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

THE

ferent arguments from those which he used last Friday.
The case of last Friday is not the case of this Friday.
(Laughter.) New information has arrived, and we have
materials for a new debate altogether. (Hear.) You
might as well divide on some defunct motion made
during the last session as on the motion now before the
house. (Laughter and cheers.) The right honourable
gentleman considers himself pledged to it, and that he
must go on. But there is no occasion for him to go on
at all. (Loud cheers.) It is said that honourable gen•
tlemen opposite will not allow him to withdraw it.
Surely that cannot be the case. They complain that it
is a party move. But will not their refusal to withdraw
it make it a party move ! (Cheers.) The late First
Lord of the Admiralty, the other night, said that he
never felt so olear from party motives in his life. (Loud
laughter.) Therefore this is no party movement, and
therefore he cannot object to its being withdrawn or
postponed until we get a little more information.
(Laughter.) I should say withdraw it altogether. (Loud
cheers.) I had intended to vote for the motion. Ido
not disguise my opinion. If the right hon. gentleman
holds me to that pledge, perhaps I ought to vote for it;
but as it is I must take my hat and wish him good night.
(Laughter and cheers.) Ido say that it is for the cha-
racter, the dignity, the honour of this house, and for the
interests of our Indian empire, that the motion should
he withdrawn. (Loud cheers.)
Sir D. NORREYS—I gave notice of a motion last

night, but understand it cannot be put on account of
the forms of the house. lam convinced that a large por-
tion of those who hear me would be very glad to get
out of the dilemma in which they are placed. (Cheers.)
I have a decided objection to the resolution of the right
hon. 'gentleman being proceeded with at the present
time. I think we have sufficient information before us
to satisfy us that we ought to take a more decided course
than the one now proposed. The question of confisca-
tion is a decided fact. (Ministerial cheers.) Can anybon.

member on this side of the house conscientiously say
that there are any grounds on which the landbolders of
Oude ought to be subjected to this penalty. I confess,
for my own part, that I an totally ignora❑t of the ei
tent to which these landholders harerendered themselves
liable to the. universal punishment inflicted upon them.
All that I know is that Lord Canning, in his last de-

spatcb, describes them in this manner:—" The Gove►-
nor-General entirely agrees with you i❑ viewing the ta-
lookdars and landholders of Oude i❑ a very different light
from that in which rebels in our old provinces are to be

regarded. The people of °tide had bees subjects of the
British government for little more than one year when the I
mutinies broke out ;.they had become so by no act of their
own." Those who were prepared to vote for the right hon.
gentleman's motion were evidently supporting the policy
of confiscation, and yet th ey were not in possession of
any information by which to justify this extraordinary
act. (Cheers.)
Mr. 0. STANLEY—I agree with the hon. member
far Finsbury, and should regret the house being forced
to a division on this unfortunate motion. (Cheers.) From
the moment the additional papers were placed on the
table of the house, I felt that a complete alteration had
taken place in the aspect cf the question. (Cheers.) It
w 663 evident to me that the first three lines of the right
hon. gentleman's motion ceased to be of value, because
we now have Lord Canning's reasons for the proclama-
tion which he issued. I wish to ask a question of the
hon. member for Swansea, because the house will recol.
lect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Go-
vernment have declared their determination to suppoi t
the amendment of that hon. member. I wish to know
whether in the altered state of circumstances he means
to move his amendment ? (Hear.) It seems to me that
having in our hauls the papers which have just been
produced, we cannot agree to the following words, that
"this house declines to give any opinion upon the °tide
proclamation until it has had further information on the
state of Oude when the proclamation was issued, and
also Lord Canning's reasons for issuing it." I wish to
ask the hon. gentleman if he still means to put his amend.
men t ? (Cheers.)
Mr. DILLWYN—In reply to the question of the hon.
gentleman, I beg to say that if the right hon. gentleman
presses his motion, I shall certainly press my amend-
ment. I cannot but think that the papers which have
this morning reached us in no way take away the neces-
sity of my amendment. They appear to me to show
that Lord Canning's policy is an impracticable policy ;
and looking at the opinion of Sir J. Outram, I do not
think we shall be able to adopt that policy unless we
!save a greater force in India than we have at present.
(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES—I rise to express to the Ist u e n-
viction of the nature of the papers which have been put
":- Tho house will recollect
that we have been discussing—what? A proclaosat.ion
supposed to have been issued in °sue. IV nen I When
Lucknow was taken. That proclamation issaid to embody
a phrase confiscating the proprietary rights of the soil,
implying that the proprietary rights of five millions of

people are to be confiscated. In England the word

"confiscation" has a fearful signification. But I, as a
linguist, say—•(laughter)—l, as a linguist, say that the
term used does not signify confication—(laughter)—but
it means "sequestration"—(continued laughter)—se-
questration. It means appropriation and sequestration,
leaving a complete opening for the consideration of any
claim that may arise. That is my full and firm belief of
the meaning of the term originally used in the proclama-
tion. But when was it used ? The proclamation was to
be issued when Lucknow was taken. Before Lucknor,v
was taken. Sir J. Outram communicates with Lord Can•
fling, and says, ," Your proclamation will prevent the
talookdars from coming in, and your lordship bad better
make some alteration." What did Lord Canning do?
Lord Canning, in reply, says—" To those amongst them
who shall promptly come forward, and give to the Chief
Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace,
this indulgence will be large, and the Governor-General
will be ready to view liberally the claims which they
may thus acquire to a restitution of their former rights."
Then what becomes of the charge against Lord Canning's
policy when anybody choosing to come in will have his
rights considered in a liberal spirit, and his property may
be restored? What becomes of the charge of confiscation!
(Cheers.) Up to this moment, for anything we know,
the proclamation has not been issued, and the house has
been arguing on a system of policy that probably has no
existence at all. (Cheers.)
Mr. DUNLOP—I wish to put a question to the sight
hon. gentleman the member for Oxford with regard to
what has taken place to-night. It should be understood
whether he agrees to receive my amendment in the form
in which I put it—that is to say, as an addition to his
motion, or whether he merely means that after his mo-
tion shall have been adopted, he will then support my
amendment as a substantive resolution.

Mr. LOCKE—I do not think it very convenient to
the house to have a double discussion, and will confine
my remarks to a request to the right hon. gentleman
not entirely to reject the appeal which has been made to
him. (Cheers.) I think that circumstacceo have been
occurring from day to day since the motion wAs put on
the table, which will fully justify not only this appeal,
but the feeling that we have been discussing upon a very
narrow issue the complicated and changing state of things
in a distant country. (Cheers.) I think the papers which
we have received this day will fully justify any one in an
appeal, however strong it may be, to waive the further
discussion of the question until we have better materials
for that purpose. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Fins-
bury has suggested the adjournment of the discussion
until after the recess. But I think that would be only
adding one difficulty to another (Hear.) Considering
the narrow limits of the motion, totally irrespective of
any party object, I think the debate may be fairly .con.
eluded to-night, and I trust if we are to be limited to the
resolution we shall at once c)me to a decision. In con-
stquence of the change of circums•ances which has oc-
curred, and my not being able to agree to one part of the
resolution, I shall certainly not give it my support.
(Cheers.)

Major WORTLEY—I wish to ask a question of the
hon, member for Inverness-shire. In one of the papers
laid on the table this morning I find the following para-
graph :—The Chief Commissioner deems this matt r of
such vital importance that, at the risk of being deemed
importunate, he ventures to submit his views once more,
in the hope that the Right Hon. the Governor-General
may yet be induced to re-consider the subject." I think
it is important that the house should see the previous
letters of Sir J. Outram. It is perfectly evident from the
words and
Outran utheaexhparea previously
io‘u` rely-cownisiitdt_et
ori
thsiay to h ulil':i‘ neoct'e"te ruor
he
atSei'rJ.
Governor-General" on the subject of the
proclamation. As no date ie mentioned in the letter of
Sir J. Outram I am not able to judge whether it was
written previously to the publication of the P rocla.na
ti al or since. I therefore ask the hon. member whether
he can procure the previous papers, and if he cannel', I
would a4t the same question of the hon. member fur
Northampton. (Cheers.)
Mr. BAILLIE—It would certainly appear fro.n the
wording oft'te paragraph to which the bon, mere], r has
referred that some previous communication bad been
s been rdeecresit7riddb tehrei
gßhota
hr do
no f. Crne,etint
made,iNir.
WYLD—lfbut Done has
ber
for Oxford correctly, he still iotende to proceed with hi,
motion. I wish to ask whether it is possible at this period
of the debate to move the previous question, because to
continue the debate under present C rcumstancee is per-
fectly useless. (bear.)
Major WORTLEY—At the risk of being thought . ii -
trusive—(cries of " Order, order')—l wish to 71 ask the
right hon. gentleman opposite—(order, order.) IN l
any one ask the question for me ? (Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. B. CARTER—No one feels inure than I do tear
the house is in a false position, and for this reason. The
right hon. member fur Oxford has raised a question which
is still before the house, and which is not at all altered
by the facts which have recently come before it. What
ever the result of the division may be, the real question
will not be brought before the country. I look upon the
eubj,ct under discussion as divisible into two heads—
that which the motion has raised and that to which the
Government are directing our attention. The question
which the right hon. gentleman has raised is simply this
—whether the existing Government shall be held justified

SUN,

in sending out a despatch of the tenor, and couched in
language, of that which was sent out by Lord Ellen-
b orough, to any person, be he who he may, the gover-
nen- of a small island, or the governor of a great depen-
de 'icy—which is calculated, in the words of the resolu-
tico], " to produce the most prejudicial effect, by weak-
enii sg the authority of the Governor General." (Cheers.)
The it is one of the questions. The subsequent question
is, whether the publication of such a despatch is justi-
fiable. Now, the general tenor of the debate has been
to lose sight of this very important and imperial ques-
tion, in order to divert it to the ground of the success
or failure of the proclamation itself. As regards that
proclamation, I still think we are not in a position to
discuss and decide the question of the policy adopted by
Lord Canning. (Elear.) I am not prepared to give
an unhesitating vote in favour of that policy, but I con-
fess that the antecedents of Lord Canning lead me to be-
lieve that his policy is right. (Cheers.) But that is not
the question before us. (Hear.) Are we go to the
country upon a false issue ? (Ministerial cheers.) The
gallant general who has given notice of a motion which
will fairly raise the question, which is now unfairly
raised, has taken a course which will meet the approval
of the country. He is severing the question into two
parte. We shall have to decide whether the despatch
and the publication were right, and whether the policy
of Lord Canning is right. (Cheers) Although we ate
not in a condition to page an opinion upon the merits of
the proclamation, I still think we may vote upon the
simple question whether such a despatch ought to have
been sent, and whether it ought to have been published.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I wish to repeat the question put
by the hon. member for Honiton (Major Wortley),
which I conclude the right hon. member for Northamp-
ton did not hoar. The paragraph which the hon. mem-
ber read clearly shows that the Chief C immissioner (Sir
J. Outran]) had stated to the Governor-General his ob-
jections to the proclamation. What I want to know is,
whether the right hon. gentleman is in any way in pos-
session of any papers or documents which will throw
any light upon the subject, or whether he has been in
possession of any papers or documents which will thro
any light upon the objections which at some former
time Sir J. Ou ratn may have urged against the procla-
entice', or whether he knows that such previous remon-
strances have been made by Sir J. Outram.
Mr. V. small:I—I did not answer the question, be-

cause I thought it had been sufficiently answered by the
Secretary to the Board of Control. That hon. gentleman
Is in possession of, or has access to, all the documents
which I received while in office—(hear, hear)—and my
noble friend (Lord Palmerston) last night stated the
whole of the information regarding the proclamation
contained in the private letters which I had received.
I am not in possession of any remonstrance from Sir J.
Outrun.

Mr. SPOONER—The right bon. gentleman has
not answered one important question. My hon. friend
has asked whether the right hon. gentleman was in pos-
session of the fact that remonstrances had been ad-
dressed by the Chief Commissioner to the Governor-
General upon the subject of the proclamation. (Cheers.)
Mr. V. know nothing but from the
despatch of what may have passed between Sir J.
Outrain and the Governor-General. (Hear.)
Mr. L. KING—I cannot but express my r?gret at
the decision of the right hon. member for Oxford, and
can only express my hope that in the course of the debate
he may see something which will altogether change his
opinion, and lead him to withdraw his motion. (Cheers.)
Mr. KER SEYMER—I think tee amendment of
the hon. member fur Swansea is uncertain in its mean-
ing. Ido not understand what he means by generally
approving of Lord Canning's policy up to the time of
the proclamation. I am one of those who are inclined to
think that the proclamation has never been issued. I
understand—it is true, on second-hand authority—that
Sir Archdale Wilson says that up to the time of his
leaving India on the 18th April, no proclama ine bad
ever been issued, but that it had been sent to Sir Colin
Campbell and the other military chiefs. Well, sir, as
Lord Canning has shown himself willing to listen to the
advice of the military chiefs, as he has made other alter-
ations, he may have withdrawn it altogether.
Lord H. VANE—I join in the general feeling, and
appeal to my right hon. friend to take into his conside-
ration—(Ministerial cheers)—to take into his seriou-
consideration whether, in the new circumstances, con-
sidering the opinions that have been expressed, and the
doubt that has been just suggested by my hon. friend
whether this proclamation has been issued at all, it would
be well to persevere in the motion. I should have
afforded my right bon. friend my support, but I do
think he would exercise a sound discretion were he
to defer to that which, as far as I can judge, is
the general opinion of the house, that in the pr e-
sent circumstances he should withdraw his motio
which certainly in its w cling seems hardly applic tie
to the present state of thing;. (Ministerial LL sere)
Captain VIVIAN—We are hers now not only to im-
peach her elsjesty's Government for the deep etch but
we are here ti clear the character of the Governor-
General of India from the charges of unworthy conduct
made against him in that despatch. (Hear, hear.) We
know quite well from the appearance of the benches
on both sides that there has been what, in the phraseo
logy of this house, is called a very strong whip, and we
know quite well, however much we may talk of discuss-
ing this matter apart from party feeling, that there is a
very strong infusion of party feeling in this question. It
wuuld be tieyond doubt a party triumph to the opposite
+ide if my right hon. friend the member for Oxford were
to withdraw has resolution. Mare than that, it would
Co out to India that an attempt to clear the character of
Lord Canning in this house, by impeaching the minist_r
house. I say, therefore, that I trust the hou,e will
feel that it should di justice to Lord Canning in his
absence, and I trust that my right hon. friend will take
the sense of the house on this question.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN—I think if the right bon. gentle-
man the member fa. Oxford intends to withdraw his
notion, or if he is induced to withdraw it, I can only
state, intending as I do to vote in a c2rtain manner on
this occasion—(loud laughter)—that on the occasion of
,he last debate on the subject of the annexation of °Lyle
there were many members who advocated a clement
policy who now look at it in a diff rent point of view.
I trust that the house will not allow the motion to be
withdrawn.

Mr. HORSNIAN—I do not rise to take part in this
discussion, but to express a doubt as to the regularity of
our proceedings. As I understand the motion before
the house is to adjourn to Friday next, and one of the
orders of the day is the motion of my right boo, friend
the member for Oxford. Now on the motion for ad -
j 'urnment it appears that we are discussing one of the
orders of the day. I put it to you, sir, whether that is
not irregular ?
Mr. WHITE—As I am not in the category of those
gentleman who if a division is forced will divide against
the right honourable gentleman the member for Ox-
ford, I may perhaps renew the appeal to him to with-
draw his motion. I cannot be surprised that my hon.
friend who preceded me, with that traditional love of his
nation for a fight, should be reluctant to have the motion
withdrawn, but a large number of those gentlemen who
will be compelled by previous promises to vote for the
resolution will not be reluctant. (Lcud Ministerial
cheers.) I say this in a spirit of frankness which I am
sure the house will appreciate. (Cheers.) I cannot but
believe that the avowal that so many of his friends will
be placed in such an unenviable position, and that there
is a larger number who will feel that they will be placed
in such unpleasant circumstances that they will separate
on that occasion from many with whom they have long
acted, and with whom they will be too glad coact again,
will influence the right hon. gentleman. And I may
also add the large and overpowering consideration to
many of us of the bad effect of a dissolution. (Loud
cries of "hear, hear," and laughter.) I shall nut shrink
from saying thus much, though I know that I am speat-
ing in the presence of large-acred squires and of persons
who respect the majesty of the Three per Cents. ; but I
am also addressing a large number of persons who well
know that in every commercial centre of this ccuntry a
dissolution at this time, when the commercial world is
recovering from the late collapse which has been so dis-
astross, would be looked upon as a national calamity.
Having said thus much, I must renew my appeal on pri-
vate grounds to the right hon gentleman to withdraw
the motion.

Mr. JACKSON--An hon. member has said that if
the right hon. gentleman withdrew his motion he would
be twitted by members o❑ the other aids of the house,
This is not a question of twitting—it is a question of the
happiness of 150 millions of God's creatures ; and I do
say that, after the informatio❑ we have received this
morning, and iu the absence of all certainty of Lord
Canning having i,sued the proclamation, this question is
not ripe for judgment.. I have made up my mind, and
will adhere to the resolution ; but I app al to the right
gectleinan not to press the motion, and I am sure
I speak the opinion of thousands of her Majesty's sub-
jects. (Loud cries for CArd well.)

Lord PALNIERSTON—I have listened with great
attention to this conversation. (ft gars of laughter, the
noble lord having at that moment entered the house
froth behind the Speaker's chair.) The motive which

led my right hon. friend to make the 'notion which
Mande in the order of the day has, I think, been much
misrepresented. It was conceived that a very preju-
dicial effect would ba produced in India by tho despatch
of the home Government on the su' ject of the procla-
mation ; and it was necessary—not only with that view
tut also to establish the opinion of Parliament on that
despatch, but more especially with a view to our in-
ttrest in India—that the prejudicial effect should be
counteracted by a .reso!ution of the house to the eff ct
of that which my right hon. friend has moved. Well,
ir, papers• have been laid on the table this evening
bleb have a very important bearing upon the tenor of
the debate which has now lasted several days. Those
who have spoken again-t the resolution have concurred
in the opinion expressed in the de-patch—that the
Fahey which Lord Canning indicated in his proclaina-
tmn was a policy of sweeping and general confiscation
affecting the whole r,f the people of Oude—that it was,
in short, a policy cf cruel severity, whereas the home
Government and those who supported it, thought tba- a
policy clemency and discriminating mercy ought tr,
ha pursued. No man who has rend the papers which
have been received, containing an authentic record and
exposition of tho views with which Lord Canning
intended to publish that proclamation—a proclama-
tion, by-the-bye, which we have no later informa-
tion Las even 3et been issued— I say no man
can have read that exposition of Lord Canning',
IT:ew without seeing that his intention was, in
the filir; place, that the proclamation should
not affect the bulk of the people of Oude, and that
proclamation,
natnwe-hlye,:h4,7r or, wrong,_tro wao\sc—onfinet,
one
ta.ook oars n ai2d that
with regard to them Lie principle was this, that, instead