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

THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858.

so unfair towards Lord Canning as to discuss the
grounds on which he issued the proclamation and the
policy and justice of it, when we are still totally ignorant
of the reasons which he himself is prepared to assign for
the issue of the proclamation. It is this, and
this only, I wish to impress on your lordships, namely,
that we are bound to reserve our judgment altogether on
the question of the proclamation. As far as I can at
present judge, I might be inclined to disapprove the pro-
clamation, but I know that men, far more intimately ac-
quainted than I am with the state of India, believe the
proclamation, even with the present information they pos-
sess respecting it, to be right. That being the
case, it is fair for us, on the commonest principles of
justice, to suspend our judgment till we know Lord Can-
ning's reasons for it. I only wish to add one
word more. I cannot help thinking that a great deal more
is made of the non communication by Mr. V. Smith of a
private letter than it deserves. Because, what really
is the fact? My right hon. friend received a letter
announcing that the Governor-General had not had time
to write an explanation on the subject of his proclamation.
Mr.V. Smith did not know that proclamation or its impor-
tance; and, though it is greatly to be regretted that he did
not communicate the letter to the Government, yet it was
quite natural that he should not have done so, and in point
of fact the Government would have learned nothing from
its communication but what they ought to have known
without. The Government received the draught
of an intended proclamation, but they bad not re-
ceived the proclamation as issued. Now, we know that
the most important State papers frequently undergo alter-
ation between the time of their preparation and issue.
We also know that the proper occasion for sending
a fall explanation of the views of the Indian Govern-
ment in issuing so important a document is when
they transmitted to England the proclamation as issued
and informed the Home Government that it had been
issued. Until the Home Government received a despatch
informing them that the proclamation had been actually
issued, I say that, in the absenae of any private letter, we
are bound to presume that in due time some explanation
will arrive. Therefore, in point of fact, the non-communi-
cation of the private letter which had been referred to left
the Government in ignorance of nothing which they were
not bound to know without seeing that private letter.
The Earl of DEBBY :
I will not enter into any discussion of the merits of the
proclamation as drawn up in the first instance, or as sub-
sequently published ; but I must say, in answer to the
statement that the Government were hound, after receiving
the proclamation as intended to be issued, to wait before
making any explanation of their opinions until it was
actually received as published, that I altogether dissent
from that doctrine.

Earl GREY :
I never male any stateraent that Government might
not express their opinions, but I uid that they had a right
to anticipate that an explanation of the circumstances
under which the proclamation was published was on its
way and would in due time be received by them.

The Earl of DERBY :

The fault which, I apprehend, is found with the Govern.
ment is that, on receiving the proclamation intended to be
published, they expressed in a seoret letter to the Govenor-
General their disapproval of it; and, without intending to
discuss the proclamation, I must say rat the Government
were undoubtedly of opinion that the issue of a proclama•
Lion in which confiscation was made the general rule
would produce the most dangerous consequences, driving
many to despair and inducing others to combine.
Earl GRANVILLE rose to order:—
When the noble earl rose, after the important declaration
made by his noble colleague, I thought he was going to
give some explanation of a personal character, which I am
sure your lordships would have listened to with attention ;
but when the noble earl proceeds to discuss a matter which
we have already said we do not intend to argue at this
time, and to make a speech applicable to a motion which
is to come on towards the end of the week, I have a right
to say that the noble earl is not is order, especially as he
has already spoken.
The Marquis of SALISBURY rose to move the ad-
journment of the house, in order to allow the Earl of
DERBY to address their lordships.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, he would save
the necessity for a motion of adjournment by moving
that the order of the day for the second reading of
the Chief Justice of Bombay Bill be discharged.
The Earl of DERBY then proceeded. He said :
I certainly was anxious, after the statement made by my
noble friend, to take an opportunity of expressing the co-
incidence of my concurrence, as far as I could concur with
him, in the course he has adopted, and of explaining that
point on which I am unable wholly to agree with him. I
wish also to bear testimony to the manly and generous
manner in which my noble friend—if he has committed
any indiscretion—has more than atoned for that indiscre-
tion, and done himself infinite honour. (Cheers.) I was
proceeding to answer some observations which had been
made on the other side I thought it was made a matter
of complaint against us that, without waiting for explana-
tions from the Governor-General, we hastened to express
our disapproval of the proclamation about to be issued. I
say that if we did disapprove, as was certainly the case,
the tenor of that proclamation, and feared the effect it
would have upon the population of India, it was our
bounden duty not to lose a single mail in expressing to '
the Governor-General our apprehensions as to the conse-
quences which might ensue. ( Hear, hear.) Such was
the object of the despatch sent out by my noble friend the
President of the Council on the 2tith of April, and I still
think it is deeply to be regretted that between the 19th and

out
oudt on the
the 26th my noble friend was not informed that
lions of the intended proclamation might
arrive by an early mad. (Hear, hut expectedyour lord.
ships must bear io mind that the despatch sent
26th was intended to be, and was, a secret
( Hear, hear.) It communicated our appreh • "Patch'
Goveruor-General, and we hoped it would ebe risi
in ots to the
alter the determination to which he badcometb time to
all, it did not contain a distinct injunction to Lord Canning
after',!
to recal or revoke his proclamation. Far fromj t
simply expressed our anxious hope, that in owil4
into
effect the doctrines put forth in his proclamation "liki
findit necessary and proper to mitigate their strictness
rigour. (Hear, hear.) Although the proclamation assad we
have since received it does not go the
length which I might
desire in that sense, yet undoubtedly one paragraph,
which has been inserted since the receipt of the copy
which the despatch of my noble friend the President
of to
the
Council applied, does materially modify the terms of the
original proclamation.
The Earl of ELLNNBOBOUGH Not with respect to the
principle of confiscation.
The Earl of DERBY :
My noble friend says not with regard to confiscation
but I hope and believe it must be the intention of the'
Governor-General, although unfortunately he lays down
confiscation as a rule, to make large exceptions, for the
purpose not wily of freeing from further peuslties, but of
restoring lands and property to those who may have for.
felted them by their recent conduct. (Hear, hear.) The
despatch sent out on the 28th of April, as I said before,
Was a secret despatch. When the proclamation finally
came home and was made known by the public journals it
excited considerable attention and animadversion. My
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived
late in the house that day. A question of which no notice
had been given was immediately asked as to whether the
proclamation had been received, whether any despatch had
been written in answer to it, and whether we were pre-
pared to lay that despatch upon the table of the house.
Without any communication with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, or with any other person in either House of
Parliament, unfortunately, as I think, the Secretary to the
Board of Control rose and at once stated that a despatch
had been sent out, and would be laid on the table. Now,
I concur with my noble friend the President of the Board
of Control in thinking that sooner or later it was india
pensable that that despatch should be published. Qw3e•
tions must have been asked as to whether such a de.
spatch was sent and whether we approved the policy in-
dicated in the proclamation ; and if the subject had given
rise to discussions we should have been expected to show
the terms in which we had written to the Governor-General.
But I regret that that premature announcement should
have been made. (Hear, hear.) I expressed my regret
on the following day, and I recollect that upon that occa-
sion a noble earl opposite drew attention to the fact that,
instead of defending the publication of the despatch, I
confined my observations to the policy expressed in it.
( Hear, hear.) That is perfectly true. 1 felt then, as I
feel now, that that hasty and immediate announcement
that the Government were prepared to publish the despatch
—an announcement made without communication with
any member of the Government—was an act of impru-
dence, and that the results of the publication of the de-
svatadi would be unfortunate. I was of that opinion then ;
am of that opinion now ; and my noble friend near me,
with that candour, frankness, and honesty which so
eminently upon all occasions charsoterize his conduct,
*owes forward and states that that act was his and his
alone, and that he and he only ought to be responsible for
the consequences. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing, my
lords, so painful to my feeliugs as the possibility of being
suspected for any purposes of sacrificing a colleague, and
I know not that I have ever in my life felt deeper pain
than. when I received from my noble friend, not a tender
of his resignation, but a copy of a letter in which he bad
already submitted his resignation to her Majesty. I was
bound to consider not private and personal feelings
only, but what was due to the great interests of the
country. I was bound to consider whether it was de-
sirable that the Government should stake their e 1
istence as a Government upon their liability fur an act
of which they were not in the slightest degree cognizant—
whether they should take upon themselves the defence of
that which they felt they could not wholly defend, or
whether they should accept the noble self-sacrifice of my
noble friend, and thereby through his generosity allow his
colleagues to have justice done to them. The conclusion
to which I carne,—and I never felt greater psi° than when
arrived at that determination,—was that, in justice to the
public interests, it was my bounden duty to accept the self•
sacrifice of my noble friend; and, painful as I felt it to be
to sepaiate from one for whom personally I entertain the
highest respect, whose knowledge of Indian subjects,
whose lone experience, whose devotedness to the osuse of
India, and whose entire abnegation of all selfish feelings
for the promotion of the public welfare render him AA
invaluable councillor on Indian affeirs—( cheers )—and
whose withdrawal could not but be regarded as a great loss
to the Cabinet of her Majesty, I yet feel bound by stito
stronger considerations, though with the deepest pillar.
concur iu the suggestion of my noble friend that his resig
nation should be received. (Hear, hear.) I have now
all the observations which I think it necessary to
address to your lordships upon the present occasion. f
will admit to the noble earl opposite that this is not the
time to discuss the policy of the proclamation of Lord_
Canning, either as it was intended to be issued, wor asiti.l
may hereafter be proved to have been issued. reffref.,
him the premature publication of a document
w
think, ought not to have been so soon laid beforeb
public, though sooner or later it must have been se eiitted
to Parliament. Still, feeling myself unable to defend the
hasty promulgation of that despatch, I have been, with the
greatest reluctance, compelled to accept the resignation
I feel it due
of my noble friend near me ; but in doing so

to myself, and due to my colleagues, and due to him to
say that we separate from him as colleagues,—l trust we
shall never separate from him as frig-nds,—with the deepest
and sincerest regret for his loss, and with an earnest hope
that we may still have the benefit of his disinterested and
impartial advice in our effort to settle the great problem of
the government of India. (Cheers.)

Earl GI ANVELLE :

I shall trouble your lordships with only a few observa-
tions. I was certainly not prepared for the important
announcement made by the President of the Board of
Control in a statement which, as truly remarked by the
noble earl who has just spoken, was most honourable and
straightforward; and, however widely we may differ upon
points of policy, I cannot but feel that a large portion of
the eulogy to which your lordships have listened is well
deserved. How far the resignation of the President of the
Board of Control may affect the position of his colleagues I
am not prepared to say. My object in rising is simply to
call attention to a small matter of fact upon which some
doubt still seems to rest. The noble earl at the head of
the Government has stated that the question in the House
of Commons was asked without any notice having been
given, and that it was answered by the Secretary to the
Board of Control without previous communication with
any other member of the Government. Now, what I want
to ask is—and the fact must surely be known to the noble
earl—whether Mr. 13,tillie was really not aware that a ques.
tion would be put to him, and whether he gave his answer
without knowing the wishes of his colleagues.

The Earl of DERBY :
➢ly noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) stated distinctly
that Mr. BeiHie gave ►he answer by his authority and on
his responsibility, without the knowledge of any other
member of the Cabinet. For myself, I had not the slightest
idea that that question, or any other question upon that
subject, was going to be pat.
Earl GRANVILLE :

It has been stated that the question was put without
previous notice. Mr. Baillie must have had notice of it,
or how could he have communicated with the noble earl

upon the subject?
The Loan Societies Bill and the Chief Justice of
Bombay Bill were read a second tia.e.
A division was taken against the third reading of
the Transfer of Land Bill. There appeared for the
third reading—
Contents l3
Non•contents
Majotity for the bill —l
Their lordships then adjourned till Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY.

THE DUDE PROCLAMATION.
Mr. CARDWELL fixed his motion on the subject of
the Oude despatch for Friday, instead of Thursday.
Lord A. V. TEMPEST gave notice that be should
move, as an amendment to the resolution of which
the hon. member for Oxford had given notice for
Friday—

That this house, in its present state of information,
abstains from expressing an opinion upon the policy of
any proclamation which may have been issued by the
Governor-General of India in relation to Oude, or upon
the course pursued by the Government in reference to
each proclamation.

THE OATHS BILL.

The adjourned debate on the nomination of the
committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing to the
Lords' amendments on the Oaths Bill, on the mo-
tion that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be
one other member of the committee, was resumed by
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL, who observed that there
were two questions which. though entirely distinct,
had been mixed up together—first, the right of the
house to call upon any individual elected a member
to perform a duty, of which he had no doubt;
secondly, what would become the duty of Baron
Rothschild if nominated on the committee, which it
would be for him to consider. His opinion was that
there was nothing in the Act of Parliament or in
Parliamentary practice to preclude the house from
nominating him.
Mr. WHITBREAD could see no real distinction be-
tween voting in a committee and in the house, be-
lieving a committee to be a part of the house.
Suppose, he remarked, them should be a conference
between the two houses, Baron Rothschild might be
named one of the managers, and might be objected
to by the managers on the part of the other house.
Then, if he might be appointed on this committee,
he might be nominated on auy other committee—an
election committee, for instance—and might he
nominated chairman, and, as such, be would have
to present a report to the house. He could see
nothing,, he said, in the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll
that authorized this motion. He had no doubt that
Sit Joseph Jekyll did take the oatl s before he sat
on the committee. He urged the importance of
Preserving inviolate the rules and customs of the
house

Mr.
HEADLAM supported the motion, which was
opposed by
Mr. MAcAIILAy, who did not deny the power of
the house to nominate on a committee a member
who had not taken the oaths; but the question, he
observed, was not dryly whether the house had this
Power, but whether, knowing that Baron Rothschild