The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-20 00:00:00

LONDON, TEEIIRSDAV, MAY 20, 1353.

IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE FROM

INDIA.

SPOLIATION OF DUDE.

SIIN OFFICE, 3 P.u.

Just as we are wing to prods, a rumour reac!iEs
us, in which we have every reason to pllce

entire confidence.

It is said that important communications have

been received from various officars holding the

highest positions in her 11l ijast,y's service, in
which the CANNING Proclamation is unreservedly
condemned, awl the worst consequences are anti-

cipat©d from its promulgation.

We are unable to state whether these conitnu-

nications are of a private or of an official charAc-

ter, but Nve must express our earnest hope that

their substano; at leas, my be- at once counnu-

nichtzd to the country.

Mr. VERNON SMITH, in answering the question
fairly asked by Mr. CRAWFORD on Tuesday even-
ing, as to " whether Lord CANXING'S proclama-
tion had been issued in obedience to instructions
sent out from this country," declared, with the sua-
vityand politeness for which ho is celebrated(!) that
it was " so o'iriously ridiculous" " that it scarcely
required an answer," And that " the firLt inti-
mation which he had of the proclamation was
-from the letter, the substance of which he had
stated to the House." We are bound to
believe the Ex-President of the India Board,
but merely as to the lit.ifal meaning of his
words. He has, unfortunately for himself,
and the party wit!' whom ho was associated,
proved himself to be a skilful special pleader,
capable of suppressing the truth, and creating a
perfectly false impression as to tho actual state of
affairs—the true facts that ought 0 iefluence
Parliament and the country. Had he been in the
7ittiesenbox, with a skilful cross-examiner before
hirn,.the real state of the case might have been
It would have been disc)vered whether
he had suggested the policy indicated by that re-
markable•
document ; or whether he had
approved of, and sanctioned it, on being
interrogated tbrourrh a
communication. pseudo-" ivate 7
onel FRANKS' recently a
General in India, and who in that capacity
gained verdant laurel, has stated that, from con-
versations with Lord CANNING, he inferred that
the proclamation could only haft been the result
of instructions from home. The circumstances
were certainly of a very extraordinary character,
and must have fully justified that gallant officer in
arriving at such a conclusion. One who had ac•
gaited so high a reputation would *scarcely risk
by ventilating such rumours, unless there weX
ample grounds to rest on. It might have been

but a "general impression," and the Hero who
achieved two glorious triumphs in a single day by
his brilliant strategy, might be unwilling to com-
promise a friend by disclosing the particulars of
their confidential conversation. But the interests
of Great Britain and of India imperatively demand
that Colonel—he ought to be General—FßANKS,
and Mr. SMITH, formerly of Cannon-row, should
be examined before the House or a Select Com-
mittee, before a decision be taken. It is a matter
of such magnitude myth vital importance
to the community at large, that the verdict should
not be delivered on inadequate or possibly erro-
neous premises. We have, therefore, a right to
demand that there should be a stringent investi-
gation into all the circumstances, and that every
w itness who could throw light on the subject
should be examined, and that before the final
division.

What will be the result of that division ?
What will be the course adopted by the
independent and really liberal members ? It is
in their hands that the issue depends, and heavy
indeed will be the responsibility if they should
disregard the vitally important duty that now
devolves upon them. The recognised leaders of
the party, Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. BRIGHT, have
justly supported not merely the Government, but
the policy of Lord ELLENBOROUGH. They well know
that thepoliey of confiscation—the policy that must
prolong the conflagration in India, originated in
London, and that, though Lord CANNING is the
party really responsible, Mr. SAIITH is the one
that should endure the censure. He feels that
he winces under the unpleasant truth. But still
ho must bear the consequences of his own
wilfulness and fatuity.

The vote of last Friday in the Lords was either
way of little consequence. Had it been adverse,
its only significance would have arisen from the
singularity of a majority in the Upper House
against a Conservative Ministry. It has not been
the custom, of late years, that a Ministry enjoy-
ing the confidence of the Commons should resign
because of a hostile vote in the Lords. At least,
it has not been the practice of Whig Ministers,
and therefore Conservatives would not be abso-
lutely bound to abide by the decision of the Con-
servative House itself. However, a majority of
ten decided in their favour, decided that they were
not called upon to censure her Majesty's Ministers
for the pronaettre sending of a despatch, when
the Minister who sent it had already resigned,
and the Chief of the Ministry had expressed his
regret. that it had been sent. Lord SHAFTESBURY
might, if he bad chosen, have applie 1 the cen-
sure to Lord ELLENBOROUCHI only; and, probably,
as opinion then stood, his resolution would have
passed. That, however, would not have suited
his purpose. He knew that Lord Eeeze-
BOROUGH was just the man to cere nothing about
the censure of a majority of the Lords or of the
Commons either, if he had done what he thought a
right and bold deed ; and the Ministry would not
in that case have been affected by the vote. Lord
SHArrEsuuafs object, however, as we believe,
notwithstanding his repeated appeal, in a politi-
cal squabble, to the awful name of the Most
High, was neither more nor less than to oust
Lord DERBY, and to reinstate his favourite
Bishop-maker. Perhaps, indeed, we do Lard
SHAFTESBURY injustice after all. He does not
regard bishop-making as political work, although
bishops aro nominated by the political
chief of the day, and expected to vote
with him. His appeals to the Great name, by
which we swear, probably meant, that the Searcher
of hearts well knew that he had nothing at heart,
but getting Bishops of his own sort into the
Church of England. Well, be it so. To get.
Evangelical Bishops into the State Church, arri
to keep Jews out the State Legislature, are,
doubtless, in Lord SHAFTESBURY'S opinion, Chris-
tianity—not politics !
We are free to admit, however, that the small-
ness of the majority in the Lords on Friday las:
was received by many as a rather untoward
circumstance. Since then, indeed, opinion hat.
rapidly changed, and the effect of the debate
itself on the country has been greater than
that of the decision. The factious nature re
Mr. CARDWELL'S ....motion—it ought rather to
be called the Cambridge-house Sunday motion—
has become every day more apparent. The fair
majority, however, in the Lords, was twenty-six.
That was the majority of votes, though a majority
of sixteen in the proxies reduced the recorded
majority to ten.
But, though it would not have affected this case
practically, is this system of almost unlimited
voting by proxy reasonable ? Is it fair to the
country ? Is it fair to the House of Commons ?
The only excuse for the Lords voting by proxy that
we know of, is that the questions which come before
the Upper House have generally been well dis-
cussed both by the press and the Lower House.
Of what passes in "another place" the Lords aro
technically and conventionally supposed to be in
blissful ignorance ; bat even if we permit then-
noble sticklers for form and ceremony the benefie
of knowing what they are only tchnically unac-
quaioted with, ought proxies to avail when a •
motion, or business in any shape, originates in the
Upper House ? Is it not discreditable beyond con-
ception to find that on a motion like Lord
SHAFTESBURY'B the proxies were more than half as
many as the votes ? One hundred and fourteen
Lords thus voted on a forepae conclusion, They
had heard neither Lords SHAFTESBURY and GRAN-
VILLE on one side ; nor Lords ELLENBORDUGH aud
DERBY on the other. These must all therefore
be set down as simply party votes. The noble
lords had heard no arguments on the subject
whatever. Information satisfactory, even abso-
lutely conclusive against their proxy view of the
question, might have been furnished at
the eleventh hour, They may reply, set
have read the debates, and our opinion
is unchanged. And we may rejein—Bat how,
unless you were inspired, could you be sure that
reading the debates mig,ht not have induced you
to change your vote ? If it is replied to this the!
the Noble proxy-voters never irtk
wenow mightntheir
opiniotie to be changed by any debate,.cl
• in return ask, then why not dispense with such
useless time-wasters as debates altogether ?
Iu Committees of the Lords, proxies are net
available, on the alleged ground that, ou details,
a decided opinion cannot well be formed by-those
who are abeeet. Bet surely the rule ought at least
to be generalised, and proxies not allowed on any-
question which the voter has not hoard fully
discils3cd. Our judges might with equal, or oven
greater propriety, decide pints of law without
hearing the arguments of counsel, since the sta-
tutes and legal decisions are as open to the judge
as to the barrister.

The whole system, however, is bail. Prc.xies
are, as the rule, only a device to enable the indo-
lent to vote without trouble, or the antiquated
partisan to effect his purpose through those
who sympathise with his prejudicea. The
votes of men too old and infirm to be more than
relics of other times and circumstances, of
men too fond of sport, or of rustic quiet, or of
town dissipation, to be an their place while the

nation s business is proceeding, are not the votes
which ought to decide a question or even to add
weight to the votes of those who were present.
If the country tolerates hereditary legislators, it
ought not to tolerate idlers, or drones, as legisla-
tors. To put the matter in its best light, what
would the country, what would the Lords, think,
if it were propossd to give proxies to commoners,
on all bills which came down to thorn from the
Upper House ? The proposal might be worth
making by way of exposing the unfairness of
allowing proxies in the Lords.

Now, if ever, is the time for the independent
Liberals to become a power in the house, and in
the country to. The " ONE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY" who have openly seceded from mere
Whiggism, who have so far organised themselves
as to name a convener, or, in the elegant phrase-
ology of Parliament, a " whipper-in" or a
" whip," have now an opportunity which may
not soon occur again. It is indeed remarkable
that, almost immediately on their profession of a
better, a more decided political faith, a testing
case is put before them. Will the "hundred
and twenty" be consistent ? is the question
anxiously asked, not only in the house but out of
it. Will they again throw incense on the altars
of PALMERSTON to escape political martyrdom, so
far as the Whigs can inflict it ? or will they
stand firmly to their new creed, and found a
political party which shall either permeate with
its influence the ranks of Whigs and Tories, or in
no long time supplant them ? We confess to deep
interest in the answer which the division lists
shall give to these votes. We saw with the
highest pleasure the prospect of a union of really
independent members to free themselves from
subserviency to sham liberalism. We can there-
fore but feel a corresponding solicitude for their
consistency.
We do not know that we have any reason to
doubt that they will be consistent—that they
will veto in a compact body for Mr. DILLWYN'S
amendment. Still they will excuse us if, em-
bodying as they do by their secession the views
we have so long maintained and urged, we
state our reasons for entreating them to
support Mr. DILLWYN. His motion, to all
of us without, goes much further in up•
holding Lord CANNING's needful authority
in India than the " previous question" would
do. He himself, till the promised explanations
trrive, can hardly ask more than that we should
pronounce no opinion on the proclamation. We
may allow to each other that there may be fair
.ground for difference of opinion ; Lord CANNING
~vould allow it; it is, therefore', all lie ceuld ask
of the House, to abstain for tile present from
either censure or blame. With commendation for
Lhe pact, which his friends should think sufli
cient, and which his opponents, for the sake of
fair parliameatary co-operation, are willing to
concede, it should decline b pass any judgment
either on the proclamation or on the despatch.
We need hardly argue that the independent
Liberals are not required, by the " situation," to
censure the despatch, or rather its premature
publication. The writer and sender has resigned,
his chief has acknowledged his imprudence ; that,
for reasonablti men, is practically atonement
la-nigh. That the country generally would think
it mere partisanship and faction to inflict further
punishment on a Ministry, we are pretty confi-
lent. The universal opinion out of Parliament
—surely iu Parliament too—is that broadly as-
serted by Mr. CAIRNS and Mr. Rozaucx, that
Ar.CAILDNVILL motion is really intended neither
to uphold Lard CANNING'S authority in India,
eor in the intcrost of India itself, but simply and
aarely to unseat Lord DERBY and put Lard PAL-
XIERSTON in office. The entire Hence knows, and
the speeches on both sides show it, that the mere
technical misleneanour condemned by the Whig
resolution, is not its real object. The whole dis-
mission has t tken a much wider range than that.
Will any one deny that the division of Friday
eight will be simply and purely on the question
whether .DEUDY or PALMERSTON should be in a
ninority ? It is a battle for the premiership—a
struggle fir office. Every Member will vote nei-
ther for CANNING nor Indi 1, but for DERBY or
iALMERSTON. AIM of sense will surely, like
the jury on BERNARD'S trial, turn a deaf
ear to all the sophisms of special pleaders, and all
,-,he constructive criele-makin;Y, of judgee, and vote
en the real issue, DERBY or PALMERSTON..
As the Government has accepted Mr. DILLWYN'S
resolution, the course f.ir the "hundred and
twenty" is surely then clear. They commit them-
selves by it to nothing, except to the object of
their own published resoluLiya : they will refuse
to be parties to r,)instating hollow, untrustworthy
liberalism. With the constituencies, we are certain
that this course will be the popular ono ; and,
;hould a dissolution ever come of it, will be safe.
['hey cool I not have a better account to give at
the hustings than that they refused to restore to
office the author of the Conspiracy Bill, the en._
lorser of Lord CLIIt'ZNDW3 anti-libered foreign
policy, the Premier who slighted Sardieia in
favour of A.astria, and who allowed our fellow-
countrymen almost to rot or go mu' in a Neve-
litan gaol. There is not a liberal constituency
which did not exult ~vlyzn the confederates with
WALuWSNI against English honour were cashiered,
and when the Pre vier who coul 1 p strenise a
3EINktICARDS and give the go-by 0 11)Form, was
sent to the "113format)ry School" of opposition.
jrievel, indeed, would liberal elee,ore be with a
vote which should take the ox-Premier from that
school Infers lie had learned. what Liberals
mean by reform.

From all we can gather, nothing can prevent a
lissolution but giving a majority to the Glynn-
rnent. Lord PALUEMTON cannot iu any case
command a sufficient majority to make it unrea-
sonable for Lord agnia. to dissolve ; and ha will,
therefor(,, cart tinly do it. Now ava put it to the
Endepandent Liberals—how could a digs Autioa
servo thcir objeutg ? First —lffeontod as the coun-
try now foals with L)rd PALIIEII3TON, and dis-
gagtod at his factious struggles for office, the
alvanc3cl Liberals would be in danger of losing
many seats in favour of more conservative mon.
the issue pr seated to tlio c3uutry would
be so coafugod that liberal objects would be very
mach hidden from sight. The quarrel would be
3,3 it WAR, too mach, last year, about 131311 more
than abeat measure:;, and this tiaa 3 Lord DERBY
is in office, au 1 with Paris F mg-z)N in the back-
w,roand,
appears nuquestilnably to great advantage,
03:nplrel with what he did last year.

jorl3ityl'
af:rf Lallrlipp)asstivhisliatias, surall that of a
out a dissolution, place-3111i: imiritolait-
uude3irahl3. • Uncontrollable before, he would be
in mffirable restaregl by sue'l mauls. If after hay..
inj„ jilted every claia of raformarg, ha no AT found
them voting for him, he would think all
nothingth ;
3 past
cendoned. Of gratitude he would know
Church Rate Abolitiouist4 wadi main fins that
they had come from ail parts of the I.leit3l King-
dom only to be joked, and to learn that the
falsahoodi of L)rd SHIFZENBIJItY'S committee of
Laymce's It9port, had more weight than all
the fuOds of abolitioois'.e. So it would be

with all reformers who meant business. As to
Parliamentary Reformers they would, of course,
be told to wait for a grand bill—which, again,
after Easter would be found literally blank paper.
According to our last advices, however, we re-
peat that we regard the alternative as really being
—a dissolution, or the carrying of Mr. DILLW YN'S
amendment. We do not write thus merely to in-
timidate. If we thought the occasion worth a
dissolution, we should be among the first to say
vote for the right, and let the Government dissolve
or not as it pleases ; we cannot, however, think
the occasion one which justifies an appeal to the
country, or that the country will think so. We
could notblame Lord DERBY for trying the chance
of strengthening his party in the Commons by an
appeal to the electors, while his rival was de-
servedly unpopular ; but we should blame the
" hundred and twenty," and all considerate libe-
rals, if they gave him the chance of doing it.