17 JULY 1897, Page 15

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE UNREST IN INDIA.

[To TIM EDITOR OF THB "Brzer•FOR."] Sin,—Many people will, I am sure, have read with much in- terest your two articles on "The Unrest in India," especially in connection with Sir Charles Elliott's letter in the Spectator of July 10th. The point at issue between yourself and the late Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal is one of vast importance. Hitherto the British Administration of India has been, as you rightly say, on the whole, a " vivifying " one. Sir Charles Elliott, I fear, would make it a "crushing" one. Sir Charles Elliott would probably repudiate this description of his policy. But let us see what he proposes. I would, however, first venture to suggest that he is not quite accurately informed as to the existing law relating to seditious writings, and that some of the complaints which he makes in regard to it are not well founded. For example, he says "the law should look not merely at the expressed intention of the writer, but at the natural and probable effect which his writing will produce on the minds of his readers," evidently thinking that this is not the case at present. 'But if, as I presume, by the " law " he means the Judge administering the law, this is precisely what a Judge would do under the law as it stands (see Mayne's a Penal Code." p. 475). Then, agran, he says, "it has been held by our ablest lawyers in India that it is necessary to show that forcible resistance to

the Government must be distinctly advocated or suggested is order to bring a newspaper within the scope of section 124 A." But I can find no such decision. Mr. Mayne, who is a most careful and well-informed writer, says nothing of the kind, and it seems to me that to hold this would be directly at variance with the provisions of the law, which speaks of exciting "feelings of disaffection" only, and does not say a word about "force." Again, Sir Charles Elliott says " we want a law which makes it punishable to attempt to excite hatred and contempt of the Government in the minds of the people." The law on the subject of seditious language is substantially the same in India as in England, and if the language of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald (quoted in the work already referred to), and that of Chief Justice Petheram in the case of "Regina v. Bose," be considered, it will be found that the law, as it at present stands, does, to this extent, do exactly what Sir Charles Elliott desires. But un- doubtedly Sir Charles Elliott does desire something which is not to be found in the present law. In the first place, he deplores, and therefore, I presume, would abolish, the distinction drawn by Sir James Stephen, and emphatically adopted in the code, between " disaffection " and "dis- approbation." Secondly, he says that the system of repression which he desires to see introduced is the " Con- tinental" one. I gather from this that Sir Charles desires to see restored the control over the Press given to the Executive by Act ix. of 1S78. The essence of this Act is that it takes the matter entirely out of the hands of the Judges and places it in the hands of the police, expressly barring the jurisdiction of both the civil and criminal Courts ; it also abolishes the distinction between " disaffection " and " disapprobation." This is what I understand to be meant by the " Continental " system. These, as you truly observe, are not the principles upon which we have hitherto governed India, and I cannot but hope that the time has not yet come when Englishmen will be called to apply in India principles which, as Englishmen, they must abhor. I should like to add one word on behalf of the native Indian Press, which is, I think, just now getting more abuse than it deserves. I have for years read regularly extracts from a large number of native newspapers. The criticisms I have met with are some- times severe, but for the most part respectful. There is occasionally strong "disapprobation," but very rarely "dis- affection." if any one doubts this let him take in for a time the Indian Spectator (itself edited by a native) and read the articles from native papers very copiously quoted in the supplement entitled the " Voice of India."—I am, Sir, &e.,