decision of dispersing that army by force. His Excellency was instructed by me to use every effort of conciliatory representation towards persuading Holkar's Sirdars to abandon their hostile purpose; but should that fail, he was directed to treat Holkar as an enemy. The moderation of Sir Thomas Hislop's tone was construed by the opposite party as proceeding from an apprehension of their strength, and the most contemptuous insults were offered to our troops. The beating down this spirit for the present hour would be of little avail, if a disposition of such gratuitous enmity were not to be restricted in the means of its future indulgence; but beyond this consideration, the displayed and professed obedience to the Peshwa's summons in breach of existing treaties, exacted strict precautions for our security. . . . We were thoroughly entitled to appropriate to the Honourable Company, out of the conquered lands, a revenue sufficient to defray the charge of a force, the stationing of which in that quarter. . . had proved to be an indispensable provision for the future.

The same Mahratta tie which acted so irresistibly upon Holkar's court was as powerful with the Raja of Nagpur. Our whole conduct towards him had been unvaried kindness; nor had a single point of difference ever arisen in the political transactions between us. The extinction of the Pindaris, who annually plundered his territories, was an object of earnest desire to him. Yet while, with such antecedent reasons for mutual confidence, we were prosecuting that enterprise, he publicly received from the Peshwa (then in arms against us) a khelat with an honorary title, and issued private orders for the levy of troops in all quarters. On being solicited by the Resident to explain the assemblage of troops which was taking place round Nagpur, he with the basest deceit protested his inviolable amity, while he was equipping himself for a profligate outrage to the law of nations, in an attack on our accredited Minister at his court. Subsequent events irrefragably proved that no reliance could be placed on him or his people. Simple self-defence required us to retain the districts which we had subdued by the action at Jabalpur, and to maintain in them an advanced force as a permanent curb on Nagpur.

Whatsoever has been said relative to Holkar and the Raja of Nagpur, will apply still more forcibly to the Peshwa. As the contest with him has not come to a termination nothing but the principle can be expressed.

Sindhia has not incurred forfeiture, though he has essentially

deserved that penalty. I should say, that the very letter of the treaty has been observed to him with even too much strictness, if too much strictness of construction could be observed towards an unequal antagonist. His troops have, in no one instance, impeded the marches of the retreating Pindaris; much less have they contributed any co-operation with us; and his contingent of horse has been withheld under various pretences, until it was no longer of any consequence. Relying on our respect for the obligations of forbearance which the treaty imposed on us, he has hardly disguised that he was watching the course of the Peshwa's affairs, and projected the adoption of measures consonant to any encouragement they might hold out. It is beyond question, that Holkar's taking the field would have been sufficient to decide him, had I not come so rapidly back upon him. . . .

The exertions of the Nawab of Bhopal in supplying with provisions our columns which advanced from the Nerbudda, in aiding towards the expulsion of the Pindaris, and in contributing eight hundred horse to the division of LieutenantColonel Adams, throughout the campaign, have been so meritorious, that it is impossible to deny him the benefit of British protection. The events which have extended your possessions along the front of Bhopal, so totally extinguish the considerations influencing your objection to receiving it as a feudatory, that I think I cannot err in regarding the prohibition as no longer in force.

The Rajput rulers of Jodhpur and Udaipur have by treaty constituted themselves your feudatories; and the Vakils 1 from the Raja of Jaipur are now at Delhi, arranging the terms on which that Prince is to be admitted to the same relation. The smaller states to the westward will follow of course.

That these complicated concerns have been settled in less than three months since the southern divisions crossed the Nerbudda (the actual opening of the campaign), is an advantage on which I beg leave sincerely to congratulate the Honourable Court.

(E.I.C., Papers on Pindari and Mahratta Wars, 1824, p. 203.)

1 Envoys.

T

99. TREATY WITH UDAIPUR

(The Maharana of the romantic Rajput state of Udaipur is the head of the oldest ruling house in India. Like the other Rajput princes he had long been dependent upon the Mahrattas. The treaty made with him is given as a specimen of a series of treaties made with the small states of the north-west as a result of the last Mahratta war.)

1. There shall be perpetual friendship, alliance, and unity of interests between the two states from generation to generation and the friends and enemies of one shall be the friends and enemies of both.

2. The British Government engages to protect the principality and territory of Udaipur.

3. The Maharana of Udaipur will always act in subordinate co-operation with the British Government, and acknowledge its supremacy, and will not have any connection with other Chiefs or states.

4. The Maharana of Udaipur will not enter into any negotiation with any Chief or State without the knowledge and sanction of the British Government; but his usual amicable correspondence with friends and relations shall continue.

5. The Maharana of Udaipur will not commit aggressions upon any one; and if by accident a dispute arise with any one, it shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of the British Government.

9. The Maharana of Udaipur shall always be absolute ruler of his own country, and the British jurisdiction shall not be introduced into that principality.

Dated at Delhi, this 13th day of January, A.D. 1818.

(Aitchison, Treaties and Sanads, 4th ed., iii. 30.)

100. THE DEPOSITION OF THE PESHWA

From the Marquis of Hastings to the Court of Directors, 20th June 1818.

The re-establishment of Baji Rao upon any conditions, must appear to every one to have been utterly incompatible with our honour and security. The country had then to come under a new government. .. Should it not continue under your domination, we had to decide whether we should raise to the Masnad one of Baji Rao's family or a stranger. In the first case we have had full and most serious proof, that no

distinctness of obligation will prevent a Peshwa from secretly claiming the allegiance of the other Mahratta sovereigns; and irrefragable evidence has shown, that the implicit obedience recognised as due to the mandates of such a head of the Mahratta empire, will operate in violation of every solemnity of pledge to us. There must, then, be no Peshwa. Resort to a stranger would produce its natural consequences, irritation in the lower classes; and . . . the antipathy of the greater vassals. . . . Similar dissatisfactions are not to be apprehended under your Government. The inhabitants are well aware of the comfort and security enjoyed by the subjects in the adjoining territories of the Honourable Company; and, indeed they have given every demonstration of eagerly anticipating an arrangement attended with no regrets to counterbalance their presumption in its favour.

The conclusion is, that you would be called upon .. to keep these countries in your hands. . . . The great work achieved by your arms ought to be followed by a peace, of which you will be solicitous to avail yourselves, as the fortunate opportunity for disseminating instruction and morals among immense communities, lamentably deficient in conception of social principles and duties. A vast field for the melioration of man lies before us. . . It would be consonant to British fame, and gratifying to British reflections, that you should have planted in the now sterile soil the germ of such permanent good. The improvement of the state of society in the country is not a visionary project. The speculation is extensive indeed; but it refers itself for fulfilment to those simple and ready means, which are uniformly effectual if they be but put in course, and there be a time of quiet for their operation. Many occurrences, undoubtedly, may arise to blight so generous an effort; but even should it fail, it will be a proud consciousness to your Honourable Court that such was your endeavour. (E.I.C., Papers on Pindari and Mahratta Wars, 1824, p. 362.)

CHAPTER VIII

NEW PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT

Amherst 1823-1828, Bentinck 1828-1835

THE defeat of the Mahrattas by Lord Hastings completed the establishment of British supremacy over the whole of India south-east of the Indus and Sutlej. It was followed by an extension of power to the eastward, brought on by the attacks of the Burmese government. The first Burmese war forms the most important event in the governor-generalship of Lord Amherst, and it led to the annexation of the provinces of Assam, Arakan and Tenasserim. But it has not been found possible to incorporate any passages bearing on these events.1

The realisation of the fact that Britain was now responsible for the government of all India led men to take a new view of the functions of government. It helped to give birth to new political aims and a new and deeper sense of responsibility for the welfare of the Indian peoples. This spirit had indeed already shown itself. It had found some expression in the writings of the brothers Wellesley; and still more clearly in the passage (No. 101) which was written by Lord William Bentinck, then Governor of Madras, in 1804, as a reflection upon the consequences of Wellesley's conquests. It is not the mere extension of power and dominion that awakens the pride of Englishmen in India at the beginning of the nineteenth century; it is the belief that "British greatness must be

1 There is probably no part of the history of British India upon which less material is easily available than the first Burmese war. No documented life of Lord Amherst has been published, and the printed documents on the war are very inadequate.