About eighteen months ago, at Canton, the British Government 
propounded the novel doctrine in the law of nations that a State 
may commit hostilities on a large scale against a Province of 
another State, without either declaring war or establishing a state 
of war against that other State.” Now the same British 
Government, in the person of the Governor-General of India, 
Lord Canning, has made another forward move in its task of 
upsetting the existing law of nations. It has proclaimed that 

“the proprietary right in the soil of the Province of Oude is confiscated to the 
British Government, which will dispose of that right in such manner as it may seem 
fitting.” 4 

When, after the fall of Warsaw in 1831, the Russian Emperor? 
confiscated “the proprietary right in the soil” hitherto held by 
numerous Polish nobles,™“° there was one unanimous outburst of 
indignation in the British press and Parliament. When, after the 
battle of Novara,’ the Austrian Government did not confiscate, 
but merely sequestered, the estates of such Lombard noblemen as 
had taken an active part in the war of independence, that 
unanimous outburst of British indignation was repeated. And 
when, after the 2d December, 1851, Louis Napoleon confiscated 
the estates of the Orleans family, which, by the common law of 
France, ought to have been united to the public domain on the 
accession of Louis Philippe, but which had escaped that fate by a 

legal quibble, then British indignation knew no bounds, and The 
London Times declared that by this act the very foundations of 
social order were upset, and that civil society could no longer 
exist.2. All this honest indignation has now been practically 
illustrated. England, by one stroke of the pen, has confiscated not 
only the estates of a few noblemen, or of a royal family, but the 
whole length and breadth of a kingdom*** nearly as large as 
Ireland, “the inheritance of a whole people,” as Lord Ellen- 
borough himself terms it.” 

But let us hear what pretexts—grounds we cannot call 
them—Lord Canning, in the name of the British Government, 
sets forth for this unheard-of proceeding: First, “The army is in 
possession of Lucknow.” Second, “The resistance, begun by a 
mutinous soldiery, has found support from the inhabitants of the 
city and of the province at large.” Third, “They have been guilty 
of a great crime, and have subjected themselves to a just 
retribution.” In plain English: Because the British army have got 
hold of Lucknow, the Government has the right to confiscate all 
the land in Oude which they have not yet got hold of. Because the 
native soldiers in British pay have mutinied, the natives of Oude, 
who were subjected to British rule by force, have not the right to 
rise for their national independence. In short, the people of Oude 
have rebelled against the legitimate authority of the British 
Government, and the British Government now distinctly declares 
that rebellion is a sufficient ground for confiscation. Leaving, 
therefore, out of the question all the circumlocution of Lord 
Canning, the whole question turns upon the point that he assumes 
the British rule in Oude to have been legitimately established. 

Now, British rule in Oude was established in the following 
manner: When, in 1856, Lord Dalhousie thought the moment for 
action had arrived, he concentrated an army at Cawnpore which, 
the King of Oude‘ was told, was to serve as a corps of observation 
against Nepaul. This army suddenly invaded the country, took 
possession of Lucknow, and took the King prisoner. He was urged 
to cede the country to the British, but in vain. He was then carried 
off to Calcutta, and the country was annexed to the territories of 
the East India Company. This treacherous invasion was based 

No. 21021, January 26, 1852.— Ed. 

b E. L. Ellenborough’s speech in the House of Lords on May 7, 1858, The 
Times, No. 22988, May 8, 1858.— Ed. 

upon article 6 of the treaty of 1801,* concluded by Lord 
Wellesley.°*° This ‘treaty was the natural consequence of that 
concluded in 1798 by Sir John Shore.” According to the usual 
policy followed by the .Anglo-Indian Government in their inter- 
course with native princes, this first treaty of .1798 was a treaty of 
offensive and defensive alliance on both sides. It secured to the 
East India Company a yearly subsidy of 76 lacs‘ of rupees 
($3,800,000); but by articles 12 and 13 the King was obliged to 
reduce the taxation of the country. As a matter of course, these 
two conditions, in open contradiction to each other, could not be 
fulfilled by the King at the same time. This result, looked for by 
the East India Company, gave rise to fresh complications, resulting 
in the treaty of 1801, by which a cession of territory had to make 
up for the alleged infractions of the former treaty; a cession of 
territory which, by the way, was at the time denounced in 
Parliament as a downright robbery, and would have brought Lord 
Wellesley before a Committee of Inquiry, but for the political 
influence then held by his family. 

In consideration of this cession of territory, the East India 
Company, by article 3, undertook to defend the King’s remaining 
territories against all foreign and domestic enemies; and by article 
6 guaranteed the possession of these territories to him and his 
heirs and successors forever. But this same article 6 contained also 
a pit-fall for the King, viz: The King engaged that he would 
establish such a system of administration, to be carried into effect 
by his own officers, as should be conducive to the prosperity of his 
subjects, and be calculated to secure the lives and property of the 
inhabitants. Now, supposing the King of Oude had broken this 
treaty; had not, by his government, secured the lives and property - 
of the inhabitants (say by blowing them from the cannon’s mouth, 
and confiscating the whole of their lands), what remedy remained 
to the East India Company? The King was, by the treaty, 
acknowledged as an independent sovereign, a free agent, one of 
the contracting parties. The East India Company, on declaring the 
treaty broken and thereby annulled, could have but two modes of 
action: either by negotiation, backed by pressure, they might have 
come to a new arrangement, or else they might have declared war 
against the King. But to invade his territory without declaration of 

war, to take him prisoner unawares, dethrone him and annex his 
territory, was an infraction not only of the treaty, but of every 
principle of the law of nations. 

That the annexation of Oude was not a sudden resolution of the 
British Government is proved by a curious fact. No sooner was 
Lord Palmerston, in 1831, Foreign Secretary, than he sent an 
order to the then Governor-General* to annex Oude. The 
subordinate at that time declined to carry out the suggestion. The 
affair, however, came to the knowledge of the King of Oude,” who 
availed himself of some pretext to send an embassy to London. In 
spite of all obstacles, the embassy succeeded in acquainting Willi- 
am IV., who was ignorant of the whole proceeding, with the danger 
which had menaced their country. The result was a violent scene 
between William IV. and Palmerston, ending in a strict injunction 
to the latter never to repeat such coups d’état on pain of instant 
dismissal. It is important to recollect that the actual annexation of 
Oude and the confiscation of all the landed property of the 
_country took place when Palmerston was again in power. The 
papers relating to this first attempt at annexing Oude, in 1831, 
were moved for, a few weeks ago, in the House of Commons, 
when Mr. Baillie, Secretary of the Board of Control, declared that 
these papers had disappeared.‘ 

Again, in 1837, when Palmerston, for the second time, was 
Foreign Secretary, and Lord Auckland Governor-General of India, 
the King of Oude“ was compelled to make a fresh treaty with the 
East India Company.° This treaty takes up article 6 of the one of 
1801, because “it provides no remedy for the obligation contained 
in it” (to govern the country well); and it expressly provides, 
therefore, by article 7, 

“that the King of Oude shall immediately take into consideration, in concert 
with the British Resident, the best means of remedying the defects in the police, 
and in the judicial and revenue administrations of his dominions; and that if his 
Majesty should neglect to attend to the advice and counsel of the British 
Government, and if gross and systematic oppression, anarchy and misrule should 
prevail within the Oude dominions, such as seriously to endanger the public 
tranquillity, the British Government reserves to itself the right of appointing its 

No. 22943, March 17, 1858.— Ed. 

own officers to the management of whatsoever portions of the Oude territory, 
either to a small or great extent, in which such misrule shall have occurred, for so 
long a period as it may deem necessary; the surplus receipts in such case, after 
defraying all charges, to be paid into the King’s Treasury, and a true and faithful 
account rendered to his Majesty of the receipts and expenditure.” 

By article 8, the treaty further provides: 

“That in case the Governor-General of India in Council should be compelled to 
resort to the exercise of the authority vested in him by article 7, he will endeavor so 
far as possible to maintain, with such improvements as they may admit of, the 
native institutions and forms of administration within the assumed territories, so as 
to facilitate the restoration of these territories to the Sovereign of Oude, when the 
proper period for such restoration shall arrive.” 

This treaty professes to be concluded between the Governor- 
General of British India in Council,°”’ on one hand, and the King 
of Oude on the other. It was, as such, duly ratified, by both 
parties, and the ratifications were duly exchanged. But when it 
was submitted to the Board of Directors of the East India 
Company, it was annulled (April 10, 1838) as an infraction of the 
friendly relations between the Company and the King of Oude, 
and an encroachment, on the part of the Governor-General, on 
the rights of that potentate. Palmerston had not asked the 
Company’s leave to conclude the treaty, and he took no notice of 
their annulling resolution. Nor was the King of Oude informed 
that the treaty had ever been canceled. This is proved by Lord 
Dalhousie himself (minute Jan: 5, 1856): 

“It is very probable that the King, in the course of the discussions which will 
take place with the Resident, may refer to the treaty negotiated with his 
predecessor in 1837; the Resident is aware that the treaty was not continued in 
force, having been annulled by the Court of Directors as soon as it was received in 
England. The Resident is further aware that, although the King of Oude was 
informed at the time that certain aggravating provisions of the treaty of 1837, 
respecting an increased military force, would not be carried into effect, the entire 
abrogation of it was never communicated to his Majesty. The effect of this reserve and 
want of full communication is felt to be embarrassing to-day. It is the more 
embarrassing that the canceled instrument was still included in a volume of treaties 
which was published in 1845, by the authority of Government.” 

In the same minute, sec. 17, it is said: 

“If the King should allude to the treaty of 1837, and should ask why, if further 
measures are necessary in relation to the administration of Oude, the large powers 
which are given to the British Government by the said treaty should not now be 
put in force, his Majesty must be informed that the treaty has had no existence 
since it was communicated to the Court of Directors, by whom it was wholly 
annulled. His Majesty will be reminded that the Court of Lucknow was informed at 

the time that certain articles of the treaty of 1837, by which the payment of an 
additional military force was imposed upon the King, were to be set aside. It must 
be presumed that it was not thought necessary at that time to make any 
communication to his Majesty regarding those articles of the treaty which were not 
of immediate operation, and that the subsequent communication was inadvertently 
neglected.” 

But not only was this treaty inserted in the official collection of 
1845, it was also officially adverted to as a subsisting treaty in Lord 
Auckland’s notification to the King of Oude, dated July 8, 1839; 
in Lord Hardinge’s (then Governor-General) remonstrance to the 
same King, of November 23, 1847, and in Col. Sleeman’s 
(Resident at Lucknow) communication to Lord Dalhousie himself, 
of the 10th December, 1851. Now, why was Lord Dalhousie so 
eager to deny the validity of a treaty which all his predecessors, 
and even his own agents, had acknowledged to be in force in their 
communications with the King of Oude? Solely because, by this 
treaty, whatever pretext the King might give for interference, that 
interference was limited to an assumption of government by 
British officers in the name of the King of Oude, who was to receive 
the surplus revenue. That was the very opposite of what was 
wanted. Nothing short of annexation would do. This denying the 
validity of treaties which had formed the acknowledged base of 
intercourse for twenty years; this seizing violently upon independ- 
ent territories in open infraction even of the acknowledged 
treaties; this final confiscation of every acre of land in the whole 
country; all these treacherous and brutal modes of proceeding of 
the British toward the natives of India are now beginning to 
avenge themselves, not only in India, but in England.