an act of rank iniquity was in Lord Mornington (now Marquis Wellesley) no more than an energetic measure of public necessity. The views and policy of these two statesmen were essentially identical; but Hastings was striving painfully, with slender resources, on the defensive, while Wellesley, backed by a war ministry at home, boldly assumed the offensive on a magnificent scale of operations.

SECTION II. The Subsidiary Treaties.

The dissolution of Mysore set forward the British dominion by two important steps. It finally removed an inveterate enemy, whose position had for thirty years endangered our possessions in South India; it also gave us complete command over the sea-coast of the lower peninsula, and thus greatly diminished any risk of molestation by the French. It led, moreover, directly to the virtual extinction of that power for the control of which the English and French had fought so sharply in the days of Dupleix and Clive, the Nawábship of the Carnatic. From the time when that contest had been decided in favour of the English, the Nawáb had descended gradually through the stages of a protected ally and a subordinate ruler, to the situation of a prince with nominal authority, and with a revenue heavily mortgaged for the payment of the subsidy that was the price of his protection by the Company. In this unhappy condition he naturally kept up a secret correspondence with the Mysore Sultan, his creditor's enemy, and when Mysore was taken his letters were discovered. Thereupon Lord Wellesley found himself amply justified, upon the double ground of political intrigue and internal misgovernment, in bringing the Carnatic wholly under British administration. The system of divided

authority was, he observed, a serious calamity to the country, and for the same incontestable reason he annexed Tanjore and Surat.

The declared object of the Governor-General was now to establish the ascendancy of the English power over all other States in India, by a system of subsidiary treaties, so framed as 'to deprive them of the means of prosecuting any measure or of forming any confederacy hazardous to the security of the British Empire, and to enable us to preserve the tranquillity of India by exercising a general control over the restless spirit of ambition and violence which is characteristic of every Asiatic government'.' This general control he desired to impose 'through the medium of alliances contracted with those States on the basis of the security and protection of their respective rights.' In plain words, Lord Wellesley, to whom restless ambition was in Asiatics a thing intolerable, had already resolved to extend the British Protectorate over all the rulerships with which the English government then had any connexion, by insisting that each ruler should reduce his army, and should rely for external defence and internal security mainly upon the paramount military strength of the British sovereignty.

> The system of subsidiary treaties is worth some brief explanation, for it has played a very important part in the expansion of our dominion. It has been seen that our participation in Indian wars began when the English lent a military contingent to assist some native potentate. The next stage came when we took the field on our own account, assisted usually by the levies of some prince who made common cause with us, and whose soldiery were undisciplined, untrustworthy, and very Wellesley despatches.

clumsily handled. The English commander often found it necessary to look behind as well as before him on the field of battle; his allies showed unseasonable impartiality by holding aloof at critical moments and reappearing to plunder in both camps indiscriminately, giving preference to the defeated side. What was needed was a body of men that could be relied upon for some kind of tactical precision and steadiness under fire; but for this purpose it was of little use even to place sepoys under European officers unless they could be regularly paid and taught to obey one master. So the system soon reached the stage when the native ally was required to supply not men but money, and the English undertook to raise, train, and pay a fixed number of troops on receiving a subsidy equivalent to their cost. The subsidiary treaties made in India differed, therefore, from those made by England with European States in this respect, that whereas Austria or Russia raised armies on funds provided by England, Oudh or Hyderabad provided funds on which the British government raised armies. Large sums had been hitherto spent by the native princes in maintaining ill-managed and insubordinate bodies of troops, and in constant wars against each other; they might economize their revenues, be rid of a mutinous soldiery, and sit much. more quietly at home, by entering into contracts with a skilful and solvent administration that would undertake all serious military business for a fixed subsidy.

But as punctuality in money matters has never been a princely quality, this subsidy was apt to be paid very irregularly; so the next stage was to revive the longstanding practice of Asiatic governments, the assignment of lands for the payment of troops. There were now in India (excluding the Punjab, with which we

had as yet no dealings) but three States whose size or strength could give the English government any conOne of these, the Maratha federation, was still strong and solvent, but the two Mahomedan States of Oudh and Hyderabad were in no condition to resist the proposals of Lord Wellesley, nor is it likely that either of them could have long maintained itself without British protection. The Nizám of Hyderabad had been very liberally treated in the partition of Mysore, and Tippu's destruction had relieved him of an inveterate foe. In 1800 he transferred to the British government considerable districts in perpetuity, 'for the regular payment of the expenses of the augmented subsidiary force.' The position of the Vizier of Oudh was much more important. We have seen that Clive and Hastings maintained this prince for the safety of our north-west frontier, which was still covered by his dominions. But the Afghan king, Zemán Shah, was now making his last inroad into the Punjab, and the Maratha chief Sindia was in possession of Delhi: while the Oudh Vizier was a weak ruler whose country was in confusion, whose troops were mutinous, and whose finances were disordered by the heavy strain of the English subsidy. In these circumstances Lord Wellesley required the Vizier to disband his disorderly forces, in order that more British troops might be subsidized for the effective defence of his dominions. The Vizier, under pressure of many perplexities, declared that he would abdicate, but afterwards retracted, and the GovernorGeneral, who would willingly have had a free hand in Oudh, received the retractation with astonishment, regret, and indignation.' It must be admitted that Lord Wellesley subordinated the feelings and interests of his ally to paramount considerations of British policy in

a manner that showed very little patience, forbearance, or generosity. Nevertheless it was really most necessary to set in order the affairs of Oudh, and the result of Lord Wellesley's somewhat dictatorial negotiations was that the Vizier ceded all his frontier provinces, including Rohilcund, to the Company; the revenue of the territory thus transferred being taken as an equivalent to the subsidy payable for troops. This arrangement finally superseded the barrier policy of Hastings, which had effectually served its purpose for thirty years. Instead of placing Oudh in charge of the districts exposed to attack from the Marathas and invaders from the north-west, Lord Wellesley now obtained by cession the whole belt of exterior territory; and Oudh was thenceforward enveloped by the English dominion. This most important augmentation of territory transferred to the British government some of the richest and most populous districts in the heart of India, lying along the Ganges and its tributaries above Benares up to the foot of the Himalayan range. It consolidated our power on a broader foundation, brought a very large increase of revenue, and confronted us with the Maratha chief Sindia along the whole line of his possessions in upper India. These very trenchant strokes of policy were severely criticized by the Directors of the East India Company and cordially approved by His Majesty's ministers.

SECTION III. The Marathas (1802-1805).

The evacuation of Egypt by the French and the Peace of Amiens necessarily dislocated the mainspring of Lord Wellesley's martial activity. Hitherto he had been able to describe his policy as purely self-defensive