The Press.
London, England, 1857-09-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 12, 1857.

Governor-General should bo compelled to
resort to the exercise of the authority vested
in him by this article, ho should endeavour, as
far as possible, to maintain (with such improve-
ments as they might admit of) the native
institutions and forms of administration
within the assumed territories, so as to facili-
tate the restoration of them to the Sovereign
of Oude when tkie proper period for such re-
storation should arrive.
Whether such misgovernment had taken
place or not as to justify the interference
herein conditionally agreed to by the King's
predecessor, is a disputed point. But amid
the conflicting statements put forth by the
King and by the late Governor-General it may
be observed that three things are very clear :
First—that whatever misgovernment had taken
place in Oude it had not exceeded, if indeed
it had equalled, the misgovernment, as por-
trayed in the missionaries memorial, that had
taken place within Lord Dalhousie's own more
immediate government of Bengal. Second—
That to any misgovernment in Oude the
British agents of the Governor-General had
been for the most part parties, even if they
had not., as alleged by the King, been the chief
occasion of it. And third—That, whether the
government of Oude was good or bad, it was
preferred by the people there to the govern-
ment of the Company, as the present universal
rising to throw the latter off proclaims. In
any case, however, the interference of the
Governor-General was limited by treaty to
the temporary assumption of the reins of
power on behalf of and as trustees for the
King—accounting to him duly for the surplus
revenues, and maintaining the native institu-
tions and forms of administration intact.
Had the interference of Lord Dalhousie
been bounded by the conditions which this
treaty laid down, there can be little doubt
that the royal family would have acquiesced in
it, as would the nobility and people of Oude.
But this would not suit the avaricious policy
of this grasping peer, who, if he had an eye, as
he alleges, to the condition of the people,
appears to have had another, and a far sharper
one, to the benefit the imperial treasury
would derive from the surplus revenues of
Oude. There were not wanting warning voices
at the time to point out the delusion under
which be laboured as to the supposed facility
and safety of the proceeding, and the pecu-
niary advantages that would be gained. But
on his ears the voice of wisdom and experience
ever fell in vain. The annexation was made.
Instead of riches we have reaped only mas-
sacres and dishonour; and while the British
nation lasts the memory will continue of the
ferocious vengeance taken by the natives for
the spoliation of Oude. How far the King
personally has been a party to this savage out-
break it is of course impossible to say, but the
idea seems hardly compatible with the cha-
racter of him which the late Governor-General
and his agents portrayed. It seems at least
as reasonable to assume that it has sprung
from the indignation of the people at the
treatment of their sovereign, and from resent-
ment of the personal injuries inflicted on them-
selves. For the annexation was followed at
once by the introduction of the Company's
system, or, in other words, by universal spolia-
tion and confiscation of pensions, salaries, and
proprietary rights in laud. Indeed, if the story
be true that no less than forty thousand peti-
tions wore presented against the proceedings
of our officials by sepoys of our own army alone
(petitions which are said to have been wholly
disregarded), there is sufficient cause shown
for all that has occurred, without necessarily
assuming the personal complicity of the King.
Of course the work under review was written
before this bloody protest against the policy
of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Pahnerston had
been made, and the author leaves his cause to
the justice of the English people, to whom
alone he contemplated an appeal. Other
elements, however, have now entered into the
question, and these will have a larger share
than any. consideration of legal right or title
in the final disposal of Oude. Meantime, deep
is the responsibility of the Ministry that has
sanctioned a spoliation so unjustifiable, and
which has led to such disastrous results. It
is the Ministers, far more than the mutineers
at Delhi, whom the uatioa has to thank for the