The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

V metVings in V artiantent.

HOUSE OF LO;
LORD ELLENBOROt

DESPATCH.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY gave notice that OD
Friday he should move a resolution condemnatory of
the despatch of the Government to the Governor-
General of India in reference to his proclamation to
he people of Oude.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought it might be
convenient to Lord Shaftesbury if he communicated
the despatch alluded to in extenso. In doing so, he
added he would take the opportunity of explaining
the accident by which the document was given to the
House of Commons in its original and unmutilated
form. It was at first decided that the whole docu-
ment should be communicated, but at a later hour
on Friday Lord Derby, himself, and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer agreed that it would be expedient
to omit some passages of the despatch. Before this
agreement, however, could be communicated to the
Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. Baillie) the
whole of the document had been laid by him before
the House of Commons. The fact that the despatch
had been placed in the bands of certain members of
Parliament before the discussion of Friday evening
be also explained, stating that he bad furnished Lord
Granville with a copy of the document at his own
request. The contents of it had been communicated
to some of the friends of Lord Granville, and he
(Lord Ellenborough) thought it only right that
other gentlemen should have the same opportunity
of becoming acquainted with the subject. Lord
Granville had received his copy first ; the member
of the other house to whom a copy was also sent
(Mr. Bright) did not receive it till some hours after-
wards, from the accident that he was not at his
residence when the messenger arrived.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked if the Govern.
ment had received any despatch from India with the
copy of the proclamation, and, if so, whether it would
be produced.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH promised to answer
the question on Tuesday evening.
Earl GREY asked if the Government was in pos..
session of any other information beyond what ap-
peared in the papers on the table.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH regretted to say they
were not.

Earl GREY inferred from that statement that the
Government was only in possession of the first
draught of Lord Canning's proclamation, not the
copy actually issued by the authorities in Oude.
The Earl of ELLENBOROIIGH admitted that this was
the fact; the Government did not even know with
certainty that the proclamation had been published
in India at all. They had received no direct com-
munication from the Governor-General for nearly a
month.

An animated conversation ensued, from which it
appeared that Mr. Vernon Smith, the late President
of the Board of Control, had since his retirement
from office received a private letter from Lord Can-
ning, in which he stated that the proclamation he
was about to issue would probably require some
future explanation which the pressure of public
business prevented him from giving at the moment.
That letter had not been communicated by Mr.
Vernon Smith to his successor in office; Lord Ellen•
borough was not aware such a letter had been re-
ceived.

The Earl of Meurminim said, it was usual for
any Minister receiving a private letter, after quitting
office, that contained anything relating to the bus!.
nese of the department, to communicate it to his
successor. He had himself received such informa-
tion from his predecessor in the Foreign-office, Lord
Clarendon; he contended it was the duty of an
ex-Minister to communicate such intelligence to the
department, even though it was contained in a
private letter.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that Mr.
Vernon Smith did not receive the letter till the
evening of Thursday last, after the question in re-
ference to the proclamation had been asked in the
House of Commons.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE, in conseqnence of the
discussion that had arisen on the subject of Lord
Can. ning's proclamation, postponed the resolution of
which he had given notice, condemning the policy
of annexing any native States of India for supposed
default of " heirs natural," or alleged misgovern-
ment by the native princes. The resolution bore in
some degree on the subject of the despatch to Lord
Canning, and he could not sanction in any manner
the extraordinary conduct of her Majesty's Govern-
ment towards the Governor-General, who had skil-
fully coped with the greatest military mutiny and
the most widespread rebellion ever recorded in the
history, of any civilized country.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called on Lord Alke-
Inarle, as he had been so anxious to do justice to one
Governor General, also to do justice to another—not

THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858.

himself, that he did not expect—but to Lord Dal-
housie. The resolution he had intended to move was
the strongest possible censure of Lord Dalhousie's
policy, which was supported by the late Government.
But the principle of that policy was not stated fairly
in the resolution ; if the policy was to be censured,
it ought to be described in Lord Dalhousie's owu
words. He hoped that would be done it the reso-
lution should ever be moved hereafter.

The bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS - MONDAY.
LORD ELLENBOROITOR'S DESPATCH.

Mr. CARDWELL gave notice of a motion for Thurs-
day condemnatory of the despatch with reference to
the proclamation of the Governor-General of India
in relation to Oude.

OATHS BILL.

The house having taken into consideration the
Lords'amendtnents of the Oaths Bill, _ ..

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the house do disagree
from the amendment by which the sth clause,
omitting the words " on the true faith of a Christian "
in the oath when taken by members of the Jewish
persuasion, was rejected.
Mr. NEWDEGATE defended the amendment, de-
claring that the clause was based upon a revolutionary
principle—that of indifference to all religions ; and
warned the house against attempting to supersede
the authority of the House of Lords, which would be
a direct attack upon the constitution and freedom of
the country.
Sir R. BETazu., adverting to a remark which fell
from Lord J. Russell, said that, should it become
necessary, be should feel it to be his duty to suggest
a course, perfectly constitutional, by which the great
object of the bill might be accomplished. He might
appeal, he observed, to every constitutional lawyer
whether usage did not warrant the conclusion that
when a particular measure had been adopted by that
house in a series of Parliaments for many years, and
which represented the voice of the nation, it was not
the duty of the other house to yield to the often-
repeated wishes of the House of Commons. His
proposition would relieve the house from any appre
hension of a controversy with the established courts
of justice. He remarked, in conclusion, that the bill
as amended imposed, in fact, a larger amount of dis-
ability upon the Jews.
After a few remarks by Sir J. Pakington, Mr.
Warren, and Mr. T. Duncombe, upon a division it
was agreed to dissent from the Lords'; amendment by
263 to 150.

The house likewise disagreed from the Lords in
excluding the Bth clause, dependent upon the sth.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, a committee
was appointed to draw up the reasons for disagreeing
from the Lords in their amendments.

Mr. T. DUNCONBE moved that Baron Rothschild
be a member of the committee, supporting the
motion by the precedent of Sir Joseph Jekyll, in
1715, who had been nominated to serve on a com-
mittee without having previously taken the oaths at
the table.

The motion was seconded by Mr. DILLWYN, but
after some discussion, it was agreed that the debate
should be adjourned until the next day.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—I. NEW ZEALAND.
Sir J. TBELAWNY called attention to certain passages
in the evidence given by one of the witnesses before
the New Zealand Loan (500,0001.) Guarantee Com-
mittee, comparing the same with records of the pro.
ceedings of the New Zealand House of Assembly, in
which the witness referred to took part; also to
certain dealings with the natives for the sale of their
lands, and to the manner in which recent contracts
made with them with respect to schools and hospitals
by a Government officet had been carried into effect.
Lord STANLEY gave a statement of the facts, with
reference to the first point, which reconciled, to a
certain extent, the apparent contradiction ; and, as
to the second point, he vindicated the Imperial Go-
vernment from blame.

11. MILITAZY AFFAIRS.

Sir W. CODBINGTON called attention to various
points connected with the military department. He
complained of the present hap-hazard mode of re-
cruiting, which, he contended, was undignified, and
did not obtain men of the best character, and of the
best physical capacity ; and he pointed out defects in
the Military Train and Commissariat establishments.

Mr. MONSELL drew General Peel's attention to the
school at Carshalton and to the building of the Royal
Military Academy at Woolwich.
General PEEL urged the pressure upon the service
to obtain recruits as an excuse for the imperfections
of the system of recruiting, which had, he said,
occupied the attention of the military authorities,
and he offered brief explanations upon other points.

After some observations by Colonel NORTH, the
house went into Committee of Supply upon the re-
maining Army Estimates, when various votes were
agreed to, some of which underwent a long discussion.

PRINCE EDWARD'S ISLAND.

471

The house then went into committee upon the
Prince Edward's Island Loan, when
_ _ _ _

Lord STANLEY moved that a loan of 100,0001. to
the colony be guaranteed to relieve it from embar-
rassment, thereby, be observed, repairing a wrong
caused by an Act of the Imperial Government (the
history of which be detailed), whereby the growth of
the colony had been retarded, the investment being
one that would repay itself.
Mr. &summit; opposed the motion, which was,
however, agreed to.
Some other measures were advanced a stage, and
the house adjourned at five minutes past one
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.
THE OUDE PROCLAMATION: THE VOTE OF CENSURE.

Lord SHAFTESBURY laid on the table the terms of
his motion of which he had given notice on Mon.
day :

1. That it appears from papers laid upon the table of
this house that a despatch has 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 fail of Lucknow.

2. That it is known only from intelligence that has
reschedthis country by correspondence published in news-
papers that the intended proclamation has been issued, and
with an important modification, no official account of this
proceeding having yet been ireceived ; that this Louse 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 proclamation in the
despatch of the Secret Committee cannot 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, bat thinks it right to express its disapproba-
tion of the premature publication by her Majesty's
Ministers of the despatch addressed to the Govornor-
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.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE corrected an error he
had made on Monday evening in stating that Mr.
Vernon Smith did not receive the private letter from
Lord Canning till after the censure on his proclama-
tion had been pronounced in the House of Commons;
it was received before that date.
The Earl of DERBY contended that, as the despatch
was not sent out till the Nth of April, and the letter
had been received by Mr. Vernon Smith before the
19th, there would have been ample time, had its
contents been communicated to Lord Ellenborough,
to have considered how it affected the course to be
adopted. This point was loudly cheered by the
peers on the Ministerial benches, and Lord Derby
proceeded to show that it was the bounden duty
of Mr. Vernon Smitb to have made that communica-
tion, as Lord Clarendon had furnished information
received in a similar manner to his successor, Lord
Malmesbury.

Earl GRANVILLE thought Lord Derby had made
the most of the circumstance, but intimated that
Lord Ellenborongh had had an opportunity of
hearing the contents of a letter Lord Granville had
himself received at the same time from Lord
Canning; but Lord Ellenborough paid so little
attention to it that, not being able to finish reading it
to him, Lord Granville had put it in his pocket. Mr.
Vernon Smith was not aware of the existence of the
letter till he returned from an absence in Ireland,
and found it awaiting him in London. He could
not anticipate that a censure of Lord Canning's
despatch would have been penned within an hour of
its having been received. It was natural to sup-
pose that Lord Canning had deferred his explanation
till he could send it, with the form of the proclamation
actually issued in India.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUOII then spoke as
follows:

The letter to which the noble earl has alluded,l inclosing
the proclamation, was received on the 12th of April. The
answer was not written till the 18th of April. It was dated
the 19th of April, and it was not sent off until the 26th of
April. There was, therefort, ample time for considering
what the letter reflecting upon the proclamation should
contain, and also for further consideration after it was
written, as has been shown by my noble friend near me.
Reflection only more strongly induced me to think that it
was absolutely necessary to send the letter as it was ori-
ginally written. What I am accused of is not the writing
of that letter. I have heard no one yet find fault with
the letter, neither have I yet heard any one defend the con-
fiscation of the proprietary rights of the landholders of
Oade. The only question is—was it or was it not right to
publish the letter which was written? As I understand
the resolution which is to be moved on Friday, it relates
to that question only. Now, my lords, the publication of
that letter was en act as wholly mine as the writing of the
letter. I take upon myself the whole responsibility, and I
will tell your lordships how it happened that that publica-
tion took place. Some time before I had written a letter
in contemplation of the capture of Lucknow
subsequently laid upon the table, and which
as soon as we knew we were in possession of
which I directed the Government of India,

w, which was
was published
Lucknow, in
, having eihi.

472

bited their strength, to temper justice with generosity, to
proclaim an amnesty, disarm the people, and wherever
the amnesty was proclaimed to establish the ordinary ad-
ministration of the law. I apprehended obstruction to the
Government in the execution of these orders from subor-
dinate officers, maddened, as I expressed it, by the scenes
they had witnessed. I desired the Government to perse-
vere in doing what they thought right, and I told them
that in acting in that spirit they would have the unqualified
support of her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) Soon
afterwards, my lords, I received this proclamation, of
which the only very important point was that inflicting con.
fiscation. [Lord Granville here made an observation
across the table, which was inaudible in the gallery.] How
was it possible (Lord Ellenborough continued) to com-
municate by electric telegraph? I said that soon after the
letter to which I have referred was published here I re-
ceived this proclamation, which is in direct contradiction
to the principles laid down in the letter of which the noble
earl opposite approved. ( Cheers.) The principle of con-
fiscation of the whole proprietary rights of the landowuere
of Oude was not clemency; it was inconsistent with am.
nests,; it was persecution after defeat; it was contrary to
the principle laid down in the first letter, to the feelings of
the Government, and to the principles upon which they
had determined to act. When I read that proclamation I
felt it was my duty at once to express my own sentiments
on the subject, which were adopted by my noble friends. I
should have been unworthy of a seat in this house if I had
acted otherwise ; but I felt at the same time that if that
proclamation were really published as it stood before me, it
was quite impossible that my letter with respect to it
should be withheld from the public. I knew that the mo-
ment the proclamation was published in this country
questions would be asked iu Parliament, and that
neither in this house nor in the other house could the
answers be satisfactory without the publication of this
letter, which we could not resist. My lords, I did
desire its publication—(cheers)--and I will tell you upon
what grounds. Having informed the Government of India
that I would remove all obstructions raised against them
by subordinate officers, and that 1 was determined they
should be assisted and supported in doing what they thought
right in the prosecution of principles of clemency, I was
determined they should know—the governors as well as the
governed—that the Cabinet were resolved to enforce that
system of clemency, be the person who he might who
acted iu opposition to the principles thus laid down.
I felt and I still feel that letter is a message of peace to the
people of India ; I hold that it lays down principles which,
if not so lard down, never would have been generally
adopted throughout that country; I know that it will offer
conciliation to those who dread retribution—that it will
compel all in office to act in the spirit of the Government
by which that letter was sent out, and, therefore, for the
public' peace, I desired thvt that letter should go forth.
(Hear.) Hut I take to myself the whole responsibility of
having given publicity to the letter. I know it was right to
do so, and I did it at once. I might very properly, no doubt,
have taken the letter to the Cabinet, and in the Cabinet
have asked the opinions of my colleagues before deciding
to make it public. That might have been the rightcourse,
but that course I did not adopt; and, therefore, to &CM'S
my colleagues of any misconduct with respect to the publi-
cation of that letter is to raise a constitutional fiction. I
am responsible, and let me alone bear whatever censure
may be attributed to the act of publication. I thought
this explanation to be due to my noble colleagues in this
House, and to my right hon. friends in the other House of
Parliament; but now I have to consider, under these cie-
cumstances, what is my duty not only to my colleagues,
bat to the people of India. I have served the people of India
as much out of office as in office for nearly thirty years.
The most earnest endeavours of my public life have been
used with a view to their benefit, and I will not do any act
towards the close of that public life which by possibility
might injure their interest. This question will be dif-
ferently construed in this country and in India. Here
it is a question between one party and another. (Cheers.)
Here it is more a question whether my noble friend near
me should remain in office, or whether we should submit
to that to which we have an intuitive dislike—the restora-
tion. (Hear, hear.) This is the real practical question
to be brought under the consideration of this and the other
House of Parliament. (Cheers.) The question in India
is a very different question. The question there will be
understood to be the conflicting principles of confiscation
and clemency—(Hear, hear)—and I feel satisfied that,
according as the decision of this and the other House of
Parliament may appear to incline to one or the other of
these principles, there will be broadcast throughout India
the seeds of perpetual war, or hopes will be given to the
people of India and of England—the hopes of permanent
reconciliation and peace. (Hear, hear.) I know well that,
be the public importance of a question what it may, and
no matter how great may be the interests involved in it,
personal considerations but too much sway the decisions
of both Houses of Parliament. I have determined, there-
fore, to remove those personal considerations. lam re-
solved that this question shall be considered on its merits;
and, determining to do everything I can to the last moment
of my life for the benefit and peace of India, I have
tendered to her Majesty my resignation, and it has been
accepted.

Earl GREY said :
The question whether it was proper or not to publish the
despatch which the noble earl sent out to India will come
regularly before the house on a subsequent day, and it
would be inconvenient fin• me now to anticipate the discus-
sion which will then arise ; but I must protest against the
fairness of discussing at this morrent the question whether
the proclamation of Lord Cantiing was right or wrong. and
I protest against it going out to the country that it is a
question between coufitseation and clemency. I deny
that that is an ai curate vt rbiun of Lord Canning's pro-
clamation; bu: 1 hill put be dr,e,;ged into a course