The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 18,

kingdom in a manner compatible with the tranquility of
India and the welfare of their subjects. It had been
sbewn conclusively that for 50 years that stipulation of
the treaty had been constantly broken, and it was in
consequence of the failure to fulfil that obligation that
Lord Dalhousie declared the kingdom had been for-
feited, and that fact must have been present to the
mind of Lord Canning when he issued his proclama-
tion. The house had heard so often of the respon-
sibility of the Government in respect of the pub•
lishing of the despatch, that he was unwilling to
weary them again by travelling over that ground,
but he could not help remarking that there had been
two versions put forth from the Treasury Bench on
the subject, which he contended were inconsistent with
each other. The Solicitor-General said the publication
had been rendered necessary, because copies of the de-
spatch had been given to Lord Granville, and to a mem-
ber of that house (Nlr. Bright), and inasmuch as copies
had thus passed out of the hands of the government, and
could not be recalled—therefore it was necessary to make
the despatch public. That certainly did not appear to
him to be a very conclusive argument, because he pre-
sumed that when copies were given to the noble lord and
the hon. member for Birmingham, they were given on
the understanding that they were not to be made public.
But the noble lord (Btanley), who rose later in the de-
bate, took entirely different ground in defending the pub-
lication. He said that after the answer given by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put to him,
the curiosity of the house and the country would be
roused, and that it was impossible to suppress so im-
portant a despatch as that relating to the confiscation of
Oude, and that the government, on those grounds, came
to the conclusion that it was necessary to lay the de•
spatch on the table of the house. Teat was a manly
and a straightforward statement ; but it clearly proved
that the publication was the deliberate act of the govern-
ment, and not a matter of mere accident, as had been
represented by the Solicitor-General. But the complicity
of the whole of the government did not rest there. It
seemed that after the entire despatch had been promised
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the government
had subsequently deliberated on the propriety of giving
certain paragraphs, and the result was, that they felt it
was very doubtful whether they should produce several
paragraphs relating to the annexation of Oude. Oa the
following day, therefore, Lord Ellenborough went down
to the House of Lords and said that there was a neces-
sity for withholding certain portions of the despatch,
but that, with these exceptions, be would produce it.
He (Sir G. Lewis) therefore came to the conclusion
that the publication was the act of the whole of the
government, and not of any individual. (Hear, hear.)
They had deliberated upon the subject, and came to
the decision to withhold certain parts of the docu-
ment, and after that it was itaiposzdble to say that
the whole of the Cabinet were not resp ao,ible for
its production. He went further, and said tllat even
if it could be shown that the publication of the
despaech was not the deliberate act of the whole go-
vernment, there remained a strong argument as to the
duty of the bouse with reference to that despatch.
Whether by intention or by accident, which seemed al-
most to amount to intention, the despatch was before
the house—it bad c me to them through the proper
official channels, and in the usual authorised course—
whether there lied been design on the part of the Govern-
ment or no design, the despatch was there, and it was
now the duty of the house to pronounce an opini en upon
it, and to say whether they would share in tho responsi-
bility which rested upon the Government for its publica-
tion. Titat despatch had made known to England, to
Europe, and to India, certain views with respect to the
annexation of Oede, and if they silently acquiesced in
these views, then he said trey would share in the grave
responsibility incurred by the Government. They would
become accomplices in the act, not of publishing only,
but of writing and sending the despatch to the Governor
General, and thus make themselves parties to the whole
proceeding. They ought not too closely to consider the
circumstances under which the despatch had been pre-
sented to Parliament. It was before them—they could
not fait to see that its effict must be to paralyse the
power of the Governor-General in India—and they
ought not to prematurely offer an opinion upon his policy
before they bad the requisite information before them.
If th 6 house did not wish to become accomplices in these
grave errors, if they did not wish to share the reepon,i-
bility with the Government, they must vote for the re-
solution of his right hon. friend. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. WHITESIDE said—The right hon. gentleman who
has just addressed the house, forgetful of the arguments
previously adduced by his right hon. friend who introduced
this resolution, has, I think, satisfactorily proved that it
is impossible for the house to affirm by its vote the resolu-
tion. (Hear, hear.) The responsibility incurred by the
right hon. member for Oxford is a great one. He under-
takes to satisfy the house that the progress of public busi-
ness should be interrupted; that the Government should
be overthrown ; and to prove by weighty arguments that
what he submits to the consideration of the house is of so
serious a character as to demand without delay its decision
in conformity with his resolution. As the debate has pro-
ceeded we perceive that large principles have been brought
out in contrast with which personal considerations fade into
comparative insignificance, and the house will find it has to
decide on a principle which affects not only the interest but
the existence of nations, and perhaps the peace of the world.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman and several other
speakers have frequently adverted to the name of Lord
Canning. I respect that noble lord because of those per-
sonal virtues which the world truly ascribes to him.
(Hear.) I respect him further because he is descended from
one whose shining talents made him conspicuous, and who
on the great theatre of human action established the su-
premacy of his genius. (Hear, hear.) I make no personal
stricture upon that noble lord; I appreciate the sincerity
and fervour of that friendship which has enlisted so many
advocates in his behalf ; but from my heart I repudiate
and disavow the policy indicated in that awful proclama-
tion which now lies on our table. (Cheers.) Considering
the care that must have been bestowed on the composition
of the resolution before the house, considering the wise,
politic, and experienced men who planned the operations
connected with this movement--(hear, hear)—l cannot
congratulate the right hon. member for Oxford on the
distinctive character of his resolution. (Cheers and
laughter.) What is it the resolution calls on the house to
do? In the first place you are in the most earnest manner
to express no opinion whatever—(laughter)—upon the
effect and character of any proclamation which may have
been issued by the Governor-General -of India. (Hear.)
That is what you are first of all called upon to do, and
that means that, no matter how false and fatal the policy
contained in the proclamation—no matter how diets:trims
might be the coneequenees resulting from that policy being
carried into ex.ecution—ethe political prudery of the right
hon. gentleman is so great that he will offer no opinion on
the misery and desolation that might ensue. (Cheers and
laughter.) The right hon. gentleman says that no opinion 1
is to be offered on the proclamation, and having sat down,
straightway !rises the late Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and says that the whole question before us is the meaning
of that proclamation—(cheers and laughter) —and that the
whole matter to decide is what is the meaning of the word
confiscation, forgetting that his mere artful friend has
specially warned the house to give no opinion on the
matter. (Laughter.) The right hon. member for
Northampton, the last Minister for India of the
late Government—to whom, I presume, if this
movement should sueceerl, the destinies of that
great empire aro again to be committed—(cheers from the
Ministerial benches, and some cries of " No !" from the
Opposition)— likewise tells the house—and I confess I
shuddered as I heard it—thet the policy of the proclama-
tion is the true question before the house, and ho endorses
it with all the weight and value of his name. (" Hear,"
and laughter.) With the entire authority of his official
experience he acquaints the house that the true meaning
of the proclamation is, that everything that every man iu
Oude possesses belongs, and orrght to belong to the Govsr-
nor-Gencral, to do what he chooses with; and then, hav-
ing the happy talent of drawing conclusions which no other
rational man could draw—(laughter)—he assures the
house that in his judgment the proclamation is one of
mercy and peace. (Cheers and laughter.) But what is the
second branch of the resolution? It is this—that the house
of Commons is to censure the Ministry for offering An
opinion on a matter upon which the right hon. mover will
give no opinion, and then the right hon. gentleman makes,
as it strikes my understanding, a very great mistake as to
the relative duties of the executive and legislative
branches of government in this country. I can conceive
the first part of the resolution being quite right—namely,
that the house should refuse at a particular time to give
an opinion on a particular act of the Executive, while it
might be the duty of the Executive to give an opinion on
the point. The Executive exercises authority and super-
vision over every governor and every man in the service
of the country, and it might be quite fair under certain
circumstances for the Executive to give an opinion on the
conduct of any one of its instruments, and quite wrong in
the House of Commons to do ro. Therefore, I think that
the resolution is unfortunately worded, unless the right
hon. gentleman is of opinion that there is such a deter-
mined purpose of party in this house, that despite of rea-
son, the force of argurneets, the cogency of facts, and the
power of truth, you will affirm the principle of a resolu-
tion which nobody can accurately explain and few olearly
understand. (Cheers.) The right hon. bafonet the mem-
ber for Halifax in my opinion has argued this question
very fairly, as did also Earl Gray in another place. They
said, for to such a narrow ground in the progress of the
debate has this question been reduced, that the fact is that
the publication of the despatch—which is the great matter
—was effected on that fatal night when the Chancellor of
the Exchequer gave a plain answer to a plain question.
The argument of Earl Grey was this, that the very fact of
answering the question involved a statement that the
policy of Lord Canning was disavowed, and therefore that
disavowal was the publication ; and the argument of the
right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was that the
answer led to the offence for which the representatives of
the country are called on to pass a vote of censure against
the ministry. Now, Ido not shrink from fair arguments,
but I expect that hon. members—no matter what their
politics may be—will extend to the Government on its
trial that fairness to which the meanest criminal is en-
titled. (Cheers.) How was this resolution introduced by
the right hon. mover? I confessed I listened to him with
all that attention and courtesy which a gentleman of his
position and great experience merits. I expected every
moment to hear the great point stated clearly and brought
home. I expected to find out what was the criminality
of which the -Government were guilty. I expected the
right hon. gentleman to establish by the force of his argu-
ments and by the powers of his eloquence that this House
ought to pronounce the censure he proposed : but I regret
to say that the right hon. gentleman sat down without
having furnished the information which might reasonably
have been expected, though I admit that great questions
were and are raised in the matter under debate. Setting
aside the right hon. gentleman's technicalities, details,
and debates, all of which I think wire collected more by
the scissors than by the head, the right hon. gentleman
did not give the house that lesson of wisdom which was
expected, and failed to point out what was the necessity
for the honour of the country and the safety of the Indian
empire, or even for the character of the noble lord, the
Governor-General, to affirm so vague, indefinite, un-
certain, and unsatisfactory a resolution. (Cheers.) He
hisem ee
eni
by
3:1:
oetnhitreslie
their
announced that he did not require the opinion of Parlia-
ntsedednnsefevheiorsyf member. to give no opinion upon
the proclamation, and yet he has been followed by four
members of that side of the House who feel themselves co-
rtesruoltuhtiaonnds
?j as: itcae,wthoastaysatyhsatthies
the very foundation of the matter. Then what becomes of