The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-14 00:00:00

M.R. CARDWELL'S RESOLUTION.

(Prom Ike Daily News.)
Whether Mr. Card weli'sßesolution—regarded merely
as a party move—be affirmed or negatived, is to us a
matter of the most perfect indifference. Not so when it
isconsidered widi reference to the vote of the hou=e will
have in India. We therefore embrace what may be our
last oppor: unity to adjure the House of Commons to
pause bdore it passes a Resolution—merely to subserve
the interest.; of party—which may coavulse our Indian
domiai )na from Arrakan to Peshawnr, and from Cape
Comorin to the Himalaya—which may, in effect, " cry
havoc, and let :lip the dogs of war" among hundreds of
millions of human I:;;:ings._

Mr. Cardwell's Resolution aEGrms two propositions ;
the fiat, that it is matter for regret and apprehension
that Lord Eilenborough's Despatch was written ; the
secand, that it is matter for regret and anprehenero❑
that the Despatch has been published. The latter affir-
mation f.i perfectly harmless. The propriety or impro-
priety of the publication of the Despatch is a❑ open
question, upon which men may warrantably hold dif-
ferent opinions, and may express them without danger.
The first of the two affirmations is of a very different
character.

It must be borne in mind that Mr. Cardwell's Reso-
lution sets out with declaring that the house " in its
present state tf information abstains from expressing
au opinion of the policy of any Proclamation which may
have been issued by the Governor-General in relation to
Oude." It then goes on to say that the house" has
seen with regret and apprehension that her Majesty's
Government have addressed to the Governor-General,
through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors
* * * a Despatch condemning in strong terms the
conduct of the Governor-General." Common sense arid
common justice require that before censuring the Go-
vernment for condemning the conduct of the Governor-
General," the house should inquire whether the
conduct of the Governor-General was or was not
deserving of blame. To censure the expression cf con,
demnatioe by Government, while deelinirig to vindicate
the conduct cf Governor-General, is virtually to declare
that no Howe Gavernrueot has a right to condemn any-
thing that a Governor-General sees fit to say or de. It
is to declare that tire Governor-General is not a Viceroy
exercising delegated authority, but an absolute Sovereign
invested with irreeperisible power during his period of
id-lice, whom no one can call to account. It is to strip
the Crown and the Company alike c f all power; and to
p ace the whole of India at the mercy of a clesp)t in Cal-
cuuta. The words i f the resolution mean this if they
ve,an anything ; and for the members of the House of
Commons to attempt to get out ul the difliceLy by say-
ing that they do not expect them to be so literally con-
strued, will be to trifle -card dourly with the discharge
of an important duty. This first affirmation in the Re•
solution is unfair, inasmuch as it candemn. Government
upon exec:le the same amount of evidence which it de-
&area inentlicient to enable it to pronounce a final judg-
ment on the Governer-General ; it is foolishly suicidal,
inasmuch as it disclaims on the part of the Imperial Go-
vernment (of which in the wider sense of the word the
House of Commons is a part) all right to control or cen-
sure their head-servant in India.

This is a matter teat ()lucerne the home public mainly.
Tee sense in which the Resolutien of Mr. Card well may
be understood in Hindustan concern both England and
India. It is maintained by some that Lord Canning's
proclamation is calculated to inspire with a sense of in-
security every proprietor and possessor of land iu Oude.
This denied by others. Our own opinion has been too
often and too iraukly declared to render it necessary to
re-state it here. We do nut take up that ground at
preeent. It is sehient fur our purpose that the mean-
cf the prociainetion tee regards " confiscation,"
and its probable effect on the mind of the people cif
India, ie disputed. Toe controversy can only be
decided by further information from India. Even
Mr. Caldwell admits that the House of Commons
ought, "in its present state of iefermation," to ab•
stain "frern expressing an opinion " on the subject.
If, then, the House of Cemuions, " in the present state
of its ieformatioe," censures the condemnation of Lord
Cantiiiig's Proclamation by the Government, it will de-
Blare that, in its opinion, Lord Canning's policy ,ought
to be upheld even in the event of its proving to be a
policy c f ruthless and indiscriminate confiscation. \Vs
know that some who are prepared to supper. Mr. Card-
tell a Resolution will protest indignantly agaiu4 even
Lhe suspicion of their being capable of harbouring such
au intention. We beiieve them ; but we tell them that
among those who are hounding them on to pass that
Resolution, there are some who will not shrink from
such a conclusion. There are some who unblueLinely
avow their advocacy of aex vietig policy in Oude. The
adoption of the Cardwell Resolution by the House of
Commons will be interpreted tereughout India, if not
as a decree for universal confiscation in ()tide, yet as a
declaration that if such confiscation is decreed by the
Governor-General it will receive the sanction of the Im-
perial Government ; and every native cf India will ask
his neighbour, Is our turn to come next, The adoption
of Mr. Cardwell'e motion, as it now stands, by the House
of Commons, will be enough to convert every native of
India into adie•ley Ribboneonn or agrarian insurgent.
So far we have canvassed the demerits of this Resolu-
tion, without relerence to its paternity. We have
analysed it as it lies before ue, without asking who are
its authors. The question of authorship i,' however, a
material one. We are given to understand that the Re-
solution was prepared by Mr. Cardwell; submitted on
Sunday last for the approbation of the members of the
ex-Cabinet, assembled in solemn conclave at Cambridge
House ; and adopted by them. If this be true—as we
its no doubt it substontially is—the Resolution is the
Resolution of the la'• Government. It is brought for-
ward with their auction and connivance for the purpose
of daelaging their rivals and successors in office. Now,
in what relation do the ex-Government stand to that act
of the present, which they now call upon the House of
Commons to tonsure ? On tee 12th or 13 li of la.t month,
Government received a copy of Lord Canning's draft
proclamation accompanied by any explanation or any
picas justiticatifs. Lord Ellenborough bad previously
transmitted to Lord Canning a recommendation to
adopt a different policy. Accordingly a despatch was
written by Lord Ebenborough on the 13th, and dated
on the 19th, of the month, re-enunciating the views be
had expressed in his former missive. This despatch was
rot seat off till the 26th of the month. On the same
day that Government received the draft publication of
1,,,rd Canning, a private letter from the Governor-Gene-
ral to Mr. Vernon Smith reached London. Mr. Smith
was at that time absent from town, but he returned on
the 17th of the month—one day before Lord Ellen•
borough's despatch was written, two days before it was
dated, nine days before it was sent off. Lord Canning'e
letter was addressed to Mr. Vernon Smith under the im-
pression that that individual was still President of the
Board of Coeteal. Among other extraordinary revela-
tions that were made in the course of the investigation
of Mr. Butt's cage was the unwarrantable extent to
which the most important business of the Board of Con.
trol under Mr. Vernon Smith was conducted by conver-
sations, notes, and letters, conventionally called private.
Lt this " private" letter from Lord Canning was an in-
timation that the Governor-General had transmitted by
that mail a copy of his draft proclamation ; that he had
been anxious to transmit explanations along with it ;
but that he had for the present been hindred by pressure
of business. This intimation was evidently made, not
to the private friend of Lord Canning, but to the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control. It was the duty of Mr.
Vernon Smith, seeing he had ceased to be President, to
transmit the letter to the noble lord who bad become
President. However jauntily Mr. Vernon Smith may
' now deny his sense of such an obligation, it is evident
that he did then feel, arid that even now he still feels
it. He alleges that Lord Ellenborough received dis-
courteously a previous communication by Mr. Smith of
a letter front Lord Elphinstoae. No discourtesy on the
part of Lord Ellenb,rough can exonerate Mr. Smith
from the discharge of a duty which he owed to the State,
not to Lord Ellenborough ; but the mare allegation of
the untenable excuse proves Mr. Smith's conscioulsinteses
that it wits needed. Nor is this all. Mr. Smitbstdo _
House of Commons last night, that he consuttac. Lfroma
keep
Palmerston as to whether he ought to
Lord Ellenborough Lord Canning's letter.a
sanctioned, the
tnerAon, he says, advised, or
at
leaster:ton, therefore,
keeping the letter secret. Lord P.iltrimean
a certain that
is particeps criminis. True it is by no
have been kept
LbOrdi4 Pal-
Lerd Edenborough's despatch e
w°sße.‘sion of Lord Can
even if he had been
case have been detained,
nieg's letter. But it is
the doubt. On the other hand,
en-
titled to the benefit ppousdtsiibnLleoPrdthEatlleint hinorigteinisthathis Lordship's precipitancy,
ht his ignorance of
Lord Ell e. b
toir, utigoe7ff rtiend s maythe letterallege twhaast,n ceaie knowingri
from him in
th: offermig explanations,in send a
despstch open the terms. of which a votA of censure
LordEl b
Lord Canning's inteenttihoant
might be founded—that, in short, en orough
has falbn into a trap set for him by Lord Palmerston
and Mr. Vernon Smith. We do not affirm that this is
the case, but the ex-Ministers will find it rather difficult
to rot ut the suspicion. At all events the circumstances
of the case clearly irepar. to a motion for a vote of cen-
sure on Lord Ellenborough and his late colleagues, on
account of an act to which the parties who have been
accessarriee ao thiequivocelly factious character ; and
all who support Mr. Ca,deell'e resolutions Yell neces-
sarily expose themselves is the charge of taking part in
a factious move.
Now vie are not going to use big words about utter aLd