d permanent interests of their own master, that the
impression has become strong and general, that our Government can no
longer support the present Government of Oude, without seriously
neglecting its duty towards the people.--1851, W. H. S.]

In the reports of the Resident on the state of affairs in Oude, and
the replies of Government, much importance has been always attached
to the change from the contract, or _ijara_ system, to that of the
_amanee_, or trust management system; and since the time of Lord
Hardinge's visit many more districts have been put under the latter
system; but this has not tended, in the smallest degree, to the
benefit of the people of these districts. The same abuses prevail
under the one system as under the other. The troops employed in the
districts under the one are the same as those employed in the
districts under the other, and they prey just as much upon the
people. There is the same system of rack-rent in the one as in the
other, and the same uncertainty in the rate of the Government demand.
The manager under the _amanut_ system demands the same secret
gratuities and _nuzuranas_ for himself and his patrons at Court from
the landholders, as the contractor; and if they refuse to pay them
they are besieged, attacked, and cut up, and their estates desolated
in the same manner. The _amanut_ manager knows that his tenure of
office depends as much upon the amount which he pays to his
sovereign, and to his patrons at Court, as that of the contractor,
and he exacts and extorts as much as he can in the same manner.
Unless he pays his patrons the same he knows that he shall soon be
removed, or driven to resign by the want of means to enforce the
payment of the revenues justly due.

The objections which are urged against the employment of British
troops in support of the authority of revenue contractors, are
equally applicable to their employment in support of that of amanee
managers. Their employment is just as liable to abuse under the one
as under the other. It is not a whit easier to ascertain whether a
demand for balance of revenue from, or a charge of contumacy against,
a landholder is just or unjust in the one than in the other. In
neither is the demand set forth in public documents understood by
either party to be the real demand. Both parties are equally
interested in preventing a portion of the _real_ demand from
appearing in the public accounts; and the quarrel is almost always
about t