Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T20:41:06.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–53)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Oliver B. Pollak
Oliver B. Pollak
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historical accounts of the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–53) emphasize national bias, monocausality and events immediately preceding the outbreak of hostilities. Asian historians find Europeans culpable. Governor-General Dalhousie ‘was an imperialist of the deepest dye, who longed to extend his Indian empire at the cost of the Burmese.’ The East India Company in its unquenchable ‘thirst for conquest’ coveted Burma. ‘There was a desire for war on the part of the British trading community in Burma … as it would permanently safeguard commercial interests in the country.’ Anglophile historians blame the Burmese. The ‘intransigence and xenophobia which radiated from the court of Ava… drove [Dalhousie] into war.’ Dalhousie himself blamed an unrestrained military officer whom he labeled the ‘combustible commodore.’ Despite imperial apologetics, critical Englishmen felt unease at the ‘double government's’ Blue Book coverup and sought with mixed success to disclose the ‘whole ugly truth.’

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 1978 , pp. 483 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author wishes to thank Professor J. S. Galbraith who provided the initial stimulus to this study as well as continuing valuable advice.

1 Aung, Maung Htin, A History of Burma (New York, 1967), p. 225;Google ScholarThe Stricken Peacock: Anglo-Burmese Relations, 1752–1948 (The Hague, 1965), p. 41.Google Scholar

2 Panikkar, K. M., Asia and Western Dominance, new edn (London, 1959), p. 41.Google Scholar

3 Desai, Walter Sadgun. A Pageant of Burmese History (Bombay, 1961), p. 196.Google ScholarIt should be noted that Anil Chandra Banerjee, Annexation of Burma (Calcutta, 1944), p. 55, concludes the ‘grievances’ were justified.Google Scholar

4 Hall, Daniel George Edward, Burma (London, 1950), p. 66.Google Scholar

5 SirLee-Warner, William, The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, K.T., 2, vols (London, 1904), II, 123.Google Scholar

6 Dalhousie to Broughton, 23 January 1852, Broughton Papers, British Museum, Add.Mss. 36477.Google Scholar

7 ‘Double government' is the term applied to the confused administrative relationship bet ween the Crown and the East India Company. See Cobden, Richard, How Wars Are Got up in India: The Origin of the Burmese War, 3rd edn (London, 1853);Google ScholarWoodman, Dorothy, The Making of Burma (London, 1962), p. 127;Google ScholarHall, D. G. E., ‘Anglo-Burmese Conflicts in the 19th Century: A Reassessment of the Causes’, Asia, No. 6 (1966), p. 43.Google Scholar

8 Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. VI (1953), 1–15;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGalbraith, John S., ‘The “Turbulent Frontier” as a Factor in British Expansion,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, II (1960), 150–68;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAdas, Michael, ‘Imperialist Rhetoric and Modern Historiography: The Case of Lower Burma before and after the Conquest’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, III, 2 (1972), 175–92;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSarkisyanz, Manuel, Peacocks, Pagodas and Professor Hall: A Critique of the Persisting Use of Historiography as an Apology for British Empire Building in Burma (1972).Google Scholar

9 Reluctance was diminished in peninsular and island Southeast Asia. See Tarling, N., ‘The Superintendence of British Interests in South-East Asia in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Southeast Asian History, VII (1966), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Banerjee, Anil Chandra, The Eastern Frontier of British India, 1784–1826 (Calcutta, 1943).Google Scholar

11 India Board of Governor-General in Council, Draft of Secret Despatch, 23 December 1828, Secret Letters Received from Bengal and India, L/P & S/5/7. See also letter of 10 October 1829, India Office Archives, London.Google Scholar

12 Ellenborough to Auckland, 19 September 1841, in SirLaw, Algernon (ed.), India Under Lord Ellenborough, March 1842–June 1844: Selections from the Ellenborough Papers (London, 1926), p. 15;Google Scholar Duke of Wellington to Ellenborough, 29 December 1841, in Charles, Reginald, Colchester, Lord, History of the Indian Administration of Lord Ellenborough (London, 1874), p. 200.Google Scholar

13 Auckland to Ellenborough, 20 November 1841, Auckland Papers, British Museum, Add.Mss. 37706.

14 McLeod to Maddock, 21 March 1840, India Secret Proceedings/35.Google Scholar

15 Hillier to Prinsep, 14 September 1838, Prinsep Collection, IOA/D662/D, original emphasis. Of the five Tenasserim Commissioners, 1834–52, the three with India-wide experience are cited in the Dictionary of National Biography, while the two locally recruited alarmists are not mentioned.Google Scholar

16 Auckland to Robertson, 1 May 1840, Auckland Papers, Add.Mss. 37699.Google Scholar

17 Torrens to Blundell, 4 May 1840, ISP/40.Google Scholar

18 Auckland to Prinsep, 29 January 1839, Auckland Papers, Add.Mss. 37695.Google Scholar

19 Pauline Countess Nostitz (formerly Madame Helfer), Travels of Doctor and Madame Helfer in Syria, Mesopotamia, Burmah and Other Lands, 2 vols (London, 1878), II, 92.Google Scholar

20 Blundell to Bushby, 13 February 1843, and Merchants Petition, ISP/94.Google Scholar

21 Memo by Lord Ellenborough on Indian Foreign Policy, 27 April 1842, Ellenborough Papers, Public Record Office, 30/12/31/10.Google Scholar

22 Broadfoot to Col. [Cullin?], 25 November 1839, and also Broadfoot to Lock, 20 December 1842, Broadfoot Papers, British Museum, Add.Mss. 40127.Google Scholar

23 Ellenborough to Duke of Wellington, 22 April 1843, in Law, India under Ellenborough, p. 362.Google Scholar

24 Broadfoot to Davidson, 19 May 1843, ISP/96.Google Scholar

25 Military Commander of Sittang and Martaban to Myowun of Maulmain, translated from Burmese, India Foreign and Political Proceedings 199/31.

26 Broadfoot to Davidson, 6 April 1843, ISP/94.Google Scholar

27 Broadfoot to Ellenborough, draft, 17 March 1844, Broadfoot Papers, Add.Mss. 40127.Google Scholar

28 deposition, Burmese, 1 January 1843, Broadfoot to McLeod, 6 June 1843, ISP/98; and Maulmain Chronicle, 7 June 1843, Notification dated 3 June 1843.Google Scholar

29 McLeod to Broadfoot, 8 July 1843, Richardson letters and notes on interviews with Tseekay of Martaban, 3 June to 23 July, ISP/98; Broadfoot to Ellenborough, 23 July 1843, Thomason to Broadfoot, 2 August 1843, Ellenborough Papers, PRO/30/12/73; and 5 August 1843, ISP/98.Google Scholar

30 Durand to Ellenborough, 17 June 1846, Ellenborough Papers, PRO/30/12/21/6.Google Scholar

31 Durand to McLeod, 30 April 1846, ISP/135.Google Scholar

32 O'Riley to Bogle, 15 Feburary 1850, IPF/199/6;Google ScholarHarvey, G. E., in Cambridge History of the British Empire (Cambridge, 1929), Dodwell, H. H. (ed.), IV, 567.Google Scholar

33 C. R. M. Jackson (Advocate-General) to A. R. Young, 5 August 1851, IPF/199/41.Google Scholar

34 Report of Public Meeting at Maulmain Exchange Room, 7 March 1851, Bogle to Hopkinson, 7 March 1851, and Maha Min Hla Htai Kya, Great Tseekay of Martaban City to Maulmain Tseekay, March 1851, IFP/199/34.Google Scholar

35 Bogle to Halliday, 22 March 1851, IPF/199/34.Google Scholar

36 See Pearn, Bertie Reginald, A History of Rangoon (Rangoon, 1939, repr. Farnborough, 1971).Google Scholar

37 Bushby to Blundell, 22 June 1842, ISP/80.Google Scholar

38 Crisp to Maddock, 9 November 1841, ISP/66; and McLeod to Blundell, 1 February 1842, ISP/75.Google Scholar

39 Maddock to Blundell, 20 December 1841, ISP/67. The monopoly was lifted in early 1844. Ministers of Ava to Governor of Rangoon, 20 Jauary 1844, signed, Prince of Prome and Mekkara Prince, ISP/104.Google Scholar

40 Memo on Crisp case, June 1844, IPF/196/56.Google Scholar

41 Currie to Tenasserim Commissioner, 20 July 1844, IPF/196/56.Google Scholar

42 Petition to the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce, 16 July 1845, Bushby to M. F. Crisp, 14 February 1846, IPF/197/32; M. F. Crisp to Bushby, 28 January 1848, and Elliot to M. F. Crisp, ISP/145.Google Scholar

43 Brown to Colvin, 10 and 13 December 1847, and Colvin to Bushby, 20 December 1847, ISP/145. See Colvin to Elliot, 20 March 1848, ISP/146, on Burmese restrictions on movements of Burmese women married to Europeans.Google Scholar

44 Colvin to Elliot, 29 February 1848, ISP/146.Google Scholar

45 Elliot to Colvin, 7 April 1848, ISP/146.Google Scholar

46 Brown to Melville, 14 March 1848, 1SP/146.Google Scholar

47 Hopkinson to Bogle, 21 March 1851, IPF 199/134.Google Scholar

48 C. M. Crisp to Grey, 22 January 1851, IPF/199/29.Google Scholar

49 Bogle to Halliday, 10 February 1851, IPF/199/31.Google Scholar

50 Halliday to Bogle, 14 March 1851, IPF/199/31.Google Scholar

51 Bogle to Halliday, 15 July 1851, IPF/199/45.Google Scholar

52 Sheppard to Bogle, 27 June 1851, and Messrs Creaton and Co. (Agents for ship Monarch) to Bogle, 4 August 1851, IPF/199/45.Google Scholar

53 Lewis to Governor of Rangoon, 15 September 1851, IPF/199/46, original emphasis.Google Scholar

54 Judson to Colvin, 8 February 1847, ISP/133.Google Scholar

55 Benson to Government of India, 18 July 1838, ISP/11, in Desai, W. S., History of the British Residency in Burma, 1826–1840 (Rangoon, 1939, repr. Farnborough, 1972), p. 351.Google Scholar

56 Judson to Corresponding Secretary, 28 March 1847, Baptist Missionary Magazine, XXVII (1847), 337.Google Scholar

57 Judson to Corresponding Secretary, 20 May 1847, Ibid., p. 422. Emphasis added to note the rumor/second-hand nature of the description.

58 Patton, Alfred S., The Hero Missionary, or a History of the Labors of the Rev. Eugenio Kincaid (New York, 1858), p. 81.Google Scholar

59 Kincaid to Corresponding Secretary, 10 March 1851, Kincaid Papers, American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, Valley Forge, microfilm.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., 8 October 1851.

61 Ibid., 13 November 1851.

62 Dalhousie to Couper, 21 October 1851 and 1 February 1852, in Baird, John G. A. (ed.), Private Letters of the Marquess of Dalhousie (Edinburgh, 1910), pp. 179, 189–90. This was not a new issue. It was the very problem that led to Ellenborough's departure.Google Scholar

63 Halliday to Elliot, 10 October 1851, IPF/199/46. Ellenborough had marked Halliday as a meddler with commercial interests and had hoped to remove him as he did Blundell. It is interesting to note that Halliday went on extended sick leave in early 1852, ostensibly without recrimination and with Dalhousie's blessing. Dalhousie to Couper, 27 January 1852, in Baird, Private Letters, p. 210.Google Scholar

64 Note by Officiating Undersecretary, ‘Existing Relations of the Government of India with Ava’, Young, A. R., 8 September 1851, and Halliday to Elliot, 10 October 1851, IPF/199/46.Google Scholar

65 Lambert to Dalhousie, 4 October 1851, IPF/199/52; and 11 October 1851, Dalhousie Muniments, Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh, 6/531.Google Scholar

66 Minutes by Dalhousie, 29 and 30 October 1851, ISP/171.Google Scholar

67 Observations of Lambert in Tarling, Nicholas, British Policy in the Malay Archipelago, 1824–1871 (Kuala Lumpur, 1969), p. 125.Google Scholar

68 Dalhousie to Lambert, 29 October and 3 November 1851, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/531.Google Scholar

69 Phayre to Dalhousie, 9 April 1853, in Hall, D. G. E. (ed.), The Dalhousie Phayre Correspondence, 1852–1856 (London, 1932), p. 53. Lambert is here accused of being over-cautious.Google Scholar

70 Dobbs, Major-General Richard Stewart, Reminiscences of Life in Mysore, South Africa, and Burmah (Dublin, 1882), pp. 196–8;Google ScholarWolseley, Field-Marshal Garnet, The Story of a Soldier's Life, 2 vols (London, 1903), I, 54;Google Scholar Phayre to Dalhousie, 9 April 1853, in Hall, Correspondence, p. 53; Latter to Lambert, 10 February 1852, in Papers Relating to Hostilities with Burmah Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852, XXXVI, pp. 216–7.Google Scholar

71 Bogle to Halliday, 23 March 1852, Dalhousie Muniments, GD45/6/171; Hall, Correspondence, p. 50.Google Scholar

72 Kincaid to Corresponding Secretary, 28 November 1851, Kincaid Microfilm. Three versions of Lambert's first visit to Rangoon survive, all emphasizing different aspects. Kincaid's in the Valley Forge, Baptist Missionary Archives and the Missionary Magazine are self-laudatory. Lambert's letters and despatches are apologetic, demonstrating how few were the alternatives to the course he took. Finally there is Captain Latter's narrative delivered personally in Calcutta, giving paramountcy to what he considers the insulting behavior of the Burmese officials. It is filled with inconsistencies common to accounts based on second and third-hand evidence. Latter to Halliday, 6 December 1851, ISP/171, and Narrative of Events at Rangoon, 10 January 1852, ISP/173.Google Scholar

73 Crisp senior arrived later in Rangoon. He placed his local knowledge at the disposal of Lambert while simultaneously selling muskets to the Burmese.

74 Kincaid to Corresponding Secretary, 28 November 1851, Kincaid Microfilm; and Merchants Resident in Rangoon to Lambert, 28 November 1851, in Papers Relating to Hostilities, p. 25.Google Scholar

75 Lambert to Governor of Rangoon, 27 November 1851, and Lambert to Prime Minister of King Ava, 28 November 1851, in Papers Relating to Hostilities, p. 168.Google Scholar

76 Lambert to Dalhousie, 28 November 1851, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/531.Google Scholar

77 Dalhousie to Lambert, 20 December 1851, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/531. Censure request reprinted in extenso in Woodman, Making of Burma, pp. 127–8. The Parliamentary Paper cited in note 70 above and The Burmese War, Further Papers, Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–1853, LXIX, carefully avoid the rancor in Calcutta by omitting the pertinent passages. Dalhousie acquiesced to this coverup of Lambert's role, Dalhousie to Couper, 30 April 1858, in Baird, Private Letters, p. 423. This obfuscating whitewash coverup by the double government is precisely what Richard Cobden objected to.Google Scholar

78 Dalhousie to Lambert, 20 December 1851, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/531.Google Scholar

79 Lambert to Littler, 1 January 1852, in Papers Relating to Hostilities, p. 178.Google Scholar

80 U Tin (of Sagaing), Konbaungzet Ya-zawin 3 vols (Mandalay, 1922–1923), III, 94.Google Scholar

81 Lambert to Halliday, reply to Dalhousie's criticisms, ISP/173, in Woodman, Making of Burma, pp. 545–6.Google Scholar

82 Lambert to Halliday, 9 January 1852, in Papers Relating to Hostilities, p. 180.Google Scholar

83 Log, Ship's, Fox, Public Record Office, London, Admiralty, 4467.Google Scholar

84 Lambert to Halliday, 10 January 1852, in Papers Relating to Hostilities, p. 185.Google Scholar

85 Lambert to Dalhousie, 19 January 1852, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/531.Google Scholar

86 Dalhousie to Lambert, 23 January 1852, Dalhousie Muniments, 6/82.Google Scholar

87 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, 23 January 1852, Broughton Papers, British Museum, Add.Mss. 36477. Hobhouse was later created Lord Broughton.Google Scholar

88 Minute by Dalhousie, 22 January 1852, ISP/175, reprinted in Woodman, Making of Burma, pp. 540–5.Google Scholar

89 Memorandum from the President of the Council of India to the Governor of Rangoon, Papers Relating to Hostilities, pp. 196–7.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., Minute by Dalhousie, 12 February 1852, Governor-General to King of Ava, 18 February 1852, Halliday to Lambert, 13 February 1852, pp. 207–11 and 218–9; Dalhousie to Mountain, 17 August 1852 and Dalhousie to E. Ellice, 4 September 1852, Dalhousie Muniments, GD45/6/14.

91 Lee-Warner, , Dalhousie, I, 446.Google Scholar