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

FRIDAY.

The Royal assent was given by commission to the
Consolidated Fund Bill, the Stamp Duty on Draughts
Bill. and several private Bills.
The Earl of MINTO asked if the Government had re-
ceived any answer to the application to the Government
of Naples for indemnity to the engineers of the Cagliari'
The Earl of MALMERSBURY stated he had received an
answer from the Neapolitan Government on the subject,
which he had supposed to be a refusal of the indemnity;
but he had just received a despatch from which he un-
derstood that the first answer was only an argumentative
reply to the demand, not a categorical refusal.
On the motion of the Earl of DERBY, their Lordships
then adjourned till Monday, the 31st inst.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MONDAY.
The adjourned debate on LI., Governor-Generia of
India was resumed by
Mr. ROEBUCK, who began by urging the importance
of the question, which concerned a large section of the
human race, and whether the House was to be guided
by the great principles of honour and virtue, or, utterly
regardless of the helpless people of India, by a considera-
tion for the sole aggrandizement of England. What, he
asked where they fighting for ?—not the happiness of
India, but a mere matter of party politics, as to who
should sit on the different benches of the House. Ad-
dressing himself to the question raised by the resolu-
tion moved by Mr. Cardwell, he laid down three pro-
positions—first, that Lord Ellenborough was bound to
write an answer to the proclamation of the Governor-
General ; secondly, that he wrote the right despatch ;
and, thirdly, that the Government were not answerable
for the production of the despatch.
Sir C. WOOD said that the House was not called upon
to approve the policy of Lord Canning with reference to
Oude, respecting which there was a deficiency of evi-
dence ; it was irrespective of that policy that he called
upon the House to condemn the proceedings of the Go-
vernment. He proceeded to argue that an incorrect
construction had been put upon the proclamation ; that
misapprehensions prevailed as to the proprietary right
in Oude, that the landholders oppressed and maltreated
the people. If the proclamation was thought to be too
severe it ought to have been reproved in more appro-
priate terms, not with harshness and invective ,• and at
all events it ought not to have been published. The
responsibility for the publication could not, he insisted,
be shifted upon a single Minister. Ho contended that,
instead of being a message of peace, the despatch would
be a firebrand of war.
Mr. HARDY could not consider the motion an honest
one. The resolution, he said, was involved and am-
biguous in its terms, and shaped so as to catch votes.
With regard to the proclamation, he contended that
there could be no mistake in India, any more than in
England, as to its meaning, which was repugnant to the
rules and principles prescribed in a despatch to India,
dated the 24th of March, and which was laid upon the
table of the House on the 29th of April. Those rules
and principles of justice and humanity, he said, had been
acted upon by the Government, and enforced, he ad-
mitted, in strong and forcible terms in the despatch in
question. He read extracts from Indian newspapers to
show the opinions entertained throughout India as to
the effects of the proclamation, and that to carry it out
would require a fresh army of 50,000 men.
Lord Du sicemlN argued that the people of Oude
had identified their objects with those of the mutinous
Sepoys, that they were rebels ; and, if so, that they
had forfeited their lands. He condemned the manner
in which the Govermnent had censured the policy of
Lord Canning, and expressed a belief that there had
been from the first a strong desire in the present Cabinet
to get rid of him.
Lord LOYAINE observed that the proclamation so far
from doing good appeared, by information from India,
where it was condemned by military authorities, to have
done mischief already.
Mr. Byrra remarked that as to the proclamation, it
was doubtful, he said, whether it had been published in
India or not ; if it had been, he did not think it merited
the censure mat upon it. But by the publication of the
despatch, condemning the proclamation, and censuring
a public servant, the Government had committed an
act, which was, in his opinion, dangerous to our rule in

Mr. HOPE condemned the despatch as a rash com-
position, and its publication as a still greater act of
rashness; and thought that if Lord Ellenborough had
not resigned, the House could not have refused to pass
the resolution. But that resignation had, in his view,
virtually produced a great change, and had neutralised
the latter and most important part of the resolution ;
and, as the object should be to strengthen the hands of
Lord Canning, not to subserve a party cabal, he should
vote for the amendment of Mr. Dillwyn.
Mr. ATHERTON supported the original resolution.
The laying the despatch upon the table of the House
was equivalent to placarding upon the walls of Luck-
now and in the villages of Gude • document that vin-
dicated the rebellion of the people, who were, he said,
as much the subjects of the Queen of England as the
people of Bengal.
Lord ELCHO likewise supported the orignal motion.
What the House had to consider was the conduct of the
Government of this country, who had acted most im-
politically as regarded our Indian empire.
Sir R. PEEL observed that Mr. Cardwell had referred
to the motives and objects of his motion. Those
motives and objects in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, were
not the interest of poor Lord Canning, nor of the
millions in India under our rule ; but an opportunity
was offered, and was not to be lost, for attacking the
Government, and India must be made the battlefield.
Such a motion, instead of tending to the assistance of
our countrymen in India must greatly increase their
embarrassment. Assuming that this had been made a
party question, Sir Robert discussed with great freedom
the comparative merits of Lord Derby and Lord Fel-
merston, as First Ministers of the Crown, making the
seals preponderate sensibly in favour of the former, and
he called upon the Liberal party to give their support
upon this motion to the Government.
_ . . . .

'Sir G. LEWIS denied that the motion was an attempt
to raise a party issue ; there was nothing further from
the truth, he said, than than this question had not been
forced upon the Opposition, who could not, without a
dereliction of political duty, have paned it over. If
after the despatch wu oß3cially brought to the know.
ledge of the House it took no step but silently an.
quiesced in the writing and despatching mob an in-
strument, it would share in the responsibility of the
Government, and become an accomplice in their
seta. . .

Mr. WHITIMIDE Observed that, although the publica-
tion of the opinion of the Government on the subject of
the policy oontained in the proclamation had been made
the foundation of this resolution, this declaration of

their views had been distinctly and unequivocally made
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a
question put by Sir E. Perry, on the 23rd of April, the
declaration being he said, cheered by members of the
late Government. How, he asked, could they,
after this, turn round and censure the present Govern-
ment ? The meaning of the proclamation Wee dis-
puted • but the question was what the document, when I
submitted to the Government, could be fairly under-
stood to mean ; and he contended that this monstrous
proclamation could only be understood to be frhninated
In,rootpeortnliye.ala classainstlargneialrteniadlhuoldwe
defended the policy of the despatch, not, he mud, in the
letter, but in spirit ; if the other side disputed that
and betu agricultural. holders
. o smelle
policy, he called upon thorn to bring the question to an
issue upon a diet not motion, and try whether it was
condemned by the House and by the country.
On the motion of Mr. COLLIER, the debate was again
adjourned till Tuesda
YTUESDAY.
Lord J. Rumen brought up the report of the mana-
gers (including Baron Rothsehild) appointed to conduct
the conference with the Lords on the subject of their
amendments of the Oaths Bill,
Sir D. NORREYS inquired of the Chancellor of the
after the taking of Lucknow ; whether it differed from
st Exchequerhonie whether
copyetlr
otlfi et
hGeo Governor-General
actually issued
the proposed proclamation before the House, and
whether the Governor-General had given to the home
Government any other explanation of the reasons for
issuing the proclamation than were contained in Mr.
FAmonsteue's letter to the Chief Commissioner of
Onde.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that a copy
of the proclamation actually issued had not been re-
ceived, nor any official information that any proclama-
tion had been issued, although of the fact there seemed
to be no doubt. He stated that three private letters html
been received from Lord Canning on Saturday, which,
though containing no explanation respecting the pro-
clamation, referred to occurrences in previous letters
which had not reached the Government.
Lord PALMERSTON, in the absence of Mr. V. Smith,
stated that no information upon the subject had reached
that gentleman.
Sir J. Y.ticirurrosr stated that he had seen an officer,
just arrived from India, who stated that the proclama-
tion had " arrived" at Lucknow.
Mr. CRAWFORD inquired whether Colonel Franks had
not stated that the proclamation had been Issued in com-
pliance with instructions from this country?
Sir J. PAKINGTON replied that Colonel Franks had
stated that he had heard a rumour to that effect, but
the impression was altogether erroneous.
Mr. DILLWYN asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether, in the event of Mr. Cardwell'. motion
on the Governor-General of India being negatived, the
Government would support his amendment?
The CHANCELLOR a the EXCHEQUER replied that he
saw nothing in the amendment to which he could not
give his willing assent.
On the motion of Captain VIVIAN, it was agreed that
the House at ite rising should adjourn until Thurs.
dey,
Mr. W.Wrnmagemoved a resolution,that real property
and impropriete tithes should pay the seine probate
duty as that now payable on personal property; and
that property belonging to corporations, universities,
colleges, bishoprics, and deans and chapters should pay
probate and legacy duties equivalent to those now levied
"personal property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. HADFIELD, and sup-
ported by Mr. ALCOCK.
Mr. Bawer pointed out the Inequality between the
succession duty and the legacy duty, to the disadvantage
of the inheritors of personal property, and urged that
one and the same pnneiple shoufl be applied to land
and to all other species of property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained the
difficulties that would lie in the way of every attempt
to repair any injustice in the operation of the legacy and
succession duties, supposing any injustice existed. He
calculated that the probable result of making corpora-
tions liable to the succession duty would produce not
quite £4,500 a year, less the bills of (mats.
Sir G. LEWIS concurred generally with the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He was of opinion that, al-
lowing for deductions and for the expenses of litigation,
the probability was that if corporations were subjected
to the succesaion duty the balance would be against the
public.
Mr. HENLEY observed that, if the question were
looked into, it would be found that land did not pay less
thou its proper share.
Mr. L. KING supported the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM was not satisfied with the result of
Mr. Disraeli's calculation, in which he suspected some
error. He could not understand, he said, how the sub-
jecting corporate bodies to the succession duty could
produce no more than £4,500 a year.
Upon • division the motion was negatived by 172
to 68.
Mr. SHERIDAN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate Insurance and Assurance Institutions, and to
arrange for their incorporation.
Mr. BLAND moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal
so much of the Act the 10th of George IV., cap. 34, as
relates to conspiracies and solicitations to murder in
Ireland. His object, he said, wan to assimilate the law
of the two countries; and he stated, as the result of his
experience, that the severity of the Irish law operated
to prevent convictions.
After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. SLANEY moved for leave to introduce a Bill to
enable or facilitate grants of land to be made near popu-
lous places for the use and regulated recreation of adults,
and as playgrounds for poor children.
The motion was seconded by Mr. BRISCOE.
Mr. WALPOLE did not oppose it, and leave was
given.
Sir C. NAPIER moved an Address to Her Majesty,
praying that she will be please to appoint a commission
to inquire into the best means of manning the navy and
improving its management, with a view to reduce its
expenditure without impairing its efficiency. He in-
sisted that unless coins regular system of manning the
navy were adopted we should, in cam of emergency, be
driven to recur to impressment. More encouragement,
he said, must bs held out to enter the service. He in-
sisted likewise that we should have a standing navy,
alleging that we were now almost defenceless, and not
in a position to resist an attempt at invasion in case of a
sudden quarrel. Our ships ought to be always in a con-
dition to get to sea certain of victory. He wanted a
commission of experienced men to inquire into the
dockyards.
Admiral GUNCOMBE, moved, by way of amendment,
that the inquiry should be conducted by a Select Com-
mittee, concurring in the object of the motion, but
believing that this mode of obtaining it which lie pro-
posed was preferable to a Commission. The object, he
said, was of paramount importance.
Mr. LINDSAY was of opinion that this important in-
quiry ought not to,J.,e left in any hands but those of •

tioned this wholesale confiscation, and that the regain
itrlienolndo sanctioned ear tti
,e d
declarationsn the
thatpr o ai
.mt
haawttioounekl,•
etrbhea
wt.
one
ta wouldfromth .
011,1 i):
country, to India. If the queetion, he said, WU between
hurting the feelings of Lord Canning and sanctioning
this proclamation lie ehould have no hesitation as to his
choice. In conclusion, he regarded the motion in it.
party aspect, expressing his belief that there WAS to be •
desperate effort made to produce a change in the present
state of affairs before Whitsuntide.
Mr. COLLIER observed that the question before the
House, wee whether the Government bad not condemned
Lord Canning without • hearing, and not for what he
had done, but for what lie had not done, sin*, tip to
that moment, it WAS not known what proclamation had
been hewed by him. He contended that the despatch
was intended to wound and insult Lord Canning, and
that, if the Government were not answerable for it.
publication, they must abide by the writing of it, al.
though it stigmatized the annexation of Oude as an act
of treachery. If the House 'Armed the policy of the
despatch our Indian empire would not, in his opinion,
be worth 10 years' purchase.
Sir W. FRASER pointed out the effect which confine-
wtioenransioueptiuswolornkatuelpyonatchpelde
twoltioh,e ltirkane
stmhiossseioonf
oltnndiaa,
property to their heirs.
Captain VIVIAN supported the original motion.
Mr. K. Sermon regretted that a question of Indian
policy should be made as he said, in both HORNS Of
Parliament the occasion of a party attack upon time
Government. He asked independent Liberal member,
whether they approved the policy of confiscation if
not, let them place themselves in the position of Her
Majesty's Ministers at the time they received Lord
Canning's proclamation. He should vote against the
resolution.
Sir A. ELTON said, the simple question was whether
the proclamation was substantially wrong and the des-
patch substantially right. He grounded his objection to
the proclamation upon the last two paragraphs, which
authorized, he said, a wholesale appropriation of people`e,
rights. The despatch, though deficient in courtesy,
was, lie thought, subotantially right.
Lord BURY said in his opinion the proclamation would
do less harm than allowing the people of India to sup-
pose that their Government was unsupported at home.
Mr. GILPIN said the House was called upon to pro-
nounee a decided opinion upon a document emanating
from the board of Control, and carefully to refrain from
expressing any opinion upon the document which gave
rime to it. By so doing the House would put itself in •
most absurd position. When he oonsidered how it
happened that Lord Conning had come to issue •
, proclamation so unjust and immoral, and reflected upon
' the howl of execration that had reached him from the
residents of British India because of it. merciful
tendencies, he believed that this influence bad been
brought to bear upon him to inch an extent as to compel
him to do what his sober judgment disapproved. He
should vote against the original motion.
Mr. LABOUCHER6 protested against the imputation of
party motives in this disouulon, declaring that, if he
knew his own feelings in voting for the motion, he
should give as conscientious • vote as he ever gave. He
held the Government justly and deeply censurable for
the state of affairs in India, for disturbing the harmony
and unity of lotion which ought to subeist between the
Government at home and that abroad. He considered
this state of things to be traceable directly to the con-
duet of the Government, and that Parliament WY bound
to express its opinion of that conduct.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was no adherent of Her Ma-
, Majesty's present Government; on the contrary, his
' sympathies were with the Liberal party; it was With
pain, therefore, that after much deliberation he had ar-
' rived at the conclusion that he was not prepared to
_give
his support to the motion of Mr. Cardwell. That
motion was said to be promoted by the intimate friends
of Lord Canning; but he had the authority of Lord
Aberdeen to say that, from the time of Lord Ellen.
borough's withdrawal he (Lord Aberdeen) felt that all
that was due to the honour of Lord Canning had been
achieved, and was not prepared, he said, to take part in
a faction fight. His first impression on reading the pro-
clamation, Sir James proceeded, was that it was impo-
' litie. He also thought that the despatch censuring that
proclamation, in the terms employed, harsh and unjusti-
fiable. No explanation of the proclamation had been
received by the Government ; all private coinmunica-
tions from the Governor-General were addressed to
their opponents, and no portion of those private com-
munications had been made known to iler Majesty's
present advisers. It had been stated that Sir Janus
Outrun and Sir John Lawrence objected to the prods-
illation, and he had reason to know that General Mans-
field, Chief of the Staff to the Commander-in-Chief in
India, expressed his disapprobation of its policy. He
believed, also, that General Franks was of opinion that
the proclamation was an unfortunate act. Considering the
conflict of opinion between the military and civil authori-
ties, he feared that Lord Canning had lent his judgment
to the influence of civilians. He was bound to say that
the substance of the despatch was, in his opinion, sound
and perfectly defensible, not even excepting the matter
of Oude. The conclusion at which he had arrived, on
the whole, was, that he thought the proclamation wrong,
and the despatch substantially right; that the error of
the proclamation WU in its essence, the error of the
despatch was in its form. He would cordially adopt the
amendment, but if that were rejected he should give his
vote against the original motion.
Sir R. BETHELL said the despatch consisted of two
parts, one relating to the proclamation of Lord Canning,
the other relating to the Imperial title to the kingdom
of Oude. The latter part charged the Imperial Govern-
ment with injustice and robbery, and it contained pas-
sages which a few years ago would have afforded matter
for the impeachment of its authors. Of this despatch
the language must, he contended, be held to be that of
the united Cabinet, and the publication of the document
was not the sole unauthorized act of Lord Ellenborough,
but the deliberate and well-considered act of the Govern-
ment at large; and the consequence was that, as they
were the accomplices of Lord Ellenborough, they should
share his fate. When a policy of mercy was spoken of,
such a policy should be one that would bring the country
most speedily into • state of peace and tranquillity; but
this result would not be obtained by telling the people
that they had been wronged, and that they were under
the dominion of a Sovereign not entitled to their alle-
giance.
On the motion that the debate be adjourned,
Lord J. RUSSELL complained that an attack had been
made upon his personal conduct by Mr. Bright, and
stated that he should take an opportunity next day, when
Mr. Bright was present, to make some reference to his
remarks.
After coins discussion, the debate was adjourned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
further papers on the subject of the debate.
The House adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock.
FRIDAY.
On the motion, made by the CHANCELLOR of the

EX-CHEQUER, that the Howie at its rising do adjourn

until Fiiday. next,
Mr. CLAY appealed to Mr. Cardwell to withdraw his
motion regarding the Governor-General of India. From
the moment of the retirement of Lord Ellenborough, he
said, he considered the motion inexpedient, and the
papers recently received had made him more sensible of
its inexpediency, although they did not lead him to dis-
prove the policy of Lord Canning. He urged Mr. Card-
well, however, as • friend of Lord Canning, not to place
his vindication upon a false issue.
Mr. CARDWELL replied that, as no information had
reached him as to any change in the policy of the Govern-
ment, he should go on with his motion.
A discussion ensued of • somewhat confused character,
in which inquiries, replies, notices of amendments of the
resolution were intermingled- in the course of it,
Mr. STANLEY asked Mr. Dillwyn whether he meant
to persevere in his amendment?
Mr. DILLWYN replied that his amendment depended
upon Mr. Cardwell's motion; that, if the original resolu-
tion were passed, he should persevere in his amend-
ment.
After the expenditure of much time in this prelimi-
nary discussion—several members on the Opposition
benches
_pressing Mr. Cardwell to withdraw his motion,
Lord PALMERSTON interposed, and, after justifying
the motion under the then existing circumstances, ob-
served that the papers laid upon the table that morning
had a very important bearing upon the arguments and
tenour of the debate. No man, he thought, could read
the last letter of Mr. Edmonstone, expressing the
views of Lord Canning with reference to the proclama-
tion he intended to issue, without seeing that it was to
be confined to one class—namely, the talookdars, and
he only looked to security for the future; all who gave
that security would be re-established in their possessions.
He thought that the papers tl at were going out to
India would counteract the effect of the despatch, and
if it was the wish of the House that no further pro-
ceedings should take place, he recommended Mr. Card-
well to bow to that wish, and lie put it to the Govern-
ment whether they would not take the same view of the
matter.