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

to which I have referred. (General cries o "Go on," and
cheers.)
"7. Of these arms they must for over be deprived. You
will, doubtless, in prosecution of this object address yeur-
self—in the first instance to the case of the great talookdars,
who so successfully defied the late Government, and many
of whom, with large bodies of armed men, appear to have
aided the efforts of the mutinous soldiery of the Bengal
army. The destruction of the fortified strongholds of
these powerful landholders, the forfeiture of their remain-
ing guns, tho disarming and disbanding of their followers,
will be among your first works. But while you are de-
priving this influential an I once dangerous class of peo-
ple of their power of openly resisting your authority you
will, we have no doubt, exert yourselves by every possible
means to reconcile them to Bi itish rule, and encourage
them, by liberal arrangements made in accordance with
ancient usages—(hear, hear) —to become industrious agri-
culturists, and to employ in the cultivation of the soil the
men who as armed retainers have so long wasted the sub-
stance of this masters and desolated the land. We believe
that these landholders may bo taught that their holdings
will be more profitable to them under a strong Govern-
went, capable of maintaining the peace of the country,
auo severely punishing agragrian outrages, than under one
which perpetually invites by its weakness the ruinous ar-
bitration of the sword." (Loud cheering.) That is, in my
opinion, a statesmanlike and manly despatch. It meets
the case fairly, and tolls the truth. The men of Oude were
not rebels--it would be unjust to treat them as rebels, and
the Court of Directors suggest that they should not be
treated as rebels. (Cheers.) I defy any one to read that
despatch and remember the description given of the people
of Oude by the member for Cork, and to say that the de-
scription of them given of them by the Court of Directors
is not a truer one, and the policy of the despatch a truer
and a wiser one than that which the hon. and learned mem-
ber advocates. (Cheers.) Well, but it is said—l do not
think I have not heard it in this debate, but it has been
said so often that I think it well to refer to it—" What
should Lord Canning have done? What other kind of
proclamation could he have issued to men who, whether
rebels or otherwise, are still in opposition to your arms?
Should he have told them that their rights of property
were preserved to them ?" I say no; of course not. (Hear.)
He should, though, have said what Lord Dalhousie did—
" If yon submit, if you lay down your arms and promise
allegiance to these whom the fate of battles has put over
you, it is not with you we have made war, and your pro-
perty will be spared to you." (Hear, hear.) If Lord Can-
ning's proclamation was couched in language such as that,
I think no one could have objected to it; but whether they
would or no, I say such a proclamation would have been
a wise and proper proclamation. (Hear, hear,) But he has
not said anything of that kind. (Fear, hear.) The right
honourable gentleman who moved the resolutions now be-
fore the house suggested a theory; and it is one which
it would be unkind to pass over, as the hon. and learned
gentleman who seconded the motion gallantly improved
upon it. (Hear and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman
says, " It is a mistake to suppose that Lord Canning's pro-
clamation was addressed to the people of Oude ; it is an
error to suppose that he meant any interference with what
we call the rights of property. This is nothing more than a
meddling with some feudal or baronial rights, which have
been a curse to the country, and which the sooner they are
abolished the more speedy will a great blessing have been
bestowed upon the people." Now, suppose it were true
that the proclamation meddled only with feudal and ba-
ronial rights, I want, to know from the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Oxford, and the hon. and learned
member for Cork, what right you have to meddle with feu,
dal and territorial rights, more than with any other? It
may be thought that the existence of those feudal and ba-
ronial rights is a bad thing ; that they have retarded the
improvement of the country, but if they are a right exist-
ing in a country. I should like to know what there is in
them that would distinguish their confiscation from that
of any other land rights ? (Hoar, hear, and cheers.) But
let me tell the right, hon. gentleman that this theory of
his is virtually and actually without foundation. There is
no pretence—there is not the shadow of a pretence for say-
ing that the proclamation was addressed to the talookdars
and chiefs alone. On the contrary, having addressed them
considering that he had not addressed all to whom he wished
to speak, he adds, "the landholdersof Oude," and the pro-
clamation itself is from the " Governor •General's Procla-
mation to the People of Onde." (Hear, hear.) More than
that, what is it that is to be confiscated? "The proprietary
light in the soilof the province." (Hear.) And now what
is the proprietary right in the soil of the province? Why
this right includes the right of thetenant, the right of the
farmer, the right *f the middleman, the right of theowuer
of the land, and feudal and baronial rights, and all these
rights aro confiscated. (Cheers.) I challenge the right
hon. gentleman, or the hon. and learned member for Cork,
or any other hon. member'who may follow them in debate
to point out a line in this proclamation which preserves to
any man any sort of right or property in the soil of the
province of Oude. The right hon. gentleman whoproposed
this resolution asks the house to arrive at the conclusion to
which he wishes them to come, andby thd first part of that
resolution he asks them to go no further. Sir, I trust the
Home of Commons will go further, that they will pronounce
an opinion on that which is the foundation of the resolu-
tion itself—(hear)—and if they concur in those principles
Which are laid down in the great autherities which I have
cited, then the second part of the right hon. gentleman's
resolution is easily answered. Will the house pronounce
a censure upon the government for considering a proclama-
tion in which those principles were disregarded (Hear,
hear.) Remember, jam not now speaking of the publica-
tion of the despatch, lam speaking of the question as it
stands between the government of this country and the
dispatch they sent Lord Canning. What were the facts of
the case ? There came to this country a draft of a procla-
mation which Lord Canning said he was about to issue as
soon as our troops were in possession of Luckietowshn event
which he expected to occur without delay. That-came to
this country without the modified clause which Was after-
wards introduced, and which I think every one will see
was introduced by the hand of the chief commissioner.
It came home without explanation (loud cries of " hear,
hoar," from the supporters of the government). It was
unaccompanied, so far as the Board of Control were aware,
by anything but the letter from the secretary at Calcutta
to the chief commissioner at Oude, which appeared there-
fore to be the whole of the explanation which Lord
Canning desired to give. Now let us consider for a moment
what are the functions of the home government with regard
to the government of India. The right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Cardwell) says you have paralysed the arm of the
Governor-General. I should like to know when the Go-
vernor-General sends home proclamations for the opinion
of the home government, is it the province of the latter to
pronounce an opinion on them or not? If it is not I
admit that the resolutions is right; but if the home
government are to consider every question referred to them
by the Governor-General, and to express their approval or
disapproval of his acts, then I say I should be ashamed to
be connected with any government who allowed a single
mail to pass after this proclamation was received without
writing to the Governor-General and stating explicitly
and distinctly their view with regard to the policy of the
proclamation. Sir, this was a case in which there was not
a moment to be lost ; nor was it one in which there could
be any shrinking from the right through a fear of hurting
the feelings of the Governor-General. (Hear, hear.) I
respect Lerd Canning as much as any man in this house
respects him. Lord Canning is a man whose kind and
c msiderate nature and upright and simple mind forbid that
any one can regard him withou-, profound respect and very
considerable admiration, but when the destinies of a coun-
try are threatened—when the fortunes of 5,000,000 of
people are at stake —all considerations that are merely per-
sonal must give way. (Hear, hear.) This part of the
subject lies in the smallest possible compass. Was the
proclamation right, or was it wrong? If tiro proclamation
was right the censure was wrong. If the proclamation was
wrong the censure was right. (Cheers.) I deny that this
was a general censure on all Lord Canning's services. I
have no desire to underrate—l have a desire to extol those
services. But here was a specific act sent for the opinion
of the home government. It was their duty to express an
opinion on it. They have expressed that opinion, and, as
I maintain, rightly., (Hear, hear.) I now come to third
part of the right hon. gentleman's resolution, which refers
to the publication of the despatch of the home government.
I hold that it was the duty of any government, when the
fact that the proclamation had been published became
known to the people of England, to express in some form
or other their opinion of the policy of that proclamation,
whether it was right or wrong. (Hear, hear.) This was
not the case of a negociation with a foreign power. In such
it is the custom—a custom which some members of the
House of Commons consider a vicious one—to refuse the
production of official papers pending the negociation to
which they refer. But this was the case of a proclamation
by a Governor-General holding his authority under this
country. That proclamation was published; the House
of Commons was assembled; ministers were in their
places, liable to be called upon—and they were called upon
—to say aye or no to " what is your line of policy on
that proclamation— do you approve of it or do you
not?" The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), perhaps
inadvertently, said that the government had made a
declaration ciaapproving of the whole policy of Lord
Canning. Sir, the government never did anything
of the kind. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Birming-
ham (Mr. Bright) rose in his place in this house and said,
" A proclamation has been issued confiscating the kingdom
of Oude ; does her Majesty's Government approve of that
proclamation or does it not ?" (Hear, heat.) My right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to
that question, said, "Her Majesty's Government disap-
proves of the confiscation of Oude (that is to say of the
feeling indicated in the proclamation) in every sense."
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I hope I may say, on behalf of her
Majesty's Government, that they do disapprove of it in
every sense. (Cheers.) ?`here are only two senses in which
it can be approved of or disapproved of—the sense of
justice and the sense of expediency. (Cheers.) In both
senses my right hon. friend said the Government disap-
proved of it. Iu both senses I hope the House of Com-
mons will affirm that that policy is to be disapproved of.
(Cheers.) As to the publication of the dispatch a great
deal of what was affirmed in the resoluti in has been known
long since. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell)
gave notice of his motion before the resignation of Lord
Ellenborough. The noble earl himself has, with that
frankness and high honour which is not the smallest of
his characteristics, stated in another place what the facts
connected with the production of that dispatch were.
(Hear, hear.) The noble earl has stated that the Secretary
of the Board of Control was by his directions permitted to
lay upon the table of the house a copy of a dispatch sent
to Lord Canning. Another noble earl, in eager haste,
applied in another place to Lord Ellenborough for a copy
of the dispatch. Lord Ellenborough yielded to the en-
treaty of the noble earl, and in a spirit of fairness which I
am sure the house will appreciate, he (Lord Ellenborough)
thought it proper that a member of this house should have
the same advantage as that afforded to the noble earl who
applied for the dispatch elsewhere. This led to the pro-
duction of the dispatch in this house. But hon. members
will remember that this was done without any other mem-
ber of the Government having been consulted on the sub-
ject, Copies of the, dispatch were placed in the hands
of those who were not bound to secrecy, and it was then
published in full. No doubt it was subsequently thought
desirable to withhold some paragraph-, of the dispatch
when it was produced in another place ; but it became
public the
of mtohmeenntoibtlewasin (Ellenborough)
hands of two members
the w
when
legislature
said who
that
earl wereha
araenolbot
anreba,
no u,anbo)ld
wastonos ecrecy,
right
member of
(Hear,t Government,lehea;
publication.
hon. friend (the Chancellor The right hon. gentleman who
introduced this resolution' resuscitatingxcli an old joke of my
this to be a government of limited
Th was a party strictly
ooritchtthelyre
liabilityeqe?r),Baustkethd,erweaiss
not the smallest similarity between the present res Tits case andk
that to which my right hon. friend app
which was the case of the retirement of a memberroefml7orrd
Aberdeen's Government, who was a party to a particular
policy that had been pursued for months if not years. MY
right hon. friend argued that that retirement could not re-
lieve the Government from the responsibility of that
policy. But surely that is not a parallel case to the publi-
cation of a single despatch? The right hon. gentleman,
(Mr. Cardwell) charged nay right hon. friend with having
given a contradiction to a statement made by the noble earl
at the head of the Government in another place, when my

THE SUN,

LONDON,'

right hon. friend said that the colleagues of the noble earl
the late President of the Boatel of Control would have
pressed on the noble earl not to retire and have risked the
consequences of his acts, whilst the noble earl (the Earl of
Darby) had stated that the resignation had been at once
accepted. But the right hon. gentleman forgets what was
stated by the noble earl at the head of the Government—
namely, that before consulting him on the subject the Earl
of Ellenborough had sent his resignation to her Majesty.
( Hear.) Had the Earl of Ellenboreugh announced his in-
tention to his colleagues, they would have said, " We de-
cline to accept it ; though the responsibility was yours
originally, we will share it now." But, to prevent such a
step as that, the noble earl first placed his resignation in
the hands of her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) I think, sir, I
have shown that in what they have scud upon this point
the noble earl at the head of the Government and my right
hon. friend concur in every particular. (Hear, and cheers.)
The hon. and learned member for Cork said that we might
have sent a despatch to Lord Canning, directing him not to
put his proclamation in force in its strict wording. Now,
sir, if the hon and learned menib sr will read the despatch he
will find that is just the alternative which her Majesty's
Government adopted by anticipation. (Hear, hear, and
. laughter) Her Majesty's Government could not tell but
that despatch would reach him before our troops were in
possession of Lucknow, and consequently, before this pro-
clamation would be put iu force. I ask the house, was it
not a reasonable expectation to entertain, that ho might
consult with such men as Lawrence, Outram, Gan. Mans-
field,
arid others, whom I could name; and that his pro-
clamation would not b 3 put in force to the extent stated
in the draft? (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had
asked why they could not have waited for an explanation ?
and the hon. and learned member for Cork had taken the
same view, and said, " Why did you act so precipitately ?"
He (the hon. gentleman) thought there was one circum-
stance, and one only, which might have led to some delay,
important though the case was, and to some postpone-
ment of the despatch sent by Lord Canning, and that was,
if Lord Canning had sent home to the President of the
Board of Control a statement, that although an explana-
tion might shortly be expected. If such a statement as
that had come from Lord Canning, the publication, even
the writing of the despatch, might well have been delayed.
And here ho approached a part of the case which he con-
fessed had filled hini with pain and surprise, We have
here, preci • led the hon. and learned gentleman, the whole
facts of the cese, for we had them from the right hon.
member for Northampton himself yesterday ; and I must
say that if there is a man in this house of whom Lord Can-
Ling has reason to complain, it is the right hon. gentleman
---(great cheering from both sides of the house) —it is the
colleague and the friend of Lord Canning, the eight hon.
gentleman the member for Northampton. (Hear, hear.)
Now, what is the statement which the right hon. gentle-
man gave us ? He told us, if I remember rightly, that
Lord Canning had sent him a letter, in which he said " I
am about to issue a proclamation to the landowners of
Oude. lam anxious to send home by the same mail a
full explanation; but I have been so occupied to-day by
the pressure of business that lam wholly unable." What
was the moaning of these words? I agree with the right
hon. gentleman ; I think they were very significant. The
meaning was this—l am about to issue a proclamation
which 1 have sent home in draft, and sent home to you.
You are the President of the Boatel of Control, and I have
sent it to you. It is a proclamation which requires ex-
planation. I have an explanation to give. I wish I
could give it to you by this mail, so that when the procla-
mation reaches you, you might have the explanation
along with it. But give me credit. Put confidence in
me. The explanation will arrive by the next mail. In
the meantime you will consider me as one who has an ex-
planation to give." (Hear, hear.) What does the right
hon gentleman say were has feelings with regard to this ?
Why, that he does not imagine, he cannot imagine, he
does not believe that anybody can imagine, and he won-
ders that anybody can imagine, that by any ingenuity or
artifice it could be supposed that these words of Lord Can-
ning were of the slightest importance —(cheers)—to be
made known to the head of the government of India. in
this country. (Hear, hear.) Well, but he did think them
of sufficient importance to consult the noble lord the mem-
ber for Tiverton. (Cheers.) He and the noble lord met
in conclave on this despath of Lord Canning. (Hear,
hear.) Two ex-Ministers of England received a despatch
from the Governor-General of India—the draft of a state
proclamation. They considered the statement which the
Governor-General of India made in that letter. The right
hon. gentleman consulted, he says, the noble lord—
Mr. V. SM[TH--I never said any such thing.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I can assure the right
hon. gentleman that I should be most sorry to misrepre-
sent him. I thought he said " consult ;" but if he did
not, ho will surely admit that he either communicated it
or showed it to the noble lord. (Hear, hear, hoar.)
Well, sir, I want to know for what purpose he showed it
to the noble lord ? (Cheers.) It could not have been on
account of its importance, for he says he thought it pos-
sessed none. (Hear.) I hope the right hon. gentleman
who, perhaps, will address the house again in the course of
this debate, will tell us what his mod-re was in showing
it to the noble lord. At present we have this very signi-
ficant fact, that a letter, a private letter if you will, was
written with the draft of the proclamation, and that that
letter was considered, at all events, of so much importance
that it was shown to the late Prime Minister of England,
and yet was not of sufficient importance to be shown to
the President of the Board of Control. Now, sir, I must
say a word or two with regard to the theory of the right
hon. gentleman as to private letters. (Hear, hear.) There
is a view of this question which, I think, will strike any
ordinary observer as it strikes me. I quite admit, with
regard to the heads of the State, that the probability, the
necessity, is that they must receive a great number of pri-
vate letters from those who in our colonies, dependencies,
and foreign legations, are on intimate terms with them. I
admit the absolute necessity for those letters. I admit
that, if in a letter of this kind there are -matters relating
to private affairs, it is not incumbent upon the Minister
who receives it to hand it*over to his successor ; but I say
that it is incumbent upon him to extract from it whatever
is addressed to him relating to public affairs, upon the
supposition that he still continues in 'Alice. Now, whatever
the right hon. gentleman and the noble lord arranged, what
it virtually comes to is this—they intercepted this letter.
(Loud cheers.) What may be the observation of Lord Can-
ning upon this Ido not know. But if I were iu his posi-
tion, my observation would be something of this kind :
" Well, I had a friend, as I thought, in England, who was
formerly my colleague. He was the president of the de-
partment with which I had the closest relation, and being
my friend and late colleague, I wrote to him on private
affairs. At the same time I sent him one of the most im-
portant state papers that I had issued during the whole
course of my government in India, but I was so much
occupied when I did so that I could not send him the ex-
plenation with which it ought to be accompanied ; but in
a note written to him under the impression that he was
still Minister, I stated that an explanation would follow.
My friend, my late colleague, put the letter into his pocket.
He knew that the proclamation was in the hands of the
Government of the day, and that they had read it without
the explanation ; but he discovered the proclamation from
the explanation, an I allowed days and weeks to pass, and
the Government to believe that no explanation of the pro-
clamation would be given. These circumstances have given
mmye tfhreienudtm,,os(ct gherieerfs.rld
have now
a gonendlrnat
of the right hon. gentleman, and I think I may venture to
say that they have fallen to the ground. He appeals to the
hyr ough thank
the
charges
argi t alles
house not to pronounce an opinion upon the policy of the
proclamation. He appeals to the house to be silent. I ap-
peal to the house not to be silent. (Cheers.) I appeal to
the house in behalf of the dearest interests of the countr
they
to
in India and at home. (Hear, hear.) I appeal
house on behalf of 5,000;000 of pe ple—a nation mis-
guided, miseoverned—semi-barbarous, I admit, still men
with like Peelings, passions, perceptions, and prejudices
as ourselves. I appeal to the house in the cause of
i
humanity and of justice. (Cheers from the Radical
benches.) I make that appeal to the British House ofd
Commons, to which an appeal in the cause of justice d
humanity never been made, and made in vain. (Cheers.)
Do not let this go forth as a matter of doubt. Do not let
this question be slurred over by the terms of a factiousand
catching motion prepared by a cabal—(loud and continued
cheering from all parts of the house)—toemberrass and dis-
place a ministry. (Hear, hear, and renewed cheers). Toll it
out by your votes to the people of India iu terms neither
vague nor indistinct that what we desire from them is sub-
mission, not spoliation—(cheers)—that the war which we
taintwsthheliirat:thi
wage is the war of nations, not of freebooters--(cheers)—
that England knows how to make war and to conquer, and
also how to treat the conquered; that she offers to those
whom she conquers, and who submit to her arms, that
protection for life and property which will be the best eat.,
nest to them of the mildness of the rule to which it is their
fate to bow. If ever there were a time in which it was ne-
cessary that our policy towards India should be clear and
distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of trans-
ferring the government of India from the company to the
Queen. In the course of discussions in this house upon the
subject of our p ist government of that country, some COR-
fessions have been made which you may rely upon it have
not escaped the attention of the people of India. One con-
fession was made by the right hon. baronet the memberfor
Radnorshire (Sir G. C. Lewis) which he will forgive me for
s Lying I listened to with respectful amazement. The then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister of the Crown,
who was advocating the bill that was introduced to Par-
liament for transferring the government to the Queen, was
speaking of the past government of India; it is true he
was speaking of a government prior to the year. 1784, but
that was at,: a °time when not the most insignifi-
cant part of our acquisitions in India was made. What did
the right hon. gentleman say ? He said, "I do most con-
fidently maintain that no uncivilised government ever
existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt,
lotelor
East
heapets
het
people
fiernoddcpioi ,i.enuccsouo,f
raml.nnpßdria
lantyo eorma pt ahcei oy sa
rt theamns to tgho
av
ye te-:
rmi e7n6t4o2f,
ruwegtehareedffs teeora toitumhreefmnutt
future
the right hon. gentleman I do not
thathargtee
government.
vl
wel
aerennv
ademrnjee. tuns
not
ot.l
justice,
ashamedthereen en.ort, bhseepostorool Ta confesstLi
is
oet
nat ku—es
d suspiciont ha t no
sake of
tpltuondloear—vo(cilit plunder—(cheers)—and (cheers)—that the war which we have waged against them
intrigue, will tempt the House of Commons oven for o
is a war consistent with mercy and justice, dfor thee
factions,teatr the notand
dynasty
no
which we are about to introduce into I • ndia is to be a dy-
nasty of reckless, ruthless, and indiscriminate confiscation.
(The hon. and learned gentleman hero resumed his seat
amidst tremendous cheering, which was sustained for
several minutes.)

Mr. LO WE hoped that the eloquent speech just delivered
would not lead the house away from the real question for
consideration. In effect the right hon. and learned gentle-
man called upon the house to censure the proclamation in
the absence of explanation from the Governor-General.
The resolution, as worded, was a censure upon the Govern-
ment, not upon the proclamation. What the house was
called upon to disapprove of was the manner in which the
Government had written the despatch, not the fact that a
despatch had been written at all. Considering the t•.>rtures
of mind which Lord Canning had suffered for the last year,
such a despatch was most cruel. It was absolutely impos-
sible that Government as established in this country, and
a despatch of this nature, could co-exist together. (Hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY, who had put an amendment on the
paper to move the previous question, said that since be
had heard the able speech of the hon. and learned Soli-
citor-General, he was now preparad to give the resolution
before the house a direct negative. (Ministerial cheers.)
It was most absurd to attempt to separate the despatch
from the proclamation, any more than it would be to ex-
press au opinion on the effect without considering the cause.
(Hear, hear.) He could not
_support the policy of Lord
Canning, as contained in the proclamation, for it was a
great departure from the course oflenient policy for which
Lord Canning had been somewhat unjustly censured
by the popular voice ; and perhaps the existence of this
popular opinion might have bad something to do with
the production of the proclamation, and it was not at all
improbable that the late Government bad intimated to the
Governor-General that such a course was not altogether
palatable to the people of this country. He had no doubt
whatever but that if the despatch of the late President of
the Board of Control, previous to his retirement from of-
fice, were produced, they would find in them some recom-
mendation to that @Mot. (Hear, hoar.) The policy of