The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

Imperial Parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY.

The Earl of SHATTILIBURY IMO notice that on Friday
he should move a reaolution oondemnatory of the
dempatoll of the Government to the Governor• General
of India in referencia to his proclamation to the people
of Gude.
_ . _ . .

The Earl of ELLINBOROCOR thought It might be con.
'intent to Lord Shafteebury If he communicated the
despatch alluded to in 'atone°. [By reference to another
oolums, it will be seen that oertain passages in tide due.
patch were omitted from the copy laid on the table of
the House of Lords, though they were retained in that
presented to the Commune.] Ills Lordship said he
would take the opportunity of explaining the accident
by which the documentwee given to the House of Com•
mons In ite original and uninutilated form. It was at
first decided that the whole doeument should be eommu•
ideated, but at a later hour Lord Dorby, himself, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed that it would
be expedient to omit' lome passages of the despatch.
Before this agreement, however, could be communicated
to the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. BallIle)
the whole of the document had been laid by him before
the House of Commons.

In answer to • question by Earl GRRY,
Lord ELLIMBOROUGH IL/twitted that he had received
only the first draft of the proclamation, and the Govern-
ment did not know with certainty that the proclamation
had been published in India at all.
An animated conversation ensued, from which it ap-
peared that Mr. Vernon Smith, the late President of the
Board of Control, had, slime his retirement from Wile.,
?solved • private letter from Lord Canning, in which he
stated that the proclamation Ile was about to issue
would probably require some future explanation which
the pressure of public buaineu prevented him from giv-
ing at the moment. That letter had not been communi-
cated by Mr. Vernon Smith to his mocessor in office ;
Lord Ellenborough was not aware such • letter had been
received._ . .

The Marquis of LANBDOWNZ explained that Mr.
Vernon Smith did not reoeivo the letter till after the
question in reference to the proclamation had been
asked in the House of Commons.

TUESDAY.

Lord SHAPTICBBUBT-I;id oTiql;e. table the term, of his
resolution of censure which he proposes to submit on
Friday, as follows :-
1. That it appears from papers laid upon the table of
this House that a despatch hu been addressed by the
Secret Committee of the Court of the Directors to the
Governor-General of India, disapproving a proclamation
which the Governor-General had informed the Court he
Intended to issue after the fall of Luoknow. . .

2. That it is known only from intehgence that has
reached this country by correspondence published in
newspapers that the intended proclamation has been
issued, and with an important modification, no official
account of this proceeding having yet been received; that
this House is therefore still without full information as
to the grounds upon which Lord Canning has acted, and
his answer to the objections made to his intended pro.
olamation in the despatch of the Secret Committee can-
not be received for several weeks.

3. That under these circumstances this House Is
unable to form a judgment on the proclamation issued
by Lord Canning, but thinks it right to express its dis-
approbation at the premature publication by Her Ma-
jesty's Ministers of the despatch addressed to the
Governor-General, since this public condemnation of his
conduct is calculated to weaken the authority of the
Governor-General of India and to encourage those who
are now in arms against this country.

Lord LANSDOWNE then explained that Lord Cunning
hail sent a note to Mr. Vernon Smith, the late President
of the Board of Control (in ignorance of the change of
ministry), promising an explanation of the circumstances
under whieli his proclamation was issued. This was re-
ceived on the 19th of April—after the censure of Lord
Ellenborough was sent out.
Lord DF.FtBY said the censure was not Bent out until
the snail of the 20th of April, and if Mr. V. Smith had
been so courteous as to give Lord Ellenborough an inti-
mation of the note, he might not have been led to pro.
nounce so premature a condemnation,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he was blamed, not for
writing the despatch, but for allowing its publication.
He still thought he was right, but as it was a question
whether his noble friend (Lord Derby) should remain in
office, he had tendered his resignation to Her Majesty,
and it had been accepted.
Lord DERBY bore testimony to the noble and manly
way in which his noble friend—if he had committed any
indiscretion—had more than atoned for it. He re-
gretted the hasty and immediate announcement that the
Government were prepared to publish the despatch—an
act of imprudence which had caused him much regret.
He never felt deeper pain in his life than when he re-
ceived from his noble colleague not A tender of resign-
ation, but a copy of the letter in which he had already
submitted his resignation to Her Majesty. He could
not defend the act of which he was not cognisant, and he
had therefore aceepted the noble self-saorifice of his
noble friend.
_ . _

.....
Earl GRANVILLE said, how far the sacrifice of the
noble Earl would affect the position of hie colleagues, he
was not prepared to say.
The third reading of the Transfer of Land Bill WU
carried by 13 to 12—majority, I.—Adjourned.

FRIDAY.

There was a very full attendance of peers; the
Peeresses Gallery, the Stranger's Gallery, and the space
in front of the
.Throne were crowded. _ _

After the private business had been disposed of,
The Earl of SHAFTERBURY moved the resolutions of
which he had given notice, disapproving the premature
publication of the secret despatch of the Government to
Lord Canning as calculated to weaken his authority and
to "encourage those now in arms against this country."
Having disclaimed any personal feeling or political
motive in bringing forward the resolutions, Lord
Shaftesbury contended that the resignation of Lord
Ellenborough, who had taken the whole responsibility
of the transaction, could not relieve the Cabinet of
censure ; logically and morally the case was not
changed ; the retirement of the President of the Board
of Control made it rather worse. For the whole policy
laid down in the despatch the Cabinet was still col-
lectively responsible. Nor was Lord Ellenborough the
only Minister who had really published it. The
language used by another Minister must equally be held
as a publication of it. He then recapitulated the cir-
cumstances of the ease, arguing that Lord Ellenborough,
throughout the despatch, had erroneously assumed that
the confiscation contemplated was a confiscation of all
the land in Oude, the property of the small holders and
cultivators. Really the confiscation only applied to the
proprietary rights exercised over those lands by the
talookdars and others; if the forfeiture were what
Lord Ellenborough supposed it would apply to
2,000,000 of people • whereas, an understood by
men of the greatest experience in India, it ap-
plied only to 600 persons, most of whom had
been in arms against the English Government, and
whose character for rapacity and violence might be
learnt from the official report of General Sleeman. He
dwelt on the danger of the Home Government telling
these men that they had been cruelly treated. The
despatch was the most terrible rebuke ever adminis-
tered to • public functionary, and the more severe on
account of the very prominent station Lord Canning
occupied. It must have been most painful to him,
since his proclamation was actually issued in the spirit
of clemency and moderation that had distinguished his
administration. And this censure had been pronounced
in total ignorance of the state of things! He dreaded
the effect it was too well calculated to produce in India.
How was it possible consistently to retain the govern-
merit of Oude while condemning the principle on which
its annexation was effected? It was most dangerous to
weaken the authority of the Governor-General; the Go-
vernment might have recalled Lord Canning, but should
not have degraded his office. If the position of the
Governor-General were lowered in the eyes of the
natives, it would be impossible, with the great change
that had taken place in the minds of the people, to con-
tinue to govern that country, and it ought to be shown
publicly that the conduct of the Government was not
supported either by the approval of Parliament or the
voice of the country.
The Earl of ELLENBoRouGH said that fact' contained
in the blue-books, patent to all the world, bore him out
in asserting that the war in Oude was rather a legiti-
mate war than a rebellion. As to the annexion of that
kingdom, the policy of Lord Dalhousie involved confis-
cation ; but the difference between his policy and that of
Lord Canning was this : —Lord Dalhousie's confiscation
was prospective, and limited to those who might rebel;
Lord Canniiag's was retrogressive, and affected the whole
people. Confiscation was unknown in India. The suc-
cessive conquerors of that country had changed the
rulers of the people, but never appropriated the land,
and had therefore been able to establish permament
governments. He warned them, if they approved the
proclamation, they would kindle a social war in India;
in political wars England might be successful, but in a
aocuil war they must fail. He implored them to avoid
that danger, and to adopt clemency, as the beat basis of
their policy in India.
The Duke of ARGYLL defended the course of Lord
Canning, and described the publication of the des-
patch as an attempt to make political capital in Eng-
land._ _

The Duke of SOMERSET condemned the publication of
the despatch, and ridiculed the political position of the
Ministry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR criticized the wording of the
resolutions; the objection did not appear to be much to
the publication of the despatch SA the " premature "
publication. He denied that the head of a Cabinet was
bound to justify every act of all his colleagues, and re-
sign if they were not approved. He dealt at seine length
on the incident of Mr. 'Vernon Smith withholding the
private letter that accompanied Lord Canning's procla-
mation ; had that letter been communicated to the
Government it would have prevented all the mischief.
He thought the resolutions could not be better met than
by moving the previous question.
Lord CRANWORTH denied that the confiscation pro.
claimed by Lord Canning could Apply to the whole body
of landholders in Oude, and gave some legal definitions
of confiscation to prove his position.
Earl GREY admitted that, according to the view Lord
Ellenborough took of the despatch, he was bound to
reply to it, though he might have written in a better
tone.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE, though he had no wish to
see the present Government embarrassed, felt coinpelled
to support the resolutions. He warmly defended the
character of Lord Canning.
The Earl of DERBY defended the principles of the
despatch, but its publication he regretted; it was pub.
belied without his knowledge, and he did not hold him-
self responsible for the att. Having detailed the fade
of the case, he made a chief point of his defence the
want of the information that would have been supplied
by the letter to Mr. Vernon Smith ; that letter oould
not have been so unimportant as represented, as it was
shown, immediately it was received, to Lord Palmer-
ston. He described the circumstances under which the
despatch was produced to the House of Commons, re-
peating his disclaimer of having had anything to do with
the matter. The moment the Government knew the
despatch had been made public., the Minister who had
authorized the publication visaed to be his pollens. It
was said that his resignation did not release the Cabinet
from its responsiblity ; that might be constitutional law,
but it was not constitutional practice. He cited the
case of Lord John Runsell's retirement from the Minis-
try, in 11355, in consequence of his colleagues disavowing
the treaty he had concluded at Vienna. The Cabinet
WU not held reaponsible for it, and on Lori J. Russell
resigning, the hostile motion in the Houk; of Commons
was withdrawn, The "previous question" Was the
best mods of meeting the resolutions' they would ex-
press no hasty opinion on imperfect evidence, and avoid
pronouncing a judgment which, whatever meaning it
might have Isere, would be liable to be misunderstood in
Earl GRANVILLE denied that the ems of Lord J.
Russell was a parallel one ; the allusion to • family ar•
rangspment was unworthy of the head of the Govern-
went ; as to Lord Ellenborough, he had not defended
his despatch, except two sentences no one had attacked ;
he had only repeated his condemnation of the Governor-
General,

Their Lordships then divided on the question that the
motion be put; the numbers 'torsi—

Proxies •„, 65-158
Nut Content Prevent„. 11N
Proxios ... 40-167