The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-14 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-THURSDAY.

Mr. V. SMITH moved the following resolution That
this house,
',hying regard to the high and important func-
tions of the Governor-General of India, the mixed character
of the native population, and the recent measures of the
court of directors for discontinuing any seeming sanction of
idolatry in India, consider that the conduct of Lord Ellenbo•
rough, in issuing the 'general orders of the 16th of November,
1842, and in addressing the letter of the same date to all the
chiefs, princes, and people of India, respecting the restora-
tion of the gates of a temple to Somnauth, is unwise, inde-
corous, and reprehensible."
Mr. E. TENNENT referred to the demand made by ltunjeet
Singh to Shab Soojah for the restoration of the gates of
Somnauth as a proof of the great importance of the trophy in
the consideration of the people of India. They had been
distinctly alluded to by Lord Ellenborough as trophies or
memorials of our military triumphs in Affghanistan. The
proclamation was oriental is its style, but it was to be remem-
bered that it was addressed to oriental minds familiar with
the most exaggerated metaphors. There could be no reli-
gious feeling in the case at all, either on the part of Lord
Ellenborough, or of the natives of India. for Sultan Mah-
mood, himself a Mussulman, had conquered Mahomedans
as well as Hindoos ; and the many Affghan invasions, which
swept over India, had fallen as heavily upon one religion as
the other. The opponents of Lord Ellenborough, in their
eagerness to censure the style of one proclamation, had alto-
,ether overlooked his great exertions, and had endeavoured,
in his atisence, to damage his well. earned reputation. The
country, however, would confirm the decision of the house,
and sustain the high character of the noble lord.
Mr. MACAULEY contended that Lord Ellenborough had
betrayed a want of official decency in affixing a stigma upon
his predecessor oy his proclamation—a predecessor who had
exhibited towards him so much disinterested care. It was
difficult to conceive how a Christian government could govern
an empire so extensive as India, containing as it did a vast
population, varied in its characteristics, habits, and super-
stitions. This country, however, succeeded in elevating the
female character in India, to abolish suttees, and ameliorate
the horrors and debasing customs of Hindoo idolatry. Our
more recent policy had been of a neutral character, withdraw-
ing all countenance from any species of idolatry ; and regard-
ing not its religious aspect but its influence on temporal hap-
piness, it would be treason to the progress of civilization to
pay homage to the superstitions of India. From that nen.
trality Lord Ellenborough had departed by bringing back
the gates of Somnauth, and had insulted truth by paying
homage' to falsehood. Was his proclamation to be carried
out? No such thing. The foolish proclamation would ex-
hibit Lord Ellenborough as the first Governor-General of
India who was doomed to be laughed at, and that derisive
laughter was now re-echoed from Europe and America. The
noble lord had acted without the advice of his council, which
bad no power to control him, for he was away from it, acting
upon his own solitary judgment.
Mr. HOGG agreed that it was impolitic for a governor-
general to act without the advice of his council, but it was to
he remembered that Lord Auckland also had issued his dis-
astrous Simla proclamation on his own authority only. tie
trusted the house would not sanction such an attempt as this
to hunt down an absent public servant for the mere purposes
of party animosity. He was not prepared to defend the pro-
clamation of Lord Ellenborough from indiscretion, but he
felt confident the house would not single out one act of indis-
cretion for the purpose of censuring a functionary whose every
other act called for undivided approbation.
Capt. M AN GLEs, without attributing to Lord Ellenborough
any intention to disparage Christianity, said it was never-
theless an impeachment of his judgment and common sense
that he should not have seen the inevitable tendency of the
proclamation.
Mr. ESTCOTT said that this motion was to be attributed to
the animosity which Lord Ellenborough had provoked by the
manner in which be had so gloriously retrieved the great
errors of his predecessor. There was certainly a strong feel-
ing against the proclamation, but while the people of this
loved plain country loved their religiOn they dealing also, and
hated hypocritical pretences.
Mr. HOME would have preferred a direct motion for the
recal of Lord Ellenborough to the one moved by the hon.
gentleman. The noble lord bad manifested gross ignorance
both with respect to the temple and its history, and he bad
displayed similar ignorance as to the character of the Hin-
doos. The hon. member read a letter from a vakeel of the

Hindoos. The hon. member read a letter from ir valceel of
the Rajah of Sattarah, now in England, to the effect that
nothing which had been in connection with the dead, as had
been the gates of Somnsuth, could be received as homage to
a Ilindoo temple, and that the gates were really regarded in
India as a military trophy.
After some observations from Mr. C. WYNNE and Mr.
PLUMPTRE, _ _

Sir G. GREY said that no impediment should be placed in
the way of the diffusion of christianity by the governor of a
population so mixed as that of India. Lord Ellenborough
appeared to be acting on the revolving principle, and having
already addressed proclamations to the Hindoos and Chris-
tians, we might shortly expect one to Mahomedans. In the
absence of any reprehension by the government of the con-
duct of Lord Ellenborough, the house was called upon to
pronounce its opinion. It was not enough to condemn the
taste of the proclamation ; the country should be discon-
nected from a transaction at the same time ludicrous and
disgraceful.

Lord STANLEY could not reconcile it to his public duty,
or to his friendship for Lord Ellenborough, to remain silent
while he was thus attacked, in his absence, for an isolated
act, after having received the thanks of the house for the great
achievements he had accomplished. It was said by Lord
Palmerston that any government ought to be impeached
which would withdraw from the " advanced position" which
had been secured in Affghanistan. The presettt government
had withdrawn, and he now challenged the opposition side of
the house to impeach their policy, or move a vote of censure
upon them for not recalling Lord Ellenborough. They
would not attempt anything of this kind, but singled out a
proclamation issued in the hour of victory, merely because
it was couched in language somewhat too inflated. Lord
Ellenborough might have been ignorant of the complete ruin
of the Temple of Somnauth, but it would be gross ingrati-
tude to condemn a man who has rendered such essential
services to his country, because of the style and composition
of a particular document, and thereby to increase the embar-
rassments which these debates were calculated to create in
India.

Lord PALMERSTON said that not a single gentleman had
attempted to defend the conduct of Lord Ellenborough. No
one had even sought to " damn him with faint praise." Even
the noble lord who had last spoken had only created a diver-
sion by carrying the war into the enemy's camp, and very
gallantly he had played his part. He was still of opinion
that a flight from Affghanistan would have been most dis-
graceful. Lord Ellenborough had received the thanks of
the house already for the little good he had done, and even-
handed justice now demanded that the demerits of the great
man whom they had thanked should be properly acknow-
ledged.
Sir R. PEEL said this debate would dissipate the supposi-
tion which seemed to have arisen in the debate on Mr. Roe-
buck's motion, that a compromise had taken place between
the government and the opposition. The right hon. baronet
quoted a letter from Lord Auckland himself, showing that
he contemplated retiring from Affghanistan before he was
made aware of the extent of the disasters at Cabool, and that
he had actually stated that their object was to retire with as
little discredit as possible. He contended, that it was but
common justice to take Lord Ellenborough's conduct as a
whole, as Lord Palmerston insisted should have been the
course when the Earl of Durham had, under similar circum-
stances, been assailed. The gates of Somnauth might have
been very properly carried off as a trophy to reconcile the
undoes to their retirement from Affghanistan, and although
the language used. in presenting them might have been
spared, yet it would be unjust and ungrateful for that lan-
guage to condemn a man who had repaired the greatest dis-
aster which had ever befallen the British arms.

Lord J. RUSSELL said there appeared to be but one opinion
of the proclamation—that it was unwise, indecorous, and re-
prehensible. The invasion of Affghanistan had not been
utterly unproductive of advantages to the people of India
and this country, for we bad secured the navigation of the
Indus, and had obtained an acquisition of territory, or were
about to do so, for the purpose of securing that navigation.
He could not move a vote of censure on the government for
abandoning Affghanistan, for since he bad read the papers
he was decidedly of opinion that the retirement from that
country was a wise measure of policy. Agreeing in every
word of the motion of his hon. friend he should cheerfully
give his vote for it, and if the consequence should be the
resignation of the Governor-General, he thought it would be
a relief to the country from a great difficulty and peril.
The house then divided, and the motion was negatived by
a majority of 242 to 157.