The Sun. — London, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

lion, he Should have replied to him with the exact ad vice contained in the despatch before them. That de spatch, however, left no imputation upon the personal honour of Lori Canning, who, in that respect, was more fortunate than the gallant chiefs of our army in the Cri sea. Ste hoped that the house, by its verdict on the tion now raised, would show , once and for ever, E l" a t the interests of India were not to be made the sub ject of party contests. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BYNG said, the real question before them was, whether the despatch ought to have heen laid before the public , . The question about the annexation of Oude, though he thought it had never been properly debated, Must be reckoned among the things that were gone by. The proclamation confiscated, with certain exceptions, the proprietary rights of the landowners. The land owners were not the people, but the oppressors of the people ; to whom the announcement that they were no longer to be oppressed, would be so far from an instance of English severity, that they would take it as an earnest of amelioration. As to the responsibility of Ministers be was quite sure the Government could not disown a col league ; it might as well be said that they could disown the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a treaty to which the Foreign Secretary had assented. It would be highly dangerous to India if the Governor- General was made to feel that what one Government had done another would disavow. (Hear.) He himself was not like one speaker, a relative—he was scarcely even a friend of Lord Canning—(hear)—but he believed it was admitted on all hands that Lord Canning was t , ne only man whose nerve never deserted him, and who was never betrayed into either cruelty or rashness, when there was a panic amongst those who ought to have sup ported him at Calcutta. (Hear.) If there was a man t es . h o ought to have entered into the feel in gs of Lerd Cann ;Ng under these circumstances, it wa s the man who, like himself, had issued proclamations, and bad been a Governer•General. If there was one man on whom Lord Canning ought to have depended for support, it was Lord Ellenborongh. (Hear.) Though the dangers for India were great, there was still time to avert them. From the despatch there was an appeal to the House of Comnsons. Let him learn by next. mail that a majority of the House of Commons approved his conduct, and would support him, or at least not condemn him unheard. (Hear.) Mr. A. B. HOPE said that never since he had been in Parliament had there been a question on which he had so great a difficulty to make up his mind. He did not, like most members of that house, put his conscience in com mission. (Hear, and laughter.) The lash of tie whip did not reach his back —(a laugh)—and so he had nothing but his conscience to guide him. He never saw the two parties on either side of the Speaker's chair come into the house with less clean hands. (Laughter.) On one side, a man, able, grave, and well approved by his coma try, who, through many difficulties and trials, through good report s seldom, and bad report often, had upheld the dignity of the Crown and the nation, who might have committed one fault, for that one fault was reproved in a despatch couched in language such as our forefathers would have despised. (Hear.) That despatch, intended to be read by the people in every part of India, with antithesis neatly poised, gave some of those stabs which ran in very deep and left but a small scar. (Hear.) Oo the other side, the right hon. gentleman, who had been three weeks Secretary at War, and for three years Pre sident of the Board of Control, and might, without an) stretch of that charity which had little place in that house, be supposed to have some idea of official matters having received letters which he knew were not ad dressed to him as Mr. V. Smith, but as President of the Board of Control—not in the character of his Vernon laugh)—but in an official character— deemed it sufficiently important to ask the advice, he begged pardon, to read it—(a laugh)—to his noble friend the member for Tiverton, but not worth sending to the Board of Control. (Hear.) After that he came to this house, and rising in his seat, gloried in his laches, and exulted in the mischief he had done. He offered no bet ter excuse than the pitiful quibble that he had not con suited the member for Tiverton, but only read it to him —(hear, hear)—gathering kis opinions from his nods and winks, or, perhaps from his silence—(hear, hear)—and following his course. (Hear.) There he was amongst those who hatched this motion. (Hear.) There was one defence of Lord Canning that had been forgotten, which was, that he was so little accustomed to anything like consi deration or advice, or anything practical from the right hon. gentleman, but he had naturally got into a lax way of doing business with him. (Laughter.) •Lord Macaulay bad facetiously told a story of a youth who went out to trap the hare, and found himself at the mouth of the dark lair where lay a grim old bear. (Laughter.) Instead of the hare Vernon Smith, he came on the grim old bear, Ellenborough. (Laughter.) The only fault hitherto charged to Lord Canning had been on the side of cle mency, and Government ought not inconsiderately to have sent out a despatch couched in the theatrical lan guage of Widdicomb. (A laugh.) In referring to the case of Lord Auckland, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had used the word ignominious, and if the argument went for anything it was that treatment to which that term could be applied was proper treatment for a Gayer nor-General, which he was sure the house would not assent to. (Hear, hear.) As to the equanimity with which it was said Lord Canning would receive the de• spatcb, he might well quote the couplet— " Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But why did you kick me down stairs? (Laughter.) There was so little to be said on either side-- with Lord Canning so hastily condemned, in so bitter lan guage, published so as to be translated into every tongue in India, on one side, and the conduct of those who dared to come forward as supporters of this motion. After the suppression of letters to the supposed President of the Board of Control, in this pitiful strife of factions which bad done more than all the paid satellites of Napoleon 111. to damage the cause of free institutions, the ques tion was what were they to do ? If it had not been for the amendment be did not see how they could have ab stained from some such censure as th at conveye d i n the resolution, though he was not anxious to see the present Government displaced, or to see others take their place. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But as the resignation of Lord Ellenborough had produced, perhaps not techni cally but virtually, a great change in the case, he thought the amendment, giving a general vindication of Lord Canning's policy up to the time of the proclamation, and a virtual condemnation of the rashness of that un statesman-like step the publication of the despatch, would be that which the house ought to support. Those who wished well for Lord Canning would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Swansea. (Hear, bear.) Wishing to place the censure on the act of Lord Ellenborongh, but not to make it subservient to a pri vate cabal—(Hear, hea.)—he shOuld give his vote against the motion, and should support the amend ment. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ATHERTON supported the resolution, defend ing the conduct of Lord Canning, and reprobating the conduct of the Ministry es unjust and impolitic. The Cabinet was not merely responsible for the despatch of Lord Ellenborongh on technical grounds, but it had adopted and vindicated that despatch in debate. Lord ELCHO defended the proclamation of Lord Canning. It was evident that he himself thought it a lenient measure, inasmuch as its publication was delayed till after the capture of Lucknow, lest it should be con strued into an act of weakness. He considered that the conduct of the Government had been creel towards Lord Canning and imp .laic towards the natives of India. Sir R. PEEL—I rose immediately after the right hoe. baronet the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) for the purpoPe of complimenting him upon the vigour with which he addressed the house. He said that it was owing to the warm interest which he felt in the welfare of India that be was disposed to quarrel with the policy o her Majesty's Government. I admit that the ques tion we are now discussing raises a very grave and serie one issue, and I am desious, with the indulgence of the house, to offer a few obe.ervations upon it. (near.) I have listened attentively to a good many speeches tehich have been addressed to the house, and I devoted par ticular attention to that of my right hon. friend who in• troduced the subject. We shall all admit that he was very neat and temperate in his expressions. He very accurate in his d a t es ; i n fact, I am sure of e th w i a s s that I never shall forget that period between the 12th of April and the 6th of May—( a l aug h) —but I must say that he illustrated his facts with a series of arguments not half so forcible os I should h ave expe ctedllat tempted to insinuate that her Majesty's Government were desirous of shielding their collective re-ponsibilit behind the assumed liability and self-sacrifi ce o f one ofV their colleagues, but I must Fay that I think the explicit declaration of the noble lord the Secretary for the Colo nies must have satisfied the house that such an imputa tion was most unfounded. (Cheers.) There was one observation which fell from my right honourable friend which I caught fresh from his lips, because I wag very anxious to make an allusion to it. I felt equally with the house the force of the remark, and that I might net misrepresent my right honourable friend I took down his words. He said, addressing the chair, " Don't suppose, air, that the object and the motives," those were his two words—" that the object and motives of this motion are at an end, because Lord Ellenborougle has resigned." Why, of course they are not an encl. (A. laugh.) Don't suppose, I may say, that the Reese of Commons is so limited in its apprehension as not to perceive that the object and the motives of this motion have a far wider and more liberal basis. (Hear, hear.) Depend on it it is not the interests of poor Lord Canning that have been considered by his friends in this motion. (Cheers.) It is not the welfare of the millions of India that has been considered. (Renewed cheering.) An opportunity must be seized to attack the Government, and therefore you must make India the battlefield. Now, that, I must say, is a matter which is greatly to be regretted. Our chief object in the vigor ous prosecution of hostilities in India its not the tempo rary establishment of the power, the prestige, and the dignity of the British name, but that we should so corn_ part ouraelveticas to be able to look forward to the con tinuance of our power, and, if possible, to the possession of the sympaththeiecs of the millions over whom we rile. That being instead o f tending must say that I think this mo tion,ng to assist our fellow-countrymen in India, will increase their embarrassment ; and I believe that the greatlyut deprecates quite as much as this house does tithe courle y w h ich is now being pursued. (Cheers.) It slut m eti pi3 u ssi_ble to separate the policy which has been purau passdndia from the cen onthher Majesty'n sure that is attempted to be queetion of Government. I do not wish to diecuuspe the annexation of Oude, but in order to for '' r merit I must say that the nations of India havenrny alga becumf, Subject to British rule either by mikary opprationg b treaties, or by official acts o i arbitrary spoliation• y it is the result of one of this List class of operations tha.' directly bears upon the subject which we are now (1 cussing. Alleged misgovernment of the native p r i nce . of India has been always the pretext or justification f annexation. In the course of the rule in India we haft , absorbed some 200 sovereignties, I fear on too many oc casions with no better justification than that of conveni ence or expediency. Lord W.Bentinck admirably alludes to the mode of our proceeding with reference to the an nexation of countries. He says that a political agent of the India Government takes up his abode at the court of the Royal victim ; by degreee, he usurps all authority. acts the part of a dictator rather than the Minister of a friendly power, and exercises a jurisdiction totally in compatible with the Royal power and dignity. Now, I must say that this was precisely the course persued in the case of Oude. Alleged misgovernment in Oude was the cause of its annexation. Mr. Grant, Lord Dal housie's chief coadjutor and adviser in this matter, says, " We unhinged the whole social fabric and political state of that country and then annexed it." lam not going to discuss the policy or expediency of that annexa tion, but I must say that when these are the officially t place, bi s there 4 tb paragraph, a i r s a r g o r p e deal at reported of sense grounds ood proper nh ch feelingitin took which I will read to the house : o which " We must admit that, under the circumstances, the hostilities which have been carried on in Oude have rather the character of legitimate war than that of rebellion— (oheers)—and that the people of Oude should' rather be regarded with indulgent consideration than as subject to a penalty exceeding in extent and severity almost any which have been recorded in history as inflicted upon a subdued nation." (Hear, hear.) I think that Lord Ellenborourgh, if he wrote this paragraph, was perfectly justified in thus alluding to the people of Oude. (Cheers.) But Lord Canning is of a different opinion. Ido not wish to say one word disrespectful to Lord Canning. I perfectly con cur in the panegyric passed upon him by the noble lord the member for London. I admit that his position has been one of great difficulty ; but at the same time, I do not think, when the interests of millions are concerned, that we should hesitate to express our opinion upon his policy. (Cheers.) Lord Canning has been in circum stances of peculiar difficulty. He arrived at Calcutta as the successor of one of the most able, accomplished, and enlightened administrators that of late years has ruled the destinies of India—l mean Lord Dalhousie. (Hear.) He had hoped, of course, that Lord Dalhousie's govern ment would have given him a secure and undisturbed possession of power. But he was disappointed. And why ? Because the whole course of our government in India had been not to enlist in oar favour, but to place against us the energies and the feelings of the people of India. The consequence was that as soon as the master mind of Lord Dalhousie was no longer there Lord Canning found himself encompassed by a hostile people. At the very outbreak of thin insurrection Lord Canning was accused of supineness and indecision al most amounting to incapacity. But now that the dan ger is passed, that the neck of the revolt is broken, that what is called our national honour has been vindicated by British bayonets, Lerd Canning comes forward and recommends an act of arbitrary spoliation, which, I ven ture to say, is unequalled in the annals of any civilised country. (Cheers.) We well know that this kind of spoliation and confiscation is unknown in India. What. ever tumults or convulsions may have swept over that great peninsula, no religious fanaticism, no result of war, has produced such consequences. But we know more than that. We know that from this policy c f Lord Canning Sir James Outram has dissented. Sir J. Outrage said, I believe Sir J. Lawrence recommended an indis criminate amnesty. But an attempt had been made to shield Lord Canning by the policy of Lord Dalhousie. It is said that Lord Canning is only doing what Lord Dalhousie did before. This I deny. Lord Dalhousie gave to his proclamation a prospective action, whereas Lord Canning's proelamation has a retrospective opera tion—(cheers)—retrospective operation in Oude, when only the ground under the soles of our feet is our own, when the whole country is in arms against us I (Hear.) The way to conciliate 5,000,000 of people in that coun try is not by proposing to confiscate their proprietary rights. It is this policy of confiscation from which her Majesty's Government dissent. Is there a man to stand up in this house and tell me that this policy should be adopted I (Cheers.) Is there a man who, if I may use the expression, is such a traitor to those principles in which every free-born Englishman is nurtured as to tell me that the successful operation of the British arms is to be followed by the universal confiscation of a people ? No, no, that is not the policy, that is not the system that we ought to adopt. (Hear.) You cannot separate the policy of Lord Canning from the censure that you are en deavouring to cast upon Government. I stand here as a free and independent man, and as such venture to say that the Government haye not been fairly dealt with in reference to this motion. (Cheers.) The question that ought to be decided is whether we, as a corporate body, should sanction arbitrary spoliation, or recommend that severity should be tempered with moderation and jus tice. Lord Canning, who was heretofore called Clemency Canning, has now enormous power, and it may be that his proclamation was dictated by that lust of power that every man feels. (Cries of "Oh, oh I") I have a very high, a very noble opinion of Lord Canning--(laughter) —but I want to know whether he wishes to assimilate his conduct in India to the early successors, for indience of the Spanish conquerors of America ? Theirs was a system of universal spoliation. Or does he wish to as similate his conduct to that of the Power that ground down beneath the iron heel of despotism a great nation —that drove with the utmost severity the iron of despair into the soul of unhappy Poland (Cheers.) If he does not let him moderate his rule in aceordance with the principles of civilised nations. (Loud cheers.) An hon. gentleman who spoke the other night from these benches alluded to the former condition of Ireland (now happily prosperous), when confiscation was attempted. That attempt never succeeded. Let me refer to one example is our own history. Lord Derwentwater in 1715, in accordance with the proclamation issued by his Reyal master, bad his estates confiscated and his titles at tainted, but the proclamation went no further. Let me fake a far more notable instance in our English history. In 1746, when the insurrection in Scotland was sub dued, when the last hopes of the family of the Stuarts perished upon the field of Culloden, when those who had bravely advocated their cause perished upon the scaf fold, their estates were confiscated, but the confiscation went no further. (Laughter.) The estates of the fol lowers of the Stuarts were confiscated, but the great mass of the people of Seotland were left in the enjoy ment of their property. (Hear, hear.) These are examples that Lord Canning might have followed. And now with reference to the discussion we have had in this house. We are told that the same mail, of last Monday, that took out information to India that Parliament had determined to transfer the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown took out also intelligence which must be exceedingly unsatisfactory to the people of India. Never was an act performed more reprehensible than that to which I allude. It has been stated openly, and for the purpose evidently of making it conspicuous, that the Directors of the East India Company met last Monday and passed an unanimous vote of approbation of Lord Canning. (Hear.) That vote is palpably in opposition to the Government of the day. (Cheery.) It is meant to be so. I, for one, have always stood up for the East India Company. From the first I have voted in their favour. I believe that their government has not been so unjust and arbitrary as some have represented'. But late votes of theirs is a good example of that double go vernment of which we have heard so much. It is in flagrant opposition to the Government, and must produce the worst effects in India. (Loud cheers.) But it is not merely in India that this opposition will be felt. We have to deal with its effect in this country. We have beard a good deal about the premature publication of a despatch, and a great deal of blame has been cast upon the Secretary to the Board of Control for the observations that be has made upon it. But depend on it that is no t the real question at issue. The resolution says that " this house sees with regret and serious apprehension that her Majesty's Government have addressed to the Gover nor-General," &c. Now, I must say there seems to be something concealed in this expression of regret and serious apprehension. There is something hypocritical about it. (Loud cheers.) It is not a straightforward expression of opinion. I want to drive home the hypo crisy of certain disinterested politicians. (Cheers and great laughter.) I want to show that it is not that they feel regret and apprehension, because the Secretary to the Board of Control made his statement, or because the despatch was prematurely published, but lest India should not be made the shuttlecock of party. (Loud cheers.) The member for Halifax said that he would not much care if her Majesty's Government were turned out to-morrow, for the people would rejoice. Well, there lies the question. (Hear.) This is a party move. The question we are now discussing lies between Lord Derby and the noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Hear, hear.) I venture to say lam not speaking merely my own opinion, but that of thousands in this country, when I say that the question really is whetber Lord Derby shall continue to advise the Crown and exercise the duties of that position which he has honour ably and f a i r l y acquired—(cheers)—or whether this ,Pic f a o d l r i t l Ti would v o r l a d t o n b u i f e e t ms o: o s se , c louse of C ommons i s, w i th trembling humiliation to membertchh eee rr t ai o ot b a g the ab w tatcekr, t aof n tpe o or b w l s e ou rc.lho (Loud cheers.) o t o h d e ma nifesto, aft er we have with justice condemned the policy of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, to let him now come back to offic e u to India. (H ear .) It is u pon a party questi on re l a ti ng said must go out, on acc oun t o f by so me th a t if th e Govern ment is beaten Lord Derby' the want of str eng th of his party • but in those strength of a Government depends days the numerical force as upon its b( not so much upon its the active sympathies of people ing in accordance with hear) —and the general sympathie s and of doors—(hear, public will always be in favour of an any d feelings of the be it presided over by Lord Derby, Governme nt, e nt, lord the member for Tiverton, or th e noble lord the member for London, who, afte r a ll , is the legiti mate leader of the Liberal party—(hear, hear)—if it is evident that they are equal to the conduct of public affairs. Now, as this has been made a party question, let me ask you before we come to a decision upon the subject to consider the position of the champions in the strug g l e . The noble lord the member for Tiverton has just been convicted, upon the clearest evidence, of toadying to foreign influence. (Loud cheers and counter-cheers.) H e has just been convicted, and very properly convicted, of preferring the favour of despots to the friendship of those living under a constitutional sovereign —(cheers and laughter), and yet you want to bring the noble lord back to office. (No l and cheers.) Why, the noble lord has shown in a crisis—in a moment of emergency—that he is wanting in moral courage. (Cheers.) It is palpable to every one, and has been decided by this house and en• dorsed by the country, and I will venture to say that the Government of Lord Derby is infinitely more liberal in action than was that of the noble lord. There were not many questions left as legacies to the present Govern ment by their predecessors. There was no Reform Biil. (Rear, bear.) There were, it is true, some loose observa tions about an India Bill, in which that great subject d been treated like a medical reform • bill— or turnpike trust (a laugh) —and I think the only two legacies wore the e, ag ii ari u . Lord Derbyls question and the Conspiracy Bill. Well, Sir, Bill—(cheers, Government repudiated the Conspiracy and cries of "No 1 l" )—and, I )—and, more than that, without hesitation they obtained the release of our two suffering countrymen—(cheers)—and :demanded an indemnity which they will probably succeed in obtaining. I must say that I think—and I believe my opinion is in accordance with the general feeling out of doors—that the Government of the noble earl is entitled to the gra titude of the public for the zeal, spirit, and determina tion with which they grappled with that important question. (Hear, hear.) The issue of this struggle, if the Government are beaten, may possibly be a dissolu tion—(loud cries of " Hear, hear"), and although I believe that the influence of the decision of the Hou-e of Lords will be great, still Government may be beaten, and in the event of an appeal to the country let me remind you that many ton, gentlemen may lose their seats in this honourable assembly—(Hear, hear, and laughter) —and that quite irrespective of this decision, but from circumstances quite irrelevant to it—that is to say, from not having had time to prepare their own plan of action. (Renewed laughter.) Is it right that gentle men thus situated should be subjected to suck a move as this (Laughter.) Let us rise, however, above these party questions ; the issue at stake is a grave one, and we should decide it not upon personal considerations, but with that dignity befitting men who deal with great national interests. (Cheers.) We are at present sacri ficing thousands of men for the purpose of establishing a beneficent rule over the natives and people of India, and in dealing with a subject so important let us rise superior to personal feeling and act and decide like statesmen. (Hear.) Let us attempt, under God's pro deuce, to deal with the subject, not by making it the oc casion for a party squabble, hut dealing wit it in a spirit of wisdom, moderation, and justice. (Hear, hear.) I think that is the spirit in which her Majesty's Government wish to act, and that it is that spirit which led them to resist Lord Canning's proclama tion. As regards the despatch of Lord Ellen borough, I think that the 19th clause is a very noble expression of opinion, and I agree with Mr. Layard that it ought to be written in letters of ge ld. It says, " We desire to see British authority in India rest upon the willing obedience of a contented people." There cannot be contentment where there is general confiscation. That I believe to be the honest opinion of the government, and I think that it was that feeling which actuated them in their determination to reply to Lord Canning's procia• mation, and I therefore give them my humble hut sin cere support. (Hear.) It is possible that circumstances may come about that the government may be beaten— (" No, no !")—but I feel that those principles which they advocate cannot be subdued. (Hear, hear.) They are principles which we in this house are bound to pro tact, and although I cause a laugh occasionally, I now appeal most seriously to all the representatives of Libe ral constituencies, and I ask them to sand true to their colours. (Hear, hear.) I ask them not to be led away by specious arguments into the adoption of a course which their better judgment and calmer reflection may lead thereto condemn. (Hear, hear.) I ask this house in dealing with this qne , tion to lay aside every motive bat that of acting for the public welfare, and if any doubt should arise in any of your minds as to the vote which you shall give, I call upon you to give the benefit of that doubt to her Majesty's advisers. (Loud cheers.) Sir G. C. LEWIS, whose opening sentences were lost in the buzz of conversation which succeeded the speech of the hon. baronet, said the hon. baronet who had last addressed them urged them to treat this impor tant question like statesmen. (Hear, bear.) He could only say that he wished the hon. baronet bad illustrated that precept more forcibly by his own example. (Hear, and laughter.) Nothing could be more remote from the truth than the hon. baronet's allegation that the motion before the house was a "hypocritical pretext for rais ing a party issue." (Loud cries of "Oh ! oh !" from the Government, and cheers from the Opposition.) No thing could be more remote from the truth than the as: sertion that this question had not been forced upon the Opposition in such a manner as that it would have been a dereliction of their public duty, if they had passed over subject in that house. (Cries of "Oh oh 1" from the Government, and cheers from the Opposition.) Had gentleman, on that (the Opposition) side cf the house, been in search of a question which might bring about a change of Government, they might have found it on many occasions easily. (Cries of "Name one 1 name one !") They might have found one easily on many points connected with the legislative measures upon India which had been proposed by her Majesty's , Government. In the treatment of that measure they had shown that they had no wish to seek a party divi sion ; but this question had been thrust upon them. (Oh, oh.) He repeated, in the most deliberate manner, that it had been thrust upon them, and that they bad not been actuated by party motives—(oh, oh)—but that those who had supported it would have been guilty of a serious infraction of public duty if they had not asked the House of Commons to express au opinion on the motion now under consideration. The hon. baronet had opened the whole question of the annexation of Oude, as well as of the despatch of Lord Ellhnborough, but at that time of night he could not follow him through so large a field of inquiry.. The right hon. baronet then briefly sketched the history of Oude since our con nection with it, and the treaties between that coun try and Great Britain, to show that on condition of our defending the king against his external enemies and against his rebellious subjects, he had engaged to main tain good government within his territories—an engage ment which he (Sir G. Lewis) contended had been vio lated by the successive Prime Ministers of Oude. The annexation, he contended, was a natural result of the in fraction of those treaties on the part of the king of Oude, , which entirely contradicted Lord Elleuborough's des , patch. If the present Government had intended to take i a different line of policy from that which had been pur . sued by their predeceesors, they ought, on their accession to office, to have apprised the Governor-General of their intentions, so as to pu;; him en his guard against pursuing a policy which was founded on a different supposition. The proclamation came to us in the shape of a draft, ac companied by instructions as to the manner in which it was to apply. The Governor-General classified the persons to whom the proclamation was practically to apply under three distinct heads. Those who had been continually armed against the Government, but who were free from the suspicion of having put Europeans to death, were to have their lives guaranteed, but they would be required to reside in certain specified places. There was another class of persons less guilty, who were permitted to return to their homes, but that did not imply a resumption of their right to the possession of their lands, for the deli berate disposal of which the Government reserved to itself the right unfettered. The conditions upon which they would resume their lands would be determined by the Government according to the special circumstances of each particular case. But only those persons whose guilt was of a prominent character would be exempt Irons that restoration. Next came the third class, who were to be treated with still greater leniency. (Hear.) But these points were said to be "suggestions rather than instructions." It would be seen, therefore, that this illustrated the main point—what was meant by con. fiscation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet had referred to the case of the Earl of Derwentwater, and the treason of 1715, which he said ended in confiscation. But the fact was that it did not end with confiscation, for the Earl of Derwentwater underwent decapitation. For feiture, in former times, had been widely applied in Ireland, and they were cfr.ein toti, in debates on Catholic questions, that the whole land of Ire land bad been forfeited several times over. Any candid and equitable judge who would take a fair view of this proclamation, and of the practice in India with respect to the annexation of territories in that country —any candid person who would take all the circumstances of the case into consideration, must at least admit that this was a reasonable construction of Lord Cannin e 's pro clamation. All that ho was bound to tneintain was, that that was a reasonable construction, because the Govern ment had not waited for any further information, and had not written to Lord Canning to ask for any. Tney had assumed at once as clear and indubitable that the proclamation bore the construction they put upon it ; while, on the contrary, he (Sir G. Lewis) contended that it did not bear that construction. That was the real point at issue, and that constituted the real offence of the Go vernment in this matter, namely, that they had not put a fair and reasonable construction upon the despatch. All that Lord Canning had done in that proclamation was to say to the chiefs of Oude—you have been in open rebellion against the Crown, or the East India Com pany as the representative cf the Crown in India ; in consequence of that your territorial rights are confiscated. But he (Sir G. Lewis) could not believe that it ever was the intention of Lord Canning to dispossess the whole of the landed proprietors of Oude—(ministerial cheers) — and to confiscate all the property of the inhabitants. (Cheers.) Why, such a course had never been known since the days of antiquity, when it was the practice of conquerors to seize upon the whole of the conquered territories, and to sell the whole population into slavery, while the lands were given into the possession of new colonists. That was not the case in m. dery times— (ironical cheers)—and he could not believe that any sane man could conceive that it had really ever entered into the mind of the Governor-General of India to dispossess and drive out the whole people of Oude—(Opposition cheers)—to send them adrift and take complete pos session of their lands, in the same way as had been done for instance, in the case cf Lord Derwentwater. Lord Canning merely declared as a fact, that the lands of the rebels were confiscated by the very act of rebellion, but he went on to say "if you will fulfil certain condi tions and give us securities of loyalty and submission for the future which we consider adequate, we will then reinstate you in your possessions." (Hear.) That was the fair and just construction to be put upon this despatch, and even if he was wrong in giving it that construction, he still said that the contrary supposi tion was so improbable that the Government should, before censuring Lord Canning upon that supposition, have waited until they had ascertained from him that that was the policy be really intended to pursue. He li n naeh t dr e eee t rd. d N vst e eeo d ic,eor t eff h steo a arm t r the yae ffoeorwt c ht o ehr n ree r se the Government had pursued was entirely inconsistent with all the facts of the case. side of the house —he matt ers said there D Theeipn a Department e n c t t ( t m o rw. gentleman Hhi teh madeep patch c r i a hn t g he o r f witha obrueodfl reference e c dan h uct a : l 1 e i /lig: ancestorst o his (Sir G had . L a e l w w aehr i a ( s i . t y ' hhy e s ee ) ) bad oie (Hear.) Well, Ise thou o ri n gle of fa o c u t d in e thought that e t t r o h e ye t w h e. e a o s u a n l n d o n t gs e annexation single which could not be proved " b irrefra able evidence." some parts of that despatch were wrong " by irrefragable evidence." In the 11+.h paragraph of that despatch, it was stated P that been faithful to their treaty engagements ever badly they might have beleit ot ith ho jects. (Hear.) Well, but if they would look r e:M e Dal housie's minute as to the grounds on which Oude was annexed, they would see that it was precisely the mis government of their native subjects which constituted the breach of their treaty engagements with us. (Hear.) It was their failure to govern their subjects which led to the necessity for taking that step. According to the treaty we were bound to defend the Kings of Oude against their external and internal enemies ; while, on the other 'hand, they bound themsgivee to govern the THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 18, kingdom in a manner compatible with the tranquility of India and the welfare of their subjects. It had been sbewn conclusively that for 50 years that stipulation of the treaty had been constantly broken, and it was in consequence of the failure to fulfil that obligation that Lord Dalhousie declared the kingdom had been for feited, and that fact must have been present to the mind of Lord Canning when he issued his proclama tion. The house had heard so often of the respon sibility of the Government in respect of the pub• lishing of the despatch, that he was unwilling to weary them again by travelling over that ground, but he could not help remarking that there had been two versions put forth from the Treasury Bench on the subject, which he contended were inconsistent with each other. The Solicitor-General said the publication had been rendered necessary, because copies of the de spatch had been given to Lord Granville, and to a mem ber of that house (Nlr. Bright), and inasmuch as copies had thus passed out of the hands of the government, and could not be recalled—therefore it was necessary to make the despatch public. That certainly did not appear to him to be a very conclusive argument, because he pre sumed that when copies were given to the noble lord and the hon. member for Birmingham, they were given on the understanding that they were not to be made public. But the noble lord (Btanley), who rose later in the de bate, took entirely different ground in defending the pub lication. He said that after the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put to him, the curiosity of the house and the country would be roused, and that it was impossible to suppress so im portant a despatch as that relating to the confiscation of Oude, and that the government, on those grounds, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to lay the de• spatch on the table of the house. Teat was a manly and a straightforward statement ; but it clearly proved that the publication was the deliberate act of the govern ment, and not a matter of mere accident, as had been represented by the Solicitor-General. But the complicity of the whole of the government did not rest there. It seemed that after the entire despatch had been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the government had subsequently deliberated on the propriety of giving certain paragraphs, and the result was, that they felt it was very doubtful whether they should produce several paragraphs relating to the annexation of Oude. Oa the following day, therefore, Lord Ellenborough went down to the House of Lords and said that there was a neces sity for withholding certain portions of the despatch, but that, with these exceptions, be would produce it. He (Sir G. Lewis) therefore came to the conclusion that the publication was the act of the whole of the government, and not of any individual. (Hear, hear.) They had deliberated upon the subject, and came to the decision to withhold certain parts of the docu ment, and after that it was itaiposzdble to say that the whole of the Cabinet were not resp ao , ible for its production. He went further, and said tllat even if it could be shown that the publication of the despaech was not the deliberate act of the whole go vernment, there remained a strong argument as to the duty of the bouse with reference to that despatch. Whether by intention or by accident, which seemed al most to amount to intention, the despatch was before the house—it bad c me to them through the proper official channels, and in the usual authorised course— whether there lied been design on the part of the Govern ment or no design, the despatch was there, and it was now the duty of the house to pronounce an opini en upon it, and to say whether they would share in tho responsi bility which rested upon the Government for its publica tion. Titat despatch had made known to England, to Europe, and to India, certain views with respect to the annexation of Oede, and if they silently acquiesced in these views, then he said trey would share in the grave responsibility incurred by the Government. They would become accomplices in the act, not of publishing only, but of writing and sending the despatch to the Governor General, and thus make themselves parties to the whole proceeding. They ought not too closely to consider the circumstances under which the despatch had been pre sented to Parliament. It was before them—they could not fait to see that its effict must be to paralyse the power of the Governor-General in India—and they ought not to prematurely offer an opinion upon his policy before they bad the requisite information before them. If th 6 house did not wish to become accomplices in these grave errors, if they did not wish to share the reepon,i bility with the Government, they must vote for the re solution of his right hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE said—The right hon. gentleman who has just addressed the house, forgetful of the arguments previously adduced by his right hon. friend who introduced this resolution, has, I think, satisfactorily proved that it is impossible for the house to affirm by its vote the resolu tion. (Hear, hear.) The responsibility incurred by the right hon. member for Oxford is a great one. He under takes to satisfy the house that the progress of public busi ness should be interrupted; that the Government should be overthrown ; and to prove by weighty arguments that what he submits to the consideration of the house is of so serious a character as to demand without delay its decision in conformity with his resolution. As the debate has pro ceeded we perceive that large principles have been brought out in contrast with which personal considerations fade into comparative insignificance, and the house will find it has to decide on a principle which affects not only the interest but the existence of nations, and perhaps the peace of the world. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman and several other speakers have frequently adverted to the name of Lord Canning. I respect that noble lord because of those per sonal virtues which the world truly ascribes to him. (Hear.) I respect him further because he is descended from one whose shining talents made him conspicuous, and who on the great theatre of human action established the su premacy of his genius. (Hear, hear.) I make no personal stricture upon that noble lord; I appreciate the sincerity and fervour of that friendship which has enlisted so many advocates in his behalf ; but from my heart I repudiate and disavow the policy indicated in that awful proclama tion which now lies on our table. (Cheers.) Considering the care that must have been bestowed on the composition of the resolution before the house, considering the wise, politic, and experienced men who planned the operations connected with this movement--(hear, hear)—l cannot congratulate the right hon. member for Oxford on the distinctive character of his resolution. (Cheers and laughter.) What is it the resolution calls on the house to do? In the first place you are in the most earnest manner to express no opinion whatever—(laughter)—upon the effect and character of any proclamation which may have been issued by the Governor-General -of India. (Hear.) That is what you are first of all called upon to do, and that means that, no matter how false and fatal the policy contained in the proclamation—no matter how diets:trims might be the coneequenees resulting from that policy being carried into ex.ecution—ethe political prudery of the right hon. gentleman is so great that he will offer no opinion on the misery and desolation that might ensue. (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman says that no opinion 1 is to be offered on the proclamation, and having sat down, straightway !rises the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says that the whole question before us is the meaning of that proclamation—(cheers and laughter) —and that the whole matter to decide is what is the meaning of the word confiscation, forgetting that his mere artful friend has specially warned the house to g ive no opinion on the matter. (L a u g ht e r.) The right hon. member for Northampton, the last Minister for India of the late Government—to whom, I presume, if this movement should sueceerl, the destinies of that great empire aro again to be committed—(cheers from the Ministerial benches, and some cries of " No !" from the Opposition)— likewise tells the house—and I confess I shuddered as I heard it—thet the policy of the proclama tion is the true question before the house, and ho endorses it with all the weight and value of his name. (" Hear," and laughter.) With the entire authority of his official experience he acquaints the house that the true meaning of the proclamation is, that everything that every man iu Oude possesses belongs, and orrght to belong to the Govsr nor-Gencral, to do what he chooses with; and then, hav ing the happy talent of drawing conclusions which no other rational man could draw—(laughter)—he assures the house that in his judgment the proclamation is one of mercy and peace. (Cheers and laughter.) But what is the second branch of the resolution? It is this—that the house of Commons is to censure the Ministry for offering An opinion on a matter upon which the right hon. mover will give no opinion, and then the right hon. gentleman makes, as it strikes my understanding, a very great mistake as to the relative duties of the executive and legislative branches of government in this country. I can conceive the first part of the resolution being quite right —namely , that the house should refuse at a particular time to give an opinion on a particular act of the Executive, while it might be the duty of the Executive to give an opinion on the point. The Executive exercises authority and super vision over every governor and every man in the service of the country, and it might be quite fair under certain circumstances for the Executive to give an opinion on the conduct of any one of its instruments, and quite wrong in the House of Commons to do ro. Therefore, I think that the resolution is unfortunately worded, u nless the right hon. gentleman is of opinion that there is such a deter mined purpose of party in this house, that despite of rea son, the force of argurneets, the cogency of facts, and the power of truth, you will affirm the principle of a resolu tion which nobody can accura t e ly explain and few olearly understand. (Cheers.) The right hon. bafonet the mem ber for Halifax in my opinion has argued this question very fairly, as did also Earl Gray in another place. They said, for to such a narrow ground in the progress of the debate has this question been reduced, that the fact is that the publication of the despatch—which is the great matter —was effected on that fatal night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a plain answer to a plain question. The argument of Earl Grey was this, that the very fact of answering the question involved a statement that the policy of Lord Canning was disavowed, and therefore that disavowal was the publication ; and the argument of the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was that the answer led to the offence for which the representatives of the country are called on to pass a vote of censure against the ministry. Now, Ido not shrink from fai r ar g uments, but I expect that hon. members —no matter what their politics may be—will extend to the Government on its trial that fairness to which the meanest criminal is en titled. (Cheers.) How was this resolution introduced by the right hon. mover? I confessed I listened to him with all that attention and courtesy which a gentleman of his position and great experience merits. I expected every moment to hear the great point stated clearly and brought home. I expected to find out what was the criminality of which the -Government were guilty. I expected the right hon. gentleman to establish by the force of his argu ments and by the powers of his eloquence that this House ought to pronounce the censure he proposed : but I regret to say that the right hon. gentleman sat down without having furnished the information which might reasonably have been expected, though I admit that great questions were and are raised in the matter under debate. Setting aside the right hon. gentleman's technicalities, details, and debates, all of which I think wire collected more by the scissors than by the head, the right hon. gentleman did not give the house that lesson of wisdom which was expected, and failed to point out what was the necessity for the honour of the country and the safety of the Indian empire, or even for the character of the noble lord, the Governor-General, to affirm so vague, indefinite, un certain, and unsatisfactory a resolution. (Cheers.) He hisem e e eni by 3: 1: oetnhitreslie their announced that he did not require the opinion of Parlia ntsedednnsefevheiorsyf me mber. to give no opinion upon the proclamation, and yet he has been followed by four members of that side of the House who feel themselves co rtesruoltuhtiaonnds ? j as: i t c a e, w t h o a s t ay sa t y h s a t t h i e s the very foundation of the matter. Then what becomes of 1858. man the member for Northampton. (" Hear" and a laugh.) Does he recollect the rebuke once given by the late Duke of Wellington to au official who told him of sortie public business being mentioned in a private letter :—" What, sir, do you think we tolerate private letters relating to official business I" (Hear.) I say every man of sense in this country will treat the excuse given with reference to this letter with seen], because no one can believe that the right hon. member for Northampton withheld the document on the advice of a statesman more judicious, more experi enced, more clever, I may be permitted to say, than him self, without an object. (Hear.) And I go fterther, and say that no one is at liberty to assume that Lord Ellenborough would not have given to that document all the weight that he thought it deserved. (Hear.) In what position did the noble lord stand ? He received a proclamation which he believed required speedy notice at his hand, and he wrote in the strong, decided, and honest conviction of his heart a desnatch which was expressed substantially in the terms which ho had employed in a previous despatch in the month of March. (Hear.) That despatch declared that Oude was a conquered country, that the people were not to be dealt with as rebels, and that life and property were to be protected. (Hear, hear.) I appeal to the house whether this Minister is to be condemned when he has written in a despatch in the month of May the same opi nions and declarations respecting the protection of pro perty in India which he had previously written in the month of March? (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Aberdeen and some others said it was all very well to speak against the proclamation, but this is the way things are done in the East confiscation is always the mode of pro ceeding. (Hear.) I was electrified when I heard that statement. (Hear.) There were great conquests in India before that of Oude, and there were large territories ceded to the Crown, and great statesmen in India before Lord Canning. I find from a statement put on record by Mr. Tucker what took place during the Governor-Generalship of .Lord Wellesley with reference to the ceded and con quered provinces. He says, " The proprietary rights or zemindars, talookdars, and other descriptions of landholders possessing a right of pro perty in the lands composing their zemindarries, talooks, or other tenures, to be confirmed and established unler.the authority of the British Government, in conformity to the laws and usages of the country and to the regulations which have been, or shall be hereafter, enacted by the Governor-General in Council," That is the proclamation of Lord Wellesley, and it was followed up by Lord Mintor. Then I have the judicious commentary of Mr. Tucker on the subject, in these words : " In fact, it should be our object to disturb the existing state of things as little as possible. But a difficulty founded upon private rights can scarcely be urged by those who contend for the right of Government to demand ' rent' from the whole territory. This sweeping assumption of the right of property in the land is a virtual annihilation of all private rights ; for I will not permit the right to per form a daily task work to be any right at all. We must create property before we talk of rights; and property in land can never be created under any system which is founded upon the assumption of the Government being the universal landlord." (Hear, hear.) The statement that confiscation has been the practice in India is disproved by facts and documents, and by the corroborative testimony of the best men who have written on India. (Hear.) What did Lord Dalhousie say in his proclamation of Oude when he annexed the territories of Oude. He enjoined all the inhabitants to " rend,r obe dience to the officers of the Government," and he conoluded with the words, " protection shall be given to life and pro perty, and every man shall enjoy, henceforth, his just rights without fear of molestation." (Hear.) I challenge those who talk of confiscation to show that it has ever been practised either in the East or in the West under any cir cumstances of conquest. (Hear, hear.) In every instance the private property of the ccnquered has been respected ; and if hon. gentlemen opposite will show me a single in stance in modern times of a proclamation such as that now under our consideration I will at once give up the argu ment. (Hear.) Are you awaro that the highest authori ties upon Indian affairs have declared this proclamation to be a dangerous document ? Are you aware that the descrip tion which Cal. Sleoman gives of the men whom the pro clamation affects is, that their estates are in general well cultivated ; and that Mr. Tucker gives it as his opinion that whenever an insurrection broke out they and the ryots would be found enrolled under the same standard ? I may perhaps mention, in corroboration of the statement of Col. Sleernan, that an officer who lately had to ride into Lucknow 75 miles for his life, describes the route through which he travelled to be thickly studded with as comfort able homesteads as were to be found within the same dis tance in England. He stopped at several respectable dwellings on his way, obtained refreshment, and was readily informed as to the best means of saving his life. Yet these are the men whose properties are, in accordance with the proclamation of Lord Canning, to be confiscated —(cheers)--and confiscated, too, without reason, and in opposition to all law and justice. (Hear, hear.) And it is because they have declared that it is the guilty alone who ought to be punished, and not the innocent, that you call upon the Houee:of Commons to censure her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) What has one of the most experienced chairmen who ever presided over the East India Company said of the talookdars and zemindars of Oude? "You may call them middlemen," he observed, " but they are the gentry of the country." It is argued that no sane man would confiscate indiscri minately the property of a class such as that; and the noble lord the member for London, in adverting to the subject, was pleased to speak of what he called the forensic habits of my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General. But I may tell the noble lord that no judge would form his opinion of a document upon any other ground than that which was justified by the expressions which it con tainer]. It is therefore idle to tell us that Lord Canning means something entirely different from that which the words of the proclamation imply. Her Majesty's Mini sters were compelled when the document came under their notice to look for the meaning of Lord Canning in the ex pressions which he used. It is, however, said that the letter of Mr. Edmonstone renders the intentions of Lord Canning perfectly clear ; but I must beg leave to remind hon. gentleinen opposite that the people never saw that letter. (Cheers.) The 14th paragraph, indeed, implies that those men against whom the proclamation is directed may have permission to return to their homes; but that permission is idle, because it is carefully provided that they shall have no homes t o which to return—(loud cheers) —inasmuch as the letter states that the privilege thus accorded "must not be considered as a reinstatement of them in tile possession of their lands, for the deliberate disposal of which the Government will preserve itself un fettered." (Hear, hear.) The whole thing is, in fact, as plain as a pikestaff. (Cheers and laughter.) It means this, and nothing more—" Go ; thank God your lives have been spared. How you are to sustain yourselves is a mat ter about which we give ourselves no concern." (Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") Some hon. gentlemen seem to dissent from that view of the proclamation, but the right hon. gentleman the member fe r Northampton seemed dis posed to abide by that construction ; and, indeed, the point is one upon which our own unaided understand. jugs will enable us at once to arrive at a just deci sion. (Hear, hear.) The more thoroughly one examines this document, the more clearly must he perceive that it is meant to have a general application. It is addressed to the chiefs and people of Oude, and although the right hon. gentleman the member for Radnor says that it does not affect the (smaller proprietors, yet I maintain that it does not distinguish between the greater and the lesser or village zemindariee. There are passages in the blue-book referring in the clearest terms to the latter class, which is described as composed of a numerous and a brave race of men, who would be , found prepared, whenever oes casion arose, to sot aside the plough and take up the sword. (Hear, hear.) Well, against a class of men such as that it is that this monstrous proclamation is fulminated—(cheers) —mid yet it is said that, in seeking to prevent Lord Can ning from doing not that which is right, but that which is clearly wrong, in their regard you impair his authority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton had upon a former evening alluded to Sir J. Lawrence, and had expressed it to be his opinion that ho (Lard Canning) must have consulted with that distin guished person in reference to the expediency of issuing this proclamation. Has the right hon. gentleman, I would ask, received any private communication showing that to be the cage? (Cheers, and laughter.) Was Sir J. Outram a party to the issue of the proclamation?—(hear) — or Gen. Mansfield ? (Hear, hear) Do you imagine that those gallant officers aro men likely to sanction a policy which will convert a brave people into your mortal foes ? (Cheers.) And are you, let me ask, prepared to say that the Government is to be censured for having pronounced a condemnation upon that policy? (Hear, hear.) Do you think that if you do so, and that if you succeed in turning out the Ministry which had the courage to denounce the proclamation of Lord Canning, there is one man upon the benches opposite who will dare to enforce the policy which it enunciates. (Loud cheers.) That proclamation is against the opinion of Sir J. Lawrence, whom eLord Ohaftesbury had said to be the greatest authority existing on this subject, and the fittest man, with one exception, to be Prime Minister of India. Will you run counter to this opinion ? Does the house remember the part taken by the late Sir R. Peel in the committee on Ceylon ? A proclamation was said to have been issued, confiscating the property of certain persons, and declaring that unless they delivered up the property which they weresupposed to conceal such persons would be killed and their property confiscated. The Government were called upon for an ex planation. The late Sir R. Peel recommended that a Royal commission should be sent out to Ceylon to discover if such a proclamation had been issued. They reported that it had been issued. Col. Watson appealed to the noble loi d (J. Russell) who never attempted to justify that proclama tion. That officer persuaded the noble lord to give him a military inquiry, which reversed the decision of the civil tribunal, and the plant officer thus got out of that pro clamation, and so escaped the punishment which would otherwise have been indicted upon him. (Hoar.) Sir, I now coma to the great speech iu support of the noble vis count (Canning) by the noble lord the member for the city . of London. The opinion of that nob le lord isal_rewaysaceivead with the great respect to which i t is entitledf the diffi m culty grt with experience, and I am well aware of humble authority which I have to con e t f en h d is i e n u p p u e t ri t o in r against the we i ght g k m no y wledge. The noble circumstances connected with the annexa tionedxepspreasteclhy despatch into the wen lord first asked, " How came you to en d terat all in your of Oude?'' refers to it to lead The t o o n t o h b e l e c l e o n r e d l who i wrote that that, for the reasons given in the several statements preceding, you ought not to deal stated in the 14th patagranle , have conquered in fair and legitimate warfare. the people of Oude as a people who are rebels, but as people whom you that portion of the noble speech is not satisfactory. But then the noble lord lord's warfare. I submit, therefore, this said, 4, What business have , you to cast refl ec ti ons u p on th e pas t go vernments of Indi a ? ' But the noble lord forgot the w ee°, in his speech on the India Bill of the lat e s p e ech of the righ t hon. baronet the late C hancellor of the EGv quer elt, covereJ the East India Government with obloquy,chereuee and accused that Government of perfidy, rapa city, cruelty, and spoliation, ajear, hear, and cheers.) I do not, therefore, know why the ten,;)erate observations of Lord Ellenborough upon a single transe:tion, and that the annexation of Oude, is to be visited with Zuch severe censure. (Loud cheers.) I am afraid I shall slat:ek the noble lord, but the historian speaks truth while the statesman sometimes suppresses it (a laugh) -- and Mr. Mill says that when the historian considers the argu ment that we ought to take possession of rich provinces because we govern them better, such an argument appears to rest upon a basis of hypocrisy. This is the pith and marrow of the noble lord's speech : " Hitherto it has always been the practice for a 0-ow rn rnent on coming into office to accept the settlements which have been made by former Governments, and when a con quest has been made, a war entered into, or an acquisition secured to the Crown, not to look any further into the abstract merits of the question, but to adopt that which has been done, to - carry on the war, and to defend these acquisitions. In this manner alone can the policy of the otepire he carried on with safety. If one Government were to nay--' We disapprove what was done by the East India Company under Lord Dalhousie;' and another were to say ' We disapprove what was done with regard to Scind e ;'— if, when Mr. Fox was in office in 1806, he had said, I disapprove she wars of Lord Wellesley, which secured to us Delhi and 83 - , ;ngapatam,' it is evident that the empire would be in a state of continualfluctuation, and you would have no policy lasting from year to year." Sir, I say that is not a usual argument. (Hear.) I sal' next that it is not, historically speaking, the course which has been pursued by the greatest statesmen of this country — that it is opposed to the liberty and happiness of the human race—and, lastly, that it is opposed to the dictates of Christianity. (Cheers.) I will not go beyond the history of India. The noble lord says that when provinces are obtained you are not to inquire into the means by which they have been acquired. Was that always the policy of this country ? Warren Hastings was a man of great talents and capacity, who stole provinces, who in creased our empire in India, and then returned to this country. Was the policy indicated by the noble lord that of the illustrious Whigs of that time ? (fear, hear.) Did they say that you could not apply the principles of morals and international law to the acquisition of pro vinces? Burke, on the contrary, asked if the principle of what he called a " geographical morality" was to be acted upon by the Parliament of England, and whether a thing which would not stand the test of inquiry in the East was to be tolerated in the West ? Why, sir, that argument of the noble lord would sanction all the acquisitions of all the conquerors, exterminators, oppressors, and tyrants of the world. I repudiate that argument. It is an unsound ar gument. I would not unde what we have done. Yet if a great Power acted to-morrow as we have done in Oude, I should hold myself at liberty to revert to the past, and to judge of the future by the past. The house will re member what Warren Hastings did. There was a Scotch gentleman who vindicated the policy of Warren Hastings. and wrote a pamphlet upon what he called the hypocrisy of the House of Commons. They ordered that a prosecu tion should be entered against that man ; but his defence fell to an advocate who in his domain was as great as the statesmen of that time. How did Erskine defend him ? On the great principle that the house had allowed Warren Hastings to do what they might have prevented his doing by interfering to check him ; that it was only when he had attempted to exceed the ordinary bounds of hu manity that they called on the country to condemn that policy which they by their tacit acquiescence had sanctioned. (Cheers.) The jurymen of England ac quitted the writer of that admirable pamphlet in defence of Warren Hastings. In the speech of that wonderful advocate there occurs a passage which might have been quoted with truth by the inhabitants of Oude to those who have served the Queen in these transactions in the East. " I speak of man and his nature and of human domi nion (said Mr. Erskine) from what I have seen of them myself among reluctant nations submitting to our autho rity. I have heard them in my youth from a naked savage in the indignant character of a prince surrounded by his subjects addressing the governor of a British colony, catch ing a bundle of sticks in his hand as the notes of his un lettered eloquence. Who is it,' said the jealous ruler over the desert encroached upon by the restless foot of English adventure, ' who is it that causes this river to rise in the high mountains and to empty itself into the ocean ? Who is it that causes to blow the loud winds of winter, and then calms them again in summer? Who is it that rears up the shade of those lofty forests and blasts them with the quick lightning at his pleasure ? The same Being who gave' to you a country on the other side of the waters and gave ours to us, and by this title we will defend it, said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk upon the ground and raising the war sound of his nation. These are the feelings of subjugated man all round the globe, and depend upon it nothing but fear will control where it is vain to look for affection." (Cheers.) The noble lord has said, "You will damage the power of England. You have no right to desert a pub lic servant who has never been heard." Was that argument in the debate on China? (Cheers.) When the question was discussed whether the conduct of Sir John Bowrieg, who happened not to be a noble lord, should be repudiated or sanctioned, what said the noble lord ? (Hear, hear.) Speaking language worthy his character and the character of a British statesman, what he said was this :—" I am told that if we pause in the prosecution of this war the Chinese will suppose we are afraid of them. I am told that we must not oast aside our officials—that all is necessary to be done to maintain the prestige of England ; but the prestige of England will never sanction injustice. lifY answer is, let justice be done, and I am content." (Cheers.) I appeal to the noble lord in the spirit of that arguments The source of the power of this country is not to be found iu her victorious arms, or the terror of her mighty name. She has conquered and ruled, but she will not confiscate, exterminate, or destroy. That is the true policy of the country. England never executes her great mission more completely than when she flings over a prostrate nation the shield of justice. (Cheers.) Upon that ground the policy of the Government is to be maintained. I defend it, not in the letter but in the spirit. I throw the despatch on the table and I say it is just and politic. (Hear.) It is a policy dine tico against a policy of injustice. It is a policy of equal' against a policy of inequity. It is a policy of mercy ag aineg a policy of cruelty. (Cheers.) That is the case which I Pre' sent to you, and I decieve myself if that appeal be ever made to a British Parliament and made in vain. (Hear , hear.) The light hon. gentleman the member for Halifa%, spoke of this as a weak Government, of its weak policy, el the inferior power of its members. Condemn its policy 1 1 you like, but condemn it manfully. (Hear, hear.) Brsug forward a motion and say the policy of the despatch iB wrong. (Cheers.) We will meet it manfully. If you, es you pretend to do, but do not do, attempt to question the, policy of that despatch, bring forward your motion, and try whether that policy will be approved by this house, and then try whether it will be disapproved by the cotta try. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says- 118 may say, and it is fair to say—that this Administratie. a has failed to perform their duty. This house has a rig" to say so, and if it say so to-morrow it is their duty to submit to the decision with cheerfulness and respect, and the only effect will be to inspire them to labour more ear: neatly to deserve and redeem your favour. (Cheers.) But I say that during the short time they have been in office they have discharged their duty. (Cheers.) They hell ° quenched rebellion in the East and pacified the Wee" They have endeavoured to repair the laws and institution s of the country, and I think they may make a fair core; parison between the budget of my right hon. friend en't the budget of the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers What the result of this motion may be I know note but 1 hope, whatsoever may befall, it will, at least, be known that their policy did not lead them to truckle to the great or trample on the weak, but to uphol d ' the honour, to maintain the independence of the c ountrys to cherish the free spirit of liberty, and to keep unsu llied, the grandeur of the monarchy and the glory of the empires (Loud cheers which lasted several minutes.) Mr. COLLIER moved the adjournment of the debate% Mr. DISRAELI hoped that hon. gentlemen who had notices on the paper for to-morrow would allow the debate to be resumed. Lord PALMERSTON joined his request to that of the right hon. gentleman. Sir C. NAPIER considered his motion for to-morrow of so much importance that he must persevere with it. (" Oh.") The debate was then adjourned until to-morrow. The Non-Parochial Registers Bill was read a third tire ° and passed, On the motion of Mr. MILLER, leave was obtained 0 , bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law in Irelan d relating to game. On the motion of Mr. CHEETHAU, leave was given to bring in a Bill to amend the Copyright of Designs Act. to On the motion of Mr. ADDERLEY, leave was given bv bring in a Bill for vesting in the Privy Council certain powers for the protection of the public health. The Bills were severally introduced and read a first tine" On the motion of Lord A. TEMPEST, Captain Vivia n was added to the Select Committee on the Land Translo' t Corps. The House then adjourned at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock. hon. and learned gentleman who seconded the motion, of whose great astuteness and whose competence to under stand the English language there can be no doubt. The hon. and learned member for Cork against sense, against law, and, as I say against the plain meaning of the English tongue, contends that the proclamation does not mean what he says it meant. (Laughter.) Following the same extra ordinary argument as the late Chancellor of the Exche quer, he forgets the resolution and the speech of the right hon. member, but, having a laudable terror of his consti tuents, he declares that if it could really be shown to his satisfaction that if the inhabitants of a country means the people who therein do dwell -(laughter)—that the people of Oude means the people who dwell in Oude, and that landowners means the l eople who owns land, ho has such a strong opinion of tenant right—(loud laughter)—of fixity of tenure, and the right which all men have to reap the fruits of their industry, that if you could only satisfy him that confiscation means confiscation he would be ono of the most resolute supporters of the Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I trust when next my hon, and learned friend stands upon the hustings of Cork and ad dresses a brave and generous people his opponent will meet him with this proclamation in one band and its condom nation in the other. (Hear.) Let him read the sentence of confiscation upon the property of a nation, and the sen tence of censure upon the condemnation ; and will then his constituents believe that he is the sincere advocate of their opinions, who bases his principles upon philanthropy and his humanity upon justice ? (Hear, hoar.) Why, may I ask the hon. and learned gentleman, has ne never read the meaning of confiscation? Is not confiscation the con veyence of property to others by way offonalty upon its present holders for offences committed by them ? (Hear.) What does he think of transferring the property of a nation, innocent and guilty alike—(hear)--those who have committed no offence the same as those who have offended us? (Hear, hear.) Lot me draw the attention of the house to a date, which, amidst all the particularity of dates we have had in the course of this discussion, has not been mentioned. The argument is, that the plain and sincere answer of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a plain question from the hon. member for Birmingham, justifies a censure upon the Government. But if it be that the opinion expressed then, that the policy avowed not in one but in three despatches is just the policy which one of yourselves distinctly called upon the Government to adopt, and which amidst your cheers my right hon. friend said the Government would adopt, how as politicians, as men of sense and consistency, can you agree to this reso lution. (Cheers.) What occurred upon the 23d of April ? I believe my hon. friend the member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) is in his place, for I am about to call him as a witness. (A laugh.) Remember, you are asked to cen sure the Government for censuring the despatch of Lord Canning. Upon the day I have mentioned the hon. gentle man the member for Devonport asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions had been sent to India that terms of amnesty, including protection to life and property—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and full toleration in matters of religion, should be held out to the inhabitants of Oude, excepting in gross cases of heinous crimes ; and if no such instructions had been seat, whether in the opinion of her Majesty's Government it was not expedient to do so? (Hear, hear.) Now, how anybody who proposed such a question or favoured its import could support such a re solution as this is to me perfectly enigmatical. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman went on to say ho firmly believed that if certain principles, arising from a spirit of vengeance, were allowed to operate, our tenure of India was not worth six months' purchase. The hon. and learned gentleman then went on to observe, "A remarkable document had within the last few days appeared in the Times—the proclamation of the Hindoos. These Hindoos declared that the four gre a t things which a man valued—his religion, his bonen., his life, and his property—were safer under native States than under British rule. If that doc trine were generally entertained throughout India, we need not look upon that dependency any longer as our own, and it was incumbent on the Government to take steps to pat an end to that belief." The hon. and learned gentleman then went on to say that "as to Oude, arms having been successful there, he hoped that Government would act on what he was sure all the statesmen of the country believed the sound doctrine, and try to rule by beneficence and mercy, as well as by strength of arms. He did not 'wish to revive the controversy on the annexa tion of that country in 1856, but ho contended that Oude must be looked on as a conquered province, and the inhabitants who hail risen in Prins against us were en titled to all the protection which international law and the rights of war afforded to persons in such a posi tion." (Hear, hear.) Now, the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) heard every word of that statement and cheered it, and yet he has made a speech now denying that the principles of international law have any reference to Oude. (Hoar, hear.) But what further did the hon. and learned gentleman add ? "He hoped the Government would now open the widest door to these men, who had fought for what they believed to be their rights, and that they would be assured of the utmost protection"—to what? —" to life, property, the enjoyment of their religion, and what they called their honour." (Loud cheers.) The Chan cellor of the Exchequer was called upon to answer whether he wound send instructions to that effect—to protect the property of the people of Oude, to carry out the policy which the hon. and learned gentleman recommended, and which was alike creditable to his heart and his understand ing. The Government can answer for my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that despatches had been sent out in conformity with his views, and having suc ceeded in obtaining that answer—that it was the policy of the Government to protect life and property in Oude, and to treat the people of that country as a conquered people, entitled to the benefits of international law—the very same men who called upon the Government to do this, and cheered the announcement of the fact, turn round and say, Why did you send out a despatch recommending such a course. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) made a speech iu our hearing the other evening, and in that speech he said,—" I approve the policy of that proclamation, and I say that is the very way to deal with the people of the East." Would the house believe that on the 23d of April that right hon. gentleman stood up and re-echoed every word that was spoken by the hon. baronet the member for Devon in direct contrast and contradiction? (Cheers.) My right hon. friend did not state what that unfortunate pro clamation contained, because there were no desire unne cessarily to publish that document to the world. (A laugh, answered by counter cheery) Let no gentleman suppcoe that I am about to evade the consideration of the argu ment of publication. I pray the house to consider care fully, and to scrutinize closely, a part of these transactions which I do not think has received sufficient attention from the house, and that is the state of things with refer. enco to a second letter, which has been most anxiously inquired after, but without effect. I have now to inform the house that to-day this curious fact has been ascertained. By the mail of Saturday Lord Ellenborough received three private letters from Lord Canning, not ad. dressed to him at the Board of Control, but at his resi dence; and every word of those three letters, marked pri vate, concerned the public business of this department. (Cheers.) But that is not the only singularity of the tran saction. Those three letters, marked private, came by ono post, and from beginning to end there is not one single line in any of them in reference to this proclamation, which, therefore, still remains unexplained by any docu ment whatever. (Cheers.) Let us now pursue the inquiry. Referring for a moment to a particular inquiry which has been so eagerly desired, but which there has been such an inffexible resolution to withhold —(a laugh)—l ask whet was stated in that letter? Why, that a full explanation of that extraordinary proclamation would be forwarded by the mail. I have these words "by the mail," and the letter stated th tt a full explanation would be sent. (" No, ,no " from the Opposition, and vehement cries of "Read, read," and "The letter," from the Ministerial benches.) I agree that the human memory is fallible, but a written document is not so ; produce the document and then I shall be satisfied. (Cheers.) That letter not having been pro duced, I say, unless you violate all the rules of evidence and all the maxims of law, you will make every presump tion against the man, who being called on to produce a written document, refuses under sago advis e t o d o so , an d then quibbles about its meaning. (Cheers.) And those are the men who, with loud protestations on their lips of their regard for the honour of their country, appear to be a little forgetful of what is due to their own. My real be lief is this—that when the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Northampton got the private letter he considered what was due to the Prime Minister that was, and the " Primo Minister that wished to be. (A. laugh) Being . puzzled, therefore, as the right hon. gentleman states, by a question which overtasked his f acu lti es, h e could not'de cide it. Why did he not consult the churchwarden of his parish? (Loud laughter and cheers.) I can fancy him saying to himself, "Here is a passage in a letter that re lates to a . Royal proclamation ; n ow l e t me cons id er, i s float public or private ! (A laugh.) lam unable to fathom the mystery ; I shall consult my noble friend the member for Tiverton--(a laugh)—he is th e on l y man w h o can ease my puzzled understanding; upon that subject I will un bosom myself to him ; he w ill t e ll me the public ef f ect of a private letter; I will be governed by the advice of one who made me Minister of India, and who may make IP. 0 Minister of India again. (Laughter and cheers.) He con sulted the noble viscount accordingly, and the noble vis count is here to tell the House of Commons—men of busi ness anal men of sense, with quick and clear perceptions — after half a century's experience as a member of this As sembly, that a letter relating to a royal proclamation from the ruler of a State—a declaration of the sovereign will affecting the inhabitants of a country—was in his opinion so entirely unimportant that it did not require to be men tioned to the Minister of tho department whom it con cerned. (Cheers.) The noble lord is a man of great tact, and tact does wonderful things ? but there are some things that a man of tact even cannot explain, and this is one of them. I ask the noble viscount why he said to the right hon. gentleman th a t th e d ocumen t di d not require to be delivered to the Minister at the Board of Control ; Was there ever anything s o unconstitutional committed by two ex-Ministers of the Crown ? (Ch eers. ) Di d they hold a cabal to consider the eff ec t o f th a t d ocument? Was it for them to deliberate on that ques ti on ? an d i f t h ey did de liberate upon it, why did they not give the benefit of their deliberation to the gentleman for whom the document was intended ? I say it is an insult to your understandings for any noble lord or any right hon. gentleman to say that a document of that kind ought to b© suppressed. (Cheers.) If the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton was averse to the production of this private letter he might have copied from it the paragraph relating to the procla mation and forwarded it to Lord Ellenborough, leaving it to him to consider whether it was necessary or expedient that he should attend to it. (Cheers.) There never wes a more unconstitution doctrine uttered in this house than that an ex-Minister, after consulting another ox-Minister, was at liberty to withhold or not, as he pleased, a docu ment relating to public business, because it happened to come into his h an d i n t h e form of a private letter, and then to be allowed to make use of it to eertract an answer from an unwilling Minister in the other House of Tarliament. (Cheers.) But I Laws another question to put before I have done with this subject. Were there no other letters of a private na t ure ? (L ou d c h eers. ) F or au ght we know the right hon, gentleman, and the noble lord may ha ve a bagful of private letters—(laughter) —for we have no w this extraordinary fact, that in the letters which hate ar rived since no allusion whatever is made to the proclama tion. (Hear, hear.) It is not an unnatural inference, there fore, that the promised explanation of which eve have heard so much may have beenforwarded by some other channel th an that which leads to the office of the Board of Control, and therefore has never reached the hands of Lord Ellenborough. (Laughter.) It lies with those w ho have withheld on e documet to explain satisfactorily and dis tinctly to the house whether, in point of fact, that oth e r document is in exi s tence or has been d es troyed, and whe ther they are in a condition to produce it to the house — (hear, hear)—whether, in fact, any letters have been re ceived and submitted to a Cabinet Council of ex-Ministers to say whether they should be produced or not. (Laugh ter.) It is not for me to impute motives—(ironical cheers) —but I have so high an opinion, of tho noble viscount, and I have so very decided a conviction that he never does any thing without having some good reason for doing it, that though I am not at liberty to surmise what his reasons were, I have no doubt he had excellent reasons in his own neiud for the advice which he gave to the right hon. gentle. Country Markets. NORWICH—MAY 15. The corn trade of this district has been quiet during th e past week. There was more firmness apparent to-day, the sales made being effected on rather better terms than on this day se'nnight. Little doing in barley, oats, beta , ' and peas. Flour, 29s to 293 6d per sack from the miller' White wheat, 463 to 4Ss ; red, 40s to 455. NOTTINGHAM—MAY 15. The supply of wheat was liberal to-day, and taken freely at an advance of is per eir, good white making 506 and good red 46s per 36 stone. Malting barley, 320 W 43s per qr. Oats in limited request. Beans were the turn dearer —new, 41s to 45s ; old, 42s to 46s per 38 stone. COLCHESTER— MAY 15. A fair supply of wheat, which was taken readily at l 5 rates. All sorts of spring oorn were rather higher 01 price, with a good demand. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, 46s to Ng red, 42s to 465; barley, 36s to 43s ; oats, 24s to 30s ; beam; Mazagan, 3is to 38s; middle and small, 38s to 425; Pe i 's" white, 42s to 44s ; grey, 42s to 445. Official Statement of the Quantities of Corn, &a in the port of London, from the following IP May 10 to May 15, both inclusive. receiv ed ';rts, hc43l qqtt M 8 124 Colchester p _.% Harwich A 35 - 1 Leigh Maldon 1295 20 2291 KIRKCALDY — MAT 15. Here, to-day, we had moderate supplies of wheat and oats, and small of barley. Sales of barley slow, at a r i e* duction of is per qr from last week's prices. Sales rola enough for wheat and oats, but at prices rather in Dolour of buyers. Wheat. I Barley. I Oats. B_e ar ti First 4Bs Od 353 01 28s 6d I u 5 Second no Od Third 34s Odl 303 Od 23s Oct BIRTHS. FARQUHAR—On the 15th inst., at Friars'-plane, A ct° the Hon. M rs . H arv i e Farquar, of a daughter. LANGTON—On the 16th inst., at 12, Grosvenor- 0 0 15re ' Lady Anna Gore Langton, of a son. the PARR —On the 15th inst., at Roxeth Lodge, Harro w, wife of Major-General Chase Parr, of a d.aughter. 2 . HANBURY—On the 14th inst., at 42, Great Cumberlano place, Mrs. George Hanbury, of a son. MARRIAGES.I r a , ROGERS—MACLEAN--On the 13th inst . at St. Saviour -0 Jersey, Captain Henry D. Rogers, C. 8., Royal Nof, to Sarah Anne, eldest daughter of Commissary-GenrSir George Maclean, K.C.B. SMALL AUSTIN— On the 15th last, at St. Jaraes% 13 ,1; cadilly, Henry Z. Small, C.E., to Frances Austin , only daughter of Mr. T. Austin, of 11, Golden-Wore' DEATHS. COTTINGHAM —On the 14th inst., at the Church Farm Cove Hythe, Wangford, Suffolk, Edmund Cottingb aged 46. CALL.NNDER —On the 14th inst., at 1, West ClareMonoti street, Bdinburgb, Randal William Maedonnell, the late Colonel James and Lady Elizabeth Callan"' of Craigforth and Ardkinglas, G aged 72. a 0 , 0 DARE—On the 1 sth inst., \at offshill, Crawley, Oil „ e j Mr. James Dare, of Stoke Newin g ton, MiddleseX, 63. SHARP —On the 17th inst., at 14, Kensingtoh - Pa rk r. of dens, Notting-hill, Frederick Sharp, Esq., formai., Clapham, Surrey, aged 72. vi .ixtoo WAGSTAFF—On the 15th inst., at Belmont-house, off, bill, after a long and painol illness, William Wag s Esq-, aged 66. uutiDoN: Printed and Published by if UES ) t ) ikjo. of Ne. 112, Strand, Printer, at The SzAn 0111°. % in ti 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, ful C °— t r :,of laiddlesex, Tuesday, Nay 18, 1858. ( titil ,tit Oat Dto that dal Are, otre m ai bu r( kni t coin r 8 le i, ri a as tilly ..._ Lte , . qn k 4 ..4,-. LO,Eu, N,l 4Stl, Of g r ...,..._ Ins dead '~x: