Page 173

Book 15 – The Pacification of Oudh and the North-West – Repression of Outbreaks in the Panjab

Chapter 1 – Lord Canning’s Oudh Proclamation

Oudh

In the preceding volume123 I referred to the proclamation issued by Lord Canning regarding the talukdars of Oudh, and of its reception in the victorious camp of Sir Colin Campbell; and I promised to deal with the subject more fully later on. I proceed now to redeem that promise.

Purport of Lord Canning’s Oudh Proclamation

The Oudh proclamation, despatched by Lord Canning to Sir James Outram in his capacity of Chief Commissioner of Oudh, with a letter bearing date the 3rd of March, 1858, directing that it should not be published until Lakhnao should have fallen, or, at least, until that city should lie at the mercy of the British commander, was at once a sentence, a warning, and a threat addressed to the inhabitants of the rebellions province. That proclamation announced that Lakhnao, after defying and resisting the power of the British for nine months, now lay at the mercy of the conqueror; that in that defiance and resistance the mutinous soldiery who had begun the revolt had been greatly aided by the inhabitants of the city and the province, even by those who owed their prosperity to the British Government; but that the hour of retribution had now arrived. Acting on the principle that, before pronouncing sentence on the guilty, it was just and proper to reward the innocent, the proclamation proceeded to name six men – three of whom were rajahs, two zamindars,

Page 174

Rewards it promises to the innocent

and one a talukdar – who had remained faithful amid great temptations, and who were not only declared “the sole hereditary proprietors of the lands which they held when Oudh came under British rule,” but were promised additional rewards. Rewards and honours in proportionate measure were likewise promised to others in whose favour similar claims should be established to the satisfaction of the Government.

punishment to the remainder

But, with these exceptions, the proprietary right in the soil of the province was confiscated to the British Government, which would dispose of that right in such manner as might seem fitting.

Conditions of commutation of punishment

To the chiefs, talukdars, and landowners, however, who should make immediate submission, surrendering their arms and obeying the orders of the Chief Commissioner, the proclamation promised the safety of their lives and of their honour, provided that their hands were “unstained with English blood murderously shed.” For any further indulgence, the proclamation added, and with regard to the condition in which such men might thereafter be placed, “they must throw themselves upon the justice and mercy of the British Government.” The proclamation promised, in conclusion, that to those amongst the classes referred to who should come forward promptly and give the Chief Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and order, the indulgence would be large, and that the Governor-General would be ready to view liberally the claims which they might thus acquire to the restoration of their former rights.

Participation in the murder of Englishmen and Englishwomen to exclude from mercy

Further, that while participation in the murder of Englishmen and Englishwomen would exclude those who had participated in it from all mercy, those, on the other hand, who had protected English lives would be specially entitled to consideration and leniency.

Mr. Edmonstone’s accompanying letter

In the letter to which I have referred as accompanying the proclamation the Foreign Secretary, Mr. G. F. Edmonstone, was, as I have already stated, careful to lay down that it should not be published until Lakhnao should have been conquered or should lie at the mercy of the conqueror. It further prescribed that, when published, the proclamation was to be addressed only to the non-military inhabitants of the province, and in no sense to the mutinous Sipahis. It expressed likewise the conviction of

Page 175

Fully explains the mercy that underlies the apparent severity of the terms of the proclamation

Lord Canning that the tone of apparent severity which characterised the proclamation was necessary, inasmuch as the announcement in such a state paper of a liberal and forgiving spirit would be open to misconstruction, and it added that, in reality, the spirit of the proclamation was merciful and even lenient, in that it promised exemption, almost general, from the penalties of death and imprisonment to the rajahs, talukdars, the and zamindars, who had fought and conspired against the Government; that even the confiscation of estates was rather a merciful commutation of a severer punishment than a harsh measure of justice. The letter concluded with suggestions to Sir James Outram regarding the manner in which it might be requisite for him to deal with mutineers of varying grades of guilt.

Outram reads the proclamation in a sense different to that intended by Lord Canning

Sir James Outram received the letter and the proclamation on the 5th of March. Reading the latter by the light of its actual contents, apart from the commentary furnished by the letter, he arrived at a conclusion regarding it the very reverse of that which Lord Canning had endeavoured to impress upon him. Lord Canning, when sending him the proclamation, had said in so many words, by the mouth of his Foreign Secretary, “Do not judge the proclamation simply by itself, as a paper dealing out stern justice to conquered revolters. Rather, looking, at the measure of punishment which those revolters have brought upon themselves, see whether the proclamation does not in every case, except the case of atrocious murder, pronounce a mitigation of punishment, capable of still further mitigation.”

And condemns it

But Outram, disregarding this exhortation, looked at the proclamation without sufficient reference to the circumstances which had made it necessary, and condemned it.

Embodies his views in a letter

In a letter to the Foreign Secretary, dated the 8th of March, he declared his belief that there were not a dozen landowners in Oudh who had not, in some way or other, assisted the rebels, and that, therefore, there would be but few exceptions to the sweeping confiscations proposed by the Governor-General; he expressed his conviction that as soon as the proclamation should be made public nearly all the chiefs and talukdars would retire to their domains and prepare for a desperate resistance. He proceeded even to

Page 176

urge extenuating circumstances for those who had revolted, by declaring his opinion – which, it must be admitted, was founded on fact – that the landowners had been very unjustly treated in the land-settlement after the annexation; that, apart from this, their sympathy with the rebels had been, in the actual circumstances, only natural; that it was not until the British rule in Oudh had been brought to a virtual end by the mutineers that the rajahs and talukdars had sided against the Government; that they ought to be treated rather as honourable enemies than as rebels; that they would be converted into relentless enemies if their lands were confiscated, maintaining a guerilla war, which would “involve the loss of thousands of Europeans by battle, disease, and exposure”; but that, if their lands were secured to them, they would at once aid in restoring order, and would so co-operate with the paramount power as, before long, to render unnecessary the further presence of the large army then occupying Oudh.

Lord Canning’s first reply

To this letter Lord Canning replied, on the 10th, in a brief despatch, the nature of which renders still clearer the really merciful intentions of his proclamation. Referring to the promise of safety of life and honour to the talukdars, chiefs, and landholders, unstained with English blood murderously shed, who should surrender at once and obey the orders of the Chief Commissioner, Lord Canning authorised Sir James to amplify it by an addition which, if not very wide in itself, intimated as clearly as possible the merciful intentions of the Governor-General.

renders his merciful intentions clearer

“To those amongst them,” ran this addition, “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 willing to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to as restitution of their former rights.”

His second and more elaborate letter

Three weeks later Lord Canning replied at greater length to Outram’s remarks. In Mr. Edmonstone’s despatch, dated the 31st of March, Lord Canning admitted that the people of Oudh occupied a position, with respect to their allegiance to the British Government, differing widely from that of the inhabitants of the provinces which had been longer under British rule. But, in the Governor-General’s opinion, that difference constituted no valid ground

Page 177

for treating the chiefs and talukdars in the lenient manner suggested by Outram.

Gives ample reasons

Arguing in the spirit of the letter of the 3rd of March, he again insisted that, reasons in the presence of a great crime, exemption from death, transportation, and imprisonment were great boons, and that to have offered more lenient terms would have been to treat the rebels – not, as Outram contended, as honourable enemies – but as enemies who had won the day. With respect to Outram’s contention that the injustice of the land-settlement after the annexation had impelled the landowners to rebel, Lord Canning simply declined to recognise the hypothesis. Admitting that the policy of introducing into Oudh a system of village settlement in place of the old settlement under talukdars might not have been altogether wise, Lord Canning declined to believe that the conduct of the landowners was in any respect the consequence of that policy. He attributed that conduct rather to the repugnance they had felt to stiffer any restraint of the arbitrary powers they had till then exercised; 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.

For adhering to the proclamation

For these reasons Lord Canning adhered to his proclamation.

Real similarity in the objects at which Lord canning and Outram alike aimed

That Sir James Outrun did not at once realise the statesman-like nature and the really merciful tendencies of Lord Canning’s proclamation may at once be admitted. The end of the two men was really the same; the difference was in the manner by which that end should be attained. Sir James would have carried leniency to a point at which leniency missed its aim. Lord Canning, maintaining the right to be severe, was prepared to be as merciful as Outram whenever the exercise of mercy should be politically desirable.

Lord Ellenborough receives Lord Canning’s proclamation

The real character of Lord Canning’s statesmanship at this period might have remained long generally unknown but for the action taken with respect to the proclamation by the then President of the Board of Control, the Earl of Ellenborough. That nobleman had but recently taken over the seals of that office from his predecessor, a member of the Whig Cabinet, Mr. Vernon Smith. In due course he received, about the 20th of March, a copy of Lord Canning’s proclamation, unaccompanied

Page 178

by any explanatory document.

without the letter addressed to his predecessor

In point of fact, Lord Canning, in transmitting the proclamation, had written to Mr. Vernon Smith, a member of his own party, and who, in his belief, still held the office of President of the Board of Control, a letter in which he stated that the proclamation required an explanatory despatch which he had not had time to prepare.

explanatory of the reasons which justified it

Unfortunately, Mr. Vernon Smith neglected to pass on that letter to his successor. He thus allowed Lord Ellenborough to believe that the proclamation stood alone, that it required no interpretation, and was to be judged on its merits as an act of policy.

Lord Ellenborough arrives at a conclusion similar to that formed by Outram

It is not surprising that, reading the proclamation in this way, Lord Ellenborough arrived at a conclusion not very dissimilar to that with which Sir James Outram, possessing all the advantages of proximity to, and personal communication with, Lord Canning, had been impressed. He condemned it as likely to raise such a ferment in Oudh as would make pacification almost impossible. In accord with Outran, of whoso views, however, be was ignorant, Lord Ellenborough believed that the mole of settling the land tenure when the British took possession of Oudh hail been in many ways unjust, and had been the chief cause of the general and national character of the disaffection in that province. He concluded – agreeing in this also with Outram – that the people of Oudh would view with dismay a proclamation which cut them off, as a nation, from the ownership of land so long cherished by them, and would deem it righteous to battle still more energetically than before against a government which could adopt such a course of policy.

and embodies his views in a despatch

Lord Ellenborough embodied these views in a despatch to be transmitted to Lord Canning in the name of the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors, added to them an argument – also an argument of Sir James Outram – to the effect that the people of Oudh ought to be regarded as legitimate enemies rather than as rebels, and concluded it with these stinging words:

Concluding paragraphs of this despatch

“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. You have acted on a different

Page 179

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.” We cannot but think that the precedents from which 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. We desire, therefore, that you will mitigate in practice the stringent severity of the decree of confiscation you have issued against the landowners of Oudh. 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.

“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.”

Lord Ellenborough submitted this despatch to the Cabinet of which he was a member. It received an approval which was unanimous. Three weeks later he showed it to Mr. Bright with the view of its contents being made known to the House of Commons.

This action, when known, compels Lord Ellenborough to resign

So far as Lord Ellenborough was concerned, the mistakes he committed – the penning of an acrimonious despatch without waiting for an explanation, and the disclosure of its contents to Mr. Bright with a view to its being presented to the House of Commons – were fatal to his tenure of office. The matter having come under the cognizance of the House of Commons, and having become the subject of a debate which at the outset seemed likely to terminate the existence of the Government, Lord Ellenborough took upon himself the sole responsibility of the despatch, and resigned his office.

Effect produced by the despatch on Lord Canning

Far different was the effect produced by the receipt of the despatch upon Lord Canning. He received it at Allahabad on the 13th of June. Before its contents became known, rumours circulated that, the Government of Lord Derby had written a disagreeable letter to the Governor-General. “I asked him,” wrote, at the time, one deeply in his confidence, “if it was true that he had received something disagreeable. He said, almost indifferently, that it was impertinent; but he

Page 180

did not care much; he would answer what they wrote.” He then entered into a conversation regarding his Oudh policy.

Indignation it causes in the minds of his entourage

The next day, when the despatch had been read by others, the prevailing feeling regarding it was that it was offensively impertinent, with a look of epigrammatic point in the concluding sentences – those which I have quoted – of which the writer was evidently proud. But, above all, there arose a feeling of indignation that a despatch so insulting should have been published for the benefit of the natives, many of them still in revolt, as well as of the Anglo-Indians.

Lord Canning is urged from England not to resign

But Lord Canning had, at this crisis, a support not less grateful than the confidence of the friends about him. The same mail brought him a copy of a resolution of the Court of Directors expressing continued confidence in their Governor-General. Letters were received from Mr. Sidney Herbert, from Lord Granville, from Lord Aberdeen, and from many other leading men, expressing sympathy and regard. In almost all these Lord Canning was urged not to resign, but to carry on his own policy calmly, and to leave to the Government the odium of recalling him. Lord Canning never thought of resigning.

He had no thought of doing so

He regarded Lord Ellenborough’s despatch as Achilles would have regarded a javelin “hurled by the feeble hand of Priam,” and, far from allowing it to disturb his equanimity, he sat down coolly and calmly to pen a vindication of his policy.

He receives a letter from Lord Derby

Curiously enough, ten days after that vindication had been drafted and despatched – on the 27th of June – Lord Canning received a long private letter from Lord Derby himself on the subject of the point of difference. In this letter Lord Derby expressed a general confidence in Lord Canning’s policy; he attributed Lord Ellenborough’s despatch to the conduct of Mr. Vernon Smith in withholding the covering private letter which accompanied the Oudh proclamation, and which gave the only intimation that further explanations would be forwarded.

virtually asking him to stay on.

Lord Derby concluded by virtually asking, almost pressing, Lord Canning to stay on, and spoke of the probability of Lord Stanley going to the Board of Control. To one in Lord Canning’s position such a letter from the chief of the cabinet of which Lord Ellenborough had been a

Page 181

member was most satisfactory. It might almost be said that his policy was vindicated by his enemies.

Lord Canning’s reply to the dispatch

Lord Canning’s own vindication was dated the 18th of June. It began by alluding in a dignified manner to the fact that the despatch censuring himself had been made public in England three weeks before it reached his hands, and that in a few days it would be read in every station in Hindustan. Dwelling then upon the pain which the censure of his conduct by the Court of Directors would cause him, and upon the manner in which the publication of it would increase his difficulties, he declared that no taunts or sarcasms, come from what quarter they might, would turn him from the path which he believed to be that of public duty.

Preliminary

Expressing, then, his conviction that a change in the government of India at that time, taking place under circumstances which would indicate a repudiation of the policy pursued towards the Oudh rebels, would seriously retard the pacification of the country, he proceeded to declare his belief that that policy had been from the first merciful without weakness, and indulgent without compromise of the dignity of the Government; that it had made manifest to the people of reconquered districts all over India, including Oudh, that the indulgence to those who should submit and who should be free from atrocious crime, would be large; and that the Oudh proclamation, thoroughly consistent with that policy, offered the best and earliest prospect of restoring peace to that province on a stable footing.

Preliminary

Stating, then, in dignified language, that although in a time of unexampled difficulty, danger, and toil, he would not In down of his own act the high trust which he had the honour to hold, yet that if, after reading the vindication of his policy, the Court of Directors should see fit to withhold their confidence from him, he then preferred his respectful yet urgent request that he might be relieved from the office of Governor-General, Lord Canning proceeded to reply to Lord Ellenborough’s strictures, and to assert the grounds upon which his convictions of the soundness of his policy rested.

Retorts on Lord Ellenborough

With respect to the former, Lord Canning referred to the extraordinary manner in which Lord Ellenborough’s despatch had almost justified the people of Oudh, as if they were fighting in a righteous cause – a manner quite legitimate in a member of the legislature, but

Page 182

quite unjustifiable in a minister of the Queen of England, who herself was actually Queen of Oudh also.

and points out the mischief his despatch might have caused to India

He declined to discuss the policy which, in 1855-56, had-dictated the annexation; it was not his act, nor had he ever been empowered to undo it. But he felt it incumbent upon him to point out the disastrous results which might follow, should the people of Oudh be encouraged, by such reasoning as that contained in the despatch, to continue their resistance. At the actual moment, the chiefs of the various sections of rebels in Oudh were united neither by a common plan nor by a common sympathy, but, he added, if it should become manifest that the British Government shrank front a declaration of its right to possess Oudh, the Begam, as the representative in the field of the late reigning family, would draw to herself all the sympathies of the country, and all the other factions would merge in hers.

Defence of his proclamation

Lord Canning prefaced the defence of his proclamation by stating that he had early in the year proceeded to Allahabad chiefly that he might be able to investigate the state of Oudh; that he soon determined to make a difference in the measures to be adopted for the pacification of the country, between the mutinied Sipahis and the Oudh rebels; that the latter should not he put to death for appearing in arms against the authorities, unless they had committed actual murder; that the general punishment for rebellion in Oudh should be confiscation of estates, a punishment recognised by Native States as the fitting consequence of the offence, and one which in no way affected caste, nor the honour of the most sensitive Brahman or Rajput; a punishment which admitted of every gradation according to the severity or lightness of the offence: which would enable the Government to reward friendly talukdars and zamindars, and which, in point of fact, would, in many cases, constitute a kind of retributive justice – many of the talukdars having acquired their estates by spoliation of the village communities; that, as a matter of abstract justice, it would only be right to restore those estates to the village communities; but that, as there would be insuperable difficulties to such a course, it would be better to take the forfeited estates of the rebellious talukdars as Government property, out of which faithful villages and individuals might be rewarded.

Page 183

Final result on Lord Canning of the Ellenborough letter

With this vindication ended practically the crisis caused by Lord Ellenborough’s hasty act. The result was to seat Lord Canning, in the presence of a ministry of an opposite party, more firmly in the saddle, and to give him greater strength to carry out the policy which he believed to be adapted to the circumstances. In another way his hands had been strengthened at this crisis.

The nomination of Sir James Outram to the Supreme Council enabled Lord Canning to place at the head of the Oudh province a man who, imbued with his own views, was certain to carry out his policy with the vigour arising from conviction.

Mr. Robert Montgomery

The new Chief Commissioner of Oudh was Mr. Robert Montgomery124. Mr. Montgomery was a man who, with a thorough acquaintance with administrative duties, combined great decision of character, a sound judgment, and a thorough knowledge of native character.

His character and antecedents

He had been the right hand of Sir John Lawrence in the Panjab, had been the firm advocate of those resolute measures which made the fall of Dehli possible, and, in the earlier stages of the mutiny, when Sir John Lawrence was absent from Lahor, had himself directed the measures for disarming the native troops, which, carried out in time, had unquestionably saved the province. In questions of administrative policy, Mr. Montgomery, as I have said, agreed in principle with Lord Canning.

Mr. Montgomery’s action regarding the proclamation

Such was the man to whom, in the mouth May 1858, Lord Canning entrusted the carrying out of the policy towards Oudh embodied in his famous proclamation. Mr. Montgomery, without ignoring the proclamation, did not put it into rough action. He used it rather as a lever, by the judicious employment of which he could bring about the results at which the Governor-General professedly aimed.

The situation in Oudh

The situation was, for the first three months of his tenure of office, in many respects remarkable. The larger number of the relations, adherents, and dependents of the deposed royal family had their dwellings in, or belonged, by family association extending over mummy years, to the city of Lakhnao.

Page 184

Lakhnao

Considering the part which that city, and more especially the classes of its inhabitants to which I have referred, had played in the rebellion, it was especially necessary to exercise over it a strict supervision.

The provinces

In the provinces an entirely different feeling prevailed. There the rule of the king of Oudh had planted no seeds of loyalty or devotion.

Feeling of the people towards the king

Alien in religion and in race to the great bulk of the people of Oudh, the king and his courtiers had been tolerated, first, because they were there, and secondly, because they had exercised no strict supervising power, but had been content to be the nominal rulers of the great landowners, permitted to carry on, very much in accordance with their own wishes, their feudal rule. The central power, as exercised by the kings of Oudh, had interfered to put a stop to rapine and oppression only when that rapine and oppression had attained a magnitude so great that to ignore the evil would have produced a national rising. The sentiment felt, then, by the great body of landholders towards the royal family of Oudh was not loyalty; it was not affection; it was not sympathy; it was scarcely contentment. Perhaps the term that best describes it is the term toleration. They had been content to tolerate that family as exercising a kind of normal suzerainty which permitted them to do just as they liked.

Their feeling regarding British rule

Towards the British rule, exercised as it had been by the civilians who had immediately preceded Sir Henry Lawrence, they entertained a different feeling. In strong contrast with the selfish sway of the Muhammadan kings of Oudh, the British rule had made itself felt in every corner of the province.

very hostile

The reforms it had introduced, the inquiries which it made, had been so sweeping, that almost universal feeling had risen amongst the landowners that it was not to be endured. If the King of Oudh had been King Log, the British rule was the rule of King Stork. The landowners of Oudh, then, had hailed the mutiny, not from affection towards the deposed dynasty, but from hatred of its successor. Indifferent as they were to the persons and the race of their Muhammadan kings, they would have gladly ejected the British to restore them.

When, then, Lakhnao had fallen, the talukdars and the landowners generally were as far as they had ever been from submission to the British authority. Could the Begam show a

Page 185

strong front, they might yet combine with her for the restoration of the ancient dynasty in the person of one of its members.

But they have no central rallying point

But as there did not appear in the field any force sufficiently strong to rally round, the landowners and other rebel leaders fought each for himself, each hoping that some great benefit would accrue to him out of the general turmoil.

This fact diminishes Montgomery’s difficulties, which are, nevertheless, great

This disunion greatly diminished the difficulties which Montgomery might otherwise have had to encounter had there been one fixed purpose and concentration of action among the malcontents. But still the task before him was no light one. He met it with all the skill, the temper, and the judgment which might have been expected from so experienced a ruler of men.

He meets them

He exhausted every means of persuasion at the same time that he brought clearly to the view of the landowners the fixed determination of the British Government.

Restores British authority in some districts

He was thus able to restore in some few districts the lapsed British authority. To reorganise that authority in those deaf to his persuasions, he was content to wait until the forcible measures inaugurated by his military coadjutor, Sir Hope Grant, should produce their natural results.

What those measures were I shall relate in the next chapter.

Footnotes

123. Vol. IV. pages 285-7

124. Afterwards Sir Robert Montgomery, K.C.S.I., and till recently a member of the Council of India. He died in 1887.

This collection transcribed by Chris Gage
hosted by ibiblio Support Wikipedia