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

FEBRUARY 11, 1858

Col. Richmond, Gen. Lowe, and Col. Sleaman all used the
same language with regard to the oppressions and enormi-
ties of Oude. Those representations were made time after
time, and yet no attention was given to them by the Go-
vernment of Oude. Col. Sleaman said in his despatch that
the King of Oude 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. G,:n. Lowe declared his deliberate
opinion that the corruption of Oude 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 Oude-----
Lord J. MANNERS --I said that no charge had been
substantiate,).

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 bad 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
netive government. Colonel Sleaman gave instances of the
general atrocities which he spoke of. All the principal
people of Oude were robbers ee, that time. He (Mr.
Mangles) when a very young man travelled through the
whole of Oude, and for nine days there was cannonading
going on on either side of him ; and that was the state of
thing s 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, he must believe that
Lord Dalhousie had deliberately forged extracts from the
despatches of the Court of Directors. The Court of Mice-
tors distinctly told the Governor-General to fall back
upon the treaty of 1831, 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 Oule it would be seen that the company were 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 stop
approaching annexation would be 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 Oudo had had nothing at all to do with it. Undo was
the last rallying point of the mutineers, simply because
the great body of the sepoys 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
sepoys, 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 therehad boon
no rising, not oven in the most warlike districts, and where
the people, were all armed. To show the feeling which ex-
Med amougst the people the hon. gentleman related the pro-
ceedings which took place at Patna. The mutineers attacked
the Treasury and the public offices, but 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 ri4l of the government of
the company, and he did not believe that they were de-
sirous of coming under the direct government of the
Crown. (Laughter.)
Colenel SYKES said the kingdom of Oude was at the
time of the annexation eoyerneel by an indolent and volup-
tuous king. He leased out the lands to persons over the
Zsnaindars, who were like our ancient barons. The con-
sequence was, that there was constant pillage, alai in the
space of seven years no less than 11,000 persons wore
killed, 566 villages burnt, and 1,493 persons were carried
off, while there had been 34 suttees. That was the state of
things which the noble lord would see loitered.

Mr. D. K INNAIB,D 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 hehoped that
he was about to relieve the Court of Directors from the diffi-
culties in which they had been placed, bat 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 es well tell the house that every indolent
and voluptuous gentleman in the country ought to be de-
prived of his estates. He (Sir J. Pakingion) confessed that
he came down to the house fully expecting that the general
debate on India would be resumed, and ho 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 (Hr. Mangles). Every one who had studied the
question of Onde knew that it turned mainly upon the
proper construction of the treaty of 1837. The President
of the Board of Control, in reply to the member for In-
verness-shire (Mr. Baillie) never referred to the treaty of
1837. The noble lord the member for the city of Loudon.
who had sought to justify the annexation of Oude, had not
referred to it. (Hear, hoar.) The noble lord (Lord J.
Banners) 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. Thera was
another questiou. Was the abrogation of the treaty ever
communicated to the King of Oude. If it never was, was
there any man who wovld 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 ? Ho 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. (Hoar.)
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 th• disgrace-
ful state of the people of that country. Might he for
a moment refer to a despatch of Lord Auckland then
lying before him, in which, addressing the King of Oude,
he acid 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 makiul that acknowledgment. (Hear.)
That seemed to him to prove two things--first, that the
government of Gude had improved under tho king ; andsecondly,
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.)
Lot 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 againstit, for so far as
lie 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 threw 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 name dies
oernment. 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 been that persons of Indian extraction
should rice to honour and power. The spirit there will
pure Virginian
psi tisauship, where a limited number of
Europeans were antagonistic to 130 millions of native
inhabitants. How did this mutiny break out? An officer
was preaching to his Mahomodan 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 bad 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 cam-
mend 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, fer 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
Against it .
Majority against it
The motion wai therefore negatived.

~ 108
~ -17

BANK ACT.
Mr. GREER moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to inquire into the operation of all the laws
affecting the currency in Great 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 take up, was that of limited liabi-
lity, and another was, that the circulation of small notes
was beneficial, for ho 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 resolve in the Bank, which would be ready for
any emergency that might arise. The crises of 1847
and
1857 demonstrated that the act of 1814 was not sufficient
to provide for the wants of the country in emergencies of
that kind. He apprehended it must be considered that
the act of 181; had failed. The fluctuations in the value
of the currency had been exceedingly mischievous, caused
by the act of 1844. From 1834 t 041814 there were ony
nine changes in the standard of value, whilst from 1844
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