HC Deb 11 July 1842 vol 64 cc1292-307
Sir R. Peel

Sir, in rising to move the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply, I wish to notice a statement made by a noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston)on the last night, or the last night but one, when the House met. That statement was made with reference to the policy pursued by the late Government as to the war in Affghanistan. The noble Lord stated, that her Majesty's present Government had suggested that Lord Auckland should remain as Governor-general of India, and that application had been made to him by her Majesty's Government for that purpose. Thence the noble Lord had inferred that there was an approval on the part of her Majesty's Government of the policy that had been pursued in India. Now, I must decidedly protest against any such infeence. In the first place, I should say, that if her Majesty's Government had been disposed to avail themselves of the services of Lord Auckland in India, it was not thence to be inferred that, therefore, they consented to make themselves a party to his policy. There must be every disposition on the part of a Government, (whatever difference, in point of political feeling, might exist on various subjects), considering that Lord Auckland had for four years devoted the whole of his time and attention to the duties of his office, to avoid doing anything which might imply a reflection on the person intrusted with the discharge of such important duties. It was natural and generous to abstain from any act that might imply an unfavourable opinion, and might render still greater the difficulties of the situation in which he was placed. I am sorry that the noble Lord should have rested his information on a private letter, addressed from one gentleman to another; and, as I understand the matter, the communication was conveyed in a private letter from, Lord Ellenborough to Lord Auckland. I must confess I am surprised at the noble Lord's information, even if the impression it tended to excite were correct. I must say I heard with surprise the noble Lord's statement; I was, however, at the time unwilling to make any reference to it, for I did not expect the introduction of the question of the policy of the war in Affghanistan on the third night of the debate on the resolutions of the hon. Member for Greenock; and I certainly am desirous, in a matter which at all affects the conduct and character of a Governor-general of India who was about to return to this country—I am desirous to collect the best information as to the facts of the case before I offer any contradiction to the statement of the noble Lord. I certainly do not recollect having been a party to any proposal such as that to which the noble Lord had on a former evening referred; yet, at the same time, as the noble Lord had said, that the communication was conveyed in a private letter from Lord Ellenborough to Lord Auckland, it is impossible for me to offer any contradiction. As to the letter, however, I can find no such public letter; and certainly I could add, no such proposition as that which has been referred to had been made with the knowledge and sanction of the Government; but I knew the high opinion which was entertained by Lord Ellen-borough of Lord Auckland—I knew that opinion was of the most generous kind, and in proof of this I need only refer to the expressions used by Lord Ellenborough at a dinner given to him on the eve of his departure for India by the directors of the East India Company, on the 3d of November last. On that occasion my noble Friend spoke of Lord Auckland in these generous terms:— He felt also that he was about to succeed a man who, in the office of Governor-general had, he rejoiced to have this opportunity of declaring, exhibited great practical ability in the administration of affairs. In fact, it was a source of great personal as well as public satisfaction to him, united as he had been with the Earl of Auckland in former times by ties of the closest friendship, to observe the indefatigable industry, the great ability, and the extensive knowledge he had brought to the investigation, elucidation, and management of all the great questions which had come before his Government. That was the public testimony, the generous testimony, of one political opponent to another. I have referred to my own communications with the Board of Directors on the subject of Lord Auckland. I shall not undertake to answer for any communication which might have been made from Lord Ellenborough to Lord Auckland in the same generous spirit, but these are the facts of the case as far as 1 can ascertain them. Immediately on accepting office I made inquiry with regard to the appointment of the Governor-general of India, and I received from the East India Board the following intimation:— INDIA PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS, JULY 8, 1840. (Minute by the Governor-general.) A request from the honourable court is conveyed to me by this despatch, that I would not in the ensuing spring resign the high office which I have the honour of holding in India; and to a wish to this effect, expressed in this quarter, in terms and in substance so honourable to me, I can, under present circumstances, make but the one answer—that I will not abruptly throw up the trust which has been confided to me, or appear hastily and unduly to shrink from any important responsibility of which it may be supposed that I should be able more easily to acquit myself than could be expected from any one new to the cares and duties of the Indian administration. I readily, therefore, consent to postpone any immediate decision upon the time when I may return to England, and it may be assumed that for the next year I shall serve in India, giving in the course of the year such timely notice of my wishes and intentions as public and private considerations may seem to me to require. The consequence was that Lord Auckland remained in India, and that he did so at the specific request of the Board of Control and of the Board of East India Directors; and the present Government found him remaining in India at the express wish of the public authorities in this country. On the 1st of September I found a letter from Lord Auckland. I had made inquiry as to Lord Auckland's intentions, and if I had found that that noble Lord had entertained a wish to retain the Government of India longer, I never would have advised the Crown suddenly and peremptorily to recall Lord Auckland, and I should have abstained from the exercise of power, retaining, of course, my own opinions. But I must fairly avow it, that if it had been intimated to me that in compliance with the public wish at home Lord Auckland's personal convenience should be consulted, and that he intended to remain in India, I should have thought it an act of gross injustice to that noble Lord if I had advised the Crown to dismiss him. The 1st of Sep- tember was the date when Lord Auckland's intimations were known. The next letter which I found was dated the 7th of April, in answer to my inquiry whether or not Lord Auckland's intentions were known. All was conceived in a friendly spirit, and without the slightest intention of impugning the conduct of Lord Auckland. Lord Auckland wrote Lord Ellenborough a private letter, and intimated that he was desirous to leave India in the June following, at the same time expressing his desire not to leave any great measures unfinished; that he had no objection whatever to the appointment, but the Court could not wish him to go for the purpose of taking the Government, unless they knew that Lord Auckland had privately fixed the time of his departure. Now the appointment of the Governor-general, it was well known, was with the Court of Directors, with an understanding with the Government There was no objection on the part of Lord Auckland, be it observed, to the appointment of a successor, but the Court did not wish this till Lord Auckland should have positively fixed the time of his departure. Then, on the 24th of September, Lord Ellenborough wrote to me in these terms;— The chairman read to me to-day a letter received from Lord Auckland's brother, of a tone similar to that of the letter you received from him, I conclude that the next mail will bring his formal resignation. His successor ought to leave England on the 4th of December in order to be able to communicate with him fully before he leaves India, as it is of the highest importance that this communication should take place. Facts and opinions may, perhaps, be gathered from the records, but without personal communication with Lord Auckland his successor will know little of the men by whom his measures are to be executed. ELLENBOROUGH. And on the 8th of October I proposed, having accepted office on the 1st of September, that Lord Auckland should remain in India until his successor should arrive, Lord Ellenborough having accepted the government of India. These, then, are the facts of the case. Lord Ellenborough might have written a letter to Lord Auckland in terms similar to those which have been publicly avowed. He might have pressed upon Lord Auckland the policy of remaining until his successor should arrive: but it could not be deduced from that fact that Lord Auckland was to remain permanently the Governor-general. I now pass from this subject, and before I move the Order of the Day, I must express what is the position of the Government in respect to the votes of supply, the miscellaneous and other estimates, and for the China service. The House must see the necessity of these votes being agreed to as soon as possible. I stated to the House that the time was fast approaching, when considerable inconvenience must arise to the public service unless the House were pleased to assent to them. It was then said that the Government ought, at an earlier period, to have called attention to the votes of supply. In answer to that charge, I must remind the House how the time has been occupied by her Majesty's Government, in respect to measures relating to the financial and commercial position of the country. We have sat eighteen weeks; two days a week only were at the disposal of the Government for a part of that time; but through the indulgence of the House, Tuesdays were given up to the Government. I believe that if every day had been taken when her Majesty's Government had precedence, there would have been fifty-four days. With the general concurrence of the House, I placed upon every day's paper the three measures of the Corn-law, the Income-tax, and the Tariff. The House was occupied on the Corn-law sixteen days, on the Property-tax seventeen days, on the tariff fourteen days, making together forty-seven days; and I am sure the House must have felt the necessity of not interposing other measures until those had passed. The tariff was at length happily concluded, and came into operation on Saturday last, and I hope the returns of the Custom-house will show that that measure has had a favourable effect, if it were only by removing a suspense which has operated most disadvantageously for trade. We now have to vote, with the sanction of the House, the miscellaneous and China estimates, which are very pressing. There will be a vote for the service of the East India Company for the expenditure in China, which is of urgent importance to the Government of India. Besides meeting the extraordinary expenses on account of the war in Affghanistan, we have had to advance largely on account of the Chinese loan opened in India not having turned out so productively as was expected. A communication has been made to the Court of Directors to render relief by their home trea- sury, and a communication has been made to the Treasury, and the understanding is, that a sum of 800,000l. shall be advanced in payment of sums formerly advanced in China; that the government of India might suspend their advances on hypothecated goods, provided they should abstain from drawing on the treasury of India for six months, and making an engagement to meet the China expenditure. The first vote to be taken will be for China, and great inconvenience will arise to the East India Company and the public service from any delay in fulfilling the engagements which have been made. With respect to the miscellaneous estimates, I can only state, as might be expected, that this is an additional grant, the vote being made from the 31st of March, one year, to the 31st of March the next year, whilst I am addressing the House now on the 11th of July. We have abstained from applying for these votes, but I think it my duty to state to the House, that many of these votes are exhausted, as in the case of the vote for criminal prosecutions in Ireland. The Government had no alternative but making advances, and, as might have been expected, we have postponed payment as long as we could. Great public inconvenience must necessarily arise from any further delay, for which I cannot be charged, and shall not hold myself responsible; and I therefore hope, that the House will not, through any courtesy to the Government, but for the sake of the public interest—I hope, I repeat, that the House will not sanction any unnecessary delay, which will have the effect of impeding the public business.

Viscount Palmerston

I am sure, after what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the House will expect that I should make a remark or two on the observations of the right hon. Baronet, but I shall endeavour to observe the same calmness and absence of party spirit which the right hon. Baronet has displayed. There is nothing I should be more reluctant to do, or feel more regret for having done, than making a statement affecting the conduct, more especially of an individual absent from the country, which turned out to be wholly unfounded. The right hon. Baronet has resolved this matter into two questions; a question of fact, and a question of inference. I shall notice the latter first. The right hon. Baronet says, that if the Government did make a proposal to Lord Auckland to continue in India, it could not be construed into an approval of the policy of which he was one of the authors. Now I cannot say I agree with the right hon. Baronet, and he has read, amongst the documents which he has quoted, a passage which confirms, I think, the conclusion I have arrived at, supposing the facts to have been as I stated them. What were the circumstances of the case? Lord Auckland had continued in India the usual time, and at the expiration of which the Governor-general resigns. In May, 1840, he received the application alluded to from the Court of Directors, requesting him to continue, although the period of resignation had nearly arrived. Lord Auckland writes in reply in July, that although it would be inconvenient to him to remain, no personal consideration should stand in the way of a public duty, and that he consented to continue in office for the purpose of completing the measures to which he had been a party, or the system of policy he had approved of, or some words to that effect. Well, the present Government came into office, not in September, 1840, but in September, 1841, more than a year after Lord Auckland had continued at the head of Indian affairs at the request of the Court of Directors. It was generally known to the public in this country that Lord Auckland was expected to return in the ordinary course of things, even if there had been no change of government. Therefore, if it were known that he had consented to remain longer at the special request of the authorities, and that he was willing to continue in office only so long as he might be enabled to give effect to his original intentions, if such a proposal were made to him at all as that which I referred to, I think the obvious inference was, that his continuance in office was sought on the condition of completing the great measures which he had brought nearly to a conclusion. Now I come to the question of fact. I am bound to accept the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that neither he, nor, if I understand right, any of his Colleagues, were at all aware that Lord Ellenborough had written to Lord Auckland, requesting him to remain, and certainly the notes of Lord Ellenborough which he has read bear out that assertion. I have not the letter in my possession, of which I read an extract on a former night, but I perceive the words which it contains have been very correctly reported. They amounted to this: that Lord Ellenborough wished very much that Lord Auckland should remain, and he was sure they should get on admirably together. I have no more doubt on my mind than that I am standing on this floor, that previous to the date of the letter from one of Lord Auckland's family such a request was received, and it undoubtedly justified Lord Auckland in concluding that it was not the expression of merely a personal wish, but that it conveyed the opinion of the Government through the President of the Board of Control. Now was that an unusual mode for matter of such a communication? The right hon. Baronet says, that there is no official record of it. The right hon. Baronet must know that on such occasions it is usual before any public sanction is given to the continuance of an officer, that a private letter is written, asking if he can act under a new Government consistently with his honour. When I was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it became a question whether Lord Heytesbury would continue in St. Peters-burgh. I wrote him a private letter, and not an official despatch. How this communication was made without the knowledge of the noble Lord's Colleagues, it is not for me to explain. The communication made to me was not of a confidential nature, and I had no motive for concealing the fact, or making a secret of it. While I admit, that the right hon. Baronet has cleared himself from participation in this communication, I hope he will do me equal justice in acknowledging that I had good grounds for making the statement I did, and for believing it.

Sir R. Peel

said, the noble Lord had read a passage of a letter from Lord Ellen-borough, in which it was stated that no appointment that could be made could convey the slightest reflection or imputation on Lord Auckland. Lord Auckland, it must be observed, had not been asked to stay a year after May, 1840. And what was his answer?— I will readily, therefore, consent to postpone any immediate decision upon the time When I may return to England, for it may be assumed that for the next year I shall serve in India, giving in the course of the year such timely notice of my wishes and intentions as public and private considerations may seem to require. Well, on the 7th of September last, it having become time that some step should be taken in the matter, the Government of India was asked, what was to be done? What was the answer of the President of the Board of Control?— There is no objection to naming a successor, but the court would not Wish him to go for the purpose of taking the Government until they snow that Lord Auckland has positively fixed the time of his departure. He need not state to the House that he was not withholding any other communications than those he had read. He had read everything bearing on the point in his possession, and he could, therefore, only say again—of course not undertaking to answer for what private communication a man of generous feeling like Lord Ellen-borough might have addressed to Lord Auckland,—that the House would see he could by no possibility have been a party to any such communication.

Viscount Palmerston

only wished to say, that he thought there was a probability of solving this difficulty. The letter he had read on a former evening stated, that "it was very lucky that Lord Auckland had sent home his positive resignation." It was probable, therefore, that the resignation would have been received here a very short time after Lord Ellenborough wrote the letter conveying his wish that Lord Auckland should remain in India. Therefore it was possible that the communication which the right hon. Baronet had just read might have been written to him after Lord Ellenborough had received Lord Auckland's positive resignation, and had come to a conclusion that the wish expressed in his former letter to Lord Auckland would not be complied with.

Sir R. Peel

only wished the House to observe, that the answer of Lord Ellenborough to him, which he had quoted, was dated the 7th of September, and that Lord Ellenborough's own appointment was on the 8th of October.

Viscount Howick

believed, that the only inference which followed from that was, that Lord Ellenborough Wrote very promptly to India after his entrance into office, probably by the Indian mail, which left, he believed, immediately after the appointment of the new President of the Board of Control. Of one thing he believed there could be no doubt—that Lord Ellenborough wrote a most flattering letter to Lord Auckland, urging him to remain in India. That he could slate from his own personal knowledge; he believed it to be quite true. On the 7th of September Lord Auckland's resignation must have been received by Lord Ellenborough, and therefore he was enabled to state to the right hon. Baronet, notwithstanding his own most pressing letter to Lord Auckland, that the Government of India was vacant. He knew that among the noble Lord's friends at Calcutta great grief prevailed that Lord Ellenborough's letter had not reached Calcutta before Lord Auckland's own letter of resignation could have reached England, as the language of the former might possibly have had an effect on Lord Auckland's mind.

Mr. Hogg

said, he had only entered the House early enough to hear the noble Lord speak of the Court of Directors having particularly requested Lord Auckland to remain, and say, that he was justified in inferring from that request their approbation of the policy of the Affghan war. Now, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), whether he was not right in saying that that request would not justify the noble Lord in drawing any such inference? Under the then existing exigencies of the public service in India, looking to the state of the Affghan war, and other affairs, the Court of Directors did acquiesce in a suggestion which came from his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Control, and they did think that in the then state of circumstances the best thing to be done for the public service was to press Lord Auckland to remain, and Lord Auckland on public grounds consented. Now, to prove that the letter of Lord Ellenborough, whatever it might have been, was a merely private intimation, he begged to say that he for one till that night never heard of the existence of that letter, and he begged leave most distinctly to say that it was not competent for the President of the Board of Control to intimate to the Governor-general his wish that he should remain for another year. The President of the Board of Control must have the sanction of the Court of Directors before he could make officially any such request. He could most distinctly state that the acquiescence of the Court of Directors was never asked, much less given, to such a letter.

Sir J. Hobhouse

said, the reason which induced him to rise was, that his hon. Friend had made a direct appeal to him in respect to the interpretation he gave to the request of the Court of Directors, in May 1840, to Lord Auckland, to remain in his government for a year longer, or for some time longer than the usual time for the stay of the Governors-general, and at which Lord Auckland himself thought that he should come back. Now it had been his intention to have kept all these communications between the chairman of the Board of Directors and himself entirely to himself, except he had asked permission of the hon. Gentleman who was chairman when the Affghan expedition was determined upon. But as the hon. Member had asked him in the face of the House and the public whether he considered the request of the Court of Directors to Lord Auckland to remain beyond the time which he had fixed for his return, to be an approbation of Lord Auckland's general policy and conduct, without the slightest hesitation he said "Yes." Why this was all new; it was like the hon. Gentleman telling them the other night, when the word "sagacity" was made use of in moving the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland from the East India Company in the Court of Proprietors, that sagacity did not mean sagacity. That was what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman said—what he had of course a right to tell of his own conduct—that he had objected to the vote of thanks. But the word was found in the vote, and the Court had been told that it was not objectionable, as it did not carry with it the sense which anybody else, certainly everybody in the House of Commons, would have supposed; namely, that the Governor-general had shown in this policy of his sagacity, or wisdom, or any other word by which they chose to interpret the expression "sagacity," and that the hon. Member should have had, he would not say the courage, but the good-nature, to ask him whether he did or did not suppose that when Lord Auckland was requested to remain a year longer, it was a sign of approbation of Lord Auckland's policy;—why, in the name of God, what else could he take it for? It was in consequence of communications between the Chairs and himself, and because Lord Auckland was considered to be the best man to carry out his own policy, that the request was made to Lord Auckland, and he had every reason to believe that Lord Auckland had the support of the chair. As he told the hon. Member long ago, it was not until their late disasters that he had heard anything relative to the Court being opposed to Lord Auckland. It was all new what the hon. Member had told him, that there was not one out of twenty-four directors who did not condemn the Affghan expedition; that was all perfectly new to him. Ask Sir J. S. Lushington, the present chairman; ask that gentleman what communications he had with him. Ask him whether he did not, when chairman in 1838, approve of the Affghan expedition. He should not have said one word of this, for he would not have thought himself justified in referring to these matters, he should have thought it something, if not like a violation of confidence, at least something which it was well to have refrained from speaking of; but charges were brought against him and the late Government which obliged him to allude to these matters; and when he was asked pointedly whether or not he considered the request of the Court of Directors to intimate approval of the noble Lord's policy, he said most distinctly that he did so consider it, and if he had not done so, that he would not have asked the Court of Directors to make such a request to him; for, as the hon. Member knew very well, it did not require a request of the Court of Directors to enable Lord Auckland to go on with his government. The period of the Governor-general's return was not fixed either by the Court of Directors or by any particular usage, and there was no necessity for him to come back at that time. When he requested Lord Auckland to remain, he communicated the circumstance to the chairs, who fell in with his views, and he appealed to the chairman for the confirmation of this statement, with whom he had had communication for six years and a half; and here he would say that no president of the Board of Control could have met with greater courtesy in his official communications since the Indian Board was established. He did not mean, of course, to say that every one of the Board approved of the Affghan policy; he knew that his hon. Friend did not, who was in the court at the time of the "sagacity" vote, when it was resolved to keep Lord Auckland for his sagacity. He knew also that Mr. Tucker and Mr. H. Willock did not approve of it; he was not quite sure that the latter was in the court at that time, though he was afterwards; but he declared that it was a fact quite new to him, that the great mass of the court objected to Lord Auckland's Affghan policy. It might be so, but it was new to him; and he would declare, on his word of honour, that the chairman never told him so. The different chairmen certainly acquainted him in what they differed from him, but that the Court, as a body, or the majority of it, was hostile to Lord Auckland's policy, he had never heard. The question never was brought before the Court, because they had nothing whatever to do with it. He would add one word with reference to the letter which had been mentioned from Lord Ellenborough to Lord Auckland, but with no wish to provoke an angry discussion. He certainly interpreted that letter in a different sense from that attached to it by the right hon. Baronet. He was clearly of opinion that it was meant to convey praise, and more unmeasured praise than that applied by Lord Ellenborough to the Earl of Auckland it would be difficult to imagine. It would not take up the time of the House to repeat the passage which the right hon. Baronet had quoted from the speech delivered by Lord Ellenborough previous to his departure, 3rd of November, 1841: He felt he was about to succeed a man who, in the office of Governor-general, had, he rejoiced to have this opportunity of declaring, exhibited great practical ability in the administration of affairs. In fact, it was a source of great personal as well as public satisfaction to him, united, as he had been, with the Earl of Auckland by ties of the closest friendship, to observe the indefatigable industry, the great ability, and the extensive knowledge he had brought to the investigation, elucidation, and management of all the great questions which had come before his government. Now, what was the greatest of all these questions? Was it not whether a great army should be marched across the Indus, to establish our direct and predominant influence in central Asia? Of course, Lord Auckland brought to bear on this question extensive knowledge as to the resources of the country, the dangers of the expedition, and the general line of action by which the plans of Government were to be carried out. Why, was it possible for any human being to convey in stronger language than this a general approbation of the conduct of any great functionary? In order to make this still more clear, Lord Ellenborough went on to say, that there would still be something left for him to do— To terminate the war in China by a peace, honourable to the Crown, and durable in its provisions, to restore tranquillity to the banks of the Indus; in a word, to give peace to Asia. Was there anything in these words that looked like a qualification of the great praise which Lord Ellenborough had thought it just to give to Lord Auckland? The only conclusion to which it was possible to come from these words, except upon some new mode of interpretation, was that the person who used them fully approved of the policy of the late Governor-general in all its great features and outlines. So much did he think so at the time, that he remembered, on seeing this in the newspapers, writing to a person officially connected with Lord Auckland, and telling him how handsome he considered this praise to be, and how happy he was that, after all the blame thrown upon Lord Auckland and his policy, the man who could judge it best had praised it most. He well knew the opinion which Lord Ellenborough entertained of Lord Auckland, but in explaining it he had not thought it necessary to have recourse to any of those private documents which might have been adduced in confirmation of it. No opinion could be higher than that which was stated in the public manner he had mentioned. The hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be correct in his representation of the feelings of the Court of Directors; all he could say was, that whilst he was at the Board of Control he was never made aware of it by his hon. Friends, and the only occasion when the question of the Indian policy came in anything like an official form before the Court of Directors was in 1840, when the vote of thanks was passed to Lord Auckland. From no communication with the chairman or deputy-chairman had he ever learned that there was this great discrepancy of opinions in the court alleged by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hogg

explained, that he had never argued with respect to the word "sagacity" in the way stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The sense in which he meant his observation was this—so cautious were the members of the court on the occasion referred to with regard to expressing any approbation of Lord Auckland's policy, that he himself and several other directors objected to the word "sagacity." He was then accused of being hypercritical, and the chairman said the vote was one of a merely complimentary nature, and was not intended to express any approbation of the policy of the expedition, just as the right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir John Hobhouse) in moving the vole of thanks in that House, expressly excepted all consideration of the policy. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he said no director approved of the policy of the Affghan war. He bad said no such thing; he had told the right hon. Gentleman that if he were to appeal to the Court of Directors, he would find a tribunal personally favourable to himself, but a tribunal the majority of whom disapproved of the Affghan war. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the chairman and members of the secret committee were sworn to secrecy; in that respect the right hon. Gentleman had the advantage of him, for he could state to the House what had passed between them and the chair, while the lips of the chair were sealed without special permission. But he would repeat, that not only the great majority, but to the best of his belief nine out of ten of the directors, disapproved most distinctly of the policy of the war; and the chairman never ventured directly or indirectly to bring the question before the court, but constantly said, when the subject was glanced at, that he did not ask for any opinion as to its policy.

Mr. Hume

thought, that to refer to so many private documents as the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had done was a most unusual course, and one of which he much disapproved, unless the right hon. Baronet was prepared to lay them on the Table. He remembered when a Member would have been stopped when he began to use private documents. He was sure it would take up a great deal of time. With respect to the subject of the supplies, he was perfectly aware of the situation in which the East India Company stood with respect to the Government, they having concluded arrangements with their agents abroad in the confidence that Government would be enabled to pay their debt. As far as be was concerned, he would make no objection to the vote on account of India being taken without any particular discussion; but he must tell the right hon. Baronet that there was a strong opinion abroad in the country that the moment he got the supplies he meant to close the doors of the House and not to bring forward any other measures. A general feeling prevailed that something must be done to meet the distress; and he called on the right hon. Baronet to state to the House what remedies he thought should be applied. He understood that it had been reported ten days ago that Parliament would break up on the 25th of the present month. Therefore, if the right hon. Baronet came forward, and stated what he believed in his conviction would afford relief to the existing distress, he would find that he would not receive any opposition from him.

Sir R. Peel

could only say, in reply to the hon. Member, that the report he had heard of an intention on the part of the Government to prorogue the Parliament on a certain day was utterly without foundation. Supposing that the supplies were voted, there were other measures, some of them of importance, waiting for consideration, and continuing bills which must be brought in; and, if the hon. Member gave him the whole of the supplies that night, it was utterly impossible for Parliament to be prorogued.

Mr. D'Israeli

said, there was one fact connected with Lord Ellenborough's opinion of Lord Auckland's policy in the East which was entirely overlooked. When private letters of Lord Ellenborough were read, it seemed to be forgotten that Lord Ellenborough had left on record a public declaration made in the other House of Parliament with reference to the subject. Lord Ellenborough said, that as far as he could form an opinion of the policy of Lord Auckland, it amounted merely to an error; he gave him credit for the explanations which had been received, but had not the policy been so explained it would have amounted to a crime.

On the question that the Order of the Day for a committee of supply be read,