The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

s ir , • • ••••••... ..* . • • "." • 1 •1 44 496 moment of emergency—that he is wantiug in moral courage. It is palpable to every one, and has been decided by this house and endorsed by the country, and I will venture to say that the Government of Lord Derby is infinitely more Liberal in action than was that of the noble lord. There were not many questions left as legacies to the present Government by their predecessors. There was no Reform Bill. There were, it is true, some loose observations about an India Bill, in which that great sub ject had been treated like a medical reform or turnpike trust bill; and I think the only two legacies were the Cagliari question and the Conspiracy Bill. Well, sir, Lord Derby's Government repudiated the Conspiracy Bill ; and, more than that, without hesitation they obtained the re lease of our two suffering countrymen, and demanded an indemnity which they will probably succeed in obtaining. I must uy that I think—and I believe my opinion is in accordance with the general feeling out of doors—that the Government of the noble earl is entitled to the grafi. tude of the public for the zeal, spirit, and determination with which they grappled with that important question. The hon. baronet concluded by calling on the Liberal party to give their support to the Govern- mint. Sir G. C. LEWIS The hon. baronet has exhorted those gentlemen now present to treat this important question like statesmen, and I wish that he had rennered that precept more forcible by his example. Nothing can be more remote from the truth than the allegation that the motion before the house is a hypocritical production for the purpose of raising a party issue. Nothing cad be more remote from the truth than the assertion that this question has not been forced upon the Opposition, and forced upon them in such a manner that it would have been impossible for them to have passed it over without a dereliction of duty. If gentlemen upon this side of the house had since the change of Government been in search of a question upon which to hang a party motion, or to take a party division, we might have found one not merely upon this India question, but upon many points connected with the h-gis lative measure with regard to India which has been pro- Ceeby the Government We have shown no such wish, tthe question has been tirlist upon us, and I repeat, in the most deliberate manner, that we are actuated by no party motive, and that it would have been an infraction of duty on our part if we had failed to ask the House of Commons to express an opinion upon the resolution now before as. The hon. baronet then reviewed the policy of an nexing Oude from its inception, and then examined the proclamation, and the meaning of the term "confiscation " in that document, upon which so much stress had been laid. What he understood by it was, he said, not actual, but threatened confisca tion. According to the fairest and most reasonable construction, what Lord Canning intended was, in case of rebellion, where the territory had belonged to the Crown and the East India Company, to declare as a penalty that the proprietary right should be forfbited to the British Government. It never could have been his intention to dispossess the entire population of Oude, and turn them adrift, which was contrary to modern policy, and the Government before assuming anything so improbable ought, he contended, to have waited for explanation. If after the despatch was officially brought to the knowledge of the house it took no step, but silently acquiesced in the writing and despatching such an instrument, it would share in the responsibility of the Govern ment, and become an accomplice in their acts. Mr. WHITESIDE began by noticing the inconsis tency shown by the supporters of a resolution which declared that the house abstained from giving an opinion upon the policy of the proclamation in de fending its policy and asserting that that was the true question before the house and the foundation of the whole discussion. He observed that, although the publication of the opinion of the Government on the subject of the policy contained in the pro clamation had been made the foundation of this resolution, this declaration of their views had been distinctly and unequivocally made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question put by Sir E. Perry, on the 23rd of April, the declaration being, he said, cheered by members of the late Govern. went- How, he asked, could they, after this, turn round and censure the present Government? He then commented upon the want of explanation of the proclamation, and upon the " private letter," which was still not forthcoming, suggesting, as no explanation had yet been received from Lord Can ning, that there might have been some other private letter, withheld as the other had been, the informa tion in which would have afforded a material guide to Lord Ellenborough. Referring to the proclama tion, which he termed an awful one, he contrasted its policy with similar documents promulgated by the Marquis of Wellesley and the Marquis of Dalhousie, and challenged the production of any proclamation issued by the British Government in which private property was not respected. The meaning of the proclamation was disputed; but the question was what the document, when submitted to die Government, could be fairly understood to mean ; • and he contended that this monstrous proclamation eibilld only be understood to be fitlrmnattql not only ligeinst large landholders, but holders of small pro. =4 , 41 ,88 martial as well as agricultural. US iSc# 91,1444 VAealwrouSt . . I'i•'+ THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858. light of this construction of the proclamation, and he repelled the objection of Lord J. Russell to the reference made in the despatch to the annexation of Oude. He defended the policy of the despatch, not, he said, in the letter, but in spirit ; if the other side disputed that policy, he called upon them to bring the question to an issue upon a distinct motion, and try whether it was condemned by the house and by the country. On the motion of Mr. COLLIER, the debate was again adjourned till Tuesday. The remaining orders having been gone through and the motions disposed of, the house adjourned at twenty five minutes to one o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY. OF THE HOUSE. The Earl of DERBY gave notice that on Friday he should move the adjournment of the house till Mon day, the 31st of May. The Stamp Duty on Draughts Bill and the Con solidated Fund Bill were read a second time, and their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tuzanky. THE OATHS BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the managers (including Baron Rothschild) appointed to conduct the conference with the Lords on the subject of their amendments of the Oaths Bill. LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION. Sir D. NORREYS inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Governor-General of India had sent home a copy of the proclamation actually issued after the taking of Lucknow; whether it differed from the proposed proclamation before the house, and whether the Governor-General had given to the Home Government any other explanation of the reasons for issuing the proclamation than were contained in Mr. Edraonstone's letter to the Chief of Oude. This inquiry provoked others, and the result of the replies was that, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; a copy of the proclamation actually issued had not been received, nor any official information that any proclamation had been issued, although of the fact there seemed to be no doubt.. He. stated that three private letters had been received from Lord Canning on Saturday, which, although con taining no explanation respecting the proclamation, referred to occurrences in previous letters which had not reached the Government. Lord PALMERSTON, in the absence of Mr. V. Smith, stated that no information upon the subject had reached that gentleman. Sir J. Pala NaTox stated that he had seen an officer, just arrived from India, who stated that the proclamation had " arrived" at Lucknow. Mr. CRAWFORD inquired whether Colonel Franks had not stated that the proclamation bad been issued in compliance with instructions from this country. Sir J. PAKINOTON zeplied that Mr. Crawford had been misinformed, but Colonel Franks had stated that he had heard a rumour to that effect, but the impression was altogether erroneous. Mr. Dth.t.witN asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer whether, in the event of Mr. Cardwell's motion on the Governor-General of India being negatived, the Government would support his amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that he saw nothing in the amendment to which he could not give his willing assent. THE DERBY•DAY. On the motion of Captain VIVIAN, it was agreed that the house at its rising should adjourn until Thursday. THE PROBATE DUTY. Mr. W. Wm. - Emits moved a resolution, that real property and impropriate tithes should pay the same probate duty as that now payable on personal pro perty ; and that property belonging to corporations, universities, colleges, bishoprics, and deans and chapters should pay probate and legacy duties equi valent to those now levied on personal property. The motion was seconded by Mr. HADFIELD, and supported by Mr. Amocx. Mr. GLADSTONE gave a short explanation in reply to a remark made by Mr. HADFIELD. Mr. BRIGHT pointed out the inequality between the succession duty and the legacy duty, to the dis• advantage of the inheritors of personal property, and urged that one and the same principle should be applied to land and to all other species of pro perty. The CuoicELLon off the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. Williams,,explained the difficulties that would lie in the way A t,vm attempt to repair any injustice in the operatiq9:9thhe legacy and succession duties, supposing any,tmustice existed. lie calculated that Cleo Pr94oi444efu.kt,of tririnK corporations liable to the euccciimiqp44oo mou,4 pfp4ce not quite 4,500/. .4% l e iir•AleMiAß , b444 6 (4l9 o 4, , , < ee r oid u i . mipircp4 . ontplilly with the Clian • unequer. lie wittist i ca t i h ion that, allowing for deductions and for the expenses of liti gation, the probability was that if corporations were subjected to the succession duty the balance would be against the public. _ _ Mr. HENLEY, in reply to Mr. Bright, observed that there were anomalies on both sides, and that, if the question were looked into, it would be found that land did not pay labs than its proper share. Mr. L. KING supported the motion. Sir J. GRAHAM was not satisfied with the result of Mr. Disraeli's calculation, in which he suspected some error. He could not understand, he said, how the subjecting corporate bodies to the succession duty could produce no more than 4,5001. a year. Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 172 to 08. Mr. SHERIDAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to Regulate Insurance and Assurance Institutions, and to arrange for their incorporation. Mr. BLAND moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the Aot the 10th of George IV., cap. 34, as relates to conspiracies and solicitations to murder in Ireland. Mr. WHITESIDE stated his reasons for opposing the motion, and recommended Mr. Bland to with- draw it. After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn. Mr. SIANEY obtained leave to introduce a bill to enable or facilitate grants of land to be made near populous places tor the use and regulated re- creation of adults, and as playgrounds for poor children. MANNING THE NAVY. Sir C. NAPIER moved an Address to her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased t.) appoint a com mission to inquire into the best means of manning the navy and improving its management, with a view to reduce its expenditure without impairing its efficiency. He insisted that, unless some regular system of manning the navy were adopted, we should, in case of emergency, be driven to recur to impressment. More encouragement, he said, must be held out to enter the service, by increasing wages, by promoting petty officers, by making further pro vision for pensioning old sailors, and by other means which he indicated. Admiral DUNCOMBE moved, by way of amendment, that the inquiry should be conducted by a select committee, concurring in the object of the motion, but believing that this mode of obtaining it which he proposed was preferable to a commission. Mr. LINDSAY was of opinion that this important in quiry ought not to be left in any hands but those of a committee of that house. _ . Admiral WALCOTT, on the contrary, preferred a Royal Commission. He gave a more encouraging picture of the resources of the navy than Sir C. Napier. Lord C. PAGET was also of opinion that there were ample resources in the hands of the Admiralty for maintaining an admirable fleet in regard both to manning and shipbuilding. He, however, thought there were matters connected with manning the navy which deserved inquiry, especially as to keeping up the coastguard, and that the inquiry should be intrusted not to a commission but a committee. Mr. BENTINCK said he could not understand how it was possible to command at all times a sufficient number of men to meet an emergency. He preferred a committee to a commission. Sir J. PAKINGTON admitted that this was a snbjsct of immense importance, and he had pressed it upon the attention of the house in moving the Navy Estimates, when he adverted to the slow manning of our ships. Bnt ho denied that the country was, as alleged by Sir C. Napier, in a defenceless condition. We had in our ports some of the noblest ships of war eve r built, and if a case of emergency should arise, with the means at our disposal, a very powerful fleet could be prepared for sea at a very short notice. He ad mitted that the question as to manning the navy was a fair subject for inquiry, and as a previous com mission had not considered an important point — namely, by what means the mercantile marine could be made more useful in contributing to the royal navy—he consented to so much of the motion (pre ferring a commission to a committee) ; but he could not assent to the second part, extending the inquiry into the dockyards, the Admiralty, and other branches of the service. LORD PALMERSTON observed that all agreed as to tbe in.portance of the subject; the only difference of opinion was as to the relative advantages of a com mission and a committee. He recommended Six C. Napier to accept the li m itation proposed by J. Pakington. Sir C. NAPIF.R consenting to the proposal, the motion as amended was agreed to. The LORD ADVOCATE Obtained leave to bring in bill to simplify the forms and diminish the ex p ense of completing titles to land in Scotland. Mr. GROGAN moved that the house do on Thursday resolve itself into a committee to consider of ail Address to her Majesty, prayiug that she will be pleszed to give directions that the ratePaYerb