THE GOLDEN BULL OF INDIA.
THE "right of adoption has been conceded to all the princes of India," is the brief line in which the telegraph announces the reversal of the policy of a hundred years. From 1757, the his- tory of the British Government in India has been one of inces- sant territorial aggrandizement. Parliament protested against "further acquisitions." The Company railed at the triumphant lieutenants of the Crown. The English people gloomily doubted the justice of conquests, too easy to satisfy the national taste for strife. The oak grew in spite of them all. From Clive to Lord Canning, every viceroy, strong or feeble, soldier or financier, still added something to our domain. Lord Amherst, the feeblest of rulers, seized half an empire outside the Indian boundary. Lord W. Bentinek, the most careful of economists, was compelled to annex the Principality of Coorg. Parliament, averring always that it bated conquest, never gave back one conquered inch. The Company, always dreading new provinces, calmly absorbed their revenues into its general accounts. At last, in 1848, a great man determined that fact and theory should no longer re- main at variance. Lord Dalhousie laid down a policy which, righteous or unjust, was at least intelligible and grand. The British Government as heirs of the Mogul, were to regain, by all just means, his lost inheritance. On every opportunity, the failure of a house, the rebellion of a vassal, or the misgovern- ment of a tributary prince, the Paramount Power would resume its immediate control. The justice of the second and third prin- ciple was partially acknowledged by the princes themselves, but the first excited bitter indignation. It reduced, indeed, annexa- tion to a certainty. The princes might easily avoid rebellion, a right they had never claimed. They had all some theory that they ought to govern fairly, or in the phrase of Menoo to "protect the good, and crush the illdisposed." But they knew that, with- out adoption, their houses must ultimately fail. All aristocra- cies tend to decay; but an aristocracy, whose males found harems at fourteen, is certain of extinction. They protested, implored, and intrigued, but the Governor-General was firm. In eight years, four kingdoms and five provinces, territories larger and those of France and Spain, and populations greater than that of Austria, Were added to the dominions of the Queen.
Had Lord Dalhousie remained ten years longer at his post, there is little doubt his policy would have been successful, and India have been converted from a congeries of States into a homogeneous military monarchy, able of itself to give laws to Asia for the benefit of Great Britain. He retired, however ; and the arch he had no time to finish crumbled to the ground. The-mutinies which changed all things, which abolished the Company, and ex- tinguished the Indian Army, changed the first principles of Indian foreign policy. The Native States, it was perceived, acted as breakwaters to revolt ; and, from that moment, their future was secure. Bnt for Gwalior, the wave of insurrection would have swept from Cawnpore over Bombay. But for the Nizam, we should in 1858 have had to face the Moslem fanaticism of the entire South. It is to Lord Canning's credit that he perceived not only the changed position of affairs, but the mode in which that change might tend to consolidate the supremacy of the Crown. A diplomatist of less acumen would have guaranteed the States as independent powers. Lord Canning took from them the last vest- ige of independence, called them openly feudatory princes, com- pelled the proudest to retire backwards from the chair of the Viceroy, and then guaranteed their rights as Barons of the Em- pire. The concession was accepted with delight. The princes of India have never claimed aright to independence in its European sense. A distinct request to produce either troops or money for the benefit of the paramount power, has never been denied. They hold it perfectly just that, kings themselves, they should still be the subjects of an Imperial power, and their position as feudatories is one which seems to them in accordance with their traditionary rights. They quarrelled at the Durbars for precedence among themselves, but backed from the presence without a murmur. The mutiny, moreover, taught them as well as their suzerain. They have no wish to be the playthings of their guards, and the Glee- hor sovereign, in particelar, remembers with intense bitterness the defection of his soldiery. The concession, however, important as it was to individuals, left the rights of the mass entirely un- affected, and Lord Canning resolved to extend his new policy to all. In a despatch, dated the 30th of April, 1860, be recounted the facts of our past history, showed that the relation of the para- mount power to the Native States was still uncertain, and advised the concession of the right of adoption to all princes of the Hindu° faith. To the Musstilmans, he would concede the equivalent right of selection among sons ; or, in failure of sons, among the collaterals of the reigning house. In neither case would he reillteasiish the power of confiscation as punishment for rebellion, or of temporary sequestration in presence of grievous or dangerous misgovernment. On the 20th of July, the Secretary of State replied by a frank acceptance of the proposal, with one solitary exception. The rights of primogeniture are to be maintained. That one re- servation poisons the draught to Mussulman princes. There is, probably, no law they detest so utterly as the one which insures to a disobedient sob a reversion of his father's throne. The rule
creates always an expectant faction • and, in the morbid imagina- tion of an Asiatic, the bowl and the dagger are always ready for use. Even the Othmans imprisoned their children to avoid this risk ; and, compared with the Mussulman houses of India, the Othmans have been chivalric gentlemen. Long minorities, more- over, distract States in which the sovereign is the only man who has no interest in injustice ; and, in India, where kings wear out at thirty, minorities are apt to be long. This clause should be re- considered, but with this exception there can be no reasonable doubt that the despatch of the 20th of July turns suspicious allies into trustworthy subjects. When all are alike secure, individual discontent can find no support. The one bond of these princes, their common dread of extinction, is dissolved, and the prince who rebels must henceforward threaten an empire with the re- sources of a province. We may add one word to console those who look back with regret to the mighty scheme Lord Dalhonaie's illness left half complete. Civilization does not stop for protocols. As it advances, annexation in a new form will undoubtedly be- come imperative. This time it will be the annexation not of lands but powers. The right of declaring peace and war is gone from the princes. The right of commercial legislation is fast dis- appearing. The right of inflicting death without trial must be speedily withdrawn; and, with local codes enforced by the Resi- dent, clear tenures, and English settlers to watch oppression, the Princes must subside painlessly into Peers. The oak will harden if it does not visibly enlarge. That the Governor-General who proposed this change should have resisted the grant to the Mysore Princes is prima facie a condemnation of Sir Charles Wood. It is not Lord Canning Who promotes injustice to these families. His conduct must be judged by Parliament, but three points in the official defence may be in the interim disposed of. It is argued that Tippoo's family have a right to the Mysore appropriation fund. Yet the sixth article of the Partition Treaty distinctly provides, that "in the event of any hostile attempt on the part of the said family, or of any member of it, or against the authority of the contracting parties, then the East India Company shall be at liberty to limit or suspend entirely the payment of the whole, or any part of the stipend hereinbefore stipulated to be applied to the maintenance of" the immediate families of Ryder Ali and Tippoo Saib. The hostile attempt was made at Vellore, and the allowances were thenceforward given of free grace. If they were not, on what ground did the Court of Directors absorb the Mysore fund, as they are admitted to have done ? It is argued again, that the grant is a mere payment for the surrender of existing rights. Do governor- generals risk their commissions to resist the calculations of an actuary ? And lastly, it is argued that remonstrance is preposter- ous, because the payment comes from the revenues of Mysore. In other words, it is wrong for a British Minister to plunder Eng- land, but right to plunder a County Palatine.
Previous page
