Chapter xiii., p. 211.

Footnote 195:

_Account of the Mutinies in Oudh._

Footnote 196:

_Personal Narrative of the Siege of Lucknow._

Footnote 197:

_Eight Months’ Campaign against the Bengal Sepoy Army._

Footnote 198:

_British India; its Races and its History._

Footnote 199:

_The Sepoy Revolt; its Causes and its Consequences._

Footnote 200:

_Notes on the Revolt in the Northwest Provinces._

Footnote 201:

_Letters of Indophilus to the ‘Times.’_

Footnote 202:

_The Indian Rebellion: its Causes and Results._

Footnote 203:

‘The Commander-in-chief proclaims to the people of Oude that, under the order of the Right Hon. the Governor-general, he comes to enforce the law.

‘In order to effect this without danger to life and property, resistance must cease on the part of the people.

‘The most exact discipline will be preserved in the camps and on the march; and when there is no resistance, houses and crops will be spared, and no plundering allowed in the towns and villages. But wherever there is resistance, or even a single shot fired against the troops, the inhabitants must expect to incur the fate they have brought on themselves. Their houses will be plundered, and their villages burnt.

‘This proclamation includes all ranks of the people, from the thalookdars to the poorest ryots.

‘The Commander-in-chief invites all the well-disposed to remain in their towns and villages, where they will be sure of his protection against all violence.’

Footnote 204:

See Appendix.

APPENDIX.

_East India Company’s Petition to Parliament, January 1858._—(See p. 563.)

To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled; The humble Petition of the East India Company, Sheweth:

That your petitioners, at their own expense, and by the agency of their own civil and military servants, originally acquired for this country its magnificent empire in the East.

That the foundations of this empire were laid by your petitioners, at that time neither aided nor controlled by parliament, at the same period at which a succession of administrations under the control of parliament were losing to the Crown of Great Britain another great empire on the opposite side of the Atlantic.

That during the period of about a century, which has since elapsed, the Indian possessions of this country have been governed and defended from the resources of those possessions, without the smallest cost to the British exchequer, which, to the best of your petitioners’ knowledge and belief, cannot be said of any other of the numerous foreign dependencies of the Crown.

That it being manifestly improper that the administration of any British possession should be independent of the general government of the empire, parliament provided in 1783 that a department of the imperial government should have full cognizance of, and power of control over, the acts of your petitioners in the administration of India; since which time the home branch of the Indian government has been conducted by the joint counsels and on the joint responsibility of your petitioners and of a minister of the Crown.

That this arrangement has at subsequent periods undergone reconsideration from the legislature, and various comprehensive and careful parliamentary inquiries have been made into its practical operation; the result of which has been, on each occasion, a renewed grant to your petitioners of the powers exercised by them in the administration of India.

That the last of these occasions was so recent as 1853, in which year the arrangements which had existed for nearly three-quarters of a century were, with certain modifications, re-enacted, and still subsist.

That, notwithstanding, your petitioners have received an intimation from her Majesty’s ministers of their intention to propose to parliament a bill for the purpose of placing the government of her Majesty’s East Indian dominions under the direct authority of the Crown: a change necessarily involving the abolition of the East India Company as an instrument of government.

That your petitioners have not been informed of the reasons which have induced her Majesty’s ministers, without any previous inquiry, to come to the resolution of putting an end to a system of administration which parliament, after inquiry, deliberately confirmed and sanctioned less than five years ago, and which, in its modified form, has not been in operation quite four years, and cannot be considered to have undergone a sufficient trial during that short period.

That your petitioners do not understand that her Majesty’s ministers impute any failure to those arrangements, or bring any charge, either great or small, against your petitioners. But the time at which the proposal is made, compels your petitioners to regard it as arising from the calamitous events which have recently occurred in India.

That your petitioners challenge the most searching investigation into the mutiny of the Bengal army, and the causes, whether remote or immediate, which produced that mutiny. They have instructed the government of India to appoint a commission for conducting such an inquiry on the spot; and it is their most anxious wish that a similar inquiry may be instituted in this country by your [lordships’] honourable House, in order that it may be ascertained whether anything, either in the constitution of the home government of India, or in the conduct of those by whom it has been administered, has had any share in producing the mutiny, or has in any way impeded the measures for its suppression; and whether the mutiny itself, or any circumstance connected with it, affords any evidence of the failure of the arrangements under which India is at present administered.

That were it even true that these arrangements had failed, the failure could constitute no reason for divesting the East India Company of its functions, and transferring them to her Majesty’s government. For, under the existing system, her Majesty’s government have the deciding voice. The duty imposed upon the Court of Directors is, to originate measures and frame drafts of instructions. Even had they been remiss in this duty, their remissness, however discreditable to themselves, could in no way absolve the responsibility of her Majesty’s government; since the minister for India possesses, and has frequently exercised, the power of requiring that the Court of Directors should take any subject into consideration, and prepare a draft-dispatch for his approval. Her Majesty’s government are thus in the fullest sense accountable for all that has been done, and for all that has been forborne or omitted to be done. Your petitioners, on the other hand, are accountable only in so far as the act or omission has been promoted by themselves.

That under these circumstances, if the administration of India had been a failure, it would, your petitioners submit, have been somewhat unreasonable, to expect that a remedy would be found in annihilating the branch of the ruling authority which could not be the one principally in fault, and might be altogether blameless, in order to concentrate all powers in the branch which had necessarily the decisive share in every error, real or supposed. To believe that the administration of India would have been more free from error, had it been conducted by a minister of the Crown without the aid of the Court of Directors, would be to believe that the minister, with full power to govern India as he pleased, has governed ill because he has had the assistance of experienced and responsible advisers.

That your petitioners, however, do not seek to vindicate themselves at the expense of any other authority; they claim their full share of the responsibility of the manner in which India has practically been governed. That responsibility is to them not a subject of humiliation, but of pride. They are conscious that their advice and initiative have been, and have deserved to be, a great and potent element in the conduct of affairs in India. And they feel complete assurance, that the more attention is bestowed, and the more light thrown upon India and its administration, the more evident it will become, that the government in which they have borne a part, has been not only one of the purest in intention, but one of the most beneficent in act, ever known among mankind; that during the last and present generations in particular, it has been, in all departments, one of the most rapidly improving governments in the world; and that, at the time when this change is proposed, a greater number of important improvements are in a state of rapid progress than at any former period. And they are satisfied that whatever further improvements may be hereafter effected in India, can only consist in the development of germs already planted, and in building on foundations already laid, under their authority, and in a great measure by their express instructions.

That such, however, is not the impression likely to be made on the public mind, either in England or in India, by the ejection of your petitioners from the place they fill in the Indian administration. It is not usual with statesmen to propose the complete abolition of a system of government of which the practical operation is not condemned. It might therefore be generally inferred from the proposed measures, if carried into effect at the present time, that the East India Company having been intrusted with an important portion of the administration of India, have so abused their trust, as to have produced a sanguinary insurrection, and nearly lost India to the British empire; and that having thus crowned a long career of misgovernment, they have, in deference to public indignation, been deservedly cashiered for their misconduct.

That if the character of the East India Company were alone concerned, your petitioners might be willing to await the verdict of history. They are satisfied that posterity will do them justice. And they are confident that, even now, justice is done to them in the minds, not only of her Majesty’s ministers, but of all who have any claim to be competent judges of the subject. But though your petitioners could afford to wait for the reversal of the verdict of condemnation which will be believed throughout the world to have been passed on them and their government by the British nation, your petitioners cannot look without the deepest uneasiness at the effect likely to be produced on the minds of the people of India. To them—however incorrectly the name may express the fact—the British government in India is the government of the East India Company. To their minds, the abolition of the Company will, for some time to come, mean the abolition of the whole system of administration with which the Company is identified. The measure, introduced simultaneously with the influx of an overwhelming British force, will be coincident with a general outcry, in itself most alarming to their fears, from most of the organs of opinion in this country, as well as of English opinion in India, denouncing the past policy of the government on the express ground that it has been too forbearing, and too considerate towards the natives. The people of India will at first feel no certainty that the new government, or the government under a new name, which it is proposed to introduce, will hold itself bound by the pledges of its predecessors. They will be slow to believe that a government has been destroyed, only to be followed by another which will act on the same principles, and adhere to the same measures. They cannot suppose that the existing organ of administration would be swept away without the intention of reversing any part of its policy. They will see the authorities, both at home and in India, surrounded by persons vehemently urging radical changes in many parts of that policy. Interpreting, as they must do, the change in the instrument of government as a concession to these opinions and feelings, they can hardly fail to believe that, whatever else may be intended, the government will no longer be permitted to observe that strict impartiality between those who profess its own creed and those who hold the creeds of its native subjects, which hitherto characterised it; that their strongest and most deeply rooted feelings will henceforth be treated with much less regard than heretofore; and that a directly aggressive policy towards everything in their habits, or in their usages and customs, which Englishmen deem objectionable, will be no longer confined to individuals and private associations, but will be backed by all the power of government.

And here your petitioners think it important to observe, that in abstaining as they have done from all interference with any of the religious practices of the people of India, except such as are abhorrent to humanity, they have acted not only from their own conviction of what is just and expedient, but in accordance with the avowed intentions and express enactments of the legislature, framed ‘in order that regard should be had to the civil and religious usages of the natives,’ and also ‘that suits, civil or criminal, against the natives,’ should be conducted according to such rules ‘as may accommodate the same to the religion and manners of the natives.’ That their policy in this respect has been successful, is evidenced by the fact that, during a military mutiny, said to have been caused by unfounded apprehensions of danger to religion, the heads of the native states and the masses of the population have remained faithful to the British government. Your petitioners need hardly observe, how very different would probably have been the issue of the late events if the native princes, instead of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion, had put themselves at its head, or if the general population had joined in the revolt; and how probable it is that both these contingencies would have occurred if any real ground had been given for the persuasion that the British government intended to identify itself with proselytism. It is the honest conviction of your petitioners, that any serious apprehension of a change of policy in this respect would be likely to be followed, at no distant period, by a general rising throughout India.

That your petitioners have seen with the greatest pain, the demonstrations of indiscriminate animosity towards the natives of India on the part of our countrymen in India and at home, which have grown up since the late unhappy events. They believe these sentiments to be fundamentally unjust; they know them to be fatal to the possibility of good government in India. They feel that if such demonstrations should continue, and especially if weight be added to them by legislating under their supposed influence, no amount of wisdom and forbearance on the part of the government will avail to restore that confidence of the governed in the intentions of their rulers, without which it is vain even to attempt the improvement of the people.

That your petitioners cannot contemplate without dismay the doctrine now widely promulgated, that India should be administered with an especial view to the benefit of the English who reside there—or that in its administration any advantages should be sought for her Majesty’s subjects of European birth, except that which they will necessarily derive from their superiority of intelligence, and from the increased prosperity of the people, the improvement of the productive resources of the country, and the extension of commercial intercourse. Your petitioners regard it as the most honourable characteristic of the government of India by England, that it has acknowledged no such distinction as that of a dominant and a subject race; but has held that its first duty was to the people of India. Your petitioners feel that a great portion of the hostility with which they are assailed, is caused by the belief that they are peculiarly the guardians of this principle, and that, so long as they have any voice in the administration of India, it cannot easily be infringed; and your petitioners will not conceal their belief that their exclusion from any part in the government is likely, at the present time, to be regarded in India as a first successful attack on that principle.

That your petitioners, therefore, most earnestly represent to your [lordships’] honourable House that even if the contemplated change could be proved to be in itself advisable, the present is a most unsuitable time for entertaining it; and they most strongly and respectfully urge on your [lordships’] honourable House the expediency of at least deferring any such change until it can be effected at a period when it would not be, in the minds of the people of India, directly connected with the recent calamitous events, and with the feelings to which those events have either given rise, or have afforded an opportunity of manifestation. Such postponement, your petitioners submit, would allow time for a more mature consideration than has yet been given, or can be given in the present excited state of the public mind, to the various questions connected with the organisation of a government for India; and would enable the most competent minds in the nation calmly to examine whether any new arrangement can be devised for the home government of India uniting a greater number of the conditions of good administration than the present, and if so, which, among the numerous schemes which have been or may be proposed, possesses those requisites in the greatest degree.

That your petitioners have always willingly acquiesced in any changes which, after discussion by parliament, were deemed conducive to the general welfare, although such changes may have involved important sacrifices to themselves. They would refer to their partial relinquishment of trade in 1813; to its total abandonment, and the placing of their commercial charter in abeyance in 1833; to the transfer to India of their commercial assets, amounting to £15,858,000, a sum greatly exceeding that ultimately repayable to them in respect of their capital, independent of territorial rights and claims; and to their concurrence, in 1853, in the measure by which the Court of Directors was reconstructed, and reduced to its present number. In the same spirit, your petitioners would most gladly co-operate with her Majesty’s government in correcting any defects which may be considered to exist in the details of the present system; and they would be prepared, without a murmur, to relinquish their trust altogether, if a better system for the control of the government of India can be devised. But as they believe that, in the construction of such a system, there are conditions which cannot, without the most dangerous consequences, be departed from, your petitioners respectfully and deferentially submit to the judgment of your [lordships’] honourable House their view of those conditions, in the hope that if your [lordships’] honourable House should see reason to agree in that view, you will withhold your legislative sanction from any arrangement for the government of India which does not fulfil the conditions in question in at least an equal degree with the present.

That your petitioners may venture to assume that it will not be proposed to vest the home portion of the administration of India in a minister of the Crown, without the adjunct of a council composed of statesmen experienced in Indian affairs. Her Majesty’s ministers cannot but be aware that the knowledge necessary for governing a foreign country, and in particular a country like India, requires as much special study as any other profession, and cannot possibly be possessed by any one who has not devoted a considerable portion of his life to the acquisition of it.

That in constituting a body of experienced advisers, to be associated with the Indian minister, your petitioners consider it indispensable to bear in mind that this body should not only be qualified to advise the minister, but also, by its advice, to exercise, to a certain degree, a moral check. It cannot be expected that the minister, as a general rule, should himself know India; while he will be exposed to perpetual solicitations from individuals and bodies, either entirely ignorant of that country, or knowing only enough of it to impose on those who know still less than themselves, and having very frequently objects in view other than the interests or good government of India. The influences likely to be brought to bear on him through the organs of popular opinion will, in the majority of cases, be equally misleading. The public opinion of England, itself necessarily unacquainted with Indian affairs, can only follow the promptings of those who take most pains to influence it; and these will generally be such as have some private interest to serve. It is, therefore, your petitioners submit, of the utmost importance that any council which may form a part of the home government of India should derive sufficient weight from its constitution, and from the relation it occupies to the minister, to be a substantial barrier against those inroads of self-interest and ignorance in this country from which the government of India has hitherto been comparatively free, but against which it would be too much to expect that parliament should of itself afford a sufficient protection.

That your petitioners cannot well conceive a worse form of government for India, than a minister with a council whom he should be at liberty to consult or not at his pleasure, or whose advice he should be able to disregard without giving his reasons in writing, and in a manner likely to carry conviction. Such an arrangement, your petitioners submit, would be really liable to the objections in their opinion erroneously urged against the present system. Your petitioners respectfully represent that any body of persons associated with the minister, which is not a check, will be a screen. Unless the council is so constituted as to be personally independent of the minister; unless it feels itself responsible for recording an opinion on every Indian subject, and pressing that opinion on the minister, whether it is agreeable to him or not; and unless the minister, when he overrules their opinion, is bound to record his reasons—its existence will only serve to weaken his responsibility, and to give the colourable sanction of prudence and experience to measures in the framing of which those qualities have had no share.

That it would be vain to expect that a new council could have as much moral influence, and power of asserting its opinion with effect, as the Court of Directors. A new body can no more succeed to the feelings and authority which their antiquity and their historical antecedents give to the East India Company, than a legislature, under a new name, sitting in Westminster, would have the moral ascendency of the Houses of Lords and Commons. One of the most important elements of usefulness will thus be necessarily wanting in any newly constituted Indian Council, as compared with the present.

That your petitioners find it difficult to conceive that the same independence, in judgment and act, which characterises the Court of Directors will be found in any council all of whose members are nominated by the crown. Owing their nomination to the same authority, many of them probably to the same individual minister whom they are appointed to check, and looking to him alone for their re-appointment, their desire of recommending themselves to him, and their unwillingness to risk his displeasure by any serious resistance to his wishes, will be motives too strong not to be in danger of exercising a powerful and injurious influence over their conduct. Nor are your petitioners aware of any mode in which that injurious influence could be guarded against, except by conferring the appointments, like those of the judges, during good behaviour; which, by rendering it impossible to correct an error once committed, would be seriously objectionable.

That your petitioners are equally unable to perceive how, if the controlling body is entirely nominated by the minister, that happy independence of parliamentary and party influence which has hitherto distinguished the administration of India, and the appointment to situations of trust and importance in that country, can be expected to continue. Your petitioners believe that in no government known to history have appointments to offices, and especially to high offices, been so rarely bestowed on any other considerations than those of personal fitness. This characteristic, but for which, in all probability, India would long since have been lost to this country, is, your petitioners conceive, entirely owing to the circumstance that the dispensers of patronage have been persons unconnected with party, and under no necessity of conciliating parliamentary support; that consequently the appointments to offices in India have been, as a rule, left to the unbiassed judgment of the local authorities; while the nominations to the civil and military services have been generally bestowed on the middle classes, irrespective of political considerations, and in a large proportion on the relatives of persons who had distinguished themselves by their services in India.

That your petitioners therefore think it essential that at least a majority of the council which assists the minister for India with its advice, should hold their seats independently of his appointment.

That it is, in the opinion of your petitioners, no less necessary that the order of the transaction of business should be such as to make the participation of the council in the administration of India a substantial one. That to this end it is, in the opinion of your petitioners, indispensable that the dispatches to India should not be prepared by the minister, and laid before the council, but should be prepared by the council, and submitted to the minister. This would be in accordance with the natural and obvious principle, that persons, chosen for their knowledge of a subject, should suggest the mode of dealing with it, instead of merely giving their opinion on suggestions coming from elsewhere. This is also the only mode in which the members of the council can feel themselves sufficiently important, or sufficiently responsible, to secure their applying their minds to the subjects before them. It is almost unnecessary for your petitioners to observe, that the mind is called into far more vigorous action, by being required to propose, than by merely being called on to assent. The minister has necessarily the ultimate decision. If he has also the initiative, he has all the powers which are of any practical moment. A body whose only recognised function is to find fault, would speedily let that function fall into desuetude. They would feel that their co-operation in conducting the government of India was not really desired; that they were only felt as a clog on the wheels of business. Their criticism on what had been decided, without their being collectively consulted, would be felt as importunate as a mere delay and impediment; and their office would probably be seldom sought, but by those who were willing to allow its most important duties to become nominal.

That, with the duty of preparing the dispatches to India would naturally be combined the nomination and control of the home establishments. This your petitioners consider absolutely essential to the utility of the council. If the officers through whom they work are in direct dependence upon an authority higher than theirs, all matters of importance will in reality be settled between the minister and the subordinates, passing over the council altogether.

That a third consideration to which your petitioners attach great importance, is, that the number of the council should not be too restricted. India is so wide a field, that a practical acquaintance with every part of its affairs cannot be found combined in any small number of individuals. The council ought to contain men of general experience and knowledge of the world, also men specially qualified by financial and revenue experience, by judicial experience, diplomatic experience, military experience; it ought to contain persons conversant with the varied social relations, and varied institutions of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, the Northwestern Provinces, the Punjaub, and the native states. Even the present Court of Directors, reduced as it is in numbers by the act of 1853, does not contain all the varieties of knowledge and experience desirable in such a body; neither, your petitioners submit, would it be safe to limit the number to that which would be strictly sufficient, supposing all the appointments to be the best possible. A certain margin should be allowed for failures, which, even with the most conscientious selection, will sometimes occur. Your petitioners, moreover, cannot overlook the possibility, that if the nomination takes place by ministers at the head of a political party, it will not always be made with exclusive reference to personal qualifications; and it is indispensable to provide that such errors or faults in the nominating authority, so long as they are only occasional, shall not seriously impair the efficiency of the body.

That while these considerations plead strongly for a body not less numerous than the present, even if only regarded as advisers of the minister; their other office, as a check on the minister, forms, your petitioners submit, a no less forcible objection to any considerable reduction of the present number. A body of six or eight will not be equal to one of eighteen in that feeling of independent self-reliance which is necessary to induce a public body to press its opinion on a minister to whom that opinion is unacceptable. However unobjectionably in other respects so small a body may be constituted, reluctance to give offence will be likely, unless in extreme cases, to be a stronger habitual inducement in their minds than the desire to stand up for their convictions.

That if, in the opinion of your [lordships’] honourable House, a body can be constituted which unites the above enumerated requisites of good government, in a greater degree than the Court of Directors, your petitioners have only to express their humble hope that your endeavours for that purpose may be successful. But if, in enumerating the conditions of a good system of home government for India, your petitioners have, in fact, enumerated the qualities possessed by the present system, then your petitioners pray that your [lordships’] honourable House will continue the existing powers of the Court of Directors.

That your petitioners are aware that the present home government of India is reproached with being a double government; and that any arrangement by which an independent check is provided to the discretion of the minister, will be liable to a similar reproach. But they conceive that this accusation originates in an entire misconception of the functions devolving on the home government of India, and in the application to it of the principles applicable to purely executive departments. The executive government of India is, and must be, seated in India itself. The Court of Directors is not so much an executive as a deliberative body. Its principal function, and that of the home government generally, is not to direct the details of administration, but to scrutinise and revise the past acts of the Indian government—to lay down principles and issue general instructions for their future guidance—and to give or refuse sanction to great political measures, which are referred home for approval. These duties are more analogous to the functions of parliament than to those of an executive board; and it might almost as well be said that parliament, as that the government of India, should be constituted on the principles applicable to executive boards. It is considered an excellence, not a defect in the constitution of parliament, to be not merely a double but a triple government. An executive authority, your petitioners submit, may often with advantage be single, because promptitude is its first requisite. But the function of passing a deliberate opinion on past measures, and laying down principles of future policy, is a business which, in the estimation of your petitioners, admits of and requires the concurrence of more judgments than one. It is no defect in such a body to be double, and no excellence to be single, especially when it can only be made so by cutting off that branch of it which, by previous training, is always the best prepared—and often the only one which is prepared at all—for its peculiar duty.

That your petitioners have heard it asserted that, in consequence of what is called the double government, the Indian authorities are less responsible to parliament and the nation than other departments of the government of the empire, since it is impossible to know on which of the two branches of home government the responsibility ought to rest. Your petitioners fearlessly affirm that this impression is not only groundless, but the very reverse of the truth. The home government of India is not less, but more responsible than any other branch of the administration of the state; inasmuch as the president of the Board of Commissioners, who is the minister for India, is as completely responsible as any other of her Majesty’s ministers; and, in addition, his advisers also are responsible. It is always certain, in the case of India, that the president of the Board of Commissioners must have either commanded or sanctioned all that has been done. No more than this, your petitioners would submit, can be known in the case of the head of any department of her Majesty’s government. For it is not, nor can it rationally be supposed, that any minister of the Crown is without trusted advisers; and the minister for India must, for obvious reasons, be more dependent than any other of her Majesty’s ministers, upon the advice of persons whose lives have been devoted to the subject on which their advice has been given. But in the case of India such advisers are assigned to him by the constitution of the government, and they are as much responsible for what they advise, as he for what he ordains; while, in other departments, the minister’s only official advisers are the subordinates in his office, men often of great skill and experience, but not in the public eye, often unknown to the public even by name; official reserve precludes the possibility of ascertaining what advice they give, and they are responsible only to the minister himself. By what application of terms this can be called responsible government, and the joint government of your petitioners and the India Board an irresponsible government, your petitioners think it unnecessary to ask.

That, without knowing the plan on which her Majesty’s ministers contemplate the transfer to the Crown of the servants of the Company, your petitioners find themselves unable to approach the delicate question of the Indian army, further than to point out that the high military qualities of the officers of that army have unquestionably sprung, in a great degree, from its being a principal and substantive army, holding her Majesty’s commissions, and enjoying equal rank with her Majesty’s officers; and your petitioners would earnestly deprecate any change in that position.

That your petitioners having regard to all these considerations, humbly pray your [lordships’] honourable House that you will not give your sanction to any change in the constitution of the Indian government during the continuance of the present unhappy disturbances, nor without a full previous inquiry into the operation of the present system. And your petitioners further pray, that this inquiry may extend to every department of Indian administration. Such an inquiry your petitioners respectfully claim, not only as a matter of justice to themselves, but because, when, for the first time in this century, the thoughts of every public man in the country are fixed on India, an inquiry would be more thorough, and its results would carry much more instruction to the mind of parliament and of the country, than at any preceding period.

_E. I. Company’s Objections to the First and Second India Bills: April 1858._ (See p. 567.)

It is the duty of your Directors to lay before the Proprietors the two bills which have been introduced into parliament by the late and by the present ministry, for divesting the East India Company of all participation in the government of India, and for framing a new scheme of administrative agency.

On former occasions, when the ministers of the Crown have submitted measures to parliament for altering, in any manner, the constitution of the Indian government, the substance of the measures has been officially communicated to the Court of Directors, and an opportunity allowed to them of offering such remarks as their knowledge and experience in Indian affairs might suggest. The correspondence being afterwards laid before the Court of Proprietors, formed the most appropriate report which the Directors could make to their constituents on the measures under consideration by the legislature. In the present instance, this opportunity not having been afforded to them, it appears desirable that they should adopt the present mode of laying before the proprietary body the observations which it is entitled to expect from its executive organ, on the bills now before parliament, and on the present posture of the Company’s affairs.

The Directors cannot but advert with feelings of satisfaction to the altered tone which public discussion has assumed in regard to the character of the East India Company, and the merits of the administration in which the Company has borne so important a part. The intention of proposing the abolition of the Company’s government was announced in the midst of, and it may be surmised in deference to, a clamour, which represented the government of India by the Company as characterised by nearly every fault of which a civilised government can be accused, and the Company as the main cause of the recent disasters. But in the parliamentary discussions which have lately taken place, there has been an almost universal acknowledgment that the rule of the Company has been honourable to themselves and beneficial to India; while no political party, and few individuals of any consideration, have alleged anything seriously disparaging to the general character of the Company’s administration. So far, therefore, the stand made by the Company against the calumnies with which they have been assailed, may be considered to have been successful.

But the admission generally made, and made explicitly by the proposers of both the bills, that the existing system works well, has not had the effect of inducing doubt of the wisdom of hastily abolishing it. Neither does it seem to have been remembered, that if the system has worked well, there must be some causes for its having done so, and that it would be worth while to consider what these are, in order that they might be retained in any new system. If the constitution which has made the Indian government what it is, must be abolished, because it is thought defective in theory, what is substituted should at least be theoretically unobjectionable. But the constitution of the East India Company, however anomalous, is far more in accordance with the acknowledged principles of good government than either of the proposed bills.

The nature of the case is, indeed, itself so anomalous, that something anomalous was to be expected in the means by which it could be successfully dealt with.

All English institutions and modes of political action are adapted to the case of a nation governing itself. In India, the case to be provided for is that of the government of one nation by another, separated from it by half the globe; unlike it in everything which characterises a people; as a whole, totally unacquainted with it; and without time or means for acquiring knowledge of it or its affairs.

History presents only two instances in which these or similar difficulties have been in any considerable degree surmounted. One is the Roman Empire; the other is the government of India by the East India Company.

The means which the bills provide for overcoming these difficulties consist of the unchecked power of a minister. There is no difference of moment in this respect between the two bills. The minister, it is true, is to have a council. But the most despotic rulers have councils. The difference between the council of a despot and a council which prevents the ruler from being a despot is, that the one is dependent on him, the other independent; that the one has some power of its own, the other has not. By the first bill, the whole council is nominated by the minister; by the second, one-half of it is nominated by him. The functions to be intrusted to it are left, in both, with some slight exceptions, to the minister’s own discretion.

The minister is indeed subject to the control of parliament and of the British nation. But though parliament and the nation exercise a salutary control over their own affairs, it would be contrary to all experience to suppose that they will exercise it over the affairs of a hundred millions of Hindoos and Mohammedans. Habitually, they will doubtless be hereafter, as they have been heretofore, indifferent and inattentive to Indian affairs, and will leave them entirely to the minister. The consequence will be, that in the exceptional cases in which they do interfere, the interference will not be grounded on knowledge of the subject, and will probably be, for the most part, confined to cases where an Indian question is taken up from party motives, as the means of injuring a minister; or when some Indian malcontent, generally with objects opposed to good government, succeeds in interesting the sympathies of the public in his favour. For it is not the people of India, but rich individuals and societies representing class interests, who have the means of engaging the ear of the public through the press, and through agents in parliament. And it is important to remark, that by the provisions of either of the bills, the House of Commons will be rendered even less competent, in point of knowledge of Indian affairs, than at present, since by both bills all the members of the Council of India will be excluded from it.

The government of dependencies by a minister and his subordinates, under the sole control of parliament, is not a new experiment in England. That form of colonial government lost the United States, and had nearly lost all the colonies of any considerable population and importance. The colonial administration of this country has only ceased to be a subject of general condemnation since the principle has been adopted of leaving all the important colonies to manage their own affairs—a course which cannot be followed with the people of India. If the control of parliament has not prevented the habitual mismanagement of countries inhabited by Englishmen like ourselves, who had every facility for representing and urging their grievances, it is not likely to be any effectual protection to Mussulmans and Hindoos.

All governments require constitutional checks; but the constitutional checks applicable to a case of this peculiar kind must be found within the governing body itself.

Though England, as a whole, while desiring nothing but to govern India well, is necessarily ignorant of India, and feels, under ordinary circumstances, no particular interest in its concerns, there are in England a certain number of persons who possess knowledge of India, and feel an interest in its affairs. It seems, therefore, very desirable, for the sake of India, that England should govern it through, and by means of, these persons. This would be the case if the organ of government principally consisted of persons who have passed a considerable portion of their lives in India, or who feel that habitual interest in its affairs which is naturally acquired by having aided in administering them; and if this body, or a majority of it, were periodically elected by a constituency composed of persons in England who have served the government for a certain length of time in India, or whose interests are connected with that country by some permanent tie. It would be an additional advantage if this constituency had the power of requiring information, and compelling a public discussion of Indian questions. These are conditions which, to a considerable extent, the existing constitution of the East India Company fulfils.

The other great constitutional security for the good government of India lies in the forms of business. This is a point to which sufficient importance is not generally attached. The forms of business are the real constitution of India.

From the necessity of the case, recognised in both the proposed measures, the administration must be shared, in some proportion, between a minister and a council. The council may consist of persons possessing knowledge of India. The minister, except in very rare cases, can possess little or none. He is placed in office by the action of political party, which is governed by considerations totally unconnected with India; and, in the common course of politics, he is removed from office by the time he has been able to learn his duty. Even in the unusual case, of which present circumstances are an example, when the minister has made himself acquainted with India through the discharge of high functions in India itself, his knowledge is but the knowledge of one man; and one man’s knowledge of a subject like India, until corrected and completed by that of other men, is, it may safely be affirmed, wholly insufficient, and if implicitly trusted, even dangerous. The good government, therefore, of India, by a minister and a council, depends upon the amount of influence possessed by the council; and their influence depends upon the forms of business.

However experienced may be the council, and however inexperienced the minister, he will have the deciding voice. The power will rest with one who may know less of the subject than any member of the council, and is sure to know less than the council collectively, if they are selected with ordinary judgment. The council will have no substantive power, but only moral influence. It is, therefore, all-important that this influence should be upheld. Unless the forms of business are such as to insure that the council shall exercise its judgment on all questions; that all matters requiring decision shall be considered by them, and their views recorded in the initiatory stage, before the minister has committed himself to an opinion—they will possess no more weight or influence than the same number of clerks in his office, whom also he can consult if he pleases; and the power of the minister will be practically uncontrolled.

In both the bills these considerations are entirely disregarded. The first bill does not establish any forms of business, but leaves them to be determined by the minister and his council; in other words, by the minister. Even, therefore, if the minister first appointed should be willing to establish forms which would be any restraint upon himself, a subsequent minister would have it in his power to alter the forms in any manner he pleased.

The second bill, unlike the first, does establish forms of business; but such alone as would effectually prevent the council from being a reality, and would render it a useless pageant.

To make the council a merely consultative body, without initiative, before whom subjects are only brought after the minister has made up his mind, is already a fatal inroad upon its usefulness. But by the second bill the council are not even a consultative body. The minister is under no obligation to consult them. They are not empowered to hold any regular meetings. They are to meet only when the minister convenes them, or on a special requisition by six members. He may send orders to India without their knowledge when the case is urgent, of which urgency he is the sole judge. When it is not urgent, his orders must be placed in the council-room for the perusal of the members for seven days, during which they are not required, but permitted, to give their opinion, not collectively, but individually. Their only power, therefore, is that of recording dissent from a resolution not only taken, but embodied in a dispatch. And as if this was not enough, provision is made that an office, always invidious, shall be incapable of being fulfilled in any but the most invidious manner. The members of council must come forward individually in declared opposition to the minister, by volunteering a protest against his announced intentions, or signing a requisition for a meeting of council to oppose them. Such a council is fitted to serve as a shield for the minister’s responsibility when it may suit him to seek, and them to accord, their adhesion; rather than as a restraint on his power to administer India according to his individual pleasure.

The Directors are bound to admit, that the first of the bills contains several provisions indicative of a wish to assure to the council a certain, though small, amount of influence. The administration is to be carried on in the name of the president in council, and not, as by the second bill, in that of the Secretary of State alone. The council, as well as the president, has a voice in the appointment of the home establishment; while in the second bill all promotions and all appointments to the principal offices under the council, rest with the Secretary of State, exclusively; a provision which divests the council of all control or authority over their own establishment. Again, by Section XII. of the first bill, no grant involving increase of expenditure, and no appointment to office or admission to service, can be made without the concurrence of half the council. This, as far as it goes, is a real power; but its value is much diminished by the consideration that those by whom it is to be exercised are the nominees of the minister, dependent on him for their continuance in office after a few years.

In some other points the provisions of the second bill seem to have the advantage. Its council is more numerous; to which, however, little importance can be attached, if the council has no substantial power. It also recognises that the whole of the council ought not to be nominated by the minister, and that some part of it should be elected by a constituency specially qualified by a knowledge of India. But even in these, the best points of the bill, it is, in the opinion of the Directors, very far from unexceptionable. The nomination of even half the council by the minister, takes away all security for an independent majority. It may, indeed, be doubted whether there is any sufficient reason for the minister’s nominating any portion, except the supposed reluctance of some eligible persons to encounter a canvass. The proportion of one-third, whom the minister now nominates to the Court of Directors, seems the largest which, consistently with full security for independence, can be so appointed.

The provision that each of the members nominated by the Crown shall be selected as the representative of some particular branch of the service in India, is still more objectionable. Not only would it preclude the nomination of the most distinguished man, if the seat in council appropriated to the department in which he had served were not at the time vacant, but it would introduce a principle which cannot be too strongly deprecated—that of class legislation. The council should comprise the greatest attainable variety of knowledge and experience; but its members should not consider themselves as severally the representatives of a certain number of class interests.

The clause which continues to the Proprietors the power of electing some portion of the council is, so far, deserving of support; and the principle of enlarging the constituency by the addition of persons of a certain length of Indian service and residence is, in itself, unexceptionable; but unless guarded by provisions, such as have never yet been introduced into any electoral system, so large and scattered a constituency as that proposed would greatly add to the inconvenience of canvass: especially as it is not certain that the new electoral body would adopt, from the old, the salutary custom of re-electing, as the general practice, whoever has been once chosen, and has not, by misconduct or incapacity, deserved to forfeit their confidence. The duties of a member of council would be entirely incompatible with a continually-recurring canvass of the constituency.

Respecting the proposition for giving the choice of five members of council to the parliamentary constituencies of five great towns, the Court of Directors can only express a feeling of amazement. It is not the mere fact of election by a multitude that constitutes the benefits of the popular element in government. To produce those benefits, the affairs of which the people are enabled to control the management must be their own affairs. Election by multitudinous bodies, the majority of them of a very low average of education, is not an advantage of popular government, but, on the contrary, one of its acknowledged drawbacks. To assign to such a constituency the control, not of their own affairs, but of the affairs of other people on the other side of the globe, is to incur the disadvantages of popular institutions without any of the benefits. The Court of Directors willingly admit the desirableness, if not necessity, of some provision for including an English element in the Council of India; but a more objectionable mode than the one proposed of attaining the object, could scarcely, in their opinion, be devised.

Besides the provisions which relate to the organ of government in England, the bills contain provisions relating to India itself, which are open to the strongest objection.

The appointments to the councils at Calcutta and at the subordinate presidencies, which are now made by the Court of Directors, with the approbation of the Crown, are transferred by both bills to the governor-general, and to the governors of Madras and Bombay. The Court of Directors are convinced that this change would greatly impair the chances of good government in India. One of the causes which has most contributed to the many excellences of Indian administration is, that the governor-general and governors have always been associated with councillors selected by the authorities at home from among the most experienced and able members of the Indian service, and who, not owing their appointments to the head of the government, have generally brought to the consideration of Indian affairs an independent judgment. In consequence of this, the measures of a government, necessarily absolute, have had the advantage, seldom possessed in absolute governments, of being always preceded by a free and conscientious discussion; while, as the head of the government has the power, on recording his reasons, to act contrary to the advice of his council, no public inconvenience can ever arise from any conflict of opinion. These important officers, who, by their participation in the government, form so salutary a restraint on the precipitancy of an inexperienced, or the wilfulness of a despotically tempered, governor-general or governor, are henceforth to be appointed by the great functionary whom they are intended to check. And this restraint is removed, when the necessity for an independent council will be greater than ever; since the power of appointing the governor-general, and of recalling him, is taken away from the Company, and from the body which is to be their substitute. It may be added that the authorities at home have had the opportunity of being acquainted with the conduct and services of candidates for council from the commencement of their career. The governor-general or governor would often have to nominate a councillor soon after their arrival in India, when necessarily ignorant of the character and merits of candidates, and would be entirely dependent on the recommendation of irresponsible advisers.

Another most objectionable provision demands notice, which is to be found only in the second bill. A commission, appointed in England, is to proceed to India, for the purpose of inquiring and reporting on the principles and details of Indian finance, including the whole revenue system, and, what is inseparably involved in it, the proprietary rights and social position of all the great classes of the community. The Court of Directors cannot believe that such a project will be persisted in. It would be a step towards the disorganisation of the fabric of government in India. A commission from England, independent of the local government of the country, deriving its authority directly from the higher power to which the local government is subordinate, and instructed to carry back to the higher power information on Indian affairs which the local government is not deemed sufficiently trustworthy to afford, would give a most serious shock to the influence of the local authorities, and would tend to impress all natives with the belief that the opinions and decisions of the local government are of small moment, and that the thing of real importance is the success with which they can contrive that their claims and objects shall be advocated in England. Up to the present time, it has been the practice of the home government to uphold in every way the authority of the governments on the spot; even when reversing their acts, to do so through the governments themselves, and to employ no agency except in subordination to them.

From this review of the chief provisions of the bills, which embody the attempts of two great divisions of English statesmen to frame an organ of government for India, it will probably appear to the proprietors, that neither of them is grounded on any sufficient consideration of past experience, or of the principles applicable to the subject; that the passing of either would be a calamity to India; and that the attempt to legislate while the minds of leading men are in so unprepared a state, is altogether premature.

The opinion of your Directors is, that by all constitutional means the passing of either bill should be opposed; but that if one or the other should be determined on for the purpose of transferring the administration, in name, from the East India Company to the Crown, every exertion should be used in its passage through committee to divest it of the mischievous features by which both bills are now deformed, and to maintain, as at present, a really independent council, having the initiative of all business, discharging all the duties, and possessing all the essential powers of the Court of Directors. And it is the Court’s conviction, that measures might be so framed as to obviate whatever may be well founded in the complaints made against the present system—retaining the initiative of the council, and that independence of action on their part which should be regarded as paramount and indispensable.

_E. I. Company’s Objections to the Third India Bill: June 1858._ (See p. 570.)

1. Although the bill which has been newly brought in by her Majesty’s ministers ‘for the better government of India,’ has not yet been formally communicated to the Court of Directors, the Court, influenced by the desire which they have already expressed to give all aid in their power towards rendering the scheme of government, which it is the pleasure of parliament to substitute for the East India Company, as efficient for its purposes as possible, have requested us[205] to lay before your lordship,[206] and through you before her Majesty’s government, a few observations on some portions of the bill.

2. Having in documents which have been presented to parliament expressed their sentiments fully on all the general features of the subject, the Court refrain from offering any further arguments on points upon which the government and the House of Commons seem to have pronounced a decided opinion. The joint government of a minister and a council, composed in majority of persons of Indian experience, deriving their appointments only partially from ministerial nomination, and all of them holding office on a tenure independent of the minister, is a combination which fulfils to a considerable extent the conditions of a good organ of government for India. The Court would have much preferred that in the constitution of the council more extensive recourse had been had to the elective principle. But if they cannot hope that this course will be adopted, they see many advantages in the provision by which one-half the number, instead of being named by the government, will be selected by a responsible body, intimately connected with India, to whom the qualification of candidates will in general be accurately known, and who will be under strong inducements to make such a choice as will tend to increase the credit and consideration of the body.

3. With regard to the qualifications prescribed for members of council, the Court desire to offer a suggestion. Her Majesty’s present government have, on many occasions, expressed a desire to secure the Crown appointments against the evils of abuse of patronage. The security against such abuse has hitherto consisted in the strict limitation of the appointments to persons who have served a considerable number of years in India. While the Court fully agree with her Majesty’s government in recognising the desirableness of an English element, it does not seem to them advisable that this element should extend to nearly half the council, only a bare majority being reserved for persons of Indian experience. Knowledge of India is, after all, the most important requisite for a seat in the Indian Council; while it is chiefly in the English nominations that there is any present danger lest appointments should be obtained through political or parliamentary influence—from which influence, unless introduced through that channel, the council, like the Court of Directors, may be expected to be altogether free. The Court, therefore, recommend that the qualification of ten years’ Indian service or residence be made imperative on at least two-thirds instead of a mere majority of the fifteen members of council. They also think it questionable if the interests of India will be promoted by the exclusion of the whole of the members of the council from seats in parliament. These are the only modifications which we are requested to suggest in the provisions respecting the composition of the council.

[The remaining objections made by the Directors were little more than a repetition of those made against the first and second bills (given _in extenso_ in a preceding page); and need not be reproduced here. The Directors expressed a dislike or apprehension of the subordinate position in which the Council would be placed; of the autocratic power to be possessed by the Secretary for India; of the transference of the powers of the Secret Committee wholly and solely to him; of the proposed mode of making appointments and exercising patronage; of any disturbance in the mode of auditing accounts; and of the appointment of any Commission of Inquiry in India which should appear derogatory to the dignity of the local governments. Many of these objections were listened to, and were productive of modifications during the discussion of the bill. The result will be seen in the next article of this Appendix.]

_Abstract of Act for the Better Government of India—21 and 22 Vict. cap. 106.—Received Royal Assent August 2, 1858._ (See p. 573.)

_Transfer of Governing Powers._

I. Governing powers transferred from the East India Company to the Crown.

II. All rights, territories, revenues, and liabilities similarly transferred.

III. A Secretary of State to exercise all the governing powers heretofore exercised by Court of Directors, Court of Proprietors, and Board of Control.

IV. Provision concerning sitting of secretary and under-secretary in House of Commons.

V. Concerning re-election of secretaries to House of Commons.

VI. Secretary of State for India to receive salary equal to those of other secretaries of state.

_Council of India._

VII. A Council of India, of 15 persons, to be formed.

VIII. Court of Directors to elect 7 members of this Council, from among persons possessing certain qualifications; and the Crown to appoint the other 8.

IX. Vacancies among the 8 to be filled up by the Crown; and among the other 7, by election by the Council.

X. Nine members of the Council, at least, must have had not less than ten years’ experience in India.

XI. Members to hold office for life, or during good behaviour.

XII. Members not to sit in parliament.

XIII. Annual salary of £1200 to each member.

XIV. Members may resign; if after ten years’ service, on a pension of £500, subject to certain conditions.

XV. Secretaries and other officers of Company to become officers of Council of India—subject to any changes afterwards made by Privy Council and sanctioned by parliament.

XVI. Secretary in Council to make all subsequent appointments in the home establishment.

XVII. Compensation to such officers of the Company as are not retained permanently by the Council.

XVIII. Any officer of the Company, transferred to the service of the Council, to have a claim to the same pension or superannuation allowance as if the change of government had not taken place.

_Duties and Proceedings of the Council._

XIX. Council to conduct affairs of India in England; but all correspondence to be in the name of the Secretary of State.

XX. Secretary of State may divide the Council into committees.

XXI. Secretary of State to sit and vote as president, and appoint vice-president.

XXII. Five to be a quorum; meetings convened by Secretary of State not fewer than one each week.

XXIII. Secretary of State to decide questions on which members differ. Any dissentient member may require his opinion to be placed upon record.

XXIV. Secretary’s proceedings to be open to all the Council, except in ‘secret service’ dispatches.

XXV. Secretary to give reasons for any exercise of his veto against the decision of the majority.

XXVI. Secretary allowed to overrule the two preceding clauses in urgent cases.

XXVII. Functions of the ‘secret committee’ transferred to Secretary of State.

XXVIII. Dispatches marked ‘secret’ not to be opened by members of Council.

_Appointments and Patronage._

XXIX. Of the high appointments in India, some to be made by the Crown, some by the Council, and some by the Governor-general.

XXX. Inferior appointments to be made as heretofore, except transference of patronage from Court of Directors to Council.

XXXI. Special provision for civil service in India.

XXXII. Secretary in Council to make rules for examination of persons intended for junior situations in civil service of India.

XXXIII. Appointments to naval and military cadetships to vest in the Crown.

XXXIV. Competitive examinations for engineers and artillery of the Indian army.

XXXV. A certain ratio of cadetships to be given to the sons of persons who have served in India.

XXXVI. All the other cadetships to be in the gift of the members of the Council, subject to approval; the Secretary of State to have twice as many nominations as an ordinary member.

XXXVII. In all unchanged rules concerning appointments, power of Court of Directors to be vested in Council.

XXXVIII. The same in reference to any dismissal from service.

_Transfer of Property._

XXXIX. Company’s property, credits, and debits, to revert to the Crown—except the _East India Stock_ and the dividends thereon.

XL. Secretary in Council may buy, sell, or borrow, in the name of the Crown, for the service of India.

_Revenues._

XLI. Expenditure of revenues in India wholly under Secretary in Council.

XLII. Liabilities of Company, and dividends on India stock, to be borne by Secretary in Council out of revenues of India.

XLIII. Secretary in Council to keep a cash account with the Bank of England, and to be responsible for all payments in relation to India revenue.

XLIV. Transfer of cash balance from the Company to the Council.

XLV. A stock account to be opened at Bank of England.

XLVI. Transfer of stock accounts.

XLVII. Mode of managing Council’s finances at the Bank.

XLVIII. Transfer of Exchequer bills, &c., from Company to Council.

XLIX. Power of issuing bonds, debentures, &c.

L. Provisions concerning forgery.

LI. Regulations of audit department.

LII. The Crown to appoint auditor of Indian accounts, to whom all needful papers are to be sent by Secretary in Council.

LIII. Annual accounts to be furnished to parliament of the revenue and expenditure of India; accompanied by reports on the moral and material progress of the several presidencies.

LIV. War in India to be made known to parliament within a specified period.

LV. India revenues not to pay for wars unconnected with India.

_Existing Establishments._

LVI. Company’s army and navy transferred to the Crown, but with all existing contracts and engagements holding good.

LVII. Future powers as to conditions of service.

LVIII. All commissions held under the Company to be valid as under the Crown.

LIX. Regulations of service to be subject to future change, if deemed necessary.

LX. Court of Directors and Court of Proprietors cease to hold power in reference to government of India.

LXI. Board of Control abolished.

LXII. Records and archives of Company to be given up to Council—except stock and dividend books.

LXIII. Powers of Governor-general, on assuming duties of that office.

LXIV. Existing enactments and provisions to remain in force, unless specially repealed.

_Actions and Contracts._

LXV. Secretary in Council may sue and be sued as a body corporate.

LXVI. And may take the place of the Company in any still-pending actions.

LXVII. Treaties and covenants made by the Company to remain binding.

LXVIII. Members not _personally_ liable for such treaties or covenants.

LXIX. A Court of Directors still to exist, but in smaller number than before, and having powers relating only to the management of the Company’s dividend and a few minor subjects.

LXX. Quarterly courts not in future obligatory.

LXXI. Company’s liability ceases, on all matters now taken under the care of the Council.

_Saving of Certain Rights of the Company._

LXXII. Secretary in Council to pay dividends on India stock out of India revenue.

LXXIII. Dividends to constitute a preferential charge.

_Commencement of the Act._

LXXIV. Commences thirty days after day of receiving royal assent.

LXXV. Company’s orders to be obeyed in India until the change of government shall have been proclaimed in the several presidencies.

_The Indian Mutiny Relief Fund._ (See p. 226.)

This noble manifestation of kind feeling towards the sufferers in India, which originated in a public meeting held in London on the 25th of August 1857, assumed munificent proportions during the next following year, when the colonists and Englishmen residing abroad had had time to respond to the appeal made to them. In a report prepared by the Committee, on the 1st of November 1858, it was announced that the sum placed in their charge amounted, up to that time, to £434,729. They had remitted £127,287 to India, there to be distributed by auxiliary local committees; they had assisted sufferers after their return to, or during their residence in, the home country, to the extent of £35,757; and their management expenses had amounted to £6224. There remained, invested at interest, the sum of £265,461, applicable to further cases of need. It is interesting to notice the kind of persons to whom relief was afforded, on account of the varied privations to which the mutiny had subjected them. The sum of £35,757 expended in England, was mostly in donations to the following numbers and classes of persons:

32 Military officers. 86 Widows and children of officers. 25 Wives of officers. 25 Orphans of officers. 51 Other relatives of officers. 13 Disabled soldiers. 298 Widows of soldiers. 423 Children of soldiers. 82 Other relatives of soldiers. 10 Clergymen and missionaries. 6 Widows of Clergymen. 1 Wife of missionary. 23 Widows and orphans of civilians. 75 Planters, railway officials, &c.

_Queen Victoria’s Proclamation to the Princes, Chiefs, and People of India.—Read in the principal Cities of India, November 1, 1858._ (See p. 612.)

VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, Queen, Defender of the Faith.

Whereas, for divers weighty reasons, we have resolved, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, to take upon ourselves the government of the territories in India, heretofore administered in trust for us by the Honourable East India Company:

Now, therefore, we do by these presents notify and declare that, by the advice and consent aforesaid, we have taken upon ourselves the said government; and we hereby call upon all our subjects within the said territories to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to us, our heirs and successors, and to submit themselves to the authority of those whom we may hereafter from time to time see fit to appoint to administer the government of our said territories, in our name and on our behalf.

And we, reposing especial trust and confidence in the loyalty, ability, and judgment of our right trusty and well-beloved cousin and councillor, Charles John Viscount Canning, do hereby constitute and appoint him, the said Viscount Canning, to be our first Viceroy and Governor-general in and over our said territories, and to administer the government thereof in our name, and generally to act in our name and on our behalf: subject to such orders and regulations as he shall, from time to time, receive from us through one of our principal Secretaries of State.

And we do hereby confirm in their several offices, civil and military, all persons now employed in the service of the Honourable East India Company, subject to our future pleasure, and to such laws and regulations as may hereafter be enacted.

We hereby announce to the native Princes of India that all treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company, are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained; and we look for the like observance on their part.

We desire no extension of our present territorial possessions; and while we will permit no aggression upon our dominions or our rights to be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment on those of others. We shall respect the rights, dignity, and honour of native princes as our own; and we desire that they, as well as our own subjects, should enjoy that prosperity and that social advancement which can only be secured by internal peace and good government.

We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects; and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil.

Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure.

And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge.

We know and respect the feelings of attachment with which the natives of India regard the lands inherited by them from their ancestors, and we desire to protect them in all rights connected therewith, subject to the equitable demands of the State; and we will that, generally, in framing and administering the law, due regard be paid to the ancient rights, usages, and customs of India.

We deeply lament the evils and misery which have been brought upon India by the acts of ambitious men, who have deceived their countrymen by false reports, and led them into open rebellion. Our power has been shewn by the suppression of that rebellion in the field; we desire to shew our mercy by pardoning the offences of those who have been thus misled, but who desire to return to the path of duty.

Already in one province, with a view to stop the further effusion of blood, and to hasten the pacification of our Indian dominions, our Viceroy and Governor-general has held out the expectation of pardon, on certain terms, to the great majority of those who in the late unhappy disturbances have been guilty of offences against our government; and has declared the punishment which will be inflicted on those whose crimes place them beyond the reach of forgiveness. We approve and confirm the said act of our Viceroy and Governor-general, and do further announce and proclaim as follows:

Our clemency will be extended to all offenders, save and except those who have been or shall be convicted of having directly taken part in the murder of British subjects.

With regard to such, the demands of justice forbid the exercise of mercy.

To those who have willingly given asylum to murderers, knowing them to be such, or who may have acted as leaders or instigators in revolt, their lives alone can be guaranteed; but in appointing the penalty due to such persons, full consideration will be given to the circumstances under which they have been induced to throw off their allegiance; and large indulgence will be shewn to those whose crimes may appear to have originated in a too credulous acceptance of the false reports circulated by designing men.

To all others in arms against the government, we hereby promise unconditional pardon, amnesty, and oblivion of all offences against ourselves, our crown and dignity, on their return to their homes and peaceful pursuits.

It is our Royal pleasure that these terms of grace and amnesty should be extended to all those who comply with their conditions before the first day of January next.

When, by the blessing of Providence, internal tranquillity shall be restored, it is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer its government for the benefit of all our subjects resident therein. In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward. And may the God of all power grant unto us, and to those in authority under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people.

_Viscount Canning’s Proclamation.—Issued at Allahabad, November 1, 1858._ (See p. 612.)

Her Majesty the Queen having declared that it is her gracious pleasure to take upon herself the government of the British territories in India, the Viceroy and Governor-general hereby notifies that from this day all acts of the government of India will be done in the name of the Queen alone.

From this day, all men of every race and class who, under the administration of the Honourable East India Company, have joined to uphold the honour and power of England, will be the servants of the Queen alone.

The Governor-general summons them, one and all, each in his degree, and according to his opportunity, and with his whole heart and strength, to aid in fulfilling the gracious will and pleasure of the Queen, as set forth in her royal proclamation.

From the many millions of her Majesty’s native subjects in India, the Governor-general will now, and at all times, exact a loyal obedience to the call which, in words full of benevolence and mercy, their Sovereign has made upon their allegiance and faithfulness.

Footnote 205:

The chairman and deputy-chairman.

Footnote 206:

Lord Stanley, president of the Board of Control.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

Events in India.

1857.

Jan. 22. Cartridge disturbances began at Dumdum. Feb. 6. Cartridge grievances inquired into at Barrackpore. Feb. 11. General Hearsey warned government of disaffection. Feb. 26. 19th Bengal N. I. riotous at Berhampore. Mar. 26. Cartridge disturbances at Umballa. Mar. 27. Proclamation explaining Cartridge question. Mar. 29. 34th B. N. I. riotous at Barrackpore. Mar. 31. 19th B. N. I. disbanded and dismissed. Apr. 24. Cartridge disturbances at Meerut. May 1. Cartridge disturbances at Lucknow. May 3. 7th Oude Infantry mutinied at Lucknow. May 5. 34th B. N. I. disbanded and dismissed. May 9. 3d B. N. C. punished at Meerut. May 10. COMMENCEMENT OF THE GREAT REVOLT AT MEERUT. May 10. Troops in Company’s pay on this day—38,000 Europeans, 200,000 Natives. May 11. Meerut mutineers (11th and 20th B. N. I., and 3d B. N. C.) marched to Delhi. May 11. 38th, 54th, and 74th B. N. I., mutinied at Delhi. May 13. 16th, 26th, and 49th B. N. I., and 8th B. N. C., disarmed at Meean Meer near Lahore. May 14. General Anson departed from Simla, to head troops. May 16. B. N. Sappers and Miners mutinied at Meerut. May 17. 25th B. N. I. riotous at Calcutta. May 19. Anson’s Proclamation concerning cartridges. May 20. 55th B. N. I. mutinied at Murdan. May 20. 9th B. N. I. mutinied at Allygurh and vicinity, May 21. First siege-column left Umballa for Delhi. May 21. Europeans at Cawnpore began their intrenchment. May 22. 24th, 27th, and 51st B. N. I., with 5th B. N. C., disarmed at Peshawur. May 24. Colvin’s proclamation—disapproved by Viscount Canning. May 24. Portion of Gwalior Horse mutinied at Hattrass. May 24. General Anson left Umballa for Delhi. May 27. General Anson died at Kurnaul May 27. Wilson’s Field-force left Meerut for Delhi. May 28. Reed succeeded Anson provisionally. May 28. 15th and 30th B. N. I. mutinied at Nuseerabad. May 30. Portions of 13th, 48th, and 71st B. N. I., with 7th N. C., mutinied at Lucknow. May 30. Wilson defeated Delhi rebels at Ghazeeoodeen Nuggur. May 31. Wilson defeated Delhi rebels, near the Hindoun. May 31. Barnard left Kurnaul to command army against Delhi. May 31. 28th B. N. I. mutinied at Shahjehanpoor. June 1. 44th and 67th B. N. I. disarmed at Agra. June 3. 17th B. N. I. mutinied at Azimghur. June 3. 41st B. N. I., 9th and 10th Oude Irreg. I., and 2d Oude Mil. Police, mutinied at Seetapoor. June 3. 29th B. N. I. mutinied at Mooradabad. June 3. 72d B. N. I., and a wing of 1st B. N. C., mutinied at Neemuch. June 4. 37th B. N. I., 13th Irreg. C., and Loodianah Sikhs, mutinied at Benares. June 4. 12th B. N. I., and 14th Irreg. C., mutinied at Jhansi. June 5. 1st, 53d, and 56th B. N. I., and 2d B. N. C., mutinied at Cawnpore. June 5. Wing of Loodianah Sikhs mutinied at Jounpoor. June 6. Barnard and Wilson joined forces at Bhagput. June 6. 6th B. N. I. mutinied at Allahabad. June 6. ? Hurrianah Battalion mutinied at Hansi. June 6. ? Bhurtpore Levies mutinied at Bhurtpore. June 7. 36th and 61st B. N. I., and 6th B. C., mutinied at Jullundur. June 8. 22d B. N. I., and 6th Oude I., mutinied at Fyzabad. June 8. ? Massacre of Europeans at Jhansi. June 8. Barnard defeated Delhi rebels at Badulla Serai. June 8. Barnard arrived with siege-army before Delhi. June 9. 15th Irreg. C. mutinied at Sultanpore. June 9. Europeans driven from Futtehpoor by rebels. June 10. 1st Oude Irreg. I. mutinied at Pershadeepore. June 10. Wing of 12th B. N. I., and 14th Irreg. C., mutinied at Nowgong. June 10. ? Europeans driven from Neemuch by rebels. June 11. Neill relieved Allahabad from the rebels. June 11. 60th B. N. I. mutinied at Rohtuk. June 12. First boat-party from Futteghur massacred by Nena Sahib. June 13. Press ‘Gagging’ Act passed at Calcutta. June 13. 45th and 57th B. N. I. mutinied at Ferozpore. June 14. 43d and 70th B. N. I. and 2d N. C. disarmed at Barrackpore. June 14. Gwalior Contingent mutinied at Gwalior. June 15. King of Oude under surveillance at Calcutta. June 18. 10th B. N. I. mutinied at Futteghur. June 19. Defeat of Nuseerabad rebels outside Delhi. June 23. Nagpoor Irreg. C. disarmed at Nagpoor. June 23. Severe Battle outside Delhi. June 26. 33d and 35th B. N. I. disarmed at Phillour. June 27. First news of the Revolt reached England. June 27. Boat-massacre at Cawnpore, by Nena Sahib. June 30. Disastrous Battle of Chinhut, near Lucknow. June 30. 4th Irreg. C. mutinied at Mozuffernugger. June 30. Europeans at Saugor intrench themselves in fort. July 1. Europeans driven out of Indore. July 1. 23d B. N. I. mutinied at Mhow. July 1. Siege of Europeans in Lucknow began. July 2. Severe Battle outside Delhi. July 2. Rohilcund mutineers entered Delhi. July 3. Mussulman Conspiracy discovered at Patna. July 4. Death of Sir H. Lawrence at Lucknow. July 4. Kotah Contingent mutinied at Agra. July 5. Death of Sir H. Barnard outside Delhi. July 5. Reed took command of siege-army. July 5. Disastrous Battle of Shahgunje, near Agra. July 7. 14th B. N. I. mutinied at Jelum. July 7. 58th B. N. I. disarmed at Rawul Pindee. July 7. Havelock’s column left Allahabad for Cawnpore. July 7. 42d B. N. I., and 3d Irreg. C., mutinied at Saugor. July 9. 46th B. N. I., and 9th C., mutinied at Sealkote. July 11. Second boat-party from Futteghur arrived at Bithoor. July 12. Nicholson defeated Sealkote mutineers. July 12. Havelock defeated rebels at Futtehpoor. July 12. Sir Colin Campbell left England for India. July 14. Severe Battle outside Delhi. July 15. Havelock defeated rebels at Aong. July 15. Havelock defeated rebels at Pandoo Nuddee. July 15. Massacre at Cawnpore, by Nena Sahib. July 16. Havelock defeated Nena Sahib at Aherwa. July 17. Havelock entered Cawnpore victoriously. July 17. Havelock defeated Nena Sahib near Bithoor. July 17. Reed resigned command before Delhi—Wilson succeeded. July 20. Fierce Attack by rebels on Lucknow Garrison. July 24. 12th Irreg. C. mutinied at Segowlie. July 25. Havelock crossed Ganges into Oude. July 25. 7th, 8th, and 40th B. N. I. mutinied at Dinapoor. July 26. Nearly 6000 persons sheltered in Agra Fort, of whom 2000 children. July 27. Mr Wake’s defence of Arrah commenced. July 29. 26th B. N. I. mutinied at Lahore. July 29. Havelock defeated rebels at Onao. July 29. Havelock defeated rebels at Busherutgunje. July 30. Captain Dunbar’s disaster at Arrah. July 31. Ramgurh Infantry mutinied at Ramgurh. July 31. Siege-army before Delhi = 6918 effectives, and 1116 sick and wounded. Aug. 1. 63d B. N. I. and 11th Irreg. C. disarmed at Berhampore. Aug. 1. Severe Battle outside Delhi. Aug. 1. 27th Bombay N. I. mutinied at Kolapore. Aug. 2. Vincent Eyre defeated Koer Singh near Arrah. Aug. 8. 59th B. N. I. disarmed at Umritsir. Aug. 8. Nicholson arrived with his Column at Delhi. Aug. 10. Severe Battle outside Delhi. Aug. 12. Havelock’s second victory at Busherutgunje. Aug. 12. Vincent Eyre defeated Koer Singh at Jugdispore. Aug. 13. Havelock retreated across Ganges to Cawnpore. Aug. 14. 5th Irreg. C. mutinied at Berhampore. Aug. 15-18. Hodson defeated rebels outside Delhi. Aug. 16. Havelock defeated Nena Sahib at Bithoor. Aug. 20. Fierce attack by the rebels on Lucknow Residency. Aug. 22. Jhodpore Legion mutinied at Erinpoora. Aug. 24. Montgomery defeated rebels at Allygurh. Aug. 25. Nicholson won Battle of Nujuffghur near Delhi, Aug. 25. Meeting in London at the Mansion-house, to establish Indian Mutiny Relief Fund. Aug. 28. 51st B. N. I. mutinied at Peshawur. Sep. 5. Outram’s Column left Allahabad for Cawnpore. Sep. 5. Fierce attack by rebels on Lucknow Residency. Sep. 7. Indore mutineers captured Dholpore. Sep. 7. Siege-army before Delhi = 13,000 men. Sep. 9. Mr Colvin died at Agra. Sep. 11. Cannonading of Delhi commenced. Sep. 11. Viscount Eyre defeated rebels at Koondun Puttee. Sep. 14. Delhi entered by storm—death of Nicholson. Sep. 15-20. Gradual Conquest of Delhi city and fortifications. Sep. 15-20. Outram joined Havelock and Neill at Cawnpore. Sep. 16. 50th B. N. I. mutinied at Nagode. Sep. 18. 52d B. N. I. mutinied at Jubbulpoor. Sep. 19. Outram and Havelock crossed Ganges into Oude. Sep. 20. Goorkhas defeated rebels at Mundoree. Sep. 21. Hodson captured King and Princes of Delhi. Sep. 23. Outram and Havelock captured the Alum Bagh. Sep. 25. Outram and Havelock entered Lucknow Residency. Sep. 25. Death of Neill at Lucknow. Sep. 27. Outram and Havelock besieged in Residency. Sep. 28. Greathed defeated Delhi rebels at Bolundshuhur. Oct. 3. Peel’s Naval Brigade arrived at Allahabad. Oct. 5. Greathed defeated Delhi rebels at Allygurh. Oct. 9. 32d B. N. I. mutinied at Deoghur. Oct. 10. Greathed defeated Indore rebels near Agra. Oct. 15. Gwalior Contingent took the field, as a rebel army. Oct. 15. Rajah of Kotah’s troops mutinied. Oct. 19. Greathed and Hope Grant retook Minpooree. Oct. 26. Greathed and Hope Grant arrived at Cawnpore. Oct. 28. Sir Colin Campbell started from Calcutta, for scene of hostilities. Nov. 1. Peel’s Naval Brigade defeated rebels at Kudjna. Nov. 9. Mr Cavanagh’s adventure at Lucknow. Nov. 9. Europeans besieged in Fort of Neemuch. Nov. 9. Sir Colin Campbell crossed Ganges into Oude. Nov. 12. Sir Colin Campbell captured Jelalabad Fort. Nov. 14-17. Sir Colin Campbell fought his way into Lucknow. Nov. 18. Wing of 34th B. N. I. mutinied at Chittagong. Nov. 20. ? 73d B. N. I. mutinied at Dacca. Nov. 23. British evacuated Lucknow. Nov. 24. Stuart defeated Bundela rebels near Mundesoor. Nov. 25. Death of Havelock, outside Lucknow. Nov. 27-28. Windham beaten by Gwalior rebels near Cawnpore. Nov. 29. Lucknow Garrison recross Ganges to Cawnpore. Dec. 6. Sir Colin defeated 25,000 rebels at Cawnpore. Dec. 9. Hope Grant defeated rebels at Serai Ghât. Dec. 14-17. Seaton defeated rebels in Minpooree district. Dec. 19. Government announced to East India Company an approaching change in Company’s powers. Dec. 28. Osborne reconquered Myhere from Bundela rebels. Dec. 30. Wood defeated rebels near Sumbhulpore. Dec. 31. East India Company protested against the proposed legislation for India.

1858.

Jan. 1. Bareilly mutineers defeated at Huldwanee. Jan. 3. Sir Colin Campbell arrived at Futteghur. Jan. 6. Jung Bahadoor and his Goorkha army entered Goruckpore. Jan. 6. Raines defeated a body of rebels at Rowah. Jan. 12. Outram defeated 30,000 rebels outside Alum Bagh. Jan. 27. Adrian Hope defeated rebels at Shumshabad. Jan. 27. Trial of the King of Delhi commenced. Jan. 28. East India Company petitioned Parliament against government proceedings. Feb. 3. Rose liberated the Europeans at Saugor. Feb. 4. Sir Colin returned to Cawnpore from Futteghur. Feb. 4. Maxwell repulsed Gwalior rebels at Chowra. Feb. 9. Sir Colin and Canning met at Allahabad. Feb. 9. Delhi and Meerut divisions placed under Punjaub government. Feb. 10. M’Causland repulsed Bareilly rebels at Sunda. Feb. 11. Great convoy of women and children left Agra. Feb. 12. Lord Palmerston brought in India Bill No. 1. Feb. 12-18. Debates thereon—government majority, 318 to 173. Feb. 19. Franks defeated Bunda Hossein at Chundah. Feb. 19. Franks defeated Mahomed Hossein at Humeerpoor. Feb. 20. Palmerston Ministry resigned. Feb. 21. Derby Ministry formed—Lord Ellenborough at the India Board. Feb. 21. Outram repulsed 20,000 rebels at Alum Bagh. Feb. 23. Hope Grant took Meeangunje from Oude rebels. Feb. 26. Goorkhas captured fort of Mobarukhpoor in Oude. Feb. 28. Sir Colin crossed Ganges, to head his army. Mar. 2. Sir Colin advanced to the Alum Bagh. Mar. 2-21. Gradual conquest of Lucknow from rebels. Mar. 3. Viscount Canning’s Proclamation to the Oudians. Mar. 4. Rose defeated Bundelas at Mudenpore Pass. Mar. 5. Rowcroft repulsed 12,000 rebels at Goruckpore. Mar. 5. Goorkhas defeated Oude rebels at Kandoo Nuddee. Mar. 10. Rose defeated rebel Rajah of Shagurh. Mar. 10. Roberts headed the Rajpootana Field-force. Mar. 11. Jung Bahadoor joined Sir Colin outside Lucknow. Mar. 11. Showers defeated a body of rebels at Bah. Mar. 16. Return of the Guide Corps to Peshawur. Mar. 17. Stuart captured Chendaree from rebels. Mar. 21. Rose with Siege-army arrived before Jhansi. Mar. 21. Lucknow finally conquered by British. Mar. 22. Millman repulsed by Azimghur rebels at Atrowlia. Mar. 22. Roberts with Siege-army arrived before Kotah. Mar. 25. Moncrieff routed a body of Coles at Chuckerderpore. Mar. 26. Mr Disraeli brought in India Bill No. 2. Mar. 29. Army of Oude broken up into separate columns. Mar. 30. Roberts captured Kotah. Apr. 1. Rose defeated Tanteea Topee outside Jhansi. Apr. 2. Rose captured Jhansi—Ranee escaped. Apr. 2. Kerr defeated Dinapoor rebels near Azimghur. Apr. 2. Death of Captain Sir William Peel at Cawnpore. Apr. 6. Seaton defeated Minpooree Rajah at Kankur. Apr. 7. East India Company protested against both India Bills. Apr. 12. House of Commons determined to proceed by Resolutions on India Bill. Apr. 14. Disaster at Rhodamow under Walpole. Apr. 14. Death of Adrian Hope at Rhodamow. Apr. 17. Rowcroft defeated rebels at Amorah. Apr. 17. Jones defeated Rohilcund rebels at Nagul. Apr. 18. Sir Colin resumed operations from Cawnpore. Apr. 18. Douglas defeated Koer Singh at Azimutgurh. Apr. 18. Douglas defeated Koer Singh at Muneer Khas. Apr. 19. Ellenborough’s ‘Secret Dispatch’ written. Apr. 19. Whitlock took Banda, and defeated Nawab. Apr. 21. Le Grand’s disaster at Jugdispore. Apr. 21. Jones defeated Rohilcund rebels at Nageena. Apr. 21. Koer Singh eluded Douglas, and crossed Ganges. Apr. 22. Walpole defeated rebels at Sirsa. Apr. 25. Jones recovered Mooradabad from Oude rebels. Apr. 25. Sir Colin reached Futteghur. Apr. 27. Sir Colin entered Rohilcund. Apr. 28. Sir Colin joined Walpole at Ramgunga. Apr. 30. Sir Colin entered Shahjehanpoor. Apr. 30. Penny’s Column won Battle of Kukerowlee. Apr. 30. Death of Penny at Kukerowlee. Apr. 30. Mr Disraeli brought in ‘Resolutions’ in House of Commons. May 3. Lugard crossed Ganges in pursuit of Koer Singh. May 3-11. Hall held fort of Shahjehanpoor against 8000 rebels. May 5. Sir Colin defeated rebels outside Bareilly. May 7. Sir Colin captured Bareilly—rebel leaders escaped. May 7. Corps of Bengal European Cavalry determined on. May 9. Lugard defeated Koer Singh at Jugdispore—Koer Singh killed. May 9. Rose marched in pursuit of Tanteea Topee and the Ranee. May 11. Rose defeated them at Koonch. May 11. Jones relieved Hall at Shahjehanpoor. May 11. Ellenborough resigned—Lord Stanley appointed to Board of Control. May 12. Lugard defeated Ummer Singh near Jugdispore. May 12. Hope Grant defeated 16,000 Oude rebels at Sirsee. May 14-21. Great debates in parliament, on Canning’s Proclamation and Ellenborough’s Dispatch. May 15. Jones attacked in great force at Shahjehanpoor. May 15-23. Rose in fierce conflict with Tanteea Topee in and near Calpee. May 17. Jung Bahadoor returned to Nepaul. May 18. Sir Colin repulsed rebels at Shahjehanpoor. May 21. Light summer clothing ordered for troops. May 22. Coke joined Sir Colin from Pileebheet. May 23. Rose captured Calpee—Tanteea Topee, Ranee of Jhansi, and Nawab of Banda, fled towards Gwalior. May 24. Incendiarism at Allahabad. May 24. Sir Colin captured fort of Mohumdee. May 26. Railway opened from Allahabad to Futtehpoor. May 28. Sir Colin returned to Futteghur from Rohilcund and Oude. May 28. Sir Colin thanked his army for past services. May 30. Rebel leaders from Calpee arrived at Gwalior. June 1. Scindia defeated by Tanteea Topee and Calpee rebels. June 2. Rebels captured Gwalior—Scindia fled to Agra. June 4. Lugard defeated rebels in Jugdispore jungle. June 7. Lord Stanley resumed India debates in House of Commons. June 9. Mahomed Hossein defeated at Amorah. June 9-11. Moncrieff defeated rebels at Chuckerderpore. June 13. Hope Grant defeated 16,000 rebels at Nawabgunge. June 15. The Moulvie killed in action at Powayne. June 16. Rose arrived near Gwalior. June 16-19. Great Battle in and near Gwalior. June 17. Death of the Ranee of Jhansi at Gwalior. June 17. Lord Stanley brought in India Bill No. 3. June 17. Canning’s reply to Ellenborough’s Secret Dispatch. June 18. Mahomed Hossein defeated at Hurreah. June 20. Rose recaptured Gwalior, and reinstated Scindia. June 21. Napier left Gwalior in pursuit of Tanteea Topee. June 23. East India Company’s objections to Bill No. 3. June 24. India Bill read second time in Commons. June 29. Mr Manson murdered by Rajah of Nargoond. End of month. 30th and 31st Bombay N. I. formed, to contain faithful men from mutinous 21st and 27th. End of month. Faithful men of mutinous 3d, 36th, and 61st Bengal N. I., formed into a new regiment in Punjaub. July 2. Roberts with Rajpootana Field-force reach Jeypoor. July 8. India Bill passed the Commons. July 9. India Bill read a first time in Lords. July 9. Tanteea Topee plundered Tonk—soon afterwards driven out by Holmes. July 12. Rajah of Nargoond hanged at Belgaum. July 13. India Bill read second time in the Lords. July 14-20. Berkeley captured several small forts in Oude. July 17. Rattray captured rebel chiefs at Dehree. July 21. Hope Grant set out from Lucknow to confront rebels. July 23. Roberts left Tonk in pursuit of Tanteea Topee. July 28. Hope Grant relieved Maun Singh from siege at Shahgunje. July 29. Hope Grant entered Fyzabad, and drove out rebels. July 30. Cavanagh defeated a body of rebels in Muhiabad. July 31. India Bill passed the Lords. July 31. Outbreak of prisoners at Mymensing. Aug. 1. Bundela rebels seized Jaloun—expelled by Macduff. Aug. 2. India Bill (Act) received royal assent. Aug. 3. Man Singh captured Paoree. Aug. 7. Court of Directors elected seven members for new Council of India. Aug. 8. Roberts defeated Tanteea Topee at Sunganeer. Aug. 11. Parkes headed a column from Neemuch, to check Tanteea Topee. Aug. 12. Tanteea Topee checked at Marwar frontier, by Erinpoora force. Aug. 13. Horsford retook Sultanpore from Oude rebels. Aug. 13. Carpenter defeated rebels near Kirwee. Aug. 14. Roberts defeated Tanteea Topee at Kattara. Aug. 20. Tanteea Topee crossed Chumbul to Julra Patteen. Aug. 23. Napier drove Man Singh out of Paoree. Aug. 25-29. Hope Grant fighting with Oude rebels outside Sultanpoor. Aug. 29. Brahmin plot discovered at Gwalior. Aug. 31. Disarmed 62d and 69th B. N. I. mutinied at Moultan. Aug. 31. Man Singh encamped at Sirsee, north of Goonah. Sep. 1. Ashburner defeated rebels near Mahoni. Sep. 1. Last day of E. I. Company’s governing power. Sep. 2. New Council of India commenced its sittings. Sep. 5. Napier defeated Man Singh at Bujeepore. Sep. 15. Michel defeated Tanteea Topee at Beora. Sep. 16-30. Continuous chase after Tanteea Topee, by various British columns. Oct. 3-8. Dawson besieged by Oude rebels at Sundeela. Oct. 5. Eveleigh defeated rebels at Meeangunje. Oct. 8. Barker and Dawson defeated rebels at Punno. Oct. 19. Tanteea Topee defeated by Michel at Sindwah. Oct. 25. Tanteea Topee defeated at Multhone. Oct. 29. Beni Madhoo defeated at Poorwa. Oct. 30. Mehndee Hossein defeated at Sufdergunje. Oct. 31. Tanteea Topee crossed the Nerbudda. Nov. 1. Queen’s Proclamation issued. Nov. 1. Sir Colin’s final plans laid. November. Gradual defeat and surrender of rebels in Oude and Behar. November. Gradual defeat and surrender of rebels in Central India.

Events in Persia.

1856.

(Summer). Persia sent an army against Herat. Aug. 22. Orders received at Bombay to prepare fleet and army against Persia. Oct. 22. East India Company protested against expense of Persian Expedition. Oct. 22. Orders received at Bombay for force to embark. Oct. 26. Persians captured Herat. Nov. 1. Governor-general declared war against Persia. Nov. 20. Outram departed from England to command Persian Expedition. Nov. 26. Stalker left Bombay for Persian Gulf. Dec. 7. Stalker and 1st Division landed near Bushire. Dec. 10. Stalker and 1st Division captured Bushire.

1857.

Jan. 30. Outram arrived at Bushire, with 2d Column. Feb. 3. Debates in Parliament concerning Persia. Feb. 3. Outram marched from Bushire to Borasjoon. Feb. 9. Night-attack by Persians at Khoosh-aub. Feb. 12. ? Havelock arrived at Bushire. Mar. 4. Treaty of Peace between England and Persis signed at Paris. Mar. 14. Suicide of Stalker at Bushire. Mar. 17. Suicide of Ethersey at Bushire. Mar. 19. Treaty of Peace ratified at London. Mar. 26. Outram defeated Persians at Mohamrah. Apr. 1. Rennie defeated Persians at Ahwaz. Apr. 5. News of the Treaty reached Bushire. Apr. 14. Treaty ratified at Teheran. May 9. Outram’s army in Persia broken up. May 12. ? Outram and Havelock left Persia for India. (Autumn). Evacuation of Herat by the Persians, and consequent evacuation of Persia by the British.

Events in China and Japan.

1856.

Oct. 8. Affair of the Lorcha _Arrow_ near Canton. Oct. 23-25. Seymour captured Forts in Canton river. Oct. 28-29. Partial Bombardment of Canton. Nov. 3. Yeh refused a personal conference. Nov. 6. Naval action with junks in Canton river. Nov. 8. Chinese employed fire-rafts against British ships. Nov. 26. British captured other Forts below Canton. Dec. 10. Bowring’s proceedings approved by home government. Dec. 11. Dispute at Nagasaki with Japanese authorities.

1857.

Jan. 1-4. Attacks and counter-attacks in Canton river. Jan. 10. Bowring’s further proceedings approved. Jan. 26. Japanese edict favourable to English ships. Feb. 3. Debates in parliament on Chinese affairs. Feb. 12. Partial destruction of Canton by the British. Feb. 24. Great debate in House of Lords on China. Mar. 3. House of Commons condemned Chinese War—Ministers therefore dissolved parliament. Apr. 6. War-junks destroyed in Canton river. Apr. 7. ? Ashburnham left England for China. Apr. 21. Elgin left England for China. May 25. Attack on junks in Escape Creek. June 1. Attack on junks in Fatshan Creek. July (early). Elgin arrived at Hong-kong. July (end). Elgin proceeded to confer with Canning at Calcutta. Sep. 9. Elliot made reconnaissance of Chinese junk-fleet. Dec. 12. Elgin sent formal demands on Yeh. Dec. 24. On Yeh’s refusal, Elgin resolved on stern measures. Dec. 28-31. Cannonading and fighting around Canton. Dec. 31. British captured all the defences of Canton.

1858.

Jan. 5. Parkes captured Commissioner Yeh. Jan. 9. Provisional government established at Canton. Feb. 10. Blockade of Canton river ended. Mar. (end). Elgin proceeded to Shang-hae. Apr. 24. Elgin sent his demands to the emperor at Pekin. Apr. 30. Emperor appointed a plenipotentiary. May 20. Negotiations failing, Elgin resumed hostilities. May 20. Forts on the Pei-ho destroyed by English. June 3. Straubenzee encountered Chinese outside Canton. June 26. Elgin signed Treaty with China at Tien-sing. July 6. Elgin returned to Shang-hae. Aug. 3. Elgin went to Nagasaki in Japan. Aug. 11. Namtow punished for breach of flag of truce. Aug. 16. Elgin arrived at Jedo. Aug. 26. Elgin signed Treaty with Japan at Jedo. Sep. & Oct. Gradual settlement of details of Chinese tariff.

INDEX.

Act, abstract of, for changing government of India, 226

Agra, situation and description, 109

——, condition at different dates, 174, 284

——, number of persons in fort, 285

——, mutiny of Kotah Contingent, 283

——, battle near, and partial destruction of city, 283, 284

——, Greathed’s arrival, and victory over rebels, 352

Ahwaz. [Persia.]

AKBAR THE GREAT, 61

ALEXANDER, Mr, Civil Commissioner of Rohilcund, 496

Allahabad, head-quarters of Canning and Sir Colin, 546

——, situation and description, 107, 488

——, mutiny and devastation, 158

Allygurh, position and description, 111

——, mutiny at, 112

Almora, ladies and children at, 286

Alum Bagh, operations at, 262, 334, 363

AMHERST, Earl, power of Mogul lessened by, 67

Amorah, victory over 3000 rebels at, by Rowcroft, 470

ANDREWS, Captain, blown up at Ghazeeoodeen Nuggur, 233

ANGELO, Lieutenant, intrepidity at Mooradabad, 491

ANSON, General, Commander-in-chief in India, 118

——, operations, and death at Kurnaul, 118, 231, 233

Area and population of India, 31

Army, British, in India, details relating to, 24, 49, 118, 211, 220, 390, 426, 483, 495, 609

Arrah, disasters at, 270, 271, 470

——, Wake’s defence of Boyle’s House at, 269

——, operations in and near, 269, 272

_Arrow_, lorcha. [China.]

ASHBURNHAM, General. [China.]

Assam, operations against mutineers, 339

Aurungabad, disaffection at, 291

AURUNGZEBE, Mogul emperor, 62

Azimghur, mutiny and operations at, 154, 478

BABER, Mogul emperor, 61

Badulla Serai, engagement at, 235

BAJEE RAO MAHARAJAH, Peishwa of Mahrattas, 122

BANKS, Major, commissioner of Oude—death, 165, 325

——, house at Lucknow, fortified, 418

BARBER, Lieutenant, cut to pieces near Minpooree, 113

Bareilly, mutiny at, 114, 170

——, mutineers’ march to Delhi, 241

——, recaptured by Campbell and Jones, 492, 494

BARNARD, Sir Henry, takes command of Delhi force, 47, 233

——, engagements before Delhi, 236, 239

——, death, 242

Barrackpore, disturbances and inquiry at, 38, 39

——, 19th B. N. I. disbanded at, 400

Barracks, description of, at Company’s stations, 28

BATSON, Mr, eventful escape from Delhi, 80

BATTYE, Captain, of the Guide Corps, death at Delhi, 238

BEATSON, Captain, death at Cawnpore, 253

Begum Kothee, palace at Lucknow, 418

—— of Oude, character and proceedings, 610

—— Sumroo, convent of, at Sirdhana, 57

Behar. [Arrah; Jugdispore; Lugard; &c.]

Benares, situation and description, 104

——, mutinies and operations at, 105, 154, 156, 279

Bengal Army, proposed reconstruction of, 483

—— Presidency, description, &c., 16, 25

Beora, Tanteea Topee defeated by Michel at, 558

Berhampore, disaffection and disarming at, 40, 266

BERKELEY, Brigadier, operations near Soraon, 545

Berozepoor, fort taken by Goorkhas, 403

Bhotuck. [Rhotuk.]

Bithoor, situation and description, 122

——, battles at and near, 254, 258

——, massacres at. [Cawnpore; Nena Sahib.]

BOILEAU, Captain, won battle of Mundoree, 341

Bombay mutinous regiments erased from Army List, 534

—— presidency, description and army of, 16, 26

—— army strengthened, 559

——, rejoicings at Queen’s Proclamation, 611

Boodayoun, disturbances at, 115

BOURCHIER, Colonel, on causes of mutiny, 606

BOWRING, Sir John. [China.]

BOYLE’S House at Arrah, defence of, 269

British army in India. [Army.]

—— possessions in India, 4, 14

Bundelcund, situation and description, 179

Burmah, policy of king of, 430

BURTON, Major, and sons, killed at Kotah, 354

Busherutgunje, Havelock’s two victories at, 255, 256

Bushire. [Persia.]

Cadets, education of, 26

Calcutta, description and population, 98, 99

——, excitement and demonstrations, 99, 149, 264

——, rejoicings at Queen’s Proclamation, 612

Calpee, town and fort taken by Sir Hugh Rose, 506

Camp before Delhi, description of, 298

CAMPBELL, Sir Colin [Lord Clyde], characteristics of, 222, 496

——, left England for India, 222

——, at Buntara and Cawnpore, 364, 391

——, relieved garrison at Lucknow, 366

——, strength of his army of Oude, 409, 415

——, finally conquered Lucknow, 425

——, interview with Jung Bahadoor, 418

——, interview with Lord Canning, 466

——, general orders by, 423, 433, 547

——, at Futteghur, 473

——, victory near Shahjehanpoor, 497

——, troops thanked by, 498, 514

——, proceedings in Nov. 1858, 611

——, plan for final subjection of Oude, 611

CANNING, Viscount, hostility to, in Calcutta, 212, 213

——, orders and congratulatory letters, 214, 220, 312, 350

——, Oude Proclamation, debates on, 450

——, reply to Ellenborough’s dispatch, 541

——, Proclamation accompanying Queen’s Proclamation, 624

Canton, [China.]

Cartridges, commencement of troubles relating to, 36, 89

CASE, Colonel, death of, at Lucknow, 134

Cashmere Gate, Delhi, blowing up of, 307

Castes and Creeds in Indian army, 162

Cavalry, consequences of deficiency in, 212, 253

CAVANAGH, Mr, adventure at Lucknow, 371

CAVANAGH, Private, gallantry of, at Onao, 256

Causes of Mutiny, opinions on, 605-608

Cawnpore, position and description, 122

——, messages denoting insecurity, 124, 139

——, Wheeler’s preparations, 125, 126

——, sufferings in the intrenchment, 126, 130, 136, &c.

——, Nena Sahib’s deceitful promises, 126, 136, 137

——, boat massacre, and partial escapes, 137-139

——, death of Sir Hugh Wheeler, 139

——, frightful scenes in the house of slaughter, 131, 139, 141-143, 144-145

——, battle and capture by Havelock, 252, 253

——, Neill assumes military command, 254

——, Windham’s defeat by Gwalior rebels, 377

——, decisive victory by Sir Colin Campbell, 378

Central India Field-forces, services of, 507, 516, 553

Chandnee Chowk, Delhi, description of, 435

CHEEK, Ensign, heroism and death, at Allahabad, 159

CHESTER, Colonel, killed at Badulla Serai, 235

China, Retrospect of intercourse with England, 585

——, Lorcha _Arrow_, seized by Chinese authorities, 587

——, Sir John Bowring resolved on forcible measures, 587

——, Sir Michael Seymour captured forts near Canton, 588

——, Commissioner Yeh, correspondence with, 588

——, destruction of junks in Canton river, 589

——, European factories burned at Canton, 589

——, Canton partly burned by English, 590

——, debates in parliament concerning, 591

——, Bowring, Seymour, and Parkes, difficulties of, 592

——, Elgin, Ashburnham, and Straubenzee sent out, 593

——, great destruction of junks at Fatshan, 594

——, operations delayed by mutiny in India, 595

——, bombardment and capture of Canton, 597

——, Yeh sent as prisoner to Calcutta, 598

——, Elgin, Gros, Putiatine, and Reed, proceeded to Shang-hae and Tien-sing, 598

——, destruction of forts on Pei-ho river, 599

——, Plenipotentiaries sign treaties at Tien-sing, 600

——, untoward conflict at Namtow, 601

——, final pacification, 602

Chunar, sacred Hindoo fort near Benares, 106

Chupatties, mystery of their transmission, 35

Chuttra, English’s defeat of mutineers at, 343

Civil service, India, regulations, 5

Civilians, honours to distinguished, 485

CLARK, Lieut., at Jubbulpoor, frustrates conspirators, 346

CLYDE, Lord. [Campbell, Sir Colin.]

COCKBURN, Lieutenant, gallant services at Hattrass, 112

COKE, Brigadier, services against rebels, 241, 496

COLVIN, Mr, proclamation disapproved by government, 110

——, disarms 44th and 67th B. N. I. at Agra, 111

——, death, services, and character, 348

Compensation to sufferers, arrangements for, 484

Cost of English soldiers in the East, 26

COTTON, Colonel, supersedes Polwhele at Agra, 285

Council of India, names of members, 575

Courts-martial on mutineers, arrangements, 51

Covenanted and uncovenanted service of E. I. Company, 443

Crime, lessening of, under recent Indian reforms, 6

CROWE, Lieut., earns the Victoria Cross by gallantry, 258

CURRIE, Captain, mortally wounded at Cawnpore, 253

DALHOUSIE, Marquis of, career as Governor-general, 2, 87, 218

Darjeeling, proposed colonisation at, 518

Deesa, military operations at, 293, 550

DELAFOSSE, Lieutenant, gallantry at Cawnpore, 135

Delhi, history and description, 63, 67

——, arrival of mutineers from Meerut, 52

——, mutiny of native troops, 73

——, atrocities and sufferings at, 74-79

——, king of Delhi assumes command, 74, 75

——, operations of siege army, 231, 236, 239, 243, 301, 303

——, Cashmere Gate blown in, 307

——, storming and capture, 306-310

——, state of, after the siege, 311, 355, 383, 435

——, king of, mutineers sanctioned by, 74

—— ——, captured by Hodson, 313

—— ——, behaviour and treatment in confinement, 356

—— ——, submitted to trial, 404

DEWAN MOOLRAJ, rebellion of, 3

Dholpore, mutineers plan attack on Agra, 351

Dil Koosha, palace at Lucknow, 369

Dinapoor, mutiny, and its consequences, 268, 274

Distances in India, table of, 12

District-regulations, 15

Doab, important towns in, 107

——, operations in. [Allahabad; Cawnpore; &c.]

DORIN, Mrs, killed at Lucknow Residency, 327

Dorunda, plundered by Ramgurh mutineers, 342

DOUGLAS, Captain, killed at Delhi, 74

D’OYLEY, Captain, killed at Agra, 284

DUFF, Rev. Dr, on causes of mutiny, 606

Dumdum, cartridge troubles commenced at, 38

Dumoh evacuated by Europeans, 347

DUNBAR, Captain, killed at Arrah, 271

Dust and hot winds of India, 465

East India Company. [Army; British India; Covenanted Service, &c.]

East India Company, discussions concerning, 561-573

——, petition to parliament, 613

——, disclaim selfish policy in India, 615

——, object to 1st and 2d India Bills, 618

——, object to 3d India Bill, 621

——, statute ending governing powers, 622

ECKFORD, Lieutenant, narrow escape at Kukerowlee, 492

Educational establishments for natives, 6

EDWARDES, Colonel, Commissioner of Peshawur, 199

——, opinions on Indian government, 607

EDWARDS, Mr, exciting escape from Boodayoun, 115

Electric Telegraphs in India, 9, 416

ELGIN, Earl of. [China.]

ELLENBOROUGH, Earl of, secret dispatch, 541, 564, &c.

ELLIOT, Commodore. [China.]

ELPHINSTONE, Lord, governor of Bombay. [Bombay.]

Enfield rifles, effect on enemy, 250

ENGLISH, Major, defeats rebels at Chuttra, 343

ETHERSEY, Commodore. [Persia.]

Eurasians, or half-castes of India, 98

European troops. [Army, British.]

Europeans in India, and the government, 214

Excise laws in India, 609

EYRE, Major Vincent, defeats rebels at Koondun Puttee, 261

—— —— ——, defeats rebels at Arrah and Narainpore, 272

FAGAN, Captain, killed at Mhow, 186

Fatshan. [China.]

FAYERS, Lieutenant, killed near Minpooree, 113

Ferozpore, disturbances at, 195, &c.

FINCH, Captain, cavalry attack in Saugor territory, 553

FINNIS, Colonel, killed at Meerut, 52

FISHER, Colonel, killed at Sultanpoor, 168

Fort William. [Calcutta.]

FRANKS, Brigadier, operations in Oude, 402, &c.

FRAZER, Mr, killed at Delhi, 74

FRERE, Mr, Commissioner of Sinde, controversy with missionaries, 530

Fund, Indian Mutiny Relief, 226, 623

Furlough, peculiarities in native, 36

Futteghur, mutiny, flight, and murder of Europeans, 134

Futtehpoor, outbreak at, 172

Fyzabad, mutiny, flight of Europeans, 165-167

GABBETT, Lieutenant, killed at Nujuffghur, 300

Ganges, towns and canal of, 8, 104

GARDINER, Sergeant, gallantry at Bareilly, 494

GOLDNEY, Colonel, killed during flight from Fyzabad, 167

Goorkhas, characteristics and services, 378, 348, 393, 529

GORDON, Captain, killed at Delhi, 72

Goruckpore, contests with rebels at, 393, 431

GRAHAM, Dr, killed at Sealkote, 203

GRANT, Mr, temporary Lieutenant-governor of Central Provinces, 214-280

GRANT, Sir Hope, defeats rebels outside Delhi, 238

—— —— —— —— at Serai Ghat, 380

—— —— —— —— at Meeangunje, 404

—— —— —— —— at Towrie, 499

—— —— —— —— at Nawabgunge, 523

—— —— —— —— in Fyzabad district, 543

——, Sir Patrick, temporary Commander-in-chief, 211

GREATHED, Brigadier, services against rebels, 350, 352, &c.

——, Mr H. H., killed at Delhi, 314

GROS, Baron, French plenipotentiary. [China.]

GUBBINGS, Captain, killed at Sultanpore, 168

GUBBINS, Mr, Commissioner of Oude, on causes of mutiny, 605

Guide Corps, march, services, and return from Delhi, 234-437

Gujerat, disarmed by Sir R. Shakespear, 501

Gulowlie, Rose’s victory at, 506

Gwalior, position and description, 187, 510

——, mutiny at, 112, 188

——, capture and recapture of, 509-512

——, conspiracy defeated, 559

HALIBURTON, Captain, disperses rebels near Benares, 279

HALL, Colonel, gallant defence at Shahjehanpore, 495

HARRIS, Lord, on newspaper press of India, 217

——, Major, killed at Mhow, 186

Hattrass, refugees, and fighting at, 112

HAVELOCK, Sir H., commenced operations in the Doab, 247

—— —— ——, victory at Futtehpoor, 249

—— —— ——, —— at Aong, 251

—— —— ——, —— at Pandoo Nuddee, 251

—— —— ——, —— at Cawnpore, 251

—— —— ——, actions on road to Lucknow, 254, &c.

—— —— ——, second defeat of Nena Sahib, 258

—— —— ——, difficulties after retreat to Cawnpore, 259

—— —— ——, death at Lucknow, 369

——, Lieutenant, won Victoria Cross by gallantry, 253

HAYES, Major, killed near Minpooree, 113

Hazarebagh, mutiny at, 274

‘Headman’ of a village, position and duties, 119

Heat of India, influence on Europeans, 66, 519

Herat, cause of the Persian war. [Persia], 578

HEWETT, Major-general, conduct at Meerut, 53

Hindoos, characteristics of, 105, 438, &c.

HODSON, Major, defeat rebels near Rohtuk, 299

—— ——, capture King of Delhi, 313

—— ——, killed at Lucknow, 426

——, Mrs, account of visit to King of Delhi, 356

HOLKAR, one of the Mahratta princes, 182

HOLMES, Major, killed at Segowlie, 274

HOME, Lieutenant, services and death, 315, 351

Hong-kong. [China.]

Honours conferred on faithful natives, 546, 548

Hoogly river, described, 98

HOPE, Brigadier Adrian, services at Bithoor and Shumshabad, 391, 394

HOPE, Brigadier Adrian, killed at Rhodamow, 473

Hospitals, periodicals supplied to by government, 538

India Bills, discussions on, in parliament, 561-573

Indian Native army, on reorganisation of, 386

Indore, mutiny and murder of Europeans, 185, 186

Industrial development of India, 7

INGLIS, Sir J., heroic defence of Lucknow, 165, 259, 324, 327, 336

JACOB, Brigadier, of the Sinde horse, 206, 207, &c.

Jacobabad, station for Jacob’s Sinde horse, 207

JAMSETJEE JEJEEBHOY, Sir, Parsee baronet, 501, 612

Japan, Elgin’s expedition to Nagasaki, 603

——, thence to Jedo, 603

——, treaty of commerce signed by Elgin, 603

Jedo. [Japan.]

JEHANGHIRE, Mogul emperor, 61

Jelpigoree, conflict of mutineers, 375

Jelum, Sepoy mutinies at, 202

JENNINGS, Rev. Mr, killed at Delhi, 74

Jhansi, mutinies and fighting at, 179, 440, 478, 479

——, Ranee of, 180, 478

Jheend, Rajah of, rewarded for fidelity, 549

JONES, Brigadier, operations at Nageena and Shahjehanpore, 472, 496

Jowra Alipore, Gwalior rebels defeated by Napier at, 515

Jubbulpoor, precautions against mutiny, 178, 281, 346

Jugdispore taken by Lugard, 487

Jullundur, precautions against mutiny, 196

Julra Patteen, occupied by Tanteea Topee, 557

Jumma Musjid at Delhi, description, 65

Jumna, immolation of devotees in, 107

JUNG BAHADOOR, character and proceedings, 169, 423, 519

Junks, destruction of. [China.]

Kaiser Bagh, palace and garden at Lucknow, 421

KANTZOW, Lieutenant de, gallantry at Minpooree, 113

Kattara, Tanteea Topee defeated by Roberts at, 557

KERR, Lord Mark, contest with rebels at Azimghur, 469

KHAN BAHADOOR KHAN, rebel leader at Bareilly, 170

Khoosh-aub, victory at. [Persia.]

KIRK, Dr, killed at Gwalior, 189

Kirwee, treasure captured at by Whitlock, 552

KOER SINGH, leader of Dinapoor rebels, 269, 344, 469, 487

Kolapore, mutiny and murders at, 289

Kotah, recaptured from rebels by Roberts, 442

Kukerowlee, victory of Jones at, 492

Kumaon battalion, fidelity and bravery of, 529

Lahore, mutiny of native troops at, 204

——, position and description of, 193

LAKE, Lord, reminiscences of, 67

LAWRENCE, Colonel, in Rajpootana, 354

——, Sir H., difficulties of position at Lucknow, 89-95

—— ——, disastrous battle of Chinhut, 164

—— ——, Muchee Bhowan fort blown up by, 164

—— ——, death and character, 165, 322

——, Sir J., energetic measures in Punjaub, 199-204

—— ——, siege-army for Delhi formed by, 240

—— ——, invaluable services to India, 384

—— ——, pension granted to, 574

—— ——, opinions on government of India, 607

LESLIE, Sir Norman, killed at Rohnee, 151

LLOYD, Major-general, disasters at Dinapoor, 267, 268

Lorcha _Arrow_, cause of Chinese war. [China.]

Lotus flower, transmission among natives, 36

LOWTHER, Captain, Rajah of Assam captured by, 339

Lucknow, situation and description, 84

——, first symptoms of mutiny, 89, 96

——, invested by rebels, 164

——, details of siege by rebels, 317-333

——, effects of heat, flies, and impurities, 325, 326

——, sufferings of ladies and children, 325, 330, 335

——, scarcity, and high prices of provisions, 330, 332

——, brilliant achievements of defenders, 328, 331, &c.

——, great losses among garrison, 259, 263, 335, 366

——, relieved by Havelock and Outram, 263, 335

——, second relief, by Sir Colin Campbell, 368

——, spoliation of palaces, 360

——, evacuation by the British, 368

——, state of, after the evacuation, 413

——, reconquered by Sir Colin Campbell, 425

——, condition of in May 1858, 522

LUDLOW, Mr, on causes of mutiny, 605

LUGARD, Sir E., Koer Singh defeated by, at Azimghur, 469

——, ——, various victories over rebels, 487

LUMSDEN, Lieutenant, killed at Nujuffghur, 300

LYELL, Dr, killed at Patna, 153

M’CAUSLAND, Colonel, Bareilly rebels defeated by, 406

MADHOO SINGH, surrender to Sir Colin Campbell, 610

Madras presidency and city, 15

——, number of troops, 26

——, 8th native cavalry disarmed, 288

——, troops in Central Provinces, 280

——, general fidelity of native troops, 288

——, missionary dispute, 535

Magazine at Delhi, blown up by Willoughby, 71

—— at Lucknow, blown up by Lawrence, 164

MAHOMED HUSSEIN, rebel leader in Oude, 166, 487

Mahrattas, nation, territory, and characteristics, 62, 181

Mail post, Indian runners, dâks, and eckas, 22

Malagurh Fort, blown up—Lieutenant Home killed, 351

MAN SINGH, rebel chief in Gwalior territory. [Gwalior]

MANSON, Mr, assassinated near Nargoond, 532

March of Indian armies described, 29

Martial law proclaimed, 213

MARTIN, Lieutenant, shot at Mhow, 180

Martinière, college in Lucknow. [Lucknow.]

Massacres. [Cawnpore; Delhi; Jhansi; Meerut; &c.]

MAUN SINGH, of Shahgunje, 465, &c.

MAXWELL, Colonel, rebels defeated by, at Chowra, 403

MEAD, Mr, on causes of mutiny, 606

Meean Meer, cantonment for Lahore, 194, 287

Meerut, position and description of, 49

——, mutiny and massacre at, 50-53

—— mutineers march to Delhi, 52

——, Wilson’s brigade march from, 232

METCALFE’S House, outside Delhi, struggles at, 297

Mhow, mutiny at, 186

MICHEL, Major-gen., victories over Tanteea Topee, 558, 611

Military stations and divisions in India, 208, 209, 293

MILL, Major, killed near Fyzabad, 167

——, Mrs, and children, eventful escape of, 167

MILLER, Colonel, rebels defeated by, at Konee, 347

MILLMAN, engagement with rebels at Atrowlia, 431

Minpooree, re-occupation of, 353

Mirzapore, description and defences, 106, 279

Missionaries, controversy with, at Hyderabad, 530

Missionary dispute at Madras, 535

Mohamrah, victory at. [Persia.]

MONTGOMERY, Mr, Chief-commissioner of Oude, 465

——, proclamation for disarming Oude, 610

——, Major, defeat of rebels at Allygurh, 286

Mooradabad, mutiny at, 171

——, rebel chieftains captured, 491

Moosa Bagh, palace at Lucknow, 424

Moultan, disarming and mutiny at, 551

Moulvie of Fyzabad, stronghold captured, 425

—— ——, characteristics, 498

—— ——, killed at Powayne, 524

Muchee Bhowan, fort, at Lucknow, 322

Multhone, Tanteea Topee defeated by Michel at, 611

Mundoree, action at, 341

MUNRO, Sir T., opinions on press of India, 215

Murdan, mutineers captured at, 198

MURRAY, Honourable A. C. [Persia.]

Mutiny, discussions on causes of, 389, 605

—— Relief Fund, 623

NABAH, Rajah of, rewarded for fidelity, 549

NADIR SHAH, early conqueror of India, 62

Nagasaki. [Japan.]

Nagode, mutiny and disaster at, 282

Nagpoor, position and defences, 176

Namtow, operations at. [China.]

NAPIER, Brigadier R., operations against Gwalior rebels, 515, 555, &c.

Nargoond, Rajah, treachery of, 532

Narratives of Delhi fugitives, 75-77

Naval Brigade, arrived at Benares, 340

—— ——, services at Lucknow, 366

——, —— at Chuckerderpore, 518

——, —— at Hurreah, 525

—— value of services, 539

—— [Peel; Sotheby.]

Native regiments. [Army.]

Nawabgunge, Grant’s victory at, 523

NEAVE, Lieutenant, killed at Gwalior, 511

Neemuch, mutiny and contests, 184, 386

NEILL, Brigadier, services at Benares and Allahabad, 155, 157, 160

——, in command at Cawnpore, 144, 254

——, repulsed enemy at Cawnpore, 255, 258

——, killed at Lucknow, 632

NENA SAHIB, history and character, 122

——, treacherous promises, 126, 127, 130

——, joined the rebels as leader, 129

——, massacred fugitives from Futteghur, 133

——, dreadful massacre at Cawnpore, 142

——, issued vaunting proclamations, 146

——, defeated by Havelock at Bithoor, 253

——, second defeat by Havelock at Bithoor, 258

——, chosen as Peishwa by Gwalior rebels, 508

——. [Cawnpore; Havelock; Wheeler.]

Nepaul. [See also Goorkhas; Jung Bahadoor], 169

NEWBERRY, Cornet—killed at Nuseerabad, 183

Newspaper correspondents, 400

——. [Press.]

Newspapers of India, native, 46, 217

——, English, 205

NICHOLSON, Brig., character and services, 298, 314

——, operations against Sealkote mutineers, 204

——, disarmed native troops at Umritsir, 287

——, defeat of enemy at Nujuffghur, 299

——, killed at Delhi, 307

Nizam of the Deccan, fidelity to the English, 560

Non-regulation, provinces and districts, 15

Nowgong, mutiny and eventful escapes, 180, 181

Nowsherah, station destroyed by river-torrent, 551

Nujuffghur, Nicholson’s victory at, 299

Nuseerabad, mutiny at, 183

Nynee Tal, refuge at hill-station, 114, 115, &c.

Onao, battle won by Havelock, 255

Opium Trade. [See also China], 609

ORR, Mrs and Miss Jackson, sufferings at Lucknow, 423

Orthography of Oriental names and terms, 13

OSBORNE, Captain, skilful management at Rewah, 180

Oude, history and description, 83

——, royal family, relations of E. I. C. with, 84-88

——, queen, goes to England, 88

—— ——, petition from, 161

—— ——, discords in royal family, 520

——, army, mutiny, military events, 89, 399, 426, 543, 610, &c.

——, gradual pacification, 610

——. [Campbell; Havelock; Lawrence; Lucknow; &c.]

OUTRAM, Sir James. [Persia.]

——, plan for reconquering Oude, 250

——, nobly yielded command to Havelock, 262

OUTRAM, Sir James, wounded in entering Lucknow, 263

——, appointed to hold Alum Bagh, 370

——, defeated 30,000 rebels at, 391

——, defeated 20,000 rebels at, 401

——, operations in taking Lucknow, 415, 422

——, military councillor at Calcutta, 467

——, volunteer cavalry thanked by, 526

PALMERSTON, Lord, India Bill, 564

——. [India bills; Parliament.]

Paoree, Man Singh defeated by Napier at, 555

PARKES, Mr. [China.]

Parliament, discussions on the mutiny, &c., 218, 221, 448

—— discussions, on India bills, &c., 564

Parsee address to Lord Elphinstone, 289

—— rejoicings at Bombay, 611

Patna, disturbances and precautions, 152, 153, 267

PEEL, Captain Sir W., services with naval brigade at Kudjna, 364

PEEL, Captain Sir W., services with naval brigade at Lucknow, 366

PEEL, Captain Sir W., wounded at Lucknow, 417

—— —— —— ——, died at Cawnpore, 475

PEH-KWEI, governor at Canton. [China.]

Pei-ho, operations in river. [China]

PENNY, Colonel, killed at Nuseerabad, 183

——, General, operations against rebels, 355, 491

—— ——, killed at Kukerowlee, 491

Pershadeepore, mutiny at, 168

Persia, disputes concerning Herat, &c., 578

——, war declared against, 579

——, expeditions to, 580

——, capture of Bushire, 580

——, action at Khoosh-aub, 581

——, suicide of Stalker and Ethersey, 582

——, operations at Mohamrah and Ahwaz, 582

——, Treaty of Peace, 583

Peshawur, mutinies and precautions, 197-199, 204

Phillour, precautions against mutiny, 197

PLATT, Colonel, killed at Mhow, 186

PLOWDEN, Mr, his position at Nagpoor, 177

——, Captain, services with Goorkhas, 432

Plunder, Sir Colin Campbell’s order concerning, 423

POLEHAMPTON, Rev. Mr, killed at Lucknow, 329

Police system of India, 200, 480

Poonah, precautions against rebellion, 290

POWELL, Colonel, killed at Kudjna, 364

Presidencies, area and population, 31

Press of India, 46, 205, 215, 218, 400

——, liberty restricted, 215

——. [Newspapers.]

Proclamations, Viscount Canning’s, 450, 624

——, Sir Colin Campbell’s, 610

——, Mr Montgomery’s, 610

——, Queen Victoria’s, 611, 623

——. [Campbell; Canning; Ellenborough; &c.]

Prophecies and mysteries, native, 485, 531

Punjaub, history and description, 191, 192

——, precautions against mutiny, 200, 201

——. [Lahore; Lawrence; Moultan; Nicholson; Peshawur; Sealkote; Sikhs; &c.]

Putialah, Rajah of, rewarded for fidelity, 549

PUTIATINE, Admiral Count. [China; Japan.]

Queen of Oude. [Begum; Oude.]

Queen Victoria’s proclamation, 609-612, 623

RAIKES, Mr, on causes of mutiny, 606

Railways of India, lengths, &c., 119, 157, 224, 477

RAINES, Major, rebels defeated at Rowah, 395

Rajahs, honours for fidelity of, 549

Rajpootana, situation and description, 189

——. [Napier; Nuseerabad; Roberts; Tanteea Topee; &c.]

RAMSAY, Capt. (Major), operations near Nynee Tal, 115, 357

Ranee of Jhansi, killed at Gwalior, 511

——. [Calpee; Gwalior; Jhansi; Tanteea Topee.]

RATTRAY, Captain, services of Sikh battalion, 275, &c.

Rebels, discussions on punishment of, 455

REED, Mr, American plenipotentiary. [China.]

——, Major-gen., brief services against rebels, 235, 242

——, resigned command at Delhi, 243

REES, Mr, on causes of the mutiny, 605

Regiments. [Army; Stations; &c.]

Regulation districts, 15

REID, Major, gallant achievements outside Delhi— 241, 297, &c.

Relief Fund, Indian Mutiny, 623

Religions of India, discussions concerning, 607

——, orders for respecting, 41

RENAUD, Major, killed at Cawnpore, 254

RENNIE, Capt., defeat of Persians at Ahwaz by. [Persia.]

Residency at Lucknow. [Inglis; Lawrence; Lucknow; &c.]

Revolt. [Barrackpore; Cartridge; Meerut; &c.]

Rewah, gallantly held by Osborne, 180, 345, &c.

Rhodamow Fort, disaster at, 473

ROBERTS, General, operations against Tanteea Topee, 555, 557, &c.

Rohilcund, position and description, 170

——, operations in, 114, 467, 495, 496, 610

——, rebel leaders in, 467

ROSE, Lieutenant, killed at Gwalior, 513

——, Sir Hugh, operations at Mudenpore, 438

—— —— —— at Jhansi, 478

—— —— —— at Koonch, 505

—— —— —— at Gwalior, 510, 516

—— —— ——, address to his army, 516

ROWCROFT, Brigadier, operations against rebels, 470, 610

RUSSELL, Mr W. H., graphic descriptions by, 400, 414, &c.

SALAR JUNG, prime-minister to Nizam, 560

SALKELD, Lieutenant, heroism at Delhi, 315

Satara, Mahratta proceedings at, 290, 480

Saugor, fight between native troops at, 281

—— and Nerbudda territories, 178, 345, 553

SCINDIA, history and family, 182

——, offered aid to British, 110

——, difficulties with mutineers, 351, 507

——, expulsion from Gwalior, 508

——, reinstatement at Gwalior, 514

Sealkote, mutiny at, 202, 203

—— mutineers. [Nicholson.]

SEATON, Brigadier, services against rebels, 382, 475, &c.

Secrole, noticed, 105

Secunder Bagh, palace and garden at Lucknow, 365

Secunderabad, Rohillas defeated at, 291

Seetapoor, mutiny at, 168

——, operations commence from, 610

Seetabuldee, fort of Nagpoor, 177

Sepoys. [Army; Regiments; Troops.]

SEYMOUR, Admiral Sir Michael [China.]

SHAHJEHAN, Mogul emperor, 62

Shahjehanpore, mutiny and massacre at, 171

——, military operations, 495, 496, &c.

Shah Nujeef at Lucknow, 365

——, Peel’s services at, 366

Shang-hae. [China.]

SHOWERS, Brigadier, operations against Delhi, 297

Sikhs, origin and description, 192

——, fidelity during mutiny, 156, 275, 344

SIMPSON, Sergeant, gallantry at Rhodamow, 473

Sinde, details concerning, 205-207

Sirmoor battalion of Goorkhas, fidelity of, 529

SMITH, Brigadier, operations at Gwalior, &c., 511, &c.

Soldiers, English in India. [Army; &c.]

Sonthal Pergunnahs, mutiny at, 151

SOORUT SINGH of Benares, services to the English, 156

Soraon Field-force, services, 545

SOTHEBY’S Naval Brigade, services of, 402

SPENCER, Major, killed at Meean Meer, 287

SPOTTISWOODE, Captain, killed at Nuseerabad, 183

SPRING, Captain, killed at Jelum, 202

STALKER, Major-general. [Persia.]

STANLEY, Lord, India Bill and Council of India, 570

STEUART, Brigadier, operations in Deccan, 385

STEVENS, Captain, killed at Chinhut, 164

STRAUBENZEE, General. [China.]

STUART, Brigadier, at Mundisore and Chendaree, 385, 439

Sultanpore, actions by Franks and Hope Grant, 402, 610

Sunstroke, fatal effects of, 496, &c.

TANTEEA TOPEE, manœuvres and marches of, 478, 508, 555, 558, 611

——. [Michel; Napier; Roberts; &c.]

TAYLER, Mr, proceedings at Patna, 470, 476

——, removed from office, 476

Telegrams. [Electric telegraph.]

TIEN-SING. [China.]

Tola Narainpore, rebels defeated by Eyre at, 272

Thalookdars and Thalookdaree, 360, 525

Thugs and Thuggee, 11

Travelling in India, 18, 20

——. [Marching; Railways; &c.]

Troops, number, clothing, &c., 25, 26, 29, 224, 250, 302, 535, 609

——, disarming, 149, 150, 194, 198, &c.

——, marching and transport of, 29, 222, 501, 611

——. [Army; &c.]

TUCKER, Mr, killed at Futtehpoor, 172

Twigs, mystery of, in Gujerat, 531

Umballa, occurrences at, 118, 231

——, effects of cholera at, 201

Umritsir, position and description, 195

Vellore, revolt in, a premonitory symptom, 33

VENABLES, Mr, success against rebels, 278, 341

—— ——, death, and honourable testimonial, 519

Victoria Cross, bestowal for valour, 315, 464, 550

Vocabulary of Indian terms, 13

Volunteer cavalry of Oude, 526

WAKE, Mr, heroic defence of house at Arrah, 268

WALLEE DAD KHAN, rebel leader near Meerut, 174

WALPOLE, General, disaster at Rhodamow, 473

——, victory at Sirsa, 473

WATERFIELD, Major, killed near Ferozabad, 500

WHELER, Colonel, and the religion of the sepoys, 101

WHEELER, Sir Hugh, defensive operations, sufferings, and death. [Cawnpore; Nena Sahib.]

——, Miss, heroic conduct of, 139

WILLOUGHBY, Lieutenant, Delhi magazine exploded by, 71

WHITLOCK, General, operations in Bundelcund, 479

——, capture of treasure at Kirwee, 552

WINDHAM, General, disaster at Cawnpore, 376

WILSON, Sir Archdale, Meerut column headed by, 232

—— —— ——, victories of Ghazeeoodeen and Hindoun, 232

WILSON, Sir Archdale, at siege of Delhi, 243, 245, 298, 306, 311

——, honoured and rewarded, 314

——, commanded cavalry in Oude, 409

WINGFIELD, Mr, commissioner at Goruckpore, 487

YEH MINGCHIN, Chinese viceroy. [China.]

YULE, Colonel, killed outside Delhi, 238

Edinburgh: Printed by W. and R. Chambers.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

1. Corrected for to four on p. 96. 2. Corrected withinside to within on p. 314. 3. Silently corrected typographical errors. 4. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed. 5. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 6. Superscripts are denoted by a carat before a single superscript character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.