The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-06 00:00:00

TI -1B SUN, 1,0.1\ DON, FRIOA NING,

and this is the right season to undertake the work,
before another winter comes in with all its horrors
of inclement weather to terrify the poverty-stricken
and strike down the feeble. If a better Bp tern be
not devised, when the present has so grievously
failed, it will be a lasting shame to all concerned in
the conduct of affairs, and must inevitably draw
down the indignation of the community.

The policy of annexation has long been denounced
by all conscientious and reflective men. That course
so long followed by our Anglo-Indian administrators
has been felt to be justified neither by right reason
nor expediency. Like all manifest injustice, it

ended in producing indirectly an amount of loss and
injury more than commensurate with any temporary

advantage. It alienated the minds of the natives

'rom our rule, it made them auspicious of every

movement and fostered the idea that our secret
motive was to root out the ancient faith of the

Hindoos, and virtually to annihilate the people.
The feeling of enmity thus cherished bore bitter
fruits in the terrible year 1857; but the lesson
learnt in those disastrous months has had its effect.
It called the attention of England to the manner in
which her Indian Empire was governed ; it con'
vinced her that it was her duty, no less than her

nterest, to inaugurate a change in the administra-
tion of affairs in her vast Eastern dependencies, and

happily the consideration of what may be the most
materially remunerative course is no longer the
ruling question. The broad principles of justice,
humanity, and toleration, enunciated in the famous

Proclamation which transferred the Government of
India from the Company to the Crown, have at
least become the recognised form on which our
administration should be modelled, however much

;hey may be disregarded by individuals confirmed

n the contrary prejudices. Unfortunately, the

enlightened statesman who presided at the India
Office at the time of the transition has been replaced
by a Secretary of State of entirely opposite views.
In many instances, Sir CHARLES WOOD has, unfor-
tunately, deemed it expedient to reverse Lord

STANLEY'S principles of action; but the public will
learn, with as much surprise as indignation, that
he favours that system of selfish and reckless
annexation which has brought the name of DAL..
HousiE into such discredit in India. The story of
Dhar,* as told by Mr. DICKINSON, even accept-
ing only half his statements as facts, is
one of those narratives of oppression, injns•
tice, rapacity, and cruelty, which cannot fail
to excite the warmest indignation when fully and
fairly told. Allowing for exaggeration or acri-
mony there are some indisputable facts. Thus there
is no denying that the state of Dhar was, subse-
quently to the mutiny, annexed to the British
Crown, on frivolous and unjust charges, or that the
attention of the Board of Control having been called
to the affair,Lord STANLEY, after examining into it►
thought fit unconditionally to disallow that annexa-
tion. The State had been confiscated on the plea

that it was expedient to demonstrate to the native
princes and chiefs that the British Government held
the Darhars responsible for the conduct of their
armies, and the mercenary troops of Dhar having

joined the rebellion, such a punishment was con
eidered advisable. Lard STANLEY, in his despatch
of June, 1858, very justly observes that " we could
not consistently punish this or any other weak
state for its inabili:y to control its troops, when it
was patent to the whole world that the more power-
ful states of Gwalior and Indore, and even the
British Government itself were unable to control
theirs." The Home Government therefore directed
that the attachment of the state should only con-
tinue pending the investigations into the instiga-
tors of the outbreak ; that those convicted should
bo punished, and that arrangements should be
made for restoring his inheritance to the young
Rajah, and the young Prince being a minor, a
Regency was necessarily to be appointed. This
despatch, as we have said was written in June, 1858.
We are now approaching June, 1864, and not one
of its directions has been carried into effect. As
the title of Mr. DICKINSON'S work tells us, Dhar is
not restored, " in spite of the House of Commons
and of public opinion," neither, apparently, is there
much chance of its being so unless the House of
Commons bestirs itself in the matter. The young
Rajah is kept in the background, and declared, by
interested parties, to be incapable of exercising the
functions of Government, although, according
to Mr. ✓ICKINSON'S testimony, he is master of
three languages and of more than ordinary
intelligence. The State income and the revenues
of the RaJAH's family have been seized, and all
allowance withheld from the unfortunate Ranees,
both of whom have succumbed during the last
six years to the humiliations, the poverty, and
the anxiety of their degraded position. The trea-
sures and jewels of the State, valued at £BO,OOO,
have been seized, the heirlooms of the royal family
sold by auction, and the proceeds divided as prize-
money, which reached such a large amount that it
was last year stated that every private soldier
would receive about £4O. This is bad enough,
without Mr. DICKINSON'S explanation, that the
insurrection of the mercenary troops at Dhar was
entirely due to the supineness and negligence of
Col. DURAND, their officiating agent for the
Governor-General in Central India, who was
charged with the command of a moveable column
intended for tke support of the native Govern-
ment, which he persisted in retaining at Mhow,
disregarding all applications for help from Dhar.
At the close of August, 1857, the klassulmen
seized the fort of Dhar. The Durbar at once
forwarded to Colonel DURAND a statement of the
event, with particulars of the guns, grain, trea-
sure, ammunition, &v., in the fort, and begged
him at once to send a detachment of British sol-
diers for the subjugation of the mutineers. The
application was refused, as were many subsequent
ones to the same effez.t. In 1858 the RANEE,
despairing of justice from the agent, addressed
the Governor-General in the following terms—
"From the day the Wellaitees seized the fort, con-
stant applications for assistance were submitted
to the British authorities. The importunity seemed
at last to be so distasteful, that even a reference
to the subject was deemed offensive." And this
was at a time when the adhesion of every native
prince or Durbar was of incalculable importance
to us! The poor RANEE had, however, reason to
think that the distaste for her appeals extended to
Calcutta, since the only notice of her letter wes an
intimation that it must be forwarded through the
official channel—that is through Colonel DURAND,
the very man of whose conduct she complained.
And it is on the ground of the outrages commit! ed
by the mercenary troops whose outbreak he refused
to quell that the whole estate of Dhar has been con-
fiscated, the Ranees hunted to death, and the whole
of the treasured heirlooms of the family dispersed
for prize money to men who certainly never fought
at Dhar. It must not be supposed that these state-
ments are only substantiated by the assertion of a
private individual, however trustworthy, since Sir
ROBERT HAMILTON, an experienced Anglo-Indian
official, remonstrated strongly with the Govern-
ment, but in vain. Great blame must be attached
to Lord CANNING for deliberately disregarding in-

* " Dhar, not Restored in Spite of the Rouse of Commons
and of Public Opinion." By 7, Dickinson, F,8,A,5,,
King, Parliament-street,

structions from the Home-office without even com-
municating his extraordinary decision to his chief,
so long as Lord STANLEY retained office. Ques-
tions on the matter were disregarded; even a de-
spatch of March, 181;9, produced no effect; after
Sir C. WARD'S accession to office, however, Lord
CANNING forwarded a despatch justifying the an-
nexation. The Home Government, however,decided,
according to Sir C. WOOD'S reply to Lord STANLEY
in 1860, upon retaining the State only during the
young Prince's minority. As we have before stated,
frivolous excuses have since been made until it has
become but too evident that the good faith of Eng-
lishmen is not be trusted in India, and that Sir C.
WOOD looks with a favourable eye upon a policy of
annexation. It remains to be seen how the right
hon. baronet will exonerate himself when next
questioned, and what view the English Parliament
will take of a transaction so discreditable iu its
nature, and so totally opposed to every principle
upon which we profess to govern our Indian empire.