The Press. — London, England, 1858-08-28 00:00:00

832 dostan. The fall of Delhi was the first break in the chain of the mutiny, and that was mainly attri. Imitable to the admirable management of Sir John Lawrence ; the troops. munitions of war, and money which he sent, enabled the British commanders to carry on these operations which were crowned with success. If there was any fault in Sir John Law rence it was that he was too eager, and pressed matters on more than was palatable to the military officers charged with the operations. He saw that the allegiance of the Punjaub and the maintenance of his own frontier depended on the fall of Delhi, and he pressed as much as he could that an attack should be made upon it. He (the chairman) had mentioned this because it was said that Sir John Lawrence was averse to an attack on Delhi when it was made, and counselled that it should not take place at the time it did. All the papers the directors had seen tended to show just the contrary ; that he urged the attack to be made at a time, perhaps too soon ; but he never said that the place ought not to be attacked. On the contrary, when September arrived, he expressed great apprehensions for the tranquillity of his own district, and said that the early fall of Delhi was absolutely necessary to that tran quillity. It was not necessary to say more of the conduct of Sir John Lawrence from the time of the mutiny until the present time. He asked the court to confirm the resolution of the directors, that a pen sion of 2,0001. a year be granted to Sir John Law rence from the time he resigned the Company's set• vice. It was necessary to say at what time the pension should commence, because by Act of Parliament no governor•;;eneral or member of council who received 10,0001. from the East India Company could receive a pension. Therefore, Sir John Lawrence could not receive his until he left the service. The chairman then put the motion amidst loud cheers. Mr. EASTWICK, the deputy•chairman, seconded the motion, and expressed his surprise that there had been no earlier recognition of Sir John Lawrence's services—the man who had saved India. Mr. CRAWSHAY then rose to move an amendment. He said that, in spite of the humiliation which had been recently inflicted on this great company, he was not prepared for such an exhibition of degeneracy as had been displayed in the two speeches they had just heard. He was glad of the opportunity of this dis cussion, and he was surprised at the revelations he had heard made. He knew that there was a party in this country which was seeking to make Sir John Lawrence Governor-General of Indio. It was not thcugbt enough to give him 10,0001. a year, but it was also desired that he might be made a peer. He was not, howaver, aware until now that the directors were acting in this matter in collusion with the Times. It was a most important question to consider what were the claims of Sir John Lawrence. The chairman said that he was the man who had saved India. He could join issue on that point. He felt no pain in opposing the grant of this pension, as he had done on former occasions, because he had charges to make against Sir John Lawrence which went to impeach his conduct, and to leave it to the Court of Proprietors to say whether or not they would suspend this question. He charged Sir John Lawrence with acts which were in disobedience to the orders of the Company. The hon. gentleman then read the order of the Court of Directors in 1847, maintaining the principle of abstaining from all interference with the religion of the natives of India by the officers of the Company, civil or military, even:initheir private capa cities. He then pnaluced a document which he stated he took from the Times newspaper, which was entitled " The Punjaub Circular," and which was re ferred to Sir George Clerk in a memorandum re cently published. That circular was published during the mutiny, and was signed by Mr. Mont iromery. He read extracts from it, to the effect " that the troubles then taking place in India would end in Glory to God, and that the followers of Christ would be induced to come forwatd to advance his kingdom; that the system of caste would not be per mitted to prevail in our service; that the native Christians who bad been hitherto set aside must be more t mployed by the Government. There must be a change, and those who were competent must be employed by the Government." The population of the Punjaub was twelve millions, and as the whole number of native Christians in India was only one hundred thousand, there would be only a few hun dreds in the Penjattb, and there was no wonder that few of them were employed. He asked the chairman whether there wer- any orders given by the Com pany not to employ native Christians in the Punjaub. The circular from which he was quoting went on to say that it would be desirable to secure judicial appointments for the native Christians, and endea vours must be made to promote them in preferenee to Hindoos and Maliotnedans, and that lie would be obliged to each missionary if he would furnish hint with a list of native Christians in his (opinion tit fur the public service. D. contained also instructions to the missionaries how to act. He then proceeded to urge that thia fili4 a &grant 'mulattos cf the orders THE PRESS, AUGUST 28, 1858. of the Company, which deserved censure. This bad a great effect iu England, and was made the subject of much comment in the newspapers. The directors did not seem sensible of this act of insubordination in their servant. Not only in India, but all over the world, the proceedings of missionaries should be watched, or wherever they were, where there was a different re'igion to their own, there would be war. He also charged Sir John Lawrence with atrocious cruelty in suppressing the mutiny in the Puojaub. He had in his hand a book written by Mr. Frederick Cooper, magistrate at Umritser, which was written as a eulogium on Sir John Lawrence and his adminis tration, and it contained authentic letters of Sir John Lawrence and Mr. Montgomery. The first act he charged him with was that of disarming 35,000 native troops at Lahore, when there was no evidence that these regiments were about to mutiny—an act of great oppression, and which was calculated to cause the strongest feelings of pain and dissatisfac tion to the men so treated. About the 20th of May there were disturbances at Peshawur, and a regiment took to flight. They were pur sued ; twelve of the men were hanged and forty blown from guns—a very severe proceeding, and not justified by th• circumstances, and which tended to increase the mutiny. The third event might be termed the Reign of Terror of Sir John Lawrence. He then read a letter of his to Mr. Cooper, congratulating him on his successful efforts against the 20th Native Infantry, whose fate would be a warning to other sepoys. He also read a letter from Mr. Montgomery to Mr. Cooper congratulating him on his success, and adding that there were regi ments at his station which were shaky, and wishing they would go, as, if they did, not a man of them would escape. Could any one cheer such a senti ment as that? He urged that he had established charges of disobedience of orders against Sir John Lawrence, and of cruelty in suppressing the mutiny in the Puojaub; and he thought that ought to cause the proprietors to pause and inquire by what means he had attained the successes for which it was sought to reward him. He implored the court not to consent to the proposition made to them. It. was evident that the Government was colder towards Sir John Lawrence than the Court of Directors, who wished to make him Governor• General of India, a place he hoped he would not obtain. He should prefer Lord Elphinstone for that post, whose conduct with regard to' the missionaries he approved. After stating his approval of the doctrine on this point laid down by Lord Stanley, he concluded a very lengthy and impassioned speech, by moving "That in the absence of official information as to the Punjaub circular, referred to by Sir George Clerk in his recently published memorandum, and which, on the face of it, was an act of disobedience to the orders of this Company in a matter of most vital importance, and also in the absence of official information with respect to the wholesale military executions in the Punjaub, it is the duty of this court not to seal with its approbation the conduct of Sir John Lawrence by assenting to the resolution of the Court of Di rictors." After a protracted discussion, in which Mr. Jones supported Mr. Crawsbay's motion, and Messrs. Lewin, Deut. Cooke, Crawford, and Helps defended Sir J. Lawrence, the original resolution was carried, the only dissentients being Mr. Crawshay and Mr. Jones. HER MAJESTY Will hold a Privy Council on T hurs• day next the 2nd proximo at 04borne. The sum• monses were issued on Wednesday. VISCOUNT AND VISCOUNTESS PALMERSTON have left town for Paris, in which capital the noble Viscount and Viscountess purpose to make a few weeks' stay. .12 RE TURKISH AMBASSADOR bad an interview with the Earl of Derby on Wednesday at his official resi dence in Downing-street. *Mu RIO Volta. LIBEL.—This case, " Yebcombe and Another v. Landor," was tried at Bristol on Monday, before Mr. Baron Channell. We merely give the opening statement of Mr. Slade, as the details are unfit for publication. In conjunction with Mr. Slade as counsel for the plaintiffs were Mr. M. Smith and Mr. H. Buller ; and Mr. Phinn and Mr. Collier were for the defendant. The declaration contained four counts, the list of which was for breach of a contract not to repeat any libels against the plaintiffs. The defendant denied publication and the undertaking. Mr. SLADE, in opening the case, said he had the honour to appear for the plaintiffs in this case. Mr. Yescombo was a clergyman who had resided for some time in Bath, and had mixed with the fir s t society in that city. The defendant was the celu. brate.l poet and author whose works had procured fur kiln a world-wide reputation, and anything thst dropped from his pen approaching to a serious imputation against any one cou l d not be purpose of aken e rio p u o s rp notice t silently I t ' e fo ve r t e h e Tpahseseadot?ovner,wbesutbmrounsgth of it Mrs. Yescombe from a f a l se , f ou l , and malicioresenin„! libel, which had come from the pen of Mr. Lott; and which was contained in a book c alle(l "Dry Sticks Faggotted," by Walter Savage and which hail been circulated w i t h great Lauder, raoiday throughout Bath. The plai n tiff as k ed the jury to step in between his wife and M r . L ander to protect her, and to deter Mr. Lander from the terse eutinn he had adopted against her. It was impossible discover what motive had i n d uce d Mr. Lanier pursue Mrs. Yescombe in th e manner he bed d0n,.,t0 mn for up to May in last year th e y h a d b een on the intimate terms , and almost daily v i s i te d . The only possible motive that could be su ggeste d was certain that Mrs. Yescombe h a d pursue d towaril:in young lady who was at one time in her house. Mr! Yeseombe had considered it right to recommend that that young lady should be removed from Bath to Cheltenham, and immediately after that removal Mr. Lander had begun to publish some of the most libellous statements it was possible to conceive. lie published a pamphlet headed " Mr. Lander and the Hon. Mrs. Yescombe," and in that he charged her with six offences :-1. He charged that Mrs. Yes. combo bad in a trial been guilty of perjury. 2. That he had given her 181. to pay for him, and that she had purloined half the money. 3. That Mrs. Yes. combo had stolen 51. out of a letter which Mr. Landor had trusted to her to put into the post.offiite. 4. That a tradesmen named Jolly had sent Mrs. Yescombe a receipt for the money for some goods; that the money was not returned, but she hat availed herself of the receipt. 5. That being in the shoe.shop of a man named Banks, there were 14s. on the counter, and 7s. of it had found their way into Mrs. Yescornbe's pocket. 0. That Mrs. Yescombe had obtained 100/. from Mr. Lander upon false pre tences. These charges were circulated tbrouAhout the whole of Bath, and it was impossible to suppose accusations of more serious import. Mr. Yescomho consulted Mr. Slack, an attorney of Bath, who wrote a long letter to Mr. Lander, in which he asked for an apology which would be satisfactory to Mr. Yes combe's friends and the public. To that letter no answer was sent, but another pamphlet was pub lished, and that attacked Mr. Slack for simply :laving done his duty. It was headed " Mr. Lsndor Threat ened;' and it concluded with these words:—" Would it be unlawful to order a chairman to cadge! the fellow for his insolence ?" After this there was no other course to be adopted save that of bringing an action. The object of an action, as they were aware, was to challenge the traducer t 3 prove the truth of his accusation. If it was shown to a jury to be tile, then it was an answer to the action. Mr. Lander pleaded the truth of the libel. Mr. Yescombe was prepared to go to trial at Wells, when shortly before the assizes a gentleman named Forster, the lriend of Mr. Lander, and who had been the editor of the Examiner newspaper, came down from Loudon and called on Mr. Slack, and after some conversation the following apology was agreed anon Two pub. lished statements concerning Mrs. Yescombe, entitled Mr. Landor and Mr. Yescombe' and Mr. Lander Threatened,' having come from me, and having been required by my friends to suffer Mr. Forster to institute an inquiry, and ho having stated to me that I had not sufficient authority for the publication, I hereby fully and unreservedly withdraw all such charges contained in the statements above referred to.—W. S. L." To this, by the desire of Mr. Slack, was added the promise that the libels should not be repeated. This was done upon an interview with Messrs. 'l'aylor and Williams, solicitors of Bath. Mr. Slack then wrote to Mr. Forster, stating that, con sidering the advanced age of the defendant, his clients had consented to accept the apology. The result of all this was that Mrs. Yescombe became a bone of contention in the city. Bath was divided. Her health was broken through the unjustifiable conduct of Mr. Landor. The ink was hardly dry with which the apology was written, and in which, upon the honour of a gentleman, be had pronesel rat to repeat the charge, and Mr. Yescombe had most generously consented to withdraw the actit!n, when the most beastly, most disgusting, and dis graceful anonymous letter was written to Mr. Yes combe and sent by the post. There was an9lher, which was so offensive in every sense that li e shou l d not ask Mr. Yescombe to pollute his lip s with U. Bad as these anonymous letters were, they t could no Ise taken notice of, because there was no publication. In September, however, Mr. Lander was in weir nisation with Mr. Nichol, the publisher, of Mal"burgh, burgh, relative to publishing a b o ok called " Dif Sticks," and in which was included a poem called " The Unnatural Mother." How much it was to b d with regretted that a man so highly gifted by Gob such great and mighty talent should have s o de and degraded himself There WPM a cede all'en ird c . to this poem to this effect: " This was writle .. " 1 the false and malicious representation of a 0710; lady, afterwards accused of theft, and sus P eele !... Perjury," and it repeated every accusation the deLeu