The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

. .. . . ~t. oe „ 7 ,,,,, 14 _ 4.7 4 - :4 I J ti T //0 4„,,,,., 4., - , ~..,.,... .'YI3 N,...."6 18** •. \ : ..-Dkes ) TG-iii/t Ci Ce i, ..... i .,,,,., , ...__.) .........., LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 15, 1858. No. 263.—V0L. VI. STAMPED ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE• THE NEW CAMBRIDGE-HOUSE MOVEMENT. SUNDAY last ("the better day the better deed") was allotted by the late Premier to the con coction of a new scheme for taking Downing street by storm. As we have already said, once or twice, we do not think this line of conduct defensible in Lord PALMERSTON. A total change of Government, probably involving a dissolution of Parliament, ought not to be regarded as a light thing. He might, in February, have called upon the House of Commons to pause and reconsider its vote ; but having submitted to it, and resigned the Government, that resignation ought to have been bond-fide ; and he, at least, ought to have abstained from any active measures for the re sumption of office, at least until a decent period of retirement had been completed. Such abstinence, however, seems impossible to Lord PALmEngroN, and he seizes the first occa sion to organize an attack upon the Government. To put a better face upon the matter, Mr. CARDWELL, a Peelite, and nephew to an Oxford Head, is put forward to lead the attack in one House, and Lord SHAFTESBURY in the other ! We are pained every day by hearing the remarks which Lord SHAFTESBURY'S apparent connection with such a meeting naturally elicits, both from friends and foes. Not a post passes without our receiving letters from country clergy and others, asking, " Can you tell us whether Lord SHAFTES "BURY attended the Cambridge-house meeting "of Sunday last ?" However, let us come to the question itself. And this is most singularly proposed, in the Resolutions which are to be offered to the two Houses, especially in that which is to be moved in the House of Lords :—" That this House is "unable to form a judgment on the Proclama "tion issued by Lord CANNING; but thinks it "right to express its disapprobation of the pre mature publication by her Majesty's Ministers "of the Despatch addressed to the Governor " General." That is to say, a certain act was done by Lord CANNING of which the House of Lords cannot yet form a judgment. It may have been very foolish, or very wicked—it may have imperilled our empire in India. Of all this the House of Lords will say nothing. But of what grew out of it —.0t the rebuke administered to Lord CAN NLNG by the Home Government, the House will express an opinion. A fault, or a folly, or a Crime, may have been committed ; but that Question the House postpones. It merely pounces upon the censure pronounced, which censure is not a heavy one ; and it proposes first to con demn the censure, and then to leave the main question of whether that censure was deserved or undeserved, to be dealt with at some future time! LATEST EDITION. But surely this involves the House in one very obvious peril. It may turn out, and that in a very few weeks, that Lord CANNING'S Proclamation was a most ill-judged and perilous measure, and that Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S Despatch was the wisest and best way of dealing with it. This, we say, might appear, even before a month had elapsed, to be abundantly clear and certain. But what, then, would be the position of the House of Lords ? Would not Lord ELLENBOROUGH have a right to say to their Lordships, " You rushed in haste to condemn me for what proves to have been right and wise ; but you abstained from expressing any opinion on Lord CANNING'S act, which was utterly wrong. You admitted that you could not understand, and would not pass any judgment on his Proclamation ; but you went on to pass judgment on me, whose protest hinged entirely upon his previous act. Could a hostile animus or prejudice be more clearly or strongly expressed ?" But let us consider for a few momenta the main quesilyx. This is not very simple, inas much as it includes four different points. 1. The state of (hide, and our position in that country. 2. Lord CANNING'S Proclamation. 3. Lord ELLENHOROUGH'S Despatch. 4. The present publication of that Despatch in this country. These four questions are independent of each other. A jury might find for the plaintiff on three of the issues, and for the defendant on the fourth ; or for the defendant on three counts, and for the plaintiff on the fourth. Let us take up these four points in their natural order. And, first, as to the state of Oude, and our position in that country, morally and politically. Much turns upon this, in forming a judgment as to the equity or policy of Lord CANNLNG's Proclamation. The Record newspaper, as most people know, is favourable to Lord PALMERSTON, and is not favourable to the present Government. In citing its opinions, therefore, recently expressed, we are not citing the opinions of a friend, but of one on the other side of the House. Now, within these few weeks, the Record has thus spoken of our position in the kingdom of Oude. On the 19th of February the Record wrote : " The discussion which took place in regard to Oude on Tuesday is one of the most melancholy proofs of the evils of the present system. The subject is one to which it may be useful here after to revert, but for the credit of the country, and for the honour of professedly Christian rulers, we could have desired that the whole of that shameful story could have been buried in oblivion. We fully sympathize with the indignant feeling expressed by Lord JOHN MANNERS at the in structions of the Calcutta Council as to the man ner in which Colonel SLEEMAN was in 1855 to explain how a treaty, solemnly entered into in 1837 with the King of Otrnz, had no existence. It had been repudiated by the Directors, although, in 1839, it was treated as still in force, and, in 1845, published as an existing treaty. That the annexa- tion of Oude might have been justly accomplished we do not doubt; that the people were oppressed and victimized under our Protectorate is proved ; but, by a course of duplicity, we had so acted as to make our annexation appear in the eyes of the natives only as a tyrannical exercise of power, by which we disposed of a creditor who had lent us about three millions sterling, partly on the faith of treaties which had been openly avowed by -- rz.neral, and secrttly repudiated by the Directors. " We do not believe that such a transaction could have been perpetrated without the aid of a Circumlocution Office: We do not live in the days of WARREN HABTENGS, and no statesman would dare to repeat his conduct towards Omza cuND. Nor do we think that any public man would, single-handed, have perilled his fair fame upon conduct such as is now revealed in regard to Oude." Thus much of our position in Oude, and our right to be there at all. Oude has made war with us, and Oude is conquered, or apparently so ; and we may deal with it as a conquered country, as Lord ELLIMBOROUGH rightly says. But before we proceed openly to brand all the inhabitants as rebels and traitors, we ought surely to recollect that our title is both quite recent and not a little questionable. We know that it is questioned, both by the late Sovereign of the country and also by multitudes of his ad herents. Except, therefore, we could wipe away the blots and blurs which stain our right, we ought at least to be moderate and temperate in asserting that right—the more especially since it is honestly questioned by thousands of soldiers with arms in their hands. This is the second point of view in which our position in Oude requires to be regarded. The first was, Have we a clear title ? Secondly, have we a power which will bear down all opposition ? Sir HENRY LAWRENCE, writing in September, 1856, thus described the state of Oude " The King of Oude employed 59,000 soldiers ; his chiefs and officials at least as many more. Of these vast numbers, one-fifth at the utmost have found employment in the police and irregular corps. Yet these levies, with half a dozen regular corps, form the whole army_ of occupation. This seems a grave mistake. Why not, at least, make a change ? Why not move some of the Punjaub regiments that have been keeping constant watch and ward on the Indus for seven years to Oude, and send some of the King's people to the North-West? The King had some 8,000 aqil lery ; of these, about 500 may have obtained employment—the rest, old and young, are on the world. Surely. if there was danger in employing Sikhs in 1849, it would be well to remove some portion of the Oude IP-" - such materials province smaller within thick Forts and a foolish ruin by the a I :a l gie ' I diem are of the Oude levies from Oude, where terials for mischief still remain. In the are 246 forts, besides innumerable strongholds, many of the hick jungles. In these fo • 7. nd guns should all be ignt .r tr. nent, or the forts should .. . , fellow has been urged the possession of a paltry ~ ).L , Fir_ rf(t; " '77711/ y, mud fort has repulsed B — S" Jr : TII 15:41V4, 1 ' 80,000 or 90,000 disba,' ' " *2 . ) . , ( 1 e; the brethren of the Brit** \4.