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

THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858.

vemment, and that Parliament was bound to express
its opinion of that conduct.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, after alluding to his own infirm
health, which would have prevented his taking any
part in the present discussion, but for the strong
sense he entertained of the impolicy of the procla-
mation, declared that all his sympathies were enlisted
on the side of the Liberal party. In the present
case, however, he could not vote for the motion
brought forward by the Opposition. Lord Canning
Lad acted most judiciously, at all events up to the
moment of issuing his proclamation, and deserved to
be supported by the Government and the Legisla-
ture at home. The terms of the despatch were, he
thought, harsh, but, as against the Governor-Gene-
ral, the offence was purged by the resignation of
Lord Ellenborough, and the Earl of Aberdeen, by
whom Lord Canning had been introduced into public
life, concurring i❑ this view, had subsequently re-
fused to co-operate in any vote of censure upon the
Cabinet as a whole. Neither for the despatch itself,
nor its publication, could any remaining member of
the Government be charged with a worse offence than
simple indiscretion. To punish the whole Adminis-
tration, under such circumstances, would be to strain
the principle of conjoint liability almost to the point
of absurdity. Adverting to the proclamation, he
maintained that it was both impolitic in substance
and adverse to the spirit of the instructions sent out
by Ministers at home several months since. The
manifesto was directly blamed by Sir J. Outram, Sir
.T. Lawrence, and other high authorities on the spot.
It had been alleged that the document did not
announce confiscation in the ordinary meaning of
the word; but the question was, how it would be
understood in India, and all the journals from that
country gave the widest acceptation to the term of
" proprietary rights." No former conqueror of Hin-
dostan bad ever attempted to confiscate the property
of individuals. The precedent set by Lord Canning
in this respect was most dangerous and ill-omened.
The despatch in reference to it could not be deemed
unjustly severe. It did not recall Lord Canning, and
contained no other order than an injunction to miti-
gate his confiscatory edict when carrying it into
effect. He thought the proclamation substantially
wrong, and the despatch substantially right. In its
effect upon parties in this country he could not
concur in a vote which would replace in power a
Government who were ejected from office only three
months since for a gross fault of policy.
Sir R. BETHEL", amid much interruption, made a
vehement assault upon the Treasury bench, re-
proaching the present Government with want of
gratitude for assistance rendered and forbearance
shown by their opponents. The despatch, he said,
consisted of two parts, one relating to the proclama
Lion of Lord Canning, the other relating to the Im-
perial title to the kingdom of Oude. The latter part
charged the Imperial Government with injustice and
robbery, and it contained passages which a few years
ago would have afforded matter for the impeachment
of its authors. Of this despatch the language must,
he contended, be held to be that of the united Cabinet,
and the publication of the document was not the
sole unauthorized act of Lord Ellenborough, but the
deliberate and well-considered act of the Government
at large ; and the consequence was that, as they were
the accomplices of Lord Ellenborough, they should
share his fate. He contended that the argument of
the Solicitor. General against the proclamation was
entirely beside the admitted facts of the case. Lord
Canning was bound to have regard to the rights of
dominion of his Sovereign, and to treat Oude upon
the principles of public law applicable to a state of
rebellion, however those principles might be ino.
d,?.rated in practice. He could, therefore, be said,
have issued no other proclamation consistent with
his duty to maintain inviolate the rights of his
Sovereign. When a policy of mercy was spoken of,
such a policy should be one that would bring the
country most, speedily into a state of peace and tran
quillity ; but this result would not be obtained by
telling the people that they had been wronged, and
that they were under the dominion of a Sovereign
not entitled to their allegiance.

On the motion that the debate be adjourned,

Lord J. RUSSELL complained that an attack bad
been made upon his personal conduct by Mr. Bright,
and stated that he should take an opportunity, when
Mr. Bright was present, to make some reference to
his remarks.

After some discussion, the debate was adjourned.
The CHANCELLoa of the EXCHEQUER br,:ught up
further papers on the subject of the debate.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

Mn. II tir. has retired from the contest at Limerick ;
Mr. Spaight will therefore be returned without oppo-
sition. Mr. Ball was the I'almerstonian candidate.
Mr. Spaight is, we believe, a Liberal Conservative,
and a probable supporter of Lord Derby.

INDIA.

The following telegram, dated Malta, was received
at the East India House on Saturday, May 15, 7.37
p.m.:—

TO MR. J. D. DICKINSON, EAST INDIA ROUSE, LONDON.
Sir 11. Rose's alvance on Calpee has been dela3ed by
the fear that the Kotah rebels will fall on Jhansi. Orders
have been issued to General Roberta to advance to Kota)),
to cooperate with Sir H. Rose. This military movement
is reported since the capture of Kotah. The Rajah is on
trial before a commission for not having saved Major
Buren and his suns from being murdered.
The Sikh (qy.) force, under Major Evans, after an
obstinate battle of some hours, inflicted a severe defeat
on a large body of lihoels and Mekrivee (qy.) in the
Pantpoora Hills on April 11. Sixty men and 400 women
were captured. ' Our 1089 was severe, seventyone killed
and wounded; among the latter, five officers—Captain
Birch, Lieut. liaeovi, Lieut. Blair, Lieut. Atkins, sal
Lieut. Paureut (qy.).