Sin,—The able and interesting review of Sir W. Lee-Warner's book
on Dalhousie which appears in the Spectator of June 4th will be read with peculiar attention by the few survivors of Da1housie's day. With the appreciation of his domestic reforms few of these will be likely to differ, save that justice ought to be done to one or two of his predecessors by whom equally important improvements were instituted. I would particularly specify Bentinck and Hardinge, to whose judgment and zeal India owes at least as much as to Warren Hastings or to Wellesley, with whom Dalhousie is so much likened. But there is one point in his policy which may be almost considered cardinal, as to which they may possibly object to the view of your critic. The purity and benevolent zeal which were prominent among Dalhousie's motives induced him to hold that (in his own words) "one cannot conceive it possible for any one to dispute the policy of taking advantage of every just opportunity which presents itself for consolidating the territories which already belong to us, by taking possession of States which may lapse in the midst of them."* Whether or no we accept this doctrine, we must admit that events have thrown great doubts upon its expediency. Your critic says that after the Mutiny no item of the Dalhousian policy was changed, whereas, in point of fact, this item, which was one of • Dalhousie. By Sir W. W. Hunter. "Rulers of India Series." Oxford I at the Clarendon PAM. IWO. ONE WHO SERVED UNDER. DALHOUSIE.
Previous page
