Page images

Human beings are of more value than the buildings which are the work of their hands. Nevertheless, it is possible that in some future age our Government may be condemned for its wanton destruction of the native edifices, when its humanity and its harshness to the natives themselves have alike been forgotten. This destruction I could never contemplate without regret, without indignation.


The palace of Delhi was the culminating effort of Indian art. It was an edifice the like of which had not before existed, and in all probability would not again appear, for it was the result of conditions not likely to be repeated. Yet the greater portion of it was deliberately pulled to pieces, and the materials sold by auction. destruction was not the work of the soldiery, nor was it intended as an act of punishment or of retribution; nor can it be excused by the impulse of anger or revenge. It was directed from motives of the merest parsimony, and not till the passions of the time had had leisure to cool.

What occurred at Delhi happened at Lucknow. The palace there was similarly and equally wantonly destroyed. It was the same everywhere-no beauty, no historical associations served to protect an edifice if an idea of economy or a fancy for improvement suggested its removal. Even the majestic ruins of the fort of Juanpore were blown to pieces to satisfy the idle crotchet of an engineer.

During the mutiny I learnt more of the natives than I had during all the many years of my previous residence in the country. Compared with what other nations would have been under similar circumstances, they were not more cruel, they were certainly less violent. many instances individuals among them exhibited great fidelity.


I learnt to appreciate more than I had previously their many amiable qualities, but at the same time I became more aware of their besetting faults of falsehood and treachery. They made promises, they broke them-they betrayed each other, they made friends again— with the readiness, the want of seriousness of so many children.

It may interest the reader to learn the fate of some of those whose names have been prominent in my narrative. Colonel Cotton caught a cold on the march; it became worse, he went to Mussoorie, and there died. He was engaged to be married to a lady to whom a curious fate seemed to attach. She had been exceedingly pretty, and often engaged, but the engagements were invariably terminated by the death, violent or sudden, of her fiancé in each case.

Colonel Fraser did not long survive him. When no longer sustained by the excitement of danger, his strength gave way, and he sank rapidly; he died in the following July, and also at Mussoorie. The youngest of the Seths was alive when I left India; the other two brothers had been dead some years, as also had Dillawar Khan, our faithful guide to Agra on the night of the battle. I procured for Mr. Joyce a good appointment in the Revenue Department; when I left India he was doing well.

The Bhurtpore chiefs were never called to account for their conduct, nor was Ruggonath Sing compelled to restore the property belonging to me which he had carried off, nor was I compensated for its loss. He appeared at Lord Canning's grand durbar in 1859 with as much assurance as if he had been the most loyal of subjects.

After the final suppression of the mutiny, there was a very liberal distribution of honours and rewards, but none fell to me, nor in this was I singular. Lord

Canning conceived the idea, not altogether without reason, that the Agra authorities had displayed great incapacity, and in his disapproval of the authorities he included their subordinates. Also, he was by temperament much more disposed to appreciate zeal, when displayed in ordinary routine, than when exhibited in the irregular manner that the time of disorder demanded. Hence it followed that many who had been exposed to no danger, who had suffered no losses, who had even been in England during the time of peril, were honoured and rewarded; while those were passed over unnoticed who, like myself, had borne the heat and burden of that terrible day.

What was the case with the English and Christians was the case also with the natives. So ill-proportioned to the services of the recipients were often their recompense, that the fact gave rise to a proverb, at the time much quoted: 'Jysah ghudder, wysah inâm' ('As the disturbance, so the reward')-meaning that in both matters there was equal confusion. Much of this was inevitable, but a good deal might have been avoided. In some cases it was, I am sorry to say, the indirect result of those dissensions among the authorities that had prevailed at Agra both before and after our entry into the fort. When a reward was proposed for a native, the point too often considered was not what has he done? but who has recommended him?'



ALTHOUGH SO many years have elapsed, this inquiry cannot be considered as devoid of interest. The mutiny must have had some causes, and if those causes still exist they may, when the opportunity is favourable, give rise to another.

The first consideration is, was the mutiny a mere military revolt or the rising against us of the population ?

At the time this question was debated in India with great acrimony. Now that the facts can be calmly considered there is not much room for difference of opinion.

The case was this-the army revolted; the population left to itself ceased to yield obedience. The revenue was not paid nor the law regarded. Such a condition of things is rebellion, by whatever name it may be designated-whatever explanation may be given of its exist


The causes of the mutiny of the army I shall not consider; they were in part purely military, in part a discontent shared by the general population. I shall confine myself to the consideration of the general rebellion, and of that discontent which caused the population to throw off our rule so soon as the mutiny of the army enabled them to do so.

The causes assigned by the English, then and since,

are many and very contradictory. It will be more profitable to consider those alleged by the natives themselves. They may be reduced to three:-

1. The severity of the taxation.

2. The impoverishment of the country.

3. The design of the English Government to convert them to Christianity.


The last cause was the one always the most insisted

It will be interesting to consider how an idea could have arisen so contrary to the truth. The native religions, the Hindoo especially, are ceremonial; they prescibe the law, the public policy to a great extent, even the habits of life of their followers. Such being the case, it resulted that as our system of government developed, it came into conflict with the secular portion of the native religions. It prohibited what those religions permitted or enjoined; it sanctioned what they condemned. The actual interference was not great, but it was supposed to foreshadow more.

Again, although our Government did not proselytise, it educated. It endeavoured by schools and otherwise to propagate the ideas and the habits of modern European civilisation. These ideas, these habits were by the natives regarded as the results of our religion; the propagation of them was considered, therefore, as the disguised propagation of Christianity.

The belief in the impoverishment of the country was similarly based on incorrect inferences from actual facts. Under our rule the wealth of India had greatly increased, but being more equally distributed it was less apparent. But with the wealth the population had also increased, and, as an accompaniment, the poverty. Relatively less, it was actually greater. Further, though our Govern

« PreviousContinue »