The Press.
London, England, 1855-09-01 00:00:00

NATIVE STATES.

IT has been alleged that those persons must
needs be the foes of humanity and the sup
porters of every kind of abuse who are opposed
in principle to the unnecessary annexation of
native States. It is true that some of the
greatest men and soundest thinkers have
joined in this opposition, but that is held of
little import among the possessors of the new
light. Under these circumstances it may not
be amiss to offer some observations calculated
to remove the erroneous impression to which
we have referred. We shall thus show that if
the objection be true of any one, it certainly is
not true of ourselves.

To just and necessary war in India we are
not, and never have been, opposed. If a
native Power like Gwalior chooses to persist
in the violation of its treaties, and assume an
attitude which can leave no doubt of its
hostilo intentions to us, we can see no reason
for hesitating, after expostulation has proved
fruitless, to attack it at once, and so anticipate
its blow. Accordingly, we hold that there
never was a more justifiable battle fought than
that fought under Lord ELLENBoaOOOu's orders

at Mahragpore. In the same manner, if another
native State enters formally into a treaty with
us, and then deliberately tears that treaty up,
makes a murderous attack upon our envoy,
consigns to plunder the Embassy, and then,
sets tire to it and whatever in it remains—in
that case, also, we hold that there is nothing
to restrain us from inflicting the chastisement
duo to so shameless an outrage on us as a
nation. On that ground we share in none of
the mock-humanity exhibited by some persons
in discussing the case of the Ameers of Sciude.
Again, if a great native Power seeks employ-
ment for its lawless soldiery by holding out to
their ambition the conquest of a neighbouring
State, and that State ourselves, of course there
is nothing to prevent our doing to it as it has
sought to do to us. And therefore no states-
man was ever more fully justified in resorting
to arms than was Lord HARDINOE in the first
Seik war.

But there are cases wholly dissimilar from
the cases which the later defenders of the
principle of annexation bring up. To annexa-
tion per fag we have no objection—it is against
annexation per nefas that we exclaim. Annexa-
tion grounded on the allegation that our
government is better than the government we
would supersede we view with suspicion, be
cause the truth of this allegation is very
doubtful; and, even were it not so, the mis-
government we protested against is within our
power to remedy, being very much due to our
own officials' misconduct or neglect. Wher-
ever we see gross misgovernment prevailing,
our envoys have the fullest power to remon-
sti-ate—a power often exercised in Europe with
effect, and which would be tantamount to a
command when used towards any native State.
Possessing, as wo do by treaty, the right of
directly naming the Minister, or of interpos-
ing a veto on any improper nomination of a
Minister by the native sovereign, and having
equally by right of treaty a great latitude of
interference in respect to all that the Minister
thinks fit to do, it is clear that if we fail to
give that salutary turn to the measures of any
native sovereign which it may be desirable to
give, the fault must lie in a very great measure
with ourselves. But even were it otherwise,
were the right to interfere to prevent bad go-
vernment less clear under treaties than it is, it
would be absurd to suppose that our endea-
vours honestly put forward could be fruitless,
or our duly supported remonstrances un-
attended to. The power that enables us to
absorb any native State at pleasure is quite
sufficient to insure our remonstrances being
listened to when they are just. The real
cause of their passing unheeded when offered
is, that no serious attempt is ever made for
their enforcement. On the contrary, the
Machiavellian principle seems to have been
deliberately adopted lately, of encouraging to
the uttermost native misgovernment, in order
to furnish an excuse for annexing such terri-
tories as we covet. It is thus that the through-
thick-and-Chin advocates of annexation are the
real abettors of inhumanity and misgovern-
ment, and not those who, like ourselves,
would by timely reforms prevent the occasion
or necessity for it.
While we pstly reprobate a policy on their
parts so iniquitous, we cannot help equally
condemning the method they have recently
adopted to enforce it. In publishing the
history of the " Private Life of an Eastern
Kingr who is long since dead, as a justi-
ficatory plea for the present annexation of
Oude, they are imitating the conduct of those
Chartist leaders who have published similar
scandalous, though for the most part untruth-
ful, memoirs of a Western King, for the
avowed purpose of bringing monarchy into
disrepute in England. In the same manner
the first French Revolution was preceded by a
floc,d of similar libels on the nobility and
Royal Family of France. If professed revolu-
tionists held the reins of power at the India-
house, the proceedings in question would, of
course, be intelligible; but that men saddled
with the grave responsibilities of government
should adopt such a course shows how little of
calm reflection is to he found among the
present rulers of our Eastern empire. The
can
e of a
life
dissipated
foran
king
abrogationor nobleman
afford
nojust ground
the monarchy and a confiscation of all lands