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

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 20, 1858.

opinion, accustomed to talk a little too much, nevertheless
a
as very high authority upon the subject,—he meant Mr.
wHseidsy ; and what did Mr. Halliday say ? Why, he
writes :
The administration of justice is nowhere alleged to be worse
is Otple than it is within our own districts ; and it could not be
poAsiblo in the most bat barous country in the world to discover
-anything more atrocious as a system than Id laid open in the
recent report of the c•mtnisaionors appoiuted to inquire into
the practice of torture in the territories of Madras.
Anti the same view was expressed by Mr. M'Leod Wylie,
Judge of one of the Supreme Courts. Such were the
statements of the highest Indian official in India with re-
spect to our Government. [Mr. Mangles said, the autho-
rity last quoted was not a Judge of the Supreme Court.]
He believed that he was a judge of some kind. In his
opinion, the Government of India would have been better
employed of late years in reforming its own internal admi•
nistration than in wasting its energies and its resources in
the annexation of native States and the extension of its
territory.
The hon. member concluded by moving for certain
papers.
Mr. V. SMITH submitted that the cause assigned
was only one out of many influences respecting
which little was yet known by any one either in
England or India. He denied the existence, at any
time, of what could be called a policy of annexation.
He admitted the responsibility of the Government
in the annexation of Oude, and so far as the cen-
sures pronounced uuon the Court of Directors and
Board of Control were well founded they strength-
ened the ,Nise for the bill which the Governrwmt
bad prepared to remodel the Indian system of ad-
ministration. The right hon. member justified the
Persian war as having added materially to our
"prestige," and proceeded to vindicate the act of
Lord Dalhousie in annexing Oude. The abuses of
the native Government in that province had become
insupportable, and he should recommend Mr.
Baillie to read the " Private Life of an Eastern King."
The c rrespondence moved for contained, be be-
lieved, nothing objectionable, nor anything myste-
rious, and he was perfectly willing to prcduce it.
Lord J. RUSSELL defended Lord Dalhousie, assert.
ing that the accusations so incessantly urged against
the late Governor-General in his absence were un-
worthy in character and founded on total ignorance
of the facts. Lord Dalhousie's conduct throughout
the transaction had been characterised by great
wisdom and moderation. On the other hand he
thought the conduct of the Government exhibited
" a want of prudence and foresight" in not only
not having taken the obvious precaution to measure
the British forces, but positively to have withdrawn
them from India in order to enter upon a " Persian
war." Lord John Russell concluded with some
admirable remarks upon " prestige " :
Ws were told upon a former occasion, and again to-
night, that the appearance of our troops in the Persian
Gulf would maintain our prestige in the East, but I am
really afraid that this dreadful mutiny winch has broken
au iu India will do more to weaken that prestige than any
sue.lesses we may have gained in Persia have strengthened
it. I cannot but recollect in the history of Europe an
instance of a great man—a very great man—who gave up
everything for prestige. When Napoleon went into Poland
he was at the head of 600,000 men. He advanced to
Smolensk. There every one of his marshals and generals
were of opinion he should have stopped and made his
winter quarters, hut he said. " If I do that what will be-
come of my prestige ? If I remain here all the winter
my prestige in Paris will be gone?" What followed was
the unfortunate campaign of Moscow. The next year by
a wonderful exercise of power and of the extraordinary
genius that he possessed he got together a new army and
stood the victor in two fields of battle, confranting the
whole armed power of Europe. Terms of peace were
offered to him then—terms which would have left him
almost the master of Europe. Ile saw that the terms
were excellent and that they left him master of France,
Italy, and Holland, but again he said, " If I surrender
anything, if I give up the title of Protector of the Con-
federacy of the Rhine, I shall lose my prestige," and the
consequence of that second sacrifice to the vain notion of
prestige was that lie lost the rest of his empire, and from
being the ruler of France became an exile in St. Helena.
Such are the consequences of not caring for substantial
reputation, substantial honoar, and pursuing in preference
the vain phantom prestige. We have seen what it has
done in India, and what it is still doing in China. I do
hope that. instead of following that vain delusion, in future
we shall follow the old English policy of doing that which
is right, that which is due to our own character, and let
reputation follow, as it is sure to do, upon acts.

Lord J. MANNERS, in an eloquent speech,
discussed at to tsiderable length the question
whether the annexation of Oude was just or
unjust, and defensible or not under tl e treaty.
Be maintained that the present King did really
listen to and act upon the advice given to him, and
that the general and vague charge of not acting in
conformity with the advice of the East India
Company, constitutinv, the alleged violation of the
treaty, was not substantiated by facts. But the
house, he said, had not heard the slightest reference
to the Treaty of Ilth September, 1837, which pro-
hibited the annexation of any part of the dominions
fit the King of Oude. and if that treaty was in force
1850 the annexation was a flagrant violation of it.
The Treaty of 1837 had been ratified by the Go-

vernor-General in council. To the 7th and Bth
articles of that document it was that he wished to
call particular attention, and they, it would be found,
prohibited the annexation of any portion of the
territory of Dude. The 7th article set forth that
the British Government in order to remedy some
defects in the system of police claimed to them-
selves the right of appointing its own officers and of
having the expenditure connected with their main.
tenance defrayed out of a certain territory in the
kingdom of Oude; while in the Bth article it was
declared that steps would be taken to place the
territory thus assumed upon such a footing as to
facilitate its restoration to the sovereign of Oude
when the proper time arrived. In a letter written
by Lord Auckland to the King of Oude, dated Simla,
July Bth, 1839, there was this passage:—

Let it not remain beneath the veil of seeress and conceal•
meat, or be bidden from the light reflecting mirror of your tnin.l,
that lately much discussion has been carried on between the
Coto tof Directors of exalted dignity and myself, by meatus of
a wri, ten correspondence, touching the recent tresty of the lith

- -
of beptember, Now, taking into con•ideration that the
expense entailed by the tuxiliary force—viz., sixteen lace
(100,0001. sterling) per annum, might be the cause of interrupt-
ing the administration and amelioration of your kingdom, the
sail expense became the subject of their grave deliberations.
From the period you ascended the throne your Majesty has, in
comparison with times past, g.eatly unproved tile kingdom,
and I have, In consequence, been authorised by the Court of
Directors to inform you that "if I think it advisaale for the
present I may" relieve your Majesty from part of the clause
of the treaty alluded to, by which clause expense is laid upon
your Majesty.
Hoping that your Majesty may continue to rule )our country,
as you have hitherto done, with justic, equity, and anxiety fur
the welfare of your ■ubjects,-1 sic, &c.,
AUCKLAND.
If Lord Dalhousie's statement, that the Home
Government disavowed the treaty as soon as they
heard of it, were correct, the declaration made by
Lord Auckland in July, 1839, and just quoted by
him, was either a deliberate fiction or a gross and
scandalous concealment of the facts from the King.
On the 10th April, 1856, the Duke of Argyll, in
reply to Lord Ellenborough, denied this treaty.
Lard Ellenborough, who, as Governor• General, must
have known all the obligations which were binding
on the Government of the King of Oude, observed :

The Directors Old not disallow the whole of the Treaty of
IS3:, but only that portion of it which related to the payment by
the King of Oude of 1.60,0:;0/. for a military establishment of
British officers.
Lord Broughton, who was at the head of the Board
of Control when the treaty between Lord Auckland
and the King of Oude was signed, happened to be in
the House of Lords on that evening, and confirmed
Lord Ellenborough's statement :

He had had a long correspondence with Lord Auckland on
the subject, both public and private, and it was his impression
certainly that the Treaty of 1+,37 was ratified by the Govern-
ment at home alter the disallowance referred to. Tho whole of
the treaty was not disallowed, but only one portion of it.
Here, then, they saw Lord Auckland, two years after
the treaty was signed, telling the King of -Oude that
lie was authorised by the Home Government to remit
a portion of it which pressed heavily on his Majesty,
while the Earl of Dalhousie distinctly averred that
the treaty was annulled by the Home Government.
On the other hand, the Earl of Ellenborough and
Lord Broughton declared that the treaty was never
disallowed, and Lord Hardinge evidently acted under
the same impression. He made, in conclusion, a
strong appeal to the house to do justice in this matter,
expressing his deliberate opinion that our course of
safety lay in a course of justice towards the native
princes. Prestige was of two kinds :
There was a prestige which attached to our military
renown and to our military exploits, and there was also a
prestige which attached, or which used to attach, to our
character for justice and good faith. Those immortal
heroes who bad shed their blood upon the plains of India
had amply and gloriously gained the first, and it was now
for the House of Commons to attempt as far as they could
to restore and vindicate the latter. He called upon the
noble lord—whose love of justice, whose hatred of oppres-
sion, and whose contempt for the vain glare and glitter of
military prestige were well known—to second, instead of
thwarting the endeavours of his hon. friend to drag these
disgrAcetul events into the light of day.
The noble lord then moved for certain additional
papers.
Mr. R. MANGLES accepted his full share of respon-
sibility for the annexation of Oude. With regard to
the treaty of l8:17, it was the fact, as stated by Lord
Dalhousie, that it was disallowed by the Court of
Directors, although it was true that Lord Auckland
did not tell the King of Oude that the whole of that
treaty had been abrogated :
-

It was certainly true that Lord Auckland communicated
to the King of Oude only a part of the despatch of the
court of Directors as to the abrogation of the treaty of
1,07 ; but at that time there was no intention of annexing
the kingdom of Oude.
In his opinion the annexation of Oude had nothing
to do with the present disturbances in India, which
he regarded as a purely military mutiny.
Colonel SYKES read a catalogue of the crimes and
atrocities which were committed in Oude from 1818
to 1854:—
There were dacoities 1,031, persons killed, 4,399 ;
persons wounded, 4,555; persons killed and wounded, not

175

separately specified, 2,o6o—total killed and wounded,
11,014. Villages burnt and plundered, 547. Persons
forcibly carried off, 1,403 ; and suttees, 44. Such a state
of things was enough, he thought, to induce any one who
had the slightest particle of humanity to use every endeavour
to put a stop to it, but he would admit that it was a very
different thing to employ British power and influence and
to dethrone a king. When the proper time arrived, how-
ever, he would be perfectly prepared, as far as he personally
was concerned, to give all those explanations which no
doubt would be considered due from him with regard to
the annexation of Oude.

Mr. KINMAIRD maintained that the transaction, if
not altogether unwarrantable, was ill managed, and
led to heavy disasters.
Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the Treaty of 1837
with the King of Oude had been altogether ignored.
The infraction of that treaty was to the last degree
unjust and unrighteous.
The motion for papers was agreed to.
Mr. WRIGHTSON moved for leave to bring in a bill
amending an act passed in the reign of Queen Anne,
so far as it, related to the vacating of seats in Parlia-
ment upon accepting office.
On a division there appeared—For leave to bring
in the bill, 01 ; against, 1119: majority, 17.
Mr. GREER moved that an instruction should be
given to the Bank Acts Committee to inquire into
the operation of all the laws affecting the currency
in Great Britain and Ireland, and report what amend.
ments, if any, they may consider desirable. The bon.
member, in supporting his motion, recommended the
circulation of a certain limited quantity of bank-
notes of less value than 5/. _ _

Mr. CARDWELL submitted that the range of inquiry
already undertaken by the committee was sufficiently
extensive.
The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. MAGuritE obtained leave to introduce a bill to
provide compensation to tenant farmers in Ireland
for improvements they may have effected on the land
in their occupation.
Captain ANNESLEY having moved an address for
returns relating to the mortality among the soldiers
in the Foot Guards,
Mr. S. HERBERT proposed to add a return of the
number of non-commissioned officers and men dis-
charged from the Foot Guards during the same
period, distinguishing those discharged of reduction
as being under height, those discharged upon the
recommendation of the medical officers, and those
invalided, thus enlarging the scope f the proposed
return.

After some further remarks by Colonel North, Sir
J. Ramaden, and Sir W Codrington, the motion as
amended was agreed to.
The debate on the India Government Bill was
further adjourned until Thursday.
The house rose at ten minutes to one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WtnxEsnAT.

Mr. NArign, in moving the second reading of the
Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland) Bill, explained
its objects—namely, to ascertain the law upon the
suhject, which was now uncertain ; to consolidate and
amend it; and-to render it as complete as possible.
Sir G. GREY, on the part of the Government, made
no objection to the second reading of the bill, which
was accordingly read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. NAPIER, the Churches, /..7c.
(Ireland), Bill was also read a second time.