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

this proposition, and to avoid expressing an opinion en the proclamation of 'Lord Canning it is impossible to approach the consideration of the censure which the honourable gentleman asks the house 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. He is afraid to challenge the verdict of the house on the policy of the proclamation ; but I decline to accept the former part of his resolution as defining the narrow and limited issue which I will meet. I decline to follow him when he tells me that I am to con demn the act of the Government as ho desires, but to shut my eyes to that by which the act of the Government was produced. lam ready to follow him in any discussion in which he 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 ; but if the principles and the policy contained in it are nob 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 avhichs contrary to the principles of justice and policy. (Rear, 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 bread and taken our pay. . They ware our sworn subjects, bound to us by every tie of fidelity. They th e off that allegiance and rebelled. In that rebellion ley committed murder, acts of cruelty, acts of torture, e ° l4 -blooded, wilful, deliberate treachery. They were, or oat of them were individually criminals of the deepest d ye; and as such 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 11r. 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 Cede. The question has never been, and perhaps never Will be, discussed in this house as fully as it deserves. I confess when I nrose from the perusal of the Onde 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 VizieStand his heirs and successors the possession of that Part of the territory of Oude 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 Oude was 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 thu Ganges, the King of Oude was informed of the decision of the East India Company ; he protested, remonstrated, and refused to sign the treaty that was presented to him • he w as overpowere d ; hi s pa l ace was t a k en possess i on o f, his property was sold, and he and his Ministers of State were held to bail. Ido not say whether this was right or w rong- I assume it to be right; but was that a case of 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 sopoy rebellion broke forth. When that took place Omits, which was under an enforced submission, made war upon UB—bloody, barbarous, crime-stained war but still war. 31 3' the valour of our troops, by the skill and energy of the ! or nmander-in-chief, and I will add cheerfully and grate luny, by he skill and energ of L Canning— th I , l eroism almost unparalleled o y f some ord handfuls of our b c y oun e rYnien 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 victorious country should pursue ? I am prepared to take it on the ground`of justice ; but, }fret 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 Da you desire the willing and cheerful submission of the people of Oudo ? 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 tLe mutiny of the so poyeY Of course you do. Well, what follows? Da you 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 aro they most likely to be worked against you? Why, in the king dom of Oude. (Hear, hear.) If the people of Oado are in Your favour they will assist in keeping down, in hunting down the sepoys—(hear, 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 sepoya, 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. wear, 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. (Hoar, hear.) Bat, 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 be dealt with ? (Hear, hear.) My proposition la this, that you make war with kings and governors, bat not with individuals. (Cries of Hear, hear.) If in the !?arse of a war am individual commits a crime, he puts himself out of the pale of those who ought to derive the benefit of th a t pr i nc i p l e ; but except in particular cases, ev ery individual is entitled to protection for life and pro from the victorious nation. (Hear.) You might as r" Confiscate the lives of people as their property. ( He a r .) Now, sir, there is high authority on this point. The matter is BO clear that I am almost ashamed to trouble the house with extracts to prove it; but with their per inisefon I shall read one or two. (Hear, hear.) What does 1 114 great authority on international law, who wrote some hundred years back, say ? This is from Vattel : ," But if th e en ti re s t a t e b e co nquered, if the nation be tra nsgressing in wh a t manner can the victor treat it, without the bounds - of justice? What are his rights nir the counquered country ? Some have dared to advance this monstrous principle that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as his t i r a ° PertY—that he may treat it as he pleases, according to _ e commo n expression of treating a state as a conquered co untry ; and he nce th e y d er i ve one o f the sources of des potic government. But, disregarding such writers, who !'educe men to the state of transferable goods or beasts of surthen, who deliver them up as the property of another man, let us argue on principles countenanced by reason and conformable 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." (Rear.) " Since that period, among the civilised nations of Chris tendom, conquest, oven when confirmed by a treaty of 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 natiou passes to the victorious state ' • which also takes the place of the former Sovereign. In other respects, private rights are unaffected by conquest." (Hoar, hear.) The house is award that questions of international law they do not come before the courts in this country ; and to the records of the Supreme Courts in the United States Ws 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 jastice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilised world would Ise outraged if property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The people change their al legiance —their relation to their ancient Sovereign is solved; but their relations to each other and their rights of Property remain undisturbed." Wear, and cheers.) The hon. member for Cork said that Whatever might be the principle upon which Lord Can zing's despatch was founded, precedents were to be found, and that too in India, which Lord Canning had not de- Pasted 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, th e zemindars and talook ars come in and submit your selves to the Government, your rights iu 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's brother tells us in those 'words what that precedent was I— " While his cannon still resounded on the banks of the Indus he had made known that all persons, whether of high or lo w d egree, were confirmed from the time, and would be so permanently according to their behaviour. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Would be confirmed le what ? "In the employments they held under the Anseers (cheers awl laughter), and that all their rights and possessions would"—there is no behaviour here—" be safe !tom confiscation, save those of the people, who, contrary to the f a ith of nations, had assailed the residency." But then the hon. and learned member for Cork says, "At all events, those people of Oude were not entitled to the rights of a c onquere d nat i on. That isout of the question. They were rebels, they were mutineers, and every man connected with th e government of this country or with that of India who describes thorn in a . despatch as anything but rebels, anything but i nutineer ( l l i e s a f r al le to this country and has betrayed its interests." t as Now,. who will the hon, and learned member accept of the position occupied by the people of O s e % r e °Pldge o take the directors of the East India Company ? They Willh cer tainly have not ,00mbined to set the people of Q ud ; ina more favourable light than they believe to be absolutely necessary. There is laid upon the table to-sight, and will be - in the hands of hon. members to-morrow, a dispatch dated the sth of .tbeepresent month, and if the home permit use. I will read two paragraphs from this dispatch of the Court of Directore , filiich explain !their views of the position of the inhabitants of Oude, who the hon. member fur Cork C haracterises as rebels guilty of mutiny : L" In dealing with the people of Owle you will doubtless e ," e °, moved by speci a l considerations !of justice and policy. -Le inhabitants of the city, not sepoys, and not taken in ur ins against us, who must be regarded as exceptional, ; annot be c ons id ere d as t ra it ors , or even rebels— (cheers) — i! t hey have not even pledrd their fidelity to u.s anti cy had scarcely b ecome our subjects. (Cheers.) Many J the introduction of a new system of government had nec . es sarily been d e p r i ve d o f th e ma intenance which they V tti heretofore enjoyed, It is natural that such persona d %°.old avail themselves of the opportunity offered by the of the .state of the country to strike a blow . for the re uhtitiaoleiitliratva: n of the native rule under which the disorganise kepdrcaozry hod been so long, to them, a source of t t tO . . ourat Government.rB(Cheers.) It went on to say : n ' y ' Neither the their retainersrou will,w ere under a te_e]; have they are to be the objects of punishment after the e aid down their arms." (Cheers.) to ilatrur paragraph of th e di s p a t c h. l am a l mos t a f r aid e on the time of the house by reading the other )1 th• no of ; and Dying forme 1858; what titled rn of * 'once each jowl Boer' been ley in ed at e pay y the ed to. beta 33 the rtes. E the ,oned Idia. gave ve the r the ie till or the n our le, by d land been ea be mind- latter E OF esolu• infor n on have is in notice ae of I wit- ation. )ntion id not facts 'those (Loud cheers ' 2th of itry a dia to of an rag ili a() fall wtant the .nd in guage 3 Ex- tunity ended lidera- 7iting, t wag pollee o the Indio nittee W: ii s vho ril ste a. EaJt le i upoll Co 0' it •• riu. 0 lo I ntl 0. bje Lol ey o f rhitib r. tor fir ot rt; THE SUN, LONIYO'N, SAT:URIDAY [Fc `;.~_ . '-. .3<_ to which I have referred. (General cries o "Go on," and cheers.) " 7. Of these arms they must for ever be deprived. You will, doubtless, in prosecution of this object address your 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, the disarming and disbanding of their followers, will be among your first works. But while you are de priving this influential and 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 British rule, and encourage them, by liberal arrangements made iu accordance with ancient usages—(hear, hoar)—to become industrious agri culturists, and to employein 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 be taught that their holdings will be more profitable to them under a strong Govern. meat, capable of maintaining the peace of the country, and 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 tells 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 bean 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— "lf yon submit, if you lay down your arms and promise allegiance to those whom the fate of battlei 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,) Bet ha has not said anything of that kind. (Hear, 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? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) But let me tell the right hon. gentleman that this theory of his is virtually and actually without foundation. Thera 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 Oude." (Hear. hear.) More than that, what is it that is tobe confiscated? "The proprietary right 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 thetenaut, the right of the farmer, the right of the middleman, the right of the ovvuer of the land, and feudal and baronial rights, and all these rights are confiscated. (Cheers.) I cealleuge the right hon. gentleman, or the hen.. and learned member for Cork, or any other hon. member who may follow them iu debate to point out a line iu 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 etoproposed this resolution asks the house to arrive at the conclusion to which he wishes them to come, and by thd first part of that resolution he asks theta to go nu further. Sr. I trust the House of Commons will gofurther, that they will pronounce an opinion on ,that which is the foundation of the resolu tion itself— (hea9—aud if they concur in those principles which aro laid down in the great authorities which I have cited, then the second part of the right hon. gentleman's resolation 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, I arc not now speaking of the publica tion of the despatch, I ern speaking of the question as it stands between the government of this country and the dispatch they sent Lord Canning. What ware 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 Lucknow, an event • which he expected to occur without delay. That earn° to this country without the modified clause which was after wards introauccd, and which I think every one will sea was introduced by the hand of the chief commissioner. It came home without explanation (loud cries of " hear, hear," 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 Crude, 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 Lord Canning as much as any man in this house respects him. Lord Canning is a man whose kind and c ,nsiderate 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 aro merely per sonal must give way. (Hoar, hear.) This part of the subject lies in the smallest possible compass. Was the proclamation right, or was it wronk ? If the 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 hero 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 negotiation 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 negotiation 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 (Hr. Cardwell), perhaps inadvertently, said that the government had made a declaration cisapproving of the whole policy of Lord Canning. Sir, the government never (lid 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, hear.) 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 indicted 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.) Torre are only two senses in which it elm be approved of or disapproved of—the sense of justice and the sense of expediency, (Cheers.) In both senses ray 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 resolution 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 Ellenborohgh ielded 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 seine advent age as that afforded to the noble earl who applied for the dispatch elsewhere. This led to the pro duction of the dispatch iu 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 b the legislaturei ent i t who o s i n w e t r t e desirable to withhold some paregraphs of the dispatch when it was produced in another place • but it became pu not boon of the onn wo to m s e e m cre b e r4 Therefore, the nobleearl ' Y. (Ellenborough) was strictly right when he s • au that he alone, and no other member of the Government, was a party to the publication. (Hear, hear.'horight hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution, resuscitating an old joke of my lion. friend (the Chancellor of the Each u )asked, •a w this to bre a government of li m i te d liability? But therein not the smallest similarity between the prase ut and that to which my right hon. friend ap; tis e . ins s T e rg which was the case of the retirement of a mem b er of Lid Aberdeen's Government, who was a party to a particular policy that hod been pursued for months if not years. MY right hon. friend argued that that retirement could not re here 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, (fir. Cardwell) charged my 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 ray — right hon. friend said that the colleagues of the noble earl the late President of the Board 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 Derby) 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. (dear.) Had the Earl of Ellenborough 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 said upon this point the noble sail at the heal 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 lion and learned member 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 pat in force. I ask the house, was it not a reasonable expectation to entertain, that he night consult with such men as Lawrence, Oa tram, Gen. Mans field, and others, whom I could name; and that his pro clamation would not be 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 bad come from Lord Canning, the publication, even the writing of the despatch , might well have been delayed. And here he approached a part of the case which he con fessed had filled him with pain and surprise, We have here, proceeded the hon. and learned gentleman, the whole facts of the case, 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 ning 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 right 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 whieh he said "I am about to issue a proclamation to the landowners of Oudo. I am anxious to send home by the same mail a full explanation ; bat I have been so occupied to-day by the pressure of business that I am wholly unable." What was the meaning 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 fhave sent home in draft, and sent hone to you. You are the President of the Board 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 its 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." (dear, hear.) What does the right hou gentleman say were his feelings with regard to this ? Why, that he does not imagine, he cannot imagine, he does not believe that anybody can imagine, and ho 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 Euglaud 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. SMITH--I never said any such thing. The 501,1C1T01,,-GENERA.I,—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 oil not, be will surely admit that he either coininueicated it or showed it to the noble lord. (Hear, hear, hear.) Well, sir, I want to know for what purpose ho 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's° was in showing it to the noble hurl. 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, hoar.) There is a vie w 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 saccessor ; but I say that it is incumbent upon him to extract from it whatever is addressed to him rebating to public affairs, upon the supposition that he still continues in °Rice. Now, whatever the right hon. gentleman and the noble lord arranged, what it virtually comes to is this—they intercepted this letter. (Loud chew s.) What may be the observation of Lord Can ning upon this I do not know. But if I were in his posi tion, my observation would be something of this kind : " Well, I had a friend, as I thought, in England, wile was formerly soy 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 planation 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 reedit without the explanation ; but he discovered the proclamation from the explanation, an allowed days and weeks to pass, and the Government to believe that no explanation of the pro clamation would be given. Those circumstances have given me the utmost grief and pain , an d I may thank for it all my friend." (Cheers.) I have now gone through the c t haes of the right bon. gentleman , a nd I think I may venurrge h to say that they have fallen to the g round. He appeals to t h e e house not to pronounce an opinio n u p on the policy of the proclamation. Ho appeals to the house to be silent. lap peal to the house not to be silen t . (Cheer e.) I appeal to the house in behalf of the dearest interests of the country in India and at home. (Hear, hear.) I appeal to the house on behalf of 5,000,000 of people—a nation mis guided, misgoverned—semi-barbarous, I admit, still men with like feelings, passions, percep tions, and prejudicesf as ourselves. I appeal to the house in the cause o l humanity and of justice. (Cheers f rom the Rada f benches.) I make that appeal to the British House of Commons, to which an appeal in the cau se of j ustice anti humanity has never beea made, and made in vain. (Cheers.) let this not lot this go forth as a matter of doub t . Do not eti this question be slurred over by the terms of a factiousane catching motion prepared by a cabal—(load and continued cheering from all parts of the house)—toembarrase and dis place a ministry. (Hear, hear, a nd renewed cheers) . Tell it out by your votes to the people of India in terms neither vague nor indistinct that what we desire from them is sub mission, not spoliation—(cheers)—the` , the war which we wage is the war of nations, not of freebooters — ( cheers)— that England knows how t o make war and to conquer, and also how to treat the conquered; that she offers to those whom she conquers, and wh o s ubmit to her arms, tbat protection for life and property which will be the best ear 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 ue cessary that our policy towards India should be clear and distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of trans fern in the government of India from the company to the Queen. In the course of discussions in this helve upon the subject of our past government of that country, some come 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 ho will forgive nee for saying I listened to with respectful amazement. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister of the Crowns, 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 snot 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 con rept, more perfidieus, and tnorerapacious than the governmentof the East India Company from the year 1765t0 the year 1784." Sir, in the sentiment of the right hon. gentleman I do not altogether concur. But, at allevents, let there beno mistake with regard to our future government. (Hear, hear.) Let us tell the people of India that w e are no t as h a m e d to confess t e h a hic a ee t e or we u offer h them mercy and justice, not spoliation war e r s ) which — an d w e t hhaatven waged a factions, a e c d t against ions, an them l is a war consistent with mercy an d j us ti ce , and no t f o r the a d t e plunder—(cheers) —and — he (c he s intrigue, will tempt the House of Commons oven for one moment to leave it open to suspicion that the dynasty which we are about to introduce i n t o I n di a i s t o b e a dy nasty of reckless, ruthless, and i n di scr i m i nate con fi sca ti on . (The hon. and learned gentleman here resumed his seat amidst tremendous cheering, which was sustained for several minutes.) Mr. LO WE hoped that the eloquent speech just delivered would not load the house away • from the real question far 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 moist, 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 hal been written at. all. Considering the tortures of mind which Lord Canning had sufferel 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 he had heard the able speech of the hon. and learned Soli eitor-61 eneral, he was now prepared 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 onthe effect without considering the cause. (Hear, hear.) Ho could not support the p nicy of Lord Canning, as contained in the proclamation, for it was a greet departure from the course of lenient policy for which Lori Canning had been somewhat unjustly censured by the popular voice ; and perhaps the existence of this popular opinion might have had something to do with the production of the proclamation, and it was not at all improbable that the late Government had intimated to the Governor-General that such a couree was not altogether palatable to the people of this oountry. Ho 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 effect, (Sear, hear.) The policy of confiscation which had been shadowed forth in the precis 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, one of the most v e e x r p y eri st e r n o c n e g d o p p u i b n l i i o c o o o ffi f e t e h r e s ini of th poli a ey t o c f ou a n e t o ry nr , se ex o p f ressed a conduct peoplewhich of would lndia. alienate e the wishedaf fe affect oens housean Ll 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 s ending out legions of troops, and to garrison the wh o l e co untry, from Cape t confidence ask themselves of the 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 on receiving the des spatch, he did not contemplate that the Governor-General would tender his resignation without some inquiry, and if he found that his friends bad 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 Whigs to power would be productive of no good to the Liberal cause, and above all with regard to the hest interests of the Indian empire, he should support the principles contained in the despatch of Lord Ellenborough, 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 place 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 hom member. for Oxford, and that it was unfair to ask the house to.exprees 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 nar. 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 said 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 and 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 canton 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 great re sults. That policy was the policy of Lord Ellenborough, and how could they justly visit that noble lord with cen sure now? Whatever censure bad been passed on Lord Canning, he 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 Gado 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 Itilenhorough. 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 Indic this year. As to liberal measures, it was quite clear that the Liberals could not form a strong Government. There was a more united body behind the Government now than could bo formed on the Liberal side. With reference to the resolution before the hon e, he would not meat 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- Geiieral had said, and that much of the blame ought to be visited Control, generally He (Mr. Dill w y n ) approves of bagged a to the time o f t h e Gude proclama tion, utz move,un g , the policy e "That talto Beardthis of house and is satisfied with the firmness and judgment he has evinced during the 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 Oude when the I.roelatnation was issued, and also Lai 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 had been said about the prom it tary right. What was the proprietary right? Take an in stance. Holkar wished to extend his pack. For that purpose he desired to purchase a small piece of land. The owner said the land had been in the possession of his family from generalien 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 w ap n p e l n ied Ler t d o Dalhousiet native c 0 princes and la property,rid leaders w ?. s i In , 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 aua its sentiments, but they were only applied wrong in publishing it. The consequences might he very io when ho received the despatch, would throw up his post and a u b s. ando i n ro bab India l y to Lo its that fate would be? He trusted that the house would not allow India to be sicrificed to a party squabble. serious. Canning, a high-spiri . cd man, fate, and who could tell what Mr. H. BAILLIE said he had been asked how it was that ho 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 ho said to him, "I am sure to be asked about the proclamation, what shall I say ?" and then his 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 hail been said that the Zetoindaus were making their sub mission. He did not believe it. Re had received letters from persons in high office stating that we should probably hrdadCaentrnoinf nloyuagdhvtisteodhaLvoerpdai ('mining respect. o i S u ir ue Ja a s n . have to do our work again. Ho (Hr. Bernie) knew that the Vina°MohUniotlerineastintol:Opploisee w leu as t ttoldhadthe r e t b h e a l t l c i f us h s o ei d m i T d sr so I t t h h e a r d e b w e o e u n ld im b id e letr . v to E t t li t e N i r o o N pp s on m e l n T ta i . m te that they ought t o h ave wa i ted for explanations from Lord Canning. But L or d C ann i ng hail net communicated withy the Governm en t , b ut was every week writing private complained that a strong per sonal attack had been made upon him by the Solicitor- General. Those members of the Government who had spoken had condemned the policy of Lord Canning, and upon that point he took issue with them. Ho had no doubt that iu issuing that proclamation he had taken the advice of Si r J o h n Lawrence, If that advice was to he ob tainer?. In d ea li ng with Orientals it was necessary, itthe i first place, t o s h ow them that power was to be exercised over them, a n d ne doubt that was time policy which Lord Canning a d opted, intending to show them conciliation afterwards, (Cries of Oh, oh.) Whether honourable gentlemen who cried " oh, oh," were so well acquainted with Oriental affairs as to be able to contradict him upon that point, would probably appear in the progress of the ' aw debate.arethat A ct tn g hfi r e e syc a at:dealwere a e o ppressors n a prcil thes been szr as r said noi t a h trh a s t e h e a v p, e el no beenipul g e . - f h l i e a s v t e y d in that p u t h h h e sh p i c: g i t theiri proprietary r i g h ts of tiro soil which were affected by this proposed but those who knew anything of India would be perfectly d r e eotaken s p despatch h t the without Solicitor-General w aitwaiting ffor any utterly untenable, and that the Government had be e n most explanation that might have been offered, and ho believed that the reseal of the Governor-General would have been a more honest and rnanly'course than that w hich had b e en 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 d' In ia.• In dealing with this pro clamation, it had rot transpired how it had come to England. From his '• experience of Indian affairs he thought he was justified in thinking that it had come in a mass of correspondence without any covering letter at all, without any explanation--and up on that ground he th o ught that the G overnment had acted with undue pre cipitancy. Her Majesty's Government had announced that they would not enter into details with regard to Oude ; but their own Attorney-General, while an indepen dent member, had week after week a notice on the paper of the House of Commons. Th a t l earne d gentleman, wiser than others of his party, declined to bring it forward in the present state of India ; but directly the Government ca me into power, they opened up the question by this despatch. Ile 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 G overnment were determ i ned to uphold his policy, it was difficult to understand the Minis try had been deprived of 1. 1 • . • his services, for no wan was mere able than the noble lord to carry out the principles he en tertained. The right hon. gentleman having referred to the letter be had received while iu office in reference to this proclarnatien, was met with a lead request to have it read, but to this he declined to accede. He differed entirely f r om the princip le which had been laid d own , th a t th e responsibility rested with the late Government, and looked upon the story as one of the most trumpery character. (Cries of ‘` Oh, oh," and " Read, read.") R e was deter , minednot toreat, because it was a private communication. When ho received it he read it to Lord Palmerston, and they concurred in thinking that there was nothing of im poi tance in it. (Loud laughter.) There was no want of communication to the government, for Lord Palmerston did submit to Lord Ellenborough a portion of a letter which ha did think of importance, (Renewed laughter.) The Solicitor-General had hinted that Lord Canning would have occasion to reproac • him, but that could not be the ease, for if he had err ed at al l , it Was out o f c l emenc y to Lord: Canning, whom he had always defended when hon. gentlemen opposite had attacked his policy. If hon. gentlemen affirmed that he had acted from party views in this matter, ho positively and solemnly disclaimed the falsehood. (Tremendous uproar followed this statement.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted that the prase used by the right hon. gentleman wee an accidental one. Mr. V. SMITH stated tha t , ho did not mean to use the in an offensive sense. le slid he feltgreat interest a phrase • in Indian affairs , and it would be fur others to judge of the manner in which ha had performed his duties while he had been in office. (Hear, hear.) Lord STAN letlY hoPed the house would do the members of the Govein • ment the justice to believe that it WA 3 not their desire to evade or shriek from the inquiry into their conduct which the light hon. gentleman oppoeite had set on foot. In the statement of that right hon. gentleman, as far as it went, there was nothing to complain of, except, as had boon already shown by the Solicitor-General, that be unduly, if not unfairly, limited the inquiry which he instituted. (H et , r ,) It was illlpOSSible for the house to do justice to the conduct of the Government in censuring a particular act of Lord Canning with , u t at the same ti me considering the policy and just ice of the act so censured. (Hoar.) As far as he could gather from the resolutions and from the discussion, the charges against the Govern ment were twofold. In the first pled° there was the nar row issue of who was responsible for the publication of Lord Ellenberough's despatch, and next there was the wider question, assuming the despat c h not to h ave b een intended for present publication, whether it - wits a despatch that ought to have been wiitten. The question of the pub lication of that despatch was one he approached with seine pain, btcause, however clear the case, it w as a l ways pain ful to seem to exculpate oneself at the expense of one who had been a colleague, anti 'dill more when the generosity of that colleague's conduct made it impossible to regard his loss without extreme regret. (tfetw.) Peat in the pre- EVEN lAN G, MAY 15, 1858. sent instance there was something more than personal or private interest to be considered. And first let him re mind the house, what Lord Ellenhorough had stated atrealy, that the promise given in the house that the de spatch .should be published was given on the authority of Lord Ellenborough alone. and nob of any other member of the Government. He (Lord Stanley) could say for himself and he 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 heard it with some surprise and regret. But then the right hon. gentleman (Ur. 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 Government, 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 have stood in the 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, hear.) They must have said—" It is true the despatch has been sent ; it is true that the Minister, the author of 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 believe that the sentiments which we entertain, and which we have expressed to the Governor-General 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 his own part he firmly believed that to have bold 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 alight have been unwise to give the promise given in that house. He 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, hoar.) But the right hon. gen t leman 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 bow responsible ? Surely responsible under cer- Lain conditions—responsible not only for acts but for si lence, for silence 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 Kidderminsier, who ha I displayed in a house less full than it now was, even more than his accustomed ingenuity, r nd asked " Why if you intended to repudiate the course which has been taken did you not do so at once ? and why did you wait to see what popularity you might be able to gain from the publication?" That charge was ono he (Lord Stanley) ven tured to deny ; and if the Government had taken a diff 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, nithout 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 know what were the teeli gs which me vernetl public mon and regulated political parties; anal 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 sight hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminster said, when the Government stated in that house what the despatch contained, and when they stated their disapprovalof the policy of Lot dCanning, the despatch was virtually published, and the nett was 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 by steno of those ingenious artifices which be had often seen practised in that house they might have contrived to save off inquiry, it was idle to suppose chat with regal(' to a matter of this kind any Government could have maintained, or that any Government n have bean tolerated in maintaining, a policy of silence and neutrality. (Cheers.) How stood the case ? Oeo of the most important events occurred—an event he did not hesi tate to soy 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 decision 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 Euelend would net 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 on the part of any Government, for we lived in a state of society when secrecy in regard to important n affairs , could not be m intained beyond a very limited time. (Rear, hear.) From that publicity great public advan tages were derived, en must they submit to its it:conve niences. (Cheers.) Turning from the question of the de spatch, Ito came to tho other point—ought that deleateh to have been written at all ? Why, the Government was asked, did they not wait to hear any explanation ? that Loud 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 prive,o ;ease-. He was glad to escape them 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. gen:lenian 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. He 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 pact well, and conducted the affairs of the Government of India with ability and sue , cesa. (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.) Wass he confiscation of property nothing ? Was it nothing rm a population of 5,000,000 men against us? -to make their reconciliation more hopeless, their resistance more despce rate, their revenge more implacable? (Hear, boar.) Was it nothing to protract a war already sufficiently difficult and dangerous, and that, too, at the most inconvenient and unhealthy season of the year? (Hear, hoar.) Ho quite understood why the right hon. gentleman wished to consider this subject without considering at the same time the merits of Lord Canning's proclamation. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman would have had thorn wait for some explanation of Lord Cauning's views, but the Government thought that every day and every hour in which that pro clamation was made public in Oude was so much fielded to the dangers and difficulties of our Indian position. (Hear.) Lord Ellenborough did not and could not know that iur ther explanations were on their way. (Hear, hear.) But it was said, why not write to India and receive an answer before sending out such a despatch ? He confessed that be thought not only the panple of England and the peop'e of Oude also, would have had reason to complain of such a course, but that Lord Canning himself would have bad fair grounds of complaint. (Hear, hear) What would have been thought if they had waited patiently till a vindication of the proclamation arrived, and then at the end of summer—just as if it related to a matter of some trifling impost to write to Lord Canefing that 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 sail 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 censer() 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 ; ho 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, lint to the Indian Government, and the groat object in view was to point out emphatically and plainly the wide distinction that ought to be drawn b 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 proclametio of Lord Canning. It as diffi cult to discuss the question of the rights of the talookdari without going into the perplexing con t ro versy 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 forts, 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 far that description was accurate or otherwise. If it was accurate—if there was in Onde a powerful landed arietocracy surrounded byarmed retainers he would submit that in a military point of view, and as a matter of policy, that was not a class of mon 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 bad 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 person.. (Hear.) The principle of endowment in land was as well known iu Asia as ie Europe, and there were rummy mosques and schools endowed in that way. How would those endow ments be effected by the proclamation? (Hear.) They had heard a good deal about the danger of offending the reli g;ous prejudices of the natives of India. He ventured to think that is 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 rui , -represented by those who had an interest in doing so, produce a most injurious effect ou the naives of India. What was the case of Scinde ? It is that certain feudal princes after the conquest of the country, were deeired to surrender their jagheerdas-s and receive them back. What was the precedent of Oude? It was that they who did not surrender should hate their property confiscated. If that precedent had been followed no objection couldhaventa. made, but what was the policy i n di c ated by the proc I tien ? A few persons are rewarded, but the property a of the great mass of those who remain neutral,. who in n Asiatic country equally with will alw-ys be the great majority, was by the words of the proclamation confiscated . those who had taken an open part in the rebellion. If they came in, their lives and honour were saved, but no thing more. What is the reward offered to those who have protected Engli Hives ? They will be entitled to rewards, consileratiou, aet leniency. Tt has been said, and I think with truth, that it was never intended to act up to the proclamation. There is ne doubt about that, but we are considering the effect of the proclamation on the native mind ' • and my hon, friend the S ecre t ary of the Board of Control asked with great truth how the people of Oude were to know that these toreats were not to be car ried into effect. I look anxiously for information as to the effect of that document. I have no special knowledge on the subject, but it is impossible not to know that private letters have been received from persons 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. k p n o r o t w o s f o t n h policye wha t au i t e h d o i r c i at e t y s sin not willing to make use of private reports or communi tdhionsethstittpermocelnatmsatorne. m il ad e e. " l t 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, but have given up their arms, and returned to their homes —if it be true that such counsel has 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 nut 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 circumstances 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 right 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, balieve that he will obtain that object, 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 fur the interest of political parties at home, I, for one, deeply regret it, and rega r d it as an ill omen for that new course of Indian administration.on which we are about to enter. (Cheers.) But, personally, we have no reason to de otherwise than to express our thanks to the right hon. gen thatuad 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 —(loud cheers)—and as the champions of a policy of hu manity and wisdom. (Cheers.) I believe that whatever the issue a fairer field is which to combat--a better cause by which to stand or fall, no Ministry and no public men could desire. (Hear, hear) _ _ _ Lord J. RUSSELL —The house cannot but feel that this is a matter which has been brought to a very serious issue. The production of the proclamation and the despatch seem to challenge some judgment and opinion on the part of the house. My right hon. friend the member for Oxford has asked the house to give that opinion irrespective of the merits or the de merits of the proclamation. The Solicitor-General and the noble - lord who la.s just spoken asked, on the contrary, that, the whole case lioul.l be judged, and that we should give our opinion on a question involving the merits of the procla mation as well as the course the Government Lave pursued— so that, it appears to rue, the house is redu .ed to this alter native, either to censure the Government for the comes 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 reso u tion without passing a censure upon the Government. You cannot acquit the Government without declaring Lord Canning to be totally unfit even for tl e 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 ab tndoned the forensic habits of his profes sion. (f ries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) For, sir, it was evi dent, and I will prove it immediately, that upon every part of his case, whiaz he dw, It with great effect and abil.ty upon those circumstances which were in favour of his argument, he entirely suepressed every fact and consideration opposed to it. (Hear, hear.) As an instance I may mention that which he placed in the beginning of his speech when he de clared that he would not give an opinion or pass a judgment upon the annexation of Oade : ho contrived. in two• or three instances to show that, according to his opinion, the Govere meat of her Majesty end the Admiuistra ion of the East India Cons pa y had been guilty of as foul a wrong as was ever com mitted ; for the hon. and learned gentlemen said that he would only state that which was undeniable, that there Nyasa tozaty with ()tide, by which it was agreed to guarantee the Vizier of Owls against external and internal enemies. That is perfectly true an uudeniabie ' but there was another article 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 10 years we kept that article f the treaty to which he referred, while wo protected Oude against external and in ternal enemies, that at least for 49 years of that period the Vizier of Oude entirely neglected and violated that other article of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) But this, if we ore consider ing 0 ede, is a main point in the discussion, and it is un deniable that, whether we were justified is our proc..ed jugs or not, the honourable and learned geWleman thought fit to omit that fact from his argument. I shall proceed to notice in order same of the statements of the Solicitor-General. When 1 tell the house that they ought to feria an opinion on the proclamation, I could not avoid observing that that was an imperfect document, one of the mesa important passages in the proclamation being omitted. The Government, though they had not received it zt ; an official document, were quite a e are that it appeared in the public lie espapers. Where was the wisdom in asking the i,01.18' 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 forward and gave their support to the restoration of peace and order weuld 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 iznpo Lome, indicating, as it did, the desire of the authorities to open the way fur the reconciliation of those who ceased to be in arms against the British Government. The Governor-General stoke in a liberal and forgiving spirit, yet that portion of the despatch was not noticed by Lord Ellenborough. To the men who appeared in arms, whokilled our soldiers and endeavoured to starve into submission the garrison of Lucknow, Lord Canning said—" You shall not now suffer the pona'ty of death or transportation ; you shall not even be subjected to a few weeks' imprisonment for your off aces." Yet Lord Ellenborough took no 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 uutry it was eagerly taken hold of with a view of fixing censure on the Governor- General. (Hear.) I must 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. He had to provide for the safety of the British Barr son, small in numbers itself, an 1 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 was exposed to an extensive and perilous mutiny, having at the same time to consider the welfare of 150,000,000 of people in India, over whom he was appointed. Placed in that position that while others trem ble t 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 Tivertou, I tookthe opportunity of saying a fewwords 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. cited to British rule. Ido not remember that the gentlemen on the Treasury benches were at Veat time so impre.sed with • maxims which my noble friend euuaciated ; on the contrary, there was nothing but a williuguess 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 ono of his highest rewards. (Hear, hear.) Then, when they were in power came the proclarnati n—not a proclamation issued by Lord Canning, but a draft proclamation without explanations, purporting to be a proclamation that might be issued when Lucknow was taken. Now, sir, I ask, what should have been the conduct of the Government when th y received 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 male distinguished fel- 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 wellintentiened government of the people of India." (Hear.) Why, sir, if that had been their belief, they would have written to Lord Canninga 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 ha i 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, ono of tee most severe lampoons that a political opponent could indite, rather titan the grave rebuke of the President of the Board of Control to the Governor-General, who, be conceived, had overstepp duty. (Cheers and laughter.) Sir, I was about to read one or twopassages from that letter to show the state of mind of the welter. Ho says :—" Other conquerors, when they have succeeled 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 hut think that the precedents from which you have departed will appear to have beea 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, which may rank with any production of our classical writers. But do they consider the position in which the Governor-General w placed? (Cheers.) Was it light in a Ministe r to hurl these _ him sareasms at his head—to point these antitheses —to l d eu ever with this abuse ? And this was not a man able convictedfor dreadfulo of punishments, noteis en t seen described by various nicknames fo r f w ho o u b s v n l sh l o e bo m r me c e y n y y a l o . re have cle mency. ei to hurl at a Governor-General these sarcasms 1 1 ra m e e n n t e ys.e seem e t a o r , e h :o earn that c a etehriss.)is t organstheaohnfoltuhirte:v,Gte invectives. I Can you supposJ that such a themrea,nainsahtistocemoonviincutienio gover nori li s not o o t f India L a . v e i g 1 o s f ay; either ctetiios o ur n e e m t a h i i n n g in e r i s e p o r t e l s ie e r n t ; e v i o t s h i e t : o h n e . thee, or else he ought no (Cheers.) after all it appears that this was the Geeo et be e r e al w . yolo7ult.olitoougthothiiitnitoiwn raitewtaoyttlioet,Gliolyveurunboeri Other parts of the despatch I may mentionahgeirle:elineytPhboirueu:t I will now go to the question of the pcoun:lgation. A laboured attempt has been made, not only in another place by the Prime Minister, but here to-night, to lay upon the head of Lord Ellenborough the whole fault of that publication. Lord Elleuborough seems to me to have thought that this despatch was calculated to do great good, a a n sh d ai ynt 1 \ 1 :a l: s o° a ttoi n eifi x : iigao4esul disrespectfulihu t ,3os right a m t Ihotooelalii only regret le : Ln u gto b rlree l , i iitu e publicity, gentleman said Ellenborough iba l dno rtt amthe ef gdesir ous ir he t tv o : ai r e meat which he has shown in this matter. (Hear, hear.) But, if ho did not possess the quality of judgme n t , h a d h e not colleagues whom he night havelconsulled? And did not one of tho most eminent of those colleagues, the hon. geu• tleman who was the organ of the Govern nent in this house, ou Thursday, the 6th of May, upon being asked what was the tenor of the despatch of Lord Ellenberangh,"say. . that "of teem that despatch would. be laid upon -the" table ?" Is that hon. gentleman not a participator in the fact of the publication l If the .publication is right, LAMM claim the merit of it. Here in this house we knew not what = _ tho Cabinet may have decided, but when we hear from a Minister that a despatch will. be produced, of MTN . " consider that the Government must have decided to publish u say o that f to thist very h ehe people speech. lcpehr. prick it. (Che ers .) Th en th e h onoura bl e gen tl eman wen t on to say that the p o li c y o f th e p roc l ama ti on h as b e en disap. proved, fkTlhune6epd makeiaha,iere,,maeaymottu,ersfmae'rtoyithisa7as m every o a cruel viceroy, who fills y ou p rov i nces w ith hi s arm i es , y o ur his villages with troops and his cannon, but remember • that you have in London a f r i en d—(l ou d cheers)—who diete approves of all these proceedings. (Cheers.) Well, sir, that was the fact of the publication. Perhaps besaid; that th 3 pubUe are not ca ll e d upon to judge it may of that despatch —that they have heard th e e ff ect of it uescribed as an enemy of the Government. He said, "1 d o regre t that this letter has been brought so promin ntly into action, but I that after what had passed, you will see the propriety am sure of the course my noble friend has reeommended—na meithat of publishing the despatch, omitting cert a i n passage:Which, if published in Indic, might produce a prejudicial effect." Those were the words of the Prime Minister, who affirmed the' 14. • commendation that the despatch should not be Published entire, and this was the very despatch which the Secietaxy: • " • of the Board of Control promised the house should -tee laid upon the table. (Cheers.) The learnede - SidicibileGe- ' neral made a point, which would perhaps have more effecetze • ' - • " the assemblies he is in the habit of addressin g than the s' sent, when he said that this letter had been handedto this; • • , hon. member for Birmingham, and that the Government • e. did well to make a virtue of necessity and publish the- doe ' spatch. But unfortunately the - promise was- made e 7 Thursday, and Earl Granville received the despatch on Friday, and the hon. member for Birmingham reeklied si,.• e • copy at the same time, and that was some 15 or 18 hours .. before the despatch was laid upon the table. First; than, say it was most unwise and mischievous to write such a-defi-• patch in the terms I have mentioned—termt which werenOt necessary, and were totally unbecoming a Minister of :Stott); • secondly, I say it was most dangerous for the interests of ‘ . India to publish that despatch, and I further sal' thatthe author of my averment is the head of her Idiejettyfe!Goe e , • vernment. I will now proceed to read some other` potions of the despatch which s„ em to me to indieate part .of the policy of her Majesty's Government. It has been always the custom hitherto for a Government to adopt a course which has been settled, that when - . conquests have " been made, when acquisitions have resulted to the .Crown e to look no longer into the abstract merits of these qUestions, to adopt that which has been done to defend thoseacquist-- 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 Were to say they disapproved - of the course, for - instariee, which LOrd Dale housie bad adopted, and another Government had said that they entirely disapproved of the proceedings in Scinde ; if, for instance, Mr. Fox' in 1806, had con- . . deumed the policy of Lord Wellesley which resulted, in the acquisition of Delhi- and Seringapatani —if -•- that were the case it is evident that the empire would be inn state of constant perturbation. You would have. no peace Met 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 au empire. (Cheers.) . Thilhashoen the way in which the government of this great empire has been hitherto carried on. This is the way in which' a T great empi e has been built up, and I — may add' that it is the only weer in which a great empire • can be maintained. (Cheers.) If you are to say what this despatch says, or rather, what is far worse, what it ink nuates, that your annexation of Wide was unrighteous and unprecedented, 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 invaders, 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 can only be shifting and precarioue. Everybody would ask what is likely to become of our Indian empire if conquests are to be given up and kingdoms re stored. Th would be a perpetual flow and ebb of war and conquest and peace. It is for these reasons, more es pecially, that • tl is 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, and admiration, and not the most severe censure which was ever passed upon a great public servant. (Hear.) I think i,, is dangerous to proclaim in India in these terms, that the head of the Government there is not to be trusted, and will be dis evowed. (Hear, hear.) I think, above all, it is dan gerous to be reve, tine,. to the a is of pass Governors- General of 'tulle, and past Presidents of t` o Board of Control, and of the Court of Directors of the East India Company. I believe these things tend to shako, 'led 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 Ellenborough had known of his intention to resign they would have hastened to him and asked him to withdraw the tender of that resignation ; bat 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. Weether the Government wished to maintain the Earl of Ellenborough in office or not, and wheth a. they wished to have that man of genius and generous temper in the Cabinet, this I say, the Govern. uncut are bound up with his ac .s, and for his acts they are re. spousibl for sending the despatch, and responsible for its publication. (Hear, hear.) Let them bear, therefore, the respow ibility 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 coutrery, 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 Goverument must be hold responsible. (Cheers.) On the motion of Mr. Roeetrce the debate was ad journed. ' Lord PALMERSTON—Are we to understand that the do ' bate will be renewed on Monday ! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes, Monday. Lord PALMERSTON—The first thing on Monday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes. The Ecclesiastical Corporation Leases Bill was read a second time. The Oxford and Cambridge Universities Estates Bill was also read a second time. The Poor-law Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Consolidated Fund Bill (11,000,0001.) passed through committee; and the Stamp Duties on Passports Bill also passed through committee ; and The house adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. HARPENDEN RACES.—FRIDAY. The E.athampstead Stakes. Nogman Smith Lass of Richmond Hill 2 Wll,l Honey Betting-5 to 4on Nogman Smith. The Harpenden Handicap. Smerset.. Supple Jack Thornhill Betting-6 to 1 asst Somerset, 10 to 1 each ►got Thornhill and Supple Jack. The Lady's Purse of 25 Sove. K;nnersley Firefly Barege. . BAting—Barege opened at evens, but closed at "any odds" agst her ; 5 to 1 each agst Kinnereley and Fire. fly. The Two-year-old Stakes. Pandora Colt by Daniel O'Rourke 2 Ciernanthe 3 Bett.ng-6 to 4 on Pandora, 100 to 8 &gat Clemanthe, 100 to 7 aget Daniel O'Rourke. The Tally-ho Stakes. Impatience Walnut 2 Repulse Betting-6 to 4en Impatience. Handicap Plate of 50 Sove. Wanderer ' 1 Rio Pactolus Betting---7 to 1 eget Pactolus, Bto 1 aget Rio, 10 to 1 agst Wanderer. Hurdle Race. Walnut.. 1 2 3 Raffia . 11,13tCea . Betting-2 to 1 agst Rage. The Scurry Stake,. Salmon 1 Impatience 2 LAdy Aintree .. 3 Betting-7 to 4 each agst Salmon and Impatience, 5 to 2 agst Lady Aintree. • L A.TEST BETTING. DERBY. 5 to 1 agst Fitz-Roland (off) sto 1 agst Toxopholite (off) 32 to 1 apt Ancient Briton (taken) 12 to 1 agst Long g, 16 to 1 aget The Hadit 100 to 5 aget Ditto (taken 20 to 1) 25 to 1 apt Ethiopian (taken) BETTING AT MDERB NCAHESTER.-.-Fanwr. Y. 5 to 1 agst Fite-Roland (taken) • 6to 1 gst Toxopholite (taken) 12 to 1 agst Ancient Briton (taken) 14 to 1 agst Lingrange (taken) 100 to 6 agst titto (taken) 16 to 1 agst Sedbury (taken) No others backed. No Oaks betting. [Aovitansa] MET ]—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 delicious health-restoring Revalenta Arabica. Food, the follow lig are not the least remarkable :—Cure No. 47,121.--" Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nazing Vicarage, \Valthamcross, Herts • * cure of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gathering, low spirits, and nervous fancies." Cure No. 48,314. --" Miss Elizabeth Yeoman, Gatea,cre, near Liverpool: a cure of ten years dyspepsia and all the horrors of nervous irritability." Cure No. 3,00 d. 'thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and general debility hare been removed by Du Barry's excellent Revaleuta Arabica Food. —JAMES PORTER, Ath 01-stroet, Port.b. Supported by testimonials from the following celebrated Pro ' febsors of Chemistry: Dr. A Urn; Dr. Shorland; Dr. 'Harvey; Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Witmer; Dr. Ingram; Lord Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Casth per. Major G.:13. Thomas King, and many other respec ta ble after all other sous, whose health has been restored by tions, in canisters, 11b. 2s, 9d.; means of cure had failed. Suitably packed w ith 2b.t e a L niago free on PO 121 b. 225. The 121 b canisters are D se o n uarry, and Co., 77, ceipt of Post-office order. The Vice-ChaneellOr Sir e it d. h ; f4 s ll lb ing . 1 t1116. 15. ; unction on the 10th March, f ß u e i g d e a n u t g -s e t r i s •e o et f , s L pu on ri d o o u n s . William Page Wood granted Allr ' Nevin for imitating f' Dis 1854, against Alfred Jloope o _ Barry's Revaleuta Arabiea F o imitations. -- The against the fear• Y, b inta. ° PrY )64 Pc