is nothing in the nature or principles of a Hindoo which
renders it impossible for him to become a Christian; for it is notorious, that
from the earliest times there have been many churches of native Christians in
India. For the whole of the last century,
the work of conversion has been going on with more or less success; and at this
moment, there are hundreds of thousands of native Christians in the East
Indies.
But here again,
in justice to my argument, I cannot but remind the House of the signal example
which this instance affords of the utter ignorance of our opponents on the
subject we are now considering : for a gentleman of high character, of
acknowledged talents and information, who has passed thirty years in India and who having fairly
made his way to the first situations,
possessed for full ten years a seat in the Supreme Council in Bengal
stated at your bar, that he had never heard of the existence of a native
Christian in India, until after his return to England; he then learned the
fact, to which, however, he seemed to give but a doubting kind of assent, from
the writings of Dr. Buchanan. Can any thing more clearly prove, that
gentlemen, instead of seriously turning their minds to the subject, and opening
their eyes to the perception of truth, have imbibed the generally prevailing
prejudices of men around them, without question, and have thus suffered
themselves to be lead away to the most erroneous conclusions.
Let me mention
also another circumstance, which well deserves consideration, if the assertion
of our opponents were correct, that the
sensibility of the natives of India in all that regards their religion, is so
extremely great that they can scarcely listen with temper or patience to any arguments
that are urged against it, it would naturally follow, that Christian
missionaries, if, even from the dread of punishment, their lives should be
safe, would be universally regarded with jealousy and detestation; whereas, as
if on purpose to confute the unreasonable
prejudices of our opponents, the most zealous, laborious and successful
missionaries have commonly been, among
all classes of the natives, the most esteemed and beloved of all the Europeans;
and, let me repeat it, this is not only true of the ever memorable Swartz, but
of Gerické, of Kolhoff, &c., as well of Ziegenbalg and his colleagues, the
missionaries of a preceding generation. Swartz’s eulogium it is unnecessary for me to
pronounce, because our opponents themselves are loud in his praise. And it is acknowledged that, during his long
and laborious ministry, he was among the natives, from the greatest to the
least, an object of the highest respect and warmest affection. [4][5][6]
[4] Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s assessment
of the difference in the uneasiness of the natives about the propagation of
Christianity.
[5] The different temper of
the times was evident even eight decades later. Of when Gandhi was around 16, i.e.,
around 1885, he
writes in his autobiography (My Experiments with Truth, 1927): ‘In those days Christian
missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth,
pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have
stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from
repeating the experiment.’ This abuse
might not be so tolerated today.
But an hon. baronet rather insinuates, that Mr. Swartz’s
popularity among the natives might arise from points in his character which
were less estimable in a religious view.
Swartz, says the hon. baronet, was a politician. Yes, Sir; I thank the hon. baronet for
reminding me of it; Swartz was a politician, but not a volunteer in that
service : he became a politician at the earnest and importunate intreaty of the
East India government; because, having to negotiate with Hyder Ally, they could find
no one in whose integrity and veracity the chieftain would confide, but Swartz
the missionary; he therefore became a politician, and an accredited envoy,
because, as a missionary, he had secured to himself the universal confidence
both of Mahometans and of Hindoos. [7]
[7] Lutheran Magazine Vol II, 1828, pg 249 tells us that despite the wars
raging over the country (around 1780) , “during the time of Mr. Schwartz’s
residence with that Prince, Hyder had imbibed such an esteem for Schwartz’s
character, that he gave the following general orders to all his officers: To suffer father Schwartz to pass through the
country without molestation; —adding, “he is a holy man and means it well with
me.” Also, “The Rajah of Tanjore
entrusted, in the year 1787, his adopted son and heir of the crown, to Mr.
Schwartz, to be educated by him, and that young Prince afterwards remained a
decisive friend of this faithful servant of Christ and of the mission.”
William
Taylor, Memoir of the first centenary of the earliest Protestant mission at
Madras (1847) narrates that while Swartz was superintending
the construction of a church at Trichinopoly, “a Captain ----- of infidel
sentiments, licentious morals, and intemperate habits” came day after day and
reviled Swartz “with every species of gibe, and sarcasm.” Swartz would ignore him, but one day, “he
calmly and solemnly addressed his reviler, pointed out to him the general evil
of his ways” and “denounced upon him the instant wrath of Almighty God; unless
he forthwith repented.” The Captain went
home, and “took to an Indian fit of drinking” for some days, and then fell off
the terrace of his dwelling, “was taken
up greatly mangled, and very soon died”.
“The news spread rapidly. Swartz
had not spoken without hearers. His
people considered him possessed of supernatural powers; comparing him with some
characters of antiquity. The heathens
regarded him as a Muni-isvara; and
did him reverence. It was this
circumstance chiefly that induced the Nabob {Hyder Ali} to converse with him; and that prepared the Raja of Tanjore
Tullajee to regard him as an extraordinary character; for he had heard of him
before seeing him. Brahmans abstained
from any discourtesy, or incivility. The
Divinity of his mission, in a manner, was acknowledged. It is easy to talk of
common causes. Natives do not connect
such occurrences with ordinary causation.”
Taylor
wrote, “He [Swartz] came in the important character of guardian and tutor to
Serfojee, claimant to the Raj at Tanjore, an adopted son of Tullajee: and
Swartz was a principal means of seeing him righted.” He adds in a footnote, “I
use this term, as it is applied in common. Only a few generations had passed
since Eckojee, by fraud and force, obtained possession of Tanjore; and the
former possessor had acquired his right by like means.”
Taylor also
noted, “One cause leading to his [Swartz’s] future celebrity was his personal
celibacy. It is popular in India, with
reference to any religious character; if at the same time well guarded.”
But even Swartz’s converts, it is alleged, were all of the
lowest class of the people, wretches who had lost caste, or were below it; and
the same assertion is generally made concerning the native Christians at this
day. This again, Sir, is one of those
wretched prejudices which receive easy credence, because they fall in line with
the preconceived notions of the receiver, and pass current from man to man
without being questioned, in spite of the plainest and most decisive
refutation. Even our opponents
themselves will refer to Mr. Swartz’s own authority; and that excellent man
having happened to read in India much such a speech concerning missionaries as
the hon. baronet has this day uttered, which had been made in the India-House
the year before, by Mr. Montgomery Campbell, he positively contradicted all
those stale assertions in disparagement of the missionaries and their
followers, which had been so generally circulated; among the rest, this of the low degraded
quality of their converts; by stating that if Mr. Campbell had even once
attended their church, he would have observed, that more than two thirds were
of the higher caste, and so it was, he said at Tranquebar and Vepery. [8]
[8]”In the
year 1793, during the progress of a bill through the House of Commons for the
renewal of the East India Company’s charter, Mr. Montgomery Campbell, who had
been private secretary to the Governor of Madras {Sir Archibald Campbell}, took
occasion to assail the operations of the Missionaries in India, and
threw contempt upon all the efforts that had been made for the
improvement of the Hindoos; remarking, that the converts in general were
notorious for their profligacy. He,
indeed, spoke in praise of Swartz’s personal character; but this was felt to be
but a poor compensation for the gross misrepresentations of his speech. Our Missionary wrote a masterly reply to this attack,
exhibiting in a most telling and impressive
manner the obligations both of Europeans
and natives to the Missionaries. In
answer to Mr. Campbell’s charge, that the converts were in general of low caste
and immoral, Swartz replied, “It is not true that the greater part of those
people who have been instructed are pariahs.
Had Mr. M. Campbell visited, even once, our church, he would have
observed that more than two-thirds were of the higher caste; and so it is at
Tranquebar and Vepery.” The
Christian miscellany, and family visiter,
page 245, 1863, Second Series, Vol. IX. To this was added a testimonial to Swartz’s
respectable character by the late Cornwallis. Campbell sent out an apology in response to this,
saying that his speech had been erroneously reported by the newspapers. Campbell’s apology is apparently found in
Andrew Fuller, “An apology for the Late Christian Missions to India” (1808), part i, App. 22, which is
not accessible to me.
(via, The history of missions:
or, Of the propagation of Christianity…,Vol 1, William Brown (1816), page 234 – reference
to Report of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge for 1800, in
Fuller’s Apology for Christian Missions, part i. App. 22)
William
Taylor, Memoir of the first centenary of the earliest Protestant mission at
Madras (1847), remarked on this episode, “It is rather
amusing to see Swartz justifying Missionaries by an argument that would, now a
days, be held equivalent to avowed unfitness for the work of a Missionary.”
Marvin
Perkins, Memoirs to the life and correspondence of the Reverend Christian
Frederick Swartz,
(1835) provides us Swartz’s letter (page 336).
Mr. Montgomery Campbell in his speech in 1793 had mentioned an incident
when someone from Swartz’s Christian congregation had stolen his stock and his
gold buckle even while he was preaching to them about the heinousness of theft. Swartz in his letter, wrote that the truth
was that this incident took place in the village of Pudaloor, near Tanjore,
inhabited by collaries, whom he characterized as a caste of thieves; and some
heathen boys committed the theft. “That
such boys, whose fathers are professed thieves, should commit a theft, can be
no matter of wonder. All the inhabitants
of that village were heathens; not one Christian family was found
therein.” Perkins adds in a footnote “In
the year 1809, Mr. Kohlhoff, referring, in a letter to the Society, to this
story, mentions that many Christians were then to be found in that village.”
In like manner, Dr.
Kerr, who was officially commissioned by the Madras government, in 1806, to visit the Malabar coast, for the
express purpose of obtaining every possible information in regard to the
establishment &c. of the Christian religion in that part of the peninsula,
after stating, that the character of the native Christians, whose numbers,
according to the best accounts, are estimated at from 70 to 80,000, is marked
by a striking superiority over the heathens in every moral excellence, and that
they are remarkable for their veracity and plain dealing, adds, “They are
respected very highly by the Nairs” (the nobility of the country), “who do not
consider themselves defiled by associating with them, though it is well known
that the Nairs are the most particular of all the Hindoos in this respect; and
the Rajahs of Travancore and Cochin admit them to rank next to the Nairs*.” [9]
[*] See Dr. Kerr’s
Report to the Madras government, dated November 3, 1806. [10]
[9]
Wilberforce elided the point that these Christians were not converts by
European missionaries. See footnote 13.
[10] An
excerpt of Dr. Kerr’s Report can be found here (Report from the committees (Report from the Select Committee,
British House of Commons on Roman Catholics), printed 25 June 1816 and 28 March
1817 and reprinted 14 February 1851), page 315.
An excerpt from there about the west coast of India – “It is well known
that the Roman religion was introduced by the Portuguese, at the commencement
of the sixteenth century; the number converted in each year, upon an average,
reach to nearly 300. The number of
course naturally diminishes. The
morality of the converts is very loose, and they are generally inferior, in
this respect, to the heathens of the country.”
Again, a letter from
a respectable gentleman in India to the venerable and justly honored dean of Westminster, Dr. Vincent,
published in the Report of 1799 of the Society for promoting Christian
knowledge, mentions the almost universal prevalence of the grossest
misconceptions, concerning the native converts to Christianity, and strongly
opposes them. After stating that the
number is very considerable, he adds; “That they consist of the lower or Pariar
cast is a vulgar error; and instead of being, as is often asserted, despised
and contemptuously treated by their fellow natives, they are universally
respected.” [11]
[11] Some
more of the letter than is quoted here can be found on page 625-626 of Vol. III of The History of Christianity in India, James Hough(1845).
He proceeds,
however: “You may ask five gentlemen out of six, who return from India, their
opinion of the state of the native Christians; their reply will probably be,
that they see no use in the endeavours to propagate Christianity there; and
this will be followed by a repetition of the common place idea, transferred
from one to another without examination, ‘What can a black fellow know about
Christianity?’”
I dwell the more,
Sir, on this topic, because, how little soever deserving of notice these
prejudices may appear to the eye of truth and reason, they are in fact the most
powerful enemies with which we have to contend.
Dr. Vincent’s correspondent truly remarks; “It is from this sort of cant
and jargon of ignorance and indifference, that the false ideas respecting the
native converts have been instilled into the minds of many at home.” Miserable, however, as this jargon may be in
the estimation of Dr. Vincent’s correspondent, it is not to be despised, when
its tendency is to detain an immense region of the earth in darkness and
degradation.
What we have heard
in this House, may convince us, though it is with pain and shame that we
witness the anomaly, that men of excellent understandings and liberal and
well-informed minds can be misled by these groundless prepossessions. Even the excellent historian, Dr. Robertson, did not escape this contagion. Though commonly he is most justly respected
for the accuracy of his statements, he seems, though reluctantly, to admit the
impracticability of converting the natives of India; and states, that in 200
years, the converts amount but to about 12,000 in number; whom also, if I
mistake not, he represents to be of the very lowest of the people, and, in
direct contradiction to the most decisive testimony, to be, even after their
conversion, a disgrace to the Christian name. [12] [13] [14][15]
[12] Some of the observations of Robertson
(1721-1793) mentioned above can be found on page 247 of “The Works of William Robertson”, Volume XII (1824).
[13] I am
unable to confirm after brief search whether Robertson considered Indian
converts to Christianity to often be a disgrace to the Christian name. Robertson did write: “As Europeans eat the
flesh of that animal which the Hindoos deem sacred, and drink intoxicating
liquors, in which practices they are imitated by the converts to Christianity,
this sinks them to a level with the Pariars, the most contemptible and odious
race of men.”
[14]
“William Robertson, Early Orientalism and the Historical Disquisition on India”, Stewart J Brown (Citation Information. Scottish Historical Review. Volume 88, Page 289-312 DOI 10.3366/E0036924109000870, ISSN 0036-9241, Available
Online Oct 2009 .) From the abstract:
“The article further suggests that Robertson's favourable view of what he
perceived as monotheist beliefs underlying ‘classical’ Hinduism reveals much
about his own religious attitudes as a clergyman and leader of the ‘moderate’
party in the Church of Scotland. His
history of India would be under-valued in Britain (despite its large sales), in
large part because his apology for Hinduism and his critique of Christian
missions ran counter to the rising tide of the evangelical revival. However, it
had a considerable role in promoting interest in India on the European continent,
and it represented one of the more significant achievements of the late
Scottish Enlightenment”.
[15] Robertson refers us for information about Christian
converts in India, to Sketches relating
to the history, learning and manners of the Hindoos, Quintin Craufurd (1743-1819) a 1792
edition of which is available on
Google Books. Craufurd (page 52) writes of the reasons Christianity was
successful, including the examples of the martyrs which “must have greatly
contributed to obtain belief, and to supply the place of argument. The mind is naturally disposed to
compassionate those who suffer; their words and actions have more than ordinary
weight”. He then writes, “That the
aforementioned causes forwarded the success of Christianity, may be observed
from the little progress it has made in Hindostan. The Hindus respect their own religion,
believe in a future state, and persecution is entirely contrary to their
doctrines. Notwithstanding the labours
of missionaries, therefore, for upwards of two centuries, and the
establishments of different Christian nations, who support and protect them, out
of at least thirty millions of Hindoos, that are in the possessions of the
English and of the Princes who are dependant on them, there are not, perhaps,
above twelve thousand Christians, and those almost entirely Chandalahs, or outcasts.”* Tout Indien,
qui embrasse le Christianisme, est "absolument banni de sa tribue, est
abandonne aux insultes" (Any Indian who embraces Christianity is "absolutely banished from his tribe, is abandoned to insults".)
Note that Quentin Craufurd was, unlike
Robertson (or Wilberforce) actually in India. Per Wiki, he went to India at a
young age and returned at forty, with a fortune.
I could multiply
facts and arguments; but I trust, Sir, I have already established, that this
notion of its being impracticable to convert the Hindoos is a vain and
groundless theory; and that, in maintaining the opposite position, my friends
and I stand on solid and sure ground of abundant and indisputable experience.
But our opponents
encouraging one another in their error, take still higher ground, and affirm,
that if it were practicable to convert the Hindoos to Christianity, it is not
desirable. The principles of the Hindoos are so good, their morals are so pure;
better than our own, as we are told by more than one hon. gentleman; that to
attempt to communicate to them our religion and our morality, is, to say the
least, a superfluous, perhaps a mischievous attempt. [16]
[16] Some years earlier, the Bengal Officer Charles
Stuart, in his Vindication of the
Hindoos, Part the Second (1808),
which was a reply to the critics of Part I, was to observe that before writing his first
book, had he consulted Prudence,
she would have whispered into his
ear “However moral or correct the Hindoos, do not compare them with
Europeans—it will make them angry; but should you hint at superiority, your
opponents will be quite outrageous, and you need expect no mercy.” ‘What!
though it accord with consistency and truth!”
“It matters not—you will not be believed; spare these virtues,
therefore, to the Reviewers—they may have occasion for them; and a little
sustenance will go a long way when one is famishing. What have the Hindoos ever done for you, that
you should thus sacrifice your peace and time at the shrine of indignant
sectaries? Consult then your own
interest, and leave the Hindoos to their fate.
If you embrace not this, my
wholesome counsel, they will overwhelm you with one unanswerable argument,
borrowed from the regular clergy (see sermon preached at Oxford, November 29,
1807, by the Rev. Edward Nares, M.A.); they will tell you, that the higher you
paint the moral virtues of the Hindoos, the more worthy are they of salvation through the gospel. This truth you cannot consistently deny; let
me, therefore, advise you to throw down your inefficient weapons of
inexpediency and impracticability, to retire from the contest, and to be for
ever silent.” Wilberforce must have been
aware of Vindication of the Hindoos
through the missionary literature that attacked it.
This, by the way,
is no new doctrine; but, considering its origin, it is not altogether without
shame, as well as grief, that I find it
receiving any countenance in this assembly.
It sprang up among the French sceptical philosophers, by whom it was
used for the purpose of discrediting Christianity, by shewing, that in
countries that were wholly strangers to its light, the people were in general
more gentle and peaceable, and innocant and amiable, than in those countries
which had for the longest period professed the Christian faith. After the practical comment, however, which a
neighboring kingdom has afforded the doctrines of the French philosophers, the
opinions of our opponents will not experience a more favourable reception in
this House, or in this country, on account of their issuing from such a source.
[17]
[17] Voltaire, Lettres
sur l'origine des sciences et sur celle des peuples de l'Asia (first published
Paris, 1777), letter of 15 December 1775. and Voltaire, Fragments historiques
sur l'linde, p. 444 – 445, supposedly has complimentary things about the Hindus.
{ see #11 on this
web-page)
But really, Sir, I
can only say, that if the principles and morals of our East Indian
fellow-subjects were indeed as admirable, if they were ever better than our
own, it would be a fact that would belie the experience of all other times and
countries. When was there ever yet a nation on which the light of Christianity
never shone, which was not found in a state of the grossest moral darkness,
debased by the principles and practices and manners the most flagitious and
cruel? Is not that true of all the most
polished nations of antiquity? Did not
more than one practice prevail among them, sanctioned by the wisest and the
best among them, which in all Christian countries would now be punished as a
capital crime? [18]
[18] This in England, the land of The Bloody Code.
Wiki: The Bloody Code is a term used to refer to the system of laws and
punishments in England between 1688 and 1815. It was not referred to as such in
its own time, but the name was given later owing to the sharply increased
number of crimes that attracted the death penalty as capital crimes. In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute
book punishable by death, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776, and it
reached 220 by the end of the century. {Reminder: Wilberforce’s speech was made
in 1813.}
In “Crime and Punishment in
Eighteenth-Century England” , F. J. McLynn (1989), we are told “It was a
capital crime to steal a horse (and after 1741 a sheep); to pickpocket more
than a shilling; to steal more than forty shillings in a dwelling place or five
shillings in a shop; to purloin linen from a bleaching ground or woollen cloth
from a tenter ground; to cut down trees in a garden or orchard; to break the
border of a fishpond so as to allow the fish to escape.”
I’m sure Wilberforce would be mortified
if he had known that a century later, Presbyterian William Jennings Bryan was
to term British rule in India as a system of legalized pillage. I wonder if that pillage would have merited
the death penalty. A rupee was after
all, two shillings, and the British pillaged hundred of millions of rupees each
year.
But, Sir, have not
moral causes their sure and infallible effects?
Is it not notorious that the nations of India have, from the very
earliest times, groaned under the double role of political and religious
despotism? And it can it then be
maintained, that these must not have produced a proportionate degradation of
their moral character? And is it in a
British House of Commons, above all other places, where such a doctrine as this
is maintained? Are we so little sensible
of the value of the free constitution and religious liberty which we enjoy, and
so little thankful for them, as to tolerate such propositions?
[19] TBD religious liberties that
obtained in 1813 England compared to India.
No, Sir: the
common sense of mankind, in this country at least, is not to be so outraged;
and, in truth, we find the morals and manners of the natives of India just such
as we might have been led to expect from a knowledge of the dark and degrading
superstitions, as well as of the political bondage, under which they have been
so long bowed down. To which I may add,
that, such is the nature of their institutions and customs, that not religion
only, but common humanity, should prompt us to exert all legitimate methods for
producing the discontinuance of them.
But honourable
gentlemen have read us passages from their religious books, some of which
breathe a strain of pure and even sublime morality. The Institutes of Akbar also have been quoted
upon us, and a learned work by a Bengal officer has been published [20],
resting almost entirely on this basis, with large extracts from the sacred
writings of the Hindoos.
[20] TBD Vindication of the Hindoos
Let me beg the
attention of the House, while I ask such of our opponents as urge this
argument, whether they did or did not know that which is an undeniable fact (I
refer to Mr. Halbed’s translation [21] of the Hindoo laws), that if a Soodra
should get by heart, nay, if he should read, or even listen to the sacred
books, the law condemns him to a most cruel death.
[21] TBD A Code of Gentoo Laws, or
Ordinations of the Pundits, From a Persian Translation, made from the Original,
written in the Shanscrit Language, 1776,
Nathaneil Brassey Halbed.
How this code came about and how its
origins remain relevant today is described in Madhu Kishwar’s article From Manusmriti to
Madhusmriti: Flagellating a Mythical Enemy.
If our opponents
were ignorant of this, it shews how little they are qualified to be safe guides
to us in the road we are now travelling : if they knew it, was it candid, nay,
Sir, was it fair, to quote these passages of sublime morality, in proof of the
superior moral state of the bulk of the East Indian population? Why, Sir, it is much the same in India (only
worse) as it was among the most polished nations of the Pagan world. There, they had their exoteric and their
esoteric doctrines; and while, in the writings of their philosophers, we meet
with passages of high moral excellence, we know, that the moral opinions and
practice of the bulk of the people were such as would appear to us at this day
almost insufferably depraved, absurd, and monstrous. Where can we find more elevated strains than
in the lofty speculations of the imperial philosopher Antoninus? And in return
for the Institutes of Akbar I might name those of Tamerlane, justly declared to
be one of the most bloody tyrants that ever disgraced a throne, which are yet
declared by Mr. Gibbon to form one of the most perfect systems ever published
on the basis of absolute monarchy.
The topic we are
now considering is of so great importance, that in justice to my argument, I
must be permitted to enlarge upon it; though, after all, I must leave much
unsaid, in order that I amy not trespass on the indulgence of the House too
largely; and as the authority of several gentlemen, long resident in India, is
urged upon us in proof of the probity and superior morality of the natives of
India, I must beg leave to bring forward my authorities also. And when the House shall have heard all I
have to adduce, I am confident that not a doubt will remain in their minds,
that my representation of the moral character of the natives of India is borne
out by an irresistible weight of unobjectionable testimony.
And first, Sir,
let me quote to you some general opinions of the moral state of the Hindoos,
which have been given by authors of established credit, as well by others whose
authority is still higher, persons who held high stations in the Company’s
service for many years, and who, from having lived so long, and having had so
much intercourse with them, must be supposed to have been perfectly acquainted
with their real character.
Several of the
passages which I am about to read to you, are contained in a most valuable
document lately laid before the House, the work of a dear and most honoured
friend of mine, a member of this House*, whose excellent understanding
* I refer to a Memoir, by Mr. Grant, on
the Moral State of India, the causes which have produced, and suggestions for
improving it. The Memoir was principally
written as long ago as 1792, soon after his return from India, and was laid
before the Court of Directors in 1797.
It contains within a small compass, a large store of most valuable
information concerning the religion and
laws, the social and moral state and character, of the Hindoos. It is earnestly to be hoped, that his great
modesty may not prevent his publishing to the world this valuable document and
thereby obtaining for it a more general perusal.
Charles Grant, Observations on the State of Society among
the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain, particularly with respect to Morals; and
on the means of improving it.—Written chiefly in the Year 1792. Ordered by the House of Commons, to be
printed, 15 June 1813, available at Google Books.
and acknowledged
worth entitle all his opinions to be received with the utmost deference, and
whose long residence in India, and familiar acquaintance with its inhabitants
have rendered him peculiarly competent to form a correct judgment on the point
which we are now considering.
The first witness I shall bring forward is the
traveller Bernier, an author of such established credit that his work was
allowed to be received as evidence at Mr. Hasting’s trial. He, who travelled among the natives about one
hundred and fifty years ago, places the character of the people in general, and
more especially of the brahmins, in the most unfavourable light; but as he no
where gives a summary view of it, I will only refer generally to his high
authority.
The same
unfavourable character of them and more especially of the brahmins, is also
expressed by Mr. Scrafton*, whose instructive work was published about fifty
years ago; and Mr. Orme, the excellent
historian of the Carnatic, leads us to form a still lower estimate of their
moral qualities.
* Reflections on the Governments of Hindostan, by Luke Scrafton, esq.
“Were not the Gentoos infamous for the
want of generosity and gratitude in all the commerces of friendship; were they
not a tricking, deceitful people in all their dealings; their charity could not
be deemed to arise from the influence of superstition.”—Orme’s India, vol. 4,
4to. p. 434.
“Every offence is capable of being
expiated by largesses to the brahmins, prescribed by themselves according to
their own measures of avarice and sensuality.”
Orme’s character of the East-Indian
Mahomedans is still more unfavourable than that of the brahmins. “A domineering insolence towards all who are
in subjection to them, ungovernable wilfulness, inhumanity, cruelty, murders,
and assassination, perpetrated with the same calmness and subtlety as the rest
of their politics, and insensibility to remorse for these crimes, which are
scarcely considered otherwise than as necessary accidents in the course of
life; sensual excesses, which revolt against nature; unbounded thirst of power,
and a rapaciousness of wealth equal to the extravagance of his propensities and
vices!” “This is the character of an Indian Moor.” –Orme on the Manners,
&c. of the Indian Moors, Ibid, p. 423*
*Well might Mr. Orme exclaim, after so
humiliating a picture of human depravity, “How grateful, how noble, are the
reflections inspired by such a retrospect, in favour of the cause of
Christianity, and in favour of the cause of liberty”—Orme’s India, vol. 4., p.
430.
Governor Holwell gives a summary
account of the native East-Indian character in such clear terms that his own
words shall be quoted; and let it be remembered that Holwell’s mind, to say the
least, was not in any degree biassed by his attachment to the Christian system,
as compared with that of the natives of India :-- “A race of people, who from
their infancy, are strangers to the idea of common faith and honesty. The Gentoos in general are as dangerous and
wicked a people as any race of people in the known world, if not eminently more
so, especially the common run of brahmins.
We can truly aver, that during almost five years we presided in the judicial
cutcherry court of Calcutta, never any murder or other atrocious crime came
before us, but it was proved in the end, a brahmin was at the bottom of it.”
Lord Clive’s* testimony is given in the
same clear and compendious language:--“The inhabitants of this country we know,
by long experience, have no attachment to any obligation.”
*See Bolt’s Considerations, vol 3.
An equally unfavourable character of
them is given by governor Verelet*, especially in respect to avarice, treachery
and ingratitude.
*See Verelet’s View of the English Government
in Bengal.
Mr. Shore* (now Lord Teignmouth) paints
their character in still darker colours:-- “The natives are timid and servile:
individuals have little sense of honour; and the nation is wholly void of
public virtue. They make not the least
scruple of lying, where falsehood is attended with advantage. To lie, steal, plunder, ravish or murder,
are not deemed sufficient crimes to merit explusion from society.”
*See the Parliamentary proceedings
against Mr. Hastings.
“With a Hindoo all is centered in
himself; his own interest is his guide.” With other particulars of a similar
complexion.
Sir John Macpherson, who was
governor-general between twenty and thirty years ago, commenting on the
foregoing description, thus confirms the accuracy of the delineation: “I am
afraid that the picture which he (Mr. Shore) draws, and the low ebb at which he
states the popular virtues of the Bengalese, are not fictitious
representations.”
Lord Cornwallis proved by his conduct
that he considered the natives as unworthy of all confidence; for, contrary to
the general usage of men occupying such stations as he filled, he never reposed
any trust in any one of them, nor placed a single individual, either Hindoo or
Mahomedan, about his person, above the rank of a menial servant.
It is not, perhaps, unworthy of notice,
that a character equally unfavourable of the natives of Hindostan, was given
four hundred years ago by their great conqueror Tamerlane. “The native of Hindostan,” he says, “has no
pretensions to humanity but the figure; whilst imposture, fraud, and deception,
are by him considered as meritorious accomplishments”—The foregoing compilation
of authorities is closed by my hon. friend with the following compendious
delineation of the native Indian character.
“Upon the whole, we cannot help
recognizing in the people of Hindostan a race of men lamentably degenerate and
base; retaining but a feeble sense of moral obligation; obstinate in the
disregard of what they know to be right; governed by malevolent and licentious
passions; strongly exemplifying the effects produced on society by great and
general corruption of manners; sunk in misery by their vices, in a country
peculiarly calculated by its natural advantages to promote the happiness of its
inhabitants.”
But we are from from having laboured
through the long and melancholy succession of witnesses, who attest to the
moral degradation of the natives of India.
Several of the passages I have already recited are accounts of earlier
times; and it might perhaps be hoped, that the moral character of the natives has
been improved, a consequence of their having lived so long under our
government.
Alas, Sir! Grieved I am to be under the
necessity of stating, that this is by no means the fact. I might, I fear, go
still farther, and affirm that the moral standard of the natives has even
deteriorated of late years. The first
witness whom I shall call in proof of the present depraved state of the natives
of India, is a gentleman well known in this House for his talents and his
eloquence, and whom there is reason, I trust, to believe, that we shall shortly have the honour of
including in our number: I scarcely need explain, that I am speaking of sir
James Mackintosh. He, it is well known,
lately presided on the bench of justice in Bombay; and in a charge to the grand
jury at Bombay, delivered in the year 1803, he thus expressed himself:
“I observe, that the accomplished and
justly celebrated person, sir William Jones, who carried with him to this
country a prejudice in favour of the natives, which he naturally imbibed in the
course of his studies, and which in him, though not perfectly rational, was
neither unamiable nor ungraceful, I observe, that even he, after long judicial
experience, reluctantly confessed their general depravity. The prevalence of perjury which he strongly
states, and which I have myself already observed, is perhaps a more certain
sign of the general dissolution of moral principle than other more daring and
ferocious crimes, much more horrible to the imagination, and of which the
immediate consequences aer more destructive to society.”
Again, at a subsequent period, he
remarks; “An offense, of the frequency of which I formerly spoke from
information, but can now speak from large and deplorable experience, I mean
perjury.—“
A melancholy proof of the low standard
of morals in the East was afforded on one of the occasions which drew from sir
James Mackintosh the above remarks. A
woman who was one of the witnesses, having prevaricated shockingly, was asked
by the Recorder, “Whether there was any harm in false swearing?” she answered,
“that she understood the English had a great horror of it, but there was no
such horror in her country.” See the
Bombay Law Reports, given in the Asiatic Register for 1804.
But, perhaps, the most decisive proofs
of all are contained in the answers to certain interrogatories concerning the
moral state of the natives, which were sent round by lord Wellesley, when
governor-general. Lord Wellesley,
wishing to obtain the most authentic and complete information, would of course
consult such persons as he conceived to be best qualified form the situations
which they occupied, to give him the intelligence which he desired. He therefore applied to the judges of
circuit, and also to magistrates permanently settled in the different
provinces.
A vain attempt, indeed, has been made
to do away the effect of this testimony, by asking what judgment we should form
of the moral character of our own people, if we were to take our estimate of it
from the criminals who fill our gaols. I
must say, I wonder that the hon. gentlemen who held this language, were not
checked by recollecting that they were in reality reflecting strongly on the
discretion of lord Wellesley himself, for having applied for information to a
description of persons which he ought to have known not to be qualified to
supply it.
But, Sir, you will observe, that it is
concerning the general character of the natives that the gentlemen interrogated
by Lord Wellesley were questioned; and I cannot conceive that there can be any
set of men better qualified in all respects to form a correct opinion of the
general character and conduct of the natives, than such of the Company’s
servants as are resident magistrates. I
will not weary the House with the whole of the melancholy detail; but a few of
the answers I must lay before them.
The first shall be the statement of Mr.
Edward Colebrook, second judge of the Patna court of circuit, dated 21st
April 1804. “Another not less heinous offence
attaching to those affrays is perjury, to which recourse is invariable had,
both for the prosecution and defence of such charges. To such a pitch of audacity has this crime
long since reached in this province that a total distrust of human testimony,
on every occasion, is the consequence.
No rank, no caste, is exempt from the contagion. A zemindary dewan, a brahmin, who had
circumstantially sworn to the nature and number and to the authors of the
wounds on two of his cutcherry amla (?), alleged to have been murdered in an
attempt to dispossess him from the cutcherry, scarcely blushed when the two men
were produced alive and unhurt in court, and merely pleaded that had he not
sworn as directed, he should have lost his employ.”
Let me now read an equally humiliating
extract from the answers of Mr. J.D. Paterson, judge of Decca, Jellelpore,
&c. to the president &c. members of the police committee, 30th
Aug. 1799. “As a picture of human
degradation and depravity can only give pain to a reflecting mind, I shall be
as brief as possible, consistently with the necessity of furnishing the
required information. Their minds are
totally uncultivated; of the duties of morality they have no idea; they possess
in a great degree that cunning which so generally accompanies depravity of
heart. They are indolent and grossly
sensual; they are cruel and cowardly, insolent and abject. They have superstition without a sense of
religion; and in short they have all the vices of savage life, without any of
its virtues. If we look a step higher,
we find the same total want of principles with more refined cunning, no
attachment but what centers in self, for the ties of relationship seem only to
render inveteracy more inveterate.”
“Even the honest men,” say the judges
of circuit, in a report made on terminating their session; “Even the honest men
as well as the rogues are perjured. The
most simple and the most cunning alike make assertions that are incredible, or
that are certainly false.”
“In the course of our judicial duties,”
says the report from Moorshedabad, court of appeal and circuit (26th
Jan. 1802,) “we still meet with the same barefaced disregard of truth which
always characterised the natives of India.”
“No falsehood,” says judge Stracey, “is
too extravagant or audacious to be advanced before the court of circuit. Perjury is extremely common.” – 5th
Report of Committee on East India Affairs.
“They are probably somewhat more
licentious than formerly. Chicanery,
subornation, and fraud and perjury are certainly more common.” – Judge
Stracey’s answer to Interrogatories, 30th Jan. 1802.
“The lower classes are in general
profligate and depraved. The moral
duties are little attended to by the
higher ones. All are litigious in the
extreme, and the crime of perjury was never, we believe, more practised amongst
all ranks than at present.” – Answers of Magistrated of the 24 Pergunnahs to
Interrogatories, &c.
But perhaps the House may, with the
least trouble, form a summary opinion of the result of the ansewrs alluded to,
by hearing an extract from a judicial letter from the court of directors to
Bengal, dated 25th of April
1805, which will show the impression which the informaton they had received had
made on their minds; and I beg leave to
recommend it the rather (?) to the attention of the House, because it will shew
what was then the court of directors’ opinion of the moral character of the
natives of India, however some of them many now have been led, I must rather
say misled, into forming different sentiments.
“The nefarious and dangerous crime of
perjury we are much concerned to find continues to prevail in all directions,
and even increases to such a pitch to baffle and perplex the judicial
proceedings of the courts, so that the judge receives all oral testimony with
distrust, and is frequently obliged to investigate the character of the witness
more closely than that of the criminal.”
The directors very judiciously go on to
remark on the probable cause of this low state of moral principle:-- “The
little obligation attached by the natives to an oath seems to proceed, in a
great degree, from the nature of their superstitions and the degraded character
of their deities, as well as the almost entire want of moral instruction among
them; and this points to the necessity of other remedies, as well as to the
most rigourous punishment of a crime as hurtful to society as perjury.”
For another possible reason for the prevalence of
perjury, see my post on Frederick
John Shore, brother of aforementioned Lord Teignmouth. “With all the concern of an honorable mind, Mr. Shore pursued
the inquiry thus opened to him into the principles and practice of the British
Indian administration; and soon, he says, found himself at no loss to
comprehend the feelings of the people both towards our government and
ourselves. He then says— 'It would have been astonishing, indeed, had it
been otherwise. The fundamental principle of the English had been to make
the whole Indian nation subservient in every possible way to the interests and
benefits of themselves. They had been taxed to the utmost limit; every
successive province, as it fell into our hands, had been made a field for higher
exaction, and it has always been our boast how
greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers were able
to extort. The Indians have been excluded from every honor,
dignity or office which the lowest Englishman could be prevailed upon to
accept; while our public offices, and, as we have been pleased to call
them, courts of justice, have been sinks
of every species of villany, fraud, chicane, oppression, and injustice,
to such extent that men who have been robbed of their property, and whose
relations have been murdered, will often pay large sums to the police to
prevent investigation from the dread of being compelled to attend one of our
courts, even in the character of a prosecutor or witness.'—Vol ii, p. 518, 519.”
It continues:
“The summary,'
continues Mr. Shore, 'is that the British-Indian government has been
practically one of the most extortionate and oppressive that has ever existed
in India; one under which injustice has been and may be committed, both
by the government and by individuals, provided the latter be rich, to an almost
unlimited extent, and under which redress from injury is almost
unattainable; the consequence of which is that we are abhorred by the people,
who would hail with joy, and instantly join the standard of any power
whom they thought strong enough to occasion our downfall....How is it possible,
after the treatment they have received, that our government, or ourselves,
should be popular with them? And yet we are pleased to assert that they
rejoice in a government by which they are trodden to the dust, and oppressed more
than by any of their foreign rulers.' {emphasis in the original} —vol
ii, pp. 521, 522.
If such be the
moral state of the natives in general, we might well expect, at least it would
be expected by all who have a just sense of the intimate connection between
virtue and humanity, and on the contrary between depravity and cruelty, that
the crimes of the actual violators of the laws, and not of an individual
criminal, but of the class of robbers in general would be extremely shocking;
but I quote the following passage from Mr. Dowdeswell’s Report on the Police of
Bengal, in order to counteract that strange and most unjust persuasion, which
has been attempted to be diffused, that the Hindoos are a gentle and humane
people.
“Were I to
enumerate only a thousandth part of the atrocities of the Decoits (a set of
hereditary robbers) and of the consequent sufferings of the people, and were I
to soften that recital in every mode which language would permit, I should
still despair of obtaining credit for the accuracy of the narrative.” – Mr.
Dowdeswell’s Report on the General State of the Police of Bengal, p. 603.
“Robbery, rape and
even murder itself are not the worst figure in this hideous and disgusting
picture. Volumes might be filled with
the recital of the atrocities of the Decoits, every line of which make the
blood run cold with horror. “ Ibid.
I could
corroborate my general representation of the moral degradation of the Hindoos,
by still farther extracts, selected form that massy volume on the table.*
*Fifth Report from
the East India Committee.
But I will adduce
but one more taken from a document I have already referred to, the letter to the
venerable dean of Westminster, Dr. Vincent.
Speaking generally of the morals of the natives, his correspondent says;
“The state of morality among the natives is very low indeed. I have had transactions with many of those
who have the character of most respectable men, rich, and of good credit. I declare to you, I never met with one who
had any idea of the obligation of an oath, or who would not break it without
scruple, provided the crime could be effected without discovery and punishment,
and produce to him a pecuniary profit.
There may be natives of a different character; all I can say is, that I
have never ment with one. I am speaking
of those who are not Christians. Now I
am clear, no man, in the course of his dealings in England with various
characters for some years, could truly make a similar assertion.”
Before we dismiss
the long and melancholy train of witnesses whose estimate of the moral
character of the natives of India I ahave been laying before you, let me beg
that you will attend carefully to two considerations, which are applicable to
almost all the opinions which I have adduced.
These are, first,
that the statements you have heard, are all of them the opinions of intelligent
and respectable men, formed and given, without reference to any particular
question, which happened for the time to interest and divide the public mind;
and still more, that they are the opinions of men who were upon the spot when
those opinions were formed, and whose attention had been specially called to
the subject of them, while the natives were actually under their view.
These
considerations, Sir, deserve the more attention, because when we find
conflicting testimony among men, all of whom we respect, we naturally look for
circumstances which may explain the discrepancies which we witness. Without presuming to take upon me to estimate
how much weight is to be assigned to this consideration, I am persuaded that
our opponents themselves will frankly acknowledge, that in the two important
particulars which I have just now noticed, they are oppositely circumstanced to
the individuals whose testimony I have been laying before you. First, the favourable opinions of the people
of India which they deliver, are such as occur to them in this country; which
must render them peculiarily subject to the influence of that common cause of
erroneous judgment of nations, the drawing of general inferences from
individual instances; and secondly, they will not deny, that from the
infirmities of our common nature, they cannot but be liable to have their
opinions in some degree, though imperceptibly, biassed by the particular
occasion on which they are led to form them.
And now, Sir,
after the decisive weight of testimony which I have laid before you, in proof
of the general depravity of the people of Hindostan, what must we think of the
soundness of the judgment pronounced by our opponents, that their morals are in
general equal, nay, even superior, to those of the people of this country. We have been long accustomed, Sir, to read
different characters of the same people from different travellers, of the
intentions of all of whom, to speak the truth, we have entertained not the
slightest suspicion; but a difference like this, I never before witnessed.
In fact, however,
Sir, we are relieved from our difficulty, by the very extent to which the
assertion of our opponents is pushed.
Had it been merely attempted to soften the colours in which we had
painted the native character, you might have been more at a loss which was the
correct representation. But when,
instead of the dark hues which we have assigned to it, our opponents give it
almost the fairest and loveliest tints of moral colouring, we are led
infallibly to conclude that our opponents are either ill-informed, or that they
are under the influence of prejudice; and happily, we are furnished, in the
course of our discussion, with such flagrant instances of prejudice on this
particular topic of religion, as to furnish a pretty clear explanation of those
opinions of our opponents which would otherwise appear the most inexplicable as
well as extravagant.
I wonder if Mr.
Wilberforce was conscious of that this very argument applied to him as well;
instead of shades of grey, he blackened the character of the Hindoos so much
that one might conclude he was either ill-informed or else under the influence
of prejudice. This debate and items
like Conversion
Corrupts suggest that these debates were almost entirely not about any real
people in India, but rather about British internal disputes, political or
religious or something else.
I have alread had
occasion to shew, Sir, in one notable instance, that on this subject alone of
religion and morals, as connected with the East Indies, men the most able and
best informed on all other topics are strangely and lamentably ignorant. There is a sort of inaptitude, if I may so
term it, in what regards the subject of religion, which we discover in the
generality of the Anglo Indians, which causes their judgments, however valuable
on other occasions, to fail them egregiously in this.
We have a curious
illustration of this remark in the Fifth Report, which I quote t he rather,
because I understand the character of the writer to be excellent, and his
authority beyond exception in all other matters. I speak of Mr. Dowdeswell. After that shocking account of the state of
the police which I lately read to the House, suitably impressed with a sense of
the evils which he had been speaking, and very justly remarking also, that
these dreadful practices must be severely punished, “but that a great deal more
must be done in order to eradicate the seeds of those crimes, the real sources
of the evil lying in the corrupt morals of the people,” he adds, (and let me
beg, that gentlemen will observe that Mr. Dowdeswell very justly ascribes the
perpetration of such rimes to general and moral causes, not merely to
individual and accidental depravity;) “if” says he, “we would apply a lasting
remedy to the evil, we must adopt means of instruction for the different
classes of the community; by which they may be restrained, not only from the
commission of public crimes, but also from acts of immorality, by a dread of
the punishment denounced both in this world and in a future state by their
respective religious opinions. The task
woul dnot, perhaps be so difficult, as it may at first sight appear to be. Some remains of the old system of Hindoo
discipline still exist. The institutions
of Mahomedanism of that description, are still better known. Both might be revived and gradually moulded
into a regular system of instruction for both those great classes of the
community.” *
*Fifth Report on
East-India Affiars, p. 617. Mr. Dowdeswell’s Report on the Police of Bengal,
Sept 22. 1809.
We are led
irresistibly, by this passage, to a conclusion, which, I confess, has been
suggested to me by various other circumstances, that in the minds of too many
of our opponents, Christianity and India are inconsistent, totally
incompatible, ideas. We cannot but be
reminded of the expression of a former ornament of this House, (a name of high
authority in this country), that “the Europeans were commonly unbaptized in
their passage to India.” I will not
presume to adopt so strong a position; but Mr. Burke himself could not have
desired a stronger confirmation of his assertion, than some with which we have
been supplied in the course of these discussions, more especially with this,
wherein we find that a gentleman of intelligence and respectability, long
resident in India, bewailing such a dissolution of the moral principle as
rendered it difficult for the frame of society to hold together, and looking
around soliticiously for some remedy for the evil, never so much as thinks of
resorting to Christianity, but proposes to resort to the revival of Hinduism
and Mahomedanism, as the only expedient to which it is possible to have
recourse.
Agreeing with him
in my sense of the virulence of the disease, I differ entirely with respect to
the remedy; for, blessed be God, we have a remedy fully adequate, and specially
appropriate to the purpose. That remedy,
Sir, is Christianity, which I justly call the appropriate remedy, for
Christianity then assumes her true character, no less than she performs her
natural and proper office, when she takes under her protection those poor
degraded beings, on whom philosophy looks down with disdain, or perhaps with
contemptuous condescension.
On the very first
promulgation of Christianity, it was declared by its great Author, as “glad
tidings to the poor;” and ever faithful to her character, Christianity still
delights to instruct the ignorant, to succour the needy, to comfort the
sorrowful, to visit the forsaken. I
confess to you, Sir, that but for my being conscious that we possessed the
means of palliating, at least, the moral diseases which I have been describing,
if not of effecting a perfect cure of them, I should not have had the heart to
persevere in dragging you throug the long and painful succession of humiliating
statements to which you have been lately listening.
For, believe me,
Sir, though I trust that to many in this House, I scarcely need to vindicate
myself against such a charge, that it is not to insult over the melancholy
degradation of these unhappy people, or to indulge in the proud triumph of our
own superiority, that I have dwelt so long on this painful subject; but it is
because I wish to impress you with a just sense of the malignity of their
disease, that you may concur with me in the application of a remedy: for, I
again and again declare to you, a remedy there doubtless is. God forbid that we should have only to sit
down in hopeless dejection, under the conviction, that though these evils exist
they are not to be removed, Sir, such a supposition would be absolute
blasphemy; to believe that the Almighty Being, to whom both we and our East
Indian fellow-subjects owe our existence, has doomed them to continue for ever,
incurably, in that wretched state of moral depravity and degradation, in which
they have hitherto remained! No, Sir,
Providence has provided sufficient means for rescuing them from the depths in
which they are now sunk, and I now call on you to open t he way for their
application; for to us, Sir, I confidently hope, is committed the honourable
office of removing the barrier which now excludes the access of Christian
light, with its long train of attendant blessings, into that benighted land,
and thus, of ultimately cheering their desolate hearts with the beams of
heavenly truth, and love, and consolation.
And therefore,
Sir, I indignantly repel the charge which has been unjustly brought against me,
that I am bring an indictment against the whole native population of India; and
“what have they done to provoke my enmity?”
Sir, I have lived long
enough to learn the important lesson, that flatterers are not friends: nay,
Sir, they are the deadliest enemies.
Let not our opponents, therefore, lay to their souls this flattering
unction, that they are acting a friendly part towards the Hindoos.
No, Sir: they, not
I, are the real enemies of the natives of India, who, with the language of
hollow adulation and ‘mouth honour’ on their tongues, are in reality
recommending the course which is to keep those miserable beings bowed down
under the heavy yoke which now oppresses them.
The most able of our opponents has told us, that some classes of the
natives are as much below others as the inferior animals are below the human
species. Yes, Sir, I well know it; and
it is because I wish to do away with this unjust inequality, to raise these
poor brutes out of their present degraded state to the just level of their
nature, that I am now bringing before you their real condition.
And am not I,
therefore, acting the part of the real friend? For true friendship, Sir, is
apprehensive and solicitous; it is often jealous and suspicious of evil; often
it even dreads the worst concerning the objects of its affection, from the
solicitude it feels for their well-being, and its earnestness to promote their
happiness.
Animated, Sir, by
this unfeigned spirit of friendship for the natives of India, their religious
and moral interests are undoubtedly our first concern; but the course we are
recommending tends no less to promote their temporal well-being than their
eternal welfare; for such is their real condition, that we are prompted to
endeavour to communicate to them the benefits of Christian instruction,
scarcely less by religious principle than by the feelings of common
humanity. Not, Sir, that I would pretend
to conceal from the House, that the hope, which, above all others, chiefly
gladdens my heart, is that of being instrumental in bringing them into the
paths by which they may be led to everlasting felicity. But still, were all considerations of a
future state out of the question, I hesitate not to affirm, that a regard for
their temporal well-being would alone furnish abundant motives for our
endeavouring to diffuse among them the blessings of Christian light and moral
instruction.
And surely it
cannot be necessary for me to attempt in this place to prove, that though much
of the large mass of comforts which we in this country enjoy, beyond those, I
believe, of any other nation in ancient or in modern times, is owing to our
invaluable constitution, yet that it is in no small degree, also, to be
ascribed to our religious and moral superiority; for it is with gratitude
alike, and with pleasure, that I declare my firm persuasion, that the influence
of Christianity is greater in this country than in any other upon earth.
But surely, Sir,
after the account we have received of the low state of morals among the natives
of India, it cannot be necessary for me to prove by a reference to their
various institutions, or to the circumstances of their social condition, that
their situation is such as to interest every humane mind in improving it. For certainly such an enlightened assembly
as this scarcely needs to be reminded, that the moral Governor of the universe
has established a never-failing and inseparable connection between vice and
misery, though for a time they may appear dissevered, and vice may seem even to
have associated herself with happiness.
Sir, the evils of
India are not merely such as a despotic government never fails to introduce and
continue. In countries, great countries
especially, groaning under the most absolute despotism, there may often be much
domestic and even social happiness. It
was to the condition of the subjects of an absolute government, that our great
poet beautifully alluded when he observed,
“With secret
course, which no loud storms annoy,
“Glides the smooth
current of domestic joy.”
And truly in the
main, though somewhat too broadly and strongly shaded, he adds,
“Of all the ills
that human hearts endure,
“How few, that
courts or kings can cause or cure.”
But the evils of
Hindostan are family, fireside evils; they pervade the whole mass of the
population, and embitter the domestic cup, in almost every family. Why need I, in this country, insist on the
evils which arise merely out of the institution of Caste itself; a system
which,though, strange to say, it has been complemented as a device of deep political
wisdom, must surely appear to every heart of true British temper to be a system
at war with truth and nature; a detestable expedient for keeping the lower
orders of the community bowed down in an abject state of hopeless and
irremediable vassalage. It is justly,
Sir, the glory of this country, that no member of our free community is
naturally precluded from rising into the highest classes of society. And, in fact, we have all witnessed
instances of men who have emerged out of their original poverty and obscurity,
and have risen to the highest level by the inborn bouyancy of their superior
natures; our free constitution, to which such occurrences are scarcely less
honourable than to the individuals who are the subjects of them, opening the
way for the development, and Providence favouring the exercise of their
powers. Even where slavery has existed,
it has commonly been possible (though in the West Indies, alas! artificial
difficulties have been interposed,) for individuals to burst their bonds, and
assert the privileges of their nature.
But the more cruel shackles of Caste are never to be shaken; as well
might a dog, or any other of the brute creation, it is the honourable
gentleman’s own illustration, aspire to the dignity and rights of man.
I will not think
so injuriously of our opponents as not be persuaded, that they would
indignantly spurn at the very idea of introducing such a system into this
country. And are not the natives of
India, our fellow-subjects, fairly intitled to all the benefits which we can
safely impart to them? And if there be
any which we cannot as yet venture to communicate, should we not at least be
longing with eager and almost impatient expectation for the time when we can
render them partakers fo the best blessings which we ourselves enjoy?
And here, Sir, in
justice to my cause, I cannot but animadvert upon the spirit and tone with
which our opponents have descanted on the impossibility of making the natives
acquainted with the truths of Christianity, and of thereby effecting the moral
improvements which Christianity would produce.
I should have expected, Sir, if they were unwillingly compelled to so
unwelcome a conclusion, as that all hopes of thus improving the natives of
India must be abandoned as utterly impracticable, that they would form the
opinion tardily and reluctantly, and express it with the most manifest
concern.
I need not remind
the House with what an air of cheerfulness, not to say of levity, the
declaration has been made. But it is
fair to say, that one of the hon. members supplied the explanation, by plainly
intimating; that in his opinion, all religions were likewise acceptable to the
common Father of the universe; -- the same truth, a little differently
expressed, as was taught by one of the brahmins, who stated to one of our
missionaries, that heaven was a large palace, to which there was a number of
different roads, and that each nation or individual might choose his own at
pleasure.
To understand the disconnect between the Heathen and the
Christian on this matter, S. N. Balagangadhara’s “The Heathen in his
Blindness…” is invaluable.
But, as I have
already stated, our opponents should remember that Christianity, independently
of its effects on a future state of existence, has been acknowledged even by
avowed skeptics, to be, beyond all other institutions that ever existed,
favourable to the temporal interests and happiness of man: and never was there
a country where there is greater need than in India for the diffusion of its
genial influence.
In reasoning
concerning the happiness, no less than the virture, of any people, all who
consider how many of the charities of life, how large a portion of the greatest
and best of our earthly comforts, arise out of our domestic relations, will
think it difficult to overrate the sum of the evils produced, and the happiness
impaired and lost, from the single circumstance of the prevalence of
polygamy. Here, again, to prove the
effects of polygamy, I would refer to one who had no peculiar seal for
Christianity; though his understanding was too enlightened and his mind too
well informed, for him not to recognize its superior excellencies; I mean, to
the president Montesquieu. Would we see
a lively picture of the jealousies, the heart-burnings, the artifice, the
falshood [sic], the cruelty, the rage,
and the despair of which polygamy is the fertile source, let us look to that
great writer’s Persian Letters.
And here also,
Sir, we may find a decisive settlement of the question, concerning which there
has been some difference of opinion, as to the rank in the scale of being which
is assigned to the female sex, among natives of India. An hon. friend of mine (Mr. Smith) has quoted
some passages from their great lawgiver, which speak of women in general in the
most disparaging and even contemptuous terms.
We see the same estimate in many of the Hindoo customs and institutions;
but this system of polygamy alone might have sufficed to prove, that the female
sex could not possess in India that equality, in point of nature and rank, with
ours, to which it is considered to be entitled in every Christian country, and
on which, in fact, so much of the real dignity and happiness as well as so many
of the benefits of the married state essentially depend.
Again in India, we
find prevalent that evil, I mean, infanticide, against which we might have
hoped nature herself would have supplied adequate restraints, if we had not
been taught by experience, that four our deliverance even from this detestable
crime, we are indebted to Christianity.
For it is not philosophy, it is not to civilization; it is not to
progress in refinement, or in the arts and comforts of social life; it is not
even to liberty herself, that the world is indebted for this emancipation. The friends of Christianity may justly glory
in the acknowledgment of one of its greatest enemies, that infanticide was the
incorrigible vice of all antiquity; and it is very striking, that both in India
and in China, where the light of Revelation has never penetrated, this
detestable crime still asserts its superiority over nature itself, no less than
over virtue. To this, in India, is
added, the destruction of the sick and the aged, often by their nearest
relatives.
Arabs similarly claim that Islam is what ended
infanticide in their societies.
There is another
practice on the prevalence of which it is the rather necessary for me to
insist, because it has been conceived by many gentlemen, otherwise
well-informed on East Indian topics, that whatever may have been formerly the
case, the practice now exists in a very inconsiderable degree. The House must have anticipated my mention of
the burning of widows on the funeral pile of their deceased husbands. A writer of great authority, Mr. Dow, many
years ago, stated the custom to have become almost extinct. But sorry I am to
say, that this is so far from being the truth, that the practice, which Bernier
states to have been greatly discouraged, though not absolutely prohibited, by
the Mahometan government, and which, in consequence, had considerable declined,
has increased since the country came under our dominion.
Great pains were
taken by the missionaries, a few years ago, to ascertain the number of widows
which were annually burnt in a district thirty miles around Calcutta, and the
House will be astonished to hear, that in this comparitively small area, 130
widows were burnt in six months. In the
year 1803, within the same space, the number amounted to 275, one of whom was a
girl of eleven years of age. I ought to state that the utmost pains were taken
to have the account correct; certain persons were employed purposely to watch
and report the number of these horrible exhibitions; and the place, person, and
other particulars were regularly certified.
After hearing this, you will not be surprised on being told, that the
whole number of these annual sacrificies of women, who are often thus cruelly
torn from their children at the very time when, from the loss of their father,
they must be in the greatest need of the fostering care of their surviving
parent, is estimated, I think, in the Bengal provinces to be 10,000; the same
number at which it was calculated, many years ago, by a gentleman whose
uncommon proficiency in the native languages gave him peculiar advantages in
his inquiries on this subject; the highly respected brother of the late sir
Robert Chambers.
Nor must we dare
to flatter ourselves, though it would be in truth be a wretched consolation,
that as has been sometimes stated, these sacrifices are spontaneous. Not to mention what Bernier himself relates
from his own personal view, that the women are always carefully fastened down,
sometimes with strong green bamboos, at others with thick strong ropes
thoroughly soaked in water; which is done, as Mr. Marshman was frankly told,
lest on feeling the fire they should run away and make their escape; Bernier
goes on, “When the wretched victims draw back, I have seen those demons the
brahmins thrusting them into the fire with their long poles.” Sometimes, indeed, the relations and friends
of the widow, exerting their utmost influence with her, succeed in persuading
her to live; but too commonly, the poor wretcheds are forced into these acts of
self-immolation by the joint influence of their hopes and fears. Their fears, however, are by far the more
predominant of the two; and while the brahmins delude them with hopes of glory
and immortality if they consign themselves to the flames, their only
alternative is a life of hard fare, and servile offices; in short, a life of
drudgery, degradation and infamy.
Such, Sir, is the
number of these human sacrifices, and such the principle on which they are
made. As to their nature—I should shock
the feelings of the hardest heart, if I were to read to you the authenticated
statements of the horrid scenes of this kind which are continually taking
place; to which the people are so accustomed, that as I lately learned from a
private friend of my own, who witnessed one of these dreadful transactions, a
great concourse of spectators even in populous districts is not collected; and what
is worse than all, the horrible scene is beheld with as much unconcern, and
even levity, as we see among the lower orders in this country, when the
destruction of one of the inferior animals is the subject of their savage
mirth. But I will spare you the
disgusting recital; * and yet I well remember……
*It would scarcely
be justifiable to forbear inserting, what perhaps I was culpable in not reading
to the House, the following account of one of those horrible scenes, at which
the missionary, Mr. Marshman, was present a few years ago. I will extract his own words, only adding,
that he is a man of the most established integrity, in the veracity of whose
account entire reliance may be justly placed.
“A person informing us that a woman was about to be burnt with the
corpse of her husband, near our house, I, with several of our brethren,
hastened to the place; but before we could arrive, the pile was in flames. It was a horrible sight. The most shocking
indifference and levity appeared among those who were present. I never saw any thing more brutal than their behaviour. The dreadful scene had not the least
appearance of a religious ceremony. It
resembled an abandoned rabble of boys in England collected for the purpose of
worrying to death a cat or a dog. A
bamboo, perhaps twenty feet long, has been fastened to one end of a stake
driven into the ground, and held down over the fire by men at the other. Such were the confusion, the levity, the
bursts of brutal laughter, while the poor woman was burning alive before their
eyes, that it seemed as if every spark of humanity was extinguished by this
accursed superstition. That which added
to the cruelty was the smallness of the fire.
It did not consist of so much wood as we consume in dressing a dinner: not,
not this fire that was to consume the living and the dead. I saw the legs of the poor creature hanging
out of the fire while her body was in flames.
After a while, they took a bamboo ten or twelve feet long and stirred
it, pushing and beating the unconsumed pieces into the middle. Perceiving the legs hanging out, they beat
them with the bamboo for some time, in order to break them at the knees (for
they would not have come near to touch them for the world). At length they succeeded in bending them upwards
into the fire, the skin and muscle giving way, and discovering the knee
sockets, bare with the balls of the leg bones: a sight this which, I need not
say, made me thrill with horror, especially when I recollected that this
hapless victim was alive but a few minutes before. To have seen savage wolves thus tearing a
human body, limb from limb, would have been shocking; but to see relations and
neighbours do this to one with whom they had familiarly conversed not an hour
before, and to do it with an air of levity, was almost too much for me to
bear.” “You expect, perhaps to hear,
that this unhappy victim was the wife of some brahmin of high cast. Sh was the wife of a barber who dwelt in
Serampore, and had died that morning, leaving the son I have mentioned, and a
daughter of about eleven years of age.
Thus has this infernal superstition aggravated the common miseries of
life and left these children stripped of both their parents in one day. Nor is this an uncommon case. It often happens to children far more
helpless than these; sometimes to children possessed of property, which is then
left, as well as themselves, to the mercy of those who have decoyed their
mother to their father’s funeral pile”.
……But I will spare
you the disgusting recital; * and yet I well remember what was said nearly in
the place where I stand on an occasion not dissimilar, by a right hon.
gentleman now no more, (Mr. Fox), “that true humanity consists, not in a
squeamish ear, but in feeling for the sufferings of others, and being forward
and active in relieving them”. And,
Sir, I am perfectly sure, that people could not make up their minds to the
quiet toleration of these practices; they would not suffer them, I mean, to go
on, without using every lawful effort to put a stop to them; but for our having
not yet learned to consdier India as part of the British empire, and its
inhabitants as our fellow-subjects. The
vast distance also of the scene of these barbarities tends considerably to
deaden the impression which they would otherwise produce. If these transactions tooks place in any part
of England, instead of the indifference with which they have been too long
regarded by men, I am sensible, not inferior in humanity to ourselves, the
public zeal would be called forth, and every possible endeavour would be used
to put an end to them.
But here again,
Sir, we see the effects of that strange delusion by which our countrymen are
led into adopting one set of morals, and principles, and even feelings, for
this country, and another for India.
And although, after proofs of the abilities of the Anglo-Indians which
have bene exhibited to this House in the course of this very inquiry, the
grossest prejudice alone would deny that they are men of superior talents and
intelligence; yet, I must say, this very consideration, that they have one rule
of judging for India, and another for Great Britain, renders them judges
against whose competency I must except, when the question is concerning the
introduction of British religion, British morals, and British manners, among
the inhabitants of British India.
And now, Sir, I
shall do little more than allude to another class of enormities, which by the
very enormity, are in some measure shielded from the detestation they would
otherwise incur: I allude to the various obscene and bloody rites of their
idolatrous ceremonies, with all their unutterable abominations. A vain attempt has been made in a single
instance to do away with this charge; but had the endeavour succeeded, instead
of utterly failing, as it certainly did, what would it avail when the obscene
and bloody nature of the Hindoo superstitions is established by a cloud of
witnesses; and I will add, when from our more intimate acquaintance with the
language, books, and institutions of the natives, the light of day is at length
beginning to shine into these dens of darkness, and to express their foul
contens to our disgust and abhorrence.
We migth easily
anticipate, that the people’s being accustomed to witness the most disgustingly
indecent exhibitions* in broad day, must have the effect of destroying all that
natural modesty which the Almighty has implanted in us for the most beneficial
purposes.
· I will give one one instance only, as a
specimen. It is related by an unexceptionable witness. “I suppose 2,000 men, women and children,
might be assembled. I observed that one
of the men standing before the idol in the boat, dancing and making indecent
gestures, was stark naked. As the boat
passed along, he was gazed at by the mob; nor could I perceive that this
abominable action produced any other sensation that those of laughter. Before other images, young men, dressed in
women’s clothes, were dancing with other men making indecent gestures. I cannot help thinking, but that the vulgarest
mob in England would have arisen on these impudent beasts, and have almost torn
them in pieces. I have seen the same
abominations exhibited before our own door.” Ward’s account of Religion,
&c. of Hindoos, 4to. Note p. 296.
And such is in
truth the fact: and a gentleman, whose name, if it were mentioned, would at
once establish the undeniable truth of any statement which is made on his
authority, has assured me, that whole families of both sexes and different
ages, will witness together a sort of theatrical or pantomimical entertainment
of the most shockingly indecent kind.
Lord Cornwallis, much to his honour, shortly after his arrival in India,
declined an invitation to an amusement of this indecent kind, to which he had
been asked by the native of the highest rank in the settlement.
Indeed to all who
have made it their business to study the nature of idolatrous worship in
general, I scarcely need remark, that in
its superstitious rites, there has commonly been found to be a natural alliance
between obscenity and cruelty; and of the Hindoo superstitions it may be truly
affirmed that they are scarcely less bloody than lasciviouis; and as the innate
modesty of our nature is effaced by the one, so all the natural feelings of
humanity are extinguished by the other.
Hence it is, that,
as in other instances, as well as in that of the burning of widows, we often
read and hear of spectacles and incidents, which would deeply interest the
feelings of most Europeans, being witnessed by the natives with utter
insensibility. Were all considerations
of humanity to be left out of the question, the consequences of some of the
prevalent enormities would deserve our attention, even in a political view, on
account of the numbers which fall victims to these pernicious
superstitions. A gentleman of the
highest integrity and better qualified than almost any one else to form a
correct judgment in this instance; I mean Dr. Carey, the missionary, has
calculated that, taking in all the various modes and forms of destruction
connected with the worship at the temple of Jaggernaut in Orissa, the lives of
100,000 human beings are annually expended in the services of that single idol.
One of many such works, C. Bates, Beyond Representions:
colonial and post-colonial constructions of Indian Identity, 2006, (available
here) may be useful. To reduce a
long story to a couple of sentences, “In the nineteenth century this was a
lively subject of debate: any encounter by a devout Christian (as most Company
servants were in this period) with a barbarian and unknown community would be
accompanied by a presumption that human sacrifice was present. Common cause
could then readily be found between Christians and radical Hindu reformers who
used such issues for quite different purposes in disputes with
traditionalists.”
Perhaps
a simpler way of understanding it is that Hindoos were found to be perjurers
only in the British courts, but not when being the native informers to
missionaries full of zeal.
It has often been
truly remarked, particularly I think by the historian of America, that the
moral character of a people may commonly be known from the nature and
attributes of the objects of its worship.
On this principle, we might have anticipated the moral condition of the
Hindoos, by ascertaining the character of their deities. If it was truly affirmed of the old pagan
mythology, that scarcely a crime could be committed, the perpetrator of which
might not plead in his justification the precedent of one of the national gods;
far more truly may it be said, that in the adventures of the countless rabble
of Hindoo deities, you may find every possible variety of ever practicable
crime. Here also, more truly than old,
every vice had its patron as well as its example. Their divinities are absolute monsters of
lust, injustice, wickedness and cruelty.
In short, their religious system is one grand abomination. Not but that I know you may sometimes find,
in the sacred books of the Hindoos, acknowledgements of the unity of the great
Creator of all things; but just as, from a passage of the same sort in Cicero,
it would be contrary alike to reason and experience to argue that the common
pagan mythology was not the religion of the bulk of mankind in the ancient
world, so it is far more absurd and groundless, to contend that more than a
fewer of the 33,000,000 of Hindoo God, with their several attributes and
adentures, do not constitute the theology of the bulk of the natives of
India.
Both their civil
and religious systems are radically and essentially the opposites of our
own. Our religion is sublime, pure and
beneficient. Theirs is mean, licentious
and cruel. Of our civil principles and
condition, the common right of all ranks and classes to be governed, protected
and punished by equal laws, is the fundamental principle. Of theirs, the essential and universal
pervading character is inequality; despotism in the higher classes, degradation
and oppression in t he lower. And such
is the systematic oppression of this despotism, such its universal
predominancy, that, not satisfied with condemning the wretched Soodras for life
to their miserable debasement, (nay, death itself does not mend their
condition) and endeavouring to make that degradation sure, by condemning them
to ignorance as well as humiliation, the same inequalities pursue and harass t
heir victims, in the various walks and occupations of life. If they engage in commerce, they are to pay 5l per cent interest for money, while a
brahmin pays 1l per cent, and the
other two castes
2l and 3l per cent.
2l and 3l per cent.
Since other books say that a brahmin who engages in
commerce would lose his caste, I’m confused.
Their punishments
are far more severe than those of the higher classes, for all crimes; although,
with any but a Hindoo legislator, their inferior measure of knowledge might be
held to extenuate their guilt. And are
these systems which can meet not merely with supporters, but even with
panegyrists, in a British House of Commons?
But, Sir, I verily believe, nay, I am fully persuaded, that our
opponents would think and speak less favourably of the religious and moral
system of the Hindoos if they knew it better; and when their eyes shall at
length be irresistibly and fully, though tardily and reluctantly, opened to its
real character, by that growing development of its enormities which is daily
effecting from the increased and increasing light cast on the subject by new
publications, they will, I doubt not, be shocked to reflect of what a system
they have been unwarily led to applaud the merits and even contend for the
continuance.
There is perhaps something here that needs
explanation. Those Europeans
“unbaptized by their passage to India” have a different experience of India
from that of the zealous Christians, sufficiently different that it is indeed
the subject of debate in the British House of Commons. I think Balu’s theory of religion can
explain why this is so, and stronger, why this is necessarily so.
I beg the House,
Sir, to observe, that in all the statements I have made either of the moral
character of the natives of India, or of the nature of their superstitious
principles and observances, I have not grounded any of my assertions on the
authority of Dr. Buchanan; and that, because I knew that endeavours had been
diligently, I hope not successfully, used, to call in question the accuracy of
this representations; and therefore, if I could establish my positions by other
witnesses, against whom no such prejudices prevailed as had been excited in Dr.
Buchanan’s instance, prudence suggested to me the expediency of preferring
them.
But, Sir, I should
be shamefully wanting to the cause of justice and of truth, as well as of
friendship, if I were not to protest against the prejudices to which I have
alluded, as utterly groundless. I beg
the House to mark by assertion, that although Dr. Buchanan’s statements have
been scrutinised with jealous eyes, I am yet to learn one single instance in
which any of his statements have been proved erroneous. But his character shall be laid before the
House by a less questionable authority than my own. Lord Wellesley has publicly recorded his
estimate of Dr. Buchanan’s merits, not merely by selecting him for the
important office of vice-provost of the College of Calcutta, but by the terms
which he used in communicating to the Directors his having appointed Dr.
Buchanan to that important office :-- “I have also formed,” says his lordship,
“the highest expectations from the abilities, learning, temper and morals of
Mr. Buchanan, whose character is also well known in England, and particularly
to Dr. Porteus, bishop of London; and to Dr. Milner, master of Queen’s College
in the University of Cambridge.”
I will not affirm
that Mr. Buchanan is exempt from the ordinary infirmities of our common nature;
and that he who has published so much, of course, in some cases, on the
authority of others, may never have been misinformed, or may never have been
betrayed into the slightest inaccuracy: but this, Sir, I say, and I will even
leave it to be determined by those who entertain the strongest prejudices
against Dr. Buchanan, and who may complain the most loudly of the supposed
inaccuracy of his statements, whether, at least, his conduct was not that of
one who was the most anxious and impartial inquirer after truth and whether
they themselves could have suggested any method by which the correctness or
incorrectness of his statements could be more decisively ascertained than that
which he adopted. He did not wait, as
his opponents have done in calling in question his supposed inaccuracies, till
his return to England; but he published his chief work while yet in India. In order to draw more attention to it, he
presented it to government; and it was in usual circulation for three years
before he left Calcutta, on the very spot, and among the very people, whose
opinions, institutions and practices, were the subjects of his publication.
To those who have
known as long, and as well as myself, the unblemished integrity of Dr. Buchanan
in private life, this attestation to his character will be superfluous; but it
is no more than paying a debt of justice to a man to whom, India, I trust, will
one day know, and I doubt not, acknowledge, the unspeakable obligations which
she owes him, for the degree of zeal and perseverance, scarcely to be
paralleled, with which, in contempt of misconstruction and obloquy, he
continues to promote her best interests, and to render her services, the amount
of which no human language can adequately express.
And now, Sir, I am
persuaded, that in all who hear me, there can be but one common feeling of deep
commiseration for the unhappy people whose sad state I have been describing to
you; together with the most earnest wishes that we should commence, with
prudence, but with zeal, our endeavours to communicate to those benighted
reigions, the genial life and warmth of our Christian principles and
institutions, if it can be attempted without absolute ruin to our political
interests in India.
And if we were
compelled by any irresistible urgency of political necessity, to abstain from
the attempt, however cautiously and prudently it might be made, we should at
least require this necessity to be clearly and indisputably established.
For my own part, I
confess, that nothing but absolute demonstration could convince me of the
existence of such a necessity. For I
should deem it almost morally impossible, that there could be any country in
the state in which India is proved, but too clearly, now to be, which would not
be likely to find Christianity the most powerful of all expedients for
improving its morals, and promoting alike its temporal and eternal
welfare. And I rejoice, Sir, in being
able to assure you, that if we proceed with that prudence and caution with
which all such measures should be conducted, the endeavour to communicate to
our fellow-subjects in India, the benefits of Christian light and moral
improvement may not only be made without danger, but, what is more, that there
is no way whatever by which we should be so likely to promote our political
interests in India; because there is no other way in which we should so greatly
strengthen the foundations of our government in that country. Here, Sir, as in the whole of our case, we
stand on the sure and stable ground of fact and experience.
Our opponents
represent the natives of India as of such a jealous sensibility, wherever their
religion is concerned, that on the most reserved and cautious endeavours to
convince hem of the errors of their system, and to bring them over to our purer
faith, their passions would be at once inflamed ot madness, and some violent
explosion would infallibly ensue. If
this, Sir, were true, how is it then that, for more than a century, Christian
missionaries have been labouring in India, sometimes with considerable success,
and yet we do not only have heard of none of these tumults, but, as I before
remarked, the missionaries themselves, who admitting the statement of our
opponents to be correct, must necessarily be supposed to be the objects of
universal jealousy and even antipathy, have been, on the contrary, not only the
most esteemed, but the most beloved and popular, individuals in the country. Not longer ago thatn in the year 1803, the
missionaries of the venerable Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, as we
learn from its report for that year, were eminently successful. Yet we heard of no insurrection, nay of no
discontent, in that part of the country; in short, we only know of the
proceedings at all, from the correspondence published by the Society.
In that only
instance in which our opponents have been enabled to find any just matter of
complaint against any of the missionaries, or rather against any of the
converts of the missionaries (for it is only to them that any blame can be
imputed), the transaction, taken altogether, and with all its consequences,
tends strongly to confirm our conclusions, and to invalidate those of our
adversaries.
The story is
this—One of the native converts of the Baptist missionaries, translated into
Persian, and printed without the knowledge of the missionaries, a sort of life
of Mahomet, containing many abusive and highly objectionable passages. Of this book, 2,000 copies were struck off,
and 300 got into circulation in and about Calcutta, that is, in the very
district, where, of all others, the thickness of the population, and the
consequent intercourse of the natives with each other, must naturally favour the
diffusion of any popular discontent.
Yet what was the result? Did the
circumstance transpire in consequence of some sudden insurrection? Of all the three hundred copies, one alone
was ever heard of. And what became of
that? It was brought by the son of a native merchant to one of the Mahometan
professors in the college at Calcutta, with a request that he would write an
answer to it, and vindicate the honour of their prophet and the truth of the
Mahometan faith. Could any thing
indicate less of that headlong violence which we are told to expect from the
natives wheneve we attempt to call in question the tenets of their religion, or
to inculcate our own?
Here was a case in
which I grant there was imprudence; yet so far from producing any commotion, it
scarcely excited the smallest attention; and in the only instance in which it
was noticed, it was in that temperate and cool way of reason and argument,
which can never tend ot the disturbance of the public peace, or to the
endangering of our political interests.
The true
conclusion, Sir, from the incident, would be, that the natives were so tolerant
and patient in what concerns their religion, that even the grossest imprudence
could not arouse them to anger.
At last, one virtue of those wretched Hindoos and
Mahometans! Presumably a vulgar mob of
Englishmen would have, under similar circumstances, arisen on those impudent
critic and proceeded to tear any such into pieces.
But I ought not to
close my account of this transaction without remarking, that no such incident
can ever take place again; for it was settled, and indeed willingly conceded by
the missionaries themselves that all publications should in future be inspected
and licenced by a government officer, appointed for that purpose, before they should
be sent into the world. Neither ought I
to dismiss the subject, without remarking, that the whole conduct of the
missionaries on this occasion was in the highest degree honourable to their
Christian character, and such as could not but obtain for them, as it did, the
warm approbation of their superiors.*
*”We observe, with
great satisfaction the temperate and respectful conduct of the Society of
Missionaries, in the discussions which took place on the subject of the
publications to which your attention was directed, and of the measures which
you felt yourselves called upon to adopt,” &c.—Letter of Aug 1808, from the
Court of Directors to their Presidency at Fort William in Bengal.
In truth, if they
had behaved on this occasion otherwise than as they did, they would have acted
in a manner wholly inconsistent with their own deliberate purpose; for among
other general resolutions for the regulation of their conduct, into which they
entered previously to their commencing their professional labours, there is
one, the good sense and prudence, as well as the Christian meekness of which,
ought to cover with shame those who speak of them as a set of hairbrained
fanatics.
A part of it is as
follows:-- “It is necessary,” they say, “in our intercourse with the Hindoos,
that, as far as we are able, we abstain from those things which would increase
their prejudices against the Gospel.
Those parts of English manners which are most offensive to them should
be kept out of sight; nor is it advisable at once to attack their prejudices by
exhibiting with acrimony the sins of their gods; neither should we do violence
to their images, nor interrupt their worship.” *
*See Baptist
Missionary Society’s Report.
In truth, Sir,
these Anabaptist missionaries, as among other low epithets bestowed on them,
they have been been contemptuously termed, are entitled to our highest respect
and admiration. One of them, Dr. Carey,
was originally in one of the lowest stations of society; but, under all the
disadvantages of such a situation, he had the genius as well as benevolence to
devise the plan which has since been pursued, of forming a society for
communicating the blessings of Christian light to the natives of India; and his
first care was to qualify himself to act a distinguished part in that truly
noble enterprise. He resolutely applied
himself to the study of the learned languages; after making a considerable
proficiency in them, he applied himself
to several of the Oriental tongues, more especially to that which I
understand is regarded as the parent of them all, the Shanscrit; in which last,
his proficiency is acknowledged to be far greater than that of sir William
Jones himself, or of any other European.
Of several of these languages he has already published a dictionary, and
he has in contemplation still greater literary enterprises. The very plan of one of them would excite the
highest admiration and respect in every unprejudiced literary mind. All this time, Sir, he is labouring
indefatigably as a missionary with a warmth of zeal only equalled by that with
which he prosecutes his literary labours.
Merit like this
could not escape the distinguishing eye of lord Wellesley, who appointed him to
be professor of the Shanscrit, and of another of the native languages in the
college at Calcutta. Another of these
Anabaptist missionaries, Mr. Marshman,
has established a seminary for the cultivation of the Chinese language, which
he has studied with a success scarcely inferior to that of Dr. Carey in the
Shanscrit.
On more than one
occasion, at the annual examinations at the college at Calcutta, the highest
eulogioum was pronounced on both Carey and Marshman, by the governor general;
and the happiest consequences were predicted from the prosecution of their
literary labours.*
*I ought not to
omit the honourable testimony which hs been borne to these extraordinary men by
the rev. Dr. Marsh of Cambridge. After
some account of their literary labours, he proceeds: “Such are the exertions of
those extraordinary men, the missionaries at Serampore, who in the course of
eleven years from the commencement of 1800, to the latest accounts, have
contributed so much to the translation and dispersion of the Scriptures in the
Oriental languages, that the united efforts of no society whatever can be
compared with them. These are the men
who, before the Bible Society existed, formed the grand design of translating
the Scriptures into all the languages of the East; these are the men who have
been the grand instruments in the execution of this stupendous work; these are
the men who are best qualified to complete the design so nobly begun, and
hitherto so successfully performed, who in the knowledge of the language which
they themselves have acquired, -- who in the seminary in Serampore, designed
for the education of future translators,--who in their extensive connections
with men of learning throughout the East, -- who in the missionary printing
office, so well supplied with types of almost every description,--and who in
the extensive supplies afforded by the Baptist Society, augmented by their own
noble contributions, are in possession of the means which are required for that
important purpose. These are men,
therefore, who are entitled to the thanks of the British public.”
It is a merit of a
more vulgar sort, but to those who are blind to their moral and even their
literary excellencies, it may perhaps afford an estimate of value better suited
to their principles and habits of calculation, that these men, and Mr. Ward
also, another of the missionaries, acquiring from 1000l to 1,500l per annum
each, by the various exercise of their talents, throw the whole into the common
stock of the mission, which they thus support by their pecuniary contributions
only less effectually than by their researches and labours of a higher
order. Such, Sir, are the exertions,
such the merits, such the success, of these great and good men, for so I shall
not hesitate to term them.
The hon. gentleman
concluded with apologising to the Committee for the time he had occupied, and
declaring that he should cordially support the Resolution.
Mr. Forbes was apprehensive the admission of missionaries into India would be
dangerous to our Eastern empire, and thought that they ought to pause before
they risked the lives of Europeans in India by adopting the proposition before
the House. He had no objection to
missionaries being suffered to go there as heretofore, but if once they got the
sanction of government, and a legislative enactment were made in their favour,
he was of the opinion the danger would be very great.
Mr. Fawcett opposed the Resolution.
Mr. P. Moore contended, in answer to Mr. Wilberforce, that there was not a chaster or
more meritorious set of men living than the British inhabitants of India. And as to the boast of making 100 converts,
he would ask, whether among them, was there one honest man? For his part, he never knew one of those
converts who did not turn out to be a rogue.
Hitherto he had abstained from saying anything upon the India question,
becaues his opinions on the subject were on record; for he had repeatedly
stated to that House, and in fact many years ago, those sentiments which were
of late echoed by various persons, and upon which, for the most part,
government seemed at length disposed to act.
Mr. Alexander resisted the Resolution.
Sir T. Sutton objected to the proposition before the House. He thought it would defeat its own object, as
it was not the way to convert another to our opinions, to set out by stating
such to be our intentions. Every thing
desirable to be done with respect to missionaries might be done without danger
under the third Resolution.
Mr. Prendergast stated that the conduct of Dr. Carey, which had been so exemplary during
lord Wellesley’s government, totally changed on the departure of the noble
lord; that one day he harangued a large mob in their native language, and
abused the religion of the natives in such terms that the he would have been
killed but for the interference of the police.
The hon. gentleman was decidedly agains the resolution.
Mr. R. Thornton was in favour of the Resolution and said it was a libel on truth to
suppose its propagation would be attended with evil.
Mr. W. Smith followed on the same side. We could change the whole tenure of the land,
he observed; we could take the temple of Jaggernaut, and seize the car of the
idol, when a paltry revenue was concerned, but in the present instance we were
afraid of alarming the prejudices of the natives. Let men fear, when there was reason to fear;
in atempting to benefit the natives of India, there was no cause for alarm.
Mr. Lushington said the present Resolution would not be dangerous to our government in
India. He was sorry it had not been
adopted before, and hoped it would be carried.
Mr. H. Thorton
supported the Resolution, and contended that its object could not be obtained
under the third Resolution, which had been so often alluded to.
The House divided,
when the numbers were—
For the Resolution
…………..89
Against it…………………………36
Majority……………………………..—53
It should be noted that in
1813, there were 658 Members of Parliament per Wiki.
___________
