The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 22, lB5B.

The propriety of withdrawing or postponing the
motion was, however, further urged by Mr. Drum-
mond, Mr. T. Duncombe, Sir D. Norreys, and many
other members. After a very confused and pro-
longed discussion,

Lord PALMERSTON said that the motion had been
originally introduced under the idea that a very pre-
judicial effect would be produced in India by the
publication of the Government despatch to Lon(
Canning. The letters just received had, however,
considerably changed the aspect of the question.
The Oude proclamation was now shown not to de-
serve the character of a general confiscation, and, as
the discussions that had taken place would, as he
hoped, remove the damaging consequence of the
despatch, he was willing to advise the right hon.
member for Oxford to bow before the manifest feel-
ing of the house, and withdraw his resolution.
Mr. CARDWELL expressed his consent to that pro-
ceeding, provided it was sanctioned by the unani-
mous approval of the house.

Mr. GLADSTONB rejoiced in a result which, he ob-
served, sacrificed party objects for the general in-
terest. He proceeded to remark upon Lord Can-
ning's proclamation, acknowledging that from all
the antecedents of that nobleman's career the mani-
festo should be interpreted according to the best
construction. He trusted that the Government
would still fulfil their promise to express their
approval of the general policy pursued by the Go-
vernor-General of India.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that the motion had been introduced and supported
in the guise of a vote of censure on the Government.
If he now consented to its withdrawal it was not be-
cause they shrunk from the question thus raised.
That issue they were always prepared to meet. But
higher interests were now at stake. The Adminis-
tration, he submitted, was entitled to look back with
pride and satisfaction to the recent debate, in which
their policy had been so ably defended, not only by
members of their own party, but chiefly by advocates
who had given them an independent and most effi-
cient support. He had at first regarded with some
apprehension the effect which the result of a debate
and division growing out of a mere factious fight in
that house might have produced in India. That
narrow boundary had, however, been broken through.
The house had from the beginning treated the sub-
ject with a due sense of its importance, and for his
own part he was convinced that no result could be
more accordant with the public interest than that the
discussion should close without a division. Advert-
ing to the conduct pursued towards the Governor-
General, he declared that the present Administra-
tion had given Lord Canning their cordial support.
Even the despatch so much criticized, and which, be
observed, had been intended to be a secret despatch,
presented no exception to the rule. He proceeded
to defend the conduct of the Government towards
the Governor-General, stating that since the pending
discussion had been threatened they had transmitted
by telegraph to Lord Canning an assurance that
under any circumstances he might rely on their
sincere confidence. Adverting to the course he had
himself recommended since the first commencement
of the rebellion in India, the right hon. gentleman
maintained that himself and the party with which he
acted had throughout consistently advocated a policy
of discriminative amnesty.

Lord J. RUSSELL, after some remarks in defence
of Lord Canning, ccnsented to the withdrawal of the
resolution, with all its dependent amendments. He
rejoiced to hear that the Ministry had given the
Governor-General their unfailing trust and support.
Mr. Baum r was glad that the debate had thus
terminated, but hoped that the events to which it
had given rise would prove a useful lesson to the
occupants of the ex-Ministerial bench. He depre-
cated the conversion of great public questions into
the means of furthering the interests of a small clique
declaring tbat tf a division had been forced, a hun-
dred independent Liberals would have joined in the
vote against the resolution.

After some further discussion the motion for ad-
journing to Friday next was agreed to.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate
on Mr. Cardwell's resolution being afterwards moved,
the motion was withdrawn amidst loud cheering from
the Ministerial benches.

The Confirmation of Executors Bill was read a
second time.

The Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill
was also read a second time.
The Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill passed
through committee, es did the Oxford and Cambridge
Universities and Estates Bill.
The house adjourned at eight o'clock until Friday
text.