The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-17 00:00:00

THE SI7N, LONDON,
_WEDNESDAY EVENING,

nor as entitled him to the gratitude of this country. Lord
Dalhousie annexed that territory in the best manner in which
it could he done; but it was net his own notion, for Lord
Wellesley and Lord Hardinge and every successive Gover-
nor-General of India had entertained it. Oude was not
the richest territory in India, and the reason why it was
annexed was because it waa in the neighbourhood of our
own territory, and was one of the most misgoverned
nations on the face of the earth. The blue book, to which
he would refer the hon. gentleman, detailed all the horrors
of the government of that country. The hon. gentleman
said that the Government had dealt unfairly by the King
of Oude ; but it should be remembered that he was sup-
ported on his throne by British troops and received British
money. He had a warning in 1831, when Lord W. Ben-
tinck warned him to govern his people in a better manner
or the Britith Government would assume the direct man-
agement of his dominions. The King of Oude bad another
warning, in 1847, from Lord Harding°, who told his Ma-
jesty that if he procrastinated in putting his dominions
into better order he should be compelled to force him to
do so. Lord Harding° gave him two years to make a change
and Lord Dalhousie gave seven mare, but nothing was
done. The oppression of his people was the sole cause of
our interference, and it was carried on to such an extent
and rose to such a pitch that Lord Dalhousie felt bound to
annex the territory. How was that oppression main-
taine I, and how was it that the IKing was enabled to op-
press his people? Why, it was by our keeping him sup-
plied with British bayonets. The question came to be
discussed whether they should withdraw those troops, and
leave his kingdom to anarchy and confusion, or whether
they should take the management of his territory. Lord
Dalhousie adopted the latter, and as he (Ur. Y. Smith)
thought, the better course. In assuming the government
of Oade in that manner, the hon. gentleman said that
since that act the course for the troops to take was to
mutiny. That might be. The annexation might be justi-
able in itself, although it might lead to a result unforeseen.
He (Mr. V. Smith) wanted to know who did foresee what
had happened. When the hon. gentleman said the annexa-
tion of Oudo was the cause of the mutiny he should re-
member that it was not in Oude where the mutiny broke
out. It did not appear there until after it broke out at
Meerut. The hon. gentleman said it arose in consequenoe
of the number of sepoys employed from Oude in the army ;
but there were Oude sepoys in the Bombay army, and
there were some in other places, but Bombay and these
places remained quiet. The Onde army had fattened
upon the plunder of the people of Onde, and no doubt
when the annexation took place that army was broken
up and became discontented. The hon. gentleman
did not deny that the first accounts from Oude showed that
everything proceeded tranquilly and well, and that the
transfer of Oude itself to the British dominion passed over
without the loss of a drop of blood or a single murmur
being heard. The hon. gentleman said that in 1853, there
were secret orders sent out for the annexation of Oude.
Now .he (Mr. V. Smith) did not know from what book the
hon. gentleman gathered his information, and he evidently
had studied the subject so closely that he (Mr. V. Smith)
was loath to contradict him; but when he saw the
.hon.
gentleman's motion on the notice paper, he desired that
every inquiry should be made in his office respecting the
secret despatch, but it could not be produced, although the
inquiry was made by one of the ablest and most experienced
clerks ander the Crown. He also remembered that Lard
Glenelg, who was President of the Board of Control in
1853, seeing the hon. gentleman's notice, called upon him
(Mr. -V . Smith) an stated that he could not recollect any
such secret despatch. Further inquiry would be made, and
if the despatch were forthcoming, he certainly should have
ne objection to its being produced. It was not true that
her Majesty's Ministers had ordered the annexation of
Onde. Lord Dalhousie suggested the annexation himself.
In one of his despatches he pointed out the desirableness,
for the reasons already stated, of annexing the territory,
and he declared that he was ready to undertake the duty.
The hon. gentleman, therefore, was hardly justified in
assuming that the Government had originated the notion
of annexing Oude ; but they were responsible for in com-
mon with the Court of Directors, and they felt that no
option or alternative but the annexation was left them.
The opinion of General Lewe was in favour of annexation.
The right hon. gentleman read the opinion of the gallant
general to that effect, and it was chiefly founded on the
necessity of preventing misrule. That was also the opinion
of General Outram, who, of all others, had been the advo-

,
cate of the native princes, and of almost every person of
eminence who was consulted upon the subject of annexa-
tion. But ooming to another subject, namely, who were
responsible for the wars in India ? As to the war in Aff-
ghanistan, there was only one gentleman, Mr. Prinsep,
who opposed it. The Indian Government were as respon-
sible as the home Government. He thought the Board of
Control, being fully responsible to the Crown and Parlia-
ment of this country, might safely be trusted with the go-
vernment of India. As to the production of the papers, as
far as was in his power, they should all be produced; but
the letter of which he spoke was to him a perfect novelty ;
but, if it was in existence, it should be produced. He was
extremely anxious that every possible information on this
subject should be given to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said—l am not going to enter into
the general question of the cause of the mutiny in India.
Still less am I going to discuss the question, which stands
as an adjourned debate, of the fature government ef India.
But it seems to me that an impression has been made by
statements and comments respeoting the conduct of Lord
Dalhousie which it is but just to that noble lord to endea-
vour to settle. Lord Dalhousie governed India for a con-
siderable period of time—for six or seven years I think—
with great ability. (Hear.) He devoted the whole of his
time and his great ability to the duties of his high office', li
and exhausted his health in the performance of those
duties. (Near.) I think, therefore, it is unfair, now that
his health is broken down, and he has not the means of
coming forward in Parliament to defend his own character
and proceedings, that there should be imputations cast
from day to day on the character of that noble lord, which
it appears to me are not deserved. I do not pretend to
speak from any intimate knowledge or from any recent at-
tention to the government of Lord Dalhousie, but I col-
lect from papers laid before Parliament that the accusa-
tions made against Lord Dalhousie with regard to Oude,
on which the hon. gentleman dilated at considerable
length, are made in ignorance, if not in misconception.
The case of Chide is one which, as my hon. friend has ob-
served, is of half a century's duration. At the end of the
last century the state of Oude was so extremely bad and
notorious that Lord Wellesley thought it necessary to in-
terfere, and the manner in which he interfered was by the
adoption of two measures—one taking away half the ter-
ritory of the Vizier of Oude, and the other making a treaty,
by which he allowed a subsidiary fore of British troops to
support the vizier against all dangers external and inter-
nal, for which he received in return a promise that
the vizier would tako the advice of the East India Com-
pany and act in conformity thereto. That article has been
read by my right hon. friend, but the house will perceive
that the whole virtue of that part of the treaty lies in the
words that " the vizier was to act in conformity thereto."
He could not observe the treaty if he departed from the
advice given by the East India Colepeny. I think
it is Mr. Mill who observed that this proceeding of Lord
Wellesley was not founded on good reasoning, because it
was impossible for the Nawab to rule well the territory
which was to bo governed by his own vizier. The whole
territory ought to have been taken ; but if, on the other
hand, sufficient security was taken for the good goveru-
ment of that territory, it was unjust to deprive him of half.
It is not my business to say whether Lord Wellesley acted
right or wrong, but such was the treaty framed at that
time. From 1801 to 1834 thew was hardly a year in which
that treaty had no been violated by the government of
Oude, because the course of proceeding was this : —The
East India Company appointed a gentleman of rank and
respectability as a minister, and the vizier aceepted this
person as his minister. But the vizier undermined the
minister, and the minister was dismissed. The court re-
lapsed into a corrupt and profligate course, and to obtain
the immense sums necessary to support its luxurious and
corrupt practices the people were reduced to the last degree
of poverty, and when any resistance was made to the col-
lection of the taxes British troops were sent to enforce the
collection, The consequence was that a system of robbery,
oppression, and anarchy prevailed, and it was a great dis-
grace that such a system should be enforced by a contin-
gent of British troops, that the rroopsof her Majesty should
be employed to enforce that corrupt and vicious system.
The minister represented that the treaty was not observed,
that he could not allow it to be violated, and that some
course must be taken to put the affairs of the nawab on
another footing. That advice was listened to for two or
three months, but after that the old course was followed
by the Court of Oude. In 1835 Lord W. Bantinck, who
could not be accused of a violent spirit, and who used his
great power with as just a spirit of benevolence as any
Governor-General ever used power, said it was disgraceful
to any British Government, to the East India Company,
and to the monarchy, that this system should go on, and he
proposed one of two courses, either to withdraw the Brit isle
troopsentirely and declare the tr, aty at an end, or to annex
the territory and administer it by their own officers.
I think Lord Win. Bentinck advised the former of these
courses, but the result of his correspondence with the Court
of Directors was that they should endeavour to reform the
Government, and not put an end to the treaty. From 1435
to 1817 there was a succession of viziers. One was made
King, but still there was no essential change in the go-
vernment of the country. Lord Hardinge went himself to
Lucknow after the conquest of the Panjaub, he was so
seriously impressed with the state of things there. He gave
the most serious warning to the King that this state of
things could not continue. He placed before him the
annexation of Nagpore and others that had taken place,
and told him the British Government would feel itself
forced to take =agoras of a similar kind if some change
were not made. It was not till eight or nine years after
this that Lord Dalhousie, having succeeded to the govern-
ment. had time and leisure to consider the affairs of °ale,
after having been engaged with the affairs of the Punjaub.
The hon. gentleman made no attack on Lord Dalhousie
with respect to his conduct in the Panjaub. He admitted
that the war in the Panjaub was a war in self-defences, and
its conquest, instead of weakening our position in India,
had been a source of the greatest strength during the late
per iod. Lord Dalhousie considered the treaty with regard
to Oude. The hon. gentleman quoted what Lord Dalhousie
says in fairness of the King of Oude ; but the hon. gentle-
man, without the fairness of Lord Dalhousie, does not
quote anything of what ie said by Co'. Sleeman and Gen.
Outram, men who were connected with Omit). Lord Dal-
housie, with the greatest fairness, placed everything for
and against the government of Oude before the home
authorities; but the hon. gentleman omitted to refer to
whole pages of evidence against the King and government
of Onde. What is the first conclusion to which Lord Dal-
housie come ? He drew a conclusion similar to that which
Lord W. Bentinck drew in 1835, namely, that the course
for the British Government to take was to declare the
treaty at an end, not to take the administration into the
hands of the company, but to withdraw the whole of the
British troops, and to leave the King and government of
Onde the shame, confusion, and misgovernment which re-
sulted from their system, but leaving to ourselves the right
of interfering if our frontiers were interfered with or mo-
lested. I will not say whether that was a proper course or
not; but such is the course Lord Dalhousie recommended in
page 137 of the blue-book: —" The King's consent is indis-
pensable to the transfer of the whole or of any part of his
sovereign authority to the government of the East India
Company. It would not be expedient or right to endeavour
to extract this consent by means of menace or compulsion.
Iti
induce,)rts stclabilmesasvtooeught by leading the King to perceive that a
simple regard for his own interests and for the maintenance
of his family and throne, should of itself be sufficient to
give his
kingdom
consentdom
and
house
steh
from
which will surely follow
.his refusal tooeanal
which he bas sol
I would propose a
court shall be obt •
batons with the Coast dressed by the Gov
should proceed to :t
been directed to tied
quit the territory mtethreaet
shroueriesesfoourwltshuoui which
persisted. In pursuance of this policy,
that, as soon as the sanction of the hon.
need to the necessary change in our re-
art of Lucknow, a letter should be ad-
reor-General to the King. The letter
state that the resident had accordingly
of
oruedthe treaty of 1801 at an end, to
aidiary force within th e, and to withdraw the entire sub-
() British frontier,"
I,;cli wee hie

proposal after an elaborate investigation of everything that le
took place since 1801. But others differed from him, and
said that Oude should be taken into the hands of the Com-
pany. Gen. Lowe stated particularly that he differed from
Lord Dalhousie, and thought that the kingdom of Oude ,
should be annexed to our dominions. When the mattes
was referred home, Lord Dalhousie said it was necessary to
take some decision upon it. The Board of Control and the
Court of Directors said that the best course was not to re- ;
move the British force, as Lord Dalhousie hadadvised, but
to maintain' their force there, and assume the administra-
tion of the kingdom of Oude. I am now speaking of the '
policy which Lord Dalhousie originally advised; but when
he received these instructions, he carried them into effect
in the beat manner he could, as it was his duty to do.
He pursued that duty, and carried the whole of the coun-
cil with him in the proposal he then made, namely, that
the king must sign a new treaty by which the administra-
tion of 0 ude was to be conducted by the company's officers.
It would be impossible for Lord Dalhousie to refuse obe-
dience to instructions of this positive character. Ido not
wish to discuss the question whether or not this original
motion of Lord W. Bentinck and of Lord Dalhousie of
withdrawing the troops, or that of assuming the govern-
ment ourselves, was the right course to pursue, bat for 35
years the treaty we made having been constantly violated
by the sovereign of Oude, we were surely perfectly justified
in declaring that treaty at an end. It is said that we have
not observed our treaties with the King of Oude, but the
fact is that during the course of half a century we had
done that which was the unfortunate consequence of Lord
Wellesley's treaty, and which could not fail to tarnish the
British name—namely, using British troops in supeort of
a corrupt court, which was oppressing the people of Oude,
and this with a view if posible of carrying this treaty into
effect. After 55 years I think the time was come for put-
tine an end to that treaty. Such was the course which
Lord Dalhousie pursued, and notwithstanding what the
hon. gentleman said against him, it appears to me that he
acted with the greatest deliberation, that he gave his ad-
vice according to his conscientious view of the case, and
that in annexing it at last he did nothing bat what he was
bound to do, being at the time the servant of the crown,
and of the ast India Company. (Cheers.) But whatever
may be the justice of this proceeding with regard to its po-
licy, it appears to me that there was some want of prudence
in the mode of carrying that policy into effect. If it was de-
termined that the time was come when we must annex Oude
I think seeeing what was the nature of the population of the
country that the Zemindars could easily collect a number of
armed follower., it was the duty of the government whether
that government is the Board of Control or the Court of
Directors, to see that a sufficient force was collected not only
to prevent resistancein Oude but to see that obedience was
enforced by a sufficient number of British troops, and to
tread out at once any sparks of rebellion that might arise.
In that respect it was most unfortunate that at this very
moment we should have proposed the Persian war. Fresh
troops should have been sent from this country. Ido not
admire the policy of the Persian war, but if the Govern.
ment decided that it was necessary, they should not weaken
the force in India, especially in Oade, at the same time
that they were carrying into effect the energetic policy
which they directed Lord Dalhousie to pursue. It was un-
fortunate and ill-judged that they should carry into effect
these two modes of policy at the sane time. I wos sorry to
hear again from my right hon. friend that unfortunate
" prestige." We were told last year, and again to-night we
hear, that the appearance of our troops in the Persian Gulf
was a proof of our prestige; but the appearance of a dread-
ful mutiny in India has done more, I am afraid, to shake
that prestige than any success in Persia is likely to gain for
us. In reading the history of Europe I cannot but recollect
the instance of a great man giving up everything to pres-
tige. When Napoleon went upon the Russian campaign he
took with him an army of 600,000 men, and when he ad-
vanced to Smolensk° every one of his marshals and gene-
rals recommended him to go into winter quarters. "But,"
said he " if I do that, what will become of my prestige ? If
I remain a whole winter my prestige in Paris will be gone."
The unfortunate campaign of Moscow followed. Next year,
by the efforts of his extraordinary genius, he got together
a new army; he was master of two fields of battle, and con-
fronted the whole power of Europe. Terms of peace were
offered to him which would have left him master of nearly 1
all of Europe; they would have left him master of France,
Italy, and Holand. But he said, " If I surrender anything
--if I give up my title of `Protector of the Confederation of
the Rhine,' I lose my prestige.'" Well, ho fell; he lost his
prestige, he lost his empire, and went an exile to St Helena.
Such is the consequence of resigning true and substantial
honour, in order to follow the vain phantom of prestige.
(Hear.) We have seen what it has done for us in India—
we see what it is doing for us in China. (Cheers.) Instead
of followine this vain delusion of prestige, let us follow the
old English course of doing that which is right, that which
is due to our own character, and let reputation follow, as
it is sure to follow, a course of policy pursued in such a
BPil it. (Loud cheers.)
lord JOHN. MANNERS, notwithstanding that ho had
greatly admired the concluding sentiments of the noble
lord, must remind him that if the health of Lord Dalhousie
10.1 been impaired iu India, a Queen Mother of Oude had
died in the city of Palls, that thousands of lives had been
sacrificed, and millions of treasure expended in conse-
quence of the policy of annexation. The right hon. gen-
tleman the President of the India Board had charged
against his noble friend that although for two whole years
the kingdom of Oade had been annexed to the company's
dominions, neither he nor any of his friends had thought
of questioning that policy until after the news of the mu-
' tiny reached England. Now he would grapple with that
statement at once, and he would appeal to the records of
both Houses of Parliament in proof of his denial. Why
at the very moment the news of the mutiny reached this
country, there were actually on the votes of both houses
notices impugning the annexation of Oade; but owing to
the altered position of affairs, it was deemed advisable not
to persevere with these motions. But after all, the main
question was, the policy of annexation, in accordance with
treaties. It was said that ever since the treaty of 1801,
ruler after ruler had systematically violated its provi-
sions. Well, in that contingency, what he was prepared to
contend for was that the sole penalty which, according to
treaty, the company was justified in imposing upon the
sovereigns of Onde was the withdrawal of British troops
from the territory of Oude. But was it so true that the
present King of Oude did regard the advice which had
been tendered to him ? He was prepared to prove that it
was a tetal misstatement of the facts of the
ease to say that the present king had violated the treaty.
The king ascended the throne in 1817, and hardly had he
done so when he received a visit from Lord Hardinge.
Well, scarcely had Lord Hardinge quitted his dominions
than he took a most decided course to prove that he in-
tended to act up to the advice that had been given to him,
by sanctioning a most elaborate scheme of Government for
a considerable portion cf his kingdom, a scheme which was
submitted to the Governor-General at Calcutta. But mark
- that plan was rejected on the ground that if his Majesty
would give up the whole of his dominions the company
would think of it, but it was not necessary to take so much
trouble about a portion of them. Well, then, let it not be
told that the king most irrascibly rejected to listen to the
efoirnatenrneesxteinfrg Oude was that danger
the disorganization
advice which was tendered to him. They must come down
with particulars, and show what he refused to do. (Hear.)
ev,k,
enno
itdh earrireeea
ts
oo nEaulrl eogreerla
of the Oude frontier; but it was remarkable that the most
ample testimony was borne to the efficiency of the Oude
frontier police. When criminals escaped over the Oude
bound the King of Oude to frontier, the police a the king bad been most assiduous in
(bear.) Bat what
delivering them up, but nothing like reciprocity appeared
te have marked the conduct of the police of the British
dominion'. (Hear, hear.)
rinse with a treaty which These charges of tion-compli-
J. Manners) was,
ri-dorodf Control nor the noble lord the
fol-
low the advice of hEI3E gtlihsr hae
fdruentsoei
dtd
.ebne resident were u
alluded
ea
dg vague, and
(Hear,had
moatbeen surprisedm es t triumphantly
n
that neither the
any allusion to the sup-
pressedthe conduct
hear.) That treaty was as binding on the Government
treaty of
of England in 1858 as it was. in 1837; and it was impos-
sible
member President f oorf tLhoehnidj3mo4 had made
of living but of departed statesmen. It could
not be referred to without inculpating the conduct both
of Lord Auckland and of Lord Dolhousie. (Hear, hear.)
net etnolyrefer to that treaty without impugning
The treaty of 1837 contsinedroviAons which made the
annexation of any portion of the Oude territory a matter of
impossibility. In the event of certain contingencies it was
provided that the British Government should for a time
appoint its own governraent for Oude,nsgkingde of Oude, and wasrn. The au_
but this was all con-
templated
of Onde in thethat treaty was a flagrant
and indefensible act; bat while, ore the one hand, the treaty
ththee interestpres ervgion oe f Ilhii
isubordinat in
nto
teeth of
received a
universal acceptance, its disallowance was known
to only a few of even Indian statesmen.
of Oude in 1349, he complimented his
It appeared that
even Lord Auckland himself was not aware of the
the mode in which he had disal-
lowanceadminis-
of the treaty until two years after it had been
signed ; and in a communication which Lord Auckland ad-
di
Majestyes s e dto
highlythe Kuipnogn
tared the affairs of his kingdom. ter
%-etar.) There was good
internal evidence to show that Lord Hardinge, when he
visited the King of Onde in 1319 was not aware of the dis-
allowance of the treaty, for he reminded the King of the
consequencesconsequences
involvingw h wouldthe banding over of the administra-
ea
r h followea misgovernment—those
r
Last year the Earl of
tion of the affairs of Oade to the temporary custody of the
that which and asserted that the only
imposed on the King of
Indian Government. (
,
Ellenborough denied that the Board of Directors had dis-
allowedi)erticn annulledthe
whole
of
was theth
Conde an obligation to contribute a certain sum for the 1
maintenance of troops. That view of the ease was sup-
ported by Lord Broughton, who at that period was Presi.
dent of the Board of Control ; and Lord Hardinge clearly
acted in the spirit of that conclusion. The noble lord the
member for London had asked the house to deal lightly
with Lord Dalhousie, and he
(Lord J. Manners) had en-
deevoured to do so; but he coafessed the task was a diffi-
cult one. The blue-book disclosed language held by Lord
Dalhousie with reference to this annulled treaty, which
reminded one more of the chicane! y in vogue at
the Old Bailey, than of language which the Go-
vernor-General of an important empire might be
supposed to address to A; y; h
ensvoigtbseee. sub rlinate.
The code of instructions issued by Lord Dalhousie to Sir
James Outran was a model of duplicity. Our prestige in
India had been spoken of. That prestige might be of two
kinds; one derived from military glory, and the other
from the sense of faith preserved and justice done. He
hoped that the Government would not thwart a motion the
tendency of which would be to strengthen our prestige in
India. He hoped the house would take a course which
would tend to the restitution of Oude to its insulted and
deceived . sovereien
ee (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) The noble
lord concluded by moving (as an amendment to the mo-
tion) for the production of correspondence which had
taken place between the secret department of the East
India Company and the Governor-General of India in re-
ference to the treaty of 1837. (Hear.)
Mr. V. SMITH said that this correspondence had already
been produced in compliance with a previous requisition.
Mr. R. D. MANGLES Was prepared, as an East India
director, to take his full share of the responsibility attach-
ing to the annexation of Oude. Both the hon. gentleman
who had introduced the motion, and the noble lord who
had last spoken, seemed to think that the only person to be
considered was the Sovereign of Oude, and that the suffer-
ings of a misguided people weighed as nothing in the scale.
Ever since the family whose acts had been criticised had
come to the throne, the government of Oude had been the
worst that could be named in India. From 1301, down
to the time of annexation, nothing could exceed the mis-
chief arising from this misgovernment. But neither the
hon. gentleman nor the noble lord (Lord J. Manners) had
referred to that part of the treaty of 1801 which stipulated
for the well-government of the people of Oude. From
the time that treaty came into force no Sovereign of
Onde had ever given effect to this most important
change ; and the omission was early brought to
the cognizance of the Governor-General of India,
Lord William Bentinck, proverbially a statesman of peace,
informed the King in 1331 that matters had come to tla
pass, that unless reform was effected the company would
lose its position. (Hear.) In 1847 Lord Hardinge himself
went in person and gave him a still stronger warning, and
giving him two years' grace to effect the necessary reforms.
Of the enormity of the oppression of Oude, no man who
was 12014 acquainted with it could haveany conception of it.