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

of the lens of n ; and An ying r.l forma r 1858; by what entitled turn of Police in each xdioary officers as been .oney in stables, oyed at ❑t'eUlDg, the pay by the reed to. should to the -rake. of the etponed India. I gave love the for the ,use till ) for the 111 our rtes, by indlaud ►d been lace be a found- Le latter TE OF resolu• )f infor• ion on have idia is Coo" clues er Ma. serious Iv e ad• 3 Secret have terms is of 3r overn f India, ling the ring th 3 nst us. notice one of en 'wit- tration. ;tention did not on facts of those (Loud cheers 12th of untry a Endia to Ft of an was la the fall portant D the and in inguage .6e ntunity ntendtd nsidera- this proposition, and to avoid expressing an opinion on the proclamation of Lord Canning it is impossible to approach the consideration of the censure which the honourable gentleman asks the Louse to pro nounce ; it is impossible to express an opinion on a con demnation, unless you look to the merits of that which is condemned. (Hear, hear.) I accept, therefore, the form of the resolution of the right hon. gentleman as a proof of the weakness of his cause. Ho is afraid to challenge the verdict of the house on the policy of the proclamation ; but I decline to accept the former part of Lis resolution as defining the narrow and limited issue which I will meat. I decline to follow him when he tells me that I am to con demn the act of the Government as he desires, but to shut my eyes to that by which the act of the Government was Ineduced. lam ready to follow him in any discussion in which ho wishes to engage as to the conduct of the Govern ment, but I claim the right to consider in the first place the merits of the proclamation in question. Now, this proclamation is to be judged by a very trite dilemma. It is either right, or it is wrong. If it is right—if the prin ciples contained in it are those of justice and policy, the Government have been wrong in censuring it, and still more in expressing a public censure of what is right ; bat if the principles and the policy contained in it arc not con sistent with justice and with good policy, then I challenge the right hon. gentleman to show upon what principle he is to ask the house to censure the condemnation of that which is contrary to the principles of justice and policy. (Hear, hear,) Now, to whom was this proclamation in tended to be addressed ? Not to the sepoys of India, They were mutineers in the strictest sense of the word. They had eaten our broad and taken our pay. They were our Sworn subjects, bound to us by every tie of fidelity. They threw off that allegiance and rebelled. In that rebellion they committed murder, acts of cruelty, acts of torture, cola-blooded, wilful, deliberate treachery. They were, or most of them were individually criminals of the deepest dye; and as suc h I admit that their lives and property were forfeited. But the proclamation in question was ad dressed to the kingdom and people of Onde. What does Mr. Edmonstone say in his letter to the chief commissioner of Oude? In the 19th paragraph of his letter he says, " The proclamation is addressed to the chiefs and in habitants of Oude, and not to the mutineers." But what is the kingdom of Oude? Our relations with it were those of conquest, and not of allegiance. Oude was a conquered country and nothing more. Ido not desire now to enter into the merits of the annexation of Oude. The question has never been, and perhaps never will be, discussed in this house as fully as it deserves. I confess when I arose from the perusal of the Oude papers the strongest feeling I had on the subject was, the hope that history may be as lenient to us as we have been to our selves. But without opening up that large question I wish to advert only to those facts about Oude as to which there is no dispute. In 1856 the treaty which the East India Company contended was the treaty governing our relations with Oude contained a clause declaring that the East India Company thereby guaranteed "to his Excellency the Viziers and his heirs and successors the possession of that part of the territory of Oade that will remain to his Excel lency after the territorial cession, together with the exer cise of his and their authority in the said limits." In 1856 the East India Company considered that Onde wag misgoverned, and that that gave them the right to annex Oude to our dominions. How did they carry their views into effect ? The manner in which that was carried into effect was that which was substantially conquest. A com missioner was sent to Oude, troops were moved across the Ganges, the King of Oude was informed of th e d ec i s i on o f the East India Company ; he protested, remonstrated, and refused to sign the treaty that was presented to him • he was overpowered ; his pal ace was t a k en possess i on of , his property was sold, and he and his Ministers of State Were held to bail. Ido not say whether this was right or wrong. I assume it to be right; but was that a case of willing submission or of conquest and compulsory annexa tion ? I say it was a case of conquest. All that was done was done under protest—of protest continued until the sepoy rebellion broke forth. When that took place Oude, which was under an enforced submission, made war upon us —bloody, barbarous, crime-stained war but still war. By the valour of our troops, by the skill and energy of the c ommander-in-chief, and I will add cheerfully and grate fully, by the skill and energy of Lord Canning—by the heroism almost unparalleled of some handfuls of coun trymen and countrywomen, who maintained their position in the country until our troops arrived, the war resulted in a clear, decisive, and I trust, lasting victory on our part. But now we are victorious. what is the policy that a victorious country should pursue ? I am prepared to take it on th e groun d of justice • but first let us ask our selves what policy and self-interest would dictate. Row do you mean to hold Oude? Is it by a standing army maintained in the country ? All I can say is that you may do so, but your conquest will coat you dear Do you desire the willing and cheerful submission of the people of Oude ? now are you to procure it ? Do you think it important to have the goodwill of the landowners of the country? A child could give an answer to the question. Do you, then, provoke hostilities, or conciliate goodwill by taking that which they hold dearer than life itself ? Let us go a step further. Do you desire to suppress the mutiny of the se poys? Of course you do. Well, what follows? Do yen desire to prevent the sepoys from protecting their pro perty, and taking refuge in neighbouring States ? Where are they most likely to get support ? Where are they Most likely to bo worked against you? Why, in the king dom of Oude. (Hear, hear.) If the people of Oede are in your favour they will assist in keeping down, in hunting down the sepoys—(bear, hear)—but, on the other hand, if you alienate the feelings of the people of Oude, then this will result—that they will throw themselves into the arms of the sepoys, and you will in that territory have to sub due, not merely the natives, but the sepoys who have taken refuge among them, and with whom they have combined. (Hear, hear.) Then I say, that on the lowest ground of self interest and selfish policy, the course which ought to be taken by this country is to conciliate the affections, in every way it can possibly be done, of the people whom you have conquered. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I desire to know how, according to the principles of justice, and to those practices of civilised nations which this country is bound to observe, ought the property of the people of a conquered ,ountry to e dealt w ? , hear.) My proosition is thi s, that b you make ith w i thwar kings and governor p s, but not with i n di v id ua l s. (C r i es o f Hear, hear.) If in the co urse of a war an individual commits a crime, he puts himself out of the pale of those who ought to derive the benefit of that principle; but except in particular cases, Peindividual is entitled to protection for life and pro -1•141;t:1 from the victorious nation: (Hear.) You might as NT e l , confiscate the lives of people as their property. (Hear.) —OW, sir, there is high authority on this point. The Matter is so clear that I am almost ashamed to trouble the house with extracts to prove it; but with their per /11684m I shall r ea d one or two. (Hear, hear.) What does tha t great authority on international law, who wrote some hundred years back, say ? This is from Vattel " But if the entire state be conquered, if the nation be Subdued, in what manner can the victor treat it, without transgressing the bounds of justice? What are his rights er the counquered c o un t r y ? S o me have dared to advance Ibis monstrous principle that the conqueror is absolute Master of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as his r o e perty—that he may treat it as he pleases, according to n common expression of treating a state as a conquered country ; and hence they derive one of the sources of des potic government. But, disregarding such writers, who !'educe men-to the state of transferable goods or beasts of burthen, who deliver them up as the property of another Man, let us argue on principles c oun t enance d by reason and conformabl to humanity." (Cheers.) Dr. Wharton says : "In ancient times, both the movable and unmovable Property of the vanquished passed to the conqueror. Such was the Roman law of war, often asserted with unrelenting severity, and such was the fate of the Roman provinces subdued by the northern barbarians, on the decline and fall of the western empire. A large portion, from one to two-thirds, of the lands belonging to the vanquished pro vincials was confiscated and partitioned among their con querors. The last example in Europe of such a conquest was that of England; by 'William of Normandy." (Hear.) " Since that period, among the civilised nations of Chris tendom, conquest, even when confirmed by a treaty cf Peace, has been followed by no general or partial transten tation of landed property." (Hear, hear.) " The property belonging to the government of the vanquished nation passes to the victorious state ; which also takes the place of the former Sovereign. In other respects, private rights are unaffected by conquest." (Hear, hear.) The house is aware that questions of international law canes before the Snpreme Court iu America in a manner t hey do not come before the courts in this country ; and to the records of the Supreme Courts in the United States We derive much valuable authority in those subjects. From that source, sir, I take this exposition : "The modern usage of natives, which has become law, would be violated ; that sense of justice and of right which ibseoutragea if a cknowledged and felt by the whole civilised world would property should be generally confiscated and Private rights annulled. The people change their al. legiance —their relation to their ancient Sovereign is di-• solved ; but their relations to each other and their rights e, f Property remain undisturbed." (Rear, and cheers.) The hon. member for Cork said that Whatever might be the principle upon which Lord Can ing's despatch was founded, precedents were to be found, and that too in India, which Lord Canning had not de- Parted from, and the hon member read to the house a pro clamation of Lord Dalhousie. Now that proclamation is in the memory of the house, and what does it say ? " If you, the zenaindars and talook ars come in and submit your selves to the Government, your rights in land shall be re spected." (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member also referred to Sir C. Napier as having laid down a pre cedent which Lord Canning has followed in this confisca tion. Now Sir Charles Napier'e brother tells ua in these Words what that precedent was " While his cannon still resounded on the banks of the Indus he had made known that all persons, whether of high or low degree, were confirmed from the time, and Would be s o permanently according to their behaviour. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Would be confirmed in what ? "In the employments they held under the Aneeers (cheers and laughter), and that all their rights and possessions would"--there is no behaviour here—" be safe ', o rom confiscation, save th ose o f t h e peop l e, who, contrary Ithe faith o f nat i ons, had assailed the residency. " But then the hon. and learned member for Cork says, "At ratgthetvseonftsa, those people of O u d e were not ent i t l e d to th e conquered nation. That is out of the question. They were rebels, they were mutineers, and every man connected with the government i o n f s t , h ie i s s country or with that of Indi a w h o d escribes Ur eir but rebels, Anything lent mut' patch as anything is false to thi s coun t r y and has betrayed its interests." (Bear, will the hon. and learned membePaTear, hear.) Now, who proper j udge of the position occupied by the peopl e of 'ej s a a take the directors of the East India Comp env de ? ? p r . r av ill he cer tainly have not combined to set the peopl e - of ou - eV; ' More favourable light than they believe to be absolu l t n el a necessary. There is laid upon the table to-night, and will be y in the hands of bon, members to-morrow, a dispatch dated the sth of the present month, and if the hones permit me. I will read two paragraphs from this dispatch of the Court of Directors which explain !their views of the position of the inhabitants of Oude, whom the hon. member for Cork c haracterises - as rebels guilty of mutiny : "In dealing with the people of Oude you will doubtless kte moved by spec i a l cons id era ti ons of justice and policy. he inhabitants of the city, not sepoys, and not taken in arms against us, who must bo regarded as exceptional, ~11abot be considered as traitors, or even rebels— (cheers) — )r they have notevenpledged their fidelity to us and they h ad by th e i ntroduction of a new system of government had l ie c_oesarily b een d epr i ved of the ma i ntenance w hi c h they should bad heretofore enjoyed. It is natural that such persons •avail themselves of the opportunity offered by the hi!rtracted state of the country to strike a blow for the re ation of the native rule under which the disorganisa tion,ofsthe Country bad been so lone to them, a source of 4 , Awrul profit." (Cheers.) It went on to say : " Neither tsieoenttaolo,e3ikdajs nor their retainers were under any oblige overnment. • You will, therefore, not con tharthey are to be the objects of punishment after ti.liattylienlaeipar their arms." (Cheers-) Graph of the dispatch. lam almost afraid de on the time of , the house by reading the other to which I have referred. (General cries o "Go on," and cheers.) "7. Of these arms they must for over be deprived. You will, doubtless, in prosecution of this object address yeur self—in the first instance to the case of the great talookdars, who so successfully defied the late Government, and many of whom, with large bodies of armed men, appear to have aided the efforts of the mutinous soldiery of the Bengal army. The destruction of the fortified strongholds of these powerful landholders, the forfeiture of their remain ing guns, tho disarming and disbanding of their followers, will be among your first works. But while you are de priving this influential an I once dangerous class of peo ple of their power of openly resisting your authority you will, we have no doubt, exert yourselves by every possible means to reconcile them to Bi itish rule, and encourage them, by liberal arrangements made in accordance with ancient usages—(hear, hear) —to become industrious agri culturists, and to employ in the cultivation of the soil the men who as armed retainers have so long wasted the sub stance of this masters and desolated the land. We believe that these landholders may bo taught that their holdings will be more profitable to them under a strong Govern went, capable of maintaining the peace of the country, auo severely punishing agragrian outrages, than under one which perpetually invites by its weakness the ruinous ar bitration of the sword." (Loud cheering.) That is, in my opinion, a statesmanlike and manly despatch. It meets the case fairly, and tolls the truth. The men of Oude were not rebels--it would be unjust to treat them as rebels, and the Court of Directors suggest that they should not be treated as rebels. (Cheers.) I defy any one to read that despatch and remember the description given of the people of Oude by the member for Cork, and to say that the de scription of them given of them by the Court of Directors is not a truer one, and the policy of the despatch a truer and a wiser one than that which the hon. and learned mem ber advocates. (Cheers.) Well, but it is said—l do not think I have not heard it in this debate, but it has been said so often that I think it well to refer to it—" What should Lord Canning have done? What other kind of proclamation could he have issued to men who, whether rebels or otherwise, are still in opposition to your arms? Should he have told them that their rights of property were preserved to them ?" I say no; of course not. (Hear.) He should, though, have said what Lord Dalhousie did— " If yon submit, if you lay down your arms and promise allegiance to these whom the fate of battles has put over you, it is not with you we have made war, and your pro perty will be spared to you." (Hear, hear.) If Lord Can ning's proclamation was couched in language such as that, I think no one could have objected to it; but whether they would or no, I say such a proclamation would have been a wise and proper proclamation. (Hear, hear,) But he has not said anything of that kind. (Fear, hear.) The right honourable gentleman who moved the resolutions now be fore the house suggested a theory; and it is one which it would be unkind to pass over, as the hon. and learned gentleman who seconded the motion gallantly improved upon it. (Hear and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman says, " It is a mistake to suppose that Lord Canning's pro clamation was addressed to the people of Oude ; it is an error to suppose that he meant any interference with what we call the rights of property. This is nothing more than a meddling with some feudal or baronial rights, which have been a curse to the country, and which the sooner they are abolished the more speedy will a great blessing have been bestowed upon the people." Now, suppose it were true that the proclamation meddled only with feudal and ba ronial rights, I want , to know from the right hon. gentle man the member for Oxford, and the hon. and learned member for Cork, what right you have to meddle with feu , dal and territorial rights, more than with any other? It may be thought that the existence of those feudal and ba ronial rights is a bad thing ; that they have retarded the improvement of the country, but if they are a right exist ing in a country. I should like to know what there is in them that would distinguish their confiscation from that of any other land rights ? (Hoar, hear, and cheers.) But let me tell the right, hon. gentleman that this theory of his is virtually and actually without foundation. There is no pretence—there is not the shadow of a pretence for say ing that the proclamation was addressed to the talookdars and chiefs alone. On the contrary, having addressed them considering that he had not addressed all to whom he wished to speak, he adds, "the landholdersof Oude," and the pro clamation itself is from the " Governor •General's Procla mation to the People of Onde." (Hear, hear.) More than that, what is it that is to be confiscated? "The proprietary light in the soilof the province." (Hear.) And now what is the proprietary right in the soil of the province? Why this right includes the right of thetenant, the right of the farmer, the right *f the middleman, the right of theowuer of the land, and feudal and baronial rights, and all these rights aro confiscated. (Cheers.) I challenge the right hon. gentleman, or the hon. and learned member for Cork, or any other hon. member'who may follow them in debate to point out a line in this proclamation which preserves to any man any sort of right or property in the soil of the province of Oude. The right hon. gentleman whoproposed this resolution asks the house to arrive at the conclusion to which he wishes them to come, andby thd first part of that resolution he asks them to go no further. Sir, I trust the Home of Commons will go further, that they will pronounce an opinion on that which is the foundation of the resolu tion itself—(hear)—and if they concur in those principles Which are laid down in the great autherities which I have cited, then the second part of the right hon. gentleman's resolution is easily answered. Will the house pronounce a censure upon the government for considering a proclama tion in which those principles were disregarded (Hear, hear.) Remember, jam not now speaking of the publica tion of the despatch, lam speaking of the question as it stands between the government of this country and the dispatch they sent Lord Canning. What were the facts of the case ? There came to this country a draft of a procla mation which Lord Canning said he was about to issue as soon as our troops were in possession of Luckietow s hn event which he expected to occur without delay. That-came to this country without the modified clause which Was after wards introduced, and which I think every one will see was introduced by the hand of the chief commissioner. It came home without explanation (loud cries of " hear, hoar," from the supporters of the government). It was unaccompanied, so far as the Board of Control were aware, by anything but the letter from the secretary at Calcutta to the chief commissioner at Oude, which appeared there fore to be the whole of the explanation which Lord Canning desired to give. Now let us consider for a moment what are the functions of the home government with regard to the government of India. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) says you have paralysed the arm of the Governor-General. I should like to know when the Go vernor-General sends home proclamations for the opinion of the home government, is it the province of the latter to pronounce an opinion on them or not? If it is not I admit that the resolutions is right; but if the home government are to consider every question referred to them by the Governor-General, and to express their approval or disapproval of his acts, then I say I should be ashamed to be connected with any government who allowed a single mail to pass after this proclamation was received without writing to the Governor-General and stating explicitly and distinctly their view with regard to the policy of the proclamation. Sir, this was a case in which there was not a moment to be lost ; nor was it one in which there could be any shrinking from the right through a fear of hurting the feelings of the Governor-General. (Hear, hear.) I respect Lerd Canning as much as any man in this house respects him. Lord Canning is a man whose kind and c msiderate nature and upright and simple mind forbid that any one can regard him withou - , profound respect and very considerable admiration, but when the destinies of a coun try are threatened—when the fortunes of 5,000,000 of people are at stake —all considerations that are merely per sonal must give way. (Hear, hear.) This part of the subject lies in the smallest possible compass. Was the proclamation right, or was it wrong? If tiro proclamation was right the censure was wrong. If the proclamation was wrong the censure was right. (Cheers.) I deny that this was a general censure on all Lord Canning's services. I have no desire to underrate—l have a desire to extol those services. But here was a specific act sent for the opinion of the home government. It was their duty to express an opinion on it. They have expressed that opinion, and, as I maintain, rightly. , (Hear, hear.) I now come to third part of the right hon. gentleman's resolution, which refers to the publication of the despatch of the home government. I hold that it was the duty of any government, when the fact that the proclamation had been published became known to the people of England, to express in some form or other their opinion of the policy of that proclamation, whether it was right or wrong. (Hear, hear.) This was not the case of a negociation with a foreign power. In such it is the custom—a custom which some members of the House of Commons consider a vicious one—to refuse the production of official papers pending the negociation to which they refer. But this was the case of a proclamation by a Governor-General holding his authority under this country. That proclamation was published; the House of Commons was assembled; ministers were in their places, liable to be called upon—and they were called upon —to say aye or no to " what is your line of policy on that proclamation— do you approve of it or do you not?" The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), perhaps inadvertently, said that the government had made a declaration ciaapproving of the whole policy of Lord Canning. Sir, the government never did anything of the kind. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Birming ham (Mr. Bright) rose in his place in this house and said, " A proclamation has been issued confiscating the kingdom of Oude ; does her Majesty's Government approve of that proclamation or does it not ?" (Hear, heat.) My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to that question, said, "Her Majesty's Government disap proves of the confiscation of Oude (that is to say of the feeling indicated in the proclamation) in every sense." (Hear, hear.) Sir, I hope I may say, on behalf of her Majesty's Government, that they do disapprove of it in every sense. (Cheers.) ?`here are only two senses in which it can be approved of or disapproved of—the sense of justice and the sense of expediency. (Cheers.) In both senses my right hon. friend said the Government disap proved of it. Iu both senses I hope the House of Com mons will affirm that that policy is to be disapproved of. (Cheers.) As to the publication of the dispatch a great deal of what was affirmed in the resoluti in has been known long since. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) gave notice of his motion before the resignation of Lord Ellenborough. The noble earl himself has, with that frankness and high honour which is not the smallest of his characteristics, stated in another place what the facts connected with the production of that dispatch were. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl has stated that the Secretary of the Board of Control was by his directions permitted to lay upon the table of the house a copy of a dispatch sent to Lord Canning. Another noble earl, in eager haste, applied in another place to Lord Ellenborough for a copy of the dispatch. Lord Ellenborough yielded to the en treaty of the noble earl, and in a spirit of fairness which I am sure the house will appreciate, he (Lord Ellenborough) thought it proper that a member of this house should have the same advantage as that afforded to the noble earl who applied for the dispatch elsewhere. This led to the pro duction of the dispatch in this house. But hon. members will remember that this was done without any other mem ber of the Government having been consulted on the sub ject, Copies of the, dispatch were placed in the hands of those who were not bound to secrecy, and it was then published in full. No doubt it was subsequently thought desirable to withhold some paragraph-, of the dispatch when it was produced in another place ; but it became public the of mtohmeenntoibtlewasin (Ellenborough) hands of two members the w when legislature said who that earl were ha a r a e n o lbo t anre b a, n o u,anbo)ld wastonos ecrecy, right member of (Hear,t Government,lehea; publication. hon. friend (the Chancellor The right hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution' resuscitating xcli an old joke of my this to be a government of limited Th was a party strictly o oritch t t h elyr e liabilityeqe?r),Baustkethd,erweaiss not the smallest similarity between the present res T i ts case and k that to which my right hon. f r i en d app which was the case of the retirem en t o f a member r o e f m l7o r rd Aberdeen's Government, who was a party to a particular policy that had been pursued for months if not years. M Y right hon. friend argued that that retirement cou ld not re lieve the Government from the responsibility of that policy. But surely that is not a parallel case to the publi cation of a single despatch? The right hon. gentleman, (Mr. Cardwell) charged nay right hon. friend with having given a contradiction to a statement made by the noble earl at the head of the Government in another place, when my THE SUN, LONDON, ' right hon. friend said that the colleagues of the noble earl the late President of the Boatel of Control would have pressed on the noble earl not to retire and have risked the consequences of his acts, whilst the noble earl (the Earl of Darby) had stated that the resignation had been at once accepted. But the right hon. gentleman forgets what was stated by the noble earl at the head of the Government — namely, that before consulting him on the subject the Earl of Ellenborough had sent his resignation to her Majesty. ( Hear.) Had the Earl of Ellenboreugh announced his in tention to his colleagues, they would have said, " We de cline to accept it ; though the responsibility was yours originally, we will share it now." But, to prevent such a step as that, the noble earl first placed his resignation in the hands of her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) I think, sir, I have shown that in what they have scud upon this point the noble earl at the head of the Government and my right hon. friend concur in every particular. (Hear, and cheers.) The hon. and learned member for Cork said that we might have sent a despatch to Lord Canning, directing him not to put his proclamation in force in its strict wording. Now, sir, if the hon and learned menib sr will read the despatch he will find that is just the alternative which her Majesty's Government adopted by anticipation. (Hear, hear, and . laughter) Her Majesty's Government could not tell but that despatch would reach him before our troops were in possession of Lucknow, and consequently, before this pro clamation would be put iu force. I ask the house, was it not a reasonable expectation to entertain, that ho might consult with such men as Lawrence, Outram, Gan. Mans field, arid others, whom I could name; and that his pro clamation would not b 3 put in force to the extent stated in the draft? (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had asked why they could not have waited for an explanation ? and the hon. and learned member for Cork had taken the same view, and said, " Why did you act so precipitately ?" He (the hon. gentleman) thought there was one circum stance, and one only, which might have led to some delay, important though the case was, and to some postpone ment of the despatch sent by Lord Canning, and that was, if Lord Canning had sent home to the President of the Board of Control a statement, that although an explana tion might shortly be expected. If such a statement as that had come from Lord Canning, the publication, even the writing of the despatch, might well have been delayed. And here ho approached a part of the case which he con fessed had filled hini with pain and surprise, We have here, preci • led the hon. and learned gentleman, the whole facts of the cese, for we had them from the right hon. member for Northampton himself yesterday ; and I must say that if there is a man in this house of whom Lord Can- Ling has reason to complain, it is the right hon. gentleman ---(great cheering from both sides of the house) —it is the colleague and the friend of Lord Canning, the eight hon. gentleman the member for Northampton. (Hear, hear.) Now, what is the statement which the right hon. gentle man gave us ? He told us, if I remember rightly, that Lord Canning had sent him a letter, in which he said " I am about to issue a proclamation to the landowners of Oude. lam anxious to send home by the same mail a full explanation; but I have been so occupied to-day by the pressure of business that lam wholly unable." What was the moaning of these words? I agree with the right hon. gentleman ; I think they were very significant. The meaning was this—l am about to issue a proclamation which 1 have sent home in draft, and sent home to you. You are the President of the Boatel of Control, and I have sent it to you. It is a proclamation which requires ex planation. I have an explanation to give. I wish I could give it to you by this mail, so that when the procla mation reaches you, you might have the explanation along with it. But give me credit. Put confidence in me. The explanation will arrive by the next mail. In the meantime you will consider me as one who has an ex planation to give." (Hear, hear.) What does the right hon gentleman say were has feelings with regard to this ? Why, that he does not imagine, he cannot imagine, he does not believe that anybody can imagine, and he won ders that anybody can imagine, that by any ingenuity or artifice it could be supposed that these words of Lord Can ning were of the slightest importance —(cheers)—to be made known to the head of the government of India. in this country. (Hear, hear.) Well, but he did think them of sufficient importance to consult the noble lord the mem ber for Tiverton. (Cheers.) He and the noble lord met in conclave on this despath of Lord Canning. (Hear, hear.) Two ex-Ministers of England received a despatch from the Governor-General of India—the draft of a state proclamation. They considered the statement which the Governor-General of India made in that letter. The right hon. gentleman consulted, he says, the noble lord — Mr. V. SM[TH--I never said any such thing. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I can assure the right hon. gentleman that I should be most sorry to misrepre sent him. I thought he said " consult ;" but if he did not, ho will surely admit that he either communicated it or showed it to the noble lord. (Hear, hear, hoar.) Well, sir, I want to know for what purpose he showed it to the noble lord ? (Cheers.) It could not have been on account of its importance, for he says he thought it pos sessed none. (Hear.) I hope the right hon. gentleman who, perhaps, will address the house again in the course of this debate, will tell us what his mod - re was in showing it to the noble lord. At present we have this very signi ficant fact, that a letter, a private letter if you will, was written with the draft of the proclamation, and that that letter was considered, at all events, of so much importance that it was shown to the late Prime Minister of England, and yet was not of sufficient importance to be shown to the President of the Board of Control. Now, sir, I must say a word or two with regard to the theory of the right hon. gentleman as to private letters. (Hear, hear.) There is a view of this question which, I think, will strike any ordinary observer as it strikes me. I quite admit, with regard to the heads of the State, that the probability, the necessity, is that they must receive a great number of pri vate letters from those who in our colonies, dependencies, and foreign legations, are on intimate terms with them. I admit the absolute necessity for those letters. I admit that, if in a letter of this kind there are -matters relating to private affairs, it is not incumbent upon the Minister who receives it to hand it * over to his successor ; but I say that it is incumbent upon him to extract from it whatever is addressed to him relating to public affairs, upon the supposition that he still continues in 'Alice. Now, whatever the right hon. gentleman and the noble lord arranged, what it virtually comes to is this—they intercepted this letter. (Loud cheers.) What may be the observation of Lord Can ning upon this Ido not know. But if I were iu his posi tion, my observation would be something of this kind : " Well, I had a friend, as I thought, in England, who was formerly my colleague. He was the president of the de partment with which I had the closest relation, and being my friend and late colleague, I wrote to him on private affairs. At the same time I sent him one of the most im portant state papers that I had issued during the whole course of my government in India, but I was so much occupied when I did so that I could not send him the ex plenation with which it ought to be accompanied ; but in a note written to him under the impression that he was still Minister, I stated that an explanation would follow. My friend, my late colleague, put the letter into his pocket. He knew that the proclamation was in the hands of the Government of the day, and that they had read it without the explanation ; but he discovered the proclamation from the explanation, an I allowed days and weeks to pass, and the Government to believe that no explanation of the pro- clamation would be given. These circumstances have given m m y e t f h r e ien u d tm ,, os (c t gherieerfs.rld have now a gonendlrnat of the right hon. gentleman, and I think I may venture to say that they have fallen to the ground. He appeals to the h y r ough thank the charges arg i t alles house not to pronounce an opinion upon the policy of the proclamation. He appeals to the house to be silent. I ap peal to the house not to be silent. (Cheers.) I appeal to the house in behalf of the dearest interests of the countr they to in India and at home. (Hear, hear.) I appeal house on behalf of 5,000;000 of pe p l e — a nation mis guided, m i s e o v e rned—semi-barbarous, I adm it, still men with like Peelings, passions, perceptions, a nd prejudices as ourselves. I appeal to the house in the cause of i humanity and of justice. (Cheers from the Radical benches.) I make that appeal to the Briti sh House ofd Commons, to which an appeal in the cause of justice d humanity never been made, and made in vain. (Cheers.) Do not let this go forth as a matter of doubt. Do not let this question be slurred over by the terms of a factiousand catching motion prepared by a cabal—(loud and continued cheering from all parts of the house)—toemberrass and dis place a ministry. (H ear , hear, and renewed cheers). Toll it out by your votes t o th e people of India iu terms neither vague nor indistinct that what we desire from them is sub mission, not spoliation—(cheers)—that the war which we taintwsthheliirat:thi wage is the war of nations, not of freebooters -- (che ers)— that England knows how to make war and to conquer, and also how to treat the conquered; that she offers to those whom she conquers, and who submit to her arms, that protection for life and property which will be the best eat. , nest to them of the mildness of the rule to which it is their fate to bow. If ever there were a time in which it was ne cessary that our policy towards India should be clear and distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of trans ferring the government of India from the company to the Queen. In the course of discussions in this house upon the subject of our p ist government of that country, some COR fessions have been made which you may rely upon it have not escaped the attention of the people of India. One con fession was made by the right hon. baronet the memberfor Radnorshire (Sir G. C. Lewis) which he will forgive me for s Lying I listened to with respectful amazement. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister of the Crown, who was advocating the bill that was introduced to Par liament for transferring the government to the Queen, was speaking of the past government of India; it is true he was speaking of a government prior to the year. 1784, but that was at,: a ° time when not the most insignifi cant part of our acquisitions in India was made. What did the right hon. gentleman say ? He said, "I do most con fidently maintain that no uncivilised government ever existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt, lotelor East hea p ets het people fi erno d dcp i oi , i.en u cc s ouo , f r a ml. n npß d ria la n ty o e o r m a p t a h c e i o y s a r t thea m n s to t g h o a v y e t e -: r m i e 7 n 6 t 4 o 2 f , ruwegtehareedffs t e eor a toitumhreefmnutt future the right hon. gentleman I do not thathargtee government. v l we l a e renn v ad e mr n jee. tuns not ot.l justice, ashamedthere en en.ort, b hs e ep o stor o ol Ta confesstLi i s oe t n a t k u— e s d suspiciont ha t no sake of t pl t u o nd lo e a r— vo (c i li t plunder—(cheers) —and (cheers)—that the war which we have waged against them intrigue, will tempt the House of Commons oven for o is a war consistent with mercy and justice, dfor the e factions, te a t r the not and dynasty no which we are about to introduce into I • ndia is to be a dy nasty of reckless, ruthless, and indiscriminate confiscation. (The hon. and learned gentleman hero resumed his seat amidst tremendous cheering, which was sustained for several minutes.) Mr. LO WE hoped that the eloquent speech just delivered would not lead the house away from the real question for consideration. In effect the right hon. and learned gentle man called upon the house to censure the proclamation in the absence of explanation from the Governor-General. The resolution, as worded, was a censure upon the Govern ment, not upon the proclamation. What the house was called upon to disapprove of was the manner in which the Government had written the despatch, not the fact that a despatch had been written at all. Considering the t•.>rtures of mind which Lord Canning had suffered for the last year, such a despatch was most cruel. It was absolutely impos sible that Government as established in this country, and a despatch of this nature, could co-exist together. (Hear.) Mr. LINDSAY, who had put an amendment on the paper to move the previous question, said that since be had heard the able speech of the hon. and learned Soli citor-General, he was now preparad to give the resolution before the house a direct negative. (Ministerial cheers.) It was most absurd to attempt to separate the despatch from the proclamation, any more than it would be to ex press au opinion on the effect without considering the cause. (Hear, hear.) He could not _support the policy of Lord Canning, as contained in the proclamation, for it was a great departure from the course oflenient policy for which Lord Canning had been somewhat unjustly censured by the popular voice ; and perhaps the existence of this popular opinion might have bad something to do with the production of the proclamation, and it was not at all improbable that the late Government bad intimated to the Governor-General that such a course was not altogether palatable to the people of this country. He had no doubt whatever but that if the despatch of the late President of the Board of Control, previous to his retirement from of fice, were produced, they would find in them some recom mendation to that @Mot. (Hear, hoar.) The policy of S A TIT _RD KY confiscation which had been shadowed forth ill the procla mation had in fact led to the present rebellion in India. The hon. member referred to Tucker's Memorials of the , Government of India, in which the author, ono of the most experienced public officers of that country, expressed a very strong opinion of the impolicy of a course of conduct which would alienate the affections and confidence of the people of India. He wished the house to ask themselves the question whether they intended to hold India in future at the point of the bayonet? Because the only mode of holding India in future would be by sending out legions of troops, and to garrison th e w h o l e country, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, if the policy expressed by Lord Canning were carried out. (Hear, hear.) He contended that the proclamation of Lord Canning, which threatened to despoil the whole of the proprietors of Oude, would have a far more serious effect upon the minds of the peo ple of India than the despatch of the Earl of Ellenborough. As to the conduct of Lord Canning ou receiving the des spatch, he did not contemplate that the Governor-General would tender his resignation without some inquiry, and if ho found that his friends hal withheld the letter which he had sent, promising explanations, his opinions would be greatly modified as to the causes which had led to the send ing of that despatch. But the whole of this question had been brought forward solely on the grounds of love of office, and believing that the return of the Whiga to power would be productive of no good to the Liberal cause, and above all with regard to the best interests of the Indian empire, he should support the principles contained in the despatch of Lord Ellen borough, and give his vote against the resolution before the house. (Hear, hear.) Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST said that having travelled much in India, and possessing, some knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, he felt it his duty to lace an amendment to the resolution on the table. It had occurred to him that there was no logical sequence in the resolution of the right h on. member or Oxford, and that it was unfair to ask the house to. express an opinion on the effect, and at the same time to preclude them from dis cussing the -cause which had led to that effect. This he contended was neither just nor fair. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. member said that an electric feeling had passed through every house in the country on hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he disapproved of the policy indicated by Lord Canning, but he thought that electric feeling was really only felt in the houses of certain ex-Ministers, who thought they had discovered in it a means of displacing the present Government. (Hear, hear.) It had been sail by the hon. and learned member for Cork that that there was no principle of confiscation contained in the proclamation of Lord Canning, but he contended that principle was clearly aril broedly stated. That learned advocate of tenant-right had contended that the rights of the proprietors of which the people were to be dispossessed were only feudal rights. That argument had been most ably confuted in the magnificent speech of the learned Solicitor-General. (Hear.) He conten led that the proclamation of the Governor-General was contrary to all European as well as Indian precedents. The course pursued in the Punjaub and Gwalior had led to greet ee salts. That policy was the policy of Lord Ellenborough, and how could they justly visit that noble lord with cen sure now? 7Wbatsver censure had been passed on Lord Canning, ho had to thank the late Secretary to the Board of Control for. No Minister had ever been so lavish of private correspondence as had that right hon. gentleman. He (Lord Tempest) believed that Oude could only be paci fied by moral means, and he believed, whatever might be the result of this motion, that ultimately the country would endorse that policy which had been so ably pursued by Lord Ellenborough. Mr. DILLWYN presumed that in the case of an adverse vote there would either be a resignation of the Govern ment or an appeal to the country. He did not see why they should be desirous of bringing the late Government back. As a Liberal he was anxious to see liberal measures advance, and that was not the case when the liberal Go vernment was in. In case of either resignation or an appeal to the country ; it was clear that there could be no legisla tion for Judi.'. this year. As to liberal measures, it was quite clear that the Liberals could not f orm a strong Government. There was a more united body behind the Government now than could be formed on the Liberal side. With reference to the resolution before the hone), he would not meet it with a direct negative, because he thought Lord Canning had been harshly used. At the same time he thought there was great weight in what the Solicitor- General had said, and that much of the blame ought to be visited upon the late Board of Control. He (Mr. Dillwyn) begged to move, " That this house generally approves of Len' Canning's policy up to the time of the Gude proclama tion, and is satisfied with the firmness and judgment he has evinced during tile crisis in India; but this house declines to give any opinion upon the Oude proclamation until it has had further information on the state of eude when the proclamation was issued, and also Lot d Canning's reasons for issuing it." Colonel SYKES said he had a thorough conviction that Lord Canning did not intend to carry out the proclamation to the letter. A great deal ha I been said about the proprie tary right. What was the proprietary right? Take an in stance. Holkar wished to extend his park. For that purpose he desired to purchase a small piece of laud. The owner said the land had been rte the possession of his family from generation to generation, and he could not sell it. And he did not sell it, and the park was not extended to this day. How about the proprietary right in that case ? How could it be said that proprietary right in this proclamation only applied to the native princes and leaders ? In 1819, when Lard Dalhousie confiscate,' property, was it , made a party question of here. (Cheers from the Ministe rial side.) He did not say that the Government were not justified in the despatch awl its sentiments, but they were when he received the despatch, would throw up his post serious wrong in p .p u r b o l is ba h b i y g it; L r • d T he consequC anning, ences h m . s p i g i r h i t te le d e ni v e a r n er , id would tell notwhat allow India to be sacrificed to a party squabble. trusted andthat who the house cou Mr. H. BSILLIE slid he had been asked how it was tahnadt assn don would .bn b Indiae ? to H its e tr f li a that he had been able to give an answer about the procla mation without previous notice. This explanation was very simple. When he saw the proclamation in the news papers he saw his noble friend the late President of the Board of Control, and he said to him, "I am sure to be h asked about the proclamation, what shall I say ?" and then noble friend dictated the answer which had been given. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down said he did not believe that Lord Canning intended to carry out the letter of the proclamation. Why, how were the people of Oude to know what the intentions of Lord Canning were? It had been said that the Zewindars were making their sub mission. He did not believe it. Ile had received letters from persons in high office stating th a t we s h ou ld pro b a bl y have to do our work again. H e (H r. Ba i llie) noneam s t t o y. 0 . p p H o see but was the told r rebellious o i s h s e e p d o i y d s so. I t there b had knew that the t proclamation had issued against the advice of those to whom Lord Canning ought o have paid respect. Sir J as . Outran' had stron g l y a d v i sed Lord Canning to issue an would said Idbe that they ought t o h ave waited for explanations from Lord Canning. But Lord Canning had not communicated with the Government, but was every week writing private letters to their opponents. Mr. VERNON SMITH l comp aimed that a strong per sonal attack had been made upon him by the Solicitor- General. Those members of the Government who had spoken had cond.-sinned the policy of Lord Canning, and upon that point he took issue with them. He had no doubt that in issuing that proclamation ha had taken the advice of Sir John Lawrence, if that advice was to be ob tainer'. In dealing with Orientals it was necessary, in the first place, to show them that power was to be exercised over them, and no doubt that was the policy which Lord Canning adopted, intending to show theta conciliation afterwards, (Cries of Oh, oh.) Whether honourable gentlemen who cried " oh, oh," were so well acquainted with Oriental affLirs as to be able to contradict him upon flint point, would probably appear in the progress of the debate. A great deal had been said theteveeine about the proprietary rights of the soil which were affected by this proposed confiscation, and the zernidars had been lauded, but those who know anything of India would be perfectly aware that they were oppressors of the people. He be lieved that the position taken by the Soliciter , General was utterly untenable, and that the Government hid been most hasty in publishing th • eir despatch without waiting for any explanation that might have been offered, and he believed that the reed' of the Governor-General would l ea ve b een a more honest an d manly course than that which had been adopted by her Majesty's Government. Still the fact of the recall, or the appearance of the recall, of the Governor- General of India would be productive of the most disastrous consequences throughout India. In dealing with this pro clamation, it had lof transpire,' how it hid come to England. From his experience of Indian affairs he, thought he was justifies in thinking that it had come in a mass of correspondence without any covering letter at all, without any e xplanetion—and upon that endue he thought that the G overnment had acted with pre cipitancy. Her Majesty's Government hal announced that they would not enter into details with regard to Oude ; but their own Attorney-General, while eu inde e - dent o member, had week aft er wee k a notice on the pap e r a the House f C ommons. That learned gentleinan th a n others of his part y , declined to bring fsr w , rd wiser in th e present state of Indi a; b ut directly the Government came into p weor, they opened up the questio n b y this into p could not see any reason why the censure of the House of Commons upon the Government should be withheld simply on account of Lord Ellenborough having left office, because if the Government were determined to uphold his policy, it was difficult to understand the Minis try had been deprived of his services, for no man was more able than the noble lord to carry out the principles he en tertained. The right lion, gectlemari having referred to the letter he had received while in office in reference to the proclamation, was met, with t a l ou d reques t t o h ave it rea d , but to this ho declined t o accede . H e diff ere d ent i re l y from the principle which bad b een laid down, that the respons ibility rested with the late Government, and looked upon the story as o ne of t he most trumpery character. (Cries of " Oh, oh , " and it Read, read.") He was deter. mined not to real, bee Lusewas a private communication. When he received it he read it to Lord Palmerston, and they concurred in thinking that there was no thi ng o f itn poi tance in it. (Loud laughter.) There was no want of communication to the government, f or Lord Palmerston did submit to Lord Ellenborough a portion of A letter which he did think of importance. (Renewed laughter.) The Solicitor - Gen eral had hi n ted that Lord Canning would have occasion to reproac him, but that could notbe the case, for if he had erred at all, it was out o f c l emency to Lord Canning, whom ho had always defended when hon. gentlemen opposite had attacked his policy. If hon. gentlemen affirmed that he had acted from party views iu this matter, ho positively aud solemnly disclaimed the falsehood. (Tremendous uproar followed this statement.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted that the prase used by the right hon. gentleman Was an accidental one. e h that Mr. V. SMITH stated did not mean to 1130 the phrase in an offensive sense. Ho said he felt a grea t interest in Indian affairs , and • t would be for others to judge if the manner in which he had performed his duti es w hil e h e h a d been in office. ([fear, hear.) Lord STANLEY hoped the house would do the melebers of the Government the justice to believe that it wet not their desire to evade or shriek from the inquiry into their conduct which the right hon. g e ntlemen opposite had set on foot. In the statement of that right hon. gentletean, as far as it went, there was nothing to complain of, °leapt, as had been already shown by the Solicitor -General, that he unduly, • f not unfairly , limited the inquiry whichhe instituted. (Hear.) It was impossible for the house to do justice to the conduct of the Government in censuring a particular act of Lord C annin g W ithout at the same time considering the policy cud justice of the act so censuled. (Hear.) As far as he could gather from the resolutions and from the discussion, the charges against the Govern ment were twofold. In the first place there was the nar row issue of who was responsible for the publication of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, and next there was tie wider question, assuming the despatch not to have been intended for present publication, whether it was a despatch that ought to have been written. The question of the pub lication of that deep itch was one he approached with sores pain, because, however clear the case, it was always pain ful to seem to exculpate oneself at the expense of one who had been a colleague, and still more when the generosity of that colleague's conduct made it impossible to regard his loss without extreme regret. (Elear.) But in the pre. PSTNING MAY 15, Tf, sent instance there was something more than personal or private interest to be considered. And first lee him re mind the house, what Lore! Ellenhorough had stated already, that the promise given in the_hcaPe that the de spatch should be published was giien on the authority of Lord Ellenborough alone, and not of any other member of Ithe Government. H e (L or d St an l ey ) cou ld sa y f o r himself and ho believed also for his colleagues, that they never heard of the promise being given until they heard it in that house, and that they had beard it with some surprise and regret. But then the right hon. gentleman (err. Card well) asked why, " when you had time to consider, did you not recall your promise ?" " The house," the right honourable gentleman said, " would not under the circumstances have asked you to produce it." His an swer to that was-- and it was one which he believed must have occurred simultaneously to every hon. gentle man who heard the question put—that the promise, once having been given, placed the G overnmen t, as regarded the publication of that despatch, in a position totally diffe rent from that which they occupied before. He quite al lowed that, as far as the hon, member for Birmingham was concerned, no pledge so given ought to h ave s t oo d i n th e way of recalling it, if by such recall the public service would have been consulted ; but the Government had to consider what would have been the effect on public opin ion of withdrawing a promise so given. (Hear, bear.) They must have said—" It is true the despatch has been sent ; it is true that the Minister, the author Qf that despatch, thought it one which ought to be laid before the house ; it, is true that that despatch contained the deliberate expres sion of our policy ; but on second thoughts we are led to I believe that the sentiments which we entertain, and which we have expressed to the Governor - Gen e r a l India, are sen timents of such a nature that to make them public would be most dangerous to our influence, both as regards Euro peans and natives." For hie own pert he firmly believed t hat to have held that language would have been a course fraught with infinitely greater danger than would arise from the production of the document itself. (Hear.) He thought that a course, half disclosure and half mystery that a course which would have stimulated the curiosity of the public and left that curiosity unsatisfied would have led to a belief that the despatch in question contained mat ter infinitely more grave and more alarming than any that really appeared on the face of it. (Hear.) It might have been unwise to give the promise given in that house. 116 regretted to say he thought, under the circumstances, it was unwise —(hear); but that promise once given, it ap peared to the Government a less evil to go on than to draw back, and that of two public dangers it was better to choose the lesser. (Hear, hear.) Bnt the right hon. gentleman the member for the city of Oxford, making use of a con venient and expressive phrase, had talked of a Cabinet of limited liability. What was the meaning conveyed in that expression ? Undoubtedly it was true both in con stitutional law and common sense that for every act of every member of the Cabinet all the members were respon sible. But how responsible ? Surely responsible under cer tain conditions—responsible not only for acts but for si lanes, for .ilenes gave consent. It surely could not be con tended.that any set of men, no matter under what circum stances brought together, could be held responsible for an act which they did not commit —for an act the commission of which they knew nothing, and which, when they knew it was committed, they regretted and disavowed. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminsior, who ha 1 displayed in a house less full than it now was, even more than his accustomed ingenuity, end asked "Why if you intended to repudiate the course which has been taken did you, net do so at once ? and why did you wait to see what popularity you might be able to gain from the publicatiou?" That charge was one he (Lord Stanley) ven tured to deny ; and if the Government had taken a cliff r ent course they would have heard much sharper taunts and more vehement imputations from the other side of the house. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminster had spoken about the Jonah of the Cabi net; but what language would he have held if, without reflection, without deliberation, without taking time to weigh circumstances so novel and so grave, the Govern ment had at once given up as indefensible the conduct of a colleague so eminent and invaluable in every respect ? (Cheers.) They knew what were the teelisgs which go verned public men and regulated political parties; and he did not think it was necessary to offer any long or laboured justification for having felt great reluctance, for having made it a subject of deliberation and reflection, and for even having allowed some trifling delay to intervene before they consented, by expressing their disapproval of conduct which they could not wholly defend, to incur the loss of one whom they felt to be the chief ornament and support of the Cabinet. (Cheers.) The might hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminster s a il, when the Government stated in that house what the despatch contained, and when they stated their disapprovalof the policy of Lord Canning, the despatch was virtually p u bli s h e d, an d th e res t w a s comparatively immaterial, If the right hon. gentleman really held that opinion it was an exculpation not only of the members of the present Government, but of Lord Ellenborough as well; because, although there might have been some little suspension in the expression of their opi nions, although ley some of those ingenious artifices which he had often seen practised in that house they might have contrived to save off inquiry, it was idle to suppose that with regard to a matter of this kind any Government could have maintained, or that any Government could have been tolerated in maintaining, a policy of silence and neutrality. (Cheers.) How stood the case? Oue of the most important events occurred—an event he did not hesi tate to say which might materially influence the fortunes of a campaign. It was known that the Government here must decide upon that expression of policy. It was known that their decision would be final. It was known that their derision had gone or was going out to India ; and then the right hon. gentleman told the Government they might have acted, but they might have kept their own counsel, for England would not have felt any curiosity to know whether they had disavowed or sanctioned the pro clamation of Lord Canning. He (Lord Stanley) thought such a course of action would have been simply impossible ou the part of any Government, for we lived in a state of society when secrecy in regard to important national affairs could not be maintained beyond a very limited time. (Hear, hear.) From that publicity groat public advan tages were derived, so must they submit to its inconve niences. (Cheers.) Turning from the question of the de spatch, he came to the other point—ought that despatch to have been written at all ? Why, the Government was asked, did they not wait to hear any explanation ? that Lord Canning might have to give before they pro nounced any disapproval of his proclamation. He did not want to go into the question of the privates letter. He was glad to escape frem dealing with that part of the subject. He was quite content to rest his case on a statement made very recently by the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton, who said, speaking of his experience of Indian affairs, that it was the practice of the Indian Board in its correspondence with the Governor- General to receive from the Indian Government first of all a bare narrative of facts, and afterwards—sometimes long afterwards—to receive explanations of the narrative so sent. He would ask if the matter did not press—if there was no urgency. They were told, and he agreed with the sentiment, that it was their duty to consider the feelings of Lord Canning. No one in that house could speak of Lord Canning with more respect than he did. Ho never had joined in the vindictive and insensate cry that had been raised against him by, he believed, but a small portion of the Indian public. (Hear.) He thought that on the whole Lord Canning had done his part well, and conducted the affairs of the Government of India with ability and sue-. cos', (Hear.) But was there nothing else to be considered in connexion with this qu estion than the feelings of Lord Canning? (Hear, hear.) Were the lives and property of men to be as nothing in the scale? (Hoar, hear.) Was the confiscation of property nothing ? Was it nothing to arm a population of 5,000,000 men against us? -to make their reconciliation more hopeless , their resistance more despe rate, their reven g e more implacable? (Hear , bear.) Was it nothing to protract a war already sufficiently difficult and dangerous, and that, too , a t the most inconvenient and unhealthy season of the year? (Hear, hoar.) He quite understood why the right hon. gentleman wished to consider this subject without c onsiderin g at the same time the merits of Lord Canning's proclamation. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman would have had them wait for some explanation of Lord Canning's views, but the Government thought that every day and eve r y hour in which that pro clamation was made public in Oude was so much added to the dangers and difficulties of our Indian position. (Hear.) Lord Ellenborough did not and could not know that fur ther explanations were on their way. (Rear, hear.) But it was said, why not write to India and receive an answer before sending out such a despatch ? He confessed that he thought not only the people of England and the piop's of Oude also, would have had reason to complain of such a course, but that Lord Canning himself would have had fair grounds of complaint. (Hear, hear) What would have been thought if they had waited patiently till a vindication of the proclamation arrived, and th e n a t the end of summer — just as if it related to a matter of some trifling impoi t to write to Lord C ann i ng th a t the proclamation he had issued at the beginning of the year was considered to be wholly inexpedient? (Hear, hear.) Another ground of censure had been discovered by the right hon. gentleman opposite. He said if they thought it necessary to censure Lord Canning's policy in this parti cular, why did they not recall him ? He must say that gentlemen opposite were hard to please. At one moment they made it a matter of grave accusation that fault had found with the proclamation without waiting to hear the grounds on which it was supported; and at another mo ment they told them not merely to censure the proclama tion, but to recall the Governor-General without waiting for any explanation whatever, (Hear.) He asked gentle men opposite to read the despatch as the Government read it, and as it was originally intended to be read ; he asked them to read it as a document not intended for the public, but for the Governor-General of India. The language of the despatch was addressed, not to the Sepoys, or the po pulation of Oude, or to any class by whom its meaning misunderstood, but to the Indian Government, and the great object in view was to point out emphatically and plainly the wide distinction that ought to be drawn be tween the conduct of the Sepoys and the revolted popu lation of Oude. (Hear, hear.) They had heard much of the class of persons who it was said would be chiefly affected by the proclamatio lof Lord Canning. It, was diffi cult to discuss the question of the rights of the talookdars without going into the perplexing controversy of the tenure of land in India. These talookdars were de scibed as a class who could only be dealt with after a severe fashion, but there could be little doubt that their rights of property were regarded as hereditary. They were described as a disorderly class, who kept up forte, carried on private war one with the other, and maintained large bodies of armed men. He did not care to enter into the argument how fai that description was accurate or otherwise. If it was accurate—if there was in Oude a powerful landed aristocracy surrounded by armed retainers he would submit that in a military.paint of view, and as a matter of policy, that was not a class of men they should drive to despair. (Hear, hear.) But it was not the fact that this was the only class of persons who would be affected by the proclamation. He had it on the highest authority that a large portion of the soil of Oude was oc cupied in very small holdings, and that there were numer ous village communities composed of such persons. (Hear.) The principle of endowment in land was as well known in Asia as ix Europe, and there were many mosques and schools endowed in that way. How would these endow ments be affected by the proclamation? (Hear.) They had heard a good deal about the danger of offending the reli gious prejudices of the natives of India. He ventured to think that a declaration such as that contained in the pro clamation, which would at least have the appearance of sweeping away all endowments, would, especially if it was misrepresented by those who had an interest in doing so, f produce a most injurious effect on the natives of India. What was the cash of Scinde ? It is that certain feudal princes after the conquest of the country, were desired to surrender their jagheerdars and receive them back. What was the precedent of Oude? It was that they who did not surrender should have theirropert confiscated. If been precedent had been followed no objection could have be made, but what was the policy indicated by the of proclama tion? A few persons are rewarded, but hepropoe in y an the great mass of those who remain neutral,. wh Asiatic country will always be the great majority, was by the words of the proclamation confiscated equally with Ithose who had taken an open part in the rebellion. If they came.in, their lives and honour were saved, but no- 1 8 5 8. thing more. What 'is the re ward offered 'to -those who have protected Englif h lives? They will be entitled to rewards, consideration, and leniency., Tt has been said, and I think with truth; that it was never ititeneW to' Set up to the proclamation. There is nor doubt, abut that, - hut we are conseiering the effect of the proclaanatien on the native mind ; and my hon. friend the S ecre t ary o f t h e • Board of Control asked with great truth how the people of ' Oude were to know that these toreats were not to be eel.- riecl into effect. I look anxiously for information as to the effect of that document. I have no special knoWle lge on the subject, but it is impossible not to know that pa irate letters have been received from parsons high in military position, expressing the greatest anxiety and alarm as to the result of this proclamation. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman who preceded me quoted high authority in sup thekp n o r o t w o s f on w p h o a l t i c a y n indicated h is e this a t p o r m o c e l n a t m s a w t ioorne, madee. Il a d e o bast . , am not willing to make use of private reports or communi cations, but if it be true, as I believe it is, that Sir J. Law rence has recommended to the Government of India a dis criminative amnesty—that is to say an amnesty for all mutineers who have not committed violence , bu t have given up their arms, and lammed to their homes—if it be true that such counsel hai been given to the Governor- General, I think the right hon. gentleman was not justi fied in adducing the great name and authority of Sir J. Lawrence in support of his views. (Cheers) Looking at the immediate results of the policy of the Governor- General, I think it was inexpedient; looking at its per-, manent effects, I believe it to be unjust. (Cheers.) I for one, will not shrink from any fair responsibility that may fall upon the Government for expressing our disapproval. of that policy. That is our justification of Lord Ellen borough for the despatch that he addressed to Lord Can ning.: As to the other part of the question, I have en deavOured to show that under the circunestanc. s of this case and the considerable mischief that the proclama tion :might do, any delay in forwarding the de spatch was inexpedient. ' As to the publication, I think I have shown that for the act of publi cation the Government collectiuely cannot be held responsible. (Cheers.) If it were the object of the tight hon. gentleman the member for Oxford to obtain a full and deliberate inquiry both into the conduct of the government here and the conduct of the authorities in India, I believe that he will obtain that obje c t, an d I s h a ll b e glad if he does obtain it; but if in this motion any other objects are involv ed—if this is really what some have not hesitated to describe it—a party move—if the interests of India are to be sacri ficed and imperilled for the interest of political parties at home, I, for one, deeply regret it, and regard it as an ill omen for that new course of ludian administration on which we are about to enter. (Cheers.) But, personally, wo have no reason to de otherwise than to express our thanks to the right' hon. gentlentad the member for Oxford. We have to thank him for placing us in this position, that officially we stand forward here as the defenders of right against wrong —(load cheers)—and as the champions of a policy of hu manity and wisdom. (Cheere.) I believe that whatever the issue! a fairer field in which to combat— a better cause by which to stand or fall, no Ministry and no public moo could desire. (Hear, hear ) Lord J. RUSSELL —Tie house cannot but feel that this id a matter which has been brought to a very serious issue. The Prodeiction of the proclamation and the despatch seem to cleallnge some judgment and opinion on the part of the house. My right hon. friend the member for Oxford has asked the housd to give that opinion irrespective of the merits or the de enerit'e of the proclamation. The Solicitor-General and the noble, lord who has just spoken asked, on the contrary, that the whole case should be judged, and that we should give our opinion on a question involving the merits of the procla maticln as well as the course the Government lave pursued— so that, it appears to me, the house is redu.:ed to this alter nativb, either to censure the Governmeet for the course , they have pursued, or to declare, on the other hand, that Lord Canning is deserving of the most severe reproba tion. (Hear, hear, and loud cheer.) Sir, that is the issue. You cannot agree to my right honourable friend's nese ca tion ' without passing a censure upon the Government. You cannot acquit the Government without declaring Lord Canning to be totally anfit even for the meanest official situa tion. , (Cheers.) I listened with great pleasure to the very able speech made by my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor- General, At the same time I must confess that I wish he had more entirely abandoned the forensic habits of his profes• sion. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) For, sir, it was evi dent, and I will prove it immediately, that upon every part of his case, while he dw , It with great - effect and ability upon those circumstances which were in favour of his argument, he entirely suppressed every fact and consideration opposed to it. (Hear, hear.) As au instance I may mention that which he placed in the beginning of his speech when lie de clared that he would not give an opinion or pass a judgment uponitho annexation of Oude : he contrived in two or three instances to show that, according to his opinion, the Govern ment of her Majesty and the Administra- ion of the East India Compa• y had been guilty of as foul a.wrong as was ever com mitted; for the hon. and learned gentleman said that he would only state that which was undeniable, that there was a t eaty with Oude, by which it was agreed to guarantee the Vizier of Oude against external and internal enemies. That is perfectly true and undeniable, but there was another a r ti c l e in that treaty which said that the Vizier of Oude should be bound to listen to the advice of the East India Company, and to follow that advice. And, sir, it is notorious that while for 50 years we kept that article of the treaty to which he referred, while we protected Oude against external and in ternal enemies, that at least for 40 years of that period the Vizier of Oude entirely neglected and violated that other article of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) But this, if we are consider ing Oade, is a main point in the discussion, and it is un deniable that, whether we were justified in our proced ings ,or not, the honourable and learned gentleman thought fit to omit that fact from his argument. I shall proceed to notice in order some of the statements of the Solicitor-General. When 1 tell the house that they ought to form an opinion on the proclamation, I could 'not avoid observing that that was an imperfee, document, one of the mos', important passages in the proclamation being omitted. The Government, though they had not received it as an official doeument, were quite aware that it appeared in the public newspapers. Where was the wisdom in asking the house to judge of a document that was incomplete, and the omitted part containing much in vindication of the general tone and policy of the proclamation itself ? The passage :o which I allude declared that those who came forwerd and gave their support to the restoration of peace and order i w eild have their claims for the restoration of their former rights fairly considered and liberally viewed by the Governor- General. Could any man say that that was not a passage of immense impo thrice ' indicating, as it did, the desire of the authorities to open the way for the reconciliation of those who ceased to be in arms against the British Government. The Governor-General spoke in a liberal and forgiving spirit, yet that portion of the despatch was not noticed by Lord Ellenborough. To the men who appeared iu arms, whokilled our soldiers and endeavoured to starve into submission the garrison of Lucknow, Lord Canning said—" You shall not now suffer the penalty of death or transportation; you shall net even be subjected to a few weeks' imprisonment for your off noes." Yet Lord Ellenborough took uo notice whatever of that part of the proclamation, though it cannot be denied that it strongly bore the character of mercy; but immediately the draft proclamation arrived in this c untry it was eagerly taken hold of with a view of fixing censure on the Governor. General. (Hear.) I roust now call the attention of the house to the perilous situation in which Lord Canning has been placed—a situation requiring the highest qualities of heart and head. Ho had to provide for the safety of the British garrison, small in numbers itself, anal diminished by the demands for reinforcements to distant portions of India, while it was only relieved while it had the relief of two wings of European regiments. He vas exposed to an extensive and perilous mutiny, having at the same time to consider the welfare 1 of 150,000,000 of people in India, over w h om h e was 1 appointed. Placed in that position that while others trem ble 1 his cheek blanched with fear, or that while the murders which were daily and hourly committed on the European re • giments, roused the passions of others, his blood was never moved to vengeance. I remember, when thanks were voted in this house to Lord Canning by my noble friend the mem ber for Tiverton, I took the opportunity of saying a fetv words of commendation of the course which Lord Canning had pur sued, of determining that there should not be a war of races, believing as he did the whole of those races could be recoil. tiled to British rule. Ido not remember that the gentlemen on the Treasurybenches were at that time so impre sed with maxims which my noble friend enunciated; ou the contrary, there WAS nothing but a willingness to join the popular voice which depreciated the merits of Lord Canning, and there was a disposition to withhold that confidence and approbation which, to a public man placed is a trying position, was one of his highest rewards. (Hear, hear.) Then, hen they were in power came the proclamati n----not a proclamation issued by Lord Canning, but a draft proclamatiou without explanations, purporting to be a proclamation that might be issued when Luckuow was taken. Now, sir, I ask. what should have been the conduct of the Government when th y rec:ived such a despatch from such a man at such a time ? It appears to me to be not the heroic duty, but the common duty of a y Government to say to themselves—" This is a man distinguished f r humanity; this is a Governor-General placed in a most perilous position ; if we cast any sudden censure upon him we may disable him to perform the duties of his position. There have been no charges of cruelty brought against him which should induce the withholding of our confi dence in his wellintenti ned government of the people of India." (Hew%) -Why, sir, if that had been their belief, they would have written to Lord Canning a general despatch as to their views of his conduct, asking him for explanations of the draft proclamation which he had sent them, and recom • mending to him in general terms the policy they wished him to pursue. If such a despatch as was usual had been written, it would have been not only fair and common justice to Lord Canning, but fair and common justice to your own empire. (Hear.) That, however, was not done. The Ministers, or rather Lord Ellenborough, who hal their confidence, im mediately wrote a despatch to Lord Canning, which appeared to be something more like a letter in the spirit of a political invective which Junius intended to be published, one of tee most severe lampoons that a political opponent ceuld indite, rather than the grave rebuke of the Ptesident of the Board of Control to the Governor-General, who, he conceived, had overstepped his duty. (Cheer's and laughter.) Sir, I was about to read one or two passages from that letter to show the state of mind of the writer. He says :—" Other conquerors, when they have succeeded in overcoming resistance, have excepted a few persons as still deserving of punishment, but have, with a generous policy, extended their clemency to the great body of the people. We cannot but think that the precedents from I which you have departed will appear to have been conceived in a spirit of wisdom superior to that which appears in the precedent you have made." (Cheers and counter cheers.) Hon. gentlemen seem to admire this. (Renewed cheers) No doubt they consider it a very fine style of waiting, eghich may rank with any production of our classical writers. But do they consider the position in which the Governor-General was placed? (Cheers.) Was it sight in a Minister to hur a l d t h r m e sarcasms at his head—to point these antitheses— w convictedi t with this abuse? And cruelty—this Aa d t h you have l you o ever remark able for dreadful punishments, but a of the Govern s ) The organs is is w n as ot a n m ot an a who inan hat whom whomb e t ° e . n cle mency. (Hear, hear, and cheer . . to the hour at which seen described by various nicknames. fomrahaismercyand ment seem to consider that this is quite flat and invectives. to hurl at a Governor-General these sarcasms i thegover nor' the other ; either he thing or of India ? I say either One and is the victim of ' njus- Can you suppose that such a man is fit to conrinue is not deserving of this censure, and in his present position. (Cheers.) Well, then, a it in appears that this was the after-all fit to write to the Governor tice or else he ought not sort of way in which you thought . c a rou e ,,,,1 .. g saylreo,, you wrote to him in a way totally unbe comingempire Other parts of the despatch I may mention hereafter, - but 4 will now go to the question of the publication. A laboured attempt has been made, n o t on l y in another place by the Prime Minister, but here to-night, to lay upon the head of Lord Ellenborongh the whole fault of that publication, Lord en mn Ellenborough said (.)t h ; e r i Lord Elleuborough seems to me to have thought that this despatch was calculated to do great good, and was anxious to promote its publicity, o g f etl believeo u s ;to say him to nothingte, as disrespectful the right hon, I am desir. night, a man of genius, and I only regret th merit which he has shown in this matter, (Hear, hear.) if he did not possess the quality e want of j rulg- But, of judgment, bad he not colleagues whom he might have] consulted ? And did not one of the most eminent of those colleagues, the eagues, hon. gene. t e IpO rc eje eirtg ,asked what tleman who was the organ of the' Gov' Ciiiiiiiiitl tt d u dab hose ' on Thursday, the 6th of . May: ,n was the: tenni- of ( the de4iatelejef 1. , 0rd,' E_Wnh, say you .will. see th4.l.6i)rleitlri:tsfb-tr: that "of ,-(e-rse that &spate; would be lain ' tbe. table ?" Is that hon. ge,tlepeeneneteeparteleipator in . the fact of the publication I -If the ,publ . catem is right, let him claim the.merit,of it. Herwiii.this . , liousk er',! kitow not whet the Cabinet May bave,. decided', but ,W , :l'eei 'we. hear from a consider that the Government must ,have -Clecide•O° Minister that a despatch will led pi6dtteede 'of - course we it. (Cheers.), Then the honourable .gentleilip.n, went on to say that the policy of the procla'reatiOn has ' been 'disap proved, awl in that very speech.. Theseare matters to mike every member of this house piick up tiS °ark' 'for it is es that much taeghye villages us with have to v e s say ns tott troops the eaaonpfalrei friend—(loud i f ct.s India, "'You may have a cruel viceroy, who fills you, provinces with his armies, your (l `cannon, oildc i e 'but rs) - r s- e v v m h e o m d b i ' s l - ' approves of all these proceedings. (Cheers) Wall, sir, that was the _fact of the publication. Perhapsitniay be said that the IdTh le - afeicet - called upon - to - judge of that despatch into '''6l.c'n i n e o h t b'u l- e c l4nl a ll 'll -that they have heard the effect of it described as an enemy of the Government. Hp said, "1 do re,ret that'. this letter • has been brought so picnuin ntly that alter what had pissed, course my noble friend has ,reco eauended-namelee, that.ot publishing the despatch, omitting eel - passages-wlsieh; if published in Ind' e might produce a prejleetelal effect;'(. Those were the words of the Prime Minister, who affirmed , th . entire, commendation athis th w a u t s the tiie d ve e l s y pa t t i e ch spa s t li c o h nl w % of the Board of Control , promised the house `; should be . laid upon the table (Cheers.) The learned• SolicitorsGe ueral made a wiat, which would perhaps have 'm o p e effect in the ass_mblies he is in the habit of addressing than-the p re .. rent, when he said that this letter had been handed to-the lion. member for Birmingham, and that the GOvernment did well to make a 'virtue 'of necessity and publish • the de spatch. But unfortneately the promise was made oi l Thursday, and Earl . Grhuville 'received 'the - despatch on Friday, and the lion, member for, Biralingham received a copy at the same time; and that was some 15 or 18 hours before the despatch was laid nee. •the table. 'First, then, I say it was most unwise . and mischievous 'to write such a des patch iu the terms I have mentioned-terms which were not necessary, and were totally unbecoming a Minister of Mato ; secondly, I say it was most -dangerous,for the interests of India to publish_that despatch, and I further say that the author of my averment is the heaclOrlierliajesty's Go , verninent. I will now proceed to read some other portions . of the despatch which s ern to me to indicate part of the policy of her Majesty's Government. lt, has been always the custom hitherto for a ' Government 'to adopt a course which has been settled, that .whqu, conquests have been made, when acquisi ions have resulted to the Crown, 'to look no longer into the abstract merits of these questions, but to adopt that which has been done to defewl those acquiii tions, and-to - carry-on Government in the only manner in which the policy of the empire can be carried on with safety. . Because if the next Government wore to say they disapproved of the course, for instance, which Lord Dal housie had adepted, and another Government had said that they entirely disapproved of the proceedings in Seindo ; if, for instance, Mr. Fox, 'in 1806, had con demned the policy of Lord Wellesley which resulted in the acquisition .of Delhi and Seriugapatam -if that were the case it is evident that the empire would be in a state of constant perturbation. You would have no peace that ' could be lasting from year to year. You would be entering into the merits of wars gone by, and 'the justice and wisdom of wars which you were deeply engaged in, and you would have no stable policy for an empire.. (Cheers.) This has been the way in which the government of this great empire has been hitherto carried on. This is the way in- which a great empi e has been built - up, - and I may add that it is the only way in which a great empire can bo maintained. (Cheers.) If you are to say what this despatch says, or rather, what is far worse, .what it.insi nuates, that your annexation of Gude was unrighteous and uuprecedeuted, and that therefore you are to consider the hostiliti,s now going on in Oude as legitimate war, in which not only her Majesty's troops are invader, and that the inhabitants of Oude are the only true patriots and defenders of the right, why, then, don't think that your em pire can last. It cam only be shifting and precarious. Everybody would ask what is likely to become of our Indian empire if conquests are to be given up and kingdoms re stored. There would be a perpetual flow and ebb of war and conquest and peace. It is for these 'reasons, more es pecially, that this despatch is to be condemned; but I think is to be condemned for other reasons. It is most unjust to Lord Canning, who deserves support, praise, an . ci admiration, and not the most severe censure which was dyer passed upon a great public servant. (Hear.) I think his dangerous to proclaim in India in these terms, that the head of the Government there is not to he trusted, and will be dis avowed. (Hear, hear.) I' think, above all, it is dan gerous to be reverting to the a is of past Governors. General of India, and past Presidents of t • Board of Control, and of the Court of Directors of the East India Company. I believe these things tend to shake, a- d finally to dissolve, the vast fabric of that empire, which we and our ancestors have helped to build up. (Hear, hear.) I see no way for escape from such a result except by censuring this despatch. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—and I admire him for saying it— that if the colleagues of the Earl of Ellenbbrough had known of his intentioo to resign they would have hastened to him and asked him to withdraw the tender of that resignation ; but the noble .lord (Lord - Stanley) .has not spoken in that sense .to-night, - thinking that, no doubt, discretion is the better part of valour, for he did not express any regret. Whether *the Government wished to maintain the Earl of Ellenboraugh in office or not, and whether they wished to have that .man of genius, and generous temper in the Cabinet, this I say, the Govern ment are bound up with his ac s, and for his they are ro spousibl i for sending the despatch, 'and responsible for its publication. (Hear, hear.) Let them bear, therefore, the respougbility of his acts. They may say it is a case of hu manity ; but that remains to be seen. (Hear, hear.) If, in deed, it be true that the proclamation tends not to prolong the war in Oude, they will have reason for forming that judgment ; but if, on the contrary, as I believe, this open disavowal of the Governor-General's acts will tend to encourage the enemies of , British rule in India, and to discourage and dishearten our friends, then I say, the Government must be held responsible. (Cheers.) On the motion of Mr. ROEBUCK the debate was ad journed Lord PALMERSTON—Are wo to understand that the de• bate w ill be renewed on Monday ! The CHANCELLOR •f the EXCHEQUER—Yes, Monday. Lord PALMERSTON—The first thing on Monday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERYes. The Ecclesiastical Corp ration Leases Bill was read a second time. The Oxford and Cambridga Universiti,s Estates Bill was also read a second time. Tho Poor-law Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Conso:hlatel Fund Bill (11,000,0001.) passed through committee; and the Stamp Duties on Passports Bill also passed through committee; and The house adjouiued at a quarter past 12 o'clock. SPORTING INTEILIGENCE. HARPENDEN RACES.—FRIDAY. The Eathampstead Stakes. Nognaan Lass of Richmond 11111 2 Wild Honey Butting-5 t', 4on Nogrnan Smith. The Harpenden Handicap. S nnerset.. Supple Jack.. Thornhill 3 Betting-6 to 1 a2st Somerset, 10 to 1 each agst Thornhill and Suppl:: Jack. a. 1 Thslady's Purse of 25 Sovs. K; nnersl9y .. Fin fly Barege. . B acing—Barege opened at evenf, but closed at" any odds" agst her; 5 to 1 each agst Kinnersley and Fire fly. The Two-year-old Stakes.' Pandora Cait by Daniel O'Rourke Clemantbe IL-tt ng---6 to 4 on Pandora, 100 to 8 agst Cietuauthe, 100 to 7 ag*.t Daniel O'Rouike. The Taliy-ho Stakes. Impatience. Walnut 2 Repulse Betting-6 to 4®u Impatience. Handicap Plate of 50 Slvs. Wanderer 1 Rio 2 Pantolus Betting-7 to 1 agst Pantolus, Bto 1 agst Rio, 10 to 1 agst Wanderer. Hurdle Race. Walnut.. Rafe Rebecca . Betting-2 to 1 agbt Rai The Scurry Staker. 2 3 Salmon -1 Impatience 2 Lady Aintree .. 3 Betting-7 to 4 each agst Salmon and Impatience, 5 to 2 agst Lady Aintree. . . LATEST BETTING. DEBBY. 5 to 1 agst Fitz-Roland (off) sto 1 agst Toxopholite (off) 12 to 1 agar Ancient Thiton (takeh) 12 to 1 apt, Longrange 16 to 1 agst The Hadji 100 to 5 aget Ditto (taken 20 to 1) 25 to 1 aget Ethiopian (taken) BETTING AT MANCHESTER.—FBIDAY. DERBY. sto 1 agst Fitz-Roland (taken) 6to 1 ngst Toxopholite (taker') 12 to 1 agst Ancient Briton (taken) 14 to 1 agst Llngrange (taken) 100 to 6 agst Ditto (taken) 16 to 1 agst Sedbury (taken) No others backed. No Oaks betting. [ADVERTISEMENT.) —Among the numerous extraordinary cures without medicine of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility, effected by Du Barry's telicious health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, the follow. ng are not the least remarkable :—Cure No. 47,121.—" Miss c E u l i r z e a o b f e e t x h t d r a e m c obs , e nervousness o fNazing , i o . v f o N u a s z n i e n s g s c d a i ra g egs tei,oWn,agaltlithaemriczls:mHsepritisit:sa, and nervous fancies." Cure No. 48,314. " Miss Elizabeth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool: a cure o f t en years dyspepsia and all the horrors of nervous irritability." Cure No. 3,906. Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and general debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Revaleuta Arabica Food. —JAMES PORTER, Athol-street, Perth. Supported by testimonials from the following eelebrated 140,- lessors of Chemistry: Dr. A. Um; Dr. Shorland; Dr. Harv in ey! Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer; Dr. t j l e r uart; Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Cas t Major Gen. Thomas King, and many other re spectable a sons, whose health has been restored by it, with full means of cure had failed. Suitably packed I. 4 s. 6d:; Sib. lls. ; instruc tions, In canisters, 11b. 2s, 9d.; 2!.•free all re. 121 b. 225. The 121 b canisters are Da Barry, !Ay. and 77, ceipt of Post-office order. Barry C a aution against the Co. , fear. Regent-street , London. Important The Vi c e-Chancellor Sir er aliora fuldangers of spurious imitat ions. — The William Page Wood granted a n Barry's Revalenta Arabica Foo Injunction ns. on the 10th March, 1854, against Alfred Hooper evill for imitating "Da t ~-.