The Press.
London, England, 1858-09-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 4, 1858.

858

of the unfortunate. We will that England still be the
sacred shrine of liberty in the western sea. We will not
abandon that glorious prerogative at the voice of any
foreign► sovereign or potentate." Gentlemen, of the many
votes that I gave in the last sessicn of Parliament there
is none of which I am more proud, none which I more
rejoice to own before you than the one which I gave on
the first division on the Conspiracy to Murder Bill.
There were, as you will probably recollect, two divisions
upon that bill, and on the second 209 members went
down to the house and hurled the Palmerston Govern-
ment from power. But three weeks before there was
another division, when a small body of ninety-nine walked
into the lobby to protest against the introduction of that
bill. Now, I might have been satisfied if I had only been
one of the 299, and I might have been glad of the solid
results. 1 trust, however, that I have sufficient under-
standing of the meaning of things to have been enabled to
have reconciled first to myself and then to my friends how
it was that, being one of the 209 who voted against the
second reading of that bill, I was not one of the ninety-
nine who opposed its introduction. That would have been
the case if I had only been in the majority on the second
division ; but I was also in the minority on the first
division, and, more than that, I was one of those who stood
up in the house and entered a protest against that un•
patriotic and most nefarious measure. I did not merely
vote against it because I saw that the consequence of that
vote would be the defeat of the Ministry, but I raised my
voice against the bill when the prospect of turning out the
Government seemed utterly hopeless, and when all I could
do by giving that vote was to raise one voice to Heaven for
our old laws, our old constitution, and the maintenance of
the old spirit of freedom in true and honest England. In
giving that vote, did I give a vote for bloodshed, for rapine,
fur war? Phi I move a finger towards breaking the
al.iance with ttur next neighbour—an alliance which all
who value the peace of the world and the prosperity of
empires hold most dear? I deny that I did, and I assert
that if any men more than the rest in the land came
forward to strengthen and support the French alliance, it
was those ninety nine men who in the British House of
Commons said " no" to the first reading of the Conspiracy
to Murder Bill. I make this assertion because I sin
deeply convinced that that alliance is not one which rests
on dynasties, or which depends upon the breath of colonels
of regiments looking for favour and promotion. It is an
alliance which is based upon the solid convictions of a great
and glorious nation. In the path of peace, in the path of
liberty, in the path of mutual confi.lence, in the path of
commercial intercourse, lies the true way to love and
friendship. If we had passed that Conspiracy to Murder
Bill we might have pleased the present Government of
France, but we should not have pleased the great French
nation —that great French nation which has so often
changed its form of government and shifted its rulers. No
good neighbours ought to interfere with the internal
concerns of another country; it is for them to decide what
firm of government they choose to accept ; and so long as
the French nation likes to keep the house of Bonaparte
upon the throne it is our duty to keep good friends with
Louis Napoleon, not because he is on the throne, but
because he represents the French nation. We are not at
peace with the French nation because it is ruled by a
Bonaparte, and that is the great distinction we ought to
draw. In rejecting the Conspiracy to Murder Bill we did
not interfere with the gteat commercial French nation or
the great commercial middle classes of France. Things
may have been done, and no doubt were done, which were
displeasing to the rulers of France ; but, after those events
had occurred, all that we did was to make a grave protest in
the sacred cause of liberty by declaring that on the
shores of the Atlantic, with England and the United
States and our colonies all speaking the same lan-
guage, all governed by free institutions, no state of things
amid be endured in which the right of asylum was
not maintained in its true and proper position.
I am sure, if the present dynasty of France does get con.
solidated on the throne, it must sooner or later come to
this condition, and govern consti►utionally, and the first
great impulse to that will have been given by that faithful
and energetic action of the British Parliament which in
one moment vindicated the honour of the people, and at
one blow hurled Lord Palmerston and his Ministry pro.
strate to the ground. This brings me to a great fact which
has been present to the thoughts and almost to the eyes
of every one who now hears me. What I say with respect
t r Cherbourg is, let it be a lesson to us to mind our own
affairs. A nation, doubtless, has a right to build dockyards
and forts at its pleasure, and to cast heavier cannon than
it ever before possessed. But what are these forts erected
for? What are the cannon pointed at? Why do we see
these great excavations, those enormous works, recalling
to our minds, as their ruler proudly remarked, the mar-
vels of Egypt? Why do we see those forts bristling with
1,000 pieces of ordnance? The answer is plain. They
are placed there to maintain the supremacy of the county
which has erected them. It is for us to say whether that
supremacy shall be offensive or defensive. The do ekyard
of Cherbourg points towards England—the cannon look
across the Channel. We are told that France is our best
and truest ally. I do not deny it. I will gladly admit the
fact in the face of and in spite of Cherbourg; but if Cher-
bourg is to be to us no moron for doubting France, still
less should it lie a reason t t France fur doubting England
if, in consequence of Cherbourg. we augment our national
defences, and pot Portsmouth, Plymouth, Milford Haven,
a„,l above all the island of Alderney, in a proper condition
to resist any hostile movement on the part of a foreign
nation. It would he well to put those places in a proper
position of defence, but far better would it be than fora.
tying Portsmouth, Plymouth, or Alderney, if we were to
send out into the Channel, bold, erect, sturdy, uncliallenge-
able and majestic, those mighty symbols of our great
nation, the wooden walls of our land. Cherbourg has been
made, the Queen has been received with peace and honour,
and tiod be praised for it; but let us, as tits results of what

we have seen, send our workmen swarming into the dock-
yards ; let the axe and the hammer ring, let the rigging be
spun, let the sailcloth be woven, let the number of our
men be doubled, trebled, and even quadrupled from the
merchant service to man the yards of these ships, and let
us be in a condition to show these Frenchmen that we
are as well prepared to meet all exigencies as they can be,
and that it is determined ever to maintain its well-earned
appellation of glorious old England, the home of the
brave and the free. This is what I have to tell you
about France, and I now come to another subject which
has occupied very much of our time during the last session
of Parliament—l mean the affairs of India. Mr. Lawrence
has most kindly alluded to a speech which I made on the
Ellenborough despatch, and has given me credit for the
spirit in which it was delivered. I recollect very well I
said that 1 never had such pain and difficulty in making up
my mind as I had upou that occasion, because I thought
both sides were very much in the wrong, and I am
glad to think that the independent course which I
then took, so far from lowering me, has tended
rather to raise me in your estimation. Hut to
throw aside the whole qnestion of the Canning pro-
clamation, with the rejoinder, and to coins to the general
question of India—we have had three India Bills, and
heaven knows how many resolutions. The debates upon
those bills and the resolutions were, I believe, almost as
numerous as are the people here to-night. We had one
thing one day, another thing another, and heaven knows
what the day after. Now, what is the line I have taken?
It may not be one in accordance with the popular feeling,
but i am satisfied it is a wise one, because Parliament has,
after all these debates upon propositions which were varied
almost every day, come as near to it as its honour and con-
sistency would allow it to do. That line was to stand up and
by my vote—for I did not think, seeing so many mouths
open, that I ought to add much to the gabble of tongues on
Mr. Cardwell's motion itself—to endeavour to keep things
as much as possible in the same condition hi which they
were. i saw that great old Company, which, whatever
might he its faults, had splendidly and nobly administered
the affairs of India for many years—that Company, which
had consolidated civilization and paved the way for the
introduction of Christianity, and which had raised a mighty
empire in the East mainly by the exertions of the middle
classes of this country. 1 saw that great old Company
attacked in what I conceived to be a must unfair manner.
I certainly do not think it very fair, when a man is falling,
to give him a push down bill ; but that seemed to me to be
the way in which Parliament attacked the East India Com-
pany when in its difficulties, and when it was fighting its
way and straining every nerve and muscle to save India to
England. It was a manoeuvre originally got up for the
sake of tiding over a session and avoiding a reform bill. If
a Minister had been permitted for such an object to have
abolished the East India' Company, it might have consoli-
dated the rebellion in India by making those superstitious
and rebellious sepoys imagine that they had right on their
aide. When I saw this I was determined to do all I could
to support the East India Company, and, when that was
hopeless, to keep things as nearly in their old state as I
could ; and in this 1 triumphed. The night before the
division on the Conspiracy to Murder Bill there was a
motion by Mr. Baring to postpone legislation on India.
Lord Palmerston had a majority of 143, which seemed to
strike the Company to the ground. But then came the
change of the Cabinet, and afterwards Mr. Disraeli's bill
upon the top of Lord Palmerston's, and that did not seem
to go down very well either. Before the time came for its
second reading Lord J. Russell's suggestion of proceeding
by resolutions on which to found a bill was agr.q-d to, and
then in discussing these resolutions we got into such a
tangle that it does not seem to me that Solomon himself
would have been able to set us right. At length up jumps
a private member and proposes at one fell swoop to undo
half the change, and to appoint an Indian Council, which
shall be as like the East India Company as two eggs are
like each other. Ministers and the Opposition alike get
up and embrace the same scheme, the bill is postponed for
the time, and eventually the suggestion is embodied and
incorporated in the bill, and so it is passed. The East
India Company line been struck to the ground, but in its
place there is a Council and a Minister: many of the fea-
turesof the government by the Company are retained, and
the majority of the persona appointed to form the new
Council of India are taken from the Court of Directors.
That is the history of the great change in the goverment
of India. I hope it will prove successful, and that through
the noble exertions of Havelock, Nicbolson, the Lawrences,
and Mr. Frere, in another year the Indian difficulty will
take its place among the records of the past.
After a few remarks upon the Galway Disfranchise-
ment Bill, the hon. gentleman concluded as follows :
In this country people have found out that there ere
many points on which differences of opinion must neces-
sarily exist, and that there are many questions about which
they have fought for many a long day, and after all the dif-
ference between them has been but the shadow of a shade.
We have seen in public life divisions of party opening out
and healing up every day, but 1 think we have seen the
last of the days when those differences of opinion lead to
bitterness and strife, because people are more and more
willing to believe that those who oilier from them honestly
in opinion are like themselves animated by a sincere
desire for the progress and welfare of the country in which
we all have a stake. We have seen much iii this town (het
links us together in one common view, and I am happy to
think that the people of Maidstone show themselves so
alive to the success of a cause in which they are so much
interested. Such are the feelings with which I have been
more and more touched on each occasion when I have had
the honour and the happiueas of meeting you, and it now
only remains to me to thank you for the most kind recep-
tion you have this day given me, and for the patience with
which you have listened to this exposition of my political
Connie,

Mr. JOT, in a brief complimentary speech, plovcoied
the health of Major Scott, which was received •itp
loud cheering.
Major SCOTT, M.P., thanked them for the kindness
they had manifested. As long as the people of Maid.
stone wanted a true Conservative to join Mr. Hope in
the representation of the borough, although he was
quite aware that there was no paucity of better ram
he should feel most proud and delighted to fill that
responsible but honourable position.
The CHAIRMAN then gave the health of the Earl of
Romney, which was drunk with enthusiasm, and the
party adjourned to the spacious grounds of the park,
where dancing, old English games, and other spoils
were kept up until half-past nine o'clock, when a dis•
play of fireworks took place, and the chairmar, and
honourable members returned to Maidstone by
torchlight procession.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.
ON Monday last a Special General Court of the East
India Company was for the last time held in their
house in Leadenhall street, for the purpose of sub•
mitting for the confirmation of the proprietors the
resolution passed by the general court on the 25th
ult., granting an annuity of 2,000 t. to Sir John Laird
Mair Lawrence, G.C.B.

The Secretary having read the resolution, the
CHAIRMAN moved that it be confirmed.

Captain EASTWICK (the Deputy-Chairman) se-
conded the motion, which was supported by Mr.
ARBUTHNOT, who eulogized the past government et
India by the Company, and paid a special compli-
ment to Colonel Sykes, whose name he regretted to
see absent from the list of the new Council.

Mr. JONES, as before, oppoed the resolution..

After some further remarks from Messrs. Lewin
and Cook, and Colonel Sykes himself, the resolution
was put and agreed to, with only two dissentients.
The CHAIRMAN said the court had been made far-
ther special tor the purpose of laying before the pro-
prietors the opinions of counsel upon certain points
submitted for their consideration by the Committee

of Proprietors appointed by the General Court on the
II th uit. The opinions had been sent iu that morn-
ing. They had been placed in the hands of Mr.
Crawshay, the chairman of the committee, who wculd
proceed to make any remarks he might think proper
upon them.
Mr. CRAASITAY suggested that the opinions should
be read.
The Secretary then read the following opinions of
counsel

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY A COMMITTEE OF PROPRIETORS Of
EAST INDIA STOCK FOIL THE CONSIDERATION OF DM
ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL, SIR R. BETHELL,
AND MR. WIORAM, WITH THE OPINION GIVEN THEREON.
Question I.—Supposing that the Company under the
13th sec. of the Act of the 3rd and 4th of William IV.,
cap. 85, should give notice for the redemption of
dividend, is Parliament bound to redeem the dividend,
the rate therein mentioned, out of the Imperial revenues,
without any reference to the sufficiency of the lodise
revenues?
Answer I.—We are of opinion that the 13th sec. of the
3rd and 4th of William IV., cap. 8.5, constitutes a Parlia-
mentary contract with the East India Company, and that
should the East India Company demand the redemption'
its dividend under that section, Parliament would b
bound to make provision for its redemption, without
reference to the sufficiency of the Indian revenues.
Q. 2.—Assuming that the Company does not lire the
notice provided for in sec. 13 within one year from us
being deprived of the possession and government of the
British territories in India, does the Company lose ar
such claim to compel redemption of its dividend by Pali
ment out of the Imperial revenues, without any reterence,
the sufficiency of the Indian revenues?
Q. 3.—Assuming, further, that the Company does not
give the required notice within the year, will the Compeni
entirely forfeit its right to demand redemption, whether
out of the Imperial revenues or out of the revenues
India alone?
A. 2 and 3.—We are of opinion that if the Como!
does not, under sec. 13 of the 3rd and 4th of Willis:ell
cap. 85, demand the redemption of its dividend within one
year from its being deprived of the possession and gove'
ment of the territories of India it will forfeit its right tit
demand redemption of the dividend, and the divideed
will
become irredeemable until 1874, and then will be mkt,
able only at the option of Parliament.
had to the pa`Q. 4.—Can the Security Fund be app
ment of dividend or to any other purpose without tie,
requisition of the Court of Directors of the Can
c ino'
1:
according to the 3rd and 4th of William IV., esp.
A. 4.—We are of opinion that under the conjoilit eil,,
of the 3rd and 4th of William IV., cap. +.45, sec- 15,
21st and 22nd of Victoria, cap. see. 73, the Salmi
Fund can, upon requisition by the Court of Directors,
applied to make good any deficiency in remittances fo
tor
I
payment of dividends, but that it cannot be applied ,
payment of dividends without such requisition. We el
se.
think that upon " redemption" of the dividend, the Secure.
Fund will be available, and may be applied to Lundrp
of snch redemption ; but while the Security F Haunter
twelve millions there is not, in our opinion, any purpose
other than the foregoing to which any part of the fund
be applied.