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

18, 1858.

hon. and learned gentleman who seconded the motion, of
whose great astuteness and whose competence to under-
stand the English language there can be no doubt. The
bon. and learned member for Cork against sense, against
law, and, as I say against the plain meaning of the English
tongue, contends that the proclamation does not mean what
he says it meant. (Laughter.) Following the same extra-
ordinary argument as the late Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, he forgets the resolution and the speech of the right
hon. member, but, having a laudable terror of his consti-
tuents, ho declares that if it could really be shown to his
satisfaction that if the inhabitants of a country means the
people who therein do dwell {laughter)—that the people
of Oude moans the people who dwell in Oude, and that
landowners means the I eople who owns land, he has such
a strong opinion of tenant right—(loud laughter)—of fixity
of tenure, and tho right which all mon have to reap the
fruits of their industry, that if you could only satisfy him
that confiscation means confiscation he would be one of
the most resolute supporters of the Government. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I trust when next my hon. and
learned friend stands upon the hustings of Cork and ad-
dresses a brave and generous people his opponent will meet
him with this proclamation iu one hand and its condem-
nation in the other. (Hear.) Let him read the sentence
of confiscation upon the property of a nation, and the sen-
tence of censure upon the condemnation ; and will then
his constituents believe that he is the sincere advocate of
their opinions, who bases his principles upon philanthropy
and his humanity upon justice ? (Hear, hear.) Why, may
I ask the hon. and learned gentleman, has ne never read
the meaning of confiscation? Is not confiscation the con-
veyence of property to others by way of penalty upon its
present holders for offences committed by thorn ? (Hear.)
What does he think of transferring the property of a
nation, innocent and guilty alike—(hear)--those who have
committed no offence the same as those who have offended
us? (Hear, hear.) Lot me draw the attention of the
house to a date, which, amidst all the particularity of
dates wo have had in the course of this discussion, has not
been mentioned. The argument is, that the plain and
sincere answer of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in reply to a plain question from the hon.
member for Birmingham, justifies a censure upon the
Government. But if it be that the opinion expressed
then, that the policy avowed not in one but in three
despatches is just the policy which one of yourselves
distinctly called upon the Government to adopt, and
which amidst your cheers my right hon. friend said the
Government would adopt, how as politicians, as men
of sense and consistency, can you agree to this reso-
lution. (Cheers.) What occurred upon the 23d of April ?
I believe my hon. friend the member for Devonport (Sir
E. Perry) is in his place, for I am about to call him as
a witness. (A. laugh.) Remember, you are asked to cen-
sure the Government for censuring the despatch of Lord
Canning. Upon the day I have mentioned the hon. gentle-
man the member for Devonport asked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether instructions had been sent to India
that terms of amnesty, including protection to life and
property—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and full toleration
in matters of religion, should be held out to the inhabitants
of Oude, excepting in gross cases of heinous crimes ; and
if no such instructions had been sent, whether in the opinion
of her Majesty's Government it was not expedient to do
so? (Hear, hear.) Now, how anybody who proposed such
a question or favoured its import could support such a re-
solution as this is to me perfectly enigmatical. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman went on to say
he firmly believed that if certain principles, arising from a
spirit of vengeance, were allowed to operate, our tenure of
India was not worth six months' purchase. ne hon. and
learned gentleman then went on to observe, "A remarkable
document had within the last few days appeared in the
Times—the proclamation of the Hindoos. These Hindoos
declared that the four great things which a man valued—his
religion, his honour, his life, and his property—were safer
undr native States than under British rule. If that doc-
trine were generally entertained throughout India, we
need not look upon that dependency any longer as our
own, and it was incumbent on the Government to take
steps to put an end to that belief." The hon. and learned
gentleman then went on to say that "as to Oude, arms
having been successful there, he hoped that Government
would act on what he was sure all the statesmen of the
country believed the sound doctrine, and try to rule by
beneficence and mercy, as well as by strength of arms.
He did not wish to revive the controversy on the annexa-
tion of that country in 1856, but he contended that Onde
must be looked on as a conquered province, and the
inhabitants who had risen in ems against us were en-
titled to all the protection which international law and
the rights of war afforded to persons in such a posi-
tion." (Hear, hear.) Now, the noble lord opposite
(Lord J. Russell) heard every word of that statement and
cheered it, and yet ho has made a speech now denying that
the principles of international law have any reference to
Oude. (Hoar, hear.) But what further did the hon. and
learned gentleman add ? "He hoped the Government
would now open the widest door to thess men, who had
fought for what they believed to be their rights, and that
they would be assured of the utmost protection"—to what?
—" to life, property, the enjoyment of their religion, and
what they called their honour." (Loud cheers.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was called upon to answer whether
he wound send instructions to that -effect—to protect the
property of tile people of Oude, to carry out the policy
which the hon. and learned gentleman recommended, and
which was alike creditable to his heart and his understand-
ing. The Government can answer for my right hon. friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer that despatches had been
sent out in conformity with his views, and having suc-
ceeded iu obtsiuing that answer—that it was the policy of
the Government to protect life and property in Oude, and
to treat the people of that country as a conquered peso le,
entitled to the benefits of international law—the very same
men who called upon the Government to do this, and
cheered the announcement of the feet, turn round and say,
Why did you send out a despatch recommending such a
course. (Loud cheers.) The right hon, gentleman the
member for Northampton (Hr. V. Smith) made a speech
in our hearing the other evening, and in that speech he
said,—" I approve the policy of that proclamation, and I
say that is the very way to deal with the people of the
East." Would the house believe that on the 23d of April
that right hon. gentleman stood up and re-echoed every
word that was spoken by the hon. baronet the member for
Devon in direct contrast and contradiction ? (Cheers.) My
sight hon. friend did not state what that unfortunate pro-
clamation contained, because there were no desire unne-
cessarily to publish that document to the world. (A laugh,
answered by counter cheers.) Let no gentleman suppose
that I am about to evade the consideration of the argu-
ment of publication. I pray the house to consider care-
fully, and to scrutinize closely, a part of these transactions
which I do not think has received sufficient attention
from the house, and that is the state of things with refer-
ence to a second letter, which has been most anxiously
inquired after, but without effect. I have now to inform
the house that to-day this curious fact has been
ascertained. By the mail of Saturday Lord Ellenborough
received three private letters from Lord Canning, not ad.
dressed to him at the Board of Control, but at his resi-
dence ; and every word of those three letters, marked pri-
vate, concerned the public business of this department.
(Cheers.) But that Is not the only singularity of the tran-
saction. Those three letters, marked private, came by one
post, and from beginning to• end there is not one single
lino in any of them in refetence to this proclamation,
which, therefore, still remains unexplained by any docu-
ment whatever. (Cheers.) Let us now pursue the inquiry.
Referring for a moment to a particular inquiry which has
been so eagerly desired, but which there has been such
an inffexibreresolution to withhold —(a laugh)—l ask what
was stated in that letter? Why, that a full explanation
of that extraordinary proclamation would be forwarded
by the mail. I have these words "by the mail," and the
letter stated that a full explanation would be sent. (" No,
no," from the Opposition, and vehement cries of " Read,
read," and "The letter," from the Ministerial benches.) I
agree that the human memory is fallible, but a written
document is not so ; produce the document and then I shall
be satisfied. (Cheers.) That letter not having been pro-
duced, I say, unless you violate all the rules of evidence
and all the maxims of law, you will make every presump-
tion against the man, who being called on to produce a
written document, refuses under sage advise to do so, and
then quibbles about its meaning. (Cheers.) Ani these
are the men who, with loud protestations on their lips of
their regard for the honour of their country, appear to be
a little forgetful of what is due to their own. My real be-
lief is this—that when the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Northampton got the private letter he considered
what was due to the Prime Minister that was, and the
Prime Minister that wished to be. (A laugh.) Being
puzzled, therefore, as the right hon. gentleman states, by
a question which overtasked his faculties, he could not de-
cide it. Why did he not consult the churchwarden of his
parish? (Loud laughter and cheers.) I can fancy him
saying to himself, "Here is a passage in a letter that re-
lates to a Royal proclamation; now let me consider, is
that public or private ! (A laugh.) lam unable to fathom
the mystery ; I shall consult my noble friend the member
for Tiverton--(a laugh)—he is the only man who can ease
my puzzled understanding ; upon that subject I will un-
bosom myself to him ; ho will tell me the public effect
of a private letter; I will be governed by the advice of one
who made me Minister of India, and who may make me
Minister of India again. (Laughter and cheers.) He con-
sulted the noble viscount accordingly, and the noble vis-
oount is here to tell the House of Commons—men of busi-
nese and men of sense, with quick and clear perceptions—
after half a century's experience as a member of this As-
sembly, that a letter relating to a royal proclamation from
the ruler of a State—a declaration of the sovereign will
affecting the inhabitants of a country—was in his opinion
so entirely unimportant that it did not require to be men-
tioned to the Minister of the department whom it con-
cerned. (Cheers.) The noble lord is a man of great tact,
and tact does wonderful things? but there are some things
that a man of tact even cannot explain, and this.is one of
them. I ask the noble viscount why he sail to the right
hon. gentleman that the document did not require to be
delivered to the Minister at the Board of Control ; Was
there ever anything so unconstitutional committed by two
ex-Ministers of the Crown ? (Cheers.) Did they hold a
cabal to consider the effect of that document? Was it for
them to deliberate on that question ? and if they did de-
liberate upon it, why did they not give the benefit of their
deliberation to the gentleman for whom the document was
intended ? I say it is an insult to your understandings for
any noble lord or any right hon. gentleman to say that a
document of that kind ought to bo suppressed. (Cheers.)
If the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton
was averse to the production of this private letter he might
have copied from it the paragraph relating to the procla-
mation and forwarded it to Lord Ellenborough, leaving it
to him to consider whether it was necessary or expedient
that he should attend to it. (Cheers.) There never was
a more unconstitution doctrine uttered in this house than
that an ex-Minister, after censulting another ex-Minister,
was at liberty to withhold or not, as he pleased, a docu-
ment relating to public business, because it happened to
come into his hind in the form of a private letter, and then
to be allowed to make use of it to extract an answer from an
unwilling Minister in the other House of Parliament.
(Cheers.) But I have another question to put before I
have done with this subject. Were there no other letters
of a private nature ? (Loud cheers.) For aught we know
the light lion, gentleman, and the noble lord may have
a bagful of private letters—(!aughter) —for we have now
this extraordinary fact, that in the letters which have ar-
rived since no allusion whatever is made to the proclatna-,
don. (Hear, hear.) It is not an unnatural inference, there-
fore, that the promised explanation of which we have
heard so much may have been forwarded by some other
channel than that which leads to the office of the Board of
Control, and therefore has never reached the hands of Lord
Ellenborough. (Laughter.) It lies with those who have
withheld one document to explain satisfactorily and dis-
tinctly to the house whether, in point of feet, that other
document is in existence or has been destroyed, and whe.
ther they aro in a con lition to produce it to the house—
(hew, hear)—whether, in fact, any letters have been re-
ceived and submitted to a cabinet Council of ex-Ministers
to say whether they should be produced or not. (Laugh-
ter.) It is not for me to impute motives—(ironical cheers)
—but I have so high an opinion of the noble viscount, and
I have so very decided a conviction that he never does any-
thing without having some good reason for doing it, that
though I am not at liberty to surmise what his reasons
wore, I have no doubt ho had excellent reasons in his own
mind for the advice which he gave to the right hon. gentle-

man the member for Northampton. (" Hear" and a laugh.)
Does he recollect the rebuke once given by the late Duke
of Wellington to-an official who told him of some public
business being mentioned in a private letter :—" What,
sir, do you think we tolerate private letters relating to
official business ?" (Hear.) I say every man of souse in this
country will treat the excuse given with reference to this
letter with scorn, because no ono can believe that the right
hon. member for Northampton withheld the document
on the advice of a statesman more judicious, more experi-
enced, more clever, I may be permitted to say, than him-
self, without an object. (Hear.) And I go further, and say
that no one is at liberty to assume that Lord Ellenborough
would not have given to that document all the weight that
he thought it deserved. (Hear.) In what position did the
noble lord stand ? He received a proclamation which he
believed required speedy notice at his hand, and he wrote
in the strong, decided, and honest conviction of his
heart a despatch which 'was expressed substantially in the
terms which he had employed in a previous despatch in
the month of March. (Hear.) TIM de patch declared
that Oude was a conquered country, that tile people were
not to b 3 dealt with as rebels, and that life and property
were to be protected. (Hear, hoar) I appeal to the house
whether this Minister is to be condemned when he has
written in a despatch in the month of May the same opi-
nions and declarations respecting the protection of pro-
perty in India which he had previously written in the
month of March I (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Aberdeen and some others said it was all very well to speak
against the proclamation, but this is the way things are
done in the East -confiscation is always the mode of pro-
ceeding. (Hear.) I was electrified when I heard that
statement. (Hear.) There were great conquests in India
before that of Oude, and there were large territories ceded
to the Crown, and great statesmen in India before Lord
Canning. I find from a statement put on record by Mr.
Tucker what took place during the Governor-Generalship
of
.Lord Wellesley with reference to the ceded and con-
quered provinces. He says,
" The proprietary rights or zemindars, talookdars, and
other descriptions of landholders possessing a right of pro-
perty in the lands composing their zemindarries, talooks,
or other tenures, to be confirmed and established under the
authority of the British Government, in conformity to the
laws and usages of the country and to the regulations
which have been, or shall be hereafter, enacted by the
Governor-General in Council,"
That is the proclamation of Lord Wellesley, and it was
followed up by Lord Minters Then I have the judicious
commentary of Mr. Tucker on the subject, in these words :
" In fact, it should be our object to disturb the existing
state of things as little as possible. But a difficulty founded
upon private rights can scarcely be urged by those who
contend for the right of Government to demand rent!
from the whole territory. This sweeping assumption of the
right of property in the land is a virtual annihilation of
all private rights ' • for I will not permit the right to per-
form a daily taskwork to be any right at all. We must
create property before we talk of rights; and property in
land can never be created under any system which is
founded upon the assumption of the Government being the
II universal landlord."
(Hear, hear.) The statement that confiscation has boon the
practice in India is disproved by facts and documents, and
by the corroborative testimony of the best men who have
written on India. (Hear.) What did Lord Dalhousie say
in his proclamation of Oude when he annexed the territories
of Oude. He enjoined all the inhabitants to "render obe-
dience to the officers of the Government," and he concluded
with the words, " protection shall be given to life and pro-
perty, and every man shall enjoy, henceforth, his just
rights without fear of molestation." (Hear.) I challenge
those who talk of confiscation to show that it has ever been
practised either in the East or in the West under any cir-
cumstances of conquest. (Hoar, hear.) In every instance
the private property of the conquered has been respected ;
and if hon. gentlemen opposite will show me a single in-
stauce in modern times of a proclamation such as that now
under our consideration I will at once give up the argu-
ment. (Hear.) Are you aware that the highest authori-
ties upon Indian affairs have declared this proclamation to
be a dangerous document? Are you aware that the descrip•
tion which Cal. Sleeman gives of the men whom the pro-
clamation affects is, that their estates are in general well
oultivated ; and that Mr. Tucker gives it as his opinion that
whenever an insurrection broke out they and the ryots
would be found enrolled under the same standard? I may
perhaps mention, in corroboration of the statement of
Col. Sleeman, that an officer who lately had to ride into
Lucknow 75 miles for his life, describes the route through
which he travelled to bo thickly studded with as comfort-
able homesteads as were to be found within the same dis-
tance in England. He stopped at several respectable
dwellings on his way, obtained refreshment, and was
readily informed as to the best means of saving his life.
Yet these are the men whose properties are, in accordance
with the proclamation of Lord Canning, to be confiscated
—(cheers)--and confiscated, too, without reason, and in
opposition to all law and justice. (Hear, hear.) And
it is because they have declared that it is the guilty
alone who ought to be punished, and not the innocent,
that you call upon the House_of Commons to censure
her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) What has
one of the most experienced chairmen who ever presided
over the East India Company said of the talookdars and
zemindars of Oude? "You may call them middlemen,"
he observed, " but they are the gentry of the country."
It is argued that no sane man would confiscate indiscri-
minately the property of a class such as that ; and the
noble lord the member for London, in adverting to the
subject, was pleased to speak of what he called the forensic
habits of my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General.
But I may tell the noble lord that no judge would form
his opinion of a document upon any other ground than
that which was justified by the expressions which it con-
tained. It is therefore idle to tell us that Lord Canning
means something entirely different from that which the
words of the proclamation imply. Her Majesty's Mini-
sters were compelled when the document came under their
notice to look for the meaning of Lord Canning in the ex-
pressions which he used. It is, however, said that the
letter of Mr. Edmonstone renders tho intentions of Lord
Canning perfectly clear ; but I must beg leave to remind
hon. gentlemen opposite that the people never saw that
letter. (Cheers.) The 14th paragraph, indeed, implies
that those men against whom the proclamation is directed
• may have permission to return to their homes ; but that
permission is idle, because it is carefully provided that
they shall have no homes to which to rettnn—(loud cheers)
—inasmuch as the letter states that the privilege thus
accorded "must not be considered as a reinstatement of
them in the possession of their lands, for the deliberate
disposal of which the Government will preserve itself un-
fettered." (Hear, hear.) The whole thing is, in fact, as
plain as a pikestaff. (Cheers and laughter.) It means
this, and nothing more—" Go ; thank God your lives have
been spared. How you are to sustain yourselves is a mat-
ter about which we give ourselves no concern." (Cheers,
and cries of " No, no.") Some hon. gentlemen seem to
dissent from that view of the proclamation, but the right
hon. gentleman the member ft r Northampton seemed dis-
posed to abide by that construction ; and, indeed, the
point is one upon which our own unaided understand-
ings will enable us at once to arrive at a just deci-
sion. (Hear, hear.) Tho more thoroughly one examines
this document, the more clearly must he perceive
that it is meant to have a general application. It
is addressed to the chiefs and people of Oude, and although
the right hon. gentleman the member for Radnor says that
it does not affect the jemaller proprietors, yet I maintain
that it does not distinguish between the greater and the
lesser or village zemindaries. There are passages in the
blue-book referring in the clearest terms to the latter class,
which is described as composed of a numerous and a brave
race of men, who would be found prepared, whenever oc-
casion arose, to set aside the plough and take up the sword.
(Hear, hear.) Well, against a class of men such as that it
is that this monstrous proclamation is fulminated--(cheers)
—and yet it is said that, in seeking to prevent Lord Can-
ning from doing not that which is right, but that which is
clearly wrong, in their regard you impair his authority.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for
Northampton had upon a former evening alluded to Sir J.
Lawrence, and had expressed it to be his opinion that he
(Lord Canning) must have consulted with that distin-
guished person in reference to the expediency of issuing
this proclamation. Has the right hon. gentleman, I would
ask, received any private communication showing that to
be the case? (Cheers, and laughter.) Was Sir J. Outram
a party to the issue of the proclamation ?—(hear)---or Gen.
Mansfield ? (Hear, hear) Do you imagine that those
gallant officers are men likely to sanction a policy which
will convert a brave people into your mortal foes ?
(Cheers.) And are you, let me ask, prepared to say that
the Government is to be censured for having pronounced
a condemnation upon that policy? (Hear, hear.) Do you
think that if you do so, and that if you succeed in turning
out the Ministry which had the courage to denounce the
proclamation of Lord Canning, there is one man upon the
benches opposite who will dare to enforce the policy which
it enunciates. (Loud cheers.) That proclamation is
against the opinion of Sir J. Lawrence, whom ILord
Shaftesbury had said to be the greatest authority existing
on this subject, and the fittest man, with one exception,
to be Prime Minister of India. Will you run counter to
this opinion ? Does the house remember the part taken
by the late Sir R. Peel in the committee on Ceylon ? A
proclamation was said to have been issued, confiscating
the property of certain persons, and declaring that unless
they delivered up the property which they weresupposed to
conceal such persons would be killed and their property
confiscated. The Government were called upon for an ex-
Planation. The late Sir R. Peel recommended that a Royal
commission should be sent out to Ceylon to discover if
such a proclamation had been issued. They reported that
it had been issued. Col. Watson appealed to the noble held
(J. Russell) who never attempted to justify that proclama-
tion. That officer persuaded the noble lord to give him a
military inquiry, which reversed the decision of the civil
tribunal, and the gallant officer thus got out of that pro-
clamation, and so escaped the punishment which would
otherwise have been inflicted upon him. (Hear.) Sir, I
now come to the great speech iu support of the noble vis-
count (Canning) by the noble lord the member for the city
of London.
the Tho
great
respect pi nio n t
oo ftw lth
which
ietle
isle lord
entitled is a If7oamy shriesc eived
with
great
experience, and I am well aware of the difficulty with
which I have to cot antefnhdis suinppleltriotllrigkLywiohdug,. The n
humble authority
e
against the weigh
"How came you to enter at all in your
lordiosp
despatch
ht
into the circumstances connected with the annexa-
tion' of Oude?" The noble lord who wrote that despatch
refers to it to lead to the conclusion which is expressly
stated in the 14th paragraph, that, for the reasons given in
the several statements preceding, you ought not to deal
with the people of Oude as a people who are rebels, but
as people whom you have conquered in fair and legitimate
warfare. I submit, therefore, that this portion of the noble
lord's speech is not satisfactory. But then the noble lord
said, " What business have yeti to cast reflections upon the
past governments of India ?" But the noble lord forgot the
speech of the right hon. baronet the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who, in his speech on the India Bill of the late
Government, covered the East India Government with
obloquy, and accused that Government of perfidy, rapi-
city, cruelty, and spoliation. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I
do not, therefore, know why the temperate observations of
Lord Ellenborough upon a single transaction, and that
the annexation of Oude, is to be visited with such severe
censure. (Loud cheers.) lam afraid I shall shock the
noble lord, but the historian speaks truth while the
statesman sometimes suppresses it —(a laugh) and
Mr. Mill says that when the historian considers the argu-
ment that we ought to take possession of rich provinces
because we govern them lsotter, such an argument appears
to rest upon a basis of hypocrisy. This is the pith and
•
marrow of the noble lord's speech :
" Hith rto it has always been the practice for a Gov. rn-
ment on coming into office to accept the settlements which
Lave been made by former Governments, and when a con-
quest has been made, a war entered into, or an acquisition
secured to the Crown, not to look any further into the
abstract merits of the question, but to adopt that which
has been done, to carry on the war, and to defend these
acquisitions. In this manner alone can the policy of the
teomsp,yir_ le,e e carried on with safety. If one Government were
We disapprove what was done by the East India
Company under Lord Dalhousie ;' and another were to say
' We disapprove what was done with regard to Scinde ;'—
if, when Mr. Fox was in office in 1806, he had said, ' I
disapprove the wars of Lord Wellesley, which secured to
us Delhi and Seringapatam,' it is evident that the empire

would be in a state of continual fluctuation, and you would
have no policy lasting from year to year."
Sir, I say that is not a usual argument. (Hear.) I say
nea t that it is not, historically speaking, the course which
has been pursued by tho greatest statesmenof this country—
that it is opposed to the liberty and happiness of the
human race—and, lastly, that it is opposed to the dictates
of Christianity. (Cheers.) I will not go beyond the history
of India. The noble lord says that when provinces are
obtained you are not to inquire into the means by which
they have been acquired. Was that always the policy
of this country ? Warren Hastings was a man of great
talents and capacity, who stole provinces, who
creased our empire in India, and then returned to this
country. Was the policy indicated by the noble lord
that of the illustrious Whigs of that time ? (sear, bear.)
Did they say that you could not apply the principles
of
morals and international law to the acquisition of pro-
vinces ? Burke, on the contrary, asked if the prihciple of
what ho a " geographical morality" was to be acted
upon by the Parliament of England, and whether a thini
which would not stand the test of inquiry in the East was
to be tolerated in the West? Why, sir, that argument of
the noble lord would sanction all the acquisitions of all the
conquerors, exterminators, oppressors, and tyrants of the
world. I repudiate that argument. It is an unsound sr:
gument. I would not undo what we have done, Yet if
a great Power acted to-morrow as we have done in Oude,
I should hold myself at liberty to revert to the past, and
to judge of the future by the past. The house will re-
member what Warren Hastings did. There was a Scotch
gentleman who vindicated the policy of Warren Hastings.
and wrote a pamphlet upon what he called the hypocrisy
of the House of Commons They ordered that a prosecu-
tion should be entered against that man ; but his defence
fell to an advocate who in his domain was as great as the
statesmen of that time. How did Erskine defend him ?
On the great principle that the house had allowed Warren
Hastings to do what they might have prevented his doing
by interfering to check him ; that it was only when be
had attempted to exceed the ordinary bounds áf
manity that they called on the country to condemn
that policy which they by their tacit acquiescence had
sanctioned. (Cheers.) The jurymen of England a
quitted the writer of that admirable pamphlet in defence
of Warren Hastings. In the speech of that wonderful
advocate there occurs a passage which might have been
quoted with truth by the inhabitants of Oude to those wh°
have served the Queen in these transactions in the East.
" I speak of man and his nature and of human dcani"
nion (said Mr. Erskine) from what I have seen of them
myself among reluctant nations submitting to our autho-
rity. I have heard them in my youth from a naked savage
in the indignant character of a prince surrounded by his
subjects addressing the governor of a British colony, catch-
ing a bundle of sticks in his hand as the notes of his un-
lettered eloquence. Who is it,' said the jealous ruler
over the desert encroached upon by the restless foot of
English adventure, ' who is it that causes this river to rise
in the high mountains and to empty itself into the ocean ?
Who is it that causes to blow the loud winds of winter,
and then calms them again in summer? Who is it that
rears up the shade of those lofty forests and blasts them
with the quick lightning at his pleasnre 1 The same Being
who gave to you a country on the other side of the waters
and gave ours to us, and by this title we will defend it,'
said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk upon the
ground and raising the war sound of his nation. These,
are the feelings of subjugated man all round the globe, and
depend upon it nothing but fear will control where it is
vain to look for affection."
(Cheers.) The noble lord has said, "You will damage the
power of England. You have no right to desert a pub-
lic servant who has never been heard." Was that anima'
in the debate on China? (Cheers.) When the question
was discussed whether the conduct of Sir John Bowring,„
who happened not to be a noble lord, should be repudiated
.
or sanctioned, what said the noble lord ? (Hear, hear.)'
Speaking language worthy his character and the character
of a British statesman what he said was this •--"01
i
told that if we pause n the prosecution of this war the
Chinese will suppose we are afraid of them. I am told that
we must not cast aside our oflcialsLthat all is necessall
to be done to maintain the prestige of England; but the
prestige of England will never sanction injustice. mlt
answer is, let justice be done, and I am content." (Cheep.)
I appeal to the noble lord in the spirit of that argument,'
The source of the power of this country is not to be found
in her victorious arms, or the terror of her mighty name.
She has conquered and ruled, but she will not confiscate,
exterminate, or destroy. That is the true policy of the
country. England never executes her great mission more
completely than when she flings over a prostrate nation th!
shield of justice. (Cheers.) Upon that ground the policy
the Government is to be maintained. I defend it, not in the
letter but in the spirit. I throw the despatch on the table
and I say it is just and politic. (Hear.) It is a policy of PO'
tico against a policy of injustice. *lt is a policy of equity
against a policy of inequity. It is a policy of mercy against
a policy of cruelty. (Cheers.) That is the case which I Pre'
sent to you, and I decieve myself if that appeal be ever
made to a British Parliament and made in vain. (Beer'
hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Nal%
spoke of this as a weak Government, of its weak policy, c's
the inferior power of its members. Condemn its policy
you like, but condemn it manfully. (Hear, hear.) Brill;
forward a motion and say the policy of the despatch 211
wrong. (Cheers.) We will meet it manfully. If you,
you pretend to do, but do not do, attempt to question the
policy of that despatch, bring forward your motion, and
*try whether that policy will be approved by this house,
and then try whether it will be disapproved by the WE
try. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says—u"
may say, and it is fair to say—that this Administration
has failed to perform their duty. This house has a right
to say so, and if it say so to-morrow it is their duty A
submit to the decision with cheerfulness and respect; en'
the only effect will be to inspire them to labour more oar;
neatly to deserve and redeem your favour. (Cheers.) But
I say that during the short time they have been in office
e
they have discharged their duty. (Cheers.) They_,,,bgl.
quenched rebellion in the East and pacified the best.
They have endeavoured to repair the laws and institution
of the country, and I think they may make a fair 0211„,i
parison between the budget of my right hon. friend a*"
the budget of the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheer6j
What the result of this motion may be I know not,
but 1 hope, whatsoever may befall, it will, at lege"
bo known that their policy did not lead them to truckl'
to the great or trample on the weak, but to upbm'
the honour, to maintain the independence of the country,
to cherish the free spirit of liberty, and to keep unsullied
the grandeur of the monarchy aid the glory of the empire.
(Loud cheers which lasted several minutes.)
Mr. COLLIER moved the adjournment of the debate.,
Mr. DISRAELI hoped that hon. gentlemen who bad
notices on the paper for to-morrow would allow the debate
to be resumed.
Lord PALMERSTON joined his request to that of
right hon. gentleman.
Sir C. NAPIER considered his motion for to-morrow
.e! "
so much importance that he must persevere with .
(" Oh.")
The debate was then adjourned until to-morrow.
The Non-Parochial Registers 14ill was read a third tile°
and passed.
On the motion of Mr. MILLER, leave was obtained
bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law in Irelen
relating to game.
On the motion of Mr. CHEZMAIS, leave was given t°
bring in a Bill to amend the Copyright of Designs Act. o
On the motion of Mr. ADDERLEY, leave was given t°
bring in a Bill for vesting in the Privy Council certaw
powers for the protection of the public health. The Bills were severally introduced and read a first tides'
On the motion of Lord A. TEMPEST, Captain Yin,.
was added to the Select Committee on the Land TransP°'
Corps.
The House then adjourned at 23 minutes to 1 o'clock.