Page images
PDF
EPUB

who was said to be bis adopted son; but the latter failing to substantiate his claim, one of his uncles took possession of the Gudi without resistance by the people or interference by us. And because as Rajah de facto, and presumptively de jure, he was recognised by Lord William Bentinck as head of the State, Lord Dalhousie pretended that he had a precedent therein for rejecting any claimant by right of adoption in 1853, not—in favour of a rightful heir by blood or popular choice, but in favour simply of confiscation of the territory and its revenues. It may or may not be the duty of the Paramount Power to interfere in cases of disputed succession, but it never can be its duty or right to take advantage of a presumed or factitious flaw in the title of a particular claimant in order to shut out all the members of a family, some one of whom in the opinion of their people must be entitled to reign. Yet, this and nothing else was that which was done by Lord Dalhousie. Anund Rao was in 1853, in all due form, adopted by the dying Prince as his son and heir. The Rajah wrote to the Governor-General respectfully commending his youthful choice to his consideration and care, and asking for the recognition of his widow as Regent during the minority. He appealed to the second article of the subsisting treaty, which guaranteed the territory to heirs of his family in perpetual succession, whether heirs by descent, consanguinity, or adoption, and he trusted that, “in consideration of the fidelity he had always evinced towards Government, favour might be shown to this child.” He was allowed to die in the delusion that native fidelity would be remembered. The Empire was grown so strong that the autocrat of Fort William thought it could afford to forget fidelity. The youthful Maharajah's rights were denied ; the Regent Rance was assigned a palace for her prison,

every Bazaar, and cursed in every Zenanah, as a threatening notice ostentatiously given that the picklock of despotism would be used without shame as an implement of exaction : and none could tell whose regalia or casket would next be rifled. Our historians are never weary of reprobating the sudden and summary decree of Bayonne, in which Napoleon informed the world that in the Peninsula the house of Bourbon had ceased to reign, and in reprobating the duress under which an imbecile sovereign was driven into an act of formal abdication. And many severe things have been justly said of the pictures taken from the Escurial, and of the bronze steeds borne away from the Piazza of San Marc. But at least Napoleon cannot be upbraided with stealing or selling the gems and apparel of his victims. It was bad enough to appropriate the sword of Frederick, but Napoleon, unscrupulous though he was, would have been ashamed to make away with rings and necklaces of the Prussian queen, and then to have put them up to the highest bidder among the brokers of his capital. If vice loses half its hideousness by losing all its grossness, it may likewise be said that public violence becomes more hateful when it is tarnished with the reproach of base cupidity. At the very time when the Queen's Lieutenant-General in Asia was thus playing the freebooter and auctioneer, our Foreign Secretary was addressing to the court of St Petersburg remonstrances against the sequestration of the revenues of certain Polish noblemen upon suspicion of their complicity in seditious designs. Well might the minister of the Czar scornfully retort,—“Physician, heal thyself.”

Another absorption which belongs to the same period is that of Jhansi, whose chief, from having been a vassal of the Peishwa, became a feudatory of the British Government. Ragonath Rao, at his death in 1835, left a youth

a

who was said to be bis adopted son; but the latter failing to substantiate his claim, one of his uncles took possession of the Gudi without resistance by the people or interference by us. And because as Rajah de facto, and presumptively de jure, he was recognised by Lord William Bentinck as head of the State, Lord Dalhousie pretended that he had a precedent therein for rejecting any claimant by right of adoption in 1853, not—in favour of a rightful heir by blood or popular chuice, but in favour simply of confiscation of the territory and its revenues. It may or may not be the duty of the Paramount Power to interfere in cases of disputed succession, but it never can be its duty or right to take advantage of a presumed or factitious flaw in the title of a particular claimant in order to shut out all the members of a family, some one of whom in the opinion of their people must be entitled to reign. Yet, this and nothing else was that which was done by Lord Dalhousie. Anund Rao was in 1853, in all due form, adopted by the dying Prince as his son and heir. The Rajah wrote to the Governor-General respectfully commending his youthful choice to his consideration and care, and asking for the recognition of his widow as Regent during the minority. He appealed to the second article of the subsisting treaty, which guaranteed the territory to heirs of his family in perpetual succession, whether heirs by descent, consanguinity, or adoption, and he trusted that, “in consideration of the fidelity he had always evinced towards Government, favour might be shown to this child.” He was allowed to die in the delusion that native fidelity would be remembered. The Empire was grown so strong that the autocrat of Fort William thought it could afford to forget fidelity. The youthful Maharajah's rights were denied; the Regent Rance was assigned a palace for her prison,

and Jhansi was by proclamation incorporated with the Company's possessions. Luckshim Bai grieved unforgivingly. At the first note of insurrection in 1857, she took to horse, and for months in male attire headed bands, squadrons, and at length formidable corps of the Mabrattas, until she became in her way another Joan of Arc to her frenzied and fierce followers. No insurgent leader gave more trouble to the columns of Sir Hugh Rose ; but not even in desperate and deadly fight, lasting for many hours, could she be persuaded to quit the field. In the general melée of defeat, Luckshim fell by a random shot, but not until she had exacted terrible retribution for the wrongs and insults to her family and her country.

a

are made “for ever” with feudatories, the suzerain is not bound longer than the sense of expediency lasts ; or in other words, that the observance of public faith is obligatory only on one side, because the semblance of royalty, without any of the power, is a mockery of authority which must be pernicious. If anything were surprising in the misgovernment of India, it would be the audacity which could misrepresent the faded finery of Chepank Palace as keeping up illusions, even in its powerless owner, of pretendership to royalty. Royalty, in the best days of the family, had never been asserted by them. They were subordinate to the Nizam, who was himself a feudatory of the Padishah. Local authority they really had enjoyed a hundred years gone by ; but it was authority which had no more to do with royalty than Hamlet had to do with Hercules. Much or little, it was all clean gone; the archives of Madras and of Calcutta could tell where. But its property and rank and titular privileges had hitherto been respected, because they had been made matters of public stipulation by the representatives of the British crown ; and now the money was to be taken by force, the use of the titles interdicted by decree, and the broken covenants given to the winds.

The despotic demeanour of Lord Dalhousie towards the Native Princes was not exemplified alone in the arbitrary absorption of States on the plea of lapse from default of male heirs. The Viceroy let no opportunity escape for impressing the native mind with a sense of the autocratic will and domination of the Central Power, of which he was the mouthpiece; and his conduct towards the Nawab-Nazim of Bengal, one of the oldest of our allies in Asia, was in keeping with what had gone before. Bengal had come to be regarded as the home-farm of Empire. The treaties of 1757, 1760, and 1763 with Mîr Jaffir and Mîr Kasim, as

« PreviousContinue »