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

V metVings in V artiantent. HOUSE OF LO; LORD ELLENBOROt DESPATCH. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY gave notice that OD Friday he should move a resolution condemnatory of the despatch of the Government to the Governor- G e neral of India in reference to his proclamation to he people of Oude. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought it might be convenient to Lord Shaftesbury if he communicated the despatch alluded to in extenso. In doing so, he added he would take the opportunity of explaining the accident by which the document was given to the House of Commons in its original and unmutilated form. It was at first decided that the whole docu ment should be communicated, but at a later hour on Friday Lord Derby, himself, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that it would be expedient to omit some passages of the despatch. Before this agreement, however, could be communicated to the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. Baillie) the whole of the document had been laid by him before the House of Commons. The fact that the despatch had been placed in the bands of certain members of Parliament before the discussion of Friday evening be also explained, stating that he bad furnished Lord Granville with a copy of the document at his own request. The contents of it had been communicated to some of the friends of Lord Granville, and he (Lord Ellenborough) thought it only right that other gentlemen should have the same opportunity of becoming acquainted with the subject. Lord Granville had received his copy first ; the member of the other house to whom a copy was also sent (Mr. Bright) did not receive it till some hours after wards, from the accident that he was not at his residence when the messenger arrived. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked if the Govern. ment had received any despatch from India with the copy of the proclamation, and, if so, whether it would be produced. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH promised to answer the question on Tuesday evening. Earl GREY asked if the Government was in pos.. session of any other information beyond what ap peared in the papers on the table. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH regretted to say they were not. Earl GREY inferred from that statement that the Government was only in possession of the first draught of Lord Canning's proclamation, not the copy actually issued by the authorities in Oude. The Earl of ELLENBOROIIGH admitted that this was the fact; the Government did not even know with certainty that the proclamation had been published in India at all. They had received no direct com munication from the Governor-General for nearly a month. An animated conversation ensued, from which it appeared that Mr. Vernon Smith, the late President of the Board of Control, had since his retirement from office received a private letter from Lord Can ning, in which he stated that the proclamation he was about to issue would probably require some future explanation which the pressure of public business prevented him from giving at the moment. That letter had not been communicated by Mr. Vernon Smith to his successor in office; Lord Ellen• borough was not aware such a letter had been re ceived. The Earl of Meurminim said, it was usual for any Minister receiving a private letter, after quitting office, that contained anything relating to the bus!. nese of the department, to communicate it to his successor. He had himself received such informa tion from his predecessor in the Foreign-office, Lord Clarendon; he contended it was the duty of an ex-Minister to communicate such intelligence to the department, even though it was contained in a private letter. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that Mr. Vernon Smith did not receive the letter till the evening of Thursday last, after the question in re ference to the proclamation had been asked in the House of Commons. The Earl of ALBEMARLE, in conseqnence of the discussion that had arisen on the subject of Lord Can . ning's proclamation, postponed the resolution of which h e h a d g i ven notice, condemning the policy of annexing any native States of India for supposed default of " heirs natural," or alleged misgovern ment by the native princes. The resolution bore in some degree on the subject of the despatch to Lord Canning, and he could not sanction in any manner the extraordinary conduct of her Majesty's Govern ment towards the Governor-General, who had skil fully coped with the greatest military mutiny and the m o st widespread rebellion ever recorded in the history, of any civilized country. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called on Lord Alke- Inarle, as he had been so anxious to do justice to one G overnor General, also to do justice to another—not THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858. himself, that he did not expect—but to Lord Dal housie. The resolution he had intended to move was the strongest possible censure of Lord Dalhousie's policy, which was supported by the late Government. But the principle of that policy was not stated fairly in the resolution ; if the policy was to be censured, it ought to be described in Lord Dalhousie's owu words. He hoped that would be done it the reso lution should ever be moved hereafter. The bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS - MONDAY. LORD ELLENBOROITOR'S DESPATCH. Mr. CARDWELL gave notice of a motion for Thurs day condemnatory of the despatch with reference to the proclamation of the Governor-General of India in relation to Oude. OATHS BILL. The house having taken into consideration the Lords'amendtnents of the Oaths Bill, _ .. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the house do disagree from the amendment by which the sth clause, omitting the words " on the true faith of a Christian " in the oath when taken by members of the Jewish persuasion, was rejected. Mr. NEWDEGATE defended the amendment, de claring that the clause was based upon a revolutionary principle—that of indifference to all religions ; and warned the house against attempting to supersede the authority of the House of Lords, which would be a direct attack upon the constitution and freedom of the country. Sir R. BETazu., adverting to a remark which fell from Lord J. Russell, said that, should it become necessary, be should feel it to be his duty to suggest a course, perfectly constitutional, by which the great object of the bill might be accomplished. He might appeal, he observed, to every constitutional lawyer whether usage did not warrant the conclusion that when a particular measure had been adopted by that house in a series of Parliaments for many years, and which represented the voice of the nation, it was not the duty of the other house to yield to the often repeated wishes of the House of Commons. His proposition would relieve the house from any appre hension of a controversy with the established courts of justice. He remarked, in conclusion, that the bill as amended imposed, in fact, a larger amount of dis ability upon the Jews. After a few remarks by Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Warren, and Mr. T. Duncombe, upon a division it was agreed to dissent from the Lo rds'; amendment by 263 to 150. The house likewise disagreed from the Lords in excluding the Bth clause, dependent upon the sth. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, a committee was appointed to draw up the reasons for disagreeing from the Lords in their amendments. Mr. T. DUNCONBE moved that Baron Rothschild be a member of the committee, supporting the motion by the precedent of Sir Joseph Jekyll, in 1715, who had been nominated to serve on a com mittee without having previously taken the oaths at the table. The motion was seconded by Mr. DILLWYN, but after some discussion, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned until the next day. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—I. NEW ZEALAND. Sir J. TBELAWNY called attention to certain passages in the evidence given by one of the witnesses before the New Zealand Loan (500,0001.) Guarantee Com mittee, comparing the same with records of the pro. ceedings of the New Zealand House of Assembly, in which the witness referred to took part; also to certain dealings with the natives for the sale of their lands, and to the manner in which recent contracts made with them with respect to schools and hospitals by a Government officet had been carried into effect. Lord STANLEY gave a statement of the facts, with reference to the first point, which reconciled, to a certain extent, the apparent contradiction ; and, as to the second point, he vindicated the Imperial Go vernment from blame. 11. MILITAZY AFFAIRS. Sir W. CODBINGTON called attention to various points connected with the military department. He complained of the present hap-hazard mode of re cruiting, which, he contended, was undignified, and did not obtain men of the best character, and of the best physical capacity ; and he pointed out defects in the Military Train and Commissariat establishments. Mr. MONSELL drew General Peel's attention to the school at Carshalton and to the building of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. General PEEL urged the pressure upon the service to obtain recruits as an excuse for the imperfections of the system of recruiting, which had, he said, occupied the attention of the military authorities, and he offered brief explanations upon other points. After some observations by Colonel NORTH, the house went into Committee of Supply upon the re maining Army Estimates, when various votes were agreed to, some of which underwent a long discussion. PRINCE EDWARD'S ISLAND. 471 The house then went into committee upon the Prince Edward's Island Loan, when _ _ _ _ Lord STANLEY moved that a loan of 100,0001. to the colony be guaranteed to relieve it from embar rassment, thereby, be observed, repairing a wrong caused by an Act of the Imperial Government (the history of which be detailed), whereby the growth of the colony had been retarded, the investment being one that would repay itself. Mr. &summit; opposed the motion, which was, however, agreed to. Some other measures were advanced a stage, and the house adjourned at five minutes past one o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY. THE OUDE PROCLAMATION: THE VOTE OF CENSURE. Lord SHAFTESBURY laid on the table the terms of his motion of which he had given notice on Mon. day : 1. That it appears from papers laid upon the table of this house that a despatch has been addressed by the Secret Committee of the Court of the Directors to the Governor- General of India, disapproving a proclamation which the Governor-General had informed the Court he intended to issue after the fail of Lucknow. 2. That it is known only from intelligence that has reschedthis country by correspondence published in news papers that the intended proclamation has been issued, and with an important modification, no official account of this proceeding having yet been ireceived ; that this Louse is therefore still without full information as to the grounds upon which Lord Canning has acted, and his answer to the objections made to his intended proclamation in the despatch of the Secret Committee cannot be received for several weeks. .. 3. That under these circumstances this house is unable to form a judgment on the proclamation issued by Lord Canning, bat thinks it right to express its disapproba tion of the premature publication by her Majesty's Ministers of the despatch addressed to the Govornor- General, since this public condemnation of his conduct is calculated to weaken the authority of the Governor-General of India, and to encourage those who are now in arms against this country. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE corrected an error he had made on Monday evening in stating that Mr. Vernon Smith did not receive the private letter from Lord Canning till after the censure on his proclama tion had been pronounced in the House of Commons; it was received before that date. The Earl of DERBY contended that, as the despatch was not sent out till the Nth of April, and the letter had been received by Mr. Vernon Smith before the 19th, there would have been ample time, had its contents been communicated to Lord Ellenborough, to have considered how it affected the course to be adopted. This point was loudly cheered by the peers on the Ministerial benches, and Lord Derby proceeded to show that it was the bounden duty of Mr. Vernon Smitb to have made that communica tion, as Lord Clarendon had furnished information received in a similar manner to his successor, Lord Malmesbury. Earl GRANVILLE thought Lord Derby had made the most of the circumstance, but intimated that Lord Ellenborongh had had an opportunity of hearing the contents of a letter Lord Granville had himself received at the same time from Lord Canning; but Lord Ellenborough paid so little attention to it that, not being able to finish reading it to him, Lord Granville had put it in his pocket. Mr. Vernon Smith was not aware of the existence of the letter till he returned from an absence in Ireland, and found it awaiting him in London. He could not anticipate that a censure of Lord Canning's despatch would have been penned within an hour of its having been received. It was natural to sup pose that Lord Canning had deferred his explanation till he could send it, with the form of the proclamation actually issued in India. The Earl of ELLENBOROUOII then spoke as follows: The letter to which the noble earl has alluded, l inclosing the proclamation, was received on the 12th of April. The answer was not written till the 18th of April. It was dated the 19th of April, and it was not sent off until the 26th of April. There was, therefort, ample time for considering what the letter reflecting upon the proclamation should contain, and also for further consideration after it was written, as has been shown by my noble friend near me. Reflection only more strongly induced me to think that it was absolutely necessary to send the letter as it was ori ginally written. What I am accused of is not the writing of that letter. I have heard no one yet find fault with the letter, neither have I yet heard any one defend the con fiscation of the proprietary rights of the landholders of Oade. The only question is—was it or was it not right to publish the letter which was written? As I understand the resolution which is to be moved on Friday, it relates to that question only. Now, my lords, the publication of that letter was en act as wholly mine as the writing of the letter. I take upon myself the whole responsibility, and I will tell your lordships how it happened that that publica tion took place. Some time before I had written a letter in contemplation of the capture of Lucknow subsequently laid upon the table, and which as soon as we knew we were in possession of which I directed the Government of India, w, which was was published Lucknow, in , having eihi.