The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-20 00:00:00

SPOLIATION OF OIJDE.

SUN OFFICE, 3 P.ll.

Just as we are going to press, a rumour reaches
us, in which we have every reason to place
entire confidence.

It is said that important communications have
been received from various officers holding the
highest positions in her Mijesty's service, in
which the CANNING Proclamation is unreservedly
condemned, and the worst consequences are anti-
cipated from its promulgation.
We are unable to state whether these commu-
nications are of a private or of an official charac-
ter, but we must express our earnest hope that
their subtstance, at least, may be at once commu-
nicated to the country.

Mr. VERNON SMITH, in answering the question
fairly asked by Mr. CRAWFORD on Tuesday even-
ifig, as to " whether Lord CANNING'S proclama-
tion had been issued in obedience to instructions
sent out from this country," declared with the sua-
vityand politeness for which he is eelebrated(!) that
it was " so obviously ridiculous" " that it scarcely
required an answer," and that " the first inti-
mation which he had of the proclamation was
from the letter, the substance of which he had
stated to the House." We are bound to
believe the ex-President of the India Board,
but merely as to the literal meaning of his
words. He has, unfortunately for himself,
and the party with whom he was associated,
proved himself to be a skilful special pleader,
capable of suppressing the truth, and creating a
perfectly false impression as to the actual state of
affairs—the true facts that ought to influence
Parliament and the country. Had he been in the
witness-box, with a skilful cross-examiner before
him, the real state of the case might have been
elicited. It would have been discovered whether
he had
!suggested the policy indicated by that re-
markable document ; or whether he had
approved „f
and
sanctioned it, on bin;
interrogated through
pseudo-" private ''
communication. ri„,,ioneFRANKS recently a
General in India, and who in that capacity
gained verdant laurels, has atated that, from con
versations with Lord CANNING, he inferred that,
the proclamation could only have been the result,
of instructions from home. The circumstance,
were, certainly of a very extraordinary character,
and must have fully justified that gallant officer in
arriving at such a conclusion. One who had ac-
quired so high a reputation would scarcely risk it
by ventilating such rumours, unless there were
ample grounds to rest on. It might have been

but a "general impression," and the Hero who
achieved two glorious triumphs in a single day by
his brilliant strategy, might be unwilling to com-
promise a friend by disclosing the particulars of
their confidential conversation. But the interests
of Great Britain and of India imperatively demand
that Colonel—he ought to be GeneraIFRANKS,
and Mr. SMITH, formerly of Cannon-row, should
be examined before the House or a Select Com-
mittee, before a decision be taken. It is a matter
of such magnitude such vital importance
to the community at large, that the verdict should
not be delivered on inadequate or possibly erro-
neous premises. We have, therefore, a right to
demand that there should be a stringent investi-
gation into all the circumstances, and that every
witness who could throw light on the subject
should be examined, and that before the final
division.

What will be the result of that division ?
What will be the course adopted by the
independent and really liberal members ? It is
in their hands that the issue depends, and heavy
indeed will be the responsibility if they should
disregard the vitally important duty that now
devolves upon them. The recognised leaders of
the party, Mr. RoEßucx and Mr. BRIGHT, have
justly supported not merely the Government, but
the policyof Lord ELLENBOROUGH. They well know
that the policy of confiscation—the policy that must
prolong the conflagration in India, originated in
London, and that, though Lord CANNING is the
party really responsible, Mr. SMITH is the one
that should endure the censure. He feels that
he winces under the unpleasant truth. But still
he must bear the consequences of his own
wilfulness and fatuity.

The vote of last Friday in the Lords was either
way of little consequence. Had it been adverse,
its only significance would have arisen from the
singularity of a majority in the Upper House
against a Conservative Ministry. It has not been
the custom, of late years, that a Ministry enjoy-
ing the confidence of the Commons should resign
because of a hostile vote in the Lords. At least,
it has not been the practice of Whig Ministers,
and therefore Conservatives would not be abso-
lutely bound to abide by the decision of the Con-
servative House itself. However, a majority of
ten decided in their favour, decided that they were
not called upon to censure her Majesty's Ministers
for the premature sending of a despatch, when
the Minister who sent it had already resigned,
and the Chief of the Ministry had expressed his
regret that it had been sent. Lord SHAFTESBURY
might, if he had chosen, have applied the cen-
sure to Lord ELLBNBOROUGH only; and, probably,
as opinion then stood, his resolution would have
passed. That, however, would not have suited
his purpose. He knew that Lard ELLEN-
BOROUGH was just the man to care nothing about
the censure of a majority of the Lords or of the
Commons either, if he had done what he thought a
right and bold deed ; and the Ministry would net
in that case have been affected by the vote. Lerd
SHAFTESBURY'S object, however, as we believe,
notwithstanding his repeated appeal, in a politi-
cal squabble, to the awful name of the Most
High, was neither more nor less than to oust
Lord DERBY, and to reinstate his favourite
Bishop-maker. Perhaps, indeed, we do Lerd
SHAFTESBURY injustice after all. He does not
regard bishop-making as political work, although
bishops aro nominated by the political
chief of the day, and expected to vote
with him. His appeals to the Great name, by
which we swear, probably meant, that the Searcher
of hearts well knew that he had nothing at heart,
but getting Bishops of his own sort into tin
Church of England. Well, be it so. To get
Evangelical Bishops into the State Church, and
to keep Jews out the State Legislature, are,
doubtless, in Lord SHAFTESBURY'S opinion, Chris-
tianity—not politics
We are free to admit, however, that the small-
ness of the majority in the Lords on Friday last
was received by many as a rather untoward
circumstance. Since then, indeed, opinion has
rapidly changed, and the effect of the debate
itself on the country has been greater than
that of the decision. The factious nature of
Mr. CARDWELL'S motion—it ought rather ti
be called the Cambridge-house Sunday motion—
has become every day more apparent. The fair
majority, however, in the Lords, was twenty-six.
That was the majority of votes, though a majority
of sixteen in the proxies reduced the recorded
majority to ten.
But, though it would not have affected this case
practically, is this system of almost unlimited
voting by proxy reasonable ? Is it fair to the
country ? Is it fair to the House of Commons ?
The only excuse for the Lords voting by proxy that
we know of, is that the questions which come before
the Upper House have generally been well dis-
cussed both by the press and the Lower House.
Of what passes in "another place" the Lords are
technically and conventionally supposed to be in
blissful ignorance ; but even if we permit these
noble sticklers for form and ceremony the benefit
of knowing what they are only technically unac-
quainted with, ought proxies to avail when a
motion, or business in any shape, originates in the
Upper House ? Is it not discreditable beyond con-
ception to find that on a motion like Lord
SHAFTESBURY'S the proxies were more than half as
many as the votes ? One hundred and fourteen
Lords thus voted on a foregone conclusion. They
had heard neither Lords SHAFTESBURY and GRAN-
VILLE on one side ; nor Lords ELLENBOROUGH and
DERBY on the other. These must all therefore
be set down as simply party votes. The noble
lords had heard no arguments on the subject
whatever. Information satisfactory, even abso-
lutely conclusive against their proxy view of the
question, might have ' been furnished at
the eleventh hour, They may reply, We
have read
the debates, and our opinion
is unchanged.
And we may rejoin—But how,
unless you were inspired, could you be sure that
reading the debates might not have induced you
to change your vote? If it is replied to this that
the Noble proxy-voters never had known their
opinions to be changed by any debate, we might
in return ask, then why not dispense with such
useless time-wasters as debates altogether ?
In Committees of the L )rds, proxies aro n
available, on the alleged ground that, on set %its,
a decided opinion cannot well be formed by those
who are absent. But surely the rule ought at least
to be generalised, and proxies not allowed on any
question which the voter has not heard ful;
discussed. Our jud
judges might with equal, or ever)
greater propriety, decide points of law without
hearing the arguments of counsel, since the'sta-
tutes and lcgal decisions are as open Li the
juclgi
as to the barrister.

The whole system, however, is bad. Proxi,
are, as the rule, only a device to enable the ind. -
lent to vote without trouble, or the antiquated
partisan to effect his purpose through those
who sympathise with his prejudices. Tile
votes of men too old and infirm to be more than
relics of other times and circumstances, of
men too fond of sport, or of rustic quiet, or of
town dissipation, to be in their place while the

nation s business is proceeding, are not the votes
which ought to decide a question or even to add
weight to the votes of those who were present.
If the country tolerates hereditary legislators, it.
ought not to tolerate idlers, or drones, as legisla-
tors. To put the matter in its best light, what
would the country, what would the Lord, think,
if it were proposed to give proxies to commoners,
on all bills which came down to them from the
Upper House ? The proposal might be worth
making by way of exposing the unfairness of
allowing proxies in the Lords.

Now, if ever, is the time for the independent
Liberals to become a power in the house, and in
the country t)o. The " ONE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY" who have openly seceded from mere
Whiggism, who have so far organised themselves
as to name a convener, or, in the elegant phrase-
ology of Parliament, a " whipper-in" or a
" whip," have now an opportunity which may
not soon occur again. It is indeed remarkable
that, almost immediately on their profession of a
better, a more decided political faith, a testing
case is put before them. Will the " hundred
and twenty" be consistent ? is the question
anxiously asked, not only in the house but out of
it. Will they again throw incense on the altars
of PALMERSTON to escape political martyrdom, so
far as the Whigs can inflict it ? or will they
stand firmly to their new creed, and found a
political party which shall either permeate with
its influence the ranks of Whigs and Tories, or in
no long time supplant them ? We confess to deep
interest in the answer which the division lists
shall give to these votes. We saw with the
highest pleasure the prospect of a union of really
independent members to free themselves from
subserviency to sham liberalism. We can there-
fore but feel a corresponding solicitude for their

consistency.
We do not know that we have any reason to
doubt that they will be consistent—that they
will vote in a compact body for Mr. DILLWYN's
amendment. Still they will excuse us if, em-
bodying as they do by their secession the views
we have so long maintained and urged, we
date our reasons for entreating them to
support Mr. DILLWYN. His motion, to . all
of us without, goes much further in up-
holding Lord CANNING's needful authority
in India than the " previous question" would
10. He himself, till the promised explanations
arrive, can hardly ask more than that we should
pronounce no opinion on the proclamation. We
may allow to each other that there may be fair
;round for difference of opinion ; Lord CANNING
would allow it ; it is, therefore, all he could ask
of the House, to abstain for the present from
wither censure or blame. With commendation for
he past, which his friends should think suffi-
cient, and which his opponents, for the sake of
:"air parliamentary co-operation, aro willing to
i3oucede, it should decline t) pass any judgment
either on the proclamation or on the despatch.
We need hardly argue that the independent
Liberals are not required, by the " situation," to
censure the despatch, or rather its premature
publication. The writer and sender has resigned,
his chief has acknowledged his imprudence ; that,
for reasonable men, is practically atonement
enough. That the country generally would think
it mere partisanship and faction to inflict further
ounishment on a Ministry, we are pretty confi-
dent. The universal opinion out of Parliament
—surely in Parliament too—is that broadly as-
ierted. by Mr. ()amiss and Mr. ROEBUCK, that
tr. C AILDWELL' S motion is really intended neither
to uphold Lord CANNING'S authority in India,
oor in the interest of India itself, but simply and
purely to unseat Lord DERBY and put Lord PAL-
ILERSTON in office. The entire House knows, and
the speeches on both sides show it, that the mere
technical misdemeanour condimned by the Whig
resolution, is not its real objeit. The whole dis-
cussion has tak3n a much wider range than that.
Will any one deny that the division of Friday
night will be simply and purely on the question
whether DERBY or PA.LMERSTON should be in
minority ? It is a battle for the premiership-.--a
struggle for office. Every Member will vote nei-
ther for CANNING nor Indio, but for DERBY or
PALMERSTON. Men of sense will surely, like
the jury oa BERNARD'S trial, turn a deaf
ear to all the sophisms of special pleaders, and all
the constructive crime-making of judges, and vote
on the real issue, DERBY or PALMERSTON.

As the Government has accepted Mr. DILLWYN'S
resolution, the course for the " hundred and
twenty" is surely then clear. They commit them-
selves by it to nothing, except to the object of
their own published resolution : they will refuse
to be parties to reinstating hollow, untrustworthy
liberalism. With the constituencies, we are certain
that this course will be the popular one ; and,
should a dissolution ever come of it, will be safe.
Phey could not have a better account to give at
the hustings than that they refused to restore to
office the author of the Conspiracy Bill, the en-
dorser of Lord CLinENDON'S anti-liberal foreign
policy, the Premier who slighted Sardinia in
favour of Austria, and who allowed our fellow-
countrymen almost to rot or go mad in a Neapo-
litan gaol. There is not a liberal constituency
which did not exult when the confederates with
Warnw against English honour were cashiered,
and when the Premier who could patronise a
CLANRICiRDE and give the go-by to Reform, was
sent to the " Reformatory School" of opposition.
Irieved, indeed, would liberal electors be with a
vote which should take the ox-Premier from that
school b3fore he had learned what Liberals

mean by reform.
From all we can gather, nothing can prevent a
dissolution but giving a maj)tity to thoGlavern-
neut. Lord PAL lER.STON mina in any case
command a sufficient majority to make it unrea-
sonable for Lord DERBY to diS3OIVJ ; and he will,
therefore, cart dilly do it. Now we put it to the
Endependent Liberals—how could a dissolution
serve their objects? First --iffronted as the coun-
try now feels wit'i Lord PALIISEBTON, and dis-
gusted at his factious struggles for office, the
Advanc3d Liberals would be in danger of losing
many seats in favour of nine conservative men.
Next, the issue presented to the c)uutry would
be so confused that liberal objects would be vary
ouch hidden fro n sight. Tile quarrel would be
Otis it VI, t)0 nl,lOll, last year, about men more
than about measures, and this time L)rd DBRBY
is in cffiie, and with PALI/gRiT)N in the back-
;;round,
app ears unquesti inably to great advantage,
e)rnparecl with what ha did list year.

But of all rmsibilitio4, surely tint of a m
Ority fir Tilr.l PALNIEItiT .N which shoul I, with-
out a dissolution, plao) him in offlAe, is the mast
to laiirabla. ITocantrollabh Moro, he would ba
103aff3raYa restirc Iby snih ma 3 4. If after hir-
iag ovary clasi of ref )ronaN, ha now founl
them voting for him, he would think all the pa3t.
condoned. Of gratittula he wiuli know nothing ;
Church Rate Abolitionists would again find that
they had come from all partsofthelYn
hitetclat
King-
dom only to be joked, and to learn the
scoramthiattnee
allof
fLailsyealhoeond,: of
Report,L.iri ShliadAFT:
the facts of abolitionists. So it would: be
weighto3l3reultir'