The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY E V ENING, MAY

that, without hesitation they obtained the release of our
two suffering countrymen—(cheers)—and :demanded an
indemnity which they will probably succeed in obtaining.
I must say that I think—and I believe my opinion is in
accordance with the general feeling out of doors—that
the Government of the noble earl is entitled to the gra-
titude of the public for the zeal, spirit, and determina-
tion with which they grappled with that important
question. (Hear, hear.) The issue of this struggle, if
the Government are beaten, may possibly be a dissolu-
tion—(loud cries of " Hear, hear"), and although I
believe that the influence of the decision of the House
of Lords will be great, still Government may be
beaten, and in the event of an appeal to the country let
me remind you that many non. gentlemen may lose their
seats in this honourable assembly—(Hear, bear, and
laughter)—and that quite irrespective of this decision,
but from circumstances quite irrelevant to it—that is to
say, from not having bad time to prepare their own plan
of action. (Renewed laughter.) Is it right that gentle.
men thus situated should be subjected to ouch a move as
this ? (Laughter.) Let us rise, however, above these
party questions ; the issue at stake is a grave one, and
we should decide it not upon personal considerations, but
with that dignity befitting men who deal with great
national interests. (Cheers.) We are at present sacri-
ficing thousands of men for the purpose of establishing
a beneficent rule over the natives and people of India,
and in dealing with a subject so important let ua rise
superior to personal feeling and act and decide like
statesmen. (Hear.) Let us attempt, under God's pro-
deuce, to deal with the subject, not by making it the oc-
casion fora party squabble, but dealing wit it in a spirit
of wisdom, moderation, and justice. (Hear, hear.)
I think that is the spirit iu which her Majesty's
Government with to act, and that it is that spirit
which led them to resist Lord Canning's proclama-
tion. As regards the despatch of Lord Ellen-
borough, I think that the 19th clause is a very noble
expression of opinion, and I agree with Mr. Layard that
it ought to be written in letters of g hi. It says, "We
desire to see British authority in India rest upon the
willing obedience of a contented people." There cannot
be contentment where there is general confiscation. That
I believe to be the honest opinion of the government, and
think that it was that feeling which actuated them in
their determination to reply to Lord Canning's procla•
illation, and I therefore give them my humble but sin-
cere support. (Hear.) It is possible that circumstances
may come about that the government may be beaten—
(" No, no !")—but I feel that those principles which
they advocate cannot be subdued. (Hear, hear.) They
are principles which we in this house are bound to pro,
tact, and although I cause a laugh occasionally, I now
appeal most seriously to all the representatives of Libe-
ral constituencies, and I ask them to sand true to their
colours. (Hear, hear.) I ask them not to be led away
by specious arguments into the adoption of a course
which their better judgment and calmer reflection may
lead than to condemn. (Hear, hear.) I ask this house
in dealing with this question to lay aside every motive
bat that of acting for the public welfare, and if any
doubt should arise in any of your minds as to the vote
which you shall give, I call upon you to give the benefit
of that doubt to her Majesty's advisers. (Load cheers.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS, whose opening sentences were
lost in the buzz of conversation which succeeded the
speech of the hon. baronet, said the hon. baronet who
had last addressed them urged them to treat this impor-
tant question like statesmen. (Hear, hear.) He could
only say that he wished the hon. baronet had illustrated
that precept more forcibly by his own example. (Hear,
and laughter.) Nothing could be more remote from the
truth than the hon. baronet's allegation that the motion
before the house was a "hypocritical pretext for rais-
ing a party issue." (Loud cries of "Oh ! oh I" from
the Government, and cheers from the Opposition.) No•
thing could be more remote from the truth than the as:
sertion that this question had not been forced upon the
Opposition in such a manner as that it would have been
a dereliction of their public duty, if they had passed
over subject in that house. (Cries of "Oh loh I" from
the Government, and cheers from the Opposition.)
Had gentleman, on that (the Opposition) side of the
house, been in search of a question which might bring
about a change of Government, they might have found
it on many occasions easily. (Criss of "Name one !
name one !") They might have found one easily on
many points connected with the legislative measures
upon India which had been proposed by her Majesty's
Government. In the treatment of that measure they
had shown that they had no wish to seek a party divi-
sion; but this question bad been thrust upon them.
(Oh, ob.) He repeated, in the most delibera'e manner,
that it had been thrust upon them, and that they had
not been actuated by party motives—(oh, oh) —but that
those who had supported it would have been guilty of a
serious infraction of public duty if they had not asked
the House of Commons to express an opinion on the
motion now under consideration. The hon. baronet had
opened the whole question of the annexation of Oude,
as well as of the despatch of Lord Ellhnborough, but at
that time of night he could not follow him through so
large a field of inquiry. The right hon. baronet then
briefly sketched the history of Oude since our con-
nection with it, and the treaties between that coun-
try and Great Britain, to show that on condition of
our defending the king against his external enemies and
against his rebellious subjects, be had engaged to main-
tain good government within his territories—an engage-
ment which he (Sir G. Lewis) contended had been vio-
lated by the successive Prime Ministers of Oude. The
annexation, he contended, was a natural resists of the in-
fraction of those treaties on the part of the king of Oude,
which entirely contradicted Lord Ellenborough's des-
patch. It the present Government had intended to take
a different line of policy from that which had been pur-
sued by their pred, ce•sors, they ought, on their accession
to office, to have apprised the Governor-General of their
intentions, so as to put him en his guard against pursuing
a policy which was founded on a different supposition.
The proclamation came to us in the shape of a draft, ac-
companied by instructions as to the manner in which it
was to apply. The Governor-General classified the persons
to whom the proclamation was practically to apply under
three distinct heads. Those who had been continually
armed against the Government, but who were free from
the suspicion of having put Europeans to death, were to
have their lives guaranteed, but they would be required
to reside in certain specified places. There was another
class of persons less guilty, who were permitted to return
to their homes, but that did not imply a resumption of
their right to the possession of their lands, for the deli-
berate disposal of which the Government reserved to
itself the right unfettered. The conditions upon which
they would resume their lands would be determined by
the Government according to the special circumstances
of each particular case. But only those persons whose
guilt was of a prominent character would be exempt
trom that restoration. Next came the third class, who
were to be treated with still greater leniency. (Hear.)
But these points were said to be "suggestions rather
than instructions." It would be seen, therefore, that
this illustrated the main point—what was meant by con-
fiscation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet had referred
to the case of the Earl of Dsrwentwater, and the treason
of 1715, which he said ended in confiscation. But the
fact was that it did not end with confiscation, for the
Earl of Derwentwater underwent decapitation. For-
feiture, in former times, had been widely applied in
Ireland, and they were often told, in debates on
Catholic questions, that the whole laud of Ire-
land had been forfeited several times over. Any candid
and equitable judge who would take a fair view of this
proclamation, and of the practice in India with respect
to the annexation of territories in that country—any
candid person who weuld take all the circumstances of
the case into consideration, must at least admit that this
was a reasonable construction of Lord Canning's pro-
damnation. All that he was bound to maintain was, that
that was a reasonable construction, because the Govern.
ment had not waited for any further information, and
had not written to Lord Canning to ask for any. They
had assumed at once as clear and indubitable that the
proclamation bore the construction they put upon it ;
while, on the contrary, he (Sir G. Lewis) contended that
it didnut bear that construction. That was the real point
at issue, and that constituted the real offence of the Go-
vernment in thismatter, namely, that they had not put
a fair and reasonable construction upon the despatcb.
All that Lord Canning bad done in that proclamation
was tb say to the chiefs of Oude—you have been in open
rebellion against the Crown, or the East India Com-
pany as the representative of the Crown in India; in
consequence of that your territorial rightsare confiscated.
But he (Sir G. Lewis) could not believe that it ever was
the intention of Lord Canning to dispossess the whole of
the landed proprietors of Oude—(ministerial cheers)—
and to confiscate all the property of the inhabitants.
(Cheers.) Way, such a course had never been known
since the days of antiquity, when it was the practice of
conquerors to seize upon the whop of the conquered
ierritoriee, and to sell the whole popu'ation into slavery,
while the lands were given into the possession of new
colonists. That was not the case in m isrn times—
(ironical cheers)—and he could not believe that any sane
man could conceive that it had really ever entered into
the mind of the Governor-General of India to dispossess
and drive out the whole people of Oude—(Opposition
oheers)—to send them adrift and take comp'ete pos-
session of their lands, is the same way as had been done
for instance, in the case of Lord Derwentwater. Lord
Canning merely declared as a fact, that the lands of the
rebels were confiscated by the very act of rebellion, but
he went on to say if you will fulfil certain condi-
tions and give us securities of loyalty and submission
for the future which we consider a !equate, we will
then reinstate you in your possessions." (Hear.) That
was the fair and just construction to be put upon
this clt spateb, and even if ho was wrong in giving it
that construction, he still said that the contrary supposi-
tion was so improbable that the Government should,
before ceneurine Lord Canning upon that supposition,
have wafted until they had ascertained from hint that
that was tae policy he really intended to pursue. He
contended that the course the Government had pursued
was entirely inconsistent with all the facts of the case.
There were some other matters in respect to which he
eiehed to offer a few remarks. The hon. gentleman the
Under-Secretary far the Horne Department ( \lr. Hardy)
ha I made rather a bold challenge to his (Sir G. Le ivi-'s)
, ale of the houee—he said there was not a single fact in
the de-patch with reference to the annexation of Oude
(Hear.) Well, he thought that he caul
show some parts
which could not be proved " by irrefragable evidence."
of that despatch were arong " b irrefragable evidence."
In the 11 despatch, paragraph of that it was stated
that the King of Oude and hie
ancestorshad
engagements with us', always
sbeen faithful to their tiea'y
how-
ever badly they might have behaved to their native sub-
jects. (Hear.) Well, but if they would look at Lord Dal-
housie's minute as to the grounds on which Oude was
annexed, they would see that it was precisely the misS
government of their native subjects which constituted
the breach of their treaty engagements with us. (Hear.)
It was their failure to govern their subjects which led
to the necessity for taking that step. According to the
treaty we were bound to defend the Kings of Oude
against their external and internal enemies ; while, one
the other hand, they bound thewselves to govern the

kingdom in a manner compatible with the tranquility of
India and the welfare of their subjects. It had been
shown conclusively that for 50 years that stipulation of
the treaty bad been constantly broken, and it was in
consequence of the failure to fulfil that obligation .that
Lord Dalhousie declared the kingdom had been for-
feited, and that fact must have been present to the
wind of Lord Canning when he issued his proclama.
tion. The house had heard so often of the respon-
sibility of the Government in respect of the pub-
lishing of the despatch, that he was unwilling to
weary them again by travelling over that ground,
but he could nit help remarking that there had been
two versions put forth from the Treasury Bench on
the subject, which he contended were inconsistent with
each other. The Solicitor-General said the publication
had been rendered necessary, because copies of the de•
spatch heel boon given to Lord Granville, and to a mem-
ber cf that house (M.r. Bright), and inasmuch as copies
had thus passed out of the hands of the government, and
could not be recalled— therefore it was necessary to make
the despatch public. That certainly did not appear to
him to he a very conclusive argument, because ho pre-
sumed that when copies were given to the noble lord and
the hon. member for Birmingham, they were given on
the understanding that they were not to be made public.
But the noble lord (Stanley), who rose later in the de-
bate, took entirely different ground in defending the pub-
lication. He said that after the answer given by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question put to him,
the curiosity of the house and the country would be
roused, and that it was impossible to suppress so hn-
porteaut a despatch as that relating to the confiscation of
Oude, and that the government, on those grounds, came
to the conclusion that it was necessary to lay the de•
spatch on the table of the house. That was a manly
and a straightforward statement ; but it clearly proved
that the publication was the deliberate act of the govern-
ment, and not a matter of mere accident, as had been
represented by the Solicitor-General. But the complicity
of the whole of the government did not rest there. It
seemed that after the entire despatch had been promised
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the government
had subsequently deliberated on the propriety of giving
certain paragraphs, and the result was, that they felt it
was very doubtful whether they should produce several
paragraphs relating to the annexation of Oude. On the
following day, therefore, Lord Ellenborough went down
to the House of Lords and said that there was a neces-
sity for withholding certain portions of the despatch,
but that, with these exceptions, he would produce it.
He (Sir G. Lewis) therefore came to the conclusion
that the publication was the act of the whole of the
government, and not of any individual. (Hear, hear.)
They had deliberated upon the subject, and came to
the decision to withhold certain parts of the docu-
ment, and after that it was impossible to say that
the whole of the Cabinet were not responsible for
its production. Ho went further, and said that even
if it could be shown that the publication of the
despatch was not the deliberate act of the whole go-
vernment, there remained a strong argument as to the
duty of the house with reference to that despatch.
Whether by intention or by accident, which seemed al-
most to amount to intention, the despatch was before
the house—it had o ,me to them through the proper
official channels, and in the usual authorised c mrso—
whether there lied been design on the part of the Govern-
ment or no design, the despatch was there, and it was
no w the duty of the house to pronounce an opinion upon
it, and to say whether they would share in the responsi-
bility which mated upon the Government for its publics-
tun. That despatch had male known to England, to
Europe, and to futile, certain views with respect to the
annexation of Oude, and if they silently acquiesced in
these views, thee he said aey would share in the grave
responsibility incurred by the Government. They would
become accomplices in the act, not of publishing only,
but of writing and sending the despatch to the Governor
General, and this make themselves parties to the whole
proceeding. They ought not too closely to consider the
circumstances wider which the despatch had been pre-
sented to Parl'ailent. It was before them—they could
not fail to see tiat its effect must be to paralyse the
power of the Governor-General in India—and they
ought not to prematurely offer au opinion upon his policy
before they had the requisite information before them.
It the house did no; wish to become accomplices in these
grave errors, it tees did not wish to share the responsi-
bility with the Government, they must vote for the re-
solution of his right lion. friend. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESILE said—The right hon. gentleman who
has just addressed the house, forgetful of the arguments
previously adduced by his right hon. friend who introduced
this resolution, has. I think, satisfactorily proved that it
is impossible for the house to affirm by its vote the resolu-
tion. (Hear, hear.; The responsibility incurred by the
right hon. member for Oxford is a great one. He under-
takes to satisfy the house that the progress of public busi-
ness should be interupted ; that the Government should
be overthrown ; an to prove by weighty arguments that
what he submits to ;he consideration of the house is of so
serious a character as to demand without delay its decision
in conformity with Hs resolution. As the debate has pro-
ceeded we perceive tlat large principles have been brought
out in contrast with which personal considerations fade into
comparative insignificance, and the house will find it has to
decide on a principle vhich affects not only the interest but
the existence of nations, and perhaps the peace of the world.
(Hoar.) The right hon. gentleman and several other
speakers have frequently adverted to the name of Lord
Canning. I respect that noble lord because of those per-
sonal virtues which the world truly ascribes to him.
(Hear.) I respect him further because he is descended from
one whose shining talents made him conspicuous, and wh.o
on the great theatre of human action established the su-
premacy of his genius. (Hear, hear.) I make no personal
stricture upon that noble lord; I appreciate the sincerity
and fervour of that frieadship which has enlisted so many
advocates in his behalf ; but from my heart I repudiate
and disavow the policy indicated in that awful proclama-
tion which now lies on our table. (Cheers.) Considering
the care that must have been bestowed on the composition
of the resolution before the house, considering the wise,
politic, and experienced men who planned the operations
connected with this movement—(hear, hear)—l cannot
congratulate the right hon. member for Oxford on the
distinctive character of his resolution. (Cheers and
laughter.) What is it the resolution calls on the house to
do? In the that place you are in the most earnest manner
to express no opinion whatever—(laughter)—upon the
effect and character of any proclamation which may have
been issued ty the Governor-General of India. (Hear.)
That is what you are first of all called upon to do, and
that means tlat, no matter how false and fatal the policy
contained in the proclamation—no matter how disastrous
might be theconsequences resulting from that policy being
carried into execution—the political prudery of the right
hon. gentleman is so great that ho will offer no opinion on
the misery and desolation that might ensue. (Cheers and
laughter.) rho right bon. gentleman says that no opinion
is to be offered on the proclamation, and having sat down,
straightway ;rises the late Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and says that the whole question before us is the meaning
of that proclamation—(cheers and laughter)—and that the
whole matter to decide is what is the meaning of the word
confiscation, forgetting that his more artful friend has
specially earned the house to give no opinion on the
matter. (Laughter.) The right hon. member for
Northampton, the last Minister for India of the
late Government—to whom, I presume, if this
movement should succeed, the destinies of that
great mph are again to be committed—(cheers from the
Ministerial benches, and some cries of " No !" from the
Oppositiot)—likewise tells the house—and I confess I
shuddered as I heard it—thet the policy of the proclama-
tion is the true question before the house, and he endorsee
it with all the weight and value of his name. (" Hear,"
and laughter.) With the entire authority of his official
experience he acquaints the house that the true meaning
of the proclamation is, that everything that every man in.
Oude poetesses belongs, and ought to belong to the Gover-
nor-Gene-al, to do what he chooses with; and then, hav-
ing the happy talent of drawing conclusions which ees other
rational man could draw—(laughter)—he assures the
house that in his judgment the proclamation is one of
mercy aid peace. (Cheers and laughter.) But what is the
second trench of the resolution? It is this—that the house
of Comnons is to censure the Ministry for offering an
opinion on a matter upon which the right hon. mover will
give no opinion, and then the right hon. gentleman makes,
as it strikes my understanding, a very great mistake as to
the relative duties of the executive and legislative
branches of government in this country. I can conceive
the first part of the resolution being quite right—namely,
that the house should refuse at a particular time to give
an °pillion on a particular act of the Executive, while it
might he the duty of the Executive to give an opinion on
the point. The Executive exercises authority and super-
vision over every governor and every man in the service
of the country, and it might be quite fair under certain
circumstances for the Executive to give an opinion on the
(t ended of Any-ono of rtes
instruments, and quite wrong in
the House of Commons to do so. Therefore I think that
the resolution is unfortunately worded, unless the right
hon. gentleman is of opinion that there is such a deter-
mined purpose of party in this house, that despite of rea-
son, the force of argurreets, the cogency of facts, and the
power of truth, you will affirm the principle of a resolu-
tion which nobody can accurately explain and few clearly
understand. (Cheers.) The right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Halifax in nay opinion has argued this
question
eery fairly, as did also Earl Gray in another place. They
said, for to such a narrow ground in the progress of the
debate has this question been reduced, that the fact is that
the publication of the despatch—which is the great matter
—was effected on that fatal night when the Chancellor of
the Exchequer gave a plain answer to a plain question.
The argument of Earl Grey was this, that the very fact ofthe
policy of Lord Canning was disavowed, and therefore that
answering the question involved a statement that
disavowal was the publication ; and the argument of the
right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was that the
answer led to the offence for which the representatives of
the country are called on to pass a vote of censure against
the ministry. Now, Ido not shrink from fair arguments,
but I expect that hon. members—no matter what their
politics may be—will extend to the Government on its
trial that fairness to which the meanest criminal is en-
title]. (Cheers.) How was this resolution introduced by
the right hon. mover ? I confessed I listened to him with
all that attention and courtesy
which a gentleman of his
position ant great experience merits. I expected every
element to hear the great point stated clearly and brought
borne. I expected to find oat what was the criminality
of which the Government were guilty. I expected the
right hon. gentleman to establish by the force of his argu-
ments and by the powers of his eloquence that this House
eight to pronounce the censure ha proposed : but I regret 1
to say that the right hon. gentleman sat down without
having furnished the inform +Alen which might reasonably
have been expected, though I admit that great questions
were and are raised in the matter under debate. Setting
saide the light hen. gentleman's technicalities, details,
mud debates, all of which I think were collected more by
the scissors than by the head, the right hon. gentleman
lid not eive the house that lesson of wisdom which was
expected', and failed to point out wliat was the necessity
lord, the
indefinite, on-
for the honour of the country and the safety of the Indian
empire, or even for the character of the noble
Governor-General, to affirm so vague,
certain, and unsatisfactory a resolution. (Cheers.) He
announced that ho did not require the opinion of Parlia-
ment. He invited every member to give no opinion upon
the proclamation, and yet he has been followed by four
members of that side of the House who feel themselves co-
erced, by their sense of truth and justice, to say that is
the very foundation of the matter. Then what becomes of
his arguments and of his resolutions ? But what says the