The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBIttrARY 13, 1858.

remarkably exhibited, in which individual energy had
shone with so much lustre. Indeed the glory was
quite epical. The narrative read almost like an
llomeric poem, and every scene produced a hero.
In those remarkable events there were two incidents
which, by their importance, immediately attracted our
attention, and it was curious that in these two
instances our countrymen were placed in exactly
opposite positions. In one they were besiegers, in
the other besieged ; and in both cases they achieved
a complete success—gained immortal glory. Be-
tween the siege of Delhi and that of Lucknow there
was, however, one passage which ought never to be
forgotten on an occasion like the present, and that was
the connecting link between them, the march of
Greathed—worthy, he thought, of Caesar. Mr.
Disraeli then pronounced a warm panegyric upon
the heroism displayed by all grades in India, from
the highest general to the rank and file, but he
lamented that by the introduction of Lord Canning's
name there had been imported into the motion an
element of controversy. He did think that if it had
been intended to propose a vote of thanks to Lord
Canning, due notice should have been given :

After all we have heard, I think that the friends of
Lord Canning, not to speak of his Excellency himself,
could not desire that a vote of such a kind should be sur-
reptitiously obtained. (Cheers.) I have never brought
any charge against Lord Canning, but if the noble viscount
challenges me to-night I must express my opinion, which
I am sure is not one in the least influenced by pre-
judice or passion. There are passages in the conduct of
Lord Canning which require great explanation and a vin
ii-
cation which I have not yet heard. ( Cheers.) lam not
prepared to say that a satisfactory explanation cannot be
given, or that a triumphant defence may Lot be made, but
I am prepared to say that we ought not to vote these
thanks, and Lord Canning ought not to deign to accept
them, until we have arrived at the clear conviction that
his services are entitled to our approbation. (Hear, hear.)
The noble viscount says no one expected what he persists
in calling the "mutiny "in India. It took everybody by
surprise. There are prophets after the event who explain
everything, but nobody expected anything to happen at all.
Of course that is intended as an excuse for Lord Canning,
but I am still 'of opir.ion that it is not a prima-facie proof
of excellence in a Governor-General that he should be
taken by surprise when there is an insurrection. ( Hear,
hear.) I should like to have upon that subject an explana-
tion far more satisfactory than that given by the noble
viscount. But there are passages of policy in the conduct
of the Government of India which demand the most care-
ful investigation before the house can be so unwise as to
commit itself to the approbation of measures which after-
wards it may find it its duty to impugn. We want infor•
'nation as to the negotiations that took place between the

Governor-General and the ruler of Nepaul. That is a
matter entirely left in mystery. Why were negotiations
commenced with the ruler of Nepanl to induce him to pour
troops into Oude at a particular moment? Why were they
afterwards countermanded, and why were they once more
renewed? It is possible that the friends of Lord Canning
may be able to explain his conduct in that particular, but
the subject is clearly one which requires explanation; and
before we have thoroughly investigated the facts we cannot
prudently pass a vote of thanks to his Excellency. (Hear,
hear.) I should also like to know what were the motives
which induced Lord Canning to order troops from Ran-
goon, and then to countermand them ? ( Hear, hear.) In
the conduct of the administration of India—which, I
repeat, may possibly be triumphantly explained and de-
fended—l see inconsistency and incoherency, and to ask
us to thank the Governor-General for pursuing a policy

which appears on the surface to have led to great public
disasters seems to me to be most unreasonable and im-
politic. (Cheers.) The noble viscount tells us, as one
claim for our approbation of the conduct of Lord Canning,
that his Excellency has distinguished himself by the
manner in which he has forwarded troops up the country.
No doubt the noble viscount is in possession of information
of the highest kind. He says that newspapers are not to
be trusted, and that private letters should not be attended
to. What, then, are we, who have no official despatches,
but who are obliged to get our information as we can, to
do in order to ascertain the facts? I am bound to say
that, having given the most careful attention to that sub-
ject, and endeavoured to obtain information from the most
authentic sources, I have all along been under the impres-
sion that there was a most lamentable deficiency of trans-
port at Calcutta. (Cheers.) We have heard of troops
arriving there without any preparations having been niade
for their reception. (Hear, hear.) In the month of No-
vember last we had an official telegram announcing the
arrival of troops, and at the same time confessing and
deploring that there were no means of forwarding them
up the country. (Cheers.) The charge against Lord
Canning is that he did not take those steps which were
absolutely requisite, and upon which the results of the
campaign depended, and that by that neglect we are about
to enter into that which I took the liberty at the end of
last session to warn the house was a most dangerous
course—a third campaign. ( Hear, hear.) We want to
know why Lord Canning did not send to Madras for 20,0(X)
bullocks, which might have been obtained. upon the
means of transport depended whether the hostilities in
India should be prolonged, and yet, without any inquiry
into the conduct of the Governor-General in that particular,
we are asked to agree to a vote which would prevent us
hereafter from impugning or criticising any part of his
public policy. ( Hear, hear.) I should like to have bad
a clear account, bef.)re I came to a vote of this kind, of
the motives which influenced Lord Canning to adopt the
measures which lie did with regard to suppressing the
English press. ( Hear, hear.) I am convinced myself
from information which I possess—not from writers of

anonymous letters in Calcutta papers—( Hear, hear)—that
it was an unnecessary step, and that it has entailed great
mischief on our interests. k Hear.) I do not want the
house to come to a decision upon that subject upon an
occasion like the present, though I believe it is one which
requires grave deliberation ; but I do say that it is mon.
strous to ask us of a sudden to come to a vote which pre.
eludes us front hereafter ever offering an opinion upon it,
or upon all those topics to which, without preparation, I
have referred. (Hear, hear.)

In conclusion, Mr. Disraeli suggested that the first
vote should be postponed—that fair notice should be
given, and the conduct of Lord Canning discussed ;
and this suggestion he made, he said, for the sake of
Lord Canning himself; who would not be honoured
by a smuggled vote. Upon the first vote, therefore,
including Lord Canning, Lord Harris, Lord Elphin-
stone, Sir J. Lawrence, and Mr. Ftere, he moved
the previous question.
_ _

A lengthened debate then ensued. Mr. LAM!.
CRERE contended that the motion before the house
would preclude no one from moving a vote of cen-
sure on Lord Canning. Sir J. PAKINGTON, on the
contrary, maintained that the present vote involved
approval of Lord Canning's conduct, which he thought
had been marked by " great vacillation, indecision,
and a want of statesmanlike capacity and vigour."
Mr. MANGLES and Colonel SYKES defended Lord
Canning. _ _ _

Mr. N VALPOLE regretted that the house should be
called upon to vote its thanks to Lord Canning when
there was a memorial in a manner before it im-
peaching his conduct with reference to the very
subject-matter of the vote. But looking to the con
sequences of the house refusing its assent to the
vote when brought before it, which would place the
Governor-General in a most disadvantageous position
—that of a public servant under a cloud —he would
press upon Mr. Disraeli the propriety of not per-
sisting in his motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed a hope that the house
would concur in the view of Mr. Walpole.
_

Mr. BENTINCK regretted much the introduction of
an element into the vote which would prevent the
house from coming to a unanimous decision. Under
all the circumstances, he should support the previous
question, which was opposed by
Mr. S. HERBERT, who considered that the Govern-
ment would not have been justified in excluding
from the vote Lord Canning, to whose courage,
firmness, and coolness we owed a great part of the
success which had attended the military operations
in India. He was not called upon to discuss the
general policy of Lord Canning's Government ; but
even his opponents did homage to his coolness and

Mr. KINNAIRD thought the house should have had
fuller informatiou before it was asked to agree to
this vote.

Lord C. HAMILTON considered it was unjust to
Lord Canning to place him in the position in which
the vote necessarily placed him.
Mr. DRUMMOND made a lively speech, in which he
justified the Press•gagging Act; on the ground that
the Calcutta press was given to lying.
After several other speakers had addressed the
house, among whoni was General THOMPSON, who in
a discursive speech attributed the revolt to the too
large introduction of the European element into
India, _ _

Mr. DISRAELI intimated that he would not press
his amendment to a division, and added that if the
statement which had been made that evening had
been made by the noble lord before—viz., that by
agreeing to this vote they were not to be held com-
mitted to any expression of approbation in reference
to the general policy of Lord Canning—he should
not have interposed any objection.
Lord PALMERSTON said :

I am quite ready to state now that I consider the bowie,
if it agree to this vote, will still be perfectly free to take
any course in respect to Lord Canning's general policy
they may think fit, and will be in ti.) way bound except as
to the conduct of that noble lord in supporting the military
operations which have been rendered necessary by the out-
break of the mutiny.

The amendment was then by leave of the house
withdrawn, and the first two resolutions were
agreed to unanimously.
On the third resolution,
Sir F. SMITH made some observations eulogistic
of the conduct of the British troops during this
revolt, and particularly dwelt on the great skill, cou-
rage, and endurance which marked the conduct of
the defence of Lucknow.

The other resolutions were then agreed to.
HAVELOCK'S ANSHEIT.
The report of the resolutions for granting annui-
ties to Lady Havelock and Sir Henry Havelock were
brought up and agreed to, and leave given to bring
in a bill founded thereon.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
Mr. V. SMITH moved the second reading of this
bill, urging that, as it was very important that it
should pass as soon as possible, the house should
allow it to be read a second time and take any fur-
ther discussion in committee next week.