No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
The origins of the Second Anglo-Burmese War in late 1851 were the subject of a Mid-Victorian bipartisan and bureaucratic coverup throughout 1852-53. The Government of India in Calcutta had successfully maintained a policy of “non-intercourse” following removal in 1840 of its diplomatic representatives from Burma despite frequent uncoordinated calls for remonstrance by merchants, missionaries and military administrators. In 1851, a convergence of factors, most notably the alleged mistreatment of British subjects in Rangoon, captured the President in Council's attention in Calcutta resulting in a policy change which led to armed intervention. Calcutta's renewed interest in Burma occurred while politicans in London prepared to scrutinize the bureaucratic relations between the London-based Cabinet and the East India Company.
Official discussions in Calcutta about Burma occurred while Governor General Dalhousie was “up country on progress” and at the very time that the Council wanted to test its capacity to act independently. The Council resorted to a unit of the Royal Navy then in Calcutta enroute from Acheh to the Persian Gulf. Commodore George Robert Lambert offered to deliver letters to Burmese authorities in Rangoon and negotiate on behalf of the English subjects. Lambert's reputation for moderation recommended him to Calcutta officials. His instructions from Council and private letters from Dalhousie advised caution and the avoidance of confrontation. Yet Lambert, a line officer, ultimately responsible to the Admiralty in London, could conceivably ignore Calcutta's wishes and chart his own course.
1 Dalhousie to Cowper, 21 October 1851 and 1 February 1852 in Baird, J.G. A., Private Letters of the Marquess of Dalhousie (London, 1911), pp. 179, 189–90Google Scholar.
2 Elliot to Halliday, 31 October 1851 and Halliday to Lambert, 11 November 1851 in Parliamentary Papers, 1852, XXXVIGoogle Scholar, “Papers Relating to Hostilities with Burmah,” C. 1490, presented 4 June 1852 (Hereafter C. 1490), pp. 155, 159; and Dalhousie to Lambert, 29 October and 3 November 1851, Dalhousie Muniment 6/531, Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh.
3 Lambert to Dalhousie and Littler, 28 November 1851, C. 1490, p. 167 and Dal. Mun. 6/531.
4 Dalhousie to Lambert, private, 23 January 1852, Dal. Mun. 6/82.
5 Dalhousie to Lambert, private, 23 January 1852, Broughton Papers, Add. MSS. 36477, British Library, London. Original emphasis and corrections. This letter was passed between at least Broughton and Herries and probably Fox Maule and Wood.
6 Dalhousie Minute, 22 January 1852, India Secret Proceedings, v. 175, India Office Archives, London, and Woodman, Dorothy, The Making of Burma (London, 1962), pp. 540–5Google Scholar.
7 Lambert to Dalhousie, private, 19 January 1852, Dal. Mun. 6/531.
8 Dalhousie to Lambert, private, 23 January 1852, Dal. Mun. 6/82.
9 Lambert to Halliday, ISP/173 and Woodman, p. 546. For the threat of appealing to Palmerston see Dalhousie to Cowper, private, 23 July 1853, in Baird, p. 260.
10 Dalhousie to Broughton, private, 23 February 1852, Broughton Papers, B.L., Add. MSS. 36477. See also SirPhilips, Cyril, “Dalhousie and the Burmese War of 1852,” in Cowan, C.D. and Wolters, O.W., eds., Southeast Asian History and Historiography (Ithaca, New York, 1976), pp. 51–8Google Scholar.
11 Dalhousie to Peel, 28 July 1847, Peel Papers, B.L., Add. MSS. 40559, cited in Conacher, J.B., “Peel and the Peelites, 1846-1850,” English Historical Review, LXIII (1958): 431–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dalhousie to Cowper, private, 20 March 1852 in Baird, p. 193. Hobhouse, 14 July 1847, Russell Papers, Public Record Office 30/22/6D, fols 1134-5, cited in Conacher, J.B., Peelites and the Party System, 1846-52 (London, 1972), p. 185Google Scholar.
12 Dalhousie to Broughton, private, 7 February 1852, Broughton Papers, Add. MSS. 36477.
13 Dalhousie to Herries, private, 24 April 1852, Herries Papers, XLVI, British Museum, London. See also Jones, William Devereaux and Erickson, Arvel B., The Peelites, 1846-1857 (Columbus, Ohio, 1972), pp. 68–9Google Scholar.
14 Herries to Dalhousie, confidential, 8 March and 8 April 1852 and Herries to Northumberland, 29 May 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII, and Herries, Edward, Memoir of the Public Life of the Rt. Hon. John Charles Herries (London, 1880), 11:250Google Scholar.
15 Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, CXIX, 16 February 1852, c. 535–8Google Scholar; CXX, 25 March 1852, c. 55-6; 5 April 1852, c. 647-54, and CXXI, 18 May 1852, c. 733. Ellenborough to Herries, 26 March 1852, and Herries to Ellenborough, Herries Papers, XLV and LXXVIII, and Durand to Ellenborough, 26 March and 13 May 1852, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/21/6.
16 Parliamentary Debates, CXX, 25 March 1852, c. 58Google Scholar.
17 Governor General's Letters, 22-26 January 1852, C. 1490, pp. 50-3 and Woodman, pp. 540-7.
18 Godwin to Dalhousie, 19 March 1852, Dal. Mun. 6/115/pt. 1.
19 Herries to Wellington, 4 May 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII, and Herries, II: p. 248.
20 Herries to Derby, 6 May 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII.
21 Herries to Derby, confidential, 14 June 1852, and Hogg to Herries, 26 August 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII and XLV.
22 Herries to Dalhousie, 7 July 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII.
23 Dalhousie to Herries, private, 3 July 1852, Herries Papers, XLVI.
24 See, for example, Minute by Dalhousie, 10 August 1852 not going to London until 7 September 1852. Expressions as “mistaken routine,” inadvertant delay, and “administrative “oversight” were commonly used to cover the stalling.
25 Herries to Derby, 19 August 1852, Herries Papers, XLIV.
26 Duke of Wellington Memo, 24 August 1852, Herries Papers, XCVII.
27 Secret Committee to Governor General in Council, 6 September 1852 in Parliamentary Papers, 1852-53, LXDCGoogle Scholar, “Further Papers Relating to Hostilities with Burmah,” C. 1608, presented 15 March, 1853, pp. 52–4Google Scholar.
28 Dalhousie to Cowper, 6 November 1852, in Baird, p. 230.
29 Godwin to ?, 20 October 1852, Herries Papers, XCVII.
30 Dalhousie to Herries, private, 23 November 1852, Herries Papers, XLVI.
31 See Hall, D. G. E., The Dalhousie-Phayre Correspondence, 1852-1856 (London, 1932)Google Scholar.
32 Herries to Derby, 5 October 1852, Herries Papers, LXXVIII and various letters October-November 1852.
33 Herries, II:269.
34 Parliamentary Debates, CXXIV, 24 February 1852, c. 535–44Google Scholar.
35 Kaye, J., “The Government of the East India Co.,” North British Review, XVIII (February 1853): 526–60Google Scholar.
36 Cobden to Richard, 10 August 1852, in Hobson, J. A., Richard Cobden, the International Man (London, 1919), pp. 86, 95Google Scholar.
37 Parliamentary Debates, CXXVIII, 17 June 1853, c. 377Google Scholar.
38 Wood to Herries, private, 20 June 1853, Herries Papers, XLVII.
39 Wood to Herries, private, 8 January 1853, and confidential, 16 February 1853, Herries Papers, LXI.
40 Cobden, Richard, How Wars got up in India: The Origin of the Burma War (London, 1853)Google Scholar. It may have gone through four editions in 1853. His literary executors reprinted it in 1867 in London and New York editions. Citations are to the 1867 London edition.
41 Ibid., p. 106.
42 Ibid., p. 55.
43 Ibid., p. 78.
44 Ibid., pp. 100-1.
45 Conacher, J. B., The Aberdeen Coalition, 1852-1855 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 79–96Google Scholar.
46 Parliamentary Debates, CXXIX, 20 August 1853, c. 1824–7Google Scholar.