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

498

delay all Indian legislation till next year, and to
delay all discussion on the subject of Reform until
the year after? But, above all, are they willing to
take upon themselves the responsibility which will
attach to them if they avow the policy of that proclamation?
You are asked upon this question to overturn the Govern-
ment. Why, the Government policy on this question was
cheered on this side when it was first announced. It is a
policy of mercy—a policy of conciliation. But the blunder-
ing leaders of party on this side would lead us, contrary to
all our associations and principles, to support an opposite
policy. I am willing to avow that I am in favour of justice
and conciliation—justice and the law of kindness. Justice
and mercy are the prime attributes of that perfection
which we call Deity ; but all men, everywhere, comprehend
them. There is no speech nor language in which their
voice is not heard ; and they do not appeal in vain to the
docile and intelligent Millions of India. You have to
choose. You have tried the sword, and it now lies broken
in your grasp, and you now stand humbled and rebuked
before the eye of civilized Europe. You may have another
chance; you may have by possibility another opportunity
of governing India. If you have, I beseech you to make
the best use of it. Do not let us pursue a policy which
many men in India and some in England have advocated,
which you will hereafter have to regret, which can only end
in something approaching to ruin, and which must, if it
be successful, involve our /lame and nation in an ever-
lasting disgrace.
Mr. COLLIER observed that Mr. Bright, whose
opinions upon subjects connected with peace and
war were peculiar, had evaded the question before
the house, which was whether the Government had
not condemned Lord Canning without a hearing,
and not for what he had done, but for what he had
not done, since, up to that moment, it was not known
what proclamation had been issued by hint. He
contended that the despatch was intended to wound
and insult Lord Canning, and that, if the Govern-
ment were not answerable for its publication, they
must abide by the writing of it, although it stigma-
tized the annexation of Oude as an act of treachery.
If the house affirmed the policy of the despatch our
Indian empire would not, in his opinion, bo worth
ten years' purchase.

Sir W. FRASER pointed out the effect which con
fiscation must work upon people who, like those o
India, were so passionately attached to the trans-
mission of real property to their heirs. He recom-
mended a policy in India of len:ency, firmness, and,
above all, good faith.

Captain VIVIAN supporteil the original motion, con
sideriog that the Government had been guilty of
indiscretion, which rendered them unworthy of con-
fidence.

Mr. K. SEYMER regretted that a question of Indian
policy should be made, as he said, in both Houses of
Parliament the occasion of a party attack upon the
Government. He asked independent Liberal mem.
hers whether they approved the policy of confisca-
tion ; if not, let them place themselves in the posi
tion of her Majesty's Ministers at the time they
received Lord CanLing's proclamation. He should
vote against the resolution.

Sir A. ELTON said, in his opinion, the simple cities.
tion was whether the proclamation was substantially
wrong and the despatch substantially right. He
grounded his objection to the proclamation upon the
last two paragraphs, which authorized, he said, a
wholesale appropriation of people's rights. The
despatch, though deficient in courtesy, was, be
thought, substantially right.

Lord BURY said the question was whether the pro-
clamation would do more harm in India than the
publication of the despatch. In his opinion the procla-
mation would do less harm than allowing the people
of India to suppose that their Government was un-
supported at home.

Mr. GILPIN said he should argue the motion upon
its merits, as far as he could find any in it. The
house was called upon to pronounce a decided opi-
nion upon a document emanating from the Board of
Control, and carefully to refrain from expressing any
opinion upon the document which gave rise to it. By
so doing the house would put itself in a most absurd
position. When he considered how it happened that
Lord Canning had come to issue a proclamation so
unjust and immoral, and reflected upon the howl of
execration that had reached him from the residents
of British India because of his merciful tendencies,
he believed that this influence had been brought to
bear upon him to such an extent as to compel him
to do what his sober judgment disapproved. He
should vote against the original motion, because he
believed he was thereby voting in favour of ti e prin-
ciples of justice and the rights of humanity.
Mr. LABOUCHEPE protested against the impute.
tion of party motives in this discussion, declaring
that, if he knew his own feelings in voting for the
motion, he should give as conscientious a vote as he
ever gave. lie held the Government justly and
deeply censurable for the state of affairs in India,
for disturbing the harmony and unity of action which
ought to subsist between the Government at home
and that abroad. He considered this state of things
to be traceeble directly to the conduct of the Go-