istic of Lord Dalhousie's rule might have saved the British from many future troubles. When, in 1844, the House of Sindhiá, defeated in battle, was at the feet of Lord Ellenborough, that nobleman imposed upon it no penalty. His generosity bore splendid fruit in 1857-8. Far different was the result of the policy pursued towards Náná Sáhib. Lord Dalhousie declared the recommendation made by the two Commissioners in his favour to be 'uncalled for and unreasonable.' He directed that 'the determination of the Government of India may be explicitly declared to the family without delay.' The determination was consequently so declared. Ought we to wonder that, in 1857, the crab-tree did produce the crab-apple?
Náná Sáhib appealed to the Court of Directors against the decision of the Governor-General of India. His appeal was couched in logical, temperate, and convincing language. He asked why the heir to the Peshwá should be treated differently from other native princes who had fallen before the Company. He instanced the case of Dehlí and of Maisur; and with reference to the assumption made in argument against him that the savings of his father were sufficient to support him, he asked whether it was just that the economical foresight of the father should militate against the moral claims of the son. The argument, which would have been accepted in any native Court in India, which was convincing to the two hundred and fifty millions who inhabited that country, had no effect whatever on the minds of the western rulers who governed the country from Leadenhall Street. Their reply emulated in its curtness and its rudeness the answer given by Lord Dalhousie. They directed the Governor-General to inform the memorialist 'that the pension of his adoptive father was not hereditary, that he has no claim whatever to it, and that his application is wholly inadmissible.' The date of the
