The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-11 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

Sir R. PEEL, in rising to move the Order of the Day
for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Sup-
ply, said, he wished to take that opportunity of noticing
the statement made by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Palmerston) on the last night, or the last but one on
which the House met. That statement was made in re-
ference to the policy pursued by the late Government with
regard to the war in Affghanistan. The Noble Lord
had stated that her Majesty's Government had proposed
to Lord Auckland that he should remain as Governor-
General of India, and thence he inferred tligt there was
an approval on the part of the Government of that policy.
Ho must decidedly protests against any such inference.
In the first place he should say that if her Majesty's
Government had been disposed to avail themselves of
the services of Lord Auckland as Governor of India, for
a certain time, it was, not thence to be inferred that the
Government made themselves a party to that policy.
There must be every disposition on the part of a
Government, whatever might be the differences of
political feeling, considering that Lord Auckland had
for four years administered the affairs of India, and had
devoted all his time and attention to the duties of his.
office, to abstain- frtim any act implying a reflection.on
the person charged with his duties._ It was only natural
and generous that-there should be a great unwilling-
ness to imply any opinion unfavourable to him.
.The Noble Lord had rested his statement on the autho-
rity of a private letter.. He understcod that the com-
munication was conveyed to Lord Auckland, in a pri-
vate letter from Lord Ellenhorough. _ reference
to the Governor of so distant a place as India,
the Noble Lord must concur with him, as to
:he course which one government, succeeding another,
Would pursue. He was surprised at the reference that
had been made to Afghanistan in the debate ; he was
not prepared for it ;
and on any subject at all affecting
a Governor of India, so soon about to return to this
country, he had been desirous of collecting the most cor-
rect information before he offered any conjecture
as to the statement. He (Sir H. Peel) certainly did '
not recollect any such communication as that
which the Noble Lord said was conveyed to Lord Auck-
land; but, at the same time, as it was stated to have
been conveyed to his Lordship in a private letter .from
Lord Ellenborough, it was difficult for him to offer any
contradiction to a letter which he bad never even seen.
He could find no record of it. and. certainly no
such communication had been made with the
knowledge or consent of her Majesty's Government.
As he had before said, he could not undertake to an-
swer for a communication which he had not seen, and
which might have been addressed by Lord Eilenborough
to. • Lord Auckland, in -a- spirit corresponding ,to
that which marked his public opinions of that
nobleman. Immediately on his (Sir K. Peel's)
accepting office,
he had made inquiry respecting the Go.-
vernor-General of India, and he received from the Go-
vernor of the East India Company a minute to the
effect that the Governor-General would not abruptly
throw up the trust which had been confided to him, nor
shrink from the responsibility of his office, so as to cause
any inconvenience by his resignation. They then found
Lord Auckland continuing in office at the express re-
quest of the Board of Directors. If he (Sir H. Peel).
understood that Lord Auckland had, in compliance with
the wishes of the public authorities at home, waived
his own personal considerations, in remaining at the head
of affairs, he (Sir K. Peel) would never, on any
account—retaining, however, his own opinions on the
matter—have urged the withdrawal of Lord Auckland,
he should in advising the Crown to dispense with
Lord Auckland's services under such circum-
stances, have considered hiniself as acting with
gross injustice towards that nobleman. That
letter was written on the 7th. Lord Auckland ex-
pressed a desire to return, and therefore lie (Sir li,. Peel)
was perfectly at liberty to advise the Crown in respect.
to the uppoilitraeht of a successor. 01.1 the 24th ben.-

tember he received a letter from the Chairman, alluding
to this letter, in which he said that it was highly impure
tant a communication should be made between Lord
Auckland and his successor. That was on the 24th
of September, knd on the Bth of October he (Sir Ro-
bert Peel) proposed to Lird Ellenborough to go out
and he accepted the office. therefore ; it was impossible
that there should be any time to receive Lord Auckland's
proposal to remain in India. These were the facts of the
case. Whether Lord Ellenborough might have w ritten
a letter to Lord Auckland, in form similar to -that which
had been alluded to, he could not say. That Lord Auck-'
land had expressed an intention of remaining until a suc-
cessor arrived. h could readily believe. He (Sir
H Peel) considered that he was perfectly at liberty to ap-
point a successor. Yet if any such letter as had,
been referred to had been written, he could eine- pretest'
against its being considered, that it conveyed directly or.
indirectly, expressed, ur by implication, any approval Of
the policy pursued wills respect to Afighanistame. In the
course of the debates in that House he bad considered it
to be his duty to avoid the expression of any opinion ou
that subject. Ile had his own opinion upon the subject;
but he had upon public considerations a voided any exeres-
shm of the future course of her Majesty's Govermnent. Ile
could show, indeed, that by the directions given to Lord
Auckland himself', it was consistent for him to remain.
He passed now from that subjeet, before he moved the
Order of the Day, to explain tho position of tho Go-
vernment with respect ten the supplies. The estimates
for the service of China remained to be voted. It was
nearly a fortnight since that vote was moved for, and
the country wou:d be placed in great difficulty, un-
less they sanctioned the vote. It might be said
that her Majesty's Government ought earlier to have
called the attention of the House to the Votes of Supply.
In answer to• that he would remind the House of the
manner in which the House had been occupied with res-
pect to the measures relating to the financial and com-
mercial policy of that cotuary. The House had then
I sat since February, and during that veriod two days in
the week had- been at the dispiesal of her -Majesty's: Go-
vernment, and during part of that time a thirdday had been
given up to her Majesty's Government. He believed
that every day that her Majesty's Government
could have applied to the purposes of the Go-
vernment had been occupied, and he thought they
consisted of fifty-four days. With the general.
concurrence of the House, and upon consideration
cif public advantage. Every day was devoted to the
progress of the three measures he had had introduced
—the Corn Bill, the Income-tax, and lasty, the Tariff:
With the Corn Bill the House was occupied 16 days.
The property-tax took 17 days, and the tariff 14 days,
and these added were 47 days out of the 56 which
. were at the disposal of her Majesty's Government.
The House was aware that it was highly
important that the tariff should he passed. It
had passed last Saturday, and, he hoped, that the return
at the Custom-house would show that it already was a
benefit to the country. Even if it only removed the sus-
pense, the removal of that would be an advantage.
Now, they had to vote with the sanction of
the House the vote for the miscellaneous estimates, the
China estimates. The vote for China was urgent : the
Government of India had decided in making no advance
to tie war in Affghanistan. With respect to the
war in China, an Indian loan had been agreed to
at 5 per cent. The Court, in consequence, had made an
application to the Chancellor of th e Exchequer for 800,0001
The Government of India had advised that they would
make no further advances upon merchants hypothecated
goods until December next. The Court of Directors
had stated that they would abstain from drawing bills on
the Treasury of India for six months. The Government
had engaged to supply the India Company with funds, and
it was of the utmost importance to the Hon. Service that
no further delay should take place.—(Cheers.) .With
respect to the miscellaneous estimates, it should be
• recollected that they were from the 21st of March of one
year to the 21st of March of the next. It was now the
11th July : he had abstained from proposing
"those estimates before, because he would not
interrupt the Government measures then in ,peogress.
hut lie begged to state that many of the votes were ex-
hausted. He would mention as an instance the vole for
. criminal prosecutions in Ireland. The Government had
_postponed the payments as far as they could ; but it
was ef the utmost importance to the public service
that no further delay should take, place. He
would not take' upon himself the . responsibility
of further delay. He did net appeal to Hon. Gentlemen
on the ground of courtesy to her Maesty's Government,
but he stated that the public service would be seriously
inconvenienced if the estimates were any longer delayed.
Lord PALMERSTON felt called upon to give some
explanation, and he hoped he should be able. to
do so with the same calmnesss and absence of -party
feeling that the Right Honourable • Baronet had done
There was nothing that could offend him greater than
th t he should be supposed capable of making a state-
ment in that House fur w hich he had not good grounds.
The Right Hon. Baronet had resolved the matter into
two questions—a question of inference and a question
of fact. With regard to the question of inference, he
could not agree with the Right Honourable
Baronet ; for he- certainly considered that if the
present Government had asked Lord Auckland to con-
tinue as Governor• General of India, the inference
to be drawn, was that they approved of his policy.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the question of fact, he
thought he was justified in what he had stated by the
passage from the letter which lie had read, and which
had been reported very correctly. What were the cir-
cumstances of the case. Lord Auckland had continued
in India the usual time, when, in May 1840, he received
a communication from Government: requesting lam to
remain. His reply was that, allowing personally it
would be a matter of inconvenience to him to remain,
yet if it were desired, in order that he might complete
any great measure, he would remain for a year longer.
'lnc present Government came into offiec in Sept. 1841,
a year after Lord Auckland had consented to
remain, and when he was expected home in the
course of the year, and that Lord Auckland
received the letter, to which allusion had been made,
from Lord Ellenborough to the President of the Board or
Controul of time new Government. Ile certainly felt
bound to accept the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet,
that that communication had been made - without his
knowledge, hut at the same time he hoped the Right
Hon. Baronet would exonerate him (Lord Palmerston)
from having made the statement without foundation.
Lord Ellenborough might have written that letter
without communicating. with: his colleagues, but Lord
Auckland could have looked upon it in no other light than
that of semi-official c.immunication. Where persons in office
had not been in the habit of acting together, and when
it was desired that the service of au officer abroad should
be continued, it was always customary to make a private
Committee, in order to ascertain whether it would be
agreeable to that officer so arrested to remain, and that pri-
vate request was the visual prelude to an official
communication. That was the course which lie had
himself adopted in the case of Lord Haytesbury, when be
had requested that Noble Lord to continue as ambassador
at St. l'etersburgh. The commurication, thenfore, would
not be considered as a confidential one, and be (Lord
Palmerston) considered that he hats had had good
grounds for the statement he had made.
Sir R. PEEL said that he had read to the Honse ab-
solutely every thing that had pissed between himself and
Lord Ellenborough on the siihjeet, and from that he
! thought the House would perceive that there was no pos-
' sibility that he (Sir R. Peel) could have been a party to
any such communication to Lrird Auckland.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had forgotten to re-
mark that the letter stated that it was very lucky Lord
Auckland had sent in his positive resignation.
i • Sir R. PEEL said this letter was dated the 7th of Sep-
; tember. Lord Ellenborough's own appointment was the
Sth of October.

Lord HOWICK said it only followed from that that
Lord Ellenborough wrote very shortly after he arrived.
Lord Ellenborough wrote by the first mail a most press-
ing letter to Lord Auckland, enjoining him in the
strongest terms to remain. He presumed that on the
7th Lord Auckland's formal resignation had been re-
ceived by Lord Ellenborough. When Lord Ellenbo-
rough's letter arrived in Calcutta it was received with
great satisfaction by Lord Auckland's friends, who were
anxious for his return.

Mr. HOGG- said he had only entered the House early
enough to hear the Noble Lord speak of the Court of
Directors having requested Lord Auckland to remain,
and state that he was justified in inferring from that their
approbation of his policy. lie thought the Noble
ILord- was not justified in drawing that inference. In
the then state of the Afikhan war and of the war
with China, the Court of Directors thought the best
thing that could be done for the public service was to
request Lord Auckland to remain, and Lord Auck-
land, ,on . public .grounds,
.aceeded to their request.
To prove that the letter to Lord Auckland- was a
mere private intimation, he begged to say that he
had never heard of it. It should be understood, that
it was not competent to the President of the Board of
Control, to make an official request, without the sanc-
tion of the Court of Directors.
Mr. HOGG said his Hon. Friend had made a direct
application to him with reference to a request
of the Board of Control in 1840, that Lord Auck-
land might remain in the Government a year longer.
He begged to say that it was his intention to have kept
all these communications between himself and the Board
of Directors private, but when the Hon. Gentleman
asked him, in the • face of the House and the
public, whether he consented. to the request' of the
Board of Directors, that Lord Auckland should
remain in office beyond the term fixed for his
retirement, and whether he considered it conveyed
an approbation of Lord Auckland's policy and conduct— '
-why without the slightest hesitation he said, Yes.—
(H e ar.) The question was like the Hon. Gentleman's
agreeing to. the word " sagacity" in the vote of thanks to
Lord Auckland, from the. Boqrd of Directors, and then
saying that in that place the word salacity did not mean
sagaciousness.—(Laughter.) He wondered that he
should have had, he would not say the sagacity but the
good nature to have put such a question to him, and
when he asked him whether he considered the
continuation of Lord Auckland in office as an ap-
proval of his policy, why what, in the name of God,
could he think it was ?—(Cheers.) When he was told
that not one of the twenty-four Directors approved of
the Affghanistan policy, he would say, ask bir J.
Lushington, the present Chairman.

[LEFT SPEAKING.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at five o'clock.
WORKING IN MINES.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a petition from
iron masters and coal ownei s.against certain clauses in
the Bill before Parliament respecting employment in
mines and collieries.

. The Earl of POWIS presented ia petition.to the same
effect, signed not only by owners of mines but by persons
cnlpbsyod in theut,
Lord DARTMOUTir presented several petitioni
yaulu cried *Oui pbravii4* employed ili alines-La

West Riding of Yorkshire. The N oble Lord presented
lso several petitions against the New Poor Law-bill.
Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions from the neigh-
b urhood of Huddersfield, in favour of the Bill fur re-
gulating employment in mines.
COLLIERIES AND MINES BILL.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH reported from the
Select Committee upon the Employment in Miners Bill,
that it was the opinion of the Committee that the Bill
should be proceeded with.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then read a .ecound time, and orde.ed
to be commttted to-morrow.
The Bishop of NORWICH pi esented a petition in
favour of the Bill.

DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord FITZGERALD, this Bill was
read a second time, with the understanding that the dig-
cussion should
,be taken on Friday in going into Com-
mittee. .

The Dublin Universities Right of Voting Bill was read
a second time.
SUDBURY WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE introduced:' a Bill
to indemnify the. witnesses to be examined .betnre the
Committee on the Sudbury Disfranchisement-Biit,i which
was read a first time. He gave notice that, to"-mmorrow,
he would move that the Standing Orders lie suspended
respecting this Bill, and that it be then read a second time.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it was impossible their
Lordships should pass a Bill of disfrancbiseraent without
toking evideace for themselves.
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL. •

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented numerous pe-.
tit:ons on the subject of Lord Ashley's (the mining em-
ployment) Bill, from Yorkshire and Mid-Lothian. Some
of the petitioners disapproved of parts of the Bill, but
the majority Ai ere in favour of it altogether.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions to the
same effect from places in Yorkshi! e, Scotland and Wales.