New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-24
Of tie camp when be left, which wss just nothing
beJoid the fact above atated.

been productive Of remarkable results' If not IN
lrcis-where its effect is yet unknown-at least In
Ergrt. This proclamation it seems was pre-
pared in anticipation Of theoccupancy OF Lucknow,
and ten days or fortnight before it's ISSUE copy
OF il was forwarded to the British Government
accompanied BY copy Of the Instructions intended
to be given to the Chief Commissioner Of Dude,
a. to the paDner IN which he wes TO act under II,
with respect to different classes of persons. These
iustTuctions-Aough considered as practical maa-
sure, The character Of the proclamation must main
ly depend upon them-have not been made public
1t is worthy Of notice, however, as bear
ing upon this point, that the clause OF
the proclamation which holds out q prom
Use of enisnt treatment to such OF the land
holders Of Dude as came forward promptly and
assisted in the restoration of order-and which
probably enbOdies the substance Of those instruc-
toDs-wss not contained in the original draft OF
tie proclamation as forwarded to the Government;
q charge which Lord Derby described as having
materially modified It's character, and rs relieving
it, to certain extent, from the objections which
the Government mad taken to il as it was trans
mitttd 10 them. What these objections were vii
appear from Lord Euehborough's letter sent
through the recent Committee Of the Court OF
Directors Of the East India Company, which we
publish to-day and which vas submitted to Parlis-
ment upon call by Mr. Bright, upon the Mnistefe,
to know if they had sanctioned the proclamation
or concurred in it. In the Debate that ensued,
tie Ministers denied any intention or wish to
force Lord Canning TO resign. They called atten
ton to the fact that The Governor General was not
required to withdraw the proclau alton, only to
mitigate in practice its stringent severity. Never.
theless, it is sbundantly apparent, both from the
terms Of the dispatcn and the sentiments expressed
by Derby and Peterborough in the House of Lords,
that the Ministry were directly at issue with the
Governor General, both as to the justice and the
policy of bis conduct in this matter.
The ground is taken in thisdispstch that the WAT
in Dude cannot be regarded as military mutny,
but ought rather to be considered as q legitimate
resistance made by the people Of that province, in
behalf Of their sovereign and themselves, to what
they had good reason 70 regard as an unprovoked
and upjustifable invasion of their rigbs. 1t is
due the rebellion by subjecting the Inhabitants to
penalty more sweeping and more serere than any
recorded in history, not merely justice but policy
demanded the extension of clemency to the great
body of the people, as The only means of seeur ng
that willing obedience without which the msinten-
snce of British authority in India is neither possible
nor desirable.
Such being the style and tenor of this document,
the dispatch it,elf, and especially the publication
of it, we're regarded, notwithstanding the dsclsim-
er of the Ministry, in the light Of an assault upon
the Governor. General with the design to force bis
resignation. In fact, all things oonsiderd, there
appears no ground for supposing, however q literal
construction of the proclamation might seem to i'm.
ply il, that Lord Canning intended general con-
fscation of the landed property Of Dude, or any
thing more than to signify to the laDdhoders in an
emphatic manner that the only chance of saving
their property was instant submission to British
authority and an exhibition of zeal for the reesib-
lishment of British rule. Indesd, the latest tele.
graphic news from India announces that an amnesty
had been offered in Dude to those who return TO
their allegiance, mutineers excepted.
In the debates which grew out Of the submis-
sion to Parliament of Lord Ellenborough's dis
patch, the Ministers, and especially Lord Ellen
borough himself, wished to present the point at
issue as question between the principle of Gle
nency and the principle of confscatiOn. The
other side, however declined to entertain that
question, or to 60 at all into the merits or demer-
its Of the proclamation, on the ground that TIL
they had Lord Canning's statement OF his policy
and intentions in it, issre, they were not in a po-
sition to discuss that question In conformity with
this view Of the case, Mr. Card~ell In the House
Of Commons gave notice Of motio9-and notice
of similar motion was given In the House OF
Lords by Lord Shaftesbury-eIpre'sly wavirg the
expression of any opinion as to the policy of Lord
Cannings proclamation for want of sufficient IL for
nation to form one, but censuring the publication
of the dispatch as calculated to weaken the author.
ity of the Governor-Genersl and to encourage fur
Their resistance on the part Of those shll In arms
agan.t British authority. The motion in the Com.
mons stood for Thursday, the 18th of May; that in
the Lords for Friday. On the Wednesday
preceding Lord Peterborough, seeing how
things were like to go, made an attempt
to save the Ministry BY taking upon
himself the sole responsibility, both of writing
the dispatch and of its publication. The dispatch
he indicated As message of peace to the people
of India, and its publication as necessary means
of compe Ling those in Office to act in the spnit Of
the Government; but both the dispatch itself and
IFS publication were, be declared, his individual
acts, upon which his colleagues in the Ministry had
not been consulted, and for which they ought no.