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

in sending out a despatch of the tenor, and couched in
language, of that which was sent out by Lord Ellen-
borough, to any person, be he who he may, the gover-
nor of a small island, or the governor of a great depen-
dency—which is calculated, in the words of the resolu-
tion, " to produce the most prsjedicia,l effect, by weak-
ening the authority of the Governor G meral." (Cheers.)
That is one of the questions. Tao subsequent question
is, whether the publ:cation of such a despatch is justi-
fiable. Now, the general tenor of the debate has been
"..o 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. (Hear.) I am not prepare! to give
an unhesitating vote in favour of that policy, but I con-
fess that the ant cedents of Lord Canning lead use to be-
lieve tbat his policy is right. (Cheers.) But that is not
',he question before us. (Hear ) Are we go to the
c ,untry upon a false issue ? (Ministerial cheers.) The
gillant gener.l 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
oarte. We shall have to decide whether the despatch
and the publication were right, and whether the policy
.f Lord Canning is right. (Cheers.) Although we are
'iot in a condition to pass an opinion upon the merits of
the proclamation, I s, ill think we may vote upon the
.imple qu-stion whether such a despatch ought to have
Teen sent, and whether it ought to have been publisaed.
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 Northarnp-
'Gun did not hear. The paragraph which the hon. mem-
,er read clearly shows that the Chief C mmissioner (Sir
J. Outram) had stated to the G ivernor-General his ob-
jections to the proclamation. What I want to know is,
whether the right hen, gentleman is in any way in pos-
-eseion 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 wnich will throw
any light upon the objections which at some former
time Sir J. Ou ram may have urged against the procia-
oath a, or whether be knows that such previous remon-
strances have been made by Sir J. Outram.
Mr. V. SMI PH—I did not answer the question, be-
eause I thought it had been sufficiently answered by the
Secretary to the Board of Control. That hon. gentleman
,s in possession of, or has access to, all the documents
which I received while in office—(near, 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.
tram.On

Mr. SPOONER—The right hon. gentleman has
not answered one important question. My hon. friend
has asked whether the right hon. gentleman was in pos.
ses,ion of the fact that remonstrances had been ad-
dressed by the Chief Commissioner to the Governor-
Generel upon the sujec; uf tee pluelaeia.ier. relacere.)
Mr. V. SMITH—I know nothing but from the
lespatch of what may have passed between Sir J.
Outram and the Governor-General. (Hear.)
Mr. L. KING—I cannot but express my regret at
the decision of the right hon. member for Oxford, and
.an only express my hope that in the course of the debate
is may see something which will altogether change his
oi,inon, and 1-ad him to withdraw his motion. (Cheers.)
Mr. KER SEYMER—I think tl e amendment of
.he hon. member for Swansea is uncertain in its mean.
ire.e. Ido not understand what he means by genera'ly
approving of Lard Canning's colicy up to the time of
'be pre Lunation. I am one of those who are inclined to
think that the proclamation has never been issued. I
under-teed—it is true, on second-band authority—that
Sir Archdale Wilson says that up to the time of his
leasing India on the 18th April, no proclaim% i nhad
ewer been issued, but that it had been sent to Sir Celin
Campbe 1 and the other military chiefs. Well, sir, as
Lerd Canning has shown hirnse,f willing to listen tai the
a !vice of the miatiry chiefs, as he has wade other alter-
stions, he may have withdrawn it altogether.
Lord H. VANE—I join in the general feeling, aid
appeal to my right hon. friend to take into his conside-
ratori—(Milysterial cheer,,)—tu take into his serieu
consideration whether, in the new circumstances, con
aid-ring the opinions that have been expressed, and the
oubt tbat bas been ju suggested by my hen. friend
whether this proclamation has been issued at all, it would
ere well to persevere in the motion. I should have
,ff ,rded my right hon. friend my supp art, but I du
chink he would ex,rcise a sound discretion were be
to defer to that which, as far as I can ja ige, is
..ee general opinion of the h ,use, that in the pr e_
sent circuria&tances he should wi hdra his in ,tau
eh'c't eert iinly in its w r ling seems hardly applic ib
to the present state ething-. ( qinister:al d ear-)
Captain VIVIAN—We are here now not only to lm-
reach her Majesty's Government f,,r the deer) deli but
we are here t, clear the character of the Givernor-
General of India from the charges of unworthy caridurit
made against him in that desp itch. (Hear, hear.) We
Know quite well from the apptarance of the benches
in both sides that there Las been what, in the phra,eo.
logy of this hou,e, is called a very strong whip, and we
know quite well, however much we may talk of di.cuss-
ing this matter apart from party feeling, that there is a
very strong infu:ecn of party feeling in this ques.ion. It
wou'd be ueyond doubt a party triumph to the opposite
tide if my right hon. friend the member for Oxford were
to withdraw hie resolution. M :re than that, it, would
go out to India that an attempt to clear the character of
Lord Canning in this house, by impeaching the miuist r
who impea,hed his tharacfer, had failed on this side of
he house. I say, therefore, that I trust the house wili
feel that it should do 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 hon. gentle-
man the metnuer f r Oxford int- nds to withdraw his
'notion, or if he is induced to withdraw it, I can only
-tat-, intending as I du to vo'e in a ce,rtain menn-r on
this occasion—(loud laughter)—that on the occaiien of
he last debate on the subject of the annexation of Oa de
there were many members who advocated a clement
p who now lo ,k at it in a cliff rent point of
I trust that the house will not allow the motion to be
withdrawn.

Mr. HORSNIAN—I do not rifle to take part in this
discussion, but to express a doubt as to the regularity of
our prooeeeinge. As I understand the motion b.fere.
the house is to adjourn to Friday next, and one of the
orders of the clay is the motion of my right hoe. friend
the member for Oefor 1. New on the wo ion for a'-
j ambient it apeears that we are discussing one of the
riers of the day. I put it to you, Sir, whether that is
not irregular
Mr. WHITE—As I am not in the ca'egory of those
geutleman who if a division is forced will divide against
the right honourable gentl mean the memher for Ox-
ford, I may perhaps renew the appeal to him to with-
draw his motien. I cannot be surprised that my hon.
ft lend who preceded me, with that. traditional love of his
nation far a fight, should be reluctant to have the ineton
withdrawn, but a large number of those geothinen who
w 11 be compelled by previous promises to vote for the
resolution will not be reluctant. (Loud Ministerial
cheers.) I ray this in a sp7rit of frankness which I am
sure the house will appreciate. (C'acers.) I cannot but
believe tbat the avowal that so many of his friends will
oe placed in such an unenviable position, and that there
is a larger number who will feel that they will bseeppalercaetde
in such unpleasant circumstances that they will
on that ocea.lon from many with whom thee have long
acted, and with whom they will be too glad to act again,
will influence the right hon. gentleman. Arid I may
also add the large and overpowering con iteration to
many of us of the bad Effct of a dis,o'ution. (Lou ;
cries of " hear, hear," and laughter.) I eball ect shrink
from saying thus much, though I know that I am speak-
ing in the presence of large-acred squires and of persons
who respect the majesty of the Twee per Cents. ; but I
am also al4ressing a large number of persons who well
know that in every commercial centre of this country a
dissolution at this time, when the conemereial world is
recovering from the late collapse which bas been so dis-
aetrotts, 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 Its motion he wouti
be twitted by members on the other side of the house,
This is not a question of twitting—it is a question of the
happiness ef 150 millions of God's creatures ; and I d
say that, after the ieformation we have received this
morning, and iu the absence of. all certainty of Lord
Canning having issued the proclamation, th.s question is
not ripe for judgment. I have made up my mind, and
will adhere to the resolution ; but I app at to the right
gectletnan not to press the motion, and I am sure
I speak the Opinion of thousands of her Majesty's sub-
jects. (Loud cries for Cardwell.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I have listened with great
attention to this conversation. (Roars of laughter, the
noble lord having at that moment entered the house
from behind the Speaker's chair.) The motive which
led my right hon. friend to make the motion which
stands in the order of the day has, I think, been much
misrepresented. It was conceived that a very preju-
dicial effect would be produced in India by the despatch
of the home Government on the sut.ject of the procla-
mation ; and it was necessary—not only with that view
but 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 efffct
of that which my right hon. friend has moved. Well,
tir, papers have been laid on the table this evening
which have a very important bearing upon the tenor of
the debate which has now lasted several days. Those
who have spoken against the resolution have concurred
in the opinion expressed in the despatch—that the
policy which Loid Canning indicated in his proclama-
tion was a policy of sweeping and general confiscation
affecting the whole of the people of Oude—that it was,
in short, a policy
of cruel severity, whereas the home
lNenocymaanndwdhioscrLtnsinraetaidngthmeepracypeorsugwhhtict.h
Government and those who supported it, thought that a
be eo l pursued.ipolicy
o tem
containing an authentic record and
have been received,
exposition of the views with which Lord Canning
intended to publish that proclamation—a proclama-
tion, by-the-bye, which we have no later informa-
tion has oven 3et been issued I say no man
omit have read that exposition of Lord Canning':
yew without seeing that his int.,ntion was, in
be fl,ir pace, that the proclamation should
iltliegii.Jet: iolrC .%"4:ni34: was a-A thet tb
as confined tt
tbe tAlookdare— (no, no)—and that
with regard to them his princifld was this, that, instead

of saying, " I will punish the guilty by retrospective
inquiry, and inflict punishment upon those who shall be
proved to have been guilty," he took the other course
and said, " I will not punish the past, I will only take
a security for the future, and all those who give me that
security by tendering their submission shall be restored
to their rights." I admit, therefore, that those papers
establish conclusively the fact that the policy of Lord
Canning with regard to this proclamation was the policy
which be pursued from the commencement, and which
has been characterised, in the course of these debates, as
the clemency of Lord Canning. Well, that being the
case, it appeared to me that these papers going out to
India will counteract the bad effect of the secret de-
spatch publi-led by the Government, and that being
the case, and the conduct of the Governor-General hav-
ing been, I do not say sufficiently, vindicated by those
who have taken part in the debate, which has now been
carried on for several days, I would submit that if it is
the wish .1 the house— (loud Ministerial cheere)--that
no further proceedings should take place, I would recom-
mend to my right hon. friend to bow to the wishes and
feelings of the house. I might undoubtedly, in accord-
ance with the sp:.rit with which the motion is made, put
it to the Government whetner they would not be dis-
posed to view that letter in the same light in which it
strikes me, and to sanction by their c .ncurrence Lord
Canning's policy. lam not in a condition to ask any-
thing of them, but, staling the ground on which it ap-
pears to me that these papers gnirg out to India will
materially and powerfully counteract the prejudicial
effect of the secret despatch, I submit to my hon. friend
that if it be the wish of the house that he should with-
draw the resolution, he might perhaps act more pro-
perly in withdrawing it.

. _
Mr. CA.RDWELL—Sir, I conceive that I am in this
position--(loud leughter)—that the motion is in your
hands, and except with the general concurrence of the
house I have not the power to withdraw it. I did not
feel that it was open to me in an earlier part of the even-
ing to express my desire to withdraw the resolution, but
after the numerous appeals that have been made to me,
[ shall certainly desire to act in concurrence with the
general feeling of the house, and if I understand that it
is the geeeral feeling of the house that I should withdraw
it, I will not stand in the way.
Mr. GLA.DSTONE—My impression is that my right
hon. friend has not misunderstood what he believes to
be the prevailing sentiment of the house. There can be
no doubt, whatever t'ie motive of this proceeding, that
in every proceeding where the house is divided on mat-
ters of deep interest that much ef the bitterness of party
strife mu•t mingle in the contest, and that if it did not
appear in the beginning it must al map grow up during
the course of the de-Atession. At the same time I think
we are all deeply sensible that there is something involved
in the discussion of this great Indian question far above
party interests. (Cheers.) lam certain that there is no
man who bears me, whatever result he may have aiitici-
peted to the motion of my right hog,. frl le!, an 1 I be-
lieve that result to have been very doubtful—there is no
man who hears me who is net willing readily to surren-
der the paltry advantage that he might have gained f oin
the issue of the coLfltct, for the sake of the happy reflec-
tion that even in the hour of excitement, so far from
acting detrimentally to the public interest, we have
stayed our hand, that we have retire I from the battl,
field, and even at the ri•k of criticism on the pr ,ceed-
ings of the house, which we cannot escape from, we have
d-clened to carry this matter to the issue. But, sir,
concurring as I do in the sprit of the recommendations
hat have been made, and regarding the decision to
which my right hon. friend—if permitted by the house
—is ready to come, as a decision eminently advantageous
under the circumstances of the hour to the pu'rlic inte-
rests, I still would venture to say one word on the subject
of the person to whom my noble friend the member for
Tiverton has alluded, whose interest and feelings are
hound up in our proceeding, and whose interest and
feelings are, allow me to say, closely connected with
public intreste. My noble friend has put a construe-
ti .n to which I am able to give, not an entire, but a
Partial assent upon the papers that ate before us to-day.
I ant convinced that Lord Canning did not intend, in
issuing the proc'amation with regard to Oude, ia any
point er in any degree to compromise those principles
of equity and humanity by which, I beg leave to say,
hi bas made a norm illustrious ia the history of the
country. If Lord Cinning'm judgment has erred—a
question on which it is not necessary for me to give
an opinion, and I frankly own that now I do not
think we are in a position to pass a judgment on the
can ?tic'. of Lord Cal, i g inissuiug the proclamation—
I am deeply convinced that he has erred simply through
a misca'culetion as to the obj-ct he had in view, and
as to the efficacy his means. And I concur with the
noble 1 rd the member for Tivertoe, in the belief that
it was the intention of Lord Canning to efiect no gene-
ral displacement of proprietary rights in Oule, but be
reeor•ed to that proclamation as, what we thought, the
hest means in his power under the circumstances of
Oude for the purpose of settling all tne controversies
that bad arisen in the province with regard to pro•
pri,-tary rights sine the ann, xttion of it by the E .g
lish. At the same time lamf ee t i ,ay that I think
those who have bad, like my-elf, the honour and
privilege of knowing L,rd Canning from his ho)hood,
are ros only entitled but hound to put that conetruc-
ti3n on his intentions, and, for one, I have no choice
but to put that construction. lam as much convince I
of that both from general knowledge of him and Erwin
all the i formation I have boon able to obtain, as if I

had the statement from him at this moment

With

regard to Lord C inning, and with regard to the
rolgment of the !wise at large, I have been one ( f
those who, lamenting the original propos d of my right
bon. friend, felt thankful to the hon. gentleman
the member for S mansioa for the amendment wbich he
submitted. Ido not think, convinced as I am of the
motives and intenti )ne of Lord Canning, that it would
be fair to ask the hsuee, or that it would he fair to ask
of her Majesty's Government at this moment to put any
particular interpretation even upon the papers that have
been received te-day. It appears to me that the safest
ground upon which we can take our stand is that up t
this moment we do not absolutely know that the procla-
mation is a public document, and that although it is true
that we are in possession of so much of his views and
policy as Lord Canning thought fit to state in answer to
the letter of Sir J. Outram, yet we are not at al! entitled
to say that we are in possession of the wh. to case which
Lord Canning may have thought fit to submit to her
Majesty's Government at home. That being so, I hope
e may have from her Majesty's Government a state-
ment that they do not recede from the intention they
have expressed in this house to support the declaration
of the hon. member for Swansea,
which refers to the
past ri id of Lord Canning'e government, that they
r
c mmir in the sentiments expressed by the amendment,
that they aee sati- fied with the judgment and firmness
which be has shown in difficult circumstances, and that
they approve generally of the policy which be has per-
sued. I confess it appears to me that to muclt we may
reasonably ask, and I believe I a n right in saying that
the bead of her ,Majesty's Government did specifically
declare in another place sentiments with regard to the
p licy and conduct of Lord Conning as Governor-General
of India, which precisely correspond with all that the
amendment of the hon. member for Swansea says with
regard to L I Ceening'e proceedings up to the issuing
( f the Oude proclamation. Sir, I feel a deep interest
in Lerd Canuittg, not only on public ground', but on
the ground that the country has a deep interest in the
character of its public men, and that int-rest becomes
deeper when a person bas been chosen by the favour of
his sovereign to discharge the high duties of Governor-
General of India under circumstances of unparalleled
difficulty. When the late Government made choice of
L .rd Canning in cmcert with the Court of Directors,
I c nifess it had appeared to me that they had made an
admirable selection, dictated only by a motive of public
duty, which was likely to result in great advantage to
those over whom he was called to rule. I bad sufficient
knowledge of Lord Canning to form a most favourable
otinion of what he would.do in India, and, I am bound
to say, although the trial to which he has been sub-
mitted has been severe beyond all precedent, that no
one, I think, can look back upon the proceedings of last
summer without feeling that we owe it to Lord Can-
ning that we have escaped—if indeed we have escaped
—the charge of cruelty in India. And now I call upon
the house to observe that there is no one who has stated
more clearly and distinctly the mitigating peculiarity of
the position of the landholders of Oude than Lord Can-
ning himself, both in his priestoe letter to the right hon.
member for Northampton, and likeaiss in the public de-
spa no is tied by Mr. Edmoustone, to the Commission. r
for Oude, and which has this morning been placed on
the table. S:r, I thick it not too much to express the
hope filet the house will generally cuncur in the pro-
prie y and wisdom of the course which my right hon.
friend the member for Oxford is abrut to take, and
while he is permitted by the general assent of the house
to pursue that course, her Majesty's Government will
upon the other hand not refuse, in the hour when pres-
sure is relieved, the pledge which they gave—and I trust
honourably gave—in the hour when pressure was
strong upo r them, but will declare in this house, as they
have declared in the other, that the policy of Lord Can-
ning in the general conduct of the affairs of India, under
circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, is deserving
and has received titer approbation. (Cheers.)
Lord HOTHAM—I am not going to give any opinion
Owbxfeutrliderthe
should
right hon, houlten. gentlemaninotbetlie m
permitted
tmoewitietridrrafowr
his
event
m ooftitoine;
hbouutseictismoanseuncthingasiol
tchoencweiitvhedrtahat
wal iln bshtalel
be deprived of the opportunity of presenting a petition
relating to the motion from a portion of my constituents
residing in Beverley, which has been placed in my hand,
I will now state tee purport of it. The petitioners state
hat tt ey have seen with regret the proclamation of th-
Gorey no.-General of India, o infiscating the whole of the
landed property of Oude ; they state their belief that the
ffect of that proclamation will be to exasperate the
whole of the people of that country, and their prayer is
that if tee house should come to a resolution condemna-
tory of the despatch of Lord Ellenborough, the constitu-
encies threu4hout the country may have an opportunity
of pronouncing their opinion on the matter. (Rear.)
Sir E. PERRY—An appeal has been made that some
-xpreseion cf opinion shculd be made by the Gover—
ment on the conduct of L )rd Gentling. I wish to point
itit, as an act of justice, that the question which w-
have been debating for the last week has been whether
Lord Canning intended to confiscate the lands of a
province. We eitputed that in tLis house, because, from
kno h ledge of Lord Canning's antecedents, we believed
t was impossible to suppose be would do that. Now,
( see from the papers which n e have received this day,
:hat the question which has arisen between Lord Canning
arid Sir James Ou ram has not been a question of justice
r injuelce, but simply a question of policy. These
Japers di:a:lase the fact that (La-s had been
lisposseeeed by Lord Dalhousie, ant that that dispos-
session had caused great turbulence, (iurmurs.) These
papers show that all Lord Canning intended to do was I