§ Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had asked whether the papers to be placed on the Table of the House would afford an opportunity of taking a view of the policy of entering on the war in Affghanistan. He (Lord John Russell) was not certain whether he had distinctly understood the right hon. Baronet's reply. It had hitherto been usual, when votes of thanks had been proposed, to confine that vote merely to thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, assuming the policy out of which these operations had resulted to be correct, leaving it perfectly free to the Members who might concur in the vote of thanks for the military operations, to question the policy, the adoption of which had led to those operations. Now, the notice of the right hon. Baronet had been given in the usual terms, and he wished to know whether it were the intention of the right hon. Baronet to propose the vote of thanks in the usual way; that was to say, to confine himself to asking for a vote of thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, or whether he meant to ask the House for its approval of the policy of withdrawing the army within the Indus, and of the whole of the policy of the Governor-general and the Government?
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid that, in moving the vote of thanks, he intended to adhere strictly to the object mentioned in the notice which he had given. He intended to confine the vote expressly to the military operations, and did not intend on that occasion to ask the House to express any opinion of approval or disapproval of the policy which had led to the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. Those, therefore, who might be opposed to the policy of the war, might still join in the vote of 205 thanks for the skill and energy with which the military operations were conducted. He intended, in short, to adhere to what had been the uniform practice on similar occasions; but though the papers were intended to bear on the military operations, and not on the policy of the war, yet it would be difficult to lay before the House all the requisite papers without producing enough to enable hon. Members to form their own opinions with respect to that policy. He proposed that the papers should commence at the period when the first violent outbreak took place, shortly before the murder of Sir W. M'Naughten; and the main object in producing the papers was to enable the House to judge whether or not that public acknowledgment he should propose should be considered satisfactory. He should not invite discussion upon the policy itself; but he believed the information afforded by the papers, although they might not throw any new light upon the original policy of the war, would necessarily throw new light upon the policy of the withdrawal of the troops; although that was not his immediate object in producing the papers.
§ Mr. Roebuckfelt some difficulty relative to the position in which the question then stood, and for this reason: the right hon. Baronet had introduced into one motion two very separate and distinct propositions; the one a vote of thanks to the Governor-general, and the other a vote of thanks to the troops. Now, no matter what might have been the policy or justice of the war, it would be proper for the House to vote thanks to the army. That was quite clear. But the whole policy of the Governor-general was connected with a proclamation issued by him, in which he set forth his opinion respecting the policy of the whole war, as well as his motives for the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. He wanted to know whether the vote of thanks would include that proclamation? He quite agreed, for his part, with the Governor-general, as far as his present lights conducted him; he should be prepared to support the vote of thanks, on the ground of that proclamation. But he could clearly understand that there might be strong feelings on that side and on the other side of the House respecting that proclamation. He thought that it would not be sufficient to lay before the House those papers only which related to the transactions immediately previous to 206 the outbreak. They should have the papers necessary to judge of the origin of the war, namely, of the policy and justice of maintaining our troops to the west of the Indus; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would separate these two distinct propositions—namely, the vote of thanks to the present Governor-general, and the vote of thanks to the army; and that he would give the House every information relative to the whole series of events in India.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, he thought it would then be premature to enter upon a discussion of the question. He would undertake to lay before the House such papers as her Majesty's Government might think desirable; and he would communicate them to the House some days before he would call upon the House to adopt any proceedings with respect to them. He would also undertake to give several days' notice of the precise terms of the motion he should propose. He believed that such a course was warranted by former precedents. That was the course pursued in the case of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland, a vote of thanks which he (Sir Robert Peel) supported, although he protested at the time against being supposed to approve of the policy of Lord Auckland. Still he thought it right to give his thanks for the skill and energy displayed by the noble Lord in his preparations for carrying on the war. When the papers were before the House the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) would see whether they were sufficient to enable him to form his views. For his (Sir R. Peel's) part, he intended strictly to follow the precedent of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland.