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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY

ferent arguments from those which he need last Friday. '
The case of last Friday is not the case- of this Friday,
(Laughter.) New information has arrived, and we have
materials for a new debate altogether. (Rear.) You
might as well divide on some defunct motion made
during the last session as on the motion now before the
house. (Laughter and cheers.) The right honourable
gentleman considers himself pledged to it, and that be
must go on. But there is no occasion for him to g on
at all. (Loud cheers.) It is said that honourable gen•
tlemen opposite will not allow him to withdraw it.
Surely that cannot be the case, They complain that it
is a party move. But will not their refusal to withdra w
it make it a party move ! (Cheers.) The late First
Lord of the Admiralty, the other night, said that he
never felt so clear from party motives in his life. (Loud
laughter.) Therefore this is no party movement, and
therefore he cannot object to its being withdrawn of
postponed until we get a lit le more information,
(Laughter.) I shoul i say withdraw it altogether. (Loud
cheers.) I had intended to vote for the motion. I d
not disguise my opinion. If the right hon. gentleman
holds me to that pledge, perhaps I ought to vote for it;
but as it is I must take my hat and wish him good night.
(Laughter and cheers.) Ido say that it is for the cha-
racter, the dignity, the honour of this house, and for the
interests of our Indian empire, that the motion shoul;:
he withdrawn. (Loud cheers.)
Sir D. NORREYS—I gave notice of a motion last
night, but understand it cannot be put on account of
the forms of the house. lam convinced that a large por-
tion of those who hear me would be very glad to get
out of the dilemma in which they are placed. (Cheers.)
I have a decided objection to the resolution of the right
hon. gentleman being proceeded with at the present
time. I think we have sufficient information before to
to satisfy us that we ought to take a more decided course
than the one 113 VI proposed. The question of confisca-
tion is a decided fact. (Ministerial cheers.) Ceti any hon.
member on this side of the house conscientiously say
that there are any grounds on which the landholders cf
Oude ought to be subjected to- this penalty. I confess,
for my own part, that I am totally ignorant of the ex
tent to which these landholders have rendered themselves
liable to the universal punishment inflicted upon them.
All that I know is that Lord Canning, in his last de-
spatch, describes them in this manner :—" The Gover-
nor-General entirely agrees with you in viewing the ta-
lookdars and landholders of Oude in a very different light
Irene that in which rebels in our old provinces are to be
regarded. The people of Oude had beea subjects of the
Bri•isla government for litele more than one year when the
mutinies broke out; they had become so by no act of tbeir
own." Those who were prepared to vote for the right hon.
gentleman's motion were evidently supporting the policy
of confi;cation, and yet they were not in possession of
any information by which to justify this extraordinary
act. (Cheers.)
Mr. 0. STANLEY—I agree with the hon. member
for Finsbury, and should regret the house being fore,d
to a division on this unfortunate motion. (Cheers.) From
the moment the additional papers were placed on the
table of the house, I felt that a complete alteration had
taken place in the aspect of the question. (Cheers.) I
V 4 503 evident to me that the first three lines of the right
hon. gentleman's motion ceased to be of value, because
we now have Lord Canning's reasons for the proclama-
tion which he issued. I wish to ask a question of the
hon. member for Swansea, because the house will recol-
lect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Go-
vernment have declared their deterinwation to support
the amendment of that hon. member. I wish to know
whether in the altered state of circumstances he m-ars
to move his amendment ? (Rear.) Its morns to me t itt
having in our ban Is the papers which have just beet
produced, we cannot agree to the following word'', that
"this house declines to give any opinion upon the Cush
proclamation until it has bad further information on tf e
state of Oude when the proclamation was issued, and
also Lord Canning's reasons for issuing it." I wish to
ask the hon. gentleman if he still means to put his amend
went ? (Cheers.)
Mr. DILL WYN—In reply to the question of the bon.
gentleman, I beg to say that if the right hon. gentleman
presses his motion, I shall certainly press my amend-
ment. I cannot but think that the papers which bare
this morning reached us in no way take away the neces-
sity of my amendment. They appear to me to show
that Lord Canniog's policy is an impracticable policy ;
and looking at the cpioion of Sir J. Outram, I do not
think we shall be able to adopt that policy Liaises we
Lave a greater force in India than we have at present.
(Rear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES—I rise to express to the he u e my c- n-
viction of the nature of the papers which have been put
into our hands this day. The house will recollect
that we have been diecussing—what ? A proclamation
supposed to have been issued in Oude. When ? When
Lucknow was taken. That proclamation is said to embody
a phrase confiscating the proprietary rights of the sod,
implying that the proprietary rights of five millions of
people are to be confiscated. In England the word
"confiscation" has a fear'ui signification. But I, as a
linguist, say-----(laughter)---I, as a linguist, say that the
term used dues not signify confiscation—(laughter)—but
it means "sequestration —(c mtinued laughter)—se-
questration. It means Appropriation and sequestration,
leaving a complete opening for the consideration of any
claim that may arise. That is my full and firm belief of
the meaning of the term originally used in the proclarne-
tion. But when was it used ? Tee proclamation was to
be issued when Lucknow was taken. Before Lucknow
was taken. S:r J Outram communicates with Lard Cac-
hing, and says, " Your preclarnation will prevent the
talookdars from coming in, and your lercship had bitter
make some alterations." What di r L )rd Canning do?
Lord Canoiog, in reply, says—" To those amongst them
who shall promptly come forward, and give to the Ceief
Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace,
this indulgence will be large, and the Governor-General
will be ready to view liberally the cl dine which they
may thus acquire to a restitution of the r former nighty."
Then what bseoines of the charge against-Lord Canning's
policy when anybody chooeiiig to come in wi I have his
rights considered in a lib, rat sprit, and his property may
be restored? What becomes of the charge of cet.fiscatioe?
(Cheers.) Up to this moineet, for anything we know,
the pr clatuation has tint been issued, an the house has
been arguing on a system of policy that probably has no
existence at al. (Cheers.)
Mr. DUNLOP—I wish to lut a question to the tight
hon. gentleman the member fur Oxford with regard to
what has taken pace to-night. It should be understood
whether he agrees to receive my amenotnent in the f irm
in which I put it--that is to say, as an addition to his
motion, or whether he merely means that atter his :no-
tion shad have been adopted, he will thee support my
amendment as a substantive resolution.

Mr. LOCKE—I do net think it very convenient to
the house to have a double discussion, and will confine
my remarks to a request to the right hon. gentleman
not entirely to reject the appeal which bas been made to
him. (Cireere.) I think that urcumstatces have been
occurring from day to day since the motion w s put on
the table, which will fully justify not only this appeal,
but the feeling that we have been discussing upon a very
narrow issue the complicated and changingstate of things
in a distant country. (Cheers.) I think the papers which
we have received this day will fully justify any one in an.
appeal, however strong it may be, to waive the fur, her
discussion of the question until we have better materials
for that purpose. (Cheers.) The hca. member for Fins-
bury has suggtsted the adjeuroment of the discussion
until after the recess. But I think that would be only
adding one difficulty to another (dear.) Cuesiderine
the narrow limits of the motion, totally irrespective of
any party object, I think the debate may be fairly ,con-
eluded to-night, and trust if we are to be limited to the
tesolution we shall at once cane to a decision. In con-
, sequence of the change of circums•ances which has oc-
' curred, and my not bring ab'e to agree to one part of the
resolution, I shall certainly not give it my support.
(Cheers.)
Major WORTLEY—I wish to ask a question of the
hon. member for Inverness-shire. In one of the papers
laid on the tibia this morning I find the following para-
graph :—The Chief Commissioner deems this matt r of
such vital importance that, at the risk of being deemed
importunate, he ventures to submit his views once more,
in the hope that the Right Hon. the Governor-General
may yet be induced to re-consider the subject." I think
it is important that the house should see the previous
letters of Sir J. Outram. It is perfectly evident from the
words "once more," and the expression "re-consider
the subject," that Sir J. Outram had previously writt-n
officially to the Governor-General on the subject of the
proclamation. As no date is mentioned in the letter of
Sir J. Outram I am not able to judge whether it was
written previously to the publication of the proelaars-
ti in or since. I therefore ask the hon. member whether
be can procure the previous papers, and if he cannot, I
would a,k the same question of the hon. member for
Northawpton. (Cheere,)
Mr. BAILLIFee—It would certainly appear fro n the
of t re paragraph to which the hon. meals r has
,erevreiocueisvecdombymtuhenißcaotairodnofheadonbtreoeni.
made, hut none
referred that some
has previous
fmootion. I wish to ask whether it is possible at this period
rMOrilfWordYcLoprr—ectllfy,lbliensdteilrlsitanntedntdhsetrolgphrtocheend. with hid
of the debate to move the previous question, because to
continue the debate seder present c rcumstances is pei-
fectly uselte,e. (dear.)
Major WORTLEY—At the risk of being thought ir -
—I wish to ask the
tetviive—(cries of " Order, order')
right hon. gentleman oppoete—(order, order-)
any one ask the question for me l (Hear, and a laug )
Mr. B. CARTER—No one feels more than I do tie'
the house is in a false position, and for this reason. ThF
eght, hon. member for Oxford has ranted a question whist
let still before the house, and which is not at all altered
by the facts which have recently come before it. What
'ver the result of the division may be, the real question
ail not be brought before the country. I look upon the
-110-j-et under di.cu.sion ii<k,iiivieinie into two heads—
tnat %Mull the kuution has raised and that to which tb-
Government aro directing our attention. The queetioe
which the right boo. gentleman has raised is • atp y l t hi- —whether the existing Government eball be held justified