UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES REMARKS ON THE EXTENSION OF TERRITORY WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE * IN INDIA. Second Edition, REMARKS ON THE EXTENSION OF TERRITORY WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE IN INDIA, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTS OF FARLIAMJJN PASSJD IN 1784 AND 1793. SECOND EDITION. Hontton: Printed by G. SIDNEY, Northumberland-street; AND PUBLISHED BY RICHARDSON, OPPOSITE THS ROYAL EXCHANGE ; AND BALDWIN, CR ADOCK, AND JOY, PATERNOSTER-HOW. 1818. MEMORANDUM. THE following remarks were published in 1812, with a view to afford information, e* previously to the renewal of the Company's t Charter. This republication, at the present moment, is necessary to correct errors, QZ j which, though repeatedly exposed and re- futed both in and out of Parliament* during the last twelve years, the machina- tions of faction are endeavouring to revive, S and which, if carried into practice, must ^ produce endless confusion, bloodshed, and - misery. o London^ 4>th May, 1818, ~>a * Vide Campbell'! Reply to the Strictures of the Edinburgh ^ Review, Cadell and Davies, ] 80S, 4th edition : Do. Letter on the Oude Question : Parliamentary Debates : Speeches of Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Wallace, Duke of Wellington, Sir J. Anstruther, Sec. &c; B 2 354731 THE events which are occurring in India in- volve so many topics of importance to the interests of this country, that the Public, it is conceived, will receive with satisfaction any statement which may serve to elucidate these interesting transactions. The reference, which has recently been made to former transactions in India, " as " proving a systematic plan of territorial acqui- " sition, inconsistent with the policy prescribed " by the Act of 1793," is calculated to mislead the judgment of many persons, generally en- titled to respect and honour : this subject ap- pears to require explanation, and it is proposed, in this tract, to consider, 1st. The intention of the Legislature in that 6 branch of the Indian Bills, which respects " conquest, and extension of territory in India.'* 2d. The practice of the Governments abroad j the orders of the Government at home ; and the opinion of Parliament respecting the same points, from 1784 to 1805. 3d. The positive enactments of Parliament upon the same points in 1 800. 4th. The ultimate result of the augmenta- tions of territory and power which have taken place in India since the year 1784, upon the strength and security of our Eastern empire, and upon the happiness and prosperity of our subjects in India. 1. The resolution passed in the House of Commons in the year 1782, and introduced into the India Act of 1784, and also into the Act of 1793, declares that, the " pursuit of schemes " of conquest and extension of dominion in " India, is repugnant to the wish, the honour, " and the policy of the nation." This declara- tory preamble introduces the regulation for preventing the commencement of hostilities in India, or the conclusion of treaties of guaran- tee involving the contingency of war, without the express command and authority of the Court of Directors, or of the Secret Com- mittee. At the period of time when this resolution passed, and even when it was enacted into a Jaw, the situation of the native states of India, as well as of our several tributaries and de- pendancies, rendered it impossible to suppose, that the intention of the Legislature could be to preclude altogether any extension of terri- tory, or any extension of the civil and military authority of the Company, over territories which we were already bound by treaty, or by positive interest, to defend. The condition of the power of Tippoo. Sultan,* of that of the Mahratta states, and of the Nizamf at that period of time (1784), appeared to afford just apprehension, that war might arise in India on grounds of justice and ne- cessity, which might compel the Company to seek security in a reduction of the resources and power of some of those states : and it can- not be supposed, that Parliament intended to fix the exact limits of the dominion of the Company, excluding all reference to the con- duct and policy of the native states of India, to the changes of power and interest which might occur on the continent of India, or to * The son of Hyder Alii, the usurper of the government of Mysore. t A Mahommedan state, in the south of India, of which the Chief is styled the Nizam j from " Nazim," a ruler. He was an officer of the Moghul Empire, and still nominally re- tains the title. His capital is HYDRABAD. the advantage which might be derived from the success of our arms in any contest in which we might be engaged in the necessary course of events: To forbid war absolutely was impracticable, whilst we were surrounded with powerful mi- litary states, whose policy might compel us to resort to arms; and to forbid any reduction of the resources and dominions of any state, which we might defeat in war, or any addi- tional strength which we might be enabled to found upon favourable conditions of peace, would not have been consistent with the wis- dom of Parliament. No inference can be drawn from the letter or spirit of the resolution, or clause of the Act to preclude the extension of the British territories in India, by just and legitimate means, uncon- nected with schemes of conquest and irregular ambition. The strict construction of this principle has been repeatedly argued in Parliament ; and, in both Houses, the opinion has uniformly pre- vailed, that the intention of the Legislature was not to prohibit absolutely, either war or ex- tension of territory in India, if either should become necessary to our security on the prin- ciples of justice. The resolutions and the clauses in the Acts referred to preceding transactions in India, which appeared to the Legislature to have origi- nated in an irregular spirit of aggrandisement; and although it is certain, that unjust wars, or exorbitant conquests would have been criminal, if no such principle had been expressly de- clared by the Legislature, it cannot have been deemed superfluous to declare the rule at a mo- ment* when it was supposed to have been violated, and therefore to require additional confirmation, and a new sanction of authority. 2. Neither the practice of the government abroad, nor the orders of the government at home, nor the conduct of Parliament from the time of passing this resolution to the present moment, will warrant any other construction of the rule, than that which has been stated with reference to war and conquest. The extension of the Company's territory, which occurred upon the result of Lord Corn* wallis's war against Tippoo Sultan, under the treaty of peace in the year 1792, would other- wise have been deemed a violation of the rule prescribed by Parliament; but that war, and all its consequences, in the extension of territory, \\ were fully approved. The extension of territory which followed the conquest of Mysore, in 1799, would also have been condemned on similar grounds. 1784. 10 That conquest was the result of a just and necessary war ; and the transfer of the enemy's dominions to our authority, although involving considerable extension of territory, was never deemed, for that reason only, to be inconsistent with the policy of the Act of 1793, but was declared to be justified by the same principles, which had justified the commencement of the war. In the year 1789,* Lord Cornwallis, under the treaty of 1768 with the Nizam, obtained the cession of the Guntoor district to the Com- pany. This transaction, as a mere accession of territory, would have been censurable upon the doctrine now maintained, but it was approved under the circumstances of the case. The same observation applies to the arrange- ment concluded with the Rajah of Benares in 179-5, by Mr. Duncan, under the orders of Lord Teigumouth, by which arrangement the Company's authority was extended over the pro- vince of Benares. The state of the Carnatic, of Oude, and of other possessions of our tributaries and de- pendants, had longf been a subject of com- plaint and alarm. The Company had, in fact, A . * Vide Lord Corn wallis's letter of the 7th July, 1789. f 1784 and 1793. 11 supported these tributaries in their respective countries; and they owed the -existence of their power, and must have owed the con- tinuance of it entirely to the Company's as- sistance. > The administration of these countries was grossly abusive and injurious to the welfare and happiness of the inhabitants, and to the prosperity of the country. Internal disorder, , and external weakness, accompanied by a rapid decay of the resources of these states, were the consequences of these evils. The Company was bound by positive interest, and in many cases by treaty, to protect and de- fend these states, and was entitled to derive the means of defending them from the resources of the same countries. But under the mis- management and corruption of the native go- vernments, the means of supplying the defence of the country were declining, while the people y suffered the utmost extremity of misery. To extend the authority of the Company over these countries, would in fact prove no ex- tension of territory, weakening the line, or impairing the means of our general defence; but an augmentation of power within territories, which we were already bound to dejend. Such an augmentation of power, so far from weakening, \vould tend greatly to secure and consolidate the strength of our empire in the East* Nor 12 is it rational to suppose, that our means of protecting these countries could be diminished by the introduction of the civil and military authority of the Company into their respective governments. It is evident that the opinion of the govern- ment at home has uniformly been, that the Company was bound to provide effectually for the good government of the possessions of our tributaries and dependants, and even to inter- fere directly for that purpose, in cases of exi- gency. The extension of the Company's authority over the Carnatic, was always considered as a measure essential to our security in the event of war; the Carnatic was accordingly assumed both by Lord Macartney and Lord Cornwallis in time of war ; and the assumption of the Car- natic in time of war, afterwards, became a formal article of treaty, concluded by Lord Cornwallis with the Nabob, in 1792. V In the short war of 1799, Lord Wellesley did not assume the Carnatic, as he might have done under that article. But, in expectation that he would have assumed it, he received orders from the Secret Committee, " not to restore it to the " Nabob," until a new arrangement for its go- vernment should be concluded. It is therefore evident, that the extension of the Company's authority over those territories 13 of our dependants or subsidiary tributaries, which we were bound by treaty or interest to defend, has not hitherto been deemed repug- nant either to law or good policy. With the Nabob of the Carnatic, and with the Rajah of Tanjore, subsidiary engagements were concluded by Lord Cornwallis in 1792* which eventually stipulated for a considerable extension of the authority of the Company over the territory of those princes, in the contin- gency of ultimate failure in the regular pay- ment of the subsidy : but it never was con- tended, that in the event of such failure, it would have been inconsistent with the policy of the Act of 1793, to have insisted upon the rights of the Company to demand the execu- tion of those articles of the respective subsidiary treaties, which, either in direct terms, or by manifest implication, entitled the Company to an extension of territory, in commutation of the subsidiary payments. 3. The following extracts from the Act* of 28th July, 1800, will explain the opinion of the Legislature upon this subject at that time : " Clause I. Whereas the territorial posses- " sions of the United Company of Merchants " of England, trading to the East Indies in * 39 and 40 Geo, III. cap, 79- 14 " the peninsula of India, have become so much " extended as to require further regulations to be " made for the due government of the same."* "And whereas the province or district of Be- 11 nares has been ceded to the said United Com- " pany, and been annexed to the said Presidency " of Fort William in Bengal, since the estab- " lishment of the said Supreme Court of Judi- " cature at Fort William aforesaid ; and it is " expedient that the same should be subject to " the jurisdiction of the said Court, in like " manner as the kingdoms or provinces of " Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa ; and that the said " province or district, and all other provinces or " district Sj which may hereafter at any time be " annexed and made subject to the said Presi- " dency, should be subject to such regulations " as the Governor General and Council of Fort " William aforesaid have framed, or may " frame, for the better administration of justice, " among the native inhabitants and others " within the same respectively : be it therefore " further enacted, that from and after the first " day of March, which will be in the year of our " Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, " the power and authority of the said Supreme " Court of Judicature, in and for the said * Cap. 20. 15 " Presidency of Fort William aforesaid, as " now and by virtue of this Act established, " and all such regulations as have been, or may " be hereafter, according to the powers and " authorities, and subject to the provision and " restrictions, before enacted, framed, and pro- " vided, shall extend to and over the said pro- " vince or district of Benares, and to and over 1 all the factories, districts, and places which " now are, or hereafter shall be made subordi- \/ ' nate thereto, and to and over all such provinces " and districts as may at any time hereafter be " annexed and made subject to the said Presi- '5 dcncy of Fort William aforesaid" ^ These extracts must be considered to afford a clear sanction of such extensions of territory as had been notified to the government at home \j at that time, and furnish a clear exposition of the intention of the Legislature by the Acts of 1784 and 1793. If those Acts had been in- N tended to constitute positive prohibitions of any extension of the Company's territory in India, the preamble of the Act of the 28th July, 1800, would have been improper: it is evident from the words of this preamble, that the Legislature admitted the propriety of ex- tending the Company's territory in India under certain circumstances, and in certain cases, notwithstanding the declaration of the law con- 16 cerning fl schemes of conquest and extension of " dominion." The words* employed in the latter part of these extracts also afford a further explanation of the intention of the Legislature respecting any extension of territory which might occur subsequently to the passing of this Act in 1 800. So far from considering any such extension of territory to be illegal, the Act of the 28th of July, 1800, expressly supposes the case, that other provinces and districts may hereafter be annexed and made subject to Bengal, and pro- vides for the good government of such new acquisitions. In fact, a part of the cessions from Oude was annexed to the district of Be- nares, and the remaining cessions from Oude, together with the cessions from the Mahrattas, were formed into another district. The whole was annexed to the Presidency of Bengal, and brought under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, by the operation of this Act. 4. The Company on various occasions, with the authority of His Majesty, had expressed great anxiety to commute the subsidies of the Carnatic and of Tanjore for adequate territorial security. It would be absurd to represent * " All other provinces or districts which may, hereaftt , at any time, be annexed, &c." 17 such a commutation as in any degree repug- nant to the wish, the honour, or the policy of the nation, or to the spirit of the acts of re- gulation. On Lord Wellesley's arrival in India, in April, 17i)8, he endeavoured, in conformity to his original instructions from the Court of Di- rectors, to obtain a commutation of this nature in the Garnatic. It is unnecessary to state the repeated and anxious efforts which Lord Wel- lesley made to effect this object, or to observe, that in pursuing it, Lord Wellesley followed the steps of Lord Hobart's government, which had proceeded also under the commands of the Court of Directors. Lord Hobart and Lord Wellesley were.equally unsuccessful; but their efforts have received the most unequivocal testimonies of official approbation ; nor was an attempt hazarded to represent their endeavours for the improvement of the subsisting subsidiary engagements of the Company in the Carnatic as a systematic vio- lation of the Act of 1793, although the success of those endeavours must have been accompa- nied by an extension of the civil and military authority of the Company over territory, not at that time subject to either. In the settlement of Mysore, upon con- cluding subsidiary engagements with the Rajah of Mysore, Lord Wellesley declared to the Court of Directors in 1799, that his express purpose was to facilitate the direct control of the Company over the whole territory of My- sore, with a view to the more effectual secu- rity of the subsidy, and the good* government of the country. In fact, the territory governed in the name of the Rajah, was actually an- nexed to the Company's dominion hy that article of the subsidiary treaty of Seringapa-- tam, which empowers the Company, at any time, to assume the direct management of the whole country. But this treaty has not in Par- liament been quoted to prove the existence of a systematic plan of territorial acquisition, inconsistent with the policy of the Act of 1793. In Tanjore, a commutation of subsidy was effected in 1800, founded on the spirit of the Governor General's original instructions from the Court of Directors respecting the Carnatic; and accordingly, the territory of Tanjore was subjected to the Company's authority. At the termination of the war with Tippoo Sultan (while hostilities still continued in various provinces of Mysore) in the year 1800, a new treaty of subsidy was formed with the Nizam. Adverting to the policy pursued by the Com- * The actual condition of Mysore is the best practical proof of the benefits of this arrangement. See Colonel Wilkes's able report on Mysore. 19 pany since the Act of 1793, to the tenor of the Governor General's original instructions respect- ing the Carnatic, and to the experience of the evils resulting from the existing system of subsidy in Oude and the Carnatic, Lord Wel- lesley framed the subsidiary treaty with the Nizam, upon the principle of chaining territo- rial security for the payment of the subsidy, instead of depending for the safety of those funds, on the precarious power and imperfect administration of an Indian government. Can it be supposed, that such an arrangement was precluded by law, especially as the government at home was fully* apprized of the whole transaction r The treaty with the Nabob of Surat, and the / treaty with the Guickwar.f were founded on similar principles with those of Tanjore and Hydrabad, substituting territorial security for y * The Acts of 1784 and 1793, only preclude the conclusion of treaties of guarantee (involving the contingency of war), WITHOUT the authority of the government at home. In this case, the government at home was not only apprised of this transaction, but hostilities still continued in various parts of Mysore. In fact, this treaty with the Nizam in 1 800, was merely an improvement of our existing engagements with that chieftain. f A Mahratta chieftain, on the western side of Hindostan, whose capital is Baroda, 20 an engagement to pay the amount of the sub- sidy from the Treasury of the State. The right to conclude a subsidiary engagement with the Guickwar, was derived from that stipulation of the treaty of Salbye, which constitutes the Company to be the guarantee of the succession and government of the Guickwar state. The new subsidiary treaty concluded with the Nabob of Oude, in November, 1801, rested on the same foundations, and effected a commutation of all the Nabob Vizier's engage- ments with respect to subsidy and aid in war, for a cession of territory. v The treaty of Bassein (concluded with the Peishwah) proceeds on the same grounds. In renewing the ancient alliance between the Peishwah* and the Company, it cemented that alliance by a subsidiary engagement, and by a V territorial cession, formed upon the improved plan of policy repeatedly sanctioned by the au- thority of His Majesty and of the East India Company, and already effected with other de- / pendant states, in preference to that defective scheme of subsidiary alliance, which had pro- duced innumerable evils in various parts of our dependancies in India; which, for many years, had constituted an annual theme of lamentation * The chief of the Mahratta powers: his capital is Foonab. 21 for all the governments of India, and for the Honourable Court of Directors; and the policy of which appeared to have been exploded by the deliberate wisdom and long experience of that body. The whole course of the negotiations at Poonah, from the year 1798 to the conclusion of the treaty of Bassein, was regularly sub- mitted to the Secret Committee. The transfer of the civil and military govern- ment of the Carnatic to the Company (in 1801), was warranted by the justice and neces- sity of that proceeding, founded upon the forfeiture incurred by Mahommed Alii, and Omdut ul Omrah,* and upon the dangers which menaced the security of the Company's rights on the coast of Coromandel, in consequence of their treachery. The justification of this pro- ceeding rests upon principles similar to those by which war is justifiable against any public enemy; and- the extension of authority which accompanied the prosecution of a just and legitimate public right, cannot be condemned upon any principles correctly derived from the Act of 1793. In prosecuting the just rights of the Com- pany against the Nabob of the Carnatic, Lord Late Nabobs, or Rulers of the Carnatic. 22 Wellesley resorted to his original instructions from England respecting the Carnatic; and he framed the new settlement with reference to the acknowledged expediency of effecting a com- putation of subsidy for territorial security, and of rescuing the Carnatic from the evils of divided government and conflicting power, by establishing over that province one distinct authority in the hands of the Company, with a liberal provision for the Nabob and his family, It is impossible to comprehend the application of the Act of 1795 to any part of this trans- action. ^ The acquisitions of territory which were ac- complished in India during Lord Wellesley's administration, proceeded either from the suc- cessful prosecution of war; or from forfeiture in consequence of the violation of dependant alliances ; or, lastly, from the improvement of existing, or the formation of new treaties of 1st. subsidy and guarantee. Thejfirst description ID- WAR, eludes those provinces and possessions of Tippoo ippoo, s u it; an retained by the Company under the Mahrattas. * f ... partition treaty of Mysore,* together with the conquests made from Scindia and the Rajah of Berar, at the termination of the late Mahratta war.t The $ec07M? description consists of theposses- ?ORFEITURE: Carnatic. m * 1799- t 1803. '23 sions of Omdut ul Omrah in the Carnatic ; and the last comprehends the territories commuted for 3d - subsidy by the Rajah of Tanjore, by the IMPEOVE- Nizam, and by the Nabob of Oude, and the MENTofoLD > ,-,'. r> i - , , i AND FORMA- terntories ceded in payment of subsidy by tne TION of NEW Nabob of Surat, by the Guickwar, and ulti- TREAT1ES . mately by the Peishwah. Tanjore, The records of the Company furnish suffi- Nizam, cient evidence, that every extension of terri- Oude, tory acquired under each of these classes, ori-' J \ Guickwar, ginated in principles, not only strictly conform- able to the Act of 1793, but to the general maxims of justice and policy. No extension of territory has been acquired otherwise than by the prosecution of a JUST and NECESSARY WAR, or of JUST and LEGITI- MATE PUBLIC RIGHT: the result of these ac- quisitions has not involved the necessity of defending any territory, which had not pre- viously furnished increased means of offensive war to our enemies, or which we were not previously bound to defend, either by the obli- gation of positive treaty, or of our own mani- fest interest. Our means of defence in every case are now greatly augmented by the annexation of the civil and military government of the territories from which we derive the military resurces, applicable to defray the charge of their respec- tive protection and security. 3547S1 The result of the whole progress of these wars and negotiations will appear to be nearly conformable to the following statement. 1. The limits of the Company's civil and military authority have been considerably ex- tended since the year 1784. 2. The principles of these successive exten- sions of power have been conformable to jus- tice and good policy, and regularly brought under the consideration of the authorities at home ; and sanctioned, either by direct law, or by orders from the Government in England, or by long acquiescence in the arrangements effected in India. 3. The magnitude of our empire in India has been increased by these events ; but its strength and resources have also been greatly increased ; our frontier in every quarter is improved, our in- ternal government invigorated, and our means of defence considerably augmented. SIDNEY, Printer, Northumberland-street, Strand. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below war swfc Form L-9 aom-V41(ira) LOS ANGELES UBRAKT UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 965 891 5