New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-06-07


rights might be, could claim prescription IN their
favor, il was impossible not to recognize tae r
claims ss to certain extent legal, however incor.
venienf, arbitrary and oppressive TO the people.
In Oude, under the feeble reign Of the native
princes, these ftudal landhcldeis bad gone very
far in curtailipg alike the claims Of the Govern
mt pt ard the rights Of the cultvators; aud when,
upon the recent annexation of that kingdom. this
matter came under revision, the Commissioners
charged with making the settlement soon got into
avery acrimonious controversy with them As to
the RI al extent of their rights Hence resulted
state Of discomfort OF their part which led them to
make common cause with the revolted Sepoys.
By those who il elite to tbs policy above indicated
that of system Ct village setteneGt-looking
at the actual eultvators invested with propris-
tay right in the land superior to that OF the middle
men, through whom the Government receives its
share of the landed produce-the proclamation OF
Lord Canning is def, nded as an advantage taken of
the position in which the great body Of tbs zemin'
dars ard taloOkdars of Dude bad placed themselves
10 open door for the Introduction OF much more
extensive reforms than otherwise would have been
practicable-the proprietary right conhscated by
nat proclamation beirg merely the zemindsrree or
talookdaree right and affecting only very small
part of the population, and that BY no means the
actual cultivators.
Independently CT any question OF justice and hu-
mainly, the view taken on the other hand oy the
Derby Ministry of Lord CanniDg's proclamation,
corresponds sufficiently we'll with the general prin-
cipes which the Tory or Conservative party main
tain on the sacredness Of vested rights and the i'm
portance of upholdirg an aristOcratic landed 10
tre.t In .pe akipg of the landed interest at home,
they always refer rather to the landlords and rent
receivers than to the rent-payers and to the actual
cutyatsrs; snd it it, therefore, not surprising thn
they should regard the interests of the zemludars
and taloOkdars, however few their actual number
az equivalent TO the interests of the great body Of
the people.
Here indeed IS one of the greatest Inconvenience
and difficulties in the Government of India from
England, that views of milan questions are liable
to be inhuerced by purely English prejudces or
sentiments, applied to state Of society and con-
dition of things to which they have in fact very
little real pertinency The defense which Lord
Canning makes in bis dispatch, published to-day, Of
the policy of his proclamation against the OBJ
ections Of Sir James Outram, the Commits
sicntr Of Dude, is very plausible, though it
appears that he 80 far yielded to the representations
of the Commissioner as to insert into tho procla-
nation the modifying sentence, not contained in the
original draft sent to England, and on which Lord
Ellenborough's dispatch was based.
Lord CsnDiDg's opinion as to the light IN which
the conduct of lanGhoders Of Dude in joining IN
the rebellion ought to be viewed does not appear to
differ much from that of Sir James Outram and Lord
Peterborough. He argues that they stand in very
different position rot only from the mutinOus Sepoys
but from that of the inhabitants Of rebelious dis
tricts in which the British rule had been longer
established. He admits that they entitled to
be treated as persons having proyocation for the
course they took; but at the time Insists that
they must be made to understand that rebellion
cannot be resorted to without involving serious
sequences to themselves. We shall soon learn
what the effect of the issue of the proclamation has
been, aud whether Lord Canning or Sir James
Outram was nearer right in his anticipation of its
results.