LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S PROCLAMATIONS—SOMNAUTH.

HL Deb 09 March 1843 vol 67 cc513-80

The Marquess of Clanricarde

said, it was now his duty to make that motion of which he had given notice to their Lordships, and he assured them he had undertaken a most painful task, because to canvass the conduct of a Member of that House in his absence must at all times be most disagreeable. Further, he could state truly that at that time, and under all circumstances, it could not be otherwise than painful to ask their Lordships to pronounce any censure, however slight, upon the noble Lord who was the present Governor-general of India, with whom he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had had the honour to sit in that House for not a few years, to whose eloquence he had often listened with pleasure, whose ability he readily admitted, and from whom, on all occasions, he had always received the utmost courtesy. At the same time, when he had the misfortune to think that that noble Lord, by an act of indiscretion—he would not use any harsh terms, and therefore he said only indiscretion—the noble Lord had done that which might produce grave consequences to millions of our fellow-subjects in India, which might probably disturb the tranquillity of our rule over that, the most glorious dominion this or any other country had ever possessed, it became his duty to set aside all personal feeling of that kind, and to invoke the aid of their Lordships to prevent the possible recurrence, either by the noble Lord, or by any other person, of similar indiscretion. If their Lordships should agree with him, that the publication of these proclamations was unwise and imprudent—that they had a tendency to derogate from that character for wisdom, consistency, and dignity, which it was most essential that the Government in India, no matter by whom administered, should ever maintain—if their Lordships thought with him, that the publication of those documents had a tendency to excite passions which it was our duty, as well as our interest, to stifle and extinguish, he was sure in that case their Lordships would also set aside all personal and party feelings, and would not hesitate to do their duty, by recording a temporary, but severe expression of their opinions. He should not have occasion to refer to any large and comprehensive questions; the observations he wished to address to their Lordships should be confined to the strict subject matter of the motion, and the acts of the Administration as regarded the publication of these particular proclamations of themselves, and by themselves only. If he were told that the policy with which those proclamations were connected was the wisest possible which the Governor-general could adopt, into that question he should not think it necessary in any way to enter. If it should be attempted to institute a comparison between the conduct of Lord El- lenborough and that of any of his predecessors, immediate or remote, into that argument he would not go; unless it could be shown—which he believed he could defy any of their Lordships to show—that in circumstances at all similar or analogous, or indeed, under any circumstances whatsoever, there ever had proceeded from the hand or head of any Governor-general of India a proclamation at all like that which was the first paper to which he was about to refer their Lordships—which is the proclamation dated the 1st of October, 1842. Those who had read that document would observe that two-thirds of the contents conveyed a direct censure upon the previous acts and policy of the Indian Government immediately before Lord Ellenborough assumed the office of Governor-general. That was what he called upon their Lordships particularly to observe. Upon the question whether or not the accusations were true, and the censure just, he was not going to enter. For his argument of this night, he was willing to confess that every accusation was well founded, that every insinuation was just. He was willing, so far as the business of this night was concerned, to admit that which, under other circumstances and upon another occasion, he certainly should not admit, namely, that Lord Auckland in his views was entirely wrong, and Lord Ellenborough entirely right—that Lord Auckland, if they pleased, had he remained Governor-general, was always wrong; and that Lord Ellenborough was always right; or that there was no difference at all between them; or that either was right, or either wrong. Upon all those heads, however, he had at present nothing whatever to say. But what he stood there to contend was, that in no one possible of these cases, and under no circumstances whatsoever, had the Governor-general of India a right to address to the people of that country such a proclamation as that to which he now referred. He asserted that the Governor-general had no right publicly to canvass and criticise the acts of his predecessor. He said that the representative of the East-India Company had no right to say to the people of India that prior to his arrival the acts and policy of the East-India Company were unwise. He supposed no one would be so disingenuous as to deny that the proclamation he now held in his hand bore such a character. That document set forth that previous to the arrival of Lord Ellenborough the Indian Government had undertaken an expedition into Affghanistan in gross ignorance of the state of the country, on an erroneous view of the policy which the British authorities ought to follow; that they had placed their army in a false military position; that they had exhausted the resources of the country by ill-advised expenditure. That he apprehended, was a statement which no Governor-general ought to have made. He cared not whether those statements were true or false; it was the publication of which he now complained, and not to the matter or sentiment contained in it. He had, indeed, heard a rumour that even the language of the proclamation was in a great measure taken from a private letter written by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington). That might be the case or it might, not. If the noble Duke entertained such opinions it was of course perfectly free to him to express them. But of this he was certain, that sooner than have issued such a proclamation from the supreme government at Calcutta to the people of India, had he been at the head of the Indian Government, the noble and gallant Duke would have cut off his right hand. Their Lordships would remember that it was the government of the East-India Company which had been entrusted to Lord Ellenborough, and which that noble Lord had thought fit to repudiate. Their Lordships would look at these papers uninfluenced by the feelings which had carried away Lord Ellenborough, unaffected by the "delusion" or to use terms more unhappily in too common employment, the "partial insanity," the" monomania," which appeared to have influenced the Governor-general, and produced on his mind an impression that the government of India was a pure despotism or autocracy, to be handed from one party to another, to be exercised for personal pride and pleasure; whereas, it was the duty of the Governor-general, under the East-India Company, not to look to his own immediate gratification—his peculiar renown, but the permanent character of the British administration in the East, and endeavour to uphold its dignity, and preserve its reputation for consistency and wisdom. Even had there been precedents for such a proclamation, he should not have deemed it less unwise and imprudent; but the fact was, that though the history of India afforded examples of circumstances not alto- gether dissimilar from those in which Lord Ellenborough had published this proclamation, though it had frequently happened that the supreme Government had found it expedient from change of policy or circumstances to alter their proceedings, there had never occurred such a publication before. As affording an illustration of this, he could not avoid calling their Lordships' attention to an example. In doing so, he should have to mention two great names—the first of them, that of one who had become illustrious all over the world—he meant Lord Cornwallis—the other was that of the late Marquess Wellesley, whom he could never allude to without the highest esteem and admiration. It was a matter of history that Lord Cornwallis was sent out to India to supersede the late Marquess Wellesley with general instructions to put an end to hostilities—to narrow, or at least to restrain from advancing the limits of our eastern empire—and to restore our resources, by retrenching our expenditure; and Lord Cornwallis's sentiments as to the war in which we were then engaged were very similar to those which had been expressed by Lord Ellenborough in the proclamation. Lord Cornwallis arrived at Calcutta on the 30th of July, and early in August he wrote as follows:— Finding we are still at war with Holkar, and hardly at peace with Scindia, I am determined to proceed to the upper provinces, and to avail myself of the interval of the rainy season to prepare for military operations, and to endeavour—if it can be done without sacrifice of honour—to terminate, by negotiation, a contest, in which the most brilliant successes can afford no solid benefit, and which I fear must involve us in pecuniary difficulties, we shall be incapable of sustaining. And, after alluding to the state of the finances, Lord Cornwallis went on to add:— I have already represented the extreme pecuniary embarrassments in which I found the Government involved, every part of the army, every department of the public service, suffering the most severe distress from the accumulation of arrears, &c. It was hardly possible to conceive a greater condemnation of a former policy, than that view taken of his predecessors by Lord Cornwallis. But to whom were these communications made? It never entered the mind of Lord Cornwallis to make them known throughout Asia, or to the whole world. The noble and gallant Lord addressed them to the secret committee of the Board of Directors of the East-India Company. They certainly became known to the public by means of a committee of the House of Commons, but no mention was made of them until long after the transactions had been finished. It might be answered that the transactions were then pending, and the noble and gallant Lord would not publish them while matters were in that state; but the noble and gallant Lord, having died in India, was succeeded by Sir G. Barlow, who entirely approved of the policy of Lord Cornwallis, and although he was opposed by the commander-in-chief, Lord Lake, he carried out the views of his predecessor and concluded a treaty with Scinde; but no such proclamation as that issued by Lord Ellenborough ever emanated from him. He never thought of instituting a comparison between the policy of his Government and that of his predecessor. He never addressed a proclamation to the princes and people of India condemning the policy of the Government preceding that which he had been called upon to carry on. He said the proclamation was wholly without precedent; and so much so was it, that it by no means followed as a matter of course, that the Governor-general of India was changed upon every change of administration at home. If rule there was, it was the other way, because the Governor-general of India was not the officer of the Government at home, but he was the officer of the East-India Company; he was not the officer of either one party or of another. India had given rise to more party struggles in this country than any other of our foreign possessions, but never since the time of our conquering the country, at least never since the time of Warren Hastings, who is supposed to have left many personal partizans in India, no great authorities or great men, whatever they might have done in England when engaged in the discussion of India policy, had, when placed in the situation of Governor-general, acted as Lord Ellenborough had done. On the contrary, all of them, when they arrived in India, had seemed with one accord to have come to the decision that all personal rivalry and political squabbles should be banished from the soil of India. He had heard it advanced in favour of our anomalous modes of governing India, that if at any time party spirit or personal feeling should ever become too active, which he did not believe ever had been the case at the Board of Control, the East-India-house would act as a non-conductor, and prevent ill consequences from arising. Sure he was that neither at the present nor at any former time had the publication of two such papers as those to which he was calling their Lordships' attention, or of any documents at all similar to them in expression or tenor, been sanctioned by any Board of Control or by the India-house. He spoke perhaps in ignorance, but with full confidence in the truth of what he asserted; and he should be indeed surprised if his noble Friend who presided over the department, or any other noble Lord, were to contradict that assertion, or say that any chairman or deputy chairman of the East-India Company had ever sanctioned the publication of such a document. What could have been the object of such a publication, and what might be the effect of it, either upon our own subjects or upon neighbouring states? For what purpose could the Governor-general have proclaimed that the Government of India had undertaken an unwise and unnecessary expedition; and for what purpose could the Governor-general proclaim that, having undertaken this unwise expedition, our resources were exhausted, and that we were obliged to stop every measure for the improvement of the country? Was such a proclamation calculated to encourage the industry of the country, or to fix the friendship of our allies; was it not rather calculated to stimulate the activity of our enemies? Again, what effect must such a proclamation have had upon the minds of the servants of the company? Their Lordships had heard a great deal about the relaxation of military discipline, of observations and remarks in which the officers had chosen to indulge upon the conduct of their superiors. Was it likely to improve them by a better example to see one Governor-general finding fault with another, depreciating his conduct, and instituting comparisons, for the sake of lauding himself. To no other design could he attribute the tone of Lord Ellen-borough's proclamation. It was said that this proclamation was to be taken as an indication of his pacific and conservative policy, but the question was not about his conservative and pacific policy, but the policy of the East-India Company; and when the noble Lord told the people of India that his policy was conservative and pacific, did he not lead to the necessary conclusion and inference, that the government under which they lived was uncertain, and changeable, and insecure? that their prosperity depended upon him individually, and that if he were, unfortunately for them, to be removed from the management of affairs, they would, consequently, fall back upon a government of imbecility? Did he not, in a word, ascribe to himself a wisdom in contra-distinction to his predecessor? With regard to the other paper he was about to submit to the notice of the House, it might be taken up in a ludicrous point of view, but many serious considerations attached to it. Upon its first arrival and publication in this country, it was regarded as an extremely humorous production, and, considered in that light only, they ought to thank the Governor-general for giving them so fair a subject for mirth. But when it was first published, the majority of the people did not believe that it was a real proclamation of the Governor-general,—the prevailing idea was, that it was one of those strokes of humour vulgarly called hoaxes. And, indeed, it had the appearance of having been founded upon the model of those inflated effusions, which used to proceed in former times from the French army, for the bombast was kept up from the beginning to the end most admirably. If he had been rightly informed, the Governor-general was so proud of his production that he had sent translated copies to Paris, that they might be properly distributed throughout Europe as well as Asia. He would read to the House one passage, which, he presumed, contained some covert humour, but which he confessed he could not understand. The paragraph was the sixth, and ran as follows:— My brothers and my friends—I have ever relied, with confidence, upon your attachment to the British Government. You see how worthy it proves itself of your love, when, regarding your honour as its own, it exerts the power of its arms to restore to you the gates of the temple of Somnauth, so long the memorial of your subjection to the Affghans. He could not understand that passage, because he knew Lord Ellenborough could not attach his hand to a statement that was not the truth, and the allegation it contained was not the fact. The common sense construction of the passage would be, that the British Government had sent an expedition into Affghanistan for the express purpose of restoring those gates, which had been so long a memorial of the subjection of the Hindoos to the Mahometans. That not being the fact, he could only suppose that Lord Ellenborough meant the words as a humorous and playful stroke of satire. He could not understand what was meant by addressing to the princes of India a statement that the British Government exerted its arms for the sake of restoring the gates of Somnauth to that country. But, unfortunately, there was mixed up with this proclamation a matter which it was impossible to contemplate without feelings of the most profound concern—any reference to which must generally be ill-placed in connection with affairs of a similar description, but never could be more ill-placed than in the document to which he was alluding, and which, therefore, he must call on their Lordships, as a high and sacred duty, to mark with their especial censure. Those gates were not described in the proclamation as they were in the order which accompanied it, and in which they were styled the trophies of victory. If they had been meant to be viewed as a trophy of war, undoubtedly they would have been destined to a use, or placed in a situation proper for such a purpose. If they were to be regarded as a trophy of the prowess and force of the Indian Government, they would naturally enough have been placed in the large square before the palace of the Governor -general at Calcutta. There a triumphal arch, with a statue on the top, might have been erected, and the gates might have been placed underneath, which would have been an ornament appropriate enough before the palace of the Governor-general. If they had been to be considered a trophy of the valour of the Hindoos, he could understand their having been sent to Benares, the greatest centre of Hindooism, perhaps, in India; or, if of British valour, they might have been sent here to adorn the front of the Horse Guards. But the Governor-general had directed them to be taken to a temple, from which they were removed by Sultan Mahmond, in the year 1024. That was a pure homage paid to that temple, and to the Pagan superstition to which it was consecrated, by order of the Governor-general of India. Most happily, that temple, he believed, had quite ceased to exist. It was very difficult to ascertain the exact truth on this point, but he believed the history of that temple to be this. It had ceased to exist upwards of 400 years ago, and was then razed to the ground. Another Hindoo temple, which became a place of resort, was afterwards built on the same spot; but even that had disappeared. At the commencement of the present century, a frigate was sent to surprise a horde of pirates on that coast, who, he understood, had made their principal nest in what were the ruins of the second Hindoo temple. This was nearly forty years ago, in 1805 or 1806, when a British force found it necessary to attack these pirates, and, by bombarding them, to drive them out of their stronghold. He had made inquiry into the whole subject, and, though he had found it difficult to ascertain the exact state of the case in every point, there was no reason whatever to doubt that the whole of the territory in which the temple of Somnauth stood was now inhabited by Mahometans; that the authorities of the place and the chiefs of the people were Mahometans; and that the conveying the gates to that place was the most gratuitous insult to them, and the most gratuitous offering to the Hindoo religion that could be imagined. It appeared as if the soldiers named in the general order, had been sent out by the Governor-general to find a proper temple of Siva, wherein to hang the gates. The first impression this proceeding was calculated to raise in the mind was most melancholy and serious. It was neither more nor less than this, that a Christian governor, appointed by a Christian people, had gone quite out of his way to make a gratuitous experiment of doing homage to Hindoo superstitions. He would not say what the intention of the Governor-general was, but to the common sense and plain understanding of men, this act appeared to be a direct encouragement of a gross and horrible idolatry. But more than this, the particular temple to which the Governor-general had directed these gates to be restored, was one which had had the most detestable and horrible reputation of all the establishments of idolatry and superstition that had ever existed in the world. Unfortunately, this was not all; there were two subjects of a very delicate nature, of which all Indian authorities had always spoken as being the most difficult for the British Government and British magistrates to deal with, he meant the nature of their duty acting for a Christian people, towards the misguided heathens whom Providence had placed under our care, doing nothing on the one; hand to irritate their prejudices, and doing nothing on the other, contrary to the religious zeal and fervour of the English people. The other subject he alluded to was, the differences, dissensions, and jealousies which were likely to be raised even among the population of India by this unfortunate proclamation. He had already noticed the first topic, and into it he had no wish to enter at length—he meant our duties as Christians towards the Hindoos and Mahometans, who form the bulk of the people of India. It was not a subject which he felt himself competent to discuss, especially in the presence of the right rev. Prelates whom he saw there to-night. It was one of a very difficult nature, with which he was not qualified to deal, nor would he say what line we ought to pursue in tempering the zeal and fervour of the religious communities of this country, who felt so strongly in relation to this subject. He would leave that part of the subject, only remarking that he thought—and he did not see how their Lordships could disagree with him—that the Governor-general of India was most imprudent in issuing a document which he must have known would awaken the feelings of the religious world of this country, as well as stir up jealousies in India. With reference to the danger likely to arise from giving cause of offence to the Members of the rival religions in Hindostan, he would quote, with their Lordships' permission, the words of a high authority on the question of Indian policy, whose opinion had also been cited by the East-India Company for the direction of their servants. In every country," said Sir T. Munroe," but especially in this, where the rulers are so few, and of a different race from the people, it is most dangerous of all things to tamper with their religious feelings. They may be apparently dormant, and when we are in unsuspected security they may burst forth in the most tremendous manner, as at Vellore: they may be set in motion by the slightest casualties, and do more mischief in an hour than all the labours of missionary collectors would repair in a hundred years. Should they produce only a partial disturbance, which is quickly put down, even in this case the evil would be lasting; distrust would be raised between the people and the government which would never entirely cease, and the district in which it happened would never be so safe as before. It was in a country thus described by one of the greatest authorities who had written, regarding it, and who was quoted no longer ago than in 1837, in a despatch communicating instructions to the Governor-general from this country, that Lord Ellenborough had taken a step which necessarily awakened the fervour and the seal of every missionary society in England, as well as of every individual missionary in India; and which gave a preference to the Hindoos over the Mahometans, exciting the jealousy of every Mahometan province, and every Mahometan soldier, and every Mahometan priest in that country. It was to this people, so described, that the letter which their Lordships had before them was addressed; it was translated into Hindoo, and actively circulated through all parts of the country. Why, if the Governor-general had desired to awaken religious anxieties, tumults, and disturbances in every quarter of India, he did not think that that magistrate could have hit upon a more effectual expedient, or issued an edict more completely to the purpose than this proclamation. The very part of the country to which he had chosen to send this Hindoo trophy was Mahometan. Every Mahometan in his army who read or understood this proclamation—and if the people could not read or understand it, what was the use of issuing it?—must feel himself insulted, as having been made the instrument of obtaining and conveying this offering to a religion which he was, and always had been, opposed. He did not wish to trouble their Lordships at unnecessary length, and therefore he would now draw to a close, leaving his motion in their Lordships hands. He would only say, if ever there was a time when it was the bounden duty of the Parliament of Great Britain to watch, as far as they might, and as far as their interference would be legitimate or productive of good results, over their Indian possessions, in order that no internal tumults, disorders, or disaffection, proceeding from real grievances, might be generated in them, it was the present time. That country was now secure from all foreign danger whatever. Whatever might be said of the folly or wisdom of the late expedition into Affghanistan, this at least no man could deny, that for the first time we had seen the tide of conquest rolled back from the south-east to the north-west: for the first time, we had attached to the armies of India the character of invincibility over their ancient foes and oppressors. We bad put our Government and our empire on a safe footing from all foreign aggression; and if we could preserve it from internal disturbances, from disloyalty and disaffection, we might reasonably hope that it would be a dominion as lasting, and as firmly rooted, as it was ever given to any power to establish. For these reasons, he called on their Lordships to mark with their reprobation this particular act of a Governor-general, who had introduced a new line of action into the policy of the supreme government of Calcutta; who had dwelt on personal and party topics, and had, without provocation, without reason, and for no good end whatever, given occasion for religious disturbances among those who were subject to his sway. Almost imperceptibly, but still progressively, the East-India Company had made considerable progress towards introducing the principles, precepts, and practice of Christianity, and paved the way for the exaltation of the cross of our holy religion. One spark conveyed into India, such as the decree of which he had been speaking, might put a stop to the further progress of good, and raise in the inflammable passions of the natives, a barrier to it, which it might take a long time to remove, and which might check that great work, which ought always to be before their eyes." If their Lordships thought it right to temper the zeal of the missionaries, and check the enthusiasm of those who are perhaps too ardent in a good cause, as experience taught, at least let them take care that a servant of the Crown, over whose actions they had a right to keep watch, did not undo the good which so much pains had been taken to effect, and of which the consequences might be more glorious to our Crown and to our sway than the extension of our empire, or than the renown acquired by deeds of arms." The noble Marquess concluded by moving:— That this House has seen with regret and disapprobation the proclamation of the Governor-general of India, dated the 1st of October last, and his letter to the princes, chiefs, and people of India, of the 16th of November, because those papers may tend to mislead the native population with respect to the motives and conduct of the British Government in India, may excite religious dissensions, may be construed into a direct countenance of gross superstition, and are calculated to introduce the practice, hitherto unknown to our Indian administration, of publicly commenting and reflecting upon the previous acts and policy of the government, thereby interfering with that conviction of permanence and stability, which is essential to the interests of the British empire in India.

The Duke of Wellington

said, I listened with attention to the sentiments expressed by the noble Marquess at the commencement of his speech, with respect to the feelings of the noble Lord the Governor-general of India, who is now absent, and employed on the service of his country; and I confess, that I should have been more satisfied with those sentiments if the noble Lord, in framing his resolution had not thought proper to make it of a cumulative kind—bringing under your Lordship's consideration two documents which relate to subjects totally and entirely distinct from one another. My Lords, it cannot be said that the last of these papers, the letter addressed to the Hindoo princes, contains any attack upon the Government which preceded him. The noble Lord thought fit to give that character to the paper to which he first directed your Lordships attention, but he had not said one word to prove that that character attaches to the other paper; and I, therefore, say, that his resolution is a sort of improper cumulation of the contents of both papers, with a view to make out a case against the present Governor-general not to prove that he had made an attack on his predecessor. I will advert to these papers in the order in which they have been introduced to your Lordship's consideration by the noble Marquess opposite, and I will first take the proclamation of the 1st October 1842. The noble Lord states that such a proclamation is entirely without precedent. I certainly am not aware of any precedent of the kind; the precedent to which the noble Lord adverted—that of Lord Cornwallis, a respected nobleman, who succeeded my noble relation in the Governor-generalship of India, is not at all in point to the present case. The facts are totally different; War, no doubt, existed in both cases. At the time referred to by the noble Marquess, there was more than one invasion of the Company's territories. Lord Cornwallis thought proper to write despatches on the former occasion—very proper despatches, I have no doubt, but the case is not at all in point. Did not Lord Ellenborough's predecessor issue a public declaration stating the circumstances under which he had commenced certain operations? I have always been desirous in addressing your Lordships on this subject, to avoid adverting to antecedent occurrences and transactions. Through all the discussions we have had, I have never adverted to these transactions further than was absolutely necessary in order to elucidate the case, which it was my duty, on the part of her Majesty's servants, and in defence of a noble Lord employed in the public service abroad, to state to your Lordships; I have stated nothing except what was brought in writing before your Lordships, and on this occasion 1 will not do more. I want to accuse nobody, and I desire to do no more than defend a noble Lord who is absent. And, first, I must remind your Lordships of the proclamation issued by the noble Lord the late Governor-general, setting forth, not for the information of the Court of Directors of the East-India Company alone, but for the information of East-Indian. society and the world, the circumstances attending the commencement of those operations which Lord Ellenborough found in the course of execution when he arrived in India. In that document dated Simla, 1st October 1838, the noble Lord declares his intention to enter Afghanistan. The arrangements for his entrance into that country are also stated, and it fell to the lot of Lord Ellenborough to be under the necessity of putting an end to those arrangements and that policy, and to close the scenes which had continued for some years, and in the latter part of which a terrible military disaster had occurred. I say that it was reasonable and right in Lord Ellenborough to make known to the world the existing state of affairs in Affghanistan, and the measures he intended to take with reference to that country. Your Lordships will recollect that the Company's government and the Affghans were not the only parties to this arrangement. The Sikhs were also parties to the arrangements for the invasion, and must be made parties to the final arrangements for terminating the war; they must at all events, be informed of those arrangements. There was another point to which the noble Lord adverted, that is, the necessity of thereafter providing for the defence of the vast dominions placed under his government, and for whose security it was his duty to take precautions. Now, my Lords, I cannot help thinking that he could not well have done otherwise than have stated publicly to his allies and the world the situation in which he found himself placed after the disaster, and after he had retired with his army from Aff- ghanistan, and the position in which he was likely thereafter to stand. Now, on that ground I say that the situation of Lord Ellenborough was totally different from that of Lord Cornwallis, or any other Governor-general, and that the necessity for these proclamations followed from the situation in which he was placed. The noble Lord says he is ready to admit that there is nothing in the proclamation but what is true, and it must be evident that it contains nothing that is not strictly fact. It is the fact that the treaties alluded to, were made, that the sovereign was placed on the throne, that he was afterwards suspected of treachery, that he was assassinated, and that this terrible disaster happened. The disasters are described as having been" unparalleled in their extent"—I believe nobody denies that" unless by the errors in which they originated, and by the treachery with which they were completed." My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to me—but I have given no authority for any such report—as the person who gave advice to the Governor-general on this subject. 1 certainly have given my opinions to the Governor-general—many more than I am afraid will be useful to him—but certainly none which could have given foundation for anything that appears in these papers. At the same time, I must say, that I entirely concur in the propriety of every word contained in that proclamation. As I said before, I impute no blame to any body. I do not rise to blame the noble Lord opposite, whom I see in his place (the Earl of Auckland); I cannot help, however, having read the history of these transactions as it is given in these volumes, 1 cannot help seeing the enormous errors which have been committed. I cannot help seeing that from the commencement of these transactions, down to the moment of the retreat from Cabul, the greatest errors were committed. The first error of all I attribute, not to the noble Lord, but to the unfortunate gentleman who afterwards fell a victim, I believe, very much to his own error. My opinion is, that the first error of all was in forming an army for the sovereign who was to be restored to Affghanistan, composed of English and Hindoos, and not of Affghans. Now, my Lords, what was the consequence of this? The whole system of administration, the collection of the revenue, and all the operations of government, were carried on by English and Hindoos. They were involved in all the details of government, including the collection of the revenue. My Lords, this appears in these volumes. I could show the passages by which it is established; and, in fact, great part of the loss sustained previous to the insurrection of Cabul, and during the insurrection throughout the country, was owing to the necessity of supporting by the Company's troops this body of English troops employed in the service of the Shah, and engaged in the collection of the revenue. My Lords, the gentleman I have alluded to ought to have known, or if he forgot it, he ought to have been reminded of it, that throughout the whole of India, and during all the period in which subsidiary alliances have been formed with native powers, one uniform rule has prevailed, and that is, that the Company's troops, and above all the Europeans, were not to be employed in the collection of the revenue from India. That is a distinct and clear rule invariably observed. The Company's troops are brought into the field to give their countenance and support to the measures taken for the collection of the revenue, but are never actually employed in that duty. That is one of the errors to which the noble Lord the Governor-general adverts in his proclamation; but there are other errors, I say, and I can prove it, that the country was never occupied as a country occupied by an army ought to be. The northern communication, which was the shortest and easiest, was never made use of—never occupied at all—I may say never conquered at all. Some troops, light infantry in the Company's service, and, I believe, a battalion of the Shah's force, moved from Peshawur to Cabul; they never arrived at Cabul; and, in fact, Cabul was taken possession of by the troops that advanced from Shikarpore, Candahar, and Ghuznee. And then that communication, which was essential, and without which it was pure madness to leave a body of troops stationed at Cabul, never was commanded or kept in any way whatever, excepting by means of the payments made to the banditti who occupied the different passes. Why, my Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord for this, but the gentleman whom the noble Lord employed to command his army. If he had ever looked upon what had been done under similar circumstances by any officer commanding an array, if a gentleman had been selected for the command of the army, possessing common experience and common reflection in his profession, he would not have omitted to provide for the security of that communication which was the shortest and easiest with his resources, and the disaster which ensued would never have happened. Now, my Lords, here is one of the errors which were committed, and I must remind your Lordships, that the present Governor-general had no more to do than I had with the selection of that gentleman. There was not only that communication, but there was another with Shikarpore, Candahar, and Ghuznee, from Cabul. Was that occupied? My Lords, it was never in the possession of our troops; they did not hold it even when the whole army had arrived at Candahar. In point of fact the Bombay army was the last that went up the Bolam pass; it had moved from it before Candahar was occupied, and after that the army stationed at Candahar remained there without a communication by the north, and, as it turned out, with not even any communication by the south. It was afterwards attempted by General England, in the month of March, to penetrate by the Bolam and Kojak Passes to Candahar with a brigade of troops, but he was unsuccessful. It has been asked very truly, my Lords, whether that can be called a military communication which requires such a number of troops to maintain it? Yet you must be aware that such was the real state of things, and I ask was not this another error, another gross error, to which my noble Friend may be supposed to have alluded? Here we have another error, with which the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Auckland) had no more to do than I had. The gentleman who unfortunately perished in the course of these events (the noble Duke was understood to allude to General Elphinstone), had he been an officer at all, must have read the history of the war in Spain, in which case he must have seen how the French conducted themselves when carrying on hostilities under very similar circumstances. They took care on every occasion to secure their communications from one part of the country to another. But the gentleman upon whom fell a large share of military responsibility at this time was unfortunately no officer at all; and here I say is another error, and these are the errors to which the noble Lord must have seen that my noble Friend intended to refer, if the noble Lord had not been bent on making out an accumulative case against my noble Friend, It is perfectly true that the resident at the court of a foreign sovereign under circumstances such as those in which that gentleman was placed must have certain relations with the military movements of the troops; but, my Lords, I have stood in that situation myself. I have been in relation with gentlemen who acted as residents at a foreign court. Under such circumstances the troops cannot move at all without the orders of the Government, but the foreign government cannot apply to the commanding officer except through the resident; and then, when the commanding officer receives such an application, he takes care to see that the Government has secured for his troops whatever may be necessary to their safety and efficiency. My Lords, not only have I been in such a situation myself, but 1 was so up to the last moment of my services in Europe. In Paris I had, not one minister only to deal with, but a whole congress of ministers, and I should like to have seen a minister, aye, or a congress of ministers, come to give me orders. What I did was to communicate with them in such a manner that I might be sure the facts stated to me, and on which it would become my duty to frame my decisions, should be the whole of the facts, and not a partial statement. But never did I hear of a resident minister who had the direction of the troops, particularly at a time when great operations of war were carrying on. I was employed on such operations, and not only I was not then under the orders of the residents, but they were under mine. They were under my direction. I was responsible, accordingly for the safety, of all the troops under my command; no error of this kind ever occurred to me, and I think it is only fair to my noble Friend now on the other side of the world—I say it is only fair to give him credit for these errors being the errors to which he adverts, and not to suppose that he intended to attack the noble Earl (the Earl of Auckland) opposite, respecting the origin of these transactions. The errors to which I have referred are obviously those to which my noble Friend adverts as having been the occasion of these disasters. I may have my own opinion as to the origin of these transactions, and others are free to entertain opinions on them; but I do not want to bring my opinions on these matters forward now. I have no wish at present to provoke a discussion on these transactions. I only want to defend my noble Friend, but I am quite clear there is no difference now between the two noble Lords with respect to the result. The noble Earl opposite, before he quitted the country, announced his intention, very properly, not to renew the occupation of Affghanistan, and my noble Friend makes the same announcement. We all agree that it was quite right to discontinue our military operations in that country, and they have been discontinued, and in a manner that has merited the approbation of your Lordships—in a manner that has led you to vote an expression of your thanks to the officers and troops engaged there. The noble Marquess, in candour, should have considered the history of these operations, and should have reflected what the errors were to which my noble Friend referred, and not have brought them forward thus to make out a cumulative case against my noble Friend. I come now to another paper to which reference has been made", but which, instead of being directed against my noble Friend's predecessor, is nothing less than a song of triumph. I call it a song of triumph; and my Lords, I must beg to remind you here of some very unpleasant circumstances attending the state of feeling among our troops in India, respecting which your Lordships will obtain full information by referring to the despatches of March and May, from which you will see that the spirit prevailing in some portions of the army was by no means satisfactory, and of a kind very desirable to remedy. I know that when I heard of these transactions, this was the point that gave me the most uneasiness, and most anxious was I that my noble Friend should be free to use all the means in his power to get rid of this feeling among the troops; that he should be able to restore among them habits of subordination; and that he should be able to restore a spirit of mutual confidence between the officers and the troops. Your Lordships will see from these papers, and from this song of triumph, that the spirit to which I have alluded no longer exists, and you will there read of honours and rewards distributed among the officers and troops, some of which have already been approved of by our most gracious Sovereign. Let us now refer to the letter on which is grounded this song of triumph. In his despatch of the 4th of July to Major-general Nott, my noble Friend expresses himself thus:— You will bring away from the tomb of Mahmoud of Ghuznee his club, which hangs over it; and you will bring away the gates of his tomb, which are the gates of the temple of Somnauth. These will be the just trophies of your successful march. There my Lords, you have the origin of this business, to which it has been my wish to draw your attention; and then, my Lords, there is another order among these papers to which I wish to draw your attention, that of the 16th of November, in which my noble Friend orders a detachment to be formed to convey these gates to India. Oh, says the noble Lord, the taking away of these gates, and these dispositions for their conveyance, are calculated to excite religious feelings among the Moslem and Christian population. Now, I ask, is there any hint given by my noble Friend's order, that the conveyance of these gates is not to be entrusted to Moslem, Christian, or Jewish soldiers? For there are some of all three in our Indian army? No such thing. The order is a common order, by which the army is commanded to take charge of these gates, without any preference to Christian, Jew, Hindoo, or Mahometan. They are ordered to convey away these gates, as the "just trophies of their successful march," and as marks of their distinguished services at Ghuznee. My Lords, I know something of that army. I have served in its ranks, and I know pretty well what its feelings are; and though there are different castes and religions composing it, the discipline of that army, and the military spirit by which it is actuated, totally do away with all such distinctions. You will never hear in India of any difference of caste or religion in that army, any more than you would in the ranks of the British army. All do their duty, all are animated by the true feelings of soldiers, and all must have felt and enjoyed this triumph after the hardships they had undergone—all must hare exulted in bearing these trophies of a successful march back to India. I do not mean to say, there may not be a Moslem feeling in some parts of India on this subject. I will not answer for individual feelings any where, and I know very well that such feelings may be spoken up, and I know very well that such feelings may be written up; and then the feelings, so spoken up and written up, may produce all those mischiefs which the noble Lord represented to your Lordships are so much to be apprehended. The state of things in that country is one of much greater difficulty now than it was when I was there, because there is now established in India what is called a free press, but what I shall make free to call a most licentious press, and by referring to these papers your Lordships will see that the mischievous influence of that press is repeatedly complained of. For my own part, I must own, I do not see how the operations of war can be carried on in a satisfactory manner in India, with such a press constantly exercising, its influence, and connected through its correspondents with every cantonment of the army. Not only this press may stir up the feeling to which reference has been made, but the very nature of our successes in Affghanistan is calculated to call it forth. I am very glad that the noble Lord has drawn your Lordships' attention to these papers, because it is necessary that you should attend to these different parts of the social order in India. I happen to know that the whole British population in India, including some 25,000 troops, does not exceed 50,000. I come now, my Lords, to address myself to the last part of the subject adverted to by the noble Lord, namely, the encouragement which this paper is supposed to give to idolatry in India. Now really, if the noble Lord had looked into history, he would have seen that this temple is not a heathen temple at all, and never was a heathen temple. At all events, it is not a heathen temple at this time. Nobody knows exactly what it is. It is situated in the dominions of one of the Mahratta chiefs, and the population of the country are supposed to be Mahometans. This may be the case, but certainly the stale of Guicowar is a Hindoo state, and the restoration of these gates to the territory of Guzerat would not, as far as I can see, tend in any way to the encouragement of idolatry, if there are none now remaining in that part of India of the idolatrous class by whom the temple was originally erected. Really, my Lords, when the noble Lord charged my noble Friend with encouraging idolatry, he ought to have more correctly informed himself of the facts connected with these papers, particularly when we consider that a short time previously my noble Friend had addressed to the chaplains in the upper provinces of India a letter which I will now take the liberty of reading to your Lordships:— Simla,, October 1, 1842. Rev. Sir—The seasonable supply of rain, following our prayers recently offered to God for that blessing, whereby the people of the north-western provinces have been relieved from the fear of impending famine, and the great successes recently obtained by the British arms in Affghanistan, whereby the hope of honourable and secure peace is held out to India, impose upon us all the duty of humble thanksgiving to Almighty God, through whose paternal goodness alone these events have been brought to pass. Nor have we less incurred the duty of earnest supplication that we may not be led to abuse these best gifts of God's bounty, or to attribute to ourselves that which is due to Him alone; but that we may have granted to us grace so to improve these gifts as to show ourselves worthy of His love, and fit instruments in His hand for the Government of the great nation His wisdom has placed under British rule. In the absence of any superior ecclesiastical authority in these upper provinces, I request that you will take these matters into your serious consideration, and that you will, on the 16th of October, offer to Almighty God such prayers and thanksgiving, at the time of Divine service in your church, as may seem to you best suited to impress upon your congregation the greatness of the blessings which the British nation in India, and the whole people of India, have recently received; and the high moral responsibility under which God has placed all those who have committed to them any part in the government of this empire. I remain, rev. Sir, your affectionate friend, ELLENBOROUH. Was the noble Lord who wrote that letter likely to be an encourager of idolatry? No, he looked upon these gates merely as a symbol of triumph. Charity rejoices in the diffusion of truth: but we, it seems, are to look to fancy for our charity. The truth of my noble Friend's sentiments you have in the letter I have just read to you, and I hope that, in passing a negative on the motion of the noble Lord, your Lordships will be joined by the right rev. Prelates, whose duty and office it is to promote charity among mankind. I have endeavoured to show to your Lordships, that these papers have been entirely misunderstood by the noble Lord. I have shown that the errors referred to by my noble Friend must have been totally different from those referred to by the noble Lord, and no reference was in any way made by my noble Friend to the noble Lord (the Earl of Auckland) now in his place on the opposite side of the House. I have endeavoured to show your Lordships that the dangers apprehended from this song of triumph, exist only in the imagination of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Clanricarde), unless realised by the course he has thought proper to take, or by the inflammatory writings of a licentious press here and abroad. I trust I have rescued the character of my noble Friend from the charge preferred against him, of being an encourager of idolatry, and I hope I have said enough to prevail upon your Lordships to reject the proposition now before you.

The Earl of Auckland

I rise to address a very few words to your Lordships, and it was my hope, when I entered the House, that I should not have had any occasion to intrude on your Lordships at all. But I feel that this question is in some measure one between me and my successor, and 1 feel there is no other course for me than to hold myself ready, in any discussion on this subject, to give in my place in this House such explanations as I may feel to be necessary. There is one passage in the speech of the noble Duke on which 1 wish to say a word, because I am aware my silence might operate injuriously to an officer to whom the noble Duke has referred—I mean Sir, William M'Naghten. The noble Duke spoke of errors, and the noble Duke appears to have been himself under the erroneous apprehension that the army had been placed under the command of Sir William M'Naghten. Now, that officer, according to my understanding, exercised no other power than has been always given in India to political residents. He had no power to command military movements—no power to move a single regiment from one place to another. He had the power of pointing out to the military commander the course which he might deem it politic for the army to take but it remained with the military commander to decide whether that course should be carried out. Whatever errors may have been committed. Sir William M'Naghten is not individually responsible for them. With regard to a few points in the conduct of Sir William M'Naghten, an erroneous impression appears to have been produced. My Lords, I can assure you that the Government in India was, from the beginning, anxious that the greatest discouragement should be given to the employment of British troops in the collection of the Shah's revenue. In the beginning, it is true, such assistance was given, but it became less frequent afterwards. With regard to the duty of keeping open the military communications of the army that duty rested more with the military commander than with Sir William M'Naghten, who held frequent correspondence on that very subject, and urged on the military commander the necessity of keeping a body of troops at Gundamuck for that purpose. If on this point there is blame anywhere, it does not fall exclusively on Sir William M'Naghten, but ought at all events to be divided between him and those in whose hands was placed the more immediate military command.

Lord Colchester

denied, that his noble relative (Lord Ellenborough) was obnoxious to the charges which the noble Marquess had brought against him. The noble Marquess had accused Lord Ellen-borough, in the first place, of indiscretion in introducing into his proclamation of the 1st of October, words which were calculated to bring his predecessor in the office of the Governor-generalship of India into disrepute. The noble Marquess, in the second place, charged his noble relative with having, by issuing the proclamation respecting the gates of Somnauth, taken a step which was calculated to foment religious jealousies in India, and to encourage the votaries of a degrading superstition. Now, he ventured to deny that Lord Ellenborough's proclamation of the 1st of October, contained any accusations or recriminations against his noble predecessor. The proclamation was, indeed, a mere statement of facts. The first paragraph of the proclamation was couched in the following words:— The Government of India directed its army to pass the Indus, in order to expel from Affghanistan a chief believed to be hostile to British interests, and to replace upon his throne a sovereign represented to be friendly to those interests, and popular with his former subjects. The chief, believed to be hostile, became a prisoner, and the sovereign, represented to be popular, was replaced upon his throne; but, after events which brought into question his fidelity to the Government by which he was restored, he lost, by the hands of an assassin, the throne he had only held amidst insurrections, and his death was preceded and followed by still existing anarchy. Now, the previous Governor-general had made use of nearly the same words in speaking of the same subject. How, then, could it be contended that the adoption of almost his very words was an unjustifiable attack upon the late Governor-general. Lord Ellenborough's proclamation was nothing but a clear statement of facts, and its object was to make the people of India well acquainted with the causes of our retreat from Affghanistan. Now, with respect to the proclamation about the gates of the temple of Somnauth, the noble Marquess said that, at first, it was generally believed that the proclamation was a hoax, because it was not written in the style in which such documents were usually composed. He would not set himself up for a critic on style, but he begged to observe that the proclamation was not addressed to Englishmen or Frenchmen, or Europeans of any description, but to Hindoos and Mahometan princes of India, who were accustomed to a style very different from that which would suit the English public. The people of India were accustomed to a high-flown hyperbolical style, and in speaking to a nation it was necessary to adopt a language which they understood, and which was congenial to their feelings. It would be as ridiculous to address them in plain unaffected language as it would be to speak to Englishmen in the phraseology to which the Hindoos were accustomed. The noble Marquess said, he could not understand what was meant by the words of the proclamation. If the noble Marquess would look to the Governor-general's letter of the 4th of July, to General Nott, in which he authorises the general, if he thinks fit, to move from Candahar to Ghuznee, he will see that certain advantages were proposed to be gained by that movement. One of these was to regain the military credit which had been lost by the capitulation; another was the recovery of such prisoners as might be found in the neighbourhood; and the third was the bringing away of certain military trophies amongst which were the gates of the temple of Somnauth, which Mahmoud had carried away as a military trophy from India. The only object of the bringing back of the gates was to restore to the Hindoos a military trophy which, whilst it remained in Affghanistan, was considered a memorial of their subjection. There were some historical points connected with the gates of the temple of Somnauth, with which the noble Marquess did not appear to be familiar. The noble Marquess spoke of the temple as if it were a common place of worship. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: No, I said that the most abominable scenes were enacted there.] The noble Marquess misunderstood him. Be the abominations referred to what they might, the noble Marquess had spoken of the temple as a place open to any one who might choose to enter it. If the noble Marquess had read the history of the temple he would have found that it was not only a place of worship, but a strongly fortified post. Mahmoud, with his Affghan forces, assailed the temple unsuccessfully during two successive days, and it was not until after he had fought a severe battle with an army that was coming to its relief, that he gained possession of the building. Under such circumstances, anything which the conquerer carried away from the temple must fairly be considered a trophy of military success. As regarded the gates of the temple, there could be no doubt that Mahmoud considered them as a military trophy, because a portion of an idol which he also took away from the temple he gave to a mosque, but the gates he placed over his own tomb, as a trophy of his repeated successes in India. It was commonly said that Mahmoud was a great bigot, and that his wars in India were undertaken from a desire to spread his religion; but it was made apparent, by Mr. Elphinstone's work on India, that Mahmoud was influenced more by the spirit of plunder and robbery than by motives of a religious nature. If Mahmoud's object had been to spread his religion, he would better have effected it by the permanent occupation of a single province of India, than by his repeated incursions into that country. No doubt could be entertained as to the celebrity of the Somnauth gates throughout India. From the time of Mahmoud they had never ceased to be regarded, throughout all the East, as a great military trophy, and the power which possessed them seemed thereby to acquire a sort of superiority in the eyes of the people of India. The papers laid before the House in 1840 contained an account of the correspondence between Runjeet Sing and Shah Soojah, which showed the importance which was attached to these gates. It was as follows: Propositions of Maharajah Runjeet Sing, in reply to note presented by Kazee Mahomet Hussein (agent of Shah Soajah-ool-Moolk,) 1831. PROPOSITION II.—That the portals made of sandal, which have been carried away to Ghuznee from the temple of Jughernaut, shall be delivered to the Maharajah when the Shah's government is well established. Reply of Shah Soojah to Proposition II. 17. Regarding the demand of the portals of sandal at Ghuznee, a compliance with it is inadmissible in two ways—firstly, a real friend is he who is interested in the good name of his friend. The Maharajah, being my friend, how can he find satisfaction in my eternal disgrace. To desire the disgrace of one's friend, is not consistent with the dictates of wisdom. Secondly, there is a tradition among all classes of the people, that the forefathers of the Sikhs have said that their nation shall, in their attempt to bring away the portals of sandal, advance to Ghuznee; but having arrived there, the foundation of their empire shall be overthrown. I am not desirous of that event; I wish for the permanence of his Highness's dominion. As to the supposition that his noble relative would do anything which he thought could tend to retard the progress of Christianity, or encourage idolatry in India, the letter which the noble Duke had read to the House, addressed by the Governor-general to the clergy of the north-western provinces, was in itself sufficient to satisfy any one of his noble relative's deep religious feelings. That letter was dated the 1st of October, and was written immediately after the Governor-general had received the information of all the successes of our gallant troops. The man who, in such a moment of triumph, attributed in a public document all our success, not to the arm of man, but to the wisdom of Divine Providence, was not likely to do anything to discourage true religion, or to promote idolatry. The noble Marquess seemed to think that the restoration of the Somnauth gates would be likely to engender feelings of animosity between the Mahometan and the Hindoo population; but he would read a quotation from Mr. Elphinstone's History of India, which showed that the Indian population, whether Hindoo or Mahometan, were actuated by one common feeling of hostility against any power which threatened them from beyond the Indus; and that, therefore, they would, in all probability, unite in regarding the Somnauth gates as a glorious military trophy. The passage referred to the conduct of Baji Rao on the invasion of India by Nadir Shah:— His first thought was to suspend all his plans of aggrandisement, and to form a general league for the defence of India. 'Our domestic quarrels (he writes), are now insignificant; there is but one enemy in Hindostan; Hindoos and Mussulmans, the whole power of the Deckan, must unite.' When he was relieved from the fear of Nadir Shah he returned to his old designs. That passage showed that the Hindoos and Mahometans were ready to unite against a foreign invader, and would feel an equal interest in any trophy brought away from the invaders of their country by an army which, it must be remembered, was composed of Mahometans as well as Hindoos. He now begged leave to call the attention of the House to a letter written by his noble relative, and dated December 17, 1842, little more than three weeks after his proclamation to the native princes, and when, of course, he could have no knowledge of the effect which that document would produce in this country. The letter, which was addressed to a gentleman who had long been resident in India, and had been our envoy to Persia. Sir Gore Ouseley contained the following passage respecting the restoration of the gates of the temple of Somnauth, with which he would conclude:— I have managed to make the restoration of the gates of the temple a national and not a religious triumph. It goes to the hearts of a hundred and thirty millions of people, and really is an extraordinary event in history, connected, too, with much popular prophecy.

The Bishop of Llandaff

wished to offer a few words upon that part of the motion which raised a question of a religious character. From the first moment when he heard of the proclamation about the gates of the temple of Somnauth, he was convinced that the motives which were attributed to the Governor-general respecting it were erroneous. If he could have concurred in the view which some of his right rev. brethren took of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough on a former evening with reference to the proclamation, he would have gone further than they did, and refused to concur in the vote of thanks passed by that House. From an examination of the materials before the House, he was convinced that the Go- vernor-general had no intention to cast any slight on Christianity, or to afford encouragement to idolatry, and his conviction on that point was strengthened by what he knew of the noble Lord himself. Nothing could be more foreign from the noble Lord's character than such a course. The act for which Lord Ellenborough was blamed, appeared to him to be parallel to one, which had occurred in the history of the noble Duke who had that evening addressed the House. When the noble Duke, with his brother liberators of Europe, occupied the city of Paris, the French were compelled to restore to the several nations they had invaded the spoils of unjust war, and thus some reparation was made to the outraged feelings of people, whom the French had held in cruel subjection. If the noble Marquess should divide the House, he would most cordially give his vote against his proposition.

The Bishop of Norwich

said, he rose with considerable hesitation to address their Lordships, and he would not have presented himself to their notice on this occasion, had it not been for an expression which had fallen from the noble Duke. It was impossible not to be deeply impressed with everything which fell from that illustrious individual, and it was with pain he ventured to differ from him. The noble Duke appealed to the right rev. bench on a point of Christianity and charity. God forbid that be should ever give a vote on any subject which did not admit of the greatest latitude which was consistent with the most elevated spirit of Christianity. He did not attribute to the Governor-general the slightest intention to do any anything to promote idolatry—that was entirely out of the question; but when the character of the temple of Somnauth was known all over India, was it not something like encouraging a superstitious spirit to restore those gates to the population, from whom they had been taken in time of war? The noble Duke said that it was a matter of uncertainty what the temple of Somnauth was—whether it were connected with the religion of the Hindoos or not. He was sorry to be obliged to differ from the noble Duke on that point. He believed that the temple had always been considered a Hindoo temple. The Hindoo religion consisted in the belief of one omnipotent mighty spirit, who delegated his power to three others—namely, Bramah, Vishnu, and Siva. The temple of Somnauth was dedicated to Siva, the most cruel of the Hindoo deities, and known by the name of the Destroyer. Surely when we, Christians, restored the gates of such a place as that, the Hindoos must be, in some degree, inclined to consider that, at all events, if we were not attached to their religion, at least we were not discouragers of it. Might it not be said, that if the course taken by the Governor-general did not amount to a direct encouragement of idolatry, still it did not fall far short of a discouragement of the true religion? Might not Christianity be in some degree abashed and kept back, and the country in some degree shamed, when the head of the Government of India acted in such an equivocal manner? On these grounds, if he were called upon to give a vote that night, actuated by no uncharitable spirit towards the Governor-general, but feeling that it was his duty as a Christian Prelate to encourage Christianity by every means in his power, he would vote in favour of the motion.

The Bishop of Chichester,

whilst entertaining anything but a favourable opinion of the proclamation, was, nevertheless, very far from imputing to Lord Ellen-borough any intention to encourage idolatry. He was sure that no person would be selected by the East-India Company, or appointed by the Government, of whom it could be for a moment supposed that he could be capable of such an intention. But, nevertheless, he felt that this motion placed him in a somewhat difficult position. He felt that evil might arise to the Christian missionaries and to religious interests generally in India from such a proclamation as that which was the subject of debate. He thought, too, that the proclamation was in itself wholly unnecessary. The gates of Somnauth might have been left where the Governor-general found them, or, if he needs must remove them, he might have done anything with them rather than have selected them to be the objects of a triumph. Convinced, however, that there was no intention on the part of Lord Ellenborough to elevate idolatry at the expense of Christianity—a conviction in which the document read by the noble Lord (Lord Colchester) fully confirmed him—convinced, he said, of this, he should act on that conviction, and treat the issue of this proclamation merely as an error of judgment. With that impression he felt that to concur in this vote of censure would be in some sort unjust to the Governor-general, whom he should in effect be condemning on two grounds, whilst in reality he only thought him culpable on one; and under such circumstances he should adopt the safer course, and give his vote in opposition to the motion.

The Earl of Clarendon,

I was anxious to address the House after the speech of the noble Duke, in order to prevent any misapprehension with respect to the vote which I intend to give, and for that purpose a few words will suffice. I will not attempt to follow the noble Duke into all those interesting and important military details on which he has spoken with the high authority which belongs to him, and I sincerely regret that the noble Duke has failed to convince me that I have not a painful duty to perform in supporting the motion of my noble Friend; but to my mind, the noble Duke has not succeeded in proving, that the Governor-general is undeserving of censure for the particular matters referred to in the resolutions. The noble Duke alluded to the approbation of her Majesty, and the thanks of Parliament, which has been given to the Governor-general; and that is one of the topics to which I wish to refer. The House having a few days ago conferred the highest honour which it was in their power to bestow upon the Governor-general and the army, and noble Lords on this side of the House having waived all difference of opinion, in order that the vote might be unanimous, it is the more incumbent on their Lordships not to shrink now from recording our opinions with respect to conduct which men of all parties and the public press generally have united in condemning. I think we should shrink from our duty—we should not be doing justice to this House, or to that dignity which attaches to it—could we bestow praise for what is worthy and honourable in one branch of Lord Ellenborough's administration, yet shrink from condemning what is bad and blameable in another. If that were so, we should show ourselves willing to listen only to appeals in favour of rewarding public servants, but should turn a deaf ear to all complaints against their errors. We owe this, my Lords, to the people of England, and, above all, to the millions of our fellow-subjects of that country, whose interests, feelings, and even prejudices, should be the objects of our watchful care. It is of the utmost importance that the people of India should be under no misap- prehension, or the possibility of misapprehension, as to the opinions of the Home Government; and on that account it is incumbent on you to modify your late vote of thanks, and thus mark your sense of the error which the Governor-general has committed in this proclamation. That proclamation has been translated into the different languages and published in every corner of India, and it is therefore your bounden duty not to be instrumental in confirming the miapprehension to which this letter of Lord Ellenborough must have given rise. I think we are bound to show that we intended to secure, by this expedition, no signal triumph of Hindooism, or contemplated any humiliation on the part of those belonging to the Mahometan sect. It is incumbent on us to satisfy the people of India that, though Lord Ellenborough may think it judicious to take part with the princes of Rajwarra, Malwa, and Guzerat, we, at least, have no desire to outrage the feelings of the Mahometan fraternity numbering 10,000,000 of the most active, dangerous, and exciteable people of all India. My Lords, I further think it our bounden duty to condemn the determination upon; which Lord Ellenborough seems to have acted, to reject the experience and to despise the example of all his predecessors in office, in uniformly promoting a spirit of goodwill and consideration amongst the different creeds in India. We incur the risk of those religious animosities being revived and continued with tenfold bitterness, unless we repudiate the insults to the Mahometan religion overflowing in this document. The noble Baron (Lord Col-Chester) says that these gates were merely military trophies. So they were. I do not deny that; and if the Governor-general had confined himself to tranferring them from Ghuznee to Somnauth, it would not possibly do much harm, although I must say that the wisdom and policy of such a course would be extremely problematical; but the present proclamation must be felt as an insult to every Mussulman in India, and inflame that animosity with which Affghan rule was always regarded. The question is not whether he was right or wrong in removing these gates; but whether it was a proper use to make of them to excite jealousies and religious discord between the Hindoos and Mussulmen. When it was stated in the proclamation, not only transmitted to the chiefs, but published in every part of the empire, that these gates (a fact of which, no doubt they had in many cases forgotten) had been kept for 800 years as memorials of Mahometan conquest; and that the object of their recovery was to take vengeance for this insult; and when he added that England had exerted all the power of her arms in order to return these gates, I think it high time that, your Lordships should draw some line of distinction between the real object of the recent campaign of Affghanistan, and the supposed one by the Governor-general; and that when you voted thanks to the army for its bravery, and to the Governor general for the energy with which he used the resources at his command, you should not. be supposed to include in that vote the praise of the restoration of a Pagan faith. I think the resolution of my noble Friend effects that object. I think we owe this reparation to the people of Mahometan faith, and I am sure we shall thus best inform the whole people of India that we view with abhorrence whatever tends to promote idolatry of any kind, and most especially that idolatry of all known forms, even in India, the most filthy and degrading. But here I must say, that to deduce from that proclamation an indifference, on Lord Ellen-borough's part, to the principles and precepts of Christianity, would be most unjust. I do not think that Lord Ellenborough's faith stands in any need of the proof which has been adduced of its orthodoxy, in the shape of a pastoral letter—in which I must say the noble Lord was guilty of a somewhat unnecessary interference with the functions of the Bishop of Calcutta—and I do not think I am uncharitable in assuming that this letter, when coupled with other language of his, goes far to prove that Lord Ellenborough was convinced that Providence made him the peculiar instrument of Its wise ends, and that on that account he was bound to usurp the functions of the church, and issue a letter of public thanksgiving. But whatever were the motives of Lord Ellenborough, he certainly took upon him the duty of the bishop, thought that rev. prelate could not certainly feel much flattered when he heard that one of the objects of the proceeding was to do homage to Siva. I know nothing of Lord Ellenborough's Christian feelings or opinions, but I do not know anything which could induce me to cast a doubt on either of them. My belief is, that when he found himself appointed to the situation, his head (to use a familiar phrase) was turned; and that when he found himself on the dizzy heights of colonial grandeur, he was so elated with a degree of success which he did not expect, that he did not foresee the consequences of a proclamation which has had no parallel since the days of Nebuchadnezzar. Speaking of proclamations in the plural reminds me that that under discussion is not the only proclamation of the noble Lord. All these documents, as I am informed, have been issued without the advice of the ordinary councillors of the Government. That such is the case, indeed, is proved by the extraordinary blunders which appear upon the face of them. If the Governor-general had only consulted those who knew something of the country, he would probably not have fallen into the error of believing, that the temple of Siva still remained in existence; and this brings me to a point upon which I should, in passing, like to have some information. If the Government intend to act upon the proclamation—if the gates of Samnauth are to be applied as the Governor-general had proposed, of course the temple must be rebuilt—a body of Brahmins must be established therein—a corps of priests and priestesses must be forthwith engaged, and an idol must, with all due diligence, be manufactured. Your Lordships, of course, know what will be the character of the idol. What I, as an economist, should like to be informed of is, whether the Government intend to advertise for designs and estimates, for, in that case, I think I may prophesy to the House, that there will speedily he laid on the Table one of the most curious documents that have ever been presented to Parliament by a Government. I am sure, that nothing but a feeling that the interference of Parliament is necessary, could induce me to animadvert as I have done on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in his absence. Nobody admires more than I do the eminent talents and liberality of opinion which that noble Lord exhibited in this house; and I do most strongly feel the hardship imposed by public strictures on absent Ministers of the Crown. I feel it the more as I have been on foreign service myself, though in a situation subordinate to that held by Lord Ellenborough; and I can bear witness to the truth of the noble Duke's assertion as to the anxiety with which any public expression of Parliament as to their conduct, is watched for by them, and how much it influences their success with foreign powers. But, my Lords, if ever there was a man who la- boured hard to deprive himself of all forbearance and kindliness on the part of his opponents, it was Lord Ellenborough; and that after issuing a proclamation which, though the noble Duke says it contained nothing but the truth, I am convinced he could not regard without sorrow and regret. Why do I say this? Because the noble Duke has himself taught us all what the tone and style and import of the despatches of an officer of this country should be. And why do I think Lord Ellenborough cannot claim the consideration due to men similarly circumstanced? Because, for no conceivable reason, he took on himself to misrepresent the acts and policy of his predecessor—of that predecessor of whose policy he professed himself before he left England a warm and sincere admirer, and to whose zeal and earnest devotion to the interests of his country the noble Duke bore the other night such distinct testimony. What can be more mischievous, what can tend more to undermine the power by which we hold that empire, than to lead that people to believe, that the principles of the British Government in India vary with the persons by whom we are there represented? Are governors to be the mere puppets of our factions at home, and is it to be borne, that the first act of one should consist in defaming the acts of his predecessor? The Governor-general says, that the object of the war was to remove from Affghanistan a monarch supposed to be hostile to the British interest, and to place on the throne one who was thought favourable to it. Now, my Lords, the Governor-general must have known, not only from the papers before you, but from the debates in which he himself took a part, that such was not the objects of that war. I am not going to enter into the objects of that war, nor shall I say a word against the opinions of the Governor-general. He may have considered the war unjust and unnecessary, and I do not blame him for declaring that opinion in this House; but I do accuse him of addressing a people ignorant of the causes of the war, and telling them, "We proceeded to depose one chief and set up another, on the mere suspicion of hostility," thus proving that no confidence could be placed in our sense of justice. Such a document as that, displaying such rashness and imprudence, made the noble President of the Board of Control, I have no doubt, tremble, when he heard of it. [Lord Fitzgerald:" No, no."] Why, if I am not misinformed, the Government has already conveyed its sense of those acts. It is not regular to allude to what passes elsewhere, but I see by the reports of the newspapers, that a right hon. Member of the Government condemned the acts of the Governor-general. Now, we have not that despatch before us. We are not able to judge whether the terms are such as the people of England and India should approve of. If the despatch contained that condemnation which all reasonable men must anticipate, my noble Friend now calls, by his resolution, for a confirmation by the Government of an opinion previously expressed. But if they object to the very moderate terms of that resolution, let them produce their despatch, and I am quite sure my noble Friend will modify his resolution by it. I do not see there is any difference between the opinions of both sides of the House, and I think there should be a coincidence in their language. At all events, I think we ought to endeavour to co-operate with the Government in the performance of this public duty; and if we mean to do so, I am persuaded we shall not do wisely in rejecting this resolution.

Lord Fitzgerald and Lord Brougham

rose together, but the latter resumed his seat, and the former said, he should most willingly and anxiously have given way to his noble and learned Friend, had it not been for the concluding passages of the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down. It was hardly possible for him—and in this he was sure his noble and learned Friend would agree, to remain silent a moment after the observations of the noble Earl. They (the Ministers) could not co-operate with the noble Earl. They would not accept that co-operation which he offered. They did not require it for the justification of the Government, and did not think it called for by any act of the Governor-general of India. The noble Earl had no right to assume what was the character or language of a confidential communication addressed by the Government of the country, or rather under the authority of the Government of this country, by the secret committee of the Board of Control of the Directors of the East India Company to the Governor-general of India. He denied that in that place to which his noble Friend had referred, and to which he might without irregularity allude; he denied that the right hon. Gentleman did in any respect imply that which the noble Earl assumed. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that a reproof had been administered to the Governor-general by the secret committee under the authority of the Board of Control. He stated, that the distinct opinion of her Majesty's Government had been expressed, but he was quite sure that the noble Lord who had appealed to him would feel as much as any man, and as strongly, that the expression of that opinion ought not to be communicated to Parliament and the public; and, upon being again questioned, the right hon. Gentleman distinctly denied that it was a censure upon Lord Ellenborough, and the noble Lord who had appealed to him admitted that it ought, not to be communicated, and that the correspondence of the secret committee with the Governor of India, it would be most unwise and improper to produce. Yet this was the despatch which the noble Earl challenged him to produce, or to join with the noble Marquess in framing a resolution of censure after the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) had declared his opinion, as the representative of her Majesty's Government in that House, and his Colleagues, that not only did he not consider Lord Ellenborough liable to censure for the course he had taken, but the noble Duke defended his noble Friend upon every point, and, moreover, declared that his conduct called for no such animadversion, not even with regard to the proclamation concerning the gates of Somnauth, or any other part of his conduct. He thought the vindications of the Governor-general of India which had already been offered by other Members of their Lordships House was complete, and though the treble resolution of the noble Marquess had not been unstudiously framed with a view, perhaps, to obtain certain votes, he had lost them by that very cumulation. With a view to obtain the support of the right rev. Bench, the noble Marquess had not confined his resolution to political matters, but had gone into religious topics; and he congratulated his noble Friend upon the success of his studiously framed motion. He gave his noble Friend full credit for a disposition to do justice to Lord Ellenborough; he had not accused that noble Lord of idolatry or of an intention to promote idolatry; he had exclaimed, "God forbid that he should do so!"

The Earl of Clarendon:

I said, any deliberate intention of promoting idolatry; though such has been the result of his proclamation, I have no doubt.

Lord Fitzgerald

did not think the explanation of his noble Friend was called for. He had not misrepresented his noble Friend, for he had done him full justice for acquitting Lord Ellenborough of any intention to promote idolatry. He gave him all the credit of saving it was easy to acquit a Christian Governor of idolatry against whom it was said, at the same time, by the noble Earl, that he had not the honour of knowing enough of him to know his Christian feelings and sentiments. The noble Earl acquitted the Governor-general of India of any intention to promote idolatry. Why, no such disclaimer was necessary. Yet the noble Earl had no doubt that the result of his conduct would be to countenance idolatry. But upon that subject much that it was necessary to observe had been staled by noble Lords who had already spoken; and there were some points in the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Colchester) who was connected with the Governor-general of India, that ought to have been noticed by those who followed in the debate. His noble and gallant Friend—if he would permit him so to call him, for he united with him in the defence of his noble relative's conduct, with other feelings than that of a mere official character,—had attended not only to the letter addressed to the princes of India, but to the letter to General Nott, in which he described the recovery of the gates as a just trophy of a successful war. In the whole of Lord Ellenborough's letter there was not one word which implied even that he considered them in any other light than as a trophy of war. They were so described in the original letter to the princes of India, and afterwards in the last words of the orders. His noble Friend had quoted a private letter from Lord Ellenborough on the subject. It was right that he should say that no public despatch accompanied that proclamation; but in a private letter addressed to him, Lord Ellenborough informed him that he had three times rewritten the letter, in order to guard against any misconception or misrepresentation of his proceedings; and in a letter to a right hon. Member of her Majesty's Government, he expressed his hope, that having; so studiously and so anxiously written it, even two persons who took a very active part in discussions, relating to religion in India would not be able to find fault with it. The two persons alluded to were, he believed, a representative of the University of Oxford, and a gentleman who spoke much] upon the subject of idolatry in the Court of Proprietors of the East-India Com- pany. His noble Friend had referred to the correspondence between Runjeet Singh and Schah Soojah, with regard to the gates of Somnauth, and had pointedly said, that they could not be considered as religious, but as military trophies. In one of the most authentic works extant upon the subject of India, the gates were described as having no Hindoo symbols about them, no religions or distinctive marks, no bas-relief or emblem of idols or superstitious worship which could give' even to persons disposed to misconceive the character of the transaction a religious idea or impression. It was said the restoration of the gates in the manner proposed by the Governor-general was calculated to excite a strong and improper feeling amongst the Mahometan population. If so, that was a result to be lamented, and none would regret it more than Lord Ellenborough himself; nor could anything be more opposed to the principles on which he wished to administer the government of India. But it was not true that the gates were trophies of Hindooism. Mr. Elphinstone, in his History of India, speaking of the invasions of Mahmoud 800 years ago, said— Mahmoud carried on war with the infidels because it was a source of gain, and in his day the greatest source of glory. He professed, and probably felt, like other Mussulmans, an ardent wish for the propagation of his faith; but he never sacrificed the least of his interests for the accomplishment of that object; and he even seems to have been perfectly indifferent to it, when he might have attained it without loss. Even where he had possession he showed but little zeal. His only ally was an unconverted Hindoo, the Rajah of Kanouj. His transactions with Lahore were guided by policy, without reference to religion; and when he placed a Hindoo devotee on the throne of Guzerat, his thoughts must have been otherwise directed than to the means of propagating Islamism. Mahmoud then was not considered a very orthodox Mussulman, and his memory was not so dear to the Mahometans as was supposed by some. But it might be said, that was going back too far. Had there not been more recent instances in which Affghan invasions were directed against the Hindoos, or against Mahometans as well as Hindoos, and not only by the Affghan nation, but by the very princes attempted to be restored to Affghan power? The history of the period from 1750 to 1760 showed that the Hindoos had not to go back so far as 800 years for recollections of the invasions of the Affghans, He did not entertain the same apprehensions as other noble Lords, that the removal of the gates of Somnauth would be regarded as an insult to the Mahometan faith. The noble Lord had said, that it was quite unnecessary to quote the letter of the Governor-general, for the public thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest at a period when scarcity was dreaded, as a proof of the Governor-general's attachment to the principles of Christianity. But that was not the sense in which it had been quoted. It had been quoted by the noble Duke in this manner,—that weeks before this letter was written, the Governor-general had called on the ministers of religion to offer up thanks in the temple of God to the Great Power that had vouchsafed His blessings to us. Was it charitable or becoming to impute to him that he willingly gave countenance to idolatry? If the noble Earl opposite had read what the papers which had been issued in the last few weeks said on the subject—and some, it was perceptible from his observations he had read—he would have seen that amongst those publications indifference to the faith of his country and his fathers had been unwarrantably imputed to Lord Ellenborough. He rejoiced to think, that owing to the fairness and spirit of justice which animated some of the right rev. Prelates, they had not given countenance to an imputation so unjust, nor had believed that one whose whole family, in different branches of it, had reflected the highest honour on that venerable bench, could be capable of what was ascribed to him,—of indifference to the religion of that country from which he sprung, and of that Church from whom he might be said emphatically to have descended. He had really little to say, after the speeches which their Lordships had listened to, and he would not have wished to have obtruded himself at all upon their Lordships' notice, had he not felt it unbecoming in him—considering the office which he held, considering how constantly he was in communication with his noble Friend the Governor-general, knowing, as he did, the principles which actuated him, appreciating the high motives with which he went forth, and which had directed him in the discharge of his duties—he felt that it would be unbecoming in him were he not to state, that so far from trembling for the arrival of every monthly despatch, he should feel himself dishonoured if he did not stand forward and take on himself a share of the responsibility of the defence of his noble Friend. There was another point which had been insisted upon by the noble Earl opposite—the proclamation dated from Simla, a document which had called forth his strongest animadversion. If he had felt any difficulty in speaking of the paper recently under discussion—difficulty arising from any apprehension that they could be considered as indifferent in the slightest degree to those great interests of religion alleged to have been affected by that document—he had at least no difficulty in dealing with the branch of the subject which he was to lay before them. In claiming for the noble Lord the Governor-general of India, not only an immunity from censure—not merely their Lordships' dissent from the resolution before them—a resolution made up of different and discordant elements, with the intention of catching a vote from this side or from that—in claiming their Lordships' dissent from that resolution, he went further, and he also claimed for his noble Friend the approbation of their Lordships for the policy which he had pursued, and the manliness and candour with which he had proclaimed that policy. Let it not be said that those on his side of the House had promoted this discussion. They had not. On a former occasion he had risen as representing the Government upon this subject, and discouraged its discussion. What had been the course pursued in another place? What had been the course pursued last Session in Parliament?—what had been the course pursued within the last few days? Had they (the Ministers) shown any desire to rip up this transaction, or to go into the general question of Eastern policy? No; it was reserved for the noble Marquess to make a motion, from the consideration of which the consideration of late oriental policy was inseparable. [The Marquess of Clanricarde:" No, no."] It was all very well for noble Lords who professed to believe in the orthodoxy of Lord Ellenborough, to say, that in considering the question it was not necessary to refer to the policy of by-gone transactions, but he wished to know how he could defend his noble Friend from the attacks made upon him without reference to the question of policy? The policy of the Governor-general was not the policy of Lord Ellenborough alone. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Auckland) was as responsible for the determination not only to withdraw the forces from Affghanistan, but to give up the idea of attempting to regain possession of, and establish new relations with that country, as was the present Governor-general. Did he blame his noble Friend? By no means. He did not think, under the perilous state of the army which existed, and under the then state of the resources, that the Governor-general was to blame. The noble Marquess seemed to think this was a secret which the people of India were to learn from the debates in that House, and that they did not know of the failure of the revenue, of the deficiency of 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l., and that we were borrowing money from the native powers to carry on our military operations.: But there was another circumstance, even beyond those which had been so powerfully alluded to by the noble Duke, which made it the absolute duty of Lord Ellenborough to proclaim the motives and policy of the Government which he represented, and for the very reason for which the noble Marquess had condemned him for acting upon. He was obliged distinctly to proclaim the policy of his Government, because a different policy had been proclaimed and maintained by the preceding Government. When it became necessary to withdraw the forces from Affghanistan, it was also necessary to show that the retreat was not a compelled one. It was the absolute duty of the Governor-general to make this known to our Indian subjects. He would not shelter Lord Ellenborough by saying, that his proclamation was merely a prudent one—that they believed that it had not done any harm; he maintained, that the issuing of the proclamation was his duty. What was the language of a late Minister of the Crown upon a recent occasion?—these debates, he would remind their Lordships, went forth to the public of India. What had been the language of a late Minister of the Crown last Session? Why, that he should like to see a Government which would dare to withdraw from the possession of Affghanistan. He found another ' noble Lord stating, that the late Government took credit for the whole of the expedition into Affghanistan, and that they trusted that our possessions there would never be abandoned. These were some of the views of our policy which went forth to India, and which rendered it neither inconvenient nor unjust, that the motives of the ruling Ministry should be fully developed. The noble Earl knew well, that an impression had gone abroad, that it was not intended to confine the operations of our army to the westward of the Indus after what had already taken place. He (Lord Fitzgerald) did not, indeed, know that it was usual to issue a public proclamation on the withdrawal of an army, although its advance might have been heralded by a declaration of the policy of the Government which employed it. But why was it unnecessary in general to make a declaration upon the withdrawal of an army? Because it was supposed that the fact indicated a termination of the policy which had originally sent it; but in the eyes of the Indian people—in the eyes of Asia, it was necessary that after the first proclamation which had been issued at Simla, and in consequence of that proclamation, another declaration should be made of British policy, with respect to that expedition which had begun with success so brilliant, but as delusive as it was brilliant, and terminated by the most awful tragedy, the most fearful losses, which had ever been experienced by British forces. Was it unbecoming in the Governor-general, under these circumstances, to state that the views and policy of the British Government had been changed—that they no longer wished to raise a certain sovereign to the throne—that they no longer wished to interfere in the erection of a dynasty—that the motives for the late policy had passed away—for they would all admit that they had passed away, because it would not be denied; he was sure his noble Friend opposite would admit, that. with respect to the popularity of Shah Soojah the late Government had formed the most erroneous notions. No man could read the account of Schah Soojah's reception at Cabul and compare it with the statements in the declaration of Simla, by Lord Auckland, as to his supposed popularity, without perceiving that the alleged motive for our policy was gone. He would, then, ask, was Lord Ellenborough wrong in saying, that the Sovereign represented to be popular had proved not to be the free and accepted choice of his subjects? This was quoted from Dr. Kennedy's work, who had witnessed his entrance into that city:— I was not present on the occasion of his Majesty's entering Candahar, and cannot testify to the accuracy or the reverse of the statement that appeared of the enthusiasm with which his Majesty was received as the son of Timour Schah, and chief of the Baruckzyes. If the Candaharoes cast loaves of bread and flowers before his Majesty, I can honestly say that the Cabulees did not fling him either a crust or a nosegay, nor shouted a single welcome that reached my hearing. A sullen, surly submission to what could not be helped, and an eager determination to make the most that could be made of existing circumstances, and turn them to account, appeared to be the general feeling entertained, without much attempt at disguise, by the good citizens of Cabul. Now, was not the Governor-general of India justified in believing, from all that passed after Shah Soojah entered the Bala Hissar of Cabul, until he was assassinated by his loving subjects, that he was not the free choice of the people? Then what was the fault found with him? Why, that he had published the fact to the nations of India. The late expedition was undertaken for a certain object, which was for a certain reason abandoned; a sovereign was found to be unpopular who had been before represented as the reverse, and he could hardly see how the Governor-general of India, after the first proclamation from Simla, could avoid alluding to those subjects, and making them public to the people of India. There was another circumstance to be taken into account. Were there no apprehensions to quiet, no fears to tranquillise among many of the states in India, objects which it was expressly Lord Ellenborough's duty to accomplish? Were there no apprehensions upon the part of the Sikhs, no appearance upon the part of the government of Lahore? There was not a single individual who had read the papers published in India, and even the papers published in this country, who was not aware, that they were full of speculation as to what was to be effected by the army of reserve at Peshawur. Serious fears were entertained by the Durbar of Lahore as to the intentions of the government; and indeed, to such an extent was this the case, that it was found necessary to write to the British resident at that court, to assure the sovereign that no intention was entertained of doing anything in any degree prejudicial to his power or dominions. Mr. Maddock, the Secretary of the Governor-general, had thus written, to Mr. Clerk, on the 23d of May, 1842:— The Governor-general has learned with surprise, that, in your opinion, ' the cause of the Sikh army being so numerous at Peshawur is to be found in the irregular longings so often manifested by our authorities to obtain possession of Peshawur. You are expressly authorised to give to the Maharajah the assurances of the Governor-general that his government entertains no wish to possess or occupy any portion whatever of his Highness's dominions, and is desirous only that his Highness should long retain them all in honour and prosperity, the faithful ally of the British Government, as his great predecessor, the Maharajah Runjeet Sing, was for many years. Other states also had entertained apprehensions of the intentions and motives of the Indian government. With respect then to the proclamation from Simla itself, he was yet to learn that it threw any reflection upon the policy of the late Governor-general of India. The clauses complained of had reference only to the campaign itself; and he was also yet to learn, that it was a fault upon the part of Lord Ellen-borough to proclaim the principles of his government—principles which were calculated to allay rising apprehensions in neighbouring states; to restore confidence to our Indian subjects, and to reflect honour on the army which had accomplished the triumph which had closed the war. On the contrary, after the declaration of the noble Lord who had preceded Lord Ellenborough in office, it became the duty of the latter to make the proclamation which he had set forth. He should be forgiven for alluding to the particular passages in the proclamation, which had been so much complained of, as conveying a censure upon the policy of the late Governor-general. With reference to the first passages of that declaration, he thought that he had dwelt long enough upon them to show, that Lord Ellenborough was justified in penning them. One of the passages which had given so much, he was sure unintentional offence, ran thus:— Disasters unparalleled in their extent, unless by the errors in which they originated. Now, he really felt that the noble duke had already established that the words had reference and only reference to the calamities of the war—to the mismanagement of the operations of the war—to the peculiar circumstances which had been so well described by the gallant and noble duke. He asked any fair and candid man to attend to the exact words of the passage, and he was sure he would come to the conclusion—indeed, he hoped that the noble Marquess himself would come to the conclusion, that they only referred to the operations of the war:— Disasters unparalleled in extent, unless by the errors in which they originated, and the treachery by which they have been completed. Could any words show more plainly that the expression of censure had reference to the disasters of the war? for he would ask how, upon any other supposition, could the" errors" in which they originated be coupled with the treachery by which they have been completed?" Setting aside for a moment the question of the policy of the declaration, surely no candid man could read these words, and yet think that Lord Ellenborough intended to refer to the "errors" as having been committed by the late Governor-general—[The Earl of Clarendon: "Hear."]—He was glad to have the noble Earl's confirmation upon that point.—[The Earl of Clarendon had particularly alluded to the two first paragraphs in the proclamation.]—He was glad that his noble Friend had concurred with him with respect to the passage which he had read; for he had frequently heard that passage spoken of as stating the "errors" to which it alluded as the "errors" of the late Governor-general of India. But no man who knew the present Governor-general would say for a moment, that he was a man to cloak under an insinuation a charge against another. A more manly, fair, and candid opponent than that noble Lord never existed. But what was the first paragraph which was now complained of? It was this:— The government of India directed its army to pass the Indus, in order to expel from Affghanistan a chief believed to be hostile to British interests, and to replace upon his throne a sovereign represented to be friendly to those interests, and popular with his former subjects. Was there anything in that of which noble Lords disapproved. He "paused for a reply." Was there anything in the passage disputed by the noble Marquess? Did he re-assert the universal popularity of Shah Soojah, who was introduced by a British army into the territories of his loving subjects, and supported there by that army, and by British treasure, and who expired a victim when that army was withdrawn, and the supplies of that treasure stopped? He did not for one wish to prolong this discussion; but if he was called upon to defend the propriety of the paragraph in question, he should always be ready to meet its assailants. The noble Marquess very well knew that into the question of the treachery of Akhbar Khan he could not enter, without opening up a discussion which he was sure that he (the noble Marquess) did not desire to enter upon.—[The Marquess of Clanricarde: Are those subjects mentioned in the Governor-general's proclamation?]—He had stated what he considered to be the causes which not only justified their mention, but had absolutely compelled it. The Governor-general of India had a duty to perform of a higher order than that of a mere party man. It would be a great error—indeed, it would be a great crime, if he went out to India as a member of a party, and exercise his high duties in the spirit of party. But the Governor-general, without reference to party considerations, was called upon to state what were the permanent and fixed views of Indian policy of his government. Was it an action in the spirit of party to proclaim the fixed policy of his government? So far from saying that he had acted as a party man, he maintained that he had acted as a man of no party. There were other portions of these transactions to which he would wish to refer. He would wish to allude to the statements made in the proclamation with reference to Indian finance and revenue, and the resumption of public works. His noble Friend knew that the late Governor-general of India was interrupted in his laudable efforts for the improvement of the country and the development of its resources by the then falling state of the revenue. It was natural and proper, therefore, that the present Governor-general should congratulate himself and the country that the war in Affghanistan being at an end, it was in his power, as it was in his inclination, to apply the resources of the country towards its improvements, by completing the great works which had previously been undertaken. Yet this had been made a matter of blame, as if it was wrong to publish to the world the financial difficulties of India—the interruption of the public works had already published it. The necessity of retrenchment had long been an object of public notoriety and public lamentation. The desperate state of the revenue had been sufficiently proclaimed; and yet his noble Friend had been blamed for stating his pleasure that the resources of the country were now in some measure applicable to their legitimate purposes. There were other points to which, however, he did not think it necessary to allude. He could only say that he concurred in what had fallen from his noble Friend near him (the Duke of Wellington), that the present motion ought not to be agreed to, not alone from regard to the situation of the Governor-general, but from regard to the interests over which he presided. They had heard the description given by the noble Duke of the state of the press of that country. He had told them that every subject of any interest to India was trans- lated into the native languages, and, so far from agreeing with his Friend, the noble Earl, as to the effect of the present motion, he deprecated more than anything its adoption, anxious as he was for the character of the noble Earl and his Goverment—more anxious for the honour and fame of the gallant army that had retrieved the character of the British arms. He could not accept of the vote of thanks if it was to be followed and neutralized, and made more pregnant and fatal, than a vital stab by a motion similar to that proposed. For those reasons, he trusted their Lordships would reject the motion, as unjust to the motives by which the Governor-general of India had been actuated.

Lord Brougham

stated that he should feel bound to apologise to their Lordships for rising to address them at all, after the able, the eloquent, and the powerful speeches which had been delivered from that Bench (the Bishops') and in the House; and particularly after the speech of very extraordinary power which had just been addressed to them by his noble Friend (Lord Fitzgerald); but he stood in some measure pledged to give his opinion on the present motion, as it might be in the recollection of the House that, upon the last occasion on which the subject of India had been before their Lordships, and when some right rev. Prelates, as well as others, had launched charges against the Governor-general; charges which from their own nature, and considering the quarters from whence they had proceeded, produced an extraordinary effect there, and a still greater sensation out-of-doors—he then took upon himself to state, that whenever that question should be brought forward, or any part of it should be submitted to them, he would stand up there in his place, and then and there present himself to them, confident in his expectation of being able at once to dispose of and to refute the accusation. He had listened with very-great pleasure, as he always did, to every statement that came from the noble Earl near him, finding, as he always did, that everything coming from that noble Earl was marked with great distinctness, great propriety, and great calmness, as well as great moderation, and with a candour, too, that pervaded all his statements—thus, too, on the present occasion, as on all others, he had listened with a proportionate satisfaction to the noble Earl. There were, however, one or two parts of that speech in which he thought the noble Earl had fallen into some error: there was one part where he had especially done so, when, towards the conclusion of his observations, he took it upon himself to assert, that all men of all parties—he thought the noble Earl said, in, but certainly out of Parliament—and this he had not lost sight of—this he had not let slip from his recollection, that the press—the press, it was said by his noble Friend—as well as all parties of men, were unanimous in raising a cry of disapprobation with respect to the conduct of the noble Lord the Governor-general of India. No doubt his noble Friend had exaggerated greatly; and he did so from the ordinary paternity that existed between the wish and the thought; his exaggeration was to be attributed to the instincts which animated a filiation of that description. There could be no doubt that the exaggeration had been great—it did prevail to a great extent, it had prevailed to a much greater extent, before any discussion had taken place in that House, and before that marvellous discrepancy was discovered between the modes of attack adopted by the friends and by the party of Lord Ellenborough's opponents out of doors, and the attacks of those who assailed him in that House. There, in that House, it was a most covert attack; it was so mild that it scarcely betrayed any hostility;—it was a true sample of war in disguise. Such was the nature of the operations within doors; but out of doors the charges against him amounted to an accusation of impiety—of gross indiscretion—almost amounting to a deprivation of reason—to an abandonment of his post—to vacillation—to irresolution—and cowardice was even imputed to him by his slanderers out of doors—and imputed again and again in naked and unqualified terms. Within doors, the assailants of Lord Ellen-borough could only screw up their courage to suggest" a somewhat long time taken in deliberation." For into that" thin air" did all the blast, which so violently had blown unbroken for months out of doors, vanish within doors. No doubt the public saw this—noticed these two modes of attack, and that then occurred, which he bad always observed to follow from a parliamentary discussion—on a disputed question. Oil was poured on the waves, and a very different feeling prevailed out of doors since the discussion had taken place within. This had been the effect of discussion, and still he complained, bitterly complained, of the attacks that had been made upon an absent Governor-general. There had been a constant—a studied misrepresentation of that Governor-general, in every variety of form that falsehood could assume; in every shape and guise in which malignity could clothe itself; not very powerful perhaps, not very successful in reaching its object, yet abundantly venomous had the creatures been who assailed him—the superannuated vipers retained their bags of venom, though they no longer had the perforated tooth to squirt it through; and yet when they came to examine all that falsehood and malignity had sought to accomplish, they found that charges like those of vacillation, imbecility, and cowardice vanished into the same" thin air." He was there to deny those charges—he was there at direct issue with those who made charges against Lord Ellenborough, and he said that so far from his noble Friend forgetting what was due to his station—so far from forgetting what was due to his Sovereign and the great country from which he sprung—so far from forgetting his duty as a British Statesman sent to administer a British government, not upon party principles, but upon sound English principles—that it was, he said, upon such principles, that Lord Ellenborough did administer the government, and not in giving to the claims of party that which belonged to the State, and poisoning in its source the purity of his administration as a British Governor in India. He did not make himself a party chief, he was Governor-general of India, and in saying this, he did not overlook that which he supposed was the crowning charge against his noble Friend—that he had taken the opportunity of attacking his predecessor, and inveighing against the policy of a former government in the proclamation, which his noble Friend had issued, to disclose the projects and policy of his own. He was there to take issue upon that charge, and at once and entirely to deny it. His noble Friend was then charged with issuing a proclamation touching the gates of the Somnauth temple, and which it had been said had a direct tendency, first, to alienate by the act itself, and then by the expressions that accompanied it, 10,000,000 of their Mahometan subjects from the government of India. Secondly, he was charged by that act, and by the issuing of that proclamation, with giving encouragement to a superstition as degrading as it was revolting, and which, if it had been Justly painted by his noble Friend behind him, was alike disgusting and unreasonable He was there to deny those charges which had been that night reiterated by a right rev. Prelate. He took issue upon these charges, and if he did not convince every candid man that there never was an accusation brought forward against a public man more utterly devoid of all foundation, and more utterly the reverse of the truth, then he could only say that he should suffer one of the greatest disappointments that it had ever, in any controversy, in which candid, and truth-loving, and charitable adversaries were opposed to him, been his lot to meet. Did Lord Ellenborough blame the policy of his predecessor? His apology was due to that House, for touching on a subject which had been exhausted by the noble Duke, and his noble Friend who had just sat down. He could not help feeling astonishment, when he saw his noble Friends behind him, in the exigency of their condition, driven from paragraph to paragraph. They first relied, as they were bound to do, on the third paragraph, for that was the only one containing an expression that could give effect to the charge thus made; but then, when they were driven from that by the exposition given to it by the noble Duke, and which had been most ably followed up by his noble Friend opposite—when they were driven from that, they said offence was not taken at the third paragraph. God forbid! they should impeach that—God forbid ! they should rely on the terms to be found in the third paragraph. No; it was not on the third paragraph that they grounded their charge—for a more innocent, a more harmless paragraph than that was not to be found in any public document of any description! The third paragraph only said this:— Disasters unparalleled in their extent, unless by the errors in which they originated. And yet it was upon those very words that all those charges had been rung, without cessation and without interruption out of doors, against Lord Ellenborough ever since the proclamation had been known. If they were to poll every man—if they were to undertake the nauseous task of polling every man—if they were to go through the nauseous, the disgusting task of canvassing every man who had joined in the slanderous clamour, if, he said, they were to poll every man who blames Lord Ellenborough, for drawing a contrast between the one government and the other, they would find that all would turn upon these very words, the more easily remembered from the epigrammatic turn with which the sentence was barbed; and as the barb made the arrow rankle and stick in the wound, so, the epigrammatic turn of "disasters being unparalleled unless by the errors in which they originated," their Lordships would find, was the ground of all the charges that had been made against Lord Ellen-borough. He ventured to say, that not one of all those who have accused the absent Governor-general of everything their malignant imagination could conjure up—everything from cowardice to treason—not one would fail to fix on the line he had read as the one on which they relied. Now, to advert to this longer were impossible, after having heard the admirable, the unanswerable address of the noble Duke—a speech he did not hesitate to characterise as truly memorable—a speech it was a pleasure and a great fortune to have had the opportunity of hearing, in which an illustrious Commander, with a precision and clearness no one so strikingly displays as himself, and unequalled among the professed masters of the art of oratory—united with a wisdom giving weight and authority to all he Says—he said, after hearing the speech in which that noble Duke discussed the mingled military and political questions involved in this subject, connected as it is, too, with a country in which he himself began his course, not only as a soldier, but as a statesman, as must be known to any one who has read his wonderful despatches—founding as they do a fame far loftier even than the triumphs of the warrior—after hearing that speech, it were impossible even for ignorance and inexperience to be incompetent to see the truth on this matter with a clearness which subtlety and sophistry could not obscure. But if the noble Lords here have not had enough—if revelling in defeat, surfeited with discomfiture, intoxicated with failure—if the noble Lords behind know not when they have had enough, and desire a contest upon some other issue, let them give notice of their intention to have another day of it; and whatever field they select for their third attack—unsatisfied with the two former—he would warrant they would retire with heavier discouragement than even has now overwhelmed them. His noble friends after hearing what had been said by the noble Duke and his noble Friend at the head of the India Board, proving that the" error" referred to in Lord Ellenborough's proclamation was not a charge on the policy of the for- mer government, but that it applied to the military operations, then said that they did not rely on the third paragraph—they exclaimed" do not touch that, for it is a disagreeable subject." Then, what were the paragraphs that they did rely upon? It was said the first and second. Why, the first was more harmless than the third. The first paragraph merely stated that the army had crossed the Indus, against a chief believed to be hostile to British interests, and to replace upon his throne a sovereign represented to be popular with his former subjects. Why, no one could suppose that to be a charge against a former government. A more innocent statement of an undoubted fact there could not be. Accordingly, when the first paragraph had been read and commented upon, he heard his noble Friends behind him say, that it was not upon the first paragraph they relied. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: No, no.] Then it is the first paragraph that is relied upon. The Marquess of Clanricarde: What I deny is this, that any one on this bench used the words which the noble Lord has ascribed to them.] Then it is the first paragraph that is relied on. He knew not from the noble Lords speeches and denials, from the extreme disorder now prevailing in their ranks, whether the first paragraph were relinquished or adopted. The first paragraph amounted to this—if it contained a charge—that Lord Auckland had directed the army to cross the Indus to expel a sovereign who was believed to be hostile, and to place a chief believed to be friendly on the throne, was it not believed that Dost Mahommed was hostile to British interests? Was it not believed that a friend was to be found in Shah Soojah? The terms of the first paragraph objected to only stated a fact exactly as it was. He then came to the second paragraph, and what did it say? The chief believed to be hostile became a prisoner. That was a fact. And the sovereign represented to be popular was replaced on his throne. That was a fact also. It went on to say, But, after events, which brought into question his fidelity to the Government by which he was restored, he lost by the hands of an assassin, the throne he had only held amidst insurrections, and his death was pre- ceded and followed by still existing anarchy. Here there were no terms of dispraise against Lord Auckland. It was not a charge against him that he did not know events, which were stated to be "after events." He displaced one sovereign, and placed another, and it was no charge against Lord Auckland to say that he had not foresight, not foreknowledge, and was not infallible. That was the sum of the charge. He would go a little further, and come to the third paragraph. The charge was not one of error against the Indian Government. Now, he contended for it, that it was the duty of the Indian Government, it was necessary for it in its position, to give a reason for the entire change in its policy about to be made. It was to be remembered that Lord Auckland, when he had determined upon crossing the Indus, had issued a very remarkable proclamation, and he might state, without a breach of confidence, what was the opinion of the noble Duke opposite, when he heard that expedition was about to be undertaken. It happened by accident that he was the first person who had informed the noble Duke of that circumstance, which, having read it in the newspaper, he had communicated to the noble Duke upon visiting him at Walmer Castle. With that usual faculty which the noble Duke possessed of taking the shortest road to his object—for, though the noble Duke might not be distinguished as a mathematician, there was no one who showed a more constant knowledge of one proposition, that between any two given points, the straight line is the shortest, his noble Friend upon hearing that intelligence said, that it was impossible, and his noble Friend told him, in a few words, his reasons for thinking that it was utterly impossible the account could be true. The same had been the remark of the venerable and beloved brother of the noble Duke, even before he knew what the noble Duke had said on the same subject. You may succeed at first, said he, and all your difficulties will then begin. He had also had a communication on the subject with a very high authority on Indian affairs, Mr. Mounstuart Elphinstone, who had expressed a similar opinion. Hearing those opinions, he thought it right to pause before he could venture to approve of a policy against which the authorities on the other side were so great. The publication of the first proclamation of Simla had accompanied the crossing of the Indus. He never remembered any Government, in all his experience, giving so fully its reasons for undertaking a great military operation, as the late Government did on that occasion. He thought that it might be all right, but it was nevertheless going out of the ordinary course. It was not the usual course; but, by it, all persons were made acquainted with the reasons for that movement. The secret springs of the policy, or impolicy as it might be called, that actuated the Indian cabinet, and that was participated in by those at home—the secret springs that actuated that policy were unfolded by the hands of the Governor-general, and promulgated at the time that the military operations were begun. Those operations had been successful; but then, as they had been told by those great authorities, they would succeed at first; and when they had succeeded, then it was that the difficulties would begin. The success was to be expected—the result was to be feared. Accordingly so it had happened; the difficulties were found to begin in success, and they all knew the painful result. The calamity had been aggravated by treachery, which perhaps they had no right to expect, and it was accompanied by accidents which they could not have expected, but for which neither soldier nor statesman could be held responsible. But then he came to the next objection—the declaration against the policy of the former Government. That was no secret in India. The Government had sent out to India an individual who had already expressed himself publicly against the policy that had been pursued. They sent out Lord Ellen-borough, who in this very place had explicitly declared himself against that policy, and who even said that he hesitated whether the word crime or folly should be applied to it. Then it was no secret that Lord Ellenborough would not act according to the policy of his predecessor—that he objected to that policy in act and deed. Was it, then, to be wondered at, that he should take advantage of the first opportunity for declaring that he would only keep possession of the country until the stain that had tarnished our military glory had been wiped off, and the prisoners had been restored, whether ransomed or unransomed; and then, when he issued a proclamation, which bore the same date in place with that published four years before, and seeing the position in which his noble Friend had been placed, could he, he asked, have avoided saying that a new policy was about to be adopted, and that they were going to retrace their steps? What possible use could there be in concealing it? Was it not known what Lord Ellenborough's opinions were—was the censure not known that he had pronounced—was not every one aware of the steps that were about to be adopted? What would have been the use of mystery, or of Lord Ellenborough saying, that he highly approved of all that had been done, while, in act and in deed, he disavowed it, as in speech he had before condemned it? It would have been the most unworthy, as well as the most unnatural, piece of mystery that ever a governor or a statesman could have embroiled himself with or embarked in. He had heard it said, that on a change of government, or governors, it was totally unheard of to make a reference to a change of policy, or to publish a disapproval of what had been done by their predecessors. He did not find any such principle acted upon. In looking to two of the most recent occasions on which great changes of party and of policy had occurred, he found an opposite course pursued. At the time of the coalition Ministry, when Mr. Pitt removed the Whig coalition in that case, which was a stronger one than the present, the Sovereign was made to express his disapproval of the course that had been pursued by himself acting under the advice of his former Ministers. New Ministers put into the mouth of the Sovereign, the expression of his discontent and disapproval of his former Ministers, and declared that the change that occurred was nothing more nor less than the salvation of the constitution of the country, and this was uttered by the same royal lips which had recommended the India Bill. So it was in 1807, which he remembered himself, and when it was said that the Church was in danger by the acts of the King's late Ministers; the King's Ministers were removed, and the first paragraph of the Royal Speech, upon the new elections having taken place, and secured other Ministers in their office, was to felicitate the nation on the result of a new election, because it had saved the Church from the danger of attack, which the royal lips, through the King's Ministers, declared had been impending from the same King's former advisers. Now, Lord Ellenborough's proclamation told the people of India no more than they knew before. His speeches in Parliament had been published, expressing his dissent from Lord Auckland's policy; and why should he not have declared it in India? If Lord Auckland had read the right leaf, wherefore should Lord Ellenborough be turning over a fresh one? If Lord Auckland's steps had been in the right direction, wherefore should his successor retrace them? But it was because everything had been done wrong, therefore it was necessary to avow an intention of taking a different course; and when the noble Marquess alluded to the case of Lord Cornwallis's very secret letter, condemning his predecessor's policy, let this be known, that hardly six months had elapsed ere it was published in England, being laid before our Parliament; and he saw no reason why Lord Ellenborough was to be denied the liberty of moderately and temperately expounding his own policy, and merely stating that it was not that of his predecessor. But now, for the Somnauth gates. The proclamation it was pretended was such an insult to Mussulmans, such an offence to Christians—supposed to have been an appeal to religious or anti-religious feelings—but he was at issue with the noble and right rev. accusers on this point. It should be known to your Lordships, that these gates originally belonged not to Hindoos or Brahmins—though they were attached to a Brahminical temple, they belonged really to the Jains, who were Buddhists, not Brahmins,—so that the restoration of the building could never have given, in a religious point of view, umbrage to Mussulmans, nor satisfaction to Hindoos. But then, it had everything to do with national spirit. The building was a great memorial of the defeat of the natives of India—Hindoos, Mussulmans, Sikhs, Brahmins, and all—by a cruel and rapacious conqueror, the Sultan Mahmoud of Ghuznee, and such was the value of the trophies, in a national point of view, that Runjeet Singh, the "Lion of the Punjaub," endeavoured to get hold of them, and offered Schah Soojah great sums for the purpose, which, however, the Schah refused. Now, Runjeet, was not a Hindoo—but one of the Sikhs—a sect of which the Hindoos have the utmost abhorrence, as living in what they esteem abominable pollution—the consuming of animal food. Yet this Runjeet Singh desired the restoration of the gates, not on account of the Hindoo claim, but because he was an Indian, and they were a memorial of the conquest of his country. There were many recollections connected with the gates, and all of them were recollections not of sect, but of nation. His attention had been called to, and he had attentively read extracts from a book of good authority in India, called The Temple, or the Garden of Truth, and from them it appeared, and there was no authority against it, that in 1,200 Mahmoud of Ghuznee took the then Schah prisoner, he being not a Hindoo but a Mussulman. The Schah was so horrified at falling into the hands of the remorseless tyrant Mahmoud, that he took poison and killed himself in order to escape the fate he dreaded. That Sultan made no less than twelve invasions of India, and in his cruelties he made no distinction between sect or religion. He was as much detested by Mahometans as Hindoos. It was a farce, therefore, to say, that the Hindoos alone cared for the restoration of the gates. It was not a consideration of Hindooism or of Mahometanism; the people of India cared for these gates as Indian men, and it was in that light they considered the honour of their country repaired by the restoration of these gates. He was told, indeed, that men generally cared much more for sects and creeds than for trophies of national honour. Profound ignorance of human nature! Profound ignorance, above all, of national spirit, of national animosities, of national enmities, and of all those things which divide people from people, or which knit the inhabitants of the same country in concord together! He much feared that in no part of the world, and at no age of its existence, could there he ever traced so great a fervour of religious zeal, or so strong a feeling of sectarian fanaticism (if he might use the expression) over the action of national spirit, of national love, and of national hate, as to make men disregard the ties which bound them together in amity, or which made them hate one another, and fight against one another as belonging to different countries; and to lose all such human and secular feelings in their concern about religious matters. If he might be allowed a technical expression belonging to his profession, he would say that men cared less, far less, for the reversion than for the particular estate; and that the thoughts of another world exercised but a very slight influence over their principles, their propensities, their feelings, or their prejudices—compared with that exerted by the actual worldly feeling of their belonging to the same nation, being of the same blood, and which coupled them together in the bonds of amity, on the one hand, or those feelings of animosity on the other which divided them and separated them from one another. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaft) had referred justly to one instance. What did we do when the allies entered Paris? Did we refrain from send- ing back the works of art to Rome merely because Rome was under the domination of the scarlet individual? Did we refrain from sending back the pictures of their saints? Did we refrain from sending back to Rome the alter pieces of their churches? He put it to any man, however anti-Catholic he might be; however bigotted in his Protestant notions; nay, he would put it to the most prejudiced man in the north of Ireland, or to those prejudiced Presbyterians who abounded all over Scotland, neither of whom, he supposed, could be suspected of lacking zeal against the Roman Catholic superstitions, whether they or any of them would disapprove of sending back those pictures and works of art to adorn the very altars where Romish priests were to raise the Host? There was another illustration at hand. A great many years ago a valuable and unique book, the "Codex Argenteus," a Gothic MS. of the Bible, or, as it was called, "The Gothic Gospels of (Ulphilas at Upsal," was taken in war from the Catholics by Gustavus Adolphus at the head of an invading Protestant army, while he was the great champion of the Protestant cause. Observe, this was a Catholic bible, containing all those which we call Roman errors, so that no Protestant could regard it, except as a curiosity, otherwise than with sentiments at least of disapproval. But that is immateril; it was taken from Catholics by Protestants. Suppose, then, that the illustrious brother of his noble Friend opposite, then at the Foreign office (Lord Wellesley) had not made a sudden political movement of the greatest boldness and celerity, and with the most complete success, in all probability Sweden would have fallen, and Upsal would have fallen into the power of France, instead of joining the rest of Europe in a contest against Bonaparte. But if that movement had not been made, and the French arms had triumphed over Sweden, can any one doubt that Napoleon would have carried from Sweden that "Codex Argenteus as a trophy of war? It would have been acting contrary to his usual practice if he would not have done so. Well, that book was the most valuable possession of Sweden, for they had no pictures or other work of art Suppose it had been taken and carried as a matter of course to Paris—then came his gallant Friend the noble Duke with the allies, and he would say" This shall not remain here;" he would send it back to Upsal as a matter of course; then what would the right rev. Prelate have said? Would he have exclaimed that the noble Duke had tarnished his Protestant fame because he had taken upon himself to send back the Catholic Bible? But it might be said it went back to a Protestant country, and the parallel did not, therefore, hold. But suppose the King of Bavaria, or the Emperor of Austria, or whatsoever Catholic power it had been taken from, had insisted upon having it back. In that case would his noble Friend's Protestantism have prevented him from sending it to Munich or to Vienna? Why he believed that no man in France—in Germany—nay, in the world, would have raised his voice, so as to be audible, against the conduct of his noble Friend; and least of all would they have attributed it to irreligious motives. He contended, then, that the restoration of the gates of Somnauth was connected with the national feeling—was gratifying to that spirit of honour and that spirit of party which pervaded Mahometans as well as Hindoos—Indians as well as Europeans. Moreover, the restoration of these gates was connected with the fulfilment of a prophecy among the people that the welfare and general prosperity of India never could be secured till the gates were restored to Somnauth. No man could feel more strongly than he did the impropriety of making any, the slightest allusion which might wound the religious feelings of another. But the fact was, that you could not avoid giving pain if you did not happen to agree with the opinions of their sect. If he wanted an instance to this, he would go to the speech of his noble Friend himself (Lord Clarendon) who talked of the irritation which the proclamation would occasion among ten millions of Musselmans. But how had his noble Friend consulted the feelings of 120,000,000 of Hindoos—that people who regarded the ceremonies of their faith with the most profound veneration whose lives were passed from the cradle to the grave in that unbroken veneration, who regarded those ceremonies as sanctity itself—when he had characterized some of those ceremonies as vile abominations of the grossest description, horrible to think of, and too disgusting to describe? He blamed not his noble Friend for that, but let him not reserve all this indignation for Lord Ellenborough, while he himself used such expressions without thinking he could give pain to 120,000,000 of Hindoos, and without caring whether he gave it or not. They had been told that the language of the pro- clamation, critically speaking was inflated. He (Lord Brougham) did not stand there in an assembly of critics, but among statesmen and lawyers. Why they had heard many allusions to the exaggerated style of the bulletins of one of the most extraordinary characters of modern times. It was known that that great man, although not a native Frenchman, was yet renowned, among the best composers of that people so delicately sensitive, in regard to their language, as one of the most original composers of French, and as having a style peculiarly and remarkably his own. In penning those bulletins, he well knew he was not writing the language as he would have written it for the drawing-rooms of Paris, or for the critics of a literary coterie, but for the multitude—for the mob—for the rabble, military and civil, to whom his proclamations were addressed. Those proclamations produced their effect. He had tact enough to know—he could not have failed to observe, as a man, as a soldier, aye, and as an author too, if, and if so when, those proclamations were unsuccessful in their effect. Had the style ever changed, it would have been apparent, that he had perceived the failure of his addresses in producing the effect he desired to make. But he persisted in that style to the end, and no man denied its great success. Many of us accused the statements of falsehood; none of us ever thought of quarrelling with the language in which they were couched. The answer to critical cavilling at the style of these addresses, was simply that the writer knew those whom he was addressing. And why should not the same argument be applied to Lord Ellenborough? He (Lord Brougham) had a right to say that he knew Lord Ellenborough as amongst the most eloquent who sat in that House, and amongst the most correct of men both in writing and speaking. Why, might not Lord Ellenborough be supposed to know what he was about, and to have adapted his style to those whom he addressed? The intentions of Lord Ellenborough had been acquitted in express terms by the admission of his (Lord Brougham's) noble Friend. He relied upon the tendency of the proclamation, but it was not so elsewhere. Out of doors it was all about "intentions," in doors it was all about "tendency." Out of doors Lord Ellenborough was charged in direct terms with intentional impiety. Now it would not do to say in that House that no one there charged him with impiety. Out of doors he (Lord Brougham) repeated that the bulk of Lord Ellenborough's accusers charged him with impiety—"impiety" and "intentional impiety" were the words applied to him. Much too had been said about the misapprehension with which the proclamation would be received in India. He had no fear of that. People in India were accustomed to the style, and they knew the facts. The people of India were a sagacious and far seeing people. Faults they had, but they were not generally of the understanding. There was no equivocal expression in the proclamation which might mislead men as to Lord Ellenborough's intention. My Lords (continued the noble and learned Lord) I have now discharged a duty which has been only painful, because it has caused me to trespass so long upon your Lordships' attention. But it is a duty which has given me the most heartfelt satisfaction, to join with my noble Friends opposite. on this occasion in defending the noble person who has been so vehemently assailed. The characters of public men, it has been observed, until the expression has passed almost into a proverbial aphorism, is public property to all time, and public property of inestimable value. It becomes then, the duty of other public men, and the public whom they counsel, and whom they represent, to protect the characters of their fellow statesmen when assailed. But, my Lords, if at all times this is an imperative duty upon you, and if the highest interests of the country are best consulted by a manful discharge of that duty upon ordinary occasions, when the men assailed are present to defend themselves, when those who are assailed are here to join their defenders in repelling that attack, and when you perform that duty upon easy terras, having those who are attacked as coadjutors in the defence, and when all the dark passages in their conduct can by themselves be cleared up, all doubtful things settled, and all mysteries requiring explanation thrown open by their own statements, how much more imperative, and exigent, and sacred, becomes that duty of defending the public character and conduct of those whom half the globe divides from the scene of the assault; when they are not here to defend themselves; when they are not with us to explain their motives; when they are not present to illustrate the dark passages of their conduct, to settle doubtful things, and expound mysterious—then, then, it becomes of all duties the most sacred, that we do not give way to the influence of slanderous imputation, that we do not suffer our minds to be invaded and overcome by constantly repeated falsehood, by constantly recurring misrepresentation and insinuation, by the glosses of a malevolent spirit, or by the slanders of a malignant construction; but that then, above all other times, we should take for our aid Hope, Faith, and, above all, Charity—charity, that "beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things, and believeth all things;" and that we should strain and stretch our minds rather to hope that the absent accused may have been in the right—to believe that the absent attacked might, if present, be able successfully to defend himself rather than to give easy credence to every report circulated for the purpose of slandering away the character of that absent man, and award our verdict or vote—a vote which will be construed into a verdict of "guilty" against one in station so exalted, but in distance so removed. My Lords, it is resting on these grounds, and inspired with these feelings, that I ask, and that I expect for my absent Friend, at the hands of your Lordships a verdict of immediate and an honourable acquittal.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

rose for the purpose of referring to an observation of the right rev. Prelate opposite, who had said that the late Government did tolerate other proceedings calculated to encourage superstition and idolatry; but the right rev. Prelate must have been ignorant of the facts; and he begged to remind the House that Parliament had pronounced its opinion upon the question of any contact between the Government and the religious ceremonies of the Hindoos. In consequence of the repeated and earnest representations of the right rev. Prelate, who he lamented was not now in his place, the whole of the subject had been most fully and carefully inquired into, and investigated with a degree of minuteness of which the noble Duke opposite was quite aware. The results of that inquiry filled the whole of a blue book, and it was hoped that one consequence of it, at least, would be to place upon a permanent footing the relations subsisting between the Government of India and the religious sects of that country. Instructions had accordingly been given to prevent the Government from coming at any point into contact with any part of the idolatrous ceremonies of the Hindoos; and a letter of the Board of Directors, sanctioned by the Board of Control, and approved by Parliament, had been sent to the late Governor-general, thanking him for the zeal, ability, and above all, the discretion with which he had put an end to the connection between the Government and the Hindoo temples. It was most important, that when a new Governor-general had arrived, almost immediately after the new arrangement had been effected, nothing should be done in any way calculated, even apparently, to renew that contract; and was it not in itself a condemnation of Lord Ellenborough's proclamation, that such an imputation, unjust though it be, should, in consequence of it, have become so general? The noble Duke had called it a song of triumph. If the noble Duke had been there he would not have sung at all; but, at all events, his song would not have been made a sacred song. The Governor-general, too, had written his proclamation in ignorance of the facts. From the Governor-general they had—The Temple of Somnauth, first edition; the Temple Somnauth, second edition; the Temple of Somnauth, third edition; and then came the noble Duke and said there was no temple at all. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) with prophetic eye, could see all the various classes of Hindoos and Mahometans delighted at the restoration of those gates; but he could not enter into the rapturous anticipations of the noble and learned Lord; who he thought had treated the subject rather unfairly in attempting to institute a comparison between the Protestants and Catholics in the different kingdoms of Europe, and the Hindoo and Mahometan in India, both placed under our Government. He contended that there was no parallel between the restoration of Catholic pictures and relics. The noble Duke had stated with all the weight and authority that belonged to him, how happy it was that Mahometans and Hindoos were brought together to fight in the ranks of the same army. But it was because it was so important that this should take place, and above all because it was so important to our Indian empire—it was on this account that the Government of India should cautiously avoid doing anything calculated to create a suspicion of partiality towards one over the other, or a suspicion that it was the intion of our Government to rest for support on the affections and honour of one class in preference to the affections and honour of the other. He would not now enter into the question how far it was true that the temple of Somnauth was in existence or not. His version of the story was, that the ancient temple had been destroyed, and that a similar but a smaller one had been erected in its place, and that it was a Hindoo temple. Now, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would not do the Governor-general of India the injustice to suppose that it was his intention to restore the gates to this temple, although he stated in his proclamation that one of the objects of the war in Affghanistan was to restore those gates to the temple of Somnauth. With respect to this proclamation, he was not inclined to look upon it as anything more than an indiscretion on the part of the noble Lord. He was sure that, to some extent, the noble Lords opposite agreed with him in the view which he took of Lord Ellenborough's conduct. They would seem to say something about it that was not exactly censure, nor was it disapprobation, but a good deal of surprise. As to the people of England, they certainly did not approve of the proclamation. He would defy any one to deny that the whole of the proceedings with respect to the gates of Somnauth was regarded as an instance of indiscretion; and that, certainly, there never had been anything like a precedent to justify a proceeding. He believed that it was written in a moment of exultation at the triumphant termination of the war, and in connection with the triumphs of war he wished to show that there was also the triumph of the Hindoo religion. He would merely say that he looked upon that proclamation as an indiscretion. With respect to the other proclamation, he did not think that the noble Lord ought to have entered upon a review of the policy of his predecessor in the Government of India, or if he thought proper to have entered upon it, he ought to have placed all the parts of that policy fully under observation. He thought the rule of Lord Cornwallis referred to by his noble Friend was perfectly applicable, and he believed that it was altogether without precedent to issue such a proclamation as the present Governor-general had issued. If the noble Lord thought it necessary to allude to the policy of his predecessor, he should have included a complete view of that policy. There could be no doubt that there was a strong feeling on the part of the public at large with respect to these proclamations, and he thought that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in calling their Lordships attention to this subject, and making those proclamations the subject of comment in

Their Lordships divided—Contents 25 Not-Contents 83: Majority 58.

List of the CONTENTS.
MARQUESSES.	Colborne
Clanricarde	Campbell
Anglesey	Cottenham
Headfort	Carrington
Lansdowne	Duncannon
EARLS.	Dinorben
Charlemont	Kenmare
Clarendon	Ponsonby
Cooper	Monteagle
Errol	Strafford
Fortescue	Sudeley
Thanet	Teynham
LORDS.	BISHOP.
Lilford	Norwich
Camoys

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
Duke of Cambridge	VISCOUNTS.
Lord Chancellor	Sydney
DUKES.	Hood
Buccleuch	Strangford
Montrose	Middleton
Wellington	Gage
Buckingham	Hawarden
MARQUESSES.	St. Vincent
Salisbury	Lake
Abercorn	Beresford
Thomond	Canning
Exeter	Lowther
Camden	BISHOPS.
Cholmondeley	Rochester
EARLS.	Llandaff
Essex	Chichester
Cardigan	LORDS.
Shaftesbury	De Ros
Home	Beaumont
Haddington	St. John
Galloway	Colville
Selkirk	Rollo
Aberdeen	Boston
Orkney	Walsingham
Hopetoun	Kenyon
Warwick	Braybrooke
Hardwicke	Wodehouse
Delawarr	Northwick
Bathurst	Farnham
Talbot	Redesdale
Beverely	Sandys
Carnarvon	Colchester
Liverpool	Forester
Egmont	Bexley
Clanwilliam	De Tabley
Wicklow	Wharncliffe
Clare	Feversham
Bandon	Fitzgerald
Rosslyn	Tenterden
Wilton	Heytesbury
Verulam	Brougham
Beauchamp	Templemore
Eldon	Abinger
Howe	Ashburton
Somers

Paired off.
CONTENTS.	NOT-CONTENTS.
Earl of Scarborough	Duke of Rutland
Earl Fitzwilliam	Earl of Sandwich
Earl of Rosebery	Earl of Jersey
Lord Petre	Earl of Harrowby
Lord Crewe	Lord Churchill
Earl of Minto	Lord de Lisle

Adjourned a little before twelve o'clock.