HC Deb 09 March 1843 vol 67 cc581-702
Mr. Vernon Smith

rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. He was perfectly aware of the difficulty that always existed in the way of attracting the attention of the House to any subject concerning our dominion in India. All that passed in that distant region seemed to be beyond the sphere of the House—seldom became the subject of its discussions, and hardly ever rivetted its attention. If upon a previous occasion he had trespassed upon the indulgence of the House, and had secured its kind attention when adverting to the subject which he was now about to bring more fully under its notice, he hoped he should not be deemed too great a trespasser, if he spoke again at some length on the present occasion, because the vote, which he should conclude by putting in the hands of the Speaker, was one which necessarily involved a preliminary discussion. He hoped that to whatever other imputations he might subject himself by bringing forward this motion, he should not be accused of pursuing any ungenerous course towards the noble Lord, the object of the present charge. Upon the previous occasion, when he asked the House to listen to the statement, into which he entered, when calling for the production of papers, he felt it only becoming in him to preface his motion with some observations. He felt this obligation infinitely more imperative upon him on the present occasion, because, upon his motion for the production of papers, he was met by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) with this remark: that it was not fair to consider an act like that to which he wished to invite the attention of the House, without considering the whole conduct of the Governor-general of India; and the right hon. Baronet at the same time told the House that he was about to produce such a mass of matter as would show how invidious it would be to separate any one act of Lord Ellenborough's conduct from the rest. The right hon. Baronet promised to produce such a mass of matter as should show the Governor-general in such colours as to make it impossible for any one to condemn him upon any one single subject, so great was his fame upon all others. The promised testimony to Lord Ellenborough's conduct was now upon the Table of the House. It was contained in a ponderous Blue Book; and he confessed that it appeared to him, that in that Blue Book there was nothing that could engage any body to vote against his present motion, who would have been in any way inclined to support the motion he made upon the previous occasion. Upon many points, indeed, the contents of it confirmed and strengthened his first opinion of the proclamation to which the present motion would refer. One novelty, indeed, for which he was thankful in a second speech, had been introduced, and placed in his hands. He should be extremely unwilling to use any such strong language as had been used by the hon. and learned Member for Bath upon a recent occasion, but he must say that the production of the Blue Book showed the proclama- tion in question in a new light in this respect, that it exhibited to India, to Europe, and to mankind in general, a complete misrepresentation, by the Governor-general of India, of the objects and intentions of the war; and not only so, but it showed a decided misrepresentation on the part of the Governor-general of his own objects in the war. He had marked a great number of passages, as many, he believed, as seventeen, in the Blue Book, which exhibited a decided intention, on the part of the Governor-general, to withdraw the troops from Affghanistan. He should be loath to trouble the House by reading these passages—they must have attracted the attention of every one who had read the volume in which they were contained: he would, therefore, abstain from quoting them, unless he were challenged to do so by a denial of the intention of the Governor-general to withdraw the troops. That such was the intention of the Governor-general was indicated upon many occasions, and in many instances. It was indicated in his very first despatch to the secret committee—in his letter to Sir Jasper Nichols, upon different occasions before and after General Pollock had passed the Khyber—before and after the raising of the siege of Jellalabad; in short, up to the end of June, 1842, every indication that was made of the Governor-general's intentions would lead to the conclusion that he designed to withdraw the troops from Affghanistan. As he heard no denial of this from the Ministerial Bench, he should take it for granted that such was the intention of the Governor-general, and, therefore, would spare the House the quotations which he should otherwise feel it necessary to make from the Blue Book, to show the accuracy and incontrovertibility of the conclusion to which he was led by the evidence contained in that volume. He was not going to enter into the question of whether the withdrawal of the troops was or was not the proper policy for the Governor-general to pursue. It would, perhaps, be better for his argument, to assume that the withdrawal of the troops would have been the right and proper course; but whether that were or were not the original intention of the Governor-general, it was utterly impossible for any one to read the letters and despatches, written by the Governor-general upon his first assuming the government, and to compare them with the proclamation afterwards made, without being deeply struck by their contradictory character. He said that up to the end of June, 1842, it was manifestly the intention of the Governor-general to withdraw the troops from Affghanistan. He would now call the attention of the House to a letter written by the Governor-general on the 4th of July, 1842. It was in that letter that the first mention was made of the subject of the subsequent proclamation. If the House would favour him with its attention, he would point out to it how this measure of the Governor-general's "policy," as it was called by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) the other evening, had first been introduced to the notice of India. In his letter to General Nott, of the 4th of July, 1842, the Governor-general pointed out two courses that might be pursued by General Nott in his retreat from Affghanistan, the one was, to take the course by Quetta and Sukkur, the other the course by Ghuznee, Cabul, and Jellalabad. He argued as to the consequence of taking either of those courses; and it appeared to him, that the Governor-general indicated his inclination to be in favour of Quetta and Sukkur; were that so or not, the object was to effect a retreat; and he said, that if he retreated by Ghuznee and Jellallabad, there would certainly be much risk incurred, but there would at the same time be some glory to be gained; and it was upon that occasion that the Governor-general, for the first time, mentioned the subject which in his proclamation, is the chief and only object of the expedition into Affghanistan. You will recollect (said the Governor-general), that what you have to make is a successful march; that that march must not be delayed by any hazardous operations against Ghuznee or Cabul. So there again he deprecated any hazardous operations against Ghuznee; and yet he would ask the House whether if these had never taken place, should they have ever heard of the subject which had since been declared to have been the whole object of the war, namely, the recovery of the gates of Somnauth? The Governor-general went on to say, If you should be enabled by a coup-de-main to get possession of Ghuznee and Cabul, you will act as you see fit, and leave decisive proofs of the power of the British army without impeaching its humanity. So far nothing could be better than such instructions; but it was here for the first time that he introduced the main object of the war; and it was introduced in a merely incidental manner, not as specific instructions, but as a sort of postcript from one who had just remembered, to one who might possibly have forgotten something. For Lord Ellenborough, just in half a sentence, told General Nott, You will bring away from the tomb of Mahmoud of Ghuznee, his club which hangs over it; and you will bring away the gates of his tomb, which are the gates of the Temple of Somnauth. These will be the just trophies of your successful march. The proclamation made no mention of the club; perhaps, the next mail would bring a proclamation upon that subject also. Nothing could be put in so strong a contrast as the casual and incidental manner in which General Nott was instructed to obtain the gates of Somnauth, which he might or might not have got possession of, according to the course of retreat he might have taken—with the language of the proclamation, in which the getting possession of those gates was put forth as the great object of the war, and now we had got them, that the tomb of Sultan Mahmoud now looked down upon the ruins of Ghuznee. The whole policy of the Governor-general, as exhibited by these papers, was such as to demonstrate that he had no right to attempt such a political fraud upon the people of India, as was contained in the terms of his proclamation. The production of these papers, therefore, by the right hon. Baronet, as a vindication, had added mockery to the insult that was conveyed by a document which had been treated throughout Europe with ridicule, and had excited feelings of anxiety and alarm throughout the whole of India. What, he would ask, could possibly have been the object of the Governor-general in issuing this proclamation? Had there existed any discontent among the Hindoo population? What feelings of irritation was it meant to allay? Could it be supposed, that any feeling connected with the gates of Somnauth could by possibility have extended beyond the limits of Guzerat itself? On a former occasion, he read to the House an extract from the historian Gibbon, showing that the invasion of Guzerat by Sultan Mahmoud, was the result of a religious war, undertaken to promote the Mahometan religion as against the religion of the Hindoos. That statement was at the time denied, but, in his opinion, upon no competent authority, He believed that the best living authority upon the subject was that of Mr. Mountsteuart Elphinstone; and how was it that he spoke of this invasion? He said that Sultan Mahmoud determined to make a final effort, to transmit his name to posterity as the greatest scourger of idolatry, and the greatest friend to the cause of the true Mahometan faith. This was his object; and he knew of no words in the English language that could show more strongly the feelings which actuated Sultan Mahmoud, than those used by Mr. Elphinstone, or that could more distinctly prove that the invasion of Guzerat was a religious invasion. To that argument the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) answered, that Sultan Mahmoud was not strictly a religious man. When the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) threw out some imputation upon the religious motives of Lord Ellenborough, the right hon. Baronet said— If Lord Ellenborough was not a religious man, so neither was Sultan Mahmoud. It was not a good answer; but looking at it in a religious point of view, he confessed it appeared to him to matter very little what the motives of the Governor-general were. God forbid he should say of any man unadvisedly that his motives were not religious. But whether the feelings of Lord Ellenborough were religious or not, it was quite clear, that the tendency of the proclamation was to act in favour of the progress of the Hindoo religion in the East, just as the tendency of the invasion of Sultan Mahmoud was to put an end to idolatry, and promote Mahometanism in Guzerat. If the intention of the right hon. Baronet, in producing this Blue Book, was to set up Lord Ellenborough in that high position, in which he spoke of that noble Lord on a former occasion when this question was under discussion, then the House ought not to have been contented with those meagre and scanty thanks which they had given to the Governor-general. Never was public gratitude so limited or expressed in words—so narrowly clipped down to the slightest meaning, as on the occasion of voting thanks to Lord Ellenborough. Look at the thanks that were voted to Lord Wellesley after the capture of Seringapatam, and compare them with the vote of thanks to Lord Ellenborough; and he then thought the House would at once assent to the justice of the observation made by the right hon. Baronet in 1840, that it was unadvisable to mix up a vote of thanks to a civil officer with thanks to general officers. Although from amidst the blaze of military glory which surrounded the heroic achievements of Nott and of Pollock, it might have been invidious to drag my Lord Ellenborough, yet he did not see why the House should allow the Governor-general to escape censure, under the bursts of laughter with which his proclamation had been received in every quarter. The object of Lord Ellenborough might have been to gratify the Hindoos; but there was another population in India, the good feelings of which it was, if not more important, at least as important, to cultivate as the Indian population itself—and that was the Mahometan population. According to the best statistical authority the proportion of Mahometans to Hindoos was as one to seven; but the Mahometans were a concentrated race, and were bound together by one common religion, whereas the Hindoos were not, for, various as were the people, so various also were their faiths and creeds. What had always been the notion of the best Governors-general of India, as regarded their treatment and feelings towards the Mahometan population? Referring to that rich source of wisdom which was always present to the mind of every one who was anxious to know how India should be governed—the despatches of the Marquess Wellesley—he found that in 1802 that eminent man, when speaking of his having accepted the Order of the Crescent from the Grand Sultan, said that his object in pursuing that course was to avail himself of the advantage to be derived from the circumstance of being considered by the Mahometans of India to be on friendly terms with the head of the Mussulman faith, and that the fact of the order being presented to him was calculated to show the estimation in which the British Government and army in India were held by the Ottoman Porte. Such was the opinion of the Marquess Wellesley regarding the proper attention to be shown by the British Government in India to the Mahometan population. But what was the course which the present Governor-general had pursued? Lord Ellenborough could not for a moment but suppose that his proclamation must be considered offensive to the Mahometan population of India; but, above all, there was a part of the population which it was his duty to attend to more than any other, and that was the population which composed out Sepoy regiments in India. It was. perhaps, one of the most curious and anomalous histories in the whole world. You possessed a whole army composed of men raised out of states you have conquered—not raised as the recruits of your own army are raised, but selected out of the higher and better castes of India—Mahometans and Hindoos. These were the Sepoys, on all occasions found faithful. From the battle of Plassey to the late destruction of Ghuznee they had fought side by side and given blow for blow with the British force. Whether led on by a Clive or a Wellesley they had always taken a prominent part in promoting the prosperity of our Indian empire. The defence of Arcot was the first occasion on which they much distinguished themselves; and he mentioned it to show how deeply interwoven with their military feelings were their religious prejudices. It was on that occasion said by one of themselves, that though the Sepoys were not so active, yet they could submit to greater privations than the British soldier, and that they had this advantage over the English, that while the Sepoys might minister food to the English, the English could not be allowed, by the religious customs of the Sepoys, to cook for them. The rice being deficient in quantity, it was proposed by the Sepoys that the British troops should live upon the grain itself, while they would live upon the water in which it was boiled. There was a mutiny at Vellore in 1806, which, according to Sir Thomas Monro, arose in consequence of an attempt to annihilate the distinctions of caste among the Hindoos. By whom was that insubordination put down and punished? Mainly by the Sepoys themselves. On subsequent occasions, mutiny and insubordination had occurred among the native troops, solely arising from their religious feelings being outraged. How greatly, then, did it behove those who had to govern such a people, to consult their religious feelings. This was no fancied dream of his. By papers which had been presented to the House of Lords it appeared that a court-martial was held upon a Mahometan soldier for refusing to accompany a Dushra procession. It appeared in evidence that so strong was the feeling on the part of the Mahometans against attending those Hindoo processions that a Mahometan holding a commission declared that if he were ordered to go and throw himself into the sea he would do so, but as for going to fire before an idol he would rather forfeit his commission. What was the result of that court-martial? Why, they were obliged to acquit the man, and issue an order preventing the attendance at such processions again. This was one of many instances which ought to have been consulted by every man who took upon himself the authority of directing military matters as Governor-general of India. If the issuing of the proclamation by Lord Ellenborough was not to gratify the Hindoos, or to satisfy the Mussulman population, it was difficult to say what could be the meaning of it. There was nothing very attractive in the object itself. He did not care whether the gates were actually the gates of the temple of Somnauth, or whether they belonged to any other temple. One of the most eminent authorities on the subject, Mr. Masson, who had travelled in Affghanistan, said that there were but the fragments left of any gates, but that in fact they were no such thing as the real gates of the temple. The tomb, also, of Sultan Mahmoud, which is "now looking," they were told, "down on the ruins of Ghuznee," was not the original tomb; it having been over and over again constructed and reconstructed. All these things added much to the ridicule of the transaction. It was not his object, however, to treat it with ridicule; but let him warn the House that ridicule itself was not to be overlooked by a Governor-general of India. It was not as in this country, where things of this sort passed over their heads like a summer's cloud, and nothing more was said about them. In India, the British dominion existed in the conviction which the natives entertained of our discretion, judgment, and prudence. It was that feeling which induced them to submit to our sway; and if therefore we sent out a man to govern India who made himself ridiculous to the native population, then were we predjudicing our possession, and our empire, in that vast portion of the globe. He would not enter into the subject as to the nature of the worship carried on in the temple of Somnauth. He could not suffer himself to advert to those foul and filthy details which history gave of that worship. He must say that anything more repulsive than the worship of the monster deified in that temple could not have been chosen as an object of protection by any Governor-general. The monster was represented as going about the World in the form of a ghost; as being inebriated, and disgusting in his form, and as doing the most revolting acts; that having cut off the head of a child, because he did not think him to be one of his sons, he substituted that of an elephant, and that monster was also said to have committed the most atrocious acts. There was nothing of an alluring nature to be found in the attributes of such an idol, which might sometimes be conceived to exist in the object of heathen worship. But, beyond all this, Siva, which was the idol's name, was not even a popular deity. He was supported exclusively by the Brahmins. He might quote Mr. Elphinstone to show that the idols Krishna and Vishnu were infinitely more popular. But it might be objected to his present motion, that it would be better not to agitate such matters as these. From such an opinion he decidedly dissented. It was very well for those who patronized an erring Governor-general to cry, "Hush the proclamation will do less harm by letting it alone." What he wanted was to rescue the British name from the reproach which ought to rest upon one individual. He had invited the attention of the House to this subject in order to show that the British Parliament and the British people would not sanction the conduct of the Governor-general. He did not know whether or not the House was aware of the proceedings of the Court of Directors of the East India Company with reference to this subject. He had on a former occasion quoted certain expressions from the famous despatch of Lord Glenelg with reference to the pilgrim-tax, which, though they might be new to hon. Members, could not fail, he conceived, of producing some effect upon their minds. He feared that many matters respecting India were new to the House, with which Members ought to be familiar. Since the promulgation of Lord Glenelg's despatch, another despatch had been issued by the Court of Directors, to which he entreated the attention of the House. The despatch relating to the pilgrim-tax was issued in 1833, and in August 1840, Lord Auckland, the then Governor-general of India, wrote to the government of Madras, expressing a hope that they would without delay carry into complete execution the measures which had been recommended by the honourable Court of Directors, in order that the important change, which had been commenced with such fair promise of success, might ere long be safely and completely introduced into every part of the British Indian dominions. This proceeding was approved of by the Court of Directors, and on the 3rd of March, 1841, a despatch was sent out by the honourable Court, in which they stated that the measures of the Governor-general, as far as they went, were satisfactory, and that they trusted that the suggestion which had been made for the final and complete separation of the Government from all affairs relating to the management of native temples would be carried out. But the Court was not satisfied with this. The pilgrim-tax in India had been abolished, and the subsequent instructions recommended the discontinuance of all interference on the part of the Government with matters relating to the temples. On the 18th of May, the directors, in a proclamation issued by them, adverting to the attendance of the troops and of military bands at native festivals or ceremonies, and to the firing of salutes by the soldiers on such occasions, recommended that these matters should be dealt with in such a way as to promote the object of seperating the Government and Government officers as far as possible, from all interference with ceremonies connected with the Hindoo and Mahometan religions; and the directors further required, that no troops should be called out to fire salutes, and that no military bands should be allowed to attend, at such festivals and ceremonies. In what light, he asked, could Lord Ellen-borough have viewed these despatches? How had he construed them? This dispatch was signed by the usual number (thirteen members) of the Court of Directors; but he would only trouble the House to notice three of those signatures. He would like to know what was the opinion now entertained by those hon. Gentlemen who had, in May, 1841, signed this dispatch of the Court of Directors, of the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough? The three names to which he would refer the House were those of George Lyall, the Member for the city of London; William Astell, the Member for Bedfordshire; and James Weir Hogg, the Member for Beverley. He should be guilty of impertinence if he even supposed that those hon. Gentlemen would not vote for the motion he had now brought before the House, for those hon. Gentlemen had attached their names to the orders to which he had just alluded, and which, in his opinion, the Governor-general had so completely evaded. He did not wish to detain the House by dwelling at any length upon the language of this proclamation of Lord Ellenborough, for he was anxious to avoid exciting any ridicule on a subject of this nature. He was perfectly well aware that this proclamation could not fail to excite ridicule, and he did not believe that any hon. Gentleman in the House entertained a contrary opinion. The right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government ▀×▀×laughs too, no doubt; The only difference is, I dare laugh out. Hon. Members who were disposed to defend this proclamation might say that in the clubs, and in the circles of society in which they moved, it had produced no effect, and that its consequences in the distant country of India ought not to be regarded. He was willing to appeal to any one who had quitted India since the issuing of this proclamation, as to the opinion which was entertained of it in that country. He considered the close of the proclamation to be remarkably curious. He alluded to that paragraph which the Governor-general invoked "that good Providence which had hitherto so manifestly protected him." He must be allowed to say, that he thought the debt the Governor-general owed to Providence was not for having protected him alone, but for having raised up for him, and for this country, in the hour of need, men like the gallant Nott and the resolute Pollock, who refused to obey the Governor-general's orders, or to follow implicitly his directions, but who, following the dictates of their own discretion, chose rather to conquer than to obey his instructions. The country was, indeed, deeply indebted to those gallant officers, and to the troops who had acted under their command. And by whose means, again he said, were these victories won? Look at the spirited boast of General Nott, contained in that celebrated letter of his, which ought to be read and learned by heart by every soldier in this country—"will go out to face 5,000 Affghans with 1,000 Sepoys at any time." What enabled that gallant Officer to make this boast, and to place, as Lord Ellenborough said, "our triumphant standard upon the fortress of Ghuznee?" It was the conviction entertained by the Sepoys, that under our rule they would enjoy superior comforts, and happiness, and safety, to that which they could possess under any other sovereignty, under the bigotry of Aurungzebe, or the difference of the Emperor Akhbar—it was the conviction, that after that standard had waved in triumph over their enemies abroad, it would float over the security of their religious liberties at home. It was this conviction which enabled the troops of the gallant Nott to achieve those victories of which this country was so justly proud, and of which the Governor-general had been so unjustly boastful. The right hon. Baronet opposite had stated the other night, when speaking upon the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Bath, that if he wished to retaliate, he would have voted with the hon. Member for Bath, because a proposition was subsequently to be made for censuring the conduct of Lord Ellen-borough. He was surprised to hear from the right hon. Baronet an acknowledgement of the principle of retaliation in political matters; but it appeared to him that the two cases were so entirely separate and distinct, that even if the right hon. Baronet had been disposed to retaliate, he could not have justly taken that course. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious to put an end to the system which had been pursued by the Governor-general of India. But how was this to be done? He might be asked what was the object of his motion; he might be told that he ought to move directly for the recall of Lord Ellenborough. He believed that even if he were disposed to pursue such a course, it would be informal and open to objection. He understood that some doubt existed as to the power of the Government to recall the Governor-general. [An hon. Member expressed his dissent.] Doubts had certainly been expressed in the Court of Directors as to the power of the Crown to recall a Governor-general who was appointed by the Board of Directors. But a stronger reason induced him not to propose the recall of the Governor-general, and he thought it was one in which the right hon. Baronet would coincide—it was a conviction that the executive branch of the Government were the proper parties to make representations to the Sovereign on such a subject. He had not on a former occasion shrunk from stating what course he thought the Government ought to pursue, and he was prepared to do so again. He had not, therefore, the slightest hesitation in saying, that he considered that the Governor-general ought to be recalled; and this, he believed, was not only his own individual opinion, but the opinion of most men who were acquainted with Indian affairs. He had not dwelt upon any vague reports; but reports were rife in particular circles in London, reports proceeding from authoritative and well-informed quarters, that the Governor- general had interfered, throughout India, and in every possible way, with all branches of the services, civil and military. He would put it to the House whether the proceedings of the Governor-general in India had been such as to render it a matter of importance to retain him there? If the Government thought Lord Ellenborough a valuable acquisition, let them place him in their councils at home. Let them place him in the House of Lords, where he had distinguished himself by his eloquence, and where—under their moderation—he would doubtless prove a useful auxiliary; for to the great talents and eloquence of the noble Governor-general, no one would pay a more willing and sincere tribute than he would do. But why, because a man possessed ready and powerful eloquence, send him to a country where the great qualification required was discretion? If they wanted a substitute for the noble Lord, they might take the dullest dog now prosing in the Conservative circles. Any such individual might possess a much larger share of discretion than was enjoyed by the present Governor-general. The right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had, the other evening, told him (Mr. V. Smith) that he was a warm political opponent of the Government. A political opponent of the Government he certainly was, and as a man was not the best judge of his own calmness, he might possibly be a warm opponent; but he could not think that his judgment was completely warped as to the conduct and intentions of the right hon. Baronet; and he was as well convinced as any of the supporters of that right hon. Baronet could be, that he had mainly at heart the maintenance of the credit of the British name throughout the world. He would, then, ask the right hon. Baronet, in the words of the resolution he was now proposing to the House, whether he thought this a decorous proclamation as emanating from the Governor-general—whether he considered it a document fairly and properly representing the feelings of the British people in India or in England? He could not for a moment suppose that the right hon. Baronet entertained such an opinion; for the supposition would imply an impression that the right hon. Baronet was as ignorant of the feelings and sentiments of the British public as the Governor-general appeared to have been. But it was said, "Don't take a single isolated act of this great man; there is a halo of splendour about his actions which ought to obscure your vision in looking at so trifling a subject as this proclamation." That was a single act of indiscretion. He contended, however, that this was not a single or isolated act; for, as he had informed the House, rumours were abroad with respect to other acts of the noble Governor-general. It was possible for the most rising man of the day, one of the Future tenants of power and future leaders of the Conservative party, to write an article in a magazine, betraying principles entertained by his party which they wished to keep secret, that might be called a simple act of indiscretion. Upon such a subject no man would bring forward a motion in that House. But these proclamations of Lord Ellenborough were deliberately penned and issued to show to the people of Hindostan the course he proposed to pursue, and the manner in which he intended to act towards them. The particular proclamation to which he had directed the attention of the House was certainly not the only one from which they might form an opinion of the Governor-general's conduct; but he had confined his resolution to this one proclamation, because he thought it that which might most properly be brought under the consideration of Parliament. It was a document which, although its consideration might be proposed by a warm political opponent of the Government, had been regarded with dissatisfaction, not only by their political opponents, but by their political supporters, as might have been seen by any hon. Member who was present in the earlier part of the evening, during the presentation of petitions. The representative of one of the most populous counties in England—a Gentleman who sat on the opposite side—had presented a petition condemning this proclamation; and that hon. Member would be able to inform the House of the feeling which prevailed among the petitioners as to this Subject. He (Mr. V. Smith) might have dwelt upon the proclamation of the Governor-general dated from Simla, on the 1st of October; for he believed any individual acquainted with Indian affairs would concur with him in the opinion that that document was strongly objectionable. He considered it most improper and objectionable for one Governor-general to comment publicly upon the acts and proceedings of his predecessor. He considered it most absurd for any Governor-general to declare publicly that our Indian empire had reached the limits which nature had assigned to it. Why, what were the limits which nature had assigned to our Indian empire? In early days the Mahratta ditch was said to be its natural limit; and why was the Sutlej or the Indus to be more the boundary of our empire than the Himalayas! He would, however, take this particular proclamation, to which he had in the first instance called their attention—a proclamation which had excited such a condemnation in England, such agitation in India, such mockery in Europe; and he did contend that it was the duty of the House to mark its disapprobation of the document. It was the more incumbent on this House to take notice of the matter, because the East India Company had manifested tardiness in expressing an opinion on the subject; they had exhibited a shyness as to the conduct of the Governor-general which seemed to him to indicate great dissatisfaction with his proceedings. He believed the course had uniformly been, that when thanks were voted to a Governor-general by the Board of Directors, they were always voted by that body before a similar vote was adopted by the representatives of the British people. [An hon. Member: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.] He had been informed that this course had always been pursued; and the books to which he had referred on the subject confirmed the statement. This course was adopted in the cases of Lord Wellesley and Lord Auckland; in both those instances the thanks of the Court of Directors preceded those of the Parliament. But in the present case the thanks of the Court of Directors were not voted to the Governor-general until after the vote of thanks had been proposed and passed in this House. He wished to speak with all possible respect of the Court of Directors, but he must say, that if on this occasion they lent themselves to a party defenses of the Governor-general of India—if they flinched from their position before the power of the Prime Minister of this country, he saw no reason for the continuance of that divided system of government which, instead of producing good effects, seemed only to render the Court of Directors subservient to the Ministry of this country. He had now to thank the House for the kindness with which they had listened to his observations, for he was well aware of the difficulty of arresting or engaging attention upon Indian affairs. If he had possessed the powers of ridicule with which the right hon. Baronet opposite was gifted, he might have been inclined to treat this subject with ridicule, and he wished he could have heard the right hon. Baronet speak from his side of the House on this question. He had, on a former occasion, stated his intention of bringing this subject before the House, and he had availed himself of the earliest opportunity of doing so. He might have waited for, perhaps, more fresh and exciting topics. He might have waited for the arrival of that mail which was now, in all probability, nearing our shores, and which might bring some other proclamation which would supplant that to which he had alluded in public attention and interest. He would like to know from the right hon. Baronet opposite—as a test of his opinion of the capabilities of Lord Ellenborough for his present position in India, whether he did not wait the arrival of the next mail with the utmost anxiety? And he would ask the Court of Directors if they did not await the same event in a state of nervous suspense? They were, perhaps, not so horrified at what had been done, as by what might be expected. "What next?" was the universal inquiry; "what next?" was the exclamation, not only at home, but in India; and he would much like to hear from the right hon. Baronet "what next" he expected. He hoped that no hon. Member would be led away by the eloquence of the right hon. Baronet, who might talk of the unfairness of this attack, and having exalted Lord Ellen-borough to the rank of some great military hero, another Charles the Twelfth of Sweden, or Alexander the Great, might contend that their mighty minds were not to be measured by the paltry details from which lesser souls gained reputation, or sustained defeat. He presumed that hon. Members would not imagine it might be said of Lord Ellenborough, as it was on the medals of Alexander—"Cum nullo hoste congressus est quem non vicerat, nullam gentem adiit quam non calcaverat," If any hon. Gentleman thus regarded the Governor-general, such an one he would not ask to vote in favour of his motion. If he could be satisfied that every hon. Member present had come down to the House determined to consider carefully and maturely this vital subject as affecting the empire of India—if he could think that hon. Members would bring their attention to bear as closely upon this question, as they would upon any matter affecting the adjoining country of Scotland, or the neighbouring one of Ireland, or the interests of any city, town, or borough they might represent—then he should entertain no doubt of the success of his motion. But, whatever might be the issue, he could not for a moment regret having brought the question under the consideration of the House; for he solemnly and firmly believed, that this motion was calculated to benefit the people of India, and, in so doing, to promote the permanent advantage of above 100,000,000 of our fellow-subjects. In that confidence he placed the question in the hands of the Speaker. It was— That this House, having regard to the high and important functions 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 to idolatry in India, is of opinion, that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, in issuing the general orders of the 16th November, 1842, and in addressing the letter of the same date to all the chiefs, princes, and people of India, respecting the restoration of the gates of a temple to Somnauth, is unwise, indecorous, and reprehensible.

Mr. E. Tennent

said, that without venturing to address himself to the calumnies which had been brought to bear upon the character of the Governor-general of India, and without attempting to avert the threatened displeasure of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he would endeavour to address the few observations he felt it his duty to make on this occasion to the specific points presented by the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman. So far as he could collect from the Speech and the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith), the charges which had been brought against the Governor-general of India, in reference to this proclamation, and the restoration of these trophies to India, were these. It has been imputed to him that he had invested with undue importance the restoration to India of the gates of Somnauth, the very existence of which was unknown to the great mass of the population; that he had, in bringing them back within the Indus, ministered rather to the religious prejudices than to the national sympathies of the people; that he had announced his intentions and objects in a proclamation, the style and diction of which were inconsistent with the sobriety of the English character, and unbecoming the dignity of his own exalted position; and the allusions in which were calculated to wound the feelings of the Mussulman population of India, and provoke rivalries and jealousy between them and the other inhabitants of Hindostan. As to the first of these assertions, that the very existence of these gates, and their removal to Ghuznee, 800 years ago, was utterly unknown to the people of India; he (Mr. Emerson Tennent) took leave to question its accuracy. It is true that other spoils of Somnauth have been authenticated and identified; and it is also true that no specific mention has been made of those gates by any native historian; nor is their deportation recorded by the poets or annalists of the Mahometan conqueror of India; but it is likewise true that, notwithstanding this, their recollection has been preserved in a record much more widely diffused than a page in an historian or a couplet in a poet, namely, in the oral traditions and popular legends of the country; and the importance which attached to them in the sympathies of the nation is abundantly attested by their having been made a subject of grave negotiation between Runjeet Singh and Shah Soojah, and their restoration importuned in the same document in which the ambitious chief of the Sikhs treats for the exchange of provinces, the surrender of cities, and the maintenance of armies. The bare mention of these gates in a state Paper of so much importance, at once bespeaks them to have been an object of high interest to the people of India. And a still more striking proof of their importance in popular estimation is the fact, that of all the important demands made by Runjeet Singh the only one which was resisted and refused by Shah Soojah, was his request for the restoration of these very gates. These two incidents, taken in conjunction, the demand and the refusal, at once dispose of the gratuitous assertion that the very existence of these gates was unknown or indifferent to the people of India; and if any doubt remained upon that point, Sir Alexander Burnes had effectually removed it by the weight of his authority. In his first work upon Affghanistan, in speaking of Ghuznee, he says It is worthy of remark, that the ruler of the Punjaub, in a negotiation which he lately carried on with the ex-King of Cabul, Soojah-ool-Moolk stipulated, as one of the conditions of his restoration to the throne of his ancestors, that he should deliver up the sandal-wood gates at the shrine of the Emperor Mahmood, being the same which were brought from Somnauth, in India, when that destroyer smote the Idol, and the precious stones fell from his body. Upwards of eight hundred years have elapsed since the spoliation, but the Hindoo still remembers it, though these doors have so long dorned the tomb of the Sultan Mahmoud. He (Mr. Emerson Tennent) might here mention that in the letter of Runjeet Singh, to which he had before alluded, as printed by the House of Commons, there occurs an obvious mistake, whether of the transcriber or translator, to which may be traced much of the excited feeling and misrepresentation which prevails out of doors upon this subject. Runjeet Singh is there made to require of Shah Soojah that— The portals of Sandal, which have been carried away to Ghuznee from Juggernaut, should be delivered up to the Moharajah. The very name of Juggernaut is associated in this country with something odious and repulsive; but its insertion here is a manifest error. The temple of Somnauth had no connection whatsoever with the worship of Juggernaut. Juggernaut is another name for Krishna, to whom the celebrated temple is dedicated in Cattack, whilst that of Somnauth was sacred to Siva. The error had obviously arisen from substituting, in the transcription, the name of Juggernaut for Juggernaut, which is the district in which Somnauth is situated, and has occasionally given its name to the temple. This error is in itself immaterial, and trivial as affects the question at issue; but its correction disposes of one popular means of attacking the Governor-general by saying that he had stepped out of his way to pay a gratuitous compliment to the shrine of Juggernaut. It does more. It shows that Runjeet Singh, in designating these gates, not by the name of an idol or a temple, but by that of a province of Hindostan, was eager to procure their restoration, not as a religious, but as a purely national trophy. In fact, if one argument more convincing than another could be adduced to divest the restoration of these gates of the remotest relation to a superstitious or devotional object, it would be the simple fact of their being demanded so earnestly by Runjeet Singh, by the chief of the Sikhs, a people who, though Hindoos by descent, profess a national religion much more closely allied to Mahometanism than to Hindooism, and equally detested by both—a people who, within the last three centuries, have invented a religion for themselves, not merely ridiculing and rejecting the polytheism and idolatry of the Hindoos, but abolishing that which is the stay and the perpetuation of Brahminism, the distinctions of castes. Sir John Malcolm, in his able narrative of this remarkable race, who, from an unimportant sect of Dissenters, have gradually grown into a powerful nation, thus forcibly pronounces their entire want of sympathy and absence of all identity with the superstitions of the Hindoos:— It is impossible," he says, "to reconcile the religion and usages of the Sikhs with the belief of the Hindoos; it proceeds at once to subvert the foundation of the whole system; wherever it prevails the institutions of Bramah must fall. The admission of proselytes—the abolitions of the distinctions of caste—the eating of all kinds of flesh, except cows—the forms of religious worship—and the indiscriminate devotion of Sikhs to arms—are ordinances altogether irreconcileable with the Hindoo mythology, and have rendered the religion of the Sikhs as obnoxious to the Brahmins and higher tribes of the Hindoos as it is popular with the lower orders of that numerous class of mankind."—Sir J. Malcolm's Sikhs. p. 151. Now could anything be more obvious than the fact, that the head of a religion such as this must have sought for the restoration of the gates of Somnauth, exclusively as a national trophy, and entirely irrespective of that superstitious feeling with which it is now sought to connect them, and of which his own nation were the most prominent and remarkable opponents—a nation which had waged successful war against the very worship of Siva and Somnauth itself? In fact, as a religious relic, the gates of Somnauth are utterly valueless and insignificant; but their memory is still preserved by the Hindoos as a painful memorial of the most devastating invasion that ever desolated Hindostan. The twelfth expedition of Mahmoud, the Ghuznevide, into India, which occupied from two to three years of incessant plunder and warfare, has for eight centuries been referred to as the most fearful event in her annals. It was celebrated in the poem of Ferdousi, the Homer of the East, who himself lived at the court of the conqueror; it was sung in the verses of Sadi, the most popular poet of Persia; it was narrated, in all its details, by Ferishta, the historian of the Mussulman princes of India. It was absurd, therefore, to talk of these trophies being unknown and uninteresting to the people of India; and it was the knowledge of the contrary, confirmed by the recent application of Runjeet Singh, that suggested to Lord Ellen-borough to avail himself of the opportunity presented to him of performing an act which would be at once soothing to the national vanity, and grateful to the national sympathies of the Hindoo population, by returning to them this memorial of an ancient, and now, for the first time, avenged aggression on their country. But Lord Ellenborough did more—he made their removal subservient to another and an equally important purpose—it enabled him to leave behind, in Affghanistan, a record of the victorious presence of an English army, without, at the same time, leaving a stain on the reputation of British humanity—by depriving the Affghans of that which for eight centuries had been their proudest trophy of their national ascendency; and nothing can be more explicit, both as to this specific intention, and likewise as to the absence of the remotest religious allusion, than the terms in which Lord Ellenborough directed the restoration of these gates to India in the orders to General Nott, of July 4, in which he directs his advance from Candahar to Ghuznee. If," he says, "you should be enabled by a coup-de-main to get possession of Ghuznee and Cabul, you will act as you see fit, and leave behind decisive proofs of the power of the British arms without impeaching its humanity. You will bring away from the tomb of Mahmoud of Ghuznee his club which hangs over it. Surely the club of Mahmoud, the Ghuznevide, was not possibly selected as any object of religious veneration by the Hindoos; but Lord Ellenborough continues,— And you will bring away the gates of his tomb, which were the gates of the temple of Somnauth. But were even these to be taken as religious trophies? Far from it. These," said Lord Ellenborough, "these will be the just trophies of your successful marches. And the certainty that it was as trophies of war, and of war alone, that Lord Ellen- borough regarded them, is confirmed not by this despatch alone, but by the terms of the order to the army of the 16th November, which the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to censure, directing their transmission to Guzerat by military escort, composed of Sepoys with their native Subadars and Jemadars, commanded by an European officer, who was to be selected from his having been actually present at the assault on Ghuznee, a military parade which would have been actually illegal under the existing regulations in India, had the occasion of its exhibition been one in any degree connected with the religious observances of the people. But a very brief time has elapsed since the issuing of these orders, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, for discontinuing in every instance the attendance of the military in India at the religious ceremonies of the natives. These orders were rederated and confirmed by Lord Ellenborough himself, whilst lately at the head of the Board of Control, and had the march, therefore, directed by Lord Ellenborough, been in the remotest degree to be regarded as a religious procession—had it not been in the strictest sense a military movement, the regulations of the Indian army would have precluded the possibility of its being attended by the military demonstrations directed by him in his order of the 16th November. The right hon. Gentleman has, upon conjectural premises, arrived at a definite conclusion in its own mind; but the converse of his own proposition would lead legitimately to a totally different result. On the assumption that it was a matter connected with the religious superstitions of the people of India, he concludes that the order directing the attendance of the military was an infringement of the regulations of the Government of India, with reference to the Indian army. But it was equally open to him to infer from the ascertained presence of the sepoys and their officers, an attendance which would have been irregular had any religious ceremony been in contemplation, that none such was intended, and that none such actually took place. And the very wording of the proclamation itself, which had called forth such storms of declamation, attested the anxiety with which Lord Ellenborough had studied to make it clear and intelligible that the whole pageant was not an offering to an idolatrous temple, but a triumph over a vanquished enemy. If we were to believe those who impugned the motives of that proclamation they would persuade the House that the restoration of these gates was a tribute to the national religion of the Hindoos, but the proclamation itself expressly declared that they were restored as "the proudest record of their national glory and a proof of their superiority in arms over the nations of the Indus;" it announces their approach as a "glorious trophy" of a religious struggle? No, but "of successful war," and Lord Ellenborough claimed the confidence of the Princes of India towards the British Government for having exerted the power of its arms "to restore to India the gates of the Temple of Somnauth, so long the memorial of their subjection to the Affghans." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had contended that, as these gates were unvalued and unimportant to the people of India, their restoration was "unwise," and on the presumption that their restoration was a religious proceeding, and consequently the order for the attendance of the soldiers a breach of the regulations of the Indian army, he had called upon the House to pronounce it "reprehensible." But as he had shown that it was a matter of high national interest to the people of India, the first accusation at once fell to the ground, and as every allusion to religious considerations was studiously avoided by Lord Ellenborough, and disproved by the very words of his orders and proclamations, the second charge of course became equally untenable. But the gravamen of the charge against Lord Ellenborough seemed to attach less to the matter than to the style of the proclamation, in which it was contended he had compromised the decorum and purity of the English character, and the dignity of a Governor-general of India. Without criticising particular phrases, or defending particular passages, he did not hesitate to declare that the entire style and phraseology of that proclamation was not conformable to his ideas of taste and propriety in such documents. But when he made that avowal, and when hon. Members on the other side made similar declarations, the justification of Lord Ellenborough might be made in the simple reply, that it was not to please their preferences, or his (Mr. E. Tennent's tastes, nor in conformity to any European standard, that that procla- mation had been issued. That proclamation was not issued in English, nor addressed to the British population of India, but was promulgated in Hindoo, and couched in such terms and phraseology as was conformable to the Oriental tastes and the usage of the native population of India, on whose minds alone it was designed to make a favourable impression. In judging, therefore, of that proclamation it was absurd to think of testing it by the standard of English taste or of European composition; it should be compared solely with those similar documents in use among those to whom it was addressed, documents which were conformable to Oriental manners; and which accurately follow Oriental models, and, compared with the extravagance of these, the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough will be found to present scarcely a passage to censure. The House would perhaps permit him (Mr. E. Tennent) to quote one or two illustrations of this prevailing Oriental style of state documents, and he would select them from no distant period or antiquated dates. In 1836 Dost Mahomed, in writing from Cabul to congratulate Lord Auckland on his arrival in India, thus speaks, in a letter on ordinary public business, in apostrophising his Lordship's advent:— AMEER DOST MAHOMED KHAN TO LORD AUCKLAND. Cabul, May 31,1836. (After compliments)—"As I have been long attached to the British Government by the ties of friendship and affection, the late intelligence of your Lordship's arrival, enlightening with your presence the seat of government, and diffusing over Hindostan the brightness of your countenance, has afforded me extreme gratification. And the field of my hopes (which had before been chilled by the cold blast of the times) has by the happy tidings of your Lordship's arrival become the envy of the garden of Paradise. I hope your Lordship will regard me and my country as your own. Whatever directions your Lordship may be pleased to issue for the government of this country, I will act accordingly. He would offer them but one other specimen, written by one of these very princes of India to whom Lord Ellenborough's proclamation was addressed, and of course in the very style and diction in which such a potentate would expect to be addressed in return. Runjeet Singh, in 1831, in returning thanks to the British Minister for the present of horses forwarded to him, under the charge of Sir Alexander Burnes, expresses his gratitude in the following style—a style very dissonant to our ideas of beauty and taste, but, no doubt, perfectly familiar and conformable to his own:— At a happy moment, when the balmy zephyrs of spring were blowing from the garden of friendship, and wafting to my senses the grateful perfume of its flowers, your Excellency's epistle, every letter of which is a new blown rose on the branch of regard, and every word a blooming fruit on the tree of esteem, was delivered to me by Mr. Burnes and Mr. John Leckie, who were appointed to convey to me some horses of superior quality, of singular beauty, of Alpine form, and elephantine stature, admirable even in their own country, which has been sent as a present to me by his Majesty the King of Great Britain, together with a large and elegant carriage. These presents, owing to the care of the above gentlemen, have arrived by way of the river Scinde, in perfect safety, and have been delivered to me, together with your Excellency's letter, which breathes the spirit of friendship, by that nightingale of the garden of eloquence, that bird of the winged words of sweet discourse, Mr. Burnes, and the receipt of them has caused a thousand emotions of pleasure and delight to arise in my breast. By the favour of Sri Akal Poorukh Jeeg, there are in my stables valuable and high-bred horses from the different districts of Hindoostan from Turkistan, and Persia; but none of them will bear comparison with those presented to me by the king through your excellency: for these animals, in beauty, stature, and disposition, surpass the horses of every city and every country in the world. On beholding their shoes, the new moon turned pale with envy, and nearly disappeared from the sky. Such horses the eye of the sun has never before beheld in his course through the universe. Unable to bestow upon them in writing the praises that they merit, I am compelled to throw the reins on the neck of the steed of description and relinquish the pursuit. Now he would put it to the sense of Gentlemen of the House and the country whether it be fair to Lord Ellenborough, when discussing his papers in communication with a people accustomed to such a style as this, to judge of them by the cold rules of English propriety, and to contrast them with the rigid models of English style. But although he (Mr. E. Tennent) could not, as he had stated, profess to admire the style and composition of Lord Ellenborough's proclamation, still, he was equally far from concurring in the censure cast upon it. He could not but think that it was one of those events in which Lord Ellenborough was called upon to express himself in terms somewhat more elevated than would be called for on ordinary occasions. He could not imagine even a Governor-general dilating on a subject which has been for 800 years the theme of the poets of Persia, and the historians of Delhi, and delivering himself in the same cold and cautious phraseology in which he would make an indent for stationery, or announce an official appointment in the Gazette. It would scarcely be contended that it would have been befitting such an occasion to send the ancient gates of Somnauth to the Guicowar of Guzerat "with the compliments of the Governor-general;" nor would even the proverbial sobriety and gravity of the English deportment have constrained him to forward them down the Indus with a bill of lading, "shipped in good condition, and to be delivered to the custom-house officers of Pattaw Somnauth." A proclamation was to be issued, not in English, or for the European population of India, but in Persian and Hindostanee, and although he (Mr. E. Tennent) did not pretend to such a critical knowledge of Oriental literature, as to pronounce upon the suitability and propriety of every letter and line of its composition, he had seen enough of Oriental manners and habits, to be well aware that they managed these matters differently from the people of England, and that the success of every demonstration, such as that contemplated by the Governor-general, was entirely dependent on its conformity to, or departure from, the established usages and modes of expresssion of those whom it was designed to gratify or compliment. As to the act itself of bringing back these ancient trophies from Ghuznee to Guzerat, he (Mr. E. Tennent) had heard no other condemnation of it than that which sprung out of the apprehensions of those who looked on them as the gates of a temple, but who would have found no fault had they belonged to a secular building. But he had never heard Lord Liverpool condemned as an abettor of Catholicism because, on the dispersion of the Louvre, he had sanctioned the restoration of the Madonnas and Virgins to the cathedrals and churches of Italy—and he firmly believed that the act of Lord Ellenborough was equally unconnected with a single feeling of partiality or of difference for the superstitions of the Hindoos. And in restoring those gates, after a captivity of eight centuries, not to the devotees of a temple, but to the universal people of India, he considered that he would have neutralised the impression likely to be created by so extraordinary an event had he notified its occurrence to an Oriental people in terms less impressive than were called for by so remarkable an occasion. But then, the last and most important of all the objections adduced against Lord Ellenborough's restoration of these trophies to the Hindoos is that which springs from an apprehension that this act may be regarded as an insult or a slight to the Mussulman inhabitants of India, who will resent it as an indignity thus offered to the memory of Mahmoud, the Guznevite, and a triumph over their co-religionists, the Affghans. Was there any validity in this objection? Was there anything in Lord Ellenborough's act, or in his proclamation, calculated to excite religious jealousy, or disturb the religious repose of India, he (Mr. E. Tennent) would be the first to claim for it the gravest consideration of the Government and the House. But he thought those who urged this objection, and who argued upon the grounds of an assumed veneration for Mahmoud, of Ghuznee, or any supposed sympathy with the Affghans, on the part of the Mussulmans of India, spoke with a very imperfect recollection of the events of Affghan history—and from a fanciful rather than an experimental apprehension of excitement on the part of the Mahometans. Not only was Mahmood himself, in his Indian expeditions perfectly impartial in his attacks upon Hindoos and Mahometans—having laid waste, amongst others, the territories of the Mussulman ruler of Moultan, but his suceessors in the dynasty of Affghanistan have been, for a succession of ages, the scourge and the terror of the Mussulman sovereigns and Mussulman people of India. Every invasion that ever swept over Hindostan has been poured forth from the mountains and gorges of the Affghans—between the eleventh and the seventeenth centuries not fewer than thirty desolating wars which have burst upon India, destroying indifferently Hindoo and Mussulman, have all issued from the passes of the Khyber, the Bolan; and even so late as the middle of the last century, the grandfather of Shah Soojah himself, emulous of the fame of his predecessors, planned and executed a descent upon Delhi, directed against the Mussulman Emperor, whose capital he sacked, and whose subjects he carried off in captivity to Candahar. If, after eight centuries of ravages and wrongs, the Mussulmans of India evince such a sympathy for the punishment inflicted on the Affghans, as to create an alarm lest they should exhibit some dissatisfaction at the spoliation of Ghuznee, or that their revolt might be anticipated in revenge for the restoration of the gates of Somnauth, surely it must have occurred to those who now feel those lively anxieties and apprehensions to inquire what must have been the indignant feelings of these same Mussulmans of India, when during the course of 1839 and 1840 they saw the British army carrying fire and devastation into Affghanistan, and bearing back, not the gates of a Hindoo temple from Ghuznee, but a despoiled and deposed Mussulman sovereign from Cabul. The Mussulmans of India during all these events, so much more calculated than any act of Lord Ellenborough, to arouse their dormant sympathies for the Affghans, if any such existed, had exhibited, at the utmost, an indifference to their progress, and from all that he could learn, if their feelings were roused, on the present occasion at all, it would be in a manifestation of their sympathy with their Hindoo fellow-countrymen over the humiliation of their common oppressors. But the object and the animus of this motion cannot be mistaken by the House, and would not be misunderstood by the country. The disastrous policy of the late Governor-general of India required some palliation, and it had been sought for in vain attempts to impugn the policy of his successor. Before the close of the last Session of Parliament, and for months before the present Session had commenced, the country rang with denunciations of the disgraceful and dishonouring proceeding of Lord Ellen-borough. Even the noble Lord opposite, the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmers-ton) protested in his place, whilst speaking under the delusion that those were the acts of Lord Ellenborough which now turn out to have been the acts of Lord Auckland, that— He could not conceive a fouler dishonour, an act that would dye the cheek of every Englishman with a deeper blush, or strike a more fatal blow at our empire in India, than the acts which he groundlessly as- cribed to the present Governor-general of India. Echoing his denunciations, the whole Liberal press of England strove to cover the retreat of Lord Auckland by reiterating the most violent and foundationless accusations against Lord Ellen-borough. It was imputed to him that, in issuing the order of the 19th of April for the evacuation of Affghanistan, he exhibited inhuman neglect as to the fate of the prisoners at Cabul, a wanton abandonment of the troops in garrison in Affghanistan, and a culpable indifference to British honour, and the maintenance of the renown and reputation of the British army. And in support of these baseless assumptions, it has been insidiously asserted that the resolution to withdraw within the Indus was taken upon his individual responsibility, without the concert of those military chiefs, on whose counsel he was bound to rely, and that he has been constrained by their indignant remonstrances to revoke his rash determination, and direct an onward movement to Cabul. One by one these gratuitous and false accusations found ample refutation, and the final publication of the despatches abundantly attested that, so far from exhibiting indifference to the fate of the prisoners, the order for retiring was accompanied by the most effectual instructions for their enlargement. So far from an abandonment of the garrisons in Affghanistan, that order was not issued till Ghuznee had fallen, and was not to be executed until Jellalabad should have been relieved—and so far from exhibiting an indifference to the jeopardised honour of the British army, Lord Ellenborough expressly states, in his instructions to the Commander-in-chief, his anxious hopes that the withdrawal of the troops from Jellalabad will be effected "only after the infliction of a severe blow on the army of Affghanistan." And so far from his resolution having been taken without the cooperation of his military advisers, it is not only conclusive as to his prudence and discretion, to find abundant proofs that his order was founded on their information and advices, but it is infinitely honourable to his sagacity and foresight that it was likewise issued in anticipation of their wishes and conclusions. Thus foiled (said the hon. Member in conclusion, addressing the Opposition) in every attempt to assail the material policy of the Governor-general, but not to be baffled in the search for some one point of detail, however unimportant—some trivial oversight to which censure might be attempted with success, you now fasten (pursued the hon. Gentleman) upon the somewhat unusual style of a proclamation—you profess to discover that its promulgation is unwise, that its diction is indecorous, and its allusions reprehensible, and forthwith you pounce down upon this one happily discovered point, in order to assail in his absence the well-earned reputation of the Governor-general of India. You would deny all merit to the Governor-general in the magnitude of his achievements, because you discover, or fancy you discover, something distasteful in the details. You find it convenient to forget his months of anxiety at the seat of Government—sustaining and inspiriting the counsels of those whose duty it was to have been his supporters, but whom he found prostrate and paralyzed by the intelligence of your disasters—you forget his months of vigilance and toil in the vicinity of the seat of war, consulting for the rescue of your invested garrisons, and providing for the safety of your panic-struck and half-equipped forces You forget his prodigious exertions in collecting from the distant regions of India the remnants of the almost annihilated race of camels to furnish the means either of advance or retreat for your army. You forget the consummate judgment and ability with which he planned the last movement upon Affghanistan, in which, during the brief space of a single month his generals re-enacted all the events of your protracted campaigns, including a conquest of Ghuznee and a second capture of Cabul. You forget how, having accomplished all this, he has brought back your armies in safety to the Sutlej, crowned with honours, and laden with trophies, to receive the congratulations of their delighted fellow-countrymen within the frontiers of your own dominions. All this you find it convenient to forget; but you would withhold from him the honours, and deny him the honours and the enjoyment of his laboriously acquired reputation, because you have alighted by chance upon one of his numerous state papers, the style and the imagery of which are not commensurate with the standard of your taste, which it was never designed to please. But the House is neither so oblivious of his actions nor so ungratefully insensible to his de- serts, as to tarnish the honours which it has so recently accorded to him, concurring in your vote of insulated censure; and this country will not fail to confirm by its approval the vote of this night, by which the House will reject the motion of the right hon. Member.

Mr. Macaulay

If, Sir, the practice of the hon. Member had agreed with his precepts—if he had confined his observations in this House to the particular subject under discussion—I should have strictly followed his example, conceiving that there is abundance, indeed, to be said both as to the matter and the manner of this proclamation; nor, Sir, will I suffer myself, by the peroration he has made, to be led away to any great distance, or for any long time, from the important question which is now before us. Yet I cannot regret that the hon. Gentleman, who has this night exhibited, as he has done on former occasions, proofs of no small stock of ability and acuteness, should have complained that this charge was brought against his right hon. Friend, the Governor-general in his absence. Is this House, Sir, interdicted from considering the conduct of a Governor-general who is absent? Why, Sir, how are we to attempt to criticise his conduct, if we may not do it in his absence. For my own part, I may-say for myself, and I may truly say for my right hon. Friend near me, that we both would have wished with our whole souls that we could have discussed this question in the presence of the Governor-general. And permit me to say, that if there be any public man—if there be any Governor-general, who has no right to complain of any remarks in his absence, it is that Governor-general, the first Governor-general who has borne that high station, who has employed his power to place a stigma upon the character, and to bring a charge against his predecessor in his absence; that Governor-general who has been the first to forget all official decency—who was the first to forget that rule of unity in the state which should have prevented him from placing a stigma upon the conduct of that Governor-general, of whom I will say this—and this only, that whatever may have been his faults in other respects, he was faultless with respect to Lord Ellen-borough. I am sure, Sir, that no hon. Gentleman will rise on the other side of the House and will deny my assertion that no Governor-general ever exerted himself more strenuously or more effectually to leave to the Governor-general who should come after him all the facilities in his power, or to contribute more earnestly to his success. If his successor had been his own brother, it was impossible that my Lord Auckland could have laboured more to give him every advantage. And what was his requital? A proclamation from that successor, published in his absence, stigmatizing the whole of his predecessor's conduct. But since our attention has been called by the hon. Gentleman from the proclamation now under discussion—since it has been said that it was a mere calumny to say that the orders for the withdrawal of the troops was given before the fate of the prisoners was known, or to assert that the Governor-general was indifferent to the fate of the prisoners—permit me to ask the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Director who sits behind him, to explain one point which it appears to me most important to resolve. I promise them I will be very concise in the question I will put. When my Lord Ellenborough put his hand to the proclamation of the 1st October, 1842, did he, or did he not know that the prisoners were then in safety? That on the 1st of October the Governor-general did not know that the prisoners were safe I am certain. What defence, then, is offered for this proclamation? Even this, that the proclamation itself bears a false date—that it was not framed on the 1st of October. That the date of the 1st of October was inserted I believe, and I shall be glad to hear it contradicted, though I doubt whether any hon. Gentleman will venture, on his own knowledge, to contradict the statement. I believe that my Lord Ellenborough placed to that proclamation the false date of the 1st of October, because my Lord Auckland's manifesto against Affghanistan was dated on the 1st of October, 1838. The false day was put for the sake of so paltry and so contemptible a triumph. That act, I say, indicates an intemperate mind, unfit for so high a trust; for the sake of a paltry triumph over his predecessor, a date is put to the proclamation which makes it appear that he and the English Government were perfectly indifferent to the fate of the prisoners. For the effect of such a proclamation among the natives of India must be—the general impression of Lord Ellenborough, with respect to that order, must be—that he, and the Government which appointed him, were utterly regardless of the fate of the prisoners—and, Sir, I believe that my Lord Ellenborough rendered himself liable to this imputation by inserting a date which might appear as an attack upon my Lord Auckland. That, Sir, is not the only subject on which I might touch, if I chose to follow the hon. Gentleman into a debate on larger matters, and unconnected with the subject more immediately before us. I might call to the attention of the House the conduct of the Governor-general towards the Civil Service in India, the spirit of which I fear may be broken by his treatment. I might talk to the House of the financial commission issued by the noble Lord to find out the blunders of his predecessor, and which ended only in finding out blunders of his own. But, Sir, I conceive that the present subject, both on the serious and ludicrous side of the question, ought to occupy all our attention. And first as to the serious side. I abjure at once all intention, and every wish, to raise any fanatical outcry, or lend my aid to any fanatical progress. I solemnly declare that I would at any time rather be the victim than the tool of fanaticism; and that if the conduct of Lord Ellenborough were called in question for using strict toleration towards all religions, or for any reprobation of the misguided zeal of Christian missionaries, I would, notwithstanding any political difference between us, be the first to stand forward in his defence. This, however, is not the case. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that we look at small and trivial errors. This I deny. This is no light thing. We are the governors of a larger heathen population than (with one exception) I believe the world ever knew collected under one scepter since the first Christian epoch. It is, Sir, no light matter to say what the policy of a Christian Government should be in such circumstances. It is a serious and a grave question in morals and in government. However weak we might have been when we first went to India, we now find subject to our sway there 100,000,000 of souls not professing the Christian faith, a large portion of whom are Mussulmans—they are a minority, but a minority reckoned by tens of millions; they are a more united, but they are also a more fanatical body than the majority; they are accustomed to unite, they are used to war, they show a higher spirit than the majority, but in general they are more untractable and more fierce. Mingled with them are many, many millions of idolators. Many are inordinately influenced by the forms of their superstition, of which its impossible for any person who values even their temporal interest to speak without the deepest and most serious consideration. I believe, Sir, that in no part to the world is there a superstition more unfavourable to the advancement of knowledge and of civilization. There are many fables, the very believing of which produces the utmost degradation of the mind, bound up with these false notions; many errors and prejudices in reference to physical subjects are connected with their distinct and odious belief, raising great and almost insuperable obstacles to the advance of science. There are symbolical badges teaching them a kind of worship which 1 will not mention: their very forms of worship are connected with the worst forms of prostitution. There is a great and deplorable degradation of the female raoes. And, Sir, when we have said all this, we have not said the worst. The most fatal crimes against religion and against property are closely allied to the religion they uphold: they offer up human sacrifices to their deities; they have still their inhuman Suttee, by which the widow is sacrificed by her own children. Even the atrocious practice of the Thugs is carried on notoriously under the apparent direction of their divinities. During my stay in India I read the examination of two Thugs, where one reprimanded his brother for letting off with his life a traveller who had fallen into their power saying;— How can you expect our goddess to protect us, if you thus spare the life of the traveller you have taken? Where, Sir, we find a religion of this sort, it is an extremely difficult problem to be solved in what way a Christian Government should deal with a people holding such a religion or such a faith. We might have attempted the policy which was of old adopted by Spain: we might have attempted to convert this heathen people to our own faith. We might have attempted a large scheme of proselytism; but, in my opinion, the English Government have acted more wisely: they have not adopted any system of proselytism; at the same time we have not imposed any civil disabilities on any native of India, let him hold whatever faith he may; and the very last act concerning the charter of the East India Company declares that no native, let his religious opinion be what it may, shall be incapable of holding any situation under Government. Although we have not done anything to put down their religion, and, although in this we have acid most wisely, yet, Sir, I am not sure that for some time a most dangerous and pernicious leaning has not been exhibited the other way—I believe that we have done much to make the idolatrous practices a matter of national reverence. We long looked with jealousy on the labours of the Christian missionaries who went to India, we long looked too severely on the conduct of those whose labours were of no slight value; we tolerated too long the human sacrifice, we allowed too long the degrading practice of the Suttee, which might have been put down long ago were it not for our toleration. I believe that we made no attempt to protect the persons or property of our fellow-creatures and our subjects against the demands of superstition. As far, too, as related to a great part of their idolatrous processions, and to the decoration of their temples, we lent our aid; we sent, under our escort, the native chiefs on their way to worship at those temples; and we thus marked our support of an idolatrous worship. We might have had an object in all this. I think it undignified, even if it were not, under all considerations, most inexpedient in a temporal point of view, and as a temporal matter alone will I be tempted to discuss it. The inevitable effect on the people of India was to make them believe that we attached no importance to the vast distinction between that religion, every work of which has always been bevond all other religions, to advance knowledge and learning, to widen the field of domestic happiness, to promote and secure public and personal liberty, which in the old world has struck off the chains of slavery, which has everywhere raised the condition of woman, and assuaged the horrors of war; and that other religion, which we cannot sanction or support without committing an act of treason against civilisation and against humanity. Gradually, however, a system has been introduced which every one who is aware of the state of India will admit to be of considerable importance, and without meaning to say it amounts to absolute perfection, I am not aware that at the present moment the rules laid down by the Home Government for the conduct of our Indian authorities admit of any considerable improvement. I think it was my Lord Wellesley who led the way and abolished the immolation of female children, and great as is the title of that eminent statesman to the gratitude of his country, this was one of the proudest of the claims which his friends and those who regret his loss will rejoice to acknowledge. In the year 1813 the restriction on the admission of missionaries was abolished: a clause was inserted in the charter which defeated that restriction. At a later period, Sir, Lord W. Bentinck abolished the Suttee. An order was also sent out by the Government at home on the subject of the pilgrim-tax. Lord Glenelg—I was in office at the time, and 1 know the fact—Lord Glenelg, with his own hand, wrote that most important and valuable despatch of February, 1833, to which such frequent reference has been made. In that despatch—and I recollect it so well, that I can almost state with precision the paragraph, and quote its substance, almost its exact words—in the 62nd paragraph of that despatch will be found a complete system—I might call it of legislation—but a code of conduct for the Indian authorities. It directed, that all matters whatever, relating to temples and to idols, are to be left entirely to the natives themselves to act. This order was to be acted upon by the Indian authorities, who were to use their best discretion in introducing it. Its operation was left, as it necessarily must be, to the Indian authorities. Again, there was in the year 1838 another despatch, which recognised the 62nd paragraph of the despatch of 1833, which pointed out its importance, and the intention of the directors to carry it out. Again, in the year 1841 orders upon this subject were sent out, which were so framed that I am almost led to believe that my Lord Ellenborough had read them carefully through for the express purpose of disobeying them as far as he could. Orders positive and distinct were given to the Indian authorities by this despatch to have nothing to do with the national temples of the idols; positive and distinct orders to make no presents to these temples; positive and distinct orders to give no decorations to those temples, positive and distinct orders to employ no troops to do honour to the worship of these idols. This despatch was sent out by the Court of Directors in the year 1841, and I think while that despatch is acted upon, our own religion is held sacred, whilst all possible toleration is given to the professors of different religions. To attempt to convert that toleration into a direct approval appears to me to be a crime, and directly opposed to the reasonings and the intentions of individuals of the best information with respect to India, and far better qualified than the. Governor-general to form a correct opinion. It was the intention of the Government rigidly to preserve wise neutrality. I come, then, to she charge against Lord Ellenborough: it is, that he has departed from that neutrality; it is, that he has disobeyed the orders of those from whom his power is derived, and to whom his obedience is due. That is the first part of the charge, but it is not the greatest or the heaviest. Is it denied that my Lord Ellenborough assisted in the decorations of these idolatrous temples? Is it denied that he interfered with their concerns? Is it denied that he made them gifts? Why, the only argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite is, that as my Lord Ellenborough sent the troops to escort the gates, he had not interfered in any religious way, because the directors had ordered him not to give any encouragement to idolatry. That was a strange mode of proving, that Lord Ellenborough had not disobeyed the orders of the directors. Undoubtedly, if the first principle of our reasoning is to be, that my Lord Ellenborough is a perfect man—if the first principle is to be, that he cannot possibly do any wrong—why then 1 fully admit the force of the hon Gentleman's argument. But, Sir, can it be seriously denied, that Lord Ellenborough did send the troops to carry these gates from a Mahometan mosque to a Hindoo temple, and place them on the restored temple of Somnauth? [Cheers.] Aye, the restored temple! [Renewed cheers.] Let us understand that word, restored. We all know that the temple is in ruins. How is it possible to doubt that my Lord Ellenborough, before he determined to issue that important proclamation, did not know that the temple was in ruins, or that he did not ask of those about him, and who knew the state of that temple? If the hon. Gentleman will seriously stand up and say he believes that my Lord Ellenborough wrote that despatch without asking a question of those around him—if such were really his conduct, the hon. Gentleman by stating it, would pronounce upon it the severest condemnation. It is clear, Sir, that his Lordship, if he did not know the fact, did inquire into the state of the temple, and that he was told that it was in ruins. And what did his Lordship say? He calls it the restored temple. It is impossible to doubt that he intended its restoration before he should set up the gates in it. I defy the hon. Gentleman—I defy all human ingenuity—to get off one of the two horns of the dilemma. Either way it will settle this question. Either his Lordship did publish his proclamation without making inquiry or knowing of himself that the temple was in ruins; or, having been told that is was, he determined that it should be restored. Turn and twist it which way you will, you can make nothing else of it. It is like the stain on the key, in the story of "Bluebeard;" if you can clean it on one side, the spot springs up on the other. Here, then, is direct disobedience to the orders of the Court of Directors, and that is the first charge which I bring against my Lord Ellenborough. It is not, however, the chief or the most important. I come now to the duty of an English governor, supposing that the Court of Directors should not have given him any directions, and supposing that he had not violated any such instructions. Lord Ellenborough has not a mind so contracted as not to know the difference between the temporal effects—for I mean to speak only of these—and the civil effects of a religion like that of his countrymen, and a religion like that which exists among the idolators of India. It was clearly his duty to pay no homage to any native religion in that country, and to offer no insult to any. But, Sir, he has paid that homage, and he has offered that insult, and more than that. Not only has this homage been paid and this insult offered, but it has been done in the worst possible manner. We might have looked with some sort of favour on his Lordship's acts and intentions, it might have been some mitigation if those insults if they had been offered to the most degrading and most corrupting of all forms of worship, and if the homage had been paid to some reasonable and salutary doctrine. But the fact was just the reverse. His Lordship took the worst possible way of deviating from the required neutrality in the orders which he issued. He deviated from his proper course in the wrong direction; he offered an insult to truth; and he paid homage to the most vicious falsehood. Is it not an insult to truth? To what religion is it that the offering was made? It was to Lingamism—to a religion which is polytheism in its worst form, which in its nature presents the most degrading, the most odious, the most polluted representation of the Supreme Being. It is to that doctrine, which more than any other is fundamental to everything in the Hindoo religion, and it is in violation of all those principles which we are taught to consider as the mainspring of Christianity. And what is this temple which my Lord Ellenborough means to restore? The hon. Gentleman who last spoke seemed to think that he had achieved a great victory when he made out that the offering was not made to Siva, but to Krishna. Krishna is the preserving deity, and Siva the destroying deity, and, as far as one can venture to express any preference for these false gods, I confess that my own tastes would lead me to admire rather the preserving than the destroying power. But the temple was consecrated to Siva, not to Krishna, and the hon. Gentleman must know what were the rites—what were the emblems of the worship of Siva—what were the dreadful scenes enacted in this very temple of Somnauth. Why, in speaking in this House of those scenes, we are ashamed to describe things which the Governor-general is not ashamed by his proclamation to promote. Now this, I must say, is a great and serious wrong. Lord Ellenborough proposes the restoration of this temple, and I defy any one to put any other meaning on his words. Well, I have spoken of the moral consequences of this proclamation, and I will now come to the question of its political effects. On that point I agree in every syllable which has fallen from my right hon. Friend. I am convinced that the first effect of this will be, and I have strong reason to believe that that effect has already in some degree arisen, that amongst the Mahometans the most violent feelings of indignation will be excited. We know their feelings, and we know that by the Mahometans this will be thought one of the greatest outrages to their religion. We require for this proposition no better, and could have no stronger authority than that of Mr. Elphinstone. We know what have been the consequences, and what serious internal perils have arisen from former supposed outrages on the Mahometan religion. We need only remember the occurrences at Vellore and at Bangalore. In the first case outrages of an extraordinary description arose from a supposed disrespect being shown to the Mussulman turban; in the latter, similar scenes were enacted from some alleged disrespect to a Mussulman mosque. It is no light thing to commit such acts as this. I have reason to believe, and the House will agree with me that my belief is not without foundation—that there is a party of the Hindoos who look with great and eager joy at this proclamation, and the consequences which may be anticipated from it. They are elated with delight at this event, and they look upon it as a certain proof of the intention of the English Government to take them and their religion under its protection, and that some great victory of Brahma is about to be achieved. But does the Government mean to answer these expectations? Does the right hon. Baronet opposite mean to adopt Brahminical principles in the government of India? If not, I say that these great hopes must be disappointed, and the disappointment, consequent upon the continuance of those principles by which the Government is now actuated, must inevitably be followed by resentment and anger. And I do not know whether, I could apply to the question a fairer test than this; and I beg to call on the members of her Majesty's Government just to state to us what they mean to do about this part of the case. Do they mean to carry into effect the promises held out in the proclamation? Do they mean to authorize the Governor-general to restore the temple of Somnauth? Is the public revenue to be expended in creating a new place for the worship of the idols of the Hindoos—in erecting a new shrine for the exhibition of the revolting spectacles which have in former ages disgraced the locality of this temple—in hiring fresh hordes of dancing girls to do honour to the gods of idolatry. I have no possible doubt that Lord Ellenborough will receive, in some form or another, such an admonition as will prevent his incurring the odium consequent upon the adoption of such steps. What then will occur? The whole tide of popularity which has been gained by this proclamation among the Hindoos will be stopped—the Hindoo population, which will have been looking forward to this consummation of their hopes, will find that those hopes have been raised only to be disappointed. But, even if this be not so—if these effects be not produced—is it nothing I ask, to have this continual turning' and wavering in a government like that of India. This is not the only proclamation which Lord Ellenborough has put forth. He put forth another, which contained an announcement that Dost Mohammed was coming to his Durbar, and then, in another, he contradicted this statement. And to this is to be added this new proclamation put forth with great pomp, promising the chiefs and princes of India, that something is to be done which cannot be done, because the Governor-general is opposed by the Government at home. By force of their superior authority he will be compelled to submit to the humiliating necessity of abandoning his promise. This, I say, is no light matter. It is a most serious thing to contemplate the feelings with which, so far as I can learn, the native population of India will be led to regard the noble Lord. We have had Governors-general of India of various stamps. Some Governors-general there have been who have been guilty of faults; some who have even committed crimes; the natives in some cases have hated the Governor-general, but now, for the first time, they have a Governor-general whom they laugh at. And how are we to blame the natives of India laughing at what is occurring under their own immediate observation; when all Europe, and all America are laughing too? Was there ever anything which more justly excited ridicule? And what is the defence which is set up? The hon. Gentleman opposite produces some turgid eastern papers, full of brilliant tropes and flowing figures, to show that this proclamation is couched in the terms in which documents in former times were sometimes couched by native princes. But is that a parallel case? May it not as well be said that it was fit that the noble Lord should allow his beard to grow down to his waist—that he should attire himself in the Eastern costume—that he should hang about his person jewels and glittering ornaments, and that he should ride through the streets of Calcutta upon a horse gaily caparisoned, and ornamented with jing- ling bells and glass beads, and all the showy paraphernalia of the native princes? When the natives see a nabob or a rajah indulge himself in these luxuries, they bow to him, and take the splendour of his appearance to be indicative, as it is, of his rank, his power, and his wealth; but if Sir Charles Metcalfe had so bedizened himself, I am inclined to think that it would have been concluded, and not without reason, that he was out of his wits. Depend upon it the natives are not such fools as they are taken for. It is a mistake to imagine that they do not understand the respect which is due to the peculiar simplicity and solemnity of our habits and manners. The conviction exists in their minds between our appearance and our character, as between our white colour of skin and our superior education and powers of mind. And if this species of feeling were not sustained, to what ridiculous lengths we must go. Why, you do not suppose that the Governor-general should paint himself black surely, but even to this extent might the principle contended for be argued to extend. Why, it is by the association of ideas that their opinions of our great mental superiority, of our high morality, of the commanding powers of our minds, and of all those qualities which from the time of Lord Clive have made the English dominant over the country, are maintained. How is it that Lord Ellenborough seeks to maintain this high character which we have so long enjoyed? His plan of governing with success seems to have been that of turning himself as fast as he can into the various characters of Hindoo, Rajah, Mussulman, and omnipotent governor, and that alone supplies ample reason for his recall. But to turn to the words of this foolish proclamation. I say that it is neither English nor oriental. It bears no resemblance whatever to anything I have ever read of, which professed to be of the same character, nor of the hundreds of thousands of models to be found in the archives of the East India Company. It is not original either, and I will tell the House whence Lord Ellenborough borrowed it. It is an imitation of those trashy rants which proceeded from the proconsuls of France, in the time of the Directory during the French Revolution, and more especially of that address which was put forth at the time of the passage of the Po. It is exactly in the style of these productions, and my Lord Ellen- borough could hardly be ignorant of them, or their terms. There are, besides, some lines of Mr. Canning upon them, which that noble Lord could hardly fail to know when he speaks of the invasion of Italy and the Justice of the agents of the Revolution. Mr. Canning says— Not she in British Courts that takes her stand, The dawdling balance dangling in her hand, Adjusting punishments to Fraud and Vice, With scrupulous quirks, and disquisition nice; But firm, erect, with keen reverted glance, The avenging Angel of regenerate France— Who visits ancient sins on modern times, And punishes the Pope for Caesar's crimes. In the papers of Revolutionary France, the noble Lord formed his models. But they had an excuse which was wanting to the proclamation of the noble Lord. The French Revolution had thrown down all good taste and judgment in writing, and all diplomatic and official places were filled by persons new to public affairs, who had scrambled into high situations—some of them possessing mere smatterings of college learning, others devoid of education, except such as they might have obtained by chance, and from seeing Talma at the theatres. But was it, for the noble Lord to adopt these documents as precedents, he a Conservative Governor-general of India? If the noble Lord plead them, I think we may fairly say that he has found it difficult to find any other. I do think then, that in this proclamation we find matter for serious condemnation. If we go over all the statesmen who have governed India, we find none who have not committed very serious errors, and we find occasions on which, the most important, and most grievous mistakes were made. True it is that no statesman ever existed who did not commit some miscalculation. Lord Somers, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Chatham had. Nobody would now deny that Mr. Pitt had miscalculated when he sent the expedition to Quiberon, but even then he had been guilty of no error like this; and all that could be said was, that though the miscalculations of those great men had been most serious and pernicious to the country, still they were not such as to unfit them for the conduct of the greatest affairs. This proceeding of the Governor-general of India reminds me of the triumph of Caligula, who took his soldiers to the beach, and bid them fill their helmets with cockle shells, and then marched them and deposited the shells in the Capitol as trophies of his triumph over the ocean. That was a proof that Caligula was unfit to govern. So it is related of the Emperor Paul of Russia, who once ordered that men should not wear pantaloons; that they should not wear their hair combed over their foreheads; and that, finally, having ordered that no man should wear a round hat, an Englishman thought to outwit him by going into the streets in a hunting cap, when the emperor, unable to define the new covering for the head, issued an order that no man should appear in public with a round thing on his head, such as the English merchant wore. It might be well said that a man who put forth such a ukase as this was not a man capable of managing great affairs. With regard to this proclamation, I do not say that the noble Lord is not entitled to employ a new style. Did it never occur to him, however, to consider that it was probable that if this sort of style had any peculiar advantage, Warren Hastings, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and other Governors-general, men who were as familiar with the languages and the manners and the habits of India, as many hon. Members of this House are with the language and habits of France, would, in all probability, have employed it; did it never occur to him I say—independently of his own high merit—that this original and striking mode of speaking to the people of India would have been just as likely, if not more so, to have been adopted by men of such attainments as I have described, if they thought it could be attended with any good results. But there is another reason why this proclamation is to be viewed with regret, because it affords a serious indication of the terms on which Lord Ellenborough stands with the officers of the civil service of the East India Company—and especially with that eminent individual, with whom I have the pleasure to be acquainted, whose name is attached to this notification. I will pawn my life, that Lord Ellenborough never asked that gentleman his opinion on the subject of this proclamation, or that, if he did, he gave an opinion adverse to it. No one in the Indian service will believe that the noble Lord ever applied to Mr. Maddocks. I am certain that no Governor-general who stood on the terms with the civil servants of the East India Company, on which Lord William Bentinck or Lord Auckland stood, would have looked to them in vain for aid. I am confident that if either of those noble Lords, in an unlucky moment—their minds enveloped in some mist-had proposed to publish such a proclamation, the gentleman to whom I have referred would have advised them not to issue it. The only possible explanation which can be given of the issuing of this proclamation, therefore, is, that the terms on which Lord Ellenborough stands with the Company's servants are such, that even the most eminent of those servants did not venture, even on the most important occasions, to offer him advice, however greatly he should be in want of it. I will now for one moment consider in what position it is that Lord Ellenborough is placed. Is the House aware, that even when the Governor-general is at Calcutta, surrounded by his council, his single voice can overbear that of the whole council in any case on which any executive measure is to be determined on? All that the other members of the council can do is to give him their opinions in writing, and to call upon him to write down his reasons for any adverse opinion at which he may arrive; and then, if he chooses, his single voice, whether the question involve the important considerations of war, peace, or finance, overbears all. The right hon. Baronet opposite is a powerful Minister—a Minister more powerful than any we have have had for many years—but I venture to say, that his power over the people of this country, great as it is, and extensively as it is exercised, is as nothing when compared with the extraordinary influence which a Governor-general can put in force over 90,000,000 or 100,000,000 of subjects of Britain. And this is his power when controlled by the presence of his council. But where is he now? He has given his council the slip—he is alone—he has not a single person with him who is entitled to advise him. If he had, there might be some hopes entertained that nothing like this would have happened. But, no; he is by himself. He is invested with the whole of the council. Of this you may be sure, that no Governor-general in this situation will ever have one word of advice, unless he so conduct himself as to show that he is willing to receive it; therefore, the danger and the risk of having a person in the position of Governor-general, who is disposed to place himself in a situation of solitude, at a distance up the country, are beyond all description. The interests constantly arising, and dependent on his sole command are so vast, that words which would only soberly describe them, would sound like a gross exaggeration, and those powers are all vested in one man who has only been a few months in India, and 1 can hardly think that my Lord Ellenborough can be said to have acted wisely, considering his short experience in India, in separating from all those who possessed knowledge and abilities, and had a right to advise him. We find other Governors-general who have had long acquaintance with that part of the British dominion, carefully abstaining from adopting a course calculated to remove from them the means of obtaining advice. I cannot sit down without addressing myself to the Board of Directors of the East India Company, and I must express my sincere hope that considering the heavy responsibility which rests on them, they will not hesitate to recal Lord Ellenborough from his government. I do hope that they will take the advice in this respect of one who was an attached servant of the Company; who still possesses the greatest desire for their good, and would do everything in his power to see them placed in a safe and honourable position. But if they are placed in that position that they cannot or will not recal the noble Lord, then I trust that they will not hesitate to give him immediate instructions to return to his council. He has now no adviser who can raise his voice to secure him from the creation of new evils. I am sure that the next despatches to be received from India will be looked for by the Board of Directors as well as by the Government with the greatest anxiety, I say, send back the noble Lord to Calcutta. There, at least, will be those who will be entitled to speak to him with authority, and who, if I know anything of the members of council, will do so. It is something even to be required to record your reasons for everything you do—it is something to interpose a delay, though only of twenty-four hours, which is required in this case, between the conception of a project and the carrying of it out. I know that these checks are not sufficient in some cases, but they are something, and I do most earnestly implore the Directors to consider gravely the position in which they will stand, if they give up this most faithful and sincere council. I cannot help thinking that where a body such as the council exists— a body formed for the express purpose of checking the Governor-general in proceedings inconsistent with the interests of the empire of Great Britain in India, the powers of such a body ought not to be put in abeyance in the case of a man who, above, all who have ever been sent to India in the capacity of Governor-general, most stands in need of such assistance and restraint as the council are able and bound to afford.

Mr. Hogg

begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that melancholy experience induced him to coincide in the sentiment with which he had concluded his speech. He entirely agreed with him in opinion, that a Governor-general ought to have the salutary advice and controlling influence of his counsel before he undertook any large enterprize, or determined upon any important measure. He remembered too well that the calamitous proclamation which had been issued by Lord Auckland from Simla, was issued by his uncontrolled authority, without the presence of a single councillor. The result of that proclamation, was the invasion of Affghanistan, which under his guidance, occasioned a loss of life, a waste of treasure, and a mass of disasters that had never before marked our career in India. He would venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that they would not carry with them the votes of the House, or the feeling of the country in this reiterated attempt to hunt down an absent and distinguished public servant, and that they had in vain exhausted their pious zeal and virtuous indignation. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in his attack upon the proclamation issued by Lord Ellenborough from Simla, had used words and expressions more offensive than those which had been so severely commented upon some evenings ago, when used by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and the right hon. Gentleman had stated (and had appeared personally to him Mr. Hogg to corroborate the statement) that Lord Ellenborough did not know of the safety of the prisoners, on the 1st October; and that the proclamation, in that respect was false—[Mr. Macaulay—that it had a false date.] The right hon. Gentleman says that Lord Ellenborough had deliberately given to the proclamation a date which he knew to be false, and he had characterized the conduct of the noble Lord as contemptible. In reply to the appeal made to him, he begged to state, that to the best of his recollection, Lord Ellenborough received official information as to the safety of the prisoners on the 4th October, but he believed that he was aware of their safety on the 1st from private communications. But why did the hon. Gentleman apply to him for information? He presumed, and he hoped, for the right hon. Gentleman's own sake, that he was fully informed as to his facts, before he ventured to make such an imputation or to use such harsh language. The violence of the attack of the right hon. Gentleman—had exhibited this question to the House in its proper colour. This was eminently a party motion, brought forward for party purposes, and to gratify party feelings, though cloaked under the garb of sanctity and decorum. He (Mr. Hogg) had been taunted by the two right hon. Gentlemen as to the course he should pursue. He stated without hesitation, that he had not risen to defend the proclamation from the charge of indiscretion. He read it with regret and admitted it was indiscreet. But did it, therefore, follow that he was to join in a resolution of this House to denounce the noble Lord who was the author of it. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, that there was no difference between admitting an indiscretion, and thundering forth a parliamentary censure. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had made, he believed, during the last discussion, a similar admission. He went further, he stated candidly and without reserve, that he had considered it his duty, to make a communication to Lord Ellenborough on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton; then got the paper that he moved for—he obtained that admission from the first Minister of the Crown, and he embraced the opportunity to make a speech, well calculated to prejudice the House, against Lord Ellenborough, at a time when a vote of thanks to that noble Lord was about to be moved. One would have thought that this would have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman's zeal for the public good—one would imagine that this would have satisfied the ordinary asperity of party animosity, but not so—the right hon. Gentleman has again dragged this subject before the House, attempting to magnify the impor- tance and exaggerate the effects of this marvellous document, that seems to haunt his peace and disquiet his conscience. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he would not succeed in this attempt to cast a stigma on the character of Lord Ellenborough. He would tell him, that the very course he had adopted, was calculated to defeat that generous object, was calculated even to produce a reaction in the minds of those who were disposed to admit the indiscretion of the noble Lord. There was in that House such an English love of fair play, a spirit that so rebelled against an attack so ungenerous and so ungrateful, that he believed in his conscience, that the motion of the right hon. Gentleman would produce an impression, in favour of Lord Ellenborough. He already felt his own impressions undergoing a gradual change under the auspices of his right hon. Friend. He began to think that he had judged and spoken too severely of this document, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only give a third notice and make a third speech he would probably succeed in satisfying him, that the proclamation might defy the most rigid criticism. But what was the crime, what the high misdemeanour that was to call for such an expression of opinion from the House. In a moment of excitement, when elated by the splendid success that had attended our arms, when filled with gratitude towards our native troops, who had so nobly sustained their character for gallantry and fidelity. Lord Ellenborough issues a proclamation, which he thinks will be gratifying to the people of India, as exhibiting their triumph over a power, that had so often invaded and devastated their country. The right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the motion, and also the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had, throughout their speeches, assumed, that the proclamation had a religious character, and was addressed to a particular sect. Now, the proclamation was not addressed to any sect. It was addressed not to Hindoos or Mahometans, not to any particular persuasion or caste, but to the princes, chiefs, and people of India. Look at the order to General Nott, to bring away these military trophies, and to the proclamation itself. Was there in the spirit of these documents anything of a religious character, was there a single sentiment that had a reli- gious bearing or a religious application? So conscious of this was the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Northampton, that he had called on the House to found its judgment, not upon reference to the proclamation itself, or to the circumstances under which it was issued, but upon the result of his historical researches in Gibbon and Ferishta. The right hon. Gentleman contended, that Sultan Mahmoud, when ravaging the fair regions of Hindostan, was influenced, not by ambition, or desire for plunder, but by a love of the prophet, and a desire to propagate his faith; and thence he attempts to argue, that the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough must necessarily have a religious tendency. His hon. Friend, the Member for Belfast, had forcibly described the characters of the numerous invasions of Sultan Mahmoud, and that so far from being religious, two of the twelve invasions were against the ruler of Moultan, himself a Mahometan. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the motion, had told the House that he would endeavour to vary his address, from a speech he had made on a former night, and to invest it with the character of novelty. He certainly had succeeded in doing so, for he had gone at length into the contents of the Blue Book, and had favoured the House, with a speech which he must have intended to make, upon the occasion of the vote of thanks to Lord Ellenborough. It had been stated, and he believed correctly, that the temple of Somnauth was now a desecrated ruin, and that the surrounding population were chiefly Mahometan, and the ignorance of Lord Ellenborough as to these facts, had been most severely commented upon. He (Mr. Hogg) admitted, that it might be fairly presumed that Lord Ellenborough, when he issued his proclamation, was not aware of the present state of the temple, and this, he thought, amounted almost to demonstration, that Lord Ellenborough regarded the gates solely as a military trophy, to be restored to the province from whence they had been taken. Can it be supposed that a man of his admitted ability, with such ample means of information, could have been unacquainted with the state and condition of the temple, if his intention had been to minister to the religious prejudices of the Hindoos. Lord Ellenborough's desire was to gratify the people of India, by the restoration of the gates as a military trophy, and he never troubled himself about the state of the temple from which they were supposed to have been taken. At the very moment when this proclamation was issued Lord Ellenborough was surrounded by a body guard, composed chiefly of Mahometans, and was attended by a Mahometan A. D. C. One of his first acts upon his arrival in India was to appoint as his A. D. C, a native non-commissioned Mahometan officer, who had greatly distinguished himself in one of the affairs of Affghanistan. So anxious was the noble Lord to have it in his power to confer such a distinction upon meritorious native officers, that he proposed, in consequence, to forego one of his European A. D. C. But the frequent allusion to Affghanistan, made by the right hon. Gentleman, showed the spirit in which this motion had originated. The gravamen was, that Lord Ellenborough, within ten months from the period of his arrival, had extricated India from the dangers, and had repaired the disasters and disgrace occasioned by the impolicy and injustice of those who preceded him. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that the House is dull enough to suppose, that this discussion is brought forward merely to pass an opinion upon the terms of this proclamation. No such thing. It was intended as an attack upon the whole Indian policy of Lord Ellenborough—upon himself—and his government; and was brought forward with the hope of inducing his resignation or recal. It would also be a censure on her Majesty's Government, and on the Court of Directors, whose duty it would have been to recal Lord Ellen-borough, if his conduct had been such as to call upon this House to stigmatize it as indecorous and reprehensible. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Northampton, had intimated that the Court of Directors was under the influence of the first Minister of the Crown. It was true, that the great majority of the Court of Directors, in common with the great majority of the House, and of the people of this country, entertained political opinions in accordance with those of the right hon Baronet. But he averred, that the Court, in the discharge of their public duty, had never permitted themselves to be influenced by political feelings. They were fully aware of the importance of selecting a competent person to fill the high office of Governor-general, and he called the right hon. Gentleman himself as a witness to the competence and fitness of Lord Ellenborough, when selected for that great trust. Upon a former occasion, he spoke of having succeeded Lord Ellenborough at the Board of Control, and he had borne testimony to the great talents, the great knowledge of India, and the unwearied assiduity of that noble Lord. The Court of Directors also felt the importance of the power with which they were entrusted, to recal a Governor-general; and if the occasion should arise, they would not hesitate to exercise it uninfluenced by any consideration, but a sense of the public welfare. But they would be unworthy of the power entrusted to them, if they dealt with their responsibilities in the flippant and off-hand manner of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to attach no more importance to the recal or censure of a Governor-general, than to the pronouncing of a party speech in this House. It was difficult to avoid instituting a comparison between the present proceeding, and the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet, and the great part of his supporters upon a recent occasion, when the policy of Lord Auckland had been so severely assailed. He believed there was not a single Gentleman on his (Mr. Hogg's) side of the House, who did not entertain the strongest opinion as to the impolicy and injustice of the invasion of Afghanistan. But they refused to accede to a motion that might prove injurious to the public interests, or tend to disturb our relations with any foreign power. He hoped the day would never arrive, when the Conservative party, would seek to gratify their feelings of party animosity, by any proceeding, that could prove injurious to the interests of their country. He asked the House to reflect on the consequences which would ensue, if this motion were carried, or even received any general support. Could it be expected that the Government of India would possess any moral weight or influence with the public servants in that country, or with the native population, after the noble Lord at the head of the Government had been stigmatized by the censure of the House of Commons, He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to infuse into this debate so much religious feeling which he (Mr. Hogg) thought ill suited to party discussions. It was with reluctance that he adverted to this part of the subject, as it was difficult to deal with it, without incurring the wish of being misunderstood. He believed that the number of those who objected to the proclamation as offensive to the Christian feelings of this country was very limited; but however few they might be, he felt assured, that it would be a subject of deep regret to Lord Ellenborough if he had unconscientiously offended the religious feelings of any persons either in India or in this country. He begged to impress upon the House that the present motion was one of incalculable importance. That it did not merely affect the character and honour of Lord Ellenborough, that it equally affected the character, the honour, and the influence of the House. It had been said a few evenings ago that the thanks of the House was the greatest honour that could be conferred on a public servant, and that they would lose their value, if lightly bestowed. He entirely acquiesced in the truth of that sentiment. But he would add, that the censure of the House was the most ruinous instrument wherewith to blast the reputation of a public man, and that it ought to be reserved for adequate cases of public incompetence or delinquency. If inflicted lightly or rashly, it would be rendered innocuous. He had no doubt as to the result of the present motion, but he would earnestly entreat hon. Members on both sides of the House to repudiate in a marked manner this most unworthy and ungenerous attempt to hunt down, and crush a distinguished public servant.

Mr. Mangles

said, that he would not be deterred by the insinuation of the hon. Member as to the motives of those who supported this motion, and who, he stated, took part in it for the purposes of party and faction. He should not be deterred by such imputations from doing what he considered to be his duty, both to India and to this country, and he would add, on this point, that with his good-will India never should be made the tool in that House for party discussion. The Indian empire was not a mere question of Conservatism, of Whig or of Radical politics, but it was the trophy of the British empire, and what he complained of was—one of the grave faults of the noble Lord at the head of the government of India—that in the proclamation of the 1st of October, that noble Lord made the mat- ters of Indian policy the arena for political strife. When Lord Ellenborough was first appointed to the government of India he hailed the appointment, because he had heard much of that noble Lord's profound and almost unequalled acquaintance with all matters appertaining to our Indian empire, as well as of his great industry and judgment, and that it was after the most mature consideration the right hon. Gentleman selected him for the post. He knew too that his appointment was hailed with joy by the Board of Directors. He should have most sincerely rejoiced for the sake of India, if the noble Lord, by his conduct, had fulfilled all the expectations that had been formed respecting him. In all the letters which he (Mr. Mangles) had sent to India, he had congratulated his friends there on the appointment of the noble Lord, as that of a man well worthy of the high station to which he had been nominated; he therefore disclaimed being actuated by either party or personal feeling in the matter. He did not intend to dwell at any length on the supposed slur cast on Christianity by the proclamation which was the subject of the present motion, or assert that by it the noble Lord had done injury to the cause of Christianity in India. Indeed, he did not believe that any great injury had been done to Christianity by the proclamation; for this reason—which certainly was not one very complimentary to the noble Lord—namely, because it was so extremely absurd, could anything surpass the absurdity of a plan of sending gates to a temple, which temple did not exist? The proposition was so absurd and ludicrous, that evils which otherwise might have resulted from it would be obviated. He did not believe, also, that Lord Ellenborough had any intention to disparage or insult Christianity by his proclamation. Admitting the judgment and good sense, in other matters, of the man placed in this high situation, it was certainly clear, in this instance, that he did not see what the tendency of his proceedings was. Was it not a fact, that the tendency of the proceedings, as regarded this proclamation, had been condemned by every religious publication throughout the world? He would now say one word as to what had been asserted by the whole of the Indian press in condemnation of this proclamation, for they had been told that the unanimity of the Indian press on the matter against him, must be imputed to the dissatisfaction of the civil servants, whom he had unfortunately offended, and at whose disposal the press of India was. It was a gross mistake to suppose that the press of India was under the control of the civil servants; but if this were the case, the civil servants had bribed the press of India. On the same ground, then, he might assert that they had bribed the Times in this country and the leading papers in Germany, as well, indeed, as all the most able and important portion of the press throughout Europe. The civil servants must have bribed almost every intelligent man in the British Empire, and, indeed, throughout Europe; and he might add, that the civil servants had succeeded in bribing many Gentlemen opposite, for he hardly had seen one Gentleman sitting opposite out of the House, to whom he had spoken on the subject, who had not dwelt on the utter absurdity of this paper. He would now proceed to what he considered the gravamen of the charge against Lord Ellenborough, namely, the insult which this proclamation offered to the whole of the Mahomedan population of India. This was a point which his hon. Friend the Member for Beverley had touched upon in the lightest possible degree, but as a question of Indian policy it must be regarded as a matter of the highest interest. He hoped the House would bear with him while he proceeded to show what was the state of feeling amongst that important portion of our Indian population. He believed that it was not going much too far when he said that the Mahomedan population of India, including that of the tributary and subsidiary states, was 20,000,000. Taking the whole of the Mahomedan population of India together, they hated us with a very intense hatred; they hated us as the subverters of their dominion of those fair provinces which were now under our rule; they hated us still more as the conquerors of the descendants of the last true prophet. This was the situation in which we were placed, and we could not alter that feeling towards us, or remove the feeling of antipathy which they entertain towards us; and when he said this he believed that he did not use too strong a term when he said that they entertained a feeling of loathing towards us. It was our duty to show our superiority to such feeling, and, above all, being in the situation in which we were, by showing to them every kindness, and by abstaining from anything which was calculated to irritate or excite them. He did not wish the House to take this on his mere ipse dixit, but he could refer to the highest authorities in corroboration of the opinion which he had expressed. The paper which he held in his hand contained an extract from a valuable work written by a gentleman extremely well acquainted with India, and with the character of the native population. He believed that this work had never been published; but it had been prepared and printed privately for the use of the Indian government by Colonel Sutherland. It was entitled, Sketches of the Relations subsisting between the British Government in India and the different Native States. Colonel Sutherland in this work thus speaks of the Mahomedan population of India:— The Indian Mahometan, whether in our ranks, in cities, or in villages under our government, or the villages of foreign states, will everywhere be found nearly the same. He belongs to a great family, having a united religion and united interests. He will everywhere be ready to support with his services or with his purse, his national cause against all others. Religion and government with Mahometans are never separated, and it is never forgotten, that the supremacy of the Mahometans in India has been finally overthrown by us. The eyes of the whole Mahometan population of India will be turned towards him who shall successfully proclaim a crusade against infidel government and infidel people. He in the most remote village of the Deccan, will turn towards such a prospect with the same anxious attention as he of Calcutta or Delhi. In a passage very near to this in the work, a comparison is drawn between the different troops constituting the native army, and Colonel Sutherland thus speaks of the character of the Hindoo soldiers. He quoted this to show how mistaken the hon. Member for Belfast(Mr. E. Tennent) was as to the character of the people of India, when he talked of the restoration of these gates, and the issuing this proclamation flattering the vanity of the great bulk of the people of India. Any one well acquainted with India would be well aware that there was nothing like national vanity, unless perhaps,. it might be so traced, amongst the Mahomedan population. Colonel Sutherland thus speaks of the Hindoo soldiers:— The Hindoos, of whom the great majority of our army consists, have no national cause of their own to support, nor is there any period in their history to which they can revert as furnishing them with anything national. The only thing, they were told, which induced the Governor-general to issue this proclamation was to gratify the national vanity of the people of India, and they were here told by one, than whom no one was better acquainted with the native population, that no such thing existed in India. Now look to the other side. Consider the feelings of the Mahomedan population and troops, as to the insult which they could not help thinking must be affixed to them in this proclamation. Colonel Sutherland thus describes the feeling of the Mahomedan troops and population in 1832, when considerable excitement prevailed in consequence of a soldier having shot his officer owing to some religious feeling. He said, In 1832, the trooper who shot his commanding officer, Major Wallace, was tried, convicted, and hanged in chains on a hill near the regimental lines, and about six miles from the city of Hyderabad. Presently it was given out that those who visited the body were cured of disease, with other stories, which the fakirs and priests know so well how to propagate for their own benefit. Thousands of Mahometans poured from the city of Hyderabad and all parts of the country to the spot to touch the body, and to catch the drippings that fell from it in its progress towards decay. It was the corpse of a Mahometan, who had suffered by the hands of infidels in a cause which, it is to be feared, too many of that sect would consider meritorious. A guard was placed over the body to prevent the crowd from approaching, but persons lingered near the spot, principally during the night, and at last it was thought right to remove the body. Again, this officer thus described what occurred when, in 1827, Colonal Davies was murdered by the soldiers of his own regiment, and Colonel Sutherland was-called upon to assume the command of his regiment. The mutineers were charged by a squadron of cavalry, their own comrades, which had been drawn up near the spot, and most of them, with their ringleader, were killed. Colonel Sutherland, called down from Delhi to assume command of the brigade, found the tomb of the ringleader decorated with the insignia of the grave of a Mahometan saint, And at last, during the Mohurrum, lights were placed at the tomb, and the green flag was raised over it. If such were the feelings of the people towards us under other circumstances, how must they feel when they believed that Lord Ellenborough had offered an insult to them and their religion, when he took the gates from the tomb of the great Mahometan warrior and saint, and transferred them to the possession of those whom they despised, and whose ancestors he had conquered? He might be asked, how could you hope to maintain your power in India where you were always exposed to the danger of such feelings if you exasperated them? In the first place, he would say, that you could do much to command their respect by the constant manifestation of fairness, justice, and impartiality; and, in the second place, the Mahometan uniformly entertained a strong feeling of attachment to those whom he served, and they were uniformly faithful in a remakable degree to those—as they termed it themselves—whose salt they ate. Now, he believed that both these feelings had been outraged by the act of the Governor-general; and as for the excuse that was offered, no notion of national law or national feeling existed amongst the population of India, such as existed in France, or Germany, or other European states. The feelings of the Mahometans were most acute in a matter which concerned their honour; and regarding Mahomet, as they did, as something more than a great warrior, they considered the bringing back the gates placed at his tomb as an insult of the bitterest kind offered to themselves. He repeated, that he was satisfied that the Mahometan soldiers looked at it as an insult offered to them as faithful servants of the company. The hon. Member for Beverley deprecated any reference to the Blue Book. He should refer to it, not with the view of finding any matter to disparage the general policy of Lord Auckland, but to see, in the terms of eulogy so often and so justly bestowed on the native troops, what was the opinion entertained of the conduct of these troops, whose feelings had thus been outraged. The right hon. Member for Northampton, alluded to what had taken place at Madras, when a soldier refused to obey his officer and came forward and asked permission to abandon the service rather than attend a Hindoo procession; this was a striking instance, but many similar cases might be referred to. He would say, that this proceeding was not merely an act of impolicy, but of ingratitude to those Mahometan soldiers who had fought for us—and he did not wish to say this offensively—better and more zealously than the Hindoo soldiers. Many instances of their superior conduct to the other troops were to be met with in the Blue Book, and he would refer to one or two cases as an illustration of what he meant. One of the native Mahometan officers, Hyder Ali, was repeatedly mentioned in terms of praise, and Captain Gerrard, in the despatch No. 99, spoke of him in the highest terms. In General Pollock's despatch describing the battle of Tezeen, he said, I must not omit the expression of my regret for the fate of Hyder Ali, the native commandant of the Jezailchees, a most gallant and enterprising soldier, who was killed while attempting to seize one of the enemy's standards. Lieutenant Eyre spoke of several native Mahometan officers who had distinguished themselves in Affghanistan, and in a note of the date of the fatal 23rd of November mentions, that out of the six or seven officers who distinguished themselves in the vain endeavour to lead their men to their duty, three or four were Mahometan native officers. Again, Captain Oldfield, who was commanding the cavalry at Jellalabad with Sir R. Sale, said, The whole of the troops under my command behaved most gallantly; and I received the greatest assistance from Lieutenants Mayne and Plowden, and Subadar Seikh Myhhan, of the 2nd troop 5th Light Cavalry. These were the men whom Lord Ellen-borough took the opportunity of insulting. The feeling, perhaps, would not occur to an Englishman, but to a Mahometan the case was very different. It was stated by all the officers, that at Jellalabad the Mahometan troops behaved with singular fidelity; and the whole of the observations of the Brigadier-general showed how superior their conduct had been to that of the Hindoo troops. General Pollock, in his despatch to the Adjutant-general, dated Kowulsar, March 3, 1842, speaking of the conduct of the native troops between Peshawur and Jellalabad, most carefully separates the Mahomedan from the Hindoo troops. He speaks of the Hindoo soldiers as being unwilling to advance, but he utters no such expres- sion with regard to the Mahometan troops:— It is to me most painful that, notwithstanding, all my hopes about the state of the men, I am sorry to say there have been several desertions of late, and there is a feeling among many of the Hindoos of four regiments of Brigadier Wild's force, which is most lamentable. Again, Major Hoggan, in a despatch to Captain Ponsonby, the assistant adjutant-general, stated:— I have the honour to state, for the information of Major-general Pollock, C. B., commanding, that all those Hindoo sepoys of the 53rd regiment Native Infantry, who had a few days ago, allowed themselves, in an unguarded moment, to evince feelings so immediately opposed to those of soldiers, have now unanimously expressed their contrition, and have given the most satisfactory assurances, through their respective commanding officers, that I shall never again have occasion to be displeased with them, and that they will strive in future to deserve the favourable opinion of the major-general. He had listened very attentively to the very eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he moved the thanks of the House to the army in India, and could sympathise with him when he deprecated, the use of any language derogatory to the; merits of our native troops when in Affghanistan, considering the difficulties they had to contend with in a climate so different from any they had been accustomed to, and alluded to the feelings of dismay which operated on the veteran legions of Alexander, when they passed through the same country. He deprecated any attempt to lessen the merits of the Hindoo soldiers; but if this was to be used as an argument for the Hindoo troops, how much stronger was the case in favour of the Mahometan troops. These were the men, then, whom Lord Ellenborough had insulted—and grievously insulted—by his proclamation. He could assure the hon. Secretary for the Board of Control, that he never was more mistaken on any point than he was as to the feelings of the Mahometan population on the invasion of Affghanistan. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Mahometans of India had manifested the utmost indifference on the subject, and he drew the inference from this assumption that they would be perfectly indifferent to the return of this trophy to India. Now, he was in India at that time, and he easily could be corrected if he spoke erroneously; but he could give his assurance to the hon. Member that the matter of fact was entirely different to what he had supposed. There was the strongest Mahometan excitement throughout India when the Affghan war commenced, and the attention of the native Mahometan population was perfectly alive to the matter, and was directed towards Affghanistan, and there was a strong Mahometan feeling, that the glories of Islamism were about to be restored. There were strong expressions to this effect in a Persian newspaper, printed at Calcutta, and which was well known to express the feelings of the Mahometans. It was a most erroneous feeling to suppose that the Mahometans in India were indifferent to what was passing around them, but they were sensitive to a degree in matters which we, in happier circumstances, could not feel. Colonel Sutherland mentions the murder of an officer by his troops, merely for ordering their beards to be trimmed in a certain manner. If these men entertained such feelings respecting merely a few hairs on their beards, what would be their feelings on such a subject as the gates of Somnauth, touching these religious prejudices so strongly as they did. He had spoken hitherto of the feelings of the Mahometan population in India—men of warlike habits, and of firm resentments, and ill affected to the British Government. It was a great mistake to suppose that these Mahometans regarded the Affghans as a robber tribe. A feeling to the contrary of this was shown by what, took place at the battle fought at Maniput in 1760, against the empire of Delhi, which lasted two days. The hon. Member for Beverley seemed to dissent; but although Delhi was a Mahometan state, yet practically it was in the hands of the Mahrattas. If the matter was looked into, it would be found, that there was hardly a Mahometan of any rank, who had not got Affghan blood in his veins. In several states of India the rulers notoriously were descended from the Affghans. This was particularly the case with the heads of the Rohilla tribe, and some of the rulers of Guzerat. It was notorious to every one who was intimately acquainted with the people of India that many of the Mahometan princes prided themselves on their descent from the Affghans. On this point, he would read an extract from Sir John Malcolm's valuable work on Central India. He was speaking of one of the most celebrated military exploits ever performed in India—he meant General Goddard's march across the country—and he said—

"That the remaining part of the march of the Bengal detachment, after it passed the Nerbudda, was unobstructed, may, in some degree be ascribed to the line taken by the Patans of Bhopal, whose conduct on this memorable occasion, established a claim upon the British Government, that merited all the notice which it has since received. In an official abstract, made from the correspondence of General Goddard, it is stated that every effort was made to render the Nabob of Bhopal hostile to the English, but in vain; he remained true to his first promise of friendship, though many of his fields and villages were, in consequence of his fidelity to his engagement, plundered by the Mahrattas. In a subsequent part of the same work he again thus described the same classes:

They are, however, deserving both of that solicitude and favour which they have hitherto received, for Bhopal is at this moment, and will continue while well managed, an essential point of strength in Central India. He would repeat it, there was no person of Affghan descent whose feelings would not be outraged by these proceedings of Lord Ellenborough. Nor were the native princes and soldiers of India alone concerned in this consideration; a very large portion of our very best civil servants, and four-fifths of the native judges of India, were persons of Mahometan descent, and proud of that descent; the greater part of them with Affghan blood in their veins, and all of them very sensitive to any insult of this description. Before he concluded, in spite of the denunciations of the hon. Member for Beverley, and his ascription of party motives to gentlemen of a different opinion from his own, he (Mr. Mangles) would speak out frankly and plainly, as to the mischief which he believed would result to India, if Lord Ellenborough were continued in the government of that country; and if all the gentlemen connected with India would speak as frankly on the subject in the House as they did out of the House, there would be a marvellously unanimous vote on this motion. He hoped, indeed, that, in spite of all that had been said, the recent vote of thanks to Lord Ellenborough was intended to cover his retreat from India. He hoped very soon to see the return of that noble Lord to this country. If Lord Ellenborough was not recalled he (Mr. Mangles) would stake what little character or reputation he might possess in that House on the correctness of this prediction—judging from the specimens which they had already had of the noble Lord's conduct—judging from his conduct in many other respects, than the matter under consideration—judging from this fact, among others, that, during the short time he had been in India, he had managed to set the civil service and the army at extreme jealousy the one of the other—that Lord Ellenborogh if he remained in India, would inflict the greatest and permanent mischiefs on that noble possession of Great Britain; and should those mischiefs ensue, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had the power to avert them, and would not stretch forth his hand to do so, would be responsible for the great and complicated calamity.

Mr. B. Escott

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentlemen who had stated that this was a question on which they ought to throw aside all party prejudices, and ought to look to the interests of the Indian empire and to the interests of this country. The Governor-general was the servant of the East India Company, and the representative of the Majesty of this great nation in its East Indian dominions, and he did not understand how it could be for the interest of India and of this country to endeavour to cry down Lord Ellen-borough in this manner. Why had not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they really entertained the opinion of that noble Lord which they expressed, come forward with a direct vote of censure, and a motion for his recall? Who was it that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were thus calumniating? The representative of our Queen, the representative of the East India Company, the representative of the Majesty of this great country in our Indian dominions. Against this distinguished functionary, though they dared not say that he had done anything for which he ought to be recalled, yet they dared to throw out imputations against his religious character, imputations founded on mere verbal criticisms on his proclamation; in the hope of casting a stigma on a man who had been their political opponent at home, and whom they now regarded as a rival who had supremely triumphed over them in India, by the glories which he had acquired there. What was the history of this motion? The right hon. Member for Northampton said that had he wished to oppress the Governor-general of India, he might have found a much better time for it than the present. Certainly it appeared to him (Mr. Escott), that if the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to make a plain and intelligible statement to the House of any reasons he might have to produce why the House should pass a vote for the recall of Lord Ellenborough, he might have found a better time for it than that night. The Parliament met on the 2nd of February, and at that time it was the general expectation that some motion would be made, not as to the present, but as to the late Governor-general of India with reference to the war which that noble Lord had undertaken in Affghanistan; but on the discussion of the Address to the Throne, strong strictures were made on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough: and in the House, and out of it, the common observations which were made on these strictures, and on the state of public opinion with reference to what had taken place in India, both under Lord Auckland and under Lord Ellenborough, was, "What a God-send for Lord Auckland was Lord Ellenborough's proclamation." On that same day the hon. Member for Bath gave notice that he would move for a select committee to inquire into the conduct, and into the justice and policy of the war in Affghanistan, and, of consequence, into the conduct of Lord Auckland; but that day also the right hon. Member for Northampton moved for a copy of the despatch containing the proclamation so much talked about, fixing his motion for the 9th of February, or the 17th of February. The hon. Member for Bath, on the 7th of February, deferred his motion to the 21st. On the 20th the right hon. Member for Northampton gave notice of his intention to move these condemnatory resolutions against Lord Ellenborough on the 28th. On the 21st the hon. Member for Bath deferred his motion to the 24th; and on this occasion it was quite clear, from what passed between the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government and the hon. Member, that this motion, fixed for the 24th, was not to come on on that day, but on some later occasion. On the 23rd the right hon. Member for Northampton again deferred his motion to the 9th of March, thus taking especial care to skip over the time when the motion would come on as to the policy and justice of the Affghan war. Now did any one suppose that if Government had not thrown its shield over the late Governor-general, the policy of the noble Lord as to Affghanistan would not have been condemned by a large majority of the House? He did not mean to say that Government had not had the best and most patriotic reasons for the course it adopted. He could understand that it was for the interest of the country that such a question as the war in Affghanistan should be allowed to remain in peace, after peace itself had been achieved, that no further inquiries should be made on the subject, that the best should be made of a bad matter, and that we should abstain from all further attacks on those who had engaged in the war. But in the meantime what happened? Both Houses of Parliament voted their thanks to Lord Ellenborough and the army in India; and only yesterday another body, equally, if not in a greater degree, interested in the Government of India, the Court of Proprietors voted their thanks also to the Governor-general. After this, the right hon. Gentleman, after having recorded his vote in favour of the vote of thanks—after having received the shelter of the present Government for his own party, now came down with this attack on the present Governor-general. They were called upon to vote the proclamation and the act which accompanied it, "unwise, indecorous, and reprehensible." They who last Session were told that they dared not stir against Lord Auckland in his absence, they who were told they dared not vote the Affghan expedition unjust, because he who had undertaken it was not present to explain himself, were now called upon to vote the conduct of that man reprehensible, and heap on his acts other calumnious epithets, while he was not here to give one word of explanation. Ought not Lord Ellenborough to have some time to explain whether he might not have thought some sacrifice necessary to the opinions of the Hindoos in consequence of the influence of that free press which had now been established there? He was told they had no right to look to what Lord Ellenborough had done; that, according to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, was not a fair issue. But, as an honest man, when called upon to decide whether a Governor-general was to be condemned for putting his hand to a paper, he felt himself bound to take into consideration the acts he had done. He would say more than that. He would tell the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they took into consideration the acts Lord Ellenborough had achieved. He had committed grievous offences—he had done things in India by virtue of his high office which they would neither forget nor forgive. Before he went to India he condemned their war; since he had been in India he had triumphantly concluded it. If there was one thing more galling to human nature than another, it was to see him whom they hated, enjoy the opportunity of retrieving the errors they had committed. Such was the position of Lord Ellenborough, and therefore they decried him to-night. They dared not do so on the first night of the Session; they dared not move an amendment to the address against Lord Ellenborough; they waited till they saw the result of the motion brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and when they saw that the Government would screen the delinquency of their friend, their gratitude evaporated in one little week, and down they came with their trumpery story about the rotten gates of Somnauth, not venturing to pronounce a plain and intelligible censure by naming the recall of Lord Ellenborough. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh was a great critic; he was accustomed to review the works of others, so he reviewed the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough. He took it to pieces word by word, distorting all the facts, and twisting everything into an attack upon him who he knew had been the successful vindicator of British honour in India. Because he could not find fault with his acts, he attempted to raise a laugh at the expense of the Governor-general's proclamation not being, as he himself admitted, a very happy specimen of English. He was not going to defend this proclamation in every particular. He knew there were men in the country, and some in that House, who had the strongest objection against this proclamation and the act which accompanied it He referred ro a class of persons at whose head stood his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, of whose principles he most highly approved. He knew what course that hon. Baronet had taken before and what course he would take again to-night with reference to this question. He felt it would not only be a serious inconsistency on his part, but also that it would amount to a serious evil, as far as one vote could produce that effect, were he to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman; and if in doing so he took a course different from that of his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, not all the respect he entertained for the character of that hon. Member would induce him to refrain from telling him that he thought he was in error. He looked on this motion as being an attempt to take advantage of the good feeling of the country, and to pervert that good feeling to an unjust and an improper purpose. There certainly was a feeling in the country against the proclamation, but that feeling was now weak indeed compared with what it was six weeks ago, and those who supported this motion to-night had much indeed misconceived the genius of the people of this country if they thought they had gained by their delay in bringing this motion forward. The people of England loved the religion of their country—they were disposed to show respect towards the religion of other countries; but there was one other thing they loved—plain dealing; there was one other thing they hated—they hated hypocrisy and hypocritical pretences. The Gentlemen opposite talked of a religious man, one Sultan Mahmoud; it had been as well if they had left it to some religious man to bring forward this question. As it was, he was quite ignorant how long since the right hon. Gentleman had taken these notions of hyperpiety into his head. Did not Lord Ellenborough disavow the motives which had been imputed to him? Did not all those who spoke for him in his absence, and who knew him best, utterly disavow them on his behalf? Some Gentlemen, perhaps, remembered the feeling which was expressed by the people of this country when the Elgin marbles were brought from Greece; that an earnest desire was expressed that these remnants of ancient art should be sent back to their native homes. Suppose the Government of that time had acceded to this wish, and had sent back those great monuments of by-gone times. What would have been thought of any Gentleman who should have got up in the House, and argued that it was an insult to the religion of this country to send back these noble relics to the restored temple of Minerva at Athens. Whatever the people of England might feel with regard to the wording and to the object of that proclamation, they did think it most unfair, most unjust, most contrary to the principles of their own religion, to impute motives to a man which he himself disowned; and Lord Ellenborough did disown those motions. On this head he would appeal to the authority of one who, to his honour, had stood up to defend him who was not there to defend himself—he meant the hon. Member for Guildford. That hon. Member had declared his conviction from the benches opposite, that Lord Ellen-borough in penning the proclamation, had intended no insult to the religion of his country. All that the people of England knew on the subject of the proclamation, and of Lord Ellenborough, was this:—they knew that by the noble Lord's predecessor the country had been plunged into an unworthy, and as it resulted, a disgraceful war, from which through Lord Ellenborough, they were delivered. The noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton had said, it was by a miracle that the country was delivered from that war. The people of England did not go so far as the noble Lord in attributing the successful result of that war to a miracle, but they did attribute it to the conduct of the Governor-general, and the valour of the British troops. Remembering this service, they also saw that the Governor-general had written a proclamation, which it was admitted on all hands he had better not have written; but still they said— Is it fair to turn round on this Governor-general and obliterate the memory of all else that he has done, because he has penned one indiscreet proclamation This he believed to be the feeling of the people of England on this question, and, thinking thus, he did say, that adopting the words of the motion as applied to the proclamation, they would apply those words to the motion itself and say, that in their belief it was an unwise, indecorous, and reprehensible motion.

Mr. Hume

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down, had given a history of the motion, with a view of leading the House to believe that he understood the question; but it would have been much better if the hon. Member had answered the arguments which had been brought forward. The hon. Member had not touched one point, nor answered one argument which had been urged by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. If crimination and recrimination were arguments, the hon. Member had done enough; but he would have exercised a sounder judgment had he met the arguments by which the motion was supported. The hon. Member had reproached those who brought forward the motion with attacking Lord Ellenborough, and had reproached the right hon. Gentleman opposite with having defended the late Government on a former occasion. The right hon. Baronet, the hon. Member said, had thrown a shield over them by refusing the information and the committee for which his hon. and learned Friend had asked. It was true the right hon. Baronet had done that—the right hon. Baronet had resisted the inquiry, for which he was sorry. That statement was no argument against him, for he had supported that motion. He was no party man on this question, but he had a strong feeling on the subject. His situation differed from that of other hon. Members around him, and he acted on different grounds. He did not, for example, consider this as a religious question, and he would prove that it was not. He certainly concurred in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, that experience proved that the time was come when Lord Ellenborough should be removed from the government of India. He agreed entirely in that opinion, and he should state on what grounds he supported the motion. Almost every act of that noble Lord, by the concurring testimony of all the letters from India—of letters from civil, military, and commercial authorities—created alarm in India, and excited the fears of the people. It was not the one production only of the noble Lord, though as the hon. Member (Mr. Escott) fully admitted, the language of that production was ridiculous and absurd, which was the cause of the alarm which pervaded all India. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had appealed to the hon. Director opposite (Mr. Hogg) whether the noble Lord had not acted without consulting his council, and had asked him whether this ought to be the case, and whether the language used by the noble Lord, and his hasty, rash, and inconsiderate letters were not all like this proclamation? The noble Lord kept at a distance of a thousand miles from his council, and he was convinced that there were not two men in all India who would venture to give the noble Lord any advice. AH his proceedings were rash, and he thought improper. He was one of those who approved of Lord Ellen-borough's appointment. He believed that the noble Lord would make a very good Governor-general, and would be as good a friend to India as it ever had. The noble Lord appeared to devote his whole time to the subject, and gave him the most favourable impression. But he had been compelled to alter his opinion, and his new opinion had been forced on him by circumstances and testimony he could not refuse. He agreed that it was not for a single act they ought to condemn Lord Ellenborough; but the whole aspect of things was improper, and for that general condition, they ought to withdraw their confidence from Lord Ellenborough. He could assure the House that all the letters from India for the last three months expressed a total want of confidence in the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had properly asked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite if he were not alarmed at every mail which came from India? He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was, and that not a day passed in which the right hon. Gentleman did not feel anxiety as to what the next arrivals from India would bring. He regarded Lord Ellenborough's separation of himself from his council, and his taking advice of no one, as decisive against him. He attributed the noble Lord's conduct to no bad motive. His overweening vanity, his hasty impulses, drove him to act regardless of other men, and made him do the foolish things he did. It was said that Mr. Maddocks had not offered Lord Ellenborough a single word of advice, or given a single opinion to him for the last three months. In fact, no person ventured to give the noble Lord any advice; and there were few men who had passed their lives in India, such as the members of his council, who would brook the treatment to which the noble Lord subjected them. It was on this ground, as stated by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, that he supported the motion. Not one point of that right hon. Gentleman's speech had been answered by the hon. Director (Mr. Hogg), and all that he had done was to recriminate and attack Lord Auckland. But what satisfaction was it to the people of India that they were to be put to the expense of 17,000,000l.—for the war would cost that before all its expenses are paid—what satisfaction to them was this crimination and recrimination of parties in that House? He wanted, and they wanted, security for the future. The motion, he admitted, though not so expressed, was tantamount to recalling the noble Lord. He would rather that the motion had been so worded, and had rather that it had been made directly for his recall. As the motion stood, he did not see how hon. Gentlemen opposite could refuse their assent to it, for it said nothing they did not agree to. The hon. Member who had just sat down had called the language of the noble Lord foolish, absurd, and ridiculous, he said, that it was in bad taste—and, in short, not one person had defended the noble Lord's proclamation. If the motion were made for the recall of the noble Lord, he should support it with pleasure. Whatever the resolution might express, the speeches by which it was supported were all directed to the recall of the noble Lord. In his opinion, the resolution, which, as now framed, was mere milk and water, should be made to conform to the speeches. It was not on one proclamation alone that he founded his opinion; he had seen another proclamation of the Governor-general, in the same style as the one under consideration, which had been reprinted at Bombay, and circulated all through India. It was in Hindee, and decorated with such a seal as he had never seen before. He had seen a great number of seals in India, but he never saw one like this. The inscription around it was in Persian, and he procured a translation of it. It ran thus:— "The cream of princes, high in dignity, Privy Councillor to (her) Gracious Majesty the Sovereign of England, whose court resembles the planet Saturn—most noble of the Emirs, Edward Lord Ellenborough, Governor-general and Bahadur, Supreme Administrator of the well-guarded provinces belonging to the English company connected with the country of India. The year of Jesus, 1842. The proclamation with that seal, with a Hindoo signature, was sent all through India. He (Mr. Hume) forgot what was the nature of the Marquess Wellesley's seal, but the custom was, that the Governor-generals of India assumed what- ever title they pleased upon entering upon their office. The old form was, to apply to the king of Delhi, who gave them what title he pleased. But to return to the Somnauth proclamation he must say, that on reading it again he could not see that it had anything to do with religion. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) had stated, that it was an insult to one religion or the other—the Hindoo or the Mussulman. He did not agree with that. Take the first line—"From the Governor-general to all princes and chiefs, and people of India." There was no distinction there between Hindoo and Mussulman—not a word to lead one to suppose that the proclamation was addressed to either exclusively—the language forbade one to consider that the proclamation was an insult to either. It was not, possible, too, for the Hindoos to use those gates for any religious purposes. The law forbade them. The Governor-general, however, displayed an ignorance for which schoolboys would be whipped. The President of the Board of Control showed considerable ignorance, too; but the ignorance of Lord Ellenborough was unpardonable. The Board of Control could not be ignorant of all the circumstances connected with the temple of Somnauth. The Indian Government must be perfectly acquainted with them. He found in the Asiatic Journal for October, 1838, an account of the place from Lieutenant Hoskins, who had been deputed to visit it. He stated that Somnauth was a seaport that was overlooked by the promontory of Chattewar; he described the temple to be an oblong building, ninety-six feet by sixty-eight long. The whole population were Mussulmans. No service had been performed of any kind; there had not been for ages, as far as history related, any service there. The noble Lord, therefore, no doubt wrote this proclamation in utter ignorance of the state of this temple. He said— You will yourselves, with all honour, transmit the gates of Sandalwood through your respective territories to the restored temple of Somnauth. Why, there was no temple. Was is not a strange thing that the Governor-general of India should be so ignorant? But that was the consequence of his consulting no one, of being absent from his council—of taking no advice—and of his hastily giving orders to his secretary to carry out his own notions. It is true there was a shrine there at which ceremonies were performed which would not be tolerated now. But the report of renewing that temple had caused alarm in the country. He was sorry to see it, and had himself several petitions to present against the proclamation, which were founded on the belief that it was intended to renew the worship of Siva, to which the temple had been dedicated. The fact was not so; the temple was not restored, nor was it intended to be restored by the noble Lord. If there was such an intention, it was enough, he admitted, to alarm a Christian community. He attributed the proclamation of the noble Lord to no such motive, but to most extraordinary ignorance, and he believed that the noble Lord never entertained the intention at which the people were alarmed. He would ask the House this question, what would become of the gates when they arrived? There was no place to put them. The Rajah of Guioewar in whose territory the temple is situated, and all the population in the neighbourhood, are Mussulmans. That was a dilemma. They had got the gates, but they had no place to put them. Was not that a proof of gross ignorance in the author of the proclamation? He would further say, that it was quite impossible that the gates should be applied to a religious purpose. No Hindoo would admit them to form any part of a building devoted to religious purposes. He would refer to a letter which he had received from a Hindoo—the late Vakeel to the Rajah of Sattara. He had made inquiries as to the religious feelings of the Hindoos, and he would read the letter he had received. The hon. Member read the following letter— 9, Bland ford-place, Regent's-park, Feb. 18,1843. Dear Sir—It appears to me that the restoration of the gates of the temple of Somnauth to India could have no reference to the support, or degradation of any religious creed. The appropriation of those gates to a Hindoo temple, or to advance, in any way, the Hindoo faith, is rendered utterly impracticable, by the tenets of the Hindoo religion; which clearly prescribes and declares, that whatever material that may have been placed over, or may have been in contact with a dead (human) body, whether a tomb, or even a garment, is thereby polluted and contaminated, so as to be unfit for any purpose whatever, except that of being destroyed. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Governor-general (doubtlessly, with many intelligent advisers, in his suite) never con- templated that gates, which for ages had formed an important part of the tomb of a Mahometan prince, could be subsequently applied to a Hindoo temple; and their removal from Affghanistan must have been to gratify the feelings of the British Hindoo army, by recovering these relics of degradation, respecting which the Hindoos of Western India had for ages been upbraided; and by placing such a token of past humiliation at the disposal of those sects, from which they had been forcibly wrested by a Mahometan conqueror; an act by which the Indian government must have conciliated the feelings of the British Hindoo army, on their return from those scenes of death and sufferings to which thousands of their countrymen had been sacrificed by a reckless enemy. In conclusion, I cannot but encourage the hope that the kind determination expressed by Lord Ellenborough, to cultivate the goodwill of the princes and chiefs of India, in his late proclamation, will also extend to his inquiry into the grievances of my unfortunate master (of high and ancient lineage), whose only crime or culpability has been fearlessly sustaining the truth, by avowing his innocence of alleged guilt, emanating from a foul conspiracy of his own subjects, and for which he has been unheard and unheeded, consigned to exile from the government of his people, and the throne of his ancestors. I have the honour to be, with great esteem, and respect, dear Sir, your obedient servant, RUNGOO BAPOJEE, Vakeel to his highness the dethroned Raja of Sattara. To Joseph Hume, Esq. M.P. It was his opinion, too, that Lord Ellenborough did not mean to pay any homage to the religious feelings of the Hindoos. On the contrary, his only intention was to remove from the minds of the Hindoos that feeling of degradation which they yet entertained from having been conquered by the Affghans. His object was to relieve that country, which had been overrun by the Mahometan conqueror, from the painful feelings which had been rankling amongst the people for nearly a thousand years. The noble Lord concluded that he should do that, and that he should encourage their attachment to the British Government by the proclamation. The noble Lord, he was sure, never intended to do homage to the Hindoo superstition. He was satisfied, and he thought the House would be satisfied by the letter he had read, that the object of the noble Lord was merely to bring back the trophy of Indian oppression which had long been felt as an opprobium in India, and not excite the popular superstition or passions of any district. That was the real object of the noble Lord's proclamation. It did not apply to religion at all, though he knew that the religious feelings of this country had been unnecessarily alarmed, and he hoped that they would be appeased by this explanation. For him it was perfectly satisfactory. He maintained that by the proclamation being addressed to all the people of India, it set aside religious feelings altogether. There was not a single sentence in the proclamation which applied to any sect or religion in particular, and there was no one sect to which there was any one sentence likely to give offence. At the same time, he must say that such had been the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, that he believed it would be a wise and good policy to remove him as soon as possible from the Government, in order to prevent the chance of further and greater evil. The change could not be made too soon. He hoped, as he had heard, that it was true that the noble Lord's successor was named. He trusted that if it were not so, the discussion which had taken place would hasten the noble Lord's recall. His object, in making these remarks—though he concurred in the motion, while he had different reasons for supporting it from most of the hon. Gentlemen around him—was to endeavour to disabuse the public. He wished Lord Ellenborough removed, and therefore he supported the motion. This act of the noble Lord might be taken as a sample of the hasty way in which he had done so much since he went to India. His proceedings with respect to the rewards to the officers and soldiers who had served in the Affghan campaign, though he (Mr. Hume) admired the intention of them, were nevertheless taken in the most hasty manner, without consulting his council, and the whole affair of the medals, and ribands, and what not, had created such surprise, that (as he had heard) when the proclamation came down to the council at Calcutta, they held up their hands, and asked, "What next?" Surely it was too much to see the Governor-general, within a few days after his arrival in India, leaving his council never to return up to the last mail, and carrying on all the business, without check and without any consultation with anybody, on his own responsibility solely. Considering the greatness of the affairs of India, he certainly required a drag. The noble Lord had formerly talked of placing some one like a tame elephant between two wild ones; he now required a tame elephant himself. The steadiest man required advice in such a situation. Why was a council instituted at all? Was it not that the Governor-general might have access to the best advice Then the delay of business at one time, and the haste with which business was done at another, arising from the absence, not only of the noble Lord, but of the other governors from their councils, was a serious grievance to the people of India. Something should be done to amend the Government of India. The Governor of Bombay, like the Governor-general, continued, for a considerable period of the year, away from his council. He was three-fourths of his time amongst the hills, away from the seat of Government, which caused great delay in the transaction of business. It was the same at Madras, where the Governor was absent three months in the year. That was a system which required a change. He blamed the directors, and he blamed the Houses of Parliament, on account of the act for regulating the Government of India, which was obviously defective and obviously erroneous, for it gave too much power to the Governor-general. He thought that there ought to be a change. At any rate, those to whom the directors assigned the management of affairs, ought to make them cognizant of what was going on. Did the directors know anything of the origin of this war. If they had known anything about it, would they not have risen up as one man to protest against it. He said, therefore, that there was much that required to be altered, not only in the conduct of the Governor-general of India, but in that of the Board of Control. He had thus stated wherein he agreed, and wherein he differed from his hon. Friends near him. He did not assent to the grounds upon which the motion of the right hon. Member for Northampton was founded; but if it would have the effect of removing the present Governor-general of India, he (Mr. Hume) would support it. He wanted the noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough) to be removed from a sphere of action where he might do much harm. At all events if he were not removed we ought to prevent his doing further mischief, to prevent his further exposing himself, to be immediately sent down to his council and be made to consult with them before he committed himself to acts which were as ridiculous and preposterous in themselves as they were unworthy of the dignity and character of a representative of the might and power of this country. It had been asked if Lord Ellenborough were removed, who should be appointed to succeed him? He (Mr. Hume) would reply to the question by asking, could any one be appointed to the Government of India whose acts would exhibit less of wisdom, prudence, or general fitness to represent the dignity and character of this country? It was most true, as had been stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) that if there were one thing more than another to be observed in India it was this, that the language of the Governor-general upon all public occasions should be as direct and simple as possible, and that it should be perfectly free from the pompous and inflated phraseology of the East. This was necessary not only to maintain the character and dignity of the representative of British power in India, but requisite also to uphold the importance of the individual in the eyes even of the native population. He had seen letters from Englishmen, complaining as much as any from natives, of the sort of language which Lord Ellenborough had addressed to them. Upon the whole, he thought that the time had arrived when that noble Lord should be recalled, and with that feeling strongly impressed upon his mind, he should vote in support of the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton.

Mr. Williams Wynn

attempted with great difficulty to gain his feet. The Members who sat next him assisted him in the effort; but he was unable to accomplish it. There was a general cry of "Sit, sit," in the midst of which,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rose, and moved that the right hon. Gentleman be allowed to speak sitting.

Leave accorded.

Mr. Williams Wynn,

speaking from his seat, expressed his sense of the kindness of the House in allowing him to address it in that manner. He had now sat a great many years in Parliament, and if, during that time, be had learnt one lesson more than another it was not to look at the exact words and terms of a motion, but to the object of it, and to the result likely to flow from it. The object of the present motion appeared to him to be not to obtain any opinion from the House as to whether the proclamation in question was or was not judicious, but to pass such a censure upon the conduct of the Governor-general of India as should make it necessary for him, as a man of honour,—although the Government of her Majesty might not think it imperative upon them to recal him—to resign his office. Upon that point, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), who had just spoken had expressed himself, as he (Mr. Wynn) thought, most correctly. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the covert object of the motion would be better and more practically ensured by a direct motion for an address to the Crown for the recal of Lord Ellenborough. And be must say, that if for the object of removing Lord Ellenborough, the hon. Member gave his vote in support of the motion of the right hon. Member for Northampton, the Ministerial side of the House had at least had the benefit of the hon. Member's speech, which, as far as the open and avowed object of the motion went, afforded a complete and conclusive answer to that motion. From the authority which the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had quoted, the measure of Lord Ellenborough in respect to the gates of Somnauth appeared to be far more justifiable than it had seemed to be from any other statement that he (Mr. Wynn) had yet heard. He would fairly say, that the point upon which the conduct of Lord Ellenborough appeared to him originally to be most vulnerable, was the doubt as to whether it would not be, deemed offensive to the Mahometan population of our possessions in India. He could never conceive that there was any thing in the proclamation offensive to the Christian religion. The parallel case which had been stated in the course of the debate, of the restoration of the pictures to the Roman Catholic churches, was a case, in all respects, as strong as the present, and yet it was one against which nobody ever breathed a word. He did not, of course, mean to say, that the Roman Catholic Church, and the idolatry of Hindooism, were to be viewed in the same light; but still it might be fairly argued, that if the English Government were justified in restoring objects of veneration to the Roman Catholic Church, for the pictures in Roman Catholic churches were, to a certain extent, objects of veneration, they would be equally justified in restoring an object of veneration, such as the gates of Somnauth, to the Hindoos of India. He did not think that the manner of the restoration—the pomp and circumstance by which it was attended—had anything to do with the religious part of the question. Supposing when the pictures were restored, that Rubens' "Descent from the Cross," a picture highly valuable, and held in the highest esteem by those to whom it originally belonged, had been directed to be carried back by a guard of honour, and with a parade of military pomp, men might have thought perhaps, that that was not the most judicious way of restoring it, but no one would have thought of saying, that it was degrading to our national character, or injurious to the Christian religion. He should in this case give his vote decidedly against the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, not because he meant to support the words of the proclamation, but because the object of the motion was to procure the recal of Lord Ellenborough. Lord Ellenborough arrived in India only about a year ago. He looked at what the position of affairs in India then was, and compared it with what it was at the present moment, and making that comparison, he could not feel it consistent with his duty to follow up the conduct of a Governor-general who had effected so beneficial a change, by a motion which must be looked upon as equivalent to a direct censure leading to his recal. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had dwelt very much upon the circumstance of Lord Ellenborough's leaving his council, and going up the country alone. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that that was not a thing to be done lightly, or upon common occasions; but when the nature of the contemplated measures for the evacuation of Affghanistan was considered, and when it was remembered how important it was to have some high authority upon the spot, who might sanction such steps as were necessary, and give orders for what was requisite without delay, he should think that this was exactly one of the cases in which it was desirable that the Governor-general should place himself near the scene of action, and thence issue his orders, and make known his determinations. Unquestionably, however, the system was one which should not be acted upon gene rally; and if it should appear that Lord Ellenborough had remained away from the seat of government longer than was necessary, he should think him blame-able for so doing, and that it would be highly proper that he should be ordered to return to the seat of government as speedily as possible. He did not think, however, that such a period had elapsed in the present instance, as would properly call for the adoption of such a step. The vote that he (Mr. W. Wynn) gave upon the present occasion, would be given upon exactly the same ground as that which he had given upon a former evening in the course of the present session. If he had taken the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) abstractedly, or had considered only its words, he certainly could not deny that the commencement of the war in Affghanistan was unjust, impolitic, and inexpedient; but what object was to be gained by the House making such a declaration? His right hon. Friend who sat near him stated one material reason, and one which the House ought not to pass by, why the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath could not be agreed to: it was this—that it would be impossible for the late government to make a defence for the measures which they had originated in India, without entering into an explanation of the grounds which they had, or thought they had, for apprehending hostile measures from Russia. That was an explanation that could not be entered into without material inconvenience to the public service. He looked also to the effect to be produced by the hon. and learned Member's motion. If the Governor-general, who had originally sanctioned the war, had still been in India—if the administration which had directed the war had still been in office, it would have been a perfectly legitimate ground to enter into the inquiry which the hon. and learned Member proposed, with the view of ascertaining whether the conduct of those who commenced and carried on the war, had been so censurable as should induce the House to address the Crown, either for their removal, or for a conclusion of the war. But the war being concluded, and those who originated it being no longer in power, he could not see any desirable object that could be attained by voting for the hon. and learned Member's motion. He was actuated by the same view and the same feeling in the present instance.

He not only thought that nothing useful would result from the motion of the right hon. Member for Northampton, but that it would inflict a great injustice upon a nobleman who, in his opinion, had a high claim upon the gratitude of his country. The hon. Member for Montrose said, that he was prepared to vote for the motion, not because he assented to the grounds upon which it was rested, but because of certain private communications which he had received as to the feeling of the civil service in India, with respect to Lord Ellenborough. He was not prepared to support the motion upon such grounds; on the contrary, he should conceive it to be his duty to give it his decided opposition.

Mr. Plumptre

said, he had given his hearty concurrence to the vote of thanks which was recently passed by that House to the Governor-general of India; but he considered that, in the issue of the proclamation to which such frequent reference had been made, Lord Ellenborough had been guilty, to use the mildest term, of an indiscretion. It might have been an inconsiderate act; and though he hoped that the noble Lord might long live to benefit the country by the great talents which he possessed, yet he hoped that he would take a lesson from what had passed to-night, and exhibit more caution in future. He was at a loss to determine whether this motion were brought forward as a mere party question, or from religious considerations. Certainly the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject, had not on any former occasion manifested his zeal on behalf of Christianity and against idolatry, though many opportunities had been afforded him of so doing. It was said that this could not be considered as a religious question, but he differed entirely from hon. Members who made that assertion. What were the facts of the case? The gates of an idol temple, which had been carried off by a hostile nation, were restored by the Governor-general of India, and the restoration was accompanied by circumstances of unusual parade and display. The attention of the people of India and of England had been directed to the fact; and several petitions had been presented to the House on the subject from various religious bodies. It had been said over and over again, that the progress of Christianity in India had been retarded by the conduct of the Christians themselves in that quarter of the world. If, in the present instance, the Governor-general did not trouble himself about the religious part of the question, it was at least his bounden duty not to do anything that should be injurious to the progress of Christianity, in the great empire entrusted to his rule. A noble Lord had said in another place, that a more pious Christian than Lord Ellenborough never existed. He had not sufficient knowledge of Lord Ellenborough to speak upon that point; but this he would say, that in proportion as a man was a pious Christian, would he be watchful and jealous to uphold the interests of the creed to which he was attached. With these feelings, and consistently with the votes which he had ever given in that House, he could not do otherwise than support the motion of the right hon. Member for Northamptonshire.

Sir George Grey;

After the admirable speech of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macau-lay), which had been left wholly unanswered, after the exposure of this proclamation, and the severe condemnation contained in that speech of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in issuing such a proclamation, and after the total abandonment of that unfortunate document which had been exhibited in the speech of every hon. Gentleman who had spoken from the Ministerial side of the House, he should have felt it unnecessary to present himself at all to the attention of the House, if he had not been entrusted with various petitions from persons actuated by no party or political feeling, by persons professing various political opinions, and who entirely concurred in the sentiments just expressed with the sincerity which marked the whole Parliamentary conduct of his hon. Friend (Mr. Plumptre) who had just sat down, and who were unable, by any process of reason, to discover why this question could be considered as one destitute of religious interest and importance, and one that could not in any way affect the religious feeling of the people of this country. These petitioners had long endeavoured to impart the blessings of Christianity to their fellow-subjects in that important part of the British empire. They concurred in the principles laid down by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh as to the course which it was the duty of the Government to take in respect to the diffusion of Christianity in India. They asked for no direct aid from the Govern- ment to enable them to carry out their endeavours for the advancement of Christianity in that region; but asking no aid from the Government, they did at least ask for its neutrality, did at least ask, that whilst it tolerated the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the native population, it should not afford a direct countenance and encouragement to them, by acts which could not fail to lower at once the character of the Government and the interests of Christianity in the eyes of India and of the world. In those feelings he entirely concurred; and, therefore, anxious as he was not to say anything with regard to the general policy of Lord Ellenborough—the petitioners themselves desiring to express no opinion upon that policy—he still should not do justice to them if he did not state, that in the absence of any expression of disapproval or condemnatory of the noble Lord's conduct with respect to the gates of Somnauth upon the part of her Majesty's Ministers, the petitioners did look to that House as the only remaining organ through which they could express their disapprobation of the conduct of the Governor-general in this instance, and to separate this country from the guilt which they thought attached to the act he had committed. He knew that he might incur censure for introducing the subject of Christianity into the debate. The hon. Member for Beverley had particularly dwelt upon the impropriety and inconvenience of introducing that topic. He respected, as he was bound to do, any opinion coming from that hon. Member, but, at the same time, he must say, that he could not consent to the doctrine he laid down, that Christianity, of all the religions in the world, was that upon which the House of Commons was to maintain an absolute silence, and whilst he was anxious to carry the toleration of all religions to the utmost possible extent, he still felt that we were bound to see that no obstacle was thrown in the way of the introduction of Christianity into India by British authorities in that part of the empire. The petitioners, whose views he was now representing, stated that they viewed the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough with apprehension, because they conceived it would raise an obstacle to the beneficial working of the labours of the missionaries in India, by inducing a belief in the mind of the native population, that the Government of the country was indifferent to the religion which they (the missionaries) were seeking to introduce. He had no desire whatever to impute to Lord Ellenborough an intention to outrage the feelings of the Christian population, or to commit the Government to any of the obscene and abominable rites and ceremonies observed in the temple of Somnauth; and in acquitting the noble Lord of any intention upon that point, he must say, that the charge of indiscretion against him was fearfully increased. Those who came forward to defend the conduct of the noble Lord referred to the circular letter which, in the absence of the Bishop of Calcutta, he had addressed to the clergy of India, calling upon them to offer up thanks for the victory which had been achieved by the Anglo-Indian army, as a proof that the noble Lord could not have been indifferent to the interests of Christianity when he penned the proclamation relating to the gates of the temple of Somnauth. If, upon the present occasion, there had been a question as to the genuineness or authenticity of the documents, he (Sir G. Grey) should certainly have said, that the man who penned the circular letter to the clergy could not, by possibility, have penned the proclamation to the princes and chiefs. If there had been a doubt as to the authenticity of the documents, he should have said that Lord Ellenborough ought to have the benefit of that doubt, because it would appear to be utterly impossible that any man of ordinary sense could rise from the penning the one document, and afterwards sit down to pen the other. Lord Ellenborough did not appear to be insensible to the advantage of observing a perfect impartiality towards the different sects of religion in India; and it would seem that he carried his impartiality into effect by patronising each sect in its turn. The Indian press expressed the apprehensions which were entertained in India as well as in this country as to the effect which the noble Lord's proclamation was likely to have upon the Mahometan population; and since it was impossible that these apprehensions should not reach the ear of the Governor-general, it led one to fear that he might issue a Mahometan proclamation, assuring that portion of the Indian population of his desire to favour their rites and ceremonies, and to remove any apprehensions that might exist in their minds as to any undue favour being shown to the followers of Hindooism. An assurance had been given in a very high quarter of the noble Lord's impartial attention to the interests of Christianity in India. It appeared from a letter which Lord Ellenborough had addressed to a Member of her Majesty's Government, that he had the religious question distinctly before his eyes at the time he wrote his famous proclamation. They were told by a very high authority that Lord Ellenborough penned the proclamation himself (which nobody could doubt) with the greatest care—that he wrote it no less than three times over, reducing it at last (one would like to have seen the original draft) to a shape which, in his opinion (as he triumphantly states), would render it impossible even for the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) to raise an objection to it. What was the House of Commons to think of the discretion of a man who wrote a general proclamation of this sort under the idea that he was making it in conformity with the views and opinions of a particular individual in this country. But the noble Lord was mistaken in the estimate he formed of his own production, for the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, whose good opinion he supposed he had conciliated, was the very first to raise his voice in that House against the spirit which pervaded the proclamation, and the seeming sanction which it afforded to idolatrous rites of the most revolting character. The country was indebted to the hon. Baronet not only for the condemnation which he had passed upon the proclamation after it was written, but for the influence which it now appeared he had exercised upon Lord Ellenborough before the proclamation was reduced to the form in which it was ultimately given to the world. What had been the result of the proclamation? The whole Indian press, divided as it was upon questions of general policy, spoke as with one voice in condemnation of this extraordinary document. There was but one feeling in India as to the general result of it. It had nowhere been received with approbation; but in every quarter of the empire had been hailed, on the one hand, with feelings of scorn and ridicule, and on the other hand with a sense of deep shame and humiliation. These feelings were entitled to respect, and he was not ashamed that he so far agreed with them as to deprecate in the strongest manner any retrograde step in the course which of late years had been made towards a total separation of the British Government in India from any overt act connected with the idolatrous worship of the native population. But they were told that the censure of that House ought to be reserved for more serious occasions. Now upon this point he differed from an hon. Friend of his who had said that this was a mere matter of taste, or distaste, with reference, as he termed it, to the rules of English criticism. But that was not the test by which he judged of this proclamation. A very different feeling had been engendered with regard to it, and he should have been happy, indeed, if the character of this country had not been connected with it. How was the House situated? A motion had been made for the production of this proclamation, and of any despatch from Lord Ellenborough in explanation of it. What was the answer of her Majesty's Government? The right hon. Baronet said that a copy of the proclamation had been received (thereby unhappily setting at rest the doubt that was entertained as to its existence), but that no despatch had accompanied it, though he had received a private letter from Lord Ellenborough. The right hon. Baronet himself, on a former occasion, hinted some disapprobation of that proclamation, and he led the House to believe that he had written a private letter to Lord Ellenborough, expressive of that disapprobation; but when a noble Lord subsequently applied certain terms of condemnation to it, those terms were emphatically rejected by the right hon. Baronet. Time had since elapsed, and no official disapprobation had been expressed of the course taken by Lord Ellenborough. It was in the absence of any such public reprobation on the part of the Government, of an act which had exposed the office of the Governor-general not only to ridicule and scorn, and which had been the laughing-stock of India, England, and all Europe—it was in the absence of the expression of any such opinion, that the House was now asked to express some opinion as to the character of that document. They were told that they ought to move at once for the recall of Lord Ellenborough. He would not say that there might not be grounds for such a proceeding; but, if it had been made, they would have been asked on what they grounded the motion, and they would have been told that since this proclamation the House had expressed its approbation of the Governor-general by a vote of thanks for his share in the recent military operations in India; and that they ought at all events to have asked the opinion of the House as to the character of the proclamation. He knew not what line the right hon. Baronet would take. If the right hon. Baronet were to condemn the style of the proclamation, hat would not be enough. There ought to be a decided opinion expressed to disconnect the Government and the country from that document; and not to allow the inference to be drawn that it had received the silent acquiescence of the nation. There ought to be an official condemnation of the proclamation, and in default of having it from the Government, they ought to have it from the House of Commons.

Lord Stanley

said, his motive for rising was, that he believed he saw a man who deserved well of his country, and who had performed great services by having converted a vast disaster into a mighty triumph, about to have a trifling charge made against him, founded upon an isolated act, and a single document; a man who merited the approbation was brought before them to receive the censure of the House, which had indeed recently bestowed its approbation on him for his great deeds; a man who had been subjected to every animadversion which all possible combinations and varieties of opinion collected together could bring to bear against him in order to make a political and partisan attack upon him, believing that he saw a combination of those who usually differ, to assail who was not there to defend himself; he could neither reconcile it to his private feelings of justice towards an absent man, nor to his political duty as a Minister of the Crown, to abstain from standing up in his place, and expressing the confident hope which he entertained that the House would not inflict upon itself the stigma of censuring the conduct of one to whom the country owed so much. There was no man who was more deeply sensible than he was of the firm religious belief and entire religious sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; and if upon this occasion he said there were mustered a variety of opinions all verging into one point, and calling into question a single act of the Governor-general, he did not mean to cast upon the right hon. Gentleman the slightest imputation as to the sincerity and firm conviction of his mind that for the liberation of his own con- science, and for the expression of his own opinions, he was bound to express his dissent, upon religious grounds, from the proclamation issued by the Governor-general. If, in saying this of a political opponent, he could not by possibility be suspected of insincerity, in making the same declaration with regard to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Plumptre), no man could doubt that he highly respected his hon. Friend's motives, and he trusted, therefore, that the House of Commons would do him the justice to believe, that though taking a different view of the question from his hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, he was not the less sensible to the truth and importance of Christianity, and to the consummation and strength which was given to the British power in India by a firm adherence to the Christian religion. He trusted he should never see the day when that House, either by act or expression, could indicate indifference to the maintenance of Christianity, or sanction in the public servants, any more than in the private lives of its members, any dissent from, or disregard of, the doctrines and discipline of Christianity, and of Christian morality. But it was because he could not see that attack upon Christianity, or that indifference and want of zeal for the Christian religion in connection with the proclamation of the Governor-general of India, that he deprecated this censure of well-meaning persons, whose warm interest in the cause of Christianity he fully admitted, and who were most anxious that its interests should not be compromised, but who he feared were blindly following in the wake of those who, for political purposes, were agitating this question. It might be a justifiable political artifice; but he must say, after the speeches he had heard to-night, and looking at the muster which he saw on the Opposition Benches, he could not but believe, that there was somewhat more than a seal for the maintenance of Christianity in the present motion. He could not but think, that a strong political feeling was mixed up with this attack upon the Governor-general of India. He never recollected in his Parliamentary experience, which extended over a period of more than twenty years, in which such great events had occurred in India, as under the late and present Government, and been submitted for consideration, and, if he might so say, for the decision of Parliament, as had been presented to the House during the last three or four years. In that time they had lived quite an age with respect to the annals of India. He never recollected a time, too, in which two great parties, being opposed to each other upon political principle, that the party in opposition allowed themselves so determinedly and carefully to abstain from all the great features of the case, and fix upon some small, individual, and isolated point, in order to inflict, if they could lead the House to do it, that censure upon a political opponent for that small and isolated case which they would gladly see, but despaired to see, inflicted by the House upon the general conduct and policy of the Governor-general. What had they seen within the last few years? They had seen the British power in India shaken to its foundation, as was acknowledged by Lord Auckland. He declared, that the British arms in Affghanistan had suffered an irretrievable disaster. The House now heard nothing from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to gainsay that. Last year they heard from that noble Lord, that any Government would be deserving of impeachment who would venture to withdraw from that scene of triumph which his policy had achieved for the country; from that vast inlet which he had secured to our commerce, from that stable and advanced position in which he had placed the arms and power of this nation. "Why," said the noble Lord, "don't you raise that question now?" We have risked the impeachment; we have withdrawn from the noble Lord's advanced position; we have sacrificed the immense advantages which the noble Lord achieved; we have retired within the bounds of the Indus; we have restricted those wild day-dreams of universal dominion and universal power which seemed to possess the fancy of the noble Lord; and I now ask the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen to come forward and tell me whether they intend to impeach us for the course we have pursued, and censure that condemnation which our policy has inflicted upon the policy of those who pre ceded us? You seek, you say, the recal of the Governor-general of India? Demand it boldly. Impeach the policy of the Governor-general, and together with his policy impeach the Government who support him, and the Court of Directors, by whom he has not been recalled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh told us, that Lord Ellenborough ought to be recalled: he said it was his opinion, that he ought to be recalled. Ask the House of Commons to recal him. Ask for a vote of censure upon the Government that does not recal him. We challenge you. We ask you to set up your policy of invasion against our policy of withdrawal. We tell you we have abandoned the advantages you thought you had secured, and if you intend to maintain your own conduct impeach ours. On that ground we are ready to meet you: on that we take our stand. No; you take care not to assume that position. You come down, and pass a vote of thanks for the skill, and judgment, and energy with which the Governor-general ["no, no"]—the wisdom and ability—["No, no,] the ability and the judgment." Well, I make you a present of the differences you have already thanked the Governor-general of India for the ability and judgment with which the resources of the British empire in India have been applied in support of the military operations." Oh ! when you come to praise a political opponent, you are mighty chary of the terms you use. You weigh your words, you calculate your expressions, so that a breath should not turn the balance beyond that which, in the most niggardly application of the phrase, you are compelled to say; but, shrinking from the discussion of the whole policy of India—refusing discussion when the thanks of the House to the Governor-general, for the ability and judgment with which he applied the resources of India in promoting our military operations were voted, shrinking from this you say, "We cannot dispute your policy—we cannot controvert the wisdom of that course which up set the system we advocated, we cannot deny the ability with which the resources of India were applied." Applied for what purpose To retrieve the disasters brought on by you; to rescue the captives left behind by you; to retrieve the honour of the British arms, which had been tarnished by you; to restore the courage of your Sepoy troops, which had been damped by the disasters sustained under you; to withdraw from an offensive war, feebly supported, and disastrously left un terminated by you. Into these topics you will not enter. The ability and judgment with which these operations were conducted, you do not deny; the policy you will not contest; but you find a proclamation, you find that in the hour of victory in the moment of success, language was addressed to those who had been dis-spirited by disaster, somewhat too boastful, somewhat too pompous for you; and you gladly pitch upon this isolated point in the policy of the Governor-general, because it will aid a political attack which you are afraid to make upon his general policy, and because, also, you hope to interest the no doubt honest—but I must be permitted to call them still, the prejudiced feelings of the religious portion of the British community on your side. Such is the history of this motion, of this second discussion upon this comparatively insignificant portion of the affairs of India. You tell us you think the Governor-general ought to be recalled; but you will not move for his recall. No: you propose to pass a censure upon him; you express the hope of seeing him again assisting in the councils of his Sovereign, and exerting his eloquence in the House of Lords. But how can you hope that he will either remain in India, administering the affairs of that great continent, the magnitude of which charge has not been exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman, how can you hope he will re main there, or return and take his place in the council of his Sovereign, or aid in the council of the country in the House of Lords, under the stigma of that censure which you propose should be passed upon him by the very House of Commons which recently voted to him their thanks for those military operations by which, under his influence and direction, the British power in India had been saved. I do not. stand here to advocate the taste or style of the proclamation which have been made the subject of discussion. do not concur with my hon. Friend who has ad dressed the House in a most able and merited vindication of the Governor-general, that in point of taste and of style, it is a sufficient vindication for the language to say that it is in the style which is addressed to eastern nations, and that the proclamation is couched more in eastern than in English phraseology. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) that a great portion of the influence which we possess in India arises from the opinion there entertained of our superior knowledge, ability and power. I do not think it judicious for a public man in India or elsewhere to endeavour to depart from that tone of open, plain, simple, frank dealing which is the characteristic of an English statesman in the composition of state papers, and to endeavour to accommodate his language to the tone and habits of the people whom he is addressing. I think the contrast would be more likely to produce a beneficial effect than an attempt at imitation. I think he who abandons his own style, either in speaking or writing, and endeavours to adapt it to the tastes and habits of others, loses all the advantages and merit of his own frank mode of expression, and yet does not acquire those artificial ornaments which distinguish the style he proposes to imitate. Therefore, speaking frankly, I do not approve of the language of the proclamation, but 1 do say, that to pass over the great merits of Lord Ellenborough, and to fix upon the style and language of a single document as a ground for calling upon the House to pass a vote of censure, is a piece of great injustice and ingratitude. There is however, a still greater question remainining behind. Did Lord Ellenborough, in this proclamation in any manner, express or imply indi-ference to the promotion of the Christian religion? Did the noble Lord intro duce the question of Christianity at all, or use language calculated to promote animosities between the Mahometans and Hindoos, which, it is most desirable the Governors-general in India should studiously abstain from raising; on the contrary, they should endeavour to put them down. After the most critical examination of this proclamation I will say that there is not one expression in it (although there are undoubtedly some words which are capable of being perverted and misinterpreted by men having strong pre-conceived opinions upon the question) but there is not one word which shows any in difference to Christianity, and least of all, any, the remotest disposition to countenance the atrocious and indecent rites of the Hindoo idolatry, or to create any animosities between the professors of the different religions which prevail in India. Not only, therefore, is it made clear that the Governor-general was not indifferent to religious feeling, but, further than this, it is I think evident that he steadily and carefully endeavoured to avoid anything which ingenuity could pervert into indifference to it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has received, to-day, a copy of the orders of the Governor-general, who speaks of "the trophies of successful war, so long the memorial of humiliation, now become the proudest record of na- tional glory. In every single instance, Sir, the Governor-general speaks of this trophy as the trophy, not of a religious, but of a military, triumph. He tells the princes of India—not the Hindoo princes—but the princes and chiefs, Mussulman or Hindoo Budhists or Sikhs—he tells them not of trophies to be presented to them as a religious relic, but as "a memorial of honour"—as "a trophy of successful war"—as a memorial of the subjection, not of the "Mussulmans," but of the "Affghans;" the Affghan conqueror being one whose memory Hindoos and Mussulmans have for the last 800 years regarded with pretty similar feelings ["Oh, oh!"]—yes, regarded, I say, with similar feelings, for if you knew his history you could not fail to know this—that two at least of the invasions of that mighty conqueror were invasions of the great Mussulman city of Delhi. But even the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guild ford has told you to-night, that however you may try to pervert the meaning of this proclamation in India, the idea of making it a religious question is regarded as quite absurd. Throughout, the whole affair has been treated in India merely as a military matter. The restoration of the gates of Somnauth has merely been regarded as the bringing a trophy of success from Affghanistan—as restoring to its original position that which has been regarded for 800 years as a pledge of conquest by the now conquered enemy. That trophy has been recovered—it has been brought back to India by an Indian army, acting under British orders, and the Governor-general in bringing it back proclaims the relic to be, not a sacred relic, but a trophy of successful war. "Oh, but," says the right hon. Gentleman, "he sent it back to Somnauth!" Why, where should he send it? To what place should the trophy be carried but to the place whence it was taken? But, says the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, the Governor-general speaks of the "restored" temple of Somnauth, and I can't, acquit him—the whole affair is like the blood on Blue Beard's key, when it is rubbed off one place it appears on another, and when it is cleared off that, it reappears on a third, and in fact the key can't be scoured at all—"and I can't," says the right hon. Gentleman," I can't acquit him, for he is in this dilemma—either he didn't know what was the decayed state of the temple of Somnauth, or else he did know it, and intended to restore the tem- ple to all its pristine glory." Now, that there was any intention on the part of the Governor-general to restore this temple—there being, be it remembered, no worship pers—the temple itself being despoiled—its very gates, mind this, having formed a part of a tomb, and being, therefore, so defiled that no Hindoo would ever think of taking part in any religious worship within its walls; that the Governor-general ever intended to restore a temple under such circumstances is really supposing too much, even for a "dilemma," setting aside altogether that such a supposition is so strongly opposed to reason and to common sense. Why, Sir, the very absurdity of the supposition that it was ever intended to restore a temple that was so defiled that no one would enter it overthrows the whole of this ridiculous assumption, and makes it clear that the Governor-general acted, as I believe most people believe he acted, and as I am sure all India understands him to have acted, from very different motives than those imputed to him by the Gentlemen on the other side. Sir, a warning has been given us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the danger of exciting feelings of animosity and conflicts on religious matters. I think that before the right hon. Gentleman brought forward this question he ought to have been able to adduce, not merely the prophecies of the press of India—the most licentious press, be it remembered, almost of any part of the world—but I think he should have been able to show that bad effects had been produced, that there was more than jealousy, that the proclamation had been considered an insult, and that it had been taken up by the Hindoos as a religious and not as a merely military matter. Sir, he has shown nothing of the kind; he has told you nothing of the sort; but I will not tell you, that should this House sanction such an impression, the feeling will not arise, and that too soon. When you tell the people of India that the proclamation was so meant by the Governor-general that it is so construed by the House of Commons and by the people of England, not on the Governor-general but upon your heads or on mine will rest the responsibility, and I warn you, that these feelings and animosities once ex cited in India, an internal discord will inevitably ensue, even more dangerous to your stability and power than those disasters from which the courage and decision of the Governor-general ("Oh, oh !"]—ay, the courage and decision of the Governor-general and the valour of the troops have only so lately rescued you. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he looks at the style of this document, and that he unhesitatingly declares anyone who could publish such a proclamation with official sanction to be unfitted for the cares of empire. It may be so; but there have been great men—men, too, pre-eminently fitted for the ruler ship of empires, the style of whose composition would, perhaps, scarcely stand the test of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. I remember to have seen—even in later times than the French revolution—bulletins of a General of France, certainly not altogether models of style, but yet the bulletins of one admitted to be pre-eminently fitted for empire. You may institute comparisons—you may cast odious reflections—you may talk of "styles"—but when I find that even all the rancour of party animosity cannot fix on anything against the Governor-general of India more important than the language of this proclamation which is taunted for its "style"—then I tell you that the House of Commons will be guilty of base ingratitude, if, consenting to express no opinion on his general policy, it obliterates all the past services the Governor-general has performed, and renders him incapable of doing further service to his country, by loading him, in addition to all the other heavy cares which rest upon his shoulders, with the still heavier burthen of the censure of the British Parliament.

Viscount Palmerston:

Sir, The noble Lord, in the course of his speech found it necessary to express something borderingon apprehension at the muster on this side of the House. But if any feelings of apprehension or doubt have crossed his mind, I suspect they have arisen not so much from what the noble Lord has seen on this side, as from what he has reason to think is going on on the benches behind him. It is not so much, I suspect, our Fervida dicta" that have frightened him, as the DH, et Jupiter hostis. Indeed, Sir, I may safely say this—that I never remember such unanimity of opinion in this House, on any subject that ever came before it for discussion, as I have witnessed to-night on this question of Lord Ellenborough's proclamation. No one Member has ventured to defend it. They have not even ventured to "damn it with faint praise." It has been abandoned frankly and at once, and without a single attempt to defend either the prudence or the seemliness of the production. The noble Lord, it is true, has gallantly endeavoured to practise an old and well-known manœuvre in military tactics; he has tried to carry the war into the enemy's camp—to draw away the attention of the House from the subject of debate, and to direct it to the general question of the policy of one Government as compared to that of another—but this manœpuvre, Sir, will fail. The House will consider the question which is really at issue. Upon those other questions of general policy we are prepared to maintain our ground. I am perfectly ready to defend and justify the policy we pursued; and if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will only allow the House to come to a division on this question on its own merits, we shall be prepared to meet them on any other day, and then to discuss those other questions which are not properly the subject of this debate., The noble Lord has taunted me with having, as he says, abandoned the opinions on these Indian affairs which I expressed last year. I have abandoned no opinion. I said then that the retreat or flight which Lord Ellenborough was said to have ordered, and which it is now proved by the papers on the Table that he did order, would be disgraceful and disastrous. 1 day I stated last year that if Lord Ellen-borough had issued that order, which I then inquired about of the right hon. Baronet, a flight under such circumstances would be disgraceful to the country. Was I alone in that opinion? Why, it turns out that it was the opinion of the Government itself. They thought such a retreat would be disgraceful, and, although it had actually been ordered by the Governor-general, they sent out instructions to countermand it. Those instructions, it is true, did not reach the Governor-general until in consequence of the refusal of his Generals to retreat he had himself permitted them to advance; but, nevertheless, the Government now pride themselves on the success of the policy which they had tardily ordered, and which I told them last year was the only policy they could safely adopt; and though last year they affected to treat my advice as impracticable, the noble Lord has this evening been lavishing praises on Lord Ellenborough in consequence of successes and triumphs gained by our armies re-entering Affghanistan. With regard to the policy of Lord Auckland, it is perfectly true that, as appears from the papers before the House, he did not intend to re-enter Affghanistan; and most properly, in my opinion, was his decision taken. What was Lord Auckland's position? He was daily expecting the arrival of his successor, and he had also reason to think at that time that our reverses were even more disastrous than they really were. He had grounds for believing that we had been driven out of Candahar as well as out of Cabul. What, then, was clearly Lord Auckland's course? Why, to provide ample means to enable his successor to take whatever course he and the new Government at home might decide to adopt; and he would have greatly violated his duty if, on the eve of his super cession by a new Governor-general of opposite politics to himself, he had taken any step which would have fettered the hands of that successor, or have committed him to any line of policy which he might not spontaneously have chosen to pursue. But, then, when we are told of these great exploits performed by Lord Ellenborough, really with that Blue Book in our hands, it is wonderful to me that the noble Lord should hazard such an assertion. The military means—I mean the troops collected by Lord Auckland secured the victory, and the merit Lord Ellenborough has in the matter is this—first, that he allowed himself to be overruled by the remonstrance of his generals, who would not retreat when a retreat was ordered, and next that he made, what I admit to be very laudable, exertions in getting together camels and other means of transport for the army. But, for all that Lord Ellenborough has been thanked. The noble Lord tells us that we fix upon one objectionable proclamation, and forget all the good Lord Ellenborough has accomplished. Why, we have already thanked him for the good he has done; and even-handed justice requires that having thanked him or the little "good" we should now proceed to express our opinion of the very great amount of "bad," which he has done. But I am told, forsooth, that it is not consistent with the honourable feelings of English gentlemen that we should make this attack. He is an absent man: we are to wait till he comes back. Why, good God, Sir, if we wait for his return—if we are always to delay till a Governor-general has concluded his career, we may indeed punish him for misdeeds in time past and therefore irreparable, but we shall never be able to stop a vain, rash, and inconsiderate man in pursuing his career of folly and mischief. That argument, then, goes for nothing. That he is not here to defend himself necessarily arrises from the circumstances of things. If we wish to express our opinion of Lord Ellenborough, in order to check his rashness, we must of necessity do so in his absence, for he is employed in a country on the other side of the globe. Now, Sir, we object to the proclamation on the ground that its language is altogether unworthy and unbecoming a great public functionary; my right hon. Friend beside me compared it to some of the bulletins of the earlier part of the French Revolution—in which he slightly erred, as the noble Lord opposite has shown. It does not appear to have been taken from the bulletins of so early a period. It is rather from the bulletins of Bonaparte, who certainly was, as the noble Lord says, pre-eminently fitted for the government of empires. Napoleon, says the noble Lord, was able to command large bodies of men, and rule the destinies of millions; and, therefore, we ought not to blame Lord Ellenborough for imitating his example. We have heard of those who thought that by holding their heads on one side they would be thought wise as Aristotle, or that by stuttering they could rival Demosthenes. If Lord Ellenborough wished to rival the genius of Napoleon, I think he might have found a better subject for his imitation than his bulletins, which excited the ridicule of all sensible men. It is said that this proclamation has nothing to do with religion. That it has had something to do with it, in the opinion of religious men in this country, is a matter of fact which no one will deny; but I contend that it had to do with religion, in this respect—that it was a direct encouragement to those who professed one kind of religion in India, and that it at the same time tended to give offence to those who profess another kind, namely, to the Mahometan population of that country. The noble Lord has argued that the bringing away the gates of Somnauth it was nothing but a military display; but that it had a religious tendency, we have the testimony and authority of Lord Ellenborough himself to show; for a noble Friend of his has this evening stated in another place the substance of a private letter he received from Lord Ellenborough, from which it appears that Lord Ellenborough was so conscious that the proclamation was calculated to give offence to persons who felt sensibly on religious matters, that he took the pains of writing it over three several times, in order to render it, as he conceived, in offensive in that point of view. How far he succeeded we have had ample proof, while the very fact of his having bestowed so much labour to so little purpose shows how little he understands the feelings of the people of this country. The noble Lord has endeavoured to demonstrate the innocence of this proclamation by what is mathematically termed a reductio ad ab surdum. He laboured with much ingenuity, and I must say with some degree of success, to show that this proclamation was, from first to last, absolutely and intrinsically absurd; for that what it directed to be done was impracticable, that there was no such temple now in existance as the temple of Somnauth; and that, even if there were such a temple, the gates by having been attached to a Mahometan tomb had undergone a desecration which would render it impossible for them to be replaced in that temple. The noble Lord has therefore shown that Lord Ellenborough was professing in this proclamation to do things which were absolutely impossible, and he has also shown that nothing could exceed the complete absurdity of the conception of the whole affair. The noble Lord has shown you that Lord Ellenborough was perfectly ignorant of the condition of the temple, and that even if there had been an effort made to accomplish his purpose as set forth in this proclamation, it could not have succeeded, in consequence of the desecration of the gates. The noble Lord has therefore shown you that the proclamation was wholly unworthy of a person holding the situation of Governor-general of India. If Lord Ellenborough was aware, as it has been stated, that he was, that this measure of his was likely to give great umbrage to a portion of the people of this country, he must also have been aware, that any measure specifically tending to give encouragement to Hindoo superstition must be calculated to give great offence to the Mahometan population of India. In his despatch to Sir J. Nicholls, of the 15th of March, 1841, he mentions, as one of the circumstances that rendered the state of Affghanistan in his opinion hopeless, that the war had assumed not only a national but a religious character. It was upon that ground that he said it had become hopeless to maintain any longer our position in Affghanistan; and yet the step which he himself took was calculated to create religious hostility eastward of the Indus, and to excite amongst the Mahometans within our dominions, and who even formed part of our troops, feelings of dissatisfaction and disgust, which, if they did not immediately break out, would become the seeds of a future dangerous disaffection. I say, then, that no ground has been laid why this House should not express that opinion which appears to have been unanimously felt—that this proclamation was unwise and indecorous; and if it were so, it must, in a Governor-general, be reprehensible. It is in vain to tell us that Lord Ellenborough has in other respects, during the short period of his administration, deserved so well of the country, that we ought to pass over his faults and think only of his merits. I say, that his services have been next to nothing—that they consist chiefly in his having employed those military means which his predecessor had provided—which, he had not himself the courage to employ, but which other men had the courage to advise him to employ, and which he employed against his own inclination. His merit therefore in the transactions which have taken place in Affghanistan, is next to nothing, while by this proclamation, which the noble Lord has characterised as boastful, he has proved his unfitness for so responsible a situation. I think it is essential that the House should notice this. I think that when a proclamation of this sort, proving the individual who issued it to be devoid of those feelings which ought to guide a person intrusted with so important a charge, is brought under the notice of the House, it would not only show a want of courage on the part of the House, but an abandonment of our duty as the representatives of the people, if we were to shrink from ex pressing that opinion which all of us entertain, however much some of us may wish that it should not be expressed. It is said, that if this motion should pass, Lord Ellen borough must be recalled, and that if that is what is meant by it, we ought to vote at once for his recall. I am not at all sure if this motion pass, that he will be recalled, I suspect, that if he is to be recalled at all, he has been recalled already, and if he is not recalled by this time, I am sure that the vote of this night will not tend to his being so. I shall certainly not myself be deterred, whatever opinion the House may form from the considerations submitted to it of the fitness or unfitness of Lord Ellenborough for the important trust which has been committed to his care—I shall not be deterred from joining in this vote by any apprehension of what the result of that vote may be in regard to the duration of Lord Ellenborough's Government of India. That is not a consideration which ought to guide or influence the House. The House is called upon to determine whether it is fitting to pass unnoticed and un censured the con duct of a man holding the situation of Governor-general who has shown such a want of discretion and such a want of know ledge, of the feelings, both of India, and of Europe, and who has proved himself so devoid of those proper considerations and regards that ought to guide the conduct of a Governor-general. I trust the House will agree to the vote, and by doing so at least prevent Lord Ellenborough for the future, if he is to continue to rule over our Indian empire, from again committing such follies. But even if that vote should have the effect of bringing him home, however inconvenient his return might be in some quarters, I think that so far as the interests of India are concerned, they will be in less danger from his speeches in Parliament than from his measures as Gover nor-general of India.

Sir Robert Peel:

The terms of the re solution and the character of this debate must have convinced the House that the insinuations indulged in by some hon. Gentlemen the other night, when I opposed the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that there was some com promise between the Government and Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, are entirely unfounded. I should consider I had acted most basely and dis-honourably if I had been a party to any such compromise. I gave my vote against that motion, because, after having had the opportunity for four years of challenging the conduct of the late Government when it was a Government, I thought it would be contrary to all precedent that I should bring the influence of a new Government to bear upon those who no longer held office. I thought also that disclosures might take place which would not be for the public benefit, and on that ground too I opposed the motion. But I will not claim from any one Mem- ber his vote on the present occasion as compensation for the assistance, if assistance it was, which i gave in opposing the motion of the hon. Member for Bath. Let the present motion stand upon distinct grounds, and let hon. Gentlemen at this side of the House believe that they will never find me disposed to enter into any such disgraceful compact as was insinuated. The noble Lord says,— Dispose of this motion, and then we will come forward and challenge inquiry into the general conduct and policy of Lord Ellen-borough. I remember very well, when in Ireland many years ago, hearing of rather a strange occurrence which took place in the Court of Common Pleas in that country. During the progress of a case which occupied the attention of the Court—the late Lord Norbury was on the bench—two learned counsel, differing very much from the general character of their countrymen, which is one of kindness and urbanity, continued abusing each other after a very violent fashion for a considerable time, evidently looking to and expecting the interference of the Judge. "Gentlemen," said Lord Norbury, "take care—be upon your guard; the Court will not interfere" From that moment the two combatants ceased to abuse each other. I can tell the noble Lord, if he do not take care, that I will not interfere—I tell him, if he complains of injustice when his friends again assail him for his conduct, I will, when he is called upon to come forward in vindication of his conduct—retire from this House, and leave him to fight the battle for himself. The noble Lord may depend upon it that I will not render him any assistance more serviceable than that of his friend Shah Soojah; but that if he too peremptorily compels an inquiry, he shall not say that I, by my presence, have subjected him to any injustice or any imputation. The noble Lord entered into an elaborate vindication of Lord Auckland. If he challenges inquiry, I will tell him on what terms I require a vindication; but the noble Lord made a slight slip—and slight slips sometimes unwittingly indicate the real workings of the conscience. The noble Lord asserted, that if Lord Auckland did contemplate retiring from Affghanistan, that such a course on the part of the Governor-general would have been disgraceful in the extreme; and then recollecting him- self, informed us that he meant not Lord Auckland but Lord Ellenborough. The noble Lord defended his Governor-general, and I am about to prove that Lord Auckland required all his defence. True, the noble Lord says, that Lord Auckland did meditate a retirement; that he was about to leave India; and that he, therefore, did nothing but collect a large force for his successor. What a defence for a Governor-general Suspend his operations for four months, in so critical a position of affairs. What, on such a question as the relief of Jellalabad, was the Governor-general to suspend all operations for four months? and all this that he might not embarrass his successor. What an imputation upon a Governor-general. But I can prove that the defence of Lord Auckland, set forth by the noble Lord, is utterly unfounded. While the noble Lord, in a boastful tone, repeated the question, "Who was the man who meditated the retirement from Affghanis tan?" I could have told him, but I said no more, because I was afraid of compromising the British troops and British interests. I had then in my possession a letter from Lord Auckland, his own Governor-general, showing that he was the author of the retirement. On the 3rd of December, 1841, Lord Auckland writes, and compare this with the speech made by the noble Lord last year, and about the close of the Session, when in the same boastful tone, which he would now reprehend, he asked me, and in a taunting manner, "What man first contemplated retreat from Affghanistan I will read the passages of that letter, and it will be proved that Lord Auckland intended to retire from Affghanistan, because he knew that our position was no longer tenable, The Governor-general said that it was in vain to speculate upon the issue of the contest. He did not know all our disasters, he only knew of the murder of Sir W. Maghten and Sir Alexander Burnes. He was not aware of the extent of the calamities by which 17,000 British subjects met an ignoble and a disgraceful death. How can the noble Lord charge with disgrace any Governor-general for contemplating retreat from Affghanistan? He was then in possession of this very letter—from which I will now read a passage—which will go to show that the noble Lord's defence of his Governor-general, for contemplating the retreat in order that he might leave unfettered the hands of his successor—is without foundation. Why did Lord Auckland want to retreat from Affghanistan? On the 3rd of December, 1841, Lord Auckland says,— These accounts exhibit a most unfavourable state of affairs at Cabul, but they do not lead us to alter the views and intentions which were stated in our yesterday's despatch. You will observe that the noble Lord had an impression as to the state of things in Affghanistan. Lord Auckland says,—? That it would be vain to speculate upon the issue of the contest at Cabul; but in the extreme event of the military possession of that city, and the surrounding territory, having been entirely lost, it is not our intention to direct new and extensive operations for the re-establishment of our supremacy throughout Affghanistan. Now mark the following passage, and mind that the present Governor-general has now been taunted with cowardice, for what the late Governor-general here deems a public duty, the retirement from Affghanistan. In another passage of that letter, the late Governor-general says:— We can scarcely contemplate in such case, that there will be any circumstances or political objects of sufficient weight to induce us to desire to retain possession of the remainder of that country, and, unless such shall be obvious as arising from the course of events, we should wish our military and political officers so to shape their proceedings as will best promote the end of retiring with the least possible discredit. Of course it will be desirable that this retirement shall be deliberate, and the result of arrangements that will leave some political influence in the country. Such was the state to which the policy of the noble Lord had reduced us. And what, in such a state of things, was the greatest hope of the Governor-general "That he" might retire with the least possible discredit; "and," of course, it would be desirable that this retirement should be deliberate, and the result of arrangements that will leave some political influence in the country." But trie great object of the Governor-general was the retirement, and to bring back that native army of which the gallant spirit of Nott said, that he would undertake with 1,000 Sepoys to counterbalance 5,000 Affghans. This was the stale to which the policy of the noble Lord had reduced us. The greatest hope of the late Governor-general was to retire with the least possible discredit:— Quos opimus Fallere et effugere est triumphus. Lord Auckland had sent the original directions to Major-general Pollock as to the situation of the force; and then, on the 19th February, having since heard of the misfortune at the Khyber Pass, he thus writes to the secret council:— Since we have heard of the misfortunes in the Khyber Pass, and have become convinced that with the difficulties at present opposed to us, and in the actual state of our preparations, we could not expect, at least in this year, to maintain a position in the Jellalabad districts for any effective purpose, we have made our directions in regard to withdrawal from Jellalabad clear and positive, and we shall rejoice to learn that Major-general Pollock will have anticipated these more express orders by confining his efforts to the same object. That letter was written within one week of the arrival of Lord Ellenborough in India—that letter shows that the relief of Jellalabad was abandoned—that letter shows that Lord Auckland did not, during the year 1842, contemplate the effectual and efficient restoration of our position in Affghanistan. I ask the House whether I have not proved that the noble Lord's defence of Lord Auckland has not failed? And if Lord Auckland did not contemplate a return to Affghanistan, is it not too much to blame Lord Ellenborough for the retirement? Lord Ellenborough, acting upon a full sense of his public duty, thought that the safety of the British arms required the abandonment of Affghanistan. The noble Lord opposite denies that the whole triumph of a Governor-general's policy is to be set or ought to be set against any individual act. Have the noble Lords never had to deal with a Governor-general of whose individual acts they have disproved? Did the Earl of Durham never issue a proclamation of the policy of which noble Lords opposite had reason to doubt? Did the noble Lord think it fair at that time towards Lord Durham, whose general conduct he approved, to select an individual act in order to condemn and degrade the Governor-general, whose acts, upon the whole, he believed to be beneficial? No. The noble Lord then held a different language—he then spoke in terms of truth and justice with respect to their own Governor-general. See how the position of a man alters his views? The noble Lord said in August, 1838,— When the time comes, I shall be prepared—not, indeed, to say that the terms or words of the ordinances passed by the Earl of Durham are altogether to be justified'—but I shall be prepared to say, that looking at the conduct of the Earl of Durham as a whole—that, believing him to be animated by the deepest zeal for the welfare of his country—believing this, I shall be ready to take part with him—I shall be ready to bear my share of any responsibility which is to be incurred in these difficult circumstances. Then the consideration was not to be restricted to the particular act; but when acting under great difficulties, and with the greatest zeal for the welfare of the country, the general conduct was to be set off against the particular act, and the noble Lord remonstrated against the injustice and iniquity of bringing disgrace upon a man for a particular act, when his general policy was approved. And the noble Lord then laid down this principle—a principle applicable to all times and to all circumstances—the noble Lord in the same speech observed,— I do think that no invective—that no sophistry—that no accumulation of circumstances—that no bitterness of sarcasm, accompanied by professions of friendship, and thereby attempting to disguise, but not, in fact, disguising, the petty and personal feelings which are at the bottom of all these attacks, will in the least degree affect the noble Lord against whom they have been levelled, but that he will have deserved well of his country, well of his Sovereign, and well of posterity. Let these general principles then prevail even among those who, seeing the general tenour of Lord Ellenborough's conduct, have held him to be entitled to the respect and to the acknowledgment of public gratitude which you have given nim for contributing to relieve this country from the disasters which had befallen it let the consideration of his general conduct prevail even amongst those who question the policy of the individual act. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) says, we ought to confine ourselves to the views contained in this particular proclamation. I protest against being fettered by any such narrow restrictions. The policy of that proclamation depends upon the circumstances in which Lord Ellen-borough was placed. And what were those circumstances? The moment he set foot in Madras what intelligence met him till the day he arrived at Benares, what a *Hansard, vol. Xliv., Third Series, P. 1228. succession of events took place, calculated to disturb the firmest mind, and to infuse apprehensions into the breast of the boldest man. It has been said the cry in England was, "What next" That was a question which Lord Ellenborough had to put to himself for four or five days after his arrival. He lands at Madras on the 15th of February, presuming at the time that his predecessor had secured the admirable position so frequently spoken of in Affghanistan. He lands at Madras, after a four months" voyage, in necessary ignorance of all that had occurred in that interval of time, and to his astonishment he hears of the insurrection at Cabul. He receives tidings that Sir William M'Naghten and Sir Alexander Burnes, the envoy and representative of the British Government, had been murdered; that the city was in a state of insurrection, and that doubts were entertained as to the security of the British army. What next? He arrives at Calcutta, and there hears of the orders of his predecessor to hasten the evacuation of Affghanistan, for the noble reason of inflicting as little discredit as possible upon the British power. He repairs to Benares, and there he hears the tremendous news that not only you had lost power in Affghanistan, but that you had so depressed the spirits and shaken the confidence of the native army, that General Pollock gives this melancholy account in a letter to Colonel M'Gregor:— It must, no doubt, appear to you and Sale most extraordinary that, with the force I have here, I do not at once move on; God knows it has been my anxious wish to do so, but I have been helpless. I came on a-head to Peshawur, to arrange for an advance, but was saluted with a report of 1,900 sick, and a bad feeling among the sepoys. I visited the hospitals, and endeavoured to encourage by talking to them; but they had no heart. I hoped that when the time came they would go. On the 1st instant the feeling on the part of the sepoys broke out, and I had the mortification of knowing that the Hindoos, of four out of five native corps, refused to advance. I immediately took measures to sift the evil, and gradually a reaction has taken place, in the belief that I will wait for reinforcements; this has caused me the utmost anxiety on your account—your situation is never out of my thoughts; but having told you what I have, you and Sale will see at once that necessity has kept me here. I have sent five expresses to hurry on the first division of the next brigade; it consists of the third dragoons, a troop of horse artillery, first light cavalry, the 33rd native infantry, and two companies of 6th native infantry, all fresh and without taint. I verily believe, if I were to attempt to move on now, without the reinforcement, that the four regiments implicated would as far as the Hindoos are concerned, stand fast. Pray, therefore, tell me without the least reserve the latest day you can hold out. If I could, I would tell you the day when I expect the reinforcements, but I cannot. I may, however, I believe with safety, say, that they will arrive by the end of this month. The case, therefore, now stands thus—whether I am to attempt, with my present materials, to advance, and risk the appearance of disaffection or cowardice, which, in such a case, could not again be got over, or wait the arrival of a reinforcement, which will make all sure—this is the real state of the case; if I attempted now, I might risk you altogether; but if you can hold out, the reinforcements would make your relief as certain as any earthly thing can be. And what next? On the 17th of April he hears of the failure of General England to force the Kojuc Pass. On the 18th of April he hears that Ghuznee has fallen. The question which Lord Ellenborough must have put to himself was, what next? My noble Friend had to contemplate the retirement from Affghanistan. He thought taking a comprehensive view of the matter, that our permanent interests required the withdrawal. After the decisive proof that the King which we had set up had taken no root in the affections of the Affghan country, after he found that the army which we had sent to Affghanistan was separated from its supplies by a distance of 600 miles, Lord Ellenborough then thought that it was not prudent to proceed further, that we must awaken from our dreams of visionary conquests, and that we must place the British troops within the borders of British India. That, however, was a difficult task. It is not Lord Ellenborough who was responsible for the consequences of this state of things, it is those who invaded the country who ought to bear the responsibility. If you think that the policy of the abandonment of Affghanistan was ignoble, I challenge you to the discussion. Do not bring an indirect charge; come to the discussion, whether, under the circumstances in which Lord Ellenborough was placed, it was or was not wise in him to abandon Affghanistan. If you think that it was not, bring it to the vote, and we, who cordially approve, and who have stated our approval of this proceeding, will be ready to defend it. That policy—the evacuation of Affghanistan was liable to misconstruction in India. It had been our policy to advance, and in general never to retire; there are few in- stances in India in which we have advanced and then retired. England, however, was at that time engaged in a war with China. All Europe was contemplating—some with hope, all with anxiety—the result of that struggle. By the retention of Affghanistan, the world, in India and in Europe might think that we retained our power: the abandonment required more moral courage than the occupation; but, above all, it was necessary that in British India there should be no doubt as to the policy of retirement, and that man who had the boldness to adopt it, if the policy were wise was deserving of all credit, and ought to receive it. And what course did Lord Ellenborough take to remove any erroneous impression on the minds of the Hindoos. It was difficult to say to them that Shah Soojah was not able to retain his hold over the Affghan people when they beheld his advance to Cabul, surrounded, as they were told, by his own troops. They were not aware of the private treaty with Shah Soojah, that he was to be upheld by British arms, and it was necessary to disabuse the Indian mind as to the policy of the retirement. What did Lord Ellenborough do? He found that there were military trophies in the possession of the Affghans, which he thought it desirable for the sake of the public mind to bring back. The whole of his letters considered them only as military trophies. In his first letter to General Nott, he orders him to secure these as trophies of the success of the war, and in his letter to the chiefs and princes of India he does not treat them as religious relics, but as trophies of war, and as such only did he regard them. You may not consider these trophies of victory—to you the gates of Somnauth may not have the character which rendered them valuable in the eyes of the descendants of the conquered troops of Hindostan. You have different prejudices—different associations from the people of this distant country. You almost adored, while they yet existed, the tapestried walls of the House of Lords, adorned with the memorials of an attempted invasion of your country, and you treasured them as proud records of your national glory. You hang up in the temples of the God whom you worship the flags which you have taken from your enemies—trophies seized in the midst of blood and carnage, and in the moment of victory, and you have not thought them unworthy to ornament your sacred edifices. Respect then, the prejudices of men inferior to you in civilization. Remember how much religion is interwoven in all their political institutions—in all their civil acts. You have had this close connection described to you in eloquent and forcible language by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, and this is a subject of which he has a perfect knowledge. He says, there is not an act of the life of the Hindoo which is not connected with their religious worship. Their food, their mode of dressing their food, their dress, all the political and moral institutions of their condition, are connected with their religion; and that being so, is it possible to view trophies of this kind, taken from them 800 years since, as being unconnected with their religion, which is so interwoven with all their social and political acts? They value these relics not because the possession of them shows the superiority of their form of religious worship—not because they are proofs of the former prowess of Mussulman as opposed to Hindoos; but because they were the records—the disgraceful records to them—of Affghan power as compared with Hindoo power; and Mussulman and Gentoos have an equal right to be proud, not in a religious, but in a military and civil point of view, of the re-acquirement of the trophies of defeat. Therefore it is that this act, which you now condemn—this taking of these spoils from Ghuznee—was adopted by Lord Ellenborough, as a means, and for the purpose, of reconciling the people of British India to the abandonment of Affghan, and giving them some consolation in their disappointment in seeing, for the first time, the British arms retire, not dishonoured or disgraced, but on considerations of policy. That was the ground on which I apprehend that Lord Ellen-borough issued that proclamation. You may find fault with the terms of it. As I have already said, if it were not sufficiently guarded to prevent the possibility of mistake, on the part of the Mahometan population, I most deeply regret it, and I concur with those who think that though the act of taking the gates of Somnauth was perfectly justifiable, the expressions which accompanied that act might have been spared. But is it not a very different thing to make this admission with respect to a man, of whose conduct, so far as his motives are concerned, I entirely approve. Is there not, I say, a difference between making an exception in an individual ease, and dooming the man to disgrace by the act of this very House of Commons which not many days since agreed to a vole of thanks to the same individual? It is impossible, I think, for the hon. Member for Montrose to vote for this motion. He says, that he conceives that the impression that this act can be construed into a reverence for Hindoo worship is erroneous. The resolution which is proposed, implies that it is subject to that construction. The hon. Gentleman has made by far the most powerful speech in demonstration of the policy of this act, and that has been made to night, and he has quoted the expressions of a native Indian, who says,— This cannot be considered as being done in deference to our religious ceremonies, but will be felt by the natives of British India as a great compliment, removing from their minds the impression of their ancient disgrace by the Affghan power. Why, if that is the opinion of the hon. Member, and that the manly course to take is to vote at once for the recall of Lord Ellenborough, let him not attack that policy which he supports, by giving his assent to this resolution which he has shown to be unjust. Hon. Gentlemen have said, and I have no doubt that they are sincere, that they are influenced by religious feelings; by their zeal and respect for Christianity; and I am sure that I have heard expressions of this sort from some hon. Members, on whose sincerity I would not throw a doubt for one moment, for I am perfectly certain that they are sincere. But this question is to be decided by great numbers—by powerful parties in this House; and depend on it that the judgment of posterity will be passed on the event of this night. They will compare the attacks of last Session—they will compare the motion, preliminary as it is to the votes of money for the public service—they will remember the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, that the greatest disaster that ever befel the British arms, was that which occurred in Afghanistan—I say they will compare these things with the result, and they will see that in the course of the year these disasters have been repaired—that those very sepoys, whom General Pollock was afraid to lead to Jellalabad, and who, he thought, could not be persuaded to advance further, had been e-assured by the superior care and atten- tion of Lord Ellenborough. I say that posterity will see these things,—they will find the unanimous vote of thanks which was come to by this House to that man for the ability and judgment with which he prepared the resources by which this disaster was repaired, and then they will say, that never did popular assembly commit so gross an act of iniquity and injustice as that which you will commit, if after having given that unanimous vote, you compel Lord Ellenborough to retire with disgrace from the Government of British India. "He may retire," you say, "to the councils of his Sovereign." Is that your notion of the position which a public man fills! After being disgraced by the vote of the House of Commons for misconduct in India, is he to come back and administer the affairs of India at the Board of Control, and preside at home over those matters which you say he misconducted there? Do you believe that any man of common spirit, if you pass this vote, whatever the inclination of her Majesty's Government may be—and the noble Lord says the Government will protect him—will do so? It is uncharitable and ungenerous. Depend upon it, if the Government were inclined to protect him subject to this disgrace, his own heart and mind would tell him that there was no other course than to retire and mourn over this injustice of a popular assembly. If you believe that religious feeling compels you to give this note, give it. But to those who are not influenced by such considerations, I say, vaunt not of religious feelings when you are influenced by political motives. Say what you please of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in respect to this proclamation, and about his having lowered the character of the Christian religion, ten times more fatal will be the blow which you will strike against the purity and integrity of the faith you profess, if being insincere, you clothe your party hostility against Lord Ellenborough in the garb of piety and religion.

Lord J. Russell:

That I should refrain altogether from taking any part in this debate, after the line which the right hon. Baronet has taken, is, I think, impossible; Had there been no other question remaining than the proclamation, respecting which a motion has been brought before the House by my right hon. Friend, I should have considered it entirely superfluous to add one word to the demonstration made by those who have spoken against this proclamation, and still more to the admissions made by those who have appeared to defend that proclamation; indeed it appears as if by common consent, that there was but one opinion of this proclamation, that it is unwise, that it is indecorous, and that being so unwise and indecorous, it is reprehensible. But the right hon. Baronet, taking another ground—I must say not a different ground from that of the noble Lord he Secretary of State, maintains that however unwise, however indecorous, however reprehensible this particular act may be, the other merits of the Governor-general prevent the House of Commons from coming to any vote which can be considered to be a censure on him. In alluding to what has been stated, I must say, first, with regard to the defence set up by the noble Lord the Secretary of State, who says that Lord Ellenborough has withdrawn from all the territory which was occupied by Lord Auckland—that he has given up all advantages which are alleged to have been secured by the late Governor-general and the Government under which he acted—that he is not well founded in that statement. One of the objects of Lord Auckland previous to the causes which led to the invasion of Afghanistan, was to secure the navigation of the Indus. For that purpose he made agreements by which the heavy and burdensome tolls imposed by the Sikhs and the Ameers of Scinde were to be reduced, and the commerce of the Indus thus be made free, but with respect to the security of that object, it was necessary to enter into treaties, and we were told the other day that Lord Ellenborough insists on the completion of those treaties. If we may believe the public papers, not only does Lord Ellenborough insist on the execution of the treaties, but he insists, further, on the cession of territory to the west of the Indus. Now, if these treaties and the cession of territory are necessary to the free navigation of the Indus, and if by those means a great benefit will be conferred, as well on the native population of India, as on the people of this country, who thereby have the means of extending their operations in trade, I say that is Lord Auckland's work, and therefore it is not true, as the noble Lord says, that all which the late Governor-general projected has been abandoned. Lord Ellenborough may say that the advantages in question are the result of his acts; but history will contradict him. Dates will prove that the arrangements on this subject were made by Lord Auckland, and Lord Ellenborough will not be able to wrest from my noble Friend the merit of having obtained these peaceful commercial advantages for the people of India and of England. The noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet have thrown out a challenge to us, on the subject of the withdrawal of the British power from Affghanistan. The noble Lord seems very anxious that we should undertake the censure of that policy, and says, that he is prepared to defend it against our assaults. The noble Lord is of a most pugnacious temper; but I confess 1 am not disposed to gratify him in his desire. I was inclined to think, before I read the papers on the Table of the House, and since I have perused them that inclination of my mind has grown into conviction, that the withdrawal of our troops from Affghanistan was a wise measure. I therefore find myself unable to gratify the noble Lord by proposing any censure upon that policy. If I were to censure that policy, I should, at the same time, be censuring Lord Auckland for the resolution to which he came to withdraw from Affghanistan. But though I approve of the policy of withdrawing from Affghanistan, I need hardly say that I do not disapprove of the policy which led us to enter that country. On a former evening my noble Friend and I stated the reasons which induced us to think that the policy which led to the invasion of Affghanistan was justified on grounds of justice and expediency; but I am of opinion, that after our disasters at Cabul, and considering the hostility of the tribes in Affghanistan, and, considering, also, the waste of the resources in India, it was wise to withdraw our armies from Affghanistan. If, however, the noble Lord means to say, as has been more than once insinuated in the course of this discussion, that the disaster at Cabul was owing to the original policy of entering the country—that it was inseparable from that policy—that we could not enter Affghanistan without producing disasters in extent equal, and in character similar to that which occurred, I utterly deny it. I have heard causes assigned on high authority for the disasters which befel us. I have heard it said that great errors were committed, and that those errors consisted partly in not keeping up the line of communication by the straightest road between Cabul and Peshawur, and partly in our not having a military commander of supreme authority at Cabul. Those may have been important errors, but they were not necessarily, nor, indeed, in any way connected with the policy of our entering Affghanistan. I will mention another circumstance which is worthy of consideration. The expedition to Affghanistan was undertaken by Lord Keane; he retired, and was succeeded by Sir Wiloughby Cotton, who did not remain a very long time, before he likewise came home. Sir W. Cotton was succeeded by General Elphinstone, who, from the time of assuming the command, appears never to have been in that state of vigorous health, which the difficulties of the command required. Are not these circumstances to be taken into account? If Lord Auckland had had at his disposal any one of the illustrious men who have reflected honour on British arms in latter days—if such a man as Lord Keane had remained in command at Cabul from the time of his first arrival there, it is my persuasion that we never should have heard of the disasters which befel us. Yet the attempt has been made—and never so directly as on this night—to contend that our disasters at Cabul were the inevitable result of the invasion of Affghanistan. The noble Lord contends, that the policy of Lord Ellenborough has been so meritorious—so brilliant—as to compensate any error he may have committed, and the noble Lord pressed the argument, founded upon the vote of thanks to the Governor-general on a former evening, further than was warranted by what took place on that occasion. The thanks of the House were given to the Governor-general for the ability and judgment with which the resources of India were applied in aid of the military operations. When the vote of thanks was proposed, the right hon. Baronet endeavoured to prove, and succeeded, that he had exercised great activity, and showed considerable judgment in forwarding camels and every sort of supply for the army in Affghanistan. The right hon. Baronet argued likewise—and I do not deny the validity of the argument—that although Lord Ellenborough on the 19th of April issued a peremptory order for the abandonment of Affghanistan, before the honour of our arms had been retrieved or the prisoners recovered, yet that, under the circumstances, it was a justifiable act. That was all that passed on the occasion of the vote of thanks—that was. the utmost extent to which the right hon. Baronet then went; but now we are told, that we have thanked Lord Ellenborough for the ability with which he carried on the war, and retrieved our disasters. Thus challenged, I must say, that although I am ready to consider with all fairness the orders issued by the Governor-general on arriving in India in such difficult circumstances, and receiving intelligence of such great disasters, and would be slow to blame him for any particular order which he gave with respect to the troops: yet, nevertheless, when a claim is made in Lord Ellenborough's behalf, to the merit of a superintending direction, which, in fact, he did not exercise, I cannot, in justice to General Nott and General Pollock consent to tear the laurels from their brows, in order to transfer them to the Governor-general. Lord Ellen-borough issued what may be a justifiable, but, at all events, was a peremptory order for the troops to retreat by the straight road without going to Cabul, without going to Ghuznee, and without the recapture of the prisoners. I am not blaming that order. I would not remark upon it, had not Lord Ellenborough's Friends claimed for him credit to which he is not entitled. What if that order had been obeyed? What, if Generals Nott and Pollock had immediately fulfilled the directions which they received, there would have been no occasion for a vote of thanks to Lord Ellenborough and our gallant troops. But these Generals declined immediate retreat. It seems there were some difficulties in the way; they were without camels and provisions, and there was no water in the valley through which General Pollock had to retreat. In short, every kind of obstacle presented itself to oppose the fulfilment of Lord Ellenborougb's directions. At last, after the Generals disobedience had continued for a considerable time, Lord Ellenborough gave them permission to advance, and then, though I admit, that Lord Ellenborough had furnished the armies with considerable means for that object, yet, somehow or other, all obstacles seem at once to be removed—wonderful activity was displayed—all the departments were actuated with zeal, and every difficulty vanished which opposed our brave troops in the progress of their successful operations. The right hon. Baronet said, that when Lord Ellenborough arrived and issued his orders he infused new spirit into the sepoys; but, for my own part, I think that the whole credit of that circumstance was due to the military commanders. It was the admirable orders and spirit of General Nott, at Candahar, that restored the courage of the troops, and re-inspired them with confidence in the British power. I believe it was General Pollock, and the officers immediately connected with him, who restored the spirit of the troops under his command, and not any letters which the Governor-general may have been pleased to write. And what was the nature of this permission to advance? Was his order of this nature—that the means of advance had been provided—that the army had been reinforced, and that ample stores had been secured, so that it would be safe to advance? and he desires, unless the gallant General saw some serious impediments, that he was to proceed to Ghuznee and Cabul. Was this, I ask, the spirit of Lord Ellenborough's permission to advance? Far from it. In his letter of July the 4th, he says:— Nothing has occurred to induce me to change my first opinion, that the measure commanded by "considerations of political and military prudence, is to bring back the armies now in Afghanistan at the earliest period at which their retirement can be effected, consistently with the health and efficiency of the troops, into positions wherein they may have easy and certain communication with India, and to this extent the instructions you have received remained unaltered. But the improved position of your army, with sufficient means of carriage for as large a force as it is necessary to move in Affghanistan, induces me now to leave to your option the line by which you shall withdraw your troops from that country. I must desire, however, that, in forming your decision upon this important question, you will attend to the following considerations. In the directions of Quetta and Sukkur there is no enemy to oppose you; at each place, occupied by detachments, you will find provisions; and, probably, as you descend the passes, you will have increased means of carriage. The operation is one admitting of no doubt as to its success. Now, after reading these passages, I ask what would be the conduct of a cautious general, only anxious to secure the good opinion of his superiors? I think he would have retired after he had read this communication of the Governor-general, that there was no doubt of his success. He then passes on in this letter to the view of the difficulties, and thus proceeds:— If you determine upon moving upon Ghuznee, Cabul, and Jellalabad, you will re- quire, for the transport of provisions, a much larger amount of carriage; and you will be practically without communications, from the time of your leaving Candahar. Dependent entirely upon the courage of your army, and upon your own ability in directing it, I should not have any doubt as to the success of the operation; but whether you will be able to obtain provisions for your troops, during the whole march, and forage for your animals, may be a matter of reasonable doubt. Yet upon this your success will turn. You must remember that it was not the superior courage of the Affghans, but want, and the inclemency of the season, which led to the destruction of the army at Cabul; and you must feel as I do, that the loss of another army, from whatever cause it might arise, might be fatal to our Government in India. I do not undervalue the aid which our Government in India would receive from the successful execution by your army of a march through Ghuznee and Cabul, over the scenes of our late disasters. I know all the effect which it would have upon the minds of out soldiers, of our allies, of our enemies in Asia, and of our countrymen, and of all foreign nations in Europe. It is an object of just ambition, which no one more than myself would rejoice to see effected; but I see that failure in the attempt is certain and irretrievable ruin; and I would endeavour to inspire you with the necessary caution, and make you feel that, great as are the objects to be obtained by success, the risk is great also. The remainder of the letter is in the same temper, and the advice of the Governor-general in it was to the effect, that the troops were to retire by the nearest route, and if the general could advance to Ghuznee and Cabul, he had permission Certainly to do so, but if he did so, and any ill-success attended him, and a great number of his troops were lost, the consequences must fall upon himself. The order of the Governor-general was that he might advance if he pleased. Instead of taking the bold and decisive line which General Nott took, he might withdraw at once, but if he pursued the former course, which General Nott did, and any calamity had followed, attended with serious loss, the Governor-general could have pointed to this order as an order to withdraw, and he could refer to it to show that he was not to be blamed for the misfortunes that had followed the advance. If such was the meaning of this letter: and if General Nott, without giving any reasons or apologies for advancing, did so, then to General Nott and to General Pollock be all the glory of the proceeding, and the reputation, the satisfaction of feeling that it was acknowledged that they had retrieved the honour of the army. Do not endeavour to bolster up the mischievous and improvident act of the Governor-general at the expence of these distinguished military officers. Such is my opinion as to the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed by the acts of the Governor-general, that I impute no blame to him for much that has been said. I say I admit the difficulty of his situation as pointed out by the right hon. Baronet; but I cannot allow that the decision of the House on this act should be decided on an entirely different question. But I go further, and say that I do not agree that the present merits of Lord Ellenborough's Administration in India justifies and excuses him for his conduct respecting these gates. I still think, with the impression on my mind that the other proclamations of Lord Ellenborough were not such as to entitle him to praise, I cannot allow this excuse to prevail. Without detaining the House by reading any of the parts of the proclamation which is the subject of the present discussion, I cannot help remarking on two passages of certainly a very remarkable nature. It is clear to my mind from the passages in this paper, that notwithstanding the successes of the army, and the great praise which has been bestowed on the Governor-general, that he has entirely lost that balance of mind, and that discretion, which a man intrusted with the government of India should possess. After the paragraphs of the proclamation which commenced "My brothers and friends," he proceeds towards the latter part of it to say, For myself, identified with you in interest and feeling, I regard with all your own enthusiasm the high achievements of that heroic army, reflecting alike immortal honour upon my nation and upon my adopted country. To preserve and improve the happy union of our two countries, necessary as it is to the welfare of both, is the constant object of my thoughts. I do not know what is the sense that the noble Lord attached to the expression "adopted country." I can understand a person going out to settle in India or elsewhere, with the intention of passing the remainder of his life there, making use of such a term; but I am utterly at a loss to understand what can be the meaning of such an expression coming from a person in the situation of the Governor-general of India—a person undoubtedly in a high and exalted situation, but who the Court of Directors can at any time they please. It is evident that Lord Ellen-borough is entirely mistaken as to his position in India, for he must imagine that he is placed somewhat in the position of the present King of Sweden, and that he is to remain in his present office for the entire period of his life. The other passage to which I wish to refer is the last one in this proclamation, and a most extraordinary passage it is:— May that good Providence, which has hitherto so manifestly protected me, still extend to roe its favour, that I may so use the power now entrusted to my hands, so as to advance your prosperity and secure your happiness, by placing the union of our two countries upon foundations which may render it eternal. Now, Sir, I say that a man in the situation which Lord Ellenborough holds, who entertained a proper sense of the nature and importance of his station, would consider this subject with very different feelings from those I have expressed. I do not find any instances of persons of the highest rank, and who have held the most important stations in this nation, resorting to such expressions. I have never found an instance of a Sovereign of this country having used such language. It is impossible not to admit the singular blessings which Providence has bestowed on this nation. I say, we must all most devoutly and gratefully admit this; we also must admit that both in the East and in the West this has been effected by the most singular revolution of affairs, and that it often happened that those circumstances which in their first appearance foreboded nothing but mischief, have been turned, under the blessing of Providence, into the most signal advantages to this nation. Nothing seemed more dreadful than the circumstance of sending from Africa, across the Atlantic, large numbers of our fellow-creatures, crowded in slave ships, and exposed to all kinds of horrors on their voyage, and to the most painful slavery afterwards; but by the working of wise and religious men, under the superintendence of Providence, we find that the African race in our West Indian Islands have been advanced to a state of civilization far surpassing anything to be met with in the parts of Africa from which they came; and I hope and believe that these may become the means of advancing and spreading the blessings of civilization and religion over that great portion of the world from which they originally came. In looking to the East, our career has been of a singular character. In the first in stance, the conquerors who went out from this country to the East, were cruel extortioners and oppressors of the natives; and even this House felt itself called upon in a remarkable instance to mark in a most serious manner the sense it entertained of their conduct, but 1 believe that—in more recent times, I believe that such has been the government of this country in India, that the millions of natives forming that vast empire, are now under a rule, both as regards the administration of justice—as regards their being in possession of civil rights—as regards the security of person and property—and as regards the progress of knowledge; and finally, I hope, of true religion, which they never could have been in before their conquest. These two facts which I have thus quoted, appear to me to be very remarkable instances of national crimes of the most serious dye, being afterwards turned into the means of blessing those who were in the first instance the victims of them. But when I consider the conduct of this Governor-general, thus assuming to himself that he is the person for whom all this was brought about, and taking upon himself also to assume the merit of that to himself which belonged to the system, and to the wisdom and blessing of Providence, I am utterly astonished at the presumptuous arrogance and self-sufficiency of this roan. If you should determine on removing Lord Ellenborough, the country would be relieved from great difficulty, and India from great peril. Had we moved a general condemnation, you would have asked us to point the finger at some special act worthy of condemnation. We have pointed out an act, not probably the worst, but that which is most offensive to the people of this country, and most immediately dangerous to India. We require you to pronounce your opinion on that act. If you agree with us, you must express your censure of his conduct. If, on the contrary, you think him a wise, prudent, and humble administrator of the great power entrusted to him, then you will acquit him of all censure and vote against the motion.

The House divided: Ayes 157; Noes 242: Majority 85.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W Archbold, R
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Hayter, W. G.
Heneage, E.
Ashley, Lord Hindley, C.
Bannerman, A. Hollond, R.
Barclay, D Horsman, E.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Barron, Sir H. W. Howard, hon. J. K.
Berkeley, hon. C. Howard, Lord
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Howard, hon. H.
Bernal, R. Howard, Sir R.
Blackstone, W. S. Howick, Visct.
Blake, M. J. Hume, J.
Blake, Sir V. Hutt, W.
Bowring, Dr. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Brocklehurst, J. James, W.
Brodie, W. B. Johnston, Alex.
Brotherton, J. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Buller, C. Langston, I. H.
Buller, E. Layard, Capt.
Busfeild, W. Leader, J. T.
Byng, G. Lemon, Sir C.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Listowel, Earl of
Campbell, Alex. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Mc. Taggart, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Mangles, R. D.
Childers, J. W. Majoribanks, S.
Christie, W. D. Marshall, W.
Clay, Sir W. Martin, J.
Clive, E. B. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Mitcalfe, H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Mitchell, T. A.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Morris, D.
Craig, W. G. Napier, Sir C.
Curteis, H. B. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Dalmeny, Lord O'Brien, J.
Dalrymple, Capt. O'Brien, W. S.
Dawson, hon. T. V. O'Conor, Don
Denison, W. J. Ogle, S. C. H.
D'Eyncourt,rt.hn. C.T. Ord, W.
Dickinson, F. H. Oswald, J.
Divett, E. Paget, Col.
Duff, J. Paget, Lord A.
Duncan, Visct. Palmerston, Visct.
Duncan, G. Parker, J.
Duncombe, T. Pechell, Capt.
Dundas, Admiral Philips, G. R.
Easthope, Sir J. Philipps, Sir R. B. P.
Ebrington, Visct. Philips, M.
Ellice, E. Phillpotts, J.
Ellis, W. Plumptre, J. P.
Esmonde, Sir T. Plumridge, Capt.
Evans, W. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. AC.
Ewart, W. Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Ferguson, Col. Protheroe, E.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Ramsbottom, J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Ricardo, J. L.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Rice, E, R.
Forster, M. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Fox, C. R. Ross, D. R.
Gill, T. Russell, Lord J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Russell, Lord E.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Scholefield, J.
Guest, Sir J. Scrope, G. P.
Hall, Sir B. Shelborne, Earl of
Hastie, A. Smith, B.
Hatton, Capt. V. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hay, Sir A. L. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Stanton, W. H. Wall, C. B.
Stuart, Lord J. Ward, H. G.
Stuart, W. V. Williams, W.
Strickland, Sir G. Wilshere, W.
Strutt, E. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Tancred, H. W. Wood, B.
Thornely, T. Wood, C.
Tollemache, J. Wood, G. W.
Towneley, J. Worsley, Lord
Turner, E.
Vane, Lord H. TELLERS.
Villiers, hon. C. Hill, Lord M.
Walker, R. Tufnell, H.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Colquhoun, J. C.
A'Court, Capt. Colvile, C. R.
Acton, Col. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Adare, Visct. Cresswell, B.
Alford, Visct. Cripps, W.
Allix, J. P. Damer, hon. Col.
Antrobus, E. Davies, D. A. S.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Denison, E. B.
Arkwright, G. Dick, Q.
Bagot, hon. W. Disraeli, B.
Bailey, J. Dodd, G.
Bailey, J. jun. Douglas, Sir H.
Baillie, Col. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Balfour, J. M. Douglas, J. D. S.
Bankes, G. Douro, Marq. of
Baring, hon. W. B. Dowdeswell, W.
Barrington, Visct. Duffield, T.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Dugdale, W. S.
Bateson, R. Duncombe, hon. A.
Beckett, W. Duncombe, hon. O.
Bell, M. East, J. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Eastnor, Visct.
Bernard, Visct. Egerton, W. T.
Blakemore, R. Egerton, Sir P.
Boldero, H. G. Eliot, Lord
Borthwick, P. Emlyn, Visct.
Botfield, B. Escott, B.
Boyd, J. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bradshaw, J. Farnham, E. B.
Bramston, T. W. Fielden, W.
Broadley, H. Fellowes, E.
Broadwood, H. Ferrand, W. B.
Brownrigg, J. S. Filmer, Sir E.
Bruce, Lord E. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Bruce, C. L. C. Fitzroy, Capt.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Flower, Sir J.
Bunbury, T. Forbes, W.
Burroughes, H. N. Fox, S. L.
Campbell, Sir H. Fuller, A. E.
Castlereagh, Visct. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Chelsea, Visct. Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Chetwode, Sir J. Gladstone, Capt.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Christopher, R. A. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Chute, W. L. W. Gore, M.
Clayton, R. R. Gore, W. R. O.
Clerk, Sir G. Goring, C.
Clive, hon. R. H. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Cochrane, A. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Codrington, Sir W. Granby, Marq. of
Collett, W. R. Grant, Sir A. C.
Greenall, P. Morgan, O.
Gregory, W. H. Morgan, C.
Grimston, Visct. Mundy, E. M.
Grogan, E. Murray, C. R. S.
Hale, R. B. Neeld, J.
Halford, H. Neville, R.
Hamilton, W. J. Newport, Visct.
Hamilton, Lord C. Newry, Visct.
Hanmer, Sir J. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Norreys, Lord
Heneage, G. H. W. Northland, Visct.
Henley, J. W. Pakington, J. S.
Henniker, Lord Palmer, R.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Patten, J. W.
Herbert, hon. S. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hervey, Lord A. Peel J.
Hillsborough, Earl of Pemberton, T.
Hinde, J. H. Pollington, Visct.
Hodgson, R. Powell, Col.
Hogg, J. W. Praed, W. T.
Holmes, hon. W. A. Pringle, A.
Hope, hon. C. Pusey, P.
Hope, G. W. Rashleigh, W.
Hornby, J. Repton, G. \V. J.
Houldsworth, T. Richards, R.
Hughes, W. B. Rolleston, Col.
Hussey, T. Round, C. G.
Ingestre, Visct. Round, J.
Irton, S. Rous, hon. Capt.
James, Sir W. C. Rushbrooke, Col.
Jermyn, Earl Russell, C.
Johnstone, Sir J. Russell, J. D. W.
Johnstone, H. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Sanderson, R.
Jones, Capt. Sandon, Visct.
Kemble, H. Scarlett, hn. It. C.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Knight, H. G. Shirley, E. J.
Knight, F. W. Smith, A.
Knightley, Sir C. Smythe, hon. G.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Smollett, A.
Law, hon. C. E. Somerset, Lord G.
Lawson, A. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Lennox, Lord A. Spry, Sir S. T.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Stanley, Lord
Lincoln, Earl of Stewart, J.
Lockhart, W. Stuart, H.
Lopes, Sir R. Sturt, H. C.
Lowther, hon. Col. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lyall, G. Tennent, J. E.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Thesiger, F.
Mackenzie, W. F. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Maclean, D. Thornhill, G.
Mahon, Visct. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Mainwaring, T. Tomline, G.
Manners, Lord C. S. Trench, Sir F. W.
Manners, Lord J. Trevor, hon. G. R.
March, Earl of Trollope, Sir J.
Marsham, Visct. Trotter, J.
Marton, G. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Master, T. W. C. Vernon, G. H.
Masterman, J. Vivian, J. E.
Maunsell, T. P. Waddington, H. S.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Wellesley, Lord C,
Meynell, Capt. Whitmore, T. C.
Miles, P. W. S. Williams, T. P.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Wodehouse, E.
Wood, Col. Young, J.
Wood, Col. T.
Wortley, hon. J. S. TELLERS.
Wyndham, Col. C. Freemantle, Sir T.
Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W. Baring, H.

House adjourned at ten minutes to two o'clock.