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

THE SUN, LONIYO'N, SAT:URIDAY

[Fc `;.~_
. '-. .3<_

to which I have referred. (General cries o "Go on," and
cheers.)
" 7. Of these arms they must for ever be deprived. You
will, doubtless, in prosecution of this object address your-
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, the disarming and disbanding of their followers,
will be among your first works. But while you are de-
priving this influential and 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 British rule, and encourage
them, by liberal arrangements made iu accordance with
ancient usages—(hear, hoar)—to become industrious agri-
culturists, and to employein 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 be taught that their holdings
will be more profitable to them under a strong Govern.
meat, capable of maintaining the peace of the country,
and 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 tells 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 bean
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—
"lf yon submit, if you lay down your arms and promise
allegiance to those whom the fate of battlei 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,) Bet ha has
not said anything of that kind. (Hear, 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? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) But
let me tell the right hon. gentleman that this theory of
his is virtually and actually without foundation. Thera 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 Oude." (Hear. hear.) More than
that, what is it that is tobe confiscated? "The proprietary
right 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 thetenaut, the right of the
farmer, the right of the middleman, the right of the ovvuer
of the land, and feudal and baronial rights, and all these
rights are confiscated. (Cheers.) I cealleuge the right
hon. gentleman, or the hen.. and learned member for Cork,
or any other hon. member who may follow them iu debate
to point out a line iu 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 etoproposed
this resolution asks the house to arrive at the conclusion to
which he wishes them to come, and by thd first part of that
resolution he asks theta to go nu further. Sr. I trust the
House of Commons will gofurther, that they will pronounce
an opinion on ,that which is the foundation of the resolu-
tion itself— (hea9—aud if they concur in those principles
which aro laid down in the great authorities which I have
cited, then the second part of the right hon. gentleman's
resolation 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, I arc not now speaking of the publica-
tion of the despatch, I ern speaking of the question as it
stands between the government of this country and the
dispatch they sent Lord Canning. What ware 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 Lucknow, an event •
which he expected to occur without delay. That earn° to
this country without the modified clause which was after-
wards introauccd, and which I think every one will sea
was introduced by the hand of the chief commissioner.
It came home without explanation (loud cries of " hear,
hear," 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 Crude, 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 Lord Canning as much as any man in this house
respects him. Lord Canning is a man whose kind and
c ,nsiderate 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 aro merely per-
sonal must give way. (Hoar, hear.) This part of the
subject lies in the smallest possible compass. Was the
proclamation right, or was it wronk ? If the 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 hero 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 negotiation 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 negotiation 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 (Hr. Cardwell), perhaps
inadvertently, said that the government had made a
declaration cisapproving of the whole policy of Lord
Canning. Sir, the government never (lid 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, hear.) 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 indicted 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.) Torre are only two senses in which
it elm be approved of or disapproved of—the sense of
justice and the sense of expediency, (Cheers.) In both
senses ray 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 resolution 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 Ellenborohgh ielded 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 seine advent age as that afforded to the noble earl who
applied for the dispatch elsewhere. This led to the pro-
duction of the dispatch iu 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
b the
legislaturei ent i t
who
os i nw
etrt e
desirable to withhold some paregraphs of the dispatch
when it was produced in another place • but it became
punot boon
of the onn woto mseemcreber4
Therefore, the nobleearl ' Y.
(Ellenborough) was strictly
right when he s •
au that he alone, and no other
member of the Government, was a party to the
publication. (Hear, hear.'horight hon. gentleman who
introduced this resolution,
resuscitating an old joke of my
lion. friend (the Chancellor of the Each u )asked, •a w
this to bre a government of limited liability? But therein
not the smallest similarity between the prase ut
and
that to which my right hon. friend ap; tise.inssTe rg
which was the case of the retirement of a member of Lid
Aberdeen's Government, who was a party to a particular
policy that hod been pursued for months if not years. MY
right hon. friend argued that that retirement could not re-
here 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,
(fir. Cardwell) charged my 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 ray

—
right hon. friend said that the colleagues of the noble earl
the late President of the Board 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
Derby) 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.
(dear.) Had the Earl of Ellenborough 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 said upon this point
the noble sail at the heal 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 lion and learned member 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 pat in force. I ask the house, was it
not a reasonable expectation to entertain, that he night
consult with such men as Lawrence, Oa tram, Gen. Mans-
field, and others, whom I could name; and that his pro-
clamation would not be 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 bad come from Lord Canning, the publication, even
the writing of the despatch, might well have been delayed.
And here he approached a part of the case which he con-
fessed had filled him with pain and surprise, We have
here, proceeded the hon. and learned gentleman, the whole
facts of the case, 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-
ning 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 right 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 whieh he said "I
am about to issue a proclamation to the landowners of
Oudo. I am anxious to send home by the same mail a
full explanation ; bat I have been so occupied to-day by
the pressure of business that I am wholly unable." What
was the meaning 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 fhave sent home in draft, and sent hone to you.
You are the President of the Board 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 its
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." (dear, hear.) What does the right
hou gentleman say were his feelings with regard to this ?
Why, that he does not imagine, he cannot imagine, he
does not believe that anybody can imagine, and ho 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 Euglaud 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. SMITH--I never said any such thing.
The 501,1C1T01,,-GENERA.I,—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 oil
not, be will surely admit that he either coininueicated it
or showed it to the noble lord. (Hear, hear, hear.)
Well, sir, I want to know for what purpose ho 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's° was in showing
it to the noble hurl. 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, hoar.) There
is a vie w 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 saccessor ; but I say
that it is incumbent upon him to extract from it whatever
is addressed to him rebating to public affairs, upon the
supposition that he still continues in °Rice. Now, whatever
the right hon. gentleman and the noble lord arranged, what
it virtually comes to is this—they intercepted this letter.
(Loud chew s.) What may be the observation of Lord Can-
ning upon this I do not know. But if I were in his posi-
tion, my observation would be something of this kind :
" Well, I had a friend, as I thought, in England, wile was
formerly soy 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-
planation 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 reedit without
the explanation ; but he discovered the proclamation from
the explanation, an allowed days and weeks to pass, and
the Government to believe that no explanation of the pro-
clamation would be given. Those circumstances have given
me the utmost grief and pain, and I may thank for it all
my friend." (Cheers.) I have now gone through the cthaes
of the right bon. gentleman, and I think I may venurrge
hto
say that they have fallen to the ground. He appeals to thee
house not to pronounce an opinion upon the policy of the
proclamation. Ho appeals to the house to be silent. lap-
peal to the house not to be silent. (Cheer e.) I appeal to
the house in behalf of the dearest interests of the country
in India and at home. (Hear, hear.) I appeal to the
house on behalf of 5,000,000 of people—a nation mis-
guided, misgoverned—semi-barbarous, I admit, still men
with like feelings, passions, perceptions, and prejudicesf
as ourselves. I appeal to the house in the cause ol
humanity and of justice. (Cheers from the Radaf
benches.) I make that appeal to the British House of
Commons, to which an appeal in the cause of justice anti
humanity has never beea made, and made in vain. (Cheers.)
let
this not lot this go forth as a matter of doubt. Do not eti
this question be slurred over by the terms of a factiousane
catching motion prepared by a cabal—(load and continued
cheering from all parts of the house)—toembarrase and dis-
place a ministry. (Hear, hear, and renewed cheers). Tell it
out by your votes to the people of India in terms neither
vague nor indistinct that what we desire from them is sub-
mission, not spoliation—(cheers)—the`, the war which we
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, tbat
protection for life and property which will be the best ear
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 ue-
cessary that our policy towards India should be clear and
distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of trans-
fern in the government of India from the company to the
Queen. In the course of discussions in this helve upon the
subject of our past government of that country, some come
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 ho will forgive nee for
saying I listened to with respectful amazement. The then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister of the Crowns,
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 snot 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 con rept,
more perfidieus, and tnorerapacious than the governmentof
the East India Company from the year 1765t0 the year 1784."
Sir, in the sentiment of the right hon. gentleman I do not
altogether concur. But, at allevents, let there beno mistake
with regard to our future government. (Hear, hear.) Let us
tell the people of India that we are not ashamed to confess
teha
hica
eet e
or we
u
offerh them mercy and justice, not spoliation
war
e r s ) which—
an d w et
hhaatven waged
a factions,
aecdt againstions,
an them
l
is a war consistent with mercy and justice, and not for the
adte plunder—(cheers)—and —he(c he
s
intrigue, will tempt the House of Commons oven for one
moment to leave it open to suspicion that the dynasty
which we are about to introduce into India is to be a dy-
nasty of reckless, ruthless, and indiscriminate confiscation
.
(The hon. and learned gentleman here resumed his seat
amidst tremendous cheering, which was sustained for
several minutes.)
Mr. LO WE hoped that the eloquent speech
just delivered
would not load the house away •
from the real question far
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-
moist, 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 hal been written at. all. Considering the tortures
of mind which Lord Canning had sufferel 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 he
had heard the able speech of the hon. and learned Soli-
eitor-61 eneral, he was now prepared 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 onthe effect without considering the cause.
(Hear, hear.) Ho could not support the p nicy of Lord
Canning, as contained in the proclamation, for it was a
greet departure from the course of lenient policy for which
Lori Canning had been somewhat unjustly censured
by the popular voice ; and perhaps the existence of this
popular opinion might have had something to do with
the production of the proclamation, and it was not at all
improbable that the late Government had intimated to the
Governor-General that such a couree was not altogether
palatable to the people of this oountry. Ho 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 effect, (Sear, hear.) The policy of

confiscation which had been shadowed forth in the precis-
mation had in fact led to the present rebellion in India.
The hon. member. .referred to Tucker's Memorials of the
Government of India, in which the author, one of the most
veexrpyeristernocnegd
oppuibnliiocoooffif etehres
iniof thpoliaeyt
ocfouanetorynr,
seexopfressed a
conduct
peoplewhich of wouldlndia.
alienate e the
wishedaf fe affect oens
housean Ll
the question whether they intended to hold India in future
at the point of the bayonet? Because the only mode of
holding India in future would be by sending out legions of
troops, and to garrison the whole country, from Cape
t confidence
ask themselves
of
the
Comorin to the Himalayas, if the policy expressed by Lord
Canning were carried out. (Hear, hear.) He contended
that the proclamation of Lord Canning, which threatened
to despoil the whole of the proprietors of Oude, would
have a far more serious effect upon the minds of the peo-
ple of India than the despatch of the Earl of Ellenborough.
As to the conduct of Lord Canning on receiving the des-
spatch, he did not contemplate that the Governor-General
would tender his resignation without some inquiry, and if
he found that his friends bad withheld the letter which he
had sent, promising explanations, his opinions would be
greatly modified as to the causes which had led to the send-
ing of that despatch. But the whole of this question had
been brought forward solely on the grounds of love of
office, and believing that the return of the Whigs to power
would be productive of no good to the Liberal cause, and
above all with regard to the hest interests of the Indian
empire, he should support the principles contained in the
despatch of Lord Ellenborough, and give his vote against
the resolution before the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST said that having
travelled much in India, and possessing some knowledge
of the country and its inhabitants, he felt it his duty to
place an amendment to the resolution on the table. It had
occurred to him that there was no logical sequence in the
resolution of the right hom member. for Oxford, and that
it was unfair to ask the house to.exprees an opinion on the
effect, and at the same time to preclude them from dis-
cussing the cause which had led to that effect. This he
contended was neither just nar. fair. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. member said that an electric feeling had passed
through every house in the country on hearing from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that he disapproVed of the
policy indicated by Lord Canning, but he thought that
electric feeling was really only felt in the houses of certain
ex-Ministers, who thought they had discovered in it a
means of displacing the present Government. (Hear, hear.)
It had been said by the hon. and learned member for Cork
that that there was no principle of confiscation contained
in the proclamation of Lord Canning, but he contended
that principle was clearly and broedly stated. • That
learned advocate of tenant-right had contended that the
rights of the proprietors of which the people were to be
dispossessed were only feudal rights. That argument had
been most ably confuted in the magnificent speech of the
learned Solicitor-General. (Hear.) He canton led that
the proclamation of the Governor-General was contrary to
all European as well as Indian precedents. The course
pursued in the Punjaub and Gwalior had led to great re-
sults. That policy was the policy of Lord Ellenborough,
and how could they justly visit that noble lord with cen-
sure now? Whatever censure bad been passed on Lord
Canning, he had to thank the late Secretary to the Board
of Control for. No Minister had ever been so lavish of
private correspondence as had that right hon. gentleman.
He (Lord Tempest) believed that Gado could only be paci-
fied by moral means, and he believed, whatever might be
the result of this motion,. that ultimately the country
would endorse that policy which had been so ably pursued
by Lord Itilenhorough.
Mr. DILLWYN presumed that in the case of an adverse
vote there would either be a resignation of the Govern-
ment or an appeal to the country. He did not see why
they should be desirous of bringing the late Government
back. As a Liberal he was anxious to see liberal measures
advance, and that was not the case when the liberal Go-
vernment was in. In case of either resignation or an appeal
to the country, it was clear that there could be no legisla-
tion for Indic this year. As to liberal measures, it was
quite clear that the Liberals could not form a strong
Government. There was a more united body behind the
Government now than could bo formed on the Liberal side.
With reference to the resolution before the hon e, he would
not meat it with a direct negative, because he thought
Lord Canning had been harshly used. At the same time
he thought there was great weight in what the Solicitor-
Geiieral had said, and that much of the blame ought to be
visited Control,
generally He (Mr. Dillwyn)
approves of
bagged
a
to the time of the Gude proclama-
tion, utz move,un
g , the
policy e
"That
talto Beardthis of
house
and is satisfied with the firmness and judgment he
has evinced during the crisis in India; but this house
declines to give any opinion upon the Oude proclamation
until it has had further information on the state of Oude
when the I.roelatnation was issued, and also Lai d Canning's
reasons for issuing it."
Colonel SYKES said he had a thorough conviction that
Lord Canning did not intend to carry out the proclamation
to the letter. A great deal had been said about the prom it-
tary right. What was the proprietary right? Take an in-
stance. Holkar wished to extend his pack. For that purpose
he desired to purchase a small piece of land. The owner said
the land had been in the possession of his family from
generalien to generation, and he could not sell it. And he
did not sell it, and the park was not extended to this day.
How about the proprietary right in that case ? How could
it be said that proprietary right in this proclamation
wapnpelniedLertdo Dalhousiet native c 0 princes and
la
property,rid leaders w
?. s i
In ,
made a party question of here. (Cheers from the Ministe-
rial side.) He did not say that the Government were not
justified in the despatch aua its sentiments, but they were
only applied
wrong in publishing it. The consequences might he very
iowhen ho received the despatch, would throw up his post
and aubs.ando inro
bab
Indial y
to Lo
its
that fate would be? He trusted that the house would not
allow India to be sicrificed to a party squabble.
serious.
Canning, a high-spiri.cd man,
fate, and who could tell what
Mr. H. BAILLIE said he had been asked how it was
that ho had been able to give an answer about the procla-
mation without previous notice. This explanation was
very simple. When he saw the proclamation in the news-
papers he saw his noble friend the late President of the
Board of Control, and ho said to him, "I am sure to be
asked about the proclamation, what shall I say ?" and then
his noble friend dictated the answer which had been given.
The hon. gentleman who had just sat down said he did not
believe that Lord Canning intended to carry out the letter
of the proclamation. Why, how were the people of Oude
to know what the intentions of Lord Canning were? It
hail been said that the Zetoindaus were making their sub-
mission. He did not believe it. Re had received letters
from persons in high office stating that we should probably
hrdadCaentrnoinf
nloyuagdhvtisteodhaLvoerpdai ('mining respect.
o iSuirueJaasn.
have to do our work again. Ho (Hr. Bernie) knew that the
Vina°MohUniotlerineastintol:Opploisee wleuast ttoldhadthe
r etbhealtl
ci fushsoeidmiTdsrso
Itthhearde
bweoeunldimbide
letr.
vtoEttliteNi r
ooNppsonmelnTtai.
mte
that they ought to have waited for explanations from Lord
Canning. But Lord Canning hail net communicated withy
the Government, but was every week writing private
complained that a strong per-
sonal attack had been made upon him by the Solicitor-
General. Those members of the Government who had
spoken had condemned the policy of Lord Canning, and
upon that point he took issue with them. Ho had no
doubt that iu issuing that proclamation he had taken the
advice of Sir John Lawrence, If that advice was to he ob-
tainer?. In dealing with Orientals it was necessary, itthe i
first place, to show them that power was to be exercised
over them, and ne doubt that was time policy which Lord
Canning adopted,
intending to show them conciliation
afterwards, (Cries of Oh, oh.) Whether honourable
gentlemen who cried " oh, oh," were so well acquainted
with Oriental affairs as to be able to contradict him upon
that point, would probably appear in the progress of the '
aw debate.arethat
Act
tnghfireesyca
at:dealwere
a
e oppressors
na
prcil
thes beenszr
as rsaidnoi t
ahtrhas te
he
avp, eel no
beenipul ge . -
f
hl i ea
sv
tey d
in that
p u thhhesh pic:g i t
theiri
proprietary rights of tiro soil which were affected by this
proposed
but those who knew anything of India would be perfectly
dreeotakens p despatch h t the
without Solicitor-General
w aitwaiting
ffor
any
utterly untenable, and that the Government had been most
explanation that might have been offered, and ho believed
that the reseal of the Governor-General would have been a
more honest and rnanly'course than that which had been
adopted by her Majesty's Government. Still the fact of
the recall, or the appearance
of the recall, of the Governor-
General of India would be productive of the most disastrous
consequences throughout d' In ia.• In dealing with this pro-
clamation, it had rot transpired how it had come to
England. From his '•
experience of Indian affairs he
thought he was justified in thinking that it had come in a
mass of correspondence without any covering letter at all,
without any explanation--and up on that
ground he
thought that the Government had acted
with undue pre-
cipitancy. Her Majesty's Government had announced
that they would not enter into details with regard to
Oude ; but their own Attorney-General, while an indepen-
dent member, had week after week a notice on the paper
of the House of Commons. That learned gentleman, wiser
than others of his party, declined to bring it forward in
the present state of India ; but directly the Government
came into power, they opened up the question by this
despatch. Ile could not see any reason why the censure of
the House of Commons upon the Government should be
withheld simply on account of Lord Ellenborough having
left office, because if the Government were determined to
uphold his policy, it was difficult to understand the Minis-
try had been deprived of 1.1
• . •
his services, for no wan was mere
able than the noble lord to carry out the principles he en-
tertained. The right hon. gentleman having referred to the
letter be had received while iu office in reference to this
proclarnatien, was met with a lead request to have it read,
but to this he declined to accede. He differed entirely
from the principle which had been laid down, that the
responsibility rested with the late Government, and looked
upon the story as one of the most trumpery character.
(Cries of ‘` Oh, oh," and " Read, read.") Re was deter,
minednot toreat, because it was a private communication.
When ho received it he read it to Lord Palmerston, and
they concurred in thinking that there was nothing of im-
poi tance in it. (Loud laughter.) There was no want of
communication to the government, for Lord Palmerston
did submit to Lord Ellenborough a portion of a letter
which ha did think of importance, (Renewed laughter.)
The Solicitor-General had hinted that Lord Canning would
have occasion to reproac • him, but that could not be the
ease, for if he had erred at all, it Was
out
of
clemency
to Lord: Canning, whom he had always defended when
hon. gentlemen opposite had attacked his policy. If hon.
gentlemen affirmed that he had acted from party views in
this matter, ho positively and solemnly disclaimed the
falsehood. (Tremendous uproar followed this statement.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that the prase used by the right hon. gentleman wee
an
accidental one.
Mr. V. SMITH stated that, ho did not mean to use the
in an offensive sense. le slid he feltgreat interest
a
phrase
•
in Indian affairs, and it would be fur others to judge of the
manner in which ha had performed his duties while he had
been in office. (Hear, hear.)
Lord STAN letlY hoPed the house would do the members
of the Govein • ment the justice to believe that it WA 3 not
their desire to evade or shriek from the inquiry into their
conduct which the light hon. gentleman oppoeite had set
on foot. In the statement of that right hon. gentleman,
as far as it went, there was nothing to complain of, except,
as had boon already shown by the Solicitor-General, that
be unduly, if not unfairly, limited the inquiry which he
instituted. (Het,r,) It was illlpOSSible for the house to
do justice to the conduct of the Government in censuring
a particular act of Lord Canning with ,ut at the same time
considering the policy and justice of the act so censured.
(Hoar.) As far as he could gather from the resolutions
and from the discussion, the charges against the Govern-
ment were twofold. In the first pled° there was the nar-
row issue of who was responsible for the publication of
Lord Ellenberough's despatch, and next there was the
wider question, assuming the despatch not to have been
intended for present publication, whether it-wits a despatch
that ought to have been wiitten. The question of the pub-
lication of that despatch was one he approached with seine
pain, btcause, however clear the case, it was always pain-
ful to seem to exculpate oneself at the expense of one who
had been a colleague, anti 'dill more when the generosity
of that colleague's conduct made it impossible to regard
his loss without extreme regret. (tfetw.) Peat in the pre-