The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-25 00:00:00

the highest consequence in India. "It is vain," he
said, 'to disguise the fact that a very serious divi-
sion of opinion has arisen between the civil and
military authorities in India. It is quite plain
that the whole scheme of military operations laid
down by the Commander-in Chief has been set
aside by the overruling authority of the Governor-
General. That whole scheme has been not only
•changed, but inverted. After the splendour of
those military operations by which Sir Colin Camp-
bell, at the head of a mere handful of men, at great
risk, was enabled to relieve the beleagured garrison
of Lucknow, the object of that gallant chief was
not to return to Lucknow, but to deal with the
insurrection in its extremities, to tread out the
mutinous insurrection at its furthest parts, and
then to return at a late period to Lucknow. The
Governor-General, from the purest motives, no
doubt, but from political reasons, altogether in-
terfered with those arrangements, and obliged Sir
Colin Campbell to proceed to Lucknow . . . The
Governor-General acting on his own responsibility
directs the military operations." If this be the
policy which " her Majesty's Opposition" are
prepared to approve, they had much better
bave appointed Lord Canning to the office of
Commander-in-Chief on the death of General
Anson, and have kept Sir Colin Campbell in
England. A civilian in supreme authority has
every concern with the maintenance of war or
peace, but he has clearly no concern with the
strategical principles involved in the detail of a
campaign. We shall next hear that the Duke of
Newcastle ought to have instructed Lord Raglan
how to fight the battle of the Alma, and that
General Simpson simply acted up to the minute
directions he had received from Lord Panmure on
the occasion of the unsuccessful attack on the
Redan. This criticism of Lord Canning by Sir
James Graham has a direct bearing on the criticism
of Lord Ellenborough by the Opposition. Let us
not be told again of the partisan animosity which
is falsely alleged to have dictated Lord Ellen-
borough's famous despatch, when we read an equally
unfavourable Criticism from the leader of the party
to which Lord Canning distinctively belongs.
But all this formed a small part of Sir James
Graham's case. His next view of the question
was, that Lord Canning's policy had not only
overruled the strategical designs of the Commander-
in-Chief, but that he had acted in defiance of the
opinions and protestations of every man of mark
and authority around him. Indeed, it is fearful
to contemplate the responsibility assumed by a
statesman in supreme control of an empire simul-
taneously setting at nought the representations of
the wisest and most experienced in civil affairs,
and overruling the military tactics of a general
resting his reputation on half a century's military
career. " Sir James Outram," observes Sir J.
Graham, "well knowing the feeling of the landed
proprietors, in the strongest and most decided
manner objected to the proclamation, and pressed
upon the Government the policy of humanity."
" Who isSir James Outram l In 185 G he wasunder
Lord Dalhousie, and from that period he bad the
most intimate knowledge of the state of feeling in
0 ude and of itssocial condition." This is the verdic tof
one authority. But it is far from the only one
which Sir James Graham adduced. "'Sir John
Lawrence," he proceeds, " pressed for what is
called a discriminating amnesty, and also objected
to this proclamation. This statement now rests
upon official authority." Nor was this all. " I
have reason myself to know," pursued the orator,
" that General Mansfield, chief of the staff of the
Commander-in-Chief, has also expressed in strong
terms his doubts in respect of the policy of the Go-
vernor-General. I have reason to believe that
General Franks, who has just returned from most
distinguished military service before Lucknow, has
expressed his individual opinion that this procla-
mation was an unfortunate step." According to
Sir James Graham the Commander-in-Chief
merged into an aide de-camp ; and the civil policy
of the Governor-General has barn pursued in de-
fiance of the concurrent opinions of Sir James
Outram, Sir John Lawrence, General Mansfield,
and General Franks.

Mr. Bright and Sir James Graham were equally
happy in their illustrations from Indian history.
The latter successfully showed that Lord Canning's
policy had been pursued in violation of the first
principles of civil administration adopted from the
time of Lord Wellesley downwards. Lord Welles-
ley and the Duke of Wellington acted up to a
'directly opposita principle. "Play light with in-
dividuals, but grind the state ;" such were the
Duke's instructions to Sir John Malcolm. In other
words, " Give amnesties to talookdars ; but deal as
hard as you will with the uraurping Government."
" What," asks Sir James, " did Sir Chas. Napier
do ? He played light with individuals, but he
ground the Ameers." . . . " What was the
conduct of Lord Ellenborough in respect of
Gwalior 7 There was a case in which there had
been an undoubted breach of a treaty on the part of
the ruler of Gwalior. Lord Ellenborough made
war on him. He gained a signal victory over him;
but he never disturbed the title to the land." Sir
J. Graham went on to show that Lord Hardinge
and even Lord Dalhousie /lad pursued essentially
the same course. This policy of confiscation, then,
resolves itself into a defiance of all opinions and of
all precedents.

Mr. Bright supplied all that felicity of objective
attack which was thrown outby the weightier mat-
-ters with which Sir James Graham had to deal.
The slrcasm on Lord John Russell and Lord Pal-
merston was extremely happy. Lord John, ac-
cording to Mr. Bright, wrote just the kind of letters
t:) right reverend prelates that he attempted to
censure Lord Ellenborough fur writing to Lord
Canning. "He was also,' says Mr. Bright, with
rare piquancy, " guilty of the indiscretion of writ-
ing and giving publication to a letter which mate-
rially damage I the character of the_ noble viscount
the member f,:r Tiverton." In fact, both Mr.
Bright and Sir James clearly showed that there
was no hesitation on the part of the Whigs to dis-
honour a colleague or a proconsul whenever it
served the purposes of the moment. Their speeches
are mast rpieces, and they show the refutation of
the Whigs came out of the mouth of the Liberals.