To G. Buist, Esq.

P.S.—­Of course, this note will be considered as confidential.

(Signed) W. H. S.

__________________________

Lucknow, 24th April, 1853.

Dear Sir,

An article in your paper of the 15th instant, on the subject of the international law of India, has interested and pleased me much.  It has reference to an article in the London “Times” of the 9th February last; and I write to invite your attention to an article which appeared in the “Daily News,” a Manchester paper, in reply to it, written by Sir G. Clerk, lately Governor of Bombay.  Both these articles have been much discussed at the London clubs, and the morality of the “Daily News” article has been very favourably contrasted with that of the article in the “Times.”  The article in the “Times” is supposed to have been penned by Mr. J. Marshman himself, or by one of the most rabid members of the school whose Machiavellian doctrine he advocates.

These doctrines are considered by some of our wisest statesmen to be as dangerous to the stability of our rule in India as they are disgraceful to our morality; and as these statesmen consider the well-being of the people of India to depend upon that stability, they are always glad to see their fallacies exposed and their iniquities indignantly denounced by the moat able and steady of our public journalists.  I hope you will be able to find the able article in the “Daily News” to which I refer, and consent to give it a prominent place in the “Englishman.”  It was sent to me by a friend in London, but I have, unfortunately, mislaid it.  This note will, of course, be considered as confidential.

Yours sincerely,
W. H. SLEEMAN.

To W. C. Harry, Esq.

__________________________

Lucknow, 5th June, 1853.

My Lord,

I have read with great interest in the English journals your Lordship’s able Minute on the Burmese war, and am glad that it has been published, as it cannot fail to disabuse the public mind at home, and bring about a reaction in the feeling of the people excited by some very unfair articles in the London “Times.”  I attributed these articles to the Napiers, who, however talented, are almost always wrong-headed.

I am persuaded that the new Sovereign will acquiesce in your possession of Pegu, and that he would not have ceded it by treaty under any circumstances.  The old Sovereign might have done it, though at great risk, but the new Sovereign could not dare to do it.

Our own history affords us instances enough of powerful ministers anxious, for the public good, to get rid of conquered, but expensive and useless possessions, but deterred from proposing the measure by the dread of popular odium, which ambitious and factious rivals are always ready to excite.