§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to Solicit the permission of the House to ask a Question with respect to a statement which was made by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) in the debate on the previous Monday evening. He would not for a moment ask the indulgence of the House in transgressing the rule which prohibited reference to a past debate, were it not that the statement to which he referred affected deeply the character of a public man. His hon. Friend stated, as reported in The Times, that the Marquess of Dalhousie a short time before quitting India, in the plenitude of his power, and with all the arrogance of office, told a Native Prince that he regarded him no more than the dust beneath his feet. That Prince was the Nizam. That statement, when made, surprised him (Sir James Fergusson), and he thought it right to ascertain at the India Office whether it was well founded or not. He had to thank the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood) for having granted him every facility; As far as the knowledge of any of the persons at the India Office went, no such expression occurred in any of the documents at the office, and a few of those who were confidentially acquainted with the late Marquess, told him that to the best of their knowledge no such thing had taken place. Having thus taken all the trouble he could to ascertain the facts, and as the members of the late Marquess's family felt pained at the allegation, he wrote to his hon. Friend to ask whether he had any authority for such a statement, and whether he could mention where such a sentence had occurred? His hon. Friend was unable to mention his authority, but said he would try to discover it. It would be most agreeable to him if his hon. Friend would state that he had not intended to say that the words were written or spoken by the Marquess of Dalhousie; but since his hon. Friend was not prepared to take that course, he begged to ask upon what authority he attributed the words to the Marquess of Dalhousie?
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, when his hon. and gallant Friend spoke to him shortly after the debate, he (Mr. Baillie) told him that he had read the statement, though he could not for the moment say where it was to be found, but he would look for it. He had now to refer his hon. and gallant Friend in the first place to a very able article upon Indian affairs, which appeared in the July number of the Quarterly Review of 1858. The words which he used in the House would be found at page 265. Those words were published in the Quarterly Review during the time the Marquess of Dalhousie was alive, and, as far as he knew, had never been contradicted. In the next place he would refer his hon. and gallant Friend to a more learned work which had been lately published by Mr. Dickinson, a gentleman well versed in Indian affairs—a Very interesting book upon the annexation of the principality of Dhar—and at page 27 he would find the statement repeated, and said to be on the very highest authority. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: What authority?] It was stated to be on the very highest authority. The hon. and gallant Officer, no doubt, would find the statement in a despatch in the archives of Hyderabad.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, Whether as a Member of Parliament, and one who had held a position connected with the Board of Control, he felt justified in making the statement with no other authority.
§ MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he conceived that when such a statement appeared in a publication like the Quarterly Review, and remained uncontradicted for six years, a Member of Parliament was justified in quoting it as authentic.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.