general. On his death-bed, as it proved, the Máhárajah wrote to the governor-general that he had taken this step in case he His letter to should not survive: and that his wife, Gunga Bye, was the governorto be considered regent during the boy's minority. This letter was read in the presence of the political agent for Bundelkhund, the day before the Máhárajah's death, and duly forwarded. The adoption was not, however, allowed, and the State was confiscated; and the grounds adduced for the proceeding were, that Jhansy was not originally an independent native State, but a dependency of the Péshwah's, to which the British Government succeeded under the treaty of Bassein, but which it had continued to the person found in possession; and that Sir Charles Metcalfe had on a former occasion decided against the principle of adoption in this State. On that occasion, however, there was a real heir living, and Sir Charles would not allow him to be set aside: it Discussion in was not the principle of adoption that was then objected to, but adoption to the prejudice of a real heir. Sir John Low on this occasion agreed with the governor-general; but while he and Mr. Halliday could not controvert the arguments his lordship had adduced, they trusted the example of Kerowly might be followed. The annexation was not carried out with a show of force, and it was evident that the popular sympathy of the whole Native, of Bundelkhund and the north-west provinces was in sympathy favour of the dispossessed Ranee and her family. Council. with family. policy. Looking back on the past, this annexation, though based upon an exercise of abstract right, on the basis of the treaty of ConsideraBassein, appears to have been inexpedient, and not a little tions of the forced and ungenerous, considering the previous uniform good faith displayed and material assistance rendered by the Jhansy family on many occasions, and their recognition, by regular treaties, as independent princes. If necessary, which the small value of the principality put out of consideration, reduction might have been made in the amount of territory, to the original limits of the State; but entire confiscation, following immediately upon that of Nagpoor, increased the prevalent apprehensions to a painful extent. The measure was, however, confirmed by the Court of Directors, and for a time no more was heard of Jhansy. CHAPTER XI. THE ADMINISTRATION OF LORD DALHOUSIE (concluded) — The Santál ON June 30, 1855, a vast body of Santáls, an aboriginal tribe occupying the hills and forests on the north-west frontier of insurrection. Bengal, assembled in rebellion, or, as they alleged, with the purpose of proceeding to Calcutta to lay their grievances before the head of the Government, and set out on their march. Their advanced guard, with their leaders, amounted to 30,000 men. They soon ate up the cakes they had brought with them, and beginning to plunder villages, put to death a native officer of police. This was their first overt act of rebellion, and it occurred on July 7. The Santál war, as it was called, ended with the year; and, as in relation to the great famine of 1770, reference was given to Mr. W. W. Hunter's admirable Annals of Rural Bengal,' so in the case of the Santáls, the student is referred to the same interesting work, not only for an account of this petty war, but for its causes and effects, as well as for a description, ethnological and otherwise, of the Santáls, which is unequalled in Indian literature. When the causes of the outbreak, which resembled those of the Kole war (Chapter X., Book VII.), were understood, the most efficient remedy was provided against a recurrence of discontent, in the separation of the Santál from the ordinary regulation districts, and the nomination of a special commissioner-an arrangement which has fulfilled all the intentions of its establishment. " The annexa No subject in relation to the policy of Lord Dalhousie has received more searching commentary than the annexation of Oudh. tion of Oudh. It has been reviewed again and again in contemporary histories, in Parliamentary returns, in the publication of every document connected with it, and by the public press both of England and India, and will continue to be discussed in every succeeding history as long as India remains under the government of Great Britain. Any review of the whole of the transactions would be manifestly impossible in a work like the present, which only professes to point out facts for the guidance of the student, leaving him, as has been repeatedly stated, to refer to the details, and form his own judgment. There is no question that the misgovernment of Oudh had approached a crisis, at which interference was not only justifiable, but necessary and unavoidable. The successive reports of Colonel Sleeman and General Outram, both avowedly the staunch friends of condition of native dynasties, teem with details of the sufferings Oudh. of the people, the lawlessness of the population, and the brutal tyranny and exactions of the local aristocracy. There is equally no doubt of the profligate character of the king; of his Character of inability and unfitness to govern; his frivolity, his the king. sensuality, his attachment to miserable favourites and parasites,. singers, dancers, buffoons, and even menial servants; his disregard of, and indifference to, warnings repeated again and again with the utmost earnestness and good faith, by Lord William Bentinck, Lord Auckland, and Lord Hardinge, in, it cannot be questioned, the sincere hope that he would make an attempt to overcome the local disorders, and to regain the confidence he had all but forfeited. But these hopes were vain. There was not only no improvement, but the local administration, practically effete, made no effort to redeem its position, and sunk lower and lower, even in the eyes of its own subjects. All these are patent facts, which no one, even among the most bitter censurers of the annexation, has ever disproved, or sought to disprove; and yet the question remains open as to whether the course pursued was justified by the emergency, and whether the abrogation of treaties, and cancelling of all claims by a dynasty on which, in its sorest times of need, the British Government of India had relied without ever experiencing disappointment, and to which its obligations had been placed on record for nearly a hundred years, was not a breach of national faith. Repeated the Oudh The question of interference in Oudh was one of those which, from its magnitude, and perpetually recurring causes of complaint in one form or other, had rested constantly under warnings to consideration of the executive government of India; government. but it had never been grappled with and decided. No temporary remedial measures could be applied, warnings had become useless, and were most likely considered as mere threats, which had been uttered again and again, and were of no real significance. They did not drive the king from his low indulgences, nor did they affect the aristocracy, who, confident in their own local power, scorned them. Of all warnings, that of Lord William Bentinck, in 1831, was perhaps the most emphatic and most solemn. It was submitted to the king in writing, so that it could not be ignored in the future; and Lord Hardinge's subsequent limit of two years only, before any final step was taken, pledged the British Government to action if it were necessary. That was in 1847, and instead of two years, seven had elapsed without change, Z Z or without execution of the orders of 1834, issued by the Court of Directors, which formed the basis of the second remonstrance of Lord William Bentinck in 1835. For upwards of fifty years, the kingdom of Oudh had enjoyed perfect immunity from war, and from outward danger of every kind; and had it possessed an ordinarily capable administration, it might have become the richest and most prosperous native State in India; but for these fifty years, neglect and indifference had uniformly prevailed, and were now irremediable. That the assumption of the administration was a public necessity there can be little doubt. No one denied it then, or denies it now. The question rather is, whether the dynasty should have been extinguished or allowed to remain as it was, on the footing of the Nawabs of Moorshidabad or of the Carnatic. On this point the student has the benefit of the minutes of Lord Dalhousie, of the members of his Council, including Sir John Low and Mr., now Sir, Charles Halliday, Sir J. P. Grant, Mr. Dorin, and Sir Barnes Peacock ; and in England of the Court of Directors, the President of the Board of Control, and the Cabinet. Of the Indian minutes, Lord Dalhousie's Official minutes on the question. Lord advised complete assumption of the administration, but opinion. not the extinction of the dynasty; on the contrary, that the king should retain the sovereignty, receiving a share of the general revenues, with provisions for all the members of the royal family. That the measure, moreover, could only be adopted with the king's consent, which, his lordship wrote, 'is indispensable to the transfer of the whole or any part of his sovereign power to the government of the East India Company: it would not be expedient or right to extract this consent by means of menace or compulsion.' Sir John Low, who had opposed the governorgeneral in the case of Nagpoor, advised the ' ' assumption of the government exclusively and permanently; and that the king should retain his title for life, but not the sovereignty. But these documents need not be further reviewed, since they are open to those who may desire to read them. All are conclusive as to the assumption of the administration;' but they vary in respect to the continuance of the sovereignty, and the disposal of the surplus revenues. It is necessary, however, to quote a paragraph of Colonel Sleeman's report, to show how nearly the opinion of Lord Dalhousie coincided with his. If report. therefore,' writes Colonel Sleeman, 'our Government does interfere, it must be in the exercise of a right arising out of the existing relations between the two States, or out of our position as the paramount power in India. These relations, under the treaty of 1837, give our Government the right to take upon itself the 6 Sir John Colonel administration under present circumstances; and indeed imposes on our Government the duty of taking it; but, as I have already stated, neither these relations, nor our position as the paramount power, give us any right to annex or confiscate the territory of Oudh. . . . We have only the right to secure for the suffering people that better government which their sovereign pledged himself to secure for them, but has failed to secure.' Nothing can be clearer or juster than this: and it would have been well had these views, which were confirmed by those of the governor-general, been adopted in England, in lieu of the extreme measure of final annexation, and the extinction of the dynasty; but the authorities in England were unanimous in deciding upon entire confiscation, and the opinions of Lord Dalhousie were overruled. It Opinion in is therefore manifestly unjust to lay upon him the sole England. burden of the responsibility of the ultimate measure, to which, in one of his most remarkable and exhaustive minutes, he had recorded a deliberate objection and dissent. But, unfortunately, Lord Dalhousie had pledged himself to carry out the decision of the home authorities, and he remained, though sorely broken in health, for this especial purpose. By this course he did not do himself justice: and when the decision arrived, he might well have declined to execute what his mature judgment had not confirmed. Had he done so, time would have been given for consideration, and the final decree might have been modified. But, throughout his administration, Lord Dalhousie had been careful to obey orders from home when they were issued, and in this case he did not act upon impulse. On February 7, 1856, the territory of Oudh ceased to exist as an independent sovereignty, and was annexed by pro- The annexaclamation to the British dominions. The most painful tion of Oudh is proclaimed duty ever performed by Sir James Outram, the Resident, was the communication of the final decision to the king, who submitted, with tears, to an inevitable result, conduct of though to the last he refused to sign the deed of resig- the king. nation; but the mandate had gone forth, and must be obeyed. One of the king's last acts-perhaps his very last-was to issue a proclamation to his subjects enjoining on them peaceful submission to the British Government. With the territory, the private property of the king was also confiscated and sold, The king's sold. which was the more to be regretted as it reawakened property Agreement hetween Lord Dalhousie and Colonel Sleeman. |