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

THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858.

LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE INDIAN DESPATCH.

The Earl ofSHAFTESBURY moved the series of
resolutions of which he had given notice, censuring
the Government for their late despatch to Lord Can-
ning. The noble lord at great length contended,
first, that the despatch in question was censurable;
and secondly, that the whole Cabinet were respon-
sible for its production. He denied that the procla•
oration issued by the Governor• General deserved to

be characterized as a general confiscation. By Lord
Canning himself, as appeared from the letters of Mr.
Edmonstona, the manifesto was considered an
announcement of pardon and amnesty. Yet this was
the act which the Home Government had chosen to
visit with a summary censure, before they had even
received official information of its completion, or any
explanation regarding its intention. Before their
despatch reached India, the peaceable administra-
tion of Oude was a problem of enormous difficulty
but it would now become impossible.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH declared that the
manifesto of Lord Canning contained a violent and
naked confiscation of all proprietary rights in Oude .
He believed that it would stimulate a general con-
flagration of revolt in that province, and had con-
sidered it his duty to send out an antidote at the
earliest possible moment. His despatch, it had been
said, would weaken the hands of the Governor-
General. He was convinoed that it would only
weaken his power for evil, and strengthen him for
everything good. The proclamation was not, in his
opinion, the real act of Lprd Canning, who had, he
believed, surrendered himself to evil counsellors.
Remarking upon the serious perils, the exhausting
efforts, and enormous expenditure which a prolonged
war in India must occasion, he exhorted the house
to avoid by every possible means embarking into a
social war in that country, which would inevitably
prove most disastrous, and in which it was impossible
for England to be ultimately successful.
The Duke of ARGYLL, after eulogizing the conduct
of Lord Canning, charged the Government with
having acted hastily, unjustly, and ungenerously in
censuring his Oude proclamation.
Lord CARNARVON opposed the resolution, and de-
fended the policy of the Administration.

The Duke of SOMERSET supported the motion.
The Lord CHANCELLOR argued, with regard to the
publication of the despatch, that as Lord Ellen-
borough had assumed the entire responsibility of
that step, the Cabinet generally cook; not be made
liable for it. On the merits of the case be contended
that a proclamation announcing a sweeping and
wholesale confiscation in Oude had been justly
rebuked by the Home Government.
Earl GREY, though declaring his unwillingness to
effect any change of Government, supported the
motion. He disapproved of the publication of the
despatch, and observed that the Administration
would not free themselves from responsibility by the
resignation of Lord Ellenborough, since they had
themselves approved and adopted his proceedings.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE was also reluctant to dis-
place the Ministry, but felt compelled, nevertheless,
to vote for Lord Shaftesbury's resolutions.
The Earl of DERBY concurred in the eulogies
passed upon Lord Canning, whose only objectionable
step had been the issue of an ill judged and ill-timed
proclamation. The question was divided into
two branches—the despatch itself, and the pub:
lication of that despatch in England. On the
latter point he would offer no defence ; it was an
injudicious step, and he regretted it. But respecting
the despatch, he fully adopted and approved the
views taken by Lord Ellenborough in reference to
the Oude proclamation, and thought that the
Government were bound to send out word that they
could not concur in the sweeping confiscation
announced towards the population of a province
which was now at our mercy. He remarked upon
the wholesale character of this confiscation, contend•
ing that it would excite extreme alarm and resent-
ment throughout Oude. When the document reached
the Home Government they thought that no time
should be lost in signifying to Lord Canning their
disapproval of its tenor. If they had received any
explanation or any private intimation that such ex-
planation were coming they might not perhaps have
abstained from sending a despatch, but they should
certainly have materially modified its expressions.
That intimation had indeed arrived in England, but
was never allowed to reach her Majesty's Ministers.
Acting, therefore, simply upon the proclamation as
it stood, they had found cause for serious censure,
in which opinion they were borne out by many of the
highest authorities on Indian subjects. Respecting
the publication of the despatch, Lord Derby ob-
served that the document was intended to remain
on record among the Indian archives ; but be re-
peated his regret that it should have been promul-
gated in England. He maintained, however, that
nothing bad been done by the Cabinet generally which
involved them in liability for an act of which Lord
Ellenborough had declared himself solely responsible.

---
Earl GRANTruz, with copious references to dates
and details, attached blame to the Uovernment for
their conduct towards Lord Canning as well as on
account of the inopportune publication of their
despatch in England.
Their lordships then divided on the " previous
question "
Contents—

Present 93
Proxies ...
--Non. Contents-

Present
Proxies

Majority
Their lordships adjourned at one o'clock.