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

THE St7N, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENI NG, FEBRUARY 117, 1858

is avowed. Had it not been for this public reparation
and the renunciation of all connection the sovereign of
Oude might on some day have found himself, contrary
to his most earnest wish, involved in warfare against us
by the general sense of his nobles as well as by the pre-
judices of his people. While the hostility of the country
would have had the inconvenience which I have already
described, the character of the sovereign, admirable for
uprightness, humanity, and mild elevation, would have
bestowed colour on the adverse cause, and his treasury
might have been efficaciously employed in the payment
of troops assembled against us in other quarters." The
family of Oude had always been most attached to the
British crown. (Cheers.) They assisted us with their
arms and with their treasure. They aided us in carrying
supplies to Gen. Pollock's army, and their fidelity was
admitted to Lord Dalhousie even in the book in which
he had collected everything he could against them.
(Hear.) Thus—" The rulers of Oade have ever been
faithful and true in their adherence to the British power.
No wavering friendship has ever been laid to their
charge. They have long acknowledged our power, have
submitted without a murmur to our supremacy, and
have aided us as best they could in the hour of our
utmost need." And again—" After the picture which
I have given of the administration of affairs in Oude, it
is my duty to state that since the days of Vizier Alee
none of the sovereigns have, either from disposition or
habit, been cruel or tyrannical ; they have been all gen-
tlemen, humane, and generous." (Hear.) Ths only
charge brought against the King of Oude was the alleged
mismanagement of his territory ; but the barefaced
hypocrisy of this accusation was even more disgusting
than the open violence which had been so discreditable
to the nation. (Hear.) He would ask the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. V. Smith) whether, when he
signed the order for the annexation, the misgovernment
of Oude was greater than it was in 1801, when Lord
Wellesley signed a solemn treaty on the part of the Bri-
tish Government, by which, in consideration of having
received a portion of territory, which then produced a
revenue of two millions, and which now yielded four
millions a year, be bound the British Government to
maintain for ever the integriq of the remaining portion !
Attempts had been made to show that we had a right to
interfere under the treaty ; but it happened that Lord
Wellesley himself, in 1812, furnished an explanation of
the document. In a volume of Indian treaties published
in 1812 the explanation to which he referred would be
found. (The hon. gentleman read an extract in which
Lord Wellesley stated that the reserved territories were
to be guaranteed to the Nawab, and that the British
Government would never depart from its engagements.)
He (Jr. Baillie) would ask the right hon. gentleman
another question—was the misgovernment in Oude
greater than that which prevailed in other native states ?
Was it greater, for instance, than that which existed in
the territory of the Nizam ? Were they to understand
that when events in India should have resumed their
natural course the Government intended to select the
Yearn for the next victim I (Hear, hear.) Were they
going to forget the services the Nizam had rendered to
this country, as they seemed to have forgotten those
which had been rendered by the family of Oude. (Hear.)
These were questions for the house and the country.
They could no longer be left to the ministers of the
Crown or to the East India Company, for they were ques-
tions upon which the future prosperity and tranquillity
of India would mainly depend. But he (Mr. Baillie)
would not stop here. He would proceed to inquire
whether such a thing as mismanagement or misgovern-
ment did not exist in the British territories ? (Cheer.)
They had been so long accustomed to look with favourable
eyes upon the government of India, so long accustomed
to regard it a mild and paternal despotism exercised for
the good of the people, that their minds had been quite
shocked by recent revelations. Sir C. Napier warned them
that they were sleeping on a volcano in encouraging a
Bengal army, and. Mr. Halliday, speaking of the
administration of justice under our rule, stated
that nothing could be worse, nor was there anything
more to be condemned in the kingdom of Oude. Mr.
McLeod Wylde gave a most woeful description of the
internal condition of India, which was really almost
heart-rending; the administration of justice neglected,
and the poverty of the people of the most distressing
character. He believed that in annexing other states,
and extending their territories, they neglected the true
interests of that country. They were told by East India
reformers that all these evils would be remedied if the
East India Company were got rid of, and power placed
in the Ministers of the Crown. But was it not well
known that the India House, of late years, had been
made the scapegoat of the Government, that in the case
of Scinde they were notoriously overruled, and that the
annexation of that country was solely the work of Lord
Ellenborough. He certainly was of opinion, that a
change was necessary, that perhaps it would be better to
place the government of India in the hands of the Crown,
but he saw no reason why the East India Company
should be abolished altogether, and their functions en-
tirely handed over to a Minister of the Crown. Changes
undoubtedly were necessary, but they were not those
now proposed. In 1833, when the subject was before
Parliament, the directors desired, in cases where the
President of the Board of Control acted unconstitution-
ally or against the interests of India, that there should
be an appeal to Parliament against such a proceeding,
but that suggestion was rejected. They desired that
appeal, because they wished for publicity, and, in his
opinion, if their recommendation had been carried into
effect they would have had no Affghan war, no war in
Scinde, no Persian war, no annexation of Oude, and
none of those horrors and atrocitielwhich since unhap-
pily took place. (Hear.) Unfortunately the neglect
of, and distaste for Indian affairs in that house ren-
dered ran Indian Minister practically irresponsible.
They had been in consequence signally chastised as a
nation; but he hoped that after what had occurred they
would not in future be so neglectful of a solemn duty, and
that they would remember that kings, and princes, and
Parliaments had a responsibility cast upon them from
which they could not recede, and would be held account-
able hereafter by a higher Power.
Mr. VERNON SMITH observed that before the hon.
gentleman who just addressed them rose to bring forward
his motion, his noble friend at the head of the Govern-
ment asked him to postpone it, in order that they might
proceed with the other Indian debate. That request was
declined by the hon. gentleman, because he said he was
in a position to give such information to the house as
would induce hon. members to make up their minds with
respect to the course they should feel it their duty to take
on the bill now before the house. lie (Hr. Smith) re-
gretted the hon. gentleman did not comply with his noble
friend's request, because he might as well have introduced
the facts he brought forward into the debate on the East
India Bill itself, as to bring them forward in a separate
motion.
Mr. BAILLIE observed that he had given notice of his
motion before the bill was brought in. The hon. gentle-
man concluded by moving for copies cf a secret despatch,
signed by the President of the Board of Control, in the
year 1831, addressed to Lord William Bentinck, and or-
derine him to annex or otherwise assume the administra-
tion of the kingdom of Onde. Of the despatch of Lord
William Bentinck, explaining his reasons for not car-
rying these orders into effect. Of the correspondence
which took place, through the Secret Department of the
India. House, between the President of the Board of Con-
trol and the Governor-General of India, in the years 1833,
1834, and 1835, in reference to the annexation of Ouda.
And a copy of a note or minute, signed by Sir Henry Ellis,
when a member of the Board of Control, explaining his
reasons for dissenting from the projected annexation of
Oude.
Mr. VERNON SMITH knew that very well, and again
he could not help expressing his regret that the hon. gen-
tleman did not comply with the request made by his noble
friend. From the observations which the hon. gentleman
made, he (Mr. Smith) rather collected that they would
have his vote in favour of the bill, for he found as much
fault as it was possible to find with the government of
India. When any hon. gentleman found fault with the
Board of Control, and the intervention of the Ministers of
the Crown, and said he found fault with the bill, it
was a very great mistake, and not true in point of fact.
Those who found fault with them found fault with the
present system, and supported the bill because it propcs3d
to change it altogether. The lion. gentleman was unable
to assign any cause for the mutiny but the annexation of
Oude. All the arguments brought forward towards the
close of the last session of Parliament by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire were alto-
gether overlooked by the hon. gentleman, anti it was a
singular circumstance that since August last they made
no advance whatever in elucidating the cause of the mutiny.
The most eminent men in India were not able to assign
any grounds for the outbreak. Sir J. Lawrence himself
admitted that he was ighorant of the cause, and declared
that he could not satisfy himself any organised conspiracy
had existed. The hon. gentleman went into an historical
disquisition affecting the policy of India, and he commenced
attacking that policy from the year 1833 ; but from that
period down to the present time, so far as the
Government of Oude was concerned, no fault had
been found with the policy of Lord William Ben-
tick, Lord Auckland, the Earl of Ellenborough, and Lerd
Dalhousie, who filled the office of Governor-General under
successive administrations. The hon. gentleman contended
that the Government had adopted a new policy as regards
the annexation of Oude. He believed the hon. gentleman
was mistaken in saying that any such thing as a policy of
annexation had been laid down. There might have been a
policy of acquisition, and it was most desirable that, from
time to time, additions should be made to our territories.
In the recent outbreak great advantage had resulted from
our having acquired the Punjaub, for, if that district had
been in a state to attack us when the mutiny broke out, we
should have been much worse off than if it had not been in
our hands. It was to the maintenance of troops in the
Punjaub that they were chiefly indebted for the quelling
of the mutiny. To the general policy of annexation he
was opposed. It had been opposed by the Government of
India; but in spite of the orders issued by the Crown and
the Court of Directors, it too frequently happened that
Governors-General sent' out from this country ware, with
the view of acquiring fame, tempted to add to their terri-
tory. The hon.
gentleman had failed to show that against
that
aug-
mented bymp tation the Government at home had neglected to
exert itself. The hon. gentleman was not correct in alleg-
ingthat, with the annexation of Oude, there had been no
increase of European troops: The number had been
5,000 men. The policy of the Government of
India had been, that whenever they conquered they made
he n 4tivo3 suba.Tv'ent to them, and that policy had been
the 'toast and glory' t India auct.ti.a wimiration of all man-
kind. The Governmento°o*.lndia not onlylconquered tLe
nhaotni.ongse,nbtuletmmaand,e tphrooeeenLieus maintain themselves. The
became
with his history, said the
mutiny broke out
had occurred, but thatwefoeppthoortuugnhittya
opportunity,a accuracy, favourable
forh and he (Hr.
Vernon. Smith) questioned its an
opinion,
ho n . Crimean
Gentlemanw war, had
happenedpp supposed it toovro,lthe mutiny
;
much more favourable
withdrawn fur the Persian
the first to assist in quelling the
satisfaction that those troops hadwlairo'
mutiny,
a.:41:0r discreditable at
odb Iheet: r
and when the
place because troops were
he
as,
wouldfo r
returned state
a:
tteearnefitoeMOhhlai
Rear, hear.)
(of the terri.
The hon. gentleman said that the annexation
tory of Oude was made in a manner moat)oswt
Lord Dalhousie. He (Mr. V. Smith
that statement. It was novel both in the houser
else-
where, and he thought Lord Dalhousie had not been w l I
treated by the hon. gentleman. It was totally and entirely
incorrect to say that the Court of Directors had nothing to
do with the annexation of Oude. The Court
of Directors
thanked and voted a pension to Lord Dalliousie, and one
of the reasons given for the vote of thanks was the acqui-
awn
idthh he
r(.elfart.
discretion,caoundteinudesducthhaat mar
Da usOfiooaUcttioe,d

nor as entitled him to the gratitude of this country. Lord
Dalhousie annexed that territory in the best manner in which
it could be done; but it was not his own notion, for Lord
Wellesley and Lord Hardingo 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 was 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. Tho 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 had another
warning, in 1847, from Lord Hardinge, who told his Ma-
jesty that if he procrastinated in putting his dominions
into batter order he should be compelled to force him to
do so. Lord Hardinge gave him two years to make a change
and Lord Dalhousie gave seven more, 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 Da!housie felt bound to
annex the territory. How was that oppression main-
tained, and how was it that the King 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 (Mr. V. Smith)
thought, the better course. In assuming the government
of Oude 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 Oude 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 consequence
of the number of sepoys employed from Onde in the army ;
but there were Onde 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 Oule, end 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 1
being heard. The hon. gentleman said that in 1853, there
ware 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 under the Crown. He also remembered that Lord
Glenelg, who was President of the Board of Control in
1853, seeing the hon. gentleman's notice, called upon him
(Mr. It . 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
Oude. 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 originate' the notion
of annexing Oude ; but they wore 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 Lowe 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 coming 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 futuregovernment of India.
But it seems to me that an impression has been made by
statements and comments raspecting 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,
and exhausted his health in the performance of those
duties. (Hear.) I think, therefore, it is unfair, now that
hie 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 Oude 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 Oade, and the other making a treaty,
by which he allowed a subsidiary force 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 Comp my. 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 Naval, to rule well the territory
which was to be 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 govern-
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 1854 there was hardily a year in which
that treaty had not 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 accepted 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. Bentinck, 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 il
troopsentirely and declare the treaty at an end, or to annex
the territory and administer it by their own officers.
I think Lord Wm. 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 : he
Government, and not put an end to the treaty. From 1335
to 1817 there was a succession of viziers. One was made
King, but stilt there was no essential change in the go-
vernment of the country. Lord Hardinge went himself to
Lneknow after the conquest of the Punjaub, 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 measures of a similar kiwi 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 Oude,
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 Punjaub. He admitted
that the war in the Punjaub was a war in self-defence, and
its conquest, instead of weakening our position in India,
had been a source of the greatest strength during the late
period. Lord Dalhousie considered the treaty with regard
to Oude. The hon. gentleman quoted what Lord Dalhousie
says in fairness of the King of Onde ' • but the hon. gentle-
man, without the fairness of Lord Dalhousie, does not
quote anything of what is said by Co'. Sleemau and Gen.
Outram, men who were connected with Oude. Lord Dal-
housie, with the greatest fairness, placed everything for
and against the government of Ouclo 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
Oude the shame, confusion, and misgovernment which re-
sulted from their system, but leaving to ourselves the right
of interieriug if our frontiers were Lite. f,roe a ith or rue-
le,ted. I w:11 not say whether that was a proper course or
not; bat such is the course Lord Dalhousie recommended in
pegs 147 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.
It must be sought by leading the King to perceive that a
simple regard ferhis own interests and for the maintenance
of his family and throne, should of itself be sufficient to
induce him to give his consent to those measures which
awliaotrilicoe_ucsahwistahvetliheis kingdom and house from the misfortunes
wishichtt
he
eill
hassu rseolyl 0 follow
na p er3 i
shtiesd refusal to
pursuancealterotfhteh
icso ura e i
policy,n
Icoloteestibrarioreee that, as soon as the sanction of the hon.
;,a
jr.„.i
:0
jualrayt
pr:rote.:teereeredei y
itat,;:irttb, obtained
rn;eiird..tGo,
etanh ne
Britishedr
1 necessaryfrontier."
o:u:withdraw
Kra,wi,changeKing.
in our IC -
;,:ee:edi :
.the
c, Court of Lucknow, a letter should be ad-
quit the
to state that the resident hagidlh
0. declare treaty of 1801 at an to
zSuchlin The
twi end, 10 es
accordingly,t,b i r;

proposal after an elaborate investigation of everything that
took place since 1801. But others differed from him, and
said that Oude should be taken into the hands of the Com-
pany. Gen. Lowo stated particularly that he differed frOna
Lord Dalhousie, and thought that the kingdom of Oude
should be annexed to our dominions. When the matter
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 best 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. I do 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, but 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 support 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-
ting 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 but what he was
bound to do, being at the time the servant of the crown,
andof the East India Company. (Cheers.) Bat 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 wag colleoted 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. I do 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 Oude, 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 -j edged that they should carry into effect
these two modes of policy at the same time. I wos sorry to
hear again from my right hon. friend that unfortunate
" prestiee." 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 Smolerisko every one of his marshals and gene-
rals recommended him to go into winter quarters. "Bat,"
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
all of Europe; they would have left him master of France,
Italy, and Roland. But he said, " If I surrender anything
—if I give up my title of 'Protector of the Confederation of
the Rhine
prestige, he' I lose my prestige." Well, he fell; he lost his
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 following 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,
it is sure to follow, a course of policy pursued in such a
spirit. (Loud cheers.) and let reputation follow, as
t ord JOHN MANNERS, notwithstanding that he had
greatly admired the concluding sentiments of the noble
lord, must remind him that if the health of Lord Dalhousie
bad been impaired in India, a Queen Mother of Oude had
died in the city of Paris, 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 bad charged
against his noble friend that although for two whole years
the kingdom of Oude 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 113 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. Bat 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 Oude 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 bad
been tendered to him ? He was prepared to prove that it
was a total misstateneeni of the facts of the
case to say that the present king had violated the treaty.
The king ascended the throne in 1847, 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 of 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 irraecibly rejected to listen to the
advice which was tendered to him. They must come down
with particulars, and show what he refused to do. (Hear.)
Another reason alleged for annexing Oude was that danger
would arise to European interests from the disorganization
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
frontier, the police of the king bad been most assiduous in
delivering them up, but nothing like reciprocity appeared
to have marked the conduct of the police of the British
dominions. (Hear, hear.) These charges of non-compli-
(Hear.) Bat what
&NO with a treaty which bound the King of Oude to fol-
low the advice of the Eaglishfresident were vague, and had
moat surprised him (LordJ. Manners) was, that neither the
President of the Board of Control nor the noble lord the
member for London had made any allusion to the sup-
pressed treaty of 1837. It had not been alluded to. (Hear,
been most triumphantly reuted.
or
departed statesmen. impugning
tdwieniptchaulpating the conduct both
hear.) That treaty was as binding on the Government
of England in 1855 as it was in 1837 ; and it was impos-
siblethe conduct
Auckland and of Lord Dolhousie. (H hear.)
The treaty of 1837 can, et
t. •u d
e ear,
n contingencies it was
provisions which made the
annexationot
f
of any portion of Oude territory a matter of
non Lord
boternoal
referred
0e
ffoee
firr
livingetod thoa that treatyaitthoo
uf
• - d that the British Government should for a time
appoint its own government for Gude, but this was all con-
templated in the interest of the King of Oude, and was
impossibility.provide In the. event. of certain
subordinate to the preservation of his kingdom. The an-
nexation of Oude in the teeth of that treaty was a flagrant
and indefensible act ; but while, on the one hand, the treaty
received a universal acceptance, its disallowance was known
to only a few of even Indian statesmen. It appeared that
even Lord Auckland himself was not aware of the disal-
lowance of the treaty until two years after it had been
signed ; and in a communication which Lord Auckland ad-
dressed to the King of Oude in 18e9, he complimented his
Majesty highly upon the mode in which he had adminis-
tered(Hear.) There was good
edkweinignidhEti* 9 was not aware of the die-
Lord Hardinge, when he
for he reminded the King of the
consequences
internalollanoiswteeqadtnuhtceehene
eavcoffei
idsateiihnrn
getoorftfeoahotsi
treaty,
which would follow misgovernment—those
consequences involving the handing over of the administra-
tion of the affairs of Oude to the temporary custody of the
Indian Government. (Hear, hear.) Last year the Earl of
Ellenborough denied that the Board of Directors had dis-
allowed the whole of the treaty, and asserted that the only
portion annulled was that which imposed en the King of
Oude an obligation to contribute a certain sum for the
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-
deavoured to do so; but he confessed 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 chicanery 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 distinguished sub rJinate.
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 b 3 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 therestitution of Oude to its insulted and
deceived sovereign. (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 sp,kon, 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 hid been criticised had
come to the throne, the government of Oude had been the
worst that coted be named in Indis. From 1801, 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
refeirad to that part of the treaty of 1801 which stipulated
for the well-government of the people of Oude. From
the time that treaty CaRIO into force no Sovereign of
Oude hal 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 Ida`
pass, that UME393 reform was effected the company would
loss its position. (''dear.) In 1'47 Lord Hardinge himself
went in person and gave him a still stronger warniug, and
giving him tee years' grace to effect the necessary reforms.
Of the enorwity of the oppression of Oudee no man who
was not acquainted with it could have any conception of it,,

Col. Richmond, Gen. Lowe, and Col. Sleaman all used the
same language with regard to
.the oppressions and enormi-
ties of Gude. Those representations were made time after
time, and yet no attention was given to thorn by the Go-
vernment of Oude.---Col. Sleaman said in his despatch that
the King of Onde had utterly disregarded the warning
given by Lord Hardinge. He had given no attention to the
Government, and had relinquished no indulgence. Now,
Gen. Sleaman was not an advocate of annexation, but the
conviction was forced upon his mind that nothing but an-
nexation would avail. Gen. Lowe declared his deliberate
opinion that the corruption of Gude was so general, that
there was no other remedy but annexation. Gen. Outram
said, and yet the noble lord said no charge had been made
against the King of Gude—
Lord J. MANNERS —I said that no charge had been
substantiated.

Mr. MANGLES—What evidence, then, would the noble
lord require after the authorities he (Mr. Mangles) had
quoted. General Outram showed in his despatches that
the government of Oude was getting worse every day, and
he said that he had no hesitation in declaring his opinion
that the duty imposed upon the government was that of
annexation. Now General Outram said that he gave this
opinion with great pain, because he had ever advocated the
maintenance of the independence of the remaining states
of India. Colonel Sleaman, in his diary, detailed acts of
atrocity which were of daily occurrence in Oude. Plunder
and murder were the trade of all the great landowners of
the country. That was the state of the country under the
native government. Colonel Sleaman gave instances of the
general atrocities which he spoke of. All the principal
people of Oude were robbers at that time. He (Mr.
Mangles) when a very young man travelled through the
whole of ,Oude, and fur nine days there was cannonading
going on on either side of him; and that was the state of
things which the noble lord thought ought to be restored.
He then came to the treaty of 1837, on which the noble
lord had laid so much stress. If the noble lord believed
that that treaty was not abrogated, ho must believe that
Lord Dalhousie had deliberately forged extracts from the
despatches of the Court of Directors. The Court of Dii ec-
tors distinctly told the Governor-General to fall back
upon the treaty of 1801, thereby showing that the treaty
of 1837 had ceased to exist. If the noble lord would call
for the whole correspondence with regard to the annexa-
tion of Oude it would be seen that the company wore most
reluctant to annex that kingdom until they were absolutely
driven into it. Their strong desire was, that the King of
Oude should so reform his administration, that no step
approaching annexation wor.ld ha necessary. The whole
treaty of 1837 was abrogated the moment it arrived in
England, and the Court of Directors never recognised it,
or considered themselves in any way bound by it. The
noble lord said that the recent mutiny had been caused by
the annexation of Oude. He (Mr. Mangles) did not share
that opinion. He believed that the original annexation
of Oude had had nothing at all to do with it. Oade was
the last rallying point of the mutineers, simply because
the great body of the sopoys came from that country. Sir
John Lawrence, writing in September last, said the
Hindoo population were strongly in favour of annexation.
He was strongly of opinion that the mutiny rose with the
sopoys, and its approximate cause was the cartridges. The
hon. gentleman who had opened this discussion said the
mutiny in India was a rebellion. There was nothing what-
ever to justify that assertion. The chiefs had stood aloof
from the mutiny, and the entire body of the population had
done so also. Where there had been no sepoys there had been
no rising, not even in the most warlike districts, and where
the people were all armed. To show the feeling which ex-
isted amongst the people thehon. gentleman related the pro-
ceedings which took place at Patna. The mutineers attacked
the Treasury and the public offices, bat they were beaten
off by the people and •then the treasury without the loss of
a single rupee was handed over by the people to the civil
officers. This had been purely a military mutiny from
beginning to end, and had in no way been caused or sup-
ported by the disaffection of the people. He believed that
the people had no desire to get rid of the government of
the company, and he did not believe that they were de-
sirous of coining under the direct government of the
Ckown. (Laughter.)
Colonel SYKES said the kingdom of Oude was at the
time of the annexation governed by an indolent and volup-
tuous king. He leased out the lands to persons over the
Zsmindars, who were like our ancient barons. The con-
sequence was, that there was constant pillage, and in the
space of seven years no less than 11,000 persons were
killed, 566 villages burnt, and 1,490 persons wore carried
off, while there had been 34 suttees. That was the state of
things which the noble lord would see restored.
Mr. D. K iNNAIRD agreed with the speech of the hon.
gentleman who had opened the debate, and he did not
think the hon. chairman of the company had in any way
answered it. He hoped that when the unfortunate mu-
tiny was put down, the management of India during the
last few years would be rigidly inquired into. Up to the
time of the mutiny it was with the utmost difficulty that
the subject of India could be brought under the considera-
tion of the house. He thought it was most unjust to
throw the blame of the annexation of Oude upon Lord
Dalhousie. He was driven to it against his own conviction.
and when he did annex it, he cautioned the Government
to see that it was properly protected.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that when the hon. and gal-
lant gentleman the member for Aberdeen rose ho hoped that
he was about to relieve the Court of Directors from the diffi-

culties in which they had been placed, but all the hon.
and gallant gentleman attempted to show was that the
King of Oude was an indolent and voluptuous sove-
reign,
as though the justice of this case could be met
by the indolence and voluptuousness of that king. (Hear,
hear.) He might as well tell the house that every indolent
and voluptuous gentleman in the country ought to be de-
prived of his estates. He (Sir J. Pakington) confessed that
he came down to the house fully expecting that the general
debate on India would be resumed, and he was not there-
fore prepared to take part in this interesting question of
Oude. He could not refrain, however, some comments on
what fell from the hon. gentleman the member for Guild-
ford (Mr. Mangles). Every one who had studied the
question of Conde knew that it turned mainly upon the
proper construction of the treaty of 1837. Tho President
of the Board of Control, in reply to the member for In-
verness-shire (Mr. Bantle) never referred to the treaty of
1837. The noble lord the member for the city of London.
who had sought to justify the annexation of Onde, had not
referred to it. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Lord J.
Manners) had dwelt upon the treaty in just and proper
language, and to that the hon. member for Guildford had
replied that the treaty was abrogated at home. There was
another question. Was the abrogation of the treaty ever
communicated to the King of Oude. If it never was, was
there any man who world rise and say that it was morally
or legally an abrogation? (Hear.) And how did the hon.
gentleman explain the communication of the abrogation of
the treaty to the King of Oude ? He said that at that time
there was no intention of annexing the territory of Oude.
He did not think any member of that house could have
used language more strongly condemnatory of the annexa-
tion than that which was used in this apology. (Hear.)
He thought that upon such a statement the house had a
right to say that there was no vindication of the policy
of the Government. Then the hon. gentleman sought
to justify the annexation on the ground of the disgrace-
ful state of the people of that country. Might he for
a moment refer to a despatch of Lord Auckland thee
lying before him, in which, addressing the King of Oude,
he said that from the time his Majesty ascended
the throne he continued the improvement of his
kingdom, and that he had the full authority of the Court
of Directors for making that acknowledgment. (Hear.)
That seemed to him to prove two things—first, that the
government of Oude had improved under the king ; and
secondly, that in 1839 Lord Auckland himself, who was
the Governor-General, was not aware of the abrogation of
the treaty. He might refer also to Bishop Heber, who in
one of his letters said, that after what he hat heard of
Oude he was surprised to find so large and so orderly a popu-
lation, and one which displayed so much industry. (Hear.)
Let him remind the house that the treaty of 1837, of which
the hon. gentleman opposite had been so shy, provided
for temporary assumption of the Government by England,
in order that abuses might be corrected, but that it could
never be quoted in defence of the act of spoliation. He
would not argue] upon the necessity of the case. He
presumed the East India Company had views of their own
upon the necessity with which probably he should not
agree, but when they argued that it was a just measure
they had adopted he must protest against it, for so far as
ho had been enabled to make himself master of that un-
happy passage of our Indian history, he believed that the
annexation of Oude was one of the most unjust and un-
righteous acts that ever throw a stain on the history of a'
civilised country. (Cheers.)
General THOMPSON said that himself and others
thought they could see into the origin of the mutinies, and
they were surprised that Ministers had not the same dies
comment. He thought much of it had arisen from the
indiscreet attempts that had been made to force our religion
upon the natives, Who were not prepared to receive it.
One complaint had beenthat persons of Indian extraction
should rise to honour and power. The spirit there was
pure Virginian partisanship, where a limited number of
Europeans were antagonistic to 150 millions of native
inhabitants. How did this mutiny break out ?An officer
was preaching to his Mahomedan regiment, and because
a man under the influence of liquor, probably, shot the
adjutant's horse, he was hanged for it. That was pro-
bably right; but an officer, who was not sufficiently sen-
sible to arrest the man, was hanged also, which was a most
monstrous injustice. The honourable and gallant member
denounced_ the conduct of
_the authorities in reference to

the greased cartridges, and spoke of the slaughter of the
native princes at Delhi es the foulest murder on record.
He sometimes wondered what we could have done that the
great punishment should be inflicted upon us of having
such men as our countrymen who had the rule in India.
(Cries of " oh, oh.")
Mr. PALK considered that many wild theories had been
advanced on the other side of the house, but he had never
had his feelings shocked so much as by the speech which
had just been made. He never expected to hear the pollu-
ters of our countrywomen and the torturers of their chil-
dren had a defender in that house, more especially he never
expected to hear one who had borne a distinguished com-
mand become the advocate of the brutalities of the sepoys.
General THOMPSON explained that he was not the
defender of these outrages, but he simply disbelieved
them.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN did not understand the gallant general
to express any sympathy with the atrocities that had been
committed in India, for he believed no British officer would
ever have adopted such a course.
Lord J. MANNERS withdrew his amendment, and the
motion was agreed to.
VACATING PARLIAMENTARY SEATS.
- - -

Mr. WRIGHTON moved for ,leave to bring in a bill
to alter and amend the act of the Gth of Queen Anne,
chapter 7, so far as relates to the vacating of seats in
Parliament on the acceptance of office.
There was no discussion, and the house divided.
The numbers were—
For the motion 9l
Against it
Majority against it
The motion wai therefore negatived.
BANK ACT.

Mr. GflEEf M6V611 that it b.) a•n in Aruclion to the
committee to inquire into the operation of all the laws
affecting the currency in Groat Britain or Ireland, and re-
port what amendments, if any, they may consider desir-
able. One of the questions now before the committee,
but which they might tb.ke up, was that of limited liabi-
lity, and another was, that the circulation of small notes
was beneficial, for ha believed it could easily be shown by
competent witnesses that their introduction into this
country would be a great advantage. That would add to
the gold reserve in the Bank, which would be ready for
any emergency that might arise. The crises of 1847 and
1857 demonstrated that the act of 1844 was not sufficient
to provide for the wants of the country in emergencies of
that kind. Ho apprehended it must be considered that
the act of 1841 had failed. The fluctuations in the value
of the currency had been exceedingly mischievous, caused
by the act of 1344. From 1821 to 1844 there were ony
nine changes in the strnd•srd of value, whilst from 1814
to 1856 there had been thirty-seven changes. He consi-
dered that an additional proof of the failure of the act of
1844.
Mr. CARDWELL declined to follow the honourable

member into a discussion of the currency question at that
late hour. The operations of the committee had been
restricted by that house. The committee would not be
guilty of such manifest neglect in not inquiring into the
laws affecting the currency, but it was not desiraable the
committee should enter into the question of standard.
(Hear, heat.l
Mr. GREER withdrew his amendment.
TENANT FARMERS' (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.
Mr. MAGUIRE moved for, leave to introduce a bill to
provide compensation to tenant farmers in Ireland for im-
pro-raments made by them upon lands in their occupation ;
and to limit the power of eviction in certain cases. He
reserved discussion on the bill till the second reading.
Agreed to.
MORTALITY (FOOT GUARDS).
Captain ANNESLEY moved an address for copy of the
report of the medical officers of the Foot Guards which
states the average mortality.in that brigade.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the commissioners had not cast
blame on any one in their report, but merely had stated
facts. Some censure had been cast on the officers of the
Guards for the present state of things, but they were not
answerable for the defects complained of, but the Govern-
ment, and since the production of the report, Lord Pan-
inure had taken means for carrying out the recommenda-
tions of the committee. The e 3mmissioners stopped in their
statistics in 1853 because their information on the mor-
tality of the army was derived from reports laid before
Parliament by the officers of regiments, end had laid on
the table of the house unchallenged since 1853. It would
have been improper to have included the mortality subse-
quent to that date, because it would have included the
mortality in the Crimea. It was not to be supposed that
the Guards had net showed a higher degree of mortality on
their return from the Crimea because they were a young
and healthy brigade, and returned in a healthy state. It
would have been an error to have taken the returns of
mortality since then (coupled with the healthy state of the
last two years) as showing an improved condition of the
army. There would be no objection to make the return
asked for from 1839 to 1?_,53 inclusive.

Captain ANNESLEY said he asked for the returns ex-
tending over a period of 15 years previous to the war.
Mr. S. HERBERT proposed an addition to the return
asked for, for completing the return ; he thought his re-
part would be the means of remedying the condition of the
army. The only object the commissioners had in view was
to obtain that object. (Hear, hear.)
Col. NORTH defended the officers of regiments from
the charges that had boon made against them, and com-
plained that copies of the report had been furnished to the
press before they had been laid on the table of the house.
Sir J. RAhISDEN, on the part of the Government, had
no objection to the return asarnended. The report referred
to did not contain reflection on regimental officers. He
explained the delay that had ariseni n the non-delivery of
the report to hon. members. The Government intended
to carry out the suggestion of the commissioners as early
as circumstances would permit.
General CODRINGTON spoke in favour of the report.
There must have been some mistake either in taking the
War-Office returns, and the medical returns, and it was
necessary it should bo cleared up. He considered it was
batter for that house to discard anonymous statements, be-
cause all were aware that the officers of regiments did all
they could for bettering the condition of their troops.
Col. KNOX defended the regimental officers from the
remarks that had been made on them by the press in re-
ference to the subject. He could speak from experience
that for thirty years past officers of zegiments had endea-
voured to remedy the defects complained of, and he had
never failed to bring it before the house when the army
estimates were under consideration.

After some remarks from Col. PENNANT,
The motion as amended was agreed to.
TENANT FARMERS' IRELA.ND) COMPENSATION

BI 1.. L.

Mr. MAGUIRE brought in this bill, which was read a
first time.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BILL.

The adjourned debate on this bill was adjourned till
Thursday.
Lord PALMERSTON said the hon. member for Shef-
field had consented to give way on that day that it might
be brought on, and the noble lord expressed a hope that
other lion. members would do the same.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at ten minutes to o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES.

TRANSPORT OF TRH OPS AND STORES TO
INDIA.

Yesterday the select committee of the House of Conn-
mans met for the first time to inquire as to the transport
of troops and stores to India (appointed on the motion of
Sir De Lacy Evans). The committee consists of Sir De
Lacy Evans (in the chair), Lord Godeiich, Sir J. Peking-
ton, Lord Stanley, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Danby Seymour,
Mr. Osborne, Captain Vivian, Mr. Hors n, Mr. Wil-
loughby, Sir E. Colebrooke, Mr. Byng, and Sir J. Elphin-
stone.

Mr. P. Melvill, Secretary to the Military Department of
the East India House, was called as the first witness. He
said that in February last year, there was a deficiency of
about 5,000 men. There had been a number of men with-
drawn in 1854, and remonstrances had been addressed to
Lord Dalhousie on the subject. The events in the North
Western Provinces, including the outbreak at Meerut, oc-
curred on the 10th of May, and as the communication by
telegraph was then complete, the intelligence would be re-
ceived by Lord Canning and Lord Elphinstone the follow-
ing day. Lord Canning sent word that he did not con-
sider it necessary to send out a steamer. The news was
received by the Court of Directors on the 27th Jane, and
immediately the directors asked her Majesty's government
to place at their disposal 4 regiments to be sent out, in ad-
sittion to 4 regiments of infantry and 2 cavalry regiments
which were then on their way. The Board of Control in-
stantly acquiesced in the application. Lord Canning lost 10
days by not despatching a steamer with the news. Ever
since 1854 there had been a deficiency of European troops in
ludia, and the government promised to make up the defi-
ciency as soon as possible. The troops were sent out by
sailing ships, because it was considered there was not suffi-
cient depots of coals at Mauritius and other places to
facilitate the journey by steam vessels. It was decided to
sent out four regiments of infantry in June ; but two of
those regiments were intended to supply the deficiency of
two regiments withdrawn during the war in the Crimea.
That was the time the Court of Directors first thought it
necessary to increase the force, They were not sent away
for ten days after the time appointed. No communications
had taken place between him and the Court of Directors
as to sending our troops by the overland route. It was
always the practise to send out troops by sailing ve3sels,
except in one case where they had to send out a steamer
to ply between Madras and Calcutta, and as it was empty.
tjiey used to send out a body of 300 troops by it, but that
was completely an exceptional case. A remonstrance was
made in 854 against the withdrawal of troops from India
for the Crimea. When the demand was made for more
troops in June, the Government of India were informed
that they might retain the troops that were about to be
relieved. The 29th of June was the first day when the
East India Company reeeived a demand for additional
troops. The chief reason why troops were sent by sailing
ships was the difference of expense ; the difference be-
tween steam and sailing chips was 501. and 101. a man.
There was a deficiency of two regiments in 1854, and they
were not replaced ti 111857. The troops were not withdrawn
from the Crimea until the end of 1856, for although the
peace with Russia occurred in August, the treaty of Paris
was not signed until the end of the year. It would have
been unwise to send out troops in the winter, as they would
arrive in India at an unhealthy season. Under ordinary
circumstances, the latest period that troops should be sent
out to Bengal would be in August. Lord Elphinstone
offered to Lord Canning to send a steamer to Aden to
°atoll the previous steamer, so that the vessel might have
brought the news to England of the outbreak of the mutiny
in India, but Lord Canning declined to employ it, as it
would have been attended with the expenses of 4001. or
5001. Six requisitions were made by the Court*of Direc-
tors to the Board of Control for additional regiments to be
sent to India. No delay had occurred in making these
requisitions, and three of them were made entirely by
the Court of Directors without any application for them
from India. There was delay in complying with those
requisitions on the part of the India Board. In February
the number of European troops in India was 40,000, and
they were then short of 5,000 mon. About 4,000 men were
withdrawn from Persia. Up to the 29th of June, he, as
Secretary to the Military Department of the East India
Company, felt no anxiety about the mutiny. No part of
the force sent to Persia was withdrawn from Bengal. A
letter was addressed by the Board of Directors to the Board
of Control, on the 31st of August, respecting the convey-
ance of troops by the overland route. There was no dan-
ger in sending out troops in September or October, but it
was considered desirable generally that troops should get
there in the cold weather, so the,; they might become ac-
climated before the hot weather set in. Witness could not
say when they first began to make arrangements for send-
ing troops through Egypt, as that did not come within his
department; but he knew that they began to snake ar-
rangements for sending them by the overland rout, in Sep-
tember, and that route had been partially adopted since.
He did not consider that it would have been prudent to
send troops from the Crimea to India, as they would have
arrived there in a disordered state, and would have arrived
to be equipped. There was always a deficiency of 1,000
men at that particular season. At the time of the outbreak
in India there was a deficiency of *4,008 men.
Mr. Mason, Secretary to the Marine Department of the
East India-house, said, with reference to the employment
of steam-vessels in the transport of troops to India, it was
decided on the Ist of July that two regiments should go out
by clipper sailing ships and two regiments by screw-
steamers. lie vindicated generally the arrangements which
had been made by the Company in connection with her
Majesty'. Government, but stated that as there was but a
small supply of coal at the depots it was not considered
safe to send troops in any great numbers by steam-ships.
The committee then adjourned.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—SIGHT AND HEARING -- SPECTACLES=
POWERFUL TELESCOPES -- OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE
GLASSES. —S. and B. Solomons, opticians, 39, Albemarle-
street, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the York Hotel, W.
By her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent for valuable and ex-
traordinary improvements in the most powerful and brilliant
Telescopes, Camp, Race-course, Opera, and Perspective
Glasses, to know the distances. These Telescopes possess
such extraordinary power that some, three and a-half inches,
with an extra eye-piece will show distinctly Jupiter's moons,
Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same telescope
can be seen a person's countenance three-and-a-half miles
distant and an object from 16 to 20 miles. For the waist-
coat-pocket, and are of larger, and all sizes, with increasing
powers accordingly. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. —A valu-
able, newly-invented, very small, powerful, W4tcoat-pock et
Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen and
known one and a-half mile distant. They answer every pur-
pose on the Race-course and at the Opera-houses. Country
scenery and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles. They
are invaluable for shorting, deer-stalking, yachting, to
sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera
Camp, Perspective, and Race-course Glasses, with wonderful
powers. -*lnvaluable preserving Spectacle Lenses of the
greatest transparent pqwer. The groat advantage derived
from this invention is, that vision impaired becomes pre-
served and strengthened and very aged persons are enabled
to employ their sight at the most minute occupation—can see
with tho.se lenses of a much less magnifying power—and
they do not require the frequent changes to the dan.
germ effects of further powerful assistance. Persons
can be suited at tho moan remote part of the world by send.
iug one of the glasses out of their spectacles iu a letter, and
stating the distAuce from the eye they can read small print
with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by
stating their ago. Deafness.—Now Discovery.—The Os ranie
Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful, small, newly-invented
instrument for deafness, entirely different from all of hers.
surpassing anything of the kind that has been, or prob ably
can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the skin, is
-
not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear distinct iy a
church and at public assemblies, the unpleasant sensation of
singing noises in the ears is entirely removed, and it afford:
all the assistance that possibly could be desired.-39. Alto-
Dario-Arcot, Piccadilly —OppoWto tin Xork 11901, W,