The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

THE REBF.LTION IN INDIA.

Mr. BAILLIF. called attention to " the causes which
have led to the rebellion in her Majesty's dominions
in the East." He began by referring to the various
hypotheses upon which the different Indian poli-
ticians had endeavoured to account for the mutiny of
the Bengal army, and the causes to which they had
ascribed it. On one hand it was called a military
mutiny, on the other a national revolt. The general
opinion which prevailed was that this rebellion had
had its origin in a conspiracy on the part of a portion
of the Mahomedan population of the country ; that
the greased cartridges was an incident adroitly taken
advantage of by the conspirators to secure the sym-
pathy a►,d support of the Indian sepoys, and that
that proceeding was to a great degree successful.
They believed that this conspiracy was suggested to
the native population by the favourable opportunity
which presented itself in consequence of the state
and condition to which the Government of India was
reduced by the course of policy which had of late
years been pursued, and by the reckless disregard of
consequences with which that policy had been carried
into effect. Eminent Indian statesmen had re-
corded their opinion that the wholesale annexation
of native States was alike impolitic and unjust. He
cited condemnations of that policy by the late Duke
of Wellington, Sir T. Munro, Mr. M. Elphinstone,
and Lord Ellenborough, and enumerated the States
which since 1833, when the annexation policy com-
menced, had been incorporated with the British
dominions in India:—

First of all we began with the small State of Coorg ; that
was f 'Rowed by the annexation of Sattara; then came, at
no great distance of time, the annexation of the immense
territory of the Ameers of Scinde, next the annexatton or
the I'unjaub, after that of the territory of Pegu, then oP
Nagpore, and finally the seizure of the kingdom of ()al,
All these territories, and some other smaller principalities,
had been annexed to our Indian empire within that short
period without the addition to the army of a single litiro•
peau soldier.

Mr. Baillie then adverted to the circumstances at.
tending tho annexation of Oude while we wero
engaged in a war with Persia, and when the number
of European troops in India had been reduced ; and
he declared that the manner in which that measure
had been carried into effect, by the derangement and
dislocation of all the ancient machinery of adininis•
tration in that province, reflected the greatest dis.
credit upon Lord Dalhousie and upon the Govern..
ment

The annexation of Outle was no ordinary operation. It
was not a mere transference of power from the King of
Outle to the. Governor-Gencial, but it was the dislocation
of all the machinery by which the government had been
conducted iu that country for ages. The government of
Oude had been carried on by the feudal nobility of India.
The great feudal chiefs, the Chtiekletlars, commanded
large districts of the country, and they maintained bodies
of troops in their pay, numbering from UAW to 10,i)0
men each. Could it be supposed that those men, with
arms in their hands, would allow themselves to be swept
away by the British Government without attemptin;
resistance ? Besides, the annexation of Oude involved an
alteration in the tenure of land winch more or less affected
the position of every Oude sepoy in the Bengal army, for
they were all the sons of farmers or small proprietors in
Oude. What was the effect? No sooner did the chiefs of
Oude hear of the intentions of the British Government
thin they petitioned the King of Oude to be allowed to
resist, offering to bring 100,000 men into the field with
suitable artillery. The King of Oude refused, and issued
a proclamation instead, announcing his submission to the
British Government. That step for the moment paralysed
the efforts of the chiefs ; but they immediately entered
into correspondence with the sepoys in the force under Sir
J. Outram, which was on the frontiers of Oude, and they
received the assurance of those men that in the event of a
resistance in Oude they would not fire a shot against their
countrymen. In the meanwhile the Governor•Ueeeral and
his council were in a fool's paradise—they were perfectly
at their ease; but there was one man in India who was
not at his ease, who warned the Government, wholpointed
out the folly of the course they were pursuing and the
dangerous consequences that must inevitably result. That
man was the late lamented Sir H. Lawrence. Sir H.
Lawrence published an article in the Calcutta Review, in
which he said :

The King of Oude employed 59,0110 soldiers; his chiefs and
officials at least as many more. Of these vast numbers one.
fifth at the utmost have found ernploNment in the police and
irregular corps. Yet these levies. with half a drzeu regular
corps, form the whole army of occupation. This seems a grave
mistake. Why not at least make a change? Why not move
Rome of the I'unjanh reghnents that have beau keeping constant
watch and ward nu the Indus for seven years to Oude. and send
some uftha King's people to the uorth•west? The King had
some B,ovo artillery; of these about WO may have obtained em-
ployment; the rest—old and young—are on the world. Surely,
if there was danger in employing Sikhs in /84'J it would be well
to remove smite portion of the Oude levies from Oude, where
such materials for mischief still remain. In the province are
176 forts, besides innumerable smaller strongholds, many of
them sheltered within thick jungles. In these forts are 4, 6 guns.
Forts and guns should all be in the hands of Government, or the
forts should b , razed. Many a foolish fellow has been urged on
to his own ruin by the possession of a paltry fort, and many
paltry mud fort has repulsed British troops. . . . • Tile
80,000 or 90,000 disbanded Oude soldiers are the brethren of th•
British sem& The earliest days of annexation are not th,,
safest-

The warning voice of Sir H. Lawrence was raised in vain.
He gave no opinion regarding the wisdom of the
annexation policy, but he complained of the faulty
manner in which it had been carried out. Some of
these acts might be,eothers were not, measures of
necessity ; but he confined himself to what ho con-
sidered to be the immediate cause of the late disasters
in Ir.dia—the annexation of Oude. He traced the
history of this measure, in which, he said, Lord Dal-
housie had been merely an instrument, and con-
demned in severe terms the plea or pretext fur he izin;
the possessions of the King of Oude—nainely,,
the oppressiveness of his government,—which, in
his opinion, was more disgusting than open
violence :

Was there no such thing as misgovernment in Iltitislt
territory in India? The people of this country had been
so long accustomed to look with favourable eyes upon our
role in India—they had been so kng accustomed to regard
it as a mild paternal despotism exercised for the benefit of
the people of India— that their minds had been somewhat
shocked by the disclosures which had lately been made as
regarded oppression to the natives, and their faith had
been somewhat shaken in the paternal nature of the
government. Now, from whom bad those revelations
come? Why, from men of the highest authority in India,
and who held the highest positions in that country. Sir
C Napier had been one of the first to reveal the real con-
dition of the Bengal army, and he had told us that we were
resting upon a volcano which might at any time burst and
overwhelm us, but his advice was unheeded. Civilians, too,.
of the highest rank had revealed the state and condition of
their own government, and first and foremost of those who
had done so stood one name, the name of a gentleman
which had repeatedly been quoted in the debate upon the
previous evening, a gentleman who, although, in his