The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

this proposition, and to avoid expressing an opinion
on the proclamation of Lord Canning it is impossible
to approach the consideration of the censure which
the honourable gentleman asks the Louse to pro-
nounce ; it is impossible to express an opinion on a con-
demnation, unless you look to the merits of that which is
condemned. (Hear, hear.) I accept, therefore, the form
of the resolution of the right hon. gentleman as a proof of
the weakness of his cause. Ho is afraid to challenge the
verdict of the house on the policy of the proclamation ;
but I decline to accept the former part of Lis resolution as
defining the narrow and limited issue which I will meat.
I decline to follow him when he tells me that I am to con-
demn the act of the Government as he desires, but to shut
my eyes to that by which the act of the Government was
Ineduced. lam ready to follow him in any discussion in
which ho wishes to engage as to the conduct of the Govern-
ment, but I claim the right to consider in the first place
the merits of the proclamation in question. Now, this
proclamation is to be judged by a very trite dilemma. It
is either right, or it is wrong. If it is right—if the prin-
ciples contained in it are those of justice and policy, the
Government have been wrong in censuring it, and still
more in expressing a public censure of what is right ; bat
if the principles and the policy contained in it arc not con-
sistent with justice and with good policy, then I challenge
the right hon. gentleman to show upon what principle he
is to ask the house to censure the condemnation of that
which is contrary to the principles of justice and policy.
(Hear, hear,) Now, to whom was this proclamation in-
tended to be addressed ? Not to the sepoys of India, They
were mutineers in the strictest sense of the word. They
had eaten our broad and taken our pay. They were our
Sworn subjects, bound to us by every tie of fidelity. They
threw off that allegiance and rebelled. In that rebellion
they committed murder, acts of cruelty, acts of torture,
cola-blooded, wilful, deliberate treachery. They were, or
most of them were individually criminals of the deepest
dye; and as such I admit that their lives and property
were forfeited. But the proclamation in question was ad-
dressed to the kingdom and people of Onde. What does
Mr. Edmonstone say in his letter to the chief commissioner
of Oude? In the 19th paragraph of his letter he says,
" The proclamation is addressed to the chiefs and in-
habitants of Oude, and not to the mutineers." But
what is the kingdom of Oude? Our relations with it
were those of conquest, and not of allegiance. Oude
was a conquered country and nothing more. Ido not
desire now to enter into the merits of the annexation of
Oude. The question has never been, and perhaps never
will be, discussed in this house as fully as it deserves. I
confess when I arose from the perusal of the Oude papers
the strongest feeling I had on the subject was, the hope that
history may be as lenient to us as we have been to our-
selves. But without opening up that large question I wish
to advert only to those facts about Oude as to which there
is no dispute. In 1856 the treaty which the East India
Company contended was the treaty governing our relations
with Oude contained a clause declaring that the East
India Company thereby guaranteed "to his Excellency the
Viziers and his heirs and successors the possession of that
part of the territory of Oade that will remain to his Excel-
lency after the territorial cession, together with the exer-
cise of his and their authority in the said limits." In
1856 the East India Company considered that Onde wag
misgoverned, and that that gave them the right to annex
Oude to our dominions. How did they carry their views
into effect ? The manner in which that was carried into
effect was that which was substantially conquest. A com-
missioner was sent to Oude, troops were moved across the
Ganges, the King of Oude was informed of the decision of
the East India Company ; he protested, remonstrated,
and refused to sign the treaty that was presented to him •
he was overpowered ; his palace was taken possession of,
his property was sold, and he and his Ministers of State
Were held to bail. Ido not say whether this was right or
wrong. I assume it to be right; but was that a case of
willing submission or of conquest and compulsory annexa-
tion ? I say it was a case of conquest. All that was done
was done under protest—of protest continued until the
sepoy rebellion broke forth. When that took place Oude,
which was under an enforced submission, made war upon
us—bloody, barbarous, crime-stained war but still war.
By the valour of our troops, by the skill and energy of the
commander-in-chief, and I will add cheerfully and grate-
fully, by the skill and energy of Lord Canning—by the
heroism almost unparalleled of some handfuls of coun-
trymen and countrywomen, who maintained their position
in the country until our troops arrived, the war resulted
in a clear, decisive, and I trust, lasting victory on our
part. But now we are victorious. what is the policy that
a victorious country should pursue ? I am prepared to
take it on the ground of justice • but first let us ask our-
selves what policy and self-interest would dictate.
Row do you mean to hold Oude? Is it by a standing army
maintained in the country ? All I can say is that you may
do so, but your conquest will coat you dear Do you desire
the willing and cheerful submission of the people of Oude ?
now are you to procure it ? Do you think it important to
have the goodwill of the landowners of the country? A
child could give an answer to the question. Do you, then,
provoke hostilities, or conciliate goodwill by taking that
which they hold dearer than life itself ? Let us go a step
further. Do you desire to suppress the mutiny of the se-
poys? Of course you do. Well, what follows? Do yen
desire to prevent the sepoys from protecting their pro-
perty, and taking refuge in neighbouring States ? Where
are they most likely to get support ? Where are they
Most likely to bo worked against you? Why, in the king-
dom of Oude. (Hear, hear.) If the people of Oede are in
your favour they will assist in keeping down, in hunting
down the sepoys—(bear, hear)—but, on the other hand, if
you alienate the feelings of the people of Oude, then this
will result—that they will throw themselves into the arms
of the sepoys, and you will in that territory have to sub-
due, not merely the natives, but the sepoys who have taken
refuge among them, and with whom they have combined.
(Hear, hear.) Then I say, that on the lowest ground of
self interest and selfish policy, the course which ought to
be taken by this country is to conciliate the affections, in
every way it can possibly be done, of the people whom you
have conquered. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I desire to know
how, according to the principles of justice, and to those
practices of civilised nations which this country is bound
to observe, ought the property of the people of a conquered
,ountry to e dealt w ? , hear.) My proosition
is this,
that b
you makeith withwar kings and governorps, but
not with individuals. (Cries of Hear, hear.) If in the
course of a
war an individual commits a crime, he puts
himself out of the pale of those who ought to derive the
benefit of that principle; but except in particular cases,
Peindividual is entitled to protection for life and pro-
-1•141;t:1 from the victorious nation: (Hear.) You might as
NTel, confiscate the lives of people as their property. (Hear.)
—OW, sir, there is high authority on this point. The
Matter is so clear that I am almost ashamed to trouble
the house with extracts to prove it; but with their per-
/11684m I shall read one or two. (Hear, hear.) What does
that
great authority on international law, who wrote some
hundred years back, say ? This is from Vattel
" But if the entire state be conquered, if the nation be
Subdued, in what manner can the victor treat it, without
transgressing the bounds of justice? What are his rights
er the counquered country ? Some have dared to advance
Ibis monstrous principle that the conqueror is absolute
Master of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as his
roeperty—that he may treat it as he pleases, according to
n common expression of treating a state as a conquered
country ; and hence they derive one of the sources of des-
potic government. But, disregarding such writers, who
!'educe men-to the state of transferable goods or beasts of
burthen, who deliver them up as the property of another
Man, let us argue on principles countenanced by reason
and conformabl to humanity." (Cheers.)
Dr. Wharton says :
"In ancient times, both the movable and unmovable
Property of the vanquished passed to the conqueror. Such
was the Roman law of war, often asserted with unrelenting
severity, and such was the fate of the Roman provinces
subdued by the northern barbarians, on the decline and
fall of the western empire. A large portion, from one to
two-thirds, of the lands belonging to the vanquished pro-
vincials was confiscated and partitioned among their con-
querors. The last example in Europe of such a conquest
was that of England; by 'William of Normandy." (Hear.)
" Since that period, among the civilised nations of Chris-
tendom, conquest, even when confirmed by a treaty cf
Peace, has been followed by no general or partial transten-
tation of landed property." (Hear, hear.) " The property
belonging to the government of the vanquished nation
passes to the victorious state ; which also takes the place
of the former Sovereign. In other respects, private
rights are unaffected by conquest." (Hear, hear.)
The house is aware that questions of international law
canes before the Snpreme Court iu America in a manner
they do not come before the courts in this country ; and
to the records of the Supreme Courts in the United States
We derive much valuable authority in those subjects. From
that source, sir, I take this exposition :
"The modern usage of natives, which has become law,
would be violated ; that sense of justice and of right which
ibseoutragea if
acknowledged and felt by the whole civilised world would
property should be generally confiscated
and Private rights annulled. The people change their al.
legiance —their relation to their ancient Sovereign is di-•
solved ; but their relations to each other and their rights
e, f Property remain undisturbed."
(Rear, and cheers.) The hon. member for Cork said that
Whatever might be the principle upon which Lord Can-
ing's despatch was founded, precedents were to be found,
and that too in India, which Lord Canning had not de-
Parted from, and the hon member read to the house a pro-
clamation of Lord Dalhousie. Now that proclamation is in
the memory of the house, and what does it say ? " If you,
the zenaindars and talook ars come in and submit your-
selves to the Government, your rights in land shall be re-
spected." (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member
also referred to Sir C. Napier as having laid down a pre-
cedent which Lord Canning has followed in this confisca-
tion. Now Sir Charles Napier'e brother tells ua in these
Words what that precedent was
" While his cannon still resounded on the banks of the
Indus he had made known that all persons, whether of
high or low degree, were confirmed from the time, and
Would be so permanently according to their behaviour.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Would be confirmed
in what ? "In the employments they held under the
Aneeers (cheers and laughter), and that all their rights and
possessions would"--there is no behaviour here—" be safe
',o rom confiscation, save those of the people, who, contrary
Ithe faith of nations, had assailed the residency."
But
then the hon. and learned member for Cork says, "At
ratgthetvseonftsa, those people of Oude were not entitled to the
conquered nation. That is out of the question.
They were rebels, they were mutineers, and every man
connected with the governmentionf st,hieiss country or with
that of India who describes Ur
eir but rebels, Anything lent mut' patch as anything
is false to this country
and has betrayed its interests." (Bear,
will the hon. and learned membePaTear, hear.) Now, who
proper j udge
of the position occupied by the people of 'ejsaa
take the directors of the East India Compenvde?? pr.ravill he
cer-
tainly have not combined to set the people -of ou-eV; '
More favourable light than they believe to be absolultnel a
necessary. There is laid upon the table to-night, and will bey
in the hands of bon, members to-morrow, a dispatch dated
the sth of the present month, and if the hones permit me.
I will read two paragraphs from this dispatch of the Court
of Directors which explain !their views of the position of
the inhabitants of Oude, whom the hon. member for Cork
characterises- as rebels guilty of mutiny :
"In dealing with the people of Oude you will doubtless
kte moved by special considerations of justice and policy.
he inhabitants of the city, not sepoys, and not taken in
arms against us, who must bo regarded as exceptional,
~11abot be considered as traitors, or even rebels— (cheers)—
)r they have notevenpledged their fidelity to us and
they had
by theintroduction of a new system of government had
liec_oesarily been deprived of the maintenance which they
should bad heretofore enjoyed. It is natural that such persons
•avail themselves of the opportunity offered by the
hi!rtracted state of the country to strike a blow for the re-
ation of the native rule under which the disorganisa-
tion,ofsthe Country bad been so lone to them, a source of
4, Awrul profit." (Cheers.) It went on to say : " Neither
tsieoenttaolo,e3ikdajs nor their retainers were under any oblige-
overnment. • You will, therefore, not con-
tharthey are to be the objects of punishment after
ti.liattylienlaeipar their arms." (Cheers-)
Graph of the dispatch. lam almost afraid
de on the time of, the house by reading the other