Chapter XXVII: Discussions on Rebel Punishments (2)

‘Drigliejjie Singh, Rajah of Bulrampore;
‘Koolwunt Singh, Rajah of Pudnaha;
‘Rao Hurdeo Buksh Singh, of Kutiaree;
‘Kasheepershaud, Thalookdar of Sissaindee;
‘Zuhr Singh, Zemindar of Gopaul Kheir; and
‘Chundeeloll, Zemindar of Moraon (Baiswarah),

are henceforward the sole hereditary proprietors of the lands which
they held when Oude came under British rule, subject only to such
moderate assessment as may be imposed upon them, and that those
loyal men will be further rewarded in such manner and to such extent
as, upon consideration of their merits and their position, the
governor-general shall determine.

‘A proportionate measure of reward and honour, according to their
deserts, will be conferred upon others in whose favour like claims
may be established to the satisfaction of the government.

‘The governor-general further proclaims to the people of Oude that,
with the above-mentioned exceptions, the proprietary right in the
soil of the province is confiscated to the British government, which
will dispose of that right in such manner as it may seem fitting.

‘To those thalookdars, chiefs, and landholders, with their
followers, who shall make immediate submission to the
chief-commissioner of Oude, surrendering their arms and obeying his
orders, the Right Honourable the Governor-general promises that
their lives and honour shall be safe, provided that their hands are
unstained with English blood murderously shed.

‘But, as regards any further indulgence which may be extended to
them, and the condition in which they may hereafter be placed, they
must throw themselves upon the justice and mercy of the British
government.

‘To those among them who shall promptly come forward and give to the
chief-commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and
order, this indulgence will be large, and the governor-general will
be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to
the restitution of their former rights.

‘As participation in the murder of Englishmen and Englishwomen will
exclude those who are guilty of it from all mercy, so will those who
have protected English lives be specially entitled to consideration
and leniency.

‘By order of the Right Honourable the Governor-general of India.

‘G. F. EDMONSTONE,
_Secretary to the Government of India_.’

C.

Sir James Outram, not fully satisfied with this proclamation,
directed his secretary, Mr Couper, to write as follows to Mr
Edmonstone:

‘CAMP, CHIMLUT, _March 8, 1858_.

‘SIR—I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No.
191, dated 3d inst., enclosing a proclamation to be issued to the
landholders, chiefs, and inhabitants of Oude, upon the fall of the
capital.

‘2. In this proclamation a hereditary title in their estates is
promised to such landholders as have been steadfast in their
allegiance, and, with these exceptions, the proprietary right in the
soil of the province is confiscated.

‘3. The chief-commissioner desires me to observe that, in his
belief, there are not a dozen landowners in the province who have
not themselves borne arms against us, or sent a representative to
the durbar, or assisted the rebel government with men or money. The
effect of the proclamation, therefore, will be to confiscate the
entire proprietary right in the soil; and this being the case, it
is, of course, hopeless to attempt to enlist the landowners on the
side of order; on the contrary, it is the chief-commissioner’s firm
conviction that as soon as the chiefs and thalookdars become
acquainted with the determination of the government to confiscate
their rights, they will betake themselves at once to their domains,
and prepare for a desperate and prolonged resistance.

‘4. The chief-commissioner deems this matter of such vital
importance, that, at the risk of being deemed importunate, he
ventures to submit his views once more, in the hope that the Right
Hon. the Governor-general may yet be induced to reconsider the
subject.

‘5. He is of opinion that the landholders were most unjustly treated
under our settlement operations, and even had they not been so, that
it would have required a degree of fidelity on their part quite
foreign to the usual character of an Asiatic, to have remained
faithful to our government under the shocks to which it was exposed
in Oude. In fact, it was not until our rule was virtually at an end,
the whole country overrun, and the capital in the hands of the rebel
soldiery, that the thalookdars, smarting as they were under the loss
of their lands, sided against us. The chief-commissioner thinks,
therefore, that they ought hardly to be considered as rebels, but
rather as honourable enemies, to whom terms, such as they could
without loss of dignity accept, should be offered at the termination
of the campaign.

‘If these men be given back their lands, they will at once aid us in
restoring order; and a police will soon be organised with their
co-operation, which will render unnecessary the presence of our
enormous army to re-establish tranquillity and confidence.

‘But, if their life and freedom from imprisonment only be offered,
they will resist; and the chief-commissioner foresees that we are
only at the commencement of a guerrilla war for the extirpation,
root and branch, of this class of men, which will involve the loss
of thousands of Europeans by battle, disease, and exposure. It must
be borne in mind that this species of warfare has always been
peculiarly harassing to our Indian forces, and will be far more so
at present, when we are without a native army.

‘6. For the above reasons, the chief-commissioner earnestly requests
that such landholders and chiefs as have not been accomplices in the
cold-blooded murder of Europeans may be enlisted on our side by the
restoration of their ancient possessions, subject to such
restrictions as will protect their dependents from oppression. If
his lordship agree to this proposition, it will not yet be too late
to communicate his assent by electric telegraph before the fall of
the city, which will probably not take place for some days. Should
no such communication be received, the chief-commissioner will act
upon his present instructions, satisfied that he has done all in his
power to convince his lordship that they will be ineffectual to
re-establish our rule on a firm basis in Oude.—I have, &c.,

(Signed) ‘G. COUPER,
‘_Secretary to Chief-commissioner_.

‘_Chief-commissioner’s Office, Camp, Chimlut, March 8._’

D.

Mr Edmonstone, on the part of Viscount Canning, wrote the following
brief reply, suggesting an additional clause to the proclamation,
and promising a more detailed communication at a future time:

‘ALLAHABAD, _March 10, 1853_.

‘SIR—Your secretary’s letter of the 8th instant was delivered to me
at an early hour this morning, by Captain F. Birch, and it will
receive a detailed reply in due course.

‘Meanwhile, I am desired by the Right Honourable the
Governor-general to subjoin a clause which may be inserted in the
proclamation (forwarded with my letter, No. 191, of the 3d instant),
after the paragraph which ends with the words, “justice and mercy of
the British government.”

‘“To those amongst them who shall promptly come forward, and give to
the chief-commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and
order, this indulgence will be large, and the governor-general will
be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to
a restitution of their former rights.”

‘2. This clause will add little or nothing to your discretionary
power, but it may serve to indicate more clearly to the thalookdars
the liberal spirit in which the governor-general is prepared to
review and reciprocate any advances on their part.

‘3. It is expected that you will find means to translate this
additional clause into the vernacular languages, and that you will
be able to have copies of the proclamation, so amended, prepared in
sufficient numbers for immediate use. If more should be required,
the magistrate of Cawnpore will lithograph them on your requisition.

‘4. It is very important, as you will readily see, that every copy
of the vernacular version of the proclamation sent to you, with my
letter of the 3d instant, should be carefully destroyed.—I have,
&c.,

(Signed) ‘G. F. EDMONSTONE,
‘_Secretary, Government of India, with the
Governor-general_.

‘_Allahabad, March 10, 1858._’

E.

It was not until after a lapse of three weeks that the promised
detailed reply was sent to Sir James Outram, in the following terms:

‘ALLAHABAD, _March 31, 1858_.

‘SIR—In replying at once on the 10th inst. to your secretary’s
letter of the 8th, in which you urged reasons against the issue of
the proclamation to the thalookdars and landholders of Oude, which
had been transmitted to you by the Right Hon. the Governor-general,
my answer was confined to communicating to you the addition which
his lordship was willing to make to that proclamation, without
entering into the general questions raised in your letter. The
governor-general desires me to express his hope that you will not
have supposed that the arguments adduced by you were not fully
weighed by him, or that your opinion upon a subject on which you are
so well entitled to offer one, has not been received with sincere
respect, although he was unable to concur in it.

‘2. I am now directed by his lordship to explain the grounds upon
which the course advocated in your letter—namely, that such
landholders and chiefs as have not been accomplices in the
cold-blooded murder of Europeans should be enlisted on our side by
the restoration of their ancient possessions, subject to such
restrictions as will protect their dependents from oppression—is, in
the opinion of the governor-general, inadmissible.

‘3. The governor-general entirely agrees with you in viewing the
thalookdars and landholders of Oude in a very different light from
that in which rebels in our old provinces are to be regarded. The
people of Oude had been subjects of the British government for
little more than one year when the mutinies broke out; they had
become so by no act of their own. By the introduction of our rule
many of the chiefs had suffered a loss of property, and all had
experienced a diminution of the importance and arbitrary power which
they had hitherto enjoyed; and it is no marvel that those amongst
them who had thus been losers should, when they saw our authority
dissolved, have hastened to shake off their new allegiance.

‘4. The governor-general views these circumstances as a palliation
of acts of rebellion, even where hostility has been most active and
systematic. Accordingly, punishment by death or imprisonment is at
once put aside by the proclamation in the case of all who shall
submit themselves to the government, and who are not murderers; and
whilst confiscation of proprietary rights in the land is declared to
be the general penalty, the means of obtaining more or less of
exemption from it, and of establishing a claim to restitution of
rights, have been pointed out, and are within the reach of all
without injury to their honour. Nothing more is required for this
than that they should promptly tender their adhesion, and help to
maintain peace and order.

‘5. The governor-general considers that the course thus taken is one
consistent with the dignity of the government, and abundantly
lenient. To have followed that which is suggested in your
secretary’s letter would, in his lordship’s opinion, have been to
treat the rebels not only as honourable enemies, but as enemies who
had won the day.

‘In the course of the rebellion, most of the leaders in it, probably
all, have retaken to themselves the lands and villages of which they
were deprived, by the summary settlement which followed the
establishment of our government in Oude. If upon the capture of
Lucknow by the commander-in-chief, before our strength had been seen
or felt in the distant districts, and before any submission had been
received or invited from them, the rights of the rebel chiefs to all
their ancient possessions had been recognised by the government, it
is not possible that the act would not have been viewed as dictated
by fear or weakness. It would have led the people of Oude, and all
who are watching the course of events in that province, to the
conclusion that rebellion against the British government cannot be a
losing game; and although it might have purchased an immediate
return to order, it would not assuredly have placed the future peace
of the province upon a secure foundation.

‘6. You observe, indeed, that the landholders were most unjustly
treated under our settlement. The governor-general desires me to
observe that if this were unreservedly the case, or if the
proceedings of the commissioners by which many of the thalookdars
were deprived of portions of their possessions had been generally
unjust, he would gladly have concurred in your recommendation, and
would have been ready, at the risk of any misinterpretation of the
motives of the government, to reinstate the thalookdars at once in
their old possessions. But it is not so. As a question of policy,
indeed, the governor-general considers that it may well be doubted
whether the attempt to introduce into Oude a system of village
settlement in place of the old settlement under thalookdars was a
wise one; but this is a point which need not be discussed here. As a
question of justice, it is certain that the land and villages taken
from the thalookdars had, for the most part, been usurped by them
through fraud or violence.

‘7. That unjust decisions were come to by some of our local officers
in investigating and judging the titles of the landowners is, the
governor-general fears, too true; but the proper way of rectifying
such injustice is by a re-hearing where complaint is made. This, you
are aware, is the course which the governor-general is prepared to
adopt, and to carry out in a liberal and conciliatory spirit. It is
a very different one from proclaiming that indiscriminate
restitution of all their ancient possessions is at once to be
yielded to the landowners.

‘8. That the hostility of the thalookdars of Oude who have been most
active against the British government has been provoked, or is
excused, by the injustice with which they have been treated, would
seem to be your opinion.

‘But I am to observe, that there are some facts which deserve to be
weighed before pronouncing that this is the case.

‘9. No chiefs have been more open in their rebellion than the rajahs
of Churda, Bhinga, and Gonda. The governor-general believes that the
first of these did not lose a single village by the summary
settlement, and certainly his assessment was materially reduced. The
second was dealt with in a like liberal manner. The Rajah of Gonda
lost about 30 villages out of 400; but his assessment was lowered by
some 10,000 rupees.

‘10. No one was more benefited by the change of government than the
young Rajah of Naupara. His estates had been the object of a civil
war with a rival claimant for three years, and of these he was at
once recognised as sole proprietor by the British government, losing
only six villages out of more than a thousand. His mother was
appointed guardian, but her troops have been fighting against us at
Lucknow from the beginning.

‘11. The Rajah of Dhowrera, also a minor, was treated with equal
liberality. Every village was settled with his family; yet these
people turned upon Captain Hearsey and his party, refused them
shelter, pursued them, captured the ladies, and sent them into
Lucknow.

‘12. Ushruf Bux Khan, a large thalookdar in Gonda, who had long been
an object of persecution by the late government, was established in
the possession of all his property by us; yet he has been strongly
hostile.

‘13. It is clear that injustice at the hands of the British
government has not been the cause of the hostility which, in these
instances at least, has been displayed towards our rule.

‘14. The moving spirit of these men and of others amongst the chiefs
of Oude must be looked for elsewhere; and, in the opinion of the
governor-general, it is to be found mainly in the repugnance which
they feel to suffer any restraint of their hitherto arbitrary powers
over those about them, to a diminution of their importance by being
brought under equal laws, and to the obligation of disbanding their
armed followers, and of living a peaceful and orderly life.

‘The penalty of confiscation of property is no more than a just one
in such cases as have been above recited; and although
considerations of policy and mercy, and the newness of our rule,
prescribe a relaxation of the sentence more or less large according
to the features of each case, this relaxation must be preceded by
submission, and the governor-general cannot consent to offer all,
without distinction, an entire exemption from penalty, and the
restoration of all former possessions, even though they should not
have been guilty of the murder of Europeans.—I have, &c.,

(Signed) ‘G. F. EDMONSTONE,
‘_Secretary to the Government of India,
with the Governor-general_.

‘_Allahabad, March 31, 1858._’

F.

The following document, though not pertaining to the affairs of
Oude, may usefully be given here, bearing as it does on the
treatment proposed to be adopted towards mutineers and rebels. It
was written, in the name of Viscount Canning, by the secretary to
the government of the Northwest Provinces, and was addressed to the
functionaries of the disturbed province of Rohilcund:

‘AGRA, _April 28, 1858_.

‘SIR—I am directed to communicate to you the general principles
which the Right Honourable the Governor-general desires to see
followed by all civil and other officers who will exercise judicial
or magisterial powers in Rohilcund, on the re-entry of British
troops into that province.

‘2. The condition of Rohilcund has been, in some respects, peculiar.
The progress of the Revolt in the interior has until lately suffered
little check. The people, left to themselves, have in many quarters
engaged actively in hostilities against each other; but direct
opposition to British authority has been mainly confined to the
several Sudder towns, to the frontier on the Ganges, and to the
expeditions against Nynee Tal.

‘3. Under these circumstances, his lordship considers it just to
distinguish, by a widely differing treatment, the simple bearing of
arms, or even acts of social violence committed at a period when the
check of lawful government was removed, from acts directly involving
treason against the state, or a deliberate defiance of its
authority. Excepting instances of much aggravation, it is not the
wish of government that public prosecutions should be set on foot on
account of offences of the former class.

‘4. Further, in respect of treason and defiance of British
authority, his lordship desires that criminal proceedings shall be
taken only against leaders, and against such persons, whether high
or low, as have distinguished themselves by activity and rancour
against the government, or by persistence in opposition to its
authority after the advance of troops and the re-occupation of
stations. The governor-general will admit to amnesty all other
classes, even though they have borne arms on the side of the rebels,
provided that they tender an early and complete submission. But
continuance in opposition will exclude from pardon.

‘5. The governor-general has reason to believe that an impression
exists in Rohilcund that the Mohammedan population, as such, is to
be proscribed and crushed. It is likely that the rumour has been
raised and fostered by the rebel leaders to excite apprehension and
mistrust of the government. His lordship desires that every
appropriate occasion may be taken to disabuse the people of this
gross error. Such suspected rebels as may be brought to trial will
be tried each by his own acts. Each will stand or fall by the line
of conduct which he shall be proved to have followed. The government
will maintain, as it has always maintained, a strict impartiality in
its administration. Equal justice will be shared by all its
subjects, whether Hindoos or Mohammedans. You will make public these
views, and instruct the chief district officers to make them widely
known, in such manner as may appear to be most effectual.

‘6. It will be your care, in accordance with the injunctions of
his lordship’s orders, embodied in the circular order dated the
19th February, to bring forward, for early notice by the
governor-general, the several examples of conspicuously faithful
conduct exhibited by many of the inhabitants of Rohilcund, under
circumstances of peculiar difficulty.—I have, &c.,

‘W. MUIR,
‘_Sec. to Govt. NW. P._’

G.

We now transfer attention to four of the documents written in
London. The first was nominally from the ‘Secret Committee,’ really
from the Earl of Ellenborough, and was suggested by the state of
affairs in India during the second half of the month of February:

‘_The Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the East India
Company, to the Governor-general of India in Council, March 24,
1858._

‘The telegram from Calcutta, dated the 22d ult., which arrived this
morning, conveys intelligence of the concentration of the force
under the commander-in-chief, and of that under Jung Bahadoor, upon
Lucknow; and we trust we may indulge the expectation that, ere this,
that city has been evacuated by the rebels, and that no considerable
corps remains united against us in the field.

‘2. If this happy result should have been attained, it will be very
satisfactory to us to learn that you have deemed yourselves
sufficiently strong to be enabled to act towards the people with the
generosity, as well as the justice, which are congenial to the
British character.

‘3. Crimes have been committed against us which it would be a crime
to forgive; and some large exceptions there must be, of the persons
guilty of such crimes, from any act of amnesty which could be
granted; but it must be as impossible, as it would be abhorrent from
our feelings, to inflict the extreme penalty which the law might
strictly award upon all who have swerved from their allegiance.

‘4. To us it appears that, whenever open resistance shall have
ceased, it would be prudent, in awarding punishment, rather to
follow the practice which prevails after the conquest of a country
which has defended itself to the last by desperate war, than that
which may perhaps be lawfully adopted after the suppression of
mutiny and rebellion, such acts always being excepted from
forgiveness or mitigation of punishment as have exceeded the licence
of legitimate hostilities.

‘5. While we may be unable to forget the insanity which, during the
last ten months, has pervaded the army and a large portion of the
people, we should at the same time remember the previous fidelity of
a hundred years, and so conduct ourselves towards those who have
erred as to remove their delusions and their fears, and
re-establish, if we can, that confidence which was so long the
foundation of our power.

‘6. It would be desirable that, in every case, the disarming of a
district, either by the seizure of arms or by their surrender,
should precede the application to it of any amnesty; but there may
be circumstances which would render expedient a different course of
proceeding. Upon these exceptional cases, you and the officers
acting under your orders must decide.

‘7. The disarming of a district having been effected, with
exceptions, under your licence, in favour of native gentlemen, whose
feelings of honour would be affected by being deprived of the
privilege of wearing arms, and of any other persons in whom you may
confide, we think the possession of arms should be punished in every
case by a severe penalty; but unless the possession of arms should
be combined with other acts, leading to the conclusion that they
were retained for the perpetration of crimes, that penalty should
not be death. Of course the possession of arms by Englishmen must
always remain lawful.

‘8. Death has of late been but too common a punishment. It loses
whatever terror it might otherwise have when so indiscriminately
applied; but, in fact, in India there is not commonly a fear of
death, although there ever must be a fear of pain.

‘9. In every amnestied district, the ordinary administration of the
law should as soon as possible be restored.

‘10. In carrying these views into execution, you may meet with
obstruction from those who, maddened by the scenes they have
witnessed, may desire to substitute their own policy for that of the
government; but persevere firmly in doing what you may think right;
make those who would counteract you feel that you are resolved to
rule, and that you will be served by none who will not obey.

‘11. Acting in this spirit, you may rely upon our unqualified
support.’

H.

Three or four weeks afterwards, was written the ‘secret dispatch’
which gave rise to so vehement a debate in parliament:

‘_April 19, 1858._

‘Our letter of the 24th of March 1858 will have put you in
possession of our general views with respect to the treatment of the
people in the event of the evacuation of Lucknow by the enemy.

‘2. On the 12th inst., we received from you a copy of the letter,
dated the 3d of March, addressed by your secretary to the secretary
to the chief-commissioner in Oude, which letter enclosed a copy of
the proclamation to be issued by the chief-commissioner as soon as
the British troops should have command of the city of Lucknow, and
conveyed instructions as to the manner in which he was to act with
respect to different classes of persons, in execution of the views
of the governor-general.

‘3. The people of Oude will see only the proclamation.

‘4. That authoritative expression of the will of the government
informs the people that six persons, who are named as having been
steadfast in their allegiance, are henceforward the sole hereditary
proprietors of the lands they held when Oude came under British
rule, subject only to such moderate assessment as may be imposed
upon them; that others in whose favour like claims may be
established will have conferred upon them a proportionate measure of
reward and honour; and that, with these exceptions, the proprietary
right in the soil of the province is confiscated to the British
government.

‘5. We cannot but express to you our apprehension that this decree,
pronouncing the disinherison of a people, will throw difficulties
almost insurmountable in the way of the re-establishment of peace.

‘6. We are under the impression that the war in Oude has derived
much of its popular character from the rigorous manner in which,
without regard to what the chief landholders had become accustomed
to consider as their rights, the summary settlement had, in a large
portion of the province, been carried out by your officers.

‘7. The landholders of India are as much attached to the soil
occupied by their ancestors, and are as sensitive with respect to
the rights in the soil they deem themselves to possess, as the
occupiers of land in any country of which we have a knowledge.

‘8. Whatever may be your ultimate and undisclosed intentions, your
proclamation will appear to deprive the great body of the people of
all hope upon the subject most dear to them as individuals, while
the substitution of our rule for that of their native sovereign has
naturally excited against us whatever they may have of national
feeling.

‘9. We cannot but in justice consider that those who resist our
authority in Oude are under very different circumstances from those
who have acted against us in provinces which have been long under
our government.

‘10. We dethroned the King of Oude, and took possession of his
kingdom, by virtue of a treaty which had been subsequently modified
by another treaty, under which, had it been held to be in force, the
course we adopted could not have been lawfully pursued; but we held
that it was not in force, although the fact of its not having been
ratified in England, as regarded the provision on which we rely for
our justification, had not been previously made known to the King of
Oude.

‘11. That sovereign and his ancestors had been uniformly faithful to
their treaty engagements with us, however ill they may have governed
their subjects.

‘12. They had more than once assisted us in our difficulties, and
not a suspicion had ever been entertained of any hostile disposition
on their part towards our government.

‘13. Suddenly the people saw their king taken from amongst them, and
our administration substituted for his, which, however bad, was at
least native; and this sudden change of government was immediately
followed by a summary settlement of the revenue, which, in a very
considerable portion of the province, deprived the most influential
landholders of what they deemed to be their property—of what
certainly had long given wealth, and distinction, and power to their
families.

‘14. We must admit that, under these circumstances, the hostilities
which have been carried on in Oude have rather the character of
legitimate war than that of rebellion, and that the people of Oude
should rather be regarded with indulgent consideration, than made
the objects of a penalty exceeding in extent and in severity almost
any which has been recorded in history as inflicted upon a subdued
nation.

‘15. Other conquerors, when they have succeeded in overcoming
resistance, have excepted a few persons as still deserving of
punishment, but have, with a generous policy, extended their
clemency to the great body of the people.

‘16. You have acted upon a different principle. You have reserved a
few as deserving of special favour, and you have struck with what
they will feel as the severest of punishment the mass of the
inhabitants of the country.

‘17. We cannot but think that the precedents from whom you have
departed will appear to have been conceived in a spirit of wisdom
superior to that which appears in the precedent you have made.

‘18. We desire that you will mitigate in practice the stringent
severity of the decree of confiscation you have issued against the
landholders of Oude.

‘19. We desire to see British authority in India rest upon the
willing obedience of a contented people; there cannot be contentment
where there is general confiscation.

‘20. Government cannot long be maintained by any force in a country
where the whole people is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong; and
if it were possible so to maintain it, it would not be a
consummation to be desired.’

I.

The Court of Directors, before the secret dispatch became known to
them, adopted courteous language in the following letter of
instructions sent to Viscount Canning, referring to an earlier
communication:

‘_May 5, 1858._

‘1. You will have received, by the mail of the 25th of March, a
letter from the secret committee, which has since been laid before
us, respecting the policy which it becomes you to pursue towards
those natives of India who have recently been in arms against the
authority of the British government.

‘2. That letter emphatically confirms the principles which you have
already adopted, as set forth in your circular of the 31st of July
1857, by impressing upon you the propriety of pursuing, after the
conquest of the revolted provinces, a course of policy distinguished
by a wise and discriminating generosity. You are exhorted to temper
justice with mercy, and, except in cases of extreme criminality, to
grant an amnesty to the vanquished. In the sentiments expressed by
the secret committee we entirely concur. While there are some crimes
which humanity calls upon you to punish with the utmost severity,
there are others of a less aggravated character, which it would be
equally unjust and impolitic not to pardon and to forget.

‘3. The offences with which you will be called upon to deal are of
three different kinds. Firstly, high crimes, instigated by malice
prepense, and aggravated by treachery and cruelty. Secondly,
offences the results rather of weakness than of malice, into which
it is believed that many have been drawn by the contamination of
example, by the fear of opposing themselves to their more powerful
countrymen, or by the belief that they have been compromised by the
acts of their associates, rather than by any active desire to
embarrass the existing government. And, thirdly, offences of a less
positive character, amounting to little more than passive connivance
at evil, or at most to the act of giving such assistance to the
rebels as, if not given, would have been forcibly extorted, and
which in many cases it would have been death to refuse to bodies of
licentious and exasperated mutineers.

‘4. It is the first only of these offences, the perpetrators of
which, and their accomplices, it will be your duty to visit with the
severest penalty which you can inflict; and it is, happily, in such
cases of exceptional atrocity, that you will have the least
difficulty in proving both the commission of the offence and the
identity of the offender. In the other cases you might often be left
in doubt, not only of the extent of the offence committed, but of
its actual commission by the accused persons; and although we are
aware that the retribution which might be righteously inflicted upon
the guilty may be in some measure restricted by too much nicety of
specification, and that, in dealing with so large a mass of crime,
it is difficult to avoid the commission of some acts of individual
injustice, we may still express our desire that the utmost exertion
may be made to confine, within the smallest possible compass, these
cases of uncertain proof and dubious identity, even though your
retributary measures should thus fall short of what in strict
justice might be inflicted.

‘5. As soon as you have suppressed the active hostility of the
enemy, your first care will be the restoration of public confidence.
It will be your privilege when the disorganised provinces shall no
longer be convulsed by intestine disorder, to set an example of
toleration and forbearance towards the subject people, and to
endeavour by every means consistent with the security of the British
empire in the east, to allay the irritation and suspicion, which, if
suffered to retain possession of the minds of the native and
European inhabitants of the country, will eventually lead to nothing
less calamitous than a war of races.

‘6. In dealing with the people of Oude, you will doubtless be moved
by special considerations of justice and of policy. Throughout the
recent contest, we have ever regarded such of the inhabitants of
that country as—not being sepoys or pensioners of our own army—have
been in arms against us as an exceptional class. They cannot be
considered as traitors or even rebels, for they had not pledged
their fidelity to us, and they had scarcely become our subjects.
Many, by the introduction of a new system of government, had
necessarily been deprived of the maintenance they had latterly
enjoyed; and others feared that the speedy loss of their means of
subsistence must follow from the same course. It was natural that
such persons should avail themselves of the opportunity presented by
the distracted state of the country, to strike a blow for the
restoration of the native rule, under which the permitted
disorganisation of the country had so long been to them a source of
unlawful profit. Neither the disbanded soldiers of the late native
government, nor the great thalookdars and their retainers, were
under any obligation of fidelity to our government for benefits
conferred upon them. You would be justified, therefore, in dealing
with them as you would with a foreign enemy, and in ceasing to
consider them objects of punishment after they have once laid down
their arms.

‘7. Of these arms they must for ever be deprived. You will
doubtless, in prosecution of this object, address yourself in the
first instance to the case of the great thalookdars, who so
successfully defied the late government, and many of whom, with
large bodies of armed men, appear to have aided the efforts of the
mutinous soldiery of the Bengal army. The destruction of the
fortified strongholds of these powerful landholders, the forfeiture
of their remaining guns, the disarming and disbanding of their
followers, will be amongst your first works. But, whilst you are
depriving this influential and once dangerous class of people of
their power of openly resisting your authority, you will, we have no
doubt, exert yourself by every possible means to reconcile them to
British rule, and encourage them, by liberal arrangements made in
accordance with ancient usages, to become industrious
agriculturists, and to employ in the cultivation of the soil the men
who, as armed retainers, have so long wasted the substance of their
masters and desolated the land. We believe that these landholders
may be taught that their holdings will be more profitable to them
under a strong government, capable of maintaining the peace of the
country, and severely punishing agrarian outrages, than under one
which perpetually invites, by its weakness, the ruinous arbitration
of the sword.

‘8. Having thus endeavoured, on the re-establishment of the
authority of the British government in Oude, to reassure the great
landholders, you will proceed to consider, in the same spirit of
toleration and forbearance, the condition of the great body of the
people. You will bear in mind that it is necessary, in a transition
state from one government to another, to deal tenderly with existing
usages, and sometimes even with existing abuses. All precipitate
reforms are dangerous. It is often wiser even to tolerate evil for a
time, than to alarm and to irritate the minds of the people by the
sudden introduction of changes which time can alone teach them to
appreciate, or even, perhaps, to understand. You will be especially
careful, in the readjustment of the fiscal system of the province,
to avoid the imposition of unaccustomed taxes, whether of a general
or of a local character, pressing heavily upon the industrial
resources and affecting the daily comforts of the people. We do not
estimate the successful administration of a newly acquired province
according to the financial results of the first few years. At such a
time we should endeavour to conciliate the people by wise
concessions, and to do nothing to encourage the belief that the
British government is more covetous of revenue than the native ruler
whom it has supplanted.’

K.

The last document here given is a letter of instructions from the
Court of Directors, kind and courteous towards the governor-general,
but evidently conveying an opinion that the proposed proclamation,
unless modified and acted on with caution, would be too severe for
the purpose in view:

‘_Political Department, 18th of May (No. 20) 1858._

‘1. The secret committee has communicated to us the
governor-general’s secret letter, dated 5th March (No. 9) 1858, with
its enclosures, consisting of a letter addressed to the
chief-commissioner of Oude, dated 3d of March, and of the
proclamation referred to therein, which was to be issued by Sir
James Outram to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude as soon as the
British troops should have possession or command of the city of
Lucknow.

‘2. We have also received communication of the letter addressed to
your government by the secret committee, under date the 19th of
April last, on the subject of the draft of proclamation.

‘3. Our political letter of the 5th of May has apprised you of our
strong sense of the distinction which ought to be maintained between
the revolted sepoys and the chiefs and people of Oude, and the
comparative indulgence with which, equally from justice and policy,
the insurgents of that country (other than sepoys) ought to be
regarded. In accordance with these views, we entirely approve the
guarantee of life and honour given by the proposed proclamation to
all thalookdars, chiefs, and landholders, with their followers, who
should make immediate submission, surrender their arms, and obey the
orders of the British government, provided they have not
participated in the murder “of Englishmen or Englishwomen.”

‘4. We are prepared to learn that in publicly declaring that, with
the exception of the lands of six persons who had been steadfast in
their allegiance, the proprietary right in the soil of the province
was confiscated to the British government, the governor-general
intended no more than to reserve to himself entire liberty of
action, and to give the character of mercy to the confirmation of
all rights not prejudicial to the public welfare, the owners of
which might not, by their conduct, have excluded themselves from
indulgent consideration.

‘5. His lordship must have been well aware that the words of the
proclamation, without the comment on it which we trust was speedily
afforded by your actions, must have produced the expectation of much
more general and indiscriminate dispossession than could have been
consistent with justice or with policy. We shall doubtless be
informed, in due course, of the reasons which induced the
governor-general to employ those terms, and of the means which, we
presume, have been taken of making known in Oude the merciful
character which we assume must still belong to your views. In the
meantime, it is due to the governor-general that we should express
our entire reliance that on this, as on former occasions, it has
been his firm resolution to shew to all whose crimes are not too
great for any indulgence, the utmost degree of leniency consistent
with the early restoration and firm maintenance of lawful authority.

‘We accordingly have to inform you, that on receiving communication
of the papers now acknowledged, the Court of Directors passed the
following resolution:

‘“Resolved—That in reference to the dispatch from the secret
committee to the governor-general of India, dated the 19th ult.,
with the documents therein alluded to, and this day laid before the
Court of Directors, this court desires to express its continued
confidence in the governor-general, Lord Canning, and its conviction
that his measure for the pacification of Oude, and the other
disturbed districts in India, will be characterised by a generous
policy, and by the utmost clemency that is found to be consistent
with the satisfactory accomplishment of that important object.”—We
are, &c.

(Signed)

‘F. CURRIE,
W. J. EASTWICK,
&c. &c.

‘_London, May 18, 1858._’

Ganges Transport Boat.
]

-----

Footnote 157:

See Note G, at the end of the chapter.

Footnote 158:

See notes A and B, at the end of the chapter; where many of the
documents here referred to are printed in full.

Footnote 159:

See Note H.

Footnote 160:

‘1. That it appears, from papers laid upon the table of this House,
that a dispatch has been addressed by the Secret Committee of the
Court of Directors, to the governor-general of India, disapproving a
proclamation which the governor-general had informed the court he
intended to issue after the fall of Lucknow.

‘2. That it is known only from intelligence that has reached this
country, by correspondence published in newspapers, that the intended
proclamation has been issued, and with an important modification, no
official account of this proceeding having yet been received; that
this House is still without full information as to the grounds upon
which Lord Canning had acted, and his answer to the objections made to
his intended proclamation in the dispatch of the Secret Committee
cannot be received for several weeks.

‘3. That, under these circumstances, this House is unable to form a
judgment on the proclamation issued by Lord Canning, but thinks it
right to express its disapprobation of the premature publication by
her Majesty’s ministers of the dispatch addressed to the
governor-general; since this public condemnation of his conduct is
calculated to weaken the authority of the governor-general of India,
and to encourage those who are now in arms against this country.’

Footnote 161:

‘That this House, whilst it abstains from expressing any opinion on
the policy of any proclamation which may have been issued by the
governor-general of India with relation to Oude, has seen with great
and serious apprehension that her Majesty’s government have addressed
to the governor-general of India, through the Secret Committee of the
East India directors, and have published, a dispatch condemning in
strong terms the conduct of the governor-general. And this House is of
opinion that such a course upon the part of her Majesty’s government
must tend, under the present circumstances of India, to produce a most
prejudicial effect, by weakening the authority of the
governor-general, and encouraging further resistance on the part of
those who are still in arms against us.’

Footnote 162:

See Note C.

Footnote 163:

See Note D.

Footnote 164:

See Note E.

JUNG BAHADOOR, of Nepaul.
]