§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Governor General of India has sent home a copy of the Proclamation addressed to the Chiefs and Inhabitants of Oude, which was actually issued after the taking of Lucknow, and whether it differs in any respect from the proposed Proclamation, a copy of which has been laid before the House; and whether the Governor General of India has given to the Government of England, or to the India Board, any other explanation of such Proclamation, or the reasons which have led to or justify its issue, than such as are contained in the letter addressed by Mr. Edmonstone to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude, dated 3rd March, and which has been laid before the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, in answer to the hon. Baronet, whose question I have now seen for the first time, I beg to inform him that we have not received a copy of the Proclamation addressed to the Chiefs and Inhabitants of Oude by the Governor General, and which was actually issued after the taking of Lucknow; and therefore, officially, I cannot say whether there is any difference between that and the proposed Proclamation—a copy of which has been laid before the House. But with regard to the second, and more important part of the question—whether the Governor General of India has given to the Government 861 of England or to the India Board any other explanation of such Proclamation, or the reasons which have led to or justify its issue, than such as are contained in the letter addressed by Mr. Edmonstone to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude, dated the 3rd March, and which has been laid before the House—I beg to inform the hon. Baronet that we received, on Saturday last, three private letters from Viscount Canning, which have been referred to in the course of the Debate; that there are references in those letters to the Proclamation, but that the previous letters in which the Governor General gave the explanations which he promised, and which probably there were some other statements that seem to have been referred to in these letters, which are consequently in some points obscure, have never reached us.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSMay I ask one more question? Have the Government received any positive information from the Governor General that the Proclamation has been really issued?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERWe have not received information from the Governor General; but from other sources we have positive information that it has been issued.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI wish, Sir, to make an observation with reference to the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Mallow, which seems to contain an insinuation which some Members of the House accepted in the sense it was probably intended to convey. The right hon. Gentleman said that three letters had been received from Lord Canning on Saturday, containing references to previous letters that had not reached the Board of Control, but which he supposed contained explanations of the Proclamation. I have only to say that my right hon. Friend who was lately President of the Board of Control has received no explanations from Viscount Canning, in any private letter, with reference to the Proclamation in Oude. Consequently, if these letters have not reached the present Government, neither have they reached my right hon. Friend who was formerly at the head of the Indian Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI feel, Sir, I am quite justified in rising again, in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Viscount. Perhaps the House will allow me to observe 862 that I did not make, nor did I intend to make, any insinuation of the kind to which the noble Lord has referred. There are Gentlemen who are ever ready to believe that insinuations are made with regard to their conduct. I repeat unequivocally that I made no insinuation. If I had a charge to make, I should make it not in the way of insinuation, but in language that could not be mistaken. The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood what I said. I said there were expressions in the letters received from Viscount Conning which seemed to refer to what had been stated in other letters; that there were observations in them which contained references to matters of which we had no account; that they were, therefore, necessarily involved in obscurity; and that in these circumstances I was unable to give the explanation which the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) asked.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYI think, Sir, it is important that there should be no mistake upon this subject. I wish, therefore, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have received any positive information of any Proclamation having been issued by the Governor General? Yes or no?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI have already stated that we are in possession of communications which speak to the fact of the Proclamation having been issued, but we have no official communication from Lord Canning to that effect.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONIt is in my power, Sir, to give an answer to the non. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley). I have, within the last few hours, seen a gallant officer who arrived from Lucknow last night, and who, before leaving Lucknow, had a conversation with Sir Colin Campbell. In that conversation Sir Colin Campbell expressed an opinion that the Proclamation had arrived.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he wished to know whether it was to be understood that the Proclamation had only arrived, or that it had been issued, at Lucknow?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the information he had received was, that the Proclamation had been sent to Lucknow.
LORD ADOLPHUSVANE-TEMPESTI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he has any objection to produce those parts of the private letters he received from Viscount Canning at the Board of Control which refer to those subjects?
MR. VERNON SMITHI have already stated the substance of the letter, and also that had I, to the best of my judgment and discretion, considered it important enough to be communicated to the Government, I would have done so. I did not think any part of the letter important, and therefore did not send it.
§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTSir, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"] I submit to the House that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I put to him. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no Motion before the House. It is not, therefore, competent for the noble Lord to enter into any argument at present.
§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he has any objection to lay before the House those parts of the letters he has received from Viscount Canning which referred to subjects relating to India?
MR. VERNON SMITHI have already answered the question. I have an objection to produce the letters. I have stated the substance of them, and that is the only answer I have to make.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONESir, it has been stated that there is a gallant officer now in London who has recently arrived from Lucknow. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House. I understand, Sir, there is a gallant officer now in London, who has recently held a high command in the province of Oude, where he has performed many most creditable deeds at the head of his regiment, which he has led in a most gallant manner. This gentleman, I understand, Sir, has stated publicly and on various occasions that he has had communications with officers high in command, and with men high in authority, since the publication of the Proclamation; and that he has also stated the impressions on the minds of those personages in regard to the Proclamation. I think, Sir, that the substance of that gallant officer's information should, if possible, be given to the House.
MR. VERNON SMITHThis is a most irregular proceeding. If the hon. and gallant Member knows what the officer referred to could communicate on the subject, he ought to state it at once to the House.
§ Motion for the adjournment of the House by leave withdrawn.
864§ MR.DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know whether, in the event of the Amendment, he had given notice of to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) being carried, and in effect becoming a substantive Motion, it would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I wish to explain to the House the state of business. I understand we cannot hope to make any arrangement by which the adjourned debate on the Oude question can be resumed to-night at any reasonable hour. I do not think it would he just to the Government that this discussion should be recommenced at the fag-end of the evening. I understand that the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier), acting, no doubt, from a sense of duty, declines to give way, and one cannot consequently expect those hon. Gentlemen who precede him on the paper to make a sacrifice of their position. I think, therefore, that there is no probability of the adjourned debate occurring to-night at any reasonable hour, and I confess I am somewhat reconciled to the delay, because there is apparently no possibility of the House dividing to-night. But I must beg that, on every practice of courtesy and every principle of justice, hon. Members who have Motions on the paper for Thursday will consent to an arrangement by which the discussion on the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) will be resumed at the earliest possible moment on that day. Thursday is a day in the occupation of private Members, and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) has a Motion of the greatest importance for that day. It is with the greatest reluctance that I make an appeal to that hon. Gentleman to sacrifice the occasion of bringing forward a matter of so much interest, but my appeal to that hon. Member is not made under light circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for East Surrey, taking all the circumstances into his consideration—remembering that a Bill of indictment, as it were, has been preferred against Her Majesty's Government, that they are on their trial, and that we are, further, on the eve of a recess, will see the necessity that the decision of the House on this subject shall not be unnecessarily postponed. I cannot but believe that the hon. Gentleman animated, by the sentiments of a generous mind, will allow 865 the adjourned debate to be resumed on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman gives his consent I shall feel it to be my duty to give him facilities for bringing on his measure on the earliest practicable occasion. If the hon. Gentleman consents that the adjourned debate shall be resumed on Thursday its termination must be near at hand, and cannot fail to take place either on that or the succeeding night. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford is negatived, as I hope it will be, I sec nothing in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to which I could not give a willing assent.