The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-25 00:00:00

committee of that House.

Admiral WALCOTT preferred a Royal Commission.
He gave a more encouraging picture of the resources of
the navy than Sir C. Napier.
Lord C. PAGET was also of opinion that there were
ample resources in the hands of the Admiralty for main-
taining an admirable fleet in regard both to manning
and shipbuilding.
Sir J. PAKINGTON admitted that this was a subject
of immense importann, and he had pressed it upon the
attention of the House in moving the Navy Estimates,
when he adverted to the slow manning of our ships. But
he denied that the country was, as was alleged by Sir
C. Napier, in a defenceless condition. We had in our
ports some of the noblest ships of war ever built, and if
a case of emergency should arise, with the means at our
disponi, a very powerful fleet could be prepared for sea
at a very short notiee. He preferred a Commission to •
Committee; but he could not assent to the extending
the inquiry into the dockyards, the Admiralty, and other
branches of the servioe.
Lord PALMERSTON recommended Sir C. Napier to
accept the limitation proposed by Sir J. Pakington.
Sir C. NAPIER consenting to the proposal, the motion
as amended was agreed to.
The Lord-Anvocars obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to simplify the forme and diminish the expense of com-
pleting titles to land in Scotland.
On the order for the second reading of the Weights
and Measures Bill, moved by Mr. JOHN Locks,
Mr. HORSFALL moved to defer it for six months,
observing that the change proposed by the Bill would
produce • complete revolution.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. PAGET.
Mr. HENLEY advised the House not to go on with this
Bill, which, he said, would not secure uniformity, and
the attempt to settle the details would be most embarrass-
ing.
Mr. LOCKE defended the Rill.
Upon a division, the amendment was carried by 92 to
84 ; so the Bill is lost.
The House adjourned at 5 minutes to 1 o'clock until
Thursday.

TFIIIRSDAY.

In 1y to Sir D. NORREYS, Mr. CARDWELL (who had been engaged in consults-
Mr. . SMITH said the late Government had not tion with Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, and other
determined on the line of policy to be pursued towards members) observed that the motion was in the Speaker's
the landholders of Oude. • hands, and he had not the power to withdraw it; but
In answer to an inquiry by Mr. DILLWYN, after the numerous appeals made to him, he desired to
Mr. BAILLIE read a despatch relative to the sup- sot in conformity with the general feeling of the House
pression of the mutiny and disarming of the 21st Rep- and not to press his resolution.
meet of Bombay Native Infantry at Kurrachee in Sep- Mr. GLADSTONE said, his impression was that Mr.
tember, 1857. Cantwell had not misunderstood the prevailing sentiments
Lord PALMERSTON, referring to the remarks made of the House. Concurring in the spirit of the recom-
upon the non-production of the private letter from Lord mendation and in the decision of Mr. Cardwell, as ad-
Canning to Mr. V. Smith, dated the 6th of March, read vantageous to the public interests, he ventured to say •
an extract from that letter, and from a previous letter word on the subject of Lord Canning, whose character
of the 20th of February, as well as a letter of Lord WRS connected with those interests. He agreed with
Granville on the subject of his private correspondence Lord Palmerston that Lord Canning did not intend, in
with Lord Canninj, which contained, he said, nothing issuing the proclamation, in any point or degree to corn-
of real importance, and the principal parts of which promise the principles of equity and humanity, lie
he (Lord Granville) read (as he stated in the House of hoped that the House would concur in the course pro'
Lords) to Lord Ellenborough. posed to be taken by Mr. Cardwell, and that Her
Mr. BRIGHT asked whether the two letters were all Majesty's Government, on the other hand, would not
that had been received from Lord Canning by either Mr. refuse to declare that, in the general conduct of affairs
V. Smith or Lord Paluierston concerning public affairs in India, under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty,
relating to India? Lord Canning had deserved and would receive appro.
Lord PALMERSTON replied that four letters had been bction.
received of the respective dates of the sth and 20th of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
February, and the 6th and 17th of March. the motion had been brought forward avowedly as a
The adjourned debate on the Governor-General of censure upon Her Majesty s Government, and the indict-
India was then resumed by ment had been on the previous night amplified by Sir
Lord GODERICH, who supported the original motion. R. Bethell. When, therefore, he was asked to agree to
s
Lord Canning, he contended, had only carried out the its withdrawal, in the first place he said that was • pro.
policy declared by Lord Dalhousie, when he announced position which he could not, under any eircumatances,
the annexation of Oude; he was pursuing that policy originate ; and, if he assented to it, it was not because
when the mutiny broke out. The despatch, its tone and the Government shrank from the consequences of the
tenour, he strongly condemned. But it had been pub- motion, to which they looked without apprehension.
fished, and not only published, but it was always in. But if he were asked, if he would consent to the with-
tended for publication, for it had been avowed that it drawal of the motion as best for the interests of England
was meant to be an antidote to the people of India and India, he was bound to say that he had a deep con-
against the proclamation of Lord Canning. He dwelt viction that it would be best for those interests that the
upon the effects of disavowing publicly the polioy of the debate should terminate. He proceeded at some length
Governor-General, and of proclaiming that the posses- to justify the policy of the despatch as • wise and just
pion of Oude had been acquired by fraud and violence, policy, and one which, he said, really expressed the
and lie called upon the Government to state what was policy of Lord Canning, whom the Government aasured,
their policy on that subject. The amendment, which by a telegram, that lie might rely upon their support in
was to be supported by Government, he observed, for. the difficult circumstances in which he was placed.
bore to give an opinion upon the proclamation without Lord J. RuSSRLL said, after the declaration of the
further information, yet the Government, without such Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be better that
information, had pronounced such opinion, ands censure the motion and the amendment should be withdrawn.
upon the conduct of Lord Canning. Mr. BRIGHT said, although the result of the long di,-
Mr. BRIGHT observed that the resolution eluded the cession would excite amusement, yet he thought the
real question; but, if carried, the people of Oude would decision of the House, that the debate should- go no
regard the vote iis'an approval of the proclamation. The further, would be ratified by the solid judgment of the
proposal in the resolution was disingenious ; but it was country, and that the House would stand better with it
an attempt to lead the House into an unfortunate than if the Government had succeeded by a small major-
dilemma. All admitted that the people of Oude were ity, or been overthrown.
not inutineere, or rebels, or enemies. yet the proclania- After some remarks by Mr. NEWDZGATZ and Mr.
tion would produce, not • political, but • social revolt'. CRAWFORD, the motion for adjournment was weed to.
, Mon in that country. The extinction of the proprietary The motion of Mr. CARDWELL and the amenent of
I right in the soil would apply to more than 40,000 large Mr. DILLWYN were both withdrawn.
'landholders, He believed that the proclamation Mee The House adjourned, at 8 o'clock, until Friday next