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

that is to say persons who have taken up arms against
the Government, but who "have done so less heartily,
and upon whom f m other causes:the Chief Commissioner
may not see reason to put restraint, these, after surren-
dering their arms, might be allowed to go to their homes,
with such security for their peaceable conduct as the
Chief Commissioner may think proper to require ;" and
the letter goes on to say—l entreat the house to mark
this—that "the permission to return to their homes
must not be considered as a re-instatement of them in
the possession of their lands—(hear)—for the deliberate
disposal of which the Government will preserve itself
unfettered." Now, if there is any sense or meaning in
language, this passage means that although these per-
sons may be permitted to return home they are not to
be reinstated,—net in their territorial rights, but in the
possession of their lands. With regard, therefore, to the
whole land of Oude, the Government holds itself at per-
fect liberty to dispose of that land as it may think fit. It
was, I think, hope), sible, in the face of the proclama-
tion, and of the language I have read, to suppose for a
single moment, that her Majesty's Government could
put upon it such an interpretation as has now, by way
of apology, been attached to it by noble lords oppo-
site. Having received this proclamation, not as be-
ing already issued, but as about to be issued, it was
the duty of her Majesty's Government to consider
what course they ought to pursue. We thought, my lords
it was a matter of the utmost importance that no a mo-
ment should be lost in intimating our apprehensions as
to the dangerous consequences wilieh might be produced
by the issue of such a proclamation. We were not with-
out hopes that our despatch, which was in strict unison
with the principles we had before laid down, might by
possibility reach Lord Canning in time to enable him to
reconsider the terms of hie proclamation, and to issue
one which was not liable to the construction that might
be placed upon it. We are told that we ought to have
waited to receive explanations from Lord Canning.
lords, if we had ha,' the slightest idea that such expla-
nations were coming, I don't say we should have waited
because it would have been our duty to notice the pro-
clamation, but we should very materially have modified
the language of the despatch. (Cheers.) We received
the proclamation officially, we received no private com-
munication whatever, we were not likely to receive such
a communication, because Lord Canning could not be
aware of the change of Government, and if communica-
tions of that nature had been sent—as private commu-
nications are sent by every Minister and Governor ex-
plaining their public acts—it was not to us that such
explanations would have come. But such an explanation
did come—(loud cheers from the Ministerial side) --and
it arrived at a period when its communication to her
Majesty's Government might have been of the utmost
importance—when if it had been communicated to them
it might have materially modified the tone and language
of my noble friend's despatch. (Hear.) Why was not
that explanation communicated to us I should like to
know ? (Cheers.) The noble marquis (Lansdowne) said
the other night that Mr. V. Smith received the explana•
tion at a very late period, Subsequently, I believe, the
noble marquis WAS satisfied that Mr. Y. Smite received
it at a period when it might have been communicated to us
and have had some effect, but we were told that Mr. V.
Smith was in Ireland attending his son's wedding,
which was much more important than any subject of
this nature. (A. laugh.) That, however, is not Mr. V.
Smith's account of the transaction. He says, "I did
receive a letter from Lord Conning ; I know it was ad-
dressed to me as President of the Board of Control.
I did not think it utterly unimportant, because
the moment I received it I wont"—to whom ? To the
Ministry by whom Lord Canning expected it would nave
been received ? No ; but to the head of the Govern-
ment which had just been displaced, and who was in
opposition to the existing Ministry. (Cheers.) In the
course of this evening it has been denied that Lord Pal-
merston was consulted on the subject of sending this ex-
tract of a private letter to her Majesty's present Go-
vernment. All that I can say is that the report of
what appears to have taken place elsewhere gives the
following as the words used by Mr. V. Smith
I may state, however, that I read it the moment I re-
ceived it to my noble friend the member for Tiverton, to
whom it did not appear, any more than to myself, that it
viao necessary to communicate it to the Government."
(Loud cheers and laughter.) Now, my lords, Lord Pal-
merston may or may not have given any advice, but if
we are to believe Mr. V. Seeith—and I cannot hesitate
to believe a statement which he makes so solemnly—the
first thing he did was to communicate this passage to
the head of the late Government, who did not think any
more than himself that it was necessary to communicate
it to the Minister to whose department it related. All
I can say is that I think the noble viscount (Palmerston)
must have very materially ebanged his views with re-
gard to the expediency and necessity of communicating
information bearing upon public matters which may be
contained in !elevate letters, because not long ago I had
the honour of receiving a communication from the noble
viscount, enclosing a letter which he said had been
, resoued from the wreck of the Ava, and which, inas-
much as it related to public affairs, he thought it his
duty to transmit to roe: Now, that despatch, rescued
from the wreck of the Ava, which the noble viscount—
anxious, as he always is, to discharge his duty to the 1
public—forwarded to me, contained information that a
petition for the recall of Lord Canning which had been
Gent to this country, and had been returned to India
that it might be transmitted through Lord Canning,
had been sent to the Governer-General to be so
transmitted. (Laughter.) That was the sole in-
formation contained in the dewatcb, yet that piece
of information, three months old, yeas considered by
the noble viscount so important—(a laugh)—that be
deemed it his dirty not to lose a minute in commuuicitt-
ing it to me as the bead of her Majesty's Government—
(cheers and laughter) —but a statement of the Governor.
General, written as be supposed to a Minieter of the
Crown, intimating his intention to forward explanations
respecting a very important official document appeared
to the noble viscounts° utterly insignificant that neither
he nor Mr. Smith thought it expedient to make any com-
munication on the subject to her Majesty's Ministers.
Again, I say, this passes the limits of my credulity ?
(" Hear," and a laugh.) I know not what other state-
ments or letters may have been received by Mr. Vernon
Smith—(hear, bear)—but this I will say, that, although
it is possible, I think it is barely probable that in the
course of two months and a half, or nearly three months,
the Governor,General of India should not have commu-
nicated one single private line with re r pact to public af-
fairs to the Minister who immediately presided over the
Indian department. (Hear, hear.) Ile may have kept
that extraordinary silence, but I very much doubt the
fact, and I think it is almost incredible. Certain it is,
however, thet not one line have we ever seen, nor have
we since wecame into office bad the slightest means of
judging whit, upon any one question, were Lord Can-
ning's view, of pol cy. (Loud and continued cheering.)
Well, my lords, in the absence of all such information,
we were b)und to act upon the proclamation and the
public doctmente we possessed ; and reading that pro-
clamation in the sense in which we regarded it we
thought net a moment was to be lost, and the language
'could hardly be too strong to express our apprehensions
of its cons,?quences and our disapproval of its tone and
temper. shall not quote the various passages to which
reference las been made. I shell not quote the language
held in tin despatch with regard to the proclamation as
we understood it and as we received it ; but this I will
venture to say, without fear of eontradiction, that the tone
and tempo. of that proclamation werestron,glydisapproved
by the hi;heet and most competent authorities in India,
that front its tone and the time at which it was issued, it
was regarded as likely to lead to most alarming conse-
quences— (hear )—that I believe there were remonstrances
against in publication, and that I know that many most
eminent men have written home expressing their deep
regret at the system of apparently wholesale confiscation
which b would establish. (Cheers.) If I could men-
tion tin persons to whom I refer their names would
command the highest respect ; but I am at liberty to
name ore geetlema.n with whom, until yesterday, I had
not the 3lighteet personal acquaintance. When I men-
tion the name of Sir George Clerk it will, I think, be
admitted that no one is more competent to form ajudg-
ment or this subject. I requested Sir G. Clerk to for-
ward no a copy of a despatch which was sent out by
my noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) only last Monday,
and in doing so Sir G. Clerk says :
Mae I take the liberty to observe to your lordship that,
so far re I know those countries, I should say that the sen-
timentr with which her Majesty's Government have re-
gardedit, if allowed to prevail, will right the ship, but
a diffeinut course should be persisted in British dominion
over it cannot be restored in any degree of security by
means of all the European troops England care afford to
send to such a climate or to such a distance."
These are the deliberate opinions et a man who, more
tean any-other, knows the circumstances and feelings of
the people of Indi e ; and he interprets this proclamation
as we interpret it ; he interprets confiscation as we. in-
terpretBoyf
,tth,fliGoOf Vseervilentlietrlit
sahh,o,uulldd
bbee
persisted
to,in and
it, erg' he says that, unless the recommendations
force that you can send from this country wul enable
you permanently to maintain your authority in peace in
if this
ment for having taken the earliest uoeneent to protest
agaiist a course of prec,eniugs which they thought
(Cheere ) I I. that a justification ifntla[Guvnetruo-f
woud necessarily lead to the most fearful consequences
(Heir, hear.) Let us recollect what is the contrition of
Oats. There every landholder is a soldier and every,
solder is a landholder, and a system of universal con-
fiscdtion addressed to a population of armed men—many
trailed in your service, and many feudal proprietors,
havne numerous armed retainers,
tier, I say, applied to such a population, with sours ex-
copeonal indulgences, ( f which no person could feel
—uorverel confisca-
a
scoere, was a certain means not to put an end to strife,
nutter protect a desultory and most embarrassing war,
an( to extinguish the hope of peace and security fur
worths and perhaps years to come. (Cheers) We
foind it necessary to protest at the earliest period
aetinst the possibility of such lamentable results, and
we thought it necessary to point out to the Governor-
General that which appeared contrary to the spirit of
bit proclamation, that the principle of mildness and for-
bearance, with occasional nism.ecee of severity, instead
of saver-Ay nitheccasional instances of clemency, was the
only sound way of bringing bas k the population to alle-
giance and content. (LI e,r.) I wi.t not use any ex-
oreseion likely to give offence to the noble duke oppo-
site, bat I do riot Aare in that laughing tone in which
Ye treated the enunciation in the despatch of those
greatesound, and holy prircii les which I believe it to
ho of the uonosit importance should be made known to
leae e hear.)
ea
to r.)
call '
the people of India as the principles which guide the
I
dcoened
eutc
ridicule
of f the
what,British
tGovernment.enebl
duke
p
was
plain truisms, nor do I think the country will be inclined
to ridicule them. Having expressed my entire concur-
rence is the statements contained in the de ;patch on the
supposed meaning and intention of the proclamation,
and having expressed that concurrence in them, nut
as a representation addre-sei to the people of India,
but as a representation in a secret dispatch to the Go-
vernor-Gene al, I now proceed to the farther question
respecting the publication of the despatch, and the re-

sponsibility for its publication. But before I go further
I must just advert to one observation which has been
made—namely, that it is absolutely clear that this de-
spatch was from the first intended for publication, other-
wise there would not have been found in it what the
noble duke opposite was pleased to call such sonorous
phrases. New, whatever may be the character of this
despatch, I do not for a moment doubt that it was the in-
tention and desire of my noble friend that the despatch
should remain on record. It was not a private letter,
but a secret despatch, not at the time to be communi-
cated, except to the Governor-General, but to remain on
record as an indication of the policy which my noble
friend and the Government were prepared to pursue.
Therefore, of course, it did not take the form of a mere
Private and confidential lett r, but of a recorded despatch,
pointing out the views entertained by the Government.
(Hear.) I come now to the question of publication, and
I confess that I am there compelled to differ from the
views of my noble friend the lase President of the Board
of Control. (Hear ) I stated at the very earliest op-
portunity afforded me that I regretted the premature
publication of the despatch. I think it was unfortunate
that, without any previous notice, a question should
have been asked by :e membet of the other house, and
answered by a subordinate member without communica-
tion with any of the Cabinet Ministers, except I presume
my noble friend the late President of the Board of Con-
trol, and that a declaration should have been made
pledging the Government to produce the despatch. I
will come presently to the question of the limited liability
or joint responsibility of the Cabinet, but will now advert
to what has fallen from the noble and learned lord oppo-
site. He said that, setting aside the question whether
all the Ministers were bound by one colleague, he would
go further back than the Thursday of last week, an/
would revert to a previous Friday, in order to show that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to some
question, announced that he would lay on the table a
despatch which was by no means intended as a censure
on the Governor-General, and the noble lord inferred
that that despatch, which cast no censure on the Go-
vernor-General, was the despatch which he said censured
that high officer. But the fact is that it was a prior de-
spatch. It was the despatch of the 24th of March, with
respect to which the discussion took place on the 231 of
April, and which was ordered to be printed on the
26th ; and the noble and learned lord has confounded
two separate occasions and two separate despatches.
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the despatch to
which the present motion referred what happened
was this :—a question was asked without no-
tice, and the Secretary of the Board of Control
hastily announced his intention of laying the despatch
on the table. That question was followed by another
question from another gentleman, who asked whether
the Government approved the policy of Lord Canning
in issuing the proclamation. Mind, at that time the de-
spatch had been promised to be produced ; and whether
the Government stated their approval or disapproval of
the proclamation, or left the fact to be disclosed when
the despatch should be produced next day, was a matter
of indifference. But what was the answer given by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ? He said that the policy
'of confiscation intimated in that proclamation we disep-
prove in every sense. (Hear.) Great stress has been
placed on these words " in every sense," but he was re-
ferring to the policy of confiscation, and in every sense
of justice and policy he meant that the Government dis-
approved of that policy. The same night the late Presi-
dent of the Council came over to me and told me what
had taken place in the House of Commons, and further
than so hearing that such question had been asked and
answered I bad no other knowledge on the subject. The
noble earl the late President of the Council, however,
expressed his hope that, as the production of the despatch
had been promised, it would be laid on the table that
night, because, otherwise, there would be no opportunity
of discussing before the departure of the mail, which left
on the Monday. We replied that we could not lay it on
the table that night, but would do so to-morrow, and
for the convenience of the noble earl and Lord Canning's
friends a copy should be sent to the noble earl, and it
was sent before the despatch was laid upon the table. On
the following day there was a Council at the Palace, by
which we were detained, but when we came to examine
the despatch we found in it some paragraphs which we
thought it more for the public convenience should not be
produced. The sole object of those paragraphs was to
point out the circumstances of mitigation which sepa-
rated the case of revolted subjects from that of mutineers,
and, of course, in reasoning the point all the extenua-
ting circumstances were put forth with a plainness and
openness with which they certainly would not have been
stated if the document had been intended to meet the
public eye. When we saw the character of those
paragraphs we desired to have them omitted from publi-
cation, and with that view we sent down to the House
of Commons, but before the messenger arrived, the
Secretary of the Board of Control, not having had any
previous communication with ns, had, in consequence of
the promise of the night before, laid the whole despatch
on the table of the House. I regret that the whole des-
patch was laid on the table, and upon the whole I regret
that any part of the despatch should have been published
at so early a period, but I cannot say that I regret the
character or contents of the despatch. (Hear, hear.)
On the contrary, I think the policy indicated in it is a
just, sound, and necessary policy, and we should have
been neglectful of our duty if we had omitted to take
the earliest opportunity of enforcing that policy on the
Governor-General, more especially at the moment when
we thought he was going to abandon it. Now, with
respect to the liability of all members for the act of a
single member, I wish to say that no man can put forth
more distinctly or clearly than I do the constitutional
doctrine that every member of the Government is re•
sponsible for the acts of every other member, whether
those acts were previou,ly known or not, provided the
members of the Government continued to act together
as a Government. Remaining in office and acting to-
gether, all the members of the Government take upon
themselves a retrospective responsibility for what their
colleagues have done, which they can in no way attempt
to shake off, But the case is very different when the
Government are charged with having done a certain act,
and they say " We did not do it, it was done without
our knowledge by one of your colleagues." "Never
mind," it is then said, "you are all responsible for the
acts of your colleague." "But,".we reply, ," in conse-
qience of the very act which you impugn, he has ceased
to be one of your colleagues." "Never mind," it is said
again, "you are still responsible; when you knew
nothing about the act he was your colleague, and you
were thorebre responsible for that of which you
know nothing ; and now that be has ceased to be your
colleague you continue responsible for enact of which you
knew nothing when it was done, and which you con-
demned as soon as it was brought to your knowledge.'
(Hear, hear.) My lords, that may be constitutional law,
but to me it appears to bathe grossest and most absolute
absurdity—(hear)—and sure I am that if it is the consti-
tutional law, it is not, and never has been constitutional
practice. (Oheere.) I need not go back a long way to
place before your lordships a circumstance which I think
is somewhat parallel. But before proceeding further I
may notice a remark which fell from a noble earl oppo-
site, "That excuse," be said, " would have answered
your purpose very well if upon the instant the promise
of publication was made in the House of Commons you
had jumped up and disclaimed it, and said to the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control, " You are no longer a
member of the Government.' " " But," continued the
noble earl, " it was not till 48 hours afterwards, and
when a notice of motion had been given in one if not
both Houses of Parliament, that you bethought you of
patting upon one of your number alone the entire re-
sponsibility of what had taken place." Now, my lords,
it was not the Government which placed up 'n the
President of the Board of Control, but my noble friend
himself who, with characteristic straightforwardness,
assumed the whole responsibility, which in truth and
justice simply attached to himself. (Hear, hear.) But
may I ask noble lords opposite to have the goodness to
carry their recollection back to the month of June,
1855 1 If my memory does not greatly deceive me, at
that time the noble viscount the member for Tiverton
was at the head of the Government, and the noble lord
the member for London was Secretary of State for the
Colonial Department. As Secretary of State for the Co-
lonial Department the noble lord was sent upon a mis-
sion to Vienna. In his capacity as Plenipotentiary at
Vienna, he entered into certain engagements for a
treaty, which he brought home and reported to his
Cabinet. His colleagues did not approve the art-
raogement which he had made, and I suppose they
signified to the noble lord that they did not so
approve. Did they imatediately insist upon hit quitting
office I No such thing. Time went on until notice was 1
given of a motion in Parliament charging the Govern-
ment with the responsibility of the treaty which had
been negotiated at Vienna. (Hear, hear.) What fol-
lowed / I am not in the secrets of the late Government,
but report at the time certainly stated that a round
robin was sent to the noble viscount the member for
Tiverton insisting upon the retirement of Lord J. Rus•
sell. In point of fact, Lord J. Russell ceased to be a
member of the Ca ,suet, and the Government then dis-
avowed the treaty to which he had been a party a con- 1
siderable time previous, repudiating in the face of a hos-
tile mention against the whole of them their joint respon-
sibility, and throwing the entire blame upon their late
colleague. (Cheers.) The Opposition of that day, being
somewhat more forbearing than the Opposition of the
present—(cheert!)—withdrevr the hostile motion against
the Government in consequence of the retirement of a
single member. (Renewed cheers ) I have thus given
the noble lords opposite a precedent for not imposing
the strict rule of joint and universal responsibility, not
in reference to a matter of which all the members of the
Cabinet except one were ignorant, but with regard to a
subject which, although it was well known to them, they
I did not disavow until a hostile motion was directed
against them in the House of Commons. (Cheers.) But,
my lords, I am asked by the noble earl opposite, " It
you mean to oppose trey reeslutiocs, why do you do so
by means of the preview. question ?" lie never, it
seems, knew an occasion on which a vote of censure
upon the Government Was met on the part of the Go-
vernment by the previous question. My answer to that
is that, although the debate has been a debate of cen-
sure upon the Government, the vut-2, to which your lord-
ships are asked to carne i 3 not a vote of censure upon
the members of the Govern:neat, but upon an act
which the members of the Government disavow and
repudiate. (Cheers.) What was the Government to
do in these eircuaismanees / The last roiolution, which
is the only one of any prsc icel importance, asks
the House of Loris to express its regret at the
premature publication by the Gevernment of the
despatch of the 19. h of April, which was calculated to
weaken the authority of the Governor-General, and to
encourage those still in arms against us. To someol
he phraseology of that resolution I certainly must de-
mur. I do not admit that the publication took place
with the sanction or by the• authority of the Govern-
ment ; on the contrary, I contend that it took place
without their knowledge, and contrary to their wish or
intention, (Hear, hear.) Nor do I admit, although
undoubtedly the publication—not the writing—el Oat.

despatch may put Lord Canning in a fearful position,
from which I sincerely hope that his explanations, when
received, may have the effect of relieving hiin, that the
premature promulgation of the despatch will produce
any results such as those which have been ascribed t )
it. (Hear, hear.) I regret especially the publication
of that part which relates to the annexation of Odd°,
because it is liable to be misapprehended by the natives
of India ; but I cannot regret that an intimation should
go out in the most anthoritative manner from the crown
—approved, as I hope, by the Parliament and people of
England—that the system upon which hereafter the
Government of India should be conducted, when the
present unhappy revolt has been suppressed, is not to be
a system of general confiscation, but a system of general
toleration and mercy, and that we hope the instances
may be few in which it may be necessary to make use of
severity. (Hear, hear.) But, my lords, if I were to op-
pose the resolutions, it would appear as if I sanctioned
and approved the publication of the despatch. My
noble and learned friend on the woolsack had no alterna-
tive, then, if he meant to express the feelings and wishes
of the Government, and to avoid a vote which would be
liable to misconstruction, but to move the previous
question, which simply imports that upon a point on
which your lordships have not sufficient information you
will not at the present moment undertake to pronounce
a judgment. Such is the meaning of the previous ques-
tion. It involves no censure upon Lord Canning or upon
the character of his proclamation, but it means that yell
will not express a hasty opinion upon imperfect evidence
or arrive at a decision which, whatever may be its
effects here, will be liable to be misconstrued in India.
The motion of the noble earl opposite is, and was an-
nounced to be, a vote against the Government. Carried
in that sense, it will be construed by the people of India
as meaning that the Government have been condemned
for promulgating a policy of mercy and toleration.
Although I am satisfied you would regret such an inter-
pretation as much as we should, yet the inference is clear
and obvious that your adoption of a vote of censure upon
the Government, after a debate in which the question of
toleration or confiscation had been the main subject of
discussion, would be held in India to be your adoption
of the opposite principle to that maintained by the Go-
vernment. (Hear.) It is upon these grounds, my lords,
while I cannot defend the prematere publication of the
despatch, while I nevertheless hope that the promulga-
tion of some parts of it may not only be productive of
no injury, but may go forth as a message of peace to
India, announcing the kindly and beneficent intentions
of the British Parliament with respect to the administra-
tion of Indian affairs, and I entreat your lordships not,
by affirming the motion of the noble earl opposite, which
must be construed into a vote cf censure, to place the
Government in a most painful and embarrassing posi-
tion, and at the same time produce in India an impres-
sion the very reverse of that which we all wish to create.
(Cheers.)

Earl GRANVILLE hoped their lordships would not
allow the Government to get rid of the motion of censure
by a technical amendment. The noble lord who had
brought forward the motion could not be charged with
party motives. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) The noble earl
had alluded to certain political meetings, as if hon. mem-
bers of the other house were not to meet on grave politi-
cal questions, and be had even descended so low as to in-
sinuate family motives, but he (Earl Granville) should
have thought it unworthy of the notice of the noble earl
on this occasion. The meetings were, however, perfectly
legitimate. He (Earl Granville) owned that whilst the
case was in a nutshell he was at a loss for some time to
imagine the arguments that would have been advanced
by the Government in support cf their policy. He denied
that he had any personal feeling against the noble earl
(Ellenborongh) whom he respected for many noble quali
ties, but he must say the noble earl bad assumed a false
position. As to his remonstrance against the proclama-
tion, he (Lord Granville) never heard a speech that
appeared to convey less we;ght and conviction than that
of the Lord Chancellor, though he admitted his great
ability and acquisition in that house to the party whose
principles he espoused. He appeared to have defended
the conduct of the sepoys as being legitimately at war
with the Indian Government.

The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. The noble
earl was in error in that respect.
Earl GRANVILLE—The noble earl at the head of
the Government had argued that the letter of the noble
earl (Ellen borough) was likely to do good in India ; but
what he (Earl Granville) contended was, that the Go-
vernment were at liberty to send out such remarks on the
proclamation as they thought right, but that their pub-
lication ba the present state of affairs was likely to create
much mischief in India. (Hear.) It had been stated that
the despatch was not intended to be published, but
but from the observations that had been made by the
noble earl the late President of the Board of Control, it
appeared that it was intended for publication. If it was
intended otherwise, he thought it would have been writ-
ten in a different tone. He referred to a statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the
annexation of Oude and the course Government ought to
pursue, viz., that the Queen of England was not a
Sovereign Who would violate treaties, but observe them,
&c., and be went on to say that they should not de it in
a corner, but in a manner to attract attention. He did
not, however, say that it was wrong for her Majesty's
Government to entertain an opinion that the annexation
of Oude was wrong; but if they considered that the
kingdom of Oude should be returned to the King, it
ought to have been done opanly, by instructions to that
effect to Lend Canning, and not in an indirect manner,
as inferred by this despatch. Would the noble earl lay
on the table of the house the letters he bad mentioned
from India in opposition to this proclamation, that
their lordships might see if they were written be-
fore its issue or after. (Hear, hear.) He could
not concur in the assertion, that their lordships
would consider this a proper despatch, and as the
noble earl had given up a part of it, it was uoneceasary
that he (Earl Granville) should enter into it. He now
came to its publication, and he dissected generally from
the proposition laid down by the noble earl as to where
the joint responsibility of a Cabinet commenced and
where it ended, and he denied that the case of Lord J.
Russell, alluded to by the noble ear], was a case in point.
So far as he understood it, there had been a communica-
tion between the noble earl and Mr. Baillie in respect
to the publication of the despatch, and the Chancellor of
of the Exchequer had said that the Government disap-
proved of Lord Canning's policy in every sense: When
he referred to the subject on a former occasion, he put a
question to the Government, not being so cognizant of
the policy of the Government in this respect, as Mr.
Bright appeared to have been. (Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion, however, did not rest en that. The despatch was
however, published the next day ; and he called the at-
tention of the noble earls (Lord Ellenborough and Lord
Derby) to it, who promised him (Earl Granville) he
might, have it, and show it to his friends, but not to
publish it. That injunction was strictly followed out by
him (Earl Granville) • but why had not the Government
before laying it on the table, read it over, and considered
the evils it might produce in India 1 He had no doubt
that was done; and the most honourable course for the
Government to have pursued would have been to have
come down to the house, and refused its publication,
though with some little obloquy. Tuey, however, bad
left out a part of the despatch in publication, which
made them responsible for the whole. Her Majesty's
Government fully participated in that despatch, and by
its publication were accomplices to it. He contended her
Majesty's Government could not escape from the joint
responsibility of the publication of this despatch, and he
was afraid their lordships' house would stand a false po-
sition in agreeing to the motion of the previous ques-
tion. After this despatch it was impossible to say what
policy the Government intended to pursue towards In-
dia, and therefire he trusted the house would give an
opinion on declarations it was impossible to deny ; and
however much the Opposition might be taunted by party
feelings, it would be seen that their lordships had a po-
licy to defend, and that great mischief would result in
India by the treatment the Governor-General had re-
' ceived. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were
Contents—Pre;ent
Proxies
--158
Non contents—Present
P 1 oxies 49
—167
DMajority for the Government O. (Loud o'aeers.)
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed shortly after one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--{YESTERDAY.)

Ti3e SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
THE ATTENDANCE OF HON. MENIBERS..

The anticipated debate on Mr. Cardwell's motion, in-
volving a vote of censure on her Majesty's Government,
drew au early and numerous attendance of hon.
ere, and mern-
t long before the hour for prayers thehouse was
dctihrcenqmusetsatniocne'reltfitveer
three parts f
Owen
mStanley
n ursal as
el
prayers Mr.
to the right of hon. members to certain seats, in replythe
to which the Speaker read the standing order of
house, which was to the effect that no hon. member could
take his eeat before prayers, and it was the duty of the
Speaker to give such instructions to the door-keeper. He
had failed to do so, and if any misunderstanding had
arisen on the subject, he was to blame for not having
given the requisite orders to the door-keepers. (No, no.)
Mr. Owen Stanley said that in accordance with
the standing order referred to ho had removed
the card of an honourable rcetnber from the seat
placed there some time previous to prayere, and
the hon. member had complained of his want of courtesy
in removing it. Mr. J. Ewart, the hon. member re-
ferred to, said that he had certainly placed his card there
before prayers—an usual practice, and he had called
upon the right hon. gentleman not to remove it, and die-
turb the usual and recognised practice adopted by boo.
members. He had no desire to r:in counter to the:
standing order of the house.
The subject then dropped.
Lord J. Russell. and Mr. M. Gibson left their seats
on the opposition side of the house, and went over to Sir
J. Graham, on the ministerial side, just be'ow the gang•
way, asd had a lengthened conversation with the right
hoe. baronet previous to the commencement of the busi-
ness on the paper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
and Lord Vane Tempest also had an earnest conversa-
tion on the Treasury Bench.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Norwich Gas Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The following bills were further conaidtred, and or-
lered to be read a third time :—Chiswick Improvement;
Edinburgh and Glasgow and Stirling and Dunfermline
Railways ; North Yorkshire and Cleveland Railway ;
Salisbury and Yeovil Railway ; Staines, Wokingham,
and Woking Railway.
ARCEDEACONR.Y OF MIDDLESEX.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved an address or copy of