be reconciled to the change of administration by every measure of leniency that circumstances permitted. Yet up to the beginning of March, 1857, no allowances had been paid to the King's stipendiaries, though they included several members of the royal family. "During that protracted period," wrote Lord Stanley on the 13th of October, 1858, "many influential persons must have been reduced to great pecuniary straits, with all the humiliations attendant upon such a state." Feelings were much embittered in Lucknow by this omission. Another mistake was the unauthorised occupation by Mr. Jackson of the Chutter Munzil, one of the palaces expressly set apart for the King's family. The Chief Commissioner was censured and required to quit the building, but the offence had been given. Then, again, a large number of officials were altogether excluded from pensions. It is possible that this mistake was partly due to the rules laid down by Lord Dalhousie. But the defects in those rules should have been remedied as soon

as they were observed. Even when pensions were awarded, they were not paid promptly. Sixty thousand soldiers were disbanded, of whom only a small fraction were employed in the ranks of the police or the local military forces, and the allowances granted to the rest were so inadequate as to provoke disappointment and hostility to the new Government. Lord Dalhousie had ordered a brief statement of the summary settlement to be furnished, and had particularly insisted upon the exercise of moderation in fixing the demand, but it was afterwards admitted that in many of the districts such moderation had by no means been observed. In a letter to Outram, Lord Dalhousie had expressed his firm resolution to level all forts in the province. Notwithstanding this in September, 1856, there were 623

fortified places held by the great landowners and other men of influence, and of these 351 were in good repair. The garrison which it was intended to retain in Oudh was suffered to be reduced, and Lord Canning "considered a single weak regiment with one battery of artillery a sufficient force for the maintenance of tranquillity in Oudh." As to a general disarmament, believing that the great mass of the people were grateful for their liberation of misrule, he decided on the 17th of September, 1856, to abandon this precaution. No doubt there was much excuse for the false security into which the Government was lulled, and Lord Dalhousie's correspondence with Outram shows that even his mind was not finally made up as to the necessity of a complete disarmament. But there is no injustice to Lord Canning in asserting the view that upon this and other points Lord Dalhousie would have satisfied himself by conference with the local officers and by forming his own opinion on the spot.

redress, and Almost every

What, however, he would have done is of little moment. What he did do has been related in this chapter, and it must be allowed on all hands, that throughout a business of a painful and difficult nature he acted with great moderation. The wrongs of a down - trodden people cried aloud for had so cried for a long period of time. iniquity that a ruler could commit was proved up to the hilt against a King whom no considerations of justice or mercy could touch, whose good faith was shown by a steady disregard of all treaty obligations, who in the dissolute infamy of his private life outdistanced even those from whom he was descended. Advice had been proffered to him by the paramount power with a patience of neglect that was almost

culpable. Stern warnings were flouted with open contempt, or under the hypocritical guise of obedience were treacherously evaded. Yet Lord Dalhousie still held his hand. Hampered by the treaty of 1801, he sought to devise some means of extricating the province from the slough of despair into which it was fast sinking, and, hoping against hope, gave the King further opportunity for amending his ways. His colleagues were unanimous for drastic measures. The authorities at home had been driven to see that annexation of the province was only a question of time. They had even acknowledged their shortcomings in having so long dallied with a duty that could not be indefinitely put aside. Of the measures possible Lord Dalhousie was in favour of the least rigorous, and this he would temper with all personal consideration for the culprit to be brought to justice. In lieu of annexation he desired to treat Oudh as the Berars have now been treated for more than half a century, namely, as a province outside British India, although administered in the name of the Native ruler by British officers. Adhering to the spirit of the Company's treaties, he sought the co-operation of His Majesty in bringing tranquillity and justice to his subjects, and only when the King refused to transfer the administration, did he carry out the wishes of the Court in favour of annexation. When he annexed, he adopted every precaution to conciliate the people, and so far as it was possible sought to spare the feelings of the royal family. Such mistakes as occurred in the execution of his intentions were due to causes for which no responsibility can attach to his name, and to accidents which would never have occurred if the Government at home had had the wisdom to act more

promptly. The gain of a few months would not have given time for the new province to settle down to the same state of contentment as had followed upon the annexation of Burma and Pegu, but it would have enabled Lord Dalhousie to supplement his instructions where necessary, to visit Oudh after the transfer of its administration, and by insisting upon the observance of the principles laid down by him, to prevent those mistakes of which Lord Stanley was unable to acquit the Government of India.

CHAPTER X

THE MUTINY

Errors imputed to Lord Dalhousie as causing the mutiny-Material collected by him for his justification-Grounds for holding that Sir Charles Napier did not foresee the mutiny-Evidence that Lord Dalhousie appreciated the dangers surrounding him-Making no profession of having foreseen it, he claimed to have taken measures to meet such a danger-The causes of the mutiny-Views of Marquis de la Mazelière-Views of Sir James Outram-Opinion of Sheikh Hedayut Ali-The mutiny regarded as the inevitable conflict between two civilisations-The influence of public works in producing it-The influence of education and of legislation— These causes of aggravation were not without their advantages— Lord Dalhousie's foreign policy a source of strength-Effect of his annexations considered-Outram's opinion regarding Oudh-The true facts of the case-The occasions of the mutiny consideredThe general enlistment order of the 25th of July, 1856, approved by Lord Dalhousie, and a necessary measure-The Persian war and its consequences-The greased cartridges and the mistakes made-Summary of the position and the part played by Lord Dalhousie.

WHEN a builder has certified that his foundations are well laid, and his edifice completed according to the plans prepared, and when not long afterwards a storm beats upon his work and the building collapses, he must expect and should even court inquiry. Lord Dalhousie in laying down his office, expressed on the 28th February, 1856, the trust that he was guilty of no presumption in saying that I shall leave the