US
109
DS
477.8
L94
•*•
I, COVE
B 1,625,356

****
29
JHL LIB
IVERSITY
THE
ARTES
SITY OF MIC
UNIVERS!
OF MI
CIENTIA
MICHIGAN
'LIBRARIES'
رار
1
I
$

2629
1198
SPREENDERS
ܪܐ ܀ ܝ
THOUGHTS ON THE POLICY
OF
THE CROWN TOWARDS
John
A
BY
1859.
Alcolm Forbes.
A
INDIA.
LUDLOW.
DS
477.8
+61
t
Thoughts
105313-234
My L
on Indian Policy
Pu

Bios Auslos
PREFACE.
#
IN the beginning of last year, at the request of a
friend, I wrote some letters on "the Indian Govern-
ment question" in a provincial paper. Some interest
was excited by them beyond the natural sphere of the
Journal, and I was induced to give greater scope to them,
and to treat in particular at some length of the effects.
of that policy of annexation and absorption of which the
late Governor-General of India has been the main ex-
ponent. A desire was expressed for the republication
of this portion of the series, and I had already pre-
pared it, with considerable additions, for the press,
when the appearance of the Queen's Proclamation
came to render much of my argument against such a
policy superfluous, by sanctioning its leading conclu-
sions. In taking it as my text, I felt I should be
best carrying out the purpose which I had in view.*
Many will indeed think, even if they do not say:
"We are weary of this subject of India. The poignant
interest of the outbreak has passed away. The suspense
of the conflict is over. The Lucknow heroes are mostly
recruiting their strength at home. There are no more
victories to win that we care to hear of. Besides, we
C

The form of letters has been retained, though more than half
the volume consists of new matter.
vi
have tried to understand the subject, and we cannot. It
is so far, so foreign, so complex; we hear such different
accounts of it. Where one says black and the other says
white, each witness being, for aught we can discover,
of equal authority, how can we decide between the
two? The last session has seen the fate of a ministry
hang on an Indian proclamation and despatch; has
seen an India bill passed, the time-honoured adminis-
tration of the East India Company swept away, the
government of India transferred to the Crown, a re-
sponsible ministry for India established. At the head
of the new Council sits a young statesman, by almost
general consent held most fit for his place, if not that
to some he seems already fit for one still higher. Is
not that enough? We have to think of the Reform
Bill at home, of the ferment in Northern Italy, of
Napoleonic intrigues, alliances, preparations for war,
pacific denials soon denied; of quasi-slave trade cam-
plications; of Denmark and the Bund, of Villafranca
and the Russians, of Turkey and its rayas, of Servia
and her revolution, of the Ionian Isles and Mr. Glad-
stone abroad. Why cannot we be allowed to forget
India, were it only for awhile?"
Much of what is thus said or thought is perfectly
true, all is perfectly natural. Little as I may think
of the Derby Cabinet's India Act, I rejoice in the two
momentous changes introduced into the Indian admin-
istration,-Crown Government and ministerial respon-
sibility. I have hope in Lord Stanley, if not borne
down by his Council. I admire the boldness of self-
devotion which induced him to undertake, in the midst
of a crisis so difficult a task as that of an Indian
vii
ministry; I believe that his abilities and industry have
hitherto gone far to justify that boldness; I believe
him to be actuated by just and generous feelings to-
wards the people of India; I hail with especial satis-
faction, as an earnest of the policy of the present admin-
istration towards India, the appointment of Sir C.
Trevelyan to the Government of Madras. Nor would I
for a moment deny the importance of any of those
ques-
tions of domestic or foreign policy which are alleged ;
quite the contrary. But I say it is precisely the import-
ance of those questions which makes our Indian policy,
and the condition of our Indian empire, more important
still. India disaffected is a palsy of England's right
side; India in rebellion is a devouring ulcer in her
flank. For months now our best troops and our ablest
general have been thousands of miles away. Months
must yet elapse before one European soldier-even of
the tried 78th-reaches England from India. The
50,000 men whom 1857 sent thither,—the 30,000 or
so who have followed them in 1858-have in great
part melted away already. Recruiting for the
Indian service must yet go on; the boys whom the
recruiting sergeant is now picking up out of our vast
courts and alleys will yet many of them perish like
flies under the fierce Indian sun, in petty obscure
partisan skirmishes with those who have been soldiers
and will have to be hunted down as robbers, in the storm-
ing of small mudforts and fortified villages. Mean-
while, who at home is not conscious of feelings of vague
distrust as to the future, latent in the minds even of the
loudest declaimers for peace? The armed despotism of
Louis Napoleon weighs upon Europe. His warlike pre-
viii
parations he no longer even takes the trouble to conceal.
Even if we suppose his personal intentions towards us
to be friendly, currents which he cannot control will
always bring him round to a direction of opposition
towards us. Freedom and despotism cannot stand
long side by side. Freedom, however peaceable, is a
standing warning against despotism; despotism, for
very life, must be a perpetual threat against freedom.
Few amongst us perhaps, during the Regina Coeli and
Charles-Georges complications, could get rid of an
uneasy suspicion that we were sacrificing the weak to
the strong, pandering to a secret fear of a too-powerful
ally, losing the opportunity of a mighty protest in
favour of right. And the trial of M. de Montalembert,
for the offence of having dared to speak well of England
-even now that it has been sought to be wiped out by
a hasty pardon-was an insult flung in the teeth not
of England's Government, but of every individual
Englishman. Our nation was lowered through his
condemnation, by the police courts of a prince who yet
called himself our ally. A score is thus being run up,
which sooner or later, I fear, must be settled in blood.
And M. de Montalambert himself has warned us as to
the "common fund of animosity" existing against
England on the Continent, as to the need of keeping
up her military strength.
It is the condition of India that has made this
state of things possible. With a happy, prosperous,
and loyal India, England may safely bid defiance to the
world. With Saxon thews and sinews in the West, and
faithful Mussulman or Sikh sabres in the East, ready to
be flung over the Indian Ocean, she would take Euro-
ix
pean despotism in front and rear. And therefore I claim
that nothing should tempt us to overlook the need of that
large and distant empire, which is now, in reality, para-
lyzing our military strength, and must, sooner or later,
tell weightily upon our financial resources. Therefore
I say, that whilst any interval of rest and security is
given to us at home, we should apply ourselves reso-
lutely to the understanding of India's condition, to the
setting it right as far as is humanly possible. There-
fore I claim attention for fragments of contemporary
history, relating to states in India of which many may
never have heard before, or have heard with as little
of vivid personal interest as they might have heard of
the moon's mountains. In the problem, whether
India, now and in future, is to be to us a hindrance or
a help, a source of strength or a source of weakness,
every English household is concerned, little as we may
think it.
And the problem is one, be assured, which gathers
interest as we enter more deeply into it. What more
striking spectacle does this world afford than that
of the oldest civilization in the world grappled by the
newest?—of a heathenism, more ancient than that of
which our school-books teach us, nay, apparently the
fountain-head of that, placed face to face with Chris-
tianity? what stranger sight than that of the new every-
where permeating the old in resistless currents, driving
away the false, and yet in the very process bringing
out many a precious truth that is mixed up with it?
To the seeing eye, the condition of India is as it were
a synchronous picture of human development, all his-
tory, so to speak, made visible at once.
X
•
I need hardly say that I am no political partizan.
I deemed Lord Palmerston prematurely hurled from
power; I looked for a time to his re-instalment; I
still deem his India bill to have been by far the pre-
ferable one of the three measures brought forward
upon that subject, one of which has passed into law.
And whilst heartily approving of the late Proclama-
tion of the Queen's Government, and believing that
every nerve should be strained by all well-wishers to
India to carry it loyally and generously into effect,—
that no punishment scarcely can be too great for those
officials who should dare to disregard it or tamper with
it,—I reserve to myself the fullest freedom of judgment
as to the general policy of a Cabinet, for some members
of which I have feelings of unfeigned respect,-but of
thorough distrust towards one or two others.
I have, in this work, used proper names far more
freely than I could have wished. But where I found
them appended to state papers it seemed to me that it
would have been affectation to avoid them. I have at
least the satisfaction of thinking that I never have had
the slightest communication with any of the gentlemen
whose proceedings I have been led to criticize, and do
not know one of them by sight; and therefore, that
not a tinge of personal feeling can have influenced my
judgments. There are those who may deem that the
canvassing the past acts of the Indian government or
of its officials can only have for its effect to embitter
the minds of the natives against British rule, at a time
when it seems most desirable that animosities should
be allowed to subside. My answer is, that I believe
the minds of the natives are embittered against many
xi
features of British rule; that animosities have been
excited, which cannot subside by merely being over-
looked. And all my experience hitherto has shewn me,
that where a man does deem himself aggrieved, the
two very worst things possible are, 1st.-to omit or
refuse inquiring into his grievances, 2nd.-not to recog-
nize them to the fullest extent where they are real.
That such a grievance as the Inam Commission, for
instance, is a real one, I cannot affect to doubt; and
the longer it is left subsisting and unnoticed, I am con-
vinced, the more harm will result. Of the folly in process
of committal of forcing it upon the Madras Presidency
it is difficult to speak in measured terms.
There remains for me but to add, that for the use of
the greater part of the materials from which this book
is written, I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. J.
Dickinson, jun., Hon. Secretary to the India Reform
Society.
Lincoln's Inn, January 31, 1859.
C
NOTE.-I find I have committed a grave error in my
XIVth Letter, in speaking of the State of Dhar as restored. It
is true that during the last session Lord Stanley, in answer
to a question from Mr. J. B. Smith, stated that it was "the
intention of the Government to disallow the policy of annex-
ation as regards the territory of Dhar," and that the occu-
pation of that territory was provisional only, "subject as to
its duration to further explanation which we hope to re-
ceive; "* nor is there, I believe, any reason to doubt that
instructions for restoration were sent out accordingly. But
* Hansard's Debates, vol. 159 (3rd Series), pp. 1919-20.
xii
the territory remains unrestored to this hour, and the very
despatch for its restoration, if rumour speaks true, unreplied
to. Letter XIV. must therefore be read as written under
the delusion of supposing that the directions of the Queen's
Government were obeyed by the Indian authorities.
It is well known that under the Double Government many
a benevolent despatch from the Court of Directors remained
waste paper in India. It is more than suspected that the
practice had grown up latterly of writing such despatches-
as our Transatlantic cousins would say, for Bunkum-without
any intention of their being carried out, but solely to make
a show before Parliament and through the press. There
remains to be seen whether the Queen's Government will
submit to either disgrace in future.
* The Moturfa abolition despatch for instance?
CONTENTS.
THE PROCLAMATION OF THE QUEEN'S SOVE-
REIGNTY OVER INDIA
LETTER I.
INTRODUCTORY-The Proclamation and its Promises.
PART I.
LETTER II.
The Annexation Policy henceforth given up
-
LETTER III.
The Annexation Policy in its bearings upon the Rebellion
PAGE
PROMISES OF THE PROCLAMATION TO THE PRINCES
OF INDIA.
LETTER IV.
Invidiousness of late Annexations; expediency of Restoration
1
7
15
22
32
Xiv
LETTER V.
The Pledge of Respect to Treaties in its Bearings upon late
Acts of Annexation
SECTION I.
Annexations by alleged right of escheat
SECTION II.
The Cessions from the Nizam
SECTION III,
The Annexation of Oude
LETTER VI.
The Pledge of Respect to the Rights of Native Princes, in its
bearing upon Adoption
LETTER VII.
How Successions by Adoption were respected till 1841.
LETTER VIII.
How the Right of Adoption was invaded, 1811-8.
LETTER IX.
How the Annexation Policy dealt with the Right of Adoption
LETTER X.
How the Annexation Policy dealt with Rights of Succession
by Blood or Marriage
LETTER XI.
A Sample of the details of Annexation :-Nagporę
LETTER XII.
What the Natives have said of late Annexations
PAGE.
38
38
50
61
73
88
100
117
133
149
160
XV
;
f
LETTER XIII.
Guarantees of the Non-annexation Policy required for the
Future
LETTER XIV.
How some of our Allies have been lately treated
PART II.
LETTER XV.
The Pledge of Religious and Civil Impartiality and Equality
LETTER XVI.
The Pledge of Respect to Native Property and Usages; a
Glance into the Past
THE PLEDGES OF THE PROCLAMATION TO THE
PEOPLE OF INDIA.
LETTER XVII.
The North-West Revenue Settlement and the Talookdars
LETTER XVIII.
The Effect of the Sale-Laws
LETTER XIX.
The Resumption Laws and the Inam Commission
LETTER XX.
The Inam Commission and the Government Practice as to
Adoption and Alicuation
LETTER XXI.
Government Purchases of Land
PAGE.
174
181
197
208
220
236
247
262
277
xvi
The Land Revenue
LETTER XXII.
Decay of the Wealthy and Respectable Classes
{
LETTER XXIII.
LETTER XXIV.
How the Pledge of Respect to Native Property is to be
carried out
LETTER XXV.
The Amnesty and the Disarming Orders
LETTER XXVI.
The Pledge of Internal Improvements
}
PAGE.
296
309
325
332
346
1
A
THE PROCLAMATION
OF THE
QUEEN'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER INDIA.
Proclamation by the Queen in Council, to the
Princes, Chiefs, and People of India.
VICTORIA, by the grace of God, of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in
Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia,
Queen, Defender of the Faith.
Whereas, for divers weighty reasons, we have
resolved, by and with the advice and consent of
the lords spiritual and temporal and commons
in Parliament assembled, to take
upon ourselves
the government of the territories in India, here-
tofore administered in trust for
for us by the
Honourable East India Company:
Now, therefore, we do by these presents notify
and declare that, by the advice and consent
aforesaid, we have taken upon ourselves the said
government, and we hereby call upon all our
subjects within the said territories to be faithful
and to bear true allegiance to us, our heirs and
successors, and to submit themselves to the
B
20
authority of those whom we may hereafter from
time to time see fit to appoint to administer the
government of our said territories, in our name
and on our behalf.
And we, reposing especial trust and confi-
dence in the loyalty, ability, and judgment of
our right trusty and well-beloved cousin and
councillor, Charles John Viscount Canning, do
hereby constitute and appoint him, the said
Viscount Canning, to be our first Viceroy and
Governor-General in and over our said terri-
tories, and to administer the government thereof
in our name, and generally to act in our name
and on our behalf, subject to such orders and
regulations as he shall, from time to time, receive
from us through one of our principal Secretaries
of State.
And we do hereby confirm in their several
offices, civil and military, all persons now em-
ployed in the service of the Honourable East
India Company, subject to our future pleasure,
and to such laws and regulations as may here-
after be enacted.
We hereby announce to the native princes of
India that all treaties and engagements made
with them, by or under the authority of the
Honourable East India Company, are by us
accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained;
and we look for the like observance on their part.
3
We desire no extension of our present terri-
torial possessions; and while we will permit no
aggression upon our dominions or our rights to
be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction
no encroachment on those of others. We shall
respect the rights, dignity, and honour of native
princes as our own, and we desire that they, as
well as our own subjects, should enjoy that
prosperity and that social advancement which
can only be secured by internal peace and good
government.
We hold ourselves bound to the natives of
our Indian territories by the same obligations of
duty which bind us to all our other subjects;
and those obligations, by the blessing of Al-
mighty God, we shall faithfully and conscien-
tiously fulfil.
Be
Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of
Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude
the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right
and the desire to impose our convictions on any
of our subjects. We declare it to be our Royal
will and pleasure that none be in anywise fa-
voured, none molested or disquieted, by reason
of their religious faith or observances, but that
all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial pro-
tection of the law; and we do strictly charge
and enjoin all those who may be in authority
under us, that they abstain from all interference
B 2
4
with the religious belief or worship of any of our
subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure.
And it is our further will that, so far as may
be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be
freely and impartially admitted to offices in our
service, the duties of which they may be quali-
fied, by their education, ability, and integrity,
duly to discharge.
We know and respect the feelings of attach-
ment with which the natives of India regard the
lands inherited by them from their ancestors, and
we desire to protect them in all rights connected
therewith, subject to the equitable demands of
the State; and we will that, generally, in framing
and administering the law, due regard be paid
to the ancient rights, usages, and customs of
India.
We deeply lament the evils and misery which
have been brought upon India by the acts of
ambitious men, who have deceived their coun-
trymen by false reports, and led them into open
rebellion. Our power has been shown by the
suppression of that rebellion in the field; we
desire to show our mercy by pardoning the
offences of those who have been thus misled, but
who desire to return to the path of duty.
Already in one province, with a view to stop
the further effusion of blood, and to hasten the
pacification of our Indian dominions, our vice-
5
10
roy and governor-general has held out the ex-
pectation of pardon, on certain terms, to the
great majority of those who in the late unhappy
disturbances have been guilty of offences against
our Government, and has declared the punish-
ment which will be inflicted on those whose
crimes place them beyond the reach of forgive-
ness. We approve and confirm the said act of
our viceroy and governor-general, and do further
announce and proclaim as follows:-
"Our clemency will be extended to all of-
fenders, save and except those who have been
or shall be convicted of having directly taken
part in the murder of British subjects.
"With regard to such the demands of justice
forbid the exercise of mercy.
66
To those who have willingly given asylum
to murderers, knowing them to be such, or who
may
have acted as leaders or instigators in revolt,
their lives alone can be guaranteed; but, in
appointing the penalty due to such persons, full
consideration will be given to the circumstances
under which they have been induced to throw
off their allegiance, and large indulgence will be
shown to those whose crimes may appear to
have originated in a too credulous acceptance of
the false reports circulated by designing men.
"To all others in arms against the Govern-
ment, we hereby promise unconditional pardon,
-
6
amnesty, and oblivion of all offences against
ourselves, our crown, and dignity, on their return
to their homes and peaceful pursuits.
"It is our Royal pleasure that these terms of
grace and amnesty should be extended to all
those who comply with their conditions before
the first day of January next.
When, by the blessing of Providence, in-
ternal tranquillity shall be restored, it is our
earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful ministry
of India, to promote works of public utility and
improvement, and to administer its government
for the benefit of all our subjects resident therein.
In their prosperity will be our strength, in their
contentment our security, and in their gratitude
our best reward. And may the God of all power
grant unto us, and to those in authority under
us, strength to carry out these our wishes for
the good of our people."
66
LETTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION AND ITS PROMISES.
THE Queen's proclamation has gone forth through-
out the length and breadth of India, telling its princes
and its people that a new era has begun, that the age
of middlemen has passed away, that the Sovereign has
entered at last upon her inheritance. It is quite im-
possible to overrate the momentous nature of such a
document. It is not only the first (if I mistake not)
which has ever been directly addressed by the wearer
of the English crown to the natives of India: It
claims for itself a character of permanency, definitive-
ness, which no Governor-General's proclamation can
lay claim to. So long as we have any national dig-
nity at all, it must determine to all time the funda-
mental character of English dominion in India. It
is, in truth, British India's Magna Charta; but one,
not extorted from a cowardly tyrant, but freely
granted by a gracious lady, ruler over willing sub-
jects, lawful sovereign of free-born men.*
So deeply do I feel that the policy marked out by
the proclamation, whatever minister's hand may have
worded it, must be the abiding policy of England
*I am not overlooking the paramount authority of Parliament
over India, asserted ere this by numberless statutes. But no Act of
Parliament ever came home to the natives of India as the proclama-
tion will have done.
8
towards India, that, had it gone against my own views,
I should have bowed before it, convinced that fixity of
purpose-not excluding, indeed, development and adap-
tation-is absolutely essential to the stability of empire.
As it is, however, I place it gladly in the forefront of
a work written in great measure before its promulga-
tion, which it enables me to weed of many a train of
reasoning useless henceforth, when, instead of having
to establish my own footing, I have but to take up the
standing-ground which is afforded to me.
The scrupulous observance of treaties--abstinence
from extension of territory-the open avowal of Chris-
tianity, but respect to the native creeds-admission of
natives to office-maintenance of native rights of pro-
perty in land-form now the bases of England's
Anglo-Indian policy. To show as a whole what
should be built upon these foundations far transcends
my powers, or, I take it, those of any single man. I
wish only to sketch out some of the consequences which
appear to me to be involved in that policy, dwelling
upon one or two points which I deem of especial im-
portance now. The work will be better done, I sus-
pect, if the promises of the proclamation are taken up
one or two at a time by single men, so as to show
why it became necessary to put them forth,-how
they can best be carried out,-what interferes with
their fulfilment.
MA
For let us be assured that something does interfere
and will interfere with the fulfilment of every single
gracious pledge which the proclamation contains.
There never was a right thing done in the world (and
never will be) but some wrong one has fought with it,
9
✓
and sought to strangle it from the first. In the pre-
sent case, it is impossible to mistake the evil influences
at work. At home, a Council containing some of the
worst representatives of the old India House,— an East
India Company still struggling to maintain a ghastly
sort of existence after its political death, a gloomy
Leadenhall Street dungeon-palace (haunted, to the
native's eye at least, with many a memory of injustice,
and callousness, and despair), still shrouding the Govern-
ment of India within its recesses, and cutting it asun-
der from the great shrines of our national greatness at
Westminster, the Hall, and the Abbey, and the Palace,
-in India, a whole generation of officials and their
dependents, bred and trained up under another system,
wedded to other traditions ;-above all, perhaps, the
feelings of imperious hatred to their darker fellow-
subjects, which the rebellion seems to have called
forth in the Anglo-Indian population at large,-offer
of themselves obstacles the most serious to the loyal
and thorough carrying out of the principles of the
proclamation, even if there were no warfare going on,
no armies on foot, no Tantia Topee to reduce, no
native hatreds, treacheries, and discontents. Very
ominous was it to notice, in the Times' Bombay Cor-
respondent's account of the Proclamation festivities at
that Presidency, that the quarter of the European
residents was dark amidst native illuminations,-the
Parsee residences in particular being all a-blaze with
light. Very dissonant with the Queen's proclamation
*
-
* At Madras-both governor and commander-in-chief being absent
there were no fireworks, no illuminations, no street pageants, so
dear to the natives, no public entertainments, as there were even at
minor stations throughout the country.
10
(P)
is that of the Governor-General which accompanies it,
dated 1st November, 1858, which "summons" the
faithful to co-operation, which will "exact a loyal obe-
dience" from India's millions, as if loyalty were capa-
ble of being exacted! I cannot wonder that earnest men,
even now, dare hardly hope in the reality of the new
policy. "There was not a single promise in the pro-
clamation," writes one of such, "that has not been
made in the most solemn way before, and as regularly
broken; and after about six months' of the Queen's
Government, I do not see a symptom in any department
of measures to carry out the promises of the Proclama-
tion; indeed, as far as symptoms go, I see indications
of an adherence to the old Company's system." Such
forebodings may be amply justified, yet for years to come,
by events; in spite of amnesties and gracious promises,
we may yet have other rebellions to subdue. And still,
I believe that it would be most unwise not to accept the
proclamation, in the very length and breadth of it, as
true; as expressing that which ought to be, that which
is, England's policy towards India; as supplying a
definite standard by which to measure the future acts
of Governors-General and of ministers.
For though
men's words often transcend their acts,-though the
humiliating contrast between large promise and small
performance meets us on all sides at every step,- yet
it is no less true that words of grace and justice, once
put forth, have a power as it were to draw up men's
acts towards their own level. And it is characteristic
of English history, that our national liberties have al-
ways developed themselves by taking men's words in
earnest, at their full weight, from whatever lips they
might proceed; by forcing those lips, however false, to
11
keep them.
How often was Magna Charta broken,
how often confirmed, before it came to be what it is now,
the very corner-stone of our social state, that for
want of which continental fabrics of free government
crumble away at a touch! Even so must it be with this
our Sovereign's memorable proclamation, if the day
should come again when ministers or governors-general,
—or their subordinates, as powerful perhaps in smaller
spheres,―shall play fast and loose with treaties, thrust
of purpose forward the limits of empire, trample upon
native rights and properties. By that proclamation
must they be judged; to its standard must they be
made to conform. They may violate every one of its
promises, but every promise will survive its own vio-
lation, and avenge it.
3
PART I.
PROMISES OF THE PROCLAMATION
TO THE PRINCES OF INDIA.
LETTER II.
THE ANNEXATION POLICY HENCEFORTH GIVEN UP.
FOR the better consideration of the promises con-
tained in the proclamation, let us divide them under
two heads,-Promises to the princes of India; Pro-
mises to the people.
"We desire no extension of our present territorial
possessions; and while we will permit no aggression
upon our dominions or our rights to be attempted with
impunity, we shall sanction no encroachments on those
of others. We shall respect the rights, dignity, and
honour of native princes as our own."
There is only one sense in which these words can be
taken in India,-as the disavowal of an Annexation
Policy. "Has there ever really been such a policy?"
some of my readers may be tempted to ask. Fain,
indeed, would I persuade myself that it has been but
an evil dream. But, alas! its reality is written in
blood. Nor can we appreciate the weight of the dis-
avowal until we have examined into the need of it,
Let us observe, indeed, in the first instance, that in
proclaiming that she desires no extension of territory,
Her Majesty is putting forth no new doctrine in India,
but that which has in its favour the authority of almost
all our great Indian statesmen of old,-the authority
of The Duke, and Lord Hastings, and Mountstuart
Elphinstone, and Sir John Malcolm, and Sir Thomas
Munro, and Lord Metcalfe, and St. George Tucker.
16
It would be tedious henceforth to reproduce at length
their opinions; it will be quite enough, as a type of
them all, to recall the weighty words of the Duke,
that "wherever we spread ourselves," we make "addi-
tional enemies, at the same time that by the extension
of our territory, our means of supporting our govern-
ment, and of defending ourselves, are proportionably
decreased."*
And there is one point about several of the above
authorities which has not, I think, been adverted to
enough. When we quote the names of the Duke of
Wellington, Elphinstone, Malcolm, Munro, Metcalfe,-
when we remember that they all bore witness against
*Those who wish to see the authorities above referred to collected,
will find most of them in a pamphlet, published in 1850, by the late
Mr. John Sullivan, formerly Member of Council at Madras, under
the title of "A Letter to the Right Hon. Sir John Hobhouse, Bart.,
M.P., conveying the opinions of Sir Thomas Munro, Sir John Mal-
colm, and Mr. Elphinstone, on the impolicy of destroying the native
states of India ;" and in the fourth of the India Reform Tracts,
published, if I recollect aright, in 1853, and intitled "The Native
States of India;" see also the privately printed "Selections" from
Mr. Tucker's papers, pp. 66, 89.
Sir Wm. Sleeman (Journey
through Oude, vol. ii. pp. 389-92); General Low, (Return to an
Order of the House of Commons, dated July 27, 1854, for "Copies
of the Treaty between the Honourable East India Company and his
Highness Maharajah Raghojee Bhonsla, his heirs and successors,
concluded in the year 1826; of all reports upon the failure of heirs
of the late Rajah of Berar, and upon the annexation of the Berar
territory to the East India Company's territories," &c.-to be here-
after quoted as the "Nagpore Annexation Papers,"-p. 39 and foll.) ;
Major-General Briggs; and Colonel Alves, who must be named
(India, its dangers considered in 1856, p. 9), are among the later
maintainers of the anti-annexation policy. Lord Ellenborough has
testified in favour of it, and acted to the contrary, as will be seen here.
after.
17
M
the policy of absorbing native states into our empire,
we should also bear in mind that their testimony was
founded, not upon preconceived theories, not even upon
ordinary Indian experience, but upon Indian experience
of a very peculiar kind. One and all of the deceased
statesmen above named were formed in what may be
called the great annexing school of Lord Wellesley,
whose administration saw so many vast territories
added to our rule. Three of them remained to take
part in the annexations of Lord Wellesley's true suc-
cessor, Lord Hastings. The Duke was Lord Wellesley's
own brother. Sir John Malcolm had almost idolised
the great Governor-General. One was the victor of
Assaye; Mr. Elphinstone, though a civilian, in fact
directed the battle of Kirkee, which first broke the
power of the Peishwa; Sir John Malcolin bore the
brunt of the battle of Mehidpore, which crushed that
of Holkar; Sir Thomas Munro took part in the same
war. Three, lastly, became in turn governors of
pre-
sidencies: Mr. Elphinstone and Sir John Malcolm
at Bombay, Sir Thomas Munro at Madras. These
men, then, had shared in past annexations ---had won
renown in so doing-had watched their effects. They
testified that those effects were evil.
C
The new policy of non-annexation is therefore the
old policy of Anglo-Indian statesmanship. Indeed,
as I look back, I can find but one great name
among deceased statesmen which can be quoted
against it, that of Sir Charles Napier. I accept it
therefore as a fact; and will not discuss its reasonable-
ness. I will pass at once to the history of the contrary
policy, the policy of annexation.
C
18
66
It is between fifteen or twenty years, I believe, since
a party strong in intellect," to use the words of a
recent pamphlet*-but mostly very young in experi-
ence, began advocating "British rule everywhere, and
Anglo-Saxon improvements and ways in everything."
The readiest pen at their command was that of " Brah-
minee Bull," alias that able but much-lauded and self-
lauded man, Colonel Herbert Edwardes. Sir Henry
Elliot, Sir Henry Lawrence, were leading members
of the school; Mr. Thoby Prinsep helped it with
a pamphlet in 1853; Mr. George Campbell with
a big book; when its doctrines had been officially
promulgated by a Governor-General in 1848, there
was no lack of Members of Council to indorse them.
Mr. Marshman and the "Friend of India" never
tired of urging them; most of the Indian papers fol-
lowed in his wake. Such a policy was therefore un-
doubtedly that of the bulk of the Anglo-Indian public,
when Lord Dalhousie came to embody it in his minutes,
his despatches, and his acts.
I wish, indeed, that I could have abstained from
mentioning the name of the late Governor-General,
considering the state of his health. But that name is
too inextricably bound to the annexation policy to
allow me to speak of the one without the other. For
to him belongs the deliberate and complete adoption of
that policy. Not, of course, that the practice began with
him. We have undoubtedly been annexing and ab-
sorbing in India ever since we have been there. We
took what we could, long before we ever thought that
* India: its Dangers considered in 1856, by a Retired Officer,
(Jersey, 1858), p. 33.
19
there could be such a thing as a policy concerning the
matter; sometimes, it might be, we took a little too
much for our own strong stomachs, and then, perhaps,
the House of Commons, or the next Governor-General, or
the Court of Directors, stepped in to prevent our taking
more, and succeeded for a little while in arresting or
moderating the process. Lord Dalhousie was simply,
so to speak, the philosopher of that process. He not
only did the thing, but supplied a formula for the
doing of it; or, perhaps, to speak with perfect precision,
generalized one which had been incidentally sketched
out by Lord Auckland. He had not been a year
in India when he penned (30th August, 1848) that
celebrated Sattara despatch, in which he took the
occasion of recording his "strong and deliberate opinion,
that in the exercise of a wise and sound policy, the
British Government is bound not to put aside, or to neg-
lect, such rightful opportunities of acquiring territory
or revenue as may from time to time present them-
selves." There might, he admitted, "be conflict of
opinion as to the advantage or the propriety of ex-
tending our already vast possessions beyond their
present limits;" no man could more sincerely deprecate
than himself "any extension of our territory which can
be avoided;" but he could "not conceive it possible for
any one to dispute the policy of taking advantage of
any just opportunity which presents itself, for con-
solidating the territories that already belong to us, by
taking possession of states which may lapse in the
midst of them;" such was the "general principle" that
in his opinion, "ought to guide the British Govern-
ment in its disposal of independent states, where there
S
C 2
20
has been total failure of all heirs whatsoever, or where
permission is asked to continue by adoption a succession
which fails in the natural line."*
It is very true that Lord Dalhousie afterwards
attempted to qualify this exposition of his policy, in a
minute on the Nagpore annexation (28th Jan. 1854);
declaring that the opinion he
66
gave
was restricted
wholly to subordinate states--to those dependent
principalities which, either as the virtual creation of
the British Government, or from their former position,
stood in such relation to that government as gave to it
the recognized right of a paramount power in all
questions of the adoption of an heir to the sovereignty
of the state." Considering that the Sattara despatch
avowedly set forth the "general principle" that
"ought to guide the British Government in its disposal
of independent states," this restriction of it in terms to
"subordinate states," and "dependent principalities"
was curious in itself. But when we observe that Nag-
pore was one of the larger native states-a king-
dom with a revenue treble that of Sattara-it would
hardly appear that such restriction was of much practical
weight. And we shall see ere long that the right of
annexation was asserted against Nagpore, in the very
minute from which the above is quoted, irrespectively
of the question of the dependent or independent
character of the state.
*Papers relating to the question of the disposal of the Sattara
state, in consequence of the death of the late Raja; printed in con-
formity with a resolution of the General Court of Proprietors of East
India Stock, of the 7th February, 1849, pp. 103-4. (I shall quote
these hereafter as the "Sattara Annexation Papers.")
+ Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 35.
21
"
But the best comment on the annexation policy is
surely afforded by Lord Dalhousie's final minute of the
28th February, 1856, "reviewing his administration
in India, from January 1848, to March 1856,'
wherein he states that during the eight years of his
rule, "four kingdoms have passed under the sceptre of
the Queen of England, and various chiefships and
separate tracts have been brought under her sway."
The "kingdoms" are those of the Punjab, Pegu,
Nagpore, and Oude; the chiefships, those of Sattara
and Jhansee, with the territories ceded by the Nizam.
The two first being stated to be "the fruits of conquest,"
the remainder may all be fairly deemed "the fruits of
.policy." By these various acquisitions, he further tells
us, "a revenue of not less than 4,000,000 has been
added to the annual income of the Indian empire.
It is true that these figures have been most severely
criticized; that Sir Erskine Perry in the House of
Commons has asserted that they give only the gross
revenue, without reference to the expenditure; that a
writer in the "New Quarterly" has apparently shewn
that actual deficiency stands in the place of several
of the items of alleged increase.†t But we have the fact
before us,
that the Governor-General who in 1848 re-
corded his strong and deliberate opinion that the
*Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 30th May,
97
1856.
† One thing is very clear, that if the revenues of the annexed
states are all, as Lord Dalhousie represented them to be, bonâ fide
additions to those of British India, native princes must be ad-
mirable financiers compared to ourselves, since their accounts would
always exhibit a surplus, whilst British India always exhibits a
deficiency.
22
British Government was "bound not to put aside or to
neglect " rightful opportunities of acquiring territory
or revenue, had, by his own shewing, in eight years,
found seven such rightful opportunities of practising
his doctrine on a large scale, to the total amount of
£4,330,000 a year.
Such then was the policy of an-
nexation in its practice; such was the policy which is
to be practised no longer, if the Queen's words are to
be a truth: "We desire no extension of our present
territorial possessions."
LETTER III.
THE ANNEXATION POLICY IN ITS BEARINGS UPON
THE REBELLION.
LET us now endeavour to trace the effects of the
Annexation policy, in its bearing upon the late re-
bellion. The time is past when it was necessary to
prove that what England had to deal with in India was
not a mere mutiny, but a rebellion. The proclamation
settles this point. It deals frankly and manfully with
the rebellion by that name. Ambitious men, it says,
have led their countrymen into "open rebellion ;"
the Queen's power "has been shewn by the suppression
of that rebellion in the field."
The history of the rebellion has yet to be written.
It is not, indeed, over yet; but its leading features are
by this time all before us. So far as we can disentangle
it from the mutiny-so far as it can be recognized as
something more abiding than the track of fire of a
}
23
revolted regiment,
I think we may say that its
chief centres have been Oude and Bundelcund in the
North, the contagion spreading from the latter through
the so-called Saugur and Nerbudda territories of
Central India. In the Deckan, on the other hand,
where its flames have hitherto been smothered in time,
the chief seats of danger have been the South Mah-
ratta country, and the Nizam's territory. And the
influences which have bound almost all these different
centres together, the trains which have connected
these several explosions, or attempted explosions, have
been two-those of the Oude sepoys on the one hand,
of the Mahratta race on the other; though the former
influence belongs more properly to the mutiny, the
latter to the rebellion. Oude soldiers filled our Bengal
army; Oude soldiers the "contingents" of the native
princes, which almost invariably turned upon their
own masters; Oude soldiers, scattered through Bombay
regiments, were the chief instigators of the partial out-
breaks which have disturbed here and there the army
of that Presidency. Oude itself has remained for now
nearly a year and a half the great stronghold of the
rebellion; the Oude Begum seems with Tantia Topee
and Nana Sahib, our last remaining foe.
But the influence of the Mahrattas has gone far
deeper. It was Nana Sahib the Mahratta, Maharaja
of Bithoor, adopted son to the last Peshwa, claiming that
title for himself, who first gave to a tumultuous out-
break against us the character of a semi-organized re-
bellion. He had prepared that outbreak, I do not doubt,
long beforehand; when it came, he was the first chief of
note who joined it, placing himself at the head of two
W
24
mutinous regiments at Cawnpore; whilst by that
butchery of the weak and the young, of which we
seem at last to have obtained a correct history,- in
which one rejoices to find that not one of our mutinous
soldiers could be induced to share,--he did his best to
forfeit England's pardon for the revolt. And though
the early reports greatly exaggerated his capacity;
though-if he have really remained for so many
months quiescent in Northern Oude-he seems to be
as much a coward as a fiend; still, his restless acti-
vity at one time rendered him really formidable.
By his emissaries he stirred up, or endeavoured to
stir up, Malwa, Bundelcund, the Deckan against us.
In the second province we know how well he suc-
ceeded. The Bheels of Khandeish seem to have been
commanded by his agents. For a time, as Mr. Russell
told the "Times" in April, 1858, he had himself ob-
tained a preponderating control over Rohilcund; had
succeeded, in the Mahommedan city of Bareilly, in
forbidding the killing of cows, and publicly celebrating
Hindoo rites. His name, as Peshwa, commanded
enormous prestige. The great rebel army of Bundel-
cund called itself "the army of the Peshwa." When
Gwalior was wrested from its sovereign by the Calpee
forces, it was a deputy of the Peshwa who was installed
momentarily as successor to our faithful ally Scindia.
Nay, the destinies of our Indian empire may be said
to have hung for months upon the chances of the Nana's
forcing his way into the Deckan, which, indeed, he was
several times rumoured to have done. "This," wrote the
Times' Calcutta correspondent on May 5th, 1858," it is
a great object to prevent, as he can thence reach our
B
25
own Mahratta provinces, where his name will create an
army. The mischief he might effect, in the present
temper of the Mahrattas, is incalculable, and Bombay
officers write with amazement of his folly in not making
the attempt. Here he is merely an adventurer-on the
Bombay side he would be the Peshwa, bringing before
every
Mahratta visions of principalities and plunder."
So a gentleman then lately returned from India,
wrote to me on June 13th, 1858: "The Deckan is in
a very critical state at this moment, and a spark might
fire the train any day. The villages in the Deckan and
Mahratta country were everywhere looking for Nana
Sahib, who is considered the legitimate successor of the
Peshwa." So again, several months later, an officer
in command of one of the cavalry regiments of the
Nizam's Contingent, whose judgment and knowledge
of the country may be relied on, wrote that should an
outbreak occur (as he expected) in the Deckan, the
struggle which had taken place in the north would be
as nothing to it, and we should find ourselves only at
the beginning of the war.*
* The following remarkable evidence shews that plots in the
Deckan preceded the outbreak. It consists of extracts (transmitted
to me from India) from the " 18th Report of the German Evangeli-
cal Mission of the western coast of India," 1858. A writer from
Guledagudda, in the South Mahratta country, says, "Long before the
outbreak in the North-west, hints were received by silk mercers at
Bagulcote from mercantile connexions in the north, to limit their
engagements for the next year and call in their debts-gloomy
rumours then gained ground from day to day, threatening Europeans
and native Christians with ruin and death" (pp. 65-6). Again: "At
this festival, which took place some time before the mutinies in the
north broke out, Brother Kies' addresses were once and again met
with the assertion, that the British rule would cease within the year."
26
Fortunately for us, Nana Sahib did not try this ven-
ture, whilst the rebellion was still at its height, before
Sir Hugh Rose's brilliant victories, and Lord Clyde's
patient but sure generalship, and the Queen's gracious
amnesty--if faithfully used-had rendered its success
hopeless, its extinction a mere question of time. That
venture we know is now being tried, if not by himself,
by that mysterious personage Tantia Topee, by some
accounts an adoptive brother of the Nana's, by another
account identified with him,-whose name (meaning a
hat) is utterly unknown in Hindoo family nomencla-
ture,*—the pattern of a Mahratta chief, always beaten
and always on foot again after each defeat, and whose
dash across the Nerbudda from Seronge, outwitting
even the keen and wary Michel, breaking through the
wall of fire which already closed in upon him by a
feigned retreat to the north-east, and then dropping
suddenly south, appears to me a most characteristic and
brilliant feat. Nor must we forget that Ranee of
Jhansee, widow herself of a Mahratta Brahmin, who
made her late capital the centre of rebellion in Bun-
delcund, and by her personal example seems to have
excited amongst our rebellious troops a bravery which
they never exhibited elsewhere. For the first time,
before Jhansee, they bore the fire of our artillery.
For the first time they formed square, repelled two
charges of our cavalry, advanced again after being
broken by the third, were only driven headlong by the
fourth. The struggle appears to have been the most
* If Tantia Topee be the Nana, or a man of straw used as a screen
to conceal the latter's presence, the name "hat" would recall our own
cant term "bonnet."
27
sanguinary of the whole war. No fewer than 8,000
Sepoys, the early accounts stated, were bayoneted
within the town. But the Ranee and a large portion
of her troops escaped, and made another stand at
Koonch, where, however, Sir Hugh Rose again de-
feated them. Yet the indomitable Hindoo princess
joined next the Calpee force, shared their single suc-
cess in the taking of Gwalior, and was at last with her
sister, dressed like herself in men's clothes, and like her
a mere girl, killed at the re-capture of the place ;-
and though Sir Hugh Rose does not seem to have
thought her death worthy of mention in his despatch,
murderess though she were, do we suppose that her
name will soon die out from native story and song?
Again, as I have said already, the South Mahratta
country, of which Sattara is the heart, and which has
been the chief recruiting field for the Bombay army
(the cavalry excepted) has been for Western India a
focus of disorder and discontent during the rebellion.
When the 27th Bombay Native Infantry rose upon
its officers at Kolapore, a relative of mine from Western
India, then in England, wrote to me that he was "not
surprised, as the men had been raised in the South
Mahratta country." The 28th and 29th, both recently
levied and formed of the same materials, both shewed
signs of disaffection. At Sattara, sixteen men were
blown from guns; others were executed at Belgaum.
The widows and the adopted son of a deposed raja
were arrested by the Collector of Sattara, and sent to
Bombay, to be confined there.
But a more remarkable event has taken place than
any partial outbreak. The claims of the Rajas of
28
Sattara, as titular sovereigns, and of the Peshwas, as
encroaching ministers, are essentially rival ones; the
former princes were expressly set up by Mr. Elphin-
stone, on the downfall of the latter. The deposed
Raja of Sattara, in particular, was keenly alive to
the danger of Brahmin usurpation, and it is alleged
that Brahmin influence was the real cause of his
downfall. Now, however, a "fusion" between the
followers of both houses seems to have been effected.
By intelligence from India, brought by the mail of
the 24th April, 1858, and published in the Standard,
but which the Times considered unworthy of repro-
duction, it appears that the Senaputtee, or former
Commander-in-Chief of the Sattara state, and the ex-
Commandant of the Raja's artillery, were found guilty
of treasonable correspondence with the Nana, and
were sentenced to be hung-a punishment involving
loss of caste. The Senaputtee entreated to be blown
from a gun instead; but finding his request refused,
in an agony of terror revealed a plot, in which
he was himself one of the principals, and which is
said to have had for one of its objects, "the massacre
of every European in the Deckan and South Mahratta
country." In consideration of the importance of these
disclosures, his sentence was commuted to transporta-
tion to the Andamans.
MAG
Of the spirit which might have animated a South
Mahratta outbreak, had it not been checked in time,
let the following sample suffice:-"Listen, all!" said
one of the Sattara conspirators at the gallows' foot, on
the 19th June, 1857, "As the English people hurled
the Raja from his throne, in like manner do you drive
29
them out of the country. I am illegally condemned.
This example is made to frighten you; but be
Sons of Brahmins, Mahrattas, and
Sons of Christians, look to
not alarmed.
Mussulmen, revolt!
yourselves!"*
Now, if we recollect that the rancour of Nana
Sahib is avowedly owing to the suppression of the
Peshwa's pension,† the coincidence of sphere between
the rebellion, or the dread of it, and the annexation
policy, is most remarkable. For though the late
Governor-General did not even advert in his final
minute to the Peshwa's pension,-though he did not
seem to have considered the withdrawal of £80,000 a
year from a native family of the highest rank as worth
mentioning to his Leadenhall-street masters,-it is
obvious that that act belongs essentially to the policy
which declared that the British Government was
bound not to neglect any rightful opportunity of ac-
quiring territory "or revenue." And with this addi-
tion, we see at once that the list of Lord Dalhousie's
annexations by policy is that of our past dangers.
He annexed the kingdom of Oude, the principality of
Jhansee, and Oude and Jhansee have been strongholds
of rebellion. He annexed Sattara, and Sattara has
barely escaped becoming such a stronghold. He ob-
tained a cession of territories from the Nizam, and
Hyderabad has seen blood shed in its streets, and the
Nizam's whole country has been as it were a powder-
barrel, which a spark might explode. Nor should the
name of Nagpore be absent from the list. There
* Mr. J. B. Norton's "Rebellion in India," p. 97.
† I shall say a few words more on this subject hereafter.
30
were fears for Nagpore as early as December, 1857,
and a "pretty strong force of Madras troops" could
not then "safely be spared out of it." By the mail of
June, 1858, came news of an actual outbreak, of ze-
mindars in open rebellion, who had murdered two tele-
graph employés; against whom troops had to be sent,
-one of whom has just been executed. Mr. Norton,
in his lately published "Topics for Indian Statesmen,
speaks of "the discovery of the plot at Nagpore at the
eleventh hour" as of a patent fact, though I am other-
wise ignorant of the details.* And the same English
traveller, to whom I have before referred, declared,
from personal experience, that there was "much dis-
content in Berar," that the annexation of Nagpore
was one of the causes which have "given rise to a very
strong feeling against us."
I do not say that annexation was the sole cause of
the rebellion. There is nothing more convenient, and
nothing more fallacious, than to attribute great events
to single causes. Where the scene of such an event
is simply more than half of all India, this method be-
comes absolutely futile. I am quite persuaded that
other causes concurred with annexation to produce the
Indian rebellion; religious causes, economical causes,
social causes, legal causes. I shall dwell upon one set
at least of these causes hereafter. But I believe that
the annexation policy, as such, supplied the rebellion-
from Oude, with its disciplined soldiers-everywhere,
with its leaders. Without Oude-without Nana Sahib
and Tantia Topee of Bithoor-without Jhansee and its
Ranee-with firm allies for us instead of a chafed ally
* P. 56.
—
Tagged
""
31
and unquiet subjects at Hyderabad, at Sattara, at
Nagpore, what remains of it? Khan Bahadoor Khan,
the opium eater, at Bareilly; old Kooer Sing at Jug-
despore; the Nawab of Banda in Bundelcund. Would
these have convulsed an empire?
It is easy to treat such reasonings with contempt,
as samples of the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy.
Ex-financial Commissioners of Oude may establish to
their hearts' content that a country, which it now
requires five armies to quell after more than a twelve-
month's warfare, was rendered happy by annexation.
I have not the least doubt that as plausible a case may
be made out for Jhansee, and for Sattara, and for
Nagpore, by any official from those countries. But
plain men, when they see the annexation policy of the
last ten years followed by a trail of blood throughout
the length and breadth of India, will be little influ-
enced by such pleadings. And if, which God forbid !
the lust of power should prompt a political party in
this country once more to justify that policy, to find
fault with the present Ministry for disclaiming it in
future, let us remember Lucknow, and Cawnpore, and
Jhansee, and say: "By the blood spilt and the
treasure spent during the last two years, these men
have, so far, done well.".
LETTER IV.
INVIDIOUSNESS OF LATE ANNEXATIONS; EXPE-
DIENCY OF RESTORATION.
Is it enough, however, to give up the annexation
policy for the future, as unwise? If we recognize
how weightily it has told upon the rebellion, will
not a further question arise: Must it not have
left stings behind which need extracting? wounds
which will fester if they be not healed? To answer
this question, it will be necessary to go somewhat
deeper into the consideration of past annexations,
tedious as this may seem to many.
Now, if we put aside wholly for the present all
questions of right, we shall find that there was, about
all the annexations of the last ten years which have
been enumerated, an element of broad, human pathos,
which was of a nature to stir the hearts of all who
might look upon them otherwise than in the light of a
policy, which yet calls for something more direct, more
individual than the mere reversal of that policy for the
future.
For, in the first place, excepting in the instances
of Pegu and the Punjab (and of the latter I shall
have more to say hereafter) all those various annexa-
tions were perpetrated in a time of profound peace,
on purely technical grounds, at the expense of friends.
The last ruler of Sattara, besides numerous internal
reforms effected, had assisted the British Government
w
33
during an insurrection in Kolapore, had offered to
place all his military means at its disposal during the
Affghanistan war.* The rulers of Jhansee claimed to
be the first in Bundelcund who had tendered their
allegiance to the British Government.† No breath of
suspicion attached to the faithfulness of the last
Nagpore Raja. Of the Nizam, Lord Dalhousie wrote
that “for more than half a century, relations of amity
and intimate connexion have existed between the
British Government and the Nizam." The rulers of
Oude had "ever been faithful and true to their friend-
ship with the British nation." The Raja of Tanjore,
the Nawab of the Carnatic,-our earliest allies of any,
—had expressly given up their territorial sovereignty
on the faith of the maintenance of their dignities and
pensions. We did not scruple to absorb the fort, a
few estates and other relics of kingship retained by the
former. We did not scruple to suppress the dignity
of the latter.
Now, consider the obloquy which a landlord in-
curs-and most justly-among ourselves, when he
resumes the land of a faithful tenant of his family, of
@
A
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 51.
+ Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated 17th July
1855, for copies of a treaty, &c. and of all reports and correspond-
ence relating to the annexation of Jhansi to the British territories
(to be hereafter quoted as the " Jhansee Annexation Papers "), p. 24.
Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated 6th April
1854, for copies of all papers relative to territory ceded by his
Highness the Nizam, in liquidation of debts alleged to have been
due by his Highness to the British Government, ordered to be
printed 26th July 1854, (to be hereafter quoted as the "Nizam's
Cessions Papers"), p. 36.
D
કે
34
an enterprizing farmer, simply because he fancies he
can do better with it himself. Think of the bitterness
of feeling engendered by such evictions, when, as in
Ireland, the landlord is of one faith, the tenant of
another; the tenant perhaps a descendant of a former
dispossessed Celt, the landlord a new man, a Saxon.
Then conceive the sort of feelings which are aroused in
India, when faithful Hindoo and Mussulman allies or
dependents are absorbed by the alien infidel, whether
their territories be prosperous or the reverse; even
though, as at Sattara, the two last rulers may "have
done more for the improvement of the country than
our own government can pretend to have done in any
part of its territory."*
Again :-The majority of annexations being grounded
on the alleged right of escheat by lapse, place neces-
sarily the British Government in that most justly
invidious of all positions, where absolute strength is
opposed to absolute weakness, the strong man to the
widow, to the child. The elder widow of the Sattara
Raja came forward with her husband's will, which he
was dictating on the morning of his death, placing his
adopted son under her charge, bidding her "preserve
the friendship of the British Government, and obtain
the Resident's advice in every affair; even should his
advice be occasionally such as to occasion loss, still
you should not deviate from it; even should you be
advised by a brother or father, yet you should make
no difference in your friendship for the British Govern-
ment, but act by the advice of the Resident;"† or
Tucker's Selections, p. 90. † Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 48.
.
35
*
again, with a memorandum, detailing "How the
Maharaja cherished the friendship of the British Go
vernment, and how all that he did was intended to
meet the approval of the British Government, and how
the affairs of the state were conducted, and what were
the charitable acts done by him for the good of his
subjects." The widow of the Jhansee Raja came
forward in like manner, praying that her late husband's
adoption might be sanctioned, † detailing-without,
the Political Agent tells us, "in the slightest degree
over-estimating them,-the instances of fidelity. and
loyalty shewn by him and his predecessors to the
British Government. Nagpore was annexed, over
the heads of the Raja's widows, within a few weeks
after the right of adopting had accrued to them. The
senior Ranee of Tanjore had to come as a suitor
to the Madras Supreme Court, praying for the
restoration of the private property of the late Raja,
which had been taken possession of by the British
Government—even to "two pennyworth of buttons,
an eye-squirt, some marbles,"--on pretence that it was
so mixed up with state property that it could not be
distinguished from the latter, and which was after-
wards retained on the ground that all the widows
were alleged to be entitled. § Such were the claim-
ants against whom a technical, and, as we shall find, a
disputed, a denied right paramount of succession by
escheat was asserted on grounds of policy, and carried
out by overwhelming force. Surely the natives of
+ Jhansee Annexation Papers, p. 14.
* Ibid. pp. 53-4.
‡ Ibid. pp. 24-6.
§ Mr. J. B. Norton, Case of the Tanjore Ranee, passim,
"
D 2
36
India must be less than men, if their feelings could
fail to be moved under such circumstances in favour
of the victims of annexation, and against the annexer.
Surely there was not a woman whom such annexa-
tions did not tend to make our enemy, not a child
whom they did not tend to train up in hatred to the
Feringhee rule. Surely Lukshmee Baee of Jhansee,
vainly urging in 1854 her husband's fidelity to England,
murdering Englishwomen in 1857, dying in the field
before Gwalior in 1858, is but a type of feelings that
must have been shared, more or less acutely, by
thousands of Hindoo wives and widows.
If we consider then, on the one hand, the evident
invidiousness of these acts of the annexation policy in
themselves at the time, on the other the fearful conse-
quences which they have evidently since helped to bring
forth,-- I think there is the strongest ground for saying
that, as a mere matter of policy, apart from all grounds
of justice, it would be most wise dispassionately to
examine how far they can yet be safely undone.
Victors on all sides, none can say henceforth that we .
should yield to fear in so acting; on the contrary, as a
sovereign act of grace, the restoration of territory
would naturally rank beside the generous amnesty
which has been granted by the proclamation. There
would be limits, of course, to the one as to the other. No
clemency, as the proclamation most rightly declares,
can be shewn to those who may be convicted of having
"directly taken part in the murder of British subjects;"
"to those who have willingly given asylum to mur-
derers, knowing them to be such, or who may have
acted as leaders or instigators in revolt, their lives
at dans
87
alone can be guaranteed." The Peshwa's pension as
such was no doubt wiped out for ever in the slaughter-
field of Cawnpore; the Jhansee massacre cannot be
soon forgotten; the Sattara plots impose the duty of
rigid scrutiny into the conduct of Sattara pretenders,
as the Oude rebellion into that of its captive king. And
yet surely it would be worthy of England's dignity-of
the clemency of her Queen-it would tend on all future
occasions to sow disunion in the camp of rebellion, to
neutralize the ties of family or clanship, if we were, so
to speak, astute in finding out any innocent members
of the families, dispossessed or impoverished by the an-
nexation policy, which have shewn themselves most
our enemies, in order to confer benefits upon them. I
would not even except that of Bajee Rao, in spite of
all Nana Sahib's atrocities.* Tippoo Sultan had been
*The terms of the late Peshwa, Bajee Rao's, surrender at Asseer-
ghur were, that upon fulfilling, as he did, certain conditions, he should
receive a liberal pension from the Company's government for the
support of himself and his family," not less than £80,000 a-year.
This sum, although deemed excessive by Lord Hastings, was only
£10,000 larger than the figure of one granted in 1803 by the Duke
of Wellington to a competitor of Bajee Rao (Amrut Rao), whom we
then treated as a usurper, for the lives of himself and his son. Bajee
Rao gave us no further trouble,-obtained from us a petty sovereignty
in Bithoor,-contributed divers lakhs of rupees to Indian loans,—
and died, having adopted Dhoondoo Punt Nana. Lord Dalhousie
suppressed the pension, as only given for life. I believe there is not
an English lawyer who would have ventured to treat the words "and
his family" as surplusage; Mr. Rolt, Q. C., at all events gave an
opinion that even upon strict construction the words meant, "for his
life and the life of his children, whether natural or adoptive." In
remembering Nana Sahib's atrocities, let us not forget that he did
not resort to murder till he had exhausted years in the effort to obtain,
what he at least deemed to be, justice, nor yet for himself only, but
for all the household of the late Peshwa, who remained at his charge.
38
privy at least to a massacre of English prisoners, yet
Tippoo Sultan's descendants are to this day, I believe,
our pensioners-nay, our servants—and who can doubt
that their existence as such is a source of strength to
us, and not of weakness?
I shall be able to shew hereafter that this view of
the expediency of restoration, in connexion with the
establishing of the Queen's government, was put forth
before the proclamation repudiating the annexation
policy was published, by an experienced Indian officer.
But he puts it upon another ground, that of justice.
Let us follow him upon
it.
LETTER V.
THE PLEDGE OF RESPECT TO TREATIES IN ITS
BEARING UPON LATE ACTS OF ANNEXATION.
SECTION I.
ANNEXATIONS BY ALLEGED RIGHT OF ESCHEAT.
"WE hereby announce to the native princes of India
that all treaties and engagements made with them, by
or under the authority of the Honourable East India
Company, are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously
maintained; and we look for the like observance on
their part."
So runs the Queen's Proclamation. Let us consider
late annexations by policy from the point of view which
it supplies. It applies to all of them without exception.
39
We had treaties with Oude, with Sattara, with Jhansee,
with Nagpore, with Tanjore, with the Carnatic; we have
treaties with the Nizam. But there is this difference
between the cases: Oude was annexed on the ground
of breach of treaty, though not towards ourselves. The
Nizam's cessions were obtained on a somewhat similar
ground. All the other instances, as will be seen from
Lord Dalhousie's final minute, group themselves under
the single head of lapse for want of heirs. Let us view
this group first of all; in other words, let us consider
the claim of the British government to the escheat of
native states; and let us take the three instances of Sat-
tara, Jhansee, and Nagpore, for our leading examples.
The treaties with these three states are very dif
ferent in their wording; the first with Sattara standing
out however among them, and among the general slip-
slop of our Indian treaties, by the superior clearness,
terseness, and appropriateness of its language; bear-
ing, if I mistake not, the stamp of the master-mind of
Mountstuart Elphinstone. What impression do they
convey?
No doubt they are in no instance dealings between
equals. The British government is everywhere visibly
the preponderating power. It has "invested" the
Raja of Sattara with his sovereignty; it agrees to
"cede" to him his territory, which he is to hold “in
subordinate co-operation to the British government."*
It "constitutes" the soobadars of Jhansee hereditary
*See "Return to an order of the House of Lords, dated 16th June,
1853, for copies of the treaties and engagements between the East
India Company and the Native Princes of Asia" (to be hereafter
quoted as "House of Lords' Return of Treaties)," p. 280, and foll.
40
rulers.* The Raja of Nagpore has "succeeded" to the
musnud by its "favour."+ Still, these instruments are
no letters-patent granted by a sovereign to a subject
of his "special grace, certain knowledge and mere
motion;" they are not "sunnuds" (or grants), like
those under which the chiefs of the Hill States on the
Sutledge hold their possessions. They are, as the
diplomatists say, synallagmatic in form. They are
contracts between two parties, visibly treated as equally
capable of contracting together. There is a valuable
consideration on both sides, in the mutual obligations
which are entered into. There is no hint of any
further claims by the preponderating power, which
may lie behind the treaty. If any such claims had
existed, as, for instance, those "rights" of the Peshwa
* Jhansee Annexation Papers, p. 1, and foll.
+ House of Lords' Return of Treaties, p. 398, and foll.
(C
‡ The formula of a Royal Charter. Observe that the natives
understand well the difference between a
c
grant" and a treaty."
Thus Mr., now Sir R. Hamilton, writing from Indore, 21st November,
1814, says: "The term 'sunnud' [grant] conveys neither rank nor
importance in Malwa, while there is great honour, of which the chiefs
and sirdars are very tenacious and sensitive, in being connected by
treaty with the paramount power." Return to an order of the House
of Commons, dated 17th July, 1849, for copies of any despatches
from the Governor-General of India in Council to the Court of
Directors of the East India Company, reporting the circumstances
attending the succession by adoption of any sovereign Princes in
India in alliance with the British Government, from the year 1820
downwards; also copies of any despatches referring to the States of
Colaba and Mandavie, in which the sanction of the British Govern-
ment to adoptions by the chiefs of those states was refused; ordered
to be printed, 15th February, 1850 (to be hereafter quoted as the
"IIpuse of Commons' Return on adoptions"), p. 103.
§ See p. 478, and foll. of the House of Lords' Return of Treaties.
41
GR
over the principality of Jhansee, spoken of in the
pre-
amble of the Jhansee instrument as having been
“transferred to the British Government," the obvious
bearing of the treaty is to substitute its definite obliga-
tions for any such indefinite claims. The legal maxim,
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, shews that the
minuteness of the treaty stipulations rendered an ex-
press reservation of any claims beyond those stipula-
tions necessary, if they were to be kept on foot.
Where the right of cutting timber on the western
slopes of a hill range was reserved in treating with
Sattara, where the furnishing of supplies was pro-
vided for with Jhansee, and the collecting of brinjarries
with Nagpore, is it credible that a right of succession
by escheat could have been tacitly reserved? But
what claims could be reserved which, apart from treaty
obligations, could derogate from the "perpetual sove-
reignty of Sattara,"-could be paramount to the " per-
petual defensive alliance" with Nagpore?
Indeed an expression runs throughout the treaties,
which to a person ever so moderately acquainted with
English law, is conclusive on the point. The terms
used in reference to the native prince are the technical
ones consecrated to our own sovereigns. In every
instance his "heirs and successors" are referred to.
The Sattara territory is ceded "in perpetual sove-
reignty to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs and successors.'
The soobadar of Jhansee, "his heirs and successors,'
are constituted hereditary chiefs. The "dominions of
the Nagpore state" are guaranteed "to Maharaja
Ragojee Bhoslah, his heirs and successors." Those
words, I repeat it, are words of sovereignty. No
22
""
42
peer, though he wear the strawberry leaf, is entitled
to them. A private corporation sole, such as a bishop
or parson, has "successors."
A private corporation
aggregate, such as a public company, has "assigns."
The King has "heirs and successors."
"Heirs,"
that is, persons who according to the laws of inheri-
tance can fill his throne. "Successors,”—that is,
persons who can be called to fill it by some other title,
not flowing necessarily from himself, but from the
perpetual individuality of the state which he governs.
Thus our William the 3rd could succeed to all the
dominions and prerogatives of James the 2nd, without
being his heir. From the moment we speak of a
prince, "his heirs and successors," we deal no more
with the descent of an estate, but with the transmission
of the functions of government over a country.
Do you wish for an instance of this use of the
words? Listen to the 3rd paragraph of the Queen's
proclamation:-
"Now, therefore, we do by these presents notify and
declare, that
we have taken upon ourselves the
said government, and we hereby call upon all our sub-
jects within the said territories to be faithful and to
bear true allegiance to us, our heirs and successors.”
Can we doubt that such words are meant to denote
the permanence of the royal power of England, what-
ever hands may wield the sceptre?
Now the careful repetition of these words is most re-
markable throughout the first Sattara treaty. It seems
as if its far-sighted framer, fearful of a change of policy
on the part of the power which he represented, had
sought to place his work under the guarantee of one of
43
the leading formulas of English law.* But the looser
wording of the other treaties bears witness no less
The
strongly to the existence of the same views.
Jhansee instrument for instance sounds in a great mea-
sure entirely personal. "Ram Rao Chund hereby
binds himself," "Ram Rao Chund hereby agrees,"
"Ram Rao Chund engages," such are its formulas of
obligation on the part of the native chief. Yet the
name of the ruler is clearly used as the mere personifi-
cation of the state. It is synonymous with "the prin-
cipality of Jhansee," with the "Jhansee Government,"
and the two terms, "the Jhansee Government" and
"the British Government," are treated as exact cor-
relatives. When "the Jhansee Government" appre-
hends aggression, it is to report the circumstances to
the "British Government;" the "Jhansee Govern-
* Perhaps I shall be told that it is by native law that these
treaties should be construed. It would be, I should say, a con.
temptible plea to seek shelter under, if it were available. The
British Government should surely allow its own obligations to
be measured against it by the Queen's English and by English law.
But whilst protesting against any attempt to carry the question into
the domain of Hindoo conveyancing, by way of burking it altogether,
I believe the attempt would be simply futile. The disregard of the
rights of succession to native states appears to have been as great
with respect to the Hindoo law, as with respect to English. Thus
in the Jhansee case, the agent, Major Malcolm, points out that the
native word used in the treaty means successors in general, as
opposed to... heirs of the body or collateral heirs." (Jhansee annex-
ation papers, p. 24.) So at Sattara the largeness of the Mahratta
version was so unquestionable, that the advocates of annexation, as I
shall have occasion to shew, all fled to the English, either unaware
that it was quite as conclusive against them, or presuming upon the
ignorance of their adversaries.
44
ment" agrees to abide by the award of the "British
Government." The Jhansee forces are to co-operate
with the British on all occasions where the interests
"of the two governments may be mutually concerned."
It is carefully provided that British commanding
officers, in their passage through or occupation of the
the Jhansee territories "shall not in any manner inter-
fere in the internal concerns of the Thansee Govern-
ment."*
Of the Nagpore treaties-the last of which
has for primary alleged object "the welfare, dignity,
and independence of the Raja of Nagpore,"-it is suffi-
-
►
-
*The distinction made by writers on international law, be-
tween real and personal treaties, is one which has been as glibly
used for the extinction of native states as it has been little
considered. Grotius, for instance, in a passage quoted by Mr. J.
B. Norton (Rebellion in India, p. 105), expressly cautions us that
"if a contract is made with a king, it is not therefore presently
to be reputed personal ... if it be added to the treaty, that it shall
stand for ever, or that it is made for the good of the kingdom, or
with him and his successors ... it will from hence fully appear that
the treaty is real." So Mr. Wheaton, the latest authority, says, that
"the obligation of treaties, by whatever denomination they may be
called, is founded not merely upon the contract itself, but upon those
mutual relations between the two states which may have induced
them to enter into certain arrangements. Whether the treaty be
termed real or personal it will continue so long as these relations
exist." (International Law, p. 41.)
The most modern form of treaty among civilized powers uses the
expression the "high contracting parties," and is clearly meant to
include the successors of the contracting sovereign. But with ruder
powers the form of the treaty is still usually personal; as in our
slave-trade suppression treaties with African or Arabian chiefs,
Take for instance that with the Imaum of Muscat (2nd October
1845; confirmed by Act of Parliament, 11 & 12 Vic., cap. 128),
where all the engagements are simply taken by "His Highness thẹ
Sultan of Muscat," without the slightest mention of successors,
45
cient to say that the provision which gives the greatest
power to the British Government is precisely the one
which negatives the idea of any tacitly reserved rights
on its behalf. Where the British Government, in the
event of "gross and systematic oppression, anarchy
and misrule," reserved to itself the right of re-appoint-
ing its officers "to the management of such district or
districts of the Nagpore territory
for so long
a period as it might deem necessary," it is simply in-
credible that, without saying a word about it, it should
also have reserved the right of absorbing the whole
territory in absolute sovereignty by right of escheat.
When the British Government wished to provide
for itself a right to take absolute possession of all or
part of a native state under given conditions, it knew
very well how to do so. When it treated with Raja
Poorunder Sing of Assam in 1833, it could stipulate
that if the Raja "should in any way depart from
a faithful adherence to the same," then "the right
is reserved to the government of the Honourable Com-
pany, either to transfer the said country to another
ruler, or to take it into its own immediate occupation."*
When it treated with the Raja of Cachar in 1824,
it could make him stipulate his "allegiance to the
Honourable Company," and could provide that if he
failed to pay his tribute, "the Honourable Company
will be at liberty to occupy and attach in perpetuity,
to their other possessions, a sufficient tract of the
Cachar country."† It could make Toola Ram Seena-
puttee, in 1834, agree that "in case of failing to
* House of Lords' Return of Treaties, pp. 182-3.
+ Ibid. p. 184.
46
abide by" certain conditions, "the British Govern-
ment shall be at liberty to take possession of my coun-
try." Or the case of failure of issue might be provided
for, as when, in 1826, in the engagement entered into
on dividing Alwur and Tijara, to which the British
Government was a guarantee, it was provided that
if the Raja of Tijara "or any of his descendants die
childless, and no heirs of his body remain, then the
territory settled shall revert to the principality of
Alwur," †-i. e. to the state, part of the territory of
which was ceded to form the other one. Why these
express clauses, if the rights they created were im-
plied already in the relation between the parties?
On the other hand, it is observable that the wording
of the first Sattara treaty of 1819 is similar to that
of a whole group of other treaties with subordinate
states; as the Nagpore treaty of 1816 was already
similar to one of 1817 with Scindia, to one of 1805
with the Guicowar. The resumption, therefore, in
either instance, of the one territory on a technical
ground of right was, so to speak, a threat to all the
others.
The case of Tanjore, and that of the Carnatic, were
such again as to alarm all that class of princes who,
by a somewhat strained application of a term of German
* House of Lords' Return of Treaties, p. 185. † Ibid. p. 470.
Sawunt Warree, 1819, House of Lords' Return, p. 336; Bhopal,
1818, ibid. p. 419; Odeypore, 1818, ibid. p. 425; Jeypore, 1818,
ibid. 429; Jodhpore, 1818, ibid. 435; Jessulmere, 1818, ibid.
437; Bickancer, 1818, ibid. 439; Kota, 1817, ibid. 441; Jhullawur,
1838, ibid. 447; Kishengur, 1818, ibid. 452; Doongerpore, 1818,
ibid. 459; Banswarra, 1818, ibid. 461.
47
1
i
public law, have been termed "mediatized ;"-that
class, namely, who, originally British allies, then
debtors to the British, have eventually consented to
transfer the whole management and revenues of their
country to the British Government, in consideration
of being allowed to retain the externals of royalty,
of a yearly stipend, and of some small reserved ter-
ritory exempt from British jurisdiction; and who,
impotent individually, may yet become dangerous
centres of disaffection if once alienated as a body by
British policy.
*
In both these instances the leading treaties con-
tain the expression "heirs and successors."
In both,
the last treaties,-those vesting the management of
the country in the East India Company,-although that
expression may not occur, contain a formal confirma-
tion of" such parts of all former treaties as are intend-
ed to establish the friendship and alliance between" the
two parties, or, "as are calculated to strengthen the
alliance, to cement the friendship and to identify the in-
terests of the contracting parties." In both the last
treaties the intention of permanence is plainly expressed.
The treaty of 1799 with Tanjore is full of such expres-
sions,-a "regular and permanent system for the ad-
ministration of the revenues,"--a " permanent system,”
-a "fixed and permanent revenue." The treaty of 1801
with the Nawab of the Carnatic is concluded for the
purpose of "establishing the connection between the
* Concluded with both in 1787 and 1792. See "A Collection of
Treaties and engagements with the native princes and states of Asia,
concluded on behalf of the East India Company by the British
Government in India" (E. Cox & Son, 1812), pp. 405, 409, 424, 434.
48
said contracting parties on a permanent basis of security,
for all time to come;" the administration is to be "for
ever vested in the said English Company." By sepa-
rate explanatory articles, certain sums are to be "con-
sidered as permanent deductions,-in all times to come,
from the revenue of the Carnatic."* It is thus evident
that whether we consider the last treaties as incorporated
with the preceding ones, or upon their own special
footing, they equally come within Grotius's description
of treaties which are not personal, though only made
with individual sovereigns.
Yet the late Governor-General, as we have seen, an-
nexed Tanjore, and disposed as follows of the Nawab-
ship of the Carnatic:
"As the treaty by which the Musnud of the Carnatic was conferred
on the Ilighness's predecessor was exclusively a personal one; as the
Nawab had left no male heir; and as both he and his family had
disreputably abused the dignity of their position, and the large share
of public revenue which had been allotted to them; the Court of Direc-
tors has been advised to place the title of Nawab in abeyance, grant-
ing fitting pensions to the several members of the Carnatic family."+
Now Mr. Norton shews that every one of the pleas
thus assigned was false. The treaty could not be con-
sidered personal, for the reasons before assigned. Its
permanent character had already been acknowledged,
as several heirs had already succeeded under it to the
Musnud, and had been recognized by the Company,
without any fresh treaty. The statement that there
was no male heir was so baseless, that the late Nawab's
-
*A Collection of Treaties, &c. pp. 460, 466. The Carnatie treaties
are also to be found in a pamphlet published by Madden, 1856.
+ Minute of 28th February, 1856, p. 13.
49
paternal uncle, Azeem Jah, was not only "beyond all
question," by Mahommedan law, his heir and succes-
sor, but had been on several occasions officially recog-
nized in writing by the Court of Directors as the next
heir; lastly, Mr. Norton declares, after 15 years' resi-
dence in Madras, that "foolish and improvident as the
young man was, his conduct had never been of a quality
approximating to what would justify such a punish-
ment,"-inflicted, be it observed, not on himself, but
upon his innocent heirs. By parity of reason, as he
says, William IV. might have been forbidden to
succeed George IV., and any peerage with the family
estates might be confiscated for the sins of the last
holder.†
¿
Ga
, ?
It seems moreover to have escaped his Lordship that
if the treaty of 1801 was "exclusively a personal one,'
it must have been equally so as respects the engage-
ments of the Nawab towards us, and our own towards
him; and consequently, that the transfer of the ad-
ministration and revenues to the British Government
must have gone with the nawabship,--reverting, I pre-
sume, to the Nizam, as the original suzerain.
Now can we hope that the announcement to the
native princes of India, that "all treaties and engage-
ments" made with them, "will be scrupulously main-
tained," will convey entire assurance for the future,
*Rebellion in India, pp. 103-107; Topics for Indian Statesmen,
pp. 159-162. It is remarkable that the House of Lords' Return of
Treaties contains none with Tanjore, or with the Nawabs of the
Carnatic; why, it would be difficult to say, as the Return includes
the most obsolete engagements with the soobadars of Bengal, or with
Cheyte Sing of Benares.
E
50
whilst the past interpretation of such treaties as I have
quoted by the late Governor-General is held to stand
good? Why are the same words to be used in one
sense for the Queen of England, in another for her
native allies? What "true allegiance" can be borne
to her "heirs and successors," when the most solemn
guarantees to the "heirs and successors" of native
princes have been set at nought?
But we have only seen a portion yet of the mischief
wrought by the past policy in this respect.
SECTION II.
THE CESSIONS FROM THE NIZAM.
THE territories of the so-called Nizam form, since
the extinction of the Oude sovereignty, the last great
fragment of the Mogul empire-the remains of its
greatest vice-royalty, that of the Deckan. With the
Carnatic and Tanjore pensioners, the Nizam represents
the last of our earliest Indian allies. The history of
the wars of Clive and his contemporaries is full of our
support of one Nizam of the Deckan, and Nawab of
the Carnatic, against their respective rivals, supported
by the French. With this "old ally," as Lord Dal-
housie himself termed him, we have had no cause of po-
litical complaint for more than half a century. The
"sole source"* (according to the same authority) of all
discord between him and the British Government, has
been the payment of a certain force termed the Nizam's
Contingent, which grew up out of a treaty of offensive
* The Nizam's Cessions Papers, p. 98.
51
and defensive alliance between the two powers, and of
which it is enough to say that (always according to
Lord Dalhousie, 30th March, 1853) there was no
treaty obligation on the Nizam to maintain it. "The
plain intention of the treaty," to quote his Lordship
literally, "was, that whenever war arose, the Nizam
should reinforce the British army by a body of 15,000
of his own troops. It never contemplated that the
Nizam should be made to raise and pay a large body
of troops, distinct from his own, to be placed at all
times, in peace and war alike, under the sole control
of the Government of India."* The treaty further
declares, says his Lordship, "in the most emphatic
terms, that the Government of India binds itself in no
way to interfere with his Highness's subjects, servants,
or concerns."+
The Nizam nevertheless kept up the Contingent, in
peace and war, for upwards of 50 years. He having
suffered, however, its pay to fall into arrear,
"the
Government of India"-I quote always from his
Lordship, (3rd June, 1853)—
"Justly considering that its good faith was pledged to a body of
troops which was commanded by British officers, and subject to its
control, advanced the money which was necessary to make good the
shortcomings of the Nizam. These advances amounted in 1851 to
upwards of seventy lacs of rupees. During this course of neglect,
and while the debt was accumulating, the warnings and remon-
strances of the Government of India were incessant, but they were
unavailing. Every effort to check the reckless conduct of the Nizam
having failed, the Government of India intimated to his Highness
that no further debt could be allowed to accrue; that the pay of the
contingent must thenceforth be regularly supplied; that the prin-
cipal sum of debt must be liquidated; and that, if his Highness
* Ibid. p. 100.
+ Ibid. p. 99.
E 2
52
failed to meet that demand by payment within a year, territory
must be made over in satisfaction of it."*
(Lord Broadacres and Squire Claypole being inti-
mate friends, for divers good considerations, agree,
among other things, that whenever his Lordship shall
be shooting in the neighbourhood of Claypole Park,
the squire shall provide him with a keeper and a cer-
tain number of beaters; but nothing in the agreement
is to authorize Lord Broadacres to interfere with
Claypole's servants or concerns. Claypole straight-
way engages at high salaries the whole stipulated staff,
over and above his other sporting household, and keeps
them up for many years, during which time his Lord-
ship scarcely once comes down to shoot. Eventually
the squire's money concerns go wrong, and the pay of
what we may call the contingent keeper and beaters
falls into arrears. Lord Broadacres takes his friend
roundly to task for so doing, and, after a while, sooner
than let the men go unpaid, pays them out of his own
purse. When the payments so made amount to a
good round sum, he claims of Claypole repayment of
the whole within a year, or an adequate slice of the
Claypole estate in satisfaction. In what material
point does this case differ from the story of our claims
upon the Nizam?)
The Nizam did not pay within a year, within
eighteen months. Hereupon the British Resident was
instructed "to demand the temporary assignment of
* Ibid. p. 5. This minute, it will be observed, is more than two
months' posterior to the one last quoted, though according to those
mysterious arrangements which distinguish Parliamentary papers, it
occurs 92 pages before it.
53
territory for the liquidation of the debt." So wrote
Lord Dalhousie to his Leadenhall-street masters; but
in a minute of 1st January, 1851, he observes already,
that "probably we shall find ourselves compelled to
retain permanently, for the regular payment of the
contingent, those districts which we may now occupy
temporarily for the liquidation of the debt."* And
the Resident is accordingly instructed, in forming his
opinion regarding the territories to be made over, to
"bear in mind the probable necessity of retaining
them permanently."†
This was on the 4th January, 1851. Six months
more elapsed in deciding upon the territories to be de-
manded, and upon the exact nature of the demand.
On the 6th June, 1851, a letter was addressed by the
Governor-General to the Nizam, to the effect agreed
upon. "The efficient maintenance" of the contingent
is treated in it as "a duty imposed on the Government
of Hyderabad by the stipulations of existing treaties.'
The Nizam is apprized that the demand now made
"is peremptory," and "will neither be withdrawn nor
postponed ;" that "it will be necessary" that he "should
in due form convey to the Resident the districts named,
and should vest him with full authority for their
administration and control." t
The Nizam, strange as it may seem, was astounded
at such a simple demand (I omit others with which it
was coupled). He observed that "it was not custo-
mary with the Honourable Company to transfer terri-
tory in payment to its creditors." §
The British Resident and Government, however,
* Ibid. p. 10.
‡ Ibid. pp. 40-43.
""
+ Ibid. p. 12.
§ Ibid. p. 48.
54
were perhaps more astounded still when he proposed
to pay off the whole debt in about three months, and
to give security for the regular payment of the con-
tingent in future. The demand for cession was sus-
pended; half the sum, or rather more (£340,000),
was actually paid down in bills, leaving a balance of
£320,000 to be paid by the 31st October, 1851, the
cost to the Nizam being indeed much greater than the
amount realized. Of the second instalment, however,
by the 5th December, only about £87,000 had been
paid. A further delay of a month was granted, and
yet prolonged-a reference being made home for ap-
proval. The debt was again increased by new pay-
ments on account of the contingent. It amounted to
somewhat over £460,000 when Lord Dalhousie penned
his leading minute of the 30th March, 1853, in which,
as I have before observed, he expressly admitted (in
direct opposition to his own letter of the 6th June,
1851), that the Nizam was under no treaty obligation
to maintain the contingent. He admitted as expressly
that "the aggregate expense of the Nizam's contingent
is unusually and unnecessarily heavy," whilst its quality
is not better than that of bodies less highly paid. He
declared that "the Government of India owes much
consideration to the Nizam in regard to his contingent
force." And he concluded-to the demanding a ces-
sion of land in discharge of the debt and the standing
expenses of the contingent; the cession to be de-
manded, even if the contingent should be disbanded,
to meet the expenses of the force during such disband-
ment, which must be gradual. The Resident was
"instructed to contend for the cession to the utmost." *
* Ibid. pp. 97-116.
J
:
55
The form of a new treaty was forwarded to him, which
the Nizam was to enter into.
I know nothing more instructive, as to the procedure
of the Indian government of late years towards native
princes, than the negociations with the Nizam, as
they are set forth in the Parliamentary paper relating
to the subject; though the very despatches, I am
told, are garbled, and English eyes have read in the
originals passages of haughty contempt towards the
native sovereign, which would not bear translation.*
He was very averse to the new treaty; he did not want
any, said he to the Resident, "however much soever
you or any other person or persons may fancy it to be
advantageous to my interests." He consents, however,
to read the proposed new treaty, and compare it with
the old one; sits up nearly all night conversing about
it; meets the Resident the next morning (30th of April,
1853); Colonel (afterwards General) Low never knew
him "more acute in argument or more fluent in con-
versation" than on this occasion. "Did I," he asks,
(6
ever make war upon the British government, or
intrigue against it, or do anything but co-operate with
it, and be obedient to its wishes, that I should be so
treated?. . . . . Two acts on the part of a sovereign
prince are always reckoned disgraceful; one is, to give
away unnecessarily any portion of his hereditary ter-
* This is what Mr. Bright is understood to have referred to in his
great speech of June 24, 1858, when he said:
"Only think of a Governor-General of India writing to an Indian
prince, the ruler over many millions of men in the heart of India,
Remember, you are but as the dust under my feet.' Passages like
these are left out of despatches when laid on the table of the House
of Commons."
56
ritories, and the other is, to disband troops who have
been brave and faithful in his service." He promises
that the contingent shall be paid in future on the 1st
of every month, like the Company's own troops; he
offers the guarantee of others for his word. He sud-
denly orders every one to retire, entreats the Resident,
"as a personal favour, to give up the scheme of a new
treaty, and to advise his Lordship to trust to his high-
ness's word that all future payments, in which the
British government are in any way concerned, will be
paid with the utmost regularity."
O
"Gentlemen like you," he bursts out, "who are sometimes in Eu-
rope, and at other times in India; sometimes employed in Govern-
ment business, at other times soldiers; sometimes sailors, and at
other times even engaged in commerce-at least I have heard that
some great men of your tribe have been merchants-you cannot
understand my feelings in this matter. I am a sovereign prince, born
to live and die in this kingdom, which has belonged to my family for
seven generations; you think I could be happy if I were to give up
a portion of my kingdom to your government in perpetuity; it is
totally impossible that I could be happy; I should feel that I was
disgraced. I have heard that one gentleman of your tribe considered
that I ought to be quite contented and happy if I were put upon the
sime footing as Mahomed Ghouse Khan ;* to have a pension paid to
me like an old servant, and have nothing to do but to eat and sleep
and say my prayers. . . . . You, too, don't comprehend the nature of
my feelings as a sovereign prince; for instance, you talked of my
saving at least eight lacs of rupees [£80,000] per annum by making
this treaty, as something that I ought to like. Now I tell you, that
if it were quite certain that I could save four times eight lacs of rupees,
I should not be satisfied, because I should lose my honour by parting
with my territory."+
* i.e. The Nawab of Arcot, or of the Carnatic-whose title was
extinguished two years later on his death. See ante, p. 48.
† Nizam's Cessions Papers, p. 116 and foll.
57
In another interview of the 10th of May, 1853, the
prince again offered the guarantee of some of the prin-
cipal noblemen of his court for the regular payment of
the contingent every month, and again engaged to
pay off the debt in four months. He was answered
that "the Governor-General will not consider any
of
pay
personal guarantee as sufficient security for the
the contingent,"-nothing would do except to have
"British officers in exclusive charge of districts that
will yield net revenue to the amount required." The
case of the contingent being dispensed with was put,
and disposed of as prescribed by Lord Dalhousie, by
the answer that it could only be disbanded gradually,
and in the mean time "we must still have command
temporarily of districts" for the regular payment of
the force. The Nizam now sent for six or seven of his
chief officers and nobles; explained to them, says
Colonel Low, "in a very distinct and even lucid man-
ner, the chief propositions of the British government;"
in fact, stated the case "very fairly," and concluded by
asking their advice. One only replied: "If it is the
Governor-General's determination to have districts for
the pay of the contingent, what advice need we give?
Your Highness does not require our advice or any
further consultation on the subject." Colonel Low
pressed him to give his answer about signing the treaty.
"I could answer in a moment, but what is the use of
answering? If you are determined to take districts,
you can take them without my either making a new
treaty, or giving an answer at all."*
Further nego-
ciations take place; modifications of the proposed
* Nizam's Cessions Paper, pp. 123-8.
58
arrangement are consented to; and so eventually a
treaty is obtained (21st of May, 1853), by which the
contingent, somewhat reduced in number, was placed
upon a permanent footing. It was to be "commanded by
British officers,"" controlled by the British government
through its representative, the Resident at Hyderabad,"
and might be employed out of the Nizam's dominions
if disturbances broke out in any districts belonging to
the Company. For payment of its expenses, interest
upon debt, &c., districts in Berar were handed over
"to the exclusive iñanagement" of the British au-
thorities, the surplus revenue, however, to go into the
Nizam's treasury;* and though these terms had been
expressly agreed upon "in consequence of the repug-
nance of the Nizam to cede any territory in per-
petuity' to the British government," Lord Dalhousie,
with equal disregard of the words of the treaty and of
the feelings of his ally, chose to record, in his final
minute, as the last in order (not in date) of the terri-
torial acquisitions of Great Britain in India during his
sway, that "His Highness the Nizam" had "assigned
in perpetual Government to the Honourable East India
Company the province of Berar and other districts of
his states."
6
Curiously enough, the key to these transactions is
to be found less in the Parliamentary papers specially
affected to them, than in those relating to Nagpore;
and it is clear from these that the Nizam's cessions in
1853 led to the annexation of Nagpore in 1854. For,
as Lord Dalhousie phrased it, the "essential interest
* Nizam's Cessions Papers, pp. 135-7.
+ Ibid.
p. 134.
59
of England" required that the territory of Nagpore
should pass under British government. "The great
field of supply of the best and cheapest cotton grown in
India lies in the valley of Berar" (ceded by the Nizam)
"and in the districts adjacent to it." Those " districts
adjacent" were in Nagpore. "During the past year,"
the Government had obtained, "by treaty with the
Nizam, not the sovereignty indeed, but the perpetual
possession and administration of the valley of Berar."
This cotton-field, however, was " inaccessible for want
of railroads ;" the possession of Nagpore would enable
us to make them. We took both, as has been seen.
r
*
The Nizam, to use Lord Dalhousie's words respect-
ing him (30th March, 1853), was "neither cruel, nor
ambitious, nor tyrannical." But the Parliamentary
papers shew clearly that he had felt himself deeply
aggrieved by the demand made upon him. Fortu-
nately for us, as Mr. Norton observes in his late valu-
able work, "Topics for Indian Statesmen," the old
Nizam died just before the mutinies, and his successor
has hitherto been faithful to us, owing, it is supposed,
to the influence and ability of his Minister, Salar
Jung; and although insurrection has been attempted
in Hyderabad, it has been choked with grapeshot.
But officers who know the Nizam well, aver he is sure
to go against us if a promising opportunity offers. As
to the feelings of his subjects, an old Indian officer,
who knew the Nizam's country intimately many years
ago, told me a short time back, that from the accounts
he now received, the bearing of the people towards us
there must have wholly changed. Formerly intimate
Nagpore Annexation Papers, pp. 33-4.
*
-
60
relations existed between Englishmen and natives of
rank, and even without intimacy, the natives would go
out of their way to oblige us. Now, friendly inter-
course between the two races has almost wholly ceased,
and any Englishman is an object of scarcely concealed
aversion to the native. Meanwhile, Wahabism-one
of the forms of Mussulman religious reform-is spread-
ing largely in the Deckan; and the intolerance of
Mussulman fanaticism at Hyderabad is notorious.
With less of fanaticism, there is probably equal Mus-
sulman discontent on the western coast of the Deckan.
There the once rival elements of Mussulman and Mah-
ratta have palpably coalesced against us.
The plot
which caused the arrest of the ex-qeeens and boy-
prince of Sattara had been got up by the Mussulman
Moulvies (or priests) of Poona and Belgaum.*
I have myself seen a letter from Salar Jung to an
English gentleman (the officer before referred to), in
which he expresses his master's extreme anxiety to
recover the possession of the ceded districts. By all
-
* "Hyderabad has been a constant subject of uneasy apprehen-
sion.
Had Hyderabad gone, it is impossible to say what might
have been the consequences. The discovery of the plot at Nagpore
at the eleventh hour, shows how ripe the neighbouring state was for
revolt. It is well known that the Mussulmen of Triplicane were
only waiting the signal of a rising at Hyderabad to put their hands
to the harvest; and there is not a military man with whom I have
conversed on the subject, who has not expressed a decided opinion,
that if Hyderabad had risen, we could not have escaped insurrection
at Kurnoul, Nagpore, Bellary, Cuddapah, Bangalore, Madras, Tri-
chinopoly, and other cities; while it is scarcely possible that the
Bombay Presidency, so much more uneasy as it has proved itself
than Madras, could have resisted the spread of such contagion.".
Topics for Indian Statesmen, p. 56.
pretty
61
accounts, the present Sovereign is even more tena-
cious of his rights than his predecessor. Is it then
to be credited, that, as stated in a late number of the
"Homeward Mail," he should have been actually
pressed of late for the absolute relinquishment of the
districts? Say rather, is it consistent with the dignity
of the British Crown that a sharp bargain, founded
avowedly on a claim which could not be based upon
treaty, enforced with such disregard of the very cour-
tesies of alliance, so galling to a faithful friend, should
not at once be generously and graciously rescinded?
SECTION III.
THE ANNEXATION OF OUDE.
I have treated ere this of the Oude annexation in a
special publication.* But Sir William Sleeman's
Journal of his Tour in Oude, and other documents, as
well as the facts of the past year, have thrown a flood
of new light upon the story; whilst our consideration
here of previous acts of annexation by Lord Dalhousie
will serve, perhaps, to set the subject of the annexation
of Oude in new and contrasted lights.
Oude and Hyderabad were the two great Mussul-
man States of India. Oude, like Hyderabad, was the
remains of one of the great Mogul vice-royalties which
we had detached from the parent empire by treating
with it as independent, sometimes against that parent
* The War in Oude (Macmillan, 1858.)
62
empire. Oude, like Hyderabad, was an old ally. The
treaties under which we operated in both instances for
enlarging our territories belong to the same period-
to the same rule- that of Lord Wellesley. We ob-
tained the Berar cessions on the plea of a treaty with
the Nizam in 1800; we annexed Oude on the ground
of a treaty with its Sovereign in 1801. Both allies
had been equally faithful. Of the Nizam, Lord Dal-
housie recorded that "the treaty which makes the friends
and enemies of the one (contracting power) the friends
and enemies of the other, is in full force and operation."
His proclamation annexing Oude declared of its
Sovereigns that they had "ever been faithful and true
to their friendship to the British nation." And, on the
other hand, both States were held up as cardinal in-
stances of native misgovernment, of the internal mis-
chief of the maintenance of native sovereignties. The
Resident at Nagpore contrasted the state of things
there "with the condition of Hyderabad or Oude," to
give a measure of Nagpore prosperity.
Here, indeed, the parallel ceases, and a series of
singular contrasts begins. The treaty of 1808 with
the Nizam, as we have seen, expressly declared, as
Lord Dalhousie states, "in the most emphatic terms,
that the Government of India binds itself in no way to
interfere with his Highness's subjects, servants, or con-
cerns." By the treaty of 1801 with Oude, on the
contrary, the ruler bound himself to act always in con-
formity with the counsel of the Company's Government.
And by a further treaty of 1837, in the event of gross
misgovernment, the British Government was invested
with "the right of appointing its own officers to the
Maglay matata,
J
C
63
management" of any portions of the Oude territory in
which such misrule should have occurred, for so long
as it might deem necessary. In the case of the Nizam,
we find the British Government exercising its pledge
not to interfere by insisting on the appointment of a
Minister, on the ground that "it is a delusion for his
Highness to suppose that he, the Sovereign, alone can
properly direct the difficult and complicated business
of a great kingdom"* (Jan. 1st, 1851); by paying the
Nizam's own troops, and then claiming territory in
satisfaction for such payments. In the proclamation
annexing Oude (Feb. 1856), it was made a ground of
complaint that "it is notorious throughout the land
that the King, like most of his predecessors, takes no
real share in the direction of public affairs;" whilst the
treaty of 1837, giving the express right of interference,
was treated as null and void, and deliberately over-
looked for the purposes of the annexation. In the case
of the Nizam, Lord Dalhousie (27th May, 1851) ex-
pressly refused to occupy the country on the plea of
internal misgovernment, absolutely repudiating, on the
part of the British Government, any "right of decid-
ing authoritatively on the existence of native indepen-
dent sovereignties, and of arbitrarily setting them aside,
whenever their administration may not accord with its
own views, and although their acts in no way affect
the interests or security of itself or its allies." Oude
was annexed, when "fifty years of sad experience”
had "conclusively shewn that no effectual security can
be had for the release of the people of that country
* Nizam's Cessions Papers, p. 10.
64
from the grievous oppression they have long endured,
unless the exclusive administration of the territories of
Oude shall be permanently transferred to the British
Government." Lastly, the Nizam was compelled to
cede the valley of Berar, as owing to us some
£460,000. We annexed Oude, owing ourselves to it
nearly £2,000,000.
It cannot be too clearly understood that internal
misgovernment, in breach of the treaty of 1801, was
the sole plea alleged by Lord Dalhousie for the annex-
ation of Oude. It cannot be too clearly understood
that the treaty of 1837 gave the British Government
an unlimited right of interference for the correction
of misgovernment. It cannot be too clearly under-
stood that although a portion of that treaty which im-
posed a pecuniary burden on the King of Oude, was
disallowed by the Court of Directors, the rest of it
W
* Perhaps the most painful thing connected with this treaty is,
that its disallowance, so far as it went-was owing to the feeling
that it was too great an encroachment on the authority of the
King. Mr. St. George Tucker, for instance, called for its abrogation as
an act of justice, as likely to be "highly grateful to the King," to
"tend to compose those feelings which have been so painfully and
so unnecessarily excited," and to "have some effect in removing those
impressions of our cupidity which, I fear, are but too prevalent
throughout India." (Selections, pp. 101-2.)
Measure by Mr. Tucker's words, written in 1838, and by Lord
Dalhousie's acts in 1855, the depths to which the policy of our
Indian Government has fallen, as measured by a moral standard. The
sovereign of whom Mr. Tucker wrote: "Our government can as-
sume no right to dethrone the King of Oude, or any other indepen-
dent prince, and it is essential that all doubt upon a question of such
vital importance should be removed from the minds of the local
authorities,”—was dethroned by Lord Dalhousie. The same treaty
65
was treated as subsisting by the British Government
for some fifteen years after; that Lord Auckland
(July, 1839) only informed the ruler of Oude that he
had been authorised to relieve him from "part" of a
clause in the treaty; that Lord Hardinge, twice in the
year 1847, insisted upon the obligations of the treaty;
that in November of that year, in a conference with the
King, he caused a memorandum which he had drawn
up to be read, in which he referred to the treaty of 1837
"as confirming the original treaty of 1801, and not
only giving the British Government the right to inter-
fere, but declaring it to be the intention of the Govern-
ment to interfere if necessary for the purpose of secur-
ing good government in Oude" (Sleeman's Oude,
vol. ii. p. 202); that in 1845 the treaty of 1837 was
included in a published official collection; that in 1853,
it was again included in a "return to an order of the
House of Lords, dated 16th June, 1853, for copies of
the treaties and engagements between the East India
Company and the native powers in Asia" (see p. 92);
that so late as 1844 it was always dealt with as sub-
sisting by the British Residents at Lucknow (see, for in-
stance, Sir W. Sleeman's Oude, vol. ii. p. 419). It can-
not be too clearly understood that in the face of all these
facts, Lord Dalhousie treated it as void in 1859, and
found a Council, consisting of Mr. Dorin, Mr. J. P.
Grant, General Low, and Mr. Peacock, to support him
in so doing, and a Court of Directors and a Board of
Control to sanction the act.
of which Mr. Tucker recommended the immediate abrogation, in
order to remove the prevalent impressions of our cupidity, became
for Lord Dalhousie a mere difficulty" and embarrassment in the
way
of annexation!
CC
-
F
66
Be it observed, moreover, that Sir Wm. Sleeman,
on whose report the annexation was decided on, who
filled the post of Resident at Lucknow for six years-
1848-54-and personally travelled all through the
country, not only insisted upon the treaty of 1837 as
binding, but as affording the only means of stopping
Oude misgovernment without danger. As early as
November 24, 1851, he wrote that "Lucknow affairs
are now in a state to require the assumption of the
entire management of the country," adding the signifi-
cant qualification, " provided we leave the revenues for
the maintenance of the royal family in suitable dignity,
and for the benefit of the people." In October, 1852,
he wrote to Sir James Hogg:-
"The treaty of 1837 gives our Government ample authority to
take the whole administration on ourselves.
but if we
do this we must, in order to stand well with the rest of India,
honestly and distinctly disclaim all interested motives, and appropri-
ate the whole of the revenues for the benefit of the people and royal
family of Oude. Were we to take advantage of the occasion
to annex or confiscate Oude, or any part of it, our good name in
India would inevitably suffer, and that good name is more valuable
to us than a dozen Oudes.
Annexation or confiscation are
not compatible with our relations with this little dependent state."*
In January, 1853, he says, of the idea of annexa-
tion, which was fast gaining ground:-"It would be
most profitable for us in a pecuniary point of view, but
most injurious, I think, in a political one. It must
tend to accelerate that crisis which the doctrines of
that school must, sooner or later, bring upon us."† On
* Sleeman's Journey through the Kingdom of Oude, vol. ii. pp.
377, 378.
† Ibid. p. 393.
67
the 5th March, 1854, writing to Colonel Low, he re-
ferred again to the treaty of 1837:-" Our Govern-
ment would be fully authorised at any time to enforce
the penalty prescribed in your treaty of 1837, and it
incurs great odium and obloquy for not enforcing it."*
But there is this point further to be considered. No
claim of allegiance could possibly be put forth against
the Oude sovereigns,-no rights of escheat could possi-
bly be set up in derogation of their sovereignty. The
annexation of the country, as I have said, took place
by virtue, it was alleged, of Lord Wellesley's treaty of
the 10th November, 1801. By that treaty, Saadut
Ali Khan gave up half his territory "in perpetual
sovereignty" to the Company, in discharge of a yearly
subsidy which he was bound to pay. The famous 6th
article of that treaty then runs as follows:--
"The territories ceded to the Honourable Company by the first.
article of this treaty shall be subject to the exclusive management
and control of the said Company and their officers, and the Honour-
able the East India Company do hereby guarantee to his Excellency
the Viziert and to his heirs and successors, the possession of the terri-
tories which will remain to His Excellency after the territorial ces-
sion, together with the exercise of his and their authority within the
said dominions; His Excellency engages that he will establish in
his reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be
carried into effect by his own officers, as shall be conducive to the
prosperity of his subjects, and to be calculated to secure the lives
and property of the inhabitants; and his Excellency will always
advise with and act in conformity to the counsel of the officers of the
said Honourable Company."
* Sleeman's Journey through the Kingdom of Oude, vol. ii. pp.
419.
+ The "Viziers" of Oude took the title of Kings in 1819.
House of Lords' Return of Treaties, pp. 76-7.
68
It was argued from this,-1st. That the Sovereign
of Oude was bound by treaty to well-govern his sub-
jects; 2nd. That his omission to do so was a distinct
breach of treaty, giving a right to the other party to
enforce due performance of the neglected engagement,
ultimately by confiscating the whole territory of the
defaulting party.
Does the article in question express or imply any-
thing of the kind? Is it not plain that the guarantee
and the engagement to well-govern are synallagmatic,
reciprocal; that the breach of the latter engagement
only releases the other contracting party from the
former? If you guarantee my territories, says the
prince, I will undertake for their well-being. If you
undertake for the good government of your territories,
say the English, we will guarantee them. If they
fall short of their guarantee, what then? He is free
to govern his country according to his own notions;
subject to his own risks. If he misgoverns his country,
what then? they are dispensed from the guarantee; he
may be deprived of his authority by internal revolu-
tion, without their interference. Surely it is a mere
mockery to say that the whole treaty is annulled by
any breach of either stipulation; that the perpetual
66
peace, friendship, and union so long subsisting be-
tween the two states," as pledged by the treaty of
1798, confirmed by that of 1801, is put an end to.
The fatal fallacy upon which the annexation of
Oude turned seems to have arisen from assimilating
the position of the Oude sovereigns to that of a mere
leaseholder, bound by a series of covenants to his rever-
sioner, who, on breach of any, acquires a right of re-
69
J
entry. But it is impossible to conceive of a more
monstrous perversion of the relations between the two
states. Oude was not ours to lease: we could have
no reversion in it. The treaty of 1801 may be likened
to an arrangement between the owners of two neigh-
bouring estates, the one of which is charged with a
rent in favour of the other. To be released from his
rent-charge, the owner of the estate subject to it gives
up the fee-simple of half his property; and in consi-
deration, we will say, of his neighbour's undertaking
all the expense of preserving his game, and of any
law proceedings arising thereon, he engages to cultivate
the reserved half in a certain manner, to plant so many
acres of buckwheat, &c. &c. Suppose he fails to do
so, what then? he must bear his own expenses of
preserving and his own law costs. Is there a Welsh
attorney who would dare to advise his neighbour, on
breach of the cultivation clause, to walk into the pro-
perty, and turn out the owner altogether?
upon
Let it be observed that I say nothing here as to the
suppressed treaty of 1837 with Oude, though I look
it as perfectly binding on the British Crown to
this hour. Nor do I enter upon the question by which
of the two contending parties art. 6 of the treaty of
1801 was first broken. But I will say here, that I do
not think any one can read Sir Wm. Sleeman's Diary
attentively, without seeing that the sovereigns of Oude
had quite as much right to complain of the mode in
which we fulfilled our undertaking to guarantee the exer-
cise of their authority within their dominions, as we had
to complain of their misgovernment; and that that
misgovernment is, to say the least, in great measure
70
to be traced to the want of adequate support from us
in enforcing the regal authority.*
*
I say, therefore, that the plea of escheat, upon
which Sattara, Jhansee, Nagpore were annexed, the
Tanjore Raj and Nawabship of the Carnatic suppressed;
the plea of breach of treaty upon which Oude was
confiscated, were such as to alarm every native prince
of India, Hindoo or Mussulman. Nor let it be sup-
posed that treaties have no existence but for the princes
alone. An officer in command of a cavalry regiment
in the Nizam's Contingent, whose men belong to the
gentry of India (several nawabs among them), so that
he can associate with them upon terms of comparative
familiarity—whilst many of them are natives of Oude-
was asked, one evening, soon after the annexation, by
several of his troopers: "Is it true that the Honour-
able Company has taken possession of our king's terri-
tories?"" It would seem so."-" And
on what
grounds have the Honourable Company done it ?”
"They say the king governed his country very badly,
although he had promised over and over again to do
otherwise."-"But are there not treaties?"
And now let me quote the words upon this question
of a distinguished officer, who has had ample opportu-
nities of observing the native character, as Agent to
the Governor-General in Rajpootana. In a supple-
ment to his pamphlet entitled "India and its Dangers,
* See, for instance, vol. ii. p. 200, where Sleeman shews that the
auxiliary British force in Oude was "assuredly less than it should be
with a due regard to our engagements and the Oude requirements."
Sce also vol. i. p. 186, where he enumerates the forces which we
should have kept up "to do our duty honestly by Oude."
71
as considered in 1856," the " Retired officer" writes as
follows:
"Next to reassuring our native allies, comes the more delicate
question of what should be done in the way of restitution.
Having everywhere successfully met the most appalling difficulties,
we cannot be misunderstood in rendering justice to the injured. Let it
never be said that, at the moment of introducing the Queen's name
into the government of India, we were wanting in the moral courage
to do what was just, because some persons might misrepresent or be
unable to comprehend the high character of our motives. The na-
tives of India are no fools; and all classes of them possess a clear
perception of right and wrong, and a strong feeling against every
act of injustice of whatever kind; and we have now the opportunity,
almost thrust upon us, of regaining a host of moral strength to our
rule; let it not be lost. The most prominent objects that present
themselves are the families of Sattara and Nagpore :* these might
be restored to their capitals, even if with reduced territory, on con-
dition of paying a handsome nuzzerana on succession. Here would
be a favourable opportunity of introducing the principle. Hereafter
some unoffending member of the Jhansi family might be similarly.
treated; and many minor cases would follow as a matter of course.
It deserves consideration also, whether the family of the King of
Oude might not be restored to his splendid capital, with a small ter-
ritory around it, to be managed, if necessary, under the superintend-
ence of an agent to be placed with him, leaving the future disposition
of the whole of that province to the solution of time and circum-
stances. Very plausible objections may be offered to this course;
but can they weigh in the balance against the claims of justice, and
the effect that will be produced on every Mahomedan mind by wit-
nessing royal palaces and gardens degraded by being used as stables
and barracks, or cleared away as ruins; and those palaces and gar-
dens the property of a family ever loyal to the hand that pulled it
** "Deprived of territory and power, successions and adoptions.
will continue to be made in the household, and perpetuated by the
Bhats (bards) of the tribe, in the hope of one day succeeding to a
reality. We can but ill afford to have such smouldering embers of
rancour existing against us."
72
down! As surveilléd residents in any other portion of India, the
members of that family would for generations prove a blight and a
sore to our Government."*
That restoration should be treated rather as a matter
of policy, than of judicial investigation, as respects past
annexations, I fully admit. All the cases I have
referred to are really so gross, that if substantial justice
can be done in them, the less said about them in future,
the better for our country's honour. I quite agree
also, of course, that where the claimants to the sup-
pressed throne have openly acted against us, it would
be necessary to select other condidates. But I cannot
admit that, if innocent claimants can be discovered, the
sovereignties themselves should be restored, otherwise
than by the freest agreement, with diminished territories,
except so far as our own safety or the honour of our
country may imperatively demand it. The case of
Oude would no doubt require exceptional treatment, as
the real sovereignty at the date of annexation was in
fact fast passing from the hands of the king into those
of the talookdars. Here, the "Retired officer's" sugges-
tion of restoring to the prince merely his capital and a
small territory would probably meet the needs of the
case as towards the deposed family; the great talook-
dars being the real authorities to be dealt with as
respects the remainder of the country. If, with certain
guarantees, they are now ready to become faithful
subjects to Her Majesty, by all means let them be
welcomed as such. Ten months ago,† ere Lucknow was
"
H
Is it much safer to know them residing at the capital of our
august ally," Napoleon III. ?
In my "War in Oude."
773
}
re-occupied, I urged the treating with the Oude chiefs
as to the terms on which their country should be
restored. The idea seemed wild to many, it is proba-
bly now out of date; but would a second campaign have
been necessary, such as that which is now being
carried on, if Oude had been restored to its gallant
people? What would have become ere this of Tantia
Topee, if the main army could have borne down upon
him?
LETTER VI.
THE PLEDGE OF RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE
PRINCES, IN ITS BEARING UPON ADOPTION.
"WE shall respect the rights, dignity and honour
of native princes as our own," says the Queen's procla-
mation. That the assertion of the British claim to the
escheat of native sovereignties must be felt as deroga-
tory to the dignity of the native princes, has perhaps
been shewn already. That the enforcement of terri-
torial cessions, in discharge of a very questionable debt,
and in contempt of repeated pledges of early repay-
ment, was deemed by the Nizam an infringement of
his honour, has clearly appeared. But there is a
momentous right, shared by the Hindoo princes with
the whole Hindoo people, which they assert to have
been invaded. It is that of adoption,-on the dis-
74
!
allowance of which the British claim by escheat has
mostly been founded. Let us now look into it.
The principle of adoption is one familiar to perhaps
every system of jurisprudence but our own. Under
the French Civil Code, for instance,* the adopted son
has the same rights to the property of his adopted
father at his death as a child born in wedlock, even
though there should be such children born after the
adoption. And though our jurisprudence repels the idea,
our theology admits it, as in the Christmas-day collect
of the Church of England, "being regenerate and
made Thy children by adoption and grace," and in the
practice of baptism, which is, to say the least, easily
understood when looked upon as the ceremony of a
Divine adoption. But whilst with all other nations
adoption is simply a right, the Hindoo faith goes
further, and erects it into a religious duty; the welfare
of the man in the after-world being made to depend in
great measure upon the fact of the ceremonies of his
funeral having been performed by a son.
I need not
quote the original texts of the sacred books for this
purpose; it will be sufficient for me to extract the fol-
lowing passage from the preface, by Mr. J. C. Suther-
land, to his translation of two Sanscrit treatises on the
"The
Hindoo law of adoption, published in 1821.
religious ordinances of the Hindoos," he says, in lan-
guage much stronger than I have used myself, "incul-
cate the indispensable necessity that a man should be
survived by male offspring for performing his exequial
rites and other purposes. In consequence, on defect
*Code Civil, art. 359.
75
of real legitimate issue, the affiliation under prescribed
rules of a kinsman or other person is enjoined; and an
individual thus regularly adopted acquires the filial
rights which attach to the real son."*
But this duty, though enjoined, would certainly not
always be performed. Accident might interfere with
the fulfilment; the natural reluctance of a man to give
up the hope of direct issue, to place a collateral or a
stranger on the same footing with such direct issue,
whilst still possible, would tend to delay that fulfilment
till the latest moment, when perhaps the dying man
would be no longer capable of carrying out its pre-
scribed ceremonies. Hence no doubt grew up the
practice, which seems at first sight so strange to a
European, but which, with slight variations in its con-
ditions, is found to prevail nearly throughout all India,
of allowing widows to adopt sons to their deceased
husbands. Thus Mr. Sutherland, in his synopsis of the
law of Hindoo adoption which follows the translations
before referred to, after referring to one Hindoo writer
who denies generally the authority of a widow to
adopt, goes on to say: "But it is reasonable to admit,
consistent with practice, and the opinion of other
authors, the validity of an adoption made by a widow
under the sanction of her husband written or formally
expressed during his lifetime, and perhaps in some
places, under that of kinsmen."† So Sir Thomas
Strange in his "Hindoo law" (1830) expressly states
* The Dattaka Mimansá and Dattaka Chandrika, two original
treatises on the Hindoo law of adoption, translated from the Sanscrit
by J. C. C. Sutherland, Esq. (Calcutta, 1821), Preface.
The Dattaka Mimansá, synopsis, p. 43.
76
that the right of the widow to adopt with the assent of
her kinsmen, according to the principles of the Benares
and the Mahratta schools, prevails in the peninsula,
although denied in Bengal; and that under the Be-
nares' principles adoption even by a mother is thought
good, if duly authorised.*
4
It should be clearly understood that the right of
adoption, however made paramount over the claims of
blood, by no means sets them at naught. In default
of adoption, the Hindoo law regulates the right of suc-
cession with the utmost nicety, extending it to kinsmen
within twenty-one generations. The best idea perhaps
which we can form to ourselves of the right of adoption
is to consider it with the late Mr. St. George Tucker,
for instance-or with Mr. Frere, the able Commissioner
in Scinde†—as analogous to a modified right of testa-
* Strange's Hindu law, p. 29. Sir Francis Macnaghten, in his
"Considerations on the IIindoo Law, as it is current in Bengal
(Serampore, 1824)," p. 155, says, that "adoption by a widow with-
out the consent of her husband is a mere nullity,"-following evi-
dently the doctrines of the Bengal school, to which Sir T. Strange
refers. On the other hand, he says nothing about the notice to the
king, to be presently referred to. The right of the widow to adopt
under a power from her husband may be considered as finally decided
by the case of Iuradhun Mookurjia v. Muthoraneth Mookurjia, 4
Moore's Indian Appeal Cases, 414-on appeal from Bengal.
"The right of adoption is somewhat analogous to that under
which, by means of a testamentary deed or will, we give a destination
to our property in this country, after the demise of the testator.'
(Selections from the written opinions of Henry St. George Tucker,
pp. 98-9).
"The motives which seem to have influenced Mahrattas
in their selection of adopted children can be likened to nothing that
I know of, in our country, so exactly parallel as those which guide
childless persons of property in England in disposing of their estates
by will." (Mr. Frere, in Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 137.)
""
77
mentary disposition. The Hindoo cannot, I believe,
dispose of his property by will; but he
under cer-
may, under
tain conditions, introduce collaterals, or even strangers
into his family, and so give them a share, or if he has
no issue, the whole of his property. And the right
of adoption is thus really a means of keeping the
family efficient, infusing new blood into it when worn
out. How this right can have been made a ground of
confiscation by the state remains now to be seen.
The Indian formula of adoption requires that "the
party proceeding to adopt should previously give notice
to the ruling power," should invite his kinsmen, and
should "venerate" the King and righteous Brahmins
by the offering of certain prepared food; if the King
be at a distance, he is in like manner to "venerate" the
"chief of the village." The commentators, however,
says Mr. Sutherland, seem agreed "that the notice
enjoined and the invitation of kinsmen are no legal
essentials to the validity of the adoption, being merely
intended to give greater publicity to the act, and to
obviate difficulty and doubt regarding the right of suc-
cession."*
But as, according to invariable Oriental practice, the
inferior can only approach the superior with a gift in
his hand, it is easy to see how the prince would become
interested in insisting upon a previous notice, how
prone he would be to treat it as a necessary condition
of the validity of the act, to turn the notice given into
a sanction requested. Public opinion too might favour
* Dattaka Mimansá, pp. 167, 218; see also Strange's Hindu Law,
p. 94.
78
the change; for, the right of adoption being confined
by law within well-defined limits, which the will of man
would be always wishing to overleap, the condition of
a previous sanction by a superior would offer a safe-
guard against an illegal or sometimes even a wayward
or capricious exercise of it. Two kinds of practice might
thus grow up.
According to the one, the prince,
acting as guardian of the law, might claim the right of
inquiring into the circumstances of the adoption, to see
if it be lawful and formal; according to the other, he
would treat it as a mere source of revenue.
The latter, I am inclined to think, is the shape which
the sovereign's customary sanction to the exercise of
the right of adoption by a feudatory has taken in the
native states generally. I believe it has the same
weight with them as the Royal license to assume a cer-
tain name and arms with us. Just as, by virtue of the
Queen's prerogative and payment of fees, John Smith
becomes John Thompson, member henceforth of the
Thompson family, so under his sovereign's sanction,
and by payment of a certain gift or "nuzzur," may one
Hindoo pass into another Hindoo's family. If John
Smith takes the name of Thompson without obtaining the
Royal license, he remains simply in the eyes of the law,
"John Smith alias Thompson," or "commonly called
Thompson." No Commissioner of her Majesty's Trea-
sury would ever dream of seizing Thompson Park into
her Majesty's hands because no license had been
applied for.
If the estate were forfeited by the omis-
sion to do so, it could only be as between private
individuals, from the un-Thompsonised Smith to some
mapag
79
other claimant from a deceased Thompson. A Crown
claim to Thompson Park, under such circumstances,
would startle any judge on the bench into fits. Yet
this monstrous piece of false logic,—of concluding from
the Government sanction to a Government confiscation
for want of it,-is what we Englishmen have been
acting on for years in India, and latterly on the
strength of it absorbing kingdoms as if they were
cottages.
I shall be told, perhaps, by some, "Why insist on
fixing the attention of Englishmen on such techni-
calities as the Hindoo law of succession by adoption?
What can they understand of it? What can they
care for it? Leave such matters to Indian officials, or
at best to barristers in the Supreme Court."
It might be sufficient to say, that if the question of
succession by adoption has any bearing whatever on
the late rebellion, no Englishman worthy of the name
should deem himself entitled to care nothing for it.
But apart from any such connexion, the law and custom
of succession among a people is surely one always
worthy of interest, as an expression of the feelings and
modes of action of that people. In this custom itself,
we may see at once the hold which religious motives
must have on the Hindoo mind, when the succession
to the throne may be bound up with a religious cere-
mony, and that one relating to the welfare of a dead
person. But if we take the right of succession by
adoption in the form which it has assumed in those
Hindoo states which are considered to take the lead
among all others, to give the tone to all others, I must
say that I hardly know of any law of succession which
80
is more likely to be consonant to the national will,
which takes more pains to be so consonant, and which
should therefore commend itself more to us Englishmen.
The Rajpoot prince in adopting a son to succeed him
in default of male issue, is required to do so with the
consent of the chiefs of the state. If he dies without
having done so, those chiefs, foremost among whom
are his widows, elect his successor from among his
relations, the senior widow performing the religious
ceremony of adoption, and if the successor be a minor,
acting as regent, with the assistance of the chiefs,
forming the council known by the (to us) queer name of
"Raj Punch." All here, it will be seen, is free,
deliberate, and if I may venture the term in speaking
of these feudal polities of the Rajpoots, constitutional.
I repeat, I cannot imagine any system better adapted
to the manners of the people, any which is more likely
to keep alive among them all feelings of national,-or,
if
you choose it, tribe unity,—as well as of individual
manliness and self-respect; any which is more worthy
of being maintained, encouraged, developed at our
hands, extended if possible to other Hindoo states, as
a genuine indigenous counterpoise to that slavishness
of Oriental despotism, as we are pleased to call it,
which ought to be, to us freemen, one of the main
obstacles in our way wherever we met with it.
Still, it will be said, as a matter of fact, adoption
has often not worked well, especially during long
minorities, under a female regent. Suddenly emanci-
pated to a great extent at least-from the thraldom
of the zenana, to be entrusted with the burthen of state
affairs, the widow, if young, is generally found to give
81
herself up to the unbridled gratification of her passions.
Perhaps she completely neglects the child-prince, who
has often no blood whatever in common with herself;
perhaps she systematically steeps him in sensual
pleasures, in order to prolong her own power.
Her
paramours reign under his name and hers; the resources
of the state are squandered. So the ill-success of an
adoption in Jaloun could be quoted by Lord Dalhousie
as a ground for annexing Jhansee.
I do not deny the cogency of these arguments.
They are one-sided, indeed, in their choice of facts, for
some female reigns or regencies are celebrated in Indian
history; thus the rule of Alya Baee formed the golden
age of the Holkar state. It is almost impossible
that the same excesses can take place in states like
Rajpootana, where the chiefs exercise a voice in the
government; and at any rate, if they were normally
characteristic of the system of adoption, it appears in-
credible that it should ever have perpetuated itself as
it has done, seeing that the excesses complained of are
essentially those of the weak, and not of the strong.
For whilst it is easy to conceive how nations may
habitually endure a large amount of misgovernment at
the hands of a king, it is almost impossible that they
should do the same at the hands of a queen-regent and
a child. If therefore the evils complained of were now
characteristic of female regencies in the name of
adoptive sons (and observe that they may equally be
characteristic of such regencies, though the minority
should be that of a successor by blood) it must be in
great measure because of some alteration in the con-
dition of things under which they take place. That
G
82
alteration it is easy to discover in the British gua-
rantee, which, by taking away the check of a national
rising, assures impunity to misconduct which would not
otherwise have been tolerated. It is one of the in-
stances, unfortunately in India not a few, in which we
have first made the evil, and then sought to eradicate
it by tearing away the whole side of social life which it
grew out of.
But in this instance especially, the cure lay side by
side with the evil. The event of a female regency, if
it gives power to the inexperienced denizen of the
zenana, gives power also to the British representative.
Then is the very time for the British Government to
step forth in its truly conservative character, to insist
upon guarantees for the proper training of the infant
sovereign,* for the due maintenance of the public weal;
if absolutely necessary, for the temporary management
of affairs by selected persons, or even by its own Resi-
dent. Some of the brightest pages in the history of
British influence in India belong to periods such as
these,-witness the stock instance of Sir R. Jenkins in
Nagpore. I do not hesitate to say, that with judicious
English Residents, the much talked-of mischiefs of the
adoption system, and of the female regencies which it
brings with it, can never gain head; and consequently,
that if they ever do, it is only through bad Residents,
or the removal of good ones.
Observe, moreover, that if the British power in India
is to be worthy of the name, a rule of opinion, a rule
resting upon the golden fame of the good government
* "The improvement of the native prince is within our own
power,” says Mr. Mansel, Commissioner at Nagpore, in a passage to
which I shall hereafter refer.
83
of its own dominions, of its moderation and equity
towards other states, and not one of mere hard power,
always grasping after more land and more revenue,
the adoption system is one most entirely favourable to
its stability. The British sanction which is asked for
each adoption, even if given as a matter of form, accus-
toms native eyes to look to the British Government as
paramount, whilst succession by lineal descent turns
them away from it. The opportunities which adoptive
succession affords during minorities of making British
influence felt in matters of internal improvement, in
the training of the infant prince, are such as do not
offer themselves on the succession of an heir of full age,
and may be more grudgingly granted on that of an
infant heir by birth.
The value of adoption, towards pouring new blood
into a decaying dynasty, is unmistakeable. The very
idea of adoption implies a selection, though the choice
may be circumscribed by usage. A favourable horo-
scope may perhaps turn the scale in favour of a
particular candidate; but it is clear that considera-
tions of physical, intellectual vigour, as well as of
moral disposition, have also their weight, and may
have it more and more, according to the Resident's
advice. Mr. Frere, Resident at Sattara, after examin-
ing a vast number of instances taken indifferently from
all ranks of society, and at all periods of Mahratta
history, declares that, "according to Mahratta usage,
propinquity of blood has nothing whatever to do with
necessary preference in the selection of an adopted
son ;" that "the age of the adopted, the number of his
brothers, his personal qualities, and the prognostics of
G 2
84
his horoscope, seem to have been much more attended
to than nearness of blood."* Even where, as with the
Mahrattas of Gwalior, nearness of blood seems to form
a leading qualification, adoption may have for effect to
bring to the throne-as at the latter capital in 1842-
the son of a soldier whose only subsistence is 15 rupees
-30s-a month. Nay, the most favourable horo-
scope—as at the same capital in 1817, or at Indore in
1844-will in practice generally be,.I take it, that of
the boy who, out of several candidates, has the advan-
tage in point of personal appearance, intelligence, and
health. Thus the successor by adoption is, cæteris
paribus, likely to be more energetic, able, manly, than
the lineal heir. And, as a matter of fact, it is most
remarkable that the preservation of our sway in North-
western India during the rebellion, has been in great
measure owing to two princes whom adoption has
seated on the throne;-Scindia, the spirited young
ruler of Gwalior (the trooper's son before mentioned),
and Holkar, the noble-minded chief of Indore, whose
faithfulness has stood proof, amidst every temptation,
against all the supercilious insolence of a Resident, all
the supercilious neglect of a Calcutta Council.§
So utterly, therefore, has the lust of territory-the
"land-hunger," as the natives call it-obscured true
policy in the eyes of our Indian officials, that the
practice of succession by adoption, which they have
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 137.
+ See p. 37 of the House of Commons' Return on Adoptions.
House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, pp. 24, 93.
§ Compare these two princes, for instance, with the last products
of succession by blood in Oude.
85
!
sought to put down, when closely considered, is seen
to coincide with the interests both of the dominant and
of the protected race. As respects the one, it tends to
keep up national feeling, to check despotism, to promote
efficiency of rule, by substituting the healthy offspring
of the trooper or the cultivator for the weakly outcome
of the luxurious zenana, or at least by giving weight
to personal qualities against the dry claims of birth.
As respects the other, it tends to keep up the sense of
subordination to a paramount power, to open avenues
to the English superior of healthy, useful, truly con-
servative influence, sometimes in the choice of the can-
didate, at all times with reference to his education, and
the training him to the duties of sovereignty. No boy-
ruler enthroned by adoption need be anything but
what the Resident makes him; and when the Resident
has any kindliness and right feeling about him, he
may make of him what Sir Robert Hamilton has
made of Holkar, a perfect gentleman, a firm friend
in the hour of need. If we Englishmen did our duty
in India, we should find then this native custom of
adoption a help; it is only because we do not do our
duty, but follow our self-will, that it meets us as a
hindrance, and we blindly seek to crush it.
I will go further, and say, that the endeavour to
confine Hindoo successions to lineal heirs, so far as
it grows from the selfish wish to cut short Hindoo
sovereignties, appears to me to be founded on the most
short-sighted calculations. We hear sometimes of the
danger of supposititious adoptions. But which is easier
-to suppose a birth in the depths of the zenana, or to
suppose an adoption? The one event is in its nature
86
more or less public; nothing is easier than to require
it to be more so. The other is essentially private; the
common decencies of human nature, still more the
jealousies of oriental usage, forbid its being dragged to
the light of day. Are you prepared to force new treaties
on every native sovereign to provide for this delicate
point? Is the Resident to be head of a Commission de
ventre inspiciendo? Is the Residency surgeon to attend
ex-officio all parturient princesses? You know very well
that you cannot, dare not, take any step whatsoever of
the kind.* If not, then there is absolutely no guarantee
against the most fraudulent successions, pretended to
be lineal. And thus the earnest pleadings of the native
princes for the privilege of adopting a successor become
* I fear I spoke too soon. Even since this book was begun I
meet with the following passage in one of Mr. Russell's letters,
written from the Himalayas, Sept. 14, 1858:
"In the hills amid which I am now writing, our policy has been
so diverse and fantastic as to have endangered our reputation for
honesty and justice. Some years ago it was our policy to avoid the
hills, and to shun any accession of territory among them. We there-
fore scrupulously respected the Hindoo rights of adoption, and in
defect of heirs we sought out distant relatives, and placed them on
the 'guddees' of these little principalities. Now our policy is altered.
We desire the acquisition of territory in the hills. There is a day-
dream of colonization and tea-planting in the minds of some of our
people, and we wish to define our frontier; therefore the right of
adoption is denied. We rigidly scrutinize the claims and the legiti-
macy of heirs, and inquire into the purity of pregnant ranees, and
the natives, whose memories are long, look on and wonder."-Times,
Nov. 9,
1858.
Mr. Russell's testimony is especially valuable, as applying to a
quarter of India to which I shall not otherwise refer, and shewing
the same policy working there by the same means, which I am tracing
elsewhere.
87
a signal proof of their own sincerity and upright feel-
ings, which we are so ready to put in doubt. The
instant these chiefs make up their minds to be dis-
honest, the game is pretty nearly in their hands. They
need never want for a successor, so long as the zenana
and its mysteries are their own.
And lastly, as Christians, as promoters of sound
morality and social advancement, we must not shut
our eyes to the fact that the disallowance of the right
of adoption tends essentially to promote polygamy,
to perpetuate the pernicious seclusion of women,
both of which the mere contact with European civili-
zation would otherwise tend to check. For if the
maintenance of native sovereignties is to depend solely
or mainly upon the existence of lineal heirs, who will
find fault with the heathen prince for seeking to mul-
tiply his chances of offspring? who will be surprised
if a new bar be thereby raised to his reception of
Christ's Gospel?
Surely, the Hindoo prince's right of adopting a
successor is one of those which must be covered by
our Queen's solemn pledge. There remains to be
shewn that in respecting it she will be simply reverting
to a practice which the henceforth condemned annexa-
tion policy has interrupted.
LETTER VII.
n
HOW SUCCESSIONS BY ADOPTION WERE RESPECTED
TILL 1841.
It is only of late years that the very idea of
hindering or disallowing native successions by adop-
tion seems to have been entertained by our Govern-
ment. And yet there was in issue, half a century
ago, a question closely akin to this, but relating to
Mussulman princes only, as that of adoption relates
only to Hindoo. Lord Hastings thus speaks of it, in
that most valuable "Private Journal" of his-pooh-
poohed by the "Times,"-which has been lately pub-
lished:
C
"In nothing do we violate the feelings of the native princes so
much as in the decisions which we claim the privilege of pronouncing
with regard to the succession to the musnud. We constantly oppose
our construction of Mahomedan law to the right which the Moslem
princes claim from usage, to choose among their sons the individual
to be declared the heir apparent."*
What Lord Hastings would have thought of the
far deeper violation of native feeling by the forbiddance
or disallowance of adoption may be inferred from the
above passage. Let us examine the various steps by
which this violation has eventually been carried out.
"Return ""
They are very instructively set forth in a
to an order of the House of Commons, ordered to the
printed on the 15th February, 1850, and beginning
with Lord Hastings's own days.
* Private Journal of the Marquess of Hastings, vol. i. p. 48.
89
Starting from the year 1819-20 (the Bhopal case),
we find that, at this time, the idea of a right of
the British Government by lapse had apparently
occurred to no one; the adoption, even by a Maho-
medan princess, of a son and successor to her husband
dying without male issue was sanctioned as a matter
of course.* Nearly ten years elapse, and in the
Kotah case (1825-29), the Supreme Government say
that the ruler "must be considered to possess the
right, in common with all other Hindoos, of making
an adoption in conformity with the rules of the
Shaster." In the first Gwalior succession case
(1826-7), we see an adoption not only sanctioned, but
pressed upon the prince during his life in vain; we
find the British Government announcing beforehand,
that in the event of his death without having per-
formed the ceremony, and without having authorized his
widow to perform it, they "will of course be satisfied
...with the selection made by the general voice, or by
a majority of the chiefs and principal persons of the
country, according to usage, whether the letter of the
written law be closely adhered to or not;" we find the
adoption made finally by the widow, though unauthorized
by her husband, with the full acquiescence of the Govern-
ment. In the first Indore succession case (1833-4)
we find equally an adoption by the widow of Holkar
deemed unobjectionable by the British Government,
though eventually a collateral heir of full age made
good his pretensions against the infant heir by adop-
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 103 and foll.
+ Ibid. p. 153 and foll.
Ibid. p. 1 and foll.
90
tion, and was recognized by all parties. In the
Dutteeah case (1833), the right of the Rajas of
Bundelcund to adopt whom they please was admitted
in the person of a foundling, or pretended foundling,
adopted by the last Raja, who succeeded and was re-
cognized, as against the claims of a collateral. † In
the second Gwalior succession case (1836-43), we find
a series of circumstances singularly resembling those
of the first; the prince urged to adopt by the British
Government, but dying without having done so; the
adoption performed by the widow, and recognized by
the British Government. So in the case of Dhar,
near Indore (1834), adoption by the widow was sanc-
tioned;§ so in that of Oorcha in Bundelcund, the
Raja's claim to adopt was admitted as a matter of
right, against the promptings of the British agent for
Bundelcund, and notwithstanding the existence of
grounds of serious complaint against the prince and
the father of his adoptive son. In the case of Bans-
warra (1838, 1844) we see first the election of a col-
lateral heir as successor to a prince dead without male
issue, with the consent of his widow and of the princi-
pal chiefs, and next the immediate adoption by him of
a son with the like consent, whose succession in later
years was duly recognized by the British Government.T
The instance of Colaba, to which I shall refer in my
next, forms as it were the watershed between two
policies on the part of the Supreme Government. The
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 43 and foll.
+ Ibid. p. 114 and foll.
‡
Ibid. p. 28 and foll.
|| Ibid. p. 118 and foll.
§ Ibid. p. 110 and foll.
Ibid. p. 168 and foll.
91
coming spirit of annexation has nevertheless been
looming already through the dispatches of subordinates
since 1833. "It is a question," wrote Mr. Ainslie, the
agent for Bundelcund, in the Dutteeah succession
case,
"whether in failure of legitimate offspring, of
appointing a successor by adoption, or of the existence
of any near relation, the Raj would become lapsed to the
paramount state, or be left in abeyance ad infinitum,"
-though it is evident that he considers the native right
of adoption as altogether precedent to any question of
a right in the British Government. by escheat. The
following passage, however, is more ominous, and fore-
shadows already Lord Dalhousie's Sattara proceedings:
"I avail myself of the present opportunity to point out
another feature in the engagements entered into by the
British Government with the chiefs of Bundelcund.
The treaties with the chiefs of Bundelcund were made
with individuals in possession, and their successors.
Does that term necessarily include that person's rela-
tives through his father? His uncles and brothers, and
their children, might, strictly speaking, be considered
in no respect parties to the engagement."* Mr. Simon
Fraser, a subsequent agent for Bundelcund-the same
who was murdered at Delhi in 1857-wrote in the
same strain, after the accession of the adopted found-
ling: "Acting upon the principles laid down by the
Honourable Court, to recognize him as the heir de
facto appears to be the most regular course, but it
implies a total renunciation of all reversionary right of
succession to the Raj on the part of the British Govern-
ment under any contingency, for it renders necessary
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 116.
92
that we should allow whoever can support his authority
in the principality to assume the exercise of authority,
and seize the Raj, and this without reference to his
being the rightful heir to the guddee, or in any way
connected with the original party to the treaty; but
this again alters materially the character of our en-
gagements, which are with a specified chief, and his
heirs and successors in perpetuity.
27*
66
It is evidently Mr. Fraser's notion that, where there
is a treaty with a prince, his heirs and successors, the
character" of the engagement is altered, if, by usurp-
ation or otherwise, any other than the "rightful heir"
succeeds. The very slightest amount of reflection
would have shewn him that, were this the case, the
whole system of English laws and treaties would have
to be constantly renewed. For if there be one prin-
ciple of our municipal law which is fixed, and which,
instead of being narrowed, has always gone on widen-
ing in its international application, it is that the
king de facto is the one to be acknowledged-the
one upon whom the burthen of previous engagements
descends-with whom new engagements are to be con-
tracted. Thus our law-books are clear upon the point,
that treason to the king de facto may be punished
by the king de jure, when he succeeds to the throne.†
And, to take the case of France for instance, we all
know that, in wise deference to the lessons of the revolu-
tionary wars, government after government is now recog-
nized, not only by England, but by all Europe-some
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 125.
+ See, for instance, Blackstone, iv. 77: "The king here intended"
(in the Statute of treasons) "is the king in possession, without any
respect to his title."
93.
petty prince of Italy perhaps alone excepted-without
reference to the canon of legitimate succession, and that
every previously existing treaty is held binding upon
and towards every such government in succession.
Upon and towards, I say, for it is generally over-
looked by the annexationists, that if their logic held
good in our favour, it must also hold good against us.
In many instances, we allege supremacy over a native
state, and enforce annexation on lapse, as having suc-
ceeded by conquest to the rights of the Peshwa, or some
other native sovereign. Did it ever occur to an annexa-
tionist who might doubt, like Mr. Ainslie, whether
"successor" might "necessarily" include "a man's
relatives through his father," whether it might also
necessarily include one who turned a man out of his
house, and put him in prison? It has not seemed to
the annexationists that, "strictly speaking," a man's
“uncles and brothers and their children" were "parties"
to his engagements; did it seem to them that the con-
queror was, "strictly speaking," a party to the engage-
ments of the conquered? If they held that the cha-
racter of our engagements was " materially altered," if
any one who could support his authority might seize
the Raj, without reference to his being in any way
connected with the original party to the treaty, was
not the "character of a native prince's engagements
materially altered," when the Raj of his superior was
actually seized by foreign invaders? Arnold spoke
once of "those one-eyed men, the political economists."
Might we not say also, "those one-eyed men, the
Indian annexationists ?"
Upon every principle, therefore, of municipal and
94
international law which is recognized by England,
which is enforced by it in India, which is essential to
the stability of the Queen's throne, to the maintenance
of her Indian empire, it was impossible that the succes-
sion to the throne of Dutteeah, of any person whomso-
ever, should of itself in anywise alter the character of
our engagements with the chief of that principality, his
heirs and successors. It is but just to say, however,
that in the despatches from the Supreme Government in
this case there appears no trace of the agent's mis-
apprehensions.*
Mr. Fraser however did not stop here. He was left
as agent in Bundelcund, and a few years later (1837) in
the Oorcha case, we find him, in an elaborate report (7th
Oct. 1837),† exhibiting genealogical trees of the various
Bundelcund states and chiefships, the successions to
which had been sanctioned; the existing revenues of ter-
ritories held by rulers who had no lineal descendants, of
territories which, according to the writer, had "already
passed into the hands of persons who had originally a
doubtful claim to it," and of territories to which lineal
heirs were actually in existence. "The right," said he,
"of the British Government, as paramount power, to
resume hereditary territory which lapses for want of heirs,
has, I believe, been asserted and acted upon in other parts
of India, and I am not aware of any peculiarity in the
case of Bundelcund which should exempt it from the
* House of Commons' Return on Successions by Adoption, pp. 115-
128. The carelessness with which this part of the Return is compiled
(seemingly by the India House) is almost incredible. Six several
documents are printed twice, and two others misplaced.
+ House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 132.
95
operation of the general rule." He spoke repeatedly
of Government's "waiving" its claim. In guarded lan-
guage, indeed, he respectfully "submitted" what ap-
pears to be, under the name of " suitable arrangements,"
a mere scheme of annexation. Fortunately for India,
the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West was then
Sir Charles Metcalfe. In a celebrated minute of his,
of the 28th October, 1837,* he pointed out a trifling
flaw in Mr. Fraser's reasoning,-he had forgotten the
difference between princes and subjects!
2. "The question is," wrote Sir Charles, "whether chiefs and
princes, not having heirs of the body, have a right to adopt a succes-
sor, to the exclusion of collateral heirs, or of the supposed rever-
sionary rights of the paramount power; and whether the British
Government is bound to acknowledge the adoption?
3. In the disposal of this question there is a wide difference, to
which Mr. S. Fraser has not adverted, between sovereign princes and
jageerdars; between those in possession of hereditary sovereignties
in their own right, and those who hold grants of land or public
revenue by gift from a sovereign or paramount power.
4. Those who are sovereign princes in their own right and of the
Hindoo religion have by Hindoo law a right to adopt, to the exclu-
sion of collateral heirs, or of the supposed reversionary right of the
paramount power; the latter in fact in such cases having NO REAL
EXISTENCE, except in the case of absolute want of heirs, and even
then the right is only assumed in virtue of power; for IT WOULD
BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH RIGHT THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
SO SITUATED SHOULD ELECT A SOVEREIGN FOR THEMSELVES.
5. In the case, therefore, of Hindoo sovereign princes, I should
say that in failure of heirs male of the body, they have a right to
adopt, to the exclusion of collateral heirs, and that the British
Government is bound to acknowledge the adoption, provided that it
be regular, and not in violation of Hindoo law.
6. In the case of Mahomedan sovereigns there seems to be greater
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 141.
#
96
doubt. I do not know that they have by law a right to adopt to the
exclusion of collateral heirs. Mahomedan sovereigns have, however,
more than once claimed a right to nominate a successor from among
their sons; but the Mahomedan law appears to be loose with regard
to succession to sovereignties, and the safest way, where we are para-
mount, or have any right to interfere, is to acknowledge the legiti
mate successor according to Mahomedan law.
7. With respect to chiefs who merely hold lands or enjoy public
revenue under grants such as are issued by a sovereign to a subject,*
the power which made the grant, or that which by conquest or other-
wise has succeeded to its rights, is certainly entitled to limit succes-
sion according to the limitations of the grant, which in general confines
it to heirs male of the body, and consequently precludes adoption.
In such cases, therefore, the power which granted, or the power
standing in its place, would have a right to resume on failure of heirs
male of the body."
-
The agent in Bundelcund was therefore requested to
classify the princes and chiefs within his superintend-
ence with reference to the above data, and to report to
which class the Raja of Oorcha belonged. The im-
pression on the Lieutenant-Governor's mind was that
he was a "sovereign prince, and being a Hindoo, fully
entitled to adopt a son and successor in the event of
his having no heirs of his body;" but the recognition
of the adoption would depend on the decision of the
Governor-General. Mr. Fraser having moreover com-
mented on "the apparent incoherence of the past deci-
* Observe the careful wording of Sir Charles: "Grants such as
are issued by a sovereign to a subject.” The definition was after-
wards stretched so as to include all cases in which territory was in
any way granted, confirmed or restored, though under circumstances
entirely negativing the idea of a grant as "to a subject." It must
however at once be stated that Mr. Elphinstone, in a passage to be
hereafter quoted, treats by implication jagheers even as inheritable by
right of adoption, though under heavy fines.
97
sions of our Government in acknowledging successors
among the Bundelcund chiefs," as not being "based on
any fixed principle," Sir Charles Metcalfe quietly
pointed out that "the principle which has generally
operated on such occasions has been that of recognizing
the succession apparently agreeable to the prince and
the people, or to the latter on the demise of the former;
that is, the principle of non-interference in the internal
affairs of other states."
If the spirit which prevades this remarkable minute
had continued to animate the rulers of India, I believe
we should never have heard of an Indian rebellion. It
is the assertion of a broad, human, common-sense
policy, against a narrow, selfish technicality, masked,
it may be, in regard-feigned or real-for the Indian
masses. Sir Charles disdains to enter into any consi-
deration of the money-revenue which we may have
foregone, which we may yet forego, by not asserting
the "supposed reversionary rights of the paramount
power." He shews clearly that there can be no such
rights as against any sovereign state, only against
mere grantees froin the crown, holding in general their
lands in fee-tail. He shews that to abstain from
meddling, - to defer to the will of the prince and the
people,—is a rule above all rules, a uniformity above
all canons.
M
Yet even in this noble paper there is an imperfec-
tion,-hardly to be called an error,-which in after-
times allowed it to be wrested from its true purpose to
far other ends,-which gave a very fulcrum to the
annexation lever. The classification of the chiefs of
Bundelcund which it directed might lead, and did lead
H
*
98
in effect, to the substitution of official generalizations
for specific treaty obligations. The minute did not
sufficiently point out that, as against ourselves, the
actual engagements entered into with the several chiefs
were what they had a right in the first place to appeal
to; that no theory of agents, or lieutenant-governors,
or governors-general, as to whether a chief came or
not within the category of sovereign princes could stand
against the words of a definite treaty. The time came
when Lord Dalhousie wielded Sir Charles Metcalfe's
definitions with terrible effect to overthrow those
native principalities, which it was Sir Charles's especial
object to preserve.
The next time the point is mooted, in the Oorcha
case (1841), it is easy to see that the annexation doc-
trines are gaining head. Mr. (now Sir Robert) Hamil-
ton, officiating secretary to the then lieutenant-governor
of the North-West, speaks of a recognition by the
British Government of the adoption as "that which,
under any circumstances, must be a relaxation of its
own strict right of resumption on failure of direct heirs."
Mr. (now Sir T. H.) Maddock-who, I trust, has since
seen the error of his ways,-being then secretary to
the Supreme Government, endeavours in a long note to
confute Sir Charles Metcalfe's opinion as to the Raja of
Oorcha being a sovereign prince,-talks of the princes
of Bundelcund in general as having become, " in effect,
*
*I do not speak of Lord Metcalfe only as of a statesman. I
speak of him as of my father's friend,-as one in whose honest face,
when I looked upon it in after-days, seared already with the disease
which laid him in the grave, I could not but see that I had before me
"
an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no-guile."
99
feudatories and dependent jageerdars, whose estates, in
default of heirs, would lapse to the British Govern-
ment,”—and (to use a vulgarism) muddles up after the
manner of later Indian officials the right of the para-
mount power to sanction adoption with that of seizure
on pretence of lapse. Lord Auckland, however, in a
most creditable minute (2nd January, 1842) disposed
of the whole string of fallacies.
3. "I cannot," he wrote, "for a moment admit the doctrine that,
because the view of the policy upon which we may have formed en-
gagements with native princes may have been by circumstances
materially altered, we are not to act scrupulously up to the terms and
spirit of those engagements.
4. I have referred to our treaty with the Raja of Oorcha, concluded
on the 23rd December, 1812, and I find that its preamble commences
in these words: "The Raja of Oorcha is one of the chiefs of Bun-
delcund by whom and his ancestors his present possessions have been
held in successive generations during a long course of years, without
paying tribute or acknowledging vassalage to any other power.' And
the treaty formed with the Raja is designated as one of 'friendship
and alliance;' the territory which from ancient times has descended
'to the Raja by inheritance, and is now in his possession, being
guaranteed to the said Raja and to his heirs and successors.'
Upon words so distinct and positive as this, I hold it to be impossible
to raise a question, and I am of opinion, therefore, that the Raja of
Oorcha must be regarded as one of those sovereign rulers who, ac-
cording to the very proper rule laid down in the letter of Sir Charles
Metcalfe, of 28th October, 1837, is entitled to make an adoption, in
his own discretion, which the British Government is bound to acknow-
ledge, 'provided that such adoption be regular and not in violation
of Hindoo law.'"*
This is putting the matter upon its truest ground,-
that of express treaty obligation.
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, pp. 128-152.
H 2
LETTER VIII.
HOW THE RIGHT OF ADOPTION WAS INVADED,
1841-8.
THREE principles have regulated the policy of the
supreme government of India towards allied native
states up to the period at which we have arrived.
First, that of respecting native laws and usages, as
administered by native sovereigns. Second, that of
respecting the will of the native peoples, when mani-
festly exhibited in the selection of a sovereign.
Third, that of respecting the letter of treaties, as
against ourselves. Perhaps the spirit of our rule,
at its noblest epoch, is nowhere better expressed than
by these words of Lord Hastings to the Nawab of the
Carnatic, a mere pageant sovereign, in 1813:
"I answered, that a treaty plighted the public faith
of the nation, so that it must be my duty to maintain
its terms according to their true spirit, which ought
always to be construed most favourably for the party
whose sole dependence was on the honour of the other.”
We enter upon a new era, in which the words of
treaties are tortured to reduce sovereigns to the status
of dependent vassals,-in order that their dependency
in turn may be made a ground for extinguishing the
states over which they rule; in which the desires of
the native peoples are only regarded, so far as they may
make annexation dangerous; in which the transfer of
*Private Journal, vol. i. p. 11.
101
masses of men from kindred rule to foreign, is deemed
a purely technical matter; in which the British Govern-
ment acts as the supreme interpreter of native law
and custom, and even when it bends to them, almost
disdains to do so otherwise than as "an act of grace."
The rule of the weak and vacillating Lord Auckland,
-than whom no man perhaps ever did more harm,
meaning less-fitly inaugurates such a period. We
have seen him, with simple English straightforward-
ness, maintaining the rights of the Raja of Oorcha at
the close of the last. We have to see him now sacri-
ficing those of the widows of the chief of Colaba.
""
With the Colaba case (1841-4) begins indeed the era
of annexation. There had been a treaty with the
chief, guaranteeing to him, his "heirs and successors,'
on certain conditions, "the integrity of his dominions,"
but reserving to the British "entire supremacy," and
"the right of conferring investiture on any vacancy."
British Courts of justice were not to be introduced
against the will of the chief, "his heirs and successors."
In the absence of legitimate descendants of the founder
of the state, the Supreme Government refused to allow
the widows of a deceased chief to adopt illegitimate
ones. The Home Government sanctioned the measure,
although contrary to the views of the majority of the
Bombay Council, including the Governor-the parties
nearest at hand and most interested. Lord Auckland
and his Calcutta Council were unanimously of opinion
that our policy should be "to persevere in the one clear
and just course of abandoning no just and honourable
accession of territory or revenue, while all existing
claims of right are, at the same time, scrupulously
102
respected."* The privilege of adoption, it was now de-
clared, "rests entirely in the discretion of the para-
mount government. To permit the adoption would
therefore be to give up, by an act of mere grace, a terri-
tory which has undoubtedly lapsed to the British Govern-
ment, as the paramount power." (25th May, 1841.)†
This is one of those cases which shew the dangers
of the system of generalization formulized in Lord
Metcalfe's famous minute. Try the character of the
Colaba state by the test of absolute sovereignty, and it
becomes impossible to contend that a chief who acknow-
ledges the "entire supremacy" of the British Govern-
ment over his state, can be considered as sovereign in
the full force of the term. But try the actual case, as
any English judge would, by the evidence, and it be-
comes no less clear that in treating with the chief, his
"heirs and successors," the British Government ac-
knowledged the individuality of the Colaba state, apart
from the mere family of the chief. This is fully shewn
by the clause that "the British Courts of justice, laws
and regulations," are not to be "introduced into the
principality, against the will of Raghojee Angria, his
heirs and successors," a clause which becomes almost
nugatory, if the British Government is to have the right
of determining that there shall be no successors at all.‡
B
* I quote these words from a minute by Mr. Willoughby in the
Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 85.
+ House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 214.
The existence of "semi-sovereign states" is fully admitted by
writers on international law. Mr. Wheaton expressly says, that
"Tributary states, and states having a feudal relation to each other,
are still considered as sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
affected by this relation." International Law, pp. 45-51.
103
The fatal step was not taken without the fullest
warning as to its consequences. In the "Selections
from the written opinions of
of Henry St. George
Tucker" will be found an elaborate paper by that
eminent member of the Court of Directors against it.
+
"The principality of Colaba," he wrote, "has been held by the
family of Angria for nearly two centuries, in a state of independence.
It has never been in our possession. Our connection with it rests
upon the foundations of a formal treaty, freely contracted; and
while a vestige of the Angria family remains, it belongs of right to
them, and cannot be seized and appropriated by us otherwise than by
an act of violence, perpetrated by our superior power.. It is
assumed that the principality has lapsed to the paramount state, by
reason of the failure of heirs. . . . But the ground I rest upon is,
that the widow of Raghojee Angria possessed, under the authority of
that prince, which is not disputed, the right to adopt, and still pos-
sesses that right unimpaired.* Adoption, with a Hindoo, is both a
right and a duty; for the tenets of his religion require that, failing
a natural heir, a substitute should be raised up to perform certain
ceremonial rites enjoined by that religion; and even if we admit that
the principality of Colaba was a mere dependency of our Govern-
ment, and that the paramount estate, in certain cases, can refuse to
sanction an adoption, this power is not to be exercised lightly and
capriciously upon insufficient grounds. It is a reservation intended
to guard against irregular and illegal adoptions.
Gen Mag vagterna
The right of adoption is somewhat analogous to that under which,
by means of a testamentary deed or will, we give a destination to
our property, in this country, after the demise of the testator; but
with the Hindoo a religious motive is superadded, to render the act
of adoption necessary; and it would not be more unjust to prohibit
a British subject from executing a will than it would be to prevent a
Hindoo from raising up an heir by means of an adoption.
Whether the case before us be considered to involve a question of
international law, assuming Colaba to be an independent state; or a
•
• •
*The italics are here the writer's.
·
104
question of inheritance, viewing it as a mere dependency; it is clear
there are no grounds for the forcible interference of the British
Government. The principality is, at the least, a territorial domain
or estate, held under the protection of the law, and should the pro-
prietor or claimant be compelled to resort to a Court of justice, in
order to establish his rights, I cannot for one moment doubt that
the august tribunal in the last resort in this country would extend
to him its protection, and grant redress for any wrongs which he
may have suffered at our hands.
I never can satisfy myself that true policy can comport with in-
justice and oppression. The native princes and chiefs of India will
see, in the fate of Colaba, their own future destiny; their fidelity
and attachment cannot be relied upon while they have such cause
for distrust and alarm, and although they may be overawed and kept
down by our irresistible military power, the occasion may arise when
their hostility might become dangerous. The feelings of our Indian
subjects are not to be trifled with; and it is not wise nor safe to
depart from that conciliatory conduct, nor to efface from their minds
those impressions of our justice, wisdom and good faith, which have
hitherto constituted our bond of union with the people, and the true
basis of our power in India."*
The Colaba case was followed in the next year, 1842,
by that of Mandavie, where lapse was enforced by the
British Government, "as the Peishwa's representa-
tive," against the claim of adoption by widows, and
those of collaterals. So technical was the question of
annexation already becoming, so utterly regardless
had the British Government grown by this time, as to
* Selections, pp. 97-100. At a later period Mr. Tucker wrote:
"I remonstrated against the annexation (I am disposed to call it
confiscation) of Colaba, the ancient seat of the Angria family, . . . and
far from having seen reason to recall, or to modify the opinion
recorded by me on that proceeding, I have availed myself of every
suitable occasion to enforce my conviction, that a more mischievous
policy could not be pursued than that which would engross the whole
territory of India.” . . . Ibid.
Ibid. p. 89.
105
the feelings of those with whom it dealt,--that the
enforcement of the escheat turned upon the point of
whether the succession to a very ancient Hindoo
principality was to be reckoned from its foundation,
or from its restoration after twenty years of subjection,
nearly a century before the date of the discussion.*
The same plea, it is obvious, might be raised for
suppressing as a continental power at least-the
kingdom of Sardinia, or any other state which was
restored after the great Napoleon's conquests, in case
of failure of issue of the princes actually restored.
From henceforth, though adoptions may still be
sanctioned, though Governor's-General may shrink yet
awhile from enforcing escheat in the case of the larger
states, the whole aspect of affairs is changed. Instead
of Residents and Agents suggesting annexation, it is
from head-quarters that the suggestion comes; it is
only not carried into effect, when the subordinate
officer happens to be a man of sufficient character to
resist the temptation to please his superiors, of sufficient
weight to make his superiors shrink from overruling
his views. Such a man was the late Colonel Suther-
land, agent for Rajpootana; a man of very wide Indian
experience, thoroughly familiar with native usages, and
at the same time one whose chivalrous straight-
forwardness was itself a rebuke to the covetous
longings of others. To the consistent course which
he pursued is owing the still maintained integrity of
the Rajpoot states, held by the flower of the Hindoo
race, and thereby, as I firmly believe, their fidelity
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, pp. 216-17.
106
during the present revolt, with the exception of the
still doubtful case of Kotah.
The Kishengurh (1841), Oodeypore (1841-2), Doon-
gerpore (1846) successions shew clearly the influence of
Colonel Sutherland. In the former there had been an
adoption by a widow, under protest from the next of
kin. The Calcutta Council doubted whether the widow
could adopt without express authority, and directed
inquiries. Colonel Sutherland had them made, and,
without taking the hint thrown out, reported that
"there is no question that an adoption by a widow
from among the nearest, although not the next of kin
to her deceased husband, when that adoption has been
made in conformity with the voice of the chiefs of the
state, is in the estimation of the Rajpoot world, valid."*
In the second case Colonel Sutherland actually com-
mitted his superiors to the sanctioning an adoption made
by the ruling prince without previous formal intima-
tion to the British authorities, by a letter in which he
spoke of its being "the wish of the British Government
that all sovereign princes of this country who had no
issue, should name their successors during their life-
time," and stated that it was "desirable" that the
prince "should adopt an heir in conformity with
Hindoo law and with the usages of his principality."
Although this step passed unquestioned, the recog-
nition of the adoption was withheld at head-quarters
during the adoptive father's life-time; and it is observ-
able that in the despatch of the Supreme Government
to the Home authorities, instead of treating the
Maharana of Oodeypore as a sovereign prince, as
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 173 and foll.
-
-
107
Colonel Sutherland had done, an expression is borrowed
from his subordinate, the Agent for Meywar, and the
mode of the adoption is spoken of as "altogether incon-
sistent with the deference due from a dependent ally of
the British Government."* In the Doongerpore case,
again, before sanctioning a proposed adoption, made
under very peculiar circumstances by the chief, the
Governor-General wished to know what arrangement
Colonel Sutherland would suggest in the event of the
chief's death while yet a minor. "Is the state of
Doongerpore to revert to Dulput Singh in such case,
and he to have the power of a second time adopting an
heir to the principality; or is the state to become an
escheat to the British Government, in the manner of
other states to which no heir exists?”
The case put, it will be presently observed, was
precisely the one on the occurrence of which the sove-
reignty of Indore had been cut down to a succession by
lineal descent only. The idea of escheat had already in
the present case been thrown out by the Meywar agent,
Colonel Robinson. The Supreme Government would
only have been too glad to obtain the sanction of a
man of Colonel Sutherland's authority to the policy
which they were striking out.
Colonel Sutherland's reply was decisive:
"I do not see the least reason why a second adoption should not
be had recourse to, if the first child should die either before or after
attaining his maturity; and I do not understand by what process a
Rajpoot principality, with which we are only connected by treaty,
can ever escheat to the British Government; for there must, in all
* Ibid. p. 184 and foll.
ان
108
Rajpoot principalities, be numerous collateral heirs; and even if we
had the right of succession, I should consider it very undesirable
that we should burthen ourselves with such a state as Doongerpore,
if it could be otherwise disposed of; for under our system of admi-
nistration, it could never, in all probability, be made to pay its own
expense.
""*
There was no driving on the annexation policy with
such an agent. In all these instances the adoption
was confirmed, with some display of ill temper in the
last, on the part of the Supreme Government; and the
precedent thus established by Colonel Sutherland ap-
pears to have been followed after his death in the case
of Kerowlee, 1848-9.†
If the maintenance of the Rajpootana states is due
to Colonel Sutherland, the existence of a native ruler of
Indore, our faithful ally, is apparently due to Sir
Claude Wade; though we may fail to trace in the
latter, the insight and decision which characterized the
former. In the second Indore succession case, indeed,
House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 193 and foll.
On grounds of law, however, I am bound to say, that there does
appear to me considerable doubt as to a widow's right to adopt a
second time, when the first adopted son has been able to perform the
due funeral rites. The Privy Council have decided, though with
considerable hesitation, that the second adoption by a man, the first
adopted son being alive, is void; Rungama v. Atchama, 4 Moore's
Indian Appeal Cases, p. 1; and if we take the religious duty as our
guide in adoption cases, it would seem that whenever that has been
fulfilled, adoption becomes impossible.
+ House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 209 and foll.
I am told by an Indian officer that there are some further papers
relating to Kerowlee, which have not been called for; that
"Lord Dalhousie was ordered to restore that petty Rajpoot state to
its rightful successor, and he did so.”
109
(1841-3), the precedent of Colaba was probably deemed
too recent to follow up; the ruler was encouraged to
adopt a son, who was recognized after his death.* But
the child died in less than six months, and a very dif
ferent course was followed (1844).
Without apparently the slightest inquiry, it was
assumed on all sides by the British authorities, that
there was no person having a claim to succeed, or to
exercise the right of adoption, and this in the face of a
genealogical table forwarded by the Resident, from
which it was evident that there were relatives in
existence, far within the twenty-one degrees of relation-
ship allowed by the Hindoo law, in the face of
customs, at least local, allowing kinsmen to adopt in
default of the widow ;† and more than all, in the face
of the fact, that there was then living a lad (Martund
Rao) whose adoption by a widow, had been sanctioned
by the British Government eleven years before, and
who had only been set aside on the popular voice de-
claring itself in favour of a collateral of full age. And
the first step taken by Lord Ellenborough-for I am
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 56 and foll,
† Among the Rajpoots, there is even a right in the Council of the
State to select a successor. Thus the Maharana of Oodeypore, (who
must be deemed a high authority in such matters), writing to
Colonel Sutherland in 1841, says, "If the adoption is not made
during the life, then the Raj Punch may, from the nearest of kin,
select and place on the guddee the person who is best qualified to
rule." (House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 188.) An in-
stance of this occurs in the Banswarra case of 1838, where the Su-
preme Government speak of a prince having been "elected, with the
consent and approbation of the leading chiefs of the principality, to
fill the vacant guddee." (Ibid. p. 168.)
110
sorry to say, he was the sinner on this occasion,-was to
endeavour, if possible, to effect an annexation of the
whole country.
"Where," said he, (5th February,
1844), "there is no person having the shadow of here-
ditary claim to succeed to the guddee of a native state,
and no person possessing a legitimate right to adopt a
successor thereto, and where moreover that state itself
is of comparatively modern origin, owing its existence
to a conquest made by predatory troops, it must always
become a question how far it may be expedient to
maintain the separate existence of that state, for the
benefit of none but the immediate followers of the
Court."*
The Resident was therefore directed to "endeavour
to ascertain whether there is any feeling which can be
deemed to partake of a national character, for the
maintenance of the state itself." But he was sincere
enough to report as follows, (17th February, 1844):
"The measure of assuming the government of the country our-
selves, would, in my humble opinion, be unpopular, and attended with
considerable risk to the existence of tranquillity. There is nothing
which has tended more to confirm the attachment of the retainers
of the state, as well as its subjects, to the authority of our govern-
ment, during the late events which have happened here, and the
disturbances at Gwalior,† than the impression arising from the
disinterested conduct we have manifested in the desire to preserve
the integrity of the chiefship in the family to which it has hereto-
fore belonged; and although the feelings of the people may not par-
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, February, 1850, p.
87. Of course the assertion that a native state is maintained solely
for the benefit of courtiers, is the merest petitio principii.
ti.e. The Gwalior campaign of 1843.
111
take of that decidedly national character, by which we are accus-
tomed to view them in other countries, yet where there is no actual
oppression or misrule urging them on to wish for a change of go-
vernment, they have a respect for existing institutions, and a pride
in their continuance in the family which they have long been in the
habit of acknowledging as their head, that would induce them to
view any such design on the part of our government with a strong
aversion."*
So Lord Ellenborough's views of aggrandisement
were foiled for the moment. By way, probably, of
shewing the weight of British protection, he left the
question of succession in abeyance for two months and
more,-a princess, the widow of a previous sovereign,
considered the head of the family, and termed the Mah
Sahibeh, acting as regent; the Resident, moreover,
being directed to make known "distinctly to the sirdars
and to all the subjects of the state, that we shall regard
with severe displeasure any attempt to put forward in
any manner the pretensions of Martund Rao, or of
any one else to the guddee." In other words, native
claims, even should they be rights, must depend on the
good pleasure of his Lordship. Sir Claude Wade
meanwhile left India, and was replaced by Mr. (now
Sir Robert) Hamilton; and now the Governor-General
was pleased to take up again the succession question.
The Resident reported, that the Mah Sahibeh had ex-
pressed her anxiety to have it settled; that, whilst per-
fectly willing to acquiesce in the Governor-General's
decision, she could not "in the face of her religion"
disguise her wish to see Martund Rao raised to the
throne; that he had been duly adopted, ejected when
C
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 88.
+ Ibid. p. 89.
112
a minor; "that she was convinced such a step would
give universal satisfaction, and be grateful to the peo-
ple;" that, if not approved of, his youngest brother
was the most eligible. The Resident added, that "the
troops were devoted to the Mah Sahibeh, for whom they
entertained the greatest respect;" and that she had
ever maintained a high character for her kindness of
disposition and benevolence of her rule." He further
forwarded an extract of a letter from the magistrate of
Poona, giving a favourable account of Martund Rao
himself.*
66
Now let us weigh these circumstances. Martund
Rao had been adopted in 1843, with the sanction of
the British Government; he had been set aside, an in-
fant, to make way for a collateral claimant of full age,
designated by the voice of the people. That collateral
claimant had now died, and his adoptive son after him.
What could be more natural than that the former adop-
tive candidate should now be reinstated in his rights, the
people of the state being willing to receive him? He
had renounced them, it is true, but this renuncia-
very
tion, given for the sake of public tranquillity, should
have constituted a title in his favour, at a time when
there was no danger to be incurred by recognizing
these rights. He was still moreover an infant, and
such a renunciation would have been held invalid on
his behalf, by any English Court of justice. Will it
be believed, that precisely because Martund Rao had
the best claim, therefore the Calcutta Council would not
allow him to succeed? "Martund Rao," wrote Mr.
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, pp. 90, 91.
PRO
113
(now Sir F.) Currie, as secretary to the Supreme Govern-
ment, "having been once already upon the guddee, by
real or pretended* adoption, her restoration now would
have, to a certain degree, the appearance of a succes-
sion by legitimate right; whereas, inasmuch as he has
really no legal claim, and the guddee is really vacant,
and no one of the Holkar family now possesses the
right of adopting a successor thereto, it seems desirable
that the selection of a successor should be manifestly the
sole act of the British Government as the paramount
protecting state." So Martund Rao, as well as his
brother,―i.e. the two persons whom the Regent pointed
out as having the best claim, were set aside, and the
Resident was directed to inform her, that the Governor-
General in Council had come to the conclusion, that it
was expedient that the candidate named third by her
should succeed.†
gl
-
* Why "pretended"? Not a shadow of doubt had been cast
upon the reality of his adoption.
+ House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 92. Even this
was accompanied with an insult to the Princess. She had recom-
mended the candidate in question, being a younger son, probably on
some ground of personal promise in the boy." Perhaps," observes
the despatch, "her Highness may see some convenience to herself
in a more protracted minority." The high character given to this
aged lady by the Resident might have saved her from this insi-
nuation. But it was visibly gratuitous, for Martund Rao, the can-
didate whom she especially recommended, was, as appears from the
Blue-book, between fourteen and fifteen, (having been between three
and four in 1833, while Mr. Currie writes in 1844), whilst the can-
didate who was actually selected by the British Government, being
third on her list, was ten. Yet this piece of insolence was deemed
so clever, that it was retailed to the Home authorities. See p. 83 of
the Return.
I
114
Mr. Hamilton, who had transmitted the expression
of the Mah Sahibeh's wishes that the matter might be
speedily decided, "as the want of a head to the state
was embarrassing to public business, led to intrigues,
and moreover, the wishes of the people were strong
that the guddee should not remain vacant," made no
secret of the news, but communicated it to the durbar,
and fixed a day for the installation of the new prince
(27th July; the chiefship having been in abeyance
since the 17th February). For this he was severely
blamed by the Calcutta Council. One specimen of
their handywork will suffice: "The Governor-General
in Council would fain hope that you left upon the
minds of all the impression that the younger son of
Bhao Holkar was placed upon the guddee by the mere
will of the British Government." And the intention
was intimated of transmitting a sunnud, or grant,
nominating the young prince,-in other words, of
transforming Indore from a sovereign state into a mere
fief, according to the fatal classification system of Sir
Charles Metcalfe's minute. This notion was, however,
withdrawn, after Lord Hardinge's succession to the
Governor-Generalship, and the actual installation of the
young chief; but it was intimated to the Resident that
"the opportunity of marking an important line of
policy had been lost to the Government" by his pro-
ceedings.*
* Ilouse of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 99. The
consequences of insisting on the "sunnud were thus indicated
by Mr. Hamilton. "Had a proposal, that the successor to the
vacant guddee should owe his position solely to a sunnud from the
British Government, been made whilst this question of succession
was unsettled and conflicting parties ripe for action, I am confi-
>>
115
1
66
It is difficult for subordinates to preserve their inde-
pendence before such expressions of opinion from the
supreme authority. Mr. Hamilton now suggested
that, in the first letter from the Governor-General to
the young chief, being in fact the confirmation of his
authority, "the future succession should be distinctly
limited to the heirs male of the Maharaja's body
lawfully begotten," so as effectually to "put an end to
the objectionable system of adoption." This was
caught at, of course, and the khureeta, or letter,
contained the following paragraph: “ It is the inten-
tion of the British Government, in thus bestowing upon
your Highness the principality of the Holkar State,
that the chiefship should descend to the heirs male of
your Highness's body lawfully begotten, in due suc-
cession, from generation to generation.”*
In giving
account of the transaction to the Secret Committee,
Lord Hardinge and his Council trusted (23d Decem-
ber, 1844) that "enough had been done to stamp the
measure as an act of free grace on the part of the
paramount power, and to strip the accession of the
young chief of all pretension to succession by either
hereditary right, or by that of adoption."† And thus
dent the troops would have resisted, and the chiefs and sirdars have
been distrustful and passive. And, confidence in the integrity
of our purpose once shaken, recourse to an armed force would have
become necessary to carry out our views. The unsettled state of the
adjoining territory of Scindia, the wild character of the Bheels,
hordes of persons thrown on the world by the recent changes at
Gwalior, all afforded elements of commotion, which delay and pro-
crastination on our part would have fermented."
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 101.
+ Ibid. p. 85.
I 2
116
Indore has become, or rather, been sought to be trans-
muted into an entailed state, with an alleged reversion
in the British Government.
Let us measure the enormous strides which have
been taken towards systematic annexation since the
beginning of this survey.
On the 26th November, 1819, Major Henley, on a
mission at Bhopal, says of the British Government,
that, in the position which it now occupied, "it must
often inevitably assume the office of umpire in disputed
or doubtful successions."* On the 8th June, 1844,
Mr. (now Sir F.) Currie, writing as secretary to the
Supreme Government, deems it "desirable that the
selection of a successor" to the important state of
Indore "should be manifestly the sole act of the
British Government as the paramount protecting
state." ↑
On the 3rd July, 1828, the Supreme Government, writ-
ing home, say that "the ruler of Kotah must be consi-
dered to possess the right, in common with all other
Hindoos, of making an adoption in conformity with the
rules of the Shaster." On the 30th September, 1844,
the Resident of Indore advises the limiting the succes-
sion of that state to heirs male of the body, as "this will
effectually put an end to the objectionable system of
adoption;" the suggestion is followed, and the
Supreme Government in writing home (23d December,
1844) speak of the step taken as "precluding the
possibility of adoption." §
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 106.
+ Ibid. p. 92. ‡ Ibid. p. 153. § Ibid. pp. 99, 85.
117
On the 31st July, 1834, speaking of an Indore
succession, the Supreme Government write home:
"Our duty
would be to maintain whatever arrange-
ment might appear to be unequivocally consonant to
the general wish.” * On the 23rd December, 1844,
speaking of another Indore succession, they report
that they have rejected a candidate to whom the Resi-
dent "believed the people generally were favourable,
and would be gratified by his being nominated Maha-
raja," because his enthronement "would have, to a
certain degree, the appearance of a succession by legi-
timate right."+
It remained for Lord Dalhousie to systematize the
new policy thus tentatively struck out by his three
last predecessors, Lords Auckland, Ellenborough, and
Hardinge.
..
LETTER IX.
HOW THE ANNEXATION POLICY DEALT WITH THE
RIGHT OF ADOPTION.
Ir will not be a waste of time, after the survey
which we have taken, to cast another glance at the
circumstances attending the different claims of lapse
by disallowance of adoption which were enforced by
Lord Dalhousie.
The Colaba and Mandavie cases had gone no further
than a refusal to allow adoptions by widows in what
* House of Commons' Return on Adoptions, p. 44.
+ Ibid. p. 83.
118
were termed dependent principalities. The last Indore
case had been confined in effect to the refusal to allow
of a particular adoption by one, who, though not the
widow of the last prince, was the admitted head of the
family. Between this and the enforcement of the
paramount's alleged right of escheat, in the face of an
actual adoption, the gulf was enormous. The Supreme
Government had shrunk from spanning it in the
Oodeypore case, and had contented itself with with-
holding recognition of the act during the life-time of
the offender. Nor was this in anywise inconsistent,
even with the now strengthening policy. Fieri non
debet, factum valet, is a rule often available in our law.
Hindoo jurists, as we have seen, are agreed that notice
to the ruling power is no legal essential to the validity
of adoption.
Over this gulf, in the Sattara case, the late Gover-
nor-General leapt, so to speak, at a bound. There
were two claimants by adoption, one through the
dethroned, one through the late reigning Raja. Not
a shadow of doubt could be cast on the formality of
either adoption in itself. The Governor-General treated
it as clear that the boy adopted by the late Raja, "in
justice, and as his right, ought to succeed as heir to the
personal and private property of the prince who
adopted him." If such provision should not be
sufficient, he recommended that a stipend should be
allowed to the boy out of the revenues of the state.
He recommended equally that "some provision should
be made" for the maintenance of the boy adopted by
the dethroned Raja. But he treated it as a general
rule, established "beyond cavil or doubt," that adop-
119
tion by a prince "is of no power or effect whatever in
constituting him heir to the principality or to sovereign
rights until the adoption so made has received the
sanction of the sovereign power, with whom it rests to
give or refuse it." And, without saying, in fact,
one single word as to the rights of collaterals, beyond
referring to the "near relationship" of the adoptive
son of the dethroned Raja "to the late and ex-Raja,”-
he jumped to the conclusion, that Sattara ought to be
annexed.*
I have shewn elsewhere the enormous fallacy of
concluding from the power of consent to the power of
confiscation; how it would authorize the appropriation
of partnership interests by copartners, of shares in a
public company by Boards of Directors, of the fortunes
of wards by their guardians, of the fee-simple by a
tenant for life. I might multiply such instances to a
perfectly wearisome extent. It is the leading one of
the two fallacies on which Lord Dalhousie's minute is
founded. The other is the equally monstrous one as
to the words "heirs and successors."
"The words 'heirs and successors' must be read in their ordinary
sense, in the sense in which they are employed in other treaties
between states; and in the absence of all evidence or reasonable pre-
sumption, founded on known facts, or on some special wording of the
English instrument, in favour of a wider interpretation, these words
cannot be construed to secure to the Raja of Sattara any other than
the succession of heirs natural, or to grant them the right of adopt-
ing successors to the Raj without that sanction of the sovereign
state, which may be given or may be withheld, and which by ordinary
*Sattara Annexation Papers, pp. 100-105.
+ British India, its races and its history, vol. ii. p. 259.
120
and invariable practice, is necessary to the validity of such an act of
adoption by the prince."
Words absolutely fail an English lawyer to express
his sense of the ignorance of English constitutional
law and history which such a passage exhibits. In
plain language it is something very closely approach-
ing-of course quite unintentionally-to high trea-
son; and in old times men have been hanged, drawn,
and quartered for less. It is plain that by "heirs
natural," the Governor-General meant "lineal heirs,"
(though the blunder is already one that most well edu-
cated men would be ashamed of committing), since,
as before observed, he did not allude to the claims of
collaterals. Thus, "heirs and successors," according
to his Lordship, in their "ordinary sense," and as "em-
ployed in other treaties," mean lineal heirs, heirs of
the body. Argal, since Queen Victoria was not lineal
heir to William IV. every enactment in an act of Par-
liament, every clause in a treaty, dated previously to
her accession, which speaks of an obligation to be ful-
filled within the realm by or towards any deceased
monarch, his heirs and successors,-which speaks of
the relation of a foreign monarch and his subjects with
such a deceased English monarch his heirs and succes-
sors and their subjects, is at an end. In other words,
all internal government, all international security, is
swept away by the accident of a death. By such fal-
lacies has India been governed.
G
B
Of course, when a Governor-General thus expresses
himself, one need not wonder at any language whatso-
ever from the lips of a subordinate official. Mr. Les-
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 102.
121
tock R. Reid, for instance, (now a Director of the East
India Company) may go unscathed for the nonce, who
with delicious aplomb says, "In the present instance
we need consider only the first term used, that of' heirs.'
We can have no concern with a successor who is not an
heir "*
-or again: "Our treaty of 1819, was with
Pertaub Sing, his heirs and successors. All his ances-
try, and those springing from them, are passed by,”†—
as if the world had ever seen such a thing as a treaty
with a man "his heirs and ancestors!" The most
lamentable fact connected with the matter, as shewing
the sort of training which Indian officials must have
received, is—as I have before observed — that the per-
sons who insist on the escheat, from the Governor-
General downwards, all rely upon the English version,
while those who contend against the escheat-Sir
George Clerk, Mr. St. George Tucker, Captain Shep-
herd, Major Oliphant, Mr. Leslie Melville,-all suffer
themselves to be entangled in the question of the native
versions, apparently ignorant that the English one
was conclusive in their favour.t
-
C
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 82.
† Ibid. p. 83.
I have spoken of the ignorance manifested by Indian officials with
respect to English constitutional law and history. What shall we
say to Mr. Willoughby, who grounds England's relation as lord para-
mount to the Sattara state, amongst other things, upon her position
"C
as successor to the Peishwas, the de facto rulers of the Mahrattas,"
(Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 90)—it being notorious that the
Peishwas ruled as ministers to the Rajas of Sattara, and to use Lord
Ilastings' words, kept up "the farce of asking once a year the orders
of the Raja." If this is the relation of "lord paramount" in any
sense in which an honest man has a right to call it so, then may I
lock up my next door neighbour (being a bachelor) in his house,
122
There is indeed one strong contrast between the Go-
vernor-General and the other apologists for the annex-
ation, which we must not overlook. Their arguments
generally turn more or less confusedly upon the question
whether the Sattara state- was to be considered or not
as sovereign. Mr. Mangles alone seems to have seen the
question clearly; and in an elaborate paper endeavoured
to prove that it could not. "I have taken 'pains," he
writes, "to establish this position of the dependency of
Sattara upon the British Government, by what appear to
me conclusive proofs, because upon that point absolutely
hinges the question whether that Government possess the
right to be consulted in respect to the adoption of a son
by the late Raja, and to give or to withhold, at its discre-
tion, its consent to that measure." He had said before
that "if the Raja were created a sovereign in the ordi-
nary acceptation of the term, he was unquestionably
competent to adopt a snccessor to his royal rights, as
well as an heir of his personal property." It will be
seen that, although Sir Charles Metcalfe's minute is not
referred to, the distinction here taken is precisely the
one which is established; and here, even more strongly
than in the case of Colaba, we see the mischiefs to which
it leads, the special pleading with respect to facts
which it begets, in order to escape from the plain words
of a treaty.* The Governor-General, whilst adopting
S
and on his death without issue, (by starvation or otherwise) lawfully
succeed to his property by right of escheat as "lord paramount" over
him. Lord Dalhousie endorsed the fallacy. (Sattara Annexation
Papers, p. 102.)
*I do not choose to discuss the question so elaborately treated.
by Mr. Mangles, of the degree of independence of the Satara Raja.
The treaty forms a written contract, far too plain to admit of any
123
Mr. Willoughby's reasonings as to the need of the
sanction of the British Government to the adoption, as
the "lord paramount of the state of Sattara," went far
beyond in the principles which he laid down. In his
despatch of the 30th August, 1848, setting forth the
general policy of annexation, he pronounced himself
openly against sanctioning any adoption, otherwise
than exceptionally:
"While I would not seek to lay down any inflexible rule with re-
spect to adoption, I hold that on all occasions where heirs natural,
importation of extrinsic evidence into its construction. But it is
instructive to look back at Lord Hastings's views, at the time of the
restoration of the Sattara state, as they come out, in their most genuine
form, in his newly published "Private Journal.”
"February 28th, (1818.) . . The capture of Sattarah is useful,
from the position of the fort; but it is further so from the habitual
contemplation of that place by the Mahrattas as the heart of their
empire. The Raja of Sattarah is the hereditary sovereign of the Mah-
rattas; and though held a prisoner by the Peishwa, who (like the
French maires du Palais) usurped the powers of government, he is
still nominally the chief.
Aware of the probability that we
should endeavour to give the Raja an independent sovereignty, the
Peishwa on his flight from Poonah took the unfortunate prince, who is
only fourteen years of age, out of the fort, and has been dragging the
young man about with him." (Private Journal, vol. ii. pp. 281, 282.)
"March 9th.
What was still more important, the Raja of
Sattarah and his family fell into our hands. If their exultation upon
finding themselves transferred from the Peishwa (by whom they feared
to be murdered) to us, with whom they believed their lives to be safe,
was great, their astonishment was not less, when they were informed
that we meant to raise the Raja to an independent sovereignty.
The Peishwa was aware that such was likely to be our policy." (Ibid.
pp. 290-2.)
Poor Lord Hastings! how little he knew his own intentions, as
compared with Mr. Mangles.
124
shall fail, the territory should be made to lapse, and adoption
should not be permitted, excepting in those cases in which some
strong political reason may render it expedient to depart from this
general rule."*
K
And he openly declared, in words already quoted,
that "such is the general principle which ought to
guide the conduct of the British Government in its
disposal" - not of dependent, but-" of independent
states." The majority of the Court of Directors, how-
ever, having preferred to subscribe to Mr. Mangles's
system of special-pleading away the independence of
the native states one by one, it would seem that his
Lordship himself saw the advantage of falling back upon
it, as will be seen in other annexation cases. But it
would be folly to blind oneself as to the breadth of the
foregone conclusion which will from henceforth form the
starting-point of his reasonings in such cases, or to
overlook the fact, that the Sattara annexation had es-
tablished a precedent, capable of sustaining any possi-
ble superstructure of annexation by escheat. In the
Jhansee case, it was found convenient to recur to Mr.
Mangles's reasonings, and to Sir Charles Metcalfe's
distinction between "dependent" and "independent"
states. The words "heirs and successors," as I have
shewn ere this, occur in the Jhansee treaty, as in the
Sattara one. The Raja of Jhansee, like him of Sattara,
had adopted a cousin. The Governor-General this time
expended a considerable amount of argument upon the
proof that Jhansee was "a dependent principality,
in like manner as, and even more distinctly than Sat-
tara;" that "it was held by a chief under a very recent
*Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 103.
-
125
•
""*
grant from the British Government as sovereign;"
that "it was therefore liable to lapse to the Govern-
ment that gave it on the failure of heirs male.' I
need not, I trust, myself dwell upon these arguments,
seeing that they simply reproduce the Sattara ones.
On one point, however, they are even more fallacious.
The Raja of Sattara was only a nominal sovereign
when we made him a real one. The chief of Jhansee
on the contrary was, at the time we entered into the
treaty referred to, by right or wrong, the actual ruler
of his territories; we had ourselves treated with his
predecessor thirteen years before; he was already he-
reditary,† at the time when we so "acknowledged" and
constituted" him. To speak of this as a "grant"
66
* Jhansee Annexation Papers, p. 20. Sir Charles Metcalfe is here
quoted, but as if his minute of the 28th October, 1837, applied only
to Bundelcund: "In reference to the chiefs of Bundelcund, Sir
Charles Metcalfe wrote thus,' "the particular rules laid down for
successions in Bundelcund by Sir C. Metcalfe." Any one who chooses
to look back at the despatch, will see that it is as general as possi-
ble. But however convenient its generalization as to dependent
sovereignties might have proved, its generalization as to independent
ones was extremely inconvenient to all annexationists. So it was
quietly restricted to Bundelcund.—The orange is sucked; fling it
aside.
"November 9th. I remained in the same camp, and received the
young subahdar of Jhansee. As the title implies, the chiefs of that
territory were only officers entrusted by the Peishwa with the tem-
porary command of the district; but one of them, who was a man of
head as well as of courage, succeeded in making the subahdarship
hereditary in his family, maintaining in other respects towards the
Peishwa relations of fealty with some pecuniary payments. The
subahdar is now our feudatory."-Lord Hastings's Private Journal,
vol. ii. p. 235.
126
from the British Government of the principality, of the
liability of that principality to lapse" to the govern-
ment that gave it," is surely a gross abuse of terms.
GUS
The Nagpore case was in one sense less extreme than
the two former ones. There was no adoption by the
sovereign; only widows possessing the right to adopt.
In other respects it was far more so, for the claims of
Nagpore to be deemed an independent state, with un-
limited rights of adoption in its sovereigns, were far
greater than any yet considered. General (then Colo-
nel) Low, member of council, in two minutes which
will constitute his best claim to be remembered,* ex-
pressly states his full belief, that Lord Hastings "con-
sidered the Raja whom he placed on the throne of
Nagpore in 1818, to be in possession of precisely the
same rights, both present and future, respecting heirs
and successors," as if his predecessor had never offended.
He shews that Mr. Cavendish, when Resident in
1837, was the first person who ever started the idea
that the late Raja could be precluded from adopting.†
He quotes the careful expression of opinion, in 1840,
of the next Resident, Major Wilkinson, to the con-
trary. Major Wilkinson, "after the most mature de-
liberation," could not come to any conclusion as re-
Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 39-51.
+ Mr. Cavendish was perhaps the real originator of the Sattara an-
nexation. His words, as quoted by General Low, are, "The terri-
tories of Nagpore, Mysore, and Sattara, were granted by the
Honourable Company, and no one but a descendant of the grantee
ought to succeed, or can by the laws of the land advance any just
claim to the succession." All the Reid-Willoughby-Dalhousie-Man-
gles' sophistry in the Sattara case is here prefigured in brief.
127
spects the treaty, than that the late Raja " was placed
in the exact position Appa Sahib was removed from,
which was that of an independent prince, possessing the
same power and authority as any other independent
prince in India ;" that "as such he entered into a treaty
of alliance with the British Government, on the 1st
December, 1826, which treaty was subsequently mo-
dified by the treaty of the 26th December, 1829;"
that, "by neither of these treaties did he relinquish any
right, in failure of sons legitimate, to adopt. If there-
fore other independent princes or their widows have
the power to adopt," he continued, "it seems to me
that he or his widow has the same," "for, if we had
intended to restrict the succession to the lineal male de-
scendants of his Highness the Rajah, such would have
been expressed in one or other of the treaties referred
to." General Low himself expresses his full con-
currence with Major Wilkinson on all these points.
Nay, the Governor-General in Council, in 1844, had
admitted by implication the right of adoption (at least
in the Raja himself), by instructing the then Resident,
Colonel Speirs, "in the event of the death of the pre-
sent Raja without leaving children or an adopted son,
to make arrangements for conducting the government,
pending the orders of the government of India, which
orders would be "based on the circumstances that
may present themselves at the time, and the right to
make the adoption which might be considered to attach
to any surviving member of the Raja's family,"* whilst
""
* Lord Dalhousie says of this passage, "Thus, no recognition of
the right of adoption was made, but the question was left entirely
open!"
128
Mr. Jenkins, in his Report submitted to the govern-
ment of India iu 1826, had laid down as a "maxim
generally acknowledged" in Nagpore, that "on the
death of a Raja, leaving no male heir, it is the privi-
lege of his principal widow to adopt a child from the
relations of her husband, to succeed him."
The difficulty of treating Nagpore as a dependent
state was very great. The difficulty of absolutely
denying the right of adoption, in respect to it, was
very great also. Both were passed by in the boldest
manner.
"The case of Nagpore," the Governor-General declared, "stands
wholly without precedent... We have not now to decide any question
which turns upon the right of a paramount power to refuse confir-
mation to an adoption by an inferior. We have before us no ques-
tion of an inchoate, or incomplete, or irregular adoption. The ques-
tion of the right of Hindoo princes to adopt is not raised at all by
recent events at Nagpore, for the Rajah has died, and has delibe-
rately abstained from adopting an heir. His widow has adopted no
successor. The state of Nagpore, conferred by the British Govern-
ment in 1818, on the Rajah and his heirs, has reverted to the British
Government on the death of the Rajah without any heir. The
simple question for determination is, whether the sovereignty of Nag-
pore, which was bestowed as a gift upon a Guojur by the British
Government in 1818, shall now be conferred upon somebody else, as
a gift a second time.
Justice, and custom, and precedent leave the Government wholly
unfettered to decide as it thinks best. Policy alone must decide
the question."+
Perhaps all my readers do not at once perceive the
fallacy of this argumentation. A little reflection will
shew, that while professing to consider the question of
*Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 23. + Ibid. p. 30.
3
W
A
129
the independent character of the Nagpore state as
immaterial, it is in fact entirely devised to meet the
case of its independence.
For if Nagpore were a dependent state, then, ac-
cording to the (supposed) established rule, since actual
adoption was void as against the paramount power,
the right to adopt must have been so equally, and there
was no need of a minute 16 pages long. But if it
were independent, then a precedent for annexation had
to be created, and Lord Dalhousie's precedent implies
the new sophism, that a power is null until it is
exercised. For if the state was independent, and the
widow had a right to adopt-as, I think, by this time,
it will at least be admitted that there is fair ground for
contending then such right, if exercised, must prevail
against the British Government. But, said his Lord-
ship, on the 28th January 1854-the Raja having died
on the 11th December 1853, only a few weeks pre-
viously-the widow "has adopted no successor." There-
fore "policy alone must decide the question."
(Property is devised to a man, with remainder to
such persons as he shall appoint, or in default of his
appointment, to such persons as his widow surviving
him shall appoint. He dies and makes no appoint-
ment. For seven weeks after his death his widow
makes none. Imagine the original testator's heir at
law resuming the property, not temporarily until any
appointment by the widow, but absolutely,-
-on the
ground that as she has not appointed, "justice" leaves
him "wholly unfettered to decide as he thinks best,"
and that "policy alone must decide the question,"
whether he shall allow her to do so or not! Is not
K
got
Gang
AAR
180
this the Nagpore case, if the widow-and the British
Government—had really any right?)
Nor can I pass under silence a passage in the minute
of Mr. Halliday, then member of Council, since Lieu-
tenant-Governor of Bengal, whom one is sorry to find
in such bad company. We have seen the strenuous
and successful efforts of Colonel Sutherland, while
agent in Rajpootana, to preserve the right of adoption
to Hindoo sovereigns and their widows. We are now
quietly told that this is quite exceptional. Colonel
Low, says Mr. Halliday, "announces a doctrine re-
garding succession to a Hindoo principality, which,
except as regards Rajpoot states, I never heard of
before, which I am satisfied no Hindoo lawyer ever
heard of, and which would make it impossible that any
Hindoo succession should ever fail." And again, " No
Rajpoot prince could suffer any apprehension from this
precedent, because a different rule is avowedly allowed
and followed in cases of Rajpoot succession."* The
announcement by Mr. Halliday, that he never heard
before of a widow's right to adopt, except as regards
Rajpoot states, (for this is what, I presume, he refers
to) when compared with the authorities quoted above,
will probably seem a strange one. But what should
be noticed, is the skilful way in which annexationists
dispose of adverse precedents. Sir Charles Metcalfe
sketches out, in the broadest way, principles of
succession as to jagheers on the one hand, and inde-
pendent states on the other. They are treated
soon as they become inconvenient-as "particular
rules laid down for successions in Bundelcund." Colonel
as
*Nagpore Annexation Papers, pp. 51-3.
131
Sutherland succeeds in enforcing the application of
Hindoo law and custom within the limits of his
functions. This is treated equally as a rule "allowed
and followed in cases of Rajpoot succession." Every-
thing, in a word, is stretched or shrunk to the con-
venience of the annexationist.
There is another instance of invasion upon the right
of adoption, very similar to that of Nagpore, that of
Tanjore.
This also, as we have seen, was the case of a treaty
with a prince, his "heirs and successors," and one
involving the question of the right of adoption by
widows. Bnt the Raja's dominions, instead of com-
prising an extensive territory like that of Nagpore,
were confined to a fort and some villages. It was of
course far less difficult to set aside the alleged right
in such a case. But its consideration must not be
omitted, as it extended the application of the anti-
adoption policy to the far south of India-to another
branch of the great Mahratta family, already struck
at by that policy at Sattara, Jhansee, Nagpore, Bithoor.
And it is moreover remarkable, as an instance of the
manner in which the East India Company was wont
to use opposite pleas in the same case, according to
the object to be attained. The Court of Directors, in
their despatch approving of the extinction of the
principality, three times speak of the Rajaship of
Tanjore as "titular." Lord Dalhousie's despatch of
the 22nd January 1856, has reported the death of the
"titular Raja." The Resident has proposed to recog-
nize a daughter as successor to the "titular dignity."
It is out of the question that they should perpetuate
K 2
132
"a titular principality." Two years have not elapsed,
and we find the Company in the Supreme Court de-
fending the confiscation of all the Raja's private
property, on the ground that he was "an absolute
sovereign."* I shall have to revert to these pro-
ceedings.
If we now look back to the bearing upon the question
of succession by adoption of Lord Dalhousie's eight
years of rule, we find the following results:
The class of states which are assimilated to jagheers
for the purpose of excluding adoption, was widened to
include every state endowed, reconstituted or confirmed
by the British Government ;
The right of widows to adopt was treated as non-
existent while yet unexercised, without reference to the
character of the state itself;
Adoptions formally made were set aside for the
purpose of enforcing escheats ;
A course of policy was laid down, according to
which" on all occasions where heirs natural shall fail,"
native states should be "made to lapse."
The British Government was declared to be "bound
not to put aside or to neglect such rightful oppor-
tunities of acquiring territory or revenue as may from
time to time present themselves."
Adverse precedents, such as those of Metcalfe or
Sutherland, were treated as restricted to particular
provinces of India.
What further invasions of the Hindoo law of suc-
cession were practised, I shall have to shew in my next.
* See Mr. Norton's Rebellion in India, pp. 111, 112, and his
"Case of the Tanjore Ranee, pp. 5, 12, &c.
LETTER X.
HOW THE ANNEXATION POLICY DEALT WITH RIGHTS
OF SUCCESSION BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE.
WE cannot confine our views of the invasions upon
the Hindoo law of succession practised by the annexa-
tion policy to the right of adoption only. That right
is one so important in the eyes of the Hindoo, from its
religious bearings, that it tends entirely to overshadow
those of a purely civil character. Hence the frequency
of adoptions of the nearest male collateral; the occur-
rence of cases in which the successor by birth goes
through the form of passing through the arms of the
widow of a deceased prince, in order to rank as his
adopted son. We must therefore realize the fact, that
in default of successions by lineal descent, successions
by adoption among the Hindoos have been the rule,
successions by collateral descent or other title altogether
the exception; that therefore, while the tie of kinship
has been carefully kept up, for the purpose of matri-
monial connexion, eligibility to adoption where the field
is restricted by custom, &c., the precise right of every
individual kinsman has been hitherto a matter of far
lesser importance in the eyes of a Hindoo as compared
with our European notions.
It is entirely owing to this, I firmly believe, that the
British system of annexation by right of escheat was
able to go on so swimmingly for a time. The collateral
or other claimant has been so accustomed to stand
behind the claimant by adoption, that he did not think
134
of putting himself forward; it would almost have
seemed a sacrilege to him to do so. Thus, when the
right of the one was swept away, the right of the other
has shared the same fate. But it is obvious that the
tendency of the anti-adoption system is primarily to
set up the rights of those other claimants. I have
already pointed out that the substitution of such claim-
ants for claimants by adoption is one at bottom not
favourable to English influence; since it is putting a
dry legal right in the place of one which by custom is
bound up with some kind of sanction by the paramount
power. And as soon as the natives of India clearly
understand that we do mean permanently to break in
upon their law of succession by adoption, let us rest
assured that other claims will start up under our feet,
in greater plenty than we could have wished.
A little reflection will indeed shew the enormous
improbability that death without heirs can ever take
place among any class of men at the rate at which it
would seem to have occurred among Indian sovereigns
of late years. Let any one consult his own experience;
nothing is more unfrequent. I might say that, techni-
cally, escheats are almost unknown to the law in prac-
tice, except in the case of illegitimate children, who
have no lawful heirs but lineal ones. Nor is this owing
to the right of testamentary disposition, or to the ex-
treme concentration of landed property amongst us;
for if we look to personal succession, where intestacy
is of daily occurrence, how seldom is it that the Crown
has ever established a claim to personalty as bona va-
cantia! We may hear every now and then of a locked-
up fortune, pending the discovery of next of kin to
!
135
some runaway errand boy who has become a million-
naire on the other side of the globe. We may see
advertisements in the "Times" calling on the next of
kin of Jones or Thompson to make their appearance.
But is it conceivable that a sovereignty should go
a-begging for want of claimants-with title enough and
to spare?
Suspicion therefore meets us, so to speak, on the very
threshold of any annexation by right of lapse. Is it
possible, we must ask-even were the adoption and its
peculiar consequences entirely out of the way-that
sufficient inquiry can have been made, that due notice
can have been given to claimants, that their claims
can have been fully weighed? Is it possible that
English fair play can have been allowed by an English
government, to all and sundry who might speak up
against its own claim? One would think that no pre-
caution would be omitted by honourable men to make
sure of the right in such a case. The most careful
legal opinions should be taken, before any claim is shut
out; if the technical right is to be enforced by the
supreme power, all the majesty of the law would not
be too much to shew that that technical right is on its
side. But where do we see a trace of
any such
prac-
tice in late annexations? A report or despatch from
the Resident or other political-perhaps a paper from
some subordinate-such is the staple evidence; if a
petition from a Ranee is appended, it will be all that
appears on the other side. The Judges are Governors,
Councillors, Governors-General, Directors, Presidents
of the Board of Control. Of really disinterested, of
really judicial investigation, there is not a trace. Every
136
decision is visibly tainted with an interest; if now and
then some one rises above it, all honour to the giver
of it!
To suspicion as to the fact of lapse we must add,
therefore, suspicions tenfold greater as to the mode of
ascertaining it. And now let us see whether the evi-
dence before us-the ex parte evidence of the Blue-
books-does not justify such suspicions.
For this is evident, that in every single instance of
annexation on lapse, there were collateral claimants.
How the rights of these were dealt with, let the Sattara
case shew. Lord Dalhousie, Mr. Willoughby, simply
left them on one side, treating the question as one
between the British Government and the adoptive
son only. Mr. Reid, more clumsily, stumbled over
the fact of their existence, and disposed of it in this
manner:
"Our treaty of 1819 was with Pertaub Sing, his heirs and suc-
cessors. All his ancestry, and those springing from them, were
passed by. No right was confirmed to them. The other branches
of the family springing from Kelojee Babjee, the great-grandfather
of Sevajee. have no part in the settlement. They might per-
haps claim the titular dignity of Raja of Sattara, but they can have
no pretension to the territorial sovereignty which was created in
favour of Pertaub Sing. By the arrangement of 1839, his brother
was specially admitted to the benefit of that settlement."
To which reasoning this simple answer has to be
returned: It is false,-false in its premises, false in its
conclusion.
Let us test this by a simple example.
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 83.
137
Mr. Reid writes on the 25th April 1848. Three
days before (22nd April 1848) Her Majesty's assent
was given to an act "for the better security of the
crown and government of the United Kingdom" (11
and 12 Vict. c. 12). It enacts (s. 2) "that if any
person whatsoever after the passing of this act shall,
within the United Kingdom or without, compass,
imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose
our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, her heirs and
successors, from the style, honour, or royal name of
the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, or of any
other of Her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to
levy war against Her Majesty, her heirs or suc-
cessors, or to arouse or stir any foreigner or
stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom, or
any other Her Majesty's dominions or countries under
the obeisance of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors,
and such compassings, &c., or any of them shall
express, utter or declare, by publishing any printing or
writing, &c., every person so offending shall be guilty
of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable,
at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond
seas for the term of his natural life, &c."
"
I shall not stop here to examine how far Mr. Reid's
minute may come within the letter of the enactment.
But let us suppose, which God forbid !—a failure of
issue of Her Majesty, and the accession, we will say,
of the Duke of Cambridge or some of his descendants.
Imagine an offence against this act under the new
reign, and the offender brought to trial. Imagine the
countenances in Westminster Hall,-I will not say
even of the judges, but above all of the prisoner and
138
his attorney, when his counsel, well versed in
Indian minutes, gets up and delivers himself somewhat
after this fashion:
6
"Gentlemen of the jury, I submit that whatever
facts may be proved against my client, you will unhe-
sitatingly record a verdict of acquittal in his favour.
The case lies in a nutshell. He is indicted under an
act passed in the reign of Her late Majesty Queen
Victoria, directed against persons who should devise
the deposal of that Queen, her heirs or successors,'
who should levy war against her, her heirs or suc-
cessors.' Well, what then? The act was passed for
the protection of that Queen, her heirs or successors.
But-to use the words of a late illustrious Indian states-
man-all her ancestry, and those springing from
them, were passed by.' No protection was given to
them. The other branches of the family, springing
from her grandfather, 'have no part in the settle-
ment.' I am far from denying the title of His present
gracious Majesty to the crown of England. He may
claim this titular dignity'; but he can have no pre-
tension' to the rights which were created in favour of
Queen Victoria. Practically speaking, no doubt, His
Majesty is the successor to that Queen. But, to use
always the words of the high authority before quoted,
66 we can have no concern with a successor who is not
an heir."
6
6
Is there a man out of Bedlam who would expect an
acquittal on such a plea? Yet on such pleas are
Indian sovereignties annexed. I am really ashamed
of reasoning upon points like these. But I remember
the money, the misery, the lives which they have cost,
139
and may cost yet, and I resume my tedious task, till
such time as I shall see England roused to a due
sense of the enormities which have been committed-
may yet be attempted-in her name.
That the word heirs confers a fee simple, or in other
words an absolute estate, belongs as a cardinal prin-
ciple to English jurisprudence. It never has been
* Perhaps I may be told that my reasoning is beside the point;
that the question is one of native law. Native law and custom are
indeed the cloud under which the goddess of annexation (the
"Maha Kalee of Annexation," as she is already called in India)
frequently shelters her darlings when hard pressed, though, as in
the Sattara case, they repudiate the shelter with contempt when they
think they can do without it. I have not here space to go into the
question. But I assert after examination that the whole argument
upon native law turns upon the two following sophisms, the first of
which rests on a perversion of Sir Charles Metcalfe's distinction :
Jagheers are dependent sovereignties;
Jagheers are granted in tail male, and escheat for want of male
issue to the grantee ;
Therefore, all dependent sovereignties are grants in tail male, and
escheat for want of male issue to the grantee;
And:
Jagheers are created by grant;
Jagheers descend in tail male, and escheat for want of male issue
to the grantee;
Therefore, all sovereignties created by grant descend in tail male,
and escheat for want of issue to the grantee.
Whereby it would be just as easy to prove, from the fact that Sir
Jeffrey Hudson was a dwarf, that all men are dwarfs; or from the
fact that fishes breathe by gills, that all animals do so.
I need hardly observe that the two facts of an inheritance being
dependent, and of its descending only to male issue, have the same
well-known connexion as Tenterden Steeple and Goodwin Sands.
Thus copyholds are an essentially dependent inheritance, but the
bulk of copyholds descend in fee.
140
supposed that the words meant only "issue of the first
taker." A man comes into possession of an estate “to
him and his heirs," it matters little whether by pur-
chase or devise. He has no parents living; no chil-
dren; only nephews or cousins. Is there a boy or
girl above twelve years of age in the neighbourhood
who does not know that if he dies without a will, a
nephew or a cousin will succeed? Say that the estate is
Lestock Park, that the devisee in fee dies intestate,
leaving for next heir a second cousin, Mr. Lestock
Reid. Would Mr. Reid submit meekly, if told that
he had no claim, since "all the devisee's ancestry, and
those springing from them, were passed by in the
devise"?
Such then is a type of the reasoning upon which
the claims of heirs by blood are set aside on annex-
ation. The story of Sattara is in principle that of
Jhansee, of Nagpore, as indeed that of Colaba, of
Mandavie were already. The extraordinary notion
pervades them all, that a sovereignty can only pass
to the lineal heirs of the first taker.* And in order to
* So absolutely contrary is this to the rules of English law, that
until of late years the broad distinction between title by "descent"
and "purchase," the latter word meaning simply "personal acqui-
sition," was that land owned by a purchaser was inheritable indif-
ferently among the descendants of any ancestor, whilst land owned by
descent was inheritable only in the line of descent to or from the
original purchaser. (Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 243.) So that
the very fact of the Sattara raj, we will say, having been set up by
the British, rendered all the relatives of the first Raja by an ancestor
capable of inheriting, whilst the son of the first Raja could only
claim through his father. And the alteration which has been intro-
duced into our law by the statute "for the amendment of the law of
#
141
square treaties to the notion, the two following means
are used: First the word "successors" is treated as
surplusage; Next, the word "heirs" is construed to
mean "issue." In other words, the corporate charac-
ter of sovereignty is first reduced to a private inheri-
tance, then that inheritance from being a fee-simple is
cut down to a fee-tail. We need not wonder if
annexations by right of lapse have become frequent of
late years.
In the Sattara case in particular, these monstrosi-
ties told with peculiar force. For, apart from any
consideration of adoption, the claims of collaterals had
been long present to the people's minds, and had been
even, to all appearance, officially recognized. On the
deposal of the first Raja, the enthronement of his
brother, under a treaty which simply confirmed the
previous one, so far as its articles were not abrogated
or modified, and which did not touch upon the question
of succession, was itself the most obvious recognition
of such claims, whatever Mr. Reid might say about
the brother being "specially admitted to the benefit"
of the treaty.
But in addition to this brother, there
was a cousin (Balla Sahib Sennaputtee), of whom it
had been written as early as 1833 in the Asiatic
Journal, that he was "the man on whom all fix their
eyes," if the first Raja should die without issue. Sir
Robert Grant, when Governor of Bombay in 1837,
inheritance," (3 and 4 Wm. IV. c. 106) has been to extend the ope-
ration of title by purchase. Every Indian civilian is supposed to
have read English law at Haileybury. I must say that members of
Indian Councils evince a rare power of forgetting what they should
thus have learnt.
142
had spoken of both the brother and the cousin as being
"in the immediate line of succession;" of the cousin as
being, after the two brothers, "the proper representa-
tive of the family." It was this very cousin whose
son the deposed Raja adopted.* And it would be
amusing, if it were not painful, to observe the quoting
against this child of that very Hindoo law of adoption
which was being set aside,-one of its rules being that
the adopted son loses all claim to the inheritance of his
real father. Turned into plain English, the argument
stands thus: The adoptive heir cannot succeed, be-
cause the adoption is not sanctioned. The heir by
blood cannot succeed, because there is an adoption.
In other words, the adoption is void against the British
Government, good in its favour. No doubt by virtue
of the well-known legal rule: "Heads I win, tails you
lose."
But this is not all. The claims of Balla Sahib and
of his children, according to Mr. Frere, the last Sattara
Resident, were not really the primary claims by blood.
Although the relationship was unquestionable, there
were at least thirty branches nearer of kin than the
one to which those claimants belonged. And the Re-
sident, with boldness most unusual,-thus wrote
(23rd September 1848):
P
*"And why not the father?" some one may ask. Because,
when accompanying the deposed Raja to Benares, under the charge
of a Lieutenant Cristall, being taken dangerously ill, he had sent to
request a halt, as being too ill to be moved, and the Lieutenant had
refused the request, "imagining it only an excuse for loitering on the
road." The Prince died on the road that day, the Lieutenant was
reprimanded.
143
8. "I would take this opportunity of respectfully, but very ear-
nestly, pressing on Government the risk of pronouncing any final
decision, whether in favour of one adoption against another, or of the
British Government against both, and against all other claimants,
without allowing any party whose claim may be negatived the fullest
possible opportunity, not only of himself stating the grounds of his
own claim, but of answering all objections.
9. There is at present, as far as I am aware, no claimant to be
heir of the late Raja, who would think his own claim sufficiently
strong to be put in competition with that of an adopted son of either
the late Raja or his brother; because all other relations, who might
otherwise be claimants, believe both adoptions to be regular.
I
10. But there are many who might have asserted their claim,
had no adoption taken place; and who may possibly assert it now,
should they hear that both adoptions are invalidated; and ANY OF
THEM, as far as I can judge of the facts of the case before me, would,
were other competitors, save the British Government, out of the
field, be able to establish a very good prima facie claim, IN ANY
COURT OF JUSTICE IN INDIA, to be the Raja's heir by blood, AS
AGAINST THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, in its character of heir to all
who die leaving no natural heirs* of their own; which appears to me
the only character in which our Government can, consistently with
the treaty, lay claim to the Sattara state.
11. None of these claims having yet been put forward, none of them
can have been tested; and the case of the adopted sons is not very
different. They have as yet had no opportunity, as far as I am
aware, of stating the precise grounds on which they claim to be heirs,
nor for meeting the objections of those who deny that any adopted
son can be heir in the sense intended by the treaty till recognized by
Government.
12. It may be that both sides of the case have been already very
fully argued in the proceedings of Government; but no man is likely
to admit the justice of a decision which negatives a claim to an inhe-
ritance, when his case has been nowhere stated but by the counsel for
* Mr. Frere, it is clear, does not confound "natural heirs" with
"lineal."
144
his opponent, and when he, the defeated party, has had no opportu-
nity of answering the objections taken to his claim.
13. Moreover, in the possible case of the ultimate decision being
in favour of the lapse to the British Government, that opponent will
have necessarily been judge in his own case. It is surely not desir-
able to add to the necessary and inevitable invidiousness of such a
position, the circumstance of the judge having been also the self-
constituted counsel for the defeated party.
"'*
Of course it is difficult to see, after an annexation
on pretence of lapse in the face of such a warning,
what could possibly have thrown the "shadow of a
doubt" upon the right of the British Government in
any case whatsoever, in which it might please the
ruling Governor-General to allege it.
The cases of Jhansee, of Nagpore, are reproductions
in this respect of that of Sattara. At Jhansee, the
adoptive son was himself a claimant by blood, and the
representative in the male line of a branch of the family
older to the one which had hitherto enjoyed the chief-
ship. There were, writes the Resident, two other
claimants; one, a nephew by a sister of the chief with
whom the treaty of 1817 was concluded; another, a
representative in the male line of a branch junior to the
reigning one, but more closely related. It was ruled,
that as there was "no male heir whatever"-meaning,
of course,
"no male heir of the body," a very different
thing" of any raja or soobadar of Jhansee who has
ruled since the first relations of the British Govern-
ment with that state were formed," there was, "there-
fore, no male heir whatever existing to the hereditary
chiefship of Jhansee."
*Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 149.
+ Jhansee Annexation Papers, p. 22.
145
At Nagpore, it will be seen from a genealogical tree
supplied by the Resident, there were equally several
collaterals, such as a nephew by adoption, son by adop-
tion of a sister of the late Raja; two grandsons by
blood in the female line of the same sister, a grandson by
blood of a sister of the first Raja. It was actually de-
clared, that there was "no male heir who by family or
hereditary right" could claim to succeed,* the fact be-
ing that the late Raja was himself only a descendant
in the female line of the late Raja, so that his grand-
nephews,—of the elder of whom, Yeswunt Rao Ahey
Rao, the Resident wrote, that he "would decidedly be
preferred by the mass of the courtiers to any other
youth for the musnud," that he was "amiable," "sen-
sible," and "tractable"--would have claimed in pre-
cisely the same right as himself!†
The Tanjore case is remarkable, as introducing us to
a new class of claimants, whom the setting aside of the
right of adoption tends to call forth,-the widows, namely,
of princes dying without issue, the senior of whom, it has
since been clearly proved, is at least entitled to all
the private property of her deceased husband. The
Resident in this case, Mr. Forbes, in a letter of the
6th November, 1855, pointed out the remarkable fact,
that in 1737 the widow of a deceased Raja of Tanjore
was raised to the throne, and stated that he was.
informed that similar successions had taken place, at
the latter end of the last century, both in Sattara and
Kolapoor-twice indeed in the latter,—all three states
moreover being not only Mahratta, but ruled over by
+. Ibid. p. 20.
* Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 36.
L
146
different branches of one and the same family; whilst
many like instances occur in Hindoo history. Sin-
gularly enough, however, Mr. Forbes concluded by
recommending the maintaining the Raj in the person
of a daughter of the last sovereign, dead without male
issue. The Court of Directors in their despatch, over-
looking (shall I say, carefully?) the widow's claim,--
address themselves only to Mr. Forbes's recommenda-
tion, and declare that "by no law or usage has the
daughter of a Hindoo Raja any right of succession to
the Raj, and it is entirely out of the question that we
should create such a right, for the sole purpose of per-
petuating a titular principality." But what has
since happened? The claim of the senior widow to the
private property has been heard before the Supreme
Court of Madras, and has been unreservedly estab-
lished. And although the Court was precluded from
entering into the political question of the sovereignty,
it is observable that the authorities quoted to prove the
widow's right to the private property go all to the case
of the sovereignty itself.†
In connexion with this case should be mentioned
that of the Nawab of the Carnatic,-a Mussulman
sovereignty, not therefore subject to the same rules of
law as we have been lately considering--but in which,
as we have seen, the claims of an heir by blood, offi-
cially recognized as such by the Court of Directors on
several occasions, were set aside.
"Even as a matter of policy," writes Mr. Norton, "let alone
*See Mr. J. B. Norton's "Rebellion in India," pp. 107-118.
+ See Mr. J. B. Norton's "Case of the Tanjore Ranee."
See ante, p. 49.
147
honesty, I fancy the Government would at the present moment give a
good deal to have acknowledged the Nabob of the Carnatic; at least,
the only danger which has been apprehended in Madras has been from
the disaffected Mussulmen inhabitants of Triplicane, angry at the
degradation of their prince, and poverty-stricken by the withdrawal
of his resources.
11*
We see therefore that, slashingly as the Hindoo
right of succession by adoption was treated by the
annexation policy, rights of succession by blood or
marriage fared scarcely better at its hands. In cases
of Hindoo succession it happened indeed to refrain from
attacking those of a lineal descendant in the male line,
provided these could be traced to the founder of the
house, or the prince first recognized by the British
Government. But the claims of all collaterals, de-
scended from a more remote ancestor, however well
recognized the relationship; the claims of widows; the
claims even of collaterals in the female line to a foun-
der, where the last ruling prince was nothing more,
were set aside.
It is evident that there was not a landholder in India
who would not feel himself struck by the blow thus
aimed at native princes. It may be,-I shall have to
shew hereafter that this was the case,- that the rights
of succession to private property had ere this been no
less glaringly invaded than those of succession to thrones
and chiefships; that the fallacies which we have seen
practised upon sovereigns, had their precedents in those
which had been practised upon subjects. But I appre-
hend that even if it were so, the absorption of private
rights would become, not less, but more galling when
* Rebellion in India, p. 102.
L 2
148
magnified into the annexation of states and territories.
For this cut off all hope of better days. The human mind
is so blessedly constituted, that its tendency is always to
limit its despairs, to discover ever new horizons of hope.
Especially in ruder natures, it will curse the instru-
ment that strikes, that it may yet hope for redress
from the hand that wields it; it will curse the hand,
and yet say, the head could not have meant the blow.
Under the worst of tyrannies, the bulk of the suffering
multitudes will always be found muttering to them-
selves, "If the prince only knew!" The full weight
of despair only settles down upon the sufferers, when
they are forced to identify their sufferings with the
supreme power itself; when these are found to be but
the logical and necessary consequence of a policy laid
down from on high, and not a mere accident crying
upwards for redress. Then, when there is no outlook
beyond earthly things,-no deep faith that there is
"One higher" than the highest of kings, to Whom ven-
geance belongeth, Who will repay,-every individual
wrong seems, multiplied by all other wrongs of the
same class, swells at least to the proportions of that
which is hugest; the pettiest dispossessed landholder
becomes the type of a sovereign despoiled.
LETTER XI.
A SAMPLE OF THE DETAILS OF ANNEXATION:
NAGPORE.
BEFORE however we can fully appreciate what the
new policy has yet to undo, it is necessary to go into
the details of some particular annexation. Let us take,
for instance, that of Nagpore. There is an issue of
Parliamentary papers on the subject,* later in date
than the one from which I have hitherto quoted. It
will be seen from them how, by the 29th April, 1854,
Mr. Mansel the Commissioner, and former Resident,
admitted that the family of the late Raja "would
prefer to retain the actual musnud in the hands of
some heir selected by adoption;"t how he himself
urged the maintenance of the state as a titular princi-
pality under British management, declaring that "it is
the bitter cry on all sides that our rule exhibits no sym-
pathy, especially for the native of rank, and not even for
other classes of natives;" that "the improvement of the
* Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated 22nd
February, 1856, for copies or extracts "of the correspondence
which has taken place between the Government of India and the
Commissioner of Nagpore, relative to the annexation of the Berar
territory to the British territory (in continuation of former returns) ;"
ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 5th March, 1856
(to be quoted as "Further Nagpore Annexation Papers").
+ Further Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 5.
150
native prince is in our own power;"* that the argument
of the natives was that whatever blame might attach
to the government of the late Raja should be shared
by the British Residents themselves, for want of the
due carrying out of the system of " advice and check"
contemplated by the last treaty. It will be seen with
what "surprise and dissatisfaction" the Governor-
General and his subservient Council treated his pro-
posals; how his Lordship cut down allowances to
widows, minuted on the sale of jewels; how Mr.
Mansel's name as Commissioner disappears henceforth
from the record; what remonstrances were addressed
to the Supreme Government by the Banka Baee, the
head of the Nagpore family, and the widows, some-
times in person, sometimes by agents, declaring that
there were "rightful heirs of the late Maharaja, and
successors to the raj or kingdom and territory of Nag-
pore, entitled to succeed thereto, both according to the
customs of the family and the Hindoo law;" how all
communications through agents were rejected, and
communications from principals directed to be for-
warded through the local officers; how the Ranees'
agents were told that they "could not of course expect
that the Commissioner would pass on any letter"
from them to their own employers "in ignorance of its
contents," and that their letters would be " unquestion-
ably" returned if not transmitted unsealed; what a
hubbub was excited by the Ranees' sending "a vakeel
to Nepaul," who turned out to be merely deputed to a
* Further Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 6.
+ Ibid. p. 7.
+ Ibid. p. 9.
|| Ibid. p. 17, and passim.
§ Ibid. pp. 10, 11.
¶ Ibid. p. 55.
151
former resident at Nagpore, transferred to Katmandoo,
entreating him to interfere on their behalf. It will be
seen how the sale of property was carried on from day
to day amidst the protests of the Ranees;* how the re-
moval of the royal armoury caused "great excitement
in the city," and a native British official was mal-
treated in the palace, and a Free Kirk missionary in
the streets by the mob; how finally the Banka Baee
recalled her agents in England, and the matter ended
with the Supreme Government's approval of the Nag-
pore Commissioner's proceedings (4th January, 1856).
There might be much to say on this story. But
behind it lies another, not detailed in Blue-books, but
believed in by the natives of India. I say not which
is true; I would almost say, it matters little. For
considering late annexations in their bearing upon
English policy, on the morrow of a rebellion, I believe
we should endeavour to view them, not as swathed
mummies in a Parliamentary paper, but as bleeding
corpses before the eyes of the multitude, with many a
dark skinned Mark Antony to put tongues in every
wound.
I have before me a letter addressed, on the the 20th
February, 1856, by two agents of the Maharanees of
Nagpore-one an Englishman-to the Secretary of
the India Reform Society. It is accompanied by a
copy of a memorial addressed, on the 26th December,
1855, by those princesses to the Governor-General.
เ
* Such property usually goes for next to nothing, as the natives
generally will not buy. The ranees in this instance complained that
bullocks worth £10 went for 10s., and a horse worth £20 for £2.
Further Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 28.
152
The latter speaks of other memorials or communica-
tions already addressed, on the 18th April, on the 10th
October, 1855, by them to the Court of Directors, only
the last occurring in the Parliamentary papers. It is
asserted in the first of these documents-against the
Parliamentary papers-that "the late prince had long
intended to adopt one of his near kinsmen, by name
Iswunt Rao Ahee Rao." It is asserted-against the
Parliamentary papers-that "immediately on the Ma-
haraja's decease the Maharanees made known their lord's
wishes on the subject to Mr. Mansel the Resident,
and that gentleman assured the Maharanees that he
would make known their wishes to the Governor-Gene-
ral for the aforesaid Iswunt Rao Ahee Rao being
placed on the throne." It is asserted that the princesses,
satisfied with this assurance,... "were content to post-
pone the completion of such ceremony," and "with the
concurrence of the Resident allowed Iswunt Rao Ahee
Rao to perform the necessary funeral solemnities." It
is asserted that "in hopeful confidence that their wishes
and the intentions of the late Maharaja would be
speedily carried out," the princesses "took no further
steps in the matter," till in the middle of March, 1854,
suddenly came the order for annexation. It is asserted
that "in October, 1854, the palace of the Maharanees
was surrounded by an armed force acting under the
orders of the Commissioner, and the treasures and
family jewels of the late Maharaja, estimated at the
value of two millions sterling, were forcibly carried
away, despite the protests of their Highnesses," and
sold by public auction. It is asserted that the prin-
cesses had been subjected to personal indignities and
153
annoyances; that they were prevented from holding
intercourse "with any of the friends and advisers of
the late Maharaja." It is asserted,—and this also is
beyond denial--that "their devoted and confidential
servant, Mahdoo Rao Tantyah and eight other persons
of the highest respectability at Nagpore," one of them
"a member of the Bosla family (that of the sove-
reign) were summarily imprisoned in the common
city jail by order of the Commissioner, without being
charged with any offence, or informed of any accu-
sation being preferred against them;" that these
persons were then in prison since the 21st August
last.* It is asserted that the prisoners had been
“offered their freedom by the Commissioner on the con-
dition that they should give security not to interfere
for the future in the affairs of their highnesses," and
that "one individual, not included amongst the above,
was actually released upon such security." It is
asserted that "Major Ouseley, a retired officer of the
Bengal establishment, who was on his way to Nagpore
for the purpose of conducting the English corre-
spondence of the Maharanees, was summarily arrested
by the Commissioner, who only released him on his
promise to quit the Nagpore territory." It is asserted
"that four companies of Sepoys with their officers
were on the same date stationed in the Maharanees'
palace, forcibly preventing all ingress and egress." It
is asserted that no effort had been spared by the
Commissioner, through his subordinates, by intimi-
*In the Ranees' memorial of the 26th December, 1855, it is
stated that " some of their most devoted servants had been placed
under close surveillance since the 27th January last."
154
dation and threats to obtain the Maharanees' signa-
ture to such a document as would annul their own
rights." It is asserted that, on the 2nd January,
1856, "a letter containing matter totally at variance
with the known wishes of the Maharanees was
prepared by the Commissioner's own people, and
conveyed to the palace" by "the Commissioner's
vakeel, and other faithless servants of the late Maha-
raja, to obtain the signature of the Maharanees,"
that "nine days after such letter was written, as
appears by the date, these persons, by means of threats
and intimidation, induced the Maharanee Banka
Baee," who was "nearly 80 years of age," to sign
such communication. The communication itself--a
letter of recall-is annexed in a translated shape. It
is a month later in date than one to the same effect
inserted in the Parliamentary papers as of the 2nd
December, 1855,* and varies from it in several parti-
culars, especially in its bearing an attestation by
Captain Crichton, Assistant Commissioner, who cer-
tifies that the Banka Baee sent for him to hear it read,
that it was "read over to her and explained care-
fully" in his presence,—that she had made it a parti-
cular request that he should witness it, that beyond
witnessing it he had had "nothing whatever further
to do with the matter."
A strange disclaimer, though one to which one
would attach all faith, so far as Captain Crichton per-
sonally is concerned. The letter itself indeed-whether
we take the private or Parliamentary date or version
*Further Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 58.
155
of it as genuine-proves nothing after all, except that
an aged woman, struck by a recent bereavement,-the
death of Annapoorna Baee the Raja's chief widow,-has
no heart for struggling with British omnipotence.
There is no renunciation of the right of adoption, no
disavowal of the alleged intentions of the Raja in that
behalf. Such as it is, however, as we have seen, the
Ranees' agents maintained that it was forced upon
the Banka Baee,- one only out of five princesses whom
they represented, though the acknowledged head of
the family, by the Commissioner's native subordinates.
They alleged in proof,-a fact seemingly of much weight
if true,—that the letter "is written, not on ordinary
foolscap procurable in every bazaar, but on the paper
of the Honourable East India Company," as shewn by
the watermark," which corresponds with that in use
in the Commissioner's office, as proved by the official
letters of that functionary."
This then is a version not to be found in Blue-books,
though in many details supported by them, of the
Nagpore annexation, and of the working of that "lively
satisfaction" with which Lord Dalhousie, in his final
minute, stated that it had been hailed "by the whole
population of the province." Women trusting that
the British Government will take steps respecting the
adoption, and therefore forbearing to exercise their
right, till they are surprised by the sudden fiat of
absorption; protesting then against it; deprived by
sudden arrests of the counsel of all their influential
native friends, of the assistance of an English officer;
themselves placed under surveillance in their palace,
alarmed by the presence of four companies of
younge
156
Sepoys, intimidated by native underlings into re-
calling their agents from Europe, finally casting
themselves in despair on the mere mercy of the
Governor-General,- such are some of the elements of
that "perfect peace and contentment" which was
described as prevailing. Nor is this all, for the belief
in Nagpore undoubtedly was that actual adoption had
taken place,* an impression founded on the fact that
Iswunt Ahee Rao had been selected to perform the
funeral ceremonies, both to the late Raja, and after-
wards to his chief widow. I have had before me the
details of the latter transaction, appended to a trans-
lated letter from a native confidential servant of the
Ranees, dated 28th November 1855, (Annapoorna
Baee, the chief widow, having died on the 14th), but am
unable to say whether it would amount to a valid
Hindoo adoption, though it is stated that on this
occasion the youth was brought to the palace "with
all the retinues of the late Maharaja," "accompanied
by all the nobility of the city," and that all the cere-
monies were performed "with the strictest customs
and usages practised when a new Maharaja is installed
on the guddee."
•
The same letter contains an account of the Maha-
ranees' consent to recall their agents (two months
nearly, it will be seen, previously to the date of the
actual letter of recall). On hearing of this, one of the
imprisoned nobles sent word to the Ranees that if they
sent such a letter, as soon as released he would "kill
* This will be found stated, for instance, in a letter from "a valued
correspondent," inserted in the "Morning Herald" of October 23,
1855, in which many of the details above given are also reproduced.
157
66
them." Others of the prisoners sent messages urging
the poor woman not to give it; confidential servants
yet left free did the same. In the midst of her coun-
sellors the old Banka Baee" cried like a helpless child."
Do her people consider her senseless? She has sacrificed
her son (the late Maharaja), and her Annapoorna Baee
to the cruelties of the Feringees." She has no hope
to survive longer. How can she suffer "the three
other quite young and inexperienced creatures, (the
three ranees) "exposed to all the indignities and
cruelties of the Feringees" after her death? "The
Vizier also is dead solely by the disrespectful treatment
of the Feringees ;"* "all the eminent persons of the
Durbar " are either confined, or have deserted her and
left the city. Perhaps her present advisers will be
confined some day. She is now "like a bird bereft of
its feathers." What hope has she that her agents will
succeed? The bystanders shed tears with her, they
are unable to utter a word, when they see the widow
of "the great Raghojee Bhosla crying like a poor
common woman." They beseech her, however, to
wait two months longer, which she consents to. But
the letter of recall was signed within little more than
a fortnight.
Take from the same letter some further details of
the process of annexation. The sale of the late Ma-
haraja's property by auction is daily going on. The
Commissioner has issued orders to all the different dis-
tricts of Nagpore, to sell all the corn hitherto kept in
* There are some details to this effect in another part of the
letter.
158
stock by the prince, "to meet any emergency, such as
scarcity, or for supplying provision to the Company"
under the treaty, but which was principally applied in
distributions of seed-corn among the poorer ryots, to be
returned at harvest time with so much more by way of
interest in kind, the surplus being given away to
Brahmins and beggars. The value of the whole is
reckoned at £100,000 or thereabouts, and the ryots
are told that they are no more to depend upon
Government for seed-corn. "This is the way," the
writer breaks out, "the Company boasts to protect the
people from the tyranny of the native rulers. Is it
not as a butcher protects his sheep?" The same writer
writes again on the 12th November, 1855. Still the
sale of the property is going on. The princesses have
not had the heart to give a power of attorney to sue for
them in the Supreme Court. They suppose that the
Supreme Court cannot possess higher authority than
the Company; if it did, the Commissioners could not
exercise such arbitrary power as they do. At any
rate, they look upon Lord Dalhousie as "resolved to
annihilate the Bhosla family," as their "powerful
enemy," against whom it would be folly to move.
When we look at the Tanjore Ranee's case, is
it not evident that, to confine ourselves to the ques-
tion of the sale of private property alone, these poor
women have been illegally despoiled? It is not I,
but Mr. J. B. Norton, who says of the Nagpore Ra-
nees:
Through mismanagement on the part of the family, their rights
have never been fairly placed before the public; but we contrived,
on the death of the Raja, to commit an act of meanness which, I
""
159
will undertake to say, there is not a native in India who cannot ap-
preciate. We seized, and sold by public auction at Calcutta, the
jewels, valued at one crore of rupees (£1,000,000) ... and I am in-
clined to think that by this single act of petty larceny—villainy
—we have covered ourselves with more ignominy in the eyes of the
natives than by any other which can be pitted against it.”*
I have taken the case of Nagpore, precisely because
it is one which has been followed with comparatively
trifling consequences in the shape of disturbance or con-
spiracy; because it thus affords the fairest exemplifi-
cation of the inevitable harshness by means of which
the annexation policy can alone fulfil itself, of the
heart-burnings which it creates, even in the most
peaceable and successful of its operations. Compare
with it, if you like it, Tanjore, and Mr. J. B. Norton's
personal evidence as to the manner in which that pettiest
of our annexations was carried out :
"A company of Sepoys was marched suddenly into the palace; the
whole of the property, real and personal, seized, -the Company's
seals put upon all the jewels and other valuables; the soldiery were
disarmed, and in the most offensive way; the private estate of the
Raja's mother, of the estimated value of three lakhs (£30,000) a
year was sequestered, and still remains so; the occupier of every piece
of land in the district, which had at any time belonged to a former
Raja, was turned out of his possession, and bid come before the Com-
*The Rebellion in India, pp. 97-8. In Mr. Montgomery Mar-
tin's "Rise and Progress of the Indian Mutiny," (a work which
travels over much the same ground as the present one, but has only
come to my hands whilst these sheets were passing through the
press,) will be found, pp. 44-9, a more detailed account, compiled
from the "Further Nagpore Annexation Papers," than I have here
given. If rumour be credible, there would be a sad sequel to the
Nagpore story, in the want of faith towards the princesses of the
Europeans whom they had the misfortune to employ.
160
missioner, who constituted himself judge, to establish a title to his
satisfaction; the whole of the people, dependent for their existence
upon the expenditure of the Raj revenues among them, were suddenly
panic-struck at the prospect of being thrown out of employ; and in
a week the Company succeeded in converting Tanjore, from the most
respectful, contented place in our dominions, into a hot-bed of sullen
disaffection...The very Sepoys have refused to receive their pen-
sions."-(Rebellion in India, pp. 114, 115.)*
And what would it be, if I were to dwell
stories of Sattara, or of Oude?
LETTER XII.
upon
WHAT THE NATIVES HAVE SAID OF LATE
ANNEXATIONS.
Dal
the
WE are far too short-sighted, I fear, in our calcu-
lations as to the effect of our acts in India. Ruling
hitherto its subject millions avowedly by the maxim
of the authoress of the St. Bartholomew massacre,
"Diviser pour régner," we are far too apt to dwell and
rely upon the jars and discords of race and caste and
creed among them, far too forgetful of the common
humanity which binds them together at bottom, into
which all the deepest emotions of our nature strike
their root, from fiercest hatred to gentlest pity. Let
* See also Mr. Norton's account of the Prince Azeem Jah's re-
fusal, although old and "miserably poor," to accept the pension
offered to him in lieu of the nawabship of the Carnatic, and of the
non-payment as yet of the Nawab's debts after seizure of his pro-
perty.--(Topics for Indian Statesmen, p. 161.)
161
us feel assured that no vakeel of a dispossessed
sovereign from the interior crosses the country to the
Presidencies, takes ship for England, without awaken-
ing curiosity, interest at the least. Let us feel assured
that no Moslem Queen-mother of Oude can proceed as
a suppliant from Lucknow to Calcutta without calling
forth pity in thousands of Hindoo mothers' breasts on
her way.
The states, the races, the creeds of India are not
shut up from one another by impassable barriers.
Although an Indian nationality, in the true sense of
the word, does not exist, still the feeling that India is
one country spreads from Cape Comorin to the
Himalayas. The mixture of creeds, the scattered
shrines and places of pilgrimage tend strongly to keep
up this feeling. The Buddhist of the Himalaya, of the
Eastern frontier of Bengal, knows well that from
Behar or Magadha went forth the Pali, his sacred
language; that the monuments of his faith are scat-
tered throughout the whole of India, that Ceylon is
still one of its living seats. The wandering Brahmin
from the North pays his way to Malabar with Ganges
water, taken from time to time, it is to be charitably
supposed, from the cleanest roadside spring on his
long journey. The great Hindoo Bunnia, or merchant,
has correspondents on whom he will give bills, from
Peshawur on the Indus to Cochin in the furthest
South. The holy places around Cape Comorin attract
Rajpoot pilgrims from the North-west. Mussulmen
from every quarter of India crowd yearly to its
Western coast to start upon the haj, or pilgrimage to
the holy places of Arabia. Even the Sikh from the
M
162
Punjab is attracted to the Deckan by the burial place
of his prophet-hero Govind, at Nuderh on the God-
avery. The sacred legends of the Hindoo have the
whole of India for their theatre. The subject of one
of his great epics, the Ramayana, is the rescuing by
the Oude hero Rama of his wife from the clutches
of the demon-ruler of Ceylon. The historic traditions
of the Mussulman have nearly as wide a field-the
conquest of Malabar by Hyder Ali of Mysore, in 1765,
being as it were the last wave of that tide of Moslem
progress, which had reached Mooltan ere the close of
the 7th century.
This feeling, not so much of national as of geogra-
phical unity, has been observed long since. After
Lord Lake had failed at the first siege of Bhurtpore,
the tradition of his defeat, to use the words of Pro-
fessor Wilson, "had impressed upon the natives,
whether prince or people, the conviction that Bhurt-
pore was the bulwark of the liberties of India, and
destined to arrest the march of European triumph."
Even in the Carnatic the saying had gone abroad,
that "India was not yet conquered, for Bhurtpore had
not been taken." Now the effect of our rule must
undoubtedly have been, even by its mere universal
overweight, to break down more and more the sharp
differences and rivalries between the various races,
castes, and creeds; by the centralization of our Go-
vernment,* by the uniformity of many of its processes,
by the common origin and language of its adminis-
trators, to develop more and more among the con-
A
*Major Wingate, on being asked before the Colonization Committee
if he did not think considerable danger arose from the present system
163
quered that sense of unity which evidently possessed
the conquerors; whilst the greater facilities which
have been afforded for the spread of information, by
the printing press on the one hand, by our great
lines of road, by our railways and our electric
telegraphs on the other, tend equally to feed and
strengthen it.
The effect of our foreign wars, draining all India
of troops, has been felt and moralised upon in the
heart of India. "The sharpest retort that I remem-
ber ever having had myself," writes Sir W. Sleeman
in his "Oude," "was given to me by a sturdy and
honest old landholder of the middle class, whom I
had known for a quarter of a century, on the bank of
the Nerbudda, in 1843." Sent to inquire into an
insurrection in the Saugur and Nerbudda territories,
which commenced in 1842 (and which is not even
noticed in Messrs. Taylor and McKenna's valuable
compendium of British Indian history), Sleeman
gathered some fifty landholders together, and com-
plained of their want of support to Government, not-
withstanding the previous good administration of the
territory, adding, "But there are some men who never
can be satisfied." "True," replied the old landholder
referred to, "there are some people who never can
be satisfied, give them what you will. Give them the
whole of Hindostan, and they will go off to Cabul to
take more." And he proceeded to explain how, when
M
of centralization, answered, "I think so; I think that it causes a
community of feelings and of aims throughout the whole of India,
which may eventually become extremely dangerous to British supre-
macy.”—Fourth Report, p. 67.
M 2
164
our troops had been taken off for distant conquests,
the predatory chiefs of the hills had come down upon
the defenceless plains, where men, long deprived of
their arms, had even forgotten the use of them.*
But if such was the effect of the distant Cabul cam-
paign upon the banks of the Nerbudda, with what
feverish anxiety must not the operation of Lord
Dalhousie's policy have been watched by our native
fellow-subjects, even when personally unconnected with
its effects!
I have before me a manuscript memorandum, en-
titled, "Annexations in India." Judging from inter-
nal evidence, it is the production of a native hand,
and must have been written in the autumn of 1856,
after the annexation of Oude, before any dream of
the Sepoy mutiny. At all events, it expresses, I am
assured, the feelings of an influential portion of the
native population of Bombay, and was forwarded
home as the exponent of those feelings. The feelings,
be it observed, not of men dwelling in remote districts,
foreign to the intercourse of Englishmen, to the use of
our language; but of men living in or near, or con-
nected with, the city of all others which is most open
to European influences; of men in daily contact with
Englishmen, familiar with our Blue-books, able to
express themselves in our language, appealing, not
to their own swords, but-in however intemperate
language to English justice for redress. By what
these men have said to us in English, we may be able
to form some dim guess as to what, in the far north,
* Journey through the kingdom of Oude, vol. ii. pp. 94-6.
165
in the heart of the peninsula, the men of Oude and of
Bundelcund, the Mahratta and the Mussulman, must
have said to each other in their own tongues.
The following are extracts:-
"The question of succession since the escheat of the Sattara state
and the recent notification of a legislative act regarding the tenures of
property, has (sic) naturally created much anxiety and alarm among
the Hindoos, either princes or peasants. Relying on the faith of
treaties and solemn pledges of the British Government, hitherto they
had felt themselves quite secure in the possession of their hereditary
or acquired estates, but this change of policy makes their minds quite
uneasy as to its future intentions as regards the chiefship or private
inheritance.
The custom of succession by adoption was always scrupulously
respected by former rulers of India both Hindoo and Mahomedans,
and is even faithfully observed to this day by the native chiefs within
their own jurisdiction. The Indo-British Government even until
very lately followed the same rule.
In the case of Sattara, as is well known to the world, the adoption
legally made was disallowed, and the territory, against the security
of solemn pledges of treaty, has been annexed to the British empire.
It is not improbable that the power of the paramount authority may
easily be likewise exercised from time to time in other cases, not
having even the security which Sattara possessed in the terms of its
treaty. However the avarice of a foreign government may seem to
justify the exercise of its arbitrary power in matters of so vital im-
portance to the interests of the governed, yet the measure, though
supported by plausible arguments, is backed neither by the law of
the land or precedent. Both are against it.
With the exception of son or sons or grandsons, the heirs of
one's own body, the usage of adoption in all other cases, however
nearly connected the selecting party may be, according to Shastra is
unavoidably observed. A Hindoo destitute of a son is positively en-
joined by his religion to adopt a substitute for the sake of the funeral
and other solemn rites, or his soul cannot be admitted into heaven.
...
166
"Heaven awaits not one destitute of son," as per (!) Hindoo law of
adoption, nay an omission is considered an offence. How could then
a Hindoo in consistence (sic) with his religion and conscience per-
suade himself to abandon the performance of this solemn duty. To
secure his peaceful abode in the heaven, he must have a son, either
legal or adopted, and the adopted son in every sense of the law is
believed to be as good heir or "waris" as the legal male issue. To
be consistent, if the law of adoption is either altogether done away
with or is defined to certain extent with respect to chiefships, as has
been done in the instance of Holkar where the male heirs of body
lawfully begotten are only to be allowed as legal successors, the same
principle should be applied to private property under British rule.
In default of legal heir the private property must become therefore
an escheat to the British Government as well as a chiefship. What
an alarm the introduction of this principle must create in the minds
of the Hindoo community may be better conceived than described.
•
Following the examples set forth by the paramount authority, the
native independent princes, such as Scindia, Holkar, Nizam, &c.
&c., may in default of legal heirs of body annex the states of their
tributaries to their own possessions. With what plausible plea the
British Government, who is a guarantee in several instances, can in-
terfere to stop the lesson of destruction which it has taught? (sic) .
... Made wiser by the past experience, the natives have ceased to
place any faith in the solemn professions of good will of their gover-
nors, and nothing else but the insertion of a clause in the charter
act conferring [confirming] the existing princes in their possessions
and to their heirs without any limitation as to the male heirs of the
body will remove the daily increasing anxiety and alarm under which
they labour at present.
Among the thousand misfortunes of India, the greatest, perhaps,
is the superior ingenuity of its governors to that of the governed.
The apparent plausibility of argument, and the studied dishonesty of
purpose lying deep in the smooth sentences by which the rulers.
attempt in the state papers to justify their vilest acts of plunder and
rapine in this country, have long puzzled the unsophisticated natives,
have looked incomprehensible and perhaps unanswerable, but the
result is, that confidence in the words, engagements, and faith of the
167
British nation is irretrievably lost, and from the highest king to the
lowest everybody is horror-struck at the abominable scene of spolia-
tion all around him.
The process of destroying a native kingdom is now-a-days so
simple, so easy, and so summary that, to use the words of a certain
writer, "the stopping of a drummer's pay is more laborious in com-
parison." The dainty morsel of a fat kingdom in the neighbourhood
having once been coveted, you have only to get first a "Friend of
India," or some of his fraternity, most veraciously to abuse its chief,
administering a goodly volley of invectives to his functionaries in a
succession of flashing (sic) articles in order to prepare the public
mind in England, then get your politicals to pitch (sic) up a quarrel
with your intended victim on the slightest pretext, or even on a
common point of etiquette, to take advantage of a family misfortune
or of a common row or dacoity in the country, and let him propose an-
nexation; you then sit down in the midst of a tougueless council, record
a wordy minute in which any trash will do for argument, provided
it is long enough; blow up any colleague or political who dares shew
conscience, refute or support the witnesses and opinions of your own
officers without even formally consulting the feelings of the people
whom your minute concerns; "declare," if you please, aye, swear, if
you have any regard for a marquisdom and a fat pension, that you
have no other motive in the heart than the good of the "people," or
the good of Manchester, then send out a verbose proclamation and
the kingdom is yours!
But the farce is not yet complete. The poor chief is not yet
entirely ruined. There are yet a few suits of clothes spared, a few
jewels left to his wives or his widows, and unless you take a humane
care of them "for the benefit of his family," your gentlemen brothers,
the barristers and advocates, will at least for the sake of these excite
an agitation. But the agitation somehow or other does arise not-
withstanding your judicious precautions. A well informed Honour-
able Member in the House of Commons rises up to denounce your
crimes. Some generous Noble in the House of Lords resents your
nefarious doings. A few appropriate speeches are delivered, but
what do you care for them? Your prize is firm in your grasp; you
have the whole influence of the Cannon Row and the Leaden Hall
(sic) on your side. You have a Sir James Hogg to deny the exist-
Mag
168
ence of torture in India, and the powerful "Times" to make the
British nation swallow their sense of justice by promising a surplus
of 2 millions per annum from the spoils of Oude. And here the
matter ends!
The opinions gaining ground among the masses in India with re-
ference to the annexation policy of Government are however widely
different.
The starvation of numerous respectable
families, the sending adrift and breadless of hundreds which these
clean sweeps naturally entail, are to the natives proofs too convincing
and visible to create a belief in the honesty of the logic of rulers,
and the simplicity of the Indian mind looks rather to facts than to
words. They hear for instance that a kingdom has been taken for
the ostensible reason to do good to the people, that 70,000 troops
have been disbanded, the jagheers resumed, high situations and
emoluments distributed among Europeans, ousting out their former
holders, the native nobles, and they wonder how the boasted good to
the people is to be effected. The newly acquired ryots clearly see
in the appointment of so many highly paid foreigners so many
siphons as it were to draw the wealth of this country, to pour it into
their own; they can easily conceive the "good" done to the other
subjects of the Honourable Company in Orissa, Madras, Deckan and
Hindostan, and woefully wait to see a similar sort of "prosperity" to be
inflicted upon themselves. In short, all the confidence in the good faith
and sincerity of Government having been palpably destroyed in the
minds of all the classes of the people of India, the rulers will have to
trust to their bayonets alone for the future safety of the empire.'
""*
Now the question is not as to the truthfulness, fair-
ness, good temper, good sense, good taste, good
English of the above extracts. I ask them only to be
treated, as a medical man would say, pathologically, as
a study of disease. Set them down, if you like, as
utterly false, unfair, ill-natured, absurd, ill-written.
Will it not need strenuous efforts to eradicate the mis-
chiefs of a policy which provoked such an outbreak of
* Written in 1856, let us recollect.
169
disease, which called forth such feelings, among such a
class as I have described?
I curtail my extracts, solely from want of space.
The MS. goes on to treat separately of most of the
cases to which I have already referred-the Punjab,
Pegu, Nagpore, Jhansee, Oude. It borrows illustra-
tions from our relations with Scindia and with Holkar,
with the petty states of Tehsee and Chutterpore in
Bundelcund, of Oodeypore in Rajpootana, with the king
of Delhi. Though the writer is evidently a Hindoo,
yet his sympathies are alive in favour of the Sikh,
the Buddhist, the Mussulman. He quotes largely
from blue-books, from official papers. In treating
of the Nagpore case he says:-
"The Honourable the Court of Directors,' says the Governor-
General [Lord Dalhousie] 'at the close of the discussion regarding
the Raja of Sattara, had addressed very clear and specific instructions
to the Government of India for its future guidance in cases which
involved the principle of adoption. The Honourable Court laid
down that by the general law and custom of India a dependent
principality like that of Sattara cannot pass to an adopted heir with-
out the consent of the paramount power; that we are under no
pledge, direct or constructive, to give such consent, and that the
general interests committed to our charge are best consulted by with-
holding it.'
Now could there be a greater perversion of the general law and
custom of India?
Would it not be better to order a
general massacre of the gentry and nobility of the land, supported by
the native states, and of their numerous dependents, than by this
one dash of pen to subject them and their posterity to the inevitable
horrors of destruction, misery and degradation?
That the 'general law and custom of India' in all the Hindoo
families is adoption, even the Governor-General himself could not
deny; that Government is under all the 'pledges, direct and con-
structive,' to respect and uphold those laws and customs according
170
to their own proclamations, treaties and precedents, requires no proof,
and that to withhold their consent from adoptions made in con-
formity to those 'general laws and customs,' whether in subordinate
or insubordinate (sic) states, in consideration of the Leaden Hall or
Manchester interests (but the Governor-General ingeniously calls it
general interest), would therefore be criminal and faithless.
The Hindoo law ordains a subordinate state to apply for permission
to the paramount power before it makes an adoption, with the obvious
intention to give to the latter the opportunity to judge that the superior
right of any other heir is not superseded. The law gives different de-
grees of kin, the nearest of whom is to be adopted,* and a deviation
from this rule by any interested motives on the parties concerned can be
corrected or regulated by the paramount power. This is the object of
asking permission; but the law does not, we contend, authorize the
paramount power to withhold that permission in order to swallow the
state itself. On the contrary, we know the Hindoo law denounces the
paramount power so offending to go to hell for 6,000 years. But
the fear of God or of the next world being no argument compatible
with civilization, we will forbear quoting the passage ourselves; but
would respectfully challenge all the ingenuity of our learned rulers
to publish any passages they may know of to reconcile the abolition
of adoption,—or in the language of the Court to withhold permis-
sion' (sic) with the dictates of the Hindoo law."
The following is the writer's version of the Tehsee,
Chutterpore and Oodeypore cases, with which I am not
otherwise acquainted :
"While the distinguished families coming within Lord Dalhousie's
definition of subordinate' states are falling fast and disappearing
from the face of the earth, as if struck by the magic wand, there are
others called independent, or old states, being gradually prepared for
the applicability of the same principle' twenty years hence; but
the simple and confiding people thus being moulded for absorption
are scarcely aware of their fate.
,
Some noise having been made in the papers on the abolition of the
old Hindoo rite of adoption, some time ago a sort of defence was put
* This seems too absolutely expressed.
M
171
forth in an issue of the government organ the 'Friend of India,' of
the 17th May 1855, in which the adoption allowed at Tehsee, a small
but ancient state in Bundelcund, was paraded to get rid of the charges
of an insatiable ambition,' and as an exemplification of the govern-
ment policy in reference to adoption.
The adopted Raja Soojan Singh of Tehsee having died without
issue, there remained three claimants to the guddee, one was Dew
Singh, his relation, about 30 years of age, whom it is said the dying
Raja had declared his successor; the second was the old respectable
Suraee Ranee, the adoptive mother of Soojan Singh, about 60 years
of age, well experienced and held in great reverence by the raj, having
often managed the state with credit; and the third was the late Raja's
young widow Doolya, capable of reading and writing, and naturally
very intelligent. But as usual the British Indian Government dis-
covered some grand political logic by which they declared that the
'guddee was vacant,' that there was no rightful heir, that none of the
above three personages had any right, but that the British Govern-
ment, through generosity, liberality, and what else (sic) had per-
mitted that seven Boondela chiefs of the neighbourhood might choose
a boy who must be a near relation, that that boy should be adopted
by Doolyajee, and that the chiefship should be administered by
Suraee Ranee, while Dew Singh should go to jail for certain crimes
in which he is said to have participated with the late Raja. . . .
The grand principle laid down, so often alluded to, could not at
present admit of any construction to bring Tehsee within its absorb-
ing influence, it being an old independent state, neither given nor
constituted by British Government. . . . But divested from the poli-
tical truth, what is the real truth? Tehsee is told it has no rightful
claimant left, that the British Government now constituted the
state, and that it has a right to take it at the next vacancy, or, to use
a (sic) more precise and eloquent language of the most noble
Marquis, copied from the Nagpore book, Government say, (sic) 'We
had once given away Tehsee to a Boondela boy, and the question is,
whether we are prepared to give it away a second time. Tehsee
abounds in stone and timber, required for our bungalows and railways,
and the interests of England and of India are better served in taking
it.'. . . . In Chutterpore, another small state in Bundelcund, a worse
language is said to have been used at the time of the last installation
172
of the Raja in 1854, and the succession, though always hereditary,
is now said to be limited to the heir males (sic) of the body.
Oodeypore, the most ancient and the most respectable of the Hindoo
Rajpoot states of India, not a subordinate state, does not seem to
fare the better. It is tottering on the brink of ruin, a quarrel seems
to have existed between it and its feudatory chiefs. As the British
politicals are everywhere the paramount lords, prepared to give
relief to master and servant alike, destroying all subordination,-
complaints must have of course gone to the agents. These com-
plaints, if admissible at all, ought to have been decided upon their
own merits.—But instead of that, a proclamation consisting of 29
articles is issued by the British Government, annulling all former
treaties with the ancient house of the Rana, transferring all the chief
power to the agent to the Governor-General, who thus becomes a
self-constituted magistrate and judge as it were between the Rana
and his subjects, and whose decision is to be 'final,' and threatening
to carry out these atrocious measures by the force of arms. . . . We
have an original vernacular copy of this astounding 'predetermina-
tion '* before us, and had it not been copiously extracted and trans-
lated by the Delhi Gazette' of the 15th of December 1855, and
copied by the 'Telegraph and Courier' of the 29th of the same
month we would have gone the length of translating it again. The
Rana and his chiefs are appalled at this decision-some have actually
refused to sign it, and the British Government would, in all proba-
bility, have carried out its threat of enforcing it by force of arms, had
not the more delicious Oude business, and its less delicious noise
intervened. . ... But we think we have said enough about the
'policy,' the 'predetermination' and the 'faith' of the British Indian
Government. . . . The mere speeches of a few generous members
and the counter-speeches of the East Indian party do not correct the
evil. Short-lived agitation in England, counteracted by powerful
papers in favour of the stronger party, who begin openly to advocate
the violation of treaties as a superior morality, and the destruction of
،
*The recurrence of this word has reference to a speech of Mr.
Mr. Vernon Smith's, in which he denied the existence of an annex-
ation policy, in the sense of a "predetermination" to annex wherever
possible.
***
173
the native kingdoms as the 'duty they owe to God and man,' is no
consolation to our throbbing hearts. The Thugs who have strangled
travellers in India always believed they were discharging one of the
most virtuous and moral duties they owed to the goddess, and to the
man whom they sacrificed for his happiness in the next world."
Bitter words, surely! And yet, angry though the
writer may be, he looks avowedly to England, to the
British Parliament for redress. He concludes as fol-
lows:
-
"Let some of these annexed kingdoms be restored. Let the
Indian Government be restrained by an Act from taking an inch of
ground belonging to their neighbours, until a full inquiry is made by
a third party into the cause of their proceedings. It is not consis-
tent with any principle of justice to let an ambitious and powerful
Government act the part of an accuser, the judge and the hangman;
frame principles in a language calculated to destroy others, and to
let them carry out those principles with an iron hand, while the
victims of those principles go unheard. Let an Act of Parliament
be issued at once, to reassure the safety of the remaining kingdoms,
or let at least an independent Crown court be instituted in India, to
whom the Government may apply for permission before annexing a
kingdom; that that court must inquire into the grounds, and openly
ask the other party for its defence, and pass a just order after the
fullest inquiry.
This, we believe, is the only way left open to reassure the Indian
public, and to restore the confidence which is now so entirely lost;
and by granting only what is just, by thus securing the safety of the
weak against the strong, the great British nation is sure to secure,
not only the heartfelt esteem and the cordial loyalty of all India, but
the prayers of millions, whose bread and honour they shall have the
means of saving for ever."
Such, then, was the effect of the annexation policy,
not upon the pretenders to the extinguished thrones,
upon the disappointed courtiers, the dismissed menials
who surrounded the late monarch, not even upon those
174
who were his subjects,* but upon the mere native by-
stander, upon our own fellow-subjects. Such was the
angry cry which it called forth among them, such
their bitter, and yet strangely trustful appeal to "the
great British nation." Thank God! That cry, that
appeal, is at last answered, in the generous promises
of the Proclamation.
LETTER XIII.
GUARANTEES OF THE NON-ANNEXATION POLICY
REQUIRED FOR THE FUTURE.
"MAY the first acts," writes the "Retired Offi-
cer," "of the new Government be directed to reas-
suring our Indian allies and subjects. It will be vain
to hope that this can be effected without undoing much
that has been unwisely or unscrupulously done. Let
early opportunities then be taken, or made, for treating
our native allies like trusted friends of our Government,
in respect to their treaties, and as before pointed out;
and let them all be made certain of their territories
* It is the fashion to suppose that nothing answering to patriotism
exists in India, within the separate states of which it is composed.
Those who know India best tell a very different tale. See for in-
stance, in Sleeman's "Rambles and Recollections," vol. i. pp. 236-7,
the story of the half naked man in Orcha, beggared by a late famine,
who "seemed quite melancholy at the thought of seeing this prin-
cipality, the oldest in Bundelcund, lose its independence."
175
and thrones descending to their families."* He had
already, in 1856, in words which briefly sum up many
of my arguments hitherto, shewn what was required;
how the right of adoption or succession was formerly
respected by us, wherever our intercourse with a native
state was regulated by treaty, unless some particular
act was likely to disturb the peace of the country.
"The principle," he wrote, "was fully recognized, that
a state is never without an heir, every state having an
usage of its own for supplying the place of a direct
heir failing. Our treaties give us no right of regulating
successions in native states; and finally, had we in
any instance doubted the right of any principality to
be enrolled amongst the substantive powers of India,
the fact of our making a treaty with such principality
would deprive us of the power of treating it otherwise
than as a foreign state, whose relations with us were
fixed by such treaty. Had there however (which
there is not,) been any doubt as to the construction of
our treaties, the benefit of such doubt should have been
given to the weaker party--a principle of politic gene-
rosity and justice ever advocated, and often acted upon,
by our former magnanimous authorities in India, and
of itself constituting a host of moral strength to our
rule."†
It is not therefore enough to abandon the annexation
policy for the future. It is not enough of free grace
to restore some or all of the annexed territories. That
policy must be felt to be permanently, not temporarily
* Supplement to "India and its dangers," p. 26.
† India, its dangers considered in 1856, pp. 9-10.
176
abandoned. The grounds upon which it has sought to
establish itself must be cut away.
It is not the mere granting of a few jagheers to the
Rajas of Putteeala or Jheend, to Jotee Persad, or any
other of our more prominent adherents, which will
suffice for the purpose. If I mistake not, all those
jagheers hitherto are granted only to the heirs of the
body of the recipients. They involve then no perpe-
tuity of reward; they strike yet at the right of adop-
tion, so dear to the Hindoo; they bear with them, so
to speak, the very threat of resumption at some future
period.
-
The right of adoption, so closely interwoven with
Hindoo customs and feelings,-the right of free succes-
sion-must be fully, officially acknowledged. The limits
of those rights are undoubtedly now wavering and un-
certain. Let the law on the subject,-let the British
claim of escheat (if any) as against native principali-
ties, - let the relations of the princes of India to the
British Government generally, be defined by all means.
Not however by English officials, nor by English
lawyers only; but on the report of a Royal Commis-
sion, assisted by native assessors, and those appointed,
to the extent we will say of at least one moiety, by
the native princes themselves, and after full communi-
cation with princes, ministers, jurists, and others.
The next step, I take it, will be the appointing some
judicial tribunal to decide on all future cases involv-
ing relations (not of peace or war) between the Indian
princes and the British Government, such as, between
individuals, would form the subject of a judicial trial.
It has been overlooked by the annexationists, that the
177
further they pushed the doctrine of the paramount
authority of the British Government over all native
princes, the more they took the mutual relations be-
tween the two parties out of the realm of politics, and
brought them into that of law. Where two states are
each absolutely sovereign, there is no tribunal which
they can appeal to; they may consent to submit their
differences to arbitration, they may consent to obey the
arbiter, yet after all, force is the only authority which
they acknowledge. But as soon as one claims autho-
rity over the other, the other party has a right to claim
that that authority should be, not one of force only,
but of law. Until now, the pretext that the acts of
the Indian Government towards Indian princes are
matters of state policy has been used, as we have seen,
with perfectly ludicrous shamelessness. Self-governed
Sattara is annexed one day, because it is independent;
the eye-squirts of the late pensioner Raja of Tanjore
are detained the next, because he was independent.
How the new tribunal should be constituted,-whether
it should be the Supreme Court in India, or the Privy
Council at home, or some new body, will deserve ulte-
rior consideration; but I suspect that native feeling
would run in favour, at all events, of a final appeal to
England. Native assessors would probably be re-
quired in any case, and the Indian princes should have
a voice in their selection. If such a Commission as I
have suggested be appointed to consider the law of
adoption, &c., it might be requested to report on the
constitution of such a tribunal.*
* The establishment of a "Court of Appeal for Indian grievances."
N
178
The native princes should moreover at once be set
free from the trammels under which they now labour.
The incubus of the Resident's authority, where the
prince is under no disability, should be removed; the
supreme authority of the British Crown as paramount
should only be exercised protectively, during infancy or
other incapacity of the sovereign, much within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery with
us in the like cases as respects private life. What
mischief is often done by Residents,-how they gall
and crush the native princes, can hardly be said in too
vivid terms. Lord Hastings's portrait of them in
1814 is true yet to the life.
"Instead of acting in the character of ambassador, he" (the
Resident) assumes the functions of a dictator; interferes in all
their private concerns; countenances refractory subjects against
them; and makes the most ostentatious exhibition of this exercise
of authority. To secure to himself the support of our Government,
he urges some interest which, under the colour thrown upon it by
(C
a somewhat wider idea, it will be perceived, than my own,-was
very strongly urged by the "Indian News," in the spring of 1857.
It enumerated as follows (April 2, 1857) the cases in which, during
the (then) last ten years, the suffering party had, in person or by
attorney, pleaded fruitlessly to the Home authorities :-
"1. The Emperor of Delhi.-2. The deposed Raja of Sattara.-
3. The Ameers of Scinde.-4. Lalla Jotee Persâd.-5. In the Ahmed-
nugger case, the Raja of Marwar.-6. The Parsee Merchants in the
Hyderabad case.-7. The Carnatic Stipendiaries.-8. The Arcot case.
-9. The Nawab of Surat's case.-10. Mirza Ali Akbar's case.-
11. Bajee Rao, Ex-Peshwa's case.-12. The Nagpore case.-13.
That of Gholam Mohamed, son of Tippoo Sultan.-14. That of
Lukshmee Begum of Jhansee.-15. His Highness Ali Morad Khan
of Scinde.-16. The Nawab of Rampore's case.-17. The Oude
Dynasty case.-18. The case of the Raja of Coorg."
C
179
him, is strenuously taken up by our Council; and the Government
identifies itself with the Resident, not only on the single point, but
on the whole tenor of his conduct."*
In Mr. Mead's work will be found instances of the
galling tyranny of these officials at the present day. †
The Travancore Resident actually prevented the sove-
reign from dismissing a minister guilty of the most
horrible misgovernment. As a rule, these unfortunate
princes are prevented from corresponding with England;
at least, the intimation by the Resident that they "had
better not" is far too weighty for them to dare neglect
it ; and no one who has not experience of the process
can conceive of the shrinking timidity with which infor-
mation is communicated from the neighbourhood of a
British political. The feelings of chiefs and Durbars
towards our politicals and their underlings, are well
described by one on the spot, as those of "terror."
+
* Private Journal, vol. i. pp. 47-8.
+ Sepoy Revolt, p. 203 and foll.
Although I do not profess to deal with the Indian question as
a whole, the following suggestions, which I find in a letter written
from a gentleman residing in India, of great experience with the
native character, dated 25th August, 1857, are well worthy of at-
tention :-
Mag
"If I were asked what ought to be done, I should say-First and
foremost sell land in fee-simple. Have twenty fortified camps with
five thousand European troops in each, infantry, cavalry, and artil-
leay. Let the rest of the army be made up of irregulars, -Rajpoots
of Jodhpore, Jeypore, and Oodeypore (and not Poorbeas of the
Doab)-Sikhs and Goorkas of course-Mahrattas and Telingas.
Destroy all the old treaties with the existing chiefs who have re-
mained faithful to us. Offer new ones on more liberal and equal
terms
Give them liberty of action. Let them rule
their territories as independent princes. Interfere not with the
ancient practice of adoption. . . Prohibit the Residents and political
N 2
180
Together with the enfranchisement of the native
princes from their bondage to English Residents,-
with the conferring of territory upon all faithful allies
and dependents, should come, for those who have
most distinguished themselves,-those honorific distinc-
tions which the Oriental so dearly appreciates. I for
one cannot see why Sultan Abdul Medjid should be a
Knight of the Garter, and not such tried friends as
the Raja of Putteeala, Holkar or Scindia; nor why
Sir Jung Bahadoor should stand alone as Military
G.C.B., and the equivalent civil dignity should not be
conferred on Salar Jung of Hyderabad, Dinkur Rao
of Gwalior, and Ramchunder Rao of Indore. Care
however must be taken to confer no British dignity on
a minister without the fullest approval of his sovereign,
lest he should come to be looked upon rather as
the servant of the British Crown than of his own
master.
Recognition and definition of the law of adoption,
escheat, &c.,-establishment of a tribunal to try legal
questions between Indian princes and the British
government, their enfranchisement from the control of
our politicals,-enlargement of territory and honorific
W
agents from interfering in their internal affairs, or employing confi-
dential Maulavies and Moonshces, Jamadars, and so forth, as gobe-
twcens, or negociators in any way. They are a nuisance, and an
abomination to the Durbars. Let all intercourse be carried on in
writing. Small notes would answer quite well enough.... Sweep
away your contingents. Remodel the Civil Service, or abolish it.
Coax a couple hundred thousand families from the middle classes,
and yeomanry, and trade, and professions to come and settle..
You need not fear insurrection or rebellion again. Railways, canals,
and roads would then of themselves start up as if by magic."
181
distinctions to our allies and friends,-such, I believe,
would be the measures to confirm the allegiance of the
native princes of India for the future, to make them
feel themselves integral members of our political
system. But there remains still the past to be
accounted for. Many a smart must rankle yet in the
heart of our allies which ought on every account to be
soothed. Let me give one or two samples of such.
}
LETTER XIV.
HOW SOME OF OUR ALLIES HAVE BEEN LATELY
TREATED.*
THE little state of Dhar, in Malwa, is situate close
to Indore, Holkar's capital, and is included in the
jurisdiction of the Indore agency. At the time of the
mutinies it was ruled over by a woman and a child,
a boy of 13, the adopted son of the late Raja (whose
adoption had just been sanctioned when the outbreak
about to be mentioned took place), and the widow of
the latter. Its army consisted of 800 men, of whom
between 500 or 600 were Mussulman Patans. From
the moment of the outbreak (October 1857) the Dhar
authorities shewed themselves strictly faithful; pro-
tected the post, protected the electric telegraph, kept
the roads safe, forwarded elephants, guns, men at the
*The documents as to Dhar and Indore from which this letter
is written are entirely supplied by Mr. J. Dickinson, jun.
182
bidding of the British authorities, a detachment of 50
sepoys with two guns, for instance, being sent for the
protection of the British agent at Bhopawar. As ill-
luck would have it, nevertheless, the British agent at
Bhopawar sent a fakeer from Amjheera to be confined
at Dhar. On his arrival the Patans rose and rescued
him to the cry of "deen" (faith), and seized the fort
of Dhar,—the authorities having just time to place in
safety the ammunition and military stores that were in
and near the town.
1
From the day that this blow was struck, constant
applications for assistance were forwarded to the
British authorities. Assistance however did not come;
the troops meanwhile using every means to induce the
Ranee and the boy-king to place themselves in their
power,-increasing in importunity, and growing bolder
in the outrages which they committed upon the towns-
folk, in proportion as succour was more delayed. At
last the Ranee saw herself compelled to enter into an
agreement with them, stipulating the pardon of the
fakeer, pay, enforcement of claims, &c., &c., in short,
such terms as a mutinous soldiery will exact; but she
instantly sent a copy to the British agent at Bhopawnr,
stating the circumstances under which it was entered
into. The soldiery marched away, marched back
again, turned the guns of the fort upon the town,
threatening to sack it; intelligence of their movements
being still communicated, assistance again implored.
At last it came, palankeens and cavalry being sent to
bring on the British officers, hourly intelligence being
forwarded while the relieving party was on the road.
The fort was invested, the Durbar giving lists of the
183
mutineers, supplying persons acquainted with the loca-
lity, who gave plans of the works, pointed out the weak
places, &c. After ten or twelve days siege, however,
the mutineers evacuated the place by night. The agent
demanded the keys of the treasury, they were handed
over to him. He required that the minister,-a protégé
of the British government, who held a jagheer under
its guarantee, and other persons, should be put in
arrest. It was done. For seventeen days that the
British troops remained at Dhar, they were supplied
with artificers, and everything that was required.
On the 14th February, 1858, a Mussulman, Meer
Mohammad Shahamat Ali,* appeared at Dhar, bearer
of two letters to the Ranee and the young Prince from
the Agent for Central India. Their contents must
have been the same as those of a proclamation which
came with them, dated like the letters 19th January,
1858, and which was issued under the signature of the
same Meer Shahamat Ali, as officiating superintendent.
It declared that the "infidelity and ingratitude" of
Dhar could not possibly "be overlooked;" that the
prince "having forfeited the Government of Dhar,"
would "never be reinstated," that arrangements would
be made for the maintenance of himself and the Ranee.
The proclamation then concludes in the following
strain,--which, from the pen of a Mussulman, must
* Quære, Is this the same person as the Meer Shahamat Ali who
in vol. xii. of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1852) gave
an account of Maulavie Ismael, the Mussulman reformer, with evi-
dent sympathy in his undertaking? If so, we may judge how apt
was the choice of such an envoy to the Hindoo state in a time of
disturbance !
184
have touched every Rajpoot's pride to the quick: "This
proclamation has been issued for your information. It
is incumbent on you to understand its contents, and
conduct yourselves accordingly, and with sincere and
complete submission to be obedient to the officer who
has been appointed to the charge of the affairs of the
state, in consequence of the abolition of the treaty,
owing to the unpardonable misconduct of the Dhar
Durbar." The country was therefore provisionally
sequestrated, the treasure in the privy purse of the
young prince was confiscated, the state property of
elephants, camels, horses, &c., put up to auction, only
a few horses being reserved for the use of the young
chief. The Minister's jagheer was confiscated. The
lands assigned, by Mahratta custom, to the Ranee for
charitable purposes, amounting in value to £5000 a
year, were placed under sequestration. Meer Shaha-
mat Ali took charge of the state as superintendent,
and the young prince was not allowed to sit on a chair
in public!
g
Now it is most true Dhar has been restored.
But has English morality sunk so low as this, that a
flagrant outrage upon all justice should be deemed
atoned for by simple restitution? The treaty with
Dhar of 1819 binds the Rajas of Dhar to act "in
subordinate co-operation with the British Govern-
ment" (art. 2); binds the British Government "to
protect the state of Dhar and its dependencies."* In
what had the state of Dhar omitted to fulfil its part of
the treaty? How did the British Government fulfil
it, when after receiving all the help that Dhar could
* See House of Lords' Return of Treaties, p. 412 and foll.
185
give, it left that state so long without the protection
stipulated, at the mercy of the mutineers? And then,
forsooth, it must take advantage of its own wrong,
without the shadow of a judicial investigation, with-
out notice, without so much as a specific charge;—
only those vague ones of "enmity and opposition"
which are the very resource of despots in want of an
excuse to declare the treaty abrogated; to annex,
temporarily at least, the territory of an ally, to bully
a woman and a child,-Hindoos by the hands of a
Mussulman,-to confiscate private property, to out-
rage the feelings of a whole people through those sales
by auction of their chief's goods and chattels which
invariably prove so deeply galling. Restitution in-
deed, after such proceedings as these! Why, if you
doubled the Dhar territory, it would be barely compen-
sation enough to the state, let alone the individuals,
the Minister for instance, who declares that before the
outbreak of the troops their mutinous disposition was
more than once communicated by him to the British
authorities, and their aid implored. If this be the way
our friends are treated after such a crisis as that of
1857, Heaven preserve us from any other!
But take the case of Indore. Perhaps of all the
native states of India, there is none better governed,—
by an excellent prince, and an excellent minister. Rao
Ramchunder Rao may fairly rank as one of the great
Indian ministers of the day. Those who know him
well speak unanimously of his striking intelligence, of
his being far in advance of his countrymen. Both his
master and himself are anxious to promote education,
Holkar has established a college, where English is
186
taught as well as the vernacular;-there is a dispen-
sary—a library of English books, an "association for
the diffusion of useful knowledge," where weekly meet-
ings and discussions are held, and the prince himself
sometimes attends. In the year 1856 alone petty
customs' duties, &c., were abolished, to the amount of
some £4000 a year. A gentleman travelling through
the country in the spring of 1857, just before the out-
break, speaks of "the extent of cultivation," "the
prosperous state of the inhabitants; perhaps in no part
of India will they appear better clad,-in better bodily
condition, and altogether so contented."
"You
"They
would not meet more substantial farmers."
Ag
are becoming capitalists." Of the benevolence of the
ruler let the following instance suffice: "The collector
of one of his districts had oppressed the ryots, and ex-
torted money for his own use. The moment it came
to the Maharaja's knowledge, the official was removed
and the money exacted restored to the owners. They
were collected at the palace, and in open Durbar each
man had his own handed to him in a bag, and was
sent away with an honorary dress."
The outbreak came, and Holkar's firm friendship
stood the severest tests. The sepoys at Mhow,-14
miles from Indore-having evinced symptoms of dis-
affection, as soon as the prince knew of it he proffered
the aid of his troops; cavalry, infantry and guns were
ready to start at an hour's notice. But the flame of
rebellion ran higher and higher. The native princes
who remained staunch found themselves at the mercy
of their contingents, men of Oude, commanded by
Brahmins and Mussulmen! The minister's life was
threatened. On the 11th July, 1857--just as the
"""""
187
officiating Agent for Central India was collecting
elephants, &c., for his departure, and had declined to
place the treasure under the care of the prince, who
had offered to receive it at the palace, an attack was
made by the soldiery on the Residency, to the cry of
"Deen, Deen." A wounded Mussulman came to the
palace, saying that "he had begun the work, and the
prince must now go on." Holkar replied by ordering
him to be put in irons and shot down if he resisted.
But no inclination was shewn by the troops to obey
the order. The utmost that the prince could obtain
was that the mutineer should be disarmed and detained.
It was in vain to order troops to proceed to the relief
of the Residency. The officers who professed most
loyalty all declared that the men were wholly beyond
control. The prince sought himself to go to the Resi-
dency, but was restrained by his people. In the mean-
while, intelligence came that the British had cut their
way out, and had proceeded to Mhow.
Our ally found himself without power in his own
capital, his own men urging him to place himself at
the head of his troops, and drive the Feringhee out of
the land, troopers sending in messages to require
large guns for attacking the fort of Mhow,--his very
menials insulting him in his own palace for his sub-
serviency to the stranger. Yet his faithfulness never
wavered; he did still what he could. He refused the
demands of the mutineers as far as possible. The very
day of the outbreak detailed accounts were forwarded
to the Governor-General, to the Governor of Bombay,
to the officiating Agent for Central India. Directions
were sent to the local authorities to supply the British
with everything they required. The advice of the
188
commandant at Mhow was asked as to what should be
done. The ladies and others who had taken refuge at
the palace were faithfully protected. As the Prince,
thrown upon his own resources, began gradually to
resume his authority, he took measures for transporting
to Mhow the remaining treasure, recovered a portion
of it which was in the hands of city plunderers; his
Commander-in-chief rescued Captain Hutchinson,
Bheel agent in Malwa, from a position of danger, cap-
tured some of the advisers of the rebellious chief of
Amjheera. Eleven elephants were sent to meet Briga-
dier Stuart's column, and the officers in the Fort of
Mhow were supplied with all that they required. Last
-scarcely least-an English office was established in
the palace, in order that all important secret and poli-
tical correspondence might thenceforth be carried on
in our language. A more signal proof of devotion to
English interests, at such a time, could hardly be con-
ceived.* And what was the reward? If rumour
speaks true, a letter from the officiating agent to the
Governor-General in Central India, warning him that
every native chief is held accountable for the hostile
acts which his troops may commit against the English
Government, and that the principle can only be waived
under very extraordinary circumstances! Was ever
devotion, personal danger, so repaid?†
1.
* I believe this has since been abolished through Court intrigues,
and the "vested interest" of the moonshees, who are required to
carry on the correspondence in Persian,—a language about as little
understood in Malwa by this time as English, at all events by
Hindoos.
While these letters were passing through the press, incredible
to relate, the official in question has been elected a member of the
Council for India!
:
189
Now there are those who think that on this occa-
sion, Holkar saved England to India. Instead of
resisting the mutineers at the peril of his throne and of
his life, had he suffered himself to be placed at their
head, 60,000 men with 20,000 horse, it is said, would
have gathered round him in a month. The whole of
Malwa would have risen in arms and proclaimed him
king, and what would have prevented the whole Mah-
ratta race from following the impulse? He was con-
stantly taunted with the memory of Jeswunt Rao, the
hero of the Holkar family, with having let slip the
golden opportunity of ridding Hindostan of the Euro-
pean. His defection would have been one of those
many probable events, any one of which might have
rendered all our countrymen's heroism unavailable for
the preservation of our Indian empire, the non-occur-
rence of which has been miraculous.
Indore was indeed not confiscated. But to this
hour, I believe, any open recognition of the Maharaja's
faithfulness, by letter under the hand of the Governor-
General at the least, has been withheld. Yet that
faithfulness has continued to be manifested on every
occasion and amidst every inconvenience. The traffic
of his country has been-probably still is-disastrously
interrupted by the pressing of carts and bullocks for
the troops. The Opium-sales,-forming the most lucra-
tive branch of Malwa trade-were suddenly shifted
from Indore to Mhow. When, by the native authori-
ties, the troops had been disarmed, the offenders put
upon trial before a native commission, those guilty
blown from guns and shot, or sentenced to imprison-
ment in irons with hard labour, suddenly it was
190
required that the prisoners should be sent to the Resi-
dency. The request was immediately complied with,-
the men were handed over to the British authorities,-
tried again, and set at liberty in every instance where
they had been acquitted by the native commission ;
thus conclusively shewing the satisfactory nature of
the previous proceedings, as not having let any of the
guilty escape. But when a further request was made,
when the whole of those disarmed were required to be
sent to the Residency, the men took alarm, and the
greater part escaped during the night. Is it possible
to conceive a course of action more insulting to a sove-
reign and his officers than this taking away from them
their own prisoners and trying them over again, as if
their justice were no justice at all?
Now let it be recollected that the Indore state is not
one which can owe any particular gratitude to the
British Government. It will be remembered that in
1844 Lord Ellenborough and the Calcutta Council, and
eventually Lord Hardinge, attempted to reduce it from
the rank of a sovereign state, by ignoring the alleged
right of adoption of the dowager Ranee, deliberately
setting aside the candidate whom she had recom-
mended as having most right to the throne, conferring
the sovereignty on another, in order to shew that the
will or whim of England was supreme, and then in an
official letter limiting the succession to heirs of the
body. It is very doubtful, to say the least, how
such an act could have any effect. If adoption forms
really part of the public law of India, as respects the
independent Hindoo sovereignties, it does not appear
at all clear (as an ex-Director observed to me some
(
191
time back) that the British Government can set it aside
in
any
of those states, whatever ground it may allege
for doing so in those which are dependent on it. And
this seems to have been felt; for it is perfectly well
known that, to bolster up the measure, the boy of ten
years old who was put upon the throne of Indore was
induced to sign his hand to a letter to the Governor-
General, accepting the limitation of the succession to
heirs male.
Of course such a document, extracted from a child,
would have no validity in any Court of Christendom.
But it is equally well known that the proceeding has
galled to the quick every member of the state, from
the highest to the lowest, and that Holkar himself,
since he has come to years of discretion, has repeatedly
expressed his pain at having signed it, and his earnest
wish to see the attempted restriction on adoption re-
moved. The weight of that restraint was however not
adequately felt till this last spring, when his only son
died, and the possible proximity of annexation was
brought home to all. Twins, I believe, have since
been born to him, and so the evil day seems again de-
ferred for awhile. But is this a position in which it is
fit to keep an ally like him?
I have taken the cases of Dhar and Indore, as be-
longing to Malwa, one of the chief seats of war in the
late rebellion. Space would fail me if I were to
attempt to detail other grievances of our allies. Will no
one move in Parliament, for instance, for a certain letter
of Salar Jung to the Governor-General, in which, I am
assured, he complains that while the surplus revenue of
the Nizam's cessions was by treaty to be paid over to
مرگ
192
that sovereign, the administration of those provinces has
been actually so managed as to bring him in a debtor,
by the expenses, for instance, of huge cutcherries (law
courts), palatial jails, and other buildings of which he
does not at all appreciate the utility?
One word more :-
E
There is one of the late annexations to the details of
which I have not yet alluded, -that of the Punjab.
Lord Dalhousie reckons it among the fruits of con-
quest. General Low says, that in his conversation
with natives in Rajpootana, "there never was any un-
pleasant remark made respecting the annexation of
the Punjab," "they seemed perfectly to understand
that an invasion of our territory entitled us, according
to the ordinary course of human affairs, both to repel the
invaders and to seize the country *."">X< -an argument, by
the way, fully pertinent to the circumstances of the
first Sikh war, which was not followed by the absorp-
tion of the Punjab, by no means so to those of the se-
cond, which was followed by that event. I have given
elsewhere my views upon this annexation; I will not
here discuss whether it be consistent with any system
of municipal law yet recognized, for the guardian to
appropriate to himself the estates of his ward, on ac-
count of the misconduct towards him of tenants or
servants, or with any system of international juris-
prudence, for a state to absorb the territories of a boy-
prince under its protection on account of the insurrec-
tion of its chiefs or its people. Waiving then all ques-
tions of justice,-I quite admit, and am thankful to do
<
* Nagpore Annexation Papers, p. 42.
† British India, vol. ii. p. 166-7.
193
So,
that the annexed Punjab has been and is most ad-
mirably governed by Sir John Lawrence. I quite ad-
mit, and am thankful to do so, that Sir John Lawrence
and his Sikhs saved India at the outset of the rebel-
lion. But I cannot overlook the cost of his doing so.
I cannot forget that an able and earnest writer, in per-
haps the most remarkable pamphlet which the rebellion
has brought forth,* has not hesitated to say, that "our
North-Western Provinces owe all this rebellion and
anarchy to the very Punjab;" alleging that the pour-
ing into the Punjab of the whole European force (or
nearly so) of the Bengal Presidency, and the depriv-
ing the North-West of all its best civil officers, have
been the means by which the Punjab has been
made a model province, at the risk of the whole Indian
empire. I cannot forget that to the hour of my writing
this, it has not been possible to spare Sir John Law-
rence out of the Punjab, either for the Governor-
Generalship, or for the Council at home. I cannot
forget that in spite of the efficient services rendered to
us by the Sikhs in the rebellion, or rather because of
those efficient services, the most serious fears were en-
tertained at one time as to their fidelity; that there are
upwards of 80,000 of them in our pay; that they have
openly boasted on many occasions that they had fought
against us once, and might fight against us again;
and "who knows where the raj will be?" I cannot
forget that the Maharaja of Putteeala, our worthy Sikh
ally, has warned us of the danger of trusting in his
Ex
* "Thoughts of a Native of Northern India on the Rebellion, its
causes and remedies" (Dalton, 1858); edited by M. W. (understood
to be Mr. M'Leod Wylie); p. 3.
194
countrymen; has written - so Mr. Russell related in
one of his letters-in express terms to an officer that
"the Sikhs, if left idle, will be worse than the Hin-
dostanees." I cannot forget that actual mutiny was
on the point of breaking out, in the latter half of 1858,
at Dera Ismail Khan, in the 18th Punjab Infantry,
who were to have risen and murdered their officers.
And I cannot help asking myself whether it would not
be safer for us to have at Lahore a faithful native ally,
than the ablest of English Governors. And of all allies
that I can think of, I cannot imagine one so desirable
as that noble young Christian prince, our Queen's fre-
quent guest, once recognized by us as the rightful occu-
pant of the Sikh throne. Nor can I conceive of any
event capable of giving so firm a foothold, so vast a de-
velopment to Christianity in India, as his re-enthrone-
ment. A native Christian sovereign in the Punjab, as
it seems to me, would be the very pivot of India's
future civilization.
PART II
THE PLEDGES OF THE PROCLAMATION
TO THE PEOPLE OF INDIA.
02
LETTER XV.
THE PLEDGE OF RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL IMPAR-
TIALITY AND EQUALITY.
I Do not know any of the promises contained in the
proclamation which is of deeper import, if faithfully
carried out, than the one which first deals no longer
with allies, but with subjects.
"We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories
by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other sub-
jects; and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we
shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil."
The whole idea of Christian, as opposed to Oriental
sovereignty, is contained in these words, vague as they
may perhaps seem to many. For the tie between the
Christian sovereign and his people is essentially that of
duty, not that of despotic force, or traditional authority,
or kinship of race; in the fulfilment of that duty, not
in the gratification of his will, his government consists.
Who can tell what stirrings of the heart, what deep
questionings about true kingship, such a profession
coming from the sovereign's lips may awaken in many
an Indian breast? Who can tell whether, more than
any quotation from Scripture, it may not lead him to
the thought of a Kings of kings,-of a Sovereign
Wisdom by whom "kings reign, and princes decree
justice ?"
198
But the obligations of duty thus professed are not
left obscure and indefinite. They are "the same
which bind the Sovereign of England to all her " other
subjects," the same which bind her to us Englishmen,
who boast like the Apostle that we were "freeborn."
Even without the more detailed assurances which
follow, it is impossible to mistake the value of this
assurance to the natives. It is the pledge that there is
to be for India no distinction between a dominant race
and a subject one; that the natives of India are not
our subjects, but our fellow-subjects. All that follows
is in fact but the application of this pledge in particu-
lar instances.
'
"Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and ac-
knowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike
the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our
subjects. We declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure, that
none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted, by reason
of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy
the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly
charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us, that
they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship
of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure."
To treat fully of the question which underlies this
paragraph-that of the religious relation between Eng-
land and India-would require a volume by itself.
It was the most difficult passage in the proclamation,
it was very likely the most laboured; it is not the hap-
piest. I can easily see how some of its terms may be
strained so as to give a colour to the old anti-christian
policy of those days, when English missionaries found
no rest for the sole of their foot on British Indian soil,
of those days when a Sepoy could be ejected from the
199
service for becoming a Christian. But if we interpret
this paragraph by the previous one, it will lose most
of its seeming narrowness. That none should be
"favoured,"" molested or disquieted," by reason of reli-
gion, forms part henceforth, with us Englishmen, of
our public law; in pledging this to Hindoo and Mus-
sulman, the Queen simply carries out her declaration,
that she is “bound to the natives of India by the same
obligations" as to her other subjects. In enjoining all
who may be in authority under her in India, "that they
abstain from all interference with the religious belief or
worship" of any of her subjects, she must, rightly
speaking, be doing no more. She must simply be an-
nouncing that civil authority must not be used in
India, as it may not be used in England, for purposes
of religious propagandism. She cannot mean that her
officers should be deprived of the freedom there which
they would enjoy here, which there she pledges to all
her other subjects. She cannot mean that as individuals
they should be debarred from the right of communica-
ting the truths which they believe. It may be indeed
that from the long continued overweight of authority
in the East, acts lawful in themselves, and which would
come here within the pale of Christian expediency, may
fall outside of it in India; and if warning was needed
on this head, it may have been wisely given. But the
native creeds must not be allowed to suppose that they
are to enjoy any immunity against Christian mission-
arizing, which Christianity does not enjoy against their
Nor must they suppose that the pledge of re-
spect to their religious faith and observances is to ex-
tend to every corruption which may be grafted on them.
own.
-
200
Social order has its rights, which cannot bow to the
mere name of religion. Cruelty and obscenity cannot
remain scathless in worship, when they are punishable
everywhere else.
That some guarantee of religious impartiality was
however needed, is but too evident. The "Native of
Northern India," a professed friend to Christianity, ex-
pressly attributes the outbreak in great measure to dis-
quietude on the score of religion. The people, he says,
were "strongly suspicious of the intentions of the Go-
vernment to take their caste." He dwells upon the
greased cartridges, upon the messing in jails. He re-
calls the riot in Benares when the latter system was
introduced; how "the people of the town met pub-
licly and secretly to discuss the question;" how "they
insulted the magistrate openly, and contemned the
police," and the cavalry were brought down, and
"hundreds of the citizens were sent to gaol." He asks
whether, if the same system had then been sought to
be established in regiments, the same results would not
have occurred as from the greased cartridges; whether
this was not "a straw to shew the course of the wind,"
though "the Government did not heed it. Hundreds of
other acts," he continues, "too numerous to relate, have
been committed in this way by the officers of the Go-
vernment, which convinced the people beyond doubt
that it was the intention of the Government to take
their caste. Many of these acts were totally uncalled
for, and without the least gain to the Government or
anybody," and, as he truly says, "the natives prefer
losing life to the loss of caste; an out-caste in this
country is worse than dead."
201
Yet "IT IS NOT RELIGION BUT THE WANT OF RE-
LIGION WHICH HAS BROUGHT SO MUCH EVIL TO THIS
6
COUNTRY. The people know that the Government is
a Christian one; let it act openly as a true Christian :
the people will never feel themselves disappointed, they
will only admire it. Who can detest religion?" It
is the order of their own Shastars,' that every man
is to revere his own religion. You may have a thousand
missionaries to preach, and another thousand as masters
of the schools at the expense of the Government, or dis-
tribute a thousand Bibles at the hands of the Governor-
General. The people will not murmur out a single
syllable, though they may laugh and jeer; but take
care that you do not interfere with their caste, you do
not force them to eat the food cooked by another in their
gaols, or thrust grease down their throats with the car-
tridges made by Europeans. I do not think such acts
have anything to do with the Christian religion."*
“
Let it moreover be remembered, in reference to such
religious or semi-religious observances as come under
the head of caste, that whatever question there might
be as to the mode in which caste ought to be dealt with,
or even the expediency of actually ignoring it, suppos-
ing we were now for the first time to meet with it, that
question exists in such a shape no longer. Caste, as a
thing within certain limits to be maintained and re-
spected, has been solemnly recognized by Parliament for
now more than three-quarters of a century. The act of
the 21 Geo. III., c. 70, s. 18 (1781), runs as follows:—
"And in order that regard should be had to the civil
and religious usages of the said natives, be it enacted
that the rights and authorities of fathers of families, and
* "Thoughts of a native of Northern India," passim.
202
masters of families, according as the same might have
been exercised by the Gentoo or Mohammedan law;
shall be preserved to them respectively within their
said families; nor shall any acts done in consequence
of the rule and law of caste, respecting the members of
the said families only, be held and adjudged a crime;
although the same may not be held justifiable by the
laws of England." The next section requires the
Supreme Court of Bengal to frame its processes so as
to "accommodate the same to the religion and manners
of such natives ;" and these enactments, which were
confined in the first instance to Bengal, were extended
to Madras and Bombay by an act of 1797 (37 Geo. III.,
c. 142, ss. 12 and 13). They have never been repealed;
and the cry about trampling out caste, which was rife
amongst us a year ago, was, therefore, as dishonest as
it was senseless. It was upon the condition of respect-
ing caste that we won India. We have bound our-
selves to do so, by the most solemn sanction which a
free people can give-that of its statutes; we cannot be
released from that bond, until the people of India
choose to discharge us.
It will be observed, indeed, that the Parliamentary
pledge to caste was limited to its observance in families.
It
may be urged, therefore, that the recognition of it
in public matters was not guaranteed. It is, however,
impossible to deny that the acts of the Government of
India have carried the pledge far beyond such limits.
For instance-Lord Canning's General Order of the
27th March, 1857, on the disbandment of the 19th
Regiment, N.I., made it the chief grievance against
the Sepoys of that regiment, that they had distrusted
the intentions of the Government in respect to religious
B
203
observances.
"Neither the 19th Regiment, nor any
regiment in the service of the Government of India,”
said his Lordship, "nor any Sepoy, Hindoo, or Mus-
sulman, has reason to pretend that Government has
shewn, directly or indirectly, a desire to interfere
with the religion of the troops. It has been the
unvarying will of the Government of India to treat
the religious feelings of all its servants, of every
creed, with careful respect." Again, the General
Order of May 19 "emphatically" proclaims to the
army, "that the Government of India entertains no
desire to interfere with their religion or caste, and that
nothing has been or will be done by the Government to
affect the free exercise of the observances of religion
or caste by every class of the people."
This, then, is the complex state of things we have to
deal with; these are the circumstances with reference
to which we must judge the wording of the proclama-
tion on this head. On the whole,-though there is one
expression in it against which I would earnestly pro-
test, the treating of religion as a mere "solace,”—I am
not disposed to quarrel with it. Fairly carried out, it
should give England's evangelizing full scope to work
and to triumph.*
Cat
The next paragraph of the proclamation might also
be developed into a volume:
cr
'And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of
whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices
in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their
education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge."
* I am bound to say that this particular paragraph appears to be
specially appreciated by the natives. See the note at the end of the
volume.
204
This itself is little more than the reproduction of an
enactment in the charter of 1833:
"And be it enacted, that no native of the said territories, nor any
natural-born subject of his Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason
only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them,
be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the
said Company;" *
except that the earlier enactment was only negative,
—a mere removal of disqualification,—while the latter
one is positive, pledging admission to office. I shall not
attempt here to go into the question, how far it may
be expedient to extend the admission of natives to
office in India, nor yet how far the portals of the
"covenant" should be enlarged for the English settler.
I shall have to make hereafter some observations upon
the position of native officials. But whatever jealousies
may hem round the admission of natives to office
there, they must remember that the remedy lies in
their own hands here. In the civil service,-in the
medical,―in the scientific branches of the military,—
no patronage henceforth stands in their way, no private
Directorial narrowness can avail to nullify the promises
of an imperial statute. They have but to will it,—they
have but, in the fair open fight of free competition, to
win a fitting place, and the administration of their own
country falls in great measure into their hands. I am far
from over-valuing educational competition in itself,-I
know how unhealthy is the stimulus which it too often
supplies to the selfish ambition of young and old alike, of
the teacher and the pupil. But as a solution of a great
political difficulty,-as a key to open a most puzzling
lock in Indian statesmanship,-it seems to me beyond
price. Nor can I conceive of a grander, nobler boon
* 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 85, s. 89.
205
being ever held out by the conquering race to the
conquered than that of self-government, as the reward
of self-development,-self-government, not as a favour
to be sued for, but as a right to be won, in peaceful
conflict with the conquerors themselves. Where in
history do we see the like?
M
And if, indeed, the conduct of local governments,
local officials, fall far short of Parliamentary and
Royal pledges, as it certainly has done, as it cer-
tainly will do for many a long year yet to come, still
let our native fellow-subjects bear up and bear on.
Let them cling to those pledges; let them din them
for ever in their immediate superiors' ears; let them
slowly work them out into fact. If they really shew
themselves "qualified, by their education, ability, and
integrity, duly to discharge" the offices now monopo-
lized by Englishmen, let them rest assured that sooner
or later Victoria's promise will come true-that sooner
or later they will be "freely and impartially admitted"
to every employment from which they are now ex-
cluded.
Not, indeed, that the qualification must be forgotten,
"So far as may be." No doubt these words may be
so interpreted by prejudice and ill-will as to nullify the
whole promise. No doubt that the tendency to play
the Jesuit with them, radiating from many a narrow
heart and brain in the Indian Council at home, will for
many a long year paralyze the hands of officials in
India when the native knocks at the door of office.
But by nothing can this tendency be more confirmed,
more sharpened into bitter hostility to native claims,
than if the qualification and its necessity were over-
looked, and the native population were to fancy that
206
the very walls of office are to fall before them at the
sound of the proclamation, like those of Jericho at
the sound of Israel's trumpets. The qualification is a
necessary one at present. On the morrow of a rebel-
lion fomented by Brahmins and Mussulmen, which has
convulsed all India, England cannot, for India's own
sake, treat Brahmins and Mussulmen without caution
at least, if not without suspicion.
But there is one thing which may be done, and
which will carry out the promises of the proclamation
for the present far more effectually than any loose and
hasty admission of natives to office. It may be shewn
by acts that the fulfilment of that proclamation, which
declares on the part of the Sovereign that she is bound
by the same obligations of duty to her native as to her
other subjects, is not about to be idly trusted to men
whose conduct, whose speech, has shewn that they
place native princes and native commoners on quite
another level than that of the white man-sometimes
that they are hardly prepared to treat their native
fellow-subjects as human beings. The thick-and-thin
supporters of the annexation policy, in the Calcutta
Council, and elsewhere, are not those who should be
promoted to high employ when that policy is aban-
doned. The men who advocate the confiscation of
Mussulman and Hindoo endowments, are not to be
made the depositaries of an authority which is to give
"impartial protection" to all creeds. Civilians like
that Collector at Meerut in 1856, of whom his own
sister has told us that he had "a most absurd horror
of a native's coming near him," and declared that he
could "detect the copperish smell of the colouring
matter in their skins the instant they enter the room,"
JUD
207
and that "he would much sooner be touched by a toad
than by one of their clammy hands,"* should be at
once removed from a sphere so uncongenial to their
olfactory nerves and delicate sensibilities of touch as
that of India. And, lastly, men like Mr. Frederick
Cooper, who, in the face of God and man, dare to
boast of the butchery, or death by suffocation, of nearly
500 of their fellow-creatures as of the "ceremonial sa-
crifice" of a "Christian," should be made distinctly to
feel, at the hands of every one of their fellow-country-
men, from the Sovereign to the poorest of her subjects,
that righteous horror which is due to acts which tran-
scend the grasp of human punishment.†
No message of mercy can avail, while it is liable to
be belied and perverted by such instruments. "Coo-
perism," and the Queen's sway over India, are two
incompatible things henceforth. Those who choose
to perpetuate the one must forego their allegiance to
Victoria.
M
*The Timely Retreat, vol. ii. p. 89.
+ See this hideous story in Mr. Cooper's book, the "Crisis in the
Punjaub," pp. 152-70. The men in question belonged to a disarmed
regiment, whose rising must have been a very panic of self-defence.
They were jaded fugitives, craving for mercy. They were more nu-
merous than their captors, and had to be decoyed into their power
by a sham of leniency, planned, as such devil's deeds usually are,
amidst "intense mirth." Some, on being led to execution, "peti-
tioned to be allowed to make one last salaam to the Sahib." One of
the Sikh executioners swooned away at the 150th who was shot. The
narrator seems proud to compare the suffocation of 45 with the Black
Hole of Calcutta, and the well into which the bodies are thrown with
that of Cawnpore. The hasty sanction given by Sir John Lawrence
and Mr. Montgomery to such acts cannot absolve them.
208
}
THE
AND USAGES.
PLEDGE OF RESPECT TO NATIVE PROPERTY
A GLANCE INTO THE PAST.
LETTER XVI.
"WE know and respect the feelings of attachment
with which the natives of India regard the lands in-
herited by them from their ancestors, and we desire to
protect them in all rights connected therewith, subject
to the equitable demands of the State; and we will
that generally, in framing and administering the law,
due regard be paid to the ancient rights, usages, and
customs of India."
Maintenance of native rights of property-regard
to native law and custom-such are the two moment-
ous pledges of this paragraph.* Before considering
the former, let us not overlook what the latter implies.
It follows from it, not only that, as enjoined by pre-
vious Acts of Parliament, we should not senselessly
trample down caste, however it may hamper us occa-
ŵ
-
I need hardly point out the emphatic, though implicit disavowal,
in the above paragraph, of Lord Canning's Oude proclamation. I
expressed fully at the time, in the columns of the Leeds Express, my
feelings respecting this measure, which have not changed. It is, I
presume, sufficient from henceforth to quote, respecting it, M. de
Montalembert's words :-"Ce châtiment aussi impolitique qu'exces-
sif, aussi inique par son application universelle que par sa cruelle
réversibilité sur la postérité des coupables et des innocents."-Un
Débat sur l'Inde, p, 49. Jeffs.
209
*
sionally, but that we should take account of native
modes of thought and action in our improvements;
that we should endeavour on all occasions to place our-
selves at the native's point of view as well as at our
own, so as to make of him a fellow-worker, and not a
mere tool or slave.
ones.
I fear we have forgotten this too often, even in our
most boasted, our most real Indian reforms. I thank
God, for instance, that suttee has been abolished
throughout the British territories, and many native
But do you think that, except in the minds of
a few thinking men, one or two perhaps in a million,
the abolition of suttee added one particle to the
popu-
larity of the British Government in the hour of trial?
Do we not know that the question of the legality of its
abolition was fought out in the Privy Council itself,
by natives consequently who accepted our rule and its
processes, yet protested against that special measure?
Nay, what can any of our most benevolent measures
for the mere preservation of human life have done for
us in the minds of a people in whom religious beliefs
are so strong, instincts of self-preservation, as far as
the body is concerned, so weak, that Sir Wm. Sleeman
was able to relate two several instances* in which women
burned themselves as suttees on the death of men of
* See "Rambles and Recollections," vol. i. p. 34 and foll., the
case of a Lodhee cultivator's wife, who, on the death of a banker's
father, being at the time between 50 and 60 years of age, and a
grandmother, declared that she had been suttee with the deceased six
times, and would be so a seventh; stole a handful of ashes from his
pyre, which she placed in her bosom, and persuaded her husband
and her brother to burn her the next day. See also a similar account
in vol. ii. of his "Journey through Oude," pp. 318-22.
P
210
66
other castes, with whom they had no kind of con-
nexion, alleging that they had been their wives in a
former state of existence; that Lord Hastings relates
having received a petition from a native "complaining
that the officiating Brahmins, at a temple of Kali, near
Moorshedabad, refused to sacrifice him," and soliciting,
as it was unlawful for him to put himself to death,"
that Lord Hastings "would order the Brahmins to
immolate him" ?* Take even the case of female in-
fanticide a practice connected with no religious
belief, peculiar to certain castes, odious to all others;
having its origin, perhaps, as General Sleeman some-
where intimates, in a feeling which has a noble side to
it, the proud Rajpoot's fear of seeing his daughters
carried to the harem of the conquering Moslem,† and
yet based in the main on the most selfish feelings
supposed social necessities; ostentation at wedding
feasts; punctilios about intermarriage; the relative
position of father-in-law and son-in-law. Is it really
supposed that all these feelings, selfish though they be,
are extinguished with the act itself? Is it supposed
that the Rajpoot father, accustomed to see no evil in
the putting to death of his infant daughters, or at all
events to see that evil wiped out as a matter of course
by the village priest for a few rupees, really feels
* Private Journal, vol. i. p. 53. “A short time ago,” adds Lord
Hastings, "I had another petition from a man, who implored that I
would order his head to be cut off, as he was in a state of hopeless
penury." This, however, looks to me like a highly Oriental method
of soliciting alms.
+ See Sleeman's "Oude," vol. ii. p. 48.
See Raikes' "Notes on the North-Western Provinces," p. 1 and
foll.
211
grateful and attached to the British Government when
he views around him a family of growing daughters,
whom it is a disgrace to keep single, whom it will be a
ruin to marry, by whose marriage he will be for ever
lowered in social position as towards their husbands?
God forbid that we should have done any less than we
have done-wherever we have done it wisely-to sup-
press any inhuman practices! Would to God that we
had done far more, and that far sooner, so that the
feelings which prompted such practices should long
since have become dull, if not obliterated; so that
gentler, truer feelings should have had time to grow
up in their place! But these are precisely the instances
in which the good deeds of the British Government
have belonged to a sphere of thought and action so
foreign to that of the native population, that they stood
it in no stead, except with the chosen few, in the hour
of trial.
Take again education. Here indeed I believe that,
with all its faults, the Government system of education
has had for its effect to conciliate to it the minds of a
certain portion of the native population,-those young
men, namely, who have been brought within its in-
fluence. I do not however apprehend that these con-
stitute at present a very numerous, still less an energetic
class. And considering the acknowledged effects of
Government education in India, in dissolving all
beliefs of Hindooism in the minds of the students, I
suspect that up to the present time it has excited more
disaffection among the bigoted masses than affection
among the free-thinking few.
Do we rely upon railways and electric telegraphs as
P 2
212
-
securing the attachment of the native population? That
they were able to see a use in the electric telegraph,
the rebellion has shewn, but certainly not the use
which we meant them for, since they simply discovered
how handy were the hollow cast-iron posts for extem-
porizing an artillery against us. And as respects
railways,―precious though they be for the future de-
velopment of India,-what are the few miles of railway
made, to the thousands of miles of common metalled
road needing to be made, of which the construction of
high priced railways must necessarily for the time
being hinder the making?
I fear truly that of all the very best deeds of the
British Government in India a few public works, such
as the Grand Trunk Road, the Ganges and other
canals, the Rajahmundry irrigation works-are almost
the only ones hitherto that will have weighed much in
its favour with the native population when the hour of
rebellion came, and that only locally. The extirpa-
tion of the Pindarrees under Lord Hastings aroused
unbounded gratitude at the time. But the generation
which had witnessed it must have in general passed
away at the time the rebellion broke out; and it may
not be unfortunate for us if the excesses of the preda-
tory bands whom it has left behind revive the recol-
lection of that great achievement. Even the transit
duties, deemed once so oppressive, are beginning to be
regretted.*
My Vegan
To fix an alien government in the affections of an
Oriental people, depend upon it, measures of a broader,
* See "Thoughts of a Native of Northern India on the Rebel-
lion," p. 25.
213
more massive character are needed; measures which, so
to speak, dint themselves into the daily life of mankind, or
weld themselves indissolubly with it. Now a Hindoo is
not always occupied with the burning of widows, the
murdering of female infants, the sacrificing of human
victims to Kalee; he is not always in dread of the
Thug's noose; he does not always live near a railway
or a canal; he seldom sends or receives telegrams; he
generally troubles himself little about literature. His
daily life, I take it, is mainly occupied with three
things,—worship, which is also for the most part made
an occasion of pleasure,--the pursuit of a livelihood, and
of its enjoyments or luxuries, so far as they may be
within his reach, self-preservation in its widest sense,
as including the preservation of all that a man appro-
priates to himself. From these three points of view
therefore must any given rule be considered, in order
to judge of his feelings towards it.
I place the religious point of view first of all, in
order to dispose of it the sooner. It will not be as-
serted, I presume, by the greatest encomiast of British
rule, that it can be considered a religious blessing gene-
rally by a native of India. It bears no doubt with it
in most cases a negative religious gain. British
justice is undoubtedly an impartial arbiter generally
between Moslem and Hindoo; and it is thus conceiv-
able that British rule should be hailed with satisfaction
by the Moslem inhabitants of a province chiefly occu-
pied by Hindoos, by the Hindoo inhabitants of a
Moslem district. Still, we must all feel that mere
preference, as between rulers of another creed, of the
less fanatical, is no real source of strength to the latter,
214
but simply a mitigation of their dangers. And on the
other hand we have to take account of the growing
distrust of and dislike to Christianity, on the part of
both Hindoo and Moslem,-feelings which I believe to
be as yet really prevalent only in the large towns, and
among particular castes and classes elsewhere, but
which the rebellion, and the more strenuous efforts of
Christian missions,* will certainly tend more and more
to evolve, and to exasperate where already developed.
If we pass to the point of view of personal profit,
though we may assume that there are certain classes,—
the trading classes,-which are generally benefited by
our rule, which have shewn themselves generally our
staunch friends, yet the trade of India is yet so trifling,
compared with its agriculture, that the trading classes,
except the village bankers, form a very small item,
and of course by no means a warlike one, in the com-
munity; and the trade in money is so much connected
with the payment of the revenue, that I strongly
suspect the Indian money-dealer is nearly as unpopular
with his fellow countrymen as the Jewish publican
was of old with his. It is therefore chiefly with
reference to the land,-to the right of property in it,
to its enjoyment, to the laws and means for securing
both, to the demands made upon it, that we must ex-
pect our rule to be judged. Most truly therefore does
* Especially when carried to such a pitch of imprudence, to say the
least, as in the late case of the Chetty child at Madras.
Of course
I do not wish to discourage any the most strenuous efforts of mission-
aries, if rightly directed,-quite the contrary. The exasperation of
Mahommedans and Hindoos is, up to a certain point, a homage to
Christianity.
215
the Proclamation testify to the native's attachment to
his land; most wisely does it promise him protection
for all his rights connected therewith.
To us indeed both the pledge of regard to native
laws and customs, and that of protection to landed pro-
perty, may seem but the merest truisms. From what
has the landowner to be protected except from individual
outrages? What protection does he need, beyond a
few extra policemen, perhaps occasionally the bracing
up
of some law grown slack by use? What pledge of
respect to law and custom would he think of, beyond
the assurance that vacancies on Westminster benches
will be duly filled up?
But it has not been so in India. There, it has been
too frequently the complaint of the native,-of the
European settler-that the extension of British rule
bore with it insecurity to landed property, and an ever
more reckless displacement of the landmarks of the law.
Nor is it to be supposed that these complaints apply
only to the quasi-mythical days-as we are prone to
fancy them in comparison with the present,-of Clive
and Warren Hastings. They were rife a quarter-
century ago, more or less, they have been rife ever
since. Nor can we judge how much must turn upon
the faithful execution, or the neglect and desecration,
of the promises of the Proclamation on this head,
without exhibiting the state of things to which they
apply.
When that well-known public servant, whose sig-
nature of "Indophilus" has often honoured the pages
of the Times,-whose appointment to the Governorship
of Madras has been hailed with such deserved and ge-
216
neral approval-was simply an Indian civilian, As-
sistant-Secretary to the Government of India, he wrote
a series of letters to the Bengal Hurkaru, reprinted
afterwards in the Mirror of the Indian Press for 1833.
In these will be found a picture, which I cannot
doubt was a true one, of the then state of our North
Provinces:
1
are
"The whole of our provinces west of Mirzapoor." he said,
at this moment withering under the influence of uncertainty in taxa-
tion. No person connected with the land in those provinces dares to
make any improvement
Can there be said to be any pro-
perty in the land west of Mirzapoor ?
When is the
creation of landed property, which is generally the first step in the
progress of society, to take place?
Is the agricultural po-
pulation, which forms the great bulk of the community, richer than
they were before? Have they more of the comforts and enjoyments
of this life than they had under the native Governments which pre-
ceded us? I say, most certainly not. The wealth which formerly
accumulated in the hands of the upper classes has, with very few ex-
ceptions, been drained off into the Government treasury.
But it must not be supposed that the destructive influence of the
system has been confined to the upper classes. Several whole pro-
vinces have been cruelly plundered by it, and, generally speaking,
our assessment has been raised greatly above that which was demanded
by the preceding Government.
Compare British Bundel-
cund with what it was at the period when we first occupied it, and,
what those portions of the province which have remained under native
rule still are. Fertile, smiling Bundelcund, where the cultivation
was noted for being more complete and the inhabitants for being more
industrious and docile (I am speaking only of that portion of Bun-
delcund which is under British rule) than perhaps in any part of our
dominions. How is it now? Bundelcund has been fleeced, ruined,
demoralized. She has been plucked and squeezed till every drop of
capital has oozed out of her, and an atrocious measure, by which
large quantities of grain were confiscated in various parts of the pro-
vince for the realisation of an impossible amount of taxation, even
after it had found its way into the hands of the wholesale dealers,
"
217
deprived the zemindars of the resource which they before derived
from their credit with the local monied interest, such as it is.
Compare the southern district of the Delhi territory with the Bhurt-
pore country, or with the neighbouring British district of Agra. I
never saw misrule delineated in such undisguised colours as she is in
that southern district of the Delhi territory. It seems almost as if it
had been got up for stage effect. The soil is highly fertile, and the
remains of well-built towns and expensive brick houses in every vil-
lage, show that the district once enjoyed a considerable degree of
prosperity. Now, however, you may traverse it from one end to the
other, and there is not a single pucka house to be seen that is not
rapidly hastening to decay.
Their clothing forms a coun-
terpart to their lodging.
Those native states which are
most notorious for their misgovernment, can make a better display
than this. Cultivation may not always be carried to the same ex-
tent, because the people have not an excessive jumma [assessment] to
pay up by any means, and because the country is often a natural
desert.
But many infallible signs denote that the people
are better off. There are generally several good houses in each vil-
lage belonging to the lord of the soil and his dependents, or perhaps
to some new man who has made his fortune at Court.
There is an abundance of cattle, carriages, horses, camels, and of all
the necessaries and enjoyments suited to their existing state of civili-
sation, and in short the people are well clothed and comfortable.
Before leaving the Delhi territory, however, I would ask what has be-
come of some hundred families of men learned in the religion, law,
and medical science of the country, which a few years ago existed in
comfort, and in many cases in great affluence, at Delhi? Their
estates, which had in many instances been in the family for two or
three generations, and were a support to thousands besides their own
immediate family and dependents, have been added to the fisc.
Where are the Milkies, a still more numerous and unfortunate class ?
These are the descendants of the first Mahommedan in-
vaders, among whom the lands of many towns and villages were par-
celled out.
As their tenure of the land originally allotted
to their predecessors was always respected by the native Govern-
ments, it acquired in the course of ages all the characteristics of the
most secure property. In fact it stood on exactly the same basis and
•
218
was just as good property as any freehold estate in England. Can it
be believed that these estates were sequestrated
by hun-
dreds, I might almost say by thousands together, and hundreds of
families and whole towns and villages full of these poor people were
reduced at once to a state of the most abject poverty? The pretence
on which they were sequestrated was to hold an inquiry into the
validity of their tenure, and after such an act of barefaced injustice it
may easily be imagined what kind of decision was pronounced.
What has become of the numerous thriving and substantial villages
to the west and north of Delhi, abounding at the period when we
occupied the district with cattle, horses, jewels, and everything which
could render the inhabitants comfortable? They have also under-
gone the collectorial torture.
It must be remembered how-
ever that these high-spirited zemindars have not lost their native
energy and independence of mind with their wealth; and unless we
change our system of treatment, we may rue the day when their fet-
tered and sullen but by no means subdued spirit may find an oppor-
tunity, on the occasion of some crisis of our fortune, to burst its
bonds asunder.
Cannot Rohilcund boast of one spirit frank
and fearless enough to tell us whether she has flourished most under
the rule of Hafiz-Rahmut, or under the paternal care of her collector?
I have heard of certain pergunnahs [districts] situated
near the foot of the hills, which are lying waste to this day from
the effects of one of these assessments.
What is the
state of Ajmere, that spot which in a moment of good intention
was selected as a peculiarly appropriate theatre on which to display
the beauty and harmony of a well constituted government to the sur-
rounding semi-barbarous states?
In the latter the better
classes continue in full possession of their hereditary estates, while
in the former their estates have been either wholly or partially con-
fiscated, and all classes connected with the soil are in rapid progress
of being reduced to the bare subsistence standard of our revenue
system.
Have Shajawulpore and Beirsea enjoyed a better
revenue administration under us than they did under the Pindarrees?
I assert, without the slightest apprehension of being re-
futed, that the revenue management of these public robbers.
was infinitely more humane, more considerate, more conducive to the
security and enjoyment of the species than that of the British officers."
•
Th
219
Such, then, was a sketch of the results of British
rule in Northern India, taken 25 years ago. That a
vast improvement has taken place since then, in our
Northern provinces, I gladly admit. The promise of
it was indeed evidently contained in the very denun-
ciations which I have quoted. No man high in office
could have been allowed to utter them thus openly, at
a time, be it remembered, when the press was not
legally free, unless great and fearless reforms had al-
ready been resolved upon by those in higher office still.
Those were, indeed, the days of Lord Wm. Bentinck,
of whom I believe Sir Wm. Sleeman only spoke the
barest truth when he wrote, many years after the death
of that Governor-General, that "a more thoroughly
honest man never presided over the government of any
country."*
Under him the revenue settlement of the
North-western provinces was begun, and well-nigh
carried out, by Robert Mertins Bird. This gave to a
portion of the landed interest of India the greatest boon
that interest had received since the days of Lord Corn-
wallis in Bengal, that of a fixed land-tax for 30 years.
Before understanding, however, the bearings of that
measure, it is necessary to say a word as to the prin-
ciples on which the settlements of the Indian land-
revenue have hitherto been based.
* Sleeman's Oude, vol. ii. p. 150.
-
LETTER XVII.
THE NORTH WEST REVENUE SETTLEMENT AND
THE TALOOKDARS.
It is easy to talk learnedly and wisely on the sub-
ject of Indian land-tenures. It is far more difficult,
at least I find it so,-to bear in mind, when dealing with
the subject, that what is spoken of concerns 180 mil-
lions of people. Group together the whole central zone
of Europe-Russia, the Austrian empire, Germany,
Switzerland, France, and you do not yet reach the
same figure of population. And where is the man
who would be bold enough to suppose himself familiar
with the landed tenures of all those countries, to speak
of them as a whole, to generalise them in a common
formula? Yet this is what every Indian official, every
writer upon Indian subjects, wittingly or unwittingly,
is constantly doing. It is idle to suppose that such
talk can really be correct. Our generalisations about
Indian tenures must evidently represent, not those
tenures in themselves, but the state of our own legisla-
tion, the state of our own information respecting them;
the former, precisely because it is uniform, at least for
huge sweeps of country, necessarily imperfect; the
latter, precisely because it must be personal and local,
necessarily often incorrect and incomplete.
It is necessary that I should address this caution to
my readers, seeing that I am myself about to gene-
ralise on the subject. I will say then, that as far as I
221
can make out, one form of ownership seems to have
lain at the bottom of Indian tenures, from Cape Co-
morin to the Himalayas, that of a common holding of
the land by village communities. But in the course of
ages that form has in many instances entirely disap-
peared; in more still, has become so profoundly modi-
fied as to be almost wholly unrecognisable. And
amongst other elements which, though not essentially
irreconcileable with it, have contributed more or less
to modify or to destroy it, must be prominently placed
that of the existence, scattered more or less over
the whole face of India, of certain individuals called
in Bengal "zemindars," in the north-west "talook-
dars"
("zemindar” having there a more limited
meaning), in the west "deshmooks," &c.* Their
origin varies probably as much as their rights are
found to do. In many cases, no doubt, they re-
present the warrior chief under whose auspices the
village community was first settled, or restored after
dispossession, or to whose protection it was obliged to
resort when attacked or threatened. In more cases
still, perhaps, they represent simply the conqueror or
the brigand, who imposed upon the community the re-
cognition of his supremacy. In others, and probably
the greatest number so far as the zemindars of Bengal
are concerned, especially since the Mahommedan con-
quest, they represent either the tenant under the Crown
by military service, or simply the farmer of the Crown
JAG
*In my "British India" I have not assigned sufficient weight to
this element in the social state of India, the importance of which has
been so strongly brought out by the rebellion. I was misled on the
point by Mr. Kaye and other late Anglo-Indian writers.
222
revenue, who has succeeded in making himself an here-
ditary position. And to this last type all the others
have assimilated themselves in this one great feature,
that where these individual rights exist, the holder of
them stands between the State and the village com-
munities, responsible to the former for a certain amount
of land-revenue, which he levies with additions from
the various village communities inhabiting the district
upon which it is assessed. On the other hand, the
rights of the village communities have, in the north
especially, become in many instances centred in certain
families, one or more to a village, belonging chiefly to
the higher castes, such as Brahmins or Rajpoots, and
which we find designated under the titles of "village
proprietors," "old proprietors," "village zemindars,"
constituting thus a class intermediate between the ta-
lookdar and the actual cultivator.
-
To persons imbued with English ideas as to landed
tenures, there was much in the position of the zemin-
dars or talookdars to identify them with real land-
owners, often little to distinguish them from such. We
cannot therefore be surprised that such a view pervaded
the first great Indian revenue settlement, that of Ben-
gal by Lord Cornwallis in the last century; that the
zemindars were deemed to be, and made into, actual
landowners. Yet the measure was scarcely accom-
plished when it was felt that, however benevolent the
intentions of its framers, it sacrificed the rights and in-
terests of the great mass of the agricultural population.
The recoil was natural; to sweep away the whole fa-
voured class as mere middlemen, to treat the actual
cultivators of the soil as alone worthy of consideration.
-
-
-
223
This view was carried out in two different modes; in
the South, in the professed interest of the cultivators,
but apparently with equal neglect of the rights of all
parties, by Sir Thomas Munro; in the North-west, with
some attempt to secure those of all parties, and a very
decided endeavour to uphold those of the village com-
munities or proprietors, by Robert Mertins Bird, under
the sanction of Lord William Bentinck. And whilst
the South was left a prey to the uncertainty of yearly
revenue settlements, the North-west received, as I have
said, the boon of a revenue settlement for 30 years,
made with the village communities or proprietors.
I am far from contesting the benevolent purpose
which prompted the village settlements of the North-
west, or even the annual settlements with individual
cultivators of Sir Thomas Munro in the South. I pre-
tend to no particular admiration for the feudal system
of individual property. I share in all the admiration
which has been expressed for the Indian village system
in itself; I would gladly see it fostered as much as
possible, restored whenever possible. But there is one
thing that is higher than any system of landed tenures
whatever, that is, Right. And I believe there was
much that was not right in the revenue settlement of
the North-west.
The temper in which it was carried out, in the first
place, was not a right one. The question of title to
the land was surely one of fact above all. Yet it was
turned into an actual party question. A time came when
any revenue officer who was supposed in any wise to
favour the rights of the talookdars was a marked man,
shut out as far as possible from advancement.
If
224
Englishmen were thus treated, natives fared still worse.
Sir William Sleeman, writing to the late Mr. John
Colvin, declares that-
“In the matter of courtesy to the native gentry, Robert Mertins
Bird insulted them whenever he had the opportunity of doing so,
and that Mr. Thomason (a late Lieutenant-Governor of the North-
West) was too apt to imitate him in this and in other things. Of
course their example was followed by too many of their followers and
admirers.
It has always struck me (he says) that Mr. Tho-
mason in his system did all he could to discourage the growth of a
middle and upper class upon the land-the only kind of property
on which a good upper and middle class could be sustained in the
present state of society in India. . . Mr. Thomason, I am told,
systematically set aside all the landed aristocracy of the country as a
set of middlemen, superfluous and mischievous." *
Some of my more democratic readers may very likely
deem this treatment of a landed gentry as mischievous
and superfluous middlemen a fine thing. Perhaps the
systematic crushing of any class of the community is
as inconsistent with true democracy as with any other
political system worthy of the name. But without
entering upon any theories as to land-holding in
gene-
ral, let us consider the effect of such a measure in India.
I suspect the most vehement of English democrats,
when he takes into account the difference of circum-
stances between the two countries, will see that the
crushing of the landed gentry is not, under British
rule, any blessing at all to the Indian peasant.
For there is this broad line of separation between
England and India: England is taxed for the benefit
of Englishmen, rented by Englishmen, governed by
Englishmen; India is taxed, chiefly in the shape of
*Sleeman's Oude, vol. ii. pp. 413-14.
225
rent, for the benefit of foreigners, governed by fo-
reigners. And whilst with us, in spite of our constitu-
tional grumblings about rates and taxes, taxation is
nevertheless generally, and especially in the case of
agriculture, only a secondary element in our social life,
in India the land-revenue is the primary element in
the social life of its people, the leading concern of the
agriculturist. Thus Sir William Sleeman writes, that
"in India, where the people have learnt so well to
govern themselves from the want of settled govern-
ment, good or bad government really depends almost
altogether upon good or bad settlements of the land
revenue.' "'*
The question is therefore really this for
the Indian cultivator: Is it better that a portion of the
produce of the land should go to a man of his own race,
residing probably in his neighbourhood, spending his
income there, and spending it in great measure on
articles of native production, or that, going wholly to
the British Government, it should be in part abstracted
from the country at once in the shape of charges in
Europe, in greater part devoted to the payment of high
salaries to foreign officers, without root in the country,
who either save money for the purpose of
of carrying it
away, or spend it for the most part on articles of British
growth or manufacture; the said foreign officers more-
over being few in number, and residing only in the chief
towns? Will the peasant not easily see that the exist-
ence of native zemindars or talookdars, maintained from
the land, is better for him than their extinction? For
the position of the British Government towards him
after all is simply that of an absentee landlord, acting
*Rambles and Recollections, vol. i. p. 125.
Q
226
by foreign agents. And although modern political
economy, amongst other wonderful performances, has
sometimes attempted to prove that absenteeism is no
evil, I feel satisfied that no man of ordinary sense, who
has had the opportunity of observing two agricultural
parishes, in the one of which there shall be resident
men of property, spending money within the parish,
whilst in the other there shall be no wealthy residents,
and all the rents received shall be spent on the Conti-
nent, or even in London, but will know that the balance
of prosperity lies with the former.
The extinction of the Indian landed gentry then
could not but be detrimental to the Indian cultivator,
whom it might seem to favour. How it was sought to
be carried out what results it has actually produced-
we have next to examine. Let it be observed, that
whilst the revenue settlement of the North-West was
being carried on, those provinces enjoyed the benefit of
being under the rule, as Lieutenant-Governor, of a
most true friend to the natives, Mr. T. C. Robertson.
He was avowedly shocked at the reckless proceedings
of the settlement officers. He was not, he owned,
"quite prepared to acquiesce in the very summary pro-
cess" whereby the settlement officers and their superiors
got over the difficulty of the rights of the talookdars,
which Mr. Bird in his report on the settlement actually
omitted to consider. After confirming at the outset
the settlements of different districts, he felt at last com-
pelled to postpone all further ratification of them till
further information, owing to the symptoms "of
cipitation and a craving for despatch" which were
discernible. He saw how "the Raja of Mynpoorie,
pre-
227
1
✔
whose predecessor had received the highest acknow-
ledgments from the British Government for his un-
shaken loyalty," was, "without a reference to Govern-
ment," through a mere legal construction put upon his
rights as a talookdar, "deprived entirely, he and his
successors, in perpetuity, of all power of interference in
116 of 158 villages included in his talooka (estate)
which had descended to him in regular succession before
the introduction of the British rule." He observed
how another Raja "had his talooka curtailed by the
severance of 138 of the 216 villages which it con-
tained;" how, on his "winning one suit, and having
the prospect of gaining more (for the parties sued are
stated to be disposed in most instances to admit his
claim), the collector was ordered by the Sudder Board
[Board of Revenue] not to carry the decree passed in
his favour into effect."
I have taken the above from a minute by Mr. Ro-
bertson himself, and from the proceedings of the Go-
vernment of the North-Western Provinces.* Is it not
striking to find thus turning up the name of the Raja
of Mynpoorie, one of the rebel chiefs in the present
revolt? I believe, indeed, that a portion of his property
was eventually restored. But the Rajpoot adage, "a
man's life for a finger's breadth of soil," will shew how
spoliation, to any extent however little, must affect
these fierce chieftains. Think also of the second case
* See "Return on the Revenue Survey (India)," ordered by the
House of Commons to be printed, 20 Aug. 1853, p. 120 and foll.;
and "Return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated 26 March,
1858, for copies of a despatch from the Governor-General of India,
dated the 25th day of Nov. 1842," &c.
Q 2
228
instanced, and its enormity. Imagine the Board of
Inland Revenue here, after an adverse decision to some
excise claim in the Court of Exchequer, which should
rule the law against the Crown in a whole group of
informations against a firm, directing the court "not
to carry the judgment into effect!"
But Mr. Robertson struggled in vain for justice.
Already when he wrote, his plea for delay before rati-
fying the settlement in Benares had been overruled
from Calcutta, without even an answer to his argu-
ments. He left; and his place was taken by a model
civilian, Mr. Thomason, an imitator, as we have seen,
of Mr. Bird. The result may be expected.
I have before me a pamphlet printed lately for pri-
vate circulation by Messrs. Smith and Elder. It is
the reprint, by a retired Bengal civilian, whose name
surely need no longer be withheld-Mr. Boulderson-
of a "Minute on Talookdaree Cases," recorded by him
on the 2d April, 1844, when junior member of the Board
of Revenue at Agra. The revenue settlement of the
North-West having been terminated, if I recollect
aright, in 1842, this minute must be considered as a
summary of the impressions produced, by the proceed-
ings for its establishment, upon one thoroughly ac-
quainted with all the facts, but happening to stand out-
side of the pale of received official theories. And such
were those impressions, that he felt himself, he says,
so far as the Talookdars were concerned, "bound to
place on record in the openest manner his condemna-
tion of the proceedings, and to send the same to Go-
vernment."
The writer admits fully that "it is highly probable
229
the talookdars were not proprietors of all the estates
they held;""that it was most just and most expedient
to admit, in all cases where the rights of others were
proved, and where those rights had been maintained
and were found in existence, the parties possessing
them to settlement engagements with the Government."
All he contends for is, that the respective rights of
talookdars and others should be determined, not by
what they ought to be, but by what they actually are.
And he believes he may freely assert, that so far from
this plain postulate of common sense being carried out,
of many hundred estates which had been alienated from
the talookdars, under a so-called inquiry into their
titles, the proceedings, in no particular case, were ever
perused or considered by the Board of Revenue, which
simply decided upon general principles. He shews
that in carrying out these general principles, there was
literally no breach of duty, no perversion of facts to
which the Board did not resort. Whilst a young
Raja's property was under the guardianship of the
Board as a Court of Wards, his estate of 693 villages,
and an area of 675 square miles, was "settled" in a
single season, and more than two-thirds of the whole
was handed over to village officers, whose rights, by
the settlement officer's own statement, had been in
abeyance for 200 years. Titles sold repeatedly by
Government itself, at auctions for balances of revenue,
and contested by various claimants in every court of
the country, were simply annihilated, and, to use the
writer's words, "all the sanctions of Government and
of the laws, from our first possession of the country till
the present time," were "set aside as vain, or nothings."
230
With a report before them as to a certain district,
shewing the entire disappearance of the primitive vil-
lage communities, and their replacement by others
actually constituted by talookdars, so that "no trace of
the original owners" could be found, the Board decided
that those original owners had all along "retained their
possession of the soil." With a report before them
stating that the rights of a certain Raja to 95 villages
out of 105, in a district, had been "first formally
recognized about 240 years ago,"-possession by his
family being established for 258 years previously--the
Board treated these rights as created by patent at the
date at which they were first recognized. With a
report before them shewing that the same chief's rights
were only contested in 26 out of the 105 villages, and
that even in these no tree could be felled without his
permission, and the right of fishing was exclusively his,
the Board denied those rights in all but six villages of
the whole number, which they had the grace to settle
with him in zemindarie tenure. In short, the writer
charges the Board of which he was a member, in so
many words, with "fabrication of evidence," and ap-
pears to prove his case.
The pamphlet refers to the case above noticed of the
Raja of Mynpoorie, who had yet received no justice.
It quotes that of the princess or Ranee of Powayne,
who held villages "in zemindarie tenure, recognized
and affirmed on our first acquiring the country, and in
every successive settlement ever since." Without the
slightest complaint against her, an investigation was
directed into her title in 1831. It was recognized by
the first inquirer, who found that the villagers derived
231
"" more than ordinary advantages under the existing
management;" that the majority of them expressed
"entire satisfaction;" that there were no "heritable
and transferable" properties other than her own.
Seven years after, this lady, apparently of full age and
under no disability, was placed under the Court of
Wards, in order that her estates should be "settled "
with the heads of the villages as "real proprietors ;"
and she only escaped from it after the lapse of six
years. In the meanwhile, although she paid her
revenue with punctuality, even in the year of famine-
although it had been reduced by £1,500 in favour of
the village head men-about half were already broken
down. Let it be observed that the Raja of Powayne
has been another of the rebel chiefs of the present
insurrection; though he has since sought to buy our
forgiveness by sending in the head of the Moulvie of
Lucknow, killed in an encounter with his people.
Famine years were precious to "the system." The
talookdars failed to pay their revenue.
Their estates
were instantly sold, and bought in by Government. Mr.
Thomason even regretted, it is stated, that in one case
where an estate had been taken from its owner, through
a mistake of law, and a balance accrued before it was
restored, such balance was not instantly taken advan-
tage of to sell the property. Possession, by farmers
from the Government itself, of 20, 30, 40 years was
upset, and a mortgagee in possession since 1795 was
turned out by the revenue officer. The mortgagee
claimed and established his right in a court of law.
In the meanwhile the reinstated mortgagor embezzled
half the revenue, leaving the mortgagee the choice of
paying for his default or losing the estate.
232
The cases I have hitherto dwelt upon refer only to
the instances in which the rights of the talookdars have
been set aside. But the treatment of them, when re-
cognized, has been scarcely less calculated to excite
distrust in the native mind. According to the prin-
ciples of the settlement, an allowance of 18 per cent.
upon the nett profit of the land was to be made to
them, "in consideration of the loss of management."
As a compensation for an hereditary right, this allow-
ance was, of course, naturally a perpetual one. It is
thought by many to have been always somewhat
excessive. This was, therefore, first limited (17th Jan.
1844), "so long as the settlement may last," with the
further provision that "on the death of each talookdar
the arrangement becomes liable to revision," and the
surplus beyond 10 per cent. may be disposed of by
Government "at its pleasure."* Then Mr. Thomason
(in Oct. 1851) proposed to give these provisions, issued
in 1844, a retrospective effect, so that the limitation to
£10. per cent. should be applied to settlements effected
before that date, as soon as the talookdar settled with
should die, holding out the bait to his superiors of a
saving of £8500. per annum ;† and it was necessary
that the Court of Directors, by a despatch of the 2nd
August, 1853, should interfere to preserve the allow-
ance of £18. per cent. for the term of settlement, where
no reduction was provided for.
"I could quote many more instances," says the writer of the
"Minute on Talookdaree cases," "opposed to particular laws, and
* Minute on Talookdaree Cases, by H. S. Boulderson, p. 19.
+ Return on the Revenue Survey (India), 1853, p. 290.
↑ Ibid. p. 292.
233
1
more especially to the whole body of the law prescribed for the
guidance of the revenue authorities,
which is
throughout neglected, passed over in total silence, or shuffled over on
all sorts or on no pretext, and every illegal interference and assump-
tion of jurisdiction has been made without a check from the Board
or the Commissioner, who has indeed been told by the Board not to
interfere.
I have in vain endeavoured hitherto to rouse
the attention of my colleague and Government to this virtual aboli-
tion of all law.
The respect of the native public
I know to have been shaken to an inexpressible degree; they can
see facts, and are not blinded by the fallacious reasonings and mis-
representation with which the Board have clothed these subjects;
and they wonder with amazement at the motives which can prompt
the British Government to allow their own laws-all laws which give
security to property-to be thus belied and set aside. All confidence
in property or its rights is shaken, and the villainy which has been
taught the people they will execute, and reward the Government
tenfold into their own bosom."
Such was the ruthless systematising, the contempt
for all fact and law when they interfered with the
application of a favourite nostrum, which turned the
precious boon of Lord William Bentinck to the North-
Western Provinces of India, the village settlement, into
a curse to whole classes, to whole districts. Not with-
out reason, surely, does the author of the pamphlet say,
in reference to our long indomitable enemies of the
present day:
“The talookdars of Oude have been lately often mentioned as dis-
affected. Whether they experienced or only anticipated the same
dealings from our Government as the talook dars of the North-West
Provinces of India received, they must have had a strong motive to
dread our rule. The 'confiscation' which has been proclaimed
against them—whether it really means confiscation or something else
--could not be more effectually destructive to whatever rights they
possessed than the disgraceful injustice by which the talookdars of
the North-West Provinces were extinguished."
234
In connexion with this subject I may at once men-
tion another, as to which I have not sufficient data to
do more than simply indicate it. The right of primo
geniture is one of those which, however unjust we may
consider them in theory, may yet be most valuable to
races placed in the exceptional position of being subject
to foreign conquerors, who take no root in the soil, but
only come to enrich themselves and depart. If once
the worth of a native gentry to India under British
rule is recognized, the most ardent partisan of equality
may well admit, without compromising his principles,
that the right of primogeniture is involved in the main-
tenance of that native gentry. And he will have the
less difficulty in admitting its relative benefits, as the
right is among the Hindoos confined apparently within
very narrow limits.
Cl
Among Hindoos," writes Colonel Sleeman in his "Rambles,"
"both real and personal property is divided. . . . equally among
the sons, but a principality is among them considered as an exception
to this rule; and every large estate, within which the proprietor
holds criminal jurisdiction, and maintains a military establishment,
is considered a principality. In such estates the law of primogeni-
ture is always rigidly enforced, and the death of the prince scarcely
ever involves a contest for power and dominion among
his sons.
In a great part of India the property or the lease of a village held
in farm under Government was considered as a principality, and sub-
ject strictly to the same laws of primogeniture. In every part
of the Saugur and Nerbudda territories, the law of primogeniture in
such leases was in force when we took possession, and has been ever
since preserved. The eldest of the sons that remain united with the
father, at his death succeeds to the estate, and to the obligation of
maintaining all the widows and orphan children of those of his bro-
thers who remained united to the parent stock up to their death, all
his unmarried sisters, and, above all, his mother. All his younger
brothers aid him in the management, and are maintained by him till
235
they wish to separate, when a division of the stock takes place, and
is adjusted by the elders of the village. The member who thus sepa
rates from the parent stock, from that time forfeits for ever all claims
to support from the possessor of the ancestral estate, either for him-
self, his widow, or his orphan children.”*
Now the invariable endeavour of the British Go-
vernment has been to subject these large estates or
talooks to the ordinary laws of inheritance, so as to
subdivide them, and break down the great native fami-
lies. It will be seen, from the passage which I shall pre-
sently quote, that Mr. Robertson, the Lieut.-Governor
of the North-western Provinces, reckoned "the parcel-
ling of talooks" as one member of a threefold agency
under which “every trace of superior existing rank will
disappear." And Sir Wm. Sleeman, it seems, had him-
self to resign the charge of the very territories above re-
ferred to (the Saugur and Nerbudda) on this account.
"Had the Lieut.-Governor known more of the Saugur
territories," he wrote to Sir Herbert Maddock (20th
March, 1848), "when he wrote the paper on which
Government is now acting, he would not, I think, have
urged the introduction of the system which must end
in minutely subdividing all leases." And what do we
see now? that these territories, of which Sir Wm.
Sleeman declared that "there is no part of India where
our Government and character are so much beloved
and respected," have been one of the chief seats of re-
bellion during the last twelvemonth. I have no per-
sonal information which would warrant me in asserting
that the rebellion in this quarter arose from our tam-
Rambles and Recollections, vol. i. pp. 460-62.
† Journey through the Kingdom of Oude, vol. i. p. xxix.
2009
236
pering with the rights of property there, but the juxta-
position of the two facts is at least striking.
For the larger Indian landholder then, at least, even
the vaunted revenue settlement of the North-West, the
only one perhaps of all our fiscal measures which took
its origin in an honest effort to adapt our system to the
laws and customs of the natives, the facts and necessities
of their daily life, was a sentence of ruin. When it is con-
sidered that the ryotwar settlement of Madras, profes-
sedly conceived from the point of view of benefit to the
mere cultivator, had been carried out with far less regard
even to the rights of other parties, it may easily be judged
how far a similar class of men in native states to the
talookdars of our North-West provinces must have
looked with favour upon British annexation. I have
already given reasons why their interests and those of
the cultivators themselves should be less opposed in
practice than they might seem at first sight. I shall
have to revert to this subject.
LETTER XVIII.
THE EFFECT OF THE SALE LAWS.
"EVERY trace of superior existing rank will, I ap-
prehend, disappear under the threefold agency of the
parcelling of talooks, the resumption laws, and that late
act regarding sales by which the Government has
placed a restriction on the exercise of its own preroga-
tive of mercy.*
* Return on the Revenue Survey, India, 1853, p. 125. I have been
unable, on a cursory survey, to recognize the exact provision to which
237
So wrote Mr. Robertson on the 15th of April, 1842.
Let us examine this time the effects of the sale laws,
to which he refers.
Mr. Martin Gubbins, who believes that our rule is
popular in Oude, may surely be trusted when he bears
witness to its defects. The following is a striking pas-
sage from his work:-
"Our revenue system had in native estimation many faults. These
chiefly consisted in the severity and lasting nature of the punishment
with which we visited default. The landed property of a defaulter
was liable to sale by public auction; and when thus sold, he lost for
ever what had perhaps been the inheritance of many generations. A
milder process was that of 'transfer,' by which a landholder lost
pos-
session of his estate, for periods varying from ten to fifteen years.
Both of these processes were disliked; but the former is viewed by
the land proprietors of Upper India, with a hatred and disgust almost
equal to that which they feel towards our Civil Law Courts. The
former penalty I have never enforced in my capacity as a revenue
officer. And I hold it in almost equal detestation as the native land-
Mr. Robertson refers, of the numerous acts relating to sales, among
which may be enumerated Regulation I. of 1835, XII. of 1841, I. of
1845, and IV. of 1846. The second, latest at the date when Mr.
Robertson wrote, is probably the one in question. But the " Acts
of the Supreme Government of India" do indeed contain matter to
startle a European reader. By sections 31 and 32 of Regulation I.
of 1845, the default to make good a bid at a public sale by pay-
ment of deposit is made a contempt of Court, punishable by
fine not exceeding 200 rupees (£20), or in default of payment,
by imprisonment in the civil jail for not more than one month. I
suppose that of all legislators that ever were, or ever will be, the
Anglo-Indian is the only one that could ever dream of encouraging
the sale of property by punishing with fine or imprisonment the dire
offence of not holding to a bid, under the ludicrous misnomer of a
contempt of Court.
238
holder himself. That of transfer ought very rarely, indeed scarcely
ever, to be used.'
"*
A witness before the Colonization Committee of last
Session, Mr. J. O. Brien Saunders, who has resided as
an indigo planter in Allygurh, near Agra, for twenty-
five years, gives some instructive evidence as to the re-
sults both of Mr. Bird's settlement, and of the sale-
laws. The outward effect of the measures he states to
be most favourable. "The towns in the North-western
provinces are increased, and trade is improved;"
traders finding an investment of money in land have
advanced it on mortgage, have taken possession, and
the country appears to be " very much improved ;"
66
a very large proportion of the lands have been sold to
capitalists, merchants, and others; the land has passed
from the people who have held it for hundreds of years
before." But nevertheless, he looks upon the measures
taken as a mistake. He was always of opinion, and
he expressed it to Mr. Bird himself, "that the breaking
down of the talookdars was certain to end in an exces-
sive dissatisfaction and disloyalty amongst the natives;"
and that the result of it would also certainly be that
the small holders recognized by Government-the vil-
lage communities-" would all be driven out, that they
could not hold their lands under the terms, and that
they would be all sold up for debts." And he shews
the process by which this has come to pass.
The principle of the settlement was that the manage-
ment of the land was withdrawn from the talookdar,—
whose position Mr. Saunders assimilates to that of one
*The Mutinies in Oudh, p. 439.
239
holding under a farming lease, that the rent roll
was divided into three parts, of which 663 per cent.
was for the Government, 18 per cent. for the talookdar
by way of compensation, and 15 per cent. for the
recognized proprietor for profit and expenses. The
talookdars remained, without influence or interest
in the management of the land, with nothing to do
"except to idle and squander their money," to
"indulge in debauchery and opium-eating." On the
other hand, "as small holdings are much less able to
meet the risks of seasons than a large estate would be,”
the newly recognized proprietor had "still less than the
talookdar formerly to meet his risks." He had no
capital like the talookdar to balance losses; and more-
over as he "had never had the management of money,"
had never "conducted revenue arrangements, and paid
money direct to the Government," when he was in-
trusted with money, he was (6 very apt to squander it."
Thus he ran into debt; he was sold up, or mortgaged
the property, and it became transferred in one form or
other. The consequence has been, that the village pro-
prietors, for whose especial behoof the settlement, we
are told, was devised, have "fallen into the hands of
the hard-dealing money-lender," and "have fallen into
the position of cultivators of the land of which they
were formerly the proprietors." Hence, though the
effect of the new policy "apparently was very benefi-
cial," yet "the dissatisfaction and dislike towards our
Government amongst the larger number of people, such
as the cultivators and landowners, and people of influence
in the country, was extreme at the same time;" and
240
{
[C
we know the results from the late rebellion, namely,
that the whole of these money-lenders, traders, and
people who came into possession under mortgages and
sales have been ousted, and more than one of them mur-
dered." Nor has the witness any doubt that "the
knowledge of what has been done in our territories" has
made the people of Oude "distrust us very much" on
the subject of the revenue settlement.
Let it be clearly understood that in this examination
we have got by this time a step further down in the
social state than the talookdars. Let the talookdars
be ever such usurpers and oppressors; it is not they
whom Mr. Saunders speaks of as dispossessed and ruined
under our system. The "old proprietors" whom he
speaks of are "the Hindoo proprietors,-Hindoo fami-
lies;" recognized in the country as men of ancient de-
scent; "Rajpoots and Brahmins ;" "highly respected
and always looked up to" by the people.
*
In corroboration of this testimony, let me give that
supplied by a civilian, Mr. Edwards, in his recently
published" Personal Adventures during the Indian
Rebellion." Mr. Edwards tells us how, at the outset
of the rebellion, he could have found a shelter for him-
self with native friends in the district of Budaon, of
which he was magistrate and collector, but could obtain
none for the European indigo planters and others who
had taken refuge with him, "more especially as some
of the party were at feud with some of the people of the
district, in consequence of having purchased estates sold
* See "Fourth Report" on " Colonization and Settlement (India),”
pp. 201-225.
241
under harsh circumstances by the decrees under our civil
courts.
"To the large number of these sales during the past twelve or
fifteen years," he proceeds, "and the operation of our revenue
system, which has had the result of destroying the gentry of the
country, and breaking up the village communities, I attribute solely
the disorganisation of this and the neighbouring districts in these
provinces. By fraud or chicanery, a vast number of the estates of
families of rank and influence have been alienated, either wholly or
in part, and have been purchased by new men-chiefly traders or
Government officials, without character or influence over their
tenantry. These men, in a vast majority of instances, were also
absentees, fearing or disliking to reside on their purchases, where they
were looked upon as interlopers and unwelcome intruders. The
ancient proprietary of these alienated estates were again living as
tenantry on the estates once theirs-by no means reconciled to their
change of position, but maintaining their hereditary hold as strong
as ever over the sympathies and affections of the agricultural body,
who were ready and willing to join their feudal superiors in any
attempt to recover their lost position, and regain possession of their
estates. The ancient landed proprietary body of the Budaon district
were thus still in existence, but in the position of tenants, not pro-
prietors. None of the men who had succeeded them as landowners
were possessed of sufficient influence and power to give me apy aid
in maintaining the public tranquillity. On the contrary, the very
first people who came to me imploring aid were this new proprietary
body, to whom I had a right to look for vigorous and effectual efforts
for the maintenance of order. On the other hand, those who really
could control the vast masses of the rural population, were inter-
ested in bringing about a state of disturbance and general anarchy."
Observe again here that Mr. Edwards speaks of our
revenue system-i.e., that of the North-West pro-
vinces-as having had the effect not only of "destroy-
ing the gentry of the country," which, as we have
seen, was almost the avowed object of its introducer,
Mr. R. M. Bird, but of breaking up the village com-
R
242
munities,"--which it was its express object to preservè.
And recollect that this was predicted in 1842 by the
foresight of Mr. Robertson. So different is logic from
fact, when applied to the complicated processes of
human society, that the interests of the individual land-
owner and the village community, seemingly irrecon-
cileably opposed to each other, have by time become
inter-dependent, have worked themselves into so firm a
knot that they cannot be loosened from each other
without tearing up the whole framework of society,
breaking the thread upon which all order hangs. But
to proceed :-
C
"For more than a year previous to the outbreak I had been
publicly representing to superior authority the great abuse of the
power of the civil courts, and the reckless manner in which they
decreed the sale of rights and interests connected with the soil in
satisfaction of petty debts, and the dangerous dislocation of society
which was in consequence being produced; I then pointed out that
although the old families were being displaced fast, we could
not destroy the memory of the past, or dissolve the connection
between them and their people; and I said distinctly, that in the
event of an insurrection occurring we should find this great and in-
fluential body, through whom we can alone hope to control and keep
under the millions forming the rural classes, ranged against us on the
side of the enemy, with their hereditary retainers and followers rally-
ing round them in spite of our attempts to separate their interests.
My warnings were unheeded, and I was treated as an alarmist, who,
having hitherto only served in the political department of the State,
and being totally inexperienced in revenue matters, could give no
sound opinion on the subject.
In Budaon the mass of the population rose in a body, and the
entire district became a scene of anarchy and confusion. The ancient
proprietary body took the opportunity of murdering or expelling the
auction purchasers, and resumed possession of their hereditary estates.
The danger now is, that this vast mass of our subjects, who are
243
109
numbered by tens of thousands, and who are the real thews and
sinews of the country, will never consent to the restoration of a Go-
vernment to power which they consider treated them with harshness;
whose system tended to depress and dispossess them; and whose
past measures, after the return of tranquillity, they consider must be
to put back the auction purchasers and evict them. I feel convinced
that no amount of force will restore us to power, unless at the same
time some measures be taken for undoing the evils of the past, and
coming to some compromise by which the old families may be re-
instated, and their sympathies and interests enlisted on our behalf,
while those of the auction purchasers are also duly cared for. I am
fully satisfied that the rural classes would never have joined in re-
belling with the Sepoys, whom they hated, had not these causes of
discontent already existed. They evinced no sympathy whatever
about the cartridges, or flour said to be made of human bones, and
could not have been acted upon by any cry of their religion being in
danger. It is questions involving their rights in the soil and heredi-
tary holdings, invariably termed by them as jan se azeez-dearer
than life—which excite them to a dangerous degree.”*
Now, although the experience of Mr. Edwards may
be local, we should be warranted, I believe, in widely
generalising his conclusions. He is a witness for
Rohilcund; Mr. Saunders for the Doab further
south. The sale laws of which he speaks extend to
the whole of India; the laws regulating the civil pro-
cedure are the same. Wherever, therefore, there are
interests in land worth selling by decree of a Civil
Court, there the same heart-burnings, the same discon-
tents, the same dislocation of society must prevail.
Observe moreover, that in consequence of our sale-
laws being thus entirely out of harmony with the feel-
ings of the people, they do not succeed in giving
security to the rights of the purchaser, whilst breaking
up those of the hereditary landowner. This insecurity,
* Personal Narrative, pp. 12-17.
R 2
244
as Mr. Edwards's narrative shews, is not only patent in
time of rebellion. It is an abiding one. He speaks,
as will have been seen, of the new purchasers as gene-
rally "absentees, fearing or disliking to reside on their
purchases." Nor is the siding of the peasantry with
the dispossessed landholder merely the result of clan-
nish feeling. With singular infelicity, the law has
actually bound up their interests together. For the
sale of land by decree is held to annihilate, with certain
exceptions, all derivative interests; and a draft-law to
secure sub-holders not in default in their holdings, not-
withstanding sale, brought forward eighteen months
ago, I believe, in the Legislative Council of Calcutta,
by Mr. J. P. Grant, was defeated on account of some
objectionable clauses by the indigo-planters, and has
not, so far as I am aware, been yet passed. The
planters' evidence before the Colonization Committee of
the last session recurs frequently to this point. Mr.
Freeman, for instance, reckons it the greatest griev-
ance in the sale law as respects Bengal. Bond fide
leases for terms of years, or even perpetual, which may
have been acquired or worked under at considerable
expense, are cancelled by the Government sale; so
that if the zemindar of the estate, of which the lease
covers a portion only, thinks proper to keep back,
wilfully or otherwise," a trifle of the Government
revenue of the estate, the whole is sold, and the lessee's
money is lost in toto.*
* See "First Report" on " Colonization and Settlement (India),"
p. 110 and passim; See also Mr. Theobald's evidence, ibid. p. 61 and
passim; Mr. MacNair's evidence, Second Report, p. 3 and passim ;
Mr. Dalrymple's evidence, ibid. p. 69 and foll.
245
In theory, perhaps the European witnesses before
the Committee may seem to make too much of this
point. It is well known that under our own law,
where there is a lease with underleases, every under-
lease is liable to be made worthless by some forfeiture
on the part of the superior lessee, giving the ground
landlord a right to re-enter upon the whole of the
property comprised originally in the lease, however
since subdivided among the underlessees. But practice,
common sense, common fair dealing, the Court of
Chancery, have reduced the exercise of this right within
the narrowest limits. We never hear of Lord Port-
man, or the Bishop of London, or the Duke of Bedford,
taking advantage of some default in payment of rent,
by one of their lessees of what was originally a field
and is now a street or square, to sell the whole as
vacant property, ignoring or ousting every tenant for
the purpose. If we could realise such a proceeding by
actual home experience, we should be able to enter into
the practical horrors of the Indian sale-laws, as they
have been carried out under British rule. For the
Government has done there for years, does there day
by day, what appears to us so incredible on the part of
a private owner. These sales are not even those of a
ground landlord setting aside a term of years for non-
payment of rent, but those of a Government disposing
(in Bengal at least) of a fee simple for non-payment of
land-tax. Now, odious as a distress and sale for
rent always seems, a distress and sale for rates or
taxes seems always doubly odious. There is not an
atom of personality behind the claim; all is dry and
formal. Any subtlety used to defeat it is looked upon
246
by many rather as a joke; any fraud even seems to so-
licit toleration. Can you wonder that amongst a people
servile and mendacious like the Bengalees for instance,
every such sale is sure to call out all the latent powers
of fraud in the race against the purchaser? Mr. Free-
man tells us that, after purchasing at a sale for
£20,000, and taking possession of a zemindary near
Calcutta, false charges were made against him to such
an extent that he left the place, and put in a manager
at £50. a month.*
And yet, strange to say, though far from favourable
to the natives, he states that the insecurity of the pur-
chaser's title (which in spite of the sale being made
free from incumbrances is often, it would appear, dis-
allowed after two or three years,) is not owing to the
causes above mentioned. "You may say in general,"
he declares, "that where a sale, after having taken
place, is disallowed by the Government authorities (I
should say in nine cases out of ten), it is owing to the
formalities not having been carried out by the revenue
authorities, principally the collector."t
I shall not pursue any further this branch of the
question which these latter words open. What I
would wish all thinking men to reflect upon is the utter
social "dislocation," to use Mr. Edwards's word,
which this evidence from opposing quarters exhibits.
* First Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 108.
+
Ibid. p. 111. In this Report and in the second will be found
details of many other grievances connected with the sale-laws,
which want of space has not allowed me to enter into. The evidence
of Messrs. Theobald, Freeman, Macnair, Wise, Dalrymple and Mac-
kenzie, should be consulted on this head.
247
A clumsy legislation, devised and enforced by aliens,
has put every class interest out of joint. In the North-
West, the talookdars have been robbed and degraded,
the village proprietors dispossessed and ruined, the
money-dealers who have taken their stead placed at
the mercy of a popular insurrection. In the North-
East, under the permanent settlement, the land-owner,
the tenant, the purchaser have got none of them fair
play. The land-owner fears to lay out money lest he
should see his whole estate brought to the hammer
for some default in payment of a monthly instalment
of revenue,—perhaps incurred in famine time for the
maintenance of his tenants,-amounting perhaps to the
merest fraction of the value of his estate, and which
the sacrifice of a mere strip of land would cover. The
tenant fears to lay out money, lest his landlord's pettiest
default should involve his ruin. The capitalist dares
not invest in land, or if he invests, fears to reside on
his purchase, out of dread of one or both of the two
former classes if dispossessed.
LETTER XIX.
M
THE RESUMPTION LAWS AND THE INAM COMMISSION.
LET us now consider another powerful means em-
ployed by the British Government for the destruction
of the native gentry, extending to a class very far
below the talookdars or great land-owners in social
position,—the resumption of rent-free tenures. It
248
P
appears to have been the practice from time immemo-
rial in India for the sovereign to grant portions of the
public land free of tax, or as Anglo-Indians like to call
it, rent, mostly perhaps for religious or charitable pur-
poses-often no doubt from mere caprice. These
estates, known in Bengal as "lakhiraj" lands, in the
Deckan as "inam," or "enam," or by other names,
became valuable in precise proportion to the pressure
of the land revenue. In many cases the original pur-
poses of the grant became obsolete, were overlooked or
deliberately set at nought; religious services were dis-
continued; lands granted for the maintenance of
Brahmins passed into the hands of warriors or mer-
chants. Nor are the people of India indifferent spec-
tators of these diversions from the original purpose. I
am assured that wherever a genuine religious or chari-
table purpose is attached to the grant, the popular
feeling is always strong for its being restored to that
purpose. A relative of mine has told me that while
political agent in a native State, he had an infinite
number of grants made for educational purposes, and
which had been usurped by private persons, restored
to those uses, and that this was done amidst the gene-
ral approval of the people, though the adverse posses-
sion might have lasted for even a couple of centuries.
And as respects rent-free grants made unconditionally,
for purposes of mere caprice, there is no doubt that
under a native sovereign they are looked upon with
great disfavour by the people; so that Colonel Slee-
man quotes somewhere the saying, that there is "no
blessing" upon rent-free lands,
LA
K
249
Had, therefore, the inquiry into the rent-free hold-
ings had for its primary object the restoring of all such
holdings to their original purposes, where practicable,
or to such purposes as the moral sense of the commu-
nity would have approved of, I believe the proceedings
of Government would have commanded the sympathy
of the natives of India, instead of arousing their dis-
content. I believe they had in these rent-free lands
the grandest fund conceivable for education, charity,
for every purpose of public benefit.
Where such pur-
poses have been found subsisting, they have no doubt
been respected as far as possible. But otherwise the
question has been lowered to one of revenue,--Has the
holder of such and such lands the right to hold them
free of land revenue, or can we the Government claim
it from him?
This was already a somewhat invidious position for
the Government to take up. Still, accepting this lower
view of the subject, I go indeed entirely along with the
Indian Government as to the general principles by which
their proceedings, in reference to rent-free lands, have
been defended. I quite agree with them in thinking,
that where the bulk of the taxation of a country is raised
from the land, it is a prima facie grievance to the rest
of the community that a portion of the land should be
wholly exempt from the burthen of the land revenue.
I quite agree with them in thinking that in such cases
the burden of proof lies prima facie with the man who
claims the exemption. I am perfectly aware that in a
vast number of cases possession had been fraudulently
obtained, sometimes under merely colourable titles,
sometimes without any title at all. But on the other
250
hand, I cannot believe but that there are other means
of making these rent-free holders contribute to the
public burthens, besides that of reducing them to the
condition of ordinary cultivators. I cannot but admit
the force of the argument, that their case is precisely
the same as that of holders of land free of tithe or
land-tax in this country, except so far that the absent
burthen is in India the primary one on the land, instead
of being only a secondary one, as tithe and land-tax
are with us. And so long as India is governed for the
benefit of this country, or rather of a small number of
persons belonging to this country, and not for her own
benefit, so long as the bulk of her revenues is not
applied to her own purposes, so long, I think, must
any such exemption be looked upon with extreme in-
dulgence, as preserving a given number of estates from
the exigencies of an ill-applied fiscal system. And at
any rate, when the burthen of proof is laid upon the
holders, it should be a reasonable one; a fair period of
prescriptive possession should be allowed, and the right
founded thereon respected.
The "resumption of all hidden rent-free tenures"
formed already in the North-west one of the objects of
the revenue settlement in that part of the country. I
have no detailed evidence at hand as to the working of
this part of the settlement. But it will probably be
sufficient if I quote Mr. Robertson the Lieutenant-
Governor's observations on its performances: --
"The proceedings in the Resumption Department," his honour
observed, "had in these, as in the Lower Provinces, been marked at
the outset by a hard and harsh dealing with individual rights, gra-
dually but reluctantly yielding to the tempering influence of the
orders which from time to time have issued from superior authorities,
251
especially the Honourable Court [of Directors]. The settlement
officer swept up without inquiry every patch of unregistered rent-
free land, even those under ten beegahs (rather over three acres), ex-
empted by a subsequent order, and which did not come out before
five-sixths of the tenures had been resumed. In one district, that of
Furruckabad, the obligations of a treaty and the direct orders of
Government were but lightly dealt with, and in all a total disregard
was evinced for the acts even of such men as Warren Hastings and
Lord Lake."
Fully aware of the tendency of such proceedings,
the Lieutenant-Governor further observes, that it is "a
fearful experiment" to try to govern without the aid
of any immediate agency of native growth. In a short
time, he says (in words partly quoted already):-
"All may stand on a new basis; the village watchman and the
village accountant may be persons in the direct service of Govern-
ment
while every trace of superior existing rank will dis-
appear under the three-fold agency of the parcelling of talooks, the
resumption laws, and that late act regarding sales, by which the Go-
vernment has placed a restriction on the exercise of its own preroga-
tive of mercy.'
""
I cannot but once more recommend these remark-
able words to those who may still see in the revenue
settlement of the North-west, as carried out in con-
tempt of the rights of the talookdars, a practically
democratic measure. Mr. Robertson, it is clear, saw in
it precisely the reverse. He saw in it the destruction
of the self-government of the village communities,-
the spreading of the yoke of officialism throughout the
land.
But let us see the resumption laws at work in
another field. In the North-west, the actual making
* Return on the "Revenue Survey (India)," 1853, p. 125.
252
of a revenue settlement afforded an admirable opportu-
nity for breaking down the native gentry wholesale;
the resumption of rent-free holdings formed but a detail
in that operation. In Bengal, where the permanent
settlement of Lord Cornwallis still subsists, such re-
sumption rose to more substantive importance; and it
is by its means that the greatest inroads have been
made upon that settlement. The operation of the re-
sumption laws, passed in 1828,* we are told by an
English witness before the Colonization of India Com-
mittee of the session just expired-(Mr. J. P. Wise)---
commenced in Bengal about 1836. A previous law
of 1793, by which the Government could resume only
on proof of its right to resume, was set aside, and
persons who had been 60 or 70 years in possession
were suddenly called upon to prove their titles before
certain special commissioners. Although these laws
have now ceased to operate, their effect still exists.
People remember them as a blight passing over the
country; money was extorted from them in every pos-
sible way; the poor natives clung to their ground, and
they lost it, and very often lost their money in trying
to bribe the officials from their duty. "In the Chitta-
gong district," Mr. Wise says elsewhere, "it was a
S
* Bengal Regulation III. of 1828; "for the Appointment of Special
Commissioners for the more speedy hearing and determination of
Appeals from the decisions of the Revenue authorities in regard to
lands and rents, occupied or collected by individuals without payment
of the revenue demandable by Government under the general law of
the country, and for otherwise more effectually securing the payment
of the public dues" (modified by Regulation IV. of 1829) is probably
the one referred to.
253
wholesale sweeping away of the rights of the whole
population, nearly causing an insurrection."*
In vain did upwards of 20,000 landholders petition
against the harshness and injustice of the law. In de-
fiance of a Regulation of 1805, which barred the claims
of the state, after sixty years' possession, "to the as-
sessment of land held exempt from the public revenue
without legal and sufficient title," a prior Regulation
which allowed no length of time to be a bar was en-
forced, although expressly rescinded in 1819; and
enforced so pertinaciously that the rent-free holders
actually ceased to quote the Regulation of 1805 in their
defence, until, in a celebrated case of the Raja of Burd-
wan,―a Hindoo nobleman who was rich enough to carry
his claim before our English Privy Council,--English
justice at last prevailed over the repeated, deliberate,
persevering contempt of their own law by the Supreme
Government of India, the Board of Revenue, and other
inferior authorities, and a period of prescription beyond
which the title to rent-free lands should not be ques-
tioned was, in 1851, for the first time judicially esta-
blished. But what became of the dispossessed owners
whose case was similar to that of the Raja of Burd-
wan? Did the Government take any steps to repair
its own misconstruction of its own laws,-to use the
mildest term? Quite the contrary. It began by pass-
ing Regulations (1852) to hinder applications to the
Resumption Commissioners for reviews of judgment.
* Second Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), 1858, p.
44 and foll.,-and p. 60.
† See Maharaja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Bahadoor v.
the Bengal Government, 4 Moore's Indian Appeal Cases, p. 466.
254
And when the British Indian Association of Calcutta
petitioned that a list should be drawn up from the re-
cords of the resumption courts of the cases which had
been decided in those courts since 1828, in favour of
Government, notwithstanding direct or presumptive
proof of sixty years' adverse possession, with a view to
restitution, what was the answer of the Supreme Go-
vernment? That they were unable to comply with the
request "with any regard to a faithful administration
of the national income."* In other words, that they
could not afford to be honest; that the estates which
they had got within their clutch, as it turned out, by
illegal means, they would only give up to sheer force,
according as the parties entitled were able to apply its
pressure through the courts of law. Thus, as Mr.
McNair, an English landholder, stated in May last
before the Colonization Committee, all the rest of the
poor natives, who could not like the Raja of Burdwan
afford an appeal, "are still taxed for those lands;'
knowing all the while, that if they could appeal to
England, they would be released from the tax. Is
this the way of securing a people's confidence in its
Government?
The resumption laws have indeed ceased to be en-
forced in Bengal. The presence of many English
landholders, united in the same interest with the natives
-the position attained by many of the native land-
holders under Lord Cornwallis's settlement-have no
* See the "Petition of the British Indian Association" (of Ben-
gal) "on resumptions made contrary to the rules of limitation, 1854,
and the "Second Report of the British Indian Association," 1854.
+ Second Report on Colonization and Settlement, (India,) p. 9.
255
doubt brought about this result. For it is certain that
the evils of the resumption measures were less in Ben-
gal than in any other part of India. Yet if those evils
were nevertheless so great in Bengal that the system
could not be persevered in, what must they be in other
parts of India where there is no permanent settlement,
where there are no sturdy English indigo planters to
give tongue?
We have seen that the operation of the resumption
laws in Bengal was compared to "a blight passing
over the country." That blight is still passing over
the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. Under the
title of the "Inam" Commission, it forms one of the
main grievances of the former.
There appears to be no doubt that when we took pos-
session of the South Mahratta country in 1817-18, a
large portion of the then existing grants ("Inams" or
"Enams") of rent-free lands had been either made
without authority or obtained or simulated by fraud.
That an inquiry into these titles would be necessary,
was intimated in 1819 by Mr. Elphinstone, then Commis-
sioner in the conquered provinces. A valuable means
for carrying it on existed in the revenue records left by
the Peshwa's government, extending over a period of
eighty years. Government took charge of these, but
fulfilled the charge in such a manner that, as admitted
by a Bombay civilian, Mr. Goldsmid, in 1845, "por-
tions of," and "entire documents" disappeared, "no
means were taken to secure the identification of the
papers,
"* &c., and in fact they were for years, to use
* See "Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government,"
No. xxx. New Series, (1856), p. 43.
250
the words of another civilian, Mr. Hart, in 1848, "vir-
tually inaccessible, and almost unknown."* In the
meanwhile, though desultory inquiries into rent-free
holdings had been carried on by a few collectors here
and there, a title by adverse possession against the Go-
vernment had been established in numberless instances,
when at last, in 1843, an "Inam Commission," con-
sisting of one European and one native officer, was
appointed to investigate the titles to rent-free holdings
in the South Mahratta districts. The native Commis-
sioner soon disappeared; and the carrying out of the
purposes of the commission was entrusted, as a Bom-
bay civilian, Mr. J. Warden, stated lately before the
Colonization of India Committee, "not to any judicial
officer whatever," but to "young gentlemen of the
civil service, and captains and subalterns," so that, “at
this moment, the head of the Inam Commission is a
captain of native infantry." This Commission carried
on its proceedings for nine years (1843-1852) "even
without the sanction of an act of the Indian legislature;"
and was in fact so illegal, that in 1848, the law officer
of Government at Bombay recommended that Go-
vernment should keep it "out of sight." By a
Regulation, which one is surprised to find ema-
nating from such a man as Mr. Elphinstone, the
former subjects of the Peshwa had been deprived of
the right to sue the Government in the courts of jus-
tice. And now, in 1852, thirty-five years after the
occupation of the country, Lord Dalhousie's nefarious
-
* Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No.
xxx. p. 58.
Third Report on Colonization and Settlement, (India,) p. 73
and foll. See also Fourth Report, p. 30 and foll.
257
Calcutta Council passed an act which, "instead of sim-
ply extending to the Deckan the laws in force else-
where," re-enacted the provisions of a law rescinded on
account of its inconvenience, by which 60 years of
enjoyment were required to constitute a title by pre-
scription, instead of 30 years, as previously allowed,
and such 60 years were to reckon before the intro-
duction of the British Government, consequently 95
years before the date of the act; whilst "females
were altogether deprived" of the right to inherit,
the burden of proof being moreover "thrown upon
the holder."*
Now I have compared these rent-free tenures to
tithe-free land in this country, or land on which the
land-tax has been redeemed. I believe English land-
owners would stare, and more than stare, if they found
a captain in the line appointed to investigate their titles
to such land, without any appeal to a court of justice,
but only to some revenue authority, and in the last in-
* The amount of badgering which Mr. Warden underwent, in his
second examination before the Colonization Committee (Fourth Re-
port, pp. 29-46), at the hands of the Director Members of the Com-
mittee, Messrs. Mangles and Willoughby, for this simple assertion,
is almost incredible. The process is, that the holder is called upon to
prove his title; he rests it in the first instance on possession, and
appeals to the district officer's accounts,-i.e. to evidence in the
Government's own hands-to shew that he, or those he claims from,
have held free of rent for the required space of time. If there is no
evidence to the contrary, his title is confirmed. Of course this is an
onus probandi laid upon him; his only privilege being that his pos-
sessory title is to be deemed primâ facie sufficient, without proving
the origin of it. Messrs. Mangles and Willoughby are both now
members of the Council for India.
S
258
stance to one or other of the Ministers; and if they
were required, one and all, to shew 95 years' title
previous to 1852, or now 103 years. But this com-
parison would only hold good in Bengal, where, un-
der the zemindarie system, property in land actually
exists. It is not so, really, in Bombay. Mr. War-
den distinctly states that, with the exception of the
inam lands, and in spite of all the boasted revenue
improvements of which we have heard so much, the
land in Bombay has no saleable value for an Eng-
lish or for a native capitalist; that he "never
heard" of its being sold as "an article of commerce, on
which capital can advantageously be laid out."* So
that the case is simply as if two-thirds, say, of all Eng-
land being rack-rented by Government, the infantry
captains before referred to were appointed to decide all
questions of title in the remaining one-third, consisting
of fee-simple estates.
Are you surprised that, in a rack-rented country,
thousands of these rent-free titles should have been
fabricated? Are you surprised that, with such mea-
sures taken against their holders, every means should
have been resorted to which the weak can invent to
defend themselves against the strong-abstraction and
concealment of documents, fraud, forgery, perjury?†
GRAD
* Third Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), pp. 86-87.
† See, for instance, the "Selections from the Records of the Bom-
bay Government, No. xxix. New Series; correspondence regarding
the concealment by the hereditary officers and others of the Revenue
Records of the former Government." (1856.) But who could be sur-
prised at the attempt to withhold title-deeds from a Government
which, by the confession of its own officers, had been so careless of
259
Those who are engaged, like myself, in the handling
of our real property law, know how rare it is, after
our long years of internal peace, to find a legally
flawless title for 60 years, and yet how rare is a really
bad title. What would it be, if 100 years were
required? What would it be, if our country had been,
within that hundred years, torn by as many wars
and social convulsions as Western India? What
would it be, if the question at issue were not as between
one private claimant and another, the nature of the
holding remaining unaffected, but the momentous one
between fee-simple and a tenancy-at-will at rack-rent,
and Government the claimant of the rent? What would
it be, if all "nice points" in conveyancing were to be
decided by a captain of infantry? I verily believe
that if such a state of things were conceivable in this
country, there would be, ere long, as much fraud and
forgery committed for the purpose of setting up un-
C
them when obtained, that "portions of" and "and entire docu-
ments" had disappeared from its custody? Nor is this all. I have had
before me a copy of petition recently presented to the Bombay Go-
vernment by claimants to an inam, in which they declare that when
they requested the Inam Commissioner and Government to give
them copies of certain documents in the possession of the authorities,
and which were calculated to prove the validity of their claim, or to
allow them to have access to such papers," this request was
<< re-
fused."
It is impossible indeed not to see that the mere concealment of do-
cuments, though mixed with whatever lies as to the possession of them,
is no necessary evidence of fraud, but rather of insecurity and dis-
trust. Fraud would in many cases destroy title-deeds rather than
secrete them.
(l
$ 2
260
founded fee-simple titles, and bolstering up good titles
unbacked by sufficient evidence, as any that the Inam
Commissioners have detected. On the other hand, the
proceedings of these Commissioners, as related to me,
are almost incredible. Parliamentary pledges of re-
spect to native usages have been directly violated by
the powers given to the Commissioners, and freely
used by them, of breaking into any man's house at
night in the search for documents; of entering into the
very zenana, or women's apartment, and carrying away
all the papers they can find, for the authorities to keep
until they have time to investigate them.* And the
efficiency of the Commissioners is said to be estimated
* The following is an extract from a memorial presented to
the Managing Committee of the Bombay Native Association, by the
Inamdars and other inhabitants of Poona and other towns:-
"We believe it was never the intention of Government that the
Inam Commissioner should authorize his people to enter the house of
the ryots forcibly, and occasion destruction of furniture, breaking
open the locks, to seize all documents relating to Inams and vuttuns,
sunnuds, copies of accounts, papers relating. to the Government of
districts by contracts, in fact papers of every sort that may be in the
possession of the officers of villages, and carry them away without
passing a receipt of these papers, or mentioning the amount of Duf-
The taunts and insolence of these people of the Inam
Commission and the oppression and force they have exercised, we
blush to mention. They have even gone so far as to enter the houses
of people in their absence, force open the locks, and carry away the
documents." And they quote instances in support of what they say.
turs..
I have been told that an Inam Commissioner, on being asked
whether allegations of the sort were true, answered, “Of course they
are; do you think we'd give the niggers a chance of cooking their
papers if they expect us to overhaul them?"
201
in the exact proportion of the revenue they bring in by
resumptions.
But the magnitude of the evil is not even measured
by its nature. To the year 1856, 108,199 claims to
Inams had been recorded-of these only 6,002 had
been decided on, and more than 100,000 remained to
be so. That is to say, that in thirteen years (1843-
1856), these claims had been decided on at the rate of
461 a year; at which rate, any national schoolboy
may calculate that it will take more than two hundred
years to go through the remainder. But in the mean-
while, the value of all such land is practically annihi-
lated; so that, as Mr. Warden says, whilst forty
years ago a man might have gone to the Bombay
Presidency, and, by purchasing an inam village, have
purchased an even better title to land than an English
fee-simple, and thus obtained good security for laying
out his capital, at present "nobody would take inam
land unless these special courts for adjudicating titles to
inams were abolished."
We must however distinguish two different branches
in the proceedings of the Inam Commission. The in-
quiry, whether lands claimed to be held rent-free are
really entitled to such exemption, forms the one. The
other, and no doubt the more galling of the two to the
native population, relates to the determination of the
rights of the rent-free holder, recognized as such. I
have said that as between the claimant of a rent-free
holding and the Government, the question is that be-
* At any rate, an Inam Commissioner is understood to have consi-
dered himself entitled to promotion for having, in a short time, re-
sumed lands to the amount of £80,000 a year.
262
W
tween a fee-simple and a tenancy at will at rack-rent.
But between the recognized holder and Government
there is a further question, scarcely less momentous.
He claims a bona fide fee-simple. "Language is ex-
hausted," says Mr. Warden, in the title-deeds of the
grantee or inamdar, "in its attempt to carry to him
the proprietary right in the soil ;" and "when a native
of India wishes to convey to you that he has a proprie-
tary right in anything, he says, 'this is
my inam.'
Yet in spite of this, under the British Government, the
holder of an inam is now precluded from aliening it
from his family, and it is seized as an escheat if he does;
or in other words, Government cuts down his fee-simple
to an inalienable estate in tail male, with reversion to
itself.
"""
The process by which this revolution in landed pro-
perty is being carried out, deserves to be considered in
a separate letter.
LETTER XX.
THE INAM COMMISSION, AND THE GOVERNMENT
PRACTICE AS TO ADOPTIONS AND ALIENATIONS.
MR. ELPHINSTONE-who weighs out his words like
gold-whose most hesitating beliefs are worth more than
most men's confident assertions-speaks thus unequivo-
cally of Hindoo crown alienations of lands held free of
service.
263
"Other alienations are, to temples or religious persons, or to meri-
torious servants and to favourites. Though very numerous, they are
generally of small extent: often single villages; sometimes only
partial assignments on the Government share of a village; but in
some cases also, especially religious grants, they form very large
estates. Religious grants are always in perpetuity, and are seldom
interfered with. A large portion of the grants to individuals are also
in perpetuity, and are regarded as among the most secure forms of
private property, but the gradual increase of such instances of
liberality, combined with the frequency of forged deeds of gift, some-
times induces the ruler to resume the grants of his predecessors, and
more frequently to burden them with heavy taxes. When these are
laid on transfers oy sale, or even by succession, they are not thought
unjust; but total resumptions, or the permanent levy of a fixed rate
is regarded as oppressive. The reaction must have begun long ago;
for the ancient inscriptions often contain imprecations on any of the
descendants of the grantor who shall resume his gift."*
Even as respects jagheers, or lands held for military
service, he says:-
"Lands held for military service are subject to reliefs in the event
of hereditary succession, and to still heavier fines when the heir is
adoptive."+
Most people, I should think, in this country, not
being interested in the matter, would consider the au-
thority of the historian of India irrefragable on the
question of the character of such titles as those he refers
to. And it is deserving of especial remark, that he
must have had prominently in view, as one of the fields
of such alienations, the Bombay Presidency, and the
South Mahratta country, -the country, namely, which
he had known in its independent condition, while Resi-
dent at the Court of the last Peshwa, and in the an-
* IIistory of India, Book II. ch. ii.
+ Ibid. note Q to Book II. ch. ii,
264
nexation of which he had taken a prominent part,- the
Bombay Presidency generally, which not only includes
the districts in question, but of which he had been
himself the Governor. Now it is precisely the South
Mahratta districts of the Bombay Presidency, as I have
stated, in which the Inam Commission has been at
work. It is, therefore, of the inams or grants free of
service in these districts, that he tells us that all reli-
gious grants, and a large portion of all others, are
in perpetuity; that he implies clearly that they are
capable of transfer by sale, since it is not thought
unjust to tax such transfers; characterizing beforehand
the proceedings of the Inam Commission by saying
that total resumptions of such grants are considered
"oppressive."
The mode in which the security of this sort of pro-
perty has been impaired leads us round again to the
annexation policy in itself, and will shew how com-
pletely the interests of prince and landholder have been
identified by common grievances. For the main lever-
age for the breaking down of native property-in the
Deckan at least- has been the same as that which has
been used for the breaking down of native sovereignties
-the curtailment, namely, of the right of adoption:
First, by turning the formality of notice to the superior
into an essential condition of obtaining that superior's
sanction; secondly, by concluding-law and sense to
the contrary notwithstanding--from the sanction to the
power of resumption as an alternative for it.
It was not so in the days of our great Anglo-Indian
statesmen. When we took possession of the Peshwa's
territories, it was on a purely conservative ground that
B
265
we continued the practice of insisting on the Govern-
ment sanction. Thus a proclamation by the Bombay
Government, issued 12th August, 1820, bade all land-
owners wishing to adopt give notice to the authorities,
and then, "after an inquiry shall have been made into
the rules of the Shasters and the usage applicable to
the case," an order was to be issued.
"Should any
one make an adoption without permission, the Sirkar
[Government] will not recognise it."* So far, there
was nothing in the action of the Government that the
Indian races would not willingly accede to. And
although two years later we find the rein already be-
ginning to be tightened, though as to adoptions by
widows only,† still on the 3rd June, 1825, the Govern-
ment admitted as a general rule in the Deckan, that
"children adopted with such forms and sanctions as
may have been usual should succeed to inam lands, or
whatever may be considered private property," and
this rule was again repeated in a circular dated as late
as 24th October, 1831. By 1836 however the rule
was already disregarded. Then the Inam Commission
was appointed. Increased stringency in the proceed-
ings of the Government is at once observable. The
essential necessity of Government sanction to all adop-
tions is assumed as an axiom by 1848.§ By September
14, 1852, the Bombay Government recorded their
opinion that they had "a right to reserve in all cases
the power of granting or refusing such assent to an
adoption as may confer upon the adopted son a title
-
* Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No.
xxviii, new series (1856), p. 4.
+
Ibid. pp. 5-8.
Ibid. p. 15.
§ Ibid. p. 11.
206
against the state." Still, for the present, they directed
that all applications for adoption by holders of inam
lands, &c., should be assented to, except when there
were special reasons for refusing assent, declaring how-
ever that "the only question in any adoption case for
Government to decide is, whether or not there is any
reason on the part of the Government to admit the lia-
bility of the state to the demand against it of an
adopted son, as though he were born in wedlock."*
When rummaging the records of the Mahratta Go-
vernment, the Commissioners discovered that under
that rule,—which, when we wish to contrast ours with
it, we invariably describe as a pattern of rapacity and
tyranny,-one inam was resumed because the holder
quitted the Peshwa's camp without permission,
another without reason assigned,—a third because the
holder's brother had not paid a Government fine,-a
fourth because the widow of the late holder had adopted
a son; and upon this evidence, as reported by the
military Assistant Commissioner, the Court of Directors
(1855) declared it to be "conclusively" established,
"that under the Government of the Peshwas the con-
sent of the ruling power was invariably required for
the adoption of heirs to all rent-free holdings."+
* Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No.
xxviii, new series (1856), p. 27. In Madras, it would seem
that an order of 1846, which came into operation on the 11th
February, 1847, required all adoptions to be notified to the collector
six months previous to the decease of the adopting party,-as harsh
a proceeding as one which would require all wills to be registered six
months before the death of the testator. See Mr. J. B. Norton's
"Topics for Indian Statesmen," p. 174.
+ Ibid. p. 43 and foll.
‡ Ibid. p. 60..
267
See, then, the complete inversion of Government
practice since the first occupation of the country. In
1820, Government required notice of adoption, in order
that a legal inquiry should be made into the laws and
usages applicable to the case. Then, if the adoption
were not sanctioned, the adopted son was to lose his
rights, those of collateral heirs being impliedly con-
firmed. In 1852, the "only question in any adoption
case for Government to decide is, whether or not there
is
any reason on the part of Government to admit the
liability of the State to the demand against it of an
adopted son," the implication being, as the fact un-
doubtedly is, that for want of adoption the land is
treated as escheated to Government.
Take a recent illustration of the practice. I have
already alluded to the chief of Nurgoond, in the
South Mahratta country, lately executed at Belgaum
for the murder of Mr. Manson. The Bombay Gazette
of June 8, 1858, contains a memorial by this chief (re-
produced by the Star) addressed to the Court of
Directors, for permission to adopt an heir. He urged
that for nearly 200 years his family had held the
estates of Nurgoond and Ramdroog by a tenure (called
suwasthan) giving an absolute estate of inheritance,
which descends of right to all lawful heirs. He told
how in 1820 his father entered into a treaty with the
East India Company, by which his right was acknow-
ledged to hold his estate to himself and his heirs for
ever, and the Government authority for the succession
was to be renewed each time without any present being
demanded. He declared that "all former Govern-
ments have given their sanction as a matter of course,
268
except under very unusual circumstances; only keep-
ing up the custom of applying for and granting their
permission as a convenient mode of obtaining nuzzurs
[presents], they never in the most disorderly times or
under the most rapacious Sovereigns or ministers made
use of their power of refusing to sanction adoption, for
the purpose of putting an end to the succession, and so
securing the property for themselves."
He memo-
rialised in vain, Mr. Manson reporting against the
sanction being given. The Brahmin brooded over the
wrong for years. The rebellion seemed to give him an
opportunity for revenge. He rose, and murdered the
European officer. But who first robbed him? Or
can you wonder why his kinsman of Ramdroog, hold-
ing under the same title, was said to be implicated in
his rising?
If it be now remembered that Sattara, Jhansee,
Nagpore were all annexed on the ground of absence of
adoption, or of sanction to an adoption, it will be felt
on what a scale the claim of escheat under such cir-
cumstances has been enforced by the British Govern-
ment.
But it is not only in the case of unsanctioned adop-
tion that estates are confiscated. Unsanctioned aliena-
tion affords the same pretext.
"If," says Mr. Hart, the Inam Commissioner of 1845, "the more
solemn ceremony of adoption, (which vests in the person adopted a
far stronger right to the whole of his adoptive father's property than
he could have obtained to it by any other means), be in the eyes of
Government an insufficient title to an Inam, it follows a fortiori that
the less solemn transaction of sale or gift must be so.
It
can only be concluded that, according to the existing rules, an Inam-
dar's rights to prejudice Government by alienating in gift or sale to
269
a stranger an Inam hereditary to his family, is as little to be recog✩
nized as his right to do so by adoption."*
I confess it is difficult for me, as a lawyer, to deal
patiently with this chop-logic system of confiscation
which our Indian authorities have adopted, most espe-
cially when the logic used is of the character of the
above. For an adoption, as distinguished from a gift
or sale, is, as I have shewn, a disposal of property to
take effect after death, instead of during life, analo
gous therefore to a disposal by will amongst ourselves;
and no possible conclusion can be drawn, from a re-
straint upon disposal after death, to a restraint upon
disposal during life. Amongst ourselves, centuries
elapsed from the time when free alienation during
life prevailed, to the time when free testamentary
disposal was allowed. We are probably the only
nation in Europe where it exists entire; where a
man can will away his whole property from his family.
In France, even in Scotland, children have their legitim
(as it is called north of Tweed), as against the claimants
under a will; yet in France, as in Scotland, a land-
owner in fee may sell out and out without saying "by
your leave," or "with your leave" to any one. And
yet, everywhere, without exception, the disposition to
take effect after death only is surrounded with greater
solemnity than the disposition to take effect during
life. A scrap of paper with a signature is all that the
Court of Chancery with us requires to enforce an im-
mediate trust, even respecting land; it cannot look at
a will until it has been ascertained by a different court
* Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, No.
xxviii. new series (1856), pp. 1 2.
270
that it has been attested by two witnesses in a certain
manner, and under certain conditions. With Mr.
Hart's logic, (embodying in italics my variations from
his language), I will prove in a sentence that every
sale of goods requires probate, under penalty of forfei-
ture to the Crown; for "if the more solemn ceremony
of testamentary disposal, which vests in the executor a
far stronger right to the whole of his testator's person-
alty than he could have obtained to it by any other
means, be in the eyes of the Government, without pro-
bate, an insufficient title to goods, it follows, a fortiori,
that the less solemn transactions of sale or gift must be
When shall an Englishman feel shame
enough for handing over our Indian fellow-subjects to
the fangs of such law and such logic ?*
So."
It may be objected, that Captain Cowper has disin-
terred eighteen instances in which, before our occupa-
tion of the country, the sanction of the Peshwa's
Government was given to gifts or sales of inam lands.
Certainly, he might have adduced 500 such instances.
* Mr. Warden, in his second examination before the Colonization
Committee (4th Report, p. 29 and foll.), seems to have given as his
opinion that under the native Governments inams were not saleable
(pp. 35, 6). Whether correct or not, this statement would in no-
wise affect the character of Captain Cowper's logic. We have how-
ever to the contrary Mr. Elphinstone's statement, and that of the
Commissioner in the Deckan, on the 19th May, 1825, that the
practice of the Peshwa's Government as to inams was that "the
holders could dispose of them by will, in sale, or in any other way
they chose." I quote this from a letter by Mr. Warden himself,
dated 9th December, 1852, to be found in the "Correspondence of
the Inam Commission on the Deckan Surinjams" (Bombay Govern-
ment Selection, No. xxxi, 1856), App. B. p. 7.
271
The court rolls of any manor in England will shew
him thousands in which a copyholder has come into
court, and "prayed" to be admitted tenant on the sur-
render of another, and paid dues and steward's fees for
his admittance. He may find more still; he may find
a so-called “forfeiture" enforced for alienation against
the custom, or even from the so-called forfeiture. But
if, from the "prayer" of the copyholder he were to
conclude, that the English lord of the manor has really
the right to refuse his consent to an alienation, and then
take possession of the land for his own benefit, he
would be drawing a most preposterous conclusion,
since every one knows that nine-tenths of the copyholds
of this country are, or were ere they were extinguished,
as they are now fast becoming, as secure at least in
point of title as freeholds.*
Never forget that this false logic "is being carried
* The following custom would astonish the steward of an English
manor. It is related by a collector, and for aught I know may be still
in force.
"It has of late years been the practice in this collectorate to
attach the lands of Inamdars on the death of the incumbent, how-
ever valid his title may prima facie be, pending the orders of Govern-
ment for their continuance or otherwise. In some cases the pro-
ceeds of such lands have been credited to Government, and in others
kept in deposit. Under the Government circular dated 18th August,
1845, No. 4084, this practice has been discontinued as regards Inam
villages, because the holders, by virtue of their tenure, have claims
to money payments in compensation for liquor farms, but is retained
in the case of Inam fields, as the holders are not entitled to money
payments of any kind from Government. I have not hitherto ven-
tured to interfere with what had become an established practice in
the collectorate before I assumed charge of it, although apparently
not derived from any express order of Government.” Selections
272
1
6
out." In Mr. Warden's evidence before the Coloniza-
tion Committee will be found a letter from Jafur Alee,
of Surat-in which district also an Inam Commission
has been appointed-giving instances of Government
seizures under this plea. Hundreds of such cases, he
says, have taken place at Surat, and the Government
has always taken possession, after the death of the pur-
chaser or mortgagee :-
ANÇADA
"And the people are too poor to go to law against the Company,
in the Company's courts, presided over by the Company's judges.
Their rights are thus lost for ever. The Company is, as I have said,
fast taking possession, under one pretence or other, of lands which
people have, in various ways, from their former governments; and
as it does not give nor sell land to the people, it is clear that very
soon will disappear from India all who once held land, and could call
it their own.
""*
The Inam Commission has quite lately (Sept. 1, 1858)
been extended to the Madras Presidency, yet Mr.
Warden tells us that, on a proposal to extend it "from
the patient and submissive inhabitants of the Deckan
to the more warlike and independent people of Guzerat,
the officer conducting the survey in this province de-
clared his opinion that the measure would produce a
from the Records of the Bombay Government, No. xxx. new series,
p. 104; letter by Mr. J. S. Law, Collector, dated 22nd Oct. 1847.
You hold land free of land-tax. Imagine on your death the land-
tax collector entering into possession of all your fields, "however
valid your title may primâ facie be, pending the order of Govern-
ment," and either crediting the proceeds to Government, or keeping
them in deposit! And imagine his doing this, not only not by
virtue of any law, but without even any express order of Govern-
CC
ment !"
* Third Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), pp. 83-4.
273
rebellion.* And he expressly attributes the existing
disaffection of the South Mahratta country to the Inam
Commission, which has made the people "mentally fra-
ternise with everything that has been going on against
the Government." So a recent traveller in the Deckan,
writing to myself, states that he "found everywhere
the same hatred of our rule, and the same causes
ascribed for that hatred,―our confiscations under the
Inam Commission, and our administration, or rather
mal-administration of justice." I have still more recent
letters from India, referring to the deep-rooted discon-
tent of the South Mahratta country, and attributing it
equally in the main to the Inam Commission. We
have extended similar proceedings even into the
Nizam's ceded districts, of which our possession is pro-
fessedly only temporary. Incredible as it may seem,
I am assured that on our occupying these districts the
rule was laid down, that no tenants were in future to
pay rent to private landowners, till the titles of the
latter should have been approved of by a commission,
to be appointed for the purpose, which was not ap-
pointed for about five years, in spite of urgent yearly
remonstrances, petitions, representations by our own
officials of the distress and starvation of the land-own-
ers. "Our proceedings in the annexed districts,"
writes the distinguished traveller before referred to,
"in which we set to work in our usual reckless way,
ignoring the just rights of natives and dispossessing
them of property long enjoyed, have given rise to a very
strong feeling against us." In Madras the latest news
(as may be seen from a letter of Nov. 27, in the
* Ibid. p. 77.
† Ibid. p. 93.
T
274
"Morning Star" of Dec. 30th) represents the feelings
excited by the introduction of the Inam Commission
as being of the most bitter description. Compared
with the measure for Madras, the Bombay Commission
is termed "an act of justice, of mercy, of grace, of
tenderness unspeakable." The Mahratta country, it
is urged, did not come into our possession until 1818;
but in Madras inamdars have remained in possession
of their tenures for considerably more than half a cen-
tury. And the measure is pointed out as being
66 brought forward in utter contempt of that part of her
Majesty's proclamation which declared her respect
for the attachment with which the natives regard the
land inherited by them from their ancestors."
The uncertainty prevailing in the proceedings of the
Government with respect to inarms is scarcely less com-
plained of than the proceedings themselves. In the
memorial of the Bombay Inamdars, before referred to,
it is alleged that in one instance (the Pinglapoor dis-
trict of the Poona collectorate), a grant actually con-
firmed by a political agent, in pursuance of a rule laid
down by him on the 19th Feb. 1846, as conferring a
perpetual inheritance, descending both to the male and
female lines, and subsequently also confirmed by the
Governor of Bombay in Council, on the 12th Angust,
1849, was cut down by the Inam Commissioner to a
life estate. In the Madras Presidency, on the other
hand, Mr. J. B. Norton relates the instance of two
soobadars of a native regiment who, at the time of the
Vellore mutiny, gave information of it to their com-
manding officer, and received in reward grants of inam
land in two adjoining districts, Trichinopoly and Ma-
275
dura. In the one, the sons have been allowed to in-
herit; in the other, the widow only was allowed to
hold the land as a special favour after her husband's
death; it was then resumed by Government, and the
faithful officer's child turned adrift, to curse perhaps
his father's faithfulness.*
This, it will be observed, is a case not connected
with the direct operation of the Inam Commission.
Mr. Norton quotes another, yet more frightful, that of
an adoption set aside after "twenty-seven years' open
recognition by all parties," although among the claim-
ants by blood one had actually disputed it at first, but
had afterwards admitted it; the adopted son having
been all this time "in open notorious possession and
management" of the property, and having been cut off
by the adoption "from all succession to the estate of
his natural father." And the sole plea, apparently, on
which this was done, was the order of 1846, ordering
adoptions to be notified six months prior to the adopt-
ing party's decease, this order being applied retro-
spectively, the adoption having taken place in 1827!
It is true this statement is taken from the claimant's
petition; but it is printed by Mr. Norton as exhibiting
"a fair average specimen" of the working of the
Government policy. At any rate, it is shameful to
relate that a petition containing such statements should
have remained unanswered.†
And now let us observe that the practice thus in-
troduced, with respect to private property, is not only
identical in principle with that pursued of late years
* Topics for Indian Statesmen, p. 169.
† Ibid. pp. 170-176.
T 2
276
with respect to native sovereignties, but was made
a foundation for it. In Mr. Willoughby's Sattara
minute, Mr. Hart, the Inam Commissioner's Report of
the 27th March, 1847, as to the necessity of the sove-
reign's consent to an adoption, was expressly quoted to
justify the annexation of the Sattara state.*
But to conclude: A recent eye-witness speaks of
the Inam Commission as "that general confiscation of
proprietary rights, carried through with unexampled
harshness and contempt of law," which "has put the
entire population against us" (he is referring to the
Deckan). Such language may be too strong; I trust
it is. But the results of that Commission certainly
shew us how a chain of sympathetic discontent has
been established between the prince and the poorest
inamdar; how annexation has tended to give chiefs,
and the resumption of inams soldiers, to any rebellion
that might have started into flame within the Deckan.
And do not let us suppose that that danger will ever
pass away so long as its causes are not removed.†
* Sattara Annexation Papers, p. 86.
+ I have confined my observations respecting the Inam Commis-
sion to the case of Inams properly so called, or grants free of service.
There would be much to say also respecting jagheers, or grants upon
conditions of service, and "surinjams," or grants to nobles for the
maintenance of their dignity. Respecting the last, in particular, I
have had before me a thick volume entitled "Correspondence by
the Inam Commission on the Deccan Surinjams" (Bombay Govern-
ment Selections, No. xxxi. 1856), of which I will only say, that such
a mass of spoilt paper and wasted ink, such a hopeless chaos of official
prolixity, I had never yet met with. Practically, the whole volume,
of Heaven knows how many pages (for the paging begins again and
again, with EE appendices), consists of a long wrangle between the
LETTER XXI.
GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF LAND.
GENERAL revenue settlements,-laws for the re-
sumption of rent-free lands, and special commissions to
carry such laws into effect,-suppression of the custom
of primogeniture,-of the right of posthumous disposal
by adoption, of the right of disposal during life, by gift
or sale,—and as a consequence, an enormous extension
of the claims of Government by escheat,- such appear
Inam Commissioners, Capt. Cowper in particular, and Mr. Warden,
whose evidence I have above referred to, and who, in the capacity
of "Agent for Sirdars," had drawn up certain lists of native claim-
ants for Government, as to the accuracy of these lists. Thirteen
pages (Appendix X) are devoted to the case of a single village, worth
£250. a-year, subdivided among an infinite number of claimants,
some of them actual cultivators, and whose shares fall as low some-
times as £1. 14s between three! Whilst the time of Indian officials,
and the money of the natives of India, are wasted upon such futili-
ties, it will hardly be credited that an Inam Commissioner (Mr. Hart)
actually annexes to an official letter to the Government of Bombay
(Appendix B, p. 105), in illustration of the obligations of the Court
of Directors towards the people of India, and the Bombay Govern-
ment reprints without note or comment, a leader of the " Times
newspaper dated 9th February, 1853, speaking of the maintenance
of native Sovereignties as "a scandalous misuse of those opportuni-
ties which Providence has given us!" The animus of the Inam Com-
mission may be judged by such a fact.
The "Bombay Times," Nov. 9 to Dec. 9, 1858, contains an ela-
borate series of articles on the Commission, which I have not had
leisure to make available for the purposes of this work. On the
other side may be read, amongst other documents, a letter signed
"Observer," in the "Overland Bombay Standard" of Dec. 24.
"
278
to have been the principal means by which the Govern-
ment of India, whether wittingly or unwittingly, has
hitherto destroyed the native landowners, and, where
practicable, the native princes, so to speak, by whole-
sale. I must now give some instances of the way in which
those landowners have been rooted out one by one.
For this purpose, I shall carry my readers into a
different quarter of our Indian empire from that which
has hitherto formed the subject of my observations.
We have seen a little of what has taken place in the
North-West, in Bengal, in Bombay. Let us now turn
to Madras.
-
Madras, like Bombay, enjoys generally the blessings
of what is termed the ryotwar system of land revenue,
-i.e. that of fixing from year to year with every cul-
tivator the assessment payable by him in respect of
every field in his holding. The result of this system
in Madras may be stated in few words. With the
exception of a very few large estates, chiefly held by
Englishmen, or by the representatives of former native
sovereigns, who have become our pensioners, all large
holdings whatever have disappeared. I find in a letter
of the Court of Directors to the Madras Government
of the 17th December, 1856, that out of a total
number of single holdings of 1,409,729, no less than
834,190 (or more than 59 per cent.) were assessed at
sums below £1. giving an average of 7s per holding.*
Now as respects the rate of assessment, Lord Harris,
the present Governor of Madras, in a minute of the
26th October, 1854, says-" At present, in this Pre-
* "Papers relating to the Revised Survey and Assessment of the
Madras Presidency," &c. 1857, p. 17.
279
sidency, I hear that it is often 50 per cent. or even
more,"* i.e. of the gross produce; so that, at this rate,
the gross annual value of 59 per cent. of the Madras
holdings might be taken at 14s per annum. But take
a lower standard of assessment,-33 per cent. instead
of 50,-the average gross income of the ryot will yet
be only about a guinea a-year. Then as, according
to a rate of calculation which Lord Harris refers to,
33 per cent. of the gross produce are reckoned to give
two-thirds of the nett profit, it follows that the nett
annual profit of 59 per cent. of the Madras holders of
land in 1856 might amount to the munificent income
of 10s 6d per head. How far they are likely to be-
come good customers to our manufacturers, out of an
income so superabundant, any one who pleases may
speculate. No wonder that the Indian Government
have been of late anxiously considering the means of
diminishing "the evils arising from the existence of
very small holdings, and consequently of a class of
ryots scarcely, if at all, above the grade of paupers,"
to quote again the Court of Directors,-or that Lord
Harris proposed at once to reduce the Government
demand to 25 per cent. on the gross amount, to be
fixed for a term of years-a boon, it will be observed,
which would raise the average annual income of the
aforesaid 834,190 landholders to less than fourteen
shillings, sterling money; a week's wages of a Suffolk
labourer !
It will hardly be credited that, with these facts be-
fore their eyes, not only Lord Harris and the Madras
* "Papers relating to the Revised Survey and Assessment of the
Madras Presidency," &c. 1857, p. 6.
280
Government, backed by their superiors, uphold the
ryotwar system, but every effort has been made by the
Government, up to the latest time of which I have any
record, to eradicate from the Madras Presidency the
traces of
any other.
It so happens that, in the Northern extremity of the
Presidency, through the districts called generally the
Northern Circars, originally part of the Bengal Presi-
dency, the Zemindaree system,-i.e. that of large landed
estates, owned by individuals, and permanently assessed
in the bulk to the land revenue, had been established.
A Madras civilian, Mr. P. B. Smollett, has lately
published a book under the title of "Civil Administra-
tion of Madras, in 1855 and 1856," founded on the
writer's experience of these districts, as compared with
the rest of the Madras Presidency. His aim has been,
he tells us, to shew "that the system of landed tenures
in Madras is the great social evil of the Presidency,
and that coercion and the ill-treatment of the native
cultivators are the necessary consequences of its conti-
nuance," and to illustrate "the manner in which this
detestable land system is carried out-demoralising the
revenue servants, degrading the agricultural classes,
and devoting the private possessions of the native
gentry of Southern India to ruin and confiscation."
Yet his work says nothing of resumption laws, Inam
Commissions, escheats, rights of adoption, or any other
of the subjects which we have hitherto considered. It
simply deals with individual cases, and shews how, by
a skilful use of legal machinery, this man and that has
been, in plain English, jockeyed, or positively swindled,
out of his property. The chief means by which this
281
result has been attained, has been simply-Government
purchases, at Government sales.
I dare say that amid the strange farrago of Indian
legislation some enactments may be fished up which
bring such proceedings within the pale of legality.
But certain it is, that according to the law of England,
for the trustee or agent for sale to become the pur-
chaser of what he is selling is illegal. The characters
of vendor and purchaser are inconsistent.
A man
cannot fairly act out the one when he is seeking to
put on the other. * Nor is this view one of the insular
peculiarities of English law. The American jurists
have admitted the same doctrine to the full.† The
Code Napoleon does the same by specific enactment.‡
Nor is there, that I am aware, the slightest ground
for supposing that the principle would not be applied
to the Crown as well as a subject. It probably never
occurred, since there have been judges in England,
to any adviser of the Crown to recommend that the
Crown should buy that which the Crown had to sell.
But so little disposed have our Courts shewn them-
selves to derogate from their principles of action in
favour of the Crown, that the Court of Exchequer re-
fused, at the suit of the Crown, to enforce a Crown sale
under an extent, on the ground that a bidding had
been reserved by the conditions, and that according to
the strict rule of the Common-law (mitigated by Equity)
the employment of a puffer in an ordinary case would
* See, for instance, Lord St. Leonards' Vendors and Purchasers,
ch. xix. § ii.
+ See, for instance, Story's Equity, vol. i. p. 154 and foll.
+ Code Civil, Art. 1596.
282
vitiate the sale," there being no reason why the Crown
should be subject to a different construction.” *
It is then the practice of this "constructive fraud”
(to give it its technical name) by the Government of
India which we have now to consider.
I must let Mr. Smollett speak, as far as possible, for
himself, or I suspect few of my readers would believe
what he has to say. The doctrine, he tells us, that
native zemindars are 66
oppressors, plundering middle-
men, successful robbers of the public estate," and that
it is "
a dereliction of duty" to "omit taking every
fitting opportunity to eject them,"-this doctrine
"Occasionally acted upon by the Government 30 years ago, . .
is now, in 1856, openly avowed and inculcated even where the
greatest native chieftains are concerned. Former circular orders
enjoined the sequestration of landed estates whenever 20 per cent.
of arrear was reached, in order to obviate the necessity of sale; but
the policy of the day now is, to wink at disorder, to c'ecline inter-
ference during the official year, and to sell up the owner peremptorily
at the end of the season. With this view we see constantly large
estates exposed to sale in the gross for small revenue balances,
although, if these possessions were subdivided, as the law permits,
the sale of a few villages would fetch a price that would discharge
the arrear of revenue; but then the Government would miss the
opportunity of acquiring a large territory for a song. Now, as there
are few capitalists in the Madras districts to compete at such sales, and
as many lands held on feudal tenure are really unsaleable, Govern-
ment, in most instances, acquires these valuable possessions at 1-10th
of their real worth.
Meet a ryotwar collector in his own house, at his hospitable board,
he will admit that the sale of a great zemindary which he has just
achieved was brought about by dexterous management; that the owner
had been purposely permitted to get into the meshes of the collector's
net beyond his power of extrication; that the sale could easily have
* Rex v. Marsh, 3 Young and Jervis, 331.
283
been obviated, nay, perhaps was uncalled for. He will not deny that
the unconditional sale of an ancient zemindary, entire, for a small ba-
lance of taxes, when the subdivision and disposal of a part would have
met every requirement, is a questionable transaction, barely honest. He
will hear, without being offended, an unprejudiced person stigmatise
the purchase by Government of an ancient patrimony sold thus in
the aggregate without necessity, as a robbery, as spoliation under the
pretence of law; but he will excuse himself by saying that it was the
anxious desire of the Government to obtain possession of the dispos-
sessed zemindar's inheritance.”*
And Mr. Smollett proceeds to give instances,—a
few, he tells us, out of many,—of "the improper con-
fiscation of property," during a long series of years.
He shews how twenty years ago an ancient estate in
Tinnevelly, yielding now a clear surplus revenue of
£3,000 a year, was obtained by Government "for
absolutely nothing," the owner having been arrested
and thrown into prison, without any specific charge
whatever being brought against him, at a time when
he had voluntarily come to see the collector and settle
terms for payment of his arrears,-no person having
dared to bid against the Government after such an
act. He shews how in 1840, another estate-the
Woodiagherry jagheer-in Nellore, worth £8,000 a
year, was appropriated "in even a more summary
manner, without a reasonable excuse, and without
recourse even to the forms of law," the owner,
Mahommedan nobleman and a man of 70 years of
age," having been arrested and made a prisoner for
life, and his estate confiscated, on a report of his
treason by a Commissioner, made without seeing the
66
* Civil Administration in Madras in 1855 and 1856, pp. 72-74.
+ Ibid. pp. 75-6.
284
accused, "or hearing his defence, or telling him of
what he was accused;" although "every inhabitant of
the Nellore district believes that the charges were un-
founded," and the Commissioners at the time had
opportunities of knowing that some of the papers on
which the owner was condemned were forgeries.* He
shews how in Guntoor, in recent times, large estates
(the Dasareddy), paying a revenue of sixty thousand
pounds a year were sold in the gross, and were bought
in by the Government salesman for five hundred pounds,
"this being the only offer. The pretext for selling
these estates was the existence of an enormous balance
which had accumulated during twenty years, created
chiefly through the mismanagement of the officers of
Government, who as trustees had administered the
revenues all that time, the lands being under judicial
sequestration owing to a disputed succession." And
this monstrous advantage taken by Government of its
own wrong was moreover directly contrary to law;
for "the highest courts of the Madras Presidency have
ruled repeatedly, that lands secured by a deed of per-
manent settlement are not answerable for arrears of
revenue accruing under Government management; but
the heavy expenses of litigation against the state and
the poverty of the family have prevented this illegal
act from being sifted and exposed in a Court of Law?"
while the Court of Directors, as Mr. Smollett delicately
phrases it, were "erroneously informed," that the
arrears of taxation had been caused by the personal
* Ibid. pp. 76-7. See also Mr. Mead's "Sepoy Revolt," pp. 223-4.
He states that the alleged conspirator was "bed-ridden," and had
lost the use of his limbs for twenty years.
285
extravagance of the zemindar, though he had not been
in legal possession for twenty years !* In Masulipatam,
three years ago, says the author, apparently writing
in 1856, other estates which he names were purchased
by Government for about £1,200," at a mock auction,”
the value of them being perhaps £3,000 a year.†
"In Vizagapatam, some years back, the ancient zemindary of
Golgondah, which yields about 10,000 rupees (£1,000.) of clear
surplus annually, was sold, and bought by Government for £10.
sterling. The collector who sold the estate, and the then Board of
Revenue which authorised the sale, advised its being restored to the
member of the family who seemed best capable of administering the
zemindary; but the Government said it was a valuable acquisi-
tion, and desired that the subject of restitution should on no account
be ever entertained:
Six years afterwards, this act of spoli-
ation was the cause of a local insurrection, which it took three years
to suppress, with a great sacrifice of life and property.”‡
But indeed "there are other ways of securing the
decay and confiscation of landed proprietors besides
that of selling them. There is, for instance, the policy
of abnegation, or non-interference, now being carried
out in Jeypore. This ancient zemindary or fiefship in
Vizagapatam, is held under the usual deed of perma-
nent settlement, by which the Government is bound to
preserve the peace of the country, and is charged with
the maintenance of an efficient police. For more than
half a century the duty has been wholly neglected in
Jeypore.
The zemindar, who is styled the
Raja of Jeypore, when active and capable, apprehended
criminals, and punished misdemeanours, although he
had no authority to do so; but of late years he has
become old and foolish,
and a sort of anarchy
* Ibid. pp. 77-8. + Ibid. p. 78.
Ibid. pp. 78-9.
286
universally prevails." In 1855, a Commissioner for
the suppression of human sacrifices, with his assistant,
visited Jeypore, and finding this state of anarchy,
quietly recommended the removal of the zemindar on a
life pension, and the confiscation of his estates, worth
£15,000 a year. The local agent however,-appa-
rently Mr. Smollett himself,-recommended "that the
long and discreditably neglected duty of maintaining
an efficient police force in Jeypore should be at last
undertaken," and that the zemindary should be ad-
ministered in trust for the owner. The Madras Go-
vernment acquiesced in these suggestions, but a refer-
ence to the Supreme Government was necessary, and
Lord Dalhousie "at once" overruled them. A pledge
to abolish widow burning had been given by the in-
competent zemindar, and it would be well to wait and
see if he fulfilled it. The anarchy spoken of seemed
exaggerated. He saw no sufficient grounds for inter-
ference; but "if the Government did interfere it must
be once and for ever." Whereon Mr. Smollett observes,
and not I :-
-
"The plain meaning of this is, the pear is not quite ripe, the rich
man is not yet in extremis, but in a little time, upon a proper repre-
sentation being made, confiscation will be had recourse to. At the
same time it is strictly enjoined that no reform shall be commenced
upon, and the responsibility of Government to introduce a police
system, and to maintain tranquillity, by which alone order can be re-
established, is quietly ignored. The Governor-General's admirers
consider the annexation and absorption of independent kingdoms in
the British Indian empire as the highest proof of his administrative
ability
but this angling for the confiscation of private
estates is contemptible petty larceny in a ruler."*
* Civil Administration in Madras, pp. 98-9.
1
287
One more extract to conclude:
"The landlords in the Northern Circars, as a class, have no faith
in the security of possession of their lands. They look on themselves
as a doomed race, and believe that their families will, sooner or later,
be beggared under British rule. They see daily the endowments of
their temples practically removed from the protection of the law,
their landed estates confiscated, and their noblest families reduced to
starvation. If not at present absolutely disaffected, the population
in these parts view the British dominion with fear. Our empire is
certainly not one of opinion. It is distasteful to all classes of the
people."+
The question indeed naturally occurs,-if confisca-
tions of the nature above described can take place, not
only against the spirit of English law, but sometimes
against the letter of Indian Regulations, is there no
recourse? The Privy Council compelled the restoration
to the Raja of Burdwan of his rent-free lands, when re-
sumed in violation of prescriptive rights; could it do
nothing for the dispossessed Madras landholder? A
natural enough question, but to which the Vasareddy
case, before referred to, otherwise that of Lutchmeputty
Naidoo, gives answer.
In Mr. Mead's "Sepoy Revolt"+ will be found a
full account of this most extraordinary judicial farce,
for it can be called little else,-given perhaps in some-
what too highly coloured a style, but which is vouched
for as correct by Mr. J. B. Norton. It will there be
seen how, when the Privy Council had decided in favour
* Ibid. p. 105.
+ Pp. 276-284.
"I can vouch for the literal accuracy of every word of the nar-
rative." Topics for Indian Statesmen, p. 169, n*.- Mr. Danby Sey-
mour, too, I believe, when at Madras in 1853, was rendered fully
cognizant of the case.
288
of Lutchmeputty Naidoo, as sole heir to the Vasareddy
estates and their £50,000 a year, the Madras Suddur
Court would not put him in possession until he had
paid the Company's bill for costs, amounting to
£32,000 ;-how, when he had been sold up to pay
these costs, he was told there was nothing to give him.
The Company had bought, as before stated, the bulk of
the property (in Guntoor) for £500. He might have
the remainder in Masulipatam on payment of £280,000
of arrears. But before six months from the filing of
the Privy Council decree in the Suddur Court, the Ma-
sulipatam property was put up to auction as belonging
to his competitor, and also bought in by Government
(1849). Lutchmeputty applied again to the Privy
Council, and in July 1854 obtained an order for being
put in possession. But the Suddur Court refused to
put him in possession, telling him that he must proceed
through the lowest Court, the Zillah, in three suits, one
for each estate, and one for money deposited. "The
first sheet of paper used in each cause would cost £100,
and each separate page of the proceedings would cost
4s." The Raja is out of possession to this day. Thus
the Government, having first, as it turns out, illegally
sold and bought one property, as belonging to a man
who was not the owner, next, in the face of the Privy
Council decree, instead of restoring that one, proceeded
illegally to sell and buy another; and the highest Com-
pany's Court of justice, instead of carrying out the
decree of the Queen's Privy Council, which reversed
their own proceedings, bade the suitor begin all his
proceedings de novo! If you can imagine a man re-
quired to proceed in a County Court for a sum which
{
289
the House of Lords has declared to be justly due to
him, you will have some idea of the mere absurdity in-
volved in the affair, though scarcely of the insolent de-
nial of justice which it involves. Let it always be re-
membered that the original sale was illegal, even against
the wrongful claimant, as the estate had passed into the
hands of the Government unincumbered, and with a
surplus fund of £50,000, and Government had sold the
estate for a debt of which £140,000 had been accumu-
lated by itself. Mr. Smollett, it will have been seen,
openly charges the Madras Government and its officers
with wilful abuse of the powers of the law, wilful con-
tempt of its provisions, for the confiscation of native
property in land. Himself a Madras civilian,-coming
forward to us, so to speak, from behind the scenes,--
he is surely the most trustworthy of all witnesses, a
witness against his own interest. I leave it to others
to consider how far such a course of conduct can be at-
tributed to the Government and its officers in other Pre-
sidencies, to the "young gentlemen," for instance, as
Mr. Warden calls them, of the Inam Commission of
Bombay. Mr. Robertson's observations on the North-
West, and particularly on the case in which the Board
of Revenue of those provinces "ordered" a collector
not to carry a judicial decree in favour of a landowner's
claim into effect; Mr. Boulderson's mention of the estates
bought in by Government in famine-time, may shew that
such conduct has not been, if it is now, entirely without
precedent in that part of India. Mr. J. P. Wise, in
his evidence before the Colonization Committee, shews
equally that it is not without precedent in Bengal. He
there relates how in 1833-4 a purchase by him of an
U
-
290
estate at a Government auction was reversed upon three
grounds,-two of them purely formal, and if correct
(which he denies) arising out of the default of the Go-
vernment officer himself,-the third, that the collector
was a relation of his, and had favoured him by ac-
cepting Company's paper (!) as security for his bid,
which also he states was incorrect. But the Acting
Commissioner who recommended the reversal, advised
also the purchase of the estate, as it was 66 a very
valuable one"-" on behalf of Government at the next
sale." The Board of Revenue to whom the report was
addressed, adopted both the recommendation and the
advice, purchased the estate on the next sale day, "and
that estate is now held by Government." It does not
indeed seem to have been purchased at a gross under-
value, but at no advantage to the original vendor cer-
tainly, since the difference of the Government figure
over that of Mr. Wise was only that of "the increased
revenue up to the date of sale."* Still, I must own it,
I would fain, fain hope that the "benighted Presi-
dency" exhibits in this respect monstrosities not to be
equalled elsewhere.
Perhaps you will say and the plea is the one
always urged in India-that however harsh or iniqui-
tous may be the conduct of the British Government
towards the native landowner, the change to the culti-
vator from tenancy under the former to tenancy under
the State must be a beneficial one. Dark indeed, I
must own, are the colours in which the native zemindar
is painted in Bengal by the missionaries, by the ryots
* Second Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), pp. 38-9.
S
291
themselves; scarcely less dark those in which the
English planters, rival members of the same class, re-
present him before the Colonization Committee. And
yet, if we are to believe Mr. Smollett, there is a land-
lord far more oppressive to the native cultivator than
any heathen or Mussulman zemindar,-and that is, the
Christian British Government. Let us hear how he
describes the transition from the one form of landlordism
to the other, in the case of those estates in the Madras
Presidency which are wrested from their owners by the
Government, through processes of which I have quoted
some instances from him.
"In estates so acquired the first thing done is to introduce the
equivocal blessings of a ryotwar [annual] settlement. All alienations
of rent or reduced assessments on the villages made subsequently to
the permanent settlement are set aside, the old standard of land-rent
is enforced, a scrutiny into rent-free holdings is ordered, and all pri-
vate and acquired property within the zemindary is thus put in
jeopardy. The local village establishments of the zemindars for
maintaining order are discontinued, and in lieu, a stipendiary police,
who find their own clothes and arms, and who receive a salary of
6s. or 8s. a month only, are let loose upon the people. Over all is
placed a native collector, who is also a magistrate within his limits,
with power to commit all criminals to the courts without reference to
his superiors, and he possibly gets from £5. to £6. sterling a month.
Under such supervision the inhabitants of the zemindary soon learn
to sigh over the downfall of their easy, though possibly dissipated
native landlord.
In all the ancient zemindaries which
have descended in the family for some hundred years, the permanent
settlement is moderate. In general the country is thickly peopled;
ploughing cattle abound, the rents of land to the farmer are easy,
when compared with the cultivators' rents in Government villages ;
the fields are well tilled, and there are in these estates no large
tracts of rich soil left uncultivated for years because the rent is too
high..
In the modern estates, where the Government
U 2
292
permanent settlement is sometimes oppressively high, the ryots are
not so favourably situated; but even in those estates the condition of
the people and the management of the cultivation are immensely in
advance of any ryotwar Government district in the Madras Presi-
dency. In the town of Vizagapatam you will meet natives with fine
houses, who own good conveyances, and who have handsome furniture
in their dwellings, and there are many landlords who live upon their
estates, and who spend their thousands per annum as rationally as
gentlemen of fortune spend their incomes in England or Scotland.
In what ryotwar district will you meet with anything like this?
There, a merchant or banker worth £10,000 is a wonder, and
capitalists there are none. In Vizagapatam there are several natives
worth 10 lacs of rupees (£100,000) each, and in the district there
are a score with a lac of rupees (£10,000) and more at their com-
mand.
There are only two talooks (estates) in the Vizagapatam district
managed directly by the officers of Government. These talooks were
once private property, since acquired by Government, by purchase
and dexterous management.
It is not an exaggeration
to say that 90 per cent. of the complaints made to the Commissioner
in the Vizagapatam district come from the Government talooks. The
complaints are of over-assessment-of taxes illegally levied-of
oppression—of moneys extorted—of lands taken from the cultivators
against their will-of coercion, and every other villainy of ryotwar
management. Compare the condition of a Government village with
that of a village in a zemindary, and take the Madagole zemindary,
which adjoins the Government lands, as a sample. The owner of
this estate is a gentleman of ancient family, always on the brink of
ruin; and it might be supposed that fiscal mismanagement was rife
there, if anywhere. But the zemindar's people are well off, his vil-
lages are flourishing, and the rents are collected not only without dis-
traint, but sometimes they are paid a year in advance. I will take
it upon myself to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that not one
petition from Madagole has reached the Commissioners' office com-
plaining of coercion or exaction in the revenue collections during the
last six years; whereas from the neighbouring Government estate of
Survasiddy, during that same period, the complaints presented on
the same score may be computed by thousands.
}
293
The districts where zemindurs still flourish are the
only provinces in the Madras Presidency that exhibit any symptoms
of vitality, in the presence of capitalists, a wealthy aristocracy, enter-
prising native merchants, respectable bankers, and a peasantry more
contented and less harassed in their occupations than can be found
in ryotwar districts:
When the estate is bought by Govern-
ment, the same land-tax is collected from the villagers, generally
under a much more grinding system than the zemindars followed.
The revenues, instead of being spent as heretofore on the spot, are
swept into the general treasury
perhaps to build a univer-
sity at the Presidency, estimated to cost one-third of a million ster-
ling.*
Gentlemen who fancy that agricultural operations
cannot proceed regularly in village communities, and that fair rents
cannot be collected punctually without the aid of an accurate and
scientific survey of each field and holding, might be sent to learn their
duties as land stewards, with benefit to themselves as well as to the
Government, from the practice of native landowners, whose manage-
ment is in most instances vastly superior to that of their European
masters."+
•
•
Civil Administration of Madras, in 1855 and 1856, pp. 85-94.
† Civil Administration of Madras in 1855 and 1856, p. 127. The
whole of the chapter from which the last extract is taken, (IV. "On
the revenue management of the Vizeanagrum zemindary in Vizagapa-
tam during the last twenty years,") is well worth notice. It shews.
how the owner of a great estate, having fallen into private difficulties,
proposed to resign the management into the hands of the Govern-
ment officials in 1826, the collected rental being then £86,000 a
year; how with the gradual but ultimately complete introduction of
the ryotwar system, the rental fell to £62,800 by 1846; how the
introduction of the village system sent the rental up to £98,900 by
1852, discharged all debts, and placed the zemindar in possession of
an unencumbered estate yielding a nett surplus of £60,000 a year,
which continues to prosper since that time under his management.
See pp. 107-127. Mr. Smollett's book, however, is disfigured by
abuse of the Madras engineers; the bêtes noires, indeed, of many a
civilian, but who ought not to be such to him.
294
Remember that the witness before us is a Company's
civilian, writing on the spot in 1855. Remember that
he has had before him the native landlord, not in his
best days, but in his worst. For just as British pro-
tection, and above all, the policy of annexation of
native principalities, once put forth, tends fatally to
degrade the character of the native sovereign, so is the
character of the petty native chief deteriorated by
British rule. "There is a great tendency," says Mr.
Smollett, "to dissipation in these chieftains, from their
having, under British rule, been deprived of their
military and political powers, and from their being
reduced, from feudal tributaries of the State, to the
class of landlords only ;"* though "physically, there is
no finer race of men than that of the ancient zemin-
dars of the Northern Circars; and in the very few
instances in which their education has been at all cared
for, they have turned out remarkably well in after life,
managing their estates with economy, and living cre-
ditably in the midst of their own people."†
I have no reason for supposing that these zemindars
of the Northern Circars are either above or below the
average of other native landlords. Put them above,
if you like it. Suppose it is only in every other
instance that the ordinary native landlord reaches their
level. Then we are justified in saying, that if the
108,199 Bombay inams were recalled to-morrow, in
more than 54,000 instances there would be an imme-
diate change for the worse to the cultivator, in passing
under the British Government as a landlord. Add
+ Ibid. p. 103.
* Ibid. p. 101.
295
this to what has been already stated as to the result of
the Inam Commission in Bombay.*
Of course the details of Mr. Smollett's picture are
not universally applicable. The ryotwar system will
only be applied where the ryotwar system exists. It
is sufficiently disliked by officials themselves out of its
- own sphere of operation to make us rest assured that
it will not be extended, in its unmitigated shape at all
events. But it is observable that in Bengal, where
the Permanent settlement exists, it is at once set aside
as soon as land gets into the hands of Government.
It is then, not sold out and out, but let "generally in
farms for a period of years, from five to ten years.Ӡ
"I cannot admit," wrote St. George Tucker, "that the zemindars,
who have an interest in the prosperity of their estates, and in the
well-being of their tenantry, are likely to be more oppressive function-
aries than the officers of revenue, who have no such interest. The
over-zeal of a young and inexperienced collector (and there are many
such I fear) is supposed to have caused 50,000 beegas of land to be
thrown out of cultivation in a single year in one of the Baroach dis-
tricts. No zemindar could have been guilty of such gratuitous folly,
for he must have perceived that his own ruin would be the inevitable
consequence."‡
* Did space allow, the case of the "Desaees," and other zemin-
dars of Baroach, might here be quoted. It brings out in a remarkable
manner the destruction by our late proceedings of the inheritable
rights of females.
+ Second Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 39,
qu. 2660. It need hardly be added that inams are not granted by
the British Government, except in very rare instances. One of the
exceptions is that of "Ballajee Punt Natoo "-whether the same
individual as the treacherous Brahmin of that name, to whom Raja
Pertaub Sing, of Sattara, owed his downfall, I cannot say.
Selections, p. 21.
296
Elsewhere he says, of the Talookdars of the North-
West:-
"We cannot destroy the memory of their past, or the conscious-
ness of their present state. They were once prosperous, and they
and their descendants must feel that they are no longer so. They are
silent, because the natives of India are accustomed to endure, and
to submit to the will of their rulers; but if an enemy appear on our
western frontier, or if an insurrection unhappily take place, we shall
find these Talookdars, I apprehend, in the adverse ranks, and their
ryots and retainers ranged under the same standard."*
LETTER XXII.
DECAY OF THE WEALTHY AND RESPECTABLE
CLASSES IN GENERAL.
As the wealth of India is mainly in the land, it
follows that the destruction of native land-owners is
really the destruction of the wealthy classes in general,
—so far as wealth does not consist merely in money, and
does not flow from the traffic in it. This fact and its
consequences are perhaps nowhere better set forth
than by Colonel Low, in his first Nagpore minute.
*Selections, p. 19. I have not space to dwell on the case of the
Carnatic jagheerdars, which is referred to by Mr. Mead, p. 221 and
foll. of his "Sepoy Revolt." The summary of it appears to be
this,—that a sum of money, set apart by treaty in 1801 as one of
two "permanent deductions in all times to come from the revenues
of the Carnatic" for the maintenance of the family and officers of
the Nawab, is being gradually cut down to nothing by curtailment
of pensions on every successive death of a pensioner. The pensioners,
I believe, only ask to receive land instead of the pensions, being con-
fident of being able to turn it to good account.
297
10. "So far from increasing or keeping up the previous number of
wealthy and influential men in those native states which we annex
to our own territory, we uniformly and immediately diminish the
number of such men in these countries.
11. The general effects which I have described of the number
of men of wealth and influence being immediately diminished
when we take possession of a new territory, have probably been
produced by various causes; such, for instance, as that of our re-
mitting large portions of the revenue for pensions and salaries in
England (which bring no return to India), instead of spending such
revenues within the countries which produce them, as all national
governments do. And again, our not employing natives in high mili-
tary commands, or in very important civil offices, must also have the
same general tendency; and so must the fact of being foreigners, who
never associate with or make personal friends of natives of India.
12. I could cite in detail, were it necessary, several instances in
time of famine, which have occurred at different times within my own
personal knowledge, in the Deccan, in the Saugor territory, and in the
North-Western provinces, of our having suffered heavy losses in reve-
nue, and very extensive losses in human lives, owing to the want of
wealth among our native subjects; while in the neighbouring native
states, which had experienced exactly the same drought, they did not
suffer nearly so much, either by the death of their subjects or in re-
venue, solely because the wealthy jagheerdars and zemindars, and
other men of property (and as far as regards Oude, even farmers of dis-
tricts) made large advances of money from their private funds, where-
by great numbers of men, by digging new wells, were enabled to raise
sufficient grain to keep them alive for the season, and who but for
these advances of specie, must assuredly have died of starvation.'
* Nagpore Annexation Papers, pp. 39-40. It will hardly be cre-
dited that Lord Dalhousie took no kind of notice of all this part of
Colonel Low's second minute. See his Lordship's second minute,
ibid. pp. 53-5.
The following passage from Mr. Gubbins is almost as strong as
that from Colonel Low :-
"It cannot be denied that the native gentry of Hindostan have
not much to thank us for. In the early years of our rule, many old
298
Colonel Low's reasonings go obviously much further
still than his words, for they not only apply to wealth
and influence, but to talent, and learning, and energy,
and ambition, and every faculty and impulse which
tends to raise man above his fellows, whether in civil
or military life. On one side of a boundary line a man
may hope to rise to the highest dignities of the state;
on the other, he must limit his ambition, if a civilian,
to some subordinate judicial office; if a military man,
to a so-called command in which he shall be subject to
the orders of any foreign boy with a white face. We
are far too prone to slur over this point, which has an
important bearing upon the mutiny itself, and has been
so referred to by others than myself. I have, for in-
stance, before me a valuable pamphlet, on the "Re-or-
ganisation, Discipline, and Future Management of the
families were ruined by the severity of our assessments. In later
times the settlement operations, while they greatly remedied the
first defect, have yet much diminished the power and consequence of
the Talookdars.
Again, the native gentry, especially the
Mahomedan portion of it, in India, look chiefly to the service of the
state for a means of subsistence. But as all the chief offices in Bri-
tish India are monopolized by Europeans, the minor ones only are
open to them. In fixing the remuneration of these, we have too
much followed the scale of pay we found to prevail in the native
Governments which we succeeded; forgetting that with them, bribes
and pecuniary gratifications were not forbidden. Under our system
they could not openly be received: and in consequence several de-
partments of the public service have been grossly underpaid. In the
police service this was so particularly the case, that it has been found
difficult to induce natives of good family to enter it at all.
The native gentry were becoming daily more reduced, were pinched
by want of means, and were therefore discontented."-Mutinies in
Oudh, pp. 55-7.
299
Bengal Army," by Lieutenant-Colonel Hunter,* an
officer familiar with native feelings, and noted for
having brought a corps of wild Bheels into a "perfect
and wonderful state of discipline." He speaks, in terms
almost exactly answering to those used by Sir John
Malcolm nearly fifty years ago,† of the present system
of the Indian army, which always keeps the native
officers in the back-ground, "and subjects them to the
authority, not only of the youngest and most inex-
perienced European subaltern in the regiment, but,
what appears a strange anomaly, also to the authority,
and not unfrequently to the vulgar and unmerited
rebukes of the European non-commissioned officers.'
He writes as follows:-"The feelings of disgust, and
sometimes of bitter contempt, which such a system is
likely to engender, have, it appears to me, been alto-
gether overlooked in accounting for the extraordinary
disaffection of our native soldiers." Nor is the case
""
* Published by Acton Griffith, 1858.
+ See "Sketch of the Political History of India,” p. 511.
"Suggestions relative to the Reorganization," &c. pp. 2-3. Let
me quote another weighty passage from Mr. Gubbins :-
"Sir Henry Lawrence was strongly impressed with the opinion
that the native officers of our Sepoy army were underpaid.
He would compare the status and emoluments which a native gentle-
man could attain to under native governments with those attainable
in the British Indian army, and he thought that the disparity was
too great.
Let it be fairly considered whether the means
of honourable employ held out by our Government to the better
classes are sufficient to excite loyalty and to maintain contentment.
Under native governments, such as that of Runjeet Singh
in the Punjab, or those of Nagpore and Oude, natives, be it remem-
bered, held the highest civil and military offices, and received emolu-
300
less glaring as respects civil employment. At this pre-
sent moment it is perhaps not too much to say that the
maintenance of our empire in India has been owing as
much to the wisdom and genius of three great ministers
-Salar Jung at Hyderabad, Dinkur Rao at Gwalior,
and Rao Ramchunder Rao at Indore-as to the valour
of our troops. Do you really think it would be more
hopeful for India if such men had no other prospect
than that of becoming, say, Principal Sudder Ameens
in our Native Courts of justice? Have we many ad-
ministrators equal to them? I strongly suspect, in-
deed, that much of the undue influence, and intrigues,
and corruption which are attributed, and justly no
doubt, to the native omlah, or officers of our magis-
trates, are due in great measure to the very pressure
of our rule, keeping down talents and faculties which
demand a wider scope. Beyond all question the na-
tive officer is, at least frequently, an abler man, a better
lawyer, a more experienced officer than his European
superior; * yet he is dependent and irresponsible. Can
ments not inferior to those received under our system by Europeans.
The father may have received 1000 rupees (£100.) per annum as
commandant of cavalry under Runjeet Singh; the son draws a pay
of 80 rupees (£8.) as sub-commander in the service of the British
Government.
No doubt the upper classes of natives,
both Hindoo and Mahomedan, on this account viewed with regret
the extinction of the dynasties of Lahore, Nagpore, and Oude.
They were used to repair from our provinces to seek the prizes ob-
tainable in these native Courts. Though these were few, and not
easily obtained, nor perhaps often long enjoyed, yet they grieved to
see them abolished, and everything reduced to the almost dead level
of Anglo-Indian service."-Mutinies in Oudh, pp. 97-9.
*"Many of the native tahsildars, and several sheristadars in the
Madras territories aro, for the work they have to do,-viz., the ad-
"
+}
301
you conceive a situation more full of temptations, more
void of checks than this?
But, indeed, it is well known that the gentry of
India generally do not accept office under our rule.
"Have the landholders," it was asked of Mr. Saunders,
before the Colonization Committee, in reference to the
North-West, "become officials under the Government
to any extent?"
“Not one of them."—"They have not become judges ? ”—“ No.”
"Then none of the old families of that part of India came under
the employment of the Government of India?" "When Lord
William Bentinck first introduced the system of employing natives
as judges, he was very anxious to get the old families to accept ap-
pointments, and some of the old Mahomedans who reside on the
northern side of the Doab were employed indeed, at Agra and Ally-
gurh; but they very soon found the rules irksome, and threw up the
appointments, and they gradually fell to the lot of the class of people
who had been brought up in the inferior departments of the Courts."
It is not, unfortunately, only "the rules" which are
irksome to native gentlemen when they accept office
under us.
The last chapter of Mr. Smollett's book,
"On the treatment of the native servants of the State
under the Madras Government, more particularly in
the Northern Circars," reveals other causes for their
declining to serve us. He tells us that if
"In the judicial department a few respectably paid appointments
ministration of a province,-superior in capacity to their European
superintendents, and a district is often wholly managed through
their instrumentality, the collector himself being quite a non-entity
in everything except his official emoluments."-Smollett's Civil Ad-
ministration of Madras, pp. 19, 20. This is but one testimony out
of a multitude.
*"Civil Administration of Madras in 1855 and 1856," p. 128
and foll.
302
have indeed been thrown open to natives,
.in the revenue
department not only has nothing been done for native advancement,
but the office of native collector or tahsildar has greatly deteriorated.
The tenure of power has become more and more precarious, and the
highest situations attainable are falling into disesteem in public
opinion.
When a head of police, or stipendiary magis-
trate for a county, receives less pay than an English footman gets in
a gentleman's family, and when the deputy superintendent of a divi-
sion draws less pay than an ordinary black cook, honesty in the
native service is not to be expected. The wonder is, that with such
instruments so much work is done, and that on the whole it is so
creditably performed. Under a good system a great number of the
present subordinate servants might be dispensed with ;"the salaries
of the rest should be trebled. They should be treated like educated
gentlemen, and not trampled upon like menials.
The
Local Government, so far from endeavouring to improve the condi-
tion of these overworked men, has been continually imposing more
work and greater labour, and has been tasking its faculties to degrade
the appointments. . . . . Inquisitions are annually made into their
private circumstances; the possession or acquisition of lands is held
to be a disqualification for office in the districts in which they live,
and all the superior native servants are vexed and harassed by con-
stant investigations to this end. Their small salaries are in every
month attenuated by fines for every trivial mistake, or for delay in
furnishing the ever increasing multitude of returns called for by
half-a-score of departments.
Everything, in short, is
done to disgust respectable natives with the service of Government,
and nothing is listened to that tends to improve their condition, or
to render it respectable."
And, clinging where his teeth are set, like a true
British bull-dog that he is, Mr. Smollett proceeds to
quote instances.
"Fifteen months ago an application was made to have the pay of
two native collectors, in the district of Vizagapatam, raised to £10
a month—no great thing for a magistrate and land-steward over a
hundred thousand men, with a revenue of at least £12,000 a year
to manage-but the Commissioner in the Northern Circars refused
303
even to entertain the recommendation; he thought £8 a month
ample! So far from these appointments being generally held for
years together, half a dozen tahsildars are frequently discharged in a
month."
What is the consequence? "So far from the situ-
ation of tahsildar being coveted or sought for by the
ablest and best of the native population, in these parts
it is often extremely difficult to get a decent and credi-
table person to accept the office at all."
"We go to
the bazar here for Tahsildars" was the saying of a
European assistant. This insecurity extends to the
higher offices of head and deputy Serishtadars of dis-
tricts. Mr. Smollett details at length the case of
Cumbrun Nursingarow, head serishtadar of Rajah-
mundry, who, after 27 years of creditable service, was
summarily suspended, sent to jail, and kept incarcerated
for 16 months on charges which turned out to be utterly
unfounded,― dismissed from office pending his trial as
"unfit for government employment," and after being
fully acquitted, not only was not compensated by the
Madras government for the wrongs he had endured,
but was refused by them any recognition of his fitness
for employment. To the credit of the Home authorities
be it said, his exclusion from public employment was
cancelled by them on his appealing to England. But
we have lost his services for ever. He is now in the
employment of one of the few great remaining zemin-
dars, the Rajah of Vizeanagrum, "and admirably con-
ducts the revenue administration of that princely
estate." In another case mentioned by Mr. Smollett,
a head serishtadar of 40 years' service, "who was
about to retire on his full pension with an honorary
301.
distinction to be conferred by Government for some
acknowledged political services," was apprehended and
committed to trial by a newly installed civilian jack-
in-office-the same who had dismissed C. Nursin-
garow-on a charge "so frivolous and vexatious,"
that the judge refused to entertain it, and struck the
cause off the file, yet could obtain no redress for 15
months, and only obtained at last, from the Court of
"Directors again, the payment of his full salary.
"In my judgment," concludes Mr. Smollett, "the higher native.
uncovenanted servants are treated, year by year, with greater and
greater indignity by their superiors. The orders issued from time to
time by Government, pretending to enforce an opposite course of pro-
ceeding, seem to me to be shams, for those officers of the covenanted
service who treat them most as waste paper, and who violate them
systematically both in the letter and the spirit, generally rank the
highest in Government favour, and are most frequently singled out
before others for promotion and advancement. There is nothing, in
my judgment, that renders the British Government in India so dis-
tasteful to the educated classes as the want of courtesy which most
officials shew to native servants of eminent capacity, and who, but
for our domination, would fill with credit the offices of governors in
the provinces afflicted by ryotwar maladministration.
""
That this picture from Madras would become an
exaggerated one, if applied to the whole of India, I
gladly trust. But I see the leading lines of it on all
sides. Mr. Gubbins in the North, as we have seen,
admits that in the police service, owing to the inade-
quacy of the pay, it is found difficult to induce natives
of good family to engage themselves in it. Of the
revenue service he says that "a native officer, respon-
sible for collecting £20,000 per annum, might receive
a salary of £20 per month," adding, "The natives
complain, and with some justice, that in the earlier
Q
305
years of our government we had shewn more liberality;
and that a native collector had then been used to re-
ceive a commission of 10 per cent on his collections,
which would give him ten times the salary which
has been latterly allowed."* The unanimous outcry
of all the planter witnesses before the Colonization
Committee against the corruptions of the native officials
of Bengal, and for the employment of a larger number
of Europeans, proves, I suspect, at least as much that
the native officials are as a class degraded and void of
self-respect through the conditions of their employ-
ment, as that the native character is itself intrinsically
vicious and corrupt. Indeed, these witnesses when
hard pressed admit often as much. "There are very
many trustworthy and intelligent natives," says Mr.
McNair, "but the class of court-omlahs are not gene-
rally trustworthy." Mr. J. P. Wise says of the police,
"They are very often turned out of employment; the
situation is not very certain; petitions are often put in
against them, and they consider the place unsafe, and
take advantage of that to get as much money as they
can." Yet the same witness says, "You find a good
number of very superior men in India, men of great
intelligence and worth."§
The enormous difference of salary between the alien
and the native must indeed be of itself, to a man of
self-respect and spirit, a sufficient bar to the acceptance
of office under the British Government. The native
judges do 95 per cent of the civil business. Yet of
*Mutinies in Oudh, p. 56.
+ Second Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 27.
‡ Ibid. p. 58.
§ Ibid. p. 59.
X
300
2846 employed, 2109 get salaries under £240. per
annum―less than the pay of the youngest civilian;—and
only 49 get salaries of £600. per annum and upwards,
while the European zillah or district judge gets £3000.*
And I do not know anything which brings out so
strikingly the contrast between employment by the
British or by a Native Government so strongly as the
list given by Mr. Norton, in his "Topics for Indian
Statesmen," of the situations held by natives educated
in our institutions. In the column of salaries, one only
stands prominently out from the mass, of which only 22
upon 239 exceed ten pounds a month. It is that of
T. Madava Row, acting Dewan (or finance minister)
of the native state of Travancore, whose salary is two
hundred pounds a month, whilst no other exceeds
thirty-five! And who is Madava Row? Read his
history in the same work, "by the affectionate hand of
one of his own royal pupils" (he had been tutor to the
Travancore princes before becoming a minister of
state). Let it be recollected that this was the same
native state where the most frightful misgovernment
had previously existed for years under a minister, sup-
ported by the English Resident, whom the Raja could
not obtain permission to depose.§ Read how this great
minister, though but of a small principality, suppressed
corruption and violence, caused all notorious criminals
to be apprehended, carried on irrigation works on a
large scale, trebled various branches of the revenue,
rendered himself familiar with every detail of the
* Second Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 58.
+ Topics for Indian Statesmen, Appendix B.
‡
Ibid. pp. 360-3.
§ Mead's Sepoy Revolt, pp. 205-8.
307
districts which he administered.
And then consider
how precious, I will not say to the natives of India,
but to God's universe itself, is the existence of even such
a petty native principality as Travancore, which allows
to such men as Madava Row the full exercise of their
powers for the benefit of their fellow creatures, instead
of mewing them up,-like the highest paid of Madava
Row's fellow pupils in the employ of the British Go-
vernment (there is one of them rather better paid in
the Supreme Court)-in some office of "head-serish-
tadar" at £28 a month!
"
-
And now let it not be forgotten that the same sym-
pathy, the same bitterness, which are excited on a
large scale in the minds of the mere spectators by the
annexation of a state, by the beggaring of a race of
kings, by the spoliation, as it is deemed, of a ranee or
an adopted prince, are excited equally on a small scale
by the absorption of a talookdaree, by the ruin of a
petty chief, by the application to private property of
the same technical rules which avail us to annihilate
kingdoms. Such a sight has ere this struck the Euro-
pean observer with a sort of amazed pity, when he has
come across it. Thus Indophilus, in his letters to the
Hurkaru, speaks of the ruined noble "who considers
himself fortunate if his banker, more out of respect to
the hereditary claims of his family than from any ex-
pectation of repayment, doles out to him the means of
appearing once a year in a khimkaub (embroidered
silk) coat before the collector, like a lifafah or empty
envelope, or like a shade unwillingly evoked. I have
seen," he continues, "these apparitions of the pros-
perity of former days stand trembling before that all
*
..
x 2
308
powerful magician a collector, and have fancied I
heard them say, like the ghost of Samuel to Saul,
'Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?"
Yet these eloquent words cannot convey a tithe of the
feelings which the same sight must keep up in the men
of the same speech and colour, the neighbours, the
kinsmen, for whom every such apparition has its own
special name and history, connected with perhaps the
most glorious, or the most precious local recollections.
As it has been truly observed by Mr. Russell, "There is
among the Hindoos, as there is among all nations
which possess great antiquity and historic families, a
profound respect for old houses, and for the descen-
dants of those who were coeval with the early records
of their race, no matter in what positions fate may
have placed them, or their own personal insignifi-
cance." It is of no use to discuss the reasonablness or
unreasonableness of such feelings. They exist; and,
aliens in a foreign country, we must take account of
them, if we do not choose to spoil or even throw away,
by our narrow headstrong folly, the most glorious em-
pire that the arm of man ever won, the most glorious
opening that God ever granted to a nation for the
enlargement of His kingdom.
LETTER XXIII.
THE LAND-REVENUE,
WE have seen how deep a meaning for the native
of India must have the proclamation pledges of respect
to native property and native usages, considering the
inroads which have been made by our rule upon ances-
tral usages, the whole classes which it has swept away.
There is another side to the question,--one which
Indophilus treated of 25 years ago,-one which is still
of momentous consequence. We have destroyed pro-
perty in land where it existed. Have we helped
sufficiently to create it where it did not?
C
To judge of this, I will confine myself to the one
main test of the land-revenue. I will leave aside the
salt duties, the excise, the Madras Moturfa (falsely
spoken of as suppressed by the Court of Directors in
their late“ memorandum"), and other grievances alleged
by the native population, the consideration of which
would carry me much too far, and which I have in-
deed glanced at elsewhere. I will merely, in the
briefest manner, endeavour to shew what the real
nature is, of the pressure of the land-revenue. I be-
lieve indeed that, since the days of Lord Cornwallis, it
has been a constant object of the Government of India
-in one or other of its branches-to lighten that pres-
But I believe also that to this hour, except in
Bengal, the land-revenue is breaking India's back.
sure.
310
How is this to be accounted for? Whence these
constant efforts to relieve the burthen, and their as con-
stant failure? Whence the anomaly of a taxation so
light in numerical amount, when compared with that
of other countries, and yet felt to be so heavy?
I have come to the conclusion that the main cause
of the pressure of the Indian land-revenue lies far be-
low the range of any of the experiments that have yet
been tried to relieve it. I believe it takes its origin
chiefly in the scarcity of money-capital, created by the
levy of taxation in specie, and not in kind, increased
by the constant drain of home-charges, and rendered
more galling by the suppression of local mints, and the
ruin of local centres of trade and luxury. The excess
in the rate of the tax beyond what is reasonable --
which alone is what in general has been sought to be
alleviated-has been comparatively a mere accident.
I am not the first to express this opinion. It has been
set forth, in all its main features, with great clearness
and ability, by Major Wingate amongst others, a
Bombay Engineer officer, afterwards Revenue Survey
Commissioner for the whole Presidency, in certain pas-
sages of an article in the "Bombay Quarterly Review"
for 1857, which are made part of his evidence before
the Colonization Committee.*
Sug
The principle of the Hindoo land-revenue is, beyond
all question, payment in kind. Menu, treating of the
king's dues, does not give the least hint that they are
to be paid in money. Of grain, he says, the king may
take "an eighth part, a sixth, or a twelfth ;" of cattle,
*Fourth Report, pp. 59-61,
311
of gems, of "gold and silver," a "fiftieth."* The
precious metals are thus treated, not by any means as
representatives of wealth, as standards of value, but
simply as peculiar forms of wealth, the increase of
which is apparently assimilated to that of cattle, and is
thus supposed to be more than four times as low as
that of the produce of the most unfruitful soil.
The Mussulman conquest no doubt tended to break
up this state of things. The first rush of Mussulman
invasion left, so to speak, but little silt behind it. The
invader was an armed missionary, ever pressing on-
wards to make the war-cry of Islam heard in new
lands; or he was an armed rover, looking still back to
his own country, intent on shewing some day at home
the fruits of his forays. In either case, a drain of
money-capital must thus have set in. The Mussulman
came not to buy and to sell; he must have money, or the
metals which can be turned into it; some part he would
carry on with him from land to land, some he would
take or send back to his own country. Even when the
process of settlement began, the same influences must
have continued at work. For a length of time the
Indian Mussulmen were recruited by new comers from
the East, many of whom no doubt remained in the
country, but many of whom also departed again after
a certain period of service, laden with India's wealth.
On the other hand, the precarious tenure of the con-
queror's power, the antipathies of race and creed yet
hot, the contempt of the faithful for the usages of the
heathen, must have tended to render galling, it may
even be said, to both parties, that collection of revenue
in kind which, by introducing into the administra-
Code, ch. vii. s. 130.
312
tion of public affairs many of the practices, renders
them subject also directly to the necessities of trade,
such as time, and peace, and security, and mutual for-
bearance, if not mutual goodwill. Hence, I suspect,
in great measure, the rise of the great revenue farmers,
-the talookdars of the North-West, the zemindars of
Bengal. The prince wanted money; the ryot had
none to give, but produce only. Between the two
there grew up
these middlemen, possessed of capital,
of power, or of influence, who, collecting from the ryot,
more or less, in kind, rendered account to the sovereign
in money, taking percentages to themselves.
At any
rate, it is in Mussulman countries, such as Bengal, and
Oude, and Rohilcund, and generally round Delhi, the
seat of the Mogul empire, that I find the talookdaree
or zemindaree system most completely developed.
By the time the Mussulman system had become
fixed, I take it, there was practically not much change
in the condition of the people at large. A certain
drain of money-capital from the Mussulman part of the
population was no doubt always going on,-in the
shape of the expenses of the haj, or pilgrimage to
Mecca, which every true believer is bound to perform
once in his life, pilgrims' donations included, which are
often very large,-in the shape of offerings to the holy
shrines, and contributions to charitable or religious
foundations in the holy cities, such as are still remitted
from India by Mussulman princes and nobles. On the
other hand, the cultivator of the soil would have to
yield up a larger portion of his produce, both to defray
the necessary expenses of the intermediate agency of
the talookdar or zemindar, his unauthorized exactions,
and the rapacity of the alien despots to whom he was
313
accountable; the middleman himself, to play his part
more easily, would endeavour to raise in specie the
revenue for which he accounted under that shape.
Still, in the main, I believe that the condition of things
in general, and in particular that of the cultivator,
though worse in degree at the period when the English
power grew up, than in the best Hindoo times, was
the same in its nature as it had ever been.
The pressure of the land-revenue, however great,
was not a money-pressure upon the cultivator. His
dues to the state were paid, in the main, in produce
or in labour.* Money-capital was, so to speak,
scarcely an item in the world of agriculture,-that
is to say, in the leading occupation of the great
mass of the people. It only came into play in the
world of trade, properly so-called, or in that of enjoy-
ment. It accumulated as specie in the hands of the
trader, in the coffers of the state; it was melted down,
and hung in jewels and bangles on the person of the
woman and of the child. Hence the phenomenon of
enormous outward wealth, which so struck all early
European observers in India, traders and adventurers,
which seemed for a long time inexhaustible. The pa-
* "The Anglo-Indian financial system differs from that of the
native governments in the following most important particulars :
the payment of the army, police, and other public establishments in
cash; the collection of the land-tax in money, instead of wholly or
partially in kind; the transfer of a portion of the Indian revenues to
England for the payment of the home-charges
the creation
of a funded public debt, of which the interest has to be paid in cash.”
-Major Wingate's evidence, Fourth Report on Colonization and
Settlement (India), p. 60.
To this day, the itinerant jeweller in India finds his material in
the coins with which he is supplied, and which he melts down.
814
goda-tree was no doubt laden with golden fruit; it was
not unnatural to suppose that the soil was charged with
gold. Judging from the European point of view, in
which a money-circulation lies really at the basis of our
social economy, and only the surplus gold and silver
beyond what is needed for all the daily wants of all
the population becomes accumulated in a few hands, or
turned into ornament, the affluence of the precious metals
on the coasts, in the towns, in the hands of the mer-
chants, or used by way of ornament, seemed to indicate
a perfectly limitless store. But the real fact
But the real fact was, that
behind all this outward affluence there was nothing of
what was imagined; a teeming soil indeed, but one of
which the resources could only be made available by the
utmost possible development of the means of communi-
cation, by the opening of export markets, by the
removal of burthens.
W
In levying the land-revenue in money, we in the
first instance forcibly called back to the land the
money capital locked up in trade. For, if we take
the land-revenue at half the produce, and suppose
that the other half was actually exchanged for money,
the demand for money in agriculture was instantly
doubled.* Up to this time, in the cultivators' relations
to the state, produce had been money; and this money-
value of produce towards the largest of all his yearly
creditors tended at the same time to give that produce
* "Under the native system, the sale for cash of a small part of
the agricultural produce of a district sufficed to provide for all its
liabilities connected with taxation and commerce. Under the British
system on the contrary, twice, or perhaps three times the quantity
of produce had to be sold in order to provide for the same objects,
owing to the whole amount of the land-tax being demanded in cash."
-Major Wingate's evidence, ubi supra, p. 61.
315
-
a money-value also towards the smaller ones. Now,
produce was, to use a modern French expression,
demonetized; a vacuum to that extent was created in
the circulation, which trading capital of necessity
rushed in to supply; we, on the other hand, not en-
deavouring to moderate, but accelerating the move-
ment, by subjecting Indian articles to heavy import
duties at home, and restricting Indian trade with
foreign countries; by raising loans in England, and
paying the interest of them from India, or even
remitting tribute to the mother country; by proprie-
tors' dividends, Leadenhall Street and Cannon-row
salaries, pensions, &c.; by discouraging the settlement
of Europeans, or, in other words, forcing those who
had made fortunes in India, to go and spend them
in England; by letting roads and canals, tanks and
embankments, run to ruin. Hence on the one hand
the enormous and undeniable falling off of the com-
mercial activity of India, properly so-called; the
decay of those flourishing marts with which the whole
coast was once studded; and on the other, the equally
enormous development of the purely monetary activity
of the country, if one may so call it, the substitution of
the village shroff for the great banker. But with the
contraction, and in a great measure, ruin of trade and
the neglect of public works, came also the depreciation
of agricultural produce, which (except of late years in
Bengal) is observed to be a marking feature of our
rule; which has hitherto falsified all the revenue cal-
culations of the most benevolent settlement-makers.
With the extension of our rule this evil always
increased. The numerous local mints, which the ex-
istence of so many independent principalities had
316
ME
scattered over the whole face of the country, and
which, in the absence of a paper circulation, were of
immense value in facilitating the transformation of
fixed metallic capital, such as jewels, &c. into circula-
ting, disappeared one by one, depreciating by so much
to the possessor the value of his uncoined metallic
wealth, placing him by so much the more in the de-
pendence of the money-lender.* The numerous local
markets created by the existence of the native
sovereigns and nobles, and which by serving as cen-
tres of money circulation enhanced the value of
produce on the spot, disappeared in like manner, and
with the like effect. Everything combined to make
the pressure of the land-revenue heavier and heavier,
in a far more rapid ratio than that of any lowerings of
the Government demand.
That that demand on the part of the British autho-
rities has itself been excessive, is not to be denied. This
may be maintained, without in the least denying or
blinking the fact, that such excessiveness was charac-
teristic of the revenue demands of the native princes
whom we succeeded; that they took all they could get.
Their exactions, corrected as they were by a thousand
checks and counter-influences,-payment in kind, pro-
digalities to favourites, liberalițies to religious persons
or foundations, fear of insurrection, &c. &c., bore no
very permanent effect. The rapacity of one sovereign
might fill his treasury with idle gold, beggar a given
number of landowners or employers of labour, lay
* Major Wingate seems to overlook the effect of the abolition of
mints. They are forcibly pointed out by "Indophilus," in his 6th
Letter to the Hurkaru (Mirror of the Indian Press, p. 164 and foll.)
with reference to those only of Benares and Furruckabad.
817
waste a province. But the next reign would probably
scatter the hoard broadcast over the land, create new
landed estates and wealthy families, re-people the waste
by liberal offers to cultivators. With the British Go-
vernment the void created by the money-demand of
revenue was not supplied; the drain for home-charges,
&c., once begun never ceased; no new families were
built up in the place of those broken down. To keep
the land-revenue from pressing unduly upon the peo-
ple, under such altered conditions, enormous reductions
would have been needed; instead of which, for a length
of time there prevailed what "Indophilus" in his ad-
mirable letters vigorously denounced, what was termed
the "whole-rent theory," the theory, namely, that
the state was to demand the whole rent of the land.
What the consequences of that theory were in the
North-West, I have shewn already from his letters.
But the idea upon which that theory is based-that of
state landlordism, has embodied itself in the ryotwar
system, which prevails still through the two Presiden-
cies of Madras and Bombay, where we have seen
already some of its fruits.
It is indeed very difficult for an Englishman to
realize the fact, that throughout the greater part of
India, the Government claims to be the actual land-
lord of the soil, to grant it out on leases, which seem
never to exceed thirty years, which throughout nearly
two whole Presidencies are yearly ones. I have to rub
my eyes, and make sure that I am not reading some
translation from a continental socialist, of what may
be called the official or centralist school, when I see,
in a minute by the late Governor of Madras, Lord
Harris, dated 26th October, 1854, a sentence like
318
the following:-"I consider that the land of a country
belongs to the Government de facto, and should be held
by it, and should be distributed by it amongst the po-
pulation, in such a manner as to cause it to be most
beneficially cultivated, both as regards the interests of
the cultivators and of the whole community."
(Para.
78.) Imagine, O ye landlords, and eke tenants of
England, Mr. Ernest Jones and Mr. Bronterre
O'Brien become "government de facto" of this coun-
try, and proceeding upon my Lord Harris's theory, of
considering that the land belongs to them, and distri-
buting it with a view to beneficial cultivation! Nor is
the sequel less startling: "There may be," says his
Lordship, "and we know there are, many hindrances to
this principle being even openly allowed, much more to
its being fully carried out, in all countries; but in those
cases wherein the opportunity is afforded of starting
from first principles it should not be neglected."
Wretched French provisional Government of 1848,
what an opportunity of "starting from first prin-
ciples" in re-distributing the whole land of France did
you not neglect! I certainly shall not discuss "first
principles" of the law of property with his Lordship.
I express no opinion, whether the land of a country
ought to belong to the Government de facto, or to the
Government de jure, or to private owners. But I do
say, it is very hard that of three men professing the
self-same principles, one may be sent to rot at Cayenne,
another, perhaps, to hard labour at Portland, while the
third proclaims and carries them out on a splendid
salary as Governor of Madras.
-
* I am bound to say that I have not the slightest sympathy with
the theory which makes the state a mere policeman. But to entitle
319
Now, although other Indian Governors may be shy
of setting forth Lord Harris's theory of state-land-
lordism with the same frankness as his Lordship, I must
say that there is too much of the practice of it every-
where. What its final results are, in Madras, may be
easily shewn. It is not I, but Mr. J. P. Grant, mem-
ber of the Calcutta Council, who says, in explanation
of the affrays about land so much complained of in
Bengal, "In most Madras districts land is valueless,
by reason of the revenue system there in force; the
contentions there being when a ryot is forced, not to
give up, but to take land." Mr. Mead, from whom I
quote the above extract, tells us that "in Cuddapah,
Bellary, and Guntoor, three of the naturally richest
districts in the Madras Presidency, land is wholly un-
saleable, whilst in Chingleput it is only worth six
months' purchase."*
And Mr. Smollett informs us,—
--
it to meddle with those great social labours of agriculture or industry,
it is at least essential that it should be itself truly national and
social. Almost any form of individual property in land is probably
better than the land-ownership of a government at once alien and
despotic, as the Anglo-Indian Government necessarily has been till
now.
* Mead's Sepoy Revolt, pp. 323, 338. In Coimbetore,—said to
be the crack ryotwar province-it appears from the "Madras Athe-
næum of Dec. 7, 1858, that, of 5649 rs. compensation awarded
during the first quarter of 1858 for lands taken on account of the
railway, 2271 represented the "value of land," 1209 the "loss of
produce," the balance being made up of the items of " trees,"
" " wells
and ponds," "houses" and "pagodas." If we suppose the produce
lost to be that of the whole year, the land would thus be worth less
than two years' purchase. If the "loss of produce" be simply that
of standing crops, of which there may very likely be three in this
rich province, the fee simple of the land would be literally valueless.
""
320
·
a fact indeed fully recognized-that only one-fourth of
the cultivable land in Madras is brought into actual
cultivation under the ryotwar system, whilst he can
quote the Vizeanagrum zemindary as an instance in
which, since the discontinuance of that system, nine-
tenths have become so.*
In the other ryotwar Presidency-Bombay-Mr.
Warden, as we have seen, equally asserts that the land
has no saleable value. This appears, from Major
Wingate's evidence before the Colonization Committee,
to be incorrect as respects the land brought under the
new survey, which would seem to flourish in a remark-
able degree. But even there it is only worth six years'
purchase--in Bengal alone, under the Permanent Settle-
ment, twenty or twenty-two. So far, therefore, as the
ryotwar system prevails, we may say that the pressure of
the land revenue (at least when not alleviated by public
works) has either actually reached its utmost limits, or
has only slightly receded from them,-for how short a
time we cannot tell, as even the new survey settlement
in the South Mahratta country is professedly not per-
manent, and the example of the North-West shews us
how thirty years' settlements can be infringed upon;-
that the Government demand absorbs practically, what-
ever governors and civilians may choose to fix as its
proportion, the whole, or nearly the whole, surplus
value of the land.
* Civil Administration in Madras, p. 127.
+ Fourth Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 46
and following.
‡ Ibid. pp. 84-5. But even in Bengal, "where the assessment is
moderate," Mr. Dalrymple tells us that the Government rent is "in
many instances" excessive. Second Report, p. 74.
321
""
In the favoured North-West land has undoubtedly
a value, for it is bought and sold. Yet the mere intro-
duction of the survey and settlement into the best ma-
naged district was equivalent itself, Mr. Robertson
says, to a direct impost of at least £10,000 on the agri-
cultural classes.* And Mr. Saunders tells us that if
the settlement is "not excessive," it is "full," and that
it is "scarcely worth while for any one to purchase
mortgaged estates, "so little is their profit," so that the
mortgagee has practically no remedy but to foreclose,
which is "just a little better than leaving the native in
possession and losing their debt." Hence the substi-
tution of the trading classes for the agricultural, as
respects the ownership of land, of which we have seen
the effects already. I should gather from Mr. Saun-
ders's evidence that such sales of land as take place
must be chiefly on account of Government, for payment
of revenue arrears.
And Mr. Gubbins,-though he declares our revenue
system to be good, yet with his North-Western expe-
rience declares also that "the pressure of the Govern-
ment demand is in many districts greatly too high.
It is too high in Agra, in Allygurh, in Mynpoorie, in
Boolundshuhur, and throughout the greater part of
Rohilcund. The principle on which that settlement was
made, was to claim as the share of Government two-
thirds of the net rental. But the fraud and chicanery
opposed to our revenue officers generally caused them un-
wittingly to fix the demand at more than this share.”‡
* Return on the Revenue Survey (India), 1853, p. 121.
+ Fourth Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 205.
Mutinies in Oudh, p. 72.
Y
I
322
On the whole then, does the "Times" Calcutta corre-
spondent, writing on the 9th October, 1858, exaggerate,
when he says, generally and sweepingly, but probably
having an especial eye to Northern India: "The rent,
if you will have it a rent, is a rack-rent. Can
a taxation screwed to the last possible point of endu-
rance, and really levied exclusively on food, be con-
sidered light ?"* Or are St. George Tucker's words of
1832 become obsolete: "Our lightest assessment is
perhaps too heavy"? |
But let us take from Mr. Gubbins,-not only the
latest witness, but surely one beyond cavil on such a
point,—the following picture of the effects of an ex-
cessive land-tax, which shews how far they extend
beyond the mere economic region, deep into the heart
of public morality:
D
"Even in England it should not be difficult to understand how an
exorbitant, or unequal, and ill-adjusted land-tax necessarily saps the
foundation of all public prosperity. Nine-tenths of the population
[of India] be it remembered, are agricultural. If then the burthen
of land-tax imposed upon the country be excessive, nine-tenths of
the people suffer. All improvement is checked; a general squalor
and low style of living and conduct, never in India too high, prevails;
and crime is multiplied. ‡ The people are in want; and steal and
* Times, November 13, 1838. + Selections, p. 10.
It is difficult for us to realize the fact, that there is a patholo-
gical diagnosis of over-assessment familiar to the Anglo-Indian
official, "What are the usual signs of over-assessment in India?" it
was asked, with special reference to Guzerat, of Mr. Williamson, who
had been Revenue Commissioner in Bombay, by the Cotton Com-
mittee of 1848: "A falling off of the cultivation, a want of spirit in
the people, arrears of revenue, and the necessity of remissions after
the settlements are concluded." "When you say a falling off of the
cultivation, do you mean that portions of the land are left wholly
323
rob they will, however active may be our exertions to prevent them.
Numberless illustrations could be given of this state of things. I
was once collector of a district, where the native revenue officials were
known to request that payment of revenue might not be pressed,
saying, 'that it would soon be collected when the dark nights re-
turned;' that is, the people would acquire then, by theft, the means
of paying it. In another, I remember some villages where the assess-
ment pressed heavily, the head-men of which were constantly
getting into trouble from the thievish habits of their people. One of
these men happening to visit Agra some years later, came to see me-
'Mobarick,' I inquired of him, 'how are the thieves of your vil-
lage?'-'Sir,' replied the head-man with an offended air, we do not
steal NOW; our revenue payment has been made easy.' He pro-
ceeded to tell me of the large reductions that had been made, and
assured me that the neighbouring villages to his had, for a like
reason, given up their malpractices."*
We hear much of Indian robbers,—of the efficient
measures taken to suppress Dacoitee. Here is proof
positive, from the experience of an Indian civilian, that
apart from its hereditary, professional elements, Indian
robbery is in a great measure artificially made and
kept up, is a fruit of our revenue system; that the
native revenue official connives at it, that the Govern-
ment treasury fattens upon its proceeds, that the "crack
collector," whether he know it or not, is practically but
an accomplice of the native decoit.
-
We may trust that that race of "crack collectors” is
extinct. We may learn from Major Wingate's evi-
uncultivated?"—"I mean, owing to land being thrown up less is
cultivated."-Report on the Growth of Cotton in India, p. 149.
Imagine the Duke of Bedford's land becoming uncultivated by
reason of his rack-renting it!
* The Mutinies in Oudh, pp. 429-30.
Y 2
324
*
66
dence how, in Bombay at least, remissions of revenue
have invariably been encouraged of late years.
But
we must not suppose that the mischief of a "crack
collector" disappears with him. A name, which I need
not repeat, will long be spoken of with execration in
Bundelcund. And so, I suspect, in Chingleput must be
that of the collector of whom St. George Tucker tells
us that he proposed the confiscation of hereditary
tenures, “ as a means of compelling the ryots to cultivate
their lands !" Was ever anything heard of so brutally
absurd? Nor dare we forget that the necessities of this
very rebellion tend to reproduce that state of things in-
dicated by the same writer in 1832, when he said: "Our
collectors are too prone to exact the uttermost farthing,
because their credit depends upon the amount of their
collections." Certain it is that, within the past year,
the revenue has been exacted in certain districts of
Madras during a period of scarcity amounting to all
but actual famine. And with such a pressure upon
them as that of the military operations of the North,
it is utterly impossible that the local Governments
should not have viewed those officers with most favour
who sent in the heaviest specie-bags.
Sant
And now we may judge how much depends for the
Indian peasant upon one word of the proclamation being
made a reality:
"Subject to the equitable demands of the state."§
* Fourth Report on Colonization and Settlement (India), p. 58.
+ Selections, p. 31, n.
Selections, p. 10.
§ The subject of the Indian land-revenue has been treated of in
detail by Mr. J. B. Norton in his "Topics for Indian Statesmen,"
LETTER XXIV.
HOW THE PLEDGE OF RESPECT TO NATIVE PRO-
PERTY IS TO BE CARRIED OUT.
I THINK I have shewn that, beside and before the
policy of annexation properly so called, there has been
at work in India on the part of the British Govern-
ment, not always consciously, what may be called a
policy of absorption,-a course of proceeding tending
to absorb the land, the wealth of the natives, to destroy
native rank, influence, and industry. And these two
policies, which are in fact but two separate sides
of our national sin of covetousness-have reacted per-
petually upon each other. The prospect of the absorp-
tion process has intensified the terrors of annexation.
The sight of annexation has made the sufferers under
absorption more desperate.*
*
And thus it must never be forgotten, that with each
ch. viii. p. 175 and foll.; by Mr. Mead, in his " Sepoy Revolt," chs.
24-9, p. 309 and foll.; by my friend Mr. W. E. Forster, in his
lecture, “How we tax India." Mr. Norton's work is especially re-
markable as a defence of the ryotwar system.
*“I cannot refrain from mentioning to you the excitement which
prevails universally, owing to late resumptions, not only among the
chiefs, but zemindars and landed proprietors. It was extremely bad
policy, in my opinion. And forbidding adoption, against the most
ancient practice and usage of the Hindoo chiefs, and in direct breach
of treaty-faith, was certainly a most injudicious and suicidal measure.
It has alienated the confidence of all classes, from the prince to the
peasant. I, who mix with them all, in the most intimate and
familiar manner, can safely bear my testimony to the above."-Ex-
tract of a letter from Central India, dated 23rd May, 1857. Observe
the date-just before the outbreak in that quarter.
326
new annexation the perils of every future annexation
became greater. The value of the native states, as a
refuge for the restless and the discontented, was long
ago pointed out by Mr. Elphinstone and other great
men of a great epoch in Indian history. Rebellion is
surely the last resource that men seek, who can find
ease in change of place. Whilst if, as I firmly believe,
the temper of our Indian fellow-subjects generally has
been a smouldering discontent, to bring that discontent
into contact with the fiery smarts of recent annexation
must always have tended to precipitate explosion.*
For the preservation then of our Indian empire, I
believe that the annexation policy was not given up
one hour too soon.
But let us remember that both the policy of annexa-
tion and that of absorption have been once already
given up. Once already, now nearly three-quarters of
* The following further extracts from letters by the writer I have
just quoted (and whose opportunities of judging are peculiar) may
here be inserted.
"They may try, if they please, to mislead the people of England
by saying that disaffection is confined to the army, and that the na-
turally evil-minded and dissolute are taking advantage of circumstances
to plunder and devastate; but let them be assured that the disease lies
much deeper . . . . You cannot know the intensity of the fire that
is burning in every Mussulman bosom against us and there
are not a few of the Hindoos of certain classes who are just as in-
veterate."
•
In presence of such facts as these, the enthusiasm excited by
the Queen's proclamation is most striking. The almost frantic joy
which the advent of what is expected to be a new policy has brought
forth only lights up the more fearfully the gulf which the old policy
had been scooping out at our very feet.
327
a century ago (1784) the English Parliament (with
more right feeling indeed than grammar) proclaimed
that "to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of
dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish,
the honour and policy of this nation."* It went
further still, and enacted that "whereas complaints
have prevailed, that divers rajas, zemindars, polygars,
talookdars and other native landholders within the
British territories in India, have been unjustly de-
prived of, or compelled to abandon and relinquish, their
respective lands, jurisdictions, rights and privileges, or
that the tributes, rents and services required to be by
them paid and performed for their respective posses-
sions to the said United Company, are become grievous
and oppressive; and whereas the principles of justice,
and the honour of this country require that such com-
plaints should be forthwith inquired into and fully
investigated, and if founded in truth effectually re-
dressed" the Court of Directors should forthwith
take the said matters into their serious considera-
tion," and should "adopt, take, and pursue such
methods for inquiring into the causes, foundation and
truth of the said complaints, and for obtaining a full
and perfect knowledge of the same, and of all circum-
stances relating thereto," as the Court of Directors
should think "best adapted for that purpose;" and
should "thereupon, according to the circumstances of
the respective cases
give orders and instruc-
tions to the several Governments and Presidencies for
effectually redressing," in such manner as should "be
consistent with justice and the laws and customs of the
* 24 Geo. III. Sess. 2. c. 25. s. 34 (Pitt's India Act).
328
country, all injuries and wrongs which the said rajas,"
&c., might have "sustained unjustly" as before men-
tioned, "and for settling and establishing, upon princi-
ples of moderation and justice, rules by which their
respective tributes, rents and services" should be "in
future rendered and paid to the Company."
Nothing can be nobler than the spirit of the above
enactment. But we all know it proved a mere flash
in the pan. And for the simplest of all reasons. The
Company, the really guilty party, as the one that ulti-
mately profited through every act of extortion by its
subordinates, was made the judge of those extortions.
Could you seriously expect justice from it?
Still, I believe, in 1859 as in 1784, "the principles
of justice and the honour of this country require" that
the complaints of princes and landholders—aye, and of
peasants if they will speak out-" should be forthwith
inquired into and fully investigated, and if founded in
truth effectually redressed." Past experience shews
that the Government of India cannot be entrusted
with such an inquiry. I have claimed before-I
claim now the appointment of a Royal Commission for
the purpose, as the necessary complement of the transfer
of the Government of India to the Crown. Such a
claim has been urged long ere this, by those who best
know India. It was put forth before the Cotton
Committee in 1848, by my uncle, Mr. F. C. Brown, a
Malabar landowner. It has been insisted on once
and again by the Madras civilian Mr. Smollett. The
glorious band of Bengal Missionaries, in 1856-7,
prayed it in vain at the hands of the Lieutenant-
* 24 Geo. III. sess. 2. c. 25 (s. 39).
329
Governor of Bengal, of the Government of India, of
the Parliament of Great Britain. Mr. D'Israeli-
when he was not in office-treated it as indispensable;
Mr. McLeod Wylie, the Calcutta Judge of the Small
Debts Court, agrees with the "Native of Northern
India" in demanding it. Listen how weightily the
latter pleads, and I have reason to know that he is
the exponent of the general, I might almost say the
unanimous desire of all that part of the native popula-
tion which is best affected to our rule:
'First of all, let us have a Royal Commission,-unless India is so
fortunate that Sir J. Lawrence is appointed Governor-General with
the powers of the President of the Board of Control, or her own
Council, or the Court of Directors take it into their heads to select at
once Commissioners who may be found even better than Sir John.
The Commissioners must be experienced men, well acquainted with
the languages of the country, not very old, active, sharp, stout and
bold, who can bear the fatigues of long journey, and are unreservedly
disposed to mix with the people. They must not travel like the
Governors-General to cut down the burs and peepuls which give such
a cool shade to the weary traveller, to consume the wood, grass, and
earthen pots which take the poor peasants months to prepare, and to
fill the coffers of the burkundazes (policemen) who invariably pocket
the price of all such things for themselves; nor remain shut up in
the big tents surrounded by secretaries like the Governor-General;
nor content themselves merely with, or waste much time in inspect-
ing the records; be prepared to travel by dak (post), with one or
two secretaries, through the length and breadth of the country, and
collect their information from the people, and the people only, cor-
roborated, of course, by the records of the offices. They must not
put up
with the local authorities, for by so doing the people will be
overawed to give any correct information-though the Commissioners
must see, and hear also, the local authorities, and have many refer-
ences to adjust with them. The party which is against the Royal
Commission and wants to keep the public of England in perpetual
darkness about this country may object, and say that such a Com-
mission will put the Indian Government in a great jeopardy. But
!
330
ask them if the annual tours of the Commissioners of Revenue or the
Governors put the magistrates in jeopardy, and do the people set at
naught their authority? All the other reforms must depend on the
inquiries of these Commissioners."
But until the appointment of such a Commission,
other steps may be taken to shew the firm adherence of
the Government to the policy of the proclamation. The
recognition of the right of adoption, which I have
urged ere this, must avail the poorest inam-holder as
well as the most influential of native princes. The
Inam Commissions must, I believe, be abolished, if the
tranquillity of the Deckan is to be preserved; Govern-
ment, in the prosecution of its claims for revenue, must
place itself within the pale of the ordinary law, must
submit to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
To go into more detailed suggestions as to the improve-
ment of the real property laws of India would be be-
yond my province; but I feel assured that a policy
which, without attempting to start from "first prin-
ciples" of universal state-ownership, like my Lord
Harris, without riding a hobby to death like Munro
and the ryotwar school, or like Bird and the village-
settlement school, would simply set before itself the
duty of maintaining all existing rights of property, not
in themselves immoral or anti-social, of developing
such rights where they are not yet recognized or fixed,
according to the special "laws, customs, and usages
of the different portions of our vast Indian empire,
would, ere long, discover means of remedying all the
main evils complained of,-the sudden displacement of
the old landowners, the insecurity of tenure of the new,
-the frequent shiftings of the rights of property, with
little or sometimes no increase in their value,-in
""
331
Madras, above all, that deadly check upon agricultural
enterprize, the fear of seeing Government come into
the market as a land-purchaser, the knowledge that its
fiscal powers,-alarming in themselves, as Mr. Gubbins
shews them to be,-are capable of being used directly
to bring estates under its ownership.
And in order that the pressure of the land-revenue
itself may not continue to be a means of destroying
native property, or hindering its creation, I feel satis-
fied that an expansion of the currency is one of the
measures most urgently required. How that should
be done, whether by the adoption of gold as a standard,
or (temporarily at least) as a joint-standard with silver,
or by a bank note circulation, as urged by Indophilus,
involves many a difficult question, which my ignorance
of finance would not suffer me to attempt.
*
* Although specie shipments are now habitually made, not from
but to the East, the effect of the home-charges must not, I conceive,
be overlooked, in detaining specie in England, which would otherwise
be sent out. That India has the capacity, when her resources are
duly developed, of amply providing for those home-charges, I have
no manner of doubt. But until that point is reached, is it not a
question how far the burthen might be lightened by an equivalent
expansion of the English paper circulation? For instance, the defi-
ciency of 1859 is estimated at 8 or 9 millions. More than 2 millions
of these would at once be covered if the Bank of England were
allowed to advance the Council the amount of the home-charges,
such advance being guaranteed by the State. Would not such an
expansion of our circulation be a real benefit to this country, where
sooner or later the staunchest supporters of Sir Robert Peel's Bank-
ing Bill will probably have to admit that a fixed primary circulation,
so to speak, of 14 millions of paper, is not compatible with the ever-
expanding wants of English society? How far the process might be
facilitated by local issues of paper would next have to be considered.
LETTER XXV.
P
THE AMNESTY, AND THE DISARMING ORDERS.
I HAVE nothing to say on the subject of the amnesty
announced by the proclamation. It is large, generous,
royal; it supplies its own comment, in the surrenders
which it at once called forth, and which are thinning
the ranks of the rebellion far more rapidly than even
the doughtiest blows of our officers.
I cannot, however, refrain from remarking upon a
late proclamation of Lord Clyde's as to disarmament,
which appears to me to go counter to the very spirit
of the amnesty. To deprive the Oude talookdars of
anything in the shape of ordnance is but natural. To
deprive the population of its arms is surely far more
questionable. The right to possess arins-guaranteed
to us Englishmen by the Bill of Rights-forms, so to
speak, part of the very character of the military classes
of India, and every Rajpoot's hereditary pride must be
stirred to the quick by its withdrawal. But the pos-
session of arms is far from being a mere matter of pride
I suspect that if paper is once made a legal tender for revenue, the
natives will not be shy of taking it. Indeed, I should think the
refusal hitherto to accept Government paper as tender for Govern-
ment purposes (revenue, deposits on purchases, &c.) has been one of
the main causes of the local depreciation of Indian securities.
Nothing, however, as it seems to me, can be more injudicious than
the making dividends on Indian loans payable in London, as has
now been done. This tends directly to increase the drain for home-
charges, and to shift the debt from native to English hands, reducing
by so much the native stake in the maintenance of our supremacy.
333
and social dignity. It is one, for the greater part of
India at all events, of absolute necessity, for protection
against the wild beast, against the robber. Let us not
forget that India is not a mere island garden like
England, in which scarcely a wild cat remains, and it
is a point of honour among country gentlemen not to
kill a fox otherwise than in the orthodox manner, after
giving him a run for his life. It is a land where the
tiger haunts the brake, the alligator the river; where
the wild elephant in the South sometimes stops the
traffic on a post road; where wolves follow every corps
on the line of march, dash into villages and even cities,
and tear infants from their mothers' sides; where whole
tribes live by the produce of the chase. Nor let us
forget that it is also a country where, in spite of the
presence of the European, robbery is committed not
only by the craft of single thieves, but by gangs of
armed men, and with much of the planning and of the
discipline, of the conflicts and of the surprises, of regu-
lar warfare. The danger-say rather the futility-of
disarmament under such circumstances, (which must
necessarily be aggravated by the rebellion, since war-
fare and its attendant carnage and desolation invari-
ably multiply the number of beasts of prey, both four-
legged and two-legged, the dismissed or fugitive sol-
dier having almost a natural tendency there to become
a brigand,) has been ere this pointed out by experienced
officers.
-
"Some magistrates and local rulers," wrote Colonel Sleeman long
ago, "have very unwisely adopted the measure of prohibiting the
people from carrying or bearing arms in their own houses, the very
thing which, above all others, such robbers most wish; for they
know, although such magistrates and rulers do not, that it is the
innocent only, and the friends to order, who will obey the command.
334
The robber will always be able to conceal his arms, or keep with
them out of the reach of the magistrate; and he is now relieved
altogether from the salutary dread of a shot from a door or window.
He may rob at his leisure, or sit down like a gentleman, and have all
that the people of the surrounding towns and villages possess
brought to him, for no man can any longer attempt to defend him-
self and his family."*
So Colonel Alves, in the Supplement to his " India
and its Dangers," written in view of the very mea-
sures now proposed or being carried out :
"The honest man requires protection against the rascal, who, it
may be feared, will always find arms; many have no other means of
livelihood;† and every village requires protection against the ravages
of tigers, hyenas or wolves, to say nothing of gang or other rob-
bers. To many the loss of arms would be degradation, to others.
starvation, while their retention by good men would prove an aid to
our police. This advantage is quite attainable by rendering our
Government acceptable to the people, and it is no trifling one. Let
us draw the sting from the mind rather than the hand."
He deprecates even the indiscriminate dismantling of
private forts in Oude itself:
"The chiefs who own them pride themselves on the possession of
those ancestral castles, with which the histories of many of their
families are interwoven, and will view any attempt to dismantle them
as degradation of a very humiliating kind.
India has
ever been more or less obnoxious to internal commotions, and
walled villages and peaceable armed inhabitants have constituted
mainly the defence of the people and their property; and had our
subjects of Bengal been thus able to defend themselves they would
not have been plundered or killed in hundreds, during the late
Santal outbreak. Moreover, the possibility of an invasion from the
North-west at some future time cannot be left out of consideration.
* Rambles and Recollections, vol. i.
+ I am informed that the insurrection in Candeish arose from the
attempt to disarm the hill Bheels, who live by the chase, and must
plunder if they are deprived of their weapons.
16
pp. 319-20.
335
Both Sikhs and Ghoorkas in our pay have tasted of the spoils
of Delhi and Lucknow; and Jung Bahadoor's men have shared
largely in the booty of the latter capital. These men on their re-
turn home will display their wealth, and talk over their deeds of
arms; and the tale may pass throughout Tartar land.
It is
but reasonable to suppose that hordes still exist who might, under
the influence of some combination against us, pour down upon India
at some future day, when we might possibly not have friends on
our own Northern and North-western borders. But disarmed,
dispirited, and their fortresses dismantled or thrown down, of what
assistance could the once warlike chiefs and inhabitants of Oude be
to us, unable as they would be to protect themselves, their families
and property? What alone, in all human calculation, would prevent
such an attempt being ever made, would be a knowledge pervading the
world, that our rule in India was popular-therefore morally strong
-and that our physical means were everywhere such as to baffle, not
merely conquest, but even extensive plunder and rapine.
""**
What adds to the weight of this reasoning is the
physical configuration of Oude,-and indeed of the
Gangetic valley generally-a vast alluvial plain, in
which few of the rivers even have precipitous banks,
and of which consequently the whole system of defence
must be mainly artificial. Such a system of defence,
adapted most admirably to the nature of the country,
is supplied by the jungles, and jungle-circled fortresses,
of Oude and the adjacent provinces, in the former of
which the population can easily take refuge, whilst in
the latter a handful of determined men can hold out,
against anything but shell practice, long enough at all
events to arrest the march of an invader. Let us be-
ware then, in dismantling Oude, of making all Northern
India one Grand Trunk Road for a foreign enemy to
Calcutta.
*Supplement to India and its Dangers, pp. 22-5.
336
up
Nor can I forbear here to say a few words as to
the position of these Oude talookdars themselves, who
have given us so much trouble. It is easy, after the
first sickening perusal of Sir Wm. Sleeman's "Journey
through Oude," to condemn them wholesale, to deem
the annexation of the country justified by their crimes
and those of the sovereigns whom they opposed. And
yet, when one examines the book a second time, when
one studies it, as I have endeavoured to do, in its
details, when one considers the conclusions to which
his experience led the writer, his own character, more
recent events, a very different set of impressions rise
in one's mind. How is it that he who saw all these
things, he who describes them at first hand, did not
view in them that justification for annexation which
suggests itself to us in his narration, but on the con-
trary strenuously opposed that measure? Then one
recollects that the narrator, worthy man though I
trust he was, was the most experienced of thief and
murderer-catchers, one of those men endowed no
doubt with a genuine hunger for justice, but who seem
to relish it especially in its coarser forms; whose appe-
tites for it are whetted by crime, whose nostrils snuff
villainy from afar. If such a man, invested with high
rank, surrounded by a military retinue, exempt from
all superior jurisdiction, open to receive all manner of
complaints, were to travel through England itself on a
tour of inquiry, would he not be likely to produce such
a report as would make Englishmen's hair stand on
end, as to the state of their own country? Would not
every crime and vice rise to the surface before our eyes
in his pages, till there should seem to be nothing else?
- Mga
1
337
Might not his account, though true in every detail,
prove essentially false as a whole, if we took it as a
picture of the real condition, moral and social, of the
country? Should we not, if otherwise ignorant of that
condition, have to seek it in the side glimpses which
the report afforded, rather than in its fuller delinea-
tions?
If we apply a little of this caution to General
Sleeman's book, it is wonderful how the picture changes
before our eyes. Follow his track stage by stage, and
you will be struck by two features, which would not
attract attention in themselves, but which become
striking in the long run; the extent of cultivation over
a large portion of the country (except within the
limits of Rughber Sing's ravages), and even where the
soil lies waste, the almost constant occurrence of
"groves" and "trees." The cultivation he explains by
statements such as this, that "tillage is the one thing
needful to all, and the persons from whom trespasses on
the crops are most apprehended, are the reckless and
disorderly trains of the Government officials."* But
the abundance of trees is a far more remarkable cir-
cumstance. In his "Rambles and Recollections," Sir
William Sleeman had himself specially dwelt on the
absence of trees in our North-Western provinces,
through revenue mismanagement. "Our Government,'
he said, "has in effect, during the 35 years that it has
held the dominion of the North-West provinces, prohi-
bited the planting of mango groves, while the old ones
are every year disappearing."t In his "Journey
Journey through Oude, vol. ii. p. 219.
Rambles and Recollections, vol. ii. pp. 176-7.
Z
""
338
through Oude," he insists repeatedly on the value of
trees and groves to the people, on their abundance in
Oude, on the security with which they are planted and
enjoyed; saying expressly that they "are more secure
in Oude than in our own territories, and the country is
in consequence much better provided with them."*
A single fact like this tends of itself to shew that the
distractions and miseries of Oude, however dreadful,
were not of those which go to the very vitals of a na-
tion's existence. And when this light once breaks upon
us, we begin to see elements of order warring on all
sides against disorder; sometimes a well-meaning Go-
vernment officer, sometimes a kindly revenue contrac-
tor, but foremost of all and almost universally, the ta-
lookdars. The grievance of the crown against them
is avowedly, not that their estates are not flourishing,
but that they are flourishing and do not pay revenue,
or not revenue enough, the Government's chief resource
against them being "to prevent the cultivation of the
land." On General Sleeman's route, you will find the
country almost invariably flourishing, in the exact pro-
portion of the talookdar's strength. To instance one
of our present enemies, the estate of Benee Madho was
"admirably cultivated," "covered with a great variety
of crops," the people seeming "very happy." These
talookdars were indeed men of two classes. Mr. Gub-
bins says, that "the greater number of them were he-
reditary heads of rajpoot tribes."§ The ancestors of
Benee Madho had been settled in Oude for about 25
Journey through Oude, vol. ii. p. 31. † Ibid. vol. i, pp. 56-7.
Ibid. pp. 253-5.
§ Mutinies in Oudh, p. 62.
339
generations.* Others were new men,—bankers, or go-
vernment officers, or contractors,-who had gradually
taken root in the soil. Such was the Brahmin Maun
Sing, of whom and of whose family Sir William Slee-
man states, that though they had acquired their pro-
perty in the land by abuse of authority, collusion, and
violence, they kept their faith with the cultivators, ef-
fectually protected them from thieves, robbers, their
neighbours, the king's troops; that under them the
landholders and peasantry seemed "all happy and
secure," the people "strong and well made, and with-
out any appearance of disease;" hardly a beggar was
to be seen, and the residence of religious mendicants
was especially discouraged."†
66
B
Putting all these facts together, I think we are led
to the conclusion that, great as were the miseries of
Oude at the time of annexation, they were those of a
crisis. Power was changing hands; it was passing,
by the very laws of human society, from the imbecile
sovereigns to the stronger land-holders. Better would
it have been surely on all accounts to have abstained
from meddling with such a state of things. But having
meddled with it, our only chance lay in taking it as it
was. "We ought," says Mr. Carre Tucker, late Go-
vernor-General's agent and Commissioner at Benares,
in a valuable letter on "Oude and its talookdars"
which has been privately printed, "to have acted on the
principle of accepting the existing status." What has
followed on the adoption of the contrary principle we
all see. Many of the Oude talookdars are still in arms,
* Sleeman's Journey through Oude, vol. i. p. 245.
Journey through Oude, vol. i. p. 149 and foll.; pp. 162-5.
z 2
340
and the people have apparently in every direction sided
with them. The long persistence of the Oude rebellion
is surely the best answer to those who would treat
the talookdars as a class only as so many hateful
tyrants.
If I sought for evidence that the state of Oude could
never have been so bad as we are prone, from a hasty
perusal of General Sleeman's book, to imagine it, I
would seek no other than that of Mr. Martin Gub-
bins, an avowed apologist of the annexation. At the
date of the rebellion, he tells us, "all those numerous
dacoits," who at our entrance into the country were
"reckoned by hundreds," "had become peaceable
and quiet subjects." "The single proclaimed robber
who had given us any trouble, and whose previous
deep-dyed offences under the native Government had
excluded him from pardon, had been destroyed. There
was in Oudh no more of heavy crime than was found in
the best managed districts of the North-Western
Provinces." "For fourteen months," he says else-
where, "Oudh was fully as tranquil as any of our
older possessions."* What! in 14 months, "all" the
dacoits of Oude become "peaceable and quiet subjects "
and Bengal still full of them! What! in 14 months
"no more of heavy crime" than in our "best managed
districts" of the North-West! the country during all
that time, "fully as tranquil as any of our older pos-
sessions!" Are we speaking of plain facts, or of the
fabled waving of an enchanter's wand? No, no,
Oude can never have been the den of brigands, the
* Mutinies in Oudh, pp. 429-31; p. 69; p. 89.
341
almost hell upon earth which we may have imagined
it, to have undergone so sudden a transformation.*
Mr. Gubbins indeed attributes much of the good
achieved to the curbing of the talookdars, to the forced
restoration by them of their ill-acquired lands. He
admits indeed that "in some instances, by the indis-
cretion of local officers, the talookdars were treated
with undue severity." But he maintains that “no
doubt can be entertained of the moderation of the
three years' revenue assessment;" that the revenue
system "certainly" gave satisfaction, "in so far as the
limitation of its amount is concerned;" that the land
revenue of two divisions, Khyrabad and Bareytch,
had been "admirably settled."§ But let us listen to a
couple of his civilian neighbours on the point.
Mr. Carre Tucker of Benares, for instance, while
praising Mr. Gubbins's ability-saying he "reduced
the settlement in numerous instances,"-states that
Government followed "supposed political and finan-
cial expediency, instead of ascertaining and main-
taining existing rights in possession." It imagined
"that in the course of a very hurried assessment of
revenue by officers, many of whom were inexperienced,
it was possible to adjudicate properly difficult claims
to former rights." Lord Canning has admitted that
"it is too true that unjust decisions were come to by
some of our local officers by investigating and judging
the titles of the landholders." And they, as Sir James
It is at all events little creditable to our long years of rule in
India that Oude should have, as it were, leapt at a bound to their
level.
+ Mutinies in Oudh, p. 68.
↑ Ibid. p. 429.
§ Ibid.
342
Outram has stated, feeling themselves "most unjustly
treated under our settlement operations," and "smart-
ing under the loss of their lands," when they saw our
rule "virtually at an end, the whole country overrun,
and the capital in the hands of the rebel soldiery, with
hardly a dozen exceptions, sided against us," the yeo-
manry following "the lead of their natural chiefs."
Mr. Tucker himself, it would appear, wrote to Lord
Canning, after Havelock's first retreat, "that if he
would authorize the proclamation of a revision of the
summary settlement upon the basis of upholding twelve
years' clear and uninterrupted possession of all tenures
existing at the annexation, Rajah Maun Sing and the
other talookdars who had not then gone over to the
enemy, but were wavering, would remain staunch."
But his Lordship telegraphed back that the proposal
was "totally inadmissible. Thus," says Mr. Tucker,
"in Oude the sepoy mutiny became a rebellion of the
whole people."
Again, we have some invaluable side-glances sup-
plied to us by the magistrate of Budaon in Rohilcund,
Mr. Edwards, who at the height of the rebellion found
the most generous shelter with one of the Rajpoot
talookdars of Oude, Hurdeo Buksh, and his relatives.
Although his experience is confined to a single tract
of country, still it should suffice as a favourable sample
of the whole, the tract referred to being part of that
division of Khyrabad, which Mr. Gubbins describes as
having been "admirably settled."
Now the first thing that strikes one in Mr.
Edwards's narrative,--and it is a fact which can never
be too often repeated,-is that the war in Oude did
343
not begin with the talookdars. Mr. Edwards had been
driven from his own district in Rohilcund when he
sought refuge in Oude. Indeed so far from the rebel-
lion having begun with the landholders generally,
there is every presumption that they were forced into
it, as much by the mere peasants as by any other in-
fluence. As he is leaving Rohilcund under the pro-
tection of a Mahomedan sheik, Mr. Edwards passes
through a number of villages "literally swarming with
men armed with swords and iron-bound lattees" (staves).
They are "silent and not disrespectful," seeing the
sheik, whose tenantry they were, but the latter had to
send ahead to "prevent any attack" upon the Euro-
peans.*
In Oude itself, apparently by the middle of
June, "none of the rajwarras, as the chief talookdars
are called, had as yet joined in the rebellion, but on
the contrary had stood quite aloof from the sepoys."t
So essentially were the Oude talookdars an element of
order and not of anarchy, that late in July, when the
state of the British districts was deplorable in the
extreme, while the villages were burnt and plundered
daily, the roads deserted, and no man's life or property
safe for a moment, but everything subject to fire and
sword, the districts "in Oude under the talookdars and
* Edwards's "Personal Adventures," p. 28.-In the "narrative
given by one of the ladies who escaped from Sultanpoor, and after
finding an asylum with Lall Madho Sing, (of Amethee) reached
Allahabad in safety," which forms appendix No. 9 to Mr. Gubbins's
work (see p. 465 and foll.), it will be found that the first attack made
upon the party was by the goreyts or village watchmen, and that they
pursued it even beyond the residence of Golaub Sing, talookdar of
Turole, the first protector of the fugitives.
+Ibid. p. 101,
344
powerful zemindars were calm and peaceful as a lake."
Such was the report of Mr. Edwards' messenger: and
he adds, "This is certainly the case with the extensive
talooka of Hurdeo Buksh, and those of powerful chiefs
immediately around us. The rebellion has not yet
extended to these estates; the people go about their
usual avocations, and all is quiet and peaceful within
their limits."* "Everything," he repeats a little
further on in describing the village of Kussowrie,
"looked peaceful; the people were at their usual occu-
pations; there were no external signs that war and
rebellion were raging all around us."* Yet the quiet
thus maintained was from no affection to British rule.
The sympathies of all were evidently on the other
side; and what will seem strange to those who look
upon the talookdars as mere rebels against their own
king, in favour of the deposed dynasty. A rumour
flies about that the Governor-General is coming with
the king of Oude, that Oude will be restored. The
village Thakoors, uncles of Hurdeo Buksh, "seem quite
delighted at the prospect." "They often speak to me,”
says Mr. Edwards, "about the annexation, and ask me
why the Governor-General acted on 'Sullivan Sahib's'
advice, as they call Sleeman, who they assert was the
man who ruined their raj." And then follows a re-
markable passage, which I shall extract further on, as
to the exactions of our native officials, and the pressure
upon the village Thakoors.
Despoiled talookdars,
revenue assessments so high that they can only be paid
out of property, sales for default impending, the in-
* Personal Adventures, pp. 141-2. + Ibid. p. 146.
345
troduction of the vilest conceivable set of native harpies,
such are the elements of the picture, which belongs,
be it always remembered, to the "admirably settled "
division of Khyrabad!
I take it, therefore, that the talookdars of Oude, if
our enemies, are our injured enemies, and deserve that
this should always be borne in mind. Nor dare we
forget that, in spite of injuries received, they have for
the most part conferred benefits upon our countrymen.
Hurdeo Buksh and his relatives perilled their lives to
save those of Mr. Edwards and his party. Roostum
Sah, Mr. Tucker tells us, "though deprived of almost
all his villages, and reduced to sell his wife's orna-
ments, saved the lives of my brother, Charlton, and the
Sultanpoor refugees." "It is singular," says Mr.
Gubbins, speaking of the same chief and another, "that
Roostum Sah and Lall Honwunt Sing, in the Salone
district, who had both been severe sufferers by the set-
tlement proceedings, should have distinguished them-
selves by their kindness to British officers." *
If, in-
deed, as Mr. Gubbins also tells us, other talookdars,
"who had retained their villages with greatly dimi-
nished assessments, have been most active against us,"
may it not be that, on the annexation of their country
by foreigners, the noblest specimens of the class were
not those who would be most likely to welcome them,
-the vilest rather were those who would soonest cringe
to them and their underlings,-almost all-powerful as
we see the latter to have been in Mr. Edwards's
C
* Mutinies in Oudh, p. 139. See also, at pp. 433-4 of that work,
the list of talookdars who have remained faithful to us, or have
signalised themselves by protecting our fugitives.
$
346
book? But as a rule, throughout the rebellion, to
use Mr. Tucker's words, "the chiefs behaved like gen-
tlemen."
Let us be careful that we do the like-and that, if
need be, according to our own standard rather than by
theirs. Let us not pour the vials of our wrath upon.
the Raja of Amethie because he may have prevaricated,
after the manner of his countrymen, about a few pieces
of ordnance, and forget in so doing that, as he himself
reminded us, his fort had been a refuge to English-
women in their flight,-that the very guns which we
claim of him must have been their main assurance of
safety, and that to protect fugitive women is at least
the act of a true gentleman all over the world.
p
LETTER XXVI.
THE PLEDGE OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.
"WHEN, by the blessing of Providence, internal
tranquillity shall be restored, it is our earnest desire to
stimulate the peaceful ministry of India, to promote
works of public utility and improvement, and to ad-
minister its government for the benefit of all our sub-
jects resident therein. In their prosperity will be our
strength, in their contentment our security, and in
their gratitude our best reward. And may the God
of all power grant unto us, and to those in authority
under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for
the good of our people.”
This again is one of those paragraphs which would
347
give scope to volumes of development. The details of
the measures to be carried out belong indeed essen-
tially, in my view, to the labours of such a Commission
of Inquiry as I have spoken of. The three leading
heads of improvement, however, in addition to such as
I have already pointed out, seem to be those of judicial
and police reform, public works, and education. As
respects the first especially, the four reports of the Co-
lonization Committee of last year afford abundant evi-
dence of the present state of things. I believe indeed
that, in the Punjab and in Scinde, a really efficient
police has been established; that it has been greatly
improved in Bombay; that steps are now being taken
-after being long talked about-to improve it also in
Madras. But still I find it impossible to doubt that
throughout the greater part of British India, the radi-
cal corruption of the police, and the inefficiency-at
least in all its inferior stages-of the judicial system,
add an abiding, habitual source of insecurity to person
and property to those which arise from the policy of
the Government and the laws passed by it. And this
has been, indeed, recognized by the Court of Directors
itself. In their "Memorandum" of 1857 on the
"Improvements in the Administration of India," they
admitted, with charming candour, that notwithstand-
ing "partial amendments, it cannot be said that the
courts, in what are called Regulation Provinces, have
yet been freed from their radical defects. The principal
impediments to a good administration of justice are a
complicated and technical system of pleading in the
civil courts, and in the criminal courts the character of
the police." But they almost immediately proceeded
348
to declare that "the Non-regulation Provinces have
had (generally from their first acquisition) the benefit
of a cheap, accessible, and expeditious administration
of justice, free from all such formalities and technicali-
ties as either defeat justice or add needlessly to the
difficulty and expense of obtaining it." And they
pointed triumphantly to the Punjab as exemplifying
this assertion.*
Now I am most decidedly in favour of a "cheap,
accessible, and expeditious administration of justice."
I am quite prepared to believe that the Punjab system,
as a system, is better than that of the Regulation Pro-
vinces; that it has been, under Sir John Lawrence and
his coadjutors, eminently successful. But I say that,
to the confusion of all system-worshippers, the Punjab
* See pp. 33 and foll. Some surprise may be felt that the evils
of the administration of justice and of the police should have attained
so much more prominence in Bengal than in other Presidencies. I
believe the real cause to lie in the truth, as applicable to moral and
political as to medical science, that where there is suffering there is
life. Bengal has life enough to cry out under its grievances; the
other Presidencies have not. There is no judicial appeal, be it re-
collected, from Inam Commission injustice. I may, however, here
refer to the Torture Report of Madras, and to the glaring instances
of legal injustice before quoted in the case of landholders and native
officials. Mr. Smollett tells us, and the fact is confirmed to me from
elsewhere, that "in many Government ryotwar provinces there are
positively no original suits in the civil courts, not because the people
have no taste for legal strife, or dwell together like brethren in unity,
but simply because there is no property of the value of £1000
sterling to bring into the courts of law."-Civil Administration of
Madras, p. 90.
An admirable plan of judicial reform has however been drawn up
at Madras, which I shall presently refer to.
349
system, as a system, without the men who have applied
it successfully in the Punjab, has signally failed; and
I earnestly pray that we may not be deluded into fan-
cying that it or any other system is to be the panacea
for India.
For it was the Punjab system which Lord Dalhousie
avowedly applied to Oude, seeing no reason to doubt
that it would be acceptable. And if we would see
what the "cheap, accessible, and expeditious" justice
of that system became, when applied by those native
underlings, whom it has been seemingly the privilege
of British rule to create and foster, let us hear,
through Mr. Edwards, the magistrate of Budaon, the
testimony of those Oude Rajpoots from whom he re-
ceived so generous a protection:
"They speak with the greatest respect and affection of some of
our officers, especially of Christian, late Commissioner of Seetapore.
If they could always have got access to him, they say, they
would have had no reason to complain of our administration; but
he had too much to do, and was seldom visible. The native officials
they describe as regular harpies, and a native deputy collector who
had been stationed at Sandie, they frequently mention to me with
expressions of the deepest hatred. This fellow, they assert, had a
pair of slippers of extra size made on purpose for shoe beating' (the
most disgraceful punishment that can be inflicted on a native), in
open kutcherry [court], any one who refused to pay him what he
demanded in the shape of bribes, or to sign any agreements respect-
ing the disposal of their villages and land that he chose to fix upon,
however unjust and ruinous to their interests these might be. Old
Kussuree told me that he had paid 1000 rupees (£100) in petitions
alone, not one of which ever reached Christian, and more than 6000
(£600) in bribes, notwithstanding which he had lost the villages
farmed by him and his ancestors for many generations, and had
been assessed so highly for those he had left, that he had only been
able to pay his rent the following year by the sale of some of his
350
family jewels, and a mare he highly valued; and this year he said
he would no doubt have been a defaulter and been sold up had not
the rebellion fortunately occurred. In the conversations I had with
Hurdeo Buksh, who is a very superior intelligent man, he has given
me to understand that the native omlahs (officers) who were intro-
duced in such shoals, at and immediately after the annexation, were
the curse of the country, and in his plain spoken phrase, made our
rule to stink in the nostrils of the people.
To any native
official under Government he declared he would as soon lose his life
as go.
""*
As regards the police indeed-although the military
system may be carried too far, and it would be insanity
to place ourselves once more in the hands of a huge
native army, by simply calling it a police,-still I
cannot doubt that its character is likely to be greatly
improved through the rebellion, by its being made
more military. The smooth old police burkundauze
seems to have been generally as much of a coward as
of a rogue. A military organization will tend to call
into the police service a new set of men from the mili-
tary classes, with the point of honour about them of
personal bravery and fidelity to their immediate chiefs;
men who probably will be little else than plunderers
reclaimed by government pay, and will often relapse
into plunderers again if deprived of it, but who will
generally be above the dirty daily routine of bribery.
As respects civil and judicial matters, I cannot help
saying that I know nothing better yet than the reforms
which are understood to have been proposed by thoroughly
competent parties at Madras. One of these, with a view
to put down the frightful existing amount of forgery and
perjury adopts, if I am rightly informed, the principle
of our English Statute of Frauds in requiring all deeds
* Personal Narrative, pp. 166-9.
351
connected with land, and money deeds beyond a small
amount, to be in writing, parol evidence being inad-
missible; but it requires also the prospective registra-
tion of all deeds relating to land, allows the op-
tional registration of all money deeds, as well as
all deeds relating to lands already existing; and
requires all unregistered documents to be stamped,
and the stamps not to be applicable to any other pur-
pose than that for which they were procured. Another,
-proceeding on the great principle that the Courts
should be made trustworthy, so that they may be left
with an easy mode of procedure, "unhampered by the
extensive system of record now required, and which is
called for to give the means of exercising an elaborate
system of appeal, such system of appeal being requisite
to keep in check Courts which are not trustworthy,"-
takes as the proper mode of procedure that obtaining
in the Small Cause Courts in India, or the County
Courts at home. Under it the Small Cause Judges
decide on an average 13 suits each per day on the
merits, while the average of the moonsiffs is 20 per
month. An easier procedure will allow of a great
reduction of Courts in point of number, and the reduc-
tion of number will permit of raising the composition
of the Courts. In all, it is understood there would be
a plurality of judges. Suits for the most trifling
amounts would go to village punchayets; those up to
1000 rupees in value to the Zillah or district Courts,
composed of one European and two native judges, who
should go on circuit within the Zillah, with power to
employ punchayets to investigate and report on any
matter connected with a suit; the Zillah Courts also to
have criminal jurisdiction. Over every four Zillahs
S
352
would come a provincial Court of three European
judges, making six in all for the Madras Presidency;
such Courts to have jurisdiction in original suits above
1000 rupees in value, and on appeal from the Zillahs ;
one appeal only to be allowed, on special grounds.
Two judges would go on circuit to the Zillah stations
twice a year for civil work, and one three times a year
for criminal work. The Provincial Courts on the civil
side would have power to make use of punchayets, and
would have assessors on the criminal side; registrars
would be attached to the Courts as a means of training
judicial officers to a knowledge of their duties. It is
expected that under this system the immense field for
corruption that now exists will be swept away. It will
be more difficult to bribe three judges than one, and
every Court will have in it a European judge, ordinarily
above bribery. The immense horde of isolated native
judges, and the large and miserably paid establishments
attached to them (most fertile sources of corruption)
will disappear; and when a suit is decided from first to
last in a fraction of a day, there will not be that
opening for chicanery and bribery which exists, when a
cause hangs on hand for months or years.*
Without pledging oneself to all the details of the
above scheme, without especially treating them as
universally applicable beyond the Presidency to which
they apply,-I think one may fairly say that a more
thorough and genuine reform of a great evil has
perhaps never been proposed in India.
* In the above sketch I have done little more than transcribe the
words of one whose benevolence, ability, and experience may be re-
lied upon.
353
Nor must it be supposed that this reform is less
genuine, because it partly restores a former order of
things.
"The Provincial Courts," writes one who has returned to
Southern India within the last few years, were abolished during
my absence in England, and with them the circuits they held,
and they were replaced by Civil and Sessions Courts. In Eng-
land, I thought this a simplification of system, and thus far
an improvement of judicial machinery. I had there before my eyes
all the County Court Judges, all the Recorders of cities and towns,
sitting singly, and earning the public respect and confidence. On
arriving in ——, thus prepossessed in favour of the single judge, one
of my first inquiries was to learn how the Sessions Courts were liked
for their despatch, and whether they were giving satisfaction from
bringing justice more cheaply as well as quickly to every man's door.
Quite the contrary. I have not met with a solitary native who has
not regretted the Provincial Courts, who has not spoken of their judg-
ments with the greatest respect, and contrasted the authority due to
them with the very diminished respect they express for the decrees
of the Civil Courts. If I may use the expression, the majesty of
justice seems reduced in their eyes to one half. Whatever Court
costs least money is considered, they say, good enough for them, and
the only thing considered. Such being their universal feeling, I
cannot entertain a doubt that restoring the Provincial Courts is a
step in the very best direction to the reintegration of English justice
in native estimation."
((
We have little or no conception, indeed, how these
hundred millions of thieves, forgers, perjurers, as we
are sometimes pleased to call them, really long and
thirst and cry for justice. The amount of purely
amateur justice,—justice invested with no legal, often
with no material sanction, which is every day being
called for, being exercised and being obeyed in India,
is almost incredible. Every private European resident
in the country districts is a judge, if he will only let the
people use him as one.
2 A
354
}
Hardly a day passes," says the writer of the last quoted letter, a
planter in Southern India, "that I have not to distribute justice to
parties who come to ask it, far and near. My rule is to confront the
complainant and defendant, and first hear their stories, then examine
thent viva voce.
If an issue is started on which I desire another
judgment than my own, a jury is at once impanelled, from the
bystanders ordinarily, and the cause is there and then completely
threshed out, always to the submission of the litigants, if not to their
individual contentment. I do not trust punchayets unless I know
who presides at them, for otherwise they are apt to degenerate into a
squabble for one or other of the parties interested, according as per-
sonal or caste influence prevails. An ordinary native thinks that he
must take part for or against; the neutrality of an English juryman
is hardly intelligible to his caste modes of thought; hence the indis-
pensableness of close supervision over him in judicial investigations."
Take a most remarkable instance, from the same
quarter, of voluntary, unofficial registration.
"On my return from England, I was quite horrified at the univer-
sality of the crime of forging land-deeds and money-bonds, just as if
there existed for it no punishment at all in the Regulations. The
first men in the country (Hindoos and Mahommedans) are openly
guilty of it, and of the consequent subornation of testimony which it
entails, without the smallest shame, or apparently without the small-
est loss of character. A wealthy man has lately filed in Court a
bond for 30,000 Rs. which all his own family, without exception,
acknowledge to be forged; this sum is equivalent to £3000 in Eng-
land. In order to stay the plague in this neighbourhood, I opened
a public registry in February, 1856, in a large blank folio kept below
stairs, charging a fanam or two for the copying and attesting each
deed with my signature. Already the deeds enrolled nuniber nearly
60, and not a deed or bond of any importance is now entered into
without the stipulation that it is to be duly registered in my folio.
It is further a registry of wills. I do all I can to encourage all castes
to make wills, disposing openly of such real and personal property as
they have the command over, executing and registering them publicly
in the presence of all parties concerned. In a very few years, there
will not be a land-deed or money-bond in force which is not regis-
tered; forgery, subornation, and theft of deeds will die out for want
of hope of committing these crimes successfully."
"C
}
355
Surely a people with all their vices so thoroughly
amenable to justice deserve to have it secured to them.
The subject of education I shall wholly pretermit,
as too closely connected with that of religion to be
satisfactorily treated of in this place.* Nor dare I ven-
ture upon that most interesting subject of public works,
which has at last, I trust, thanks mainly to the indefati-
gable efforts of Colonel Cotton, won for itself its due re-
cognition in Madras. I trust indeed that the worst of
that fearful process of absorption of native wealth with-
out return, which went on so long, is now fairly over.
The reverse action has clearly commenced in Bengal,
chiefly, I presume, through the export of indigo to
Europe, of opium to China, the former branch of trade
having only been rendered possible through the security
afforded by the Permanent settlement. There, specie
to a large amount has for years been re-absorbed ;
prices of produce have largely risen; wages also, it
would seem, in various districts. Elsewhere too, re-
productive works, though as yet the merest trifle in
comparison of the need which exists for them, are
beginning materially to increase the actual yield of the
soil. The Government of Madras has fully acknow-
ledged (15th May, 1858) that they are "the most
economical, because the most profitable, undertakings
in which the government could possibly engage."
暑
​The improvement of the means of communication
tends to increase the money-value of agricultural pro-
* I cannot, however, forbear from referring here to a Homily "On
Theology and Government in India," by a very dear friend, whom I
am not worthy to praise, the Rev. F. D. Maurice, printed (by J. E.
Taylor) for the subscribers to the weekly issue of his Sermons.
2A2
356
}
duce, by opening up new markets, or facilitating its
access to those markets which the suppression of
duties both in England and India, and the repeal of
the navigation laws, have thrown open already. The
removal of the restrictions upon the settlement of
Europeans, operates more or less to retain capital
within the country. Lastly, the formation in England
of Companies for the execution of public works, or the
carrying out of certain branches of industry in India
(which some fantastical city critic of the "Times" dis-
approves of), tends to restore to that country some
portion of the capital which we have drained from it.
The Proclamation looks forward to the "prosperity,"
to the "contentment," to the "gratitude" of the
Queen's native subjects. I am fully persuaded that
one and all are capable of being realized. But let us
beware, as I have said before, of endeavouring to realize
them too much after our own fashion; let us beware
lest a too great haste for English improvements bring
with it a rough impatience of native ways and customs,
and so restore the too easy tendency to an annexation
policy.
I do not indeed doubt- what Englishman can
doubt it?—that civilized and Christian Englishmen can
govern India better than any of its yet unchristianised
princes ever could or can do. Nay, I do not doubt
that here and there some one Englishman or other,
within his own limited sphere, is always doing so; is
setting before the Indian races a pattern of adminis-
trative excellence which they never could have realized
for themselves. I do not refer here to the civilizing of
wild tribes by such men as Augustus Cleveland, in the
357
I
last century, among the Hill-men of Rajmahal; or
Dixon, in our days, among the Mairs of the west.
speak of the government of settled and populous coun-
tries by English rulers; of Richard Jenkins at Nag-
pore; of John Munro in Travancore; of rulers still
living, as Cubbon in Mysore, and John Lawrence in the
Punjab; and, on a smaller scale, Meadows Taylor in
Shorapore ;* to whom we might add, though as
* Captain, now Major Meadows Taylor's services as an administrator
are so much less known than his talents as a novelist, that I am sure
the following very brief sketch, from a reliable source, of his doings
in Shorapore, will be welcome to my readers. The Bedars, it should
be observed, are an aboriginal tribe of the Deckan, conspicuous for
their bravery; (see General Briggs's Lecture on the Aboriginal Races
of India--Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xlix. p. 294.)
the chieftaincy over whom has centered in the Raja of Shorapore, in
the Nizam's country, but now included in the ceded districts.
Captain Meadows Taylor was appointed to look after the Bedar
In
country in 1842. He found it in a state of anarchy and ruin.
less than twelve years he had paid off all its debts; and, without.
coercing the cultivators, had a full treasury for the young Raja and
a revenue of £30,000, instead of £16,000 debt. When, by Lord
Dalhousie's orders, the prince having come of age to govern, Captain
Meadows Taylor placed him on his musnud and took leave of him,
the young man falling on his neck and weeping, Captain Taylor told
him, that if he departed from goodwill to the British Government,
he would not be Raja of Shorapore five years. The prince was
thoroughly vicious and cruel, squandered away everything he could,
paid no debts, let the roads and tanks and all improvements go to
ruin, and having 10,000 of his Bedars at his back, with Arab and
Rohilla mercenaries, took occasion of the late rebellion to plunge
into a war, where his little army was quickly routed, and himself, a
fugitive, sought his life from the British Resident at Hyderabad.
Colonel Davidson sent for Captain Taylor, who having parted from
the Raja in a palace met him again in a prison, and it was himself
who, while groaning and weeping, reminded Captain Taylor of his
prophecy, fulfilled in four years and about nine months. In fear of
358
instances in many respects peculiar, Charles Napier in
Scinde, and perhaps John Jacob but yesterday on the
Scinde frontier. Instances like these shew, I think,
in spite of all the alleged intractableness and savagery
of the Indian races, not only that they are governable,
but that they have a peculiar aptitude for being
governed by Englishmen; and that Englishmen, worthy
of the name, have a peculiar aptitude for governing
them. But on looking through these signal instances
of the success of English rule, they will be found to
occur always under peculiar circumstances. Generally
speaking- take the cases of Nagpore, Travancore,
Shorapore-the Englishman is a mere temporary
administrator for the native sovereign, during his
minority or otherwise. He is, therefore, governing the
natives, not for the benefit of England, but for their
own. In the other cases-Scinde, the Punjab-the
province has just been conquered; it is felt to be essen-
tial at once to invest the English administrator with
almost unlimited powers, and to render his rule as
acceptable as possible to a yet untamed people, so that
pretty nearly the same end is reached; he is allowed
still to govern mainly for the benefit of the natives,
and not of England herself.
Now what does this amount to? To this-that
where British rule has been seen to be, not merely
the gallows, he put an end to his own life. Captain Taylor, who had
already in former days been at war with the Bedars and had reduced
them to perfect obedience, was sent again to restore order in the
country. Before he had been in Shorapore three days he received
again their submission, When he entered the country he was hailed
with joy; and at the entrance of the city his palanquin was filled
with flowers, and his bearers loaded with presents.
¿
359
Christian in name, but founded upon that principle of
self-sacrifice which lies at the very core of Christ's
gospel--so far as it has been the rule, not of a system,
working through certain human instruments, but of
some genuine English man, devoting himself to the
welfare of the people committed to his charge--so far
the blessings of English rule have been real, have been
joyfully acknowledged by the natives of India. But
so far as that rule has not been the rule of English
men, but of English policy, founded not upon Christian
self-sacrifice, but upon heathen covetousness so far it
has been that which well-nigh the whole of India has
been heaving to overthrow of late, that which by fire
and sword alone we have been able to maintain.
M_FA
I am convinced indeed that our Indian empire is too
large to be properly governed by us, and that one
great cause of native discontent lies in this un-
unwieldiness, which amounts in fact in many districts
to a literal absence of government, and at all events
reveals itself as such-in the North-West for instance
on the occurrence of any great crisis ;—which hinders
us utterly from supplying even men enough, let alone
good men, for the work that is required of us.* The
* I have not dwelt here upon the claim of the English settler to be
admitted to office under the Queen's Government, believing that in
general he can speak for himself. Yet the day of justice has un-
doubtedly not yet come for him. In Madras it is boasted that 60
Deputy-collectorships are thrown open to him. But at what salaries?
500 rupees a month, for men full of age and experience; whilst a boy
Assistant-collector within the covenant gets nearly 1000 after three
years; the Deputy-collector's services being moreover placed at the
entire disposal of the Collector, for whatever use he may think fit.
It is obvious that no first-rate or even second-rate man will take
office on such terms.
360
P
miserable failure of the Indian government hitherto,
in a purely business point of view, is something ab-
solutely ridiculous, if it were not so sad. Only con-
ceive of a country so richly endowed as India not
having been able, in the midst of the perfect peace
which prevailed before the rebellion, to pay its own ex-
penses! Only realize the fact, which appears in the
evidence before the Colonization Committee of this year,
that the Presidency of Bombay, the one most open
to European trade, the smallest and most manageable of
any, has never paid its own cost! Only compare the
condition of India with that of Ceylon, which, as Sir
Henry Ward told his Legislative Council on the 28th
July, 1858, has had "for five consecutive years an
increasing revenue; has "no debt;" "is executing
large works out of its own surplus funds," which
works, as soon as completed, increase the revenues out
of which they spring;" where "British energy and
capital are creating in the interior of the island vast
properties," which furnish "the readiest market for
every article that the industry of the low country can
supply;" where, to cap all, the hard work of cultiva-
tion is actually done by temporary emigrants from the
coast of India itself! Why should not every one of
the provinces of India, often equivalent in popula-
tion to Ceylon,-be as prosperous as itself?†
""
66
* Fourth Report, p. 66.
+ For this purpose, it will not only be necessary, I suspect, to
restore the separate Presidencies to at least the degree of autocracy
which they enjoyed before 1834, as indicated by Mr. Bright's great
speech of last Session. I have letters before me, from one now
resident in India, and who knows the country well, asking why
every province of India should not enjoy the same autocracy as
361
66
For the present, as it seems to me, our aim should
be, so far as possible, to take the native princes, with
increased territories and increased freedom of action,
for our fellow-workers in all Indian reforms, retaining
to ourselves so much territory as we can govern
thoroughly well, leaving the future to take care of itself.
'The three provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Benares,
wrote St. George Tucker, "are of more value than the
rest of our widely extended empire; and insulated, or
protected by an impassable barrier, we should be richer,
by being confined to this our first great acquisition and
best possession." These words were written in 1832,-
and how much weightier are they now, when our
empire is so much the vaster, and on the morrow of a
great rebellion! Yet we need not, we cannot go so
far, even if we wished it. The administrative talents
of the natives have in general been crushed or cor-
rupted, instead of developed, under our rule, and the
hands are wanting to which we could confide many a
province and district that we should be better without
than with. But I suspect- for one instance--there is
no adjacent British territory which would not be too
glad to exchange our rule for that of Holkar and his
minister Ramchunder Rao. By such contraction of
our dominions we shall be able to concentrate our
efforts upon internal improvements, and shew the
S
22
Ceylon? Carve India into twenty-five separate colonies, each inde-
pendent of the other for all purposes of internal administration,
federated as respects self-defence, customs' duties, &c., and you restore
in the most healthful manner those local centres of wealth, industry
and activity, which it is one of the great mischiefs of British rule to
have destroyed.
362
natives of India the true pattern of what Christian
Englishmen can do.
I do not indeed look to any hasty termination of the
British rule in India; with all its faults I believe it to
be essential to India's development; I believe no
greater curse could befal India than its premature
withdrawal. But all experience tends to shew that
India never can be a British colony, in the same sense
that the United States have been, that Canada, Aus-
tralia, and the Cape are now. The Anglo-Saxon race
cannot spread itself in layers over the country, or fix
itself in masses within it. A few hill-ranges here and
there, the slopes of the Himalayas to the north,-
seem the only localities where it can thoroughly take
root, doing upon God's earth the rough work with the
smooth. Elsewhere, it would seem, except through
some exceptional units here and there, it can only
direct, overlook, fulfil the easier, indoors labours, and
that generally under the necessity of frequent absences
for health's sake. It seems impossible to see here
the elements of a permanent connexion between the
pure Anglo-Saxon race and the native ones. How
far the mixed race may supply the place of their
fathers, remains to be seen. The experience of the
rebellion seems to shew that, even physically, that
race has been greatly undervalued. But the con-
nexion must last till we have assured to the native
races those blessings which they seem incapable of
obtaining without us,-Freedom, which must always
have Truth and Justice for its handmaids,-Christ's
Gospel, the true source of freedom, the true sanctifier
of family ties, the true leveller of the distinctions of
C
363
race and colour, because the only power which can
avail to raise the man to his true stature, as child of
God, member of Christ, inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven. Yet "a time," wrote Lord Hastings, forty
years ago (1818), "not very remote will arrive when
England will, on sound principles of policy, wish to
relinquish the domination which she has gradually and
unintentionally assumed over this country, and from
which she cannot at present recede. In that hour it
would be the proudest boast and the most delightful
reflection that she had used her sovereignty towards
enlightening her temporary subjects, so as to enable
the native communities to walk alone in the paths of
justice, and to maintain with probity towards their
benefactress that commercial intercourse in which we
should then find a solid interest."*
And though the above noble passage is empty of a
Name which many would fain have read there; let us
rest assured that we cannot truly enlighten our Indian
fellow-subjects except through One who is the Source
of Light, we cannot teach them justice except through
Him who is the Judge of all the earth.
I have treated the Proclamation, as I said I would,
as a reality. I believe it was so meant. No set of
men, I trust, in her Majesty's Cabinet would be so base
as to put forth such a document without the will to
fulfil it,-to forge the Queen's name, if I may so speak,
to promises made only to be broken. Yet I cannot
but repeat that, as I am assured, "the natives in
every
* Private Journal, vol. ii. p. 326.
364
part of India are already remarking that, simultane-
ously with, and immediately after its publication, the
acts of the Indian authorities are in direct violation of
its spirit and its letter,"-that they speak already of
the Queen's Government as likely seemingly to turn
out merely "the old farce under a new name."* If
this state of things be suffered to go on, "the most
awful risk imaginable,”—to use the words of one who
feels deeply on this matter,-will be run. For I firmly
believe, that if the policy which the Proclamation nobly
disowns be resumed, -the policy of annexation and
absorption,— of all-grasping covetousness, - of insolence
of race,—of special pleading with laws and treaties,—
the loss, the deserved and ignominious loss of our
Indian empire will come upon us sooner than we
dream.t
C
* The appointment of the Inam Commission at Madras, as the last
act of the Company's Government, and the first public measure fol-
lowing on the inauguration of the Queen's Government, has in par-
ticular roused the bitterest feelings in that Presidency.
I had scarcely written these words (21st Dec. 1858), when Mr.
Russell's letter to the "Times," dated Pursaidepore, Nov. 14, met
my eye, complaining of the parsimony with which copies of the
Proclamation were supplied to our officers,of the official translation
being written in a fashionable Court Oordoo, which the common people
in Oude could not understand,-of the repugnance shewn to the
amnesty by "valued and distinguished servants of the old Company;"
and stating that "a very distinguished officer of the Government,
whose rank in the councils of the Indian empire is of the very high-
est, actually suggested to one of the officers charged with the pacifi-
cation of Oude, that he should not read the Proclamation till he had
battered down the forts of the chiefs."
""
Nagtatangkad
Since the above date, however, we know that in spite of all ob-
stacles the amnesty has worked its way, and has amply justified itself
by its success.
APPENDIX.
As a sample on the one hand of the mode in which
the Proclamation could be dealt with in India by one
really alive to its worth,-on the other of the feelings
with which it was met by the people in a part of the
country which has been wholly undisturbed by rebellion,
I venture to annex the following report by a near
relative of my own, a landholder in the South, to the
authorities of his province.
"To G. R. SHARPE, Esq.
"Anjarakandy, 6 December, 1858.
"Assistant Magistrate of Malabar.
SIR,-Yesterday, pursuant to public notice given several days
previous, the native inhabitants of these and of the neighbouring
aneshums were convened, and Her Majesty's Proclamation, assuming
the government of her Indian dominions, was read and made known
to them. A very large number of persons, relatively to the population,
of all castes and creeds, attended. All manifested the greatest and
most respectful interest in what they were assembled to hear; and
as the occasion furnished me with the opportunity of arriving un-
suspiciously at the inner sentiments prevailing among peaceful and
respectable Hindoos and Mahomedans upon a very important subject,
now of engrossing interest, it is my duty to make known to you and
to Mr. Grant, the magistrate of the Province, what occurred.
To introduce what follows I must premise that on my return from
England I learned with infinite pain and surprise, in conversation
with both Hindoos and Mapillas, that it is a settled belief among
the people that there exists a desire on the part of the Government
to make them renounce caste and creed and adopt Christianity; not
of course by any demonstration of force, but by gradual and covert
366
}
means, by prepossessing the minds of their children and offering
temptations to their temporal interests. I state the naked fact. My
individual assurances, repeated on every available occasion, have
proved powerless in combating this erroneous and fatal impression.
I therefore gladly availed myself of the occasion of the Proclamation,
to shew to the people that the disclaimer they had heard from me
was repeated in the most marked and emphatic language by the
supreme head of the state, and was by her commanded to be pub-
lished throughout the length and breadth of the land. Accordingly,
after the Malayalim version of the proclamation, carefully adapted to
the comprehension of the persons who were to hear it, had been
slowly and deliberately read, I invited question and comment upon
it, by asking whether all present clearly understood what they had
just heard; if not, that I was ready to explain its meaning, and re-
solve any doubts. An ancient Mapilla in the midst of the crowd
made response that some parts he understood, some he did not. I
asked him forward, and on questioning him before all as to what he
did not understand, I perceived plainly that his doubts were fixed
upon the real meaning of that passage of the Proclamation, in which
Her Majesty declares in the clearest language that no proselytism of
the natives is designed, that no interference with their religion or
usages will be suffered without punishment, and no bar be raised, by
reason of creed or caste, to the right of all to public state employ.
I saw unmistakably, in surveying the faces and the attitude of the
listening crowd, that they participated in the doubt expressed by the
Mapilla. I saw, in short, that they did not trust their own ears,
and that on the bare mention of their religion and usages, so strong
were their prepossessions running in the opposite direction, they
feared nothing less was intended than a proclaimed interference with
both. I therefore caused the Queen's disclaimer to be again twice read
over, and assured the people that Her Majesty's commands would
be the rigid rule of her Government. Not till then were they
thoroughly satisfied as to what was intended. If that be so,' said
a Hindoo, then the Padres will no longer be suffered to come to the
festivals of our Pagodas, when we are peaceably met together, and
hold forth and abuse our religion and usages to our very faces, pro-
voking us to break forth into violence.'
But whatever the hopes of future good to themselves and their
3
367
country, raised and encouraged by other parts of the Proclamation,
whatever the approval, and it was a hearty approval, bestowed upon
them, the touchstone of the merit of the whole paper was in the
minds of the assembly the treatment to be dealt out by the new
Government to their caste and religion. I record the fact as unde-
niable evidence of their sensitiveness upon these subjects, and as
proof that the feeling is sunk to the depth of their hearts. Sensi-
tiveness to his faith is not held to be a disparagement to a Chris-
tian. The true Christian will never hold it to be a disparagement
in a Mahomedan or a Hindoo.
I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
F. C. BROWN.
P.S.-A Bramin present asked for a copy of the Proclamation. I
have sent another to the Mapilla sheikh of Kalye.
"F. C. BROWN."
•
I add the following details from a private letter
from the same writer :
#
"One Mapilla said, they had had scores of Proclamations upon
every conceivable subject, but never one so wise and sensible as this.
'That is true,' rejoined another, but the Maharanee is in England,
a very long way off; who will see to the execution in India?' The
very same feeling as here was manifested by all classes at Tellicherry.
'That is an admirable clause, the toleration clause,' said to me the
Protestant moonsiff. 'What an excellent passage that is in the
Proclamation,' said the Roman Catholic sheristadar of the Sessions
Court. As for the natives, there was among them but one burst of
satisfaction.
By the way, the Government Malayalim
version of the Proclamation would have been so much Greek to my
neighbours. I had to prepare a corrected one of my own."
ERRAT A.
Page 186, line 10 from bottom, for "the Sepoys," read "our
Sepoys."
Page 190, line 6 from bottom, for " heirs," read "heirs male."
*
935
* ht

THE UN

1
Dewan MyBONGO5
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01430 5703
NA
m
B COUNC
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD

**
那種​機​維
​