The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

I THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 20, 1858. opinion, acc ustomed to talk a little too much, nevertheless a as very high authority upon the subject,—he meant Mr. w H s eidsy ; and what did Mr. Halliday say ? Why, he writes : The administration of justice is nowhere alleged to be worse is Otple than it is within our own districts ; and it could not be poAsiblo in the most bat barous country in the world to discover - a nything more atrocious as a system than Id laid open in the recent report of the c•mtnisaionors appoiuted to inquire into the practice of torture in the territories of Madras. A nt i the same view was expressed by Mr. M'Leod Wylie , Judge of one of the Supreme Courts. Such were the statements of the highest Indian official in India with re spect to our Government. [Mr. Mangles said, the autho rity last quoted was not a Judge of the Supreme Court.] He believed that he was a judge of some kind. In his opinion, the Government of India would have been better employed of late years in reforming its own internal admi• nistration than in wasting its energies and its resources in the annexation of native States and the extension of its territory. The hon. member concluded by moving for certain papers. Mr. V. SMITH submitted that the cause assigned was only one out of many influences respecting which little was yet known by any one either in England or India. He denied the existence, at any time, of what could be called a policy of annexation. He admitted the responsibility of the Government in the annexation of Oude, and so far as the cen sures pronounced uuon the Court of Directors and Board of Control were well founded they strength ened the , Nise for the bill which the Governrwmt bad prepared to remodel the Indian system of ad ministration. The right hon. member justified the Persian war as having added materially to our "prestige," and proceeded to vindicate the act of Lord Dalhousie in annexing Oude. The abuses of the native Government in that province had become insupportable, and he should recommend Mr. Baillie to read the " Private Life of an Eastern King." The c rrespondence moved for contained, be be lieved, nothing objectionable, nor anything myste rious, and he was perfectly willing to prcduce it. Lord J. RUSSELL defended Lord Dalhousie, assert. ing that the accusations so incessantly urged against the late Governor-General in his absence were un worthy in character and founded on total ignorance of the facts. Lord Dalhousie's conduct throughout the transaction had been characterised by great wisdom and moderation. On the other hand he thought the conduct of the Government exhibited " a want of prudence and foresight" in not only not having taken the obvious precaution to measure the British forces, but positively to have withdrawn them from India in order to enter upon a " Persian war." Lord John Russell concluded with some admirable remarks upon " prestige " : Ws were told upon a former occasion, and again to night, that the appearance of our troops in the Persian Gulf would maintain our prestige in the East, but I am really afraid that this dreadful mutiny winch has broken au iu India will do more to weaken that prestige than any sue.lesses we may have gained in Persia have strengthened it. I cannot but recollect in the history of Europe an instance of a great man—a very great man—who gave up everything for prestige. When Napoleon went into Poland he was at the head of 600,000 men. He advanced to Smolensk. There every one of his marshals and generals were of opinion he should have stopped and made his winter quarters, hut he said. " If I do that what will be come of my prestige ? If I remain here all the winter my prestige in Paris will be gone?" What followed was the unfortunate campaign of Moscow. The next year by a wonderful exercise of power and of the extraordinary genius that he possessed he got together a new army and stood the victor in two fields of battle, confranting the whole armed power of Europe. Terms of peace were offered to him then—terms which would have left him almost the master of Europe. Ile saw that the terms were excellent and that they left him master of France, Italy, and Holland, but again he said, " If I surrender anything, if I give up the title of Protector of the Con federacy of the Rhine, I shall lose my prestige," and the consequence of that second sacrifice to the vain notion of prestige was that lie lost the rest of his empire, and from being the ruler of France became an exile in St. Helena. Such are the consequences of not caring for substantial reputation, substantial honoar, and pursuing in preference the vain phantom prestige. We have seen what it has done in India, and what it is still doing in China. I do hope that. instead of following that vain delusion, in future we shall follow the old English policy of doing that which is right, that which is due to our own character, and let reputation follow, as it is sure to do, upon acts. Lord J. M A NNERS, in an eloquent speech, discussed at to tsiderable length the question whether the annexation of Oude was just or unjust, and defensible or not under tl e treaty. Be maintained that the present King did really listen to and act upon the advice given to him, and that the general and vague charge of not acting in conformity with the advice of the East India Company, constitutinv, the alleged violation of the treaty, was not substantiated by facts. But the house, he said, had not heard the slightest reference to the Treaty of Ilth September, 1837, which pro hibited the annexation of any part of the dominions fit the King of Oude. and if that treaty was in force 1850 the annexation was a flagrant violation of it. The Treaty of 1837 had been ratified by the Go vernor-General in council. To the 7th and Bth articles of that document it was that he wished to call particular attention, and they, it would be found, prohibited the annexation of any portion of the territory of Dude. The 7th article set forth that the British Government in order to remedy some defects in the system of police claimed to them selves the right of appointing its own officers and of having the expenditure connected with their main. tenance defrayed out of a certain territory in the kingdom of Oude; while in the Bth article it was declared that steps would be taken to place the territory thus assumed upon such a footing as to facilitate its restoration to the sovereign of Oude when the proper time arrived. In a letter written by Lord Auckland to the King of Oude, dated Simla, July Bth, 1839, there was this passage:— Let it not remain beneath the veil of seeress and conceal• meat, or be bidden from the light reflecting mirror of your tnin.l, that lately much discussion has been carried on between the Coto tof Directors of exalted dignity and myself, by meatus of a wri , ten correspondence, touching the recent tresty of the lith - - of beptember, Now, taking into con•ideration that the expense entailed by the tuxiliary force—viz., sixteen lace (100,0001. sterling) per annum, might be the cause of interrupt ing the administration and amelioration of your kingdom, the sail expense became the subject of their grave deliberations. From the period you ascended the throne your Majesty has, in comparison with times past, g.eatly unproved tile kingdom, and I have, In consequence, been authorised by the Court of Directors to inform you that "if I think it advisaale for the present I may" relieve your Majesty from part of the clause of the treaty alluded to, by which clause expense is laid upon your Majesty. Hoping that your Majesty may continue to rule )our country, as you have hitherto done, with justic, equity, and anxiety fur the welfare of your ■ubjects,-1 sic, &c., AUCKLAND. If Lord Dalhousie's statement, that the Home Government disavowed the treaty as soon as they heard of it, were correct, the declaration made by Lord Auckland in July, 1839, and just quoted by him, was either a deliberate fiction or a gross and scandalous concealment of the facts from the King. On the 10th April, 1856, the Duke of Argyll, in reply to Lord Ellenborough, denied this treaty. Lard Ellenborough, who, as Governor• General, must have known all the obligations which were binding on the Government of the King of Oude, observed : The Directors Old not disallow the whole of the Treaty of IS3:, but only that portion of it which related to the payment by the King of Oude of 1.60,0:;0/. for a military establishment of British officers. Lord Broughton, who was at the head of the Board of Control when the treaty between Lord Auckland and the King of Oude was signed, happened to be in the House of Lords on that evening, and confirmed Lord Ellenborough's statement : He had had a long correspondence with Lord Auckland on the subject, both public and private, and it was his impression certainly that the Treaty of 1+,37 was ratified by the Govern ment at home alter the disallowance referred to. Tho whole of the treaty was not disallowed, but only one portion of it. Here, then, they saw Lord Auckland, two years after the treaty was signed, telling the King of - Oude that lie was authorised by the Home Government to remit a portion of it which pressed heavily on his Majesty, while the Earl of Dalhousie distinctly averred that the treaty was annulled by the Home Government. On the other hand, the Earl of Ellenborough and Lord Broughton declared that the treaty was never disallowed, and Lord Hardinge evidently acted under the same impression. He made, in conclusion, a strong appeal to the house to do justice in this matter, expressing his deliberate opinion that our course of safety lay in a course of justice towards the native princes. Prestige was of two kinds : There was a prestige which attached to our military renown and to our military exploits, and there was also a prestige which attached, or which used to attach, to our character for justice and good faith. Those immortal heroes who bad shed their blood upon the plains of India had amply and gloriously gained the first, and it was now for the House of Commons to attempt as far as they could to restore and vindicate the latter. He called upon the noble lord—whose love of justice, whose hatred of oppres sion, and whose contempt for the vain glare and glitter of military prestige were well known—to second, instead of thwarting the endeavours of his hon. friend to drag these disgrAcetul events into the light of day. The noble lord then moved for certain additional papers. Mr. R. MANGLES accepted his full share of respon sibility for the annexation of Oude. With regard to the treaty of l8:17, it was the fact, as stated by Lord Dalhousie, that it was disallowed by the Court of Directors, although it was true that Lord Auckland did not tell the King of Oude that the whole of that treaty had been abrogated : - It was certainly true that Lord Auckland communicated to the King of Oude only a part of the despatch of the court of Directors as to the abrogation of the treaty of 1 , 07 ; but at that time there was no intention of annexing the kingdom of Oude. In his opinion the annexation of Oude had nothing to do with the present disturbances in India, which he regarded as a purely military mutiny. Colonel SYKES read a catalogue of the crimes and atrocities which were committed in Oude from 1818 to 1854: — There were dacoities 1,031, persons killed, 4,399 ; persons wounded, 4,555; persons killed and wounded, not 175 separately specified, 2,o6o—total killed and wounded, 11,014. Villages burnt and plundered, 547. Persons forcibly carried off, 1,403 ; and suttees, 44. Such a state of things was enough, he thought, to induce any one who had the slightest particle of humanity to use every endeavour to put a stop to it, but he would admit that it was a very different thing to employ British power and influence and to dethrone a king. When the proper time arrived, how ever, he would be perfectly prepared, as far as he personally was concerned, to give all those explanations which no doubt would be considered due from him with regard to the annexation of Oude. Mr. KINMAIRD maintained that the transaction, if not altogether unwarrantable, was ill managed, and led to heavy disasters. Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the Treaty of 1837 with the King of Oude had been altogether ignored. The infraction of that treaty was to the last degree unjust and unrighteous. The motion for papers was agreed to. Mr. WRIGHTSON moved for leave to bring in a bill amending an act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, so far as it, related to the vacating of seats in Parlia ment upon accepting office. On a division there appeared—For leave to bring in the bill, 01 ; against, 1119: majority, 17. Mr. GREER moved that an instruction should be given to the Bank Acts Committee to inquire into the operation of all the laws affecting the currency in Great Britain and Ireland, and report what amend. ments, if any, they may consider desirable. The bon. member, in supporting his motion, recommended the circulation of a certain limited quantity of bank notes of less value than 5/. _ _ Mr. CARDWELL submitted that the range of inquiry already undertaken by the committee was sufficiently extensive. The motion was withdrawn. Mr. MAGuritE obtained leave to introduce a bill to provide compensation to tenant farmers in Ireland for improvements they may have effected on the land in their occupation. Captain ANNESLEY having moved an address for returns relating to the mortality among the soldiers in the Foot Guards, Mr. S. HERBERT proposed to add a return of the number of non-commissioned officers and men dis charged from the Foot Guards during the same period, distinguishing those discharged of reduction as being under height, those discharged upon the recommendation of the medical officers, and those invalided, thus enlarging the scope f the proposed return. After some further remarks by Colonel North, Sir J. Ramaden, and Sir W Codrington, the motion as amended was agreed to. The debate on the India Government Bill was further adjourned until Thursday. The house rose at ten minutes to one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WtnxEsnAT. Mr. NArign, in moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland) Bill, explained its objects—namely, to ascertain the law upon the suhject, which was now uncertain ; to consolidate and amend it; and-to render it as complete as possible. Sir G. GREY, on the part of the Government, made no objection to the second reading of the bill, which was accordingly read a second time. On the motion of Mr. NAPIER, the Churches, /..7c. (Ireland), Bill was also read a second time. CHURCH RATE ABOLITI ,N BILL. Sir J. TRELAWNY moved the second reeling of this bill. Church rate, he observed, was not a tax upon land or property ; it was a charge if' peraonam, not in rein, and the remedy was ineffective, being slow, cumbrous, and expensive. As it had been decided by the House of Lords that a minority of parishioners with the churchwardens could not make a valid rate, parishes were involved in litigation and strife, suits ran through a long succession of courts, the fabric of the church meanwhile failing into disrepair. The grievance, he said, was not so much that of Dissen ters as of Churchmen, and he thought it would hardly be desired by any one that such a state of things, and an unworkable law, should be con tinued. Colonel THOMPSON seconded the motion. Lord R. CECIL moved, by way of amendment, to defer the second reading for six months. Ile urged that where a rate was voted by a majority in a parish there was no injustice in levying it upon the minority, while it would be repugnant to every principle of justice to allow a minority to control the majotity. Althou4h the law might be anomalous, the disease, in his opinion, would cure itself ; few parishes refused the rate, and the voluntary principle would extend pew-rents and give birth to other evils. lie opposed the bill because it professed to remedy a grievance which did not exist., but much more be cause it would be the first step towards a separation of the Church from the State. Mr. FACIE seconded the amendment. Sir A. ELTON supported the second resding of the bill, and suggested an amendment in committee to the effect that there should be some provision by the