The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

OF SEPOYB. Mr. Brut called attention to the treatment of the mutinous sepoys and other insurgents in India, and moved for a series of papers relating to the sub ject. He deprecated the severity now exercised towards the mutineers, and then proceeded to examine the cause from which, in his opinion, the mutiny primarily originated. Much fault, he thought, lay at the door of the English authorities, and their conduct, especially in Oude, did not justify the em ployment of the stern means of retribution which were said to have been adopted. Mr. H. BAILLIE declined to reopen the general question regarding the Indian mutiny. He ad mitted the principle that extreme severity towards the nation would bo equally unjust and impolitic, but expressed his conviction that no excesses of that kind had actually been committed. Bengal was now under martial law, carried out entirely at the discretion of the commander-in•chief, and he read some rules issued by Lord Canning to show how careful be had been to restrain all intemperate acts of vengeance. The papers asked for would, with some reserve, be readily granted. Mr. VANSITTART hoped that the house would not be led away by false notions of humanity. He did not hesitate to say that, in his humble opinion, the system of conciliation had been carried too far in India. To the treacherous Hindoo, to the blood thirsty Mahomedan, and to the plundering Mahratta conciliation meant fear, concession inability to com mand, and clemency was to be repaid on the very first opportunity by the infliction of the most inex pressible horrors and devilish torments that the human mind could conceive on poor unoffending women and helpless children. (Oh, oh !) Mr. C. BUXTON supported the motion, insisting that a stop should he put to the "reign of blood" in India. Abundant proofs were afforded that the humane proclamations of Lord Canning were disre garded, and it was incumbent upon the house to sup port him by some definite expression of its opinion. Mr. Buxton then read extracts from many published letters of officers in support of his argument that the natives were now punished with death in India upon the most trivial grounds. The principle of punishing simple disaffection to our rule with death was acted on in all quarters. In Onde, " all those who," in the words of Sir Colin Campbell, " had set aside their allegiance," were being put to death ; and in Hin dostan Proper we are acting on the same principle. Again, the Rajah of Bullubgbur, who had saved the lives of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Roods, and many other Europeans, had been hanged because, as he pleaded, tinder the compulsion of the rebels, and from mere terror, be had given them aid, and joined with them. Let no one, then, talk about our severities being aimed at murderers alone. He bad demonstrated that what we were now executing for was distinctly, not for murder, but for " setting aside their alle giance ": Yes, that was the expression Sir Colin Campbell used— ' setting aside their allegiance." He remembered how our blood boiled within us when but some twenty-five of the Hungarian leaders were consigned to the gallows. What a harsh thing we thought it of the Pope and of the King of Naples merely to keep in prison those who tried to overthrow their power ! And, turning to our own history, what names stank most foully? Were they not those of men who, after all, did but enforce the law against traitors ; and those, traitors, not to foreign conquerors, but to their lawful king? And could it be that we, wbo were so horror-struck at such deeds when done by other men and in other times—could it be that we English men, who had felt so warmly for every people that bad risen to dash aside a foreign tyranny—oonld it be that we, who took such a delight in a spirit of independence, who loved freedom so dearly, who paid so tender a reverence to human life—could it be that we, at this day, were encum bering the reputation of our country with memories bloody and terrible as the memories of Taunton and of Culloden ? Yes, that was so. That was literally and ac curately so. It was the case, and at this very day we were laying waste village after village with fire and sword, that we were hanging multitudes in cold blood, on the sole ground that they had set aside their allegiance. He did implore the house to record that night its emphatic will that such butcheries should cease. lie was aware that he should be roundly abused for using such strong words. But be did feel from the very bottom of his heart that not merely in doing these deeds in India, but in not lifting up out voice against them here at home, we were involving our country in a crime worse than the crime of mutiny; in a (Time that would be the ruin of our fame ; in a crime that would make our remonstrances with such grants as the King of Naples seem a humbug and a sham; in a crime that would bnitalise our own character; of a crime that would stir up the deadly hate of the men in India, and would thus cut away the only groundwork on which our away over them could repose—the groundwork of their esteem and love. By acting thus we would be staining not alone our glory, but our souls, with that darkest and most awful stain—the stain of innocent blood. (Cheers.) Mr. It. MANGLES eulogised the moderation of Lord Canning, and declared that the tales of indis. criminate hangings and shootings of natives by Eng lish troops were based upon newspaper exaggeration. He professed a similar disbelief respecting tile ac counts of sepoy atrocities. -.... THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858. Mr. ADAMS observed that a scant measure of jus tice had been dealt out to British officers in India, who, upon the authority of odd scraps cut out of newspapers, had been assumed to have committed acts utterly inconsistent with their character. He reminded the house of what the insurgents really were, and thought that too much of a maudlin sen sibility was manifested on their behalf. Sir H. RAWLINSON remarked that the operations against the mutineers had now lasted ten months, and there was not a single prisoner of war in our hands ; the inference was that no quarter was given. He looked, he said, from this discussion for such an expression of the opinion of that house as would react upon India and teach the people that in Eng land it was considered that the moment for mercy had arrived. The motion, confined according to Mr. Baillie's recommendation to certain papers referring to the case of Mann Singh, was agreed to. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF GALWAY. Mr. G. CLIVE moved for leave to bring in a bill for the disfranchisement of the freemen of the county of the town of Galway, based upon the report of the commissioners, who found extensive and systematic bribery prevailing among the freemen, the great majority of whom were of a very humble class, and some exhibited the appearance of poverty ; and that for a long period corrupt practices had prevailed in Galway. Sir T. BURKE rose to second the motion for the introduction of the bill, leaving the house to dispose of it as it saw fit on the second reading, and in a speech descriptive of the recent election excited the intense laughter of honourable members : Gentlemen might laugh ; but be was neither afraid nor ashamed of anvthing he had done throughout the whole transaction. This was one of the most extraordinary cases ever brought before the house as regarded purity ofelection. It was, in tact, the want of spending money that had brought up this charge against them. It was brought by the free men because they did not get the money they wanted. ( Roars of laughter.) On the morning after Colonel French's arrival a number of the freemen came to him (Sir T. Burke) and said—" What will you give ?" " Nothing," said he. ( Laughter.) He had pledged him self not to interfere with either candidate. His own rela tive, Lord Dunkellin, was the whole and sole object of his solicitude ; he did not care about either of the other candi dates; he was determined, if he could, to place his relative at the head of the poll. ( Laughter.) There were up wards of 550 freemen, and ho had a promise from every one of them but 180. What was he to do? (Renewed laugh ter.) Oa the eve of the election he sent e friend to Mr. O'Flaherty's committee, to say if they would poll him 100 men by ten o'block next morning he would give 2501. I Great laughter.) What happened? Was there any peti• tion against the return of Lord Dunkellin? No. Then the commission was issued, and what happened ? He (Sir Thomas Burke) was summoned to Galway to give evi dence on oath before the three learned gentlemen of whom it was composed ; he went, and he could assure the house that a more unpleasant hour he never spent. ( Roars of laughter.) He told those learned gentlemen all that he had done in much the same terms as he was now doing. One word more and he was done. He hoped,for the sake of those poor people in Galway—for they did not get 2s. in the pound of this money—(laughter I—that the house would allow the lion, and learned gentleman (Mr. Clive)to bring in this bill. In the discussion which followed, and in which Lord Lovaine, Colonel French, Mr. Maguire, Mr. K. Seymer, Mr. Hope, and Mr. Ayrton participated, it was urged that equal justice should be dealt to all, and that the rich and greater delinquents, who had seduced the poor electors to the commission of the offence, should not be passed over. Mr. WALroLE strongly advised the house to assent to the introduction of the bill ; but be had doubts respecting the measure. Fur example : first, it proposed to disfranchise both the innocent and the guilty ; secondly, there wag a list appended to the report of persons who had been guilty of purchasing votes, and the house should consider whether one class could be dealt with and not the other. The motion was agreed to, and leave was given to introduce the bill. Mr. BRADY, in moving for a return of the expenses at►.endant on the prosecution of the Royal British Bank directors, expressed dissatisfaction at the punishment awarded to the directors for what Lord Campbell bad characterised as an infamous crime. Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said the accounts had not jet been received; when they were they should be produced. After a conversation on the subject of the scale of allowances to witnesses, in whicb Mr. Crawford, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Henley, and other members took part, the motion was withdrawn. On the motion of Mr. WALPOLE, the select com mittee upon the London Corporation Regulation Bill was nominated. Lord RAYNIIAM obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Act 17th and ltith of Victoria, can. (10, for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals. The Cambridge University Matriculation and Degrees Bill was read a second time. Other bills were advanced a stage, and the house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. NOTICES OF MOTION. TUESDAY. Mr. HATTER—on an early day after Easter, that in the opinion of the house an Under•Seoretary of State for Scotland should be appointed to perform the political duties at present attached to the office of Lord Advocate. Jr. COOPER—on Tuesday next, for leave to bring In a bill to regulate the qualifications for practising in medicine and surgery. Mr. MACKINNON-.-00 the 30th instant, to call attention to the report of the select committee of 1/356 on mercantile tribunals and equitable councils. WEDNESDAY. Mr. Cox—on the 30th instant, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the I Geo. 1., o. 3i, commonly oalled the Septennial Act, and to limit the duration of parliaments to three years. THURSDAY. Mr. PAcut —that on the motion for the second reading of the Agricultural Statistics Bill he would move that it be read a second time that day six months, Mr. S. FITZGERALD—that on Monday next he should move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the Con• solar Service. CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING FOREIGN REFUGEES IN ENGLAND. Tars important correspondence between the Courts of St. James and of the Tuileries has been pub lished. It consists of five despatches. The first, dated " Paris, February 23rd," is from Lord Cowley, and announces the desire of Count Walewski that he Lord Cowley) should express Count Walcwski's astonishment and regret " at the interpretation put, in England, upon his despatch to Count Per slimy of the 20th ult. Lord Cowley goes on to say that Count Walewski " has evinced so much con cern that the deplorable events which have occurred should not interrupt the friendly relations which exist between the two countries," that " it is not to be supposed he would intentionally have said aught that could be construed into an attack upon the liberties of the British nation." To this Lord Mal mesbury replies as follows : TIIE EARL OF NALMESBURY TO EARL COWLEY. Foreign-office, March 4, 1858. My Lord,—Yon will take the earliest opportunity of assuring Count Walewski that her Majesty's advisers, on their accession to office, are earnestly desirous of main taining in their integrity those close and friendly rela tions which, since the restoration of the Empire, have' marked the alliance between France and Great Britain, to the great bene fi t of both countries. Convinced that these sentiments are shared by the Go vernment of his Imperial Majesty, and that both Govern ments will concur in the opinion that such friendly rela tions are best maintained by frank and unreserved inter course, her Majesty's Government appeal with confidence to that of his Imperial Majesty to aid them in their en deavours to remove some causes of misapprehension which, it cannot be denied, have produced, and, if suffered to remain unexplained, must continue to produce, painful effects upon the public mind of England. Your lordship will assure Count Walewski that her Majesty's Government entertain the fullest conviction that his Excellency, in his despatch of the 20th January, written at a moment when the just indignation of France and of the world had been excited by the late atrocious and cowardly attempt upon the life of his Imperial Majesty, and ander the impression that the laws of England were insufficient to protect his Imperial Majesty against a repe tition of such attempts upon the part of foreign refugees resident in Great Britain, had no other intention than that of pointing out to her Majesty's Government what appeared to be a source of danger to France, and inviting their attention to the supposed defect. If such has been from the first the hope of her Majesty's Government, that hope has been completely realised by the full and frank assurances which Count Walewski has spontaneously given, as reported in your despatch of the 23rd of February, of his astonishment and regret at the interpretation put upon certain phrases in his despatch to Count Persigny of the 20th of January, " astonishment that his meaning could have been misunderstood, and regret that he should be believed, with his knowledge of England, capable of applying, as a generality, an imputa tion which the context of his despatch ought, he thinks, to have proved could only have been intended fors definite class of strangers." Though her Majesty's Government have, from the first, entertained the belief that an erroneous construction had been put on Count Waleveskes despatch, they receive with the highest satisfaction the voluntary repudiation, so honourable to his Excellency, of the meaning which he believes to have been attributed to him; and in the same spirit of candour they desire to call his attention to those expressions which really have produced an unfavourable impression on the public opinion of this country. Your lords l ip will therefore remark to Count NValewaki, that his Excellency. in stating that the attempt which has just providentially failed, " like others which have preceded it, was devised in England,"—in speaking with reference to the "adeptea de /a demagogie" established in England,— of " assassination elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts," and in asking " whether the right of asylum should protect sneh a stato of things, or contribute to fAvour their designs and their plans," has has not unnaturally been understood to imply imputations, not only that the offences enumerated are not recognised as such by the English law, and may be committed with impunity, but that the spirit of English legislation is such as designedly to shelter and screen the offender from punishment. Her Majesty's Government are persuaded that had Count Walewski known, when his Excellency held wi7.: