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

496

moment of emergency—that he is wantiug in moral
courage. It is palpable to every one, and has been
decided by this house and endorsed by the country, and
I will venture to say that the Government of Lord Derby
is infinitely more Liberal in action than was that of the
noble lord. There were not many questions left as legacies
to the present Government by their predecessors. There
was no Reform Bill. There were, it is true, some loose
observations about an India Bill, in which that great sub-
ject had been treated like a medical reform or turnpike
trust bill; and I think the only two legacies were the
Cagliari question and the Conspiracy Bill. Well, sir, Lord
Derby's Government repudiated the Conspiracy Bill ; and,
more than that, without hesitation they obtained the re-
lease of our two suffering countrymen, and demanded an
indemnity which they will probably succeed in obtaining.
I must uy that I think—and I believe my opinion is in
accordance with the general feeling out of doors—that
the Government of the noble earl is entitled to the grafi.
tude of the public for the zeal, spirit, and determination
with which they grappled with that important question.
The hon. baronet concluded by calling on the
Liberal party to give their support to the Govern-

mint.
Sir G. C. LEWIS
The hon. baronet has exhorted those gentlemen now
present to treat this important question like statesmen,
and I wish that he had rennered that precept more forcible
by his example. Nothing can be more remote from the
truth than the allegation that the motion before the house
is a hypocritical production for the purpose of raising a
party issue. Nothing cad be more remote from the truth
than the assertion that this question has not been forced
upon the Opposition, and forced upon them in such a
manner that it would have been impossible for them to
have passed it over without a dereliction of duty. If
gentlemen upon this side of the house had since the
change of Government been in search of a question upon
which to hang a party motion, or to take a party division,
we might have found one not merely upon this India
question, but upon many points connected with the h-gis-
lative measure with regard to India which has been pro-
Ceeby the Government We have shown no such wish,
tthe question has been tirlist upon us, and I repeat, in
the most deliberate manner, that we are actuated by no
party motive, and that it would have been an infraction
of duty on our part if we had failed to ask the House of
Commons to express an opinion upon the resolution now
before as.
The hon. baronet then reviewed the policy of an-
nexing Oude from its inception, and then examined
the proclamation, and the meaning of the term
"confiscation " in that document, upon which so
much stress had been laid. What he understood by
it was, he said, not actual, but threatened confisca-
tion. According to the fairest and most reasonable
construction, what Lord Canning intended was, in
case of rebellion, where the territory had belonged
to the Crown and the East India Company, to declare
as a penalty that the proprietary right should be
forfbited to the British Government. It never could
have been his intention to dispossess the entire
population of Oude, and turn them adrift, which
was contrary to modern policy, and the Government
before assuming anything so improbable ought, he
contended, to have waited for explanation. If after
the despatch was officially brought to the knowledge
of the house it took no step, but silently acquiesced
in the writing and despatching such an instrument,
it would share in the responsibility of the Govern-
ment, and become an accomplice in their acts.
Mr. WHITESIDE began by noticing the inconsis-
tency shown by the supporters of a resolution which
declared that the house abstained from giving an
opinion upon the policy of the proclamation in de-
fending its policy and asserting that that was the
true question before the house and the foundation of
the whole discussion. He observed that, although
the publication of the opinion of the Government
on the subject of the policy contained in the pro-
clamation 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 Govern.
went- How, he asked, could they, after this, turn
round and censure the present Government? He
then commented upon the want of explanation of
the proclamation, and upon the " private letter,"
which was still not forthcoming, suggesting, as no
explanation had yet been received from Lord Can-
ning, that there might have been some other private
letter, withheld as the other had been, the informa-
tion in which would have afforded a material guide
to Lord Ellenborough. Referring to the proclama-
tion, which he termed an awful one, he contrasted
its policy with similar documents promulgated by
the Marquis of Wellesley and the Marquis of
Dalhousie, and challenged the production of any
proclamation issued by the British Government in
which private property was not respected. The
meaning of the proclamation was disputed; but the
question was what the document, when submitted to
die Government, could be fairly understood to mean ;
• and he contended that this monstrous proclamation
eibilld only be understood to be fitlrmnattql not only
ligeinst large landholders, but holders of small pro.
=4,41,88 martial as well as agricultural. US
iSc# 91,1444 VAealwrouSt . .