The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-21 00:00:00

but think that under circumstances like the present
it is a most dangerous precedent to depart from it. I have
mentioned Scinde. What was the act of Lord Ellen-
borough himself With regard to CI walior ? That was a case
in which there was an undoubted breach of treaty and of
compact on the part of the ruler. Lord Ellenborough made
war upon him, gained a signal victory over him, but
never disturbed the title to the land ; and what has been
the consequence? 'Notwithstanding that the army of
Gwalior has been unfaithful the ruler and the population
of that state have been oar sure and fast friends. (Hear )
Again, what was the policy of Lord Hardinge in the Pun-
j sub ? He acted harshly and severely with the governing
power, unseated, and 'discrowned the sovereign, but re-
spected the rights of property ; and the salutary effect of
that has been that even in this extremity the Punj aubl has
not been the seat of popular insurrection. In Cashmere
Lord Hardinge's policy was the same. There he acted
with more gentleness towards the sovereign and more for-
bearance towards the inhabitants. The confidence which
Lord Hardinge placed in the ruler of Cashmere, of whom
some doubts were entertained at the time, was not mis-
placed ; on this trying occasion his fidelity has stood the
test. (Hear.) You have here Indian experience, you have
general maxims and general practice, all converging to the
same point, all condemnatory of the policy of this procla-
mation. (Cheers.) Some hon. members have attempted
to make apoint of the proclamation of Lord Dalhousie with
regard to Oude, issued in 1856. There is, indeed, in that
proclamation a mention of confiscation, but it was well
put by the hon, baronet the member for Tarnworth (Sir R.
Peel) and it has been repeated this evening by the hon.
member for Northampton (Hr. Gilpin) that there is the
broadest distinction between Lord Dalhousie's proclama-
tion in 1856 and that of Lord Canning's of 18 8. (Hear.)
Lord Dalhousie's proclamation in 1856 was prospective and
menacing, and its consequences might be avoided. Lord
Canning's proclamation is retrospective and implies punish-
ment. But that is not all. Lord D dhousie's procla-
mation was directed against individuals on proof of
guilt. (Hoar, hoar, and cheers.) The proclamation of
Lord Canning denounces in the first instance the sentence
next in point of severity to death, without proof, against a
whole people. (Loud cheers.) I must say there is one
passage in the despatch with which I entirely agree; its
principle appears to me to be sound. This proclamation is
based on the inverse of the correct principle. (Hear, hear.)
It makes that the general rule which ought to be the ex-
ception ; it makes that the general rule wh ch ought to be
the exception ; it makes that the exceptiou wh ch ought to
be the general rule. (Cheers.) It throws the onus of the
proof of innocence upon the entire people, the penalty if
they fail in that proof being the forfeiture of their lands.
The never,' ought to be the principle, everything should be
presumed in favour of innocence until guilt is proved.
Now, these are great principles, English principles—(hear,
hear)—universal principles, which are to be maintained
wherever the British rule prevails. In my humble judg-
ment they can never be diverged from without imminent
risk. (Hear, hear.) It is impossible to speak in too high
terms of the late Sir H. Lawrence. Gallant as were his
exploits as a soldier, noble as was his death, so worthy of
his life, as a judge of what was politically expedient with
reference to the people of India no man ever excelled him.
(Hear, hear.) By an odd coincidence, in the very month of
April, in which the Government were considering this pro-
clamation, the Edinburgh Review, an organ which cannot
be objected to on the opposite benches, contained, in a re-
view of " Sir W. Sleeman's Travels in Gude," the follow-
ingpassage _ . . .

"Sir fienry Lawrence was despatched to Lucknow to
take the place of Mr. C. Jackson. He was the man of all
others who would have done most good in the province if
he had b3en sent there at the commencement of our admi-
nistrative career."

The article is now speaking of the action under Lord Dal-
housie's proclamation in 1856, that to which I have already
adverted, and which fell far short of, which was even oppo-
site in principle to that of Lord Canning :--
"He was a mau of generous sympathies and of an en-
larged toleration, which would not suffer him to scan toe
nicely or to visit too severely the offences of those who wore
the victims, rather than the agents, of a vicious state of
society. He was specially averse to an over-critical inves-
tigation into existing rights, which, though acquired some-
times by fraud, sometimes by oppression, were still only in
accordance with the custom of the country, and, indeed
often a necessary consequence of the continued misgovern-
ment of the native rulers. We do not profess to know the
precise nature of the settlement operations which were in-
terrupted by the progress of the mutiny in Oude ; but we
have reason to believe that Sir H. Lawrence thought that
some of the great landowners had been treated with an in-
expedient harshness."
That is under the former proclamation, when forfeiture
was not the rule but the exception. Sir 11. Lawrence
demurred to the extent to which the exception was car-
ried :

" On the score of practical expediency and of abstract
justice it was desirable that at the outset of the British ad-
minimtration in 0 ude a more conciliatory policy should have
been adopted towards them."

Therefore% in addition to the authority of Sir J. Outram,
in addition to the authority of Sir J. Lawrence, in addi-
tion to the authority of Gen. Mansfield, I claim, with re-
ference to the principle of this proclamation' the very
highest authority —the authority of Sir Henry Lawrence.
(Rear, hear.) Now, sir, I cannot fail *'so to observe—aud
it has not been much dwelt upon by the house—that, so
far from the covering letter of Mr. Edmonstone in any de-
gree relieving the anxiety of the Government with regard
to this proclamation, I think that, properly weighed and
considered, it must have greatly aggravated their appre-
hensions. (Hear, hear.) That letter, in the first place,
distinctly points out that this proclamation is addressed,
not to the few, but to the many— (hear, hear)—to the in-
habitants of ude at large; and there is in it a passage
which has not been read, and which indicates extreme se-
verity, coupled with what appears to me very great impo-
licy. The 16th paragraph says :
' The foregoing remarks apply to the talookdars and
chiefs of the province. As regards their followers who may
make submission with them, these from their numbers
must of necessity be dismissed to their homes."
Intirnatieg that, if possible, there would have been a wish
to keep them prisoners. (Hear )
" But before this is done their names and places of resi-
dence should be registered, and they should receive a warn-
ing that any disturbance of the peace or resistance, to au-
thority whieh may occur in their neighbourhood will be
visited not upon the individual offenders alone, but by
heavy fines upon the villages."
I must say that I consider that dangerous in the extreme.
I think our Irish experience might have taught us not only
that it is unjust, but that when applied to a great nation
it is maddening. There is also a threat that there shall bo
no reinstatement in their lands under specified circum-
st,nces. Now, the use of the term "reinstatement in their
lands" is a direct assumption not only that confiscation
has taken place, but is in force, and shall remain the rule,
reinstatement being the exception. (Hear.) Then there
is the mitigating clause which has been inserted in conse-
quence of Sir J. Outram's reprehension of the paragraph
in its original form. A word is used in that clause which
proves the justice of what I have just stated with regard
to restitution. It says,
"To those among them who shall he promptly home for-
ward and give to the Chief Commissioner their support in
the restoration of peace and order the indulgence will be
large, and the Governor-General will be ready to view
liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to a res-
titution of their former rights."
This clearly shows that even after the original harshness of
the proclamation had been mitigated the Governor-General
regarded the confiscation as general and complete, and only
held out to those who should prove themselves the friends
of order the restitution of their lands. (Hear, hear.) My
noble friend the member for the city of London, in the
forcible speech which he addressed to us on a former even-
ing, assumed that these talookdars had made war upon our
soldiers, had killed many of our fellow subjects--(hear)—
ha t behaved cruelly to the British. (Hear.) I understood
him to say that they had helped to starve our garrison and
had made war in a reckless manner. The statement of Sir
James Outram positively negatives that assumption. The
Secretary of the Board of Control informed us, on his
official responsibility, that Sir J. Outram pointed out to
the Governor-General that not only had no murder been
committed in Oude, but that there the chiefs had saved
all the Europeans who had fallen into their hands, and
sent them under escort into the British territories. (Cheers )
To-morrow we shall set in official despatches what Sir J.
Outram says upon this subject, but in the meantime I am
at liberty to presume that the statement made by the Se-
cretary to thu Board of Control, on his responsibility as a
Servant ofithe Crown, is correct. (Hear, hear.) If that
statement is correct, it not only negatives all the presump-
tions against the talookdars, but proves their innocence.
(Hear, hear.) I pass gladly from the proclamation to the
despatch. I have already said that lam not prepared to
approve the language of that despatch. (Hear, hear.) Per-
haps I may be permittsd to remind some of my classical
friends of what is said by a great master of rhetoric—
Quintilian—in discussing the relative merits of the Attic
and Asiatic style of composition. He says that the Attic
is clear, terse, simple, and forcible ; and describes what
he calls the Asia gene as "tumida, janctatia, vaniore, di-
cendi gloria injlata." He then goes on to lay down a
maxim which from the time of Demosthenes to the time of
Mr. Fox has remained true, and which will remain true,
I am satisfied, to the eid —Attice dicere eat optiene dicere.
(Hear.) But we are not here as a school of rhetoricians aud
critics. (Cheers.) We are here as statesmen, considering
,what is best for the interests of a great empire, and it is no
part of our duty to weigh nicely the exact terms used to
convey an idea which in itself is sound. (Cheers.) I cannot
agree with all the terms of the despatch, but I am bound to
sty that the substance of the despatch, as dealing with the
substance of the proclamation, is sound and defensible.
(Cheers.) Ido not think,there is a single topic mentioned
in the despatch which, under the seal of secrecy, ought not
to have been communicated to the Governor-General. I
do not except even the matter of Oude. (Rear, hear ) It
is vain to dissemble it—there is a flaw in our title to that
kingdom. (Cheers ) I regret the exposure, but that ex-
posure has taken place, and for it the Government are
not. collectively responsible. (Cheers.) There was an
earnest desire to exclude the pas,agesrelating to Oude from
the publication. Accident—unforeseen accident—alone
prevented it. But, I rep at, under the seal of secrecy
the warning to the Governor-General with respect to Owle
was not only not inexpedient, bnt was correct. (Hear.)
It ought to be remembered by the Governor-General in
dealing with the population of Oude. If under ordinary
circumstances' some forbe trance was due to them,
I think the facts connected with the extension of our
dominion in that part of In lie entitle them to special in-
dulgence. (Cheers.) Upon the whole, therefore, I am
bound to say that every topic touched on in the despatch
appears to me juetifia'Ae. Some gentlemen have thought
that the despatch of the Court of Directors was only a re-
dulplication of the despatch of Lord Ellenborougb, and
in fact, was written by the same hand. We now know
positively that it was not so—that Lord Ellenborough had
nothing to do with the preparation of the Leadenhall-
street despatch, and only altered one or two words in it.
You sea how both despatches agree—how every sentiment
expressed in the one is to be found in the other. (Cheers.)
After all, however, Lord C Inning was not roc riled ; the
gtrhe(aatt
statement with derision. (Hear.)
fla,
,rt b4a.
r)niproclamationNereyt, wasf;rice
cti
xl trtheoevvo,laakrtetelds
Lord
hopractically
, cate treats
for
the exercise of great powers; my knowledgeneistrr-- sGoPefGnnhesri i n
,In);
officer
rr,eisobcwlfesi
With
Ifeahotatepor
,kshi
Gooei
should
as
n,ao:ltahbrteeheeerNprvrioo.
f)itroinlrotelendnl
troh)
amt
ete,pxas, etru, rntrepdoi
a:Tr
ioughs'ehoe.
Lions given to him to mitigate what would appear I
(Hear, hoer ) The Governor- '
to be undue severity.' General, as I have said, was not recalled. The only order
t‘eischte hi
whichc
thh e
severity
ser despatchtrai
,pt
ayh oisfl Nt,h,
y
et
chaened Cabinet,ord
motion appeared
ntains
gbshec eaefound°n) mitigate—T i
ahninen
noble p
orderr hc e-
-1 entertaining ithe .
ni memberng tha that re
London has
n and esst decree ft.lattetttlE: confiscation—an
tiahvaet
ab,rei)ng ligeforrivighi,
rtd hen.h.thgaetinhtthel eemrea
were
conductetrhee
atmCodaeotnmhpaitbniiel klrgn.ft:hrfa(Ottt ihxt:lfi'o'ep?rdeobicins:aa
me unoti
ore' term between recall and
throe all%11%ll%
courses.aitD W(tri.lurAg-11 (Laughter.) ysoatied disapprovew as