Lords Sitting of 18 March 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.— 1a Oaths Act Amendment.
3a Inclosure.

THE IRISH MAGISTRACY,—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYrose to put a question to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade, who, he understood, had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as to a certain circular letter which had been sent to the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, upon the last paragraph of which, in particular, he wished to have the opinion of the Government. It would appear that the Lord Chancellor, feeling that some revision was necessary, asked the Lord-Lieutenant of each county for such information as he could supply. The letter set forth the Lord Chancellor's belief that some of the magistracy whose names were on the lists or rolls of the various counties were no longer in existence, though their decease had not become known to the Clerk of the Hanaper; that some had ceased to reside in the counties of which they were magistrates; some had ceased to possess any qualification in the county, and had no local connection with it which would justify their continuance in the commission others might have become disqualified by acceptance of subordinate situations incompatible with their holding the magisterial office. The letter concluded thus:— "Other instances of equal force may perhaps occur to your Lordships, in respect to which you may think such revision desirable, and which you will be good enough to notice in your reply to this communication." It was to this latter paragraph he wished to call attention. He did not wish to trouble their Lordships at any length, but it was plain this latter paragraph opened a very wide door. It had created some sort of uneasiness on the part of the magistracy of Ireland. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) had had several communications addressed to him, asking him in what particular sense this communication of the Lord Chancellor was to be taken. He supposed that, remembering what had taken place under the last Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was felt the more desirable that some clear explanation should be come to. Some men, no doubt, sought and obtained the commission of the peace, in order to have J. P. attached to their name; some in order to be connected with local boards, boards of guardians, &c. — boards with which they were peculiarly connected, but having no real position in the county, and not attending to the general county business. If that Were the view of the Lord Chancellor, he entirely concurred in it;
306
and he would ask his noble Friend if he would be kind enough to state what the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had declared to be the meaning of this latter paragraph in his circular letter?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, there had been no revision of the list since Lord Normanby's time, and since then the country had passed through many changes, which rendered a revision of the list necessary. The best answer to the Question of the noble Marquess would be to read a letter from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in which he explained the motives which had induced him to issue this circular:—
"In the appointment of magistrates I look to the lieutenant of the county as in duty bound to see that each district is sufficiently supplied with suitable magistrates, and that he should recommend such persons as, from their social position, intelligence, and character, are the most likely to give confidence to the people in the administration of justice. I think, therefore, the lieutenant of each county should cordially co-operate with the Chancellor in securing for the people the best description of magistrates, and should with that view furnish such information and give such suggestions as may seem to be conducive to this object. Of course, they may be confidential, if the lieutenant of the county so wishes, or so far as he expresses a wish. I do not think the Chancellor or the lieutenant of the county should be dissuaded from his duty by any apprehension of displeasing persons who would be considered by both as unfit to be magistrates. I simply wished to have from each lieutenant the best information and the most judicious suggestions he could furnish; and, as this seems to me to be the most constitutional mode of proceeding, I will consider that every name which is retained on the list is approved by the lieutenant of the county — at least, not disapproved by him—so far as he can be enabled to form his own independent opinion. I do not see why either the lieutenant or the Chancellor should shrink from such responsibility as properly belongs to each respectively. Their duty is one for the public good, and must be discharged —as I conceive—'without fear, favour, or affection.' I am resolved so to act so far as I am concerned, and each lieutenant of a county must judge for himself how he will act in this matter."
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought the noble Earl was mistaken in saying there had been no revision of the list of magistrates since 1837. In the west of Ireland, at least, in consequence of the great changes which had taken place in the ownership of property, many of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties had been directed to revise the lists of magistrates. No objection, of course, could be taken to the letter of the Lord Chancellor, except, perhaps, that it did not go far enough, He himself had made frequent suggestions to the Irish Government on

307
this matter, which undoubtedly was involved in very great difficulty. Too much responsibility was thrown on the Lords-Lieutenant. A great number of gentlemen were put on the list who thought they had a claim, and who, when the point was put to them, professed that their only desire wa9 to perform the duties of the offices; but after a year or two it would be found that they neglected entirely the administration of justice, and confined themselves to the duties of the Board of Guardians, of which they were ex officio members. It was difficult for the Lords-Lieutenant to interfere to remedy such an evil—the task, indeed, would be perfectly odious. There were many instances in which it was to be wished that the magistrates were more consistent in their neglect, for on looking at the returns of petty sessions it would be seen that for eight or nine weeks scarcely any magistrates would attend, and then there would be a sudden influx when some matter of personal or local interest was coming on. The Lords-Lieutenant should be restricted in their selection by more stringent rules as to qualification. He thought the Government ought to consider the purposes for which the appointment of magistrates was necessary, how many should be on the roll, and particularly in what cases stipendiary magistrates should be appointed.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that when he read the letter of the Lord Chancellor some days ago, it appeared to him not open to objection. When he was Chancellor of Ireland he required lieutenants and deputy lieutenants of counties recommending gentlemen for appointment to the magistracy to fill up columns in which were stated the grounds on which the recommendation was put forward.
EARL ST. GERMANSsaid, that his noble Friend who originated the conversation made no objection to the Lord Chancellor's letter, but merely asked for an explanation of the last paragraph. In giving that explanation the noble Earl the President of the Board of Trade read a second letter, from which it appeared that the Lord Chancellor intended to hold the Lords-Lieutenant of counties responsible for the maintenance in the commission of the peace of every magistrate whose name they did not propose to expunge. It would impose a very invidious duty on the Lords-Lieutenant, because there might be many magistrates in the commission whom they would not recommend, and yet not be pre-
308
pared to advise their removal—not to recommend and to strike off were very different things.

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.—QUESTION.
THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR, in presenting petitions in favour of a united system of intermediate education in Ireland, wished to know if the Government intended to introduce any measure on the subject this Session.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the subject of intermediate middle-class education in Ireland was one that abounded in difficulties. He could assure the right rev. Prelate that it would not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government, and that as soon as they could see their way to a satisfactory settlement of the question they would be happy to deal with it. He could not, however, promise any Bill this Session.

THE WATER-COLOUR SOCIETY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether his attention had been drawn to the Claims of the Water-colour Society for a Portion of the Burlington House Ground, in order to erect a Gallery thereon. The noble and learned Lord said, he would remind their Lordships that a few nights ago, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) brought forward the claim of the Royal Academy to have a large portion of the ground attached to Burlington House. Nobody more fully agreed to the claim of the Academy than he did. The National Collection had recently been enriched by the magnificent bequests of Mr. Vernon and Mr. Turner, and the latter had accompanied his bequest with the condition that they should be exhibited in a separate gallery, annexed to the National Gallery, and he (Lord St. Leonards) trusted, that to where-ever the National Collection might for a time be removed, that splendid bequest would ultimately be placed in a distinct gallery, and that the condition of the bequest would not be violated. The fulfilment of that object would be a sufficient justification for a public grant to the Royal Academy, for the bequest to the nation by Turner, himself a Royal Academician, was more valuable than the proposed grant. With very few exceptions, the Royal Academy did not exhibit water-colour draw-

  309
  ings, and no person who was a member of the Water-colour Society could attain to any of the honours of the Royal Academy, since they did not admit to their honours the members of another society. The Water-colour Society, in making this application, did not in any manner intend any opposition or rivalry to the Royal Academy. On the contrary, they wished to do honour to that body, and to be considered an appendage to the Academy. They desired to have some ground whereon to erect a building on the same spot as the Royal Academy, so that all English art might be brought together in contiguous buildings. He thought that the Royal Academy had deserved well of the country. The portion of the space for which they asked was rather large, but if it were given with a due regard to the rights of others he should be the last to object. As their Lordships were aware, painting in water-colours was a British art, and all Europe admitted the superiority of English painters in water-colours. France, Holland, and Belgium gave the first honours to our painters in water-colours, and admitted that they were at the head of that branch of art. Therefore, as a British art their Lordships would, he was sure, think that it deserved the fostering care of the British people. The Water-colour Society was a body of private gentlemen associated for the pursuit of art, and had never had any existence as a public body or received any of the public money. It had gone on increasing both in the number and celebrity of its members, they had acquired the good-will of all parties, and all they desired was an opportunity of extending still more widely the benefits which such an association was capable of rendering in the cultivation of this delightful art, and they were of opinion that if they were permitted to erect, upon a proper piece of ground, in connection with the Royal Academy, more commodious buildings than they at present enjoyed, they would thereby be enabled greatly to extend their usefulness. They would thus be able to exhibit all water-colour drawings of approved merit, without reference to the fact that the painters were or were not members of the Society. The Royal Academy was a school for teaching art, while the Water-colour Society professed no such design. If, however, the Government by a grant of land permitted them to erect a sufficient gallery they proposed to establish a school and to assist young artists in studying their branch
  310
  of art. They wanted nothing but a piece of ground, for which they were prepared to pay a ground-rent if required. The allotment for which they asked might with reference to the price paid for the whole of the ground be considered as of the value of £6,000, on which they were prepared to erect a gallery at an outlay of £8,000 or £9,000 or more. It might be said that such a gallery was unnecessary, as the Royal Academy might, and probably would, add to their present exhibition another of water-colour drawings. Now, nothing could be more incongruous than a general mixture of oil and water-colour pictures, and nothing could be more injurious than a separate exhibition by the Royal Academy of Water-colour Drawings, because it might injure the self-supporting independent body which had confined itself to water-colours, and which art they had brought to a perfection that had excited the admiration of artists all over the world. The Water-colour Society ought to be enabled to continue their separate existence, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would comply with their application for a piece of ground at Burlington House on which they might erect a Water-colour Gallery. The noble and learned Lord then put his Question.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I quite admit the importance of the services rendered to the arts by the Society of Painters in Water-colours, and I admit, also, that this Society is deserving of particular encouragement on the ground put forward by my noble and learned Friend, that water-colour drawing is a peculiarly British art, and the Society ought, therefore, to be favourably considered by the British Legislature. I will not enter into that part of the question to which my noble and learned Friend has adverted, as to the relations which ought to exist between the Royal Academy and the Water-colour Society. Of course, whether the Royal Academy may or may not see fit to have a separate exhibition of water-colours in connection with their own is a matter within their own competence to decide, and one on which the Government have no right to interfere. At the same time, I am ready to say, with my noble and learned Friend, that it is very undesirable that these two Societies should occupy a position of rivalry, and more especially when the power of the two bodies is so extremely disproportionate that a rivalry might lead to injurious con-

  311
  sequences to the smaller but not unimportant body. The Water-colour Society have already made an application to the Government for a piece of ground at Burlington House, on which they propose to erect a building, for which they are willing, if required, to pay a ground-rent. I am glad that the Government have been able to accommodate so many of the learned Societies of the country within so limited a space, and I shall rejoice to find that it is within the power of Her Majesty's Government to grant the application; but the demands for space upon this site are very large, and not the least important and extensive demand is that made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) on behalf of the University of London, a demand which is now under the consideration of my noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works. As I understand the University of London does not confine itself to a demand for a piece of freehold land, for they go further, and ask that an important building for the purposes of the University shall be erected at the expense of the Government. If this claim is admitted, so large a space will be required that it will be more difficult to find space for any other society. My noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) is considering the best possible distribution of space, with a view to accommodate all the societies that have a claim upon the Government. This is not a pleasant task; and he has, I believe, requested to see delegates from the different Societies in Congress in the hope that some mutual and general arrangement may he come to. I shall be most happy to find that the gentlemen whose claims have been brought forward by my noble and learned Friend may, after sending a delegate to Congress, be able to satisfy my noble Friend that, without injustice to any other interests there is room to admit the fair and legitimate claims of the Water-colour Society. I cannot, however, pledge myself that the Government will be able to find space for this or any other Society at Burlington House.
  EARL GRANVILLEmade a few observations in reference, as was understood, to the request of the University of London, but was quite inaudible.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it might be convenient for these Societies that they should be located together on the site of Burlington House; but the question the Government had to consider was, how would the convenience of the public be best
  312
  consulted? and he hoped that that consideration would alone influence the Government in the course they should ultimately take in the matter.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, he hoped if different plots were allotted to the different bodies that the Government would take care to secure a uniformity of style in the architecture.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, of course Government would adopt some particular plan to be followed by all. It would never do to have each allottee adopting his own style, and thus causing a mixture of Gothic, Grecian, early English, and all other styles.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, that of course there must be the same architect for the whole.

INDIA—THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ANSWER TO DESPATCH— THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in rising to make the Motion of which he had given notice said, that it would be unnecessary for him to press for the production of some of the papers referred to, for he found that, since he had placed his notice on the paper, they had been already laid before Parliament. In the observations he proposed making he would carefully avoid entering into any party or personal matters, but would confine himself to the expression of an opinion upon a question that seemed to be involved in some doubt and obscurity. He alluded to the question of the settlement of the tenure of land in Oude which was connected with one of the most difficult and important questions that be- longed to the general subject of the government of India. It would be recollected that upon the 3rd of March, 1858, as he need hardly remind their Lordships, the Governor General issued a Proclamation, in which he stated that the whole proprietary rights to the land of Oude was confiscated to the Crown. On that Proclamation becoming known in this country, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), who was then the President of the Board of Control, wrote a despatch to Lord Canning expressing the disapprobation of his Government on the policy laid down in it. The Governor General, in reply to that despatch, wrote one upon the 17th June, to which his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's)

  313
  notice referred. In that paper the noble Lord explained at some length the grounds on which he had acted, but said not one word to show that he was disposed to retract or alter the policy he had laid down. On the other hand, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley), in his despatch of the 9th of December, seemed to assume that that policy had been entirely altered. It appeared that whatever might be the opinion of the Government or, the immediate question involved when they received at the end of July the Governor General's despatch of June, no reply was sent and no instruction forwarded to his Excellency for upwards of four months. This circumstance was the more extraordinary when it was recollected that the new Council was convoked and sworn into office on the 1st of September. It was not until the 9th of December that any answer was given to the despatch of the Governor General received four months before. In that despatch, written by the Secretary of State, the noble Lord made an assertion which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought was not borne out by the facts. In order that it might not be supposed he was misrepresenting the case he would refer to the document itself. In the third paragraph of Lord Stanley's despatch, of the 9th of December, the noble Lord said:—
  "I observe with satisfaction that the policy indicated in the document adverted to, as regards the claims of the talookdars and other proprietors in Oude, has not in practice been adopted by you, and is declared, on your own authority, never to have been intended to have been carried into effect. However indiscriminate and unsparing may have been the sentence of confiscation which your Proclamation pronounced, that sentence has not been put in force, and the issuing of it would appear to have been merely a menace, designed to strike awe into the minds of those still arrayed in arms against the British Government It seems to them needless further to comment on a document which has been practically cancelled by yourself."
  Now, as far as he understood the letter referred to in the above extract, it conveyed no such meaning as that put upon it by the Secretary of State. So far from the policy originally indicated by the Governor General having in any way been altered, the confiscation and the assumption of a right to the land by the Government in India seemed all along to have been acted upon by the Chief Commissioner of Oude, and to be acted on at the present moment he would refer to some passages of a despatch which seemed to him to contradict the assumption of the Secretary of State.
  314
  In the despatch of the 17th of June, which Lord Canning addressed to the Secret Committee, the noble Lord explained at some length the general state of the country he had to deal with, and finally referred to his Proclamation, which he justified. He stated that when the army was concentrated around Lucknow, he Lord Canning removed to Allahabad, from Calcutta, for the purpose of ascertaining, with greater accuracy, the past and the present condition of Oude and its inhabitants; and it appears that the Governor General, in a despatch written about, that time, stated that he had come to the conclusion that if any Proclamation were to be issued, it should be one not threatening confiscation as a possible contingency, but declaring it at once as a fact; that in framing that Proclamation he looked not merely to the question of the rebellion, but to that of the whole condition of Oude, past and present, with a view to its better government for the future. Lord Canning, in his despatch, quoted a memorandum of Sir James Outram in confirmation of his opinion —
  "The system of settlement with so-called village proprietors will not answer at present, if ever, in Oude. These men have not influence and weight enough to aid us in restoring order. The lands of men -who have taken an active part against us should be largely confiscated, in order, among other reasons, to enable us to reward others in the manner most acceptable to a Native. But I see no prospect of returning tranquillity except by having recourse, for the next few years, to the old talookdaree system."
  Lord Canning having stated what he had done said, that in regard to the tenure of land in Oude he was of opinion that the most sure, the most politic, and the most just course for him to take was to declare the proprietary right in the soil of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Oude to be confiscated; and to reserve to Her Majesty's Government the right hereafter of disposing of it as they should see fit. Lord Canning, therefore, so far from intimating the slightest idea of altering his policy, distinctly said that—
  "When the season shall arrive when the troops shall move over the country, and shall afford support to those who are willing to give in their allegiance to the Crown, he has no doubt that the Proclamation will be accepted throughout the whole of the province, as it has already been in part."
  In Lord Canning's despatch, dated the 4th July, in which he replied to the vote of confidence which the Court of Directors did him the honour of passing, Lord Canning reiterated the declaration of his policy,

  315
  using the same kind of language as before:—
  "It was not without deliberation that, in framing the Proclamation, I used the positive, peremptory, and, so to speak, enacting words which declare that the proprietary right in the soil of the province is confiscated to the Government, which will dispose of that right in such manner as it may deem fitting."
  Now that was the last word of the Governor General on the subject, and from what he had said in these despatches, and from all the information he had obtained he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) ventured to affirm that from his original policy laid down in his Proclamation the noble Lord never once swerved: he had constantly acted on the assumption of all title to the soil by the Government enacted on the 3rd of March, and it was upon that basis that the Commissioners and other officers were now resettling the land of Oude. If it were not on this principle he should like to know what was the nature of the tenure by which the Natives and talookdars of Oude wore to hold their land in future. He had another witness to support him in that opinion. By the last mail there arrived a letter from the "Special Correspondent" of The Times, dated from head quarters, Lucknow. That gentleman had been some time in India, and from his well-known ability and intelligence there could be no doubt he had succeeded in making himself acquainted with the real state of affairs there. That gentleman was in daily communication with those in authority there, and he had within his reach abundant sources of information. The Correspondent of The Times gave a short table of confiscations, and also described the action of the more regular tribunals, which were quite distinct matters, and then went on to say,—
  "Lord Canning has certainly used the powers of confiscation very sparingly, and Major Barrow's settlements of revenue with proprietors, who are placed beyond all fear of change or dispossession for years to come, now amount to the sum of 8,914,209 rupees, on a revenue of about 12,000,000 rupees per annum, of which 4,142,190 rupees have been already collected. The assessments made to Government are about one-half the produce of the estate. The remaining one-half represents the proprietors' income, subject to a reduction of about 13 per cent for village police, accountants, and local purposes."
  What could be meant by that statement, except that all proprietors now held under a totally new tenure to that which previously prevailed? It was very well known that under the old rulers of that country there
  316
  were great complaints of disturbances from the unsettled state of the tenure of land. Colonel Sleeman and other writers mentioned those facts. The chiefs were in the constant habit of fighting amongst themselves for the land. What was one of the first acts of our Government in 1856? We turned out several talookdars and gave their lands to other claimants. [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: No, no!] He certainly understood that to be so. But whether he was right in that or not, he was sure that we made considerable changes amongst the proprietors and occupiers of land in Oude. [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: Yes, very considerable.] That was all be intended to say. Those new proprietors were now placed in the occupation of land from which, as The Times Correspondent remarked, "they did not fear being dispossessed for years to come, because they had now an Imperial tenure granted to them by the Government." They were now in somewhat a similar condition to those who purchased property in the Incumbered Estates Court of Ireland—they possessed a sound Parliamentary title, and could rely upon the British authorities supporting them, because they took their land from the Viceroy. He repeated that in none of the despatches written by the Governor General could he find any departure whatever from the policy which he had originally laid down. But from Lord Stanley's despatch it would seem that that policy had been entirely cancelled, and he should therefore know by what tenure those talookdars to whom he adverted now held their land? The noble Marquess concluded by moving for—
  A Copy of the Answer of the Governor General of India to the Secret Despatch of the 19th April, 1858, with Reply from the Secretary of State, and subsequent Correspondence on the Subject: Also, Copy of Her Majesty's Gracious Proclamation to the Princes, Chiefs, and People of India:
  And asked also,
  Whether the Talookdars and Chiefs who now possess Lands in Oude have not had those Lands granted or restored to them in conformity with the Proclamation of the Governor General of the 3rd March, 1858, and, if not, under what Tenure the Landowners in Oude now hold their Estates.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I hardly know, my Lords, what the question is which the noble Marquess calls upon me to answer. I must also say that, although I have listened with the utmost attention to the observations which he has made, I do not exactly understand the object to which they were directed; and still less can I

  317
  perceive the propriety or expediency of entering into the various topics which he has introduced to your Lordships' notice, I think, my Lords, that the noble Marquess has, in the first place, altogether mistaken, or at any rate misapprehended, the expressions in the despatch of Lord Stanley to which he has referred. That despatch speaks, not of Lord Canning having reversed his policy, but of his having practically cancelled the Proclamation which he had issued. And now, my Lords, I must observe that I had hoped this subject of a difference of opinion between Lord Canning and the Government at home with respect to the merits of that Proclamation had been satisfactorily disposed of by the papers and explanation which have been produced, and which have resulted in a satisfactory adjustment of the real matter, while each party retains his own opinion with regard to particular transactions, without that difference in the slightest degree interfering with the cordial co-operation and mutual respect which ought to subsist between the Governor General in India and the Government in this country. I cannot therefore but regret that the noble Marquess has thought proper to revive the discussion on the present occasion, because I do not believe such a course is calculated to promote that harmony between the Governor General and Her Majesty's Ministers which is so essential to the satisfactory working of our Indian administration. I may now, however, state what I conceive to be the distinction which has all along-been drawn between the policy which Lord Canning announced it in his Proclamation to be his intention to pursue, and that which he actually adopted. I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Ellenborough), who was then President of the Board of Control, gave a very just exception to the policy indicated in that Proclamation, namely, that it held out the prospect of a universal system of confiscation, inasmuch as it declared that with only six exceptions the whole of the land of Oude should be confiscated, and that the various individuals whose property was to be thus dealt with must rely on the moderation and good feeling of the Government to be reinstated either in a portion or the whole of their possessions. It was to the sweeping system of confiscation thus broadly announced in Lord Canning's Proclamation, and which seemed to us, if carried out, to be calculated to reduce the landowners of Oude to
  318
  a state of actual despair, that my noble Friend the then President of the Board of Control objected, and I think very justly; although I regretted—and I never shall cease to regret—that the sentiments expressed in the despatch of my noble Friend were prematurely given to the world, thereby occasioning some public inconvenience. With respect, however, to the merits of the case, the views in connection with it to which my noble Friend gave expression, and the imprudent and dangerous character of the Proclamation as evidenced by the naked terms in which it was couched unaccompanied by any explanation, I have always entertained the same opinion. I always believed, and still believe, that it was a document by no means well calculated to carry out those objects in India which we sought to attain. But when the noble Marquess alleges that the Secretary of State for India charges Lord Canning with having altogether reversed his policy, he represents Lord Staley as employing-language which he never used. What Lord Stanley did say was that, whereas the Proclamation of Lord Canning announced a universal and general confiscation, with some trifling modifications and exceptions, yet that practically he had acted upon the opposite principle, making confiscation the exception, and the restoration of their property to all those who had not committed some very aggravated offence against the Government of India the rule of his policy. Lord Canning, as has been stated by the noble Marquess, has acted very sparingly upon the principle enunciated in his Proclamation. And I may here state that the very able despatch in which that noble Lord sought to vindicate the issue of such a document has by no means shaken the opinion of its dangerous tendency which I have from the first entertained. I am sure, however, that in the letter of the Secretary of State for India in answer to this despatch of Lord Canning the noble Marquess cannot fairly say that there was anything inconsistent with a feeling of the utmost respect for that noble Lord and the most entire appreciation of his motives. He says in that letter:—
  "I do not propose to follow, paragraph by paragraph, the elaborate arguments contained in these letters. They have been considered with the attention which was due to the high character and the distinguished position of your Lordship, and I observe with satisfaction that the policy indicated in the document adverted to, as regards the claims of the talookdars and other proprietors in Oude, has not in practice been adopted by you,

  319
  and is declared, on your own authority, never to have been intended to have been carried into effect. However indiscriminate and unsparing may have been the sentence of confiscation which your Proclamation pronounced that sentence has not been put in force, and the issuing of it would appear to have been merely a menace, designed to strike awe into the minds of those still arrayed in arms against the British Government."
  Why, my Lords, Lord Canning, in the instructions winch he issued to the various general officers, invariably adopted this course, clearly showing what his intention was; and that, although a threat of universal confiscation had been held out, it was not intended that that threat should be carried into practical operation. He writes, for example, in the 38th paragraph of his despatch, as follows: —
  "I afterwards had occasion to send my Military Secretary, Colonel Stuart, to head-quarters, and I took the opportunity to explain to the Chief Commissioner that I wished him to give the most liberal interpretation to the Proclamation; that, for instance, the Proclamation left it free to him to notify to any talookdar, who was deserving of consideration, that if he made submission and supported the Government the confiscation of his lands would not take effect, and that his claims to property, of which he might have been deprived upon the annexation of the province, would be reheard; and that in the case of these having been resumed by him, he might retain them till the rehearing."
  Now, if that interpretation had accompanied the Proclamation when it was first sent to England, the tone of the despatch, which was written with respect to it by my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Ellenborough), would, I have no doubt, been materially altered. I do not of course wish to refer to the circumstances under which it happened, singularly and unfortunately, that the Proclamation arrived here without any explanatory communication, and that that request—which was embodied in a private note, that a favourable construction might be put upon it until Lord Canning should have time to state the reasons which had induced him to issue it—never reached the President of the Board of Control. But, my Lords, as I before stated, although we differed from Lord Canning as to the policy of the original Proclamation, we concurred with him in the policy upon which he has practically based his proceedings. It is not such a policy as one who read his Proclamation would be inclined to expect, making, as it does, confiscation the exception, and a generous consideration of the rights of the people of Oude the rule. He has pursued, in fact, the policy, the adoption
  320
  of which my noble Friend below mo recommended; and therefore, Lord Stanley simply congratulates the Governor General, not upon the change of his policy, but upon the circumstance that it was a policy which, in consequence of what had previously taken place, he had not led the Government to anticipate. Your Lordships will perceive that Lord Stanley's letter, convoying the opinions of Her Majesty's Ministers on the subject, may be liable to misinterpretation, and that a very erroneous and unfortunate impression may as a result be produced. But the noble Marquess will, I am sure, do my noble Relative the justice to admit that the views to which he gave expression were couched in the most friendly spirit; and that, while retaining his own opinion with reference to the policy of the Proclamation in question, he at the same time bears testimony to the satisfaction and confidence which the general policy of Lord Canning affords the Government, and the confidence which they repose in his judgment and discretion. I hope it will not be considered by any means inconsistent with entire respect for that noble Lord, and the most cordial harmony of action between him and Her Majesty's Ministers, that the Government should state that they differ from him with regard to a single isolated point in his policy; and I may add, that I cannot help thinking that no good can result either to Lord Canning or to the country from perpetually adverting — as is the case with some of the public journals—to disagreements supposed to exist between the Governor General and the Government at home, and from continual representations to the effect that the Governor General is an ill-used man, and representing the Government at home as anxious to deprive him of the just honour and the meritorious and legitimate distinction to which he is entitled. To show that such representations have no good foundation, and that apart from the question of this Proclamation Her Majesty's Ministers do not fail to appreciate the services which Lord Canning has rendered to the State, I may mention, for the satisfaction of your Lordships and the personal friends of the noble Viscount, that some weeks ago I. was honoured by the commands of the Queen to intimate to Lord Canning that it was Her Majesty's gracious pleasure to confer upon him the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and I have subsequently conveyed to Lord Canning the signification of Her Majesty's

  321
  gracious intention, that when he is enabled to signify to us the complete pacification of India his distinguished services shall he further acknowledged, with the cheerful and ready concurrence of the Government, and that he will then return to this country with honour to himself and with the acclamation of his countrymen; and I think, my Lords, that a Government that has, in the first place, recommended Her Majesty to confer upon Lord Canning, as Governor General of India, the Grand Cross of the Bath, and, in the next place, tendered their advice to Her Majesty to further reward his services by a step in the peerage—I think that that Government cannot be charged with having overlooked, or desired not to appreciate, the services of that distinguished person. With regard to the ownership and proprietorship of land in Oude which was alluded to by the noble Marquess, that is, no doubt, a difficult and complicated question; and the settlement in 1856, as the noble Marquess has truly stated, was undertaken, I think, in a somewhat hasty, inconsiderate, and intemperate manner. That settlement introduced quite a different class of proprietors and dispossessed a certain number of existing talookdars. It created a great deal of dissatisfaction, and, no doubt, to it may be attributed, in a great measure, the strenuous opposition which was afterwards made to British rule. It is, however, a very singular fact that, when the time of struggle came, so far from our being able to rely on those who had been restored to their property and placed in repossession of their lands; so far from their finding security or support, so far from deriving any from these little village proprietors, they one and all at the first outbreak deserted the Government which had conferred upon them those benefits, placed themselves under the suzerainty of the old talookdars, and unhesitatingly followed them throughout the whole rebellion, without the slightest consideration for, or gratitude towards the Government. Now, at the commencement of 1858 was issued the Proclamation to which the noble Marquess has adverted. It had a very limited circulation indeed, and I doubt very much whether any of the talookdars, or any of those who came in, ever saw this Proclamation in its integrity, or were aware of the sweeping terms of the confiscation announced in it. I have it upon the authority of Sir James Outran), who was Commissioner in Oude at the time, that not one single
  322
  talookdar came in under the proclamation who had not also received the explanatory letter from the Commissioner, stating that they would not be dealt with in any spirit of harshness, but might depend on being restored to their property. In the course of two or three months after the issue of the Proclamation some 100 or 150 talookdars tendered their submission. That was to be attributed partly to the explanation which accompanied the Proclamation, and partly to the advance of and occupation of the country by our troops. But the very instant that this military pressure ceased in consequence of the hot season, and the consequent inaction of our army at Lucknow, and the fact that the services of our troops were required elsewhere, by far the greater number of these talookdars again revolted, and remained in revolt until the issue of Her Majesty's Proclamation. I believe there is no doubt whatever that the effect produced by the original Proclamation, and even by the pressure of Her Majesty's forces was utterly insignificant as compared with the effect produced by the Queen's gracious message of amnesty and mercy; and the broad distinction between the spirit of the two Proclamations is, that whereas the one made severe penalty the rule, and moderate indulgence the exception, the other only excepted from mercy crimes of the deepest dye, and all who had not thus offended received an assurance that their lives were safe, and that in most cases they would be restored to their property. The noble Marquess is mistaken in supposing that the great bulk of those who have come in under the Royal Proclamation have reoccupied their land under a re-grant or fresh grant from the Crown; on the contrary, they have at once re-entered upon the properties from which they wore expelled partly by the proceedings of 1857, and partly during the subsequent revolt. I do mean to say that there are no exceptions to this rule where persons who have rendered distinguished services to the Government during the revolt have been rewarded by a grant of forfeited lands. In their case it may be quite true that they hold their lands under a direct grant from the Crown in consequence of the forfeitures which have taken place; but I venture to say that the great bulk of the talookdars who have returned have resumed possession of their property, not by any such grant, but under the terms of Her Majesty's Proclamation of amnesty. My Lords, I will not enter further into the discussion of this

  323
  question. I hope the country is now settling down rapidly and peaceably, and that in a very short time we shall have to report the complete pacification not of Oude only, but of India generally. In Oude I believe the best possible effect was produced by the message of mercy which Her Majesty was advised to transmit to India; but I believe that nothing can tend so much to disturb that peaceable and quiet settlement as when questions are raised in this or the other House, endeavouring to show a difference of opinion in practice, whatever may be the theoretical agreement, between the Home Government and the Government of India. I am persuaded, my Lords, that Lord Canning is acting frankly, in the spirit of those principles of mercy and generosity which were laid down in the Royal Proclamation, and I am convinced that such a policy affords the best chance of obliterating the remembrance of the unhappy struggle through which we have passed. Let me say further that I believe, if we are to maintain our hold upon Oude, if we expect our rule there to be quiet and tranquil, we must govern through the influence and the power of the talookdars, who, by whatever means they may have acquired possession of their property, are certainly looked up to by the population, exercise an extensive influence over them, and may be relied upon as the best means of upholding our authority if we deal with them justly and generously, and abide faithfully by; he engagements into which we have entered with them. With regard to the papers produced, I certainly think that the Royal Proclamation ought not to have been moved for at all, but that it ought to have been laid upon the table by the command of Her Majesty; and, indeed, it has been communicated to the Commons. I am not able to account for this, but your Lordships will hardly require to be told that there is no desire on the part of the Government to withhold from the knowledge of this House any information which is communicated to the other. Neither has there been the slightest desire on our part to conceal from either House of Parliament the views of the Government. We have felt it due to Lord Canning at the earliest possible moment to publish the arguments by which he vindicated the tenor of his Proclamation, while, on the other hand, we have thought it our duty to lay before Parliament the grounds on which, adhering to the subsequent policy of Lord Canning,
  324
  we still dissent from his original Proclamation. I can only assure your Lordships that, as far as the Government is concerned, the most entire and frank cordiality exists towards the Governor General, and that we are most anxious to co-operate with him in every possible way for the benefit of India; and, entertaining such sentiments, I must regret that this discussion should have been revived, or that we should again have heard of the painful controversy which existed between the Governor General of India and the Home Government on a particular point of past policy.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although Her Majesty's Government have pushed further than any Government I can remember the doctrine of not discussing important questions which occupy the public mind, I can assure the noble Earl that no one is more anxious than I am to avoid in this House all points of controversy likely to affect the existence of amicable and cordial relations between the Government and Lord Canning. I have felt this to a very great degree; and, although I have had no communications from Lord Canning on political matters for many months past, yet the very fact of my being known to be a personal friend of the noble Viscount has made me anxious not to bring forward any question which might place him in a painful position with regard to the Government. In fact, I was not aware that the noble Marquess was going to put this question until he had given the usual notice. When, however, the noble Earl expresses astonishment that this subject should have been brought forward, and, on the other hand, hopes the House will receive the despatch of Lord Stanley, as written in a very friendly spirit towards the Governor General, I cannot help putting in my protest. I am certainly not going to revive the debates of last year with regard to the Proclamation of the Governor General, or the despatch of the President of the Board of Control. But the question now raised is raised for the first time—it does not arise upon an ancient matter, but upon a despatch written several months ago, the production of which to Parliament has been delayed, and which, in fact, has never been presented to this House at all. It opens, therefore, a fair matter for discussion. What are the circumstances of that despatch? In an answer remarkable for the power of its arguments, and for nothing more remarkable

  325
  than the calm dignity with which the personal question is treated, and for the complete absence of anything like personal irritation, the Governor General defends his policy in the clearest way, and, whether right or wrong, lays down distinctly what were the reasons of that policy, and why he considered it desirable to issue the Proclamation at once, both because of the effect it would produce upon the Native mind, and because of its bearings upon the other important question of the land tenure in Oude generally. I am not sure that that despatch did not arrive before the close of the sitting of Parliament last year.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: No.
  EARL GRANVILLE: At all events, it arrived very soon afterwards, and it was not until six or seven weeks had elapsed, and when some public comments had been made upon the non-appearance of the despatch, that it was given to the world by means of the ordinary channels of information. After four months' consideration of that despatch Lord Stanley, who is remarkable for his singular power of dealing with details, and for his general courtesy to all persons, sent the reply to which attention has been called. If anybody will take the trouble to read that short reply, he will have no difficulty in deciding whether it is of a friendly character or not. Without professing to follow paragraph by paragraph the despatch of the Governor General, it states that the policy of Lord Canning has not in practice been adopted by himself, that it was declared upon the Governor General's own authority never to have been intended to be carried into effect; that the issuing of the Proclamation was merely a menace designed to strike awe into the minds of those still arrayed against the Government, and so on. I appeal to the House whether that document—which just contains that amount of complimentary language which is always addressed to an agent when you mean to give him a very strong rebuff—I appeal to your Lordships whether that document does bear the character of a friendly despatch or not? There is another matter on which I should like some information. I see that the Order made in the House of Commons was, for Lord Canning's despatch, and "for any reply from the Secretary of State in Council, from the Secretary of State for India in Council, or from the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General of India;" and I see that the despatch produced is
  326
  "from the Secretary of State for India," and not "from the Secretary of State for India in Council." Therefore, I presume—and, if it be so, it will be in accord once with rumours which I have heard—that that despatch was never submitted to or approved by, the Council of India, with respect to whose valuable co operation I certainly all along have had my doubts, although it was so much relied upon by the noble Lord in the Bill which was passed last year. Some discussion was raised last year as to whether Lord Ellenborough's despatch ought to have been sent through the Secret Committee, and I now forget whether that noble Earl defended it being so sent, on the grounds of its being a matter relating to war and peace, or on the ground of its being a matter of mercy, but whether it was right or wrong to send that despatch in that manner, I cannot conceive any reason after the whole correspondence had been communicated to the Directors, and published to the whole world, why the despatch of Lord Stanley's should not have been submitted to the Council, unless indeed, the Government had received previous information that the Council would totally disapprove of such a document. It is of great importance that this should be explained, because it is really desirable that Parliament should know on what principle the Government intend to act with regard to communications which they send out to India; whether they are to be sent under the powers given by the Secret Committee Clause of the Act of last year, or whether they are to be approved of by the Council. It is of very great importance to know this, for there is a clause in the Act which gives to the Members of Council who disapprove of any despatch, power to record their reasons in writing for such disapproval. I have stated what I consider to be the character of Lord Stanley's despatch, and I have done so, not with the view either of embarrassing the Government, or of placing the relations between themselves and Lord Canning upon any unfriendly footing, but in consequence of the challenge of the noble Earl to the House to deny that the despatch was couched in the most friendly spirit. Of course I am unable to say how Lord Canning may regard that despatch, which I think to be unfair in its substance, and not courteous in its tone; but I do most sincerely hope that he will regard it as one which it is not necessary for him in any degree to notice. After having advised Her Majesty in her Proclamation to assure Lord

  327
  Canning and the people of India of the entire confidence which Her Majesty felt in his judgment, ability and loyalty; after the honours which have been bestowed upon him on the recommendation of the noble Earl, which I most heartily and thankfully acknowledge; and after the intimation which has to-night been made in "another place," in answer to a question, of the intention of the Government to propose the thanks of Parliament to Lord Canning, Lord Clyde, and the other distinguished officers engaged in the pacification of Oude—after all these circumstances, I do feel that we may all rest satisfied with the matter as it stands, and that we may look upon that unfortunate reply of Lord Stanley's as an indication, possibly, of some little difficulty of grappling with so able and so well-argued a despatch as that of Lord Canning. I can assure the House that nothing shall be done by me to disturb the cordiality of feeling which exists between the Government and their representative in India, so long as on all questions that courtesy and frankness are observed which are so much to be desired on both sides.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I much regret that this subject has been reproduced before your Lordships. I think that it would have been far better to say nothing at all about it. I am in a position of peculiar difficulty, for I actually have not read Lord Stanley's despatch which has been alluded to by the noble Marquess, and I did not even know that he had written one; but I judge the substance of it from what the noble Marquess has said, and in contradiction to the noble Earl who has just spoken, I say that that despatch is accurate in substance. I base my opinion not merely upon the general knowledge which I have obtained from newspapers, and from those letters to which the noble Marquess has alluded, of the course of proceedings in Oude, but upon the knowledge which I derive from the proclamation of Mr. Montgomery, the Commissioner of Oude, issued by the direction of the Governor General himself. That proclamation I read on the 15th of December, and therefore I conclude that Lord Stanley had it before him when he wrote the despatch which has been referred to. [Earl GRANVILLE: What is the date of it?]" The date is not given, but it must have been about the 1st of November, the day on which the Queen's Proclamation was published, Lord Clyde having proceeded on the evening of that day from Allahabad to commence
  328
  operations for the conquest of Oude. What was that proclamation? It says:
  "By direction of the Right Hon. the Governor General of India, the Chief Commissioner of Oude hereby calls upon all talookdars, zemindars, inhabitants, and residents in Oude, of every grade and class, with the exceptions herein enumerated, to deliver up to the servants of Government at the nearest police station, within one month from the date of this proclamation, all cannon, firearms, swords, bows, arrows, spears, or other descriptions of weapons whatever; also all gunpowder, shot, shell, sulphur, saltpetre, and munitions of war of every kind."
  Then it says—
  "Failing in obedience to this order, whosoever, after the period of one month from this date, shall be convicted of wearing' or possessing any of the weapons or warlike stores abovementioned, shall be subjected to the penalty of fine of 5,000 rupees, and of imprisonment, for one year, with flogging; and, if a landholder, of the confiscation of his lands."
  How on earth could his lands be confiscated in November if they had already been confiscated practically in March? The fact is:, that the confiscation of March never had effect in a single instance.
  The proclamation proceeds in the same tone:—
  "Further, it is notified that if any talookdar or other inhabitant of Oude, after the issue of an order for the dismantling of his fort, shall in any way attempt to reconstruct the fortification, or shall have in his possession, or shall make preparation for casting or collecting, any cannon or munitions of war, his talooqua or lands shall be liable to be confiscated, in addition to such other punishments as may be awarded."
  Observe, this proclamation is not ad-addressed to the few persons who were under the immediate influence of our army, or who had come in under the Proclamation; but it is addressed to the whole body of the people of Oude, and it affixes that penalty of confiscation to certain acts thereafter to be performed. How could Mr. Montgomery inflict that penalty of confiscation if the lands wore not then in the possession of those persons? The noble Marquess doubts upon what tenure the lands in Oude are now held. I apprehend, precisely upon the same tenure on which they always were held. When we took possession of Oude, we made what is called a summary settlement. Summary, indeed, it was, based upon very little information, and proceeding upon a very erroneous principle. For that principle, no doubt, Lord Dalhousie is responsible, but for all the details and for the manner of carrying them into execution, Lord Canning is responsible.

  329
  And that settlement having been made, inasmuch as it was summary in its character, and as it was determined on without information, and was also unjust, it was open to the Government to make a re-settlement. It was declared that there would have been a re-settlement under any circumstances—a reconsideration of the whole transaction; and I apprehend that all that has been done now is to make a re-settlement of those lands, leaving the occupier where he was before probably, fixing a new rent perhaps, and in some cases making a redistribution. I am unwilling to say more upon this subject; for, as I have already said, I regret that it has been introduced at all. I rejoice that, no matter how accomplished, Oude has now been pacified; and if Her Majesty's gracious Proclamation be carried into effect there, and everywhere, bonâ fide by the Government, and by those who act under the Government, I do entertain an earnest, perhaps a sanguine hope, that the peace now established may be made permanent.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that us a near connection of Lord Canning, that nobleman's honour was as dear to him as it could be to any noble Lord opposite, but he begged to differ from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), as to the necessity of opening up this subject on Lord Canning's despatch. There was a difference of opinion so utter and complete between the Government and Lord Canning on the subject of the Proclamation, that it was hopeless to think that any amount of argument could bring them to an agreement. Under these circumstances he thought there was no incivility on the part of the Government here towards Lord Canning in declining to discuss the arguments he had put forward in his despatch. Certainly if there was any difference of opinion between the Government at home and the Governor of any of our dependencies, it must be injurious to the public service that they should be produced and made the subject of discussion before the world.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to ask, if there was any disadvantage in bringing on a discussion between the Government and the servants of the Crown abroad, whether it was not the present Government themselves who had first raised such a discussion? However, in deference to the opinion of many noble Friends, and as the papers for which he
  330
  moved were already before Parliament, he would withdraw his Motion. Motion withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-past Seven o'Clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock,