LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
LORD CANNING.
[To THE hinToR 07 TEE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I thank you for the insertion of my letter relative to. Lord Canning, in the Spectator of February 6th, and must ask for a little more space, as the matter is historically important, whether it regards the treatment of rebels in the revolted dis- tricts, or Lord Canning's personal character and influence. I have procured a copy of the Administrative Report of the North-West Provinces for 1858-59, to which you allude in your note to my letter, and which was before the writer of the article quoted by you, October 27th, 1859, in the Friend of India,—at that time and for some subsequent years the fore- most journal in our great Dependency. A careful perusal of the Report and its statistics of crime discloses the following results, and may account for any discrepancies or difference of opinion.
When the tide of revolt had somewhat turned after the fall of Delhi and the second relief of Lucknow, Lord Canning himself proceeded to Allahabad without his Council, and on February 8th, 1858, assumed charge of the administration of the North-West Provinces. Mr. Colvin, the Lieutenant- Governor, had died in the previous September, and Colonel Fraser, in whose hands the government of the Provinces was subsequently placed, had been too muela occupied with military details to give his attention to the civil administration of the Province.
Lord Canning's first care was, as the Report truly says, to introduce some principle into the system by which criminal trials were conducted, to check irregularities, and while achnitting that some eases required to be met with "swift and vigorous justice," to see that rebels and prisoners were treated with something like discrimination, and With due regard to their persistence or otherwise in mutiny, and to the character of their offences. In this view, Commissioners vested with special and exceptional powers were directed to draw a. distinction between the simple taking up of arms, and heinous acts evidencing treason against the State and persistent and deliberate defiance of British authority. They were to for- ward a weekly report of sentences passed ; a succinct account 'of the crimes charged and of the evidence by which the charges were supported ; and they were enjoined to exercise a sound discretion, especially in regard to men who had freely given themselves up. In these latter cases, it is distinctly ordered that the sentences were to be stayed till the pleasure of the Government had been ascertained. As the state of each division improved, as quiet was restored, and as authority was vindicated, the Special Commissioners. were farther directed to make over the trials of prisoners to the ordinary tribunals, the Civil and Session Judges of the several districts. This return to the ordinary procedure was enforced in the Meerut division early in April, 1858, and as the year wore on, In the divisions of Rohilcund, Allahabad, Benares, Gorruck- pore, and others.
Lord Canning continued to administer the government as Governor of the North-West Provinces till October 31st, 1858, the day previous to the assumption of the administration of India by the Queen. The total number of sentences passed up to this latter date, and correctly given by you in your note, is as follows :- Capital sentences ... 2,694 Imprisonment for life ... ... 579 Imprisonment for a term ... 2,468 It is expressly mentioned in the Annual Report that the sentences passed by Courts-martial were not included in the above return : neither were those of a very energetic and well- known officer, Mr. J. Cracroft Wilson, whose sobriquet, taken from a criminal department with which he was long connected, may dwell in the recollection of some of the survivors of that iron time.
The roll of sentences is given as those passed by the Special Commissioners and the District Judges, and there is nothing tither in the letter or the spirit of the whole Report to lead one to conclude that all the sentences must have been sent up to and revised by Lord Canning previous to execution, as if he had constituted himself a sort of Sudder, or High Court of Appeal and reference. On the contrary, the proviso that -execution was to be stayed in the cases of prisoners who had voluntarily given themselves up, and apparently also in the cases of prisoners who, while under trial by the Courts, had sent in petitions of appeal to the Governor, leads to the logical conclusion that all others were carried out at once by the tribunals vested with the proper authority.
It would be, I submit, an. error to picture Lord Canning perusing the record, discussing the evidence, and himself con- firming the death-sentences of nearly three thousand prisoners. What Lord Canning really did, was to lay down certain rules for the general guidance of subordinates, to stay all hasty and indiscriminate retribution, and to display British firmness and forbearance in the hour of triumph.—I am, Sir, &c., WALTER SCOTT SETON-KARR, H.M.'s Bengal C.S. (Retired).
67 Lowndes Square, S. W., February 15th.
[How came Lord Canning to remit five sentences, then ? We have no doubt Mr. Seton-Karr's account is the correct one, but it leaves our view substantially untouched,—namely, that Lord Canning could have intervened in these trials had he pleased, but very seldom did please. The correspondence on a subject so purely historical must end here.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
