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

~~ Iroutbings in V arliament. HOUSE OF LORDS—MONDAY. The Protection of Female Children Bill went through committee. Lord Dc MAULEY moved for copies of the corre spondence between the English and Austrian Govern ments respecting telegraphic correspondence between Ragusa and Alexandria. The Earl of MAI•MESBURY stated that the papers were being printed. Lord BERNERS presented a petition from the butchers and others interested in the supply of meat to the metropolitan markets, complaining of the regulations that affect the slaughtering of cattle in London. The bills on the table were forwarded a stage; their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS MONDAY. The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a third time and passed. GOVERNMENT CENSURE OF LORD CANNING. The adjounied debate on the Governor General of India was resumed by Mr. ROEBUCK, who began by urging the impor tance of the question, which concerned a large section of the human race, and whether the house was to be guided by the great principles of honour and virtue, or, utterly regardless of the helpless people of India, by a consideration for the sole aggrandize ment of England. What, he asked, were they fighting for?—not the happiness of India, bat a mere matter of party politics, as to who i.hould sit on the different benches of the house. Addressing himself to the question raised by the resolution moved by Mr. Cardwell, he laid down three proposi tions—first, that Lord Ellenhorough was bound to write an answer to the proclamation of the Governor- General ; secondly, that he wrote the right despatch ; and, thirdly, that the Government were not answer able for the production of the despatch. Reading the proclamation in English, he declared the case to be one to which the history of mankind afforded no parallel. When the Government received this pro clamation, which was calculated, he said, to make the people of Oude rebellious to the very end of their lives, what were they to dot If they had passed it over in silence, they would, in his opinion, have deserved impeachment. The hon. member continued : Was not Lord Ellenborough bound to answer the pro clamation as his own judgment told him it should be answered? and, if you compelled the publication of that despatch, the evil of it rests here, and not with the Govern• went. There is this wonderful peculiarity—l will not say mischief—of a Government like ours,—that the people should know what is going on. I believe that the argu ments used in tits debate go further than some hon. gentlemen think, and that they condemn the hidden diplomacy which is the curse of this country. I firmly believe that, if we knew from day to day what the Govern ment are doing, we should be better off than we are. Now, we are led blindfold into every error. War comes on us, and we are told we must not inquire. Peace comes on us, and we are told we are too late. When it is im portant that we should know, the public interests step in; and when to know iv of no use at all, we are told all. Sir, I want to know if this is not a fair description ? There was to other course before the Government except that which they pursued. They were called upon to give an opinion. They did give an opinion, and they gaye it ac- cording to the honest bias of their own minds. When they were called upon to publish that opinion it was by this side of the house, and they had no alternative. It was published in spite of themselves, and the publication is not to be laid at their door. Well, then, if we are to regard our Indian dominion as a matter in which we have an interest, we have a yet greater interest in truth and ponce. if you wanted to pacify India it would be by the course pointed out in the despatch of Lord Ellenborough. It has been said that this despatch ought to be printed in letters of gold. Sir, I believe so. That was an honest despatch, and I do not know my own countrymen if they do not come to the same conclusion. I entreat my countrymen to remember that there are things above Party. If they are to consider mere party moves I will milt them what they will get if the Government are in a minority to night? Why, a Government that we have eeshiered lately, because they neglected the honour of England. We are to allow hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, aft er p ass i ng a f ew wee k s i n the cold regions of Opposition, to go in state across to that I the Treasury) bench. And for what ? Do the people cf England expect SOY change in the policy of the late Government? If they do they are wofully deceived. Sir, I believe that good govenament, that happiness for the people, that the advance of liberal measures, which we all desire, are more to be obtained from that weak Government (pointing to the Treasury bench) than from the strong insolence of this. (Poin ting to the front Opposition bench amid great che ering.) I have seen, sir, both, I have tried them both, and I am sure that we are further advanced in a course of Improvement and liberty than we should have been under the guida nce o f the no b le lord (Lord Palmerston ) . If we W _ek simple honesty —if we want justice for the people of ,t aa ngland— i f we seek the happiness of the people of Eng ' 't sad good governwent for England, we shall give a decided negative to the resolatioas of the right hon. gentle than the member for Oxford, THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858. Sir C. Woon complained that the attention of the house had been diverted from the real question at issue, which was simple enough. The supporters of the resolution, he said, contended that the Go vernment, in prematurely condemning Lord Canning's proclamation, and in condemning it in unjustifiable terms, and, worse than all, in publishing their con demnation, to the detriment of the Governor- General's authority, had promulgated opinions almost incompatible with the maintenance of our power in India. The house was not called upon to approve the policy of Lord Canning with reference to Oude, respecting which there was a deficiency of evidence; it was irrespective of that policy that he called upon the house to condemn the proceedings of the Govern ment. He proceeded to argue that an incorrect construction had been put upon the proclamation ; that misapprehensions prevailed as to the proprie- tary right in Oude ; that the landholders oppressed and maltreated the people, for whose good it was desirable that the talookdar system should be extir• pated—though he did not believe that this was the meaning of the proclamation, which was, he observed, of the usual character, and in accordance with the policy pursued in the Punjaub. But if the procla mation was thought to be too severe, it ought to have been reproved in more appropriate terms, not with harshness and invective ; and, at all events, it ought not to have been published. The responsi bility for the publication could not, he insisted, be shifted upon a single Minister ; the act must, upon constitutional grounds, and upon their own showing, be shared by all the members of the Cabinet. He dwelt, in conclusion, upon the mischievous effects which the publication of the despatch would, in his opinion, exert upon the authority of the Governor General, upon the population of Onde, and upon the people of India, contending that, instead of being a message of peace, the despatch would be a firebrand of war. Mr. HARDY could not consider the motion an honest one. The resolution, he said, was involved and ambiguous in its terms, and shaped so as to catch votes. With regard to the proclamation, he contended that there could be no mistake in India, any more than in England, as to its meaning, which was repugnant to the rules and principles prescribed in a despatch to India dated the 24th of March, and which was laid upon the table of the house on the 29th of April. Those rules ani principles of justice and humanity, he said, had been acted upon by the Government, and enforced, be admitted, in strong and forcible terms in the despatch in question, which was intended not to insult but to warn Lord Canning, who, he believed, would 'read it in a very different spirit from that in which it was read in that house. If it was an error to condemn an act of a Governor General before his explanation had been received, it was no more, be remarked, than had bees done by a former Government of which some members of the late Administration had formed a part, which had condemned an act of Lord Auck land in 1839 without giving him an opportunity to explain it. He read extracts from Indian news papers to show the opinions entertained throughout India as to the effects of the proclamation, and that to carry it out would require a fresh army of 50,000 men. Lord Buss:Ennis argued that the people of Oude had identified their objects with those of the muti nous sepoys—that they were rebels—and if so, that they had forfeited their lands. When we took pos session of Oude the property in the soil vested in the Bing became vested in the Government of India ; and he thought that, by curtailing the powers of the talookdars, defining tenures, and adjusting titles in Oude, Lord Canning would do much towards estab lishing tranquillity in that country. He condemned the manner in which the Government had censured the policy of Lord Canning, and expressed a belief that there bad been from the first a strong desire in the present Cabinet to get rid of him. Lord LOVAINE observed that, admitting, as he did, the merits and virtues of Lord Canning, the question was whether the proclamation in itself was proper or improper, right or wrong, So far from doing good, it appeared by information from India, where it was condemned by military authorities, that it had done mischief already. The President of the India Board was bound at the earliest period to express his opinion upon the proclamation, and if the terms were harsh it cast no slur upon the character or honour of Lord Canning. Mr. BYNG remarked that it was difficult to separate the real question at issue from the extraneous topics with which it had been mixed up. That question was, simply, whether the despatch was judicious and right, and whether it should have been laid beton, Parliament. As to the proclamation, it was doubtful be said, whether it had been published in India o not; if it had been, he did not think it merited th censure cast upon it. But by the publication of the despatch, condemning the proclamation, and cen: suring a public servant, the Government bad coml mitted an act which was, io his opinion, dangeroas oar rule ia WM. • ' • -' • ;rsripri 495 Mr. HOPE, after a diffuse exordium, condemned the despatch as a rash composition, and its publi cation as a still greater act of rashness ; and thought that if Lord Ellenborough bad not resigned, the house could not have refused to pass the resolution. But that resignation had, in his view, virtually pro duced a great change, and had neutralized the latter and most important part of the resolution ; and, as the object should be to strengthen the hands of Lord Canning, not to subserve a party cabal, he should vote against Mr. Cardwell's resolution, and for the amendment of Mr. Dillwyn, for which, he thought, the friends of Lord Cauning ought to vote. Mr. ATHERTON supported the original resolution. Assuming, he said, that the proclamation called for disapprobivion, there were various ways of expressing it, and he complained, without reference to the policy of Lord Canning, of the terms in which the opinion of the Government had been conveyed to Lord Canning, which could not fail to make an undeserved painful impression upon him—terms which he characterized as arrogant and insulting. The laying the despatch upon the table of the house was equiva lent to placarding upon the walls of Lucknow and in the villages of Oude a document that vindicated the rebellion of the people, who were, he said, as much the subjects of the Queen of England as the people of Bengal. Lord ELcso likewise supported the original motion. With the proclamation be considered the house was not in a position to deal, as it was not in possession of the requisite information. What the house had to consider was the conduct of the Government of this country, who had acted, in his opinion, unjustly and cruelly towards Lord Canning, and most impolitically as regarded our Indian empire. Sir R. PEEL observed that Mr. Cardwell had referred to the motives and objects of his motion. Those motives and objects, in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, were, not the interest of poor Lord Canning, nor of the millions in India under our rule ; but an opportunity was offered, and was not to be lost, for attacking the Government, and India must be made the battle.field. Such a motion, instead of tending to the assistance of our countrymen in India, must greatly increase their embarrassment, and the country must, be thought, deprecate the course pursued. After defending the policy of Lord Dalhousie in annexing Oude, be denounced in strong terms that disclosed in the " manifesto " of Lord Canning, and asked the house whether it was prepared to sanction arbitrary spoliation, or whether it would require that severe acts should be tempered with moderation. Assuming that this had been made a party question, Sir Robert said : We have heard a great deal about the premature publi cation of a despatch, and a great deal of blame has been cast upon the Secretary of the Board of Control for the observations that he has made upon it. But depend upon it that is not the real question at issue. The resolution says that " this house sees with regret and serious appre hension that her Majesty's Government have addressed to the Governor-General," Sze. Now, I must say there seems to be something concealed in this expression of regret and serious apprehension. There is something hypocritical about it. It is not a straightforward expres sion of opinion. I want to drive home the hypocrisy of certain disinterested politicians. I want to show that it is not that they feel regret and apprehension because the Secretary to the Board of Control made his statement, or because the despatch was prematurely published, but lest India should not be made the shuttlecock of party. The member for Halifax said that he would not much care if her Majesty's Government were turned out tomorrow, for the people would rejoice. Well, there lies the ques tion. This is a party move. The question we are now discussing lies between Lord Derby and the noble lord the member for Tiverton. I venture to say lam not speaking merely my own opinion, bat that of thousands in this sountry, when I say that the question really is whether Lord Derby shall continue to advise the Crown and exercise the duties of that position which be has honour ably and fairly acquired, or whether this House of Com mons is, with trembling humiliation to the Piccadilly manifesto, to allow the noble lord the member for Tiverton to scramble back to power. It would be a very serious matter, for such a manifesto, after we have with justice condemned the policy of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, to let him now come back to office upon a party question relating to India. It is said by some that if the Government is beaten Lord Derby must go out, on account of the want of strength of his party; but in these days tbo strength of a Government depends not so much upon its numerical force as upon its being in accordance with the active sympathies of people out of doors, and the general sympathies and feelings of the public will always be in favour of any Government, be it presided over by Lord Derby, the noble lord the member for Tiverton, or the noble lord the member for London, who, after all, is the legitimate leader of the Liberal party, if it is evident that they are equal to the conduct of public affairs. Now, this has been made a party question, let me ask you -bbfore we come to a decision upon the subject to consider the position of the champions in the struggle. .The noble lerd the member for Tiverton has jolt been conwielud, upon the clearest evidence, of toadying Is for•'- - Suence. lie has just been convicted, r convicted, of preferring the, favour friendship of those living eineler reigns and yet you want to bring 'Mho. Wily, the noble Iced 'hl4 foreign , dn.- RE •t th bt cl tt h CI d S mid moviete4l, au ti very properly favour of despots ,to tOts Kier a constitutional §eve- ring the noble to back to rff==