RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 15 June 1888 vol 327 cc322-67

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

, in rising to call attention to the case of Mr. William Taylor, late Commissioner of Patna; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, with a view to the settlement of a long-standing controversy as to the wrong stated to have been suffered by a meritorious servant of the Crown, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into this case, said, he entreated the House not to turn away from the cry of a meritorious servant of the Crown because his was "a tale of ancient wrong," and because he was 81 years of age, and his wrongs had their origin 31 years ago. The longer cruel hardships had remained unredressed the greater was the urgency for redress. The story which he had to tell was of a man who, placed in a position of the highest responsibility, and in circumstances of appalling difficulty and danger, did his duty to the bust of his abilities, and saved a great Province from the horrors of the Mutiny. That man was, unfortunately, misunderstood, and cruelly wronged by his superior officer, and for 30 years since then he had devoted all his energies to the task of rehabilitating himself before the world. He now appealed to the Commons of England for the redress which that House never refused in a deserving case. Close upon 60 years ago William Taylor landed in India as a young cadet in the Company's employment. He served for nearly 30 years with success and distinction in every grade of the Bengal Civil Service, and at length reached the topmost step but one of the official ladder, and became Commissioner, or Chief Ruler, of the populous Province of Patna or Western Behar. The Commissioner of Patna, as an administrative Chief, was subordinate only to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal at Calcutta, who, in his turn, was subordinate only to the Governor General and the Supreme Government of India. That was the position held by Mr. Tayler at the moment when the awful wave of the great Mutiny in 1857 swept over Northern India and surged up to and around the Province of Patna. How he faced this appalling situation was matter of history. Unfortunately, his views and those of his superior, Sir Frederick Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, were directly and openly at variance, both as to the nature of the crisis and as to the means by which it should be met. Sir Frederick Halliday had before this proposed to remove Mr. Taylor. Four hundred miles away, in the security of Calcutta, he thought that Patna was safe; that the revolt of the neighbouring Sepoys at the Patna Cantonments of Dinapore was inconceivable; that the Wahabee Mahomedans of Patna were "innocent and inoffensive," and so forth; he considered all Taylor's measures utterly wrong, and one, whereby the Christians at Gya and Tirhoot were warned to concentrate on the central station of Patna, he stigmatized as done under a panic. The upshot was that while Sir Frederick Halliday was brought home to the high places of the Secretary of State's Council—from which he had only retired a few months ago—Mr. Taylor was virtually dismissed from his high office, a ruined and broken man. The sentence of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was confirmed by Lord Canning and the Government of India, who, in such a case, would be little else than the Lieutenant Governor under another name; and while the facts of the Mutiny were only obscurely known, the crushing sentence was further endorsed by the Board of Control, though some of the most serious parts of the charge were there withdrawn. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) would not attempt to pass judgment himself on these remote events, or on the actions of Mr. Tayler in the Behar crisis; but he should refer to the testimony of every recognized authority and every competent witness. He would first show that at least two out of the five Members of Lord Canning's Government who had concurred in the dismissal on the imperfect evidence entirely changed their opinion on fuller information, and after the Wahabee trials of 1865. One of the chief charges brought against Mr. Tayler was that he had been unduly severe against the Wahabee fanatics, whom Sir Frederick Halliday called "inoffensive men, against whom there was no ground of suspicion." And it was suggested that Mr. Taylor had been misled by the intrigues of his own subordinates. But some years later these very Wahabees were tried by Sir Herbert Edwardes on other charges of treason, convicted, and sentenced to death, and Mr. Taylor's subordinates, who had been dubbed intriguers, were decorated with the Star of India. Writing to Mr. Tayler, Sir Herbert Edwardes said— The centre of the truly bitter and formidable conspiracy was Patna. You lived there and knew what was going on. You acted on your knowledge, and paralyzed the whole of the Wahabee sect, by seizing their leaders at the very moment when they could and would have struck a heavy blow against us. The Bengal Government were determined not to believe in the Wahabee conspiracy, and punished you for your vigour. Time has done you justice, shown that you were right, and hanged or transported the enemies whom you suspected and disarmed. Sir Bartle Frere wrote that it "had been proved beyond all doubt" that Mr. Tayler saved the Province from insurrection. He turned from the evidence of Members of the Government—two of whom voluntarily came forward afterwards and testified that, had the facts been known to them, they would not have joined in the censure passed on Mr. Taylor—to the opinions of every historian and every writer who had written upon the terrible times in India during the great Sepoy Mutiny. Their authority would not be impugned by Her Majesty's Government. They were Sir John Kaye, Colonel Malleson, and Dr. Alexander Duff. They had all given precisely the same verdict with respect to the treatment of Mr. Taylor by the Government, and they showed the greatest anxiety, as being honest men they were bound to do, that he should obtain redress of his injuries. Dr. Alexander Duff was the head of the Scottish missionaries in Bengal, and his name was a household word over the Province, and he was known as a most estimable character when he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) was in Bengal; and he wrote that, under Providence, Mr. Tayler was the protector of Patna and the saviour of Behar, and for a single error of judgment he was removed from his exalted station, in which he had rendered momentous service to India and the British Crown; and Dr. Duff added that the real ground obviously was the antagonism between Mr. Tayler's policy and the policy of the Government in dealing with the events of the crisis. A precisely similar verdict was given by others—by Victoria Cross heroes, like his old friend Mr. Fraser Macdonald and Mr. Ross Mangles. The latter wrote— I can bear my humble testimony to the vigorous and judicious measures which you adopted at Patna, and which, beyond question, saved that city. I have always been surprised that your services have never been recognized, but I hope that justice nuts yet be done to you. These words were written 20 years ago. Take the evidence, again, of gallant Boyle, the engineer who planned the defence of the little Arrah Compound. He wrote— I am glad to repeat what was then the general conviction, since confirmed by facts—that had you not acted as you did on your own responsibility (disregarding for a time routine and needless technicality)"—this was the sting of the whole thing—"Patna could not have been saved. That you were the means of saving Patna and the lives of the Christian community there is as undeniable as that less far-seeing policy would have involved a widespread catastrophe. When I consider these things, how you have been treated for your eminent services while Commissioner of Patna, how you have been wronged, how you were degraded instead of being honoured, and how even yet neglect and injustice are unredressed. Sir Vincent Eyre endorsed all that had been written by Sir John Kaye and Colonel Malleson, who rejoiced that in Mr. Taylor they had the right man in the right place, who had the courage to assume responsibility adequate to the occasion. It was because Mr. Tayler had that courage and assumed that responsibility that he had been disgraced and degraded these long years. He should only trouble the House with one extract more on the subject, and it was from the gallant Colonel Rattray, of Rattray's Sikhs, who happened to have lived in the same house with Mr. Taylor. He said— No one but those who were working with Mr. Tayler, living in his house as I was, can know the amount of burden thrown upon him, and all that I can say is not once did I see a symptom of panic during the whole of the time I was working with him. Always courteous, always affable, always cool, and always approachable, he was the picture of what an English gentleman should be when placed in a most critical and dangerous position, and I maintain through thick and thin that it is mainly due to him that Patna was saved. I sincerely trust that Mr. Tayler may yet live to see full justice meted out to him. This testimony was given 10 years ago. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) might quote precisely similar language from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Patna, the Church of England Chaplain of Patna, the German missionary there, round robins of English residents, round robins of Natives, surgeons, engineers, all sorts and conditions of men; and he challenged a single contradictory statement from those who were there to say that Mr. Tayler's policy was wrong. He did not think that anyone would deny that there had been all along an overwhelming consensus of opinion, especially in India, that a grave error was committed by the Government in this case; and what he feared was that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) might be tempted to say that the matter had been decided on its merits, and that the Government could not re-open the case. He held in his hand absolutely undeniable proof that the matter had never been decided on its merits since the time when, in 1865, the new facts were discovered, and the Members of the Government of India themselves altered their opinions. The letter which he was about to read was the keystone of his case. It was an autograph letter of that noble-minded statesman, the late Sir Stafford Northcote. It was written on India Office paper, and the signature had been verified by his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir Stafford Northcote). The Under Secretary of State for India had informed him, in reply to a Question, that there was no trace whatever to be found of this letter in the India Office. The letter was as follows:— Harley Street, December 7, 1868. My dear Sir,—Your appeal has not yet, as I find, gone before the Committee of our Council, by whom it will have to be dealt with. I take for granted that when it comes on for discussion, Sir Frederick Halliday will abstain from taking part in the deliberation of the Council; and I feel assured that the Duke of Argyll will look into the question 'fairly and fully.' I remain, yours very faithfully, STAFFORD NORTHCOTE. What next did they find? The Government to which the late Sir Stafford Northcote belonged went out of Office. With regard to what happened, The Times—which did not usually use unmeasured language—called it "a sinister fact." His hon. Friend (Sir John Gorst) spoke of it as "an accident that may happen in the best-regulated Departments." For 10 long years Mr. Taylor waited for the orders on his Memorial that was to be "fairly and fully" looked into, and then he discovered, from a statement in The Scotsman, and not by information from the India Office, that his papers, including the Memorial, had gone, vanished, no one knew when, no one knew whither, and that the Duke of Argyll, as Secretary of State, had recorded this most significant Minute—"My opinion is against re-opening the case." The House would observe that this was not against Mr. Tayler on the merits of the case, not against the merciful inclinations of his Predecessor, Sir Stafford Northcote, but against any consideration of those merits. He protested at once, and most strongly, against the attempt that had been made to throw the blame for the miscarriage of justice on the Duke of Argyll. He held that the opinion of the Duke was a just and proper one, probably even a necessary one, for he had not been made aware of the promise and intention of Sir Stafford Northcote, and could only conclude that in re-opening the case he would be casting a slur on the judgment of his Predecessor. The words of the Duke, after the promise of Sir Stafford Northcote, could not possibly be got over. They declared definitely that the case had not been re-opened, and they cast palpably and incontestably on his hon. Friend the responsibility of refusing to do an act of justice. Why, it might be asked, was the present year so especially favourable for the reconsideration of this matter? He had some little delicacy in replying very directly to that question, though the answer was well known to everyone who had followed the case. It was his determination, and that of those who acted with him, not to say one word of imputation against the two most distinguished and most eminent Members of the Secretary of State's Council, Sir Frederick Halliday and Sir Henry Maine, who for a great many years thought it their duty strongly to oppose Mr. Tayler, and who both, within the last few months, had been removed from that Council, one by death and one by resignation. Hard words enough had passed on both sides. He would earnestly say let bygones be bygones; and in extenuation of any bitter words that might be raked up against Mr. Tayler, he would urge that when charges on public grounds were brought against a man and were known by him to be false it was only human nature to assign some of the animus to private grounds. And if Sir Henry Maine were alive he would be the first to laugh at the original cause of quarrel between him and Mr. Tayler. The quarrel was over the famous Simla "pickles case," when the late Sir William Mansfield accused his secretary, Captain Jervis, of stealing his pickles. Simla society was rent asunder into fiercely contending factions by the case. Sir Henry Maine, as Law Member of Council, was, in a way, the Legal Adviser of the Commander-in-Chief. Mr. Tayler was the advocate of the secretary, and triumphantly won his case. But surely those old feuds of bygone times might now be forgotten. It remained an obvious practical fact that, whereas for at least 20 years it had been impossible for a Secretary of State to do anything for Mr. Taylor without offering something like a rebuff to his two most distinguished Councillors, now nothing of the kind was involved. He might say that the whole Press of India and a most influential portion of the Press of England had dwelt on that fact, Within the last few months everyone of the great newspapers of India had called on the Secretary of State to move in the matter, and had declared that justice could now be done without hurting the dignity or the character of anyone, and with great advantage to the character of the Government. The Times the other day said of Mr. Taylor that— The time that is left to him in the ordinary course of nature cannot be long. It will be our loss rather than his if the future historian has to record that he went down to the grave with all who knew his deeds applauding them, and officialism alone holding stupidly, unjustly, and dishonestly aloof. It was official, not national, ingratitude; and The Calcutta Englishman, passionately applauding this sentiment, added that— Every right-hearted Englishman must hope that his children and grandchildren will have cause to be thankful that he worked for their honour during the 30 years of his retirement undeterred by official slights or by unmanly doubts of his eventual success. Everyone who knew the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary and the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) would feel that they, at least, were the last men in the world not to join heartily in such a wish. But he must sorrowfully confess that it was possible that his hon. Friend, after all he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had ventured to urge, and after all that would be urged by those who would follow him, might still feel a dread of some reproach for committing what had been represented to him as a breach of official etiquette. He ventured to assure him—and the generous heart of the people of this country would assure him—that when that official sin came to be recorded against him, the Recording Angel would remember the poor old hero of Patna and his wrongs, and would drop a tear on the record and blot it out for ever. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN S.E. (Durham)

said, he rose with the greatest pleasure to second the Resolution, and if he might be permitted to offer a reason for doing so, it was because he was to have had the honour of seconding the Motion of Sir Eardley Wilmot on this subject when the case was about to be brought forward in 1878. Since that time, owing to changes of Governments, changes in Ministries and other accidental circumstances the case had not been brought forward, and there had been no investigation whatsoever of this question. They had been told time after time that the case, having been investigated by successive Secretaries of State, had passed beyond the cognizance of the present day. He should elaborate that point in the course of his observations to show that, except in the first interval, no investigation of any description whatsoever had been held. If he might be allowed to offer an apology for intervening in this debate, it would be that he had the honour of having been himself engaged in the transactions to which the Motion of the hon. Member related at the time at which they occurred, and he hoped that the personal testimony of one who had been engaged in the circumstances he was endeavouring to relate would, however junior his position might be, continue to be regarded as of some value in that House. In 1857, when these events occurred, the Province of Bahar and the City of Patna were saved from destruction, and from a loss of life such as they were not able to estimate by the bold, determined, wise, and well-conducted action of Mr. Commissioner Tayler. The Mutiny which broke out in India in 1857 had overwhelmed nearly the whole of the country, and in a few isolated spots there were detached sections of our countrymen exposed to dangers to which he sincerely hoped none would ever be exposed again. In such circumstances as those, Mr. Commissioner Tayler, then in the prime of life—now an old man of 81 years—and having had an official experience of 26 years in India—during which he had obtained the distinguished approbation of everyone under whom he had served—had to meet a most perilous crisis with scarcely any assistance from those with whom he was associated, that which he did receive being in many cases a detriment and a block to him. He rose to the emergency; but he committed the unpardonable fault of having been right when his official superiors were wrong, and the vindictiveness and narrow-minded spite which wrecked his career and had followed him ever since was attributable to nothing but that he, being a most clear-sighted and capable Englishman, had met with the censure of those who were loss clear-sighted and capable than himself. The great City of Patna, close to the military station of Dinapore, containing great Government factories, and millions of treasure, was left with scarcely any garrison at all, which might be said to consist of Commissioner Tayler himself and a few police when the emergency arose. In the month of June, 1857, Commissioner Taylor knew from previous investigation what was not understood by the authorities at Calcutta—of the existence of a great and powerful conspiracy aimed at uprooting the foundation of our power in India—concerning which everything that he then alleged was, seven years afterwards, borne out by unimpeachable evidence beyond the possibility of doubt. He had to deal with the circumstance that eight miles lower down the Ganges than Patna there was a garrison of three of the best regiments of our Indian Army, who were held in check by one regiment in which he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) had the honour to serve. Their efficiency could not be doubted from a military point of view; but for that very reason they were all the more dangerous should they become our enemies. Commissioner Tayler was urging on the authorities the existence of the conspiracy, and the necessity of disarmament. The insurrection was spreading all over the country, and our out-stations were being overwhelmed, owing to their small numbers, when Commissioner Tayler thought that it would be a prudent step to disarm these 2,000 Indian troops, for which proceeding there were means at hand, and an opportunity afforded. The only opposition offered was that of Sir Frederick Halliday and General Lloyd, who desired to retain a belief in the loyalty of the Native troops with whom he had been associated all his life, although in the course he took he was afterwards proved to have been grievously mistaken, and which course was absolutely opposed to the information of Commissioner Taylor. At Patua itself he nipped the insurrection in the bud by seizing somewhat unceremoniously—insurrections were not to be put down with rose water—the Wahabee leaders without further detriment to themselves, except that they were deprived of the power of doing mischief. That raised the ire of Sir Frederick Halliday, then Governor of Bengal, whose in- fluence was strong enough to induce Lord Canning and General Lloyd to resist every representation made to them as to the disarmament of the forces, which might, in the early days of the conspiracy, have been deprived of the power of doing evil. Subsequent events had undoubtedly proved that in every step taken by Commissioner Taylor he was right, and that the steps taken by his official superiors, who were opposed to him, were absolutely and lamentably wrong. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) would show presently how that bore on the insurrection in India, and how, without the intervention of Providence, Lucknow—to whose relief his father was advancing—would have fallen, in consequence of this neglect of Mr. Taylor's advice. This disarmament of the Native troops might easily have taken place early in June, and when at last permission was given the operation was so mismanaged and bungled that a large force of somewhat over 2,000 trained Sepoys—as fine soldiers as any in the world—were able to escape into the adjoining Province of Behar, with the whole of their ammunition in their possession, which enabled them for 15 months to oppose resistance to the attempt to suppress the Mutiny. But the chief point alleged against Mr. Commissioner Tayler was that he showed a want of courage in what was called the disgraceful withdrawal of the officials from the districts. What did that mean? All over India small detached bodies of Europeans were striving for their lives. In the midst of the circumstances that surrounded them they would naturally retire to the nearest town; and the whole gravamen of the charge against Mr. Taylor was that he foresaw the possibility of those small detached parties being obliged to take refuge in Patna, and gave facilities for that which all over India was taking place without any orders at all. Another charge against him was that he had prevented the advance of the heroic Sir Vincent Eyre to the relief of Arrah. When the authorities had succeeded in bungling the plan of disarmament, the 2,000 Sepoys, who made their escape with their arms and ammunition, laid siege to the small house at Arrah to which the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had alluded. A detachment of European soldiers, 400 in number, who were sent to their relief, had fallen into an ambush; they suffered severely, and had to return diminished in number by 250. The allegation against Commissioner Taylor was that when some few days later a much smaller detachment of British soldiers, available for the relief of the beleaguered garrison, was passing up the river, he recommended them to proceed with caution. If he had not done that, he would have been deficient in respect of the first element of his public duty. Seeing what had happened to a much superior force a few days before Commissioner Tayler—whose business, as a Civil officer, it was to sift all the evidence derived from a hundred sources as to what the probability of success might be—sent through the military officer commanding at Dinapore, who had to decide whether the movement should be made or not, certain advice either not to advance, or else to advance with caution to what, in his opinion, might otherwise be almost certain defeat. So far from that being in any degree a discredit to Mr. Taylor, he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) maintained that it reflected the highest possible credit upon his foresight and his appreciation of the duties which fell to his share as Civil officer, in giving all the information in his power to the Military Authorities. These were the only two points alleged against this man. He would not say, in general terms, that there had been official rancour displayed against Mr. Tayler, as he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not believe that such a feeling was entertained by the higher officials, the case having received a fair hearing whenever it had come up for higher consideration, and Mr. Taylor having been especially completely exonerated by the Court of Directors. But one individual had, from first to last, displayed implacable hostility against Commissioner Tayler, because that gentleman had been right, whilst he himself, his official superior, had been wrong, and these two insignificant reasons had been picked out as a lever for bringing to an end the official career and ruining the prospects and embittering the life of a gentleman to whomthe people of India, perhaps, owed as much as to any other man engaged in the Mutiny. He was not aware that there was anything further alleged against him; but if Mr. Taylor had committed an error of judgment in this matter, what did it amount to? It amounted to a case of this kind—that in extinguishing a great and dangerous conflagration, which threatened life and property, those who managed the fire-engine might have accidentally sprinkled the bystanders. Now, let him (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) point out that subsequent events, in every respect, had confirmed the soundness of the judgment arrived at by Mr. Taylor. It was at that time urged on Lord Canning, who had not then been long in India—and of whom he wished to speak with every respect, he having, of course, been in this matter in the hands of his official advisers—who had long years of Indian experience—that Commissioner Tayler had, without duo cause, seized and imprisoned some worthy and inoffensive Mahommedan gentlemen—these being the Wahabee conspirators. If that conspiracy had not been promptly checked much bloodshed and slaughter would have resulted. But what happened later on? In 1864, after Commissioner Taylor had been displaced and relegated to private life, when everything had been done that was possible to ruin him, when he had been deprived of pay and pension, and forced to rely upon his own extraordinary talents as an advocate for a subsistence, this remarkable event occurred. An investigation which was carried on by Sir Herbert Edwards at Simla, in the North-West Provinces, in connection with the Wahabee conspiracy, brought to light the fact that the very individuals whom Commissioner Taylor had seized—thus nipping the insurrection in the bud—were the persons who were subsequently proved to be the principal movers in the insurrectionary movement in 1857, which was intended to upset the British power in India. Those men were convicted in 1861, on the clearest evidence; but Commissioner Tayler was, unfortunately, unable to profit by what happened. But the men who were instrumental in proving that the Wahabees seized by Commissioner Taylor were connected with the conspiracy were, by the deliberate action of the Indian Government, promoted for the services they had rendered the country. From that day up to the present, every subsequent event had fully and completely established the soundness and correctness of Mr. Taylor's judgment. Speaking from personal knowledge in this matter, he could say that the escape of the Dinapore brigade from Dinapore into the jungle, with all their arms and ammunition complete, might have had, except for the interposition of Providence, a fatal effect on the result of the insurrection in India. At that time the force under his father's command, and of which he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) had the honour to be executive officer, was on the further—the northern—side of the Ganges, having fought 11 battles on the near side, capturing 100 pieces of artillery, and being then within 50 miles of the relief of Lucknow. As far as he and his father knew every hour was of importance. What happened? In consequence of Mr. Taylor's advice not being followed, and this large body of men being allowed to escape intact to swell the forces of rebellion, the whole of his father's movements were absolutely checked. He asked the permission of the House to read a few words from a letter of his father, expressing the judgment which, with great regret, he had arrived at on this occasion. He was not quoting from a copy of a document, but from the original, written by himself at that time to his father's dictation, in the warmth of the circumstances as they occurred, and he would then ask whether Commissioner Taylor was right or wrong in the course he recommended. On receiving the news that this large reinforcement had been received by the enemy, that they had cut his line of communication, and that reinforcements would cease to reach them for many weeks, his father wrote this letter— Camp Mungurwar, August 8, 1857. Imperious circumstances compel me to recross the Ganges. When further defence becomes impossible, do not negotiate or capitulate. Cut your way out to Cawnpore; you will save the colours of the 32nd, and two-thirds of your British troops. Blow up your fortifications, magazines, &c., by constructing surcharged mines under them and leaving slow matches burning. H. HAVELOCK, Brigadier General. To Colonel INGLIS, Commanding Lucknow. Why was this advice rendered necessary? His father was compelled to give it, because Commissioner Taylor's advice was not followed, and because this large reinforcement was allowed to reach the enemy intact, and to cut their communications. He apologized for re- ferring to this personal matter, and assured the House that he only did so under a strong impelling sense to obey the dictates of justice and honour,—in letting the truth be known—which, he believed, were not extinct, and never would be extinct, in that House. Since that time Mr. Tayler had, from time to time, endeavoured in poverty, in circumstances of unexampled trial and depression during 31 years, to call the attention of his countrymen to the injustice he had suffered. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) came now to a dark and unexplained circumstance, which, if it stood alone, would justify the request now made, that fuller investigation into this case should take place. In 1878 he was engaged with Sir Eardley Wilmot in bringing this case before Parliament. He had sent Memorials to the India Office, which were not then replied to. They were told in July, 1878, that it was desirable that inquiry should be deferred, because a very comprehensive Minute on the subject had been prepared by Sir Frederick Halliday, and that it would shortly be laid before the House. That reply stopped action in 1878. In 1879 other circumstances intervened to prevent the case being taken up, and in 1880 there was a change of Government. But he wished to draw the attention of the House to a circumstance, which had remained unexplained to this day, and such circumstances fortunately did not often happen. When the papers on which Commissioner Taylor relied for his defence were searched for, it was found that they were absent from the records of the India Office, and could not be traced. He cast imputation on no person. It so happened that the parties in this case on the one side and the other were equally friends of his, and he should not like to be swayed by the slightest bias against anyone, or by any feeling but that which was usually felt by an Englishman to stand up for a man whom he believed to be oppressed and injured. As he had said, all the papers required by Mr. Taylor to prove his case were abstracted from the India Office. The only thing that could be discovered of the voluminous documents was the flyleaf, which bore the simple Minute of the Duke of Argyll in 1868, that his Grace was against the re-opening of the case. He (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not wish to attach any further importance to that remarkable incident than it deserved; but he did say that when official documents disappeared in this extraordinary way, the question naturally arose whether anyone, and if so who, was most interested in their disappearance. Fortunately, they were not at a loss as to the facts. Through 31 years of privation, of loss of position, of circumstances which would have broken any man of inferior courage and spirit, Mr. Tayler had survived to bear the test of public investigation, and the gentleman who was mixed up with Mr. Tayler in the events of that time, the gentlemen of whom he (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) did not wish to say a word stronger than was warranted by circumstances, but who, at all events, was the sole opposing element in the case, also survived. This was not a case like that of Lord Dundonald, where all who had been originally concerned in the events which had led to acts of injustice had passed away, though even in that case in 1878 justice was at last done to the memory of a great and gallant gentleman, and to those who had succeeded him. As to the present case, they were in no such difficulty. The accused and the accuser, if they might be said to stand in that position, were still before them, and the documents were forthcoming in abundance. Every historian who had judicially examined the circumstances of this case had been unanimously in asserting that Commissioner Tayler, of Patna, had certainly established his position as having, not only acted with judgment, but as having thoroughly earned the gratitude of his country. This man was now 81 years of age. In the course of nature his life could not be much longer prolonged. He had borne with unexampled courage what be (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) and his hon. Friends believed to be an intolerable injustice and wrong. He appealed to both sides of the House on the question. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), though the right hon. Gentleman had no personal responsibility in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, at the head of the Government during the period of many of the transactions referred to. He appealed also to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who, he was sure, was actuated on all occasions by a sense of inflexible justice. To that sense of justice he now appealed. Give this man an open and fair inquiry. If it was shown that Mr. Tayler had committed an error no harm would be done, because the grave would soon close over a sad story. But if, on the other hand, it could be shown that justice had been continually postponed by the resistance of one man, who, from his official position, had been better able to thwart Mr. Tayler than anyone else could have been, then he said that not only was the national faith involved, but the national sense of justice was involved in doing complete justice in this matter, though justice had been so long deferred. He begged to second the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, with a view to the settlement of a long-standing controversy as to the wrong stated to have been suffered by a meritorious servant of the Crown, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. William Taylor, late Commissioner of Patna,"—(Sir Roper Lethbridge,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)

said, that he, in common with the other Members of the House, had listened with great pleasure to the manly and eloquent speech of the hon, and gallant Member for Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). He hoped the House would believe him when he said that the Secretary of State for India was as anxious to do justice to anyone who was suffering under undeserved obloquy as was the hon. and gallant Member himself; but before the House embarked a Select Committee upon an inquiry into this voluminous case a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts ought to be laid before it. The two speeches which had been made had been rather the speeches of advocates putting forward points chosen to produce an impression that injustice had been done, than impartial statements of fact such as it was his duty to submit. The real grievance had been greatly exaggerated, for it had been said that this gentleman had been dismissed from the Public Service. He was not dismissed; he was simply superseded in the position he held at Patna. He was transferred from that position to another, and if it had not been for subsequent events he might for a long period have served the Crown. The House had to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the Government of India of the day were justified in removing Mr. Tayler from Patna and putting him elsewhere. He would give the reasons which induced the Government of India to take that course. But he must first object that this was not a matter on which there ought to be an appeal to all. The Empire of India was imperilled, and the Government, in the action it took on that occasion, must be judged by the rules of military procedure. Supposing a Commanding Officer in the middle of a battle were to remove an officer from some post under some misapprehension, would it be endured that there should be an inquiry whether the General had justly estimated the capacity of the man? The second objection he had was that the bringing forward of the question compelled him to rake up matters that were more than 30 years old, and charges against Mr. Taylor that the existing Members of the Government of India would be glad to bury in oblivion. If he was obliged to mention things which did not entirely redound to the credit of Mr. Tayler, it was the fault of those who now brought the matter forward. He would not go into extraneous matters. It had been mentioned that before the Mutiny it was intended to remove Mr. Tayler from Patna. That intention was formed in consequence of complaints which afterwards received the investigation of the Secretary of State, and as to which the Secretary of State decided that the Government of Bengal were right and Mr. Taylor was wrong. With this explanation, he would begin with the date of the 7th of June, 1857, when the first alarm occurred at Patna. It was on the 31st of July following that Mr. Tayler issued the withdrawal order, and the events he would deal with occurred within those two dates. He wished to read Mr. Tayler's own description of the resolution which he formed on the 7th of June as to the conduct he would pursue during the critical days that he foresaw. He said— Then it was that, after carefully pondering the various sources of danger, after weighing and comparing the information brought to me from various sources, I resolved to adopt a series of coercive measures which would anticipate and nullify any movement that might be contemplated, and draw the teeth of the disloyal before they had opportunity to bite. And he afterwards said— All was done on my own sole responsibility, without the permission or knowledge of Mr. Halliday. [Cheers.] The House cheered that as if, at a moment when you were fighting against mutiny, insubordination was something to be admired. He strongly objected to that. If ever there was a crisis in the history of the world it was that of the Mutiny. No doubt, there had been instances of splendid insubordination, such as that of Lord Nelson at Copenhagen, or even that committed on this very occasion by the officer who disobeyed Mr. Taylor himself; but these were isolated cases of disobedience in some one particular matter. A man who did such a thing, did it with a rope round his neck; he ran the risk of failure; but he might succeed and have his act condoned by his superior officer. He protested, however, against the doctrine which seemed to find favour with some hon. Members, that you were to embark in dangerous operations of this kind with the predetermination that you would tell your superior officer—"All was done on my sole responsibility, without the permission—["Hear, hear!"]—or knowledge—["Hear, hear!"]—of my superiors."

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

There were no orders.

SIR JOHN GORST

said, he was astonished that any hon. Member should cheer such a sentiment. The arrest of the four Wahabees took place on the 20th of June. These gentlemen were never brought to trial; they were discharged afterwards with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Taylor himself, and no conspiracy and no offence of any kind was proved against these men. The hon. and gallant Member for Durham said that this was a great accusation made against Mr. Tayler; but he never heard that any accusation was made against Mr. Taylor in respect of these men.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN

said, he had been misapprehended; he did not say that. He said the particular accusation was the withdrawal order. He was not aware that Mr. Tayler was ever censured for the arrest of these men, which was perfectly justified.

SIR JOHN GORST

said, he was not censured for arresting them; but Sir John Kaye, to whom the hon. Member for North Kensington appealed, said of this event, in his History of the Mutiny— It can hardly escape the consideration of any candid mind that what is thus regarded as a successful stroke of policy when executed by Englishmen against Mahomedans would, if Englishmen had been the victims of it, have been described by another name. To invite men to a friendly conference and, when actually the guests of a British officer, to seize their persons is not only very like treachery, but is treachery itself.The exigencies of a great crisis justify exceptional acts in the interests of public safety; but I do not know any excuses that may be pleaded or arguments that may be advanced by a British officer in such a case that might not be pleaded and advanced by Native Chiefs in like circumstances. But, whatsoever other successes this stroke of policy may have brought, the tranquillization of Patna was not one of them. What was chiefly complained of was not the actual arrest, but that no information was given to the Government. On the 25th of June the following letter was addressed by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal to Mr. Taylor:— Intelligence has reached the Lieutenant Governor from a private source that on the 21st instant you arrested certain influential Native gentlemen at Patna, and caused the town to be searched in order to disarm the population. Whether these measures were right or wrong the Lieutenant Governor has no means of judging. They are certainly extraordinary, and at first sight open to much question. But the Lieutenant Governor has to complain seriously that he hears on such occasions nothing from you of your intentions and nothing of your acts till after they had been completed, and that your method of reporting to Government at the present important crisis is loose, desultory, and incomplete. And on the 26th of June the Government wrote— Your promised letter of the 22nd instant has just been received. It contains no detail of any sort, but is written, as usual, in a hurried and careless manner, with an intimation that you are too busy to write in detail, and will write more in a day or two. You add—'I have the four principal Wahabees in custody, and am just going to catch Ali Kureem.' Not a word is said to explain this extraordinary and dangerous measure, or why these arrests are made and to be made. I am directed to repeat to you that this conduct is most unsatisfactory. You cannot have so much to do as to be unable to afford the smallest information of your proceedings, especially when they are of a nature very questionable in appearance. At all events, it is your duty and your business to keep the Government informed of what you are doing, and you can have no work of greater or more pressing necessity than to do this. The Lieutenant Governor regrets to be obliged thus to urge you on such very obvious points of duty which no other Commissioner has neglected. Then the next day they complained again— The dawk of the 23rd has come in from Patna, and the Lieutenant Governor has again to complain of the absence of all information of your proceedings. He has received a scarcely intelligible demi-official note from you dated the 23rd instant, written, as usual, in a hurry, and affording no tangible information. It is very probable you may be doing all that is right, and the Lieutenant Governor is willing to place all reasonable confidence in your zeal and discretion; but that you should keep the Government wholly in the dark for days and days together while you darkly intimate that you are adopting measures of great responsibility and importance, is, I am directed to say, quite intolerable. It is impossible that you should have anything to do of greater importance than keeping the Government informed of your proceedings. Should this most unsatisfactory state of things not be speedily amended, the Lieutenant Governor, I am directed to say, will be constrained to supersede you, however unwillingly, in order that he may have at Patna an officer who will keep up proper and necessary communication with his superiors. But he trusts that you will not force him to this extremity. On the 29th of June they wrote again— Having no knowledge whatever of your information or its sources, or the objects and principles of your acts and measures, and bus very little knowlodge of the acts and measuret themselves, regarding all which you have keps him in ignorance, the Lieutenant Governor is unable to give you any directions or instructions to guide or assist you. It seems evident that you are doing irregular and probably illegal acts, and are incurring serious responsibility, but you may be able hereafter to explain and justify them. Meantime your own responsibility is greatly increased by your omitting to enable the Government to understand either what you are doing or why you are doing it. He had read these letters to show that at the very outset Mr. Taylor was cautioned by the Government of Bengal, and that the course of conduct he prescribed for himself was such as it was impossible for any Government to allow. On July 17 Mr. Taylor wrote the following answer to the Government of Bengal— I may, perhaps, be pardoned at a crisis like the present for stating that when I had made up my mind to act thus decisively I purposely put my plan into execution without asking fur authority, because I deemed it possible that the Lieu- tenant Governor, judging from a distance, might not possibly have approved of measures which to some extent undoubtedly are beyond the law, but which I, on the spot, felt to be essential for the safety of Patna. To that the Government replied on the 22nd of July, 1857— The only part of this letter which appears to the Lieutenant Governor to call for immediate notice is what is stated in paragraghs 6 to 9, in which you avow that you wilfully and purposely kept the Government uninformed of your intentions, acts, and measures. This conduct you persevered in, not only up to the time of carrying out the measures referred to, but for some time afterwards, and indeed until you were compelled, by repeated and strong censures, to adopt a different course. In doing this I am to observe you committed a grave and very reprehensible error, and you cannot but be sensible that the knowledge that it is in your opinion justifiable in an officer to conceal his official acts and purposes from the head of the Government he serves, if he has reason to suppose that they will not be approved, must make it impossible for the Lieutenant Governor to place implicit confidence in you. What were the acts which were being committed? They had been described as "hanging and imprisoning wholesale." ["Hear, hear!"] There were some Members in the House who appeared to think that as long as it was only a coloured man that was hanged it did not matter. All he wanted to show the House was the nature of the acts which were described as illegal and irregular, and which Mr. Tayler was all this time committing. He could not give a better example than the case of one Waris Ali, a jemadar of police. This man was arrested and handed over to Major Holmes, who was generally regarded in India as what is called "a man of action." Major Holmes sent the man on to General Lloyd with a very remarkable letter, which he would read to the House. It ran as follows:— My dear General,—The magistrate of Tirhoot has sent me a jemadar of police with a polite request to hang him up. The chief evidence against this man is a letter of doubtful import, in which he speaks of a great merchandise and his friends joining to obtain the pearl of his desire, rebellion and murder—rather vague to string a chap upon—so I have sent him to you in irons that he may be placed in the European barracks, and his fellow-conspirators at Patna being seized the matter can be properly silted by a Commission of European officers and justice dealt out accordingly. On the 30th of June, Major Holmes wrote to the General again about the man Waris Ali as follows:— I wish to point out that my great power over my own men and the Natives of these parts arises from their own sense of my perfect justice and perfect determination. They know that if I am convinced that a man is guilty his life is not worth an hour's purchase; but were I to condemn a man on mere suspicion, which was really all I had to go on in this case, I should be looked upon as bloody-minded and unjust, and I should lose half my real power. I went over those papers carefully with my Native officers, and they and I quite concur in our minds about them. This man, Waris Ali, was sent by General Lloyd to Mr. Tayler, and he arrived at Patna on July 1 or 2. Mr. Tayler postponed his trial for two or three days in the hope of eliciting information from him. On July 6 he put him on his trial. The evidence adduced was the same as that which Major Holmes had thought insufficient; but Mr. Tayler convicted the man and hanged him the same day. The following was the account which Mr. Taylor gave in his own words:— Waris Ali, whose arrest has been previously mentioned, was tried under the Commission on Monday, the 6th of July, and capitally sentenced. He was executed the same day, and his last words were to ask whether no Mussulman would assist him. This man is said to be related to the Royal Family of Delhi. He was a large, stout, and good-looking man, and was selected, I imagine, more for these qualities and his family connection, and perhaps for the assistance which his position in the police enabled him to give. I postponed his trial for two or three days after his arrival, and had several private interviews with him in the hope of eliciting information. But he was evidently, I think, not in Ali Kureem's secrets, as he was in such excessive alarm and despair that I am convinced he would have done anything to save his life. When speaking in private with him he implored me to tell him whether there was any way in which his life could be spared. I said 'Yes,' and his eyes opened with unmistakable delight, and when he asked again what the way was his countenance was a picture of anxiety, hope, and terror. I told him—'I will make a bargain with you; give me three lives and I will give you yours.' He then told me all the names that I already knew; but could disclose nothing further, at least with any proof in support. He was evidently not sufficiently clever to be Ali Kureem's confidant. He would give the House another case. On July 3 occurred the only disturbance that took place at Patna. That riot commenced by the assembling of 50 or 100 men at the house of a bookseller. They were armed with guns and swords and spears. They were met and kept in check by two men, a patrol, and a Soubahdar. It was quite true that the patrol was killed; but the two men succeeded in checking the rioters. The only European that was killed was Dr. Lyell, who had galloped on in front of the Sikh soldiers who accompanied him, and came alone into the middle of the excited crowd. The whole thing did not last three-quarters of an hour. In connection with this riot, a trial was held by Mr. Taylor under an Act then in force, a kind of Drumhead Court Martial Act, which gave tremendous power to the Commissioners appointed under it. The trial took place on the 7th of July, four days after the riot; and out of a number of men tried, Mr. Tayler sentenced 14 to death—all being found guilty, he said, on clear evidence. With the exception of two, they were all hanged within two hours of being sentenced. They were tried by Commission under Act XIV. of 1857, of which the 9th section said that on every person convicted of murder, arson, &c., the Court might pass any sentence warranted by law, and the judgment of such Court should be final and conclusive and the Court should not be subject to the Sudder or any other Court. That was an Act under which the Commissioners ought to have acted with the greatest care and gravest sense of responsibility. He could not read to the House the evidence on which these men were hanged. He had read it himself, and, having had some experience in such matters, he must say that, so far from being clear evidence, it was evidence open to the greatest doubt and the gravest suspicion. The House might easily understand why that was the case, because the riot happened at dusk, about 7 o'clock in the evening, the faces of the men engaged in it were all tied up with cloths, and the evidence of identity was given by persons who did not previously know the accused. Of all things in the world evidence was the most unreliable. But he would not ask the House to take his word for it. Mr. Lowis, the magistrate, wrote in February, 1858, about eight months after, to Mr. Samuells, who was then Commissioner of Patna, as follows:— As Patna is now considered quiet, I would beg to bring to your notice a circumstance connected with the late disturbances there, which, should you think fit, you can lay before Government. After the riot in which Dr. Lyell lost his life, certain persons, said to have been concerned in it were brought up for trial before Mr. Tayler, the then Commissioner, and myself. Of the guilt of some of these men there was cer- tainly no doubt, and they were accordingly convicted and at once hung. Of the participation of the other prisoners I had, however, strong doubts, and I held that on the evidence against them it was impossible for me to convict. I therefore proposed remanding them till further inquiry could be made. To this Mr. Tayler objected, and endeavoured to prove that, there being the same evidence against all, all must be equally guilty. This, however, failed to convince me, and I still adhered to my former opinion. Mr. Tayler then proposed that the prisoners should be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, and that when the country became quiet the Government might, if it saw fit, inquire into the matter. The critical state of affairs demanded that no difference of opinion should appear between us. I therefore yielded the point so strongly urged by Mr. Tayler, and consented to the sentence of imprisonment being recorded, determined to refer the matter as soon as quiet was restored. I had hoped that Mr. Tayler would have joined me in this reference, and wrote to him inviting him to do so, but he declines having anything to do with the matter, the whole of the above circumstances having apparently escaped his memory. Here was what Mr. R. M. Farquharson, Sessions Judge, Patna, wrote to the Governor of Bengal on July 25, 1857— It is currently reported here that some of those punished for being concerned in the late outbreak in the City of Patna were convicted by the Commission, presided over by Mr. Taylor, on evidence less reliable even than that I have rejected in Lootf Ali Khan's case. I am not in the least cognizant of what that evidence was, but consider it my duty to report the common opinion on the subject, that Government may take any steps it thinks fit to ascertain the truth of reports, very damaging, not only to the Civil Service, but to the European character at large. I am the more induced to this step from the fact of Mr. Taylor disregarding the Government instructions of the 11th of July, 1857, and persisting in conducting trials himself, notwithstanding the presence of the Judge. Mr. Tayler has probably reported to Government his having tried and condemned to death a trooper of Captain Rattray's regiment since receipt of the Government letter No. 1,179 of the 11th of July above alluded to. But that was not all. Here was an extract from a Minute by Lord Canning, dated February 5, 1859— I believe that in the course of Mr. Taylor's proceedings men were condemned and executed upon insufficient evidence. But since this took place Mr. Tayler has, for other reasons, been suspended from judicial office, and has said that he intends shortly to resign the Service.… Mr. Taylor's individual case would, no doubt, be disposed of more thoroughly and incontrovertibly if the opinion of the Judges were taken upon this part of it; but if the omission to do this is not regarded by Mr. Tayler as unjust towards himself, I see no sufficient reason for keeping the discussion open by a further appeal to the Sudder Bench. Mr. Tayler was subsequently asked whether he wished that an inquiry should be held by the Sudder Court Judges as to whether he had not convicted and sentenced men on evidence which was not reasonably sufficient; and this was what Mr. Tayler, in reply, said in a letter to the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, dated the 24th of March, 1859— Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, as Mr. Samuells has disavowed the offensive and dishonouring imputations which his words appear to me to convey, and as I am about so soon to resign the Service, I have no desire to subject myself to any further anxiety or harassment. While, therefore, I am thankful to the Governor General in Council for offering me the option of a public inquiry, I beg respectfully to decline it, and shall take the liberty of submitting hereafter the reasons which have induced me to do so. So that this gentleman, who had the same charges made against him 30 years ago, and being offered a public inquiry before the Judges of the Sudder Court declined the offer, came to-day to the House of Commons and asked for that public inquiry which he might have had 30 years ago. Moreover, the complaint against Mr. Tayler was not only that he acted with injustice himself, but that he improperly interfered with the course of justice administered by others. A certain person named Lootf Ali Khan was accused by Mr. Tayler, who caused him to be arrested. He was then tried by the Judge of Patna, and while the man was under trial Mr. Tayler wrote a series of letters to Mr. Farquharson (the Judge), Mr. Tayler himself being virtually the prosecutor. In a letter to the Sessions Judge of July 9, 1857, he said— Lest the supposed respectability of Lootf Ali Khan should in any way tend to throw doubt on the probability of his guilt, I beg to inform you that Guseeta, one of the most active of the rebels concerned in the late outrage in which Dr. Lyell lost his life, is this man's Jemadar. Guseeta has been sentenced to death by Mr. Lowis and myself. Another Guseeta, clearly implicated in the same crime, states that his mother is ayah to Lootf Ali Khan's mother. That some wealthy party has been at the bottom of the intrigues that are now shown to have been carried on here for months, with an object not to be mistaken, is evident from the fact that men have been kept for months on pay, regularly distributed, under a conditional compact to come forward when called for. And in a letter to Mr. Farquharson of July 14, 1857, Mr. Taylor said— Lootf Ali Khan seems to have had a nest of ruffians in employ; two of the hangees are shown to have been closely connected with him. The man himself admits that he was an Omedwar for eight or ten days with him. I fancy hundreds have been hanged on less evidence than this. On July 14, 1857, Mr. Tayler also wrote to Mr. Farquharson— A little more presumptive evidence and Lootf Ali Khan might hang. No one seems to have any moral doubt but that he is deeply implicated, and these are the fellows who do the real mischief, heads worth thousand tails... Have the trial rather late, to give me time. On July 15, 1857, he wrote again— As for Lootf Ali, my moral conviction of his guilt is so strong that I should not much fear making a mistake about him. He now came to the withdrawal order. These were Mr. Taylor's words, writing to the Secretary to the Bengal Government on July 31, 1857— I have, therefore, authorized all the officials of the district to come into Patna. Those of Chuprah have been in for some days; they made an attempt to return to Dooriagunge yesterday, but returned when they heard of the defeat of our force. The order of the Belgian Government gave the reasons for the removal of Mr. Taylor more clearly than anything he could say, and he would read it to the House. It was as follows:—

"August 4, 1857.

"On the 31st ultimo the Lieutenant Governor received a telegraphic message from Gya announcing that the civil officers of the district were about to abandon the station and all in it, including the large amount of cash in the Treasury. As it was known that the residents had up to the day before been fully prepared to repel attack and to defend themselves, having 45 European soldiers and 100 Sikhs, and Sherghotty, with its little garrison close at hand, and no enemy in sight or in present apprehension, this extraordinary movement was wholly unintelligible to the Lieutenant Governor, and he was disposed to blame very severely the injudiciour and pusillanimous conduct of the English officers in question, and did, in fact, send a message after them to that purport. From your letter of the same date, No, 724, which was received late last night and laid before the Lieutenant Governor this morning, he is astonished to find that this most unfortunate and unnecessary retreat was your doing; and that, under the obvious influence of a local panic, you have actually directed the abandonment by the civil functionaries of all the stations in your division. The Lieutenant Governor most strongly disapproves of this act, and considers it not merely injudicious but disgraceful. In the case of Gya, more particularly, it was utterly without reasonable cause, because the station was threatened with no immediate danger, was guarded by a detachment of English and Sikh soldiers, and was in close communication with the trunk road of Sherghotty, where was at the time another detachment of English soldiers. What terrible and unexpected disasters this error may have brought on the stations thus abandoned the Lieutenant Governor is unwilling to surmise. You have already been directed by electric telegraph"—

the electric telegraph communication having been interrupted, this message was not transmitted— to revoke your orders and to send the residents back to their respective stations if it should be found possible for them to return, and it will remain to be seen whether they will return in time to prevent the otherwise inevitable disasters which their absence, if prolonged, is sure to produce.After the evidence thus afforded of your haste and want of judgment, coming, as it does, after many other reasons for dissatisfaction which you have given to the Lieutenant Governor, it is no longer considered safe that you should continue in charge of your office. Now, that was the case; these were the facts, and those were the circumstances under which the Government in 1857 had thought it their duty to remove Mr. Tayler from the situation he then held at Patna, and to place him elsewhere in the Public Service. What had happened since threw no fresh light upon the subject. He would gladly stop his remarks there, and allow the House to form its judgment. But so much had been said by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) and echoed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) about this case never having been properly considered by the persons responsible, that he must, in common justice, tell the House what an extraordinary amount of consideration the case had received. Mr. Tayler had appealed, as he was perfectly entitled to appeal, against the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal superseding him at Patna. The case was considered by the Governor General in Council, and the appeal was rejected. Mr. Taylor then appealed to the Court of Directors in London, who decided against him. By the time that decision reached India the Government of India had come directly under the Crown, and a fresh appeal was made to the first Secretary of State for India, the present Lord Derby. That appeal was answered in a despatch which showed that Lord Derby fully understood the case with which he had to deal. From the time that the case was so decided, it was not again revived until 1867 or 1868. A great deal had been made of some trials which took place about 1865, which, however, had really nothing to do with this case. There had been four Wahabees arrested at Patna in 1857; no evidence was forthcoming against them, and all were released. Of these four, one was implicated in a conspiracy with reference to the North-West Frontier disturbances about 1863 and 1864. He was tried in 1865, but it was for assisting the rebels in Sittana to urge war against the British Government, and though he was found guilty, there was no evidence implicating him in any conspiracy in connection with any contemplated rising at Patna in 1857. What the trial in 1865 had to do with the case of Mr. Taylor no impartial judge had ever been able to make out. If this man's conviction in 1865 was so important a matter, why had it been allowed to sleep from 1865 to 1868; and why, when Mr. Taylor first made his appeal to Sir Stafford Northcote, had he asked merely for the grant of some honour? In the autumn of 1868, Mr. Taylor had sent in his celebrated Memorial, which was too late to be dealt with by Sir Stafford Northcote, but afterwards came under the consideration of the Duke of Argyll, who succeeded Sir Stafford on the change of Government. Now, a great deal had been said about the loss of this document. Well, it was lost, but a copy of it survived, and no injury had been done to Mr. Tayler through the loss of the original Memorial.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

The copy was supplied by Mr. Tayler himself afterwards.

SIR JOHN GORST

said, he did not see how that made any difference. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Durham had drawn a picture—which had almost moved him to tears, official though he was—of the condition into which the negligence of the India Office had put Mr. Tayler. But they were not lawyers, and an authentic copy was as useful as the original document. There was an authentic copy in the India Office, on the Table of the House, and in the Library. The Duke of Argyll's decision, no doubt, was never communicated to Mr. Taylor; but that was very much Mr. Taylor's own fault. He went away to India and begged there might be no decision till he came back. When he came back, he communicated repeatedly with the India Office; but for years he never asked for any decision regarding his case. Though, no doubt, it was an oversight not to communicate the decision to him, that was, as he had already said, very much Mr. Tayler's own fault. And from that day to the present, this case had been before every Secretary of State. Every Under Secretary, every Member of Council, everybody who had had anything to do with the administration of affairs in India for the last 20 years had had to consider it. For his own part, the House knew very well he could not reveal the secrets of his prison house; but he pledged his word, from memoranda which he had himself read from some of the most illustrious men who had served the State in India, that the case of Mr. Taylor had been most carefully considered again and again and again. It would be idle for his noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India to constitute himself into a Court of Appeal against the decision of every one of his Predecessors who had held the Seals of the India Office. The House had now the whole case before it. He had no prejudices of his own; but he hoped he had stated enough to lead the House to believe that the Government of Lord Canning in 1857, when it thought it consistent with its duty to remove Mr. Tayler from the position he held at Patna, was not animated by those unworthy motives suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but solely by a desire to save India from an extreme peril, and because it honestly believed he was a man whose administration was likely to prove inimical to the safety of the Indian Empire.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that personally he knew nothing of Mr. Tayler; but, like most hon. Members of the House, no doubt, he had read a good deal of correspondence and a great many pamphlets on the subject. Generally speaking, he did not read the pamphlets sent to him complaining of grievances; but a friend of his who knew Mr. Tayler had urged him to read the one in Mr. Taylor's case, saying, "Look into it yourself!" Well, he had looked into it, and, though he would not, for his own part, justify everything that Mr. Tayler had done, he was convinced that this gentleman had experienced substantial injustice. He was not alone in that opinion; that opinion was shared by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), because, in 1879, a Petition was presented to the House of Commons through the late Sir Stafford Northcote, as Leader of the House, signed by the hon. Gentleman amongst others, stating that it came from Gentlemen deeply interested in Her Majesty's Indian Empire, and that they, being fully acquainted with the eminent services of Mr. William Tayler, in saving the great Province of Patna in the Mutiny of 1857, and of the manner in which his services had been requited, could not but express approval of the Petition lately addressed to the House by Mr. Tayler, and therefore prayed that the House would be pleased to consider the extraordinary amount, variety, and weight of the evidence on record as to the eminent services rendered by Mr. Taylor. With regard to the investigation in 1865, which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India sneered at, it was said, in the Petition he had signed, that amongst other reasons for doing justice to Mr. Tayler was the reason that two members of the Supreme Council in Calcutta, Sir John Lowe and Mr. Dorey, had expressed regret that they had been misinformed as to the facts of the case which led to the arrest of the Wahabee conspirators, it having been proved that those persons were dangerous traitors. The hon. Gentlemen had given them his official view of the case; but in the Petition which he had signed when not in Office he had given an independent view as a person interested in, and knowing much of, the Government of India. Well, the hon. Gentleman had gone back to the question of the withdrawal order through having given which Sir Frederick Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor, charged Mr. Tayler with having yielded to panic. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to an appeal made by Mr. Taylor to the Directors of the India Company. What did they reply to that appeal? They replied that they considered Mr. Taylor's conduct praiseworthy in the main, but that he had been guilty of an error of judgment—nothing but "an error of judgment" in issuing this order of withdrawal. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not a military man, and did not know whether the order of withdrawal was a wise or foolish one. All he knew was this, that the men to whom the order was sent were our outposts, and that they knew what was going on, Europeans being destroyed in all parts of the country, that there were no troops near them, and that they, therefore, could not withdraw, and that no sooner did they get troops near them than they withdrew themselves and their treasure, not to Patna, which was near, but to Calcutta, which was 400 miles off. Therefore, the order seemed a perfectly reasonable one, though he was free to admit that it might have been an error of judgment. The hon. Gentleman had called attention to the action of Mr. Taylor in hanging and imprisoning inhabitants of Patna. These charges had really never been made against Mr. Tayler by the Lieutenant Governor except under circumstances which he would show. It was true that Mr. Taylor did arrest 30 men, and had about 14 hanged. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said he supposed that it was only those who approved of coloured men being hanged because they were coloured men who would applaud. But what had occurred? The House would remember that this Town of Patna was a town of 2,000 inhabitants, and that the Province round it that was to be kept down consisted of 11,000,000 inhabitants. It must be remembered that it was the great centre of the Wahabees for a long time, and that so far back as 1846, and for a number of years before, these Wahabees had been discovered tampering with the loyalty of the Sepoys. There was a considerable European population there, and Mr. Tayler was responsible for their lives. He was obliged to take exceptionally severe measures. He (Mr. Labouchere) considered that all this hanging and shooting was far too severe, but that was not the question at this moment; they must take the matter from the Governmental point of view. Mr. Tayler was not attacked by men like them, Radicals, but he was attacked by Members of the Government, who lauded and praised others who did precisely what Mr. Taylor had done, and that was where he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that injustice had been done. Dr. Lyell, as the hon. Gentleman had said, was murdered. That was nothing. It was a little émeute which lasted only three quarters of an hour. Waris Ali was condemned to death and executed, but he (Mr. Labouchere) would point out that Colonel Malleson in his history—from which the hon. Member had read one or two extracts—said that upon his person were found a number of compromising letters. Waris Ali was not executed until after Dr. Lyell had been murdered, at the same time as the other prisoners were, in order, no doubt, to keep down the insurrection which was ready to break out. It must be remembered that these Wahabees were ready to rise in insurrection at any moment in Patna, that the garrison at Dingapore had been decimated, that the commander at Arrah had been killed, and that Europeans were still there and were being surrounded by a mass of mutineers who were trying to take their lives. Whilst he deprecated all this severity, he did think that the Government itself should look at the matter with a certain amount of leniency and should not bring up a charge—which had practically never been made before—30 years after the occurrence of the event. Sir Frederick Halliday did examine the records to see whether a charge could be substantiated against Mr. Taylor for having illegally permitted these executions. He submitted the records to Judge Latour—an eminent Judge in Calcutta. Judge Latour could make nothing of them. He could not say that injustice had been done, looking at the way that justice was dealt out at that time, and Sir Frederick Halliday never again alluded to the charge. But there was a Mr. Samuells there who had been sent to replace Commissioner Taylor. Mr. Samuells, it appeared, had a strong feeling against Mr. Tayler, and after the records had been examined and Sir Frederick Halliday had said there was nothing in them, this gentleman brought the charge for a second time and asked to be allowed to examine the records. Why on earth should he do that? Sir Frederick Halliday had already done it. What was his charge? Why, that the majority of the people at Patna considered that the criminals who had been sentenced were innocent. Mr. Samuells was called on to substantiate his charge, and an inquiry took place, and what did that inquiry say? Why, that there were certain criticisms as to the proceedings and evidence that might be brought forward, but that the actual charge of having sentenced these men who were innocent to the knowledge of the people of Patna was not proved. The whole point at that time was that there had been errors in taking evidence. The House was somewhat surprised when it heard from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India that Mr. Tayler had been told that he should submit his case to the Judges of Calcutta, and that he had refused to do so. It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Tayler was then being attacked by all the officials, who were very much inclined, on their parts, to hang together. Mr. Samuells wrote a despatch to Sir Frederick Halliday on this matter. He (Mr. Labouchere) would give one or two words from it to show the sort of language used by one of these officials in writing to another as to Mr. Taylor. He said Mr. Taylor's despatches were "daubed with the blackest colours against his immediate superior the Lieutenant Governor and his successor;" that he was "guilty of dishonest artifice;" that "much of what he said was pure slander;" that what he had done was "a simple piece of impertinence;" that he was guilty of "a pack of impudent libels;" that he was "utterly unscrupulous," a "charlatan;" that ,he was "guilty of bare-faced clap-trap;" and that he "simply talked nonsense." One would have thought that Sir Frederick Halliday would have deprecated that language. He said, however, that "the despatch was written in somewhat less measured terms than was customary in official correspondence, but that it was a very successful performance." Under the circumstances, when it was proposed to Mr. Tayler to submit for inquiry the one point, whether he had been guilty of technical illegalities as to the sentences at Patna, he was perfectly right in refusing to accept the reference, because the main charge was that he was guilty of panic in the matter of the withdrawal order. No sort of proposal or offer was made to Mr. Tayler, telling him that this would be submitted to the Judges or anyone else. Now he (Mr. Labouchere) came to what happened in England. He had stated, so far as he could understand it, what took place in India from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and the official papers they had. What happened in England? Unquestionably, Mr. Taylor did apply to Sir Stafford Northcote. What did Sir Stafford Northcote say? He promised, in a letter which had been read in the House, that there should be a full and fair inquiry, and handed over his letter to the Duke of Argyll. Now there was a sort of continuity in public offices. When one Secretary of State promised a full and fair inquiry, his Successor was bound to make that full and fair inquiry. But what happened? Why the Successor in this case made no inquiry at all. It was not pretended that he did. All that was produced was a scrap of paper on which the noble Duke wrote, that in his opinion the case ought not to be reopened. After that, Mr. Taylor went to India. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said, it was that Gentleman's own fault—owing to his own negligence—that he did not get an answer from the India Office. He (Mr. Labouchere) understood that Mr. Tayler was invited by Lord Northbrook—who was Governor General at the time, and who had a better opinion of this gentleman than the hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary—to go over to India in some sort of capacity on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales, and he went over to India. He did not, however, receive from the India Office any statement that any decision had been come to in the case. The last official declaration made to him was that there was to be a full and fair inquiry. He awaited that inquiry, and had a perfect right to expect that it would take place, but when he at last read in a newspaper that the papers he had sent in had been, in a most extraordinary fashion, stolen, and that all that remained was a scrap of paper with words written on it that the case was not to be re-opened, he at once wrote to the India Office asking what was to be done. All he was told was that the Duke of Argyll had said that the case would not be re-opened. Four successive times Lord Salisbury, Lord Beacon-field and others, had questions put to them in the House of Lords. What was the answer given in the House of Lords? Were the charges now made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State brought against Mr. Tayler? Not a bit of it. The reply made was that such a long time had elapsed that the inquiry could not be made. He admitted that, considering the doubtful evidence, there was great difficulty, in a debate like this in the House of Commons, in coming to a clear decision. But, there was the expressed opinion of historians and eminent men like Sir Bartle Frere, that this man had been treated with injustice. For a large number of years he had applied for justice, and from the fact, the impartial fact, that Sir Stafford Northcote in his official position of Secretary of State for India had promised an inquiry, an inquiry ought to take place. He did not know whether Mr. Tayler was worthy of honours or orders, but he did know this, that many men who were respected in the House thought so. The Press of India was of that opinion. Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Bartle Frere, and many others had demanded that he should have honours. In any case, the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), who had brought forward this matter, and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the South-East Division of Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allen), who had seconded the Motion, had made a fair case for inquiry, and he (Mr. Labouchere) did hope, that as this man was now 82 years of age, and it was not to be expected that he would remain in this world for ever, before he was removed from the world he would be allowed to have this inquiry—some form of Commission or Select Committee or something of that kind. That was all he (Mr. Labouchere) pleaded for, and he maintained that they had made out a primâ facie case in favour of the Motion.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Oldham)

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) began his speech with the ingenuous confession that he knew hardly anything about this subject. The hon. Gentleman did not quite do himself justice in making that statement, because his speech showed them he knew a great deal; unfortunately, however, his knowledge was all on one side. The hon. Gentleman referred to the great number of pamphlets and memorials which had been distributed amongst the Members of the House. It was a fact that this subject had been overlaid with an enormous mass of literary material extending over 30 years; it was so voluminous that Members of the House might be pardoned for not trying to make themselves acquainted with it. But that literature was almost entirely composed of the essays of Mr. Taylor himself, and of the evidence he had contrived to bring together during the last 30 years, in order to show he was unfairly treated during the time of the Mutiny. Anybody who took the trouble to look through the official documents which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) had said were in the Library of the House, and read the answer of Sir Frederick Halliday to the memorial of Mr. Taylor—true, it was written some 10 years ago—would know there was a very great deal, indeed, to be said on the other side. He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) admitted that Mr. Taylor had been very fortunate in his advocates in the House that evening. His hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) stated the case with great moderation and dexterity, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) seconded the Motion in a speech which appealed to all the generous instincts of the House, and which was full of personal reminiscenes of the Mutiny that were rendered very interesting by the references to the deeds of his illustrious and ever to be lamented father. But it was necessary they should approach the discussion of this question without having their feelings so strongly moved. There was one passage in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington which he very much regretted to hear, and which greatly disfigured the speech. The hon. Gentleman permitted himself to insinuate that Sir Henry Maine in advising the Council of India not to re-open this case was animated by some paltry personal feelings arising out of a quarrel—

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

said, he distinctly stated that he made no imputation, and he wished to make none. He stated, he believed that no imputation could properly be made, and in referring to ancient feuds, he remarked that surely at that time those feuds might be forgotten.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

denied that there was any private quarrel between Sir Henry Maine and Mr. Tayler, though they were opposed in some paltry case. But to what purpose did the hon. Member introduce any mention of that case, except to create a prejudice against Sir Henry Maine, and to suggest to the minds of hon. members that that eminent man had been animated by some other motive than a regard for truth and the public interest when he advised, three years ago, that this case should not be re-opened by the India office? Mr. Tayler himself was spoken of by the hon. Member for North Kensington as a ruined and broken man. But certainly Mr. Tayler's conduct during the last 30 years had not been that of a ruined or broken man. Mr. Tayler had shown a most extraordinary spirit in the misfortune he was supposed to have suffered. Now, what was the position in which this gentleman was actually placed by the Government of India? Many Members of the House possibly supposed that this man was cast adrift, without a penny in his pocket, utterly ruined in character and fortune. What were the facts of the case? Mr. Tayler was, at the time of the Mutiny, the Governor of the Province of Patna, and in receipt of a salary of about £4,000 a-year. When he was superseded by Sir Frederick Halliday, he was appointed to a Judgeship, in which position he received about £3,000 a year. That was not a very great fall in his income. It was subsequent misconduct whilst he held that position which placed him in such a difficulty that he thought himself compelled to resign the Service. But he retired with the full pension of a Civil Servant—£1,000 a-year, and it was well known to many that Mr. Taylor, so far from being broken in fortune, had always been regarded as a wealthy man, as a man who, after leaving the Civil Service, employed to very great advantage his extraordinary natural abilities as a pleader in the Courts of India. Besides that, Mr. Taylor had never acted towards those with whom he had differences in the spirit of a man who merely sought justice and was anxious to vindicate his reputation. On the contrary, he had assailed Sir Frederick Halliday with a bitterness of feeling which, no doubt, was natural enough in a man who conceived himself to be suffering under a great injustice, and with a prodigality of invective which might move even a temperance orator to envy. This had been going on for 30 years. Every month and every year, Mr. Tayler had been assailing Sir Frederick Halliday in this way. He had pressed into his service the aid of newspapers both in India and this country; he had enlisted on his side historian after historian, and he had obtained testimonials from a large number of distinguished men whom he had besieged with importunities and to whom he had made out a very plausible case. Everyone knew that when they were approached by a man with a grievance they were disposed, either from indolence or from good nature, to say something satisfactory to him, in order that he might not trouble them any longer. This had been the way in which Mr. Taylor had borne himself during the last 30 years, and now they had the whole story re-opened; they were asked to begin again an inquiry which was closed, and which ought to have been put finally on one side when it was disposed of by Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State of 1859. The Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst) had gone into the whole story of Mr. Taylor's proceedings at Patna, for some little time before he issued what was now so well known as "the withdrawal order." He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) observed there were cheers from some Members of the House when it was pointed out that Mr. Tayler acted in an insubordinate manner for a long time towards the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal by failing to keep the Lieutenant Governor informed as to what he was going to do. If Mr. Tayler had been the Governor of a Province perfectly isolated from the Government at Calcutta, and had been thrown on his own resources, he would have been justified in acting as Lord Lawrence did in the Punjab, and as Sir Henry Lawrence did in Oude, and as other distinguished men engaged in suppressing the Mutiny acted elsewhere, in making the best of the means at his command. But he was in constant communication by post and electric telegraph with Calcutta. There was no difficulty in communicating with the Lieutenant Governor, and telling him exactly the course of his proceedings. Suppose the Governor of every Province in communication with Calcutta had chosen to do exactly as he liked, and had never let the Lieutenant Governor know what was going on, the whole administration of India would have collapsed. It would have been impossible to have any subordination or any rule whatever. But he (Mr. J. M. Maclean) now came to the withdrawal order, a most important matter in the case. He heard a good deal some years ago about the whole business from Mr. Tayler himself, and he read carefully all the letters and pamphlets which Mr. Tayler submitted to him at that time. He confessed that at that time he was, like many hon. Members, under the belief that Mr. Tayler had perhaps not been very fairly dealt with. Mr. Tayler was such a clever and practised controversialist, and he put his case so plausibly, that, until one looked carefully into the materials on the other side, he was naturally carried away by what he was told. Let the House consider what the withdrawal order which Mr. Taylor issued was. Three Native regiments had mutinied and got away with all their arms, without being attacked by the European troops. They had crossed the river and were besieging Arrah. A detachment of British troops was sent against them, but was defeated with loss, and had to retire on Patna. Immediately, Mr. Tayler, who was a man of eager and impulsive disposition, took the sudden resolution that the whole of the Europeans throughout the Province of Patna ought to abandon their stations and concentrate themselves in Patna, Nor was he satisfied with that, but he addressed a letter to Major Vincent Eyre, who was on his way up the river with a small force, and intended to march to the relief of Arrah from the opposite direction, begging him not to advance. It was said he did not write to Major Vincent Eyre in these specific terms, but he himself said, on August 22, 1857, "I myself and the General, in concurrence with the military authorities, wrote officially to order him not to advance." Now, what was the meaning of an order for the concentration at Patna of all the Europeans at the different stations throughout the Province? It meant the complete abandonment of the heroic little garrison of Arrah to certain destruction by the besieging force of rebels. It meant the determination that no help should be given to any Europeans who remained there. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) spoke of the failure of that great general, his father, to advance to Lucknow, and of his writing to Colonel Inglis there, telling him he must do the best he could, as he could not advance further, and, when all his means were exhausted, he must try to cut his way through. But Major Eyre had not tried to advance, and failed. It was not until every effort had been used by Sir Henry Havelock to relieve Lucknow, that he for a time gave up the attempt and fell back to Cawnpore. But this was an order not to attempt relief at all, but to give it up as a bad job and leave our men to be massacred. Look at the disastrous effect of such an order. It was said that Sir Vincent Eyre, some years afterwards, when Mr. Tayler appealed to him, said he thought the letter was justified in the circumstances of the case. Sir Vincent Eyre was a successful and honourable man; he could afford to be magnanimous, and he said that, no doubt, in a spirit of compassion to Mr. Tayler. But the question was not what he said long afterwards, but what he did at the time. Sir Vincent Eyre neglected the order, advanced, dispersed the rebels, and secured the safety of the Province. He (Mr, J. M. Maclean) thought he had said enough to show what a miserable error of judgment this order, which was issued by Mr. Taylor, was; what a terrible example was thus set to Englishmen in authority throughout India at a time when the Empire could only be saved by the constant maintenance of the highest possible standard of public virtue. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said, "Oh; it was only an error of judgment!" But, surely, it was one of those errors of judgment which the men at the head of the Government of India at that time were bound to punish with the utmost severity, and that was the course which Sir Frederick Halliday, or Lord Canning, acting on Sir Frederick Halliday's advice, pursued. He (Mr. J. M. Maclean) hoped he would be permitted to say a few words with regard to the complaint that Mr. Tayler's appeals had never been heard properly by the Government of India, or by the Council of India in this country. It had been pointed out by the Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst), that the Court of Directors confirmed the decision of Lord Canning, and that on an appeal to the Secretary of State, Lord Stanley, in 1859, that decision of the Court of Directors was further confirmed. He could not trace, from the records available to them, that anything more was done until about 10 years afterwards, but about that time a Memorial was presented. It was said that this Memorial was read over by the late Sir Stafford Northcote; that he promised that the Duke of Argyll should deal with the matter, but that nothing more took place. The Under Secretary of State for India said that night that his lips as an official were sealed with regard to the opinions of distinguished men on the other side of the question to that put forward by Mr. Tayler's friends. It so happened he (Mr. J. M. Maclean) had in his possession the opinions of two very distinguished men upon the other side, and as he was an unofficial Member, perhaps he might be permitted, without a breach of secrecy, to make two or three quotations from them. He had before him a Minute, dated November, 1868, and written by Sir Erskine Perry, on the Memorial of Mr. Tayler which was submitted to the India Office in 1868. Sir Erskine Perry went thoroughly into the case, and argued it out from beginning to end. There were many Members of the House who must remember who Sir Erskine Perry was. A fairer minded man never existed; he was an upright, able, and impartial Judge, a man who had been for many years at the head of the High Court of Bombay, and who absolutely knew nothing about the miserable personal feuds in Bengal, which were said to be at the bottom of this dispute. Well, Sir Erskine Perry went into the case, and this was what he gave as his judgment upon it:— The only new matter which appears in this Memorial, with the exception of the oft reiterated but, for aught that appears, most empty boast that 'he saved Patna' during the period in question, is the fact that one of the Mussulmans, whom he arrested as a hostage in 1857, was seven years afterwards arrested and convicted for participation in a subsequent Wahabi conspiracy. It appears to me that this matter is wholly irrelevant to the subject under consideration. Even if this Wahabi had been convicted and hanged by him, as others were, it would not have affected in the slightest degree the questions whether Sir Frederick Halliday was justified in removing him from his post and withdrawing from him all confidence. It was admitted at the time that in several circumstances he had displayed great energy and vigour, and he was praised for it; but the question still remained whether he was properly removed. He placed his conduct in every possible light before Her Majesty's Government, with all the skill of a most able and practised writer, and I am sorry to add with all the latitude of expression which an unscrupulous man permits to himself; nevertheless, the decision of such a distinguished lover of justice as Lord Canning was absolutely against him, and to my mind this ought to be conclusive against opening up the inquiry again. But, as it has become necessary to go into the inquiry, I will record here the considerations which a full examination of the case has forced upon me. Sir Frederick Halliday selected Mr. Tayler for the very important post he held at the breaking out of the mutiny, and seems to have passed over some seniors in making the selection. The bias, therefore, of Sir Frederick Halliday towards Mr. Tayler was naturally favourable. This natural bias was disturbed by Mr. Taylor's own conduct. Previously to the breaking out of the mutiny, Mr. Tayler's conduct towards his chief was such as necessarily to destroy all confidence in him, and it deserves to be noted in order to bring home to Indian administrators its full culpability. Mr. Tayler having occupied himself in getting up subscriptions from Natives of rank in behalf of an industrial exhibition, which he assured the Lieutenant Governor was entirely voluntary, complaints reached the ears of the latter that many of these subscriptions had been extorted under the pressure of official coercion; he thereupon directed Mr. Tayler to make inquiry as to the facts, upon which Mr. Taylor sent up all the statements confirming his own account of the transaction, but suppressed all that were unfavourable, and, when these afterwards transpired, he justified having done so. There is little doubt then that, had the mutiny not broken out, Sir Frederick Halliday would have removed him from his post. When the mutiny broke out, we find Mr. Tayler assuring the Lieutenant Governor that Patna was safe, but at the same time advisedly withholding from his chief information of his proceedings, because he chose to consider that Sir Frederick Halliday would have disapproved of them if he had been informed. Such an act of insubordination would also have justified removal from office. It was at this period, when on two separate grounds Sir Frederick Halliday would have been justified in removing Mr. Taylor, that the latter issued the order for calling in Europeans, on which he was actually removed. A recapitulation of these facts shows that no other course was open. As soon as Mr. Tayler was removed his course was equally reprehensible. He resorted to the Press and to pamphleteering in the most outrageous form; he seems to have been the leader in those attacks on Clemency Canning, which so much outraged the English sense of good feeling; he was, I think, somewhat unwisely re-instated in high office—a judicial one—by Sir Frederick Halliday; but the violence of his conduct and unjustifiableness of his attacks again led to his suspension from office by the Supreme Government. I quit the inquiry with the full conviction that no injustice was done him, and that he was a thoroughly untrustworthy public servant. That was the opinion of Sir Erskine Perry, and there could not be a doubt that the Duke of Argyll had that opinion before him, when he decided that the case could not be re-opened. Then there was a Minute by Sir Henry Maine. He would not trouble the House by quoting from it—it was sufficient to say that the writer took exactly the same view of the case as Sir Erskine Perry did. It was proposed that night that the case should be re-opened, and that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to inquire into events which took place 30 years ago. Most of the men who were responsible for what took place could not come forward to give evidence; but it was an extraordinary circumstance that both Sir Frederick Halliday and Mr. Taylor survived at the present day. They were both old men, and he entreated the House to remember that there were two characters at stake in the matter. There was not only at stake the character of Mr. Taylor, but also the character of that distinguished servant of the Government of India, Sir Frederick Halliday. They could not absolve Mr. Tayler from blame, and endorse the accusations he had made against Sir Frederick Halliday, without declaring that a man who had received the thanks of Parliament for his distinguished services must have been one of the basest of human beings, a man who was animated by low personal motives of malignity against Mr. Taylor, and did him the grossest injustice by removing him from the Public Service on that account. He hoped the House of Commons would deal with this question in a thoroughly judicial spirit, that they would appreciate the conduct of successive Governments in determining, after full inquiry, it was impossible to re-open the case; and that, having heard what Mr. Taylor's most eloquent advocates had had to say, they would decide that the case must now be left to the verdict of posterity.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,) Basingstoke

said, he regretted very much that the Government were unable to see their way to support this Resolution. It seemed to him it was only an act of justice and fairness to Mr. Taylor, who had worked all his life as a Civil servant in India, that there should be an inquiry into his case. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. J. M. Maclean) said Mr. Tayler was a man of spirit, and had been able to earn a good deal of money. He had no doubt Mr. Taylor was a man of spirit, and he acted at Patna like a man of spirit. One of the chief charges brought against him was that he had acted with insubordination. It was not shown that Mr. Tayler acted against orders, but merely that he acted without orders, and hon. Gentlemen would remember that in those critical times in India there was no time to send to Calcutta for instructions. Many men were obliged to act on their own responsibility. Mr. Tayler did so, and Patna was perfectly safe during the Mutiny. It was not shown that he acted with any injustice to anybody, but only took certain measures which were necessary for the security of the town and district. He (Mr. Jeffreys) would remind the House that by the Motion they were not asked to decide on the merits of the case. They were not asked to decide whether Mr. Tayler acted rightly or wrongly, but merely to give him an investigation. It would only be an act of justice on the part of the Government to allow an investigation to take place.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he only desired to say a few words before the Division was taken. Generally speaking, under ordinary circumstances, there was nothing fairer or more reasonable than a demand for inquiry; but in the present case the question really was whether the Government were to support their officers in the discharge of their duty. The House was asked to sanction what would really be aninquiry into the conduct of Lord Canning and the Government of India in 1857. Bearing in mind the extracts from Lord Canning's Minute of February 5, 1859, which had been read by the Under Secretary of State for India, he thought there could be no doubt that Lord Canning was at the time anxious to do full justice to Mr. Taylor. Would it be advantageous to the Public Service, and for the good of the State, that, after an interval of 30 years, an inquiry should now be held by the House of Commons? However much hon. Members might sympathize with a gentleman of advanced age, who believed that he had suffered wrong, let them remember that at the time of these occurrences, when all the requisite evidence was procurable, this gentleman was offered an ample judicial inquiry, and deliberately declined the offer. In the circumstances, he submitted that it would not be right for the House to enter upon an investigation of the circumstances of the case.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 20: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 155.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.