Our London correspondent, whose letter with regard to -the 
Indian revolt we published yesterday,” very properly referred to 
some of the antecedents which prepared the way for this violent 
outbreak. We propose to-day to devote a moment to continuing 
that line of reflections, and to showing that the British rulers of 
India are by no means such mild and spotless benefactors of the 
Indian people as they would have the world believe. For this 
purpose, we shall resort to the official Blue Books*** on the 
subject of East-Indian torture, which were laid before the House 
of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857.” The evidence, 
it will be seen, is of a sort which cannot be gainsayed. 

We have first the report of the Torture Commission at Madras,‘ 
which states its “belief in the general existence of torture for 
revenue purposes.” It doubts whether 

“anything like an equal number of persons is annually subjected to violence on 
criminal charges, as for the fault of non-payment of revenue.” 

It declares that there was 

“one thing which had impressed the Commission even more painfully than the 
conviction that torture exists; it is the difficulty of obtaining redress which 
confronts the injured parties.” 

The reasons for this difficulty given by the Commissioners are: 
1. The distances which those who wish to make complaints 
personally to the Collector *’ have to travel, involving expense and 
loss of time in attending upon his office; 2. The fear that 
applications by letter 

“will be returned with the ordinary indorsement of a reference to the 
Tahsildar” 

the district police and revenue officer—that is, to the very man 
who, either in his person or through his petty police subordinates, 
has wronged him; 3. The inefficient means of procedure and 
punishment provided by law for officers of Government, even 
when formally accused or convicted of these practices. It seems 
that if a charge of this nature were proved before a magistrate, he 
could only punish by a fine of fifty rupees, or a month’s 
imprisonment. The alternative consisted of handing over the 
accused 

“to the criminal Judge to be punished by him, or committed for trial before the 
Court of the Circuit.” 

The report adds that 

“these seem to be tedious proceedings, applicable only to one class of offenses, 
abuse of authority—namely, in police charges, and totally inadequate to the 
necessities of the case.” 

A police or revenue officer, who is the same person, as the 
revenue is collected by the police, when charged with extorting 
money, is first tried by the Assistant Collector; he then can appeal 
to the Collector; then to the Revenue Board. This Board may 
refer him to the Government or to the civil courts. 

“In such a state of the law, no poverty-stricken ryot 9° could contend against 
any wealthy revenue officer; and we are not aware of any complaints having been 
brought forward under these two regulations (of 1822 and 1828) by the people.” 

Further, this extorting of money applies only to taking the 
public money, or forcing a further contribution from the ryot for 
the officer to put into his own pocket. There is, therefore, no legal 
means of punishment whatever for the employment of force in 
collecting the public revenue. 

The report from which these quotations are made applies only 
to the Presidency of Madras; but Lord Dalhousie himself, writing, 

in September, 1855, to the Directors,* says that. 

“he has long ceased to doubt that torture in one shape or other is practiced by 
the lower subordinates in every British province.” 

The universal existence of torture as a financial institution of 
British India is thus Officially admitted, but the admission is made 
in such a manner as to shield the British Government itself. In 
fact, the conclusion arrived at by the Madras commission is that 
the practice of torture is entirely the fault of the lower Hindoo 
officials, while the European servants of the Government had 
always, however unsuccessfully, done their best to prevent it. In 
answer to this assertion, the Madras Native Association presented, 
in January, 1856, a petition to Parliament, complaining of the 
torture investigation on the following grounds: 1. That there was 
scarcely any investigation at all, the Commission sitting only in the 
City of Madras, and for but three months, while it was impossible, 
except in very few cases, for the natives who had complaints to 
make to leave their homes; 2. That the Commissioners did not 
endeavor to trace the evil to its source; had they done so, it would 
have been discovered to be in the very system of collecting the 
revenue; 3. That no inquiry was made of the accused native 
officials as to what extent their superiors were acquainted with the 
practice. 

“The origin of this coercion,” say the petitioners, “is not with the physical 
perpetrators of it, but descends to them from the officials immediately their 
superiors, which latter again are answerable for the estimated amount of the 
collection to their European superiors, these also being responsible on the same 
head to the highest authority of the Government.” 

Indeed, a few extracts from the evidence on which the Madras 
Report professes to be founded, will suffice to refute its assertion 
that “no blame is due to Englishmen.” Thus, Mr. W. D. Kohlhoff, 
a merchant, says: 

“The modes of torture practiced are various, and suitable to the fancy of the 
tahsildar or his subordinates, but whether any redress is received from higher 
authorities, it is difficult for me to tell, as all complaints are generally referred to the 
tahsildars for investigation and information.” 

Among the cases of complaint from natives, we find the 
following: 

“Last year, as our peasanum (principal paddy or rice crops) failed for want of 
‘rain, we were unable to pay as usual. When the jamabundy 3%?! was made, we 
claimed a remission on account of the losses, according to the terms of the 
agreement entered into in 1837, by us, when Mr. Eden was our collector. As this 
remission was not allowed, we refused to take our puttahs.392 The tahsildar then 
commenced to compel us to pay with great severity, from the month of June to 
August. I and others were placed in charge of persons who used to take us in the 
sun. There we were made to stoop and stones were put on our backs, and we were 
kept in the burning sand. After 8 o’clock, we were let to go to our rice. Suchlike ill 
treatment was continued during three months, during which we sometimes went to 
give our petitions to the collector, who refused to take them. We took these 
petitions and appealed to the Sessions Court, who transmitted them to the 
collector. Still we got no justice. In the month of September, a notice was served 
upon us, and twenty-five days after, our property was distrained, and afterward 
sold. Beside what I have mentioned, our women were also ill treated; the kittee was 
put upon their breasts.” 

A native Christian states in reply to questions put by the 
Commissioners: 

“When a European or native regiment passes through, all the ryots are pressed 
to bring in provisions, &c., for nothing, and should any of them ask for the price of 
the articles, they are severely tortured.” 

There follows the case of a Brahmin, in which he, with others of 
his own village and of the neighboring villages, was called on by 
the Tahsildars to furnish planks, charcoal, firewood, &c., gratis, 
that he might carry on the Coleroon bridge work; on refusing, he 
is seized by twelve men and maltreated in various ways. He adds: 

“T presented a complaint to the Sub-Collector, Mr. W. Cadell, but he made no 
inquiry, and tore my complaint. As he is desirous of completing cheaply the 
Coleroon bridge work at the expense of the poor and of acquiring a good name 
from the Government, whatever may be the nature of the murder committed by 
the Tahsildar, he takes no cognizance of it.” 

The light in which illegal practices, carried to the last degree of 
extortion and violence, were looked upon by the highest authority, 
is best shown by the case of Mr. Brereton, the Commissioner in 
charge of the Loodhiana District in the Punjaub in 1855. 
According to the Report of the Chief Commissioner for the 
Punjaub,* it was proved that 

“in matters under the immediate cognizance or direction of the Deputy- 
Commissioner, Mr. Brereton himself, the houses of wealthy citizens had been 

causelessly searched; that property seized on such occasions was detained for 
lengthened periods; that many parties were thrown into prison, and lay there for 
weeks, without charges being exhibited against them; and that the laws relating to 
security for bad character had been applied with sweeping and indiscriminating 
severity. That the Deputy-Commissioner had been followed about from district to 
district by certain police officers and informers, whom he employed wherever he 
went, and that these men had been the main authors of mischief.” 

In his minute on the case, Lord Dalhousie says: 

“We have irrefragable proof—proof, indeed, undisputed by Mr. Brereton 
himself——that that officer has been guilty of each item in the heavy catalogue of 
irregularities and illegalities with which the chief Commissioner has charged him, 
and which have brought disgrace on one portion of the British administration, and 
have subjected a large number of British subjects to gross injustice, to arbitrary 
imprisonment and cruel torture.” 

Lord Dalhousie proposes “to make a great public example,” 
and, consequently, is of opinion that 

“Mr. Brereton cannot, for the present, be fitly intrusted with the authority of a 
Deputy Commissioner, but ought to be removed from that grade to the grade of a 
first class Assistant.” 

These extracts from the Blue Books may be concluded with the 
petition from the inhabitants of Talook* in Canara, on the 
Malabar coast, who, after stating that they had presented several 
petitions to the Government to no purpose, thus contrast their 
former and present condition: 

-“While we were cultivating wet and dry lands, hill tracts, low tracts and forests, 
paying the light assessment fixed upon us, and thereby enjoying tranquillity and 
happiness under the administration of ‘Ranee,’> Bhadur and Tippoo, the then 
Circar° servants, levied an additional assessment, but we never paid it. We were not 
subjected to privations, oppressions or ill-usages in collecting the revenue. On the 
surrender of this country to the Honorable Company,‘ they devised all sorts of 
plans to squeeze out money from us. With this pernicious object in view, they 
invented rules and framed regulations, and directed their collectors and civil 
judges to put them in execution. But the then collectors and their subordinate 
native officials paid for some time due attention to our grievances, and acted in 
consonance with our wishes. On the contrary, the present collectors and their 
subordinate officials, desirous of obtaining promotion on any account whatever, neglect 
the welfare and interests of the people in general, turn a deaf ear to our 
grievances, and subject us to all sorts of oppressions.” 

— We have here given but a brief and mildly-colored chapter 
from the real history of British rule in India. In view of such facts, 
dispassionate and thoughtful men may perhaps be led to ask 
whether a people are not justified in attempting to expel the 
foreign conquerors who have so abused their subjects. And if the 
English could do these things in cold blood, is it surprising that 
the insurgent Hindoos should be guilty, in the fury of revolt and | 
conflict, of the crimes and cruelties alleged against them?