LORD CANNING'S REPLY TO LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 643, 5 January 1859, Page 4

LORD CANNING'S REPLY TO LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

(From the "Spectator.")

The demand for the despatch or despatches which Lord Canning had sent to the Secret Committee in answer *to Lord Ellenborough's notorious missive of the 19th April ha^been rather rapidly followed by its production/- On Tuesday the Secretary of State for India forwarded Copies to the-morning papers, and on Wednesday this, document was published. It bears date' Allahabad, June 17, 1858; it occupies three columns of small type in the Times; and contains fifty paragraphs. This despatch may be divided in three parts —the first which deals with Lord Ellenborough's despatch, its publication, and probable effects; the second which vindicates the Oude proclamation; the third which contains such notes on the effect of Lord Canning's policy as the early date at which he wrote afforded. Lord Canning thus commences. ~ - >'. "Honourable Sirs—l have the honour to reply to your despatch, No. 1954, of the 19th of April. "That despatch condemns in the' Strongest terms the proclamation which, on the 3rd of March, I directed the Chief Commissioner of Oude to issuefrom Lucknow. . .-••> "2. Although written in the Secret Committee, the despatch was made public in England three weeks before it reached my hands; It'will in a few days be read\in every station in Hindostan. <■:.■■.- ------" 3. Before the despatch was published, in England, it had been announced to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown as conveying disapproval in every sense of the policy indicated by the GovernorGeneral's proclamation. ' Whether this description was an accurate one or not Ido not inquire. The telegraph has already carried it over the length and" breadth of India." ' Had the despatch never passed out of the records ,of-tho.Secret Committee it would have deeply mortified Lord Gauuing-j—'but-its publication tended to increase his difficulties by encouraging resistance and delusive hopes. So far as it affects him personally he will say but little. "No taunts orjsarcasms, come from what quarter they may, will turn me from the path which I believe to be that of my public duty. I believe that a change in the head of the Government of India at this time, if it took place under the circumstances which,-indicated a repudiation on the part of the Government in England of that policy which has hithefto been pursued towards the rebels of Oude, would seriously retard the pacification of the country. I believe that the policy has been from the beginning merciful without weakness, and indulgent without compromise of the dignity of the Government. I believe that wherever the authority of the Government has been established it has become manifest to the people in Oude, as elsewhere, that the indulgence of those who make submission, and who' are free from atrocious crime, will be large. I believe that the issue of the proclamation which has been so severely condemned was thoroughly consistent with that policy, and that it is so viewed by those to whom it is addressed. I believe that that policy, if steadily pursued, offers the best and earliest prospect of restoring peace to Oude upon a stable footing. Firm in these convictions, I will not, in a time of unexampled difficulty, danger, and toil lay down of my own act the high trust which I have the honour to hold." Then he states the ground Of his policy, and urges that if, after considering them, the Home Government is^not satisfied, they will dismiss him from his; office with the least possible delay! Referring to those passages ' of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, wherein he deals with the annexation of Oude, questions its justice, and intimates that the people of Oude were rather engaged in legitimate war than rebellion, and therefore entitled to indulgence, Lord Canning, declining to discuss the two former propositions, says— " As to the indulgence due to the people of Oude, your honourable Committee will, I am sure, do me the justice to admit that no misgiving as to the character of our dealings with the Oude State was necessary to induce me 'to declare, without any injunction from yourselves, that the talookdars and landholders of Oude must be viewed in a very different light from that in which rebels in our old proviuces are to be regarded. I found sufficient reason for this in the facts that the allegiance of these men, when they broke into rebellion, was little more than a year old, and,, that they had*become British subjects by no act of their own ; that our rule had brought loss of property upon many of them, and upon some an unjust loss; and that it had diminished the importance and arbitrary power of all. I considered these facts to be a .palliation of rebellion even where hostility to us had been most inveterate, and, therefore I put aside altogether tho punishments of death, transportation, and imprisonment, and while making those who had rebelled with the penalty which in India, as elsewhere, has teen again,and again recognized as a fitting punishment of rebels—namely, the forfeiture of their rights in the soil,—! promised indulgence to those who should make prompt submission." Now of the effect of the publication of the despatch in general and immediately he expresses great apprehension. " Although the rising against our authority in Oude has been general, almost universal, it has been singularly devoid of a national character. Except for tho purpose of reducing our garrison in Lucknow, and afterwards of holding the city against us, there appears to have been no common cause among our assailants. Since the capture of Lucknow wo have had against us the party of the Begum and her son, claiming to represent the Royal family of Oude; the party of the Moulvie, a Mahomedan fanatic ; tho party of the Nazim, an adveuturer without rights or'property in the province; the Sepoys who have passod from one leader to another according as they have been able to extort the highest pay ; and a number of the talookdars and zemindars, some few of whom, at the head of bands of their own, have plundered and oppressed their enemies and those whom they believed to be our friends, while others, generally of less influence, have been tempted or coerced into joining the ranks

of the Begum or the Monlvie. There is little concert or .cohesion between any of these parties Indeed, between those of the* Begum and the Moulvio there has been not only complete sepswation hut open hostility.". If the Government, ho says hesitates to express its right toposscss.QufleVmanY who have no sympathy with her would bo drawn to the side of the Begum. If the Government in India were not supported in the assertion of its authority and in declaring that tho Oude people may in strict right be treated as rebels, a powerful temptation would be offered to them to maintain the strmrsle. and renew it. "■»*>*>«•» Next he treats of the Oude proclamation, and tho spirit in which it was conceived and acted upon. Ho went to Allahabad in January, to obtain full, accurate, and recent information respecting Oude, not from formal reports, but living and experienced persons. He arrived at two conclusions ; first, that ail questions of capital punishment, or even of punishment by transportation .or imprisonment, should be set aside, .where the rebels were free from tho ■Mam of murder; and secondly, that the punishment tor rebellion should be the confiscation to the btate Of proprietary rights in the soil It has been repeatedly enforced in India; may be easily tern fables the -Government to reward the faithful; infitcts no stain upon native honour; tends to settle disputes. Lord Canning objects to proclamations as a mode of influencing the natives, because they prefer the word of an officer to a printed paper j but the want of troops compelled him to issue the proclamation. It declared confiscation rather than threatened it, because the natives attach little importance to vague threats. • Having explained so far, Lord Canning proceeds to show why he made no attempt in his proclamation to point out the different measures of indulgence, by a reference to the recent condition of ,the talookdars. This part of tho despatch is of grest interest. . " 24. When we assumed the government of Oude in 1856, the greater part of the province was held by talookdars, who represented its aristocracy. They have been called the ' barons of Oude,' but this'tcrm applied to them as a class, is misleading. Some had received titles from the Kings of Oude for services rendered,.or by Court favour. Some few are the representatives of ancient families, but the majority are men distinguished neither by birth, good service, or connexion with the soil, who, having held office under the native government as nazims, H.e. governors), or chuckledars, (i. c. collectors of government ,rehts,) or having farmed the revenue of extensive tracts, had taken advantage of the weakness of the native government and its indiffer-, ence to all considerations of justice so long as it received revenue; had abused the authority confided to them by that government; and by means of deeds of sale sometimes extorted by violence, sometimes obtained by fraud, had become the nominal proprietors, and the'actual possessors of the villages, which formed what they called their talookdas, or estates.

" Owing to the ascendancy which the men of this class acquired, the weakness of the native government, the venality of the courts, and the absence of justice, the condition of the actual occupants of the soil was one of unparalleled depression. Their rights had ceased to exist, or were" reduced to a mere shadow; they cjoeld get no protection from the government; they', were completely in the pow^r.of the talookdars, and were' subject to every kind of oppressionTiyranny; and exaction. In numberless instances, they were compelled by.the talookdars to execute deeds sale, alienating whatever proprietary right they nominally possessed; and they lost but little by the act, for the practical fruition of ■proprietary right they had scarcely known. "Such being the condition oF things in Oudfef, the Government of India, perhaps-with more of chivalrous justice than political prudence, deternjined at; once to reinstate these proprietary occupants of the soil in what they believed to kbe their hereditary' rights, and'to restore their ancient village communities: and upon the annexation of the.country the .chief commissioner was" instructed to make, the set-" tlcment of the land revenue with the proprietary occupants of the soil, to the exclusion of middlemen. This instruction was 'carried into execution in some districts with undue haste, harshlyij»Mlr«qsK»i^ JLnsttfficient.aYidon<wt ttnd plaee,_lnjustice was done to the talookdars, some of whom; were deprived of villages "which.had long been at- ■ tached to their talookdas,-and their titles to which1 were not satisfactorily disproved.l - ;\

" The injustice might, and probably would, have been corrected in making the * revised settlement; but this does not excuse or palliate the wrong. "The mutinies broke out. It might have been expected.tbat when insurrection first arose in Oude and before It feadvgrown to a formidable head, the village occupants-who had been so highly favoured; by- the British Government, and in justice to whom it had initiated a policy disj&steful to the most powerful class in the province, "Would have come forward'tlh support of the government who had'endeavonied to restore them to their hereditary rights and with whose interests their interests were identical Such, however,Vas not the case. So far as I am yet informed, not an individual dared to be loyal to the gpvernment which had befriended him. . The village occupants,' as a body, relapsed into their former subjection to the talookdar, owned and obeyed his authority as if he had been their lawful suzerain, and joined the ranks of those who rose up ia arms against the British-Government. The endeavour to neutralise the usurped and largelyabused power of the talookdars by recognizing the supposed proprietary rights of the people, and thus arousing their -feelings .of self-interest.and evoking their gratitude, had utterly failed. >■- ' ''"X

" The time arrived when it became" hecessary^to consider how the province should be dealt with upon the re-establishment of Our power, and authority in its capital. Oh the one hand was the patent fact that those whom we had desired to benefit, and had to our thinking benefited, did not" value the rights which we had restored to themjand that, far from standing up in. defence of those rights, and in support of the Government which had been the means of reviving thenv.they had acted in complete subordination to the talookdars, and had been no less forward than these latter in their efforts to subvert the authority of that Government, and toexplelits officers. - On the other hand was the no less celrtain fact that, with but few honourable exceptions, all the talookdars—many who had not suffered in the smallest degree by our fiscal measures, and some' who had benefited by them, having been allowed "at the settlement to retain all, or nearly all,--the villages composing their talookdas on reduced assess-ments—-had taken.up arms against the British Government, had either themselves participated or had sent their retainers to aid in the relentless attacks on the Lucknow Residency, had forcibly resumed the occupation of their talookdas, and had in many ways manifested their malignant hostility to the British Government."

Under these circumstances to have recalled the state of things immediately before the rebellion would have been to court failure; and to have* reverted to the state of things as found at the annexation would have been to concede victory to rebels and put a premium on insurrection. .No difficulty, he says, has been found in explaining to talookdars that confiscation did not necessarily mean permanent deprivation of rights. [Here Lord Canning deals with an objection raised by Sir •James Outram to the proclamation as first drawn, an objection that led to its amendment; and ex-. presses his surprise that this objection should have been raised, because Sir James himself had previously recommended large confiscations.] ■:^"'^ ibo third section of the'despatch treats of the efiect of. the proclamation, and is now somewhat out of date. It ahows.fchat Mr. Montgomery. had jnade some progress, tiil^n tho middle of June '"« reports had been less favourable; but that neither Lord Canning nor Mr. Montgomery were disheartened by the temporary check. Evidence J» offered to show that were there troops to support I'ie ioyal, three-fourths of the talookdars would return to their allegiance. The season when these '"'ticipations can be tested will be#hen the troops J:; 1" again move rapidly over the country. Lord Uniiing thinks that a spirit of* loyalty will then ' ,ilro itsielf generally throughout the province. 1" a despatch dated July 4, Lord Canning re-

. turns thanks for the vote of confidence in him ; passed by the Court of Directors last May, and generally ..explains the grounds of his policy, RO t ■torth at length m the abovc-dosoribed despatch to the Secret Committee,