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

that is to say persons who have taken up arms against
the Government, but who "have done so less heartily,
and upon whom for other causeslthe Chief Commissioner
may not see reason to put restraint, these, after surren-
dering their arms, might be allowed to go to their homes,
with such security for their peaceable conduct as the
Chief Commissioner may think proper to require ;" and
the letter goes on to say—l entreat the house to mark
this—that "the permission to return to their homes
must not be considered as a re-instatement of them in
the possession of their lands—(hear)—for the deliberate
disposal of which the Government will preserve itself
unfettered." Now, if there is any sense or meaning in
language, this passage means that although these per-
sons may be permitted to return home they are not to
be reinstated,—not in their territorial rights, but in the
possession of their lands, With regard, therefore, to the
whole land of Oude, the Government holds itself at per-
fect liberty to dispose of that land as it may think fit. It
was, I think, impo-sible, in the face of the proclama-
tion, and of the language I have read, to suppose for a
single moment, that her Majesty's Government could
put upon it such an interpretation as has now, by way
of apology, been attached to it by noble lords oppo-
site. Having received this proclamation, not as be-
ing a'ready issued, but as about to be issued, it was
the duty of her Majesty's Government to consider
what course they ought to pursue. We thought, my lords
it was a matter of the utmost importance that no a mo-
ment should be lost in intimating our apprehensions as
to the dangerous consequences which might be produced
by the issue of such a proclamation. We were not with-
out hopes that our despatch, which was in strict unison
with the principles we had before laid down, might by
possibility reach Lord Canning in time to enable him to
reconsider the terms of his proclamation, and to issue
one which was not liable to the construction that might
be placed upon it. We are told that we ought to have
waited to receive explanations from Lord Canning. My
lords, if we had had the slightest idea that such expla-
nations were coming, I don't say we should have waited
because it would have been our duty to notice the pro-
clamation, but we should very materially have modified
the language of the despatch. (Cheers.) We received
the proclamation officially, we received no private corn-
.munieation whatever, we were not likely t) receive such
a communication, because Lord Canning could not be
aware of the change of Government, and if communica-
tions of that nature had been sent—as private commu-
nications are sent by every Minister and Governor ex-
plaining their public acts—it was not to us that such
explanations would have come. But such an explanation
did come—(loud cheers from the Ministerial side) —and
it arrived at a period when its communication to her
Majesty's Government might have been of the utmost
importance—when if it had been communicated to the m
it might have materially modified the tone and language
of my noble friend's despatch. (Hear.) Why was not
that explanation communicated to us I should like to
know (Cheers.) The noble marquis (Lansdowne) said
the other night that Mr. V. Smith received the explana-
tion at a very late period. Subsequently, I believe, the
noble marquis was satisfied that Mr. Y. Smite received
it at a period when it might have been communicated to us
and have had some effect, but we were told that Mr. V.
Smith was in Ireland attending his sou's wedding,
which was much more important than any subject of
this nature. (A. laugh.) That, however, is not Mr. V.
Smith's account of the transaction. He says, "I did
receive a letter from Lord Canning ; I know it was ad-
dressed to me as President of the Board of Control.
I did not think it utterly unimportant, because
the moment I received it I went"—to whom ? To the
Ministry by whom Lord Canning expected it would have
been received I No ; but to the head of the Govern-
ment which bad just been displaced, and who was in
opposition to the existing Ministry. (Cheers.) In the
course of this evening it has been denied that Lord Pal-
merston was consulted on the subject of sending this ex-
tract of a private letter to her Mejesty's present Go-
vernment. All that I can say is that the report of
what appears to have taken place elsewhere gives the
following as the words used by Mr. V. Smith :
"I may state, however, that I read it the moment I re-
ceived it to my noble friend the member for Tiverton, to
whom it did not appear, any more than to myself, that it
was necessary to communicate it to the Government."

(Laud cheers and laughter.) Now, my lords, Lard Pal-
merston may or may not have given any advice, but if
we are to believe Mr. V. Sa.ith—and I cannot hesitate
to believe a statement which he makes so solemnly—the
first thing he did was to communicate this passage to
the head of the late Government, who did not think any
more than himself that it was necessary to communicate
it to the Minister to whose department it related. All
I can say is that I think the noble viscount (Palmerston)
must have very materially changed his views with re-
gard to the expediency and necessity of communicating
information bearing upon public matters which may be
contained in private letters, because not long ago I had
the honour of receiving a communication from the noble
viscount, enclosing a letter which ha said had been
rescued from the wreck of the Ava, and which, inas-
much as it related to public affairs, he thought it his
duty to transmit to me. Now, that despatch, rescued
from the wreck of the Ava, which the noble viscount—
anxious, as he always is, to diseharge his duty to the
public—forwarded to nee' contained information that a
petition for the recall of Lord Canning which had been
tent to this country, and had been returned to India
that it might be transmitted through Lord Canning,
had been sent to the Governer-General to be so
transmitted. (Laughter.) That was the sole in-
formation contained in the despatch, yet that piece
of information, three mouths old, was considered by
the noble viscount so important—(a laugh)—that he
deemed it his duty not to bee a minute in communicat-
ing it to me as the Lead of her Majesty's Government—
(cheers and laughter) ,-but a statement of the Governor-
General, written as he supposed to a Minister of the
Crown, intimating his intention to forward explanations
respectingaa very important official document appeared
to the noble viscount so utterly insignificant that neither
he nor Mr. Smith thought it xpeclierit to make any com-
munication on the subject to her Majesty's Ministers.
Again, I say, this passes the limits of my credulity ?
(" Hear," and a laugh.) I know not what other state-
ments or letters may have been received by Mr. Vernon
Stnith—(hear, hoar)—but this I will say, that, although
it is possible, I think it is barely probable that in the
course of two months and a half, or nearly three months,
the Governor-General of India should not have column-
eicated one single private lino with re ,pest to public af-
fairs to the Minister who immediately presided over the
Indian department. (Hear, hear.) Ho may have kept
that extraordinary silence, but I very much doubt the
fact, and I think it is almost incredible. Certain it is,
however, that not one line have we ever seen, nor have
we since we came into office had the slightest means of
judging what, upon any one question, were Lord Can-
niag's views of pol cy. (Loud and continued cheering.)
Well, my lords, in the absence of all such information,
we were bound to act upon the proclamation and the
public documents we possessed ; and reading that pro-
clamation in the sense in which v e regarded it we
thought not a moment was to be lost, and the language
could hardly be too strong to express our apprehensions
of its consequences and our disapproval of its tone and
temper. I shall not quote the various passages to which
reference has been made. I shall not quote the language
held in the despatch with regard to the proclamation as
we understood it and as we received it ; but this I will
venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that the tone
and temper of that proclamation werestronglydisapproved
by the highest and most competent authorities in India,
that from its tone and the time at which it was issued, it
was regarded as likely to lead to most alarming conse-
quences—(beat)—that I believe there were remonstrances
against its publication, and that I know that many most
eminent men have written home expressing their deep
regret at the system or apparently wholesale confiscation
which it would establist (Cheers.) If I could men-
tion the persons to whom I refer their names would
command the highest respect ; but I am at liberty to
name one gentleman with whom, until yesterday, I had
not the slightest personal acquaintance. When I men-
tion the name of Sir George Clerk it will, I think, be
admitted that no one is more competent to form i 6 judg-
ment on this subject. I requested Sir G. Clerk to for-
ward mo a copy of a despatch which was sent out by
ray noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) only last Monday,
and in doing so Sir G. Clerk say, :
" May I take the libel ty to observe to your lordship that,
so far as I know those countries, I should say that the sous
titnents with which her Majesty's Government have re-
garded it, if allowed to prevail, will right the ship, but if
a different course should be persisted in British dominion
over it cannot be restored in any degree of security by
means of all the European troops England can afford to
send to such a climate or to such a distance."

These are the deliberate opinions sit a roan who, more
than any other, knows the circumstances and feelings of
the people of India; and he interprets this proclamation
as we usterpret it ; he interprets confiscation as wa in-
terpret it, and he says that, unless the recommendations
of the Government should be attended to, and if this
system of severity should be persisted in, no amount of
force that you can send from this country will enable
you permanently to maintain your authority in peace in
India. (Cheers) h that a justification a the Govern-
ment for having taken the earliest moment to pretest
agalest a course of proccedinge which they thought
would necessarily lead to the most feariul consequences ?
(dear, bear.) Let us recollect what is the condition of
Oade. There every landholder is a soldier and every
soldier is a landholder, and a system of universal con-
fiscation addressed to a population of armed men—many
trained in your service, and many feudal proprietors,
having numerous armed retainers,—universal confisca-
tion, I say, applied to such a population, with SOM.) ex-
ceptional indulgences, of which no person coued feel
secure, was a certain means not to put an end to strife,
but to protect a desultory and most embarrassing war,
and to extinguish the hopo of peace and security for
months and perhaps years to come. (Cheers.) We I
fonnd it necessary to protest at the earliest period
against the possibility of such lamentable results, and
we thought it necessary to point out to the Governor-
General that which appeared contrary to the spirit of
his proclamation, that the principle of mildness and for-
bearauce, with occasional instances of severity, inttead
of severity with eccasional instances of clemency, was the
only sound way of bringing hack the population to alle-
giance and content. (Hear.) I will not use any ex-
pression likely to give offence to the noble duke oppo-
site, but I do not share in that laughing tone in which
he treated the enunciation in the de-catch of those
great, sound, and holy prieciples which I believe it to
be of the utmost importance should be made known to
the people of India as the principles which guide the
conduct of the ,British Government. (Hear, hear.) I
do not ridicule what the noble duke was pleased to call
plain truisms, nor do I think the country' will be inclined
to ridicule them. Havitg expressed my entire concur-
rence in the statements contained in the despatch on the
supposed meaning and intention of the proclamation,
and having expressed that concurrence in them, not
as a representation addre•sel to the people of India,
but as a representation in a sterol dispatch to the Go-
vernor-General, I now proceed to the ferther question
respecting the publication of the despatch, and the re-

sponsibility for its publication. But before Igo further
I must just advert to one observation which has been
made—namely, that it is absolutely clear that this de-
spatch was from the first intended for publication, other-
wise there would not have been found in it what the
noble duke opposite was pleased to call such sonorous
phrases. Now, whatever may be the character of this
despatch, I do not for a moment doubt that it was the in-
tention and desire of my noble friend that the despatch
should remain on record. It was not a private letter,
but a secret despatch, not at the time to be communi-
cated, except to the Governor-General, but to remain on
record as an indication of the policy which tiny noble
friend and the Government were prepared to pursue.
Therefore, of course, it did not take the form of a mere
private and confidential letter, but of a recorded despatch,
pointing out the viewe entertained by the Government.
(Hear.) I come now to the question of publication, and
I confess that I am there compelled to differ from the
views of my noble friend the late President of the Board
of Control. (Hear.) I stated at the very earliest op-
portunity afforded me that I regretted the premature
publication of the despatch. I think it was unfortunate
that, without any previous notice, a question should
have been asked by a member of the other house, and
answered by a subordinate member without communica-
tion with any of the Cabinet Ministers, except I presume
my noble friend the late President of the Board of Con-
trol, and that a declaration should have been made
pledging the Government to produce the despatch. I
will come presently to the question of the limited liability
or joint responsibility of the Cabinet, but will now advert
to what has fallen from the noble and learned lord oppo-
site. He said that, setting aside the question whether
all the Ministers were bound by one colleague, he would
go further back than the Thursday of last week, and
would revert to a previous Friday, in order to show that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, In answer to some
question, announced that he would lay on the table a
despatch which was by no means intended as a censure
on the Governor-General, and the noble lord inferred
that that despatch, which cast no censure on the Go-
vernor-General, was the despatch which he said censured
that high officer. But the fact is that it was a prior de-
spatch. It was the despatch of the 24th of March, with
respect to which the discussion took place on the 231 of
April, and which was ordered to be printed on the
26th ; and the noble and learned lord has confounded
two separate occasions and two separate despatches.
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the despatch to
which the present motion referred what happened
was this :—a question was asked without no-
tice, and the Secretary of the Board of Control
hastily announced his intention of laying the despatch
on the table. That question was followed by another
question from another gentleman, who asked whether
the Government approved the policy of Lord Canning
in issuing the proclamation. Mind, at that time the de-
spatch had been promised to be produced ; and whether
the Government stated their approval or disapproval of
the proclamation, or left the fact to be disclosed when
the despatch should be produced next day, was a matter
of indifference. But what was the answer given by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ? He said that the policy
of confiscation intimated in that proclamation we disap-
prove in every sense. (Hear.) Great stress has been
placed on these words "in every sense," but he was re-
ferring to the policy of confiscation, and in every sense
of justice and policy he meant that the Government dis-
approved of that policy. The same night the late Presi-
dent cf the Council came over to me and told me what
had taken place in the House of Commons, and further
than so hearing that such question had been asked and
answered I had no other knowledge on the subject. The
noble earl the late President of the Council, however,
expressed his hope that, as the production of the despatch
had been promised, it would be laid on the table that
night, because, otherwise, there would be no opportunity
of discussing before the departure of the mail, which left
on the Monday. We replied that we could not lay it on
the table that night, but would do so to-morrow, and
for the convenience of the noble earl and Lord Canning's
friends a copy should be sent to the noble earl, and it
was sent leefore the despatch was laid upon the table. On
the following day there was a Council at the Palace, by
which we were detained, but when we came to examine
the despatch we found in it come paragraphs which we
thought it more for the public convenience should not be
produced. The sole object of those paragraphs was to
point out the circumstances of mitigation which sepa-
rated the case of revolted subjects from that of mutineers,
and, of course, in reasoning the point all the extenua-
ting circumstances were put forth with a plainness and
openness with which they certainly would not have been
elated if the document had been intended to meet the
public eye. When we saw the character of those
paragraphs we desired to have them omitted from publi-
cation, and with that view we sent down to the House
of Commons, but before the messenger arrived, the
Secretary of the Board of Control, not having had any
previous communication with us, had, in consequence of
the promise of the night before, laid the whole despatch
on the table of the House. I regret that the whole des-
patch was laid on the table, and upon the whole I regret
that any part of the despatch.should have been published
at so early a period, but I cannot say that I regret the
character or contents of the despatch. (Hear, hear.)
On the contrary, I think the policy indicated in it is a
just, sound, and necessary policy, and we should have
been neglectful of our duty if we had omitted to take
the earliest opportunity of enforcing that policy on the
Governor-General, more especially at the moment when
we thought he was going to abandon it. Now, with
respect to the liability of all members for the act of a
, single member, I wish to say that no man can put forth
) more distinctly or clearly than I do the constitutional
' doctrine that every member of the Government is re-
' eponsible for the acts of every other member, whether
those acts were previously known or nit, provided the
1
members of the Government continued to act together
as a Government. Remaining in office and acting to-
gether, all the members of the Government take upon
themselves a retrospective responsibility for what their
colleagues have done, which they can in no way attempt
to shake off, But the case is very different when the
Government are charged with having done a certain act,
and they say " We did not do it, it was done without
our knowledge by one of your colleagues." "Never
mind," it is then said, "you are all responsible for the
acts of your colleague." 'put," we reply,' "in conse-
quence of the very act which you impugn, he has ceased
to be one of your colleagues." "Never mind," it is said
again, " you are still responsible ; when you knew
nothing about the act he was your colleague, and you
were therefore responsible for that of which you
know nothing ; and now that he has ceased to be your
colleague you continue reseonsible for an act of which yea
' knew nothing when it was done, and which you con-
demned as soon as it was brought to your knowledge."
(Hear, hear.) My lord?, that may be constitutional law,
but to me it appears to betbe grossest and mostabsolute
absurdity—(hear)—and sure I are that if it is the consti-
tutional law, it is not, and never has been constitutional
practice. (Cheers.) I need not go back a long way to
place before your lordships a circumstance which I think
is somewhat parallel. But before proceeding further I
may notice a remark which fell from a noble earl oppo-
site. "That excuse," he said, " would have answered
your purpose very well if upon the instant the promise
of publication was made in the House of Commons you
had jumped op and disclaimed it, and said to the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control, " You are no longer a
member of the Government.' " " But," continued the
noble earl, " it was not till 48 hours afterwards, and
when a notice of motion had been given in one if not
both Houses of Parliament, that you bethought you of
putting upon one of your number alone the entire re-
sponsibility of what had taken place." Now, my lords,
it was not the Government which placed up 'a the
President of the Board of Contra?, but my noble friend
himself who, with characteristic straightforwardness,
assumed the whole responsibility, which in truth and
justice simply attached to himself. (Hear, hear.) But
may I ask noble lords opposite to have the goodness to
carry their recollection back to the month of June,
1855 ? If my memory does not greatly deceive me, at
that time the noble viscount the member for Tiverton
was at the head of the Government, and the noble lord
the member for London teas Secretary of State for the
Colonial Department. As Secretary of State for the Ce-
lotdal Department the noble lord was sent upon a nni,-,
sion to Vienna. In his capacity as Plenipotentiary at
Vienna, be entered into certain engagements for a
treaty, which ho brought home and reported to his
Cabinet. His colleagues did not approve the ar-
rangement which he had made, and I suppose they
signified to the noble lord that they did not so
approve. Did they lin-net:lately insist upon his quitting
office No such thing. Time went on until notice was
given of a motion in Parliament charging the Govern-
ment with the responsibility of the treaty which had
been negotiated at Vienna. (Hoar, hear.) What fol-
lowed 1 lam not in the secrets of the late Government,
but report at the time certainly stated that a round
robin was sent to the noble viscount the member for
Tiverton insisting upon the retirement of Lord J. Rus•
,sell. In point of fact, Lord J. Russell ceased to be a I
member of the Cabinet, and the Government then dis-
avowed the treaty to which he had been a party a con- I
I siderable time previous, repudiating in the face of a hos-
tile motion against the whole of them their joint respon-
sibility, and throwing the entire blame upon their late
colleague. (Cheers.) The Opposition of that day, being
somewhat more forbearing than the Onposition of the
present—(cheers)—withdrew the hostile motion against
the Government in consequence of the retirement of a
single member. (Renewed cheers ) I have thus given
the noble lords opposite a precedent for not imposing
the strict rule of joint and universal responsibility, not
in reference to a matter of which all the members of the
Cabinet except one were ignorant, but with regard to a
subject which, although it was well known to them, they
I did not disavow until a hostile motion was directed
I against them in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) But,
my lords, I am asked by the noble earl .opposite, "If
you mean to oppose my reselutions, why do yod do so
by means of the previous question ?" He never, it
seems, knew- an occasion on which a vote of censure
upon the Government was met on the part of the Go-
vernment by the previous question. My answer to that
1 is that, elthough the debate has been a deba'e of cen-
sure upon the Government, the vote to which your lord-
ships are asked to come is tot a vote of censure upon
the members of the Government, hut upon an act
which the members cf the Government disavow and
repudiate. (Cheers.) What was the Government to
do in these circumstances'? The last resolution, which
is the only one of any prscical importance, asks
the House of Ler is to express its regret at the
premature publication by the Government of the
despatch of the I.9th of April, which was calculated to
weaken the authority of the Governor-General, and to
encourage those still in arms against us. To some of
the phraseology of that resolution I certainly must de-
mur. Idu not admit that the publication tools place
with the sanction or by the authority of the Govern-
ment ; on the contrary, I contend that it took place
without their knowledge, and contrary to their wish or
intention. (Hear, hear.) Nor do I admit, although
undoubtedly the publication--not the ivriting—of the

despatch may put Lord Canning in a fearful position,
from which I sincerely hope that his explanations, when
received, may have the effect of relieving him, that the
premature promulgation of the despatch will produce
any results such as those which have been a,cribed to
it. (Hear, hear.) I regret especially the publication
of that part which relates to the annexation of Oude,
because it is liable to be misapprehended by the natives
of India ; but I cannot regret that an intimation should
go out in the most authoritative manner from the Orown
—approved, as I hope, by the Parliament and people of
England—that the system upon which hare.fter the
Government of India should be conducted, when the
present unhappy revolt has been suppressed, is not to be
a system of general confiscation, but a system of general
toleration and mercy, and that we hope the instances
may be few in which it may be necessary to make use of
severity. (Hear, hear.) But, my lords, if I were to op-
pose the resolutions, it would appear as if I sanctioned
and approved the publication of the despatch. My
noble and learned friend on the woolsack had no alterna-
tive, then, if he meant to express the feelings and wishes
of the Government, and to avoid a vote which would be
liable to misconstruction, but to move the previous
question, which simply imports that upon a point on
which your lordships have not sufficient information you
will not at the present moment undertake to pronounce
a judgment. Such is the meaning of the previoum ques-
tion. It involves no censure upon Lord Canning or upon
the character of his proclamation, but it means that you
will not express a hasty opinion upon imperfect evidence
or arrive at a decision which, whatever may be its
effects here, will be liable to be misconstrued in India.
The motion of the noble earl opposite is, and was an-
nounced to be, a vote against the Government. Carried
in that sense, it will be construed by the people of India
as meaning that the Government have been condemned
for promulgating a policy of mercy and toleration.,
Although I am satisfied you would regret such an inter-
pretation as much as we should, yet the inference is clear
and obvious that your adoption of a vote of censure upon
the Government, after a debate in which the question of
toleration or confiscation bad been the main subject of
discussion, would be held in India to be your adoption
of the opposite principle to that maintained by the Go-
vernment. (Hear.) It is upon these grounds, my lords,
while I cannot defend the premature publication of the
despatch, while I nevertheless hope that the promulga••
tion of some parts of it may not only be productive of
no injury, but may go forth as a message of peace to
India, announcing the kindly and beneficent intentions
of the British Parliament with respect to the administra-
tion of Indian affairs, and I entreat your lordships not,
by affirming the motion of the noble earl opposite, which
roust be construed into a vote of censure, to place the
Government in a most painful and embarrassing posi-
tion, and at the same time produce in India an impres-
sion the very reverse of that which we all wish to create.
(Cheers.)

Earl GRANVILLE hoped their lordehips would not
allow the Government to get rid of the motion of censure
by a technical amendment. The noble lord who had
brought forward the motion oould not be charged with
party motives. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) The noble earl
had alluded to certain political meetings, as if hon. mem-
bers of the other house were not to meet on grave politi-
cal questions, and he had even descended so low as to in-
sinuate family motives, but he (Earl Granville) should
have thought it unworthy of the notice of the noble earl
on this occasion. The meetings were, however, perfectly
legitimate. He (Earl Granville) owned that whilet the
case was in a nutshell he was at a loss for some time to
imagine the arguments that would have bee❑ advanced
by the Government in support of their policy. He denied
that he had any personal feeling against the noble earl
(Ellenborongh) whom he respected for many noble quali
ties, but he must say the noble earl had assumed a false
position. As to his remonstrance against the proclama-
tion, he (Lord Granville) never heard a speech that
appeared to convey less weight and conviction than that
of the Lord Chancellor, though ho admitted his great
ability and acquisition i❑ that house to the party whose
principles he espoused. Ho appeared to have defended
the conduct of the sepoys as being legitimately at war
with the Indian Govornnjent.

The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. The noble
earl was in error in that respect.
Earl GRANVILLE—The noble earl at the head of
the Government bad argued that the letter of the noble
earl (Ellenborough) was likely to do good in India ;but
what he (Earl Granville) contended was, that the Go-
vernment were at liberty to send out such remarks on th©
proclamation as they thought right, but that their pub-
lication in the present state of affairs was likely to create
much mischief in India. (Hear.) It had been stated that
the despatch was not intended to be published, but
but from the observations that had been made by the
noble earl the late President of the Board of Control, it
appeared that it was intended for publication. If it was
intended otherwise, he thought it would have been writ-
ten in a different tone. He referred to a statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the
annexation of Oude and the course Government ought to
pursue, viz., that the Queen of England was not a
S overeign who would violate treaties, but observe them,
Ste., and he went on to say that they should not do it in
a corner, but in a manner to attract attention. He did
not, however, say.that it was wrong for her Majesty's
Government to entertain an opinion that the annexation
of Oude was wrong; but if they considered that the
kingdom of Oude should be returned to the King, it
I ought to have been done openly, by instructions to that
effect to Lord Canning, and not in an indirect manner,
las inferred by this despatch. Would the noble earl lay
on the table of the house the letters he had mentioned
from India in opposition to this proclamation, that
their lordships might see if they were written be-
fore its issue or after. (Rear, hear.) He could
not concur in the assertion, that their lordships
would consider this a proper despatch, and as the
noble earl had given up a part of it, it W2lO unnecessary
that he (Earl Granville) should enter into it. He now
came to its publication, and he dissented generally from
the proposition laid down by the noble earl as to where
the joint responsibility of a O►binet commenced and
where it ended, and he denied tkat the case of Lord J.
Russell, alluded to by the noble earl, was a case in point.
So far as he understood it, there had been a communica-
tion between the noble earl and Mr. Baillie in respect
to the publication of the despatch, and the Chancellor of
of the Exchequer had said that the Government disap-
proved of Lard Canning's policy in every sense. When
he referred to the subject en a former occasion, he put a
question to the Government, not being so cognizant of
the policy of the Government in this respect, as Mr.
Bright appeared to have been. (Hear, hear.) The clues.
tion, however, did not rest en that. The despatch was
however, published the next day ; and he called the at-
tention of the noble earls (Lord Ellenborough and Lord
Derby) to it, who promised him (Earl Granville) he
might have it, and show it to his friends, but not to
publish it. That injunction was strictly foil twed out by
him (Earl Granville) ; but why had not the Government
before laying it on the table, read it over, and considered
the evils it might produce in India I He had no doubt
that was done; and the meet honourable course for the
Government to have pursued would have been to have
come down to the house, and refused its publication,
though with some little obloquy. They, however, had
left out a part of the despatch in publication, which
made them responsible for the whole. Her Majesty's
Government fully participated in that despatch, and by
its publication were accomplices to it. He contended her
Majesty's Government could not escape from the joint
responsibility of the publication of this despatch, and be
was afraid their lordships' house would stand a false po-
sition in agreeing to the motion of the previous ques-
tion. After this despatch it wau impossible to say what
policy the Government intended to pursue towards In-
dia, and thertf)re he trusted the house would give an
opinion on declarations it was impossible to deny ; and
however much the Opposition might be taunted by party
feeling•, it would be seen that their lordships had a po-
licy to defend, and that great mischief would result in
India by the treatmeut the Governor-General had re.
calved. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were
Contents—Present
Proxies ...
—153
Non contents—Present
Proxies 49
—167
[Majority for the Government 9. (Loud cheers.)
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed shot tly after one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAy.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

THE ATTENDANCE OF BON. MEMBERS.

The anticipated debate on Mr. Cardwell's motion, in-
volvine a vote of censure on her Majesty's Government,
drew an early and numerous attendance of hon. mem-
bers, and long before the hour for prayers the house was
three parts full—a most unusual cirquinstance. After
prayers Mr. Owen Stanley raised the question relative
to the right of hon. members to certain seats, iu reply
to which the Speaker read the standing order of the
house, which was to the effect that no hon. member could
take his seat before prayers, and it was the duty of the
Speaker to give such instructions to the door-keeper. He
had failed to do so, and if any misunderstanding bad
arisen on the subject, he was to blame for not having
given the requisite orders to the door-keepers. (No, no.)
Mr. Owen S anley said that in accordance with
the standing order referred to he had removed
the card of an honourable member from the seat
placed there some time previous to prayers, and
the hon. member had complained of his want of courtesy
in removing it. Mr. J. Ewart, the hon. member re-
ferrecrte,*eaid that he uad certijuly placed his card there
before prayers—an usual practice, and he had called
upon the right hon. gentleman not to remove it, and dis-
turb the usual and recognised practice adopted by hon.
members. lie had no desire to ten counter to the
standing order of the house,

The suject then dropped.
Lord J. Russell and Mr. M. Gibson left their seats
on the opposition side of the house, and went over to Sir
J. Graham, on the mini3tcrial t,ido, just beiow the gp.n,g
way, and had a lengthened conversation with the right
hon. baronet previous to the commencement of the busi-
ness on the paper. The Clialcellor of the Exchequer
and Lord Vane Tempest also had an earnest conversa-
tion on the Trea.,nry Bench.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Norwich Gas' Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The following bills were further considered, and or-
dered to be read a third time :—Chiswick Improvement;
Edinburgh and Glasgow and Stilling and Dunfermline
Railways ; North Yorkshire and Cleveland Railway ;
Salisbury and Yeovil Railway ; Staines, Wokingham,
and Woking Railway.
ARCHDEACONRY OF MIDDLESEX.
Mr. I3OUVERIE moved an address or copy of

the farm of citation issued by the Archdeacon of the
A rchdeaoonry of Middlesex to the churchwardens of
the several parishes and district parishes therein ; and
of the letter and articles of inquiry accompanying
the same :—Statements of the number of the said forms
and letters and articles of inquiry issued at Easter 1888;
and of the fees demanded in each case, showing by what
authority such demands are made, and who is entitled
to receive them.—Agreed to.
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved an address for return of
the number of officers of the Metropolitan Polio@
Force, distinguishing the number, rank, and pay in each
class employed on special duty, and not in the ordinary'
duties of the police ; the number of such police officers
to whom the issue of the usual police uniform has been
discontinued, and who are allowed a sum of money in
lieu thereof; also, of the number of police constables,
sergeants, inspectors, and superintendents employed at
the several docks, dockyards, public buildings, museums,
institutions, and theatres, and what portion of the pay
of the several officers so employed is defrayed by the '
several public companies and institutions ?—Agreed to.
POOR-RATES.
General CODRINGTON gave notice that he should
at an early day call the attention of the house to the
new rating of Government property to the poor-rates.

THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the orders of the day were postponed
till after the motion on the Governor-General of India.

THE WHITSUN HOLIDAYS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave
notice that on Friday next, the 21st, he should move the
adjournment of the house till Friday the 28th, for the
Whitsun holidays.
NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
On the motion of the adjournment of the house till
Monday.

Mr. H•ANBURY asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, whether any Charge had taken place in our
position relative to France or the United States, by
treaty or otherwise, with regard to the Newfoundland
Fisheries ; and whether the British squadron had been
increased on that station ?

Lord STANLEY said no change had taken place be-
tween the above Governments relative to the Newfound-
land Fisheries. The noble lord's answer to the latter
part of the question was inaudible in the gallery.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.—VTE OF

CENSURE.
Mr. CARDWELL then moved the following resoln.

tion :
" That this house, whilst in its present state of infor-
mation it abstains from expressing an opinion on ,
the policy of any proclamation which may have
been issued by the Governor-General of India in
relation to Oude, has seen with regret and serious
apprehension that her Majesty's Government have ad-
dressed to the Governor-General, through the Secret'
Committee of the Court of Directors, and have
published, a despatch condemning in strong teems
the conduct of the Governor-General ; and is of
opinion that such a course on the part of the Govern-
ment must tend, in the present circumstances of India,
to produce the most prejudicial effect, by weakening the
authority of the Govtrnor-General, and encouraging the
further resistance of those who are in arms against us.
He said, he rose to bring before the noting
of the house what he believed to be one of
the most remarkable occurrences that had been wit•
nessed in the history of the British Administration.
He did not intend to occupy the attention
of the house for any lengthened time, because he did not
mean to say anything that did not rest entirely on facts
patent and indisputable, or upon the statements of those
whose conduct it was his painful duty to impugn. (Loud
laughter from the Ministerial benches, and loud cheers'
from the Opposition.) It appeared that on the 12th of
last month there' was received in this country a
letter from the Secretary of the Government of India to
the Commissioner in Oude, concerning the draft of an
intended proclamation, which it was announced was in-
tended to be proclaimed in Oude as soon as the fall
of Lucknow bad occurred. That important
document was immediately taken into the
consideration of her Majesty's Government, and in
order not to mistake it he would state it in the language
of the advisers themselves. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said—" I think it right to take this opportunity
of stating that when we received notice of this intended
proclamation we took the subject of it into our considera-
tion. (Hear, hear.) There was full time for reflection.
Tne document was received on the 12th April, and the
despatch in answer to it was indicted on the 18th, but
the answer was not despatched till the 213th from this
country. The Earl of Ellenborough, however, said,.
" r€4l-ction only the more strongly induces me
to teink it was absolutely necessary to send the letter se
originally written, and then when I read that proclama-
tion I felt it was my duty to express my own sentiments
on the subject, which were adopted by my noble
friend. St.) that he apprehended there was nn"
doubt with regard at least to the writing/
approving and transmitting of the despatch, it wall
the deliberate act of her Majesty's Government collec-
tively. (Opposition cheers.) It was known to the
house the manner in which the Government of India
was conducted, that of sending to the secret committee
despatches concerning the treatment of the native princes
and states, which, in their judgment, required secrecy.
That course was pursued on this occasion, and that despatch
collectively adopted by her Majesty's Government was
sent to India on 26th April through the secret commit-
teo of the Court of Directors of the East India Com.
pany. With regard, then, first, to the document itself,
it was clear that it was the collective act of her Ma-
jesty's Government--(loud cheers from the Opposition)
—and that it was sent to India through the particular
channel of the secret committee of the Court of Directors.
What were the terms of that despatch he should here-
after describe, not however in his language, but exclu-
sively in the language of Unite who indited, or were
responsible for the despatch. From the 26th of April
to the 6th of May the important information came
within his knowledge---(hear, hear, and cheers)—but on
the 6th of May it having become known through
the channels of the press that a proclamation had been
proclaimed in Oude, which was not the identical draft
of the proclamation to which he had before referred, but
a proclamation, in the language of Lord Derby, mode-
rately modified from the draft of that proclama-
tion. That being the position of things, the hon. member
for Birmingham put a question to the hon. member for
Inverness. The right hon. gentleman then read the
question and answer, and also that of the Chancellor of
tee Exchequer, who stated that the Government disap-
proved of Lord Canning's policy in every sense—(near,
arid cheers)—and referred to the publication of the
despatch which had had the effect of raising in the
public mind an apprehension that Lord Canning would
be recalled, and in consequence of there being
no valid reasons given for such conduct he had put the
present motion on the paper. After referring to the
madly course of Lord Ellenborough in taking upon him-
self the responsibility in this matter, and:resigned in con-
sequence, the right hon. gentleman said that it was
clear the writing and sending of the despatch was Os
collective act of her Majesty's Government, and not the'
separate act of any one member of the Government.-
(Cheers from the Opposition.) It was not his intention;
to ask the judgment of the house on the despatch in re-
ference to the policy of Lord Canning—(cheers from thee
Opposition)—but to condemn its publication. He ob-
jected to such a document going forth to the world its
reference to a responsible Minister of • the Crown,"
as being likely to weaken his authority, especially in ete,
foreign land. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentlemara
defended the clemency of Lord Canning's geeerre-e
ment, which had gained for him the name eg
"Clemency Canning," and said that it was the dutl
of the home Government towards its GovernorGeneris
of India, if they were dissatisfied with him, to recall
bitu ; but if they_ were satiefie.d with him, it was the;er
duty, in difficult circumstances, to sustain and cordialllY
encourage him. (Hear, hear.) Such conduct as t
Government had pursued, in publishing this despatch,'
was likely to spread dismay amongst the Europeans int
India, and encourage our enemies to every kind of rep-
sistance, (Hear hear.) The resignation of Lo
Ellenberough did not affect the question in the
manner in which he ( Mr. Cardwell) had laid it
before the house. The language of the head of
the Government had relieved him of the necessity of
arguing in favour of impugning the conduct cf the Go-
vernment in this respect, he having stated it was n,ot
capable of a perfect defence. The question was of grt pet
mportance to the country and the colonies. Th
first passed a resolution to entrust the Government ®f
India to a responsible Minister, but bearing this matt sr
in view, he asked if for the future there was to ,be
" limited liability" in the Cabinet--(cheers)—and w.lll
there to be no solidarity in the Government to who 01
the greatest interests of the world were to be entrusts
The right hon. gentleman, in conclusion, said the Es
India Company had set the Government an example i°
reference to this matter, and he called tip,gl
the house to relieve Lord Canning's CO P.;
duct from the censure under which 1'
laboured from the publication of the despatch in eln.o'.
tion, and the statements that had been made by her M fit.
jesty's Government in respect to his policy.
Mr. DEASY seconded the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—Sir, I was at some to ell
when I read the resolutions which the right lion gentl:l3.,;
man has put into your hands, to know whether the obje
of it was to support, however, iudireetly, the policy of Loi 1
Canning in this proclamation whether it was by way
helping these operations in India, the opposition te whim,
the right hon. gentleman considers the conduct of the Gl4
veinment is calculated to prolong—or whether, lastly, 5 ,
was rather to facilitate those operations in this counig.l
against the Treasury bench—(cheers) -the opposition. 1
which the right hoe, gentleman considers had been Pr' )4
longed too much. I confess that after hearing the sweet(
of the right hon. gentleman, I have come to the conelusi4
that it was neither the first or the second of these oNe°
is
that ho has in view. (ile:r.) The first object is aPe r,
fectly legitimate ono, and the furtherance of it has fall t 0
into no unskilful hands ; but he must remember that ev,:s
in an assault upon a Ministry there are rules of strife vinl!
pi
require you boldly and manfully to state and prove 9.;''
case. And from those rules I will show to the house tri
ht
the hon.
ask the house to observe that the resolution of the!! R,O.
gentleman has widely deviated. I must n. c 1 h
hon. gentleman is what is called a complex proposi .
i 9.
It must be resolved into its parts, and its parts arc tu••_,
In the first place, it asks the house to pass no opinion
the proclamation, or upon the policy of Lord Canning.., ;,'Ol.
the second place it is a censure on the•Governrhente_ol,.
haying, as is alleged, published the despatch wbech Lot
tamed that censure. Now I maintain, in ill° Tiof
place, that if the house is to accept the fire pan'