Canning Slightly Changes His Mind
Then, on 29 March, barely two weeks after Canning had issued his proclamation, he added another paragraph. While it was titled the Explanatory Paragraph, in India it was widely known as the Mercy Paragraph, although for whom the mercy was intended was left very much open to debate, as it seemed Canning would soon be needing some. The initial backlash to the original proclamation was fierce from not only British officials in India but also from the press.
Explanatory Paragraph
“With regard to the landed tenures of Oudh, the Governor-General wishes it to be understood that the measure of confiscation announced in the Proclamation of the 15th instant is not intended to apply to the talukdars and landholders of the Province as a class, but only to those who are proved to have been in rebellion, and who are found at the time of the British re-occupation of their estates to have been still persistently resisting the authority of the Government.”
Canning now attempted to back out of his plans for universal confiscation, by stating it was only meant for those who were still actively participating in rebellion at the time of the fall of Lucknow; he was also trying a weak tea version of political damage control which in the end, made the original proclamation more ambiguous, as it did not address the following questions: Who was “proved to have been in rebellion”? What constituted “persistently resisting” at the exact moment of re-occupation? This vagueness left immense discretionary power in the hands of local British officers who would be examining rebellious talukdars if they came forward, and there was no accounting for their bias, which could very well be based on their own experiences in the mutiny.
While it was a step in some direction, the critics of the proclamation were hardly satisfied. It was simply too little, too late. For many of the talukdars, the shock and insult of the original proclamation could not be smoothed over by a vague paragraph, still leaving them with the horror of their impending ruin. They also saw the contradictory nature of it as a sign of a weak and confused British government. The talukdars had no reason to believe it was not merely intended as a ruse to get them to lay down their arms, after which they would still face arbitrary dispossession.
When the proclamation reached England, as indeed it did, the political firestorm it created would amount to months of debates; finally, on 1 November 1858, the Queen’s Proclamation, issued just after the British had assumed direct control over India from the defunct EICo, not only superseded but also reversed Canning’s proclamation.
The Queen’s proclamation famously promised a general amnesty to all (except those directly involved in the murder of British subjects). “We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India that all Treaties… will be scrupulously maintained…” “We desire no extension of our present Territorial Possessions.” A policy of non-interference in religious matters. Equal protection of the law and eligibility for public office for all subjects, irrespective of race or creed.
In line with this new conciliatory policy, most Talukdars in Oudh had their lands restored by 1859-60, turning them into a loyal aristocratic prop for British rule.
However, as we shall see, it was a long way until November.
Sources:
Innes, McLeod. The Sepoy Revolt: A Critical Narrative. London: A. D. Innes, 1897.
Malleson, Col., ed. Kaye’s and Malleson’s History of the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58. Vol. 4 & 5. London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1889; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907.
Metcalfe, Thomas R. The Aftermath of Revolt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.
Raj, J. “British Land Policy in Oudh 1856-68.” PhD thesis, SOAS University of London, 1957. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00033584.
Sykes, John Gaskell Walker. A Compendium of the Law Specially Relating to the Taluqdars of Oudh: Being the Oudh Estates Act (I) of 1869, an Act to Amend the Oudh Estate Act, 1869, (Act X of 1885), the Oudh Sub-Settlement Act (XXVI) of 1866, the Oudh Taluqdars’ Relief Act (XXIV) of 1870, and Parts of the Oudh Rent Act (XIX) of 1868, and the Oudh Land Revenue Act (XVII) of 1876. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co., 1886.
“Taluqdars of Oudh Participate in the Revolt of 1857.” Digital District Repository, Indian Culture. Accessed May 28, 2026. https://indianculture.gov.in/digital-district-repository/district-repository/taluqdars-oudh-participates-revolt-1857.
Mutiny Reflections 