money
to lay out on bridges and roads in Oude, and the Resident advocated
this wish; but our Government, ignorant of the fact of the
illegitimacy of the deceased, and with the guaranteed bequest of the
late King before them, could not consent to any such arrangement.

Government has long been strongly and justly opposed to all such
guarantees, and the Resident was told on the 14th November 1840,
"that the Governor-General in Council could not consent to grant the
absolute and unqualified pledge of protection which the King was
solicitous of obtaining in favour of four other females; and directed
to state to his Majesty that, although in the instances he had cited,
such guarantees had certainly been afforded in former times, yet they
were always given either under the impression of an overruling
necessity, or in consequence of some acknowledged claims, or
previously existing engagements, the force of which could not be
avoided; that their existence had often operated practically in the
most embarrassing manner, while it constituted a standing and
perpetual infringement of the rights of the Government of Oude; and
that his Lordship in Council was, consequently, decidedly opposed to
the continuance of a system so plainly at variance with every just
principle of policy." The objections of the British Government to
such guarantees are stated in letters dated 18th February, 28th
March, 20th May, 3rd October, and 19th December 1839, and 11th May
1848.

In a despatch from the Honourable the Court of Directors, dated 4th
March 1840, their just disapprobation of such guarantees is
expressed; and reference is made to former strong expressions of
disapprobation. In their despatch of the 28th March 1843, the
Honourable Court again express their disapprobation of such
guarantees; and refer to their letter of the 16th March, in which
they gave positive orders that no such engagement should ever be
concluded without a previous reference to the Court. The argument
that the arrangement did not, in any particular case, add to the
number of guaranteed persons, such persons being already under
guarantee, did not in the opinion of the Court touch the stronger
objection to such a measure, that of the impropriety of our aiding,
especially by the grant of peculiar privileges, the appropriation of
the resources of the State to the advantage of individuals. The Court
expresses a hope that they shall never have occasion to notice any
future vi