§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL—Before this debate goes further, I wish to make some remarks in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. 343 Roebuck) and for Finsbury (Mr. Cox). I hope they will understand it was from no want of courtesy to them I did not immediately rise to answer their questions. But it appeared to me that their questions involved a discussion with respect to the merits of a Bill now before the House, and with respect to an Amendment of which I have given notice on the second reading of that Bill, which at this time would be in the first place completely out of order, and in the next place I do not feel myself called upon to enter into the discussion of a question now which we must discuss at any rate on Monday next. I shall still more refrain from entering into the question whether, in the event of that resolution being carried, Her Majesty's Ministers will take the step of advising Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament. That is a very grave and important step, and one which might be attended with the hazards to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded; but at all events it is not upon a Motion for the adjournment of the House from the Friday to the Monday that so important a subject ought to be discussed. I can, therefore, only say at present, in answer to my hon. Friend, and to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, that in my humble opinion the Government have taken a right course in proposing a Bill in this House upon the subject of the representation of the people; and I trust that on Monday I shall be able to satisfy the House that I have not been wrong in proposing a form of Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion that the Bill be read a second time. With regard to the other statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I can assure him that I shall never shrink from the question of the ballot. Whenever that question may be brought forward I shall be ready to give my vote in this House, and, if necessary, I shall be ready to address the House upon the subject. But I think the hon. Gentleman must perceive, upon reflection, that it would be unbecoming in me to bargain for support, by the announcement of any policy at variance with the convictions which I honestly entertain. That is a course which I shall never pursue for any object upon earth. Having thus noticed the two speeches that have been made upon this important subject, I shall now-pass on to the question of which I have given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary for India. It appears from all the 344 accounts which we receive—and very gratifying accounts, indeed, they are—that the pacification of Oude has been effected—that the only large body of the mutineers that remains has gone into the kingdom of Nepaul, and that, generally speaking, the revolt has been suppressed throughout India. Under these circumstances I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government to ask this House to pass a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, to the distinguished general who is in command of the troops in that country, and to the other officers, civil and military, who have assisted him in the arduous operations which have led to that great and glorious achievement. I will say fairly that I should have left it entirely to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government to name the time when they should think fit to propose that Vote of Thanks, were it not for certain papers which have lately been laid on the table of the House. Those papers I hold in my hand, and they contain copies of the answer of the Governor General to the secret despatch of the Court of Directors, and of the despatch of the noble Lord dated the 9th of December. Now, I am not going in any way to revive the question of the wisdom of the Proclamation which was issued by Viscount Canning. I will admit, if you like, all that the Government say upon that subject. I will admit for the sake of argument that it was unwise to issue that Proclamation. That is not my opinion; but I will admit it for the purpose of the statement I have to make. I own it appears to me that after that matter was settled, after the Government had stated the opinion which they entertained with respect to it, and after Viscount Canning had in a very able despatch shown at least that he had reasons for his conduct, it would have been just to a man placed in the anxious position of Governor General of India during one of the most trying emergencies that ever arose in any country and charged with an immense responsibility, proposing at one time measures that did not meet with the approbation of the Government at home, and at another time directing a military operation which was not in conformity with the judgment of Lord Clyde—I say that it would have been right to a man in that position to have pursued one or other of two courses—either to say that his judgment was erroneous, that he was unfit to carry on the Government of India in that great emergency, and to appoint some 345 other person in his place, or else to treat him with confidence, and to show by the terms in which you addressed him that that confidence was not given in a niggard or a stinted spirit. I read with wonder, and I may say with indignation, that despatch of the 9th of December, which appeared to me, by its cold and sneering tone, to imply and to convey a distrust which Her Majesty's Ministers did not think fit, for some reason or another, openly to express. I therefore feel it my duty to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to do justice to Viscount Canning are services, which I think were never surpassed by any Governor of India, in the suppression of that revolt. I shall be happy to find that I have been mistaken in the supposition I have formed upon the subject, and that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a vote of thanks to the Governor General, to Lord Clyde, and to various other officers whom I need not name, but who have greatly distinguished themselves in that service. As to Lord Clyde, no one, I suppose, has the least doubt or difficulty. Never did a man in a difficult military position act with greater vigour, with greater decision, and with greater judgment, and I hope he will be spared to return home in health, and to enjoy the rewards he has so justly earned at the hands of his Sovereign.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that as the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) could not speak twice on the Motion he might be permitted to remark that now the dreadful events of the mutiny were over, there was a general expectation that some distinguished mark of merit would be given to Sir John Lawrence, The late Government of India actually made a provision for any honour that might be conferred on that distinguished man, for they gave him a pension, and there would be a general feeling of disappointment if the man who was considered the saviour of India had not some mark of favour from the Crown bestowed on him.
LORD STANLEYSir, In reference to the question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I wish to assure him and the House that the Government fully recognize the great services which have been rendered by Sir John Lawrence; but I cannot altogether admit that which, if not stated, was at least implied in the speech of the hon. Member—that no recognition of those services has already taken place. I do not speak of the promotion of Sir John Lawrence to the 346 rank of Lieutenant Governor—a rank which has been held by him for only a very brief period of time. But I must observe that he received the thanks of this House, a baronetcy, the Grand Cross of the Bath, and a pension of £2,000 a year, in addition to any pension to which he may be entitled as a retired member of the Civil Service; and that he can hold, if he pleases, a seat for life in the Council of India. But I hope that his active career is not yet closed; and if his health should be restored, no doubt some future Minister for India will be anxious to avail himself again of his services in that country. I cannot, therefore, admit that his services, great as they are, have hitherto gone unrewarded. Now with regard to the question of the noble Lord the Member for London, I have to state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a vote of thanks to those who, whether in a civil or in a military capacity, have taken a prominant part in the pacification of India. In that vote undoubtedly both the Governor General and Lord Clyde will be included. The reason, and the only reason, why that vote was not proposed at the beginning of the Session, was that at that time the pacification, although obviously near its accomplishment, was not completed; and we were anxious to have an opportunity of including in that vote the authors of any exploit which might still be performed, and which might seem to us to deserve the approbation of this House. I must add, that if it is inconvenient, as the noble Lord states, to discuss the question of Reform on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, it is not less so to take that opportunity of discussing a question which was so fully debated last year—namely, the policy of the Indian Government in regard of Oude, At the proper time, and when a full opportunity is afforded me, I shall be ready to vindicate the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government upon that question. I am not surprised that some political considerations which were adverted to this evening should have recalled to the mind of the noble Lord the circumstances which attended the debate of last year. I feel confident that if ever that debate should be resumed in this House it would be attended with the same result. But with regard to the general policy of Lord Canning, apart from that particular transaction, I do not think the noble Lord himself would speak in terms of stronger approval than I have done, not merely of 347 late, but at the time when it was formerly under discussion in this House. A question has been put to me by the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster on the subject of the Indian Artillery; but as he did not give me notice of that question I have not had an opportunity of ascertaining when all the papers will be ready. I shall, however, make inquiry into the matter, and I shall afterwards be ready to communicate to him any information which I may obtain.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON— Sir, I have only one word to say upon that which has fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the observations of my noble Friend the Member for the City of London. My noble Friend did not revert to the debate of last year. My noble Friend did not advert to the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to India; but my noble Friend did make observations upon that which I think must have struck with pain the mind of every man who has read that despatch. My noble Friend did make observations upon the taste—upon the feeling—I will say no more—of that reply which the noble Lord opposite thought it consistent with his duty to write to Viscount Canning in answer to that noble Lord's despatch. I cannot permit the noble Lord to escape from those remarks which my noble Friend so appropriately made, by endeavouring to revert to the discussion of last year, and to impute to my noble Friend an intention which the language of my noble Friend showed could not have been in his mind. I deeply regret that the noble Lord should have thought right, in his position as a Minister of the Crown, to have written a sneering, taunting, and ironical despatch in reply to Viscount Canning—in answer to explanations which every man must have read with admiration. I say nothing as to the concealment of these despatches for the many months during which they lay in the office of the noble Lord. At last they have come out, and I am persuaded that no man who has read them can help feeling sentiments very different from those expressed in the reply of the noble Lord.