Sitting of 14 May 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing; Oxford and Cambridge Universities, &c., Estates.
3° Poor Law Amendment.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in rising to make the Motion of which he had given notice, said, that perhaps it would be convenient for the House to know that it was the intention of the Government to move that the House do adjourn from Friday, the 21st instant, to Friday, the 28th. He should conclude by moving to postpone the Orders of the Day until after the Notice of Motion relative to the Governor General of India.
Motion agreed to.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change has taken place in our position relative to France or the United States, by Treaty or otherwise, with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries; and whether the British Squadron has been increased on that station?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought the House would be perfectly satisfied if he confined himself to a simple and true statement of the facts. He had to state that no change whatever had taken place in the position of this country, either relative to France or the United States with regard to the Newfoundland Fisheries. With regard to the second part of the question, he had to say that the amount of the force which had been increased for the protection of the Fisheries was left to the discretion of the Commander in Chief on that station.

INDIA.—INFORMATION WITHIIELD FROM THE BOARD OF CONTROL.
  NOTICE.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he had a notice on the Paper to call the attention of the House to the information understood to have been withheld from the Board of Control; and, if it had not been for the surprising statement which was made to the House last evening by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vernon Smith), he should have proceeded with his Motion; but, as that statement must necessarily influence the course of the impending debate, he would not proceed further at present.
OUDE.
  PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.—DESPATCH OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL.

    RESOLUTIONS MOVED.
    MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I rise to invite the judgment of the House upon what I believe to be one of the most remarkable series of occurrences that has been witnessed in the history of British administration. I trust I shall not occupy the attention of the House at great length, for I mean to say nothing that does not rest either upon facts patent and indisputable, or upon the statements of those whose conduct it is my painful duty to impugn. It appears that, upon the 12th of the month of April last, there was received in this country a letter from the Secretary of the Government of India to the Commissioner of Oude, covering a draught of a Proclamation which it was intended should be promulgated in Oude as soon as the fall of Lucknow was known. That important document was immediately taken into consideration by Her Majesty's advisers; and, that I may make no mistake in relating what took place, I will state it to the House in the language of those advisers themselves. These were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
    "I think it right to take this opportunity of stating that when we received notice of this intended Proclamation we took the subject at once into our consideration."
    And in the language of the Earl of Ellenborough:
    "The letter to which the noble Earl has alluded, enclosing the Proclamation, was received on the 12th of April. The answer was not written till the 18th of April. It was dated the 19th of April; and it was not sent off until the 26th of April. There was, therefore, ample time for considering what the letter reflecting upon the Proclamation should contain, and also for further consideration after it was written, as has been

    675
    shown by my noble Friend near me. Reflection only more strongly induced me to think that it was absolutely necessary to send the letter as it was originally written. When I read that Proclamation I felt it was my duty at once to express my own sentiments on the subject, which were adopted by my noble Friends."
    So there can be no doubt that, with respect to the writing, the approval, and the transmission of that despatch, it was the deliberate act of Her Majesty's Government collectively. It is known to the House that the India Board, under the statutes which regulate the government of India, possesses the power of sending through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors those despatches concerning the treatment of the Native Princes and States which in their judgment require secrecy. That course was pursued on this occasion; and that despatch, so collectively adopted by the Government, was sent out to India on the 26th of April through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. With regard, therefore, to the document itself these things are clear—that it was the collective act of Her Majesty's Ministers—that it was sent to India through that particular channel, the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. What was the tenor of the document is familiar to the House, for the Members have had it in their hands. I shall hereafter have occasion to describe it to you, but I shall describe it, not in language of my own, but exclusively in the language of those who indited it, and are responsible for it. So much, then, for the writing and sending of the despatch. From the 26th of April to the 6th of May no important information conies within my knowledge; but on the 6th of May it became known, through the columns of The Times, that a Proclamation had been promulgated in Oude, not the identical draught Proclamation to which I have before referred, but a Proclamation, in the language of the Earl of Derby, materially modified from that draught Proclamation. I say it became known to us incidentally from the columns of the newspapers, that that Proclamation, materially modified, had been published in Lucknow. Things being in that position, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) came into the House of Commons and put a question to the hon. Member for the county of Inverness, the Secretary to the India Board. To that question the hon. Gentleman returned an answer, which, so far as it relates to the despatch, I think
    676
    I had better read in extenso to the House. After speaking of the Proclamation, he said—
    "The Proclamation was, of course, taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government as soon as it was received, and a despatch was written expressing the views and opinions with respect to it which the Government entertained. That despatch as well as the Proclamation itself there can be no objection to lay upon the table of the House, and I may add that the Proclamation was not made in consequence of any instructions which were sent out to the Governor General Gem this country."
    Now, Sir, you will observe in that answer of the hon. Gentleman that publication was promised; but publication was not made. If the case had rested there—if the responsible advisers of the Crown, warned by that question, had met in consultation on the following day, and had been of opinion that a hasty promise had unfortunately been made, and that serious inconvenience to the public service and most prejudicial effects would follow if that promise were fulfilled, I appeal to this House whether, if after that deliberation, they had conic to the House of Commons and stated on their responsibility that then, before the actual Proclamation made by Lord Canning had arrived in England, in their opinion it was contrary to the public interest to produce that despatch—I say I appeal to the House whether there is the smallest belief that this House would have insisted on the fulfilment of that promise? But I ask another question—if this House can be conceived to have been disposed to act in a spirit so unpatriotic and improper, was it not the bounden duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown at least to cast that responsibility upon us, and to quit themselves of their pledge by stating their belief that in fulfilling their promise they were inflicting a serious and irreparable mischief on the public interests of the country? That is a just description of the case after the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham had been put, and after the answer of the Secretary to the Board of Control. But it is well known that the case did not rest there. The hon. Member for Birmingham was not satisfied with so guarded an answer as was given by the hon. Member for the county of Inverness. He rose again to put this question to the House:—
    "I hope the Government will be good enough to inform the House what the general tenor is of the despatch which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, in order that the decision of Her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject may as soon as possible go forth to the country."

    677
    What followed? In the first place, the leader of Her Majesty's Government in this House repeated the promise which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness had made. He said—
    "A copy of the despatch will, of course, as my hon. Friend has stated, be laid upon the table of the House."
    And he went on to say—
    "I think it, however, right to take this opportunity of stating that when we received notice of this intended Proclamation we took the subject at once into our consideration, and the result was that we sent out a despatch to the Governor General of India, disapproving the policy which he indicated in every sense."
    Has anybody forgotten the electric effect which that statement produced within the walls of this House? Has anybody forgotten that in every house in London, in whatever social circle we spent a portion of that evening, there was one universal eager question? And what was that question? Did people say to one another, "Is it true that the Secretary of the India Board has told the House of Commons that a despatch has been written by Lord Ellenborough, and that it will be laid upon the table very soon?" No such question was put. Everybody asked with eager curiosity, "Is it true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House of Commons that a despatch has gone to India disapproving the policy of the Governor General in every sense?" [Mr. BRIGHT interposed an observation.] I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham for his interruption. I am discharging a task which I desire to discharge with perfect fidelity, and if I should be so unfortunate as to make the smallest misquotation in any statement I make I shall be truly indebted to any hon. Gentleman who may interrupt me. But, Sir, I have the passage in my hand, and I am repeating exactly the words which that passage contains. The words are these:—"We have sent out a despatch to the Governor General of India disapproving the policy which he indicated in every sense." I say the question on that night was this:—"Is it true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a certain statement to the House of Commons?" and the reason why it was put was that everybody understood and felt the important consequences that hinged upon it. Then what happened the next day? On the following day—every Member of the Cabinet being, I presume acquainted with the promise that had been given—there was a meeting at which, so
    678
    far as I am aware, only three persons were present; and I shall read in the language of Lord Ellenborough what the nature of that meeting was:—
    "At a late period of the day it was understood between my noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself that extracts only should be read, for it was considered inconvenient that particular passages should be made public."
    Now, observe, the publication by production of the despatch has not yet been made. What publication has been made is only by the oral statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. The head of the Government, the leader of the Government in this House, and the Minister for India, come to an understanding on the subject, and that understanding is that, with the omission of certain extracts, publication shall be made; and accordingly on that night publication is made in both Houses—in the House of Lords, in conformity with the understanding that had been conic to, while in this House the whole of the despatch is given. Now, is it possible to say that the Minister for India was more responsible for that publication than the head of the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Nay, if there be any distinction between individuals, is it not plain that, whereas they had agreed expressly that this publication should be made—and I will likewise pay their colleagues the tribute of respect to suppose that within the twenty-four hours that intervened some indication of their opinions and feelings bad been taken—there was one who had made a separate oral publication of his own. So stands the case with regard to the writing and publication of the despatch on Friday, the 7th of May. On the Monday following there occurred a circumstance that I think, in giving a narrative of these transactions, I ought not to omit; for since Lord Ellenborough thought it worth while to explain it, it is surely worthy of being noticed here. I mean the explanation he made with regard to the reported or surmised possession of information with regard to the secret despatch on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham. There is in this matter something which I am not able to explain, because, as has been stated by Lord Derby, no notice of the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham had been given, and yet he and Lord Ellenborough said the Secretary to the India Board had been authorised to take the course he did take in answering it. But how he came to obtain authority

    679
    if he had no notice of the question is, so far as I am aware, a point upon which no explanation has to this moment been given. I have thought it right to notice this circumstance in the present narrative; but I will make upon it no comment, because I am speaking in the presence of those who can give the explanation which I am sure it will afford them satisfaction to give. I then thought it my duty to give notice of the Motion which I have now the honour to place, Sir, in your hands; and on the following day Lord Ellenborough, chivalrously taking upon himself the whole responsibility of the difficulty in which the Government was placed, resigned. Now, these being, as I believe, the general circumstances of the case, I submit to the House whether it does not appear that the writing and sending of the despatch were the collective acts of the Government, and not the separate acts of any Member of that Government? and with equal confidence I submit to the House whether the publication of the despatch on Friday, the 7th of May, can justly be said to have been the act of one Minister alone, and whether, under the circumstances which I have shortly laid before you, it is not as much the act of every one of them?
    Sir, those being the circumstances of the case, I shall now state to the House what is the nature of the Motion which I submit for its consideration, and what is the judgment I shall ask the House to form upon the very serious question involved. And here, in the first place, let me observe that on the Proclamation issued by the Governor General it is not my intention to ask the House to give any judgment. ["Hear, Hear!"] I cannot but be much indebted to Gentlemen for their cheers. I will now proceed to state my reasons for that determination, and I hope they will be equally satisfactory. In the first place, if I were to presume to ask the House for an opinion on that Proclamation I should be met by the irresistible statement that the Proclamation is not before us at all. What Her Majesty's Government have thought proper to lay before you is the draught of a Proclamation which I believe was never issued. Of the Proclamation which has been issued, and which in the language of Lord Derby, is "materially modified" from the Proclamation which has been laid before you, we have no knowledge but such as has been gathered incidentally from sources which cannot be made the ground-work of Par-
    680
    liamentary proceedings. But in regard to the Proclamation itself, while I will not ask any judgment on it, I think it my duty to state a fact, and that fact is this. In the blue-book of 1856 respecting Oude there is, under the signature of Mr. Edmonstone, addressed to Sir James Outram, and published at Lucknow, a proclamation to which those who describe the present Proclamation as a novelty will do well to turn their attention. It will be found that the persons against whom that proclamation was levelled are not the peaceful cultivators of the soil in Oude, not even the zemindars, as the word zemindar is understood at Calcutta; but that they are those persons with whom we have been made familiar in the volumes of Colonel Sleeman and in the blue-books, and who have been described, from the days of Lord Cornwallis to those of Lord Canning, as the curse and tribulation of Oude. But what I ask the House to condemn is the despatch itself of Lord Ellenborough, whether you regard it in its character of a secret despatch, or, still more, whether you regard it in its character of a published despatch. I do not know what notion Her Majesty's Government may have of the position in which the Governor General of India has been placed. But, if their sympathies with his position have been so little excited that they think it wise and right to address to him opinions which, be they right or wrong, have not been recommended upon their responsibility to the Crown, nor to Parliament for its sanction, we cannot but feel that his position of Governor General has become one of still greater difficulty, and that his action as a public servant must be seriously embarrassed. Lord Canning is there to support the Queen's Commissioner in Oude. He is acting as a public servant, with instructions as to the best mode of restoring the allegiance of the people of Oude to his Royal mistress and the Government of this country. Those to whom he is subordinate by official position have no doubt a right to advise the Queen to alter those instructions and modify his position, and they have a right to come to Parliament for the sanction of their views. But they have no right to paralyse the hands, and—if he were not a man of unusual courage, I would say—to palsy the heart of that distant servant of the Crown who is engaged in carrying out the behests of his Sovereign and his country. Lord Canning rules over an empire of 150,000,000 of

    681
    people, spread over an enormous territory, extending from the Himalaya mountains to Cape Comorin; but what do you suppose will be his freedom in governing India in his present circumstances if you tell him—as you have told him in this despatch—
    "Suddenly the people saw their King taken from among them, and our Administration substituted for his which, however bad, was at least Native,"
    Sir, there is no objection to independent Members of this House expressing those opinions; but there is the greatest objection to these doctrines going out to India as the doctrines of the responsible servants of the Crown when it is the duty and necessity of the public servant to whom they are addressed to administer our government over more than 150,000,000 of people, many of whom look back to the time when, if they lived under a bad Government, they lived, at least, under a Native Government. Now, Sir, let the House look at the tone and temper of the Government. The House has read that passage which begins "Other conquerors."
    Sir, I wonder that when Her Majesty's advisers considered the draught of that despatch there never occurred to any one of them the suggestion that when Lord Canning read those caustic words he might compare himself with "other conquerors" who had annexed other territories and had issued other proclamations. If so, they might have remembered that if the words "policy" of "clemency" had been honoured in connection with the government of India, that policy of clemency would go down to history, not associated with the names of other conquerors, but with the name of Canning. But when I come to consider this despatch not merely as read by Lord Canning, but as a document published in England and India, how shall I describe it? Sir, what are the duties of the Government to the Governor General of India? if you are dissatisfied with the Governor General, it is in your power and your duty to recall him. If you are satisfied with the mode in which he is performing his duty in difficult circumstances, then you ought to sustain and cordially to encourage him. lf, so sustaining him, you differ from him on an important matter of policy, you will direct and control him—but in that spirit and temper which will not break off his cordial concurrence with the Government at home—above all things it
    682
    is your duty to avoid anything which has the effect of paralysing that authority by which he is to do your work in India. Sir, what have you done? You have sent out to him and published a despatch which I have ventured in some particulars to criticise, but in regard to which, since it is in all your hands, I need not occupy your time. But I will ask you to listen to the language in which the Proclamation has been disclaimed by those who have indited and proposed the despatch. In the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was a "disapproval of his policy in every sense." [The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Of his policy indicated."] In the words of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, it was "censure and condemnation." In the language of the Earl of Ellenborough it rose to "reprobation." What was the position of a Governor General occupying that difficult post after the annexation of Oude, which took place while he was on his way to India to take charge of his Government—suddenly finding himself immersed in the anxieties of this perilous rebellion—not recalled by the Government at home—not instructed by the Government to recall the Proclamation they condemned, but told that they disapprove of his policy indicated in every sense; and "censure," "condemnation," and "reprobation" being the words used to characterise his conduct in "another place"? And this to Lord Canning, to the man who stood erect, and I am afraid sometimes too much alone—who sustained his courage and calmness and compassion in the midst of that tremendous period of anxiety through which we have been passing, and from which we have not yet entirely emerged—a man who has attained the nickname of "Clemency Canning" for the conduct which has displeased some, but who has been the worthy representative of that Sovereign—
    "Whose earthly power then shows likest God's
    "When mercy seasons justice."
    Well, if the writing of that despatch and its publication are unjust to Lord Canning what is its bearing on the British Crown? Whose commission does Sir James Outram bear, and what will be its character in Oude if such language is addressed to him and published? What is to be its bearing on our army there? Are they to shed their blood and put their lives in peril for a cause which is described in such language?

    683
    What will be its operation on the great cause of humanity? Are you prepared to reverse your operations and put an end to civil strife by restoring the throne of Oude to its Native rulers? and, if not, how else are you to put an end to those conflicts, except by establishing the authority and policy of the Government? What effect will it have on our friends in that country—on those who have made sacrifices and run hazards in our service—who have sheltered our countrymen and countrywomen in the hour of danger? Will it not carry dismay to their hearts when they see the publication of sentiments like these? What will be its effect on our enemies? Will it not encourage them in that resistance which many thousands of them are still in arms to offer? What has already been its effect upon our friends in continental Europe? Has it not dipped with gall every pen that loves to malign our policy and defame our character? Sir, for these reasons, and for many more that I could mention, I object to the writing and publication of this despatch.
    But, Sir, here I may be told, "The case stood very well when you gave notice of your Motion, but an important circumstance has occurred which varies the position of affairs—the responsible Minister has resigned." Sir, I say that those who are responsible for this despatch have not resigned. I do not know what the feelings of others may be, but I know that I should have felt ashamed to come down to this House and declare that this Motion was levelled against an individual member of the Cabinet, and that with the retirement of that Minister the objects of the Motion had ceased and ought to be forgotten. Sir, I know that I shall have at least one voice in this House that will cordially sympathise with me in this opinion. I well remember when a vote of censure was proposed in this House which displaced the Government of Lord Aberdeen—I well rember the generous sentiments that fell on that occasion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cordially agreed with him at that time, and I agree with him now. And, considering the applicability of his remarks to the present circumstances, and the high authority of the person by whom they were uttered, I will, with your permission, read them to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:—
    "The right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have addressed us have always argued this case as if the present Motion was an attack upon an indivi-
    684
    dual Member of the Cabinet. The whole of this case has been argued by the Government as if this were a personal attack upon the Minister of War. Now, Sir, for my part, I disclaim, in language as clear as I can express my meaning in, that I entirely protest against that Parliamentary conduct which singles out one Member of the Cabinet, and, on the pretence of criticising the administration of his department, visits him with a censure, from which the other Members of the Cabinet, his colleagues, are to be exempted. I have had occasion in other instances to maintain these opinions, and I have now acted upon them. I have been asked by hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side, whether I would support a vote of censure upon the Duke of Newcastle, and I have been assured by those hon. Gentlemen that such a Motion, if proposed, would be sure to be passed by a decisive majority. But I said, as I say now, that I never will, directly or indirectly, be a party to any Motion in this House the object of which is to select one Member of the Cabinet and make him the scapegoat of a policy for which the whole of his colleagues are equally responsible."
    Sir, these are eloquent and true words. I rejoiced to hear from the right hon. Gentleman last night language with regard to Lord Ellenborough which did him credit. He spoke in bold and manly language, and expressed the regret which he felt at the resignation of the noble Earl in these words:—
    "I have no doubt that the motive which induced Lord Ellenborough to take that not unconstitutional but unusual course was, that he knew very well, if the question had been put to those who lately had the honour of being his colleagues, their great regard for his personal qualities and their admiration of his genius would have led them unanimously to request him to withdraw that resignation."
    That is language which, in my opinion, does the right hon. Gentleman great credit. But the right hon. Gentleman goes too far when he speaks for others besides himself. Two propositions are contained in what I have read—first, that they have not had the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the subject; and, secondly, that if they had had that opportunity, they would have unanimously requested Lord Ellenborough to remain. That is not the statement of the head of the Government. That I may be accurate, I will read the words themselves:—
    "There is nothing, my Lords, so painful to my feelings as the possibility of being suspected for any purposes of sacrificing a colleague, and I know not that I have ever in my life felt deeper pain than when I received from my noble Friend, not a tender of his resignation, but a copy of a letter in which he had already submitted his resignation to Her Majesty."
    ("Hear, hear!") I shall invite more cheers in the next sentence:—

    685
    "I was bound to consider not private and personal feelings only, but what was due to the great interests of the country. I was bound to consider whether it was desirable that the Government should stake their existence as a Government upon their liability for an act of which they were not in the slightest degree cognizant—whether they should take upon themselves the defence of that which they felt they could not wholly defend; or whether they should accept the noble self-sacrifice of my noble Friend, and thereby, through his generosity, allow his colleagues to have justice done to them. That course I did take. I never felt greater pain than when I came to that determination. But, guided solely by great public considerations, I felt that it was my bounden duty to accept the self-sacrifice of my noble Friend. Painful as I felt, it to be to part from one for whom, personally, I had the highest respect and the most sincere regard—from one whose knowledge of India, whose long experience, whose devotedness to the cause of India, whose abnegation of self rendered him an invaluable colleague in our councils on India, and whose resignation was the greatest loss to the Cabinet—yet, swayed by still stronger considerations, I felt bound, but not without the deepest pain, to suggest that the resignation of my noble Friend should be received."
    These are matters of feeling and opinion; but I beg to say that, having given notice of submitting this Motion to the House, I should have been extremely loth to infer that, by the resignation of a colleague in the Ministry, the Government had been relieved from the responsibility of his act, and that the motives which had induced me to propose submitting these Resolutions to the House were consequently at an end. The resignation of Lord Ellenborough does affect the question, but not, I think, in the way in which the argument to which I have been adverting would lead. In the first place, the language of the head of the Government which I have read to you relieves me altogether from the necessity of arguing when I impugn conduct which he admits is not capable of defence. In the second place, it allows the question to be viewed in an important constitutional respect. When I gave notice of this Motion, I felt that, if conduct like that of which I have been speaking passed unnoticed by this House, our sovereignty of India was perilled, and the vast Indian dependencies of this kingdom could no longer be regarded as safe to the British Crown. But now I want to know, is there no danger with regard to the Government of England? We have just passed a Resolution that we will intrust the government of our Indian possessions to a responsible Minister. Is there to be limited liability in the Cabinet? Is there to be no solidarity among those to whom the vast interests of the greatest empire of the world are intrusted by this
    686
    House? The East India Company has set to the House of Commons an example which we shall do well to bear in mind in our deliberations. "Corpses" they have been called, but those corpses have too much blood in them to see the Governor General treated in this manner, while the statute law places his protection in their hands, without coming forward to record their confidence in his administration.
    Sir, I regret that in making this Motion it has been my duty so long to occupy the time of the House. I have laid before you the facts of a case which I believe to have no parallel in the history of British administration, I have regarded it as a case deeply affecting the most important inter rests of this country. I believe the continued government of your distant dependencies depends upon it. I believe a new element has been imported into it materially affecting the constitutional government of this country. I have endeavoured to discharge my task by laying it clearly before you, without any exaggeration and without any artifice of rhetoric; and I now conclude by appealing to you to know whether you, the representatives of a generous and high-spirited people, will permit the Governor General of India, the author of the policy of clemency, to remain under the censure which has been cast upon him, or whether, by the expression of your sentiments, you will show that your sympathy and your support will ever be extended to those who with courage and with compassion under arduous circumstances maintain in a distant dependency the rightful cause of England. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution:—
    "That this House, whilst in its present state of information it abstains from expressing an opinion on the policy of any Proclamation which may have been issued by the Governor General of India in relation to Oude, has seen with regret and serious apprehension that Her Majesty's Government have addressed to the Governor General, through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors, and have published, a Despatch condemning in strong terms the conduct of the Governor General; and is of opinion that such a course on the part of the Government must tend, in the present circumstances of India, to produce the most prejudicial effect, by weakening the authority of the Governor General, and encouraging the further resistance of those who are in arms against us."
    MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he was sure that he should not ask in vain for the indulgence of the House while he stated the reasons which had influenced him to undertake the task of seconding the Mo-

    687
    tion. In doing so, he was particularly anxious to guard himself against any misapprehension of the views he entertained. If he regarded the Proclamation of Lord Canning as a measure, not to say of wholesale confiscation, but an act of undue severity to the people of Oude, be should be the last person to give it his sanction or support. Sprung, as he did, from a race, and coming from a country which had been made the subject of wholesale confiscation and wholesale proscription, the memory of which had not even now wholly passed away, it would ill become him to advocate wholesale confiscation and proscription in any dependency of the British Crown. But not only did the Resolution of his right hon. Friend carefully and properly abstain from pledging the House to any approbation of the policy indicated in the Proclamation which had been the subject of condemnation by Her Majesty's Government, not only did it leave them full liberty, when they should be supplied with complete information to take into consideration the scope and purport of that Proclamation, but he confessed that he had come to the conclusion that the Proclamation indicated no such policy as that which had been ascribed to it. Whether he viewed it with reference to the source from which it emanated, or its context and terms, or the facts connected with it, he came to an entirely different conclusion. The policy which he thought ought to be pursued towards the people of Oude was clearly and properly indicated in a letter from the late Minister of India, in which he gave the following instruction to the Governor General of India:—
    "It appears that, whenever open resistance shall have ceased, it will be prudent, in awarding punishment, rather to follow the practice which prevails when a country has been defended to the last by its inhabitants, rather than that which might, perhaps, be lawfully adopted after the suppression of mutiny and rebellion."
    He fully subscribed to that view; but that was not the question which the House had to consider. It was one thing to indicate their views of policy, and another to condemn and censure, and publish to the world the reasons by which the Minister was influenced in reversing the policy on which the Governor General had entered. The Proclamation was not a measure of wholesale proscription or undue severity. It emanated from a statesman who had been most conspicuous for the clemency which had guided his policy in India, and who had dared to stand between the people
    688
    of India and an indiscriminate desire for vengeance which could scarcely be appeased. Was it likely that Lord Canning, in dealing with a people who might have some excuse for their hostility to us, would depart from the whole tenor of policy which had hitherto actuated him in the government of India, and embark in measures of wholesale confiscation and proscription? But what are the terms of the Proclamation? Does Lord Canning say that the whole property of Oude was to be confiscated, and that the whole population was to be proscribed? No such thing—the import of his Proclamation was entirely different. The words of the Proclamation were these:—
    "The Governor General further proclaims to the people of Oude that, with the above-mentioned exceptions, the proprietary right in the soil of the province is confiscated to the British Government."
    But what were actually the proprietary rights here spoken of as being subject to confiscation? In India the Government of a country was by right, and not only in theory, the owner of the land. And what was the case in Oude? The monarchs who had preceded us in Oude had granted out in large tracts what were called the "proprietary rights," and they had thus created a class of proprietors intermediate between them and the tillers of the soil, called talookdars and zemindars. The rights of these persons were thus described in the instructions of the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces to the officials engaged in the land settlement of those districts:—
    "The ordinary form in such cases is, when a powerful man, by patent or by grant from a superior Power, or by favour of local officers, or by the voluntary act of the people themselves, has become an intermediate person between the Government and the village proprietors, collecting from the latter what they would otherwise have paid to the Government, and paying it in himself in one sum after such deductions to cover his own risk as may be settled on in the patent or original agreement."
    That was exactly the position of the talookdars in Oude. The fullest information would be found respecting them in Sir William Sleeman's book and in the bluebook on Oude, and it would be seen that they had encroached not only on the rights of the superior Government, but also on those of the persons over whom they were set. It was with these proprietary rights, forfeited by rebellion against us, and with them alone, that Lord Canning's Proclamation dealt; and nothing would be more

    689
    calculated to benefit the actual tillers of the soil than that the Government should, if not confiscate, at least modify the rights which had been exercised by the former chiefs, and give the Natives the protection of which they stood so much in need. But the Proclamation was not such a sweeping unqualified measure of confiscation as had been represented. Lord Canning had included in his Proclamation a very important qualification in one of the paragraphs, which had not been sufficiently dwelt on:—
    "To those among them who shell promptly come forward and give to the Chief Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and order, the indulgence will be large, and the Governor General will be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to a restitution of their former rights."
    What could be more likely to tend to the pacification of Oude than to threaten these men with the confiscation of their, rights if they continued to resist, but to promise them indulgence if they at once submitted? He would admit, that this qualification was not in the draft of the Proclamation laid before the Government when the letter was written to Lord Canning; but Ministers were in possession of it before the 8th of May when the publication of the despatch took place, of which he and other hon. Gentlemen complained. This paragraph of Lord Canning's was no departure from former precedents. Sir Charles Napier had done exactly the same thing when he conquered Scinde. The Ameers of Scinde, like the Kings of Oude, had in former times granted out large tracts of land on feudal tenure, and when Sir Charles Napier conquered that province he confiscated those rights, but he accompanied the forfeiture with a declaration that they would be restored to them on certain conditions. When Oude was originally annexed, Lord Dalhousie issued a Proclamation in language almost identical with that used by Lord Canning:—
    "All officers, civil and military, all servants of the State, and all inhabitants of Oude are required to render implicit obedience to the officers of the British Government. If any person shall refuse to render such obedience, shall withhold payment of revenue, or dispute the authority of the British Government, he shall be declared a rebel, his person shall be seized, and his land confiscated to the State."
    The event provided for by Lord Dalhousie had now occurred; the talookdars and zemindars had rebelled, and Lord Canning was only putting in force the sentence prospectively announced by Lord Dalhousie.
    690
    There was every reason why the Government should have postponed their decision respecting the Proclamation, until they should have been in possession of that full information which alone could have enabled them to decide fairly upon it. As to the effect of the issuing of the Proclamation there could be no more satisfactory evidence than that of The Times' Special Correspondent, who stated that immediately it was put out, several chiefs came in and made their submission on the conditions upon the understanding that their religion should not be interfered with, that others were coming in, and that there was every prospect that this Proclamation, fairly carried out, would rapidly bring Oude to a state of tranquillity. But the policy of the Proclamation was not now before the House, but the conduct of the Government, as to which the House possessed the fullest information. They complained of two things—first, that the Government should have written and forwarded to India a despatch framed in terms of such stringent severity; and secondly, that they should have transmitted it without obtaining that fuller information which the lapse of a short time would have put them in possession of. He complained also that the Government by its conduct had exposed the country to imputations upon its honour, and had seriously imperilled the safety of its dominions by the premature publication of the document. Could anything be more unfair than to censure Lord Canning, and to refuse to recall him?—to load him with censure and obloquy, and yet to leave him to administer the government of India in these troublous times was a course of conduct which ought not to be pursued, and which could not be justified. Instead of remonstrating with Lord Canning, calling his attention to their former instructions, and indicating to him a line of policy which they wished him to pursue, the Cabinet had administered to him the sharpest rebuke that was ever given by a Government to any public man; and that, he contended, was the act not of one Member of the Government in its collective capacity. But he complained likewise of the precipitate and unaccountable publication of that despatch. That despatch proclaimed not merely to England, but to all Europe and to India, and elaborate condemnation of the policy of the Governor General, and a justification of those who were engaged in defying our authority and resisting our arms.

    691
    He declined to enter into any question with respect to the original policy which had resulted in the annexation of Oude. That was, as his right hon. Friend had said, un fait accompli, and when Lord Canning assumed the reins of government in India, Oude was, to all intents and purposes, a British province, and was occupied by British soldiers. Our authority there had since been defied, and availing themselves of the fearful catastrophe which threatened to engulf the empire, the Natives seized the whole province. Upon the details of those events he need not dwell. We sent out troops by thousands, commanded by a veteran general, to restore by force the authority which by force had been displaced. By the skill of our generals and the valour of our soldiers we had succeeded, and Lucknow was no longer the seat of a dynasty antagonistic to our power. But, in such a crisis what was the course adopted by the Government? They sent out a despatch, not merely censuring the Governor General for his Proclamation, and calculated to weaken his authority, to paralyze his power, and to lower his position, but actually containing an elaborate and authoritative vindication of those who were engaged in resisting our power—placing them in the rank of the Spanish patriots who opposed Napoleon, and our officers in the position of Napoleon's marshals. Supposing that Napoleon, in the plenitude of his power, had addressed such a document to his marshals in Spain, what would have been the effect produced on the Spaniards and on his army? Surely that despatch published by the Government here and translated into every dialect in India, would add vastly to the strength of our opponents, and would increase their moral and material power. He did not ask what justification there was for that publication, because he believed that it was admitted to be unjustifiable. Was the House to ignore such conduct on the part of those who were entrusted with the government of India? He contended, that if Acts like these were brought under the cognizance of a Parliamentary tribunal, and were not visited with the severest censure that could be bestowed upon them, constitutional Government was little better than a fiction and a sham. He confidently asserted that the House of Commons could not avoid expressing an opinion upon this important subject. They owed it alike to Lord Canning, to themselves, to the people of England, to the people of India, and to the Government to pronounce a, decided opinion
    692
    upon it. He said that they owed it to the Government, because, when a vote of censure was proposed, it was the duty of the House of Commons to come to an immediate and decisive conclusion upon the point; and it was not fair to the Government to allow them to remain under the imputation of a charge which, possibly, could not be maintained. He did not believe that the Gentlemen opposite would shrink from the issue, but would meet it as they ought, fully, and fairly; he did not believe they would meet this Motion by resorting to any of the expedients which in various quarters had been suggested; neither could he for a moment suppose that they would shelter themselves under what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) had called "the generous self-sacrifice of Lord Ellen-borough." He could not concede the doctrine that Ministerial responsibility was to be so limited. The Government was not a mere aggregate of Departments presided over by independent chiefs, but it was a union of statesmen taking the same views, acting upon the same policy, consulting and agreeing together, tendering in their joint character advice to Her Majesty, and responsible individually and collectively for the consequences of that advice. If it were necessary to go into that portion of the case, he thought that it could be shown beyond all controversy that the sending and publication of the despatch was not the sole and undivided act of Lord Ellenborough. The members of the Cabinet concurred, and he supposed still concurred, in the propriety of issuing and publishing that despatch. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was the first Cabinet Minister who promised its publication, and in pursuance of that promise it was made public; and the House had never yet heard a single expression from the right hon. Gentleman or from his colleagues indicating any regret that the publication of the despatch had taken place. The House had now to decide a simple issue:—Did they approve the framing and publication of that despatch, blaming Lord Canning and aiding and defending the insurgents? If they did, of course they would vote against the Motion of his right hon. Friend; but if they thought that the preparation and publication of that document were indefensible, he called upon them to support by their votes the Resolution that was now proposed; for they owed it to Lord Canning to make some reparation for the

    693
    grievous and unjust censure to which he had been subjected; they owed it to the country, they owed it to themselves and to their constituents not to permit an act to pass without reprobation by which our dominions had been exposed to such imminent peril. It might be said that the object of this Motion was factious. He did not think that the present Government had reason to complain of faction. He never knew a Government which had experienced greater forbearance at the hands of the majority. But forbearance had its limits. He thought that those limits had been outstepped, and that when acts were done by the Executive Government which were calculated to imperil the safety of our Indian empire and to protract the terrible struggle which had so long been waging, it was the duty of the House of Commons to interpose and to condemn those acts. He repeated that they owed it to Lord Canning to make some reparation; and reparation could not be effectually made by acceding to the motion for the Previous Question, or by supporting the amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Adolphus Vane-Tempest), and declining to pronounce an opinion upon the conduct of the Government. The only remaining course by which the honour and the interests of the country could be maintained, due assistance given to Lord Canning in the arduous position in which he was placed, and the character of that House upheld, was by acceding to the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford.
    Question proposed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I was at a loss, Sir, when I first read the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has put into your hands, to understand whether its object was to defend, however indirectly, the policy announced by Lord Canning in the Proclamation which we are discussing; whether he meant to uphold those operations in India, the opposition to which he seems to think the conduct of the Government is calculated to prolong; or lastly, to facilitate operations in this country against the occupants of the Treasury bench, the opposition to which the right hon. Gentleman considers has already been deferred too long. I confess that, after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I have come to the conclusion that it is neither the first nor the second of the objects to which I have adverted that he has in view. The third object which I have mentioned is one,
    694
    indeed, which is perfectly legitimate, and the furtherance of it, I am ready to admit, has fallen into no unskilful hands. The right hon. Gentleman must nevertheless bear in mind that even in an assault upon a Ministry there are rules of strife which call upon a man boldly and manfully to state and to prove his case. But from those rules, as I think I shall be able to show the House, the right hon. Gentleman has thought proper widely to depart.
    Sir, I must ask the House to observe that the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman constitutes what is called a complex proposition. It must be resolved into its parts, and those parts are three. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, asks the House to pass no opinion upon the policy of the Proclamation which was issued by Lord Canning. In the second place, he seeks to censure the Government for having expressed an opinion upon that Proclamation; and in the third place, to condemn their conduct for having, as he alleges, published the despatch in which their adverse opinion was conveyed. Now, I maintain that if the House accepts the first part of this complex proposition, and evades expressing any opinion as to the policy of Lord Canning's Proclamation, it is impossible it can approach the consideration of that censure which the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to pronounce. It is impossible, with any degree of justice, to come to a decision upon the expediency of the condemnation unless you take into account the merits of that which is condemned. I therefore accept the terms in which the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman is couched as a proof of the weakness of his case. He is afraid to challenge the verdict of the House of Commons upon the policy of the Proclamation. I decline, however, to accept the form of the Resolution, where it narrows and limits the issue which we are to try. I decline at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman to look at an Act of the Government and to shut my eyes to the occurrences by which that Act has been produced. I am quite prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman in any discussion which he may feel disposed to raise as to the conduct of the Government, but in doing so I claim the right of taking into consideration the justice and the policy of the Proclamation in question. A judgment upon that Proclamation may be formed by having recourse to a very trite dilemma. Either it is right or it is wrong. If it is right,

    695
    and if the principles which it enunciates are principles just and politic, the Government, beyond all doubt, was wrong in censuring it at all, and still more wrong in making that censure public. But if, upon the other hand, the principles which are embodied in that Proclamation are neither consistent with justice, nor in conformity with sound policy, then I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show upon what good grounds he calls upon the House to censure the condemnation of that which in itself is contrary to justice and to policy.
    Now, let me ask to whom was this Proclamation intended to be addressed? Not to the Sepoys of India. They were mutineers in the strictest sense of the word. They had eaten our bread and received our pay. They were our sworn subjects, bound to us by every tie of allegiance and fidelity. They threw off that allegiance and rebelled. In the course of that rebellion they committed acts of murder, deeds of cruelty and treachery, coldblooded, wilful, and deliberate. They were—or, at all events, many of them were—persons whose hands were stained by crimes of the deepest dye. Under these circumstances their lives and property were sacrificed by their crimes. But it was not to them, but to the King and people of Oude, this Proclamation of Lord Canning was addressed. What says Mr. Edmonstone, the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude? He states in the 19th paragraph that the Proclamation was addressed to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude, and not to the mutineers. But what was the kingdom of Oude? Our relations with it were relations of conquest, and not of allegiance. I know it has been said, that Oude had voluntarily become incorporated with our dominions—that its people had willingly come into our allegiance, and that the hostilities in Oude were rebellion and not war. Sir, these assertions I deny, and my denial is capable of easy proof. I do not now desire to enter into the merits of the question of the annexation of that kingdom. That is a question which never has been, and in all probability never will be, discussed in this House as fully as it might deserve. In speaking of the subject, I will only say that the strongest feeling by which I was impressed upon reading the papers connected with it, and I have read them carefully, was the hope that history may be as lenient to us in regard to that transaction as we have been to ourselves. But, declining to open up that
    696
    large question, I shall proceed to deal with facts about which there can be no dispute. In the year 1856, the treaty which the East India Company asserted was the treaty regulating our relations with the King of Oude, was a treaty made in 1801, which contained a clause guaranteeing to the Vizier, his heirs and successors, the possession of their territories, together with the free exercise of their authority within their dominions. In the year 1856, however, the East India Company considering that the kingdom of Oude was misgoverned, deemed that that misgovernment conferred upon them the right, I do not say whether justly or unjustly, to annex that territory to our possessions in India. How did they carry that right into effect? Substantially by means of conquest. A Commissioner was sent to Oude. A body of British troops crossed the Ganges. A treaty was presented to the King, who refused to sign the treaty; and he was consequently dethroned, his palace taken possession of, his property sold, his Ministers either made prisoners or held to bail. I do not say whether this was right or wrong—I will assume it to be right. But I still confidently ask whether the case of Oude was one of voluntary submission or of simple conquest and annexation? My answer to the question is that our relations with Oude were relations of conquest. All that was done there was done under protest, and that protest continued until the Sepoy revolt broke out. The people of Oude, which was under a forced submission, taking advantage of that rebellion, made war against England—war, I admit, stained by bloody and barbarous crimes, but still war. By the valour of our troops, poured into the country, the skill and energy of our Commander in Chief—and I cheerfully and gratefully add, by the skill and energy of Lord Canning—by the heroism almost unparalleled of small handfuls of men, aye, and women, who maintained their position in the country until our troops arrived—by all these means the contest in India has resulted in decisive, and I trust, a lasting victory.
    But, now that we are victorious, let me ask what is the policy which as victors we ought to pursue? I am prepared to declare what that policy should be upon the broad grounds of justice. But first let me examine the question upon the narrower grounds of prudence and self-interest. Do you mean to hold Oude? If so, how do you propose to effect that ob-

    697
    ject? Is it by the aid of a standing army? You may achieve your end in that way, but its attainment will cost you dear. Do you desire the willing and cheerful submission of the people of Oude? How can you procure that submission? Is it not an important clement in the question to gain the good will of the landowners of that country? A child could answer that question. Which of two things do you do, let me ask—provoke hostility, or conciliate good-will by taking from them that which they hold dearer than their lives? Let us go a step further. Do you desire to put down the mutiny of the Sepoys? Of course you do. Then it follows naturally that you must also desire to prevent the Sepoys from taking refuge and obtaining support in neighbouring States. Where is it most likely that they would obtain that support which would enable them again to make head against us? In the kingdom of Oude. If we have the people of Oude in our favour, they will assist us in beating down and delivering up those Sepoys who may take refuge in their country; but if you alienate the feelings of that people, the consequence is easy to foresee; you will throw them into the arms of the Sepoys—they will combine with the Sepoys, and you will have in that distant and separate territory to crush and to subdue, not merely the Natives of the territory, but also the Sepoys, who will certainly assemble there. Therefore, I say, upon the lowest ground of self-interest and policy, it is for the advantage of this country to conciliate the affections of the people of Oude.
    But I desire to rest the case on broader grounds than these. Whatever other nations may do, England ought not to retrograde from those laws of war which civilization has introduced. How, then, upon the principles of justice and the practice of civilized nations, which this country is bound to observe, ought we to treat the property of a conquered people? My proposition is this—you make war with kings and Governments, but not with individuals. If in the course of war individuals commit crimes, they put themselves beyond the pale of that rule; but, except as to such cases, every individual is entitled to protection of life and property from the victorious nation. You might as well confiscate the lives of the conquered as their property. Are there not the highest authorities or precedents upon this
    698
    point? The matter is so clear that really I am almost ashamed to ask the House to listen to the opinion of one or two great authorities upon this question. But let me read to you what the greatest civilian of the last century—Vattel—says. The Swiss civilian says:—
    "But if the entire State be conquered, if the nation be subdued, in what manner can the victor treat it without transgressing the bounds of justice? What are his rights over the conquered country? Some have dared to advance this monstrous principle, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as his property—that he may treat it as he pleases, according to the common expression of treating a State as a conquered country; and hence they derive one of the sources of despotic Government. But, disregarding such writers, who reduce men to the state of transferable goods or beasts of burden, who deliver them np as the property or partrimony of another man, let us argue on the principles countenanced by reason and conformable to humanity."
    Those are the words of a writer who lived 100 years ago. I will now quote you the opinion of a distinguished writer of modern times. Dr. Wheaton says:—
    "In ancient times both the moveable and unmoveable property of the vanquished passed to the conqueror. Such was the Roman law of war, often asserted with unrelenting severity, and such was the fate of the Roman provinces subdued by the northern barbarians on the decline and fall of the Western Empire. A large portion, from one to two thirds, of the lands belonging to the vanquished provincials was confiscated and partitioned among their conquerors. The last example in Europe of such a conquest was that of England by William of Normandy. Since that period, among the civilized nations of Christendom, conquest, even when confirmed by a treaty of peace, has been followed by no general or partial transmutation of landed property. The property belonging to the Government of the vanquished nations passes to the victorious State; which also takes the place of the former Sovereign in respect to the eminent domain. In other respects, private rights are unaffected by conquest."
    This is a question upon which the practice and views of other countries are also worthy of our attention. The House is aware that questions affecting the law of nations frequently come before the Supreme Court in America, and that Court is one from which we derive the most valuable information concerning national and international law. That Court, then, has said this:—
    "The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated, that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The people changed their allegiance; their relation to their ancient Sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to

    699
    each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed."
    The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) has given us his views upon this subject. He has told us that, whatever might be the principle, we had precedents, and precedents, too, in relation to India, from which Lord Canning had not departed. I deny that position, and I think I can soon justify my denial. The hon. and learned Member read us a Proclamation of Lord Dalhousie. That Proclamation is in the memory of the House; and what did that Proclamation state? Lord Dalhousie said, "If you, the zemindars and landowners, come in and submit to the new Government your rights to all your lands shall be protected." Sir, if Lord Canning had said this, I should have found no fault with his Proclamation. But, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, Sir Charles Napier did not follow that rule. Now, we have a history of what was done by Sir Charles Napier, and what does his brother say:—
    "While his cannon still resounded on the banks of the Indus, he had made known that all persons, whether of high or low degree, were confirmed for the time, and would be so permanently, according to their behaviour"—[ironical cheers]—
    Would be confirmed in what?—
    "In the employments they held under the Ameers—[cheers and laughter]—and that all their rights and possessions would"—
    there is no behaviour here—
    "Be safe from confiscation, save those of the people who, contrary to the faith of nations, had assailed the Residency."
    Well, but says the hon, and learned Member, at all events the people of Oude were not entitled to the rights of war and conquest. Those rights were out of the question for them. They were rebels; they were mutineers; and any man connected with the Government of this country or of India who should hint that they are anything but rebels and mutineers is false to his country and a traitor to the interests of Great Britain. Now, whom will the hon. and learned Member accept as a judge of the condition of the people of Oude? Will he take the Directors of the East India Company? Certainly they have not combined to state the case of the people of Oude more favourably for that people than was absolutely necessary; but there has been placed upon the table of the House to-night, and will be in the hands of Members to-morrow, a despatch from the Court of Directors to the Governor General, dated the 5th of this month, from which, if
    700
    the House will permit me, I will read two paragraphs which contain the views of the Court of Directors as to the position of the people of Oude. Let the House remember that the hon. and learned Member for Cork says the people of Oude are rebels—it is not fair war they are waging, but it is mutiny and rebellion. Now, what says the Court of Directors?
    "In dealing with the people of Oude, you will doubtless be moved by special considerations of justice and of policy. Throughout the recent contest we have ever regarded such of the inhabitants of that country as, not being Sepoys or pensioners of our own army, have been in arms against us as an exceptional class. They cannot be considered as traitors nor even as rebels, for they have not pledged their fidelity to us, and they had scarcely become our subjects. Many, by the introduction of a new system of government, had necessarily been deprived of the maintenance which they had lately enjoyed, and others feared that the speedy loss of their means of subsistence would follow from the same cause."
    That was treason when Lord Ellenborough suggested it.
    "It was natural that such persons should avail themselves of the opportunity presented by the distracted state of the country to strike a blow for the restoration of that Native rule under which the permitted disorganization of the country had been so long to them a source of unlawful profit."
    When an excuse was made for the rising in arms of the people of Oude in a despatch, it is attached by this Resolution, and we are told it was a betrayal of the interests of the country; but what is it when the Court of Directors speak of it?
    "Neither the disbanded soldiers of the late Native Government, nor the great talookdars and other retainers, were under any obligation of fidelity to our Government for benefits conferred upon them. You would be justified, therefore, in dealing with them as you would with a foreign enemy, and in ceasing consider objects of punishment after they have once laid down their arms."
    That is one paragraph of the despatch. I am fearful of wearying the House; but there is another paragraph which I would wish to read:—
    "Of these arms they must for ever be deprived. You will, doubtless, in prosecution of this object, address yourself in the first instance to the case of the great talookdars, who so successfully defied the late Government, and many of whom, with large bodies of armed men, appear to have aided the efforts of the mutinous soldiery of the Bengal army. The destruction of the fortified strongholds of these powerful landholders, the forfeiture of their remaining guns, the disarming and disbanding of their followers will be among your first works. But while you are depriving this influential and once dangerous class of people of their power of openly resisting your authority, you will, we have no doubt, exert yourselves by every possible

    701
    means to reconcile them to British rule, and encourage them, by liberal arrangements made in accordance with ancient usages, to become industrious agriculturists, and to employ in the cultivation of the soil the men who, as armed retainers, have so long wasted the substance of their masters and desolated the land. We believe that these landholders may be taught that their holdings will be more profitable to them under a strong Government, capable of maintaining the peace of the country and severely punishing agrarian outrages, than under one which perpetually invites, by its weakness, the ruinous arbitration of the sword."
    I say that that is a statesmanlike and manly despatch. It meets the case fairly, and it tells the truth. These men in Oude were not rebels, and it would be injustice to deal with them as rebels. The Court of Directors say, provided only they lay down their arms and become peaceable subjects, the holding of their lands shall not be disturbed. I put it to the House to say which is the truer description, which is the wiser and the juster policy. I have heard it asked—I do not think I have heard it in this debate, but it has been said so often that I think it well to refer to it—what could Lord Canning have done? Could he say to men who were in arms that he would preserve to them intact their rights of property? I say, "No; of course not." He should have said what Lord Dalhousie said,—"If you lay down your arms, and become peaceable subjects, promising allegiance to our rule, it is not with you we have made war, and you are safe." And if the Proclamation had been couched in language such as that, I venture to think no Government would have objected to it.
    But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork County, who seconded this Motion, has suggested a theory with regard to this Proclamation, which I cannot pass over. The right hon. Gentleman says, "It is altogether a mistake to suppose that Lord Canning's Proclamation was addressed to the people of Oude or that it interferes with what we call the rights of property. It is, in truth, he says, merely dealing with high and abstruse feudal and baronial rights, which have been a great curse to the country. But, suppose it were true that the Proclamation only meddled with feudal and baronial rights, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what difference he makes between a feudal right and any other species of right. He may think it an injurious thing to the country; but if it is a right of property, owned by the people of the country, high or low, I desire to
    702
    know whether he can justify confiscation of that as distinguished from the confiscation of any other kind of property. The supposition, however, that this proclamation meddles only with "feudal and baronial rights," is entirely without foundation. There is no shadow of a pretence for such a theory. To whom is it addressed? Is it to the talookdars and chiefs alone? On the contrary, it is addressed to the landowners of Oude. Moreover, what is to be confiscated? Why, the proprietary right in the soil of the province." But what is the proprietary right in the soil? Why, Sir, it is the right of property in the soil: it includes the right of the tenant, the right of the farmer, the right of the middleman, the right of the owner of the land, and feudal and baronial rights; and all these rights are confiscated. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point out a single word in this Proclamation which preserves to any man, except the six persons mentioned in it, any sort of right or property.
    Well, Sir, I now come to that part of the Motion which censures the condemnation by the Government of the policy of this Proclamation. What are the facts as to this? There comes to tins country the draft of a Proclamation which Lord Canning says he is about to issue as soon as the troops are in possession of Lucknow, an event which he expected to occur without delay. It comes home without the modifying clause which was afterwards introduced, and which I think every one will see was introduced by the hand of the Chief Commissioner. It came home without explanation. It was accompanied, so far as the Board of Control were concerned, with nothing but a letter from the Secretary to the Government of India at Calcutta to the Chief Commissioner at Oude, which appeared therefore to be the whole of the explanation which Lord Canning desired to give. Now let us consider for a moment what are the functions of the Home Government with regard to the Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) says you have paralysed the arm of the Governor General. The Governor General sends important information to the Government at home on a question of great interest. Is it the province of the latter to pronounce an opinion on them or not? If the Home Government is to give no opinion, the right hon. Gentleman may be right; but if the Government is to give an opinion, I

    703
    say, I, for one, should have been ashamed to be connected with any Government which allowed a single mail to pass after this Proclamation was received without writing to the Governor General and stating explicitly and distinctly their views in regard to the policy contained in it. Sir, this was a case in which there was not a moment to be lost; nor was it one in which there could be any shrinking from the right through a fear of hurting the feelings of the Governor General. I respect Lord Canning as much as any man in this House respects him. Lord Canning is a man whose kind and considerate nature and whose upright and simple mind are such, that no person who has, however distantly, been an observer of them, can have any other feelings towards him than those of profound respect and considerable admiration; but when the destinies of a country are threatened—when the fortunes of 5,000,000 of people are at stake—all considerations that are merely personal must give way. This part of the subject lies in the smallest possible compass, and with it the right hon. Gentleman has not grappled. Was the Proclamation right or was it wrong? If the Proclamation was right the censure was wrong. And if the Proclamation was wrong the censure was right. I care not who the Governor General was, or what his past services may have been. I say here was a case in which a specific act was proposed to the Home Government. It was their duty to express an opinion on it. They have expressed that opinion, and as I maintain they have expressed it rightly.
    Sir, I now come to the third and smallest part of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution—that which refers to the publication of the despatch by the Home Government. On that part of the case my views shall be shortly and distinctly stated. I hold that it was the duty of any Government, the fact that the Proclamation having been published and become known to the people of England, to express in some form or other their opinion of the policy of that Proclamation, whether it was right or wrong. I repeat it was wholly impossible for any Government—the Proclamation having once been made public—to refuse to declare the views they entertained in respect to the policy propounded in it. This was not a question of foreign negotiation or diplomatic correspondence, in which it is a custom—a custom which some Members of the House of Commons
    704
    consider a vicious one—for a Minister to say it would be inconsistent with the public advantage to reveal the different stages of a transaction which was still pending. This was a transaction completed and done. The Proclamation was published; the House of Commons was assembled; Ministers were in their places, liable to be called upon—and they were called upon—to say aye or no to "what is your line of policy on that Proclamation—do you approve of it or do you not?" The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) is mistaken in some of the facts which he has stated to the House. He said—inadvertently no doubt—but unfortunately for the argument he has endeavoured to sustain. He has stated, for example, that the Government had made a declaration disapproving of the whole policy of Lord Canning. Sir, the Government never did anything of the kind. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) rose in his place in this House, and put this question to the Government, "A Proclamation has been issued confiscating the property of the kingdom of Oude; does Her Majesty's Government approve of that Proclamation or does it not? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to that question, said, "Her Majesty's Government disapproves of the confiscation of the property of Oude (that is to say, of the policy indicated in the Proclamation) in every sense." Sir, I hope I may say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that they do disapprove of it still "in every sense." There are only two senses in which it can be approved of or disapproved of—the sense of justice and the sense of expediency. In both senses my right hon. Friend stated that he disapproved of that part of Lord Canning's policy, and that alone. In both of these senses the Government disapproved of it, and I hope the House will affirm their decision.
    But the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, that in addition to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is the publication of the despatch, and that, notwithstanding the resignation of Lord Ellenborough, the whole Government is responsible for that act. Now, what are the facts with reference to that publication? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) gave notice of his Motion before the resignation of Lord Ellenborough. The noble Earl himself has, with that frankness and high honour which is not one of the smallest of his characteristics,

    705
    stated "in another place" what the facts connected with the production of that despatch were. The noble Earl has stated that the Secretary of the Board of Control did by his directions promise to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the despatch sent to Lord Canning in consequence of his Proclamation. Another noble Earl, a personal friend of Lord Canning, with justifiable haste, applied in "another place" to Lord Ellenborough for a copy of the despatch. Lord Ellenborough yielded to the entreaty of the noble Earl, and at the same time with a spirit of fairness and impartiality, which I am sure the House will appreciate, he thought it proper that that Member of this House, who had put the question to my right hon. Friend, should have the same advantage as that afforded to the noble Earl who applied for the despatch elsewhere. This led to the production of the despatch in this House; but hon. Members will remember that this was done without any other Member of the Government having been consulted on the subject. These two copies of the despatch were thus, in point of fact, made public. They were in possession of individuals not bound to secrecy, and the moment the despatch came into their hands they became to all intents and purposes public. Therefore, the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) was strictly right when he said that he alone, and no other Member of the Government, was a party to the publication of the despatch.
    In other respects the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion has not been quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman, reproducing an old joke of my right hon. Friend near me, which, though a good one, is not in point at the present moment, asked if this was "a Government of limited liability?" and proceeded to advert to what was done in the case of the Government of Lord Aberdeen. He said a Member of Lord Aberdeen's Government resigned; but that notwithstanding this, his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said his resignation ought not to shelter the other Members of the Government from responsibility. But is there the slightest resemblance or analogy between the present case and that which occurred in Lord Aberdeen's Government? I do not desire to enter into the merits of that question; but I may observe that it had reference to a matter in which every Member of the Government was responsible for a policy pursued which
    706
    had been pursued for months, if not years. Of course, when any Member of the Government was loaded with the responsibility of that policy, it was in vain to say that when one Member retired the whole responsibility incurred by the others was wiped away. It was not a case in which the responsibility could be thrown upon one Member of the Government only. But the present is the instance of a single and specific Act, and the noble Earl avows that on him lies the whole responsibility. He has said, "Alone I did it;" and the publication of the despatch being exclusively and solely his act, it was for him to tender to Her Majesty his resignation, in order that the great merits of this case might be considered apart from the petty questions that have arisen out of that publication. But then, the right hon. Gentleman says, at all events I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the head of the Government contradicting each other; because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House yesterday that the Cabinet, had they known of Lord Ellenborough's intended resignation, would have pressed him not to do so; while Lord Derby in another house said he felt bound to accept the noble Earl's resignation. But was this the true state of the case? What Lord Derby said was, that Lord Ellenborough had sent in his resignation to Her Majesty before he communicated his intention to his colleagues, and that it was in vain, after he had done so—after his resignation was in the hands of Her Majesty—for his colleagues to discuss the question whether they would have accepted or declined that resignation. Why, the object of Lord Ellenborough was to prevent that very question being considered. If he had said to his colleagues, "I desire to resign my office," as a matter of course they would have said, "We decline to accept your resignation, and whatever responsibility you have incurred we will without hesitation share it with you." But when his resignation was in the hands of Her Majesty it was irrevocable; and it was in order that it might be irrevocable that Lord Ellenborough placed it in Her Majesty's hand before communicating with his colleagues. Therefore, looking at all the circumstances of the case the House will see that the statement of Lord Derby and my right hon. Friend on this subject were precisely on all points alike.
    But at all events, says the right hon.

    707
    Gentleman, your course ought to have been different with regard to Lord Canning. You ought, says the right hon. Gentleman, to have recalled him. The hon. Member for Cork says you should have either recalled him, or written him a despatch requesting hint to mitigate the severity of the Proclamation in practice, and not addressed Mtn in the terms which have been employed. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to go over the despatch he will find that the very thing he has suggested has been done, and that Lord Canning was recommended in the despatch to mitigate in practice the severity of his Proclamation. Then, as to the recall of Lord Canning, there were manifest reasons why that course could not have been taken, even if the Government had desired it. Had the fall of Lucknow been delayed, the despatch would probably have reached Lord Canning in time to prevent the Proclamation being issued at all; but there was every reason to believe that Lord Canning would on reflection and advice have seen good grounds of himself to modify the Proclamation before it was published; and, in point of fact, a modification was, we believe, introduced into the Proclamation before it was published. I ask the House whether it was not a reasonable and proper ground of hope on the part of the Government in this country that with such men around Lord Canning as Sir John Lawrence, Sir James Outram, General Mansfield, and others who might be named—men well acquainted with Oude—he would have been induced to take the view which the Government hold on this subject, and to consider in that aspect the question of the Proclamation?
    But then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Why did you not wait for an explanation?" and the hon. and learned Gentleman asks the same question. They say, "Why were you so precipitate? Why did you not suppose that after Proclamation of this kind an explanation would be forthcoming?" Well, Sir, I think there is one circumstance, and one only, which might have led to some delay and postponement, important as the case was, of the despatch sent out to Lord Canning. If Lord Canning had sent home to the President of the Board of Control a statement that if an explanation had not come with the Proclamation an explanation might shortly be expected, the publication, and probably the writing of that despatch, might well have been delayed.
    708
    And I now, Sir, approach a part of this subject which has, I own, filled me with painful surprise. We have had all the facts of the case from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith), and I must say that if there is one man in this House of whom Lord Canning has reason to complain, it is the colleague and friend of Lord Canning, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. And what is the statement the right hon. Gentleman gave us? I believe I remember the words. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Lord Canning sent him a letter, in which he said—"I am about to issue a Proclamation to the landholders of Oude. I am anxious to send home a full explanation, but I have been so occupied that I have hitherto been unable to do so." Now, that implied that such an explanation would come by the next mail. What was the meaning of this passage? It was very short, but very significant. It meant, "I am about to issue a Proclamation, which will be sent home in draught and sent to you. You are the President of the Board of Control. It is a Proclamation requiring explanation. I have an explanation to give. I wished to give it by this mail, but give me credit—trust me—put confidence in me—the explanation will come by the next mail, and in the meanwhile consider me as one who has got an explanation to give." The right hon. Gentleman did not himself imagine—he cannot to this moment imagine—he wonders that any one should imagine—he does not believe that any one does imagine that these words of Lord Canning were or could by any artifice be shown to be of the slightest importance, or that they ought to be made known to the head of the Government of India in this country. But he did think them of sufficient importance to consult the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and he and the noble Lord met in conclave on this despatch. Two ex-Ministers of England received a despatch from the Governor General of India adverting to a State Proclamation. They considered the statements that he made in that letter. The right lion. Gentleman says he consulted the noble Lord. [Mr. VERNON SMITH: I never said any such thing.] I am very sorry if I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he said he consulted the noble Lord, but he no doubt said he showed or read the letter to the noble Lord. Now I want to know for what purpose he showed

    709
    it to the noble Lord. It could not be from its importance, because the right hon. Gentleman says it was of no importance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us during the course of this debate what his motive was for showing it to the noble Lord. At present we have this singular fact—that the right hon. Gentleman received a letter—a private letter, if you will, but addressed to those eyes that the draught of the Proclamation was also addressed to—which the right hon. Gentleman considered of so much importance that he showed it to the late Prime Minister, but which was not of sufficient importance to be shown to the President of the Board of Control. Now, Sir, I must say a word on the theory of private letters. As regards the heads of all the Government departments of the State they must no doubt receive a great number of private letters from the Colonies, from our dependencies, and from legations abroad from those with whom they are on intimate terms. I quite admit the necessity for these letters. These letters are not to be displayed to clerks, and they are, to a great extent, private and confidential communications. If a letter of this kind contains matters really relating to private affairs it is not incumbent on the Minister who may have resigned office to hand it over to his successor; but I say it is incumbent upon him to extract from such a letter anything relating to public affairs which had been addressed to that Minister on the supposition that he still continued to be a Minister. Now, whatever the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord arranged, it virtually comes to this—that they intercepted that letter. Well, Sir, what may be the observation of Lord Canning upon this matter I do not know; but if I were in his position my observation would be something of this kind:—"Well, I had a friend, as I thought, in England, who was formerly my colleague. He was the President of a Department with which I had the closest relation, and being my friend and late colleague, I wrote to him on private affairs. At the same time I sent him one of the most important State papers that I had issued during the whole course of my government in India; but I was so much occupied when I did so that I could not send him the explanation with which it ought to be accompanied; but in a note written to him under the impression that he was still Minister, I stated that an ex-
    710
    planation would follow. My friend, my late colleague, put the letter into his pocket. He knew that the Proclamation was in the hands of the Government of the day, and that they had read it without the explanation; but he dissevered the Proclamation from the explanation, and allowed days and weeks to pass, and the Government to believe that no explanation of the Proclamation would he given. These circumstances have given me the utmost grief and pain, and I may thank for it all my friend."
    Sir, I have gone through the right hon. Gentleman's charges against the Government, which are reduced to the charge of writing and the charge of publishing the despatch. The charge for publishing it has fallen to the ground. The charge for writing it depends upon the higher and broader question of the policy of the Proclamation. On this question, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman and myself are at direct and positive issue. He appeals to the House to be silent—I appeal to the House not to be silent. I appeal to them on behalf of the dearest interests of this country and of India—on behalf of 5,000,000 of people—who may be misguided, misgoverned, and even barbarous, but who are men, with like passions, feelings, perceptions, and prejudices as ourselves. I appeal to the House in the cause of humanity and justice. I make that appeal to the British House of Commons, to which that appeal never has been, and never will be, made in vain. Do not let this go forth as a matter of doubt, or as a matter to be slurred over by a captious and catching Motion, prepared by a cabal, to embarrass and displace a Ministry. Tell it out by your vote, in terms neither vague nor indistinct, to the people of India that you desire submission, and not spoliation—that the war we wage is the war of nations, and not the war of freebooters—that England knows how to make war and conquer, but also knows how to treat those who are conquered—that she offers to those who are conquered and who submit to her arms that protection for their lives and property which will be the best earnest to them of the mildness of the rule which the fate of battles has assigned to them.
    Sir, if ever there was a time at which it was necessary that our policy with regard to India should be clear and distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of transferring the government of

    711
    India from the Company to the Queen. In the course of the discussions in this House upon the subject of our past Government of that country some confessions have been made which you may rely on it have not escaped the attention of the people of India. There was a confession made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis), which I heard, I must say, with respectful amazement. The right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of the Crown who was advocating the Bill which was introduced into Parliament to transfer the government of India to the Queen, was speaking of the past Government of that country. It is true he was speaking of the Government prior to the year 1784, but at a time when not the most insignificant parts of our acquisitions in India were made. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "I do most confidently maintain that no civilized Government ever existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt, more perfidious, and more rapacious than the Government of the East India Company from the years 1765 to 1784."
    Sir, in this sentiment I, for one, do not concur; but, at all events, let there be no mistake with respect to our future Government. Let us tell the people of India that we are not ashamed to confess that we offer them mercy and justice, and not spoliation; that the war which we wage against them is a war consistent with mercy and justice, and not made for the sake of plunder; and that no faction and no intrigue will tempt the House of Commons even for a moment to lay themselves open to the suspicion that the dynasty we are about to introduce into India is to be a dynasty of reckless, ruthless, and indiscriminate confiscation.
    Mr. LOWE: I hope, Sir, that the admiration which the House very naturally feels, and in which I cordially concur, for the eloquent speech of the learned Solicitor General will not draw them away from the main merits of the question which we have to discuss this evening. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in forcible language, has endeavoured to persuade the House of Commons that it is their duty, on a Motion which expressly excludes from their consideration the merits of the Proclamation of the Governor General in India with regard to Oude—without having the document before them, and in the absence of the reasons which its author is about to lay before the Government and people of this
    712
    country as a justification of it—to pronounce a condemnation of that Proclamation. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "We are called upon to censure the despatch of the Government; that despatch has relation to the Proclamation of the Governor General, and therefore to censure the despatch is to approve the Proclamation." Of course, vice versâ, to approve the despatch is to censure the Proclamation. That is the way the right hon. Gentleman puts it; but is he not raising a totally irrelevant issue? It is an issue which may be worth discussing, but is it the issue which we are come to-night to try? Let us test it and we shall see. The Motion, in the way it is framed, is undoubtedly a condemnation of Her Majesty's Government. Will the approbation or condemnation of Lord Canning's Proclamation tend to show us how to vote with regard to condemning or absolving Her Majesty's Government? My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) is not so unjust as to ask the House of Commons to condemn Her Majesty's Government because upon an important and difficult point of State policy they differ in opinion from the Governor General of India. Her Majesty's Government have a right to their opinion as well as the Governor General; and though it may not be that of a majority of this House—and I, for one, most certainly differ from them—it would be the height of injustice for any one to call on the House to censure the Government merely for sending out a despatch disapproving a particular line of policy which the Governor General may have adopted, or any Proclamation which he may have issued with regard to Oude. Is that the question before us? Are not the words of the Motion, regretting, not that Her Majesty's Government sent a despatch, but that they sent it couched in strong terms? It is the tenor, the scope of the despatch, the manner in which the Governor General is treated, that the House is called upon to censure, and not the fact of its being in accordance with or adverse to the opinion of the Governor General. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman has led us a will-o'-the-wisp chase in asking us to go into the merits of this, which is a question pointedly excluded in the Motion, because we cannot decide it to-day, and because the author of the production has not had an opportunity of laying his reasons for issuing it before the House. When

    713
    those reasons are before us, let us by all means discuss that question, and come to a conclusion upon it. Till then I submit, on the clearest grounds, that justice forbids us to condemn the meanest person, much more a great officer of State like the Governor General of India, in his absence; till then we are bound to abstain from expressing an opinion upon the Proclamation, and if the Motion could not be supported without pronouncing an opinion upon it, I, for one, would not support it at all. But that is not the case. Consider the agony and anxiety which, for more than a year, Lord Canning has had to endure. Consider the depressing nature of the climate, the fears by which he must have been nightly surrounded; the responsibility for everything resting upon his head, and his head alone, and then think of the conduct of a Government which could address to him a despatch couched in language like this! When Lord Canning receives this despatch—for he has not yet received it—
    "Dedecus ille domûs sciet ultimus"—
    he must feel as if a quicksand opened under his feet. What is he to rest upon? Whom is he to trust? The elephant rests upon the tortoise, but what does the tortoise rest upon? Succeeding to the government of India after the annexation of Oude, Lord Canning naturally thinks he is bound to take up matters where he found them, and to carry on the government of Oude upon the hypothesis, whether right or wrong, that what had been done, had been well and rightly done. Entertaining that opinion, he has taken certain measures in regard to Oude. He announces the confiscation of proprietary rights in that province. But why? Because on the 11th of February, 1856, the Commissioner of Oude, in taking possession of that country for the East India Company, announced, "that if any one should refuse to render obedience, withhold payment of revenue, or dispute or defy the authority of the British Government, he should be declared a rebel, his person seized, and his property confiscated to the State." "Confiscated" is the very word. No doubt, Lord Canning, when he read that document, thought he had sufficient authority upon which to ground his proclamation. It might be wise or unwise to take this step, but could Lord Canning suppose he had to do with a Government at home who would scan his actions from a point of view anterior to the annexation of
    714
    Oude, and say—"We disapprove, not merely in reference to expediency, your Proclamation at the present moment, but because we are of opinion that Oude, which was annexed before you became Governor General, should never have been annexed at all?" Could he suppose that such was the support which, in a position of unexampled difficulty and responsibility, Her Majesty's advisers would render him? It is for doing all that can be done to break down the mind and intimidate the purpose of the Governor General—it is for raising a question against him, as still open, which he was bound by his official duty to treat as closed—it is for such acts of censure as those, and not merely for differing from the opinions expressed by the Governor General in his Proclamation, that this Motion expresses condemnation of the Government.
    "We dethroned," says the despatch, "the King of Oude, and took possession of his kingdom, by virtue of a treaty, which had been subsequently modified by another treaty, under which, had it been held to be in force, the course we adopted could not have been lawfully pursued; but we held that it was not in force; although the fact of its not having been ratified in England, as regarded the provision on which we rely for our justification, had not been previously made known to the King of Oude."
    Mark the irony and the hostile sneer conveyed in this passage—
    "We cannot but think that the precedent from which you have departed, will appear to have been conceived in a spirit of wisdom superior to that which appears in the precedent you have made."
    We may easily imagine the feeling of indignation with which Lord Canning would read that unworthy language. It is not merely because the Government differed in opinion from Lord Canning, that the right hon. Member for Oxford calls on us to censure this despatch; it is because this despatch is highly unbecoming, insulting, and offensive in tone to a person who deserved other treatment at the hands of a Government which had but recently been obliged to withdraw a former over-hastily expressed censure. I do not know whether other Members were more fortunate, but, for myself, I confess that I was unable to discover whether the Solicitor General did or did not admit the responsibility of the Government for the publication of the despatch. I certainly thought I had fixed him at one time, because he said that as soon as the Proclamation became known, it was the duty of the Government to pronounce an opinion upon it; and I there-

    715
    fore thought he was going to follow up this declaration with a convincing proof that they had done what he declared to be his duty. But I was mistaken, for the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, that it was Lord Ellenborough who published the despatch, and that the rest of the Ministers knew nothing about it—so that we have a curious inequality of fortune—the Minister who does his duty is ejected, while the rest remain, because, on their Solicitor General's showing, they did not do theirs. The hon. and learned Gentleman would have us believe that the publication of the despatch was all Lord Granville's fault; that he became anxious about the cause of his friend, and wished to know what the despatch was; and that after a copy had been sent to him and to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), it naturally became impossible to keep it secret any longer. That may all be very true; but the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to remark, that before the despatch was given to Lord Granville and the hon. Member for Birmingham, it had been published already by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because it is mere quibbling on words, to say, that if you tell all that is in a letter, or at least the worst of it, and do not produce the actual ink and paper, that therefore you do not publish it. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought fit to make that statement, the publication of the letter became, I will not say, inevitable, but at least far more difficult to avoid. In ordinary cases, when the worst had been told, it would have been a matter of indifference whether the actual terms of the letter were published; but it happened not to be in this case, because no one could have imagined that the language of that letter could have been such as it was, and that Her Majesty's Government, for their own purposes, would have constituted themselves missionaries and propagators of rebellion. I understand that Her Majesty's Government repudiate the act of the Earl of Ellenborough in publishing the despatch. In doing so they necessarily repudiate also the general doctrine that Cabinet Ministers are jointly and severally liable for each other's act. They sacrifice one to purchase perfect indemnity for the others. Certainly it is rather hard on Lord Ellenborough, whose destiny it seems to be to enact one by one all the characters of the Old Testament—first appearing as Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza, and now in the
    716
    more melancholy predicament of Jonah. But there is a rule of law and common sense, that if you repudiate the acts of a person who is acting for you, you must repudiate as soon as you know of the act. You cannot stand by to take your chance of gaining something by it, if it turns out to be a success, but to repudiate it if it turns out badly. On Friday night last Lord Derby, in the other House, used these words—
    "It would have been impossible that the Government, if questioned on the subject, could have abstained from expressing their opinion relative to the character and nature of this Proclamation."
    That is to say, it would have been impossible for the Government when questioned, to abstain from communicating the substance of the despatch. If, indeed, it was impossible to abstain, who is to blame? Overbearing necessity is always a sufficient excuse, why then should Lord Ellenborough be sacrificed, and why should the Government seek to evade their responsibility. In the same speech the noble Earl says—
    "It may have been, I think it was, unfortunate that a question should suddenly have been asked the consegence of which has been the production of the letter; but it would have been impossible to satisfy the public mind that the Government of this country had not neglected their duty and the interests of humanity if they had allowed it to be supposed that they sanctioned or consented to the issue of that Proclamation."
    If that is not an adoption of the publication of the despatch there is no force in language; and now because the public mind has not happened to demand exactly the kind of satisfaction which the noble Earl expected, he turns round and repudiates the publication. But he is as firmly fixed with approving and adopting that publication as is his leader of the House of Commons, who virtually published the contents of the despatches here. The hon. and learned Solictor General summoned to his assistance the letter of the East India Company with reference to the government of Oude, and he quotes it with the greatest unction as the strongest approval of the policy of the despatch; and certainly it does bear out the most decent and proper part of the letter addressed to Lord Canning. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is playing off the complicated machinery of Indian government against us a little too dexterously. Perhaps he does not know that, though one letter is addressed through the Secret Committee and

    717
    the other through the Court of Directors, the Earl of Ellenborough is in fact solely responsible for both letters. So that it is in fact what is vulgarly called "Pig upon bacon." It is Lord Ellenborough in one capacity approving Lord Ellenborough in another. Lord Ellenborough in his character of correspondent with the Governor General endorsing himself as the President of the Board of Control. We certainly have a right, I think, to complain of the small quantity of knowledge and inquiry which is brought to the consideration of this most important subject in this grandiloquent despatch. It talks about the "disinherison of a people," about the attachment of the landowners to the soil," and their "sensitiveness with regard to the soil," and so on; but, considering the information we possess, I think it was rather too bad that the noble Earl should have expressed himself in such vague, general, and misleading terms. I will not offer a word of comment on what the Solicitor General has said with respect to the people of Oude, but I will read to the House a passage from a letter of Sir William Sleeman, written in 1850, which, as it is printed in a blue-book, was accessible to those who framed the despatch, and which is significant of the position of those sensitive gentlemen of whose rights we are to be so jealous. Sir William Sleeman was accounting for the permanent deficiency of 40 lacs in the revenue of Oude, the income being 100 lacs and the expenditure 140—a deficiency which arose, he said—
    "From the growing strength of the great landholders, who have absorbed the greater part of the estates of their weaker neighbours, and employed their increasing rents in maintaining large bands of armed followers and building forts and strongholds, which enable them to withhold the just demands of the State. These weaker neighbours were the proprietors or holders of what is called the Khalsa or allodial lands, four-fifths of which have now been absorbed by the great landholders who do not pay to Government one-half of the rents which were paid for them by the allodial proprietors, and ought still to be paid for by them. The great landholders have taken these lands either by fraud and collusion with the local authorities or by open violence in utter contempt of such authorities. Secondly—From the large quantities of the most fertile lands in Oude which these landholders have converted into jungles around their strongholds, some of them extending over spaces from ten to twenty miles long, by from four to eight wide, on which no man dares to enter without their permission. These jungles and the strongholds they contain are dens of robbers who infest all parts of the country, defy the Government authorities, and impose intolerable taxes on all traders."
    Those are the persons who are spoken of
    718
    in the despatch as the "people of Oude." But the question of any injury done to Lord Canning's feelings or dignity by this despatch sinks into utter insignificance when compared with the effects which this document must produce all over the vast continent of India. Coming from any other quarter, written by any other hand, produced under any other auspices than those of the responsible advisers of the Crown, I should not scruple to say that this is a treasonable document. I would not have hesitated to aver that the person who should disseminate among a large subject population a document calling into question the title of Her Majesty to her dominions, and alleging that what had been clone in her gracious name had been done by fraud, violence, and iniquity, is guilty not so much of a very considerable official blunder as of a great political crime; and if I had any doubts upon the subject those doubts would have been removed by the last sentence in the despatch, which says:—
    "Government cannot long be maintained by any force in a country where the whole people is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong; and if it were possible so to maintain it it would not be a consummation to be desired."
    The previous part of the despatch accuses the British Government of being guilty of the grossest wrong to the people of Oude. Apply the principle, and what inference must be drawn by the people of Oude? They must infer, on the very highest authority in this country, that Government in Oude could not long be maintained by any force, and that, if it could, it was a consummation which was not to be desired. Who is it that holds that language? Is it Nana Sahib? Is it the emissaries of the King of Delhi? Is it some rebellious rajah? No; it is the Cabinet to whom the Governor General should look for countenance and support so long as he faithfully and honestly discharged his duty. We can allow for the madness of faction in this country; but what will the people of India think when such a document is sent out to them in the name of the only Sovereign whom they know? Would a man reason badly who said, "True, the Viceroys are against us, but the home authorities are with us. Wait a moment; we have friends in England stronger than these; these forces will be withdrawn and our rights will be restored; why should we lay down our arms before a Viceroy when the Queen is on our side?" Let the Government think anything they like about the Proclamation, but what can justify

    719
    them in turning round in this way upon their own servant. Consider the effect which this despatch must have upon the army; think of the gallant blood which has been shed to reconquer that very place to maintain which the Government says would be a consummation not to be desired. Think of Havelock, and Neill, and Nicholson, and the many gallant men who have died on that service. Look a little further, and say if this is the way in which we are to keep together an empire on which the sun never sets. The Government of this country hitherto has shown that they were worthy of the vast empire which they govern by supporting their subordinates, so long as they act faithfully and honourably, in all quarters of the world. But who will act for them if they are to stigmatize the conduct of their agents in coarse invectives—if they are themselves to turn agitators, and are to assist to subvert the dominion which it should be their duty to maintain? I have spoken warmly, but I have lived in a colony, I know the necessity that there is for the Home Government to support the colonial authority, and I should be wanting in my duty as a Member of this House and as an honest man, if I did not say that a document such as this is absolutely subversive of all rule by this country beyond the limits of the little island in which we live. I have only one other word to say, and that is with respect to the future policy of the Government. The Government say they did not publish the despatch; it has been shown clearly enough that they did—but I waive that—it is well known that that document contains their sentiments. If that is so, what is to be the future policy of the Government with respect to India? Is it to be in accordance with the terms of the despatch, or is it not? If it be, to what end is any quibbling about the publication of the despatch—it is the manifesto of the Government, and by it they must abide. Argument is no more required. They must say "We had no right to conquer Oude: we will recall our troops, and will send back their King. We will inquire into the way in which every part of the Indian territory was acquired; we will give up the prestige of sovereignty; we no longer appear as the conquerors of India; we will withdraw our soldiers and will dismantle our fortresses." By such a course they will preserve their consistency, but they will lose an empire. But if that be not their policy, and if they in-
    720
    tend to trample out the smouldering sparks of rebellion which still linger in Oude, what will they do with this despatch? Is it to remain on record as the transcript of their opinions, or is it to be cancelled? Doing what they do not think, and thinking what they do not do, are they to publish a despatch to the rebellious Natives of India on which they dare not act? If the Government intend to stand by that document, let them go into the same lobby with me and join in a vote of censure upon themselves; but if they do not, they are bound to make some ample and public reparation for its contents; for I maintain that the Government of a country like this and the publication of despatches such as the one in question can not possibly co-exist,
    Mr. LINDSAYsaid, that he had originally intended to move "the Previous Question," but after the able speech of the Solicitor General he thought that he should best discharge his duty by meeting the Motion by a direct negative. When he gave notice of his intention to move the Previous Question, he thought it desirable that they should have that full information which he presumed would arrive by this mail, and that explanation of his Proclamation which Lord Canning had promised in his private letter to the late President of the Board of Control, and which that right hon. Gentleman had most improperly kept back. He thought, however, that the House had now in its possession sufficient information to justify it in meeting the question under discussion with a direct negative. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), had said that the question before the House was not the Proclamation of Lord Canning but the despatch of Lord Ellenborough. It might suit the right hon. Gentleman very well to have it so; but he (Mr. Lindsay) thought the House could not give an opinion on the effect without inquiring into the cause; and it was the policy of the present Government with regard to India as embodied in the despatch, and the policy of Lord Canning as set forth in his Proclamation that had really to be inquired into. Now he for one could not give his support to the policy which was put forth in the Proclamation of Lord Canning, which was, he must say, in direct opposition to that course of justice tempered with mercy which that noble Lord had hitherto pursued. And why was this so? It might be that when, some months

    721
    ago, a cry had been raised against the moderation which Lord Canning had evinced, a reprimand had been sent out to him by those who then occupied the Treasury benches, reminding hint that the policy of justice tempered by mercy was not suited to the feelings of the people of England, and that the result of that reprimand was to be found in the Oude Proclamation. That was a point upon which he should like to have such information as the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control could afford, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would deem it to be his duty to lay upon the table of the House any papers bearing upon the subject which might be in his possession. But, whatever might be the reasons for which the Proclamation of Lord Canning had been issued, the policy of confiscation which it embodied was one from which he (Mr. Lindsay) must express his entire dissent; while of the policy enunciated in the despatch of Lord Ellenborough, to the effect that he desired to see British authority in India resting upon the willing obedience of its people,—on their prosperity and contentment, which could not co-exist with confiscation—he entirely approved. The policy of confiscation he should maintain had been one of the chief causes of the recent mutiny in India, and as long as we continued to persevere in it, so long would we be compelled to uphold our authority at the point of the bayonet. In corroboration of his opinion, that the true way to govern India was to do all in our power to promote the happiness of her people, he might refer to a work which had been printed for private circulation, and which had been presented to him a short time ago by the widow of the author, Mr. H. St. George Tucker, a man who possessed the most intimate knowledge of Indian affairs, having been twenty-five years in India and twenty-five years an East India Director. In that work Mr. Tucker expressed his strong conviction that the best mode of ruling that country was by impressing its inhabitants with confidence in our good intentions and by a faithful adherence to our engagements. By pursuing that course alone, and not by the adoption of a system of confiscation, he (Mr. Lindsay) should contend, could we hope to render our dominion in India of advantage to her as well as beneficial to England; but if it were intended to hold India by force after the mutiny should be put down, new
    722
    armies, equipped at all points, should be sent out without delay. But our true policy was to show that our government was for the benefit of the Natives and had for its object their elevation in every respect. Much had been said about the bad effects which Lord Ellenborough's despatch was calculated to produce upon the minds of the people of India; but in his (Mr. Lindsay's) opinion the Proclamation of Lord Canning was calculated to operate far more injuriously, while, with respect to the anticipated resignation of the noble Lord, he might observe that when he (Viscount Canning) was informed that upon the subject of the explanation which he had promised to send home not the slightest intimation had been given to the present Government, he might be disposed to look upon the despatch which had been sent out to him in quite a different light from that which, under other circumstances, would have been the case. He might very naturally say to himself, "If that intimation had been given to Lord Ellenborough this despatch would never have been written, or, if written, would have been couched in different language." He would wait until lie heard from his right hon. Friend, that he had acquainted the Government with the fact that an explanation of the despatch would be subsequently sent. But he would ask—was it the good of India or the love of office which had prompted his right hon. Friend to bring forward this question? If the latter, he 0(Mr. Lindsay) as a Liberal, did not want the Whigs back on those benches again. But whenever the right hon. Gentleman, and those who supported him, were prepared to adopt liberal views, then they would have his best support. When he saw them making no movement for reform the Whigs might call themselves his leaders; but they were not in reality so; in fact, he felt more nearly allied to the Tories than to the Whigs, so little was the difference between them. The Tories had granted a great many more measures of a liberal character than ever could have been got out of the Whigs. He should, without reference to the men, but looking solely to measures, give his support to that policy which had been laid down by Lord Ellenborough that, while we maintained our rights as rulers and demanded all that in justice we were entitled to, it was our duty to temper that justice with mercy in favour of the people of India.
    LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPEST, in rising to move an Amendment of which he had given notice, said, that having travelled in India some years ago, and taken a deep interest in the country, he should venture to claim the indulgence of the House while he briefly addressed it upon a subject with which experience and reading had made him familiar. The able and eloquent speech of the learned Solicitor General had, indeed, left little for the supporters of Lord Ellenborough's policy to say; but he asked the indulgence of the House while he stated the motives which had induced him to place on the Paper the Notice which stood in his name:—
    "That this House, in the present state of information, abstains from expressing an opinion on the policy of any Proclamation which may have been issued by the Governor General of India in relation to Oude, or on the course pursued by the Government with reference to such Proclamation."
    It occurred to him that there was no logical sequence in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), and that it was unfair and unjust to ask the House of Commons to pronounce an opinion on the effect of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, and to preclude them at the same time from discussing the Proclamation which was the cause of that despatch. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had spoken of the electric effect which the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the Government disapproved the policy indicated in the Proclamation of the Governor General "in every sense," produced in London on the night on which it was made. But that electric feeling in those who experienced it did not spring from any interest which they took in the people of India or of Oude. On the contrary, he (Lord A. Vane-Tempest) believed—and he thought a great number of Members of that House shared in the opinion—the feeling originated with certain ex-Ministers, who thought they had discovered the means of ejecting the Government from office. A similar electric feeling was produced in the public mind at the last dissolution of Parliament, when an attempt was made to induce the people to suppose that the opposition to the Government was carried on by a political party who sympathized with Yeh and the Chinese. He supposed the same discreditable system would be resorted to on this occasion, and an attempt would be made to bamboozle the people by telling
    724
    them that the party in power had a sympathy for the mutineers in India. When General Havelock was obliged to retire from Lucknow, the celebrated clemency Proclamation of Lord Canning was issued; when we had succeeded in obtaining possession of Lucknow, the Proclamation of confiscation was issued. By this policy of Lord Canning, it might be said, that when we were in a situation of difficulty and danger, our Government was cringing and submissive; and when we were in power, we were cruel and tyrannical. To his great surprise, the hon. and learned Member for Cork County (Mr. Deasy) had contended that there was no principle of confiscation contained in the Proclamation of Lord Canning. The magnificent speech of the Solicitor General had disposed at once of that question. But did not Mr. Edmonstone, the Secretary to the Government of India, in his despatch to the Chief Commissioner of Oude, state that the Proclamation was addressed to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude only, and not to the Sepoys; and that the Governor General believed that any Proclamation put forth in Oude in a liberal and forgiving spirit would be open to misconstruction, and capable of perversion? Did not Mr. Edmondstone also state that "the permission to return to their homes must not be considered as a reinstatement of them in the possession of their lands, for the deliberate disposal of which the Government will preserve itself unfettered?" And was it not clear that at Lucknow it was considered in that light, and no other? As there had been some discussion with regard to the influence and effect that the Proclamation would have on the people of Oude, he would read an extract from one of the letters of the correspondent of The Times in India—a writer from whom he differed on some points, but whose opinions were well entitled to the respect of the House. That gentleman said:—
    "The terms of the Proclamation are to be interpreted by Sir James Outram. The gloss will be large and liberal; and, in his rendering, the severity of the text will be mollified so far, that the Oude talookdars may read, and run to, and not from us."
    He (Lord A. Vane Tempest) submitted that that was a pretty significant proof that the Proclamation of the Governor General, in the terms in which it was issued, could not be acted upon. Lord Ellenborough, in his despatch, had very truly said that the inhabitants of Oude would see only the Proclamation. The

    725
    impressions they took from it would not be modified by any fine reasoning. They would simply look at the Proclamation that had been put forward for them to read, and they would feel at once that it was marked by a want of justice and equity. It was contrary to all precedent in cases of conquest. When Scinde was conquered and annexed, except in the case of the Ameers, the lands of the people were not confiscated. The result was that the inhabitants of Scinde had remained tranquil while other parts of India had been convulsed with rebellion and mutiny. Again, there was no confiscation in Gwalior, and the present ruler of Gwalior had maintained a friendly relationship towards us throughout the recent struggle. The Gwalior Contingent had consequently been kept in a state of inactivity during the most critical period of affairs, and our interests had thereby been most materially served. Again, all the landowners in the Punjab were confirmed in their possessions, and he asked if it was not the levies from the Punjab that had enabled them to maintain their possessions in India? He asked the House to take the course pursued in Scinde and Gwalior, which was the policy of Lord Ellenborough. It was not for him to eulogize that noble Lord, but he would refer to the words of Lord Derby in the other House, who spoke of his knowledge of Indian subjects, his long experience, and his utter abnegation of all personal feelings as rendering him an invaluable councillor in all Indian affairs. He was glad to hear the tones of regret with which Her Majesty's Government regarded the resignation of Lord Ellen-borough, and rejoiced at the bold and manly manner in which the Solicitor General had declared that the policy which Lord Ellenborough advocated was yet to be maintained. He could not but disapprove the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) in withholding from his successor the letter he had received from Lord Canning, while he confided it to his noble Friend the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was the more bound to show that letter because no Minister had ever resorted so much as he did to private correspondence on public matters. The conduct of the Governor General they were bound to consider as a matter of policy, but they were also bound
    726
    to take into consideration the possibility of carrying out his views. Sir William Sleeman described the people of Oude as exceedingly warlike, and gave a very minute account of the number of forts spread over the country, defended by large guns, and of the great numbers of armed troops everywhere to be found.
    "In Oude, these great landholders have at present about 250 mud forts, mounting about 500 guns, and containing on an average 400 armed men, or a total of 100,000 men trained and maintained to fight against the Government."
    In another place—
    "There are no less than twenty-four pults of jungle in Oude, covering an extent of 886 square miles. The forts have never been dismantled, nor the people disarmed. Even the children in the villages play at fortifications as a favourite amusement, each striving to catch the other in the ingenuity of his defence. They all seem to feel that they must some day take part in defending such places against the King's troops, and the parents seem to encourage the feeling. The small mud forts are concealed from sight in beautiful clusters of bamboos, or other evergreen jungle, so that the passer-by can see nothing of them. Some of them are exceedingly strong against troops unprovided with mortars and shells. The garrison is easily shelled out by a small force or starved out by a large one; but one should never attempt to track them with round shot, or take them by escalade or mask."
    These facts showed how hard a task we should have to perform if we attempted to carry out the policy of confiscation. He had put his Amendment on the paper because, from the rumours he heard, he was afraid that the question of India would not be the real question considered that night, and because he was anxious that the House should not come to a hasty and partial decision on the great question at issue; but as he has preferred the direct negative with which Her Majesty's Government had determined to meet the original Motion, he should beg to withdraw his Amendment. When the right hon. Member for Oxford's Resolution precluded them from going into the policy of the Proclamation on the ground that they had not the necessary information; and he (Lord. A. Vane-Tempest) thought the same reason should prevent them from going into a discussion on the course taken by the Government in reference to it. What the result of this debate would be, he would not pretend to determine, but he would quote from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session,

    727
    a passage, the foresight of which appeared to him to be very remarkable, while it was particularly apposite to the present occasion. He said, after speaking of the dissensions in India:—
    "A united Parliament and a strong Government are two circumstances most necessary in the difficult position in which we are placed. That is a consideration which has influenced my mind. It is not that I myself on this or on any other subject on which I might recommend a policy would shrink from responsibility, but I wish to show to Europe and to Asia that it is not the object of the British Parliament to overthrow a Ministry but to save an empire. I trust, therefore, that this discussion will at least elicit such a declaration of policy on the part of the Government that the only duty of the House of Commons in future will be to support it with cordial sincerity. If they do not take that course—if they adopt insufficient means, and public disaster occur—deep will be their responsibility. We shall meet again, and perhaps sooner than this House two months ago deemed probable; and if they neglect their duty to the country, I, for one, will not shrink from responsibility. I will then appeal with confidence to an indignant people and to a determined Parliament, and I will ask them to unite their energies to save an endangered empire.
    If the result of the present debate and division should be that an appeal were made to the country, he had no doubt that the people would ratify the policy of justice and clemency rather than one of cruelty and oppression. The noble Lord concluded by withdrawing the Amendment of which he had given notice.
    MR. DILLWYNreminded the House that if the Motion were carried—which was unquestionably a party move—there would be no chance of legislation for India this Session. It was a vote of censure, and, of course, if it were carried, there must be either a dissolution of Parliament or a resignation of the Ministry; and in either case the result must be the same—matters would not sufficiently settle down, this Session at least, to enable the House to go on with legislation either for India or anywhere else. Yet both the House and the country had expressed the opinion that India ought to form a subject of legislation during the present Session. For his own part, he did not see why they should be so anxious to bring back the late Administration to the ministerial benches at present. As a Liberal, he was naturally anxious for the advancement of liberal measures; but he must confess that, as far as he had observed, liberal measures had advanced more when the party opposite (the Conservatives) was in power than when the Liberal party was in office. At present he did not think
    728
    the various sections into which the Liberal party was divided were sufficiently in unison to form a strong Government, and that there was a larger united body upon the ministerial side of the House than on this. If they passed this Motion, the country would say that the majority of the House of Commons were influenced by party spirit, and not by consideration of the good of the empire. He thought the Motion ought not to be met by a direct negative, for he thought Lord Canning deserved great credit for what he had done in India, and that he had been hardly used in the despatch sent out by the Government. Still he admitted that there was great force in the remark of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that more blame was attributable to the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) in that respect than to the present Government. He (Mr. Dillwyn) by no means wished to be understood as endorsing all Lord Canning's policy, but he thought he had been ungenerously and unjustly assailed. By some he had been charged with being too severe, and by others with being too lenient; but he believed the present comparative safety in which our Indian empire stood was to some extent due to that noble Lord. He had no doubt that the despatch in question had been sent out under a misapprehension, and he thought it only just to Lord Canning, as well as prudent, having regard to the responsible and difficult position he filled, that they should strengthen his hands by a general expression of confidence in his policy; and therefore it was that he begged to submit the Amendment of which he had given notice.
    MR. M. GIBSONseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,—
    To leave out from the first word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "generally approves of Lord Canning's policy up to the time of the Oude Proclamation, and is satisfied with the firmness and judgment he has evinced during the crisis in India; but this House declines to give any opinion upon the Oude Proclamation until it has had further information on the state of Oude when the Proclamation was issued, and also Lord Canning's reasons for issuing it," instead thereof."
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL SYKESsaid, that as his opinions upon "annexation," and the impolicy of crushing the Native nobility and gentry of India, had often been publicly

    729
    exposed, he must be understood not to compromise himself by the arguments he was about to use; for, in truth, could he believe for one moment that it was really Lord Canning's intention to confiscate the proprietary rights in the land of the whole people of Oude, Lord Canning would not find him (Colonel Sykes) amongst his advocates. But, on the contrary, he had a thorough conviction that Lord Canning had no idea of carrying into effect the severe measures which the phraseology of the Proclamation seemed to indicate. There was a great want of knowledge in this country as to who were the proprietors of the soil in India; a conflict of opinions, in fact, existing upon the subject—some maintaining the right of Government, some that of the Chiefs, some that of village communities, and some that of individuals. That it is not in the King or Ruler a recent case testifies—Holkar, the despotic sovereign of Indore, wanted to extend his park, in from of which was a but and some land belonging to a Mahratta, in whose family it had been for generations. The Rajah asked him to sell it, but he said no, it would be a disgrace to him and his family to do so; and the park remains unextended to this day, for though despotic Holkar had regard to public opinion, the proprietary right then was not with the Prince. Now, with respect to the proprietary rights of talookdars, he (Colonel Sykes) had not been in Oude, and could not speak from personal knowledge, but he had been officially employed to report upon the land tenures of the Deccan; and being informed of those, formerly existing in the North-West provinces, the Punjab, and Madras, he argued by analogy, that the same system prevailed in Oude; and if that were so, the talookdars were not necessarily landowners, but hereditary collectors of the King's land-tax; and the "confiscation" would apply to their offices, and not to the lands of the people at large. The talookdars paid a fixed sum annually to the King, and took as much more as they could get from the cultivators. Are we not to judge of Lord Canning's intentions by his acts since he had been Governor General? Had they not been marked by a course of conduct which had procured for him the nickname of "Clemency Canning;" and was it likely that a man who had acted with such moderation as to earn for himself that appellation would carry out with rigour tyrannous and oppressive measures such as would follow
    730
    the execution of this Proclamation, if it were rightly understood to import the confiscation of the whole lands of Oude—not merely the lands of the leaders of the rebellion, to whom alone he believed it was intended to apply, but of all the landholders of Oude indiscriminately? What had been done in Scinde? That country was conquered and annexed by Lord Ellenborough, who issued a Proclamation that all the land in Scinde, except that given to Moorad Ali, should be placed at the disposal of the British Government. The Proclamation of Lord Dalhousie in 1849, with regard to the Punjab, confiscated the land. Those Proclamations meant the same as that of Lord Canning. In both instances what was intended was the confiscation of the right to receive the tax derived from the lands, and not the dispossession of the actual owners of the land. But in neither case was the issue of those Proclamations made a matter of party conflict in the House of Commons. The so-called confiscation in Scinde and the Punjab had told so little on the loyalty of the people of those countries that we had Bellochee battalions assisting in the taking of Delhi, and 42,000 men from the Punjab aiding us in conquering Oude. He would not enter into the question of the Governor General's policy, as the matter before the House was, whether it was prudent or safe in respect to India for the Government to have adopted the course they had. He did not say that the Government were wrong in expressing their opinion to Lord Canning—quite the reverse; but they should not have promulgated it to the world, a course which would stimulate rebellion, paralyse the authority of the Governor General, and perhaps with a high-minded man like Lord Canning, unfortunately induce bins to resign; and thus occasion great embarrassment in the executive functions. It was said that it was necessary that the Government despatch should go through the Secret Committee, otherwise it would, in the ordinary course of business, between the India House and Board of Control, have delayed the despatch a fortnight. In showing that this was not necessarily the case he would take the opportunity of stating an instance of the way in which the Court of Directors did business. Last week a despatch was received from the Governor General, noticing that some of the troops which had been brought from China to India were to be sent back to China; at which he expressed his alarm, and urged the Court

    731
    to prevent anything of the kind taking place; and also asking for reinforcements at the rate of 1,000 men a month. The despatch was received on a Tuesday, was drafted and sent to the Board of Control in what is called "previous communication," otherwise P. C., and immediately sent back by Lord Ellenborough. Next morning it came before the political Committee, of which he (Colonel Sykes) was a member; was discussed and adopted, and in an hour was sent to the Court, which was assembled at two o'clock, where it was discussed, and in twenty-four hours after it had been received, an answering despatch was ready to be sent to the Governor General. Such was the delay in the mode of doing public business of which the Company was accused, and for which they were to be sacrificed! It showed also how unnecessary was the Committee of Secrecy for insuring despatch; and he believed that much of the distrust and odium which had fallen upon the East India Company might be traced to the proceedings which were carried through the Secret Committee without the knowledge of the Court of Directors. He might add, that instead of 1,000 men per month, which Lord Canning asked for, the Court of Directors had sent to India 9,000 men within the last five months. Finally he must express his fear that this despatch of the Government might cause the resignation of Lord Canning, and it was lamentable to think that, with all that noble Lord's ability, and firmness, and desire for the good government of India, he should be sacrificed on account of a party conflict in that House.
    MR. H. BAILLIE: Sir, as I am labouring under severe indisposition, I should not, after the able speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, have ventured to address the House on this occasion, had not the right hon. Gentleman who brought on this Motion adverted to statements which were made in another place, and said that he wished to have an explanation as to the manner in which the despatch of Lord Ellenborough to the Governor General had been laid on the table of the House. He asked how, without notice, I had been able to answer the question which was first put to me on this subject in the House. The explanation is very simple. A short time before I came down to the House on the evening in question, I was with my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control. I said to
    732
    him, I see in The Times the Proclamation of the Governor General. I am quite sure that when I get down to the House some hon. Member will put a question to me on the subject. How shall I answer it? My noble Friend then dictated almost the very words which I used. That is the simple explanation of the matter. It has been said in this House that the Government should have known how to observe a wise and discreet silence on this occasion. I should, however, like to know what hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said, if after the Proclamation appeared in the public papers, a question had been put to the Government in this House, and the Government had answered to the question whether they approved or disapproved the Proclamation that they had formed no opinion on the subject? I am quite convinced that we should have had a Resolution soon proposed of want of confidence in the Government. The hon. and Gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) has expressed his belief that Lord Canning never could have meant to carry out the Proclamation in the terms in which it was written. I trust my hon. Friend is right; but I submit the people of Oude cannot know what the intentions of Lord Canning are. They can only judge of the Proclamation as they see it published; and when I have heard other hon. Members of the House say that this Proclamation has produced an excellent effect—that the talookdars are surrendering themselves to Government, only stipulating that they shall have their religion guaranteed—I believe there is no truth in those statements, because I have seen private letters to persons in high authority directly contradictory. I have seen statements that the Proclamation has produced the worst effect, and that the writers expect that all our work will have to be done over again; and this, too, I know, that that Proclamation has been issued contrary to the advice of those who should have great weight with the Governor General. I will not hesitate to say that Sir James Outram urged the Governor General in the strongest manner to grant an amnesty. He told the Governor General that if he would grant an amnesty he would guarantee that all the chiefs in Oude would surrender, and the people would return to their homes, and that he should have no enemies to fight but the Sepoys and the rebellious soldiers. More than that; he pointed out to

    733
    the Governor General that the talookdars of Oude should be treated in a different manner from the chiefs in our own territories who had committed murders and atrocities; for he pointed out that there was not a single instance of murder and atrocity committed by a chief in Oude, but that they had saved the Europeans who fell into their power, had treated them hospitably, and sent them with escorts to the British camp. All these statements were made by Sir James Outram to the Governor General to induce him to issue an amnesty. But the result has been this Proclamation. I am very sorry to make the statements, although I do so upon authority I cannot doubt. But I am soy that we should be called upon to make these statements to the House before we have received the explanations of the Governor General. What is the position of the Government? For one month the Proclamation of the Governor General has been in the hands of the home Government; three posts have successively arrived, and we have not received one single line from the Governor General with respect to that Proclamation, while our opponents have by every post been receiving private letters, for all we know, giving full explanations on the subject. ["Oh, oh!"] I say, "for all we know." Under these circumstances the question is brought on in this House, and it was impossible not to enter into the whole subject. It has been said that this Proclamation only refers to the property of the talookdars of Oude, that it does not refer to the property of the people. Now, that is a great mistake, and is a statement which will not be made by any one who has read the papers on Oude. A great portion of the land of Oude does not belong to the talookdars; but this Proclamation confiscates the land not only belonging to the talookdars, but to the religious establishments, the mosques, the Hindoo temples, and, more than that, of the village communities. Now, a great part of the land of Oude is held by village Communities of the highest antiquity—dating, in many cases, from before the Mahomedan conquest. They are composed of poor, industrious persons, every man of whom cultivates his own land and follows his own plough, and who have the keenest sense of their rights as proprietors of the land. They know it is held subject to the right of the Government to collect from them certain taxes, and they know that that does not constitute the Government
    734
    the proprietor, any more than the land tax in this country constitutes the Government here the proprietor of that land. Who will not say that thousands of these peasant proprietors have held entirely aloof from war? We know, indeed, that in many cases they have been seen pursuing their agricultural occupations amidst the ravages of war; yet this Proclamation will, if it is to be taken literally, confiscate the land of every one of these poor proprietors. I wish to make only one more observation in reply to the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), who adverted to the despatch, read by the Solicitor General, from the Court of Directors to the Governor General, which he asserted was evidently the work of Lord Ellenborough. He was entirely at fault on this occasion, for, with the exception of one or two slight verbal alterations, there was not a word of Lord Ellenborough's in the despatch. That despatch was composed entirely in Leaden-hall Street, and the East India Company ought to have the whole merit of producing that document.
    MR. VERNON SMITH: Before the debate went further he wished to make a few observations on account of the position in which the question had been placed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the Solicitor General, as well as on account of the strong personal attack which had been made on him by the latter. The part of the question which he understood to be now under discussion was this—the Solicitor General and the Secretary of the Board of Control had stated their entire disapproval of the policy of Lord Canning ["No no!"]—he was about to say as "indicated by this Proclamation," or he would now say, of the policy of this Proclamation. As far as he was individually concerned, he was ready to stake the issue upon the question of the policy of the Proclamation. He had no doubt that the Governor General in issuing that Proclamation had been actuated by the best motives, and by a thorough knowledge of that kind of policy which ought to be carried out in the East. He had no doubt that the Governor General took advice from such men as Sir John Lawrence, with whom he had been in the habit of consulting throughout, and that he had been actuated by his feeling that in dealing with Orientals the first step was to show your power. He knew how necessary it was to exhibit his authority, and he said no doubt, "Everything that belonged to you

    735
    is mine; but I shall be ready to show to you any reasonable indulgences if you evince a disposition to yield and to aid the Government." ["Oh, oh!"] He was stating his view. Possibly the Gentlemen who cried "Oh, oh!" were better acquainted with Indian policy than he could be—that would appear as the debate proceeded; but he was not incorrectly stating the case as he believed it to be. The policy which he had indicated was, he believed, the correct and almost the stereotyped policy of every Governor General; in the case of nearly every annexation when possession was first taken of Oude. The proclamation of Sir James Outram, in the eulogy on whom he entirely concurred, was similar to this, and the word "confiscation" was used. As regarded Scinde, confiscation was not the word used there; but Scinde did not stand in the same position as the other case, for the acquisition was made by treaty with the Ameers of Scinde. But with regard to the conduct pursued towards the Ameer of Scinde, he was of opinion that it was most iniquitous. Many years ago he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had supported Lord Shaftesbury in a Motion made on that subject in that House. On the occasion of the conquest of the Punjab almost the same words were used, namely, that "the jagheers and all the property of the Sirdars and others who have been in arms against the British should be confiscated." One Gentleman had said that threat had not been carried out in the Punjab; but he believed that at first the Government was not aware of the delinquency of a great many of the chiefs of the Punjab, and the property of many of them was not confiscated, but a great deal of it was confiscated. The word confiscation did not carry with it, in India, the terror which it did to country gentlemen here in England. In India it was regarded merely as the taking away of a feudal right, of which the persons concerned knew that they had only a precarious tenure, and not as the abstraction of their whole proprietary right of the soil. The Solicitor General had explained to them what he considered to be the proper way of dealing with the Natives of India, but he could not defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that point, and he rather concurred in the opinion of a more experienced writer in The Times, who had thoroughly discussed the question, and who said that the question of land tenure was the most perplexing of all questions; that
    736
    it had been tried in various forms, and that the settlement of Lord Cornwallis had been found to be the most oppressive, and that he had arrived at the conclusion that the zemindars were looked upon as the oppressors of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted Vattel to show that such a deed was most atrocious. But the doctrines of Vattel could not be applied to our acquisitions in India, and the views of European civilians could not be maintained in the East. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was prepared to endorse the policy of the despatch of the late President of the Board of Control. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) was prepared to take that issue, but it was not that which was before the House. The question was whether, the Proclamation having been sent home, the Government had not acted precipitately in condemning its policy and then making that condemnation public so as to let it be known in India as the feeling of the Government at home. He conceived that the position of the Solicitor General was erroneous, which went to assert that the Proclamation was issued because the war was over. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) wished to God that the war was over; for although Lucknow was taken, yet it was because the Governor General thought the war was not over that he made that Proclamation. He could not but consider the language of the First Minister was evasive, for he said that they had sent out a condemnation of the policy of the Governor General, but not his recall, for they did not wish his recall. But either to have called on the Governor General to rescind his Proclamation, or to have recalled him, would have been the more manly course. The recall of the Governor General was no slight evil in India. The condemnation of the Proclamation would be looked on as an intimation of recall, and there would be an electric shock all through India on the notion of the recall of the Governor General; it was not so much the actual recall as the expectation of the recall of the Governor General which exercised an evil influence in India. On this subject he would quote the opinion of a nobleman whose authority hon. Gentlemen opposite must all respect. The Earl of Ellenborough, in his examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, was asked whether he would give the Council which he proposed for the Government of India the power of recalling the Governor General, and he said that it was most im-

    737
    portant that they should not have that power, and especially with reference to the relations between the Governor General and the Native States. It was not the recall of the Governor General, but the expectation of his recall which did the mischief; the expectation of his own recall he knew was one of the main causes of arousing the war in Gwalior. That was the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, and he (Mr. Vernon Smith) would urge that a Government by showing that they had even an intention of recalling a Governor General did much mischief. When he said that the Government had been precipitate in their decision on the policy of the Proclamation, there were several points which had not been elucidated in this debate. First, they had never been told how the Proclamation was sent home. He was of opinion that it was extracted from a mass of correspondence, which was usually sent home, and was not accompanied by any letter. On the notion that it was intended to issue that Proclamation the Government acted. Three months must have elapsed before any action could have been taken on the despatch, and it could not have been supposed that the Governor General would not in that time have issued a Proclamation. Where then was the necessity for such precipitation? The Solicitor General had not, indeed, in terms condemned the Proclamation of the Governor General, but he said with a sneer that, whatever the present generation might do, posterity would condemn it. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I said nothing of the kind.] He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he hoped posterity would be as lenient to it as the present generation had been, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman, had, in the course of his speech, so completely misrepresented everything which had fallen from him on the previous evening, he must not be surprised if he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had fallen into an unintentional error with respect to his meaning. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, at all events, said that he would not enter into the question of the annexation of Oude; but he might remind him that Her Majesty's Government had not manifested a similar caution with respect to the subject, for, although an hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had had a notice on that subject on the paper for several months, which he had declined to bring forward on account of the state of India, yet scarcely had his
    738
    friends entered upon office when they had in effect proclaimed to the whole population of India that they considered injustice had been done to them by that annexation. Why had they not, he would ask, proceeded further, and, in accordance with the advice which had been given by the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works (Lord J. Manners) upon a former occasion, restored Oude to its Sovereign? Why had they not placed him again upon the musnud of Oude? Because that was a policy which they dared not carry into execution. But be that as it might, he could conceive no policy more calculated to produce an injurious effect upon the minds of the people of India than that which would lead them to suppose that Her Majesty's Ministers looked upon the annexation of Oude as an act which must be stigmatized as unjust. What would be the result of such a declaration upon the inhabitants of the Punjab and of Scinde? Still more unjust than the annexation of Oude would the inhabitants of those districts pronounce our treatment of them; and the consequence would be that, from Cape Comorin to the mountains of Thibet, and from the Brahmapootra to the Indus, it would be proclaimed that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, those territories had been improperly annexed and ought to be restored. The precipitancy, therefore, with which the Government had acted in sending out their despatch condemning the course taken by Lord Canning, and the manner in which they had done it, were, he maintained, deserving of the utmost reprobation upon the part of the House of Commons. Nor could he, he must confess, see that the resignation of the noble Lord, who lately held the office of the President of the Board of Control, furnished any good reason why that House should abstain from arriving at that decision with respect to the question under discussion which, before the noble Lord's retirement from office, it was prepared to pronounce. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of Lord Ellenborough, that noble Lord, he was perfectly ready to admit, felt a deep interest in the happiness and prosperity of India; and if the Government were prepared to stand by his condemnation of the policy of Lord Canning, he did not see how they could reconcile themselves to the loss of his services. But the fact of his resignation furnished no good ground for declining to censure the publication of a despatch, the policy of which had received

    739
    the entire approval of his colleagues. Indeed, it was difficult to see how the publication of such a document could be defended. The more general question of the expediency of making such a Proclamation as that which Lord Canning had issued, was not raised by the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford; but if it had been, he (Mr. Vernon Smith) should have been prepared to uphold the policy which the Governor General had indicated, as he certainly would be prepared to vote with his right hon. Friend upon the narrower question which he had submitted to the consideration of the House—a course which he believed hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the first to approve, had not the point at issue assumed a party character. Having said thus much upon the general question under the notice of the House, he should not have trespassed upon the attention of hon. Members at greater length, had it not been for the personal attack which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had made upon him that evening. He had, however, been so long accustomed to attacks of a personal nature that he could scarcely say, by comparison, he had much to complain of in the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken. It was very obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have felt that he had a bad cause to uphold, and that it was desirable to catch at any straw which might happen to present itself in his way; and he might also apply the same remarks to the noble Lord the Prime Minister, who, finding that the hounds were running in to him in another place, had endeavoured to turn the scent and to send them in pursuit of some other game. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) was quite astonished, however, that a gentleman possessing the legal acumen of Her Majesty's Solicitor General should have endeavoured to convert an attack upon him personally into an argument in favour of the conduct of the Government. Now, he would for a moment suppose that there really was some importance in the letter which he had received from Lord Canning, and to which allusion had so often been made—["Read! read!"];—and he would ask the House whether, even under those circumstances, there had been any omission upon his part which could justify Her Majesty's Ministers in taking the course which they had adopted. ["Read! read!"] Did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General really mean to contend that the Government, in coming to a decision
    740
    upon the important subject of Lord Canning's Proclamation, had proceeded with such little consideration that they had never even taken the pains to inquire whether any explanation of the Proclamation had been received in any other quarter? ["Letter! letter!"] Were they so anxious to bring about the return of Lord Canning that they had immediately pounced upon the Proclamation as a means of procuring his recall? He should also wish to know, whether the Chairman of the East India Company had not received any communication upon the subject of the Proclamation, or whether he had given no intimation to the noble Earl lately at the head of that department as to any communication which he had received. Be that as it might, he could hardly suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General could seriously imagine that the information which had reached him (Mr. Vernon Smith) could have had any effect in changing the views or opinions which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench entertained. It was quite clear that they were determined to issue the despatch which they had sent out, and that they had come to that decision without deeming it necessary to ask for any advice or information upon the subject. He should wish to know, whether it was not the duty of the actual Minister for India, rather than of an ex-Minister or any other man, to use every exertion to procure such information. ["Oh, oh!—Read."] It was idle to contend that upon an ex-Minister ought to rest the weight of that responsibility which attached to a proceeding characterized by want of due consideration upon the part of the individual who held the reins of office. The fact was, that the whole story was one of the most trumpery nature. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had referred to what had fallen from him (Mr. Vernon Smith) in reference to the subject on the previous evening, and had represented him as having said that Lord Canning had written to him to say, that an explanation of his Proclamation would be forwarded by the next mail. Now, he had never made any such statement, nor did he believe that such a statement was attributed to him in any report of the observations which he had made. Hon. Gentlemen would see that he did not say that the explanation would come by the next or any other mail, but that the Proclamation would come officially by this mail. The Secretary of the

    741
    Board of Control had stated that three mails had arrived, but no explanation had come, and therefore that justified him (Mr. Vernon Smith) in thinking that the communication which he had received was of no importance. If he had told the Government that the letter was coming, it would have misled him, and the Government, being anxious to throw responsibility upon any one but themselves, would have gladly availed themselves of the circumstance. ["Read!"] He could not read the letter. [Derisive cheers.] If the private letters of the Governor General had contained anything of importance, he should certainly have informed the Ministers; but as they did not, the letters were confidential. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to misstate him (Mr. Vernon Smith) in another and more important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had admitted last evening, that on the receipt of the letter he consulted the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. He had said no such thing. ["Oh, oh!"] What he had stated the other evening he would now repeat, that he read Lord Canning's letter to Lord Palmerston, who concurred with himself in thinking that it contained nothing of importance. It did not occur to either of them that there was anything of sufficient importance to communicate. He would be glad if any one would say—what the hon. and learned Gentleman had not ventured to say—that there was anything of sufficient importance to require communication. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I did say so, and I repeat it.] He differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that point—he did not at that time—nor did he now consider the letter of sufficient importance to induce him to commit it. There was no want of communication on the part of the late Government, for his noble Friend communicated to Lord Ellenborough a portion of a letter which he did think of importance; but in this particular instance, his noble Friend did not think there was anything of importance to communicate. The general opinion of all with whom he had spoken was to the same effect, and he believed it was the opinion of the public, as it was of every person who was uninfluenced by party feelings. There was nothing in the words that would intimate that there was anything to be communicated to the Government, and it never occurred to his noble Friend or to himself that the para-
    742
    graph was worth communicating to Lord Ellenborough. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talked of meetings in conclave, he appeared to suggest that such meetings were in reference to a particular paragraph of a letter; he (Mr. Vernon Smith) could only repeat such was not the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of some possible reproaches which Lord Canning would make for the course he had pursued; but he (Mr. Vernon Smith) did not fear those reproaches, for if he had erred in any respect, it was from too much delicacy for Lord Canning. He had always defended Lord Canning from the attacks of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. When parties on the other side of the House were assailing Lord Canning in the most difficult and trying times, he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had always, as was his duty and his pleasure, stood up for him. But what did hon. Gentlemen opposite do? When the noble Lord's policy became successful, the party opposite who had assailed him, and endeavoured to render his position difficult, turned round and professed admiration of his policy, and said they only disputed the propriety of this particular Proclamation. He anticipated no reproaches from Lord Canning, who was fully conscious of his efforts to defend him. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman presumed to say that he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had acted from party motives, he totally and solemnly disclaimed and repudiated the falsehood, ["Order!"]
    MR. LYGONrose to order, but
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERinterposed and said,—I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman has used a word which is out of order, and which might be understood in a sense he did not wish to convey, he will be glad of an opportunity of explaining that in the heat of the debate the word had escaped him.
    MR. VERNON SMITH: Certainly he had not intended to use any term that might be understood to be offensive; but he thought it had been ruled that to say a particular statement was false was not out of order. As to the imputation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he repeated his solemn denial that he had acted in any manner from party motives, and he hoped after that denial other hon. Members would not, like the Solicitor General, insinuate that he and his noble Friend had met in conclave in a party spirit to determine the course they should adopt. He had official

    743
    intercourse with many hon. Members opposite, and he would appeal to them to say whether he was a likely man to be guilty of such conduct. He, like Lord Ellenborough, had devoted the best portion of his life to the pursuit of Indian objects, and with a desire of benefitting that country. India was connected with his earliest associations and his fondest recollections. He, besides this, had been for three years Secretary to the Board of Control and for a similar period President of the Board. Others might judge of the amount of ability he had displayed in those offices, but he could affirm that those who knew the good-will, the assiduity, and the anxiety with which he had discharged the duties would not hesitate to acquit him of any improper motives. In the last days of Sir Henry Lawrence that eminent man, expiring at Lucknow, handed to his successor the commission he held from the Governor General, and said, "Tell them in England to remember Henry Lawrence, who tried to do his duty." He (Mr. Vernon Smith) felt that he stood at an immeasurable distance from that remarkable officer, but he hoped he might make the same manly, modest declaration, that so long as he had been connected with India lie had endeavoured to do his duty, and in so doing he had acquired an interest in the welfare of the country which would only cease with his existence; and it was utterly inconsistent with that feeling that he should have been influenced by the party motives which the hon. and learned Gentleman had attributed to him, to risk for a moment the prosperity of that mighty empire.
    LORD STANLEYhoped the House would do him and the Members of the Government the justice to believe that it was not their desire to evade or shrink from the inquiry into their conduct which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) had set on foot. In the statement of that right hon. Gentleman, as far as it went, there was nothing to complain of, except, as had been already shown by the Solicitor General, that he unduly, if not unfairly, limited the inquiry which he instituted. The right hon. Gentleman had asked the House to do that which was impossible—to consider the conduct of the Government in censuring a particular act of Lord Canning without at the same time considering the policy and justice of the act so censured. As far as he could gather from the Resolutions and from the discussion, the charges against the Go-
    744
    vernment were twofold. In the first place, there was the narrow issue of who was responsible for the publication of Lord Ellenborough's despatch; and next, there was the wider question, assuming the despatch not to have been intended for present publication, whether it was a despatch that ought to have been written. The question of publication was one that he approached with some pain, because, however clear the case, it was always painful to seem to exculpate one's self at the expense of one who had been a colleague, and still more when the generosity of that colleague's conduct made it impossible to regard his loss without extreme regret. But in the present instance there was something more than personal or private interest to be considered. And first let him remind the House, what Lord Ellenborough had stated already, that the promise given in the House, that the despatch should be published, was given on the authority of Lord Ellenborough alone, and not upon that of any other Member of the Government. He (Lord Stanley) could say for himself, and he believed also for his colleagues who sat on the bench behind him, that they never heard of the promise being given until they heard it in that House, and that they had heard it then with surprise and regret. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) asked why, "when you had time to consider, did you not revoke your promise?" "The House," the right hon. Gentleman said, "would not, under the circumstances, have insisted that you should produce the despatch." His answer to that was—and it was one which he believed must have occurred simultaneously to every hon. Gentleman who heard the question put—that the promise, once having been given, placed the Government, as regarded the publication of that document, in a position totally different from that which they occupied before. He quite allowed that, as far as the hon. Member for Birmingham was concerned, no promise given to him, or to any one, ought to have stood in the way if the public interest required that such promise should not be fulfilled; but the Government had to consider what would have been the effect on public opinion of its retractation. They must have said:—"It is true the despatch has been sent; it is true that the Minister, the author of that despatch, thought it one which ought to be laid before the House; it is true that that despatch contained the deliberate

    745
    expression of our policy; but, on second thoughts, we are led to believe that the sentiments which we entertain, and which we have expressed to the Governor General of India, are sentiments of such a nature that to make them public would be dangerous to our influence in India, both as regards Europeans and natives." For his own part, he firmly believed that to have held that language would have been a course fraught with infinitely greater danger than would arise from the production of the document itself. He thought that a course, half disclosure and half mystery—that a course which would have stimulated the curiosity of the public, and left that curiosity unsatisfied—would have led to a belief that the despatch in question contained matter infinitely more grave and more alarming than any that really appeared on the face of it. It might have been unwise to give the pledge which had been given in that House. He regretted to say, he thought, under the circumstances, it was unwise; but that pledge once given, it appeared to the Government a less evil to go on than to draw back, and of two public dangers they had chosen the lesser. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford, making use of a convenient and expressive phrase, had talked of a Cabinet of limited liability. What was the meaning conveyed in that expression? Undoubtedly it was true both in constitutional law and common sense that for every act of every member of the Cabinet all the members were responsible. But how responsible? Surely responsible under certain conditions—responsible, he admitted, not only for acts committed by each—not only for acts individually and expressly assented to, but for acts which they might have allowed to pass without protest—for silence gave consent. But it surely could not be contended that any set of men, no matter under what circumstances brought together, could be held responsible for an act which they did not commit—for an act of the commission of which they knew nothing, and which, when they knew of it, they regretted and disavowed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) who had displayed in a House less full than it now was, even more than his accustomed ingenuity, asked "Why, if you intended to repudiate the course which has been taken, did you not do so at once; and why did you wait to see what popularity you might be able to gain from
    746
    the publication?" That charge he denied; and he felt sure that if the Government had taken a different course, they would have heard sharper taunts and more vehement imputations from the other side of the House. Even as it was, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster had spoken about the "Jonah" of the Cabinet; but what language would he have held if, without reflection, without deliberation, without taking time to weigh circumstances so novel and so grave, the Government had at once given up as indefensible the conduct of a colleague so eminent in every respect? They knew what were the feelings which governed public men and regulated political parties; and he did not think it was necessary to offer any long or laboured justification for having felt great reluctance, for having made it a subject of deliberation and reflection, and for even having allowed some trifling delay to intervene before they consented, by expressing their disavowal of conduct which they could not wholly defend, to incur the loss of one whom they felt to be a chief ornament and support of the Cabinet. But further, time right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster had said, when the Government stated in that House what the despatch contained. and when they expressed their disapproval of the policy of Lord Canning, the despatch was virtually published, and its subsequent appearance in print was comparatively immaterial. If the right hon. Gentleman really held that opinion it was an exculpation not only of the Members of the present Government, but of Lord Ellenborough as; because, although there might have been some little suspension in the expression of their opinions—although by some of those ingenious artifices which he had often seen practised in that House—they might have contrived, for a few days or even a few weeks, to stave off inquiry, it was idle to suppose that with regard to a matter of this kind any Government could have maintained, or that any Government could have been tolerated in maintaining, a policy of silence and neutrality. How stood the case? One of the most important events of the Indian war had occurred—an event he did not hesitate to say which might materially influence the fortunes of a campaign. It was known that the Government here must decide upon the policy adopted by the Governor General. It was known that their decision would be final. It was known

    747
    that their decision had gone or was going out to India; and then the right hon. Gentleman told the Government they might have kept their own counsel, for England would not have felt any curiosity to know whether they had disavowed or sanctioned the Proclamation of Lord Canning. He (Lord Stanley) thought such a course of action would have been simply impossible, for we lived in a state of society when secrecy in regard to important national affairs could not be maintained beyond a very limited time. From that system of general publicity, great public advantages were derived; but, as they reaped its benefits, so must they submit to its inconveniences. Turning now from the question of publication, he came to the other point,—ought that despatch to have been written at all? Why, the Government was asked, did they not wait to hear any explanation that Lord Canning might have to give before they pronounced any disapproval of his Proclamation? He did not want to go into that painful question of which they had heard so much, the alleged keeping back of a private letter. He was glad to escape from dealing with that part of the subject, nor was it material to his argument. He was quite content to rest his case on a statement made very recently by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who said, speaking from his experience of Indian affairs, that it was the practice of the Indian Board in its correspondence with the Governor General to receive from the Indian Government first of all a bare narrative of facts, and afterwards—sometimes months afterwards—to receive explanations of the narratives so sent. He would ask if an explanation which might be deferred for months could, on such a subject, have been waited for? Did the matter not press? Was there no urgency? They were told, and he agreed with the sentiment, that it was their duty to consider the feelings of Lord Canning. No one in that House could speak of Lord Canning with more respect than he did. He never had joined in the vindictive and insensate cry that had been raised against him by a portion, though he believed but a small portion, of the Indian public. He thought that the acts for which Lord Canning had been most censured were precisely those of which, as a public man, Lord Canning ought to be most proud. He might have made mistakes; but, on the whole, he had conducted affairs, at a perilous crisis, with signal
    748
    ability and success. But was there nothing else to be considered in connection with this question than the feelings of Lord Canning? Were the lives and property of men to be as nothing in the scale? Was the confiscation of property nothing? Was it nothing to arm a population of 5,000,000 against us?—to make their reconciliation more hopeless, their resistance more desperate, their revenge more implacable? Was it nothing to protract a war already sufficiently difficult and dangerous, at the most inconvenient and unhealthy season, and in a country fatally protected against European arms by its jungles and its pestilence? He quite understood the policy with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford opened the debate. The right hon. Gentleman was a skilful tactician, and he (Lord Stanley) perfectly understood why he wished the House to consider Lord Ellenborough's despatch, without at the same time considering Lord Canning's Proclamation. Certainly, if it had been matter of little moment—if it had been merely a question of explaining of some transaction past and done with—they could have well afforded to wait; but the Government thought, and justly thought, that every day and every hour that Proclamation in its original form was left before the public in Oude added to the dangers and difficulties of our Indian position. And how was Lord Ellenborough to know that further explanations were on their way? A partail explanation had been sent; it was quite true that that explanation was hasty and imperfect; but men in great exigencies and occupied with urgent affairs were not unlikely to send hasty and imperfect explanations of that which they did. Then, it might be said, why did not they write out and make further inquiry before writing that despatch? To do so would occupy some months; and he (Lord Stanley) thought not only would the people of England have had reason to complain—not only would the people of Oude have had reason to complain—but that Lord Canning himself would have had fair grounds of complaint, if, after waiting patiently until (however remote the period) a full vindication of the Proclamation should arrive, and in the meanwhile giving no hint of their opinion the Government had written out to him some time towards the end of the summer, mentioning as if it had been quite a trifling matter—"By the way, that Proclamation that you issued in the be-

    749
    ginning of the year we believe to be totally inexpedient, and utterly unjust." Again, it was urged, as another ground for censure, by the right bon. Gentleman opposite, "if you thought it necessary to censure Lord Canning's policy in this particular, why did you not recall him at the same time?" Certainly, right hon. Gentlemen opposite were hard to please; for, first, they made it matter of grave imputation that objection was made to a Proclation without waiting to hear the arguments by which it might be defended, and at the next moment they expected the Government not only to censure the Proclamation but to recall the Governor General without listening to, or so much as asking for, the defence he might have to offer. In considering the prudence and policy of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, he would ask the House to consider it as that which it was meant to be, a confidential document, not addressed to the public. but intended solely for the Government of India. As to those passages relating to a policy of annexation and to the dethronement of the King of Oude, it had been said they ought not to have been allowed to appear. From that doctrine he (Lord Stanley) was not inclined to dissent. He regretted that they (ACP did appear. But he would ask the House not to confound the two questions—first, whether it was right that passages of that character should—have been written; and next, whether having been written, it was right to produce them, But to whom were they addressed? Not to the Sepoys; not to the population of Oude; not to any person who could possibly misunderstand their meaning; nor to any person into whose mind by any stretch of the imagination, the idea could enter that it was the intention of the Government of this country to restore the native Government of Oude; but they were addressed to the Indian Government, and they were written for an obvious reason—in order to point out emphatically and plainly the wide distinction that ought to be drawn between the conduct of the Sepoys of our own army, and the conduct of the revolted population of Oude. The meaning of that despatch had been made clear by his hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor General. He did not wonder that the attempt had been made and the wish had been expressed to construe the Proclamation of Lord Canning in a sense rather less wide than the words obviously bore; but he thought the explanations offered in
    750
    support of that construction entirely failed. It was difficult to discuss a question as to the rights of talookdars without going into the perplexed question as to the tenure of land in India; but it was clear even as the case was stated by the hon. Member opposite, that those tenures were hereditary—that they were of long, even if not of perpetual duration, and were considered by those who held them in the light of property. To say that a right existed to deal with the property of talookdars in their holdings otherwise than with land in general was hardly more reasonable than to contend that, because in this country in earlier times all land tenures originated with the Crown, that therefore a right existed to confiscate any English estate. It was said that those talookdars were a disorderly class, that they warred one on the other, and that they oppressed their poorer neighbours. He did not care to enter into that argument, but if it were true that they constituted a powerful landed aristocracy surrounded by armed retainers, in a military point of view and as a matter of policy that was not exactly a class of men that it was desirable to drive to despair, and to force to the alternative of a desperate resistance. But it was not the fact that this was the only class of persons who would be affected by the Proclamation. Ho had it on the highest authority that a large portion of the soil of Oude was occupied in very small holdings. The village communities were numerous. The principle of endowment in land was as well known in Asia as in Europe; almost every mosque and school (and they were many) was endowed in that way. How would these endowments be affected by the Proclamation? They had heard a good deal about the danger of offending the religious prejudices of the Natives of India. He apprehended that a declaration such as that contained in the Proclamation, which would at least have the appearance of sweeping away all endowments indiscriminately, would, especially if it was misrepresented by those who had an interest in doing so, produce a most injurious effect on the native mind. Precedents had been cited in defence of the Proclamation, and the case of Scinde, and that of Oude, on its first annexation, had been specially dwelt upon. But what was the case of Scinde? It was this—that certain feudal Princes, after the conquest of the country, were desired to surrender their jagheers, in order that they might receive them back

    751
    under the sanction of the new authority. What was the precedent of Oude? It was that they who did not surrender should have their property confiscated. If that precedent had been followed, no objection could have been made. But what was the policy indicated by the Proclamation? A few persons were rewarded, but the property of the great mass of those who remain neutral, who in an Asiatic country will always be an immense majority of the whole, was by the words of the Proclamation confiscated equally with that of those who had taken an open part in the rebellion. If they came in, their lives and honour were saved, but nothing more. And what was the reward offered to those who might have protected English lives, at the risk of their own? They will be entitled to "rewards"—No! but to "consideration and leniency." It had been said, and he believed with truth, that it was never intended to act up to the letter of the Proclamation. There was no doubt about that—no Government could act up to the letter of that Proclamation; but they were considering the effect of the Proclamation on the Native mind; and his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. Baillie) asked with great truth how the people of Oude were to know that these threats were not to be carried into effect. He (Lord Stanley) looked anxiously for information as to the effect of that document. He had no special knowledge on the subject, but it was impossible not to know that private letters had been received from persons high in military position, expressing the greatest anxiety and alarm as to the result of this Proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded him quoted high authority in support of the policy indicated in this Proclamation. He best knew on what authority those statements were made. He (Lord Stanley) was not willing to make use of private reports or communications, but if it were true, as he believed it to be, that Sir John Lawrence had recommended to the Government of India a discriminative amnesty—that was to say, an amnesty for all mutineers who had not committed violence, but had given up their arms, and returned to their homes—if it were true that such counsel had been given to the Governor General, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in adducing the great name and authority of Sir John Lawrence in support of his views. Looking, then, at the immediate results of the policy of the Gover-
    752
    nor General, he thought it was inexpedient; looking at its permanent effects, he believed that it was unjust. He, for one, would not shrink from the responsibility of expressing his disapproval of that policy. As to the alleged precipitancy with which the despatch was sent out, he justified it by the mischief which the Proclamation, unrepealed and unexplained, might do—mischief which would be increased by every day that it remained in force. As to the publication, he thought he had shown that for the act of publication the Government collectively could not be held responsible. If it were the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford to obtain a full and deliberate inquiry both into the conduct of the Government here and the conduct of the authorities in India, he believed that he would obtain that object, and he (Lord Stanley) should be glad if he did obtain it. But if in this Motion any other objects be involved—if it be really what some have not hesitated to call it—a party move—if the intention be not to defend a Governor General, not to indicate a policy, but to oveathrow an administration—then, though I may on public grounds deeply regret it—though I may lament to see the interests of India imperilled for the advantage of political parties at home—though I may regard it as an ill omen for that new tours of Indian administration on which we are about to enter—yet, personally, I think we, the Government, have no reason to complain of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford. It is his act that we stand here officially as the defenders of right against wrong—as the champions of a policy which is alike that of humanity and wisdom. Whatever be the issue—and I for one believe that the issue will be favourable—but be what it may, a fairer field on which to combat, a better cause by which to stand or fall, no Minister and no public men could desire.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the House cannot but feel that this is a matter which has been brought to a very serious issue. The production of the Proclamation and the despatch seem to challenge some judgment and opinion on the part of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford has asked the House to give that opinion irrespective of the merits or demerits of the Proclamation. The Solicitor General and the noble Lord who has just spoken ask, on the contrary, that the whole case shall be judged, and that

    753
    we shall give our opinion on a question involving the merits of the Proclamation, as well as the course which the Government have pursued. So that, as it appears to me, the House is reduced to this alternative—either to censure the Government for the course that they have pursued, or to declare, on the other hand, that Lord Canning is deserving of the most severe reprobation. Sir, that is the issue. You cannot agree to my right hon. Friend's Resolution without passing a censure upon the Government. You cannot acquit the Government without declaring Lord Canning to be totally unfit even for the meanest official situation. I listened with great pleasure to the very able speech of the Solicitor General delivered at an early hour of the evening; but at the same time I must confess that I wish he had more entirely abandoned the forensic habits of his profession: because it is evident, and I will prove it immediately, that in every part of the case, while he dwelt with great effect and ability on those circumstances which were in favour of his argument, he entirely suppressed every fact and consideration against it. As an instance I will mention that at the beginning of his speech, when he declared that he would not give an opinion or pass a judgment upon the annexation of Oude, while he contrived, in two or three sentences to show that in his opinion the Government of Her Majesty and the Administration of the East India Company had been guilty of as foul a wrong as was ever committed The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "I will only state that which is undeniable. There was a treaty with Oude, by which it was agreed to guarantee the Vizier of Oude against external and internal enemies." That is perfectly true and undeniable. But there was another article in that treaty, and it said that the Vizier of Oude should be bound to listen to the advice of the East India Company, and to follow that advice. And, Sir, it is notorious that while for fifty years we kept that article of the treaty to which he referred—while we protected Oude against external and internal enemies—that at least for forty years of that period the Vizier of Oude entirely neglected and violated that other article of the treaty. But this, if we are considering Oude, is a main fact in the discussion, and it is undeniable that, whether we were justified in our proceedings or not, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to omit that fact from his argument. I do feel this somewhat,
    754
    because, in the course the Government has taken, and in the despatch which is the subject of consideration, there is nothing so conspicuous as the attempt to destroy the fame and character of the proceedings of former Governments, and to endeavour to fix the stain of bad faith, of rapacity, and of every other crime on the past Governments of India. I proceed rather in the order of the Solicitor General than that of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and, in the first place, I cannot but observe that when he asks the House to judge of the Proclamation, the document he has given us is an imperfect document. One of the most material passages in that Proclamation does not appear, the Government being perfectly aware at the date—the 7th of May—when they produced this document that there had appeared in the public newspapers an account of the Proclamation which contained that passage. They certainly could not give it as an official document because they had not received it as an official document. But, I ask, where is the candour, where is the fairness, in asking the House to judge of a document, they knowing that the document is incomplete, and that the part omitted contains much in vindication of the context? The passage has been read to the House, but I cannot forbear to notice it. It is this:
    "'To those among them who shall promptly come forward and give to the Chief Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and order this indulgence will be large, and the Governor General will be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to the restitution of their former rights."
    Can any man say that this passage is immaterial? May it not have this effect, that, while all the former severe sentences are held out as threats to the landowners who are still in arms, it is meant to open the way to reconciliation and restitution to those who make their submission to the British Government? But I must observe further, with regard to this document, that I could not be struck with the account which the Governor General gives of it in the beginning. He speaks of it first as a Proclamation put forth in a liberal and forgiving spirit. And Mr. Edmonstone thus comments upon the Proclamation:—
    "lf an exemption, almost general, from the penalties of death, transportation, and imprisonment, such as is now about to be offered to men who have been in rebellion, had been publicly proclaimed, before a heavy blow had been struck,

    755
    it is at least as likely that resistance would have been encouraged by the seeming exhibition of a weakness as that it would have been disarmed by a generous forbearance."
    Now, this part of the official document was not noticed in Lord Ellenborough's despatch. Though we must recollect they were men in arms, they were not, as the Solicitor General states, men in arms when we first entered the country, and therefore the case of those who enter a country by conquest, according to the spirit of modern warfare, leaving the inhabitants in the possession of their homes and property, does not apply to Oude. Lord Canning found the country in a state of submission. He did not annex Oude. He found it in a state of peace; and it was some time after—I will not say the exact period—when mutiny spread throughout the country, that those landowners and others took up arms. He says to these men—men who have been fighting against our regiments, men who have killed our soldiers, men who have intercepted our convoys, men who have endeavoured to starve into submission the feeble garrison of Lucknow—he says to all these men, not only that they shall not suffer the penalty of death or transportation, but that not even a week's imprisonment shall be inflicted on them for the offences they have committed. I can only say, that notwithstanding the severe character which has been given to this Proclamation, much is thus taken from that description. But it did not suit Lord Ellenborough to mention it, or to take any notice of that part of Lord Canning's proceedings. It bears the character of mercy, and I do not wonder that it was so considered. But there seems to have been a determination, immediately the Proclamation was received, to seize hold of it, with a view to fix censure upon it without looking to its general tenor. But, Sir, I must call the attention of the House, because this is a grave part of the question, to the situation of Lord Canning. Lord Canning had been for nearly a year exposed in one of the most perilous situations, requiring the highest qualities of heart and head which a man in a high position can need. He had to provide for the safety of a British garrison, small in numbers, which had been diminished by reinforcements and armaments sent away to other parts, with only one European regiment, I believe, in a space of 400 miles from Calcutta. He was exposed to this extensive and perilous mutiny. He had at the same time to consider the welfare of
    756
    those 150,000,000 in India over whom he had to rule. And, placed in that position, no man can say that, while others trembled, his cheeks were ever blanched with fear—that, while the murders committed roused to frenzy the passions of the Europeans about him, his blood was ever moved to vengeance. Sir, I remember when Thanks were voted in this House to our friends in India, on the proposition of my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, I took the opportunity of saying a few words in commendation of the course which Lord Canning had pursued; and I remarked on his determination that he would not consent that there should be war between races, but to look at all these Indian races as people who might be reconciled to our rule, and that he had proclaimed a doctrine and a practice most abhorrent to those who look only for vengeance. I do not remember that when I paid that humble tribute to the merits of Lord Canning, the Gentlemen who now sit on the Treasury benches were so impressed with the maxims of forbearance. On the contrary, there was nothing but carping and cavilling, hypothetical condemnations, prophetical speeches, hesitating language, and a willingness to join the popular voice, as it was then esteemed, which depreciated the merits of Lord Canning, and for one cause or another they seemed disposed to withhold that confidence and approbation which to a public man performing difficult duties are ever most dear. Being in power, there came to them a part of a Proclamation which had not been issued by Lord Canning, without any explanation, but purporting to be one which was to be issued, or might be issued, when Lucknow should be taken. I ask, what should have been the conduct of a Government on receiving such a despatch from such a man at such a moment? It seems to me it was no heroic duty or difficult duty, but the common duty of any Government at that period to say—"This is a man distinguished for his humanity. This is a Governor General placed in the most perilous position. If we cast upon him a sudden censure, we may disable him from performing the duties of his office. There is no character of fierceness or cruelty about him which should induce us to withhold our confidence, or to believe that he has surrendered his humane and rational intentions with regard to the people of Oude." If that had been their belief they might have written a despatch conveying their general views concerning confiscation, asking for explanations, and

    757
    recommending in general terms a policy of mercy. If such a despatch had been written, if, as is usual with despatches when great affairs are being transacted, it had been refused to those who wished it produced, I think it would have been but fair and common justice to Lord Canning, and not only fair and common justice to Lord Canning, but justice to your own empire. That was not thought proper. They, or rather Lord Ellenborough, who with regard to the affairs of India, had their entire confidence, immediately wrote a despatch which appears to me, I confess, more like something which is written for the sake of public invective—more like a letter of "Junius" to be published in the Public Advertiser—more like one of the most severe lampoons which a political opponent launches against his adversary, than the grave rebuke by the President of the Board of Control to a Governor General who he thought had outstepped the limits of his duty. To show the style of this despatch, I will just read a passage or two from it:—
    "Other conquerors, when they have succeeded in overcoming resistance, have excepted a few persons as still deserving punishment, but have with a generous policy extended their clemency to the great body of the people,"
    It then goes on,—
    "You have acted upon a different principle; you have deserved a few as deserving of special Favour, and you have struck, with what they will feel as the severest of persecution, the mass of the inhabitants of the country. We cannot but think that the precedent from which you have departed will appear to have been conceived in a spirit of wisdom superior to that which appears in the precedent you have made."
    Hon. Gentlemen admire that, and it is no doubt a very fine piece of writing and may rank with many passages from our classics; but was it fitting that the Government should hurl their sarcasms at a man placed in the position of the Governor General—a man who had never been convicted of cruelty, who had never been remarkable for the dreadful punishments which he had inflicted, but who had, on the contrary, been taunted for the clemency and mercy which he had displayed? This is the man against whom the organ of the Government thought fit to direct his sarcasms and his invective. Can you suppose that a man who has been censured in that way is fit to continue the Governor General of India? One of two things you must choose—if he is fit for that high situation, he is not deserving of your invective; if he is not, he ought not to be left in that high position. But
    758
    this is the sort of tone in which you thought fit to write to the Governor General, a tone totally unbecoming the Government of a great empire. A laboured attempt is said to have been made by the Prime Minister "in another place," and it has been made here to-night, to fix on Lord Ellenborough the responsibility of the publication of this despatch. Lord Ellen-borough seems to have thought sincerely that the publication was calculated to do great good in India, and he was anxious that it should be produced. I wish to say nothing disrespectful of Lord Ellenborough—I believe him to be, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite truly said the other night, a man of genius. I only regret the want of judgment which he has shown in this matter. But he had colleagues with whom he must have consulted; and one of the most eminent of them, the leader of this House, on the 6th of May, being asked the tenor of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, said, "Of course that despatch will be laid on the table." Is not that right hon. Gentleman, then, a participator in the publication? If the publication was right, let him claim the merit, for he had a large share in it. We know not what the decision of the Cabinet may have been, but when we hear from the leader of this House that the despatch will be produced, it means, of course, that the Government have decided that it shall be. And when we hear that "the policy of the Governor General has been disapproved ill every sense" is not that an announcement which must make every mutineer in India prick up his ears and instil fresh courage into the breast of every man in arms against us. Was it not news to make every rebel say, "Though the Viceroy be our enemy, though the British troops pursue us into our retreats, though they defeat us in open fight, take our towns and deprive us of our cannon, yet in London we have a friend who will help us?" But, perhaps, it may be said that the publication was not calculated to do any mischief. On that point I have here an authority which will not be disputed. These are the words used in another place by no enemy of the Government:—
    "I do regret that at the present moment that despatch should have been so prominently brought into notice. Its production was somewhat hastily promised, but I hope your Lordships will concur in the propriety of the course recommended by my noble Friend—that of laying on the table only such portions as may be published without causing any serious inconvenience to the public service, omitting some passages which if

    759
    published in India might, in the opinion of the Government, produce a most prejudicial effect."
    That is the language of the Prime Minister. He declares that the despatch must produce a most prejudicial effect, and yet that is the despatch which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised should be laid on the table of the House. The Solicitor General made a point which if he had not been wrong in his dates would have been a very good one. He said that, as the despatch had been given to Earl Granville and to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), it was not likely that it could have been kept secret very long, and that the Government, therefore, had done well to make a virtue of a necessity. But, unfortunately, this promise to produce the despatch was made on Thursday, and I believe Earl Granville received the despatch about eleven on Friday morning, and the Member for Birmingham a little later. Therefore that defence entirely falls to the ground. I put, then, these two things together. It was most unwise and most mischievous, in my opinion, to write such a despatch in the terms I have described—terms which would have done very well for a brilliant author, but which were totally unbecoming a Minister of the Crown. In the next place, it was most mischievous and most prejudicial to the public service, and most dangerous to the interests of India, to publish that despatch; and for this averment my witness and authority is the head of the Government. There are some parts of this despatch which seem to indicate pretty clearly what is to be the policy of the Government. Hitherto it has always been the practice for a Government on coming into office to accept the settlements which have been made by former Governments; and when a conquest has been made, a war entered into, or an acquisition secured to the Crown, not to look any further into the abstract merits of the question, but to adopt that which has been done to carry on the war, and to defend these acquisitions. In this manner alone, I venture to think, can the policy of the empire be carried on with safety. If one Government were to say we disapprove what was done by the East India Company under Lord Dalhousie, and another were to say we disapprove what was done with regard to Scinde—if when Mr. Fox was in office in 1806 he had said, "I disapprove the wars of Lord Wellesley, which secured to us Delhi and
    760
    Seringapatam;" it is evident that the empire would he in a state of continual fluctuation, and you would have no policy lasting from year to year. If you were to be perpetually entering into discussions with regard to the justice and wisdom of wars gone by you could have no stable policy for the empire. That is the way in which the Government of this great empire has hitherto been carried on; that is the way in which, despite of our party battles—spite of Gentlemen sitting first on one side and then on another—this great empire has been built up, and it is the only way in which it can be maintained. If you are to say, as this despatch says—or rather insinuates, which is a great deal worse—that the annexation of Oude was unrighteous and unprincipled, and done in defiance of treaties, and that therefore the hostilities going on in Oude were legitimate warfare, and that not Her Majesty's troops, but the rebels and mutineers were the real defenders of the right—if that be the tone adopted—do not think that your empire can last. It must be for ever shifting and precarious. For this reason more especially, I think that the despatch is to be condemned; but I think that it is to be condemned in every sense. I think, first, that it is most unjust to Lord Canning, who deserves praise, admiration, and support, and not the most severe censure that was ever passed upon a great public servant. I think, next, that it is dangerous to proclaim to India that the acts of the head of your Government there arc not trusted, and will be disavowed. I think also that it is dangerous—I know not for the sake of what or for what purpose—to be reverting to the acts of past Governors General in India, and of past Presidents of the Board of Control, and Directors of the East India Company. I believe that these things tend to shake and finally to dissolve the magnificent fabric which our ancestors have founded, and which we have helped to rear; and I see no escape from such a consequence unless we censure this despatch. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other evening—and I admire him for having done so—that if Lord Ellenborough's colleagues had known of his resignation they would have begged him to abandon his intention; but the same tone has not been observed to-night, and it appears from the noble Lord the Secretary of State that Lord Ellenborough's resignation was accepted, if not with regret, at least with

    761
    regretful feelings. Whether the Government wish to maintain Lord Ellenborough or not, whether they wish to retain the services of "that man of genius and generous temper" I cannot say; but I do say, that they are bound up with his acts; they are responsible for what he did—they are responsible for the tenor of that despatch and for its publication. Let them bear, therefore, the responsibility of that despatch. They may say that it was issued in the cause of humanity. That remains to be seen. If, indeed, in the end that prove true—if the Proclamation tended to plunge Oude into war—the Government would have reason to take credit for their act; but, if on the contrary, as I believe will turn out to be the case, this disavowal of the Governor General tends to encourage the enemies of British rule, and to discourage and dishcarten its friends, them say, the censure rightly falls on Her Majesty's Government, and they must bear it.
    MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK moved the adjournment of the debate.
    LORD PALMERSTON: I presume that it will be resumed the first thing on Monday.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: On Monday.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.
    House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Stamp Duty on Drafts.
2a Manchester Improvement; Manchester Assize Court House; Tay Fisheries; Probates and Letters of Administration Act Amendment; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment.
3a Law of Property Amendment.

PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved the second reading of these Bills, which were designed to effect alterations and improvements in the Acts passed last Session.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bills involved no general principle, but were entirely confined to matters of detail. He had seen the Judge of the Probate Court, and had with him gone over the clauses of the Bill. It was of much importance that these measures should be introduced, and he therefore concurred in the second reading.
    Bills read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EAST INDIA.—LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DESPATCH.—PULICATION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, it has been my almost invariable rule to abstain from interfering in any political questions which are brought under your consideration. From that rule I depart on the present occasion with the very greatest reluctance; first, because the observance of that rule is more consistent with my own comfort and capacity; and secondly, because whatever political sympathies I possess have ever been, and still are, with that great party which is represented by Her Majesty's present Government. But the gravity of this subject, the long and deep interest I have felt in the affairs of India, and my conscientious conviction that something must be said or done upon the present occasion have been, I may call God to witness, the object and motives of my now coming forward for the purpose of submitting these Resolutions to the consideration and the decision of your Lordships. I felt too, that on an occasion of this kind it was, perhaps, better that, if any proposition were to be submitted here, it should proceed from some one independent of and
580
unconnected with party,—from some one who never has been, and who, in all probability, never will be, a Cabinet Minister.
My Lords, I regretted very much to hear the other night the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control express his opinion that the whole of this movement was actuated by personal feeling against a particular individual, that personality now seemed the pervading principle of political contests, and that he considered himself to be the object aimed at both in the general movement and in the specific Resolutions. Now, my Lords—I am not empowered to answer for others—I may state my most conscientious belief that such are not the feelings of any who sit on this (the Opposition) side of the House. For myself, at all events, I can most distinctly say that I have not been, and I believe I shall not be, guided by any personal feeling towards the noble Earl. I have ventured on some occasions to differ from him; but there never has been shown by him towards me or by me towards him the slightest personal animosity. On the present occasion I cannot consider the noble Earl in any degree more culpable than the rest of his colleagues. I cannot consider that what he has written and published has not been equally written and published by them, and I cannot, therefore consider any degree of personal, distinct, and undivided responsibility as belonging to him. I maintain that the responsibility is aggregate, common, and that it extends over the whole of Her Majesty's Ministers. The feeling expressed by the noble Earl, connected with the step he has taken by retirement from office, makes it essentially necessary that some observations should be made on that part of the question. The merits of the question itself are so large and so important that they could not possibly be set aside; but they now acquire additional value from the step taken by the noble Earl and from the construction put upon that step; it being assumed that because he has retired from the Administration, that therefore no responsibility rests with the Administration for that publicity which the noble Earl gave to the despatch; and also because he must consider what will be the consequences of accepting that proposition on the future responsibility of Ministers, and on the future working of the constitution. That question, which was politically important, has, I affirm, become both politically and constitutionally important from a

581
consideration of the course taken by the noble Earl. Since these Resolutions were laid before the House this event of great importance has occurred, that the noble Earl—an important member of the Administration—has withdrawn from the service of the Crown, stating that he did so with a view of taking the responsibility of a certain act upon himself. We are required to believe that that step taken by the noble Earl makes the whole difference in respect to the responsibility of the Cabinet. I think it makes no difference at all, except that it makes the matter a very great deal worse. Logically and morally the question remains precisely as it was. No doubt that by many minds it may be viewed in different lights, and may be followed by different consequences; but the question, I maintain, remains as it was. You can no more separate the responsibility of the noble Earl from the responsibility of Government than you can separate the identity of the human body, merely because the left or the right arm may be struck off. The body still remains the same, though deprived of one of its members. This is a very important proposition, and the principle in the working of our constitution is so important that at the very outset it must be considered under some preliminary observations. The working of our constitution ever since the Revolution has been by ministerial Cabinets presenting a uniform responsibility. I believe you will find that from 1696 down to the present time it is the uniform principle pervading the whole system of Administrations that the responsibility of the Cabinet is one and undivided. This is most emphatically laid down by various writers, told by no cite more emphatically than by Lord Macaulay, who states in his History that "in Parliament the Ministers are bound to act as one man on all questions relating to the executive Government." Mr. Hallam gives precisely the same opinion; he says "that the uniform and undivided responsibility of the Cabinet may have this effect, that on some occasions it may shelter a peccant individual from impeachment," but he adds these emphatic words—"the uniform responsibility of the Cabinet must have, and ever will have, a decided influence on the reputation and on the tenure of office by the members of the Administration." It is perfectly clear that this principle must be observed in a Government such as that which exists in this country, where responsibility is required in the Executive. It is
582
perfectly clear that this principle is necessary to compel, as it ought to compel, the First Minister of the Crown to be careful in the selection of those whom he intrusts with the various departments of the administration of affairs. It is necessary to regulate the conduct and diligence of each member of the Administration, who, without interfering in the details of the departments of the other Ministers, would take care and watch that nothing was done by any one Minister calculated in any degree to affect the responsibility of the whole. Moreover, it is required by the people of this country, who are fully resolved to have united councils and united responsibility, and who will not have that responsibility evaded by having it said, when a great difficulty has occurred, that it was not the Cabinet who did the act, but that it was done by this man or that man, who might be held up to public indignation and made a victim for the general escape of the whole body. I remember very well that this doctrine was laid down most emphatically by the late Sir Robert Peel on the occasion when Lord Glenelg, then Chief Secretary for the Colonies, had done something—I forget what it was—but which those who were then in Opposition thought they might make a fitting point of attack. I remember Sir Robert Peel then calling together a number of his friends and laying down the law most precisely. He said that the whole Cabinet must be held responsible for that act—that he never would consent that any one individual Member of the Cabinet should be held distinctly responsible; that he never would allow one man to be selected from the whole body to bear the brunt and responsibility which ought to attach to the whole. He said that he would rather submit to anything than be guilty of what he considered the abominable meanness of selecting one person to bear the responsibity of the whole, when it ought to be borne by all. ["Hear, hear!"] I am exceedingly glad to hear that the noble End at the head of the Government assents to that proposition—consequently, I have no doubt he will vote in concurrence with my Resolution, and that there will be presented to the people of this country and of India the happy aspect of an united Legislature. I must, however, say that the conduct of the late President of the Board of Control very strongly confirms the proposition I lay down—namely, the necessity of a deep sense pervading the members of the Cabinet that their respon-

583
sibility is entire, uniform, and not distinct; for depend upon it, if the noble Earl had been convinced when he wrote and published that despatch that the responsibility he brought on himself would entail responsibility and removal from office upon all the rest of the Cabinet, he would never have given publicity to it without consulting his colleagues. But from a chivalrous and high minded spirit, and from an anxiety to give to the world his opinions on this matter, and believing that he could take on himself the whole responsibility without implicating his colleagues, he performed the act he did, and which he never would have performed if he had been convinced that he would bring down upon the whole Cabinet either dismissal from office or resignation.
So much, my Lords, for the principle, and now let us look to the facts of the case. Is the noble Earl the most culpable, or the only one culpable, with respect to the publication of the despatch? I think that in the House of Commons there is another Member of the Government, whose replies and statement constitute as much a publication of the despatch as anything which the noble Earl did. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked a question—("Order!")—as the noble Peer compels me to resort to a fiction, I will say that in an imaginary place, at no great distance from this House, there were some imaginary functionaries, and one of those imaginary functionaries, whom the noble Peer may be able to embrace in his conception, may be called in terms of mere romance the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This shadowy financial officer, in answer to a question put by another fancied gentleman, said that a certain despatch had been written, and "I think it right to take this opportunity of stating—
LORD DENMANrose to order. He wished to know whether the noble Earl was quoting from a report, for if so, he was out of order.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl, strictly speaking, is out of order; but I should be sorry to see any impediment put in his way, and I hope the fullest latitude will be given to him on the present occasion.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I deny that I have been guilty of any breach of order, or that it was at all proper or necessary to interrupt me. However, I shall merely say that I believe it was stated by a certain person in "another place" that im-
584
mediately upon receiving the Proclamation from India the Government took the subject into their consideration, and sent out a despatch disapproving the policy of the Governor General in every sense. Was that a publication or not of the contents of the despatch? It was not, I grant, a publication of the minute and detailed contents of the despatch; but I question whether it was not in some respects more prejudicial than even the despatch itself. The despatch is comprised within certain limits, but the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to an almost indefinite extent, and I doubt whether the publication of that answer in India, if unaccompanied by information of a different kind, would not have led to the most serious and the most irreparable consequences. Well, if that be so, it proves that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as much concerned in the publication of the despatch as the late President of the Board of Control himself, and I cannot understand why, when the resignation of the one was accepted, the surrender of the other was not demanded. They bore one and the same responsibility; and I must say, moreover, that seeing the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was given on Thursday night—seeing that the documents were laid before both Houses on Friday, and seeing that language has since been held here by Ministers of the Crown quite as strong, prejudicial, and disparaging as the terms of the despatch itself, the responsibility, so far from resting with the late President of the Board of Control alone, is fully shared by the whole body of the present Administration.
My Lords, the despatch has now been in your hands for several days. I shall not detain you at any length upon the Proclamation; but it is necessary to make some reference to it with the view of throwing light upon the subject matter of the despatch. A Proclamation appears in the papers presented by Government, which is called an "intended" Proclamation; but a copy has been published in The Times of what no doubt was the Proclamation really issued. We find no account of the "intended" Proclamation having appeared; but we do find in The Times the Proclamation as, I have no doubt, it was issued, for we are told by the correspondent of that journal that the latter Proclamation had been published at Lucknow. The two Proclamations, with one exception, are identical. The difference is, that the second Proclamation

585
contains a restraining clause which is not in the first. In both, the following words occur—
"The Governor General further proclaims to the people of Oude that, with the above-mentioned exceptions, the proprietary right in the soil of the province is confiscated to the British Government, which will dispose of that right in such manner as to it may seem fitting.
You will remember that, in a previous part of the Proclamation certain exceptions had been made in favour of those who had remained faithful to the British Government. But in the Proclamation which appeared in The Times we find the following restraining clause, which is nut inserted in the Proclamation published by the Government—
"To those among them who shall promptly come forward and give to the Chief Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and order this indulgence will be large, and the Governor General will be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to a restitution of their former rights."
That is so important an addition—the late President of the Board of Control has called it a "material modification"—that I have no doubt if the noble Earl had been aware of it the terms of his despatch would have been considerably altered. Observe, however, there is a great difference of opinion as to the proper interpretation of what may be called the enacting, as distinguished from the restraining, clause of the Proclamation. That clause is to the effect that the proprietary right in the soil of the province shall be confiscated to the British Government. One interpretation is that given to the clause by the late President of the Board of Control, who assumes that it means a general confiscation of the whole soil of the province, a disherison in favour of the State of every cultivator, every ryot, every human being possessed of an acre of land in Oude. I do not say that is a wrong interpretation. [Laughter.] It seems to me as if the noble Lords opposite could do nothing but laugh. The subject may he a very pleasant one to them; but, notwithstanding their laughter, I shall proceed to the end of what I have to say. If the interpretation given to the enacting clause by the noble Earl had been the true one, I should certainly have gone heartily with him; but there is another interpretation given by persons of the greatest experience, of the most mature judgment, and of the most perfect acquaintance with the affairs of India. It has been stated to me by gentlemen who have resided in India for many
586
years, and among others by one who told me that he had lived for twenty-five years in India, and had himself made no fewer than 2,000 land settlements. This interpretation is that the enacting clause of the Proclamation simply contains an assertion on the part of the Government that they assume the proprietary right hitherto exercised by certain persons called talookdars, zemindars, and others, over the soil of the province and over the vast body of the cultivators and possessors. According to the first interpretation the enacting clause would apply to more than 2,000,000 of men; but according to the second it would not apply to more than about 600; many of whom, moreover, have been guilty of the greatest disloyalty to the Crown of England, and of whose cruelty and brutality the most ample and authentic accounts may be found in the works of Colonel Sleeman. But, whichever may be the correct interpretation, the enacting clause is equally affected by the restraining clause, which virtually says that all who submit themselves to our authority and show that they are prepared to become good subjects shall be treated with the utmost consideration. I am inclined to think, for my own part, that the second interpretation is the true one. In the first place, I find that the expression relative to the confiscation of the proprietary right in the soil of the province is almost the same as that used by the Marquess of Dalhousie in his Proclamation annexing Dude. The language of that Proclamation was as follows—
"If any officer of the durbar—jageerdar, zemindar, or other person—shall refuse to render such obedience—if he shall withhold the payment of revenue, or shall otherwise dispute or defy the authority of the British Government, he shall be declared a rebel, his person shall be seized, and his jageers or lands confiscated to the State."
It appears, then, that Lord Canning has done no more than carry into effect the terms of that Proclamation, and seeing that as the Marquess of Dalhousie announced that in case of resistance the proprietary right in the soil should be confiscated to the State, so he declared in like manner that all who held out against the Government should forfeit their right in the soil of the province. The Marquess of Dalhousie then proceeded with his restraining clause, which you will see is expressed in almost the same language as that of Lord Canning—
"To those who shall, immediately and quiet submit themselves to the authority of the British Government—whether amils or public officers,

587
jageerdars, zemindars, or other inhabitants of Oude—full assurance is hereby given of protection, consideration, and favour."
But I think there is some further light thrown upon the purport and object of the Proclamation by the letter of Mr. Edmonstone to the Chief Commissioner of Oude. Mr. Edmonstone says—
"The Governor General has not considered it desirable that this Proclamation should appear until the capital is either actually in our hands or lying at our mercy. He believes that any Proclamation put forth in Oude in a liberal and forgiving spirit would be open to misconstruction, and capable of perversion, if not preceded by a manifestation of our power; and that this would be especially the case at Lucknow, which, although it has recently been the scene of unparalleled heroism and daring, and of one of the most brilliant and successful feats of arms which British India has ever witnessed, is still sedulously represented by the rebels as being beyond our power to take or to hold."
He then goes on to state how very large is the relief about to be given, amounting almost to an amnesty, and says:—
"If an exemption, almost general, from the penalties of death, transportation, and imprisonment, such as is now about to be offered to men who have been in rebellion, had been publicly proclaimed, before a heavy blow had been struck, it is at least as likely that resistance would have been encouraged by the seeming exhibition of weakness as that it would have been disarmed by a generous forbearance,"
This seems to me to explain the whole purport of the Proclamation. The Governor-General intended that Proclamation to be a declaration of power. He intended it to say, "Your rights have been confiscated to the State, but come in and profess yourselves loyal subjects, and you shall be dealt with, with the utmost consideration." There is a declaration of power. Asiatics we know will yield to power when they will yield to no other consideration, and without the exhibition of power it is absolutely impossible to carry on the Government of any Asiatic State whatsoever.
But, my Lords, be that so, or be it not, I think you will allow that the contradiction by persons of high authority—that the various interpretations which may be given to this Proclamation would have been sufficient reasons for care, consideration, and caution before rushing with rashness and precipitancy into the composition of the despatch which has been sent out. The noble Earl rushed at once into composition, and from composition to publication, and has thus involved us and the country in the difficulties by which we are now surrounded. Where was the necessity for such haste? Where
588
was the necessity for so speedily issuing such a despatch as that? If you had apprehended that the Governor General was about to proceed with undue severity, what could have been easier than to send out a despatch, saying, "We have received your Proclamation. It is not at present intelligible to us, nor will it be without further information, but we do enjoin upon you mercy, forbearance, and consideration towards those who are now subjected to your arms." That would have accomplished the whole purpose, and would not only have saved the Governor General from the cruel position in which he will be placed by the receipt of this despatch, but would have carried with it the whole of India and the whole of England. I do not believe that there is a single human being in this country (God knows I can answer for myself) who would not have rejoiced if the noble Earl had penned such a passage as that. For my own part, I fully believe that it is not only our best policy, but our most solemn Christian duty, that, this rebellion being put down, and the specific insurgents being duly punished, everything should be done that can be done by the intelligence, power and principles of this country for the moral and physical welfare, both now and for all time of the many millions of people who inhabit that great continent of India. I deeply regret that the noble Earl did not take the course I have mentioned. It would have completely answered every purpose; it would have stayed the hand of the Governor-General if he had been disposed to be too severe, and would have saved us from the dilemma in which we now find ourselves, and it would have combined all parties in the State. But what was the course taken? The course taken was to issue that despatch;—and I wonder whether in the history of this or any other country such a remarkable document was ever before issued for the Government of a great empire! Look at the details of this despatch, I will touch upon only two or three, but they are of such vital importance that I must request your Lordships' attention to them, The first clause of any importance is this:—
"We cannot but express to you our apprehension that this decree, pronouncing the disinherison of a people, will throw difficulties almost insurmountable in the way of the re-establishment of peace."
I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the noble Earl has given the correct

589
interpretation of the Proclamation,—that its effect was to disinherit a people; and I still maintain that such an opinion as that ought not to have been put into a despatch and promulgated in India. I still maintain that publicity ought not to have been given to such a feeling. I still maintain that the noble Earl might have compassed his ends in other ways, and without holding language which must give to the Natives of Oude the impression that they have been cruelly and brutally treated, that they have been oppressed by the Governor General; but that against the Governor General they may set the Cabinet, the Queen, and the Parliament of this country. But, my Lords, if it were injurious, supposing the noble Earl's to be the correct interpretation of the Proclamation, what must we say if it turns out that that interpretation is completely erroneous; that it is a total mistake; that there is no disinherison of the people whatsoever, and that the true interpretation is that it applies only to talookdars, zemindars, and persons having official rights?" Which will throw difficulties almost insurmountable in the way of the re-establishment of peace." But what will those difficulties be when this despatch is promulgated in India, and spread over the whole of Asia? Why, they will be not "almost" but absolutely insurmountable. Will it be possible for any force or authority to restore peace to the country so long as the people are under the impression that they have been disinherited, that the Governor General is the cause of their loss, and that he is not supported by the Government at home? The despatch then goes on:—
"We are under the impression that the war in Oude has derived much of its popular character from the rigorous manner in which, without regard to what the chief landholders had become accustomed to consider as their rights the summary settlement had, in a large portion of the province, been carried out by your officers."
That would have been all perfectly sound and good if it had been for the private ear of the Governor General. [A noble LORD: So it was.] So it was! Why, my Lords, to-night seems to be a night of fictions, and we are now to go upon the fiction that this was a secret despatch, intended only for the Governor General. ["Hear, hear!"] How is that possible? How can that be a secret despatch, although sent through the Secret Committee, which was sent to the Governor General on the 19th of April, and laid on the table of the House of Commons on the 7th of May. Why, it must
590
have been laid on the table long before the Governor General could have read a line of it; and how, then, can it be considered a secret despatch? I cannot think that it either was, or was intended to be, a secret despatch, and for this reason:—if it had been intended to be a secret despatch, and if the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had been as deeply impressed with its importance as his noble colleague the First Minister was, he never would have consented to give it so easily upon the first interrogation. The noble Earl would have pointed out the immense difficulties and perils of the situation; and I am convinced that the House of Commons would not have insisted upon the production of the despatch, if it had been stated by the representative of the President of the Board of Control that it could not be made public without serious injury to the public service. Therefore, from these two facts—the time at which it was written and laid upon the table, and the facility with which it was produced—I must conclude that neither was it in fact, nor was it intended to be, a secret despatch. The despatch then goes on—and this might have been very safe and just in a secret despatch, but becomes serious in a public document—
"The landholders of India are as much attached to the soil occupied by their ancestors, and are as sensitive with respect to their rights in the soil they deem themselves to possess, as the occupiers of land in any country of which we have a knowledge.
"Whatever may be your ultimate and undisclosed intentions, your Proclamation will appear to deprive the great body of the people of all hope upon the subject most dear to them as individuals; while the substitution of our rule, for that of their Native Sovereign, has naturally excited against us whatever they may have of national feeling."
Here is a declaration to go out to all India, addressed to the Governor General, that his conduct has deprived the people of all hope of that which is most dear to them! Is that a thing which ought to be proclaimed to the people of India? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the scene was transferred to this country, what punishment would be inflicted upon a man who appeared at Charing Cross, and publicly announced that the conduct of the Queen and the Government was such as to deprive every individual in this empire of rights which were most dear to him? It would be reckoned little less than sedition; and, although such a statement might fall harmless in this country, could such language fall harmless among a sensitive, excitable, and suspicious people like the

591
natives of India? Then there was this passage:—
"We cannot but in justice consider, that those who resist our authority in Oude are under very different circumstances from those who have acted against us in Provinces which have been long under our Government."
I am not prepared to say that I should not accede to that proposition, if it were contained in a secret despatch for the private guidance of the Governor General; but I am prepared to say that I think it a most indiscreet announcement to publish to the people of Oude at a moment when the large majority of them are still in arms, resisting the legitimate authority of the Governor General. And here, my Lords, come what may be considered the point and pith of the whole despatch:—
"We dethroned the King of Oude, and took possession of his kingdom, by virtue of a treaty which had been subsequently modified by another treaty, under which, had it been held to be in force, the course we adopted could not have been lawfully pursued; but we held that it was not in force; although the fact of its not having been ratified in England, as regarded the provision on which we rely for our justification, had not been previously made known to the King of Oude."
Ought not the President of the Board of Control and the Cabinet of which he formed a part—whatever might have been their private opinions some time ago as to the fact itself—to have regarded the annexation of Oude as a fait accompli? They might have thought it originally impolitic, and even unjust; but, having once taken place, it was the duty of the Government to conform to the principle of that annexation—it was the duty of the Governor General to proceed upon it as a thing that was passed, and as forming part and parcel of Her Majesty's rule and dominion in India. But, by a despatch at this moment, to rip up the whole of that question—to treat it as a matter to be discussed—to show that it stood on a most insecure and almost fraudulent basis—that it was a thing which, although done, was most shamefully done—that it had not been completed, but perpetrated, is a proceeding so fearful, when it shall be announced to the people of India, that I cannot venture to anticipate what may be its consequences on their minds—whether those consequences be exhibited in the present crisis, or lie smouldering ready to burst forth at some future period. My Lords, it will be impossible to carry on the Government of the country if every succeeding Administration is to unsettle the definitive decisions of its predecessors, and to de-
592
nounce the policy of those who have gone before. The noble Earl should be the last man to endeavour to retrace the policy and rip up the acts of his predecessors. He should bear in mind that, when Governor General of India himself, he annexed to our empire a considerable dominion—the whole territories of the Ameers of Scinde. He cannot suppose that that was regarded by everybody at home as a just, righteous, and becoming act. I myself was one of those who shared the opinion then entertained by many, that it was most impolitic and even unjust; and my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith) on those grounds voted with me on a Motion which I made in the other House. I did not, however, make that Motion except for the purpose of obtaining an allowance for the Ameers, to save them from poverty. We moved an Address that those Princes should be restored to liberty, without, however, being permitted to approach nearer to their former territory than 150 miles; but we never attempted to reverse a policy which had been deliberately taken; and when Mr. Vernon Smith came into office he never dreamt of seeking to reinstate the dispossessed Sovereigns of Scinde in their ancient rights, but treated Scinde as in all respects part and parcel of the British dominions. But, apart from the pernicious nature of the general principle against which I am contending, what is to be thought of its being embodied in a despatch to the Governor General, and proclaimed at a time of insurrection throughout the length and breadth of Oude? What must be the effect produced on the many discontented and armed men in that country when they have put into their hands such a document, telling them that the annexation of that country was a proceeding so questionable that it cannot be sustained? How, under such circumstances, will it be possible for the Governor General to maintain his precarious authority when it has been re-established, to say nothing of the difficulty he must experience in extending that authority over the districts still in revolt? But how will it operate in respect of the deposed King? He is now in captivity at Calcutta; and for what? He is charged with complicity in certain plots against the British Crown. How is it possible, after this despatch is made known, in which you say that the King of Oude was almost deceived, the treaty on which we relied not having been made

593
known to him—how is it possible that a Sovereign so dethroned can be held any longer under cocercion in Calcutta? But another serious difficulty that arises is this,—In what position does your despatch place the Sovereign of these realms? In the month of December, 1856, there went out from this country a despatch in the name of the Crown ratifying the annexation of Oude. The terms in which that ratification was conveyed were these:
"We cannot conclude this despatch without expressing our high approbation of the wisdom and energy which have distinguished the proceedings of your Government throughout the whole of these momentous transactions, and of the judgment and vigour which have been displayed by your agents."
Now, mark the terms in which in 1858 the Minister of the Crown writes in respect of that same annexation:—
"We dethroned the King of Oude, and took possession of his kingdom, by virtue of a treaty which had been subsequently modified by another treaty, under which, had it been held to be in force, the course we adopted could not have been lawfully pursued; but we held that it was not in force, although the fact of its not having been ratified in England, as regarded the provision on which we rely for our justification, had not been previously made known to the King of Oude."
Governments may shift from time to time, but the Sovereign of these realms is unchanged; and in what an aspect will that Sovereign be held out to the people of Oude by the paragraph which I have last read, denouncing the very act which by the despatch of 1856 she had ratified and confirmed? But this document goes on:—
Suddenly the people saw their King taken from among them, and our administration substituted for his, which, however bad, was at least Native."
What inflammatory language is this to send forth among the many Princes of India! Of all the fifty provinces under the sway of the Governor General where is there one that at one time had not a Native Government? And when they are told that their former rulers, however bad they might have been, "were at least Native," you are appealing to their strongest feelings, affections, and perhaps tastes, and holding out a direct incentive to them to re-assert their independence. Such is the natural effect of your Proclamation. [A noble EARL here remarked that it was not a Proclamation.] No, but it is tantamount to one, and will be read by ten times as many people. Rely upon it the moment such a missive is promulgated in India,
594
bearing the sanction of the Queen's authority, it will be eagerly circulated in every province, town, and village of that empire. My Lord's, make the case your own. Suppose that during the disturbances in Ireland in 1848 the exhortation had been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, "Deal gently with the disaffected, because you must bear in mind that, though their own ancient Governments were bad, they were at least Native!" Such a proceeding, to my mind, surpasses in rashness any Proclamation that ever was issued. The despatch says:—
"Suddenly the people saw their King taken from amongst them, and our administration substituted for his, which, however bad, was at least Native, and this sudden change of government was immediately followed by a summary settlement of the revenue, Which in a very considerable portion of the province deprived the most influential landholders of what they deemed to be their property—of what certainly had given wealth and distinction and power to their families. We must admit, that under the circumstances, the hostilities which have been carried on in Oude have rather the character of legitimate war than that of rebellion, and that the people of Oude should rather be regarded with indulgent consideration than made the objects of a penalty exceeding in extent and in severity almost any which has been recorded in history as inflicted upon a subdued nation."
Is it wise thus to announce to a people actually in arms against you that they are not rebels, however much the Governor General may say to the contrary, but legitimate warriors, fighting for their own country and their own rights? Was it wise to say so if you intend to retain that Province? If you intend to surrender the Province, well and good, then such language might be used; but if you do not intend to do so is it wise to tell persons who are in arms against your authority that they are not rebels, although they have been called so; that they are legitimate warriors and patriots in arms for the defence of their hearths, their country, and their religion The despatch says, "You are inflicting a penalty exceeding in extent and severity almost any recorded in history." Now, reverting again to what I have said with regard to whether the interpretation of the noble Earl be correct or not, I cannot but say that even if his interpretation be a just one, it is unwise to make such a declaration public at the present crisis. At a time when the Governor General is struggling against every species of difficulty, is he to be met with the declaration that he has inflicted a penalty exceeding in severity

595
any recorded in history? Even if the interpretation of the noble Earl be right, nothing could, I think, be more wild or more mad than to employ such an expression to an armed and infuriated people. But, suppose that the interpretation of the noble Earl be not correct—and it is just possible that the opinions of gentlemen who have been longer in India than the noble Earl, and who have been more minutely engaged in the details of administration, may be sounder upon the subject than those of the noble Earl—then I say that nothing could be more reprehensible—nothing more mad than such a declaration in a public despatch; for such an assertion is enough to infuriate even a people who were not in arms and not already exasperated against our Government. I must say also that I feel very much the effect which may be produced by such a declaration upon the hearts and feeling—not, of course, upon the conduct—of the officers and soldiers of Her Majesty's service engaged in the war. The troops and officers employed in the war have believed that they were called upon to subdue a rebellious province, to maintain the legitimate rights of the Sovereign, and to re-erect the Queen's standard, which has been ruthlessly cast down. What will their feeling be at being informed that they are only employed to invade the rights of others—to deprive the owners and cultivators of the soil of their possessions? I have no doubt, my Lords, that although their conduct and discipline will remain the same, the hearts of many of those gallant men will be grievously afflicted at the thought of being employed in such a service.
The despatch goes on to say—and be it recollected that the words are an open and avowed rebuke of the Governor General—
"You have acted upon a different principle; you have reserved a few as deserving of especial favour, and have visited with what they will feel to be a most severe punishment, the mass of the inhabitants of the country."
Here, again, arises the possibility of a misinterpretation upon the part of the noble Earl as to the meaning of Lord Canning's Proclamation. But, assuming that the interpretation of the noble Earl be the correct one, I think that the greatest consideration should have been employed before such a declaration was published. It is further stated in the despatch—
"We cannot but think that the precedents from which you have departed will appear to have been conceived in a spirit of wisdom superior to that which appears in the precedent you have made,"
596
Now, my Lords, I think that this is one of the most cruel and most terrible rebukes ever administered to any functionary; and it is the more terrible and the more cruel as having been administered to a functionary holding so remarkable and eminent a station as that of Governor General of India. I can conceive nothing more painful to the mind of Lord Canning, supposing and believing as I do that that Proclamation was issued in a spirit of mercy, and that Lord Canning has throughout been actuated by a spirit of clemency and mercy, by a desire to conciliate, and by the desire of doing nothing which was not actually required by the severest justice. I think that Lord Canning has been acting all along in a spirit of kindness, mercy, and patriotism, and, believing all this, I cannot believe that anything could be more painful or grinding to his heart than the reception of such a document, even if he knew it were to remain for ever in the archives of the East India Company. But when Lord Canning knows that that document has been read throughout England, and will be read throughout India, his feelings must be past any power of description. And yet all this has been in positive ignorance as to the real meaning of the Proclamation. You yourself admit that information is wanting to explain the Proclamation. [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH made a gesture of dissent]. Well, perhaps the noble Earl is not in want of information, but the great proportion of the community is so; and think the despatch was written in ignorance:—and I do not think that the noble Earl himself is able to decide between the contradictory interpretations of the Proclamation which had been given by the noble Earl and by many learned and experienced men.
My Lords, I now come to what I must consider the grievance of the whole case, and that is—that this despatch was written and published in this country before Lord Canning had any opportunity of making any remarks either upon the Proclamation or upon the despatch. This despatch, containing a severe censure upon the Governor General, was written upon the 10th of April, and published on the 7th of May, so that it appeared before the country without Lord Canning having had the smallest chance of offering any explanation, and thus a most fatal effect was produced upon the reputation of that good man. This despatch, no doubt, also will be translated into ten or twelve Native languages,

597
and in the course of a very few days after its arrival in India it will be circulated throughout the whole of Her Majesty's Asiatic dominions, and will be the subject of talk in every town, province, and bazaar throughout the empire; and that without a single word of explanation to show the right meaning of the Proclamation. What must be the effect? Why, it will be regarded as a declaration on the part of the Government that the Governor General had been totally deprived of all their confidence, and that his administration is worthless; his powers and energies will be entirely enervated by what will be regarded in India as a declaration that he does not enjoy the confidence of the Queen or of the Parliament of this country. And this, too, at a time when nearly all India is in a state of disturbance! Why, my Lords, to publish such a despatch at such a time was little better than madness. I believe that it may have the effect of encouraging those already in arms against us to a protracted resistance, if even it may not excite others to rebel; for many, seeing the terms in which their rights are spoken of, may think that the time has arrived for them to make a vigorous effort to recover what they are told are their rights. With what consistency can you retain the government of Oude after this despatch? and if you restore it, then you unsettle and disturb every other province in India, and you will be compelled to rule India, not with the sword in the sheath, but with tile sword in full exercise. I confess, too, my Lords, that I feel very much the effect which will be produced by this despatch upon the opinions mid sentiments of continental nations. It is heart-rending to read the comments in the principal foreign journals—I mean those which exercise a material influence abroad—and to think that my country appear before Europe hr so disgraceful a light. Now at last we have discovered the policy whereby your Indian empire has been obtained. With these papers they may exclaim, "Now at last we have discovered the various modes to which you have resorted, and the fraud and violence that have characterized all your operations." Was there ever such a thing known before, as for a Cabinet to draw up such a statement of the policy of this country—to exhibit, as it were, a bill of indictment against the whole policy, by which we obtained possession of the empire of India (for it is nothing less, if you judge by anything set forth in these
598
papers) and the manner in which we have administered it? Did any Government ever before hold up to execration the conduct of all the great and good men by whom that empire was added to the British empire, and among whom are to be found some of the greatest ornaments and supports of the British nation?
But we must also consider—and consider seriously—another very material point—the effect of this despatch upon the Governor General. I do not speak simply of my Lord Canning, although of all the gentlemen that I ever read of, I think he is among the most ill-used and most wronged, not only by the publication of the despatch, but by the sentiments therein recorded. Lord Canning, by his courage, wisdom, and energy, particularly during the latter part of this most arduous war, has, I believe, saved the great Indian empire to the British Crown. I do not here speak of Lord Canning as being materially affected by the remarks that have been made in this despatch, because Lord Canning has the means of vindicating his conduct. The Queen has still honours to give. If Lord Canning should return to this country, we know in what way the British people would express their hearty admiration of the man who has served them faithfully. You say that you do not wish for his recall. Why, then, do you use such language as renders it almost impossible for him to stay in India? But I do hope that Lord Canning will take a large and profound view of the whole matter. I trust he will demur to this despatch, and that he will appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober—from the Government of the country to the country itself. If he does so, I have no doubt that his decision will be ratified by the almost unanimous approval of the whole people of these realms. But I speak, not of the Governor General himself, but of the office of Governor General. That office cannot be touched in the least degree by rebuke or censure publicly, without losing some of that respect that essentially belongs to it. It was regarded, hitherto, by the people of India, as the absolute and supreme authority—the uncontrolled arbiter of many provinces. Suddenly this despatch—this verbosa et grandis epistola is published, and the Natives discover that this mighty fabric of power can be completely subverted by a slight conversation between two gentlemen across the table of the House of Commons. I must say that if you have

599
reason to find real fault with the Governor General, it is your duty to recall him, but not to degrade the office. If my Lord Canning had been as guilty as Warren Hastings, you ought to have recalled him to this country to answer for high crimes and misdemeanours, and to have sent out some other person to institute a better system, according to your notions of government. But what folly can there be greater than to throw a slur upon this great office, to deprive it of all real importance, to reduce it to the condition of something like a popinjay, the only value of which is its being showy and lofty? You cannot govern India henceforth as you have governed it hitherto. Depend upon it that the state of the Indian mind is vastly different from what it was a few years ago. India has now the advantages of a press. By the circulation of that press, the Natives become speedily acquainted with everything affecting the interests of India. They no longer take things for granted as they used to do. They inquire, form their own judgments, and come to their own conclusions on Indian questions. You cannot now call upon the people of every nation and language in India to fall down and worship the golden image that you have set up. By publishing this despatch, you have left to the Governor General the externals of power, but you have taken away from him the whole essence of power. You must not wonder, if these same people turn round and refuse to reverence that puppet that you yourselves have taught them to insult. Something must be done, and that speedily, to restore the dignity and position of Her Majesty's representative in India. And that which must be done is this—without the least delay there must go out a manifestation to the Governor General and to the people of India, that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government is not sanctioned by the voice of Parliament any more than it is sanctioned by the voice or approbation of a generous and grateful people. The noble Earl concluded by moving:—

1. That it appears from Papers laid upon the Table of this House, that a Despatch has been addressed by the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors to the Governor General of India, disapproving a Proclamation which the Governor General had informed the Court he intended to issue after the fall of Lucknow:

2. That it is known only from intelligence that bas reached this country by correspondence published in newspapers, that the intended Proclamation has been issued, and with an important modification, no official account of this Proceeding
600
having yet been received; that this House is therefore still without full information as to the grounds on which Lord Canning has acted, and his answer to the objections made to his intended Proclamation in the Despatch of the Secret Committee cannot be received for several weeks:

3. That under these circumstances this House is unable to form a judgment on the Proclamation issued by Lord Canning, but thinks it right to express its disapprobation of the premature publication by Her Majesty's Ministers of the Despatch addressed to the Governor General, since this public condemnation of his conduct is calculated to weaken the authority of the Governor General of India, and to encourage those who are now in arms against this country.

Motion objected to; and a Question being stated thereupon;
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I so lately received your Lordships' indulgence when I stated shortly and clearly the circumstances under which I resigned my office, that I think I should trespass most unwarrantably upon your attention if I were, although invited by the noble Earl, now to repeat what I theta addressed to your Lordships. I distinctly said that, in common sense, I alone was responsible for the publication of this letter, because I alone knew that it was about to be published. There is not a common jury in the United Kingdom which would not scout as absurd, a charge against any man for an act of which he necessarily knew nothing. The noble Earl has had the goodness to read, for your Lordships' information, a considerable portion of that letter itself, commenting as he went on. I shall not follow the noble Earl through those details. With respect to much of what the noble Earl said I shall only observe this—that all the facts stated are in the blue-books before Parliament, and are as accessible to all the world as anything that is known to the public of this country. All that is not in the blue-book is equally known to the whole people of Oude. This letter states the ground on which I—and I believe all the world came to this conclusion—was of opinion that the war in Oude bears more the character of legitimate war than of rebellion. But I must be allowed to read two passages in the letter which the noble Earl has abstained from reading. They are these—not unimportant:—
"We desire to see British authority in India rest upon the willing obedience of a contented people. There cannot be contentment where there is general confiscation. Government cannot long be maintained by any force in a country where the whole people is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong; and, if it were possible so to maintain it, it would not be a consummation to be desired."

601
Those are the principles by which I stand. Those are the principles upon which I say the Government of India should be conducted. And I feel, indeed, that the question before your Lordships to-night is one far more important than anything affecting merely the existence of an Administration. It is practically this:—Shall the Government of India be conducted on the principles of justice and clemency, or shall it be conducted on the principles of severity which appear in that Proclamation of Lord Canning? I hoped, when I wrote that letter, that the Proclamation never would be promulgated. I had every reason to believe that the strongest representations had been made to Lord Canning against its promulgation by persons the most entitled to know the effect which it would produce. I was in hopes that these representations would prevail. But this, at any rate, I know—that if that Proclamation were published it was absolutely necessary that immediately there should appear a letter to undo the mischief, to mitigate the danger which must arise from the pro-mitigation of principles of such excessive severity. No one can doubt that the act of Lord Canning is confiscation. Your Lordships have been referred to the restraining clause in the Proclamation. What does that clause set forth? It says that persons who support the Government shall obtain the restitution of their property. Why, that is because the confiscation took the whole of it away. Now, there is the greatest possible difference between the confiscation in Lord Dalhousie's Proclamation and confiscation in that of Lord Canning. The former was prospective; it was denounced against those who should hereafter become rebels. The confiscation in Lord Canning's Proclamation is retrospective, and it strikes a whole people. I have been informed, and I have no doubt of the fact, that, however strong this expression of "the proprietary right" may appear to your Lordships, when it is transferred into the languages of India its strength must be greatly increased by any possible translation. But, my Lords, consider what is confiscation. It has not been known in Europe to this extent for 800 years. The only example of anything resembling it is in the time of William the Conqueror. True, we have had confiscation in Ireland. It is said that large portions of that country have been confiscated three times over. But has the result been peace? Has the result in Ireland been
602
prosperity? Do not all those who have considered the subject trace to confiscation all the disasters which have occurred in that country? In India, however, confiscation is unknown. No Mohamedan conqueror has ever perpetrated that which is perpetrated through Lord Canning's Proclamation. Whatever have been the changes of dynasty, the storm of war has swept over village communities, and the property of individuals from the lowest to the highest has always been respected. The wise conquerors of India changed little but the Ruler—they left everything standing—and on that account it is that they were enabled to establish a permanent Government. The noble Earl has thought fit to allude to what I did in Scinde. My Lords, in Scinde I struck the rulers to the ground because they had been guilty of treachery against the British Crown—because they had attacked the British Resident Minister immediately after the conclusion of a treaty of peace. But I confirmed to every man his property; and that was the secret of our strength in Scinde and of the permanent tranquillity of that country. There has not been one hand raised against the British Government since the battle which destroyed the last of the Ameers who were contending for the sovereignty. In two months that country was subdued; and at the present moment there is not a portion of the British empire in India which is more faithful than Scinde. Why? It is faithful because their property has been respected.
My Lords, we are told that we ought to form no opinion with respect to this Proclamation until we have explanations. I ask, why have we not explanations? Explanations should precede, or at least accompany, a measure of this great importance, and not follow it—if they do follow it at all—at the interval of a month. But what time had Lord Canning to communicate to the Government here respecting the policy he intended to adopt? Lord Canning directed the Commander in Chief, when he retired from Lucknow, to leave a garrison in the Alumbagh. He then, intended, as soon as he could get together a sufficient force, to attack and take Luck-now. Upon that measure he determined entirely on political, not on military grounds: he took upon himself the whole responsibility of that measure. A General, acting on purely military grounds, would first have obtained full possession of his own country—would have cleared Rohil-

603
cund, have pacified Bareilly, have restored tranquillity to Berar. Lord Canning, on the contrary, overruling all stratagetical considerations, and in search of what civilians call prestige, which had nearly been our ruin in the course of the last year, insisted on the concentration of all our forces for the attack on Lucknow. He knew he would have Lucknow. The movement on that place commenced on the 4th of March. Sir Colin Campbell had arrived at Cawnpore, and had completed his victory there three months before that time. Why did not Lord Canning communicate meanwhile to his friends here? Is it possible that he should not have thought over what he should do when he got possession of the place? I say he ought to have communicated his then prevailing intentions, and to have sought the opinion of the Government, so as to act with their approval on such an important measure. But since then a month has alapsed. Why have we not now an explanation? My Lords, there is no explanation. There are some things which cannot be explained. Confiscation is one of these. It is incapable of explanation. It stands in all its naked deformity—the most cruel infliction which can ever be passed upon a country. If there were to be confiscation, however, surely it should have applied only to the guilty. Who ever heard of inflicting a punishment so universal as to strike every man in a country, innocent as well as guilty? My Lords, we have in India now twenty-one regiments of disarmed Sepoys. We have three regiments of Native cavalry and three of Irregular cavalry disarmed—altogether twenty-seven regiments. The position of these disarmed regiments has justly been a subject of the deepest anxiety to the Government of India. It is necessary to keep British troops to watch them. There are 2,000 or 3,000 of them within ft night's march of Calcutta, where quite recently a panic was actually occasioned by them. Of these troops one-half are Natives of Oude. They cannot have been engaged in the rebellion. They have been almost maddened by the attacks made on them in the course of the mutiny, and which they have learned from the newspapers. They have been threatened with hanging, with being blown from guns, with transportation; and they are now under a panic, hardly knowing what they are to do. But imagine the position in which they will be placed if they read the Proclamation. What must
604
be their feelings when, while disarmed and incapable of committing any act against the Government, however indignant they might be at the dishonour they had sustained—what must be their feelings, I say, when they find that all their property is at once confiscated, and that they have not a home to go to? More than this—the Mahomedan mosques, the Hindoo temples, all are supported by the land of the country. The Mahomedans and the Hindo conquerors have alike respected the rights to this property. The whole of this, however, is confiscated; the whole means of maintaining both religions are unwisely, rashly taken away. All the provision for objects of charity, for orphans and widows, is swept away. Not one single exception is made, save only in the case of the six individuals mentioned in the Proclamation. Such things, my Lords, are enough to madden every man throughout the country, therefore I thought to myself—"I will write, and at the earliest possible moment after that Proclamation is published, I will send my letter as an antidote, that the people may know they are to be ruled with justice and clemency."
My Lords, consider now what is our actual position. We have taken Lucknow. The hot weather is coming on; when we heard last, the most severe, the most dangerous period of the year had commenced. Are we occupying Oude? We have not a man to occupy any part of the country. The Proclamation is a nullity, except as to the effect produced on the minds of the people. The Commander in Chief has now marched on Bareilly with half of his troops—one brigade is gone to Azimghur, to relieve the detachment under Colonel Milman, which is shut up there; the Ghoorkas are gone home; another brigade remains at Lucknow. Between the right and the left of our position there is an interval of 400 miles; and the centre of that position, Oude, in which we hold only this large garrison—the brigade at Lucknow—has, I firmly believe, been converted into a sea of fire by Lord Canning's Proclamation. Surely it was necessary for me, whose duty it was to do what I could to preserve the tranquillity of India, to repair, if possible, these great evils, and to send out a message of peace and mercy to the people of that country. I am told that in so doing I am weakening the authority of the Governor General. My Lords, my despatch weakens his authority for evil; it strengthens him greatly for all

605
purposes of good. I trust, when he receives it, he will think it better to part with evil counsellors. I do not believe Lord Canning himself was the author of this Proclamation. It is contrary to what I have ever heard of his conduct and of his feelings. I believe it to have proceeded from other sources. I believe that he has placed himself in dangerous hands—in the hands of men who have learned nothing, and have forgotten nothing—who imagine that after this dreadful convulsion they can re-establish, as it stood, civilian authority in India. This, my Lords, is a great error, and it is of the utmost importance that Lord Canning should feel that justice and clemency, and consideration for the people of India, are the governing principles of those who are at the head of affairs here, and are also the principles which it is absolutely necessary he should adopt. But I am told that this despatch will tend to encourage resistance on the part of the people now in arms against us. My Lords, I should meet such a charge with an indignation I could hardly express did I not feel its utter absurdity. Why, I was the first in this Douse ho warned your Lordships that the danger was coming, who advised you to prepare for it, to place the country under arms, and to be ready to engage in a great and a perilous war. Was it probable, having given you that advice a year ago, that when I became in a measure responsible Minister for the conduct of the war in India, I should do any act which would encourage the resistance of the very men I had to oppose? But consider for a moment what is the position of these armed men in Oude who are under the condemnation of this Proclamation and the measures which it will render necessary. They were men who had been fighting with the rope round their necks. My object with to remove that rope. They were men who had been fighting without hope. I wished to give them hope. The Proclamation left them without homes—without land which would enable them to subsist. I gave them the hope of returning to their homes, to their villages, to all the comforts of their families. That was the object of my letter. Was that to encourage resistance, or to give the only hope of salvation to the people? In a previous letter which was published I distinctly used the word "amnesty." It is my firm belief—and I have beard it of many and from many in India—that there is no hope of ultimate success
606
but by an amnesty. My Lords, the son of a great and noble Friend of mine—the late Duke of Wellington—has had the goodness to put into my hands this evening an unpublished leaf from sonic additional letters of that noble Duke, in which I find these words, which, although referring to a comparatively unimportant matter, show distinctly the mind with which he regarded subjects of this nature. Speaking on the matter of Noojee Gouru Patul he says:—
"But I acknowledge that unless there is reason to believe that this man is employed in intrigues for Canojee I would rather take no notice of them. I am for the principle of amnesty, as referable to all inferior agents; I have recommended it strongly to the Peshwah's durbar, and I am convinced that if it had been adopted at an early period the critical circumstances of the present moment would not exist. It is the principle upon which we have settled Mysore and the ceded districts, and that upon which we have made our way to this place. Eternal enmity against every petty agent concerned against us or our allies will never answer."
MY Lords, that is true wisdom. I followed the noble Duke's advice when I acted as I have told you I acted in Scinde. The result has been the tranquillity of that country. I know, toy Lords, from history and from observation, that there is no part of the world in which—perhaps from their rarity—justice and clemency when united with power have so much influence as in India. They have been the really effective weapons of all the great conquerors in the East. It has not been by striking down their enemies in the field, but by wise and prudent provisions for the maintenance of property and of all the ancient rights of the people, that they have established and continued their power. They claimed nothing but to rule; they maintained the people as they found them.
And now, my Lords, allow me very shortly to observe upon the position in which we stand at present. During the last twelve months we have thrown upon India the whole of our disposable force, We have—I will not say run great risk—but we have gone to the utmost possible extent in despatching to India a military force. I have said, not in this House only, but I also took occasion to say in a paper which I published, that it is impossible for us with our present military institutions to furnish a sufficient force for carrying on a lengthened and dangerous war in India. But, there are, my Lords, other dangers which have always been found ultimately more fatal to a State. I allude to the dangers of a financial difficulty. At the pre-

607
sent moment the expense connected with the British troops we have in India is equal to the expense of the whole Native army we had at the commencement of the mutiny, and your Lordships may be surprised to hear, but it really is the fact, that, notwithstanding the great reduction in the number of the Native troops in Bengal, the additions to the army in the Punjab, to the army of Madras, and to the army of Bombay, have raised the numerical strength of the Native army almost to the level at which it stood when the war commenced. My Lords, how are these expenses to be met? We have this year borrowed very nearly £10,000,000. We have been fortunate in the receipts from some items of the revenue; there was a large balance in the Treasury; and with all these advantages we have for this one year been enabled to go forward; but what have we to expect for the future? Your Lordships know well that there is nothing so delicate or so sensitive as financial credit. I feel absolutely convinced, unless the Government of this country should impose upon the Government of India the principle of clemency as that which is to guide it towards Natives who may be in what is called rebellion against them, that the war will last for a period the end of which I cannot foresee; financial credit must fail if that war should so continue; and I beg your Lordships to bear in mind what would be the position of this country if we were unable to provide, on the security of India, the funds absolutely necessary for carrying on the war. It is with a view to these great questions—the future amount of force required, and the future means of carrying on the war—that I earnestly desire and entreat your Lordships to consider upon what principle we shall act towards the people of India. I am satisfied that in the two passages I read to your Lordships I stated the true principles upon which alone you can proceed; and I feel assured that if your Lordships or the other House of Parliament should by your votes upon the Resolutions now proposed to you and to the House of Commons induce, as you would, the people of India to believe that you approve the policy of the Proclamation, and disapprove the policy announced in the letter, you will occasion in India a war of a social character. You may have succeeded in wars purely political against Princes; but I speak the language of all those who know India best when I tell you that in a social war you
608
must fail, for you will unite all men of all creeds against you. I earnestly adjure your Lordships to avoid that great danger; and when I urge upon you clemency as the rule of the conduct of your government, I only adopt the advice I have myself derived from all the greatest men who before our appearance in India dominated in that country and of all the greatest men who have illustrated our own history.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, some persons are accustomed to regard this House as a cold and unimpassioned assembly—and so, perhaps, for the most part it is; but those who have been present during the progress of this debate, and who have listened to the discussions which have taken place during the last week, must feel that there are at least some occasions on which the House of Lords can be deeply moved. I know, my Lords, the explanation of this circumstance which is given out of doors. It is said by many, who do not understand the character of this House, that the question before us is one of a personal nature, and that the reason why so deep a feeling has been exhibited with reference to the despatch is because the Governor General of India is a Member of the aristocracy and of this House, and has on both sides of the House many personal friends. I believe, my Lords, that this is not the case; but, on the contrary, I should be disposed to congratulate my noble Friend Lord Canning upon the position in which be now stands. There was a time, a few months ago, when Lord Canning did need support in this House and in the country. Although his character had long been known among public men, yet., from his somewhat retiring habits, I believe his character and capacity were not fully understood by the public out of doors. I, for one, was not surprised to find that during the tremendous convulsion of our Indian empire—when every post brought us accounts of the most horrible atrocities committed against our countrymen—there should have been some doubt and distrust as to the character and capacity of the man who was charged with the government of India. That time has, however, passed, and I would congratulate those who have been—as I had not the honour of being—the early friends and associates of Lord Canning, upon the complete triumph he has gained, and the complete contradiction which has been given to the predictions we formerly heard. I congratulate my noble Friends—some of

609
whom I see on both sides of the House—that the high qualities which they know Lord Canning to possess in private life and in public council have been applied with success to the administration of our eastern empire; and, although we are not always able to estimate accurately the importance of contemporary events, I will venture to say that nothing the present Government can do can affect in future time the character or reputation of Lord Canning, and that it will be remembered to his immortal honour, that in the midst of the tempest which swept over India he was the first man who raised his voice in favour of justice and mercy. He has, by his wisdom, prudence, resolution, and moderation, left it reputation which nothing can affect; and I will venture to predict that in future times the administration of India by Lord Canning will be remembered when the administration of the English Government by noble Lords opposite will be utterly forgotten.
My Lords, my noble Friend who introduced this subject in an eloquent and exhausting speech has most truly repudiated, on the part of himself and my noble Friends near me, any personal feeling towards the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control; and I can say with confidence that there is no man who has taken such a prominent part in public affairs, and who has been accustomed to use such strong, I might almost say such violent language sometimes, towards his political opponents—there is no man, I repeat, against whom there is less of personal feeling. We all respect his character and admire his abilities, and I must say that during the time we occupied the Ministerial benches, though that noble Earl employed the most potent batteries against the Government, yet if any one of his late colleagues ventured to attack the Government we were sure to have his voice against them. It has been said also that, although this may not be a personal matter, the present Motion is a party move. Now, I do not in the slightest degree wish to depreciate political organization. I only wish we had more of it at the present moment in both Houses, for then we might have, what otherwise we never shall have, an honest Government—an efficient Opposition. But I believe that the general feeling of this House is a conservative feeling in favour of ail existing Governments; but the feeling now, instead of being in favour of the present Government, is against them, be-
610
cause we all feel that in reference to Indian matters and the details of Indian administration the Government we are bound to support is not the Government here, but the Government in India. We all feel that upon the action of the Indian Government the welfare of the Indian empire must depend, and that in the maintenance of its authority, especially in a time of great difficulty, its security and existence are involved. We have been all moved on the present occasion into this degree of comparative excitement, because we are convinced that the Government of India will be materially weakened, not only by the publication, but by the tenor of the despatch itself. The matter is not confined to the question of publication, though with respect to that I am at a loss to understand the explanation which has been given. What are the facts? It was on Thursday last week that the announcement was made in "another place" that this despatch would be produced, and its general character was given. There was, I believe, a Council on the following day; and the Ministers were all fully aware during Thursday night and the whole of Friday that the production of the despatch had been promised. Therefore, if at that time they had foreseen that its publication would be attended with such ruinous consequences or prejudicial effects, to use the expression of the noble Earl opposite, to the Indian empire, why did they not come down to Parliament and explain that a question had been suddenly asked and imprudently answered, but that on consideration they found that the despatch ought not to be produced, and on their responsibility state that its production would be prejudicial? Do you suppose that ally one Member of this, or of the other House of Parliament would not have been glad, under the circumstances, to accept that excuse and to allow the Government to withdraw their promise? But, after having had use twenty-four hours to consider the matter, they came down to the House, and having apparently made up their minds at the last moment that certain passages should be left out, they allowed, with that exception, the despatch to be produced. Now, I venture to say that, among the passages produced there are some, which have been quoted by my noble Friend, calculated to have almost as prejudicial an effect as any that have been omitted. The truth is, that the Government thought that the despatch would be popular in this country,

611
and expected to make political capital out of its publication; and yet they now turn round on their colleague, who is generous enough to sacrifice himself for them by declaring that he is solely responsible for the publication. I maintain that from this narrative of facts it is plain that the whole Cabinet is responsible for the publication of the despatch, at all events in its shorter state, if not to its extent. That responsibility is entire, and cannot be separated. Indeed, you cannot look at the despatch without seeing in every line that it was intended for publication. "Blue-book" is written in every line. If it had been written only for the private eye of the Governor General, and had not been intended to produce an effect in India, do you suppose it would have been written in such sententious paragraphs, and in the form and style in which it is drawn up? Indeed, the colleagues of the noble Earl have confessed that it was written for publication, and was a proclamation to the people of India. I think, however, that the feeling raised in this House has not been raised solely on account of the publication, but also on account of the tone and temper of the despatch. Let your Lordships consider the paragraph quoted by my noble Friend near me. No one would have blamed the Government for expressing a disapprobation of the policy of the Indian Administration, and for sending out orders to change that policy; but if they were determined to change that policy they ought so to manage, that the people of India should receive the change from the local Government and not from an overruling power in England: yet they have taken care to publish to the world that they have overruled the Governor General? In what a position will that leave him! The noble Lord who last spoke, has read two paragraphs from the despatch which he says contain his policy. They are maxims adopted by every man civil, or military—they are mere truisms, which, though couched in very sonorous language, are really very common-place. The noble Earl says that all the statements in the despatch are to be verified by the bluebooks; but in reference to a most important paragraph about the annexation of Oude, I venture to say that there is not one statement in that paragraph which is correct. I refer to paragraph 10. The noble Earl, a few nights ago, told another noble Lord that if he came forward to attack the policy of annexation, he ought to
612
state it in the words of Lord Dalhousie. The noble Earl should have taken his own lesson. I must say that for the annexation of Oude, Lord Dalhousie is not alone responsible; the Government of Lord Palmerston cannot separate themselves from him, for they had interfered more than is usual for the home Government. One of the assertions of the 10th paragraph is that the Government of India in India, in annexing Oude, professed to proceed upon the provisions of the treaty of 1801. That is not correct, but is directly opposite to the fact, inasmuch as Lord Dalhousie distinctly declared that a necessarily preliminary step to his proceedings was that the treaty of 1801 should be declared to be at an end. I say, then, that the first assertion of the noble Earl is not correct. The second is that the treaty of 1801, in respect to the right which it gave us to interfere in the affairs of Oude, was modified or limited by the subsequent treaty of 1837. That, also, is not true, for the treaty of 1837 increased our power of interference, and made it more definite. I do not clearly understand the third assertion, but as far as I can make it out it means that the fact of the treaty of 1837 not having been ratified in England was not made known to the King of Oude as regarded the provision which empowered us to interfere with his government. I believe that assertion to be incorrect. The treaty of 1801 bound the King of Oude to govern his territories according to our advice, but it specially provided that the Government should be conducted by his own officers. There was no remedy provided in case of an infraction of the treaty; there was simply a general promise. Lord Dalhousie declared that treaty to be at an end. But the treaty of 1837 went further, for it not only provided that the King of Oude should govern his territories according to our advice, but it empowered us, in case he did not do so, to take the administration into our own hands and to retain it for such time as we might think necessary. That was not limiting, but increasing our power as compared with the treaty of 1801. Upon the non-ratification of the treaty of 1837 I shall only say that, as regarded the only obligation which it imposed upon the King of Oude, the disallowance of the treaty was intimated to him, but, unfortunately, no such intimation was made with respect to the disallowance of the other provisions. The non-ratification left him precisely in the

613
same position in which he stood before. It made his situation no worse and ours no better. Seeing, then, that the 10th paragraph of the despatch contains an erroneous statement of the whole facts of the case, and involves a charge of treachery and deceit against former Parliaments and former Governments, I submit that the Cabinet as a whole are responsible for the injurious effects which will flow from it both in England and in India. If the despatch is to go forth sanctioned, with respect to substance as well as publication, by the English Government, the most disastrous consequences will arise—I believe, indeed, they have actually arisen—as regards our reputation in foreign countries. The other day I heard a distinguished foreigner say that he had been accustomed abroad, especially in France, to defend our rule in India, but that if the despatch of the 19th of April was to be acknowledged and vindicated by the Government he would not for the future have a word to say in our behalf. I cannot help coupling all these facts with another somewhat ominous reference to the conduct of the present Government. Shortly before they came to office, a noble Lord, for whose character I have the highest respect, expressed in "another place" that opinion relative to the annexation of Oude which we find virtually embodied in the despatch, and even went the length of declaring that he, for one, was prepared to restore Oude to the King. Now, I do say that such statements coming from members of the Government, backed by an official despatch from the Board of Control, place the Governor General, in regard to one of the most important theatres of war, in a very difficult and embarrassing position. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by entering into any discussion upon the annexation of Oude; that is a question upon which, both as regards policy and justice, two different opinions may fairly be held; but I am sure you will all admit that it is now the duty of every English Government to accept the annexation of Oude as un fait accompli, and not to raise any discussion upon it, except so far as it may affect the policy to be adopted towards other Native States. Upon that subject I shall not enter on the present occasion; but I do regard it as a most dangerous circumstance that the Government of England should not merely have published, but should have committed the authority of the English Crown to a despatch which uses such dis-
614
creditable language towards the Governor General of India, and throws by implication such grave charges against the honour and reputation of our country.
My Lords, I cannot but feel that a strong expression of the opinion of Parliament is necessary to reinstate the Governor General in that position of authority from which he has to a certain extent been removed by the conduct of the Government. It is true that great political or party contests are not now decided in this House. The fate of a Cabinet seldom depends upon any vote come to by your Lordships. But the opinion of the House of Lords carries great weight with it both at home and abroad, and I confess I do not think that the mere retirement of the noble Earl from the Board of Control, so long as the sentiments expressed in his despatch receive the sanction of the existing Government, is sufficient to restore to the Government of India that authority of which it has been so recklessly deprived. The present Government have committed a number of the gravest errors which can be charged against any Ministry. There has been a most dangerous attempt to make political capital out of one of the most difficult and delicate questions of Indian administration. There has been a want of due respect to the Governor General, who has ruled your empire during a period of extreme peril with extraordinary ability and success. There has been a violation of those conditions which ought to regulate the relations between the Imperial Government at home and the local Government of India. There has been a still more flagrant violation of the rules which ought to regulate the conduct of every Government, with reference to the acts and proceedings of their predecessors. Lastly, in order to damage the reputation of a former Governor General—the Marquess of Dalhousie—language has been used which casts discredit upon the character of the English Government and indirectly upon the honour of the Crown itself.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would not follow the example of the noble Duke by questioning the honesty of this or that party, or by characterizing the present Motion as he had characterized the despatch as an attempt to gain political capital, nor would he entangle himself in any discussion upon the annexation of Oude; but he would leave to his noble Friend the late President of the Board oh Control the task, if he thought it worth while, of defending his

615
despatch and the terms in which it was expressed. There were three Resolutions before them, but they raised but one question—they amounted in point of fact to a vote of censure on the Government for the publication of the despatch; but the noble Lords opposite, wisely he thought, had not confined themselves to that charge. During the course of the discussion the objections urged against the Government resolved themselves into three points—the publication of the despatch, the policy of the despatch, and the haste with which it was written and sent out, without waiting for explanations from the Governor General. With respect to the first point, he might recall to the recollection of their Lordships that at a most momentous and critical period, before the proclamation of the war with Russia, the Government of the day produced, without reluctance and without censure, letters and reports of a far more confidential and secret nature than any which the present Administration had laid before Parliament. They did not hesitate to produce the accounts written by Sir Hamilton Seymour of the confidential conversations between him and the late Emperor of Russia, and they would have treated with indignation any attempt which might have been made to impugn their conduct upon that occasion. There might occasionally be a despatch of so peculiar a nature that its contents ought not to be made public; but as a general rule it was a condition of Parliamentary and public life in England that there should be full publication of writings as there was full freedom of debate. It was to the advantage of the country and of public servants themselves that every word that they spoke and every syllable that they wrote should be exposed to full scrutiny and examination. He was therefore somewhat surprised to find the publication of this despatch objected to by those who on most questions loved to represent themselves as the friends and advocates of publicity. Did noble Lords complain of the publication in India, or the publication in England? If of the former, let him remind them that the Governor General could, with a single word, stop the circulation of the letter; and the press in India was at this moment almost silent; if of the latter, he must say that the objection came with an ill grace from those who had always been the advocates of the influence of public opinion, of full freedom of debate, and of complete scrutiny of all public acts.
616
Both the noble Lords who had addressed the House from the opposite benches had commented at considerable length upon the despatch, but they had sedulously abstained from making a single remark upon another paper which was part and parcel of the same transaction—the Proclamation of the Governor General. The despatch was the correlative and sequel of the Proclamation. Looking at this matter in the calmest manner possible, he must say that he thought that the Government had more reason to complain of the conduct of noble Lords opposite than they had to complain of the Government. There was a vast difference between these papers. The despatch was in its very essence a private document, and was intended to be secret, except in a particular contingency. It was an accident that it ever became public. The mischief, if mischief there was, under ordinary circumstances, was confined to that despatch. The Proclamation, on the contrary, was from its very nature a public document, which must necessarily circulate far and wide the mischief with which it was impregnated. The evil in one case might be greater than in the other. But putting all this aside, and granting that the publication was as criminal as it was said to be, his noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control had admitted that the publication of this despatch was his own act and deed, of which the other members of the Government were not cognizant and to which they were not parties; and the ground was therefore swept from under the feet of noble Lords opposite. The whole point of the complaint was the publication of the despatch. When it was stated, ex confesso, that the Government was not liable for that publication, the whole matter resolved itself into a combined attack upon a single individual. That individual had admitted his responsibility; and, therefore, to agree to these Resolutions would be neither, fair, generous, nor just. He had no wish to paint the case against Lord Canning in too strong colours. He was quite ready to believe that when Lord Canning issued the proclamation he intended to mitigate in practice the rigour of its provisions; for the conduct of Lord Canning during the earlier periods of the revolt was not such as to warrant the belief that he was inclined to adopt an intemperate and violent line of action; and the restraining clause in the copy of the Proclamation which had appeared in the newspapers showed that it was Lord Can-

617
ning's intention not to act up to the letter of the manifesto. But in dealing with this subject the Government had to consider not what was in the breast of Lord Canning, but what was contained in the Proclamation, and what effect it was likely to have upon the people of India and of Oude, and they would judge the Governor General by his published words and his overt declarations. And what would be the interpretation, what alone could be the interpretation which could be put upon this Proclamation by the people of Oude. Let their Lordships remember that those to whom it was addressed were men who for the last six mouths had been engaged in a desperate and bloody struggle, in which—he was not complaining of that—they had received no quarter or mercy of any kind. They were now bowed down and crushed beneath the force of our arms, and what other construction could they put on this Proclamation, but that it was published with the full determination to carry it out in all its rigour? They would look upon it as the last act in the great drama. It was said that there were in the Proclamation certain exceptions; but in his opinion the presence of those exceptions would render the Proclamation all the more terrible to those not included in them. Had the Proclamation denounced general confiscation without any exceptions, the Natives would have known that some persons who were innocent of all rebellion, or who had remained passive, must in practice be excepted from its operation, and each man would have hoped that he might be one of these. The exception of six persons mentioned from the rigours of the Proclamation, however, would convey to the Native mind an idea of a close weighing and balancing of merits and circumstances, and all the other proprietors would conceive that it was to be rigorously enforced against them. He need hardly dwell upon the effects which would follow such an interpretation, because they had already been described by the noble Earl. At the same time he might remind their Lordships that this Proclamation referred to three classes of persons—those with whom no terms were to be held; those who at great risk to life and property, and in spite of great temptations, had remained true to their allegiance, and who were to be rewarded by being allowed to enjoy what they already possessed; and the remainder of the population, who were subjected to this sweeping confiscation. That
618
population doubtless comprehended two great classes—on the one hand men who had at heart been opposed to and wished to overthrow our rule, but who, as there had been no quarter in battle, would now think that there was to be no pardon after victory—and, on the other hand, the disbanded Sepoy regiments, and a very numerous body of men who, carried away by impulse or by some mistaken sense of loyalty to the Royal family of Oude, or influenced by the contagions example of friends and relations, had, almost before they were aware of it, been swept away by the tide of rebellion, and had unknowingly been committed to this strife with us. Between these two bread classes the Proclamation drew no difference. It threw the whole Onus probandi on the population; it assumed their guilt, instead of, as would usually be done, assuming their innocence. That Proclamation must either be acted upon wholly, partially, or not at all. If acted upon wholly, it would be monstrous and impolitic; if acted upon in part, where would be the justice of confiscating the property of one man and abstaining from confiscating that of another equally guilty? If it was not meant to be acted upon at all, would not its issue, as a mere threat and brutum fulmen, be an undignified proceeding on the part of the Indian Government? As to the allegation that it was unwise to send out the despatch without waiting for an explanation of the Proclamation from the Governor General, the fault did not lie with Her Majesty's Government, but with the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith), who, receiving a private letter from Lord Canning referring to the subject, did not think it of sufficient importance to communicate it to the noble Earl who had succeeded him in his office, but did think it of sufficient importance to communicate it to the noble Viscount late at the head of the Government. The Government had been asked why they had been in such a hurry to send out their despatch when they might easily have delayed it. Was it a time to talk of delay when the House was on fire, when the whole country was convulsed, and civil war raged throughout India? To have procrastinated at such a juncture would have been to compliment away the highest interests on a paltry point a official etiquette. He rejoiced that this despatch

619
had gone forth, to use the words of his noble Friend, "as a message of pardon and peace" to the people of Oude. The noble Duke who had last spoken would remember that, after the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 in Scotland, the Governments of those days, although they disarmed the people and destroyed the power of the chieftains, sedulously respected the rights of property. In Ireland, even under the iron rule of Cromwell, confiscation had never been carried to such a length, and where there had been confiscations, the result was misery and calamity to the people. In England, in Europe, anything like a wholesale confiscation of a country was unprecedented, and hitherto unknown. He hoped their Lordships would not sanction the notion that they were to have one standard of justice for the East and another for the West; that they were to have one law for England and a different one for India. The existence of this or that Government was comparatively a matter of minor importance, but it was of the greatest importance that in laying anew the foundations of our Indian empire, we should decide whether that empire should be based on clemency, mercy, and justice, or on severity, injustice, and the lust of power.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down admitted that the publication of the despatch of the noble Earl was highly injurious.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I never said anything of the kind.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETunderstood the noble Earl to speak in that sense; but he would fly at higher game than the Under Secretary of the Colonies. The House would recollect what the noble Earl at the head of the Government did when a question was asked as to how the despatch came to be published. At first it was said to be a mistake—that a question was put suddenly in the other House of Parliament, and that the Government were obliged to answer that question. Now, he could not think that the Government were so easily caught as that. He did not believe it was so easy to get a Government to say what they did not like. But now came a different story, and they were told that it was not by accident at all that the despatch was published—that it was the act of the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control. If that were so, he could only say that if a Cabinet Minister, without consulting his colleagues, determined to send
620
out to India on his own responsibility, at a critical time, a public document in the nature of an anti-proclamation to that of the Governor General, he took upon himself a very serious responsibility. The noble Earl at the head of the Government the other evening defended the late President of the Board of Control with so much spirit—so heartily approved, apparently, of everything he had done—that no one would have supposed he intended to sacrifice his colleague the very next day; but having first thrown over his India Bill, he had next thrown over his Indian Minister with it, and now his decks were clear. He now admitted that, whatever opinion might be entertained of the Proclamation, it was most unwise to publish to the world the severe censure and criticism which had been passed on the Governor General of India. He never knew any one so ready to stand by his Friends as the noble Earl, and so clever in dressing up a case; and when he was obliged to throw his noble Friend overboard, the case must be very bad indeed. They never should have had the admission that the publication of the despatch was inexpedient were it not for the notice of Motion which had been given on this subject. The noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control commenced his despatch by condemning the annexation of Oude in the strongest and distinctest terms. Everything was said by it that could be said on behalf of the Native rulers of Oude, while everything in favour of the Crown of England was wholly omitted. Former Proclamations issued by our Government had charged the Sovereign of Oude and his ancestors with deliberate and systematic violation of treaties; but this despatch gave them credit for having been uniformly faithful to all their engagements. But was it not a part of the treaty that the King of Oude should preserve good order within his dominions? They guaranteed the King of Oude against external aggression; and this being so, were they to permit tyranny and profligacy to run riot within that kingdom? It was not easy to determine the precise moment when the Sovereign authority should interfere, but unless they were to sanction any amount of tyranny, devastation, and profligacy, there must be some period when it would be their duty to interfere, and put an end to such a state of things. He would not on that occasion, however, go into the question as to whether it was right or wrong to annex Oude; but the noble Earl

621
the late President of the Board of Control ought to have remembered that the annexation had been confirmed by two Governments, and it was therefore, in his opinion, a great error to send out a vague despatch calling that policy into question. On one occasion the noble Earl at the head of the Government had told them that all his sympathies were with the troops, but now they appeared to be all enlisted on behalf of the Natives. ["No, no!"] Well, on a few evenings before the noble Earl rather seemed to sympathize with them, and even spoke of their "loyalty" when he wanted to excite sympathy in their behalf. He certainly had been surprised to hear the arguments which had been used by the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control, although they would not have astonished him if they had been used by another person and in another place; for, if the Attorney General, who he believed was retained in the case of the King of Oude, had used them before a legal tribunal, no one could have helped admitting that he had made the best of his case. For his own part, he thought that, some how or another, it was the desire of every Governor General to acquire territory, and nothing could be more dangerous. As regarded the conduct of Lord Canning, a few months ago it was the fashion to say that he wanted spirit and energy, and to upbraid him with showing too great clemency; but Lord Canning, actuated by a sense of right, paid no attention to those upbraidings, and he believed that when all the circumstances connected with this Proclamation were known, it would be found that he had been guided by a spirit of justice, and not by a spirit of vengeance. He believed that, if Her Majesty's Government had sent out a letter to Lord Canning explaining to him their views, and that they wished him to act in a spirit of clemency, it would have answered every purpose. He regretted the course which had been adopted, the more especially as it had been adopted towards a Governor General, who deserved anything but the ungenerous treatment which had been exhibited towards him. It was unworthy of the Government, and he much doubted whether it would have had the sanction of the noble Earl at the head of the Government if he had been made aware of all the circumstances. At present it was impossible, from want of information, to form any opinion as to the wisdom of the Proclamation; in fact, he did not think that
622
any one knew who the six gentlemen were whose names were mentioned in it. He was neither for one party nor the other. Why, to look at the noble Earl at the head of the Government, it was evident there was no pleasure in being in office; and he had no such ambition. As regarded the despatch itself, it contained several truisms, but not very closely connected with each other or with the subject; and he should have expected a better composition from the experience of the noble Earl, whose beautiful Somnauth despatch would be in their Lordships' recollection. The noble Duke then proceeded to read parts of the despatch accompanying the passages with criticisms which were inaudible, but which caused much laughter from the noble Lords who were within hearing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we are very much indebted to the noble Duke for enlivening the debate with a little pleasantry, but he must forgive me for saying that I think he has not added very much to our instruction. Any one who had come into this House and listened to our debate with that attention which its very interesting character deserves, would have supposed that my noble Friend who has proposed these Resolutions to your Lordships had called upon you to decide upon the policy of the Proclamation and the propriety of the despatch; and he would be astonished to find that the noble Earl had submitted to your Lordships a point of the very narrowest description, and had called upon you merely to express your disapprobation of a premature publication of a despatch addressed to the Governor General. My Lords, I cannot help observing in the outset upon the peculiar wording of the Resolutions of my noble Friend. He does not condemn, nor does he call upon your Lordships to condemn, the publication altogether; what he complains of is the premature publication of the despatch. So that be appears to consider that a period might arrive when the publication would be desirable. I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend believes there is a possibility of such an explanation being given by Lord Canning of the nature and character of the Proclamation as might render the publication of the despatch desirable. My noble Friend was perfectly justified in presenting these Resolutions to your Lordships, under the impression that the publication of this despatch had been an act of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was liable to cen-

623
sure; but I should have thought that after the manly and noble declaration of my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control the other night, in which he assumed to himself any blame which might attach to that publication, and in which he, for the first time, announced to his colleagues the generous sacrifice which he had made of himself, my noble Friend, under one of those generous impulses which characterize him, would instantly have risen to abandon the Motion of which he had given notice. My noble Friend, on the contrary, has endeavoured, under the altered state of circumstances, to justify himself for persevering in his Motion, and has suggested a metaphysical analogy of personal identity, and insisted upon that which nobody ever disputed—the unity and combination of a Cabinet, and its responsibility for all the acts of all its Members. I should appeal from the metaphysics of my noble Friend to common sense, to which my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control also appealed. With respect to the responsibility of a Cabinet for the acts of each of its Members, I apprehend that responsibility must cease when a particular Member of a Cabinet assumes to himself the blame of any acts, and quits the Cabinet in consequence. ["No, no!"] Some noble Lords seem to intimate some dissent. I should like to know whether the noble Lords on the Opposition benches would like their Governments to be tried upon a different principle—whether they think that any error of an individual Member should attach to the whole of the Cabinet, and that the whole of it should be visited with the punishment of resignation. I cannot think that the principle of responsibility can be pushed to this inconvenient and absurd extent; because to hold that any person who selects the Members of a Cabinet is to be so thoroughly responsible for every act which they may perform, to be so bound up with them, that if they commit an error in any respect he must justify and adopt it, and in consequence resign, it appears to me to be a principle which would be productive of the greatest possible inconvenience to the public, and which could not be carried out without rendering united government impossible.
I pass from this, to approach more nearly to the consideration of the question which is immediately before your Lordships. My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Duke near me into any consideration of the propriety
624
or impropriety of the annexation of the territory of Oude to the British dominion; but there are certain circumstances connected with the population of Oude which appear to me to have a most important bearing upon the consideration of the policy of this Proclamation. Your Lordships are aware that the principal part of the Indian army was recruited from the population of Oude; that they constituted the best part of our Sepoy force; that the greater part of those persons were hereditary landholders in the territory of Oude; that they generally left their wives and children, in their native country when they joined our ranks; that they served us with apparent fidelity, but at the same time with a constant reference to the end of all their labours and all their dangers—namely, when their service was past to return home, and to settle themselves again upon their native soil. Persons who had these local attachments and early associations connected with the soil of their country were likely also to feel an attachment to Native rule, even although it might not have been such as a European might desire; and there was nothing so likely, not merely to shock their feelings, but to irritate their minds, as to transfer the sovereignty of their country from the Native rulers to the British dominion. With these feelings, the act of annexation took place. Their country was forcibly taken away from its rulers, and transferred to British dominion. All their early attachments, all their local associations were rudely invaded, and they were driven into that revolt which has brought so much misery with it and desolated so many of the fairest provinces of India. They fell before the irresistible power of the British arms. They were subdued, and they lay humbled and prostrate before us. The principal question, then was, how we were to deal with a people thus circumstanced—how they were to be treated in a manner consistent with justice, humanity, and policy. Justice, unhappily, required a few terrible examples—a wholesome severity within certain limits. But with regard to the mass of the people, I am not afraid to confess that I think great allowance ought to have been made for men who were driven into revolt by some of the strongest motives which actuate the human breast. I believe that this opinion is shared by every member of the Cabinet. Under these circumstances, a Proclamation was brought to their attention, which Proclamation appeared to them

625
to violate every principle upon which they thought the Governor General ought to act. That Proclamation was, as my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control has described it, a Proclamation of wholesale, sweeping, indiscriminate confiscation. It may be easy to criticise the terms of this Proclamation, and to assume that it only applied to a limited extent, or to a limited number of persons. But let any one read the Proclamation, and see if any mistake can be made about it. It declares most distinctly that, with only five or six exceptions, the proprietary right in the soil, not merely of a portion, but of the whole of the province of Oude, is confiscated to the British Government, which will dispose of that right in such a manner as it may see fit. Can anybody doubt that to the person to whom it was addressed this will go forth as a measure of indiscriminate confiscation? Even your Lordships, with all your ingenuity, can put no other certain interpretation upon it than that I have stated; and could those persons have received any other impression than that they lay entirely at the mercy of the British Government—that they were not merely exposed to confiscation, but that the sentence had actually gone forth against them? The restraining clause adverted to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) shows, as my noble Friend (the late President of the Board of Control) distinctly explained, that the confiscation must have taken place, because it speaks of restitution. What, then, was to be done under these circumstances? Here was a Proclamation violating every principle upon which Her Majesty's Government were disposed to act with regard to the Natives of India. Were they to remain silent? Were they to allow this Proclamation to go forth, and patiently wait for explanations of which they had not the slightest intimation? I quite admit that if at the time the Proclamation was sent over, or shortly afterwards, Lord Canning had intimated that it required an interpreter—that some explanation was necessary, and that he would furnish it at the earliest opportunity—the Government would have been much to blame if they had not waited for such explanation before they sent out the despatch. But no suggestion of this kind being received from any quarter, it seemed necessary to the Government to prevent immediately the mischievous consequences which they believed would result from the issue of such a Proclama-
626
tion; and, accordingly, the despatch which has been so much criticised, but to which I subscribe in every part, was, on the 26th of April, sent out by my noble Friend. Now, the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) is extremely humorous on certain passages of that despatch. I can only assure him, however, that his light opinions on this subject are not shared in by the public. I believe it is the particular part of the despatch which he most severely criticised, which it has been said ought to be written in letters of gold. At the risk of exposing myself to the censure of the noble Duke, I will read those two passages again, and ask your Lordships whether they deserve the character he has affixed to them:—
"We desire to see British authority in India rest upon the willing obedience of a contented people. There cannot be contentment where there is general confiscation. Government cannot long be maintained by any force in a country where the whole people is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong; and if it were possible so to maintain it, it would not be a consummation to be desired."
These are the sentiments which actuated the Government in the despatch so severely criticised or ridiculed by the noble Duke. But, my Lords, I think a fallacy has run through the whole of the discussion this evening. The Resolutions condemn the publication of this despatch. But my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) has generously, and in the most manly and straightforward manner, assumed the whole blame of that publication. Surely, then, if the Government are exonerated from the publication, common sense, and fairness, and justice, require that the Government, as a Government, should be exonerated from responsibility. If this is so, then it must be assumed that they did not intend to publish the document, and that it was to be a secret despatch. Yet the whole argument of my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has turned upon the mischief which would arise from its publication in India in weakening the authority of the Governor General; whereas, if it were intended as a secret despatch, it was not open to criticism at all. Of course some of your Lordships, if the duty had devolved upon you, might have written the letter with a great deal more mildness and forbearance. Many who did not feel the danger of this Proclamation so strongly as my noble Friend might have expressed themselves in more guarded language. But my noble Friend felt the necessity of immediate action, and he expressed himself in the manly

627
and honest manner which characterizes him. I have admitted that the Government would have been to blame if, expecting any explanation from Lord Canning, they had not paused until they had ascertained his real intentions with regard to the Proclamation; and the noble Earl who has proposed this Motion seems to consider that the only fault in the publication is that it was premature. But the whole world was not in ignorance as to the intentions of the Governor General in regard to the explanation he proposed to send. There was one individual, at least, in this country who had received notice of his Lordship's intention to furnish such an explanation, but who most unhappily did not think it part of his duty to communicate it to the Government. My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made the other evening a graceful acknowledgment of the readiness of the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Clarendon) in communicating any public letters received by him after his retirement from office. My Lords, this is not an Act which calls for gratitude, but it is, I apprehend, the duty of a Minister to present to his successor all the information which he thus receives in connection with his department. The conduct of Mr. Vernon Smith, however, to my noble Friend (his successor at the Board of Control) certainly presents a remarkable contrast to what seems to be the practice in these cases. A noble Marquess not now in his place (the Marquess of Lansdowne) explained to your Lordships the circumstances under which the communication of this important passage in the letter may have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Making every sort of allowance, however, for the domestic affairs in which he was engaged, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman actually communicated with Lord Palmerston as to the propriety of transmitting this particular passage to the President of the Board of Control. [Earl GRANVILLE here interposed an observation.] The noble Earl says that the right hon. Gentleman stated nothing of the kind.
EARL GRANVILLE: No! I said that the right hon. Gentleman stated something of the kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite content with "something of the kind." Just let us see what is the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He had a letter which contained these words:—
628
"I intend to issue a proclamation to the talookdars and great landowners of Oude, which will reach you by the mail. I did hope to have accompanied it with a full explanatory despatch, but more urgent business has prevented my doing so from hour to hour."
And then, it appears, he consulted Lord Palmerston, or "something of the kind," as to the propriety of communicating this passage to my noble Friend. See, then, the situation in which he places himself. It was not through forgetfulness or inadvertence that he failed to communicate it, but through deliberate purpose and intention. He took counsel on the subject—[Earl GRANVILLE: "No, no!"] At any rate the right hon. Gentleman took his own counsel; he consulted himself and he considered it not at all necessary to communicate this passage to his successor in office. Now, I cannot help thinking that even the noble Lords near me must feel that in acting thus the right hon. Gentleman failed in his duty. What, then, was the situation in which my noble Friend was placed? That despatch was not sent to Lord Canning until the 26th of April. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) had received the letter eight days before; he had therefore ample time for bringing it under the notice of my noble Friend; and, no doubt, had my noble Friend heard that any explanation was expected from Lord Canning, he would have withheld his despatch. Who, then, is answerable for the sending out of that despatch? My noble Friend, who objected to the Proclamation, who thought it was dangerous, who had no idea that any explanation of it was to be given, and who therefore sent out his despatch to arrest the progress of the mischief which he anticipated; or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith), who might have prevented all the difficulty which has ensued by a timely communication of the important fact that an explanation would be furnished, for such a statement would undoubtedly have prevented the despatch being sent out? What, then, is the situation of your Lordships under these circumstances, when you are called upon to decide, not whether the publication of the despatch is to be disapproved, but whether its premature publication by Her Majesty's Ministers is a matter which you ought to reprobate? Your Lordships have it before you distinctly that Her Majesty's Government were not as a body responsible for such publication. Is it not, then, a most surprising thing that this distinguished as-

629
sembly should be debating during a whole night a matter which has been conceded by the regret expressed by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) that the despatch has been published? Are we not placed in a most extraordinary position by the Resolutions of my noble Friend, which call upon your Lordships to consider whether you will condemn a supposed act of Her Majesty's Government which is now admitted on all hands not to have been an act of that Government? I feel, my Lords, that a most unfortunate course has been adopted in this instance. I had hoped, as I have already said, that after the manly delaration of my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would have felt it his duty, not merely to himself but to your Lordships, to abstain from pressing his Resolutions. I believe this discussion is wholly unnecessary, and I think the best mode of meeting the Motion is by moving the Previous Question.
Previous Question moved.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he entertained the highest opinion of the ability and he might add the loyalty of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), but he must say he thought seine of the sentiments he had expressed would have come with an ill grace from any of their Lordships, and that they were peculiarly inappropriate, coming from one occupying so high and distinguished a position. His noble and learned Friend had complained that the debate had taken a course which was not in strict conformity with the terms of the Resolutions; but no one had departed more flagrantly from the question actually before the House than his noble and learned Friend himself. He regretted to say—but truth compelled him to do so—that the speech of his noble and learned Friend seemed to be a covert defence of the rebel army of Oude. It was well known that one half of our Sepoy army have been enlisted in Oude, and it was those men whom—whether intentionally or net he could not say—his noble and learned Friend had been justifying. He must be allowed to say that such sentiments came with peculiarly ill-grace from one who filled with so much ability the high and important position occupied by his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend complained that the Motion was unnecessary, because the only delinquent had made himself a voluntary sacrifice, and the rest
630
of Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for what had been done. He (Lord Cranworth) did not mean to enter into any abstract discussion as to whether cases might not occur in which faults committed by a single member of a Government might be sufficiently atoned for by the sacrifice of such an individual, because he thought it was clear that in this instance the act was not that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) alone, but the act of the whole Government. In establishing that point he must claim the right to allude somewhat in detail to what had taken place in the course of the last three weeks in the other House. He claimed that right because, although he was not in general entitled to refer to debates in the other House, yet if Her Majesty's Government chose to make use of the other House as the place in which the organ of the party announced their policy, he maintained that there was no rule which would prevent him from alluding to what took place there. He would undertake to show that the noble Earl was not the person who was solely, or even, as he thought, mainly responsible for what had been done. On the 23rd of April—the Friday intervening between the 19th of April, when the despatch was written, and the 26th of April, when it was sent off—a number of questions were put to the leader of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons on the Motion that the House should adjourn to the following Monday. An hon. Member made some inquiries with reference to the instructions to be sent to Lord Canning in reference to the treatment of the mutineers, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that instructions had already been sent out, or were prepared and were ready to be sent out, to the Governor General, recommending him to act with justice, but at the same time with elemency and moderation. After some discussion had taken place upon other matters his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith) rose and said he could not allow the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass without saying that in the instructions sent out to Lord Canning Her Majesty's Government had not directed him to do anything which he would not do without such instructions, for that the noble Lord had been directed to act upon principles of clemency and toleration so far as was consistent with the demands of justice. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) complained of obser-

631
vations derogatory to Lord Canning which had been made in the House of Commons, referring, as he (Lord Cranworth) supposed, to something that had fallen from the First Lord of the Admiralty. Upon that the First Lord of the Admiralty said that any condemnation on his part of Lord Canning had been merely hypothetical, and there the matter dropped. Subsequently, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that, although it was true that such instructions had been sent out to Lord Canning, they implied no censure whatsoever upon the noble Lord. This circumstance proved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully alive to the grave impropriety of allowing Mr. Vernon Smith's suggestion that a censure has been cast upon Lord Canning to go uncontradicted. He felt how improper it would be to state publicly that any such censure had been expressed. On Thursday last, in reply to a question, the Secretary to the Board of Control said the despatch should be produced; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing what the contents of that despatch were, not only said that it should be produced, but, in reply to a question as to its nature, stated that it was a despatch which disapproved Lord Canning's policy "in every sense." [A noble LORD interposed a remark]. He (Lord Cranworth) only spoke on the authority of the ordinary sources of information. It had been so stated in all the public journals. The right hon. Gentleman thus made himself a party to a statement which rendered the production of the despatch inevitable. But he (Lord Cranworth) was prepared further to express his opinion that the despatch was one which nothing would justify. He would assume, for the sake of argument, that the annexation of Oude was a most disastrous and unjust act, and that Lord Canning's Proclamation was in every respect unjustifiable. But what was the course which the Government should pursue in that case to an officer removed by the distance of half the globe? If they disapproved of his policy but continued him in office they might have sent out a remonstrance to him, written in such a tone that one gentleman might receive from another; or if they thought that he indicated a policy disastrous to the interests of the country, they might have required his recall. But there was one course never open to any Cabinet, acting with any regard to their own honour or to the honour of those who served under them, and that was to send out a despatch
632
couched in words which he disliked to call insulting, though that word was nearest the truth, but which made it difficult for the public officer abroad to decide which he should allow to prevail—his own sense of personal honour, or his sense of public duty. The string of truisms which was sent out was as insulting as the rest—such as "we desire to see the British authority in India rest upon the willing obedience of a contented people;" for the only rations explanation of such a paragraph was that the Government did not think that Lord Canning thought so; and when the despatch said "there cannot be contentment where there is general confiscation," it was as much as an assertion to the effect that Lord Canning was acting in such a way as to create a general discontentment. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said the other night that the despatch merely expressed the anxious hope of the Government that, in carrying into effect the doctrines put forth in the Proclamation, Lord Canning would find it proper to mitigate their severity. If such had been the tone and temper of the despatch it would have been perfectly fair to make such a communication, if they so thought fit, to Lord Canning; but he thought it had been established that the leader at least of the House of Commons was an accessary to the publication of the despatch, and that all the Government adopted the publication the next day—as, indeed, they could not then help doing, for concealment after what had occurred would have been worse than publication. The complicity, therefore, of the whole Cabinet was established in acts which nothing could justify—namely, both in the publication and the writing of the despatch. With respect to the Proclamation he maintained that their Lordships had not before them all the data on which to form an opinion, though he did not believe that a correct interpretation had been put upon the Proclamation. It was, however, unfair to Lord Canning to say that it confiscated all the property of the people of Oude. The Proclamation stated that the first care of the Governor General would be to reward those who have been steadfast in their allegiance, and, therefore, he declared that six persons were henceforth the sole hereditary proprietors of the lands which they held when Oude came under British rule. That might not mean that they were to be the only hereditary proprietors, but merely that their tenure was to be absolute or allodial, as contradistinguished

633
from feudal. The Governor General went on to say that a proportionate measure of reward and honour, according to their deserts, would be conferred upon others in whose favour like claims might be established; and that, with the foregoing exceptions, which included both the classes mentioned, the proprietary right in the soil of the province would be confiscated to the British Government. He firmly believed that this much-abused Proclamation would turn out to be a wise and just and politic proceeding, and that it was what might be termed the suzerainty that was attacked and not the actual possession. These talookdars were a sort of feudal chiefs who held their territories, some by gift from the Crown, but the greater number by usurpation. Each of them kept from 3000 to 4000 armed followers, and wasted the land at their pleasure. It was the right of these men, and these only, that Lord Canning's Proclamation attacked. The noble Earl in his despatch assumed that the property of the great mass of the community was confiscated; but that was an error, all that was stated being that those who resisted the Government should be put down with a strong arm, while those who had remained faithful should have their land, and the rest should be dealt with as justice and policy required.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexpressed his opinion that this was a most unfair and uncalled-for Motion, and not-withstanding all the disclaimers of the other side of the House, he felt it originated entirely in party feeling. He conceived that the noble and learned Lord who lost spoke had found what in vulgar language was called a mare's nest, for in referring to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had mixed up two despatches, written on two different occasions. The Resolutions now before the House condemned the Government for only one thing, and that was the premature publication of the despatch; but, in the speeches of the noble Lords opposite there was expressed a distinct approval of the Proclamation itself, which announced the policy of confiscation. If noble Lords opposite were of that opinion, why did they not call upon the House distinctly to approve the policy of the Proclamation and condemn that of the despatch? Instead of taking that straight forward course they asked their Lordships to blame the Government for an act of which the late President of the Board of
634
Control had assumed the entire responsibility. He was glad, however, that they had gone into the question of policy, for he admitted that the Government were responsible for the principles laid down in the despatch, and he was ready to defend those principles. As to the interpretation of the Proclamation, any one who understood English must come to the conclusion that the confiscation extended to the whole soil of the province of Oude, and was directed pee inst the entire people. That interpretation was borne out by the letter of Mr. Edmonstone to the Chief Commissioner, from which it appeared that some of the rebels who submitted themselves at once were to be disarmed and sent to their homes, but were to be told that their lands could not be restored. It was a significant fact that in those parts of India where the least interference had taken place with the proprietary rights of the people—in Bengal Proper, for example, in Scinde, and in the Punjab—there had been little or no disturbance of the peace. Wholesale confiscation was unknown in modern history. The rebellions in Poland and Hungary were not followed by confiscation of property, nor did those in Scotland entail any such consequence except
to a few of the leaders. He believed it was the memory of the confiscations in Ireland which made it so difficult to attach the Irish people to the British Crown. He could not sit down without saying one word with respect to the treatment which the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had received from noble Lords opposite. He had been made the subject of all sorts of jibes and sneering observations. Noble Lords seemed to forget who it was of whom they were speaking, and what important service he had performed in India. He would tell them, in 1842 Lord Auckland, who had been appointed Governor General by a Liberal Ministry, left India a prey to danger and disturbance; the bones of our soldiers were whitening in the Koord Cabul Pass; one portion of our army was besieged in Jellalabad, another detachment had been put to the sword at the gates of Ghusnee, and Nott was retiring from Candahar; such was the position of affairs when his noble Friend assumed the Government of our Indian empire. How did he leave it? He avenged the slaughter of our army, replaced and re-established our frontiers, in one short campaign added to our empire one of its most noble and fairest provinces, and left India with peace at home

635
and security abroad. This was the man whose opinion upon Indian subjects noble Lords opposite had treated with so little respect, but who had shown by his acts how thoroughly he understood our position in India and the policy which we must pursue in order to maintain and preserve it.
EARL GREY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down commenced his speech by characterizing this as a merely party Motion. I think that, considering the manner in which it was brought forward by my noble Friend near me, and considering the character which he bears in this House and in the country, that accusation might well have been spared. For myself, as a supporter of the Motion, I must disclaim being actuated by any party motives. Since the Whig party was virtually dissolved in the year 1852, I have sedulously kept myself free from all party ties. I was no partisan of the late Administration. I never professed a confidence which I found it impossible to place in them. I disapproved their policy upon many most important subjects, and your Lordships can bear witness that when I did so I did not shrink from plainly stating my opinions. I was glad to support them whenever I could conscientiously do so; but when I thought them wrong, I never in any instance failed to express the opinions which I entertained. When that Administration fell, and was succeeded by that of the noble Earl opposite, I was so far from having any feeling of opposition to the new Government that my earnest desire was that they might be able to conduct the affairs of the country with credit to themselves and with advantage to the public. I believe that frequent changes of Government are attended with great national evils, and therefore it was my earnest desire that they should so conduct affairs that it might be in my power to give them an independent support. These were my feelings with respect to the party generally; and most certainly I was very far indeed front having any hostile feeling towards the noble Earl whose conduct is the subject of this discussion. I differed widely from the views of that noble Earl on some points, and therefore it was natural that I should expect that it would happen to me to disapprove the judgment which he might form upon various matters; but at the same time I admired the noble Earl's talents, I had a high opinion of his knowledge of the affairs of India, and I admired even more than his talent
636
the sincere desire to promote the public advantage and the superiority to all personal and selfish considerations for which I gave him credit. These were my feelings; and, therefore, when I was last week informed of what had taken place in the House of Commons, I felt deep regret, not only from my apprehensions as to what might be the consequences in India of these proceedings, but also because I foresaw, with concern, what must be their effect upon the stability of the Government. I say the effect which I foresaw these disclosures must have upon the stability of the Government, because, from the first moment that I heard of the declaration which had been made in the other House of Parliament, it seemed to me to be absolutely impossible that the matter should be allowed to rest where it was; and that, however inconvenient it might be to risk another change of Government, still greater evils would ensue if the two Houses of Parliament should be content to pass by without notice what had taken place. What I object to, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, is the publication—the premature publication—of this despatch. The noble Earl who has just sat down has asked why do not we raise a larger issue—why have not my noble Friends near me called upon the House to approve the Proclamation or to disapprove the despatch? For this very simple reason—We are not in possession of information which will enable me at least to form any decided judgment on these points. If the Proclamation were to be understood in the sense which the noble Earl has put upon it—if it were indeed the announcement of a general confiscation of the lands of a great mass of the population of Oude, I should say with the noble Earl that a policy like that would deserve serious reprobation; and, if I believed that that was the effect of the Proclamation, my disapprobation of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government would be, not that they had censured such a Proclamation, but that, in sending out a censure of such a measure, they had not also recalled the Governor General. But, my Lords, after all that has taken place, I totally disbelieve that that is the proper interpretation of the Proclamation. We are told that it is plain English, and that it says as distinctly as possible that it confiscates the proprietary right of these persons; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, applying, as is very natural to a person of his

637
great legal knowledge, English notions of landed property to Indian affairs, has, as it appears to me, fallen into a great error. I profess very little acquaintance with India. It is a branch of our policy to which, occupied with other matters, I have hitherto paid comparatively little attention; but I do find that men of the greatest talents and of the greatest experience in Indian matters explain this Proclamation in a very different sense. If I understand them, what they say is, that what we are used to call the proprietary right to the soil rests, in India, universally in the Government, that the Government is the general landowner, and under the Government the land is held by the occupiers and cultivators. Now, it has happened in many parts of India, and particularly, I believe, in Oude, that these proprietary rights of the Government or of the Crown have been partly given to and partly usurped by various persons; and these persons stand towards the cultivators in the position generally occupied by the Crown; they receive from them a sort of rent or tribute, and either pay a small proportion to the Government or retain the whole for themselves. In some cases this right has been given as a reward for past services; in others as a payment for services which have still to be performed; and in many, I believe, it has been usurped. This right is held by a comparatively small number of persons, and in Oude it is said that it has been usurped by men who grossly abuse it, and heavily oppress the great mass of the population; they withdraw from the Government the revenue on which it depends for its existence, and they grind the poor cultivator in the dust. It is this right, held by a few persons, and which upon general considerations of policy it would have been desirable to get rid of, in order to make a more equitable settlement between these middle men, if I may call them so, and the cultivators—it is this right and this right only, with which Lord Canning, according to this view of the subject, proposes to deal. I do not venture to assert that this is the correct view of the measure of Lord Canning, but I do say that it is the view taken of it by some very high Indian authorities, and which seems to derive at least an appearance of being right from the very terms of the Proclamation. The Proclamation speaks of bringing the persons to whom it applies, and who should fail to merit the indulgence of the Government, to
638
reside at Lucknow; and it is utterly impossible to suppose that the class of proprietors to whom this measure is to be applied, can be the great mass of the occupiers of the soil—the removal of so numerous a body to the capital would obviously be impracticable. The paragraph, then, seems clearly to refer to a comparatively small number of persons. But I do not venture to pronounce any opinion on this subject. I await Lord Canning's explanation, which, as the Resolution states, has not yet been received. The late President of the Board of Control has severely censured Lord Canning for not sending that explanation. Now, knowing as we do, how much the Governor General's time has been occupied, and how much he has been oppressed by the toils and anxieties of his position at such a crisis—believing, as all who are competent to judge of Indian affairs have long done, that the Government of India must mainly be carried on in that country, and that it is not the province of the home authorities to interfere constantly and vexatiously with the discretion of their chief representative—I think the Governor General, as long as he is permitted to hold his high and responsible office, is entitled to a generous confidence, and ought to be supported in carrying out the measures which he believes to be best. Until the reverse is proved, the Government are bound to assume that his measures are right. This being so, I say you ought to be in no hurry for an explanation of the grounds on which he has acted. But you have not received from Lord Canning the Proclamation in the form in which it was finally issued; and until that is the case, every man with the most ordinary acquaintance with the mode of transacting official business knows that you have no right to expect a full explanation from him. When I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Office, I often received an intimation from a Governor that he proposed to take such and such measures. These I invariably treated as the mere expression of intentions, still liable to be changed; and I never looked for a full explanation of the views of a colonial Governor until I had been officially informed that the measures, which it was his duty to explain, had been actually adopted. Much has been made of the letter from Lord Canning to Mr. Vernon Smith. I do not deny that this letter ought to have been communicated by that gentleman to his successor, but far more has been made

639
of this omission than it deserves. There was a merely casual reference to the Proclamation in that letter; and, wholly irrespective of that communication, Her Majesty's Government were bound to expect that when they received the Proclamation as finally issued, it would be accompanied by a complete explanation of the grounds on which it was based. But I do not find fault with the Government for writing, with their then information, a despatch, or even a severe despatch. Far from it. I certainly take a different view from that of the noble Earl of the effect of this Proclamation; but I admit that, with his view of that document, it was not only his right, but his duty, at once, without waiting for an explanation, to write to Lord Canning conveying his opinion of what ought to be done. I think, indeed, that he should have adopted a different tone. I cannot approve the unqualified manner in which he assumed that the Governor General was wrong. The principles of the most ordinary justice, I should have thought, would have led him to treat the matter as one on which more information was required, and might be expected. But, be that as it may, I do not join in condemning the noble Earl for writing a despatch, even in the tone which he thought proper. The latter part of the despatch I think perfectly right and proper. He does not direct Lord Canning to recall his Proclamation, but tells him to act upon it in a certain spirit—a spirit which I entirely approve, and one perfectly consistent, I believe, with the Governor General's own feelings. But that which I disapprove, and which I think this House is bound to disapprove, unless it wishes to see the greatest mischief attend the future government of India, is that the noble Earl should unhappily have deemed it consistent with his duty to lay that despatch before Parliament. It is in my mind impossible to exaggerate the evils that must result from that proceeding. But my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has already dealt with this point in a manner which leaves nothing to be added by me. There is only one point further. When I say I do not condemn the writing the despatch, there is one part of the despatch which ought never to have been written. I allude to the passage relating to the annexation of Oude. I do not pretend to have studied with sufficient care the difficult question of the annexation of Oude; but I am bound to confess that, as far as I am
640
able to form an opinion from what I knew, the leaning of my judgment is unfavourable to the policy of that measure. But be that policy right or wrong, I concur with my noble Friend in saying that it was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Ministers of the Crown, with the high authority they possess, to brand in the face of Europe and of Asia the previous Government of their Royal Mistress with the stain of treachery and injustice. Anxious as I am for the honour of the country, I say the language in which that despatch is couched with regard to the annexation of Oude is utterly unjustifiable even were the facts as they are stated. I am persuaded, though the policy of that step may not, on the whole, have been such as I can approve, that the terms of censure applied to it in this document are as undeserved as, even if they had been deserved, they would have been unfitting as proceeding from the present ministers of the Crown. The publication of this despatch, before they received the explanation of Lord Canning was, then, the main fault committed by Her Majesty's Government. And it is a fault of which Parliament is bound to take serious notice. Look at the effect likely to be produced both in India and in Europe if we allow it to go forth that this despatch is published by Her Majesty's Government with the approval—or rather without the marked disapproval—of the British Parliament. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack tells us that we ought not to express our disapprobation of the premature publication "by Her Majesty's Ministers." He says it is admitted that it was not published by "Her Majesty's Ministers," and that, after the chivalrous and self-devoted declaration of the noble Earl opposite, we have no right to fix the responsibility for this upon the whole Government. Now, my noble Friend who made the Motion has explained, in a manner which admits of no reply, the absolute necessity of treating Cabinets as a whole. They must be jointly responsible for the acts of the entire Government. If the contrary principle is once established, it is impossible to say what evil might result. We should have divided Governments, Ministers intriguing against each other, and all those mischiefs known to have existed in old times. There would be an end to everything like firm and settled Governments in the country. The noble and learned Lord then went on to appeal from what he called the metaphysics of my noble Friend

641
to Common sense, which pointed out that a Government could not be held responsible for the acts of a single colleague done without their knowlepge. Well, my Lords, I agree with the principle that a Government cannot be held responsible for the acts of a colleague of which they are unaware and of which they disapprove; but at the same time that rule is liable to this qualification, that if a Government do not mean to be responsible for the acts of a colleague, of which they were unaware, they must disavow those acts at the very first opportunity which offers itself, after they become acquainted with them. Their disapprobation must be signified to their colleague, not after the matter has become the subject of a Parliamentary discussion, but before; and I say that, after what passed in Parliament upon Thursday and Friday last, I cannot admit that the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord is applicable to the present case. I say that by what took place then, the Government adopted the act of their colleague, and made themselves responsible for it. I go further still, my Lords, and I say that to draw any distinction between the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control, and the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Government in the other House of Parliament is absolutely impossible. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. H. Baillie) merely said that the despatch should be produced; and if the matter had ended there, no great mischief would have been done, for upon reconsideration by the Cabinet, it might have been determined that the promise was a rash one, and an appeal might have been made to Parliament not to press for its production, on the ground of its being injurious to the public service. That appeal would, I have no doubt, been acceded to, and no mischief would have occurred. Such an appeal, however, was rendered absolutely impossible by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who expressed his disapproval of the Proclamation of Lord Canning in terms so strong that the production of the despatch from that moment became a matter of necessity. The mischief was done by the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for after it was made it became inevitable that the friends of Lord Canning would require to know in what terms the censure was conveyed to him. It appears to me, for these reasons, that your Lordships ought to adopt the Resolutions of my noble
642
Friend, and I, for one, shall give them my cordial support. I am more surprised, my Lords, than I can say at the manner in which these Resolutions have been met. I believe that in our Parliamentary history this is the first occasion upon which a Government has met a vote of censure by the Previous Question. In some cases it has been met by a direct negative, and in old times time method of meeting a vote of censure was by an Amendment converting the vote into one of approval; but I believe that there is no one instance in which a Government has been satisfied with the Previous Question. Nay, more, I may remind your Lordships that on different occasions the Previous Question has been moved by independent Members who were unwilling to agree to a direct vote of censure, but who have thought that the Government had rendered itself open to an indirect censure; and, indeed, the Previous Question has always been taken by a Government to imply a censure, and has been invariably resisted; and I think that to move the Previous Question on an occasion like the present is the most extraordinary course which could have been adopted.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he would have been content to give a silent vote upon the question had it not been that he stood in a somewhat different position from many of their Lordships; for, having been engaged in other duties during the last ten days, he had not been present at any of the discussions which had taken place on this subject. He could assure noble Lords opposite that he had come up from the country that day with every disposition and anxiety to avoid giving a vote hostile to Her Majesty's Government, if he could conscientiously do so; because, like his noble Friend who spoke last, he had no desire to remove the present Government from office, or to reinstate that Administration which had lately occupied the Treasury bench. He deprecated constant changes of Government, and he had been as anxious to uphold, or at any rate not be compelled to oppose, the Government of his noble Friend opposite as he had ever been, to give a general support to the Ministry which preceded it. He did not agree with his noble Friend who spoke last in his entire approval of the form of that Motion, for he considered that the issue raised was too narrow a one, and it appeared to him at first sight to be framed to catch votes rather than to raise the real and substantial issue. He did not care about party

643
struggles in that House, for he had no concern with either one party or the other; but he had a much more important concern, and that was that the issue of that debate and of the struggle which was about to take place might not conduce to the injury of our Indian empire. He did not know what was likely to be the result of the division either in that or in the other House of Parliament; but, after what had passed, he thought that, if the Resolutions of his noble Friend were defeated by moving the Previous Question, it would produce an impression among the people of India that Parliament was at best indifferent upon the subject; and he therefore, for one, was not prepared to adopt that course. The noble Earl the Vice President of the Board of Trade (the Earl of Donoughmore) and the noble Earl the Under Secretary to the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) had adopted the declaration which had been made by the noble Earl lately the President of the Board of Control—that the despatch was not written merely for the guidance of the Governor General, and to explain to him the views of the Government, but that it might serve as an antidote to the Proclamation of Lord Canning. Now, that could only mean that the noble Earl intended from the first that the despatch should be published and made known to the whole population of India. And he should have imagined—although now he was bound to accept the denial of Ministers upon the subject—that that motive must have been made known to his colleagues when the noble Earl explained his views and intentions to the Cabinet. Passing that by, however, he found that the two noble Earls to whom he had referred had now, to a great extent, confirmed the view of the noble Earl; for the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies distinctly said that he looked upon the despatch as a message of peace to the people of India, and in that sense he approved of it Now, how could the despatch be a message of peace to the people of India, if it were to remain shut up in one of the Governor General's red boxes? This, then, was the state of the debate when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack rose and moved the Previous Question. The noble and learned Lord said that the Government disapproved the publication of the despatch, and he expressed, in distinct terms, his own disapproval of the despatch under existing circumstances as now developed; for, he added
644
that, if Mr. Vernon Smith had made known the letter which he received from Lord Canning, all the mischief would have been avoided. Under those circumstances, instead of moving the Previous Question, surely the noble and learned Lord ought to support the Resolutions, even if they contained a condemnation of the despatch itself, as well as of its publication. The noble Earl, the late President of the Board of Control, challenged those who disapproved the policy of the Government to bring forward a Resolution approving the Proclamation of Lord Canning. In the present state of information such a step would be absurd; but looking to the antecedents of Lord Canning, he had a right to expect that that noble Lord would be able to justify the Proclamation. The noble Earl the Vice President of the Board of Trade says, that any person who understood common English could only put one interpretation on the Proclamation. The noble Earl might be a very good judge of common English, but he apprehended that he was not a very good judge of the laws respecting the tenure of land in India. At any rate, he could assure him that several who had passed many of their years in India, and who were thoroughly conversant with Indian concerns, took a totally different view of the effect of the Proclamation. They said that it did not extend to the whole, but merely to a very small portion of the population of Oude; that it was a confiscation only of the territorial powers and privileges of what we might call in European language the great vassals, or tenants in capite, and that it did not affect the small proprietors and tillers of the soil of that country. This view might be wrong; but at present their Lordships ought not to be called upon to approve the Proclamation; nor did he think that they were entitled, on the other hand, to condemn it; but he did think that there was nothing to justify a despatch couched in such language, and that the publication of it was an offence against the empire as well as a public servant; and his vote in favour of the Motion would be given in the conscientious belief that it would somewhat lessen the mischief that he believed would be done by this despatch. And now he hoped he might be allowed to say one word on behalf of an absent friend, with whom he had been on terms of the closest intimacy for a great number of years, and who had, he believed, been as, sailed as cruelly as any man who had ever

645
served his country in circumstances of the greatest difficulty. If the censures upon the Governor General were deserved, notwithstanding his affection for his friend, he would bet stand up in his defence; but it was merely Upon hypothetical grounds that their Lordships were asked to condemn him; and therefore !et them recollect what his conduct had been, and how far they were entitled to anticipate that he had acted in the manner that had been charged against him. Lord Canning's conduct had not only been firm and decisive, but it had been characterised by other qualities equally rare and valuable. One of the greatest aggravations of his condition at the beginning of the mutiny was, that he was unsupported by the English population around him. Lord Canning was not driven to acts of undue severity by their threats, nor to acts of un-seemly concession by their fears. There were hours of great peril, in which fierce demands for blood surrounded him on every side; and what course did he take? He ventured in the face of those demands to speak of clemency. There were hours of despair at Calcutta, but he did not listen to the timid counsels of those around him. So far as we know at this moment, it was owing to Lord Canning that this miserable war had been confined within its present limits, wide as those limits unfortunately are, and had not become that most fatal and horrible of all wars—a war of religion and race. Under these circumstances he thought that the arm of the Governor General should be strengthened, and that it should not go forth that the Parliament of this country approved the rebellion in India or thought that the people of Oude were waging a legitimate war. The Resolutions proposed by the noble Earl might conduce to this result, and should have his support.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not disposed to complain of the tone or language either of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) or of the noble Duke who last addressed your Lordships, and I readily and freely admit that neither the noble Earl nor the noble Duke is actuated in the slightest degree by party feeling on this question. I believe that no one in this House is so free from any peculiar bias or party feeling as are the noble Earl and the noble Puke. Least of all do I feel disposed to complain of the closing observation of the noble Duke, in which, with a warmth of feeling which does him credit, he vindicated (as he supposed it
646
was necessary) the character of his absent friend. For my part, in endeavouring to deal with this question, I can assure the noble Duke and the numerous friends of Lord Canning,—and he has many on both sides of the House,—that nothing is further from my desire than to utter even a single expression against the character or conduct of that noble Lord, with the single exception of the Oude Proclamation, Lord Canning in his administration of Indian affairs, placed, as he was, in circumstances of great difficulty, has exhibited a great amount of firmness, and on former occasions a most laudable spirit of humanity, for which I give him infinite credit in the position in which he found himself. But, remembering this, the greater is my regret to find that a man who has acted on such principles has been led to issue what I consider so unfortunate and ill-timed a Proclamation. But while I entirely acquit the noble Earl and the noble Duke of any political or party motives, I cannot carry my complaisance so far as to assume that this question has been debated and will be decided purely and simply on its merits without reference to political or party considerations, It is true the noble Earl who opened this discussion announced that he came forward as one who stood in a sort of neutral position, and that no man could suspect him of party bias. "My sympathies," said the noble Earl, "are always on the side of those who sit on the opposite benches." Now, I do not dispute that his sympathies may be on this side, but I must say that his votes are more frequently given on the other. And when the noble Earl declares himself free from all party feeling, I cannot help having it suggested to my mind that if these Resolutions were to be proposed by a person uninfluenced in any way, it might have been better had they been brought forward by one not so closely connected with the noble Lord who was at the head of the late Administration. I do not know what were the noble Earl's motives when he gave this notice on Monday last. I don't know whether he attended it, but I presume he had communciated to him the result of that Sunday meeting which I am told was not entirely for religious purposes. I mention it merely as a singular coincidence. On Sunday last a meeting was held at the house of the noble Lord who was at the head of the late Government, at which it is supposed (and I believe on very good authority) that the subject of

647
this Motion was discussed; and it does so happen that the noble Earl, intimately and closely connected with the noble Viscount, gives on Monday in this House notice of his intention to submit a Resolution to a similar purport. Now, whether or not the noble Earl is so entirely uninfluenced as he is desirous of being considered, I must say this House is very greatly changed from what I ever knew it before if the attendance I see here on both sides does not indicate some little idea that a party question is at stake. If, however, 1 ever doubted whether any political or party question was involved, I should have been undeceived altogether by the tone of this debate, the whole tendency of which has been to convert the very simple and very innocent Motion of the noble Earl into one of censure upon the Government. This is put forward broadly, distinctly, clearly; and after that to tell me this is no political or party question passes even my belief.
My Lords, two subjects have been mixed up in this debate which ought to be kept separate. The one is the merits of the original Proclamation and of the secret despatch; and the other is the subsequent publication of that despatch, and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government with regard to it. These are two perfectly distinct and separate questions. As to the substance of my noble Friend's despatch, I adopt it—I adhere to it—I stand by it. With regard to the publication of that despatch, I had no knowledge of it, I was not consulted about it, and I regret the fact.
To begin, then, with the Proclamation of the Governor General and my noble Friend's comments upon it. There is one thing which has given me unfeigned satisfaction in the course of this discussion. Several most valuable admissions have been made on the other side of the House. Setting apart certain expressions used by my noble Friend, the noble Earl who opened this discussion said he should not find much fault with this despatch had it been addressed to Lord Canning as a secret despatch for the purpose of guidance or even of reproof. Subsequently we have had more valuable admissions still; for I believe the noble Earl (Earl Grey) said that if the Proclamation was susceptible of the interpretation given to it by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) no terms of censure could be too severe for it. This much, then, will at all events, result from the discussion. It will show that, setting
648
aside the meaning of Lord Canning's Proclamation, the unanimous opinion of this House is that wholesale confiscation in Oude would be an unjustifiable course of proceeding, and that clemency to the vanquished ought to be the rule adopted. That is the unanimous opinion expressed. Noble Lords on the other side of the House put themselves prominently forward to proclaim this doctrine, and declare that that is Lord Canning's meaning. The noble Earl who introduced the Motion said he was convinced that the Governor General of India did not mean what he was supposed to mean. With all my heart and soul do I desire it may turn out that that is so. Your Lordships are to recollect, however, that the despatch upon which so much criticism has been bestowed was one written by my noble Friend, and fully adopted by the Government, upon the receipt of a Proclamation which appeared to us to convey in no doubtful terms a doctrine very contrary to that which it is now declared to contain. We received that Proclamation. My noble Friend had, a month previously to its arrival, laid down in a despatch to Lord Canning what were his own views and the views of the Government as to the course which ought to be pursued. That despatch was dated the 24th of March, under the belief that before that time the city of Lucknow would be evacauated by the rebels, and that no considerable body would remain in arms against us throughout the country; and it proceeds to intimate the policy which the Government thought it desirable should be adopted:—
"To us it appears that, whenever open resistance shall have ceased, it would be prudent, in awarding punishment, rather to follow the practice which prevails after the conquest of a country which has defended itself to the last by desperate war, than that which may perhaps be lawfully adopted after the suppression of mutiny and rebellion,—such acts always being exempted from forgiveness or mitigation of punishment as have exceeded the licence of legitimate hostilities."
After recommending a general disarmament, and as far as possible a general amnesty, it declares that "in every amnestied district the ordinary administration of the law should as soon as possible be restored." In order to show the animus of my noble Friend towards Lord Canning I beg your Lordships' attention to this passage:
"In carrying these views into execution you may meet with obstruction from those who, maddened by the scenes they have witnessed,

649
may desire to substitute their own policy for that of the Government; but persevere firmly in doing what you may think right; make those who would counteract you feel that you are resolved to rule, and that you will be served by none who will not obey. Acting in this spirit, you may rely upon our unqualified support."
That was the language used by my noble Friend on the 24th of March; those were the principles laid down; and then, not of course in answer to this despatch, for it could not have been received, but following on its issue, came the Proclamation, which undoubtedly appeared to us to be couched in a very different spirit. There is no question that that Proclamation intimated to the Talookdars, the Chiefs, and the inhabitants of Oude, that, with a very few specified exceptions, the whole proprietary rights of the soil was confiscated to the Crown. Instructions certainly accompany it, addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Oude; but, as my noble Friend most justly remarked in his despatch, these instructions did not go to the people of Oude. They received the bare and naked Proclamation, and nothing more. Well, then it is said, "Oh, but this does not at all mean what you suppose it does; it only means that the Talookdars and great men will be divested of rights of lordship, which thereafter will be vested in the Crown, but it never crossed Lord Canning's mind to interfere with their private rights." I should like to know, however, what would be thought by the noble Earl or the noble Duke if Parliament should pass an Act in reference to their respective counties confiscating to the Crown all "the proprietary rights of the soil." Their tenure being thereafter that of copyholders under the Crown, with no guarantee for the future security of their possessions; I rather suspect they would imagine, seeing such a term in an Act of Parliament, that they must look sharply about them or else they would soon have not an acre left. There may be some abstruse, hidden meaning in this Proclamation, intelligible to the people of India; but my belief is that upon receiving this information they would deem it to be a notice to all the inhabitant of Oude, high and low, rich and poor, that, with the few exceptions there specified, every man should be deprived of the land on which alone he depends for subsistence. The naming of six persons—and six only—who were to be permitted to retain their inheritances, as they held them at the time of the annexation of Oude, seems to me, so far as those persons were concerned, hardly
650
a fair mode of proceeding. It appears to me that they were placed in a most invidious and, I think, hardly in a very safe position. You had scarcely conquered the country; you were surrounded by a population most hostile to you; and you select persons who have adhered to you faithfully—who, under great trials, have resisted all temptation to quit your cause—singling them out by name, and telling them that they alone of all their countrymen shall remain in possession of their lands, and that as a signal reward for their distinguished fidelity they shall be permitted to retain those lands, "subject only to such moderate assessment as may be imposed upon them." If this is the way in which you reward your friends, I must say I don't know what you mean to do with regard to your enemies. But it is said it was not intended to dispossess these persons of their lands. Now, my Lords, let us see—apart from the mere terms of the Proclamation itself—what was the gloss put upon it in the letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner in explanation. There are three classes of persons specified in the Proclamation, according to their different degrees of guilt and comparative innocence. With regard to the second class—that is to say persons who have taken up arms against the Government, but who "have done so less heartily, and upon whom for other causes the Chief Commissioner may not see reason to put restraint; these, after surrendering their arms, might be allowed to go to their homes, with such security for their peaceable conduct as the Chief Commissioner may think proper to require; and the letter goes on to say—I entreat the House to mark this—that "the permission to return to their homes must not be considered as a re-instatement of them in the possession of their lands, for the deliberate disposal of which the Government will preserve itself unfettered." Now, if there is any sense or meaning in language, this passage means that although these persons may be permitted to return home they are not to be re-instated,—not in their territorial rights, but in the possession of their lands. With regard, therefore, to the whole land of Oude, the Government holds itself at perfect liberty to dispose of that land as it may think fit. It was, I think, impossible in the face of the Proclamation, and of the language I have read, to suppose for a single moment that Her Majesty's Government could put upon it such an interpretation as has now,

651
by way of apology, been attached to it by noble Lords opposite.
Having received this Proclamation, not as being already issued, but as about to be issued, it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider what course they ought to pursue. We thought, my Lords, it was a matter of the utmost importance that not a moment should be lost in intimating our apprehensions as to the dangerous consequences which might be produced by the issue of such a Proclamation. We were not without hopes that our despatch, which was in strict unison with the principles we had before laid down, might by possibility reach Lord Canning in time to enable him to reconsider the terms of his proclamation, and to issue one which was not liable to the construction that might be placed upon it. We are told that we ought to have waited to receive explanations from Lord Canning. My Lords, if we had had the slightest idea that such explanations were coming—I do not say we should have waited, because it would have been our duty to notice the Proclamation—but we should very materially have modified the language of the despatch. We received the Proclamation officially; we received no private communication whatever—we were not likely to receive such a communication, because Lord Canning could not be aware of the change of Government; and if communications of that nature had been sent—as private communications are sent by every Minister and Governor explaining their public acts—it was not to us that such explanation would have come. But such an explanation did come, and it arrived at a period when its communication to Her Majesty's Government might have been of the utmost importance,—when, if it had been communicated to them it might have materially modified the tone and language of my noble Friend's despatch. Why was not that explanation communicated to us I should like to know? The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said tile other night that Mr. Vernon Smith received the explanation at a very late period. Subsequently, I believe, the noble Marquess was satisfied that Mr. Vernon Smith received it at a period when it might have been communicated to us, and have had some effect; but we were told that Mr. Vernon Smith was in Ireland attending his son's wedding, which was of much more importance than any subject of this nature. That, however, is not Mr. Vernon Smith's
652
account of the transaction. He says, "I did receive a letter from Lord Canning; I know it was addressed to me as President of the Board of Control. I did not think it utterly unimportant, because the moment I received it I went"—to whom? To the Ministry by whom Lord Canning expected it would have been received? No; but to the head of the Government which had just been displaced, and who was in opposition to the existing Ministry. In the course of this evening it has been denied that Lord Palmerston was consulted on the subject of sending this extract of a private letter to Her Majesty's present Government. All I can say is that the report of what appears to have taken place elsewhere gives the following as the words used by Mr. Vernon Smith:—
"I may state, however, that I read it the moment I received it to my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, to whom it did not appear, any more than to myself, that it was necessary to communicate it to the Government."
Now, my Lords, Lord Palmerston may or may not have given any advice, but if we are to believe Mr. Vernon Smith—and I cannot hesitate to believe a statement which he makes so solemnly—the first thing he did was to communicate this passage to the head of the late Government, who did not think any more than himself that it was necessary to communicate it to the Minister to whose department it related. All I can say is that I think the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) must have very materially changed his views with regard to the expediency and necessity of communicating information bearing upon public matters which may be contained in private letters; because not long ago I had the honour of receiving a communication from the noble Viscount, enclosing a letter which he informed me had been rescued from the wreck of the Ava, and which, inasmuch as it related to public affairs, he thought it his duty to transmit to me. Now, that despatch, rescued from the wreck of the Ava, which the noble Viscount—anxious, as he always is, to discharge his duty to the public—forwarded to me, contained information that a petition for the recall of Lord Canning which had been sent to this country, and had been returned to India that it might be transmitted through Lord Canning, had been sent to the Governor General to be so transmitted. That was the sole information contained in the despatch; yet that piece of information, three months old, was

653
considered by the noble Viscount so important that he deemed it his duty not to lose a minute in communicating it to me as the head of Her Majesty's Government; but a statement of the Governor General, written as he supposed to a Minister of the Crown, intimating his intention to forward explanations respecting a very important official document appeared to the noble Viscount so utterly insignificant that neither he nor Mr. Vernon Smith thought it expedient to make any communication on the subject to Her Majesty's Ministers. Again, I say, this passes the limits of my credulity! I know not what other statements or letters may have been received by Mr. Vernon Smith; but this I will say, that although it is possible, I think it is barely probable, that in the course of two months and a half, or nearly three months, the Governor General of India should not have communicated one single private line with respect to public affairs to the Minister who immediately presided over the Indian department. He may have kept that extraordinary silence, but I very much doubt the fact, and I think it is almost incredible. Certain it is, however, that not one line have we ever seen, nor have we since we came into office had the slightest means of judging what, upon any one question, were Lord Canning's views of policy. Well, my Lords, in the absence of all such information, we were bound to act upon the Proclamation and the public documents we possessed; and reading that Proclamation in the sense in which we regarded it we thought not a moment was to be lost, and that language could hardly be too strong to express our apprehensions of its consequences and our disapproval of its tone and temper. I shall not quote the various passages to which reference has been made. I shall not quote the language held in the despatch with regard to the Proclamation as we understood it, and as we received it; but this I will venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that the tone and temper of that Proclamation were strongly disapproved by the highest and most competent authorities on India in England; that, from its tone, and the time at which it was issued, it was regarded as likely to lead to most alarming consequences—that I believe there were remonstrances against its publication, and that I know that many most eminent men have written home expressing their deep regret at the system of apparently wholesale confiscation which it would
654
establish. If I could mention the persons to whom I refer, their names would coin. mend the highest respect; but I am at liberty to name one gentleman with whom, until yesterday, I had not the slightest personal acquaintance. When I mention the name of Sir George Clerk it will, I think, be admitted that no one is more competent to form a judgment on this subject. I requested Sir George Clerk to forward me a copy of a despatch which was sent out by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) only last Monday; and in doing so Sir George Clerk says—
"May I take the liberty to observe to your Lordship that, so far as I know those countries, I should say that the sentiments with which Her Majesty's Government have regarded it, if allowed to prevail, will right the ship; but if a different course should be persisted in British dominion over it can not be restored in any degree of security by means of all the European troops England can afford to send to such a climate or to such a distance."
These are the deliberate opinions of a man who, more than any other, knows the circumstances and feelings of the people of India; and he interprets this Proclamation as we interpret it; he interprets "confiscation" as we interpret it, and he says that unless the recommendations of the Government should be attended to, and if this system of severity should be persisted in, no amount of force that you can send from this country will enable you permanently to maintain your authority in peace in India. Is not that a justification of the Government for having taken the earliest moment to protest against a course of proceedings which they thought would necessarily lead to the most fearful Consequences? Let us recollect what is the condition of Oude. There every landholder is a soldier and every soldier is a landholder; and a system of universal confiscation addressed to a population of armed men—many trained in your service, and many feudal proprietors, having numerous armed retainers—universal confiscation, I say, applied to such a population, with some exceptional indulgences of which no person could feel secure, was a certain means not to put an end to strife, but to protract this into a desultory and most embarrassing war, and to extinguish the hope of peace and security for months and perhaps years to come. We found it necessary to protest at the earliest period against the possibility of such lamentable results, and we thought it necessary to point out to the Governor General that

655
which appeared contrary to the spirit of his Proclamation, that the principle of mildness and forbearance with occasional instances of severity, instead of severity with occasional instances of clemency, was the only sound way of bringing back the population to allegiance and content. I will not use any expression likely to give offence to the noble Duke opposite, but I do not share in that laughing tone in which he treated the enunciation in the despatch of those great, sound, and holy principles which I believe it to be of the utmost importance should be made known to the people of India as the principles which guide the conduct of the British Government. I do not ridicule what the noble Duke was pleased to call plain truisms, nor do I think the country will be inclined to ridicule them.
My Lords, having expressed my entire concurrence in the statements contained in the despatch on the supposed, and I think naturally supposed, meaning and intention of the Proclamation, and having expressed that concurrence in them, not as a representation addressed to the people of India, but as a representation in a secret despatch to the Governor General, I now proceed to the further question respecting the publication of the despatch and the responsibility for its publication. But before I go further I must just advert to one argument which has been made—namely, that it is absolutely clear that this despatch was from the first intended for publication, otherwise there would not have been found in it what the noble Duke opposite was pleased to call such "sonorous phrases." Now, whatever may be the character of this despatch, I do not for a moment doubt that it was the intention and desire of my noble Friend that the despatch should remain on record. It was not a private letter, but a secret despatch; not at the time to be communicated, except to the Governor General, but to remain on record as an indication of the policy which my noble Friend and the Government were prepared to pursue. Therefore, of course, it did not take the form of a mere private and confidential letter, but of a recorded despatch, pointing out the views entertained by the Government. I come now to the question of publication, and I confess that I am there compelled to differ from the views of my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control. I stated at the very earliest opportunity afforded me that I regretted the premature publication
656
of the despatch. I think it was unfortunate that, without any previous notice, a question should have been asked by a Member of the other House, and answered by a subordinate Member of the Government without communication with any of the Cabinet Ministers, except, I presume, my noble Friend the late President of the Board of Control, and that a declaration should have been made pledging the Government to produce the despatch. I will come presently to the question of the limited liability or joint responsibility of the Cabinet, but will now advert to what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cranworth). He said that, setting aside the question, whether all the Ministers were bound by one colleague, he would go further back than the Thursday of last week, and would revert to a previous Friday, in order to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to some question, announced that he would lay on the table a despatch which was by no means intended as a censure on the Governor General, and the noble and learned Lord inferred that that despatch, which cast no censure on the Governor General, was the despatch which he said censured that high officer. But the fact is, that it was a prior despatch. It was the despatch of the 24th of March, with respect to which the discussion took place on the 23rd of April, and which was ordered to be printed on the 26th; and the noble and learned Lord has confounded two separate occasions and two separate despatches. With respect to the despatch to which the present Motion referred, what happened was this:—a question was asked without notice, and the Secretary of the Board of Control hastily announced his intention of laying the despatch on the table. That question was followed by another question from another Gentleman, who asked whether the Government approved the policy of Lord Canning in issuing the Proclamation. Mind, at that time, the despatch had been promised to be produced; and whether the Government stated their approval or disapproval of the Proclamation, or left the fact to be disclosed when the despatch should be produced next day, was a matter of indifference. But what was the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said, "The policy of confiscation intimated in that Proclamation we disapprove in every sense." Great stress has been placed on these words, "in every sense;" but he was re-

657
ferring to the policy of confiscation, and in every sense of justice and policy he meant that the Government disapproved of that policy. The same night the late President of the Council (Earl Granville) came over to me, and told me what had taken place in the House of Commons, and further than so hearing, that such question had been asked and answered, I had no knowledge on the subject. The noble Earl, the late President of the Council, however, expressed his hope that, as the production of the despatch had been promised, it would be laid on the table that night, because, otherwise, there would be no opportunity of discussing before the departure of the mail, which left on the Monday. We replied, that we could not lay it on the table that night, but would do so to-morrow, and that, for the convenience of the noble Earl and Lord Canning's friends, a copy should be sent to the noble Earl; and it was sent before the despatch was laid on the table of the House. On the following day there was a Council at the Palace, by which we were detained; but when we came to examine the despatch, we found in it some paragraphs which we thought it more for the public convenience should not be produced. The sole object of those paragraphs was to point out the circumstances of mitigation which separated the case of revolted subjects from that of mutineers, and, of course, in reasoning the point, all the extenuating circumstances were put forth with a plainness and openness with which they certainly would not have been stated if the document had been intended to meet the public eye. When we saw the character of those paragraphs, we desired to have them omitted from publication, and with that view we sent down to the House of Commons; but before the messenger arrived, the Secretary of the Board of Control, not having had any previous communication with us, had, in consequence of the promise of the night before, laid the whole despatch on the table of the House. I regret that the whole despatch was laid on the table, and upon the whole I regret that any part of the despatch should have been published at so early a period; but I cannot say that I regret the character or contents of the despatch. On the contrary, I think the policy indicated in it is a just, sound, and necessary policy, and we should have been neglectful of our duty if we had omitted to take the earliest opportunity of enforcing that policy on the Governor General, more especially at the moment.
658
when we thought he was going to abandon it.
Now, with respect to the liability of all the members of a Cabinet for the act of a single member, I wish to say that no man can put forth more distinctly or clearly than I do the constitutional doctrine that every member of the Government is responsible for the acts of every other member, whether those acts were previously known or not, provided the members of the Government continued to act together as a Government. Remaining in office and acting together, all the members of the Government take upon themselves a retrospective responsibility for what their colleague has dune, which they can in no way attempt to shake off. But the case is very different when the Government are charged with having done a certain act, and they say, "We did not do it; it was done without our knowledge by one of our colleagues." "Never mind," it is then said, "you are all responsible for the acts of your colleague." "But," we reply, "in consequence of the very act which you impugn, he has ceased to be one of our colleagues." "Never mind," it is said again, "you are still responsible; when you knew nothing about the act he was your colleague, and you were therefore responsible for that of which you knew nothing; and now that he has ceased to be your colleague, you continue responsible for an act of which you knew nothing when it was done, and which you condemned as soon as it was brought to your knowledge." My Lords, that may be constitutional law, but to me it appears to be the grossest and most absolute absurdity; and sure I am that if it is constitutional law, it is not, and never has been, constitutional practice. I need not go back a long way to place before your Lordships a circumstance which I think is somewhat parallel. But before proceeding further, I may notice a remark which fell from a noble Earl opposite. "That excuse," he said, "would have answered your purpose very well if upon the instant the promise of publication was made in the House of Commons you had jumped up and disclaimed it, and said to the President of the Board of Control, You are no longer a member of the Government.' But," continued the noble Earl, "it was not till forty-eight hours afterwards, and when a notice of Motion had been given in one if not both Houses of Parliament, that you bethought you of putting upon one of your number

659
alone the entire responsibility of what had taken place." Now, my Lords, in the first place, it was not the Government which placed upon the President of the Board of Control, but my noble Friend himself who, with characteristic straightforwardness, assumed the whole responsibility, which in truth and justice simply attached to himself. But may I ask noble Lords opposite to have the goodness to carry their recollection back to the month of June, 1855? If my memory does not greatly deceive me, at that time the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton was at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord the Member for London was Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. While Secretary of State for the Colonial Department the noble Lord was sent upon a special mission to Vienna. In his capacity as Plenipotentiary at Vienna, he entered into certain engagements for a treaty which he brought home, and reported to his Cabinet. His colleagues did not approve the arrangement which he had made, and I suppose they signified to the noble Lord that they did not so approve. Did they immediately insist upon his quitting office? No such thing. Time went on until notice was given of a Motion in Parliament charging the Government with the responsibility of the treaty which had been negotiated at Vienna. What followed? I ant not in the secrets of the late Government, but report at the time certainly stated that a "round robin" was sent to the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton insisting upon the retirement of Lord John Russell. In point of fact Lord John Russell ceased to be a Member of the Cabinet, and the Government then disavowed the treaty to which he had been a party a considerable time previous, repudiating in the face of a hostile Motion against the whole of them their joint responsibility, and throwing the entire blame upon their late colleague. The Opposition of that day, being somewhat more forbearing than the Opposition of the present, withdrew the hostile Motion against the Government in consequence of the retirement of the single Member. I have thus given the noble Lords opposite a precedent for not imposing the strict rule of joint and universal responsibility, not in reference to a matter of which all the Members of the Cabinet except one were ignorant, but with regard to a subject which, although it was well known to them, they did not disavow until a hostile Motion
660
was directed against them in the House of Commons.
But, my Lords, I am asked by the noble Earl opposite, "If you mean to oppose the Resolutions, why do you do so by means of the Previous Question?" He never, it seems, knew an occasion on which a vote of censure upon the Government was met on the part of the Government by the Previous Question. My answer to that is, that although the debate has been a debate of censure upon the Government, the vote to which your Lordships are asked to come is not a vote censure upon the Members of the Government, but upon an Act which the Members of the Government disavow and repudiate. What was the Government to do in these circumstances? The last Resolution, which is the only one of any practical importance, asks the House of Lords to express its regret at the premature publication by the Government of the despatch of the 19th of April, which was calculated to weaken the authority of the Governor General, and to encourage those still in arms against us. To some of the phraseology of that Resolution I certainly must demur. I do not admit that the publication took place with the sanction or by the authority of the Government; on the contrary, I contend that it took place without their knowledge, and contrary to their wish or intention. Nor do I admit—although undoubtedly the publication—not the writing—of the despatch may put Lord Canning in a painful position, from which I sincerely hope that his explanations, when received, may have the effect of relieving him—that the premature promulgation of the despatch will produce any results such as those which have been ascribed to it. I regret, especially, the publication of that part which relates to the annexation of Oude, because it is liable to be misapprehended by the Natives of India; but I cannot regret that an intimation should go out in the most authoritative manner from the Crown—approved, as I hope, by the Parliament and people of England—that the system upon which hereafter the Government of India shall be conducted, when the present unhappy revolt has been suppressed, is not to be a system of general confiscation, but a system of general toleration and mercy, and that we hope the instances may be few and exceptional in which it may be necessary to make use of severity. But, my Lords, if I were to oppose the Resolu-

661
tions, it would appear as if I sanctioned and approved the publication of the despatch. My noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had no alternative, then, if he meant to express the feelings and wishes of the Government, and to avoid a vote which would be liable to misconstruction; but to move the Previous Question, which simply imports that upon a point on which your Lordships have not sufficient information you will not at the present moment undertake to pronounce a judgment. Such is the meaning of the Previous Question. It involves no censure upon Lord Canning or upon the character of his Proclamation; but it means that you will not express a hasty opinion upon imperfect evidence, or arrive at a decision which, whatever may be its effects here, will be liable to be mis-construed in India. The Motion of the noble Earl opposite is, and was announced to be, a vote against the Government. Carried in that sense, it will be construed by the people of India as meaning that the Government have been condemned for promulgating a policy of mercy and toleration. Although I am satisfied you would regret such an interpretation as much as we should, yet the inference is clear and obvious that your adoption of a vote of censure upon the Government, after a debate in which the question of toleration or confiscation had been the main subject of discussion, Would be held in India to be your adoption of the opposite principle to that maintained by the Government. It is upon these grounds, my Lords, while I cannot defend the premature publication of the despatch, while I nevertheless hope that the promulgation of some parts of it may not only be productive of no injury; but may go forth as a message of peace to India, announcing the kindly and beneficent intentions of the British Parliament with respect to the administration of Indian affairs, that I entreat your Lordships not, by affirming the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, which must be construed into a vote of censure, to place the Government in a most painful and embarrassing position, and at the same time produce in India an impression the very reverse of that which we all wish to create.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I certainly cannot hope to avoid the censure so liberally thrown out by the noble Earl as to those who intend to support these Resolutions being actuated by party and—which sounded odd as a matter of rebuke—by political motives. I should have
662
thought that the character of the noble Earl who has brought this question before us, his character, his position in the country, the independent course which he has taken with regard to politics, and the votes which he has given in this House, would have been a sufficient guarantee that he is actuated only by the purest motives. ["Oh! oh!"] A noble Lord, who has been very lavish in his cheers of those who have spoken from the opposite benches, says "Oh! oh!" but I take upon myself to appeal to those behind me to say, whether the noble Earl is justly liable to such an accusation as this. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in order to throw some sort of reflection upon the course of my noble Friend, condescended to allude to certain private political meetings—as if political friends were not to meet at a most important crisis of the State. Nay, the noble Earl even went so low, as to insinuate that the course taken by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) is owing to a family connection. Now, there were certain rumours afloat which might have been useful in exciting feeling in this house, to which I particularly refrained from alluding whims speaking the other day, although it came into my head to do so, because I thought that such penny-a-line gossip was unworthy of the debates of this House. I might have asked some question as to the truth of a report that a certain Member of the other House took a walk with a Cabinet Minister on the very day on which this despatch was produced; but I thought that allusions of that sort were unworthy of such a subject as that now under discussion. When reflecting on what was likely to pass in the course of this debate to-night, it seemed to me that our case lay in a nutshell; but I was at a loss to know what arguments would be adduced by the leading Members of the Government to induce your Lordships not to agree to these Resolutions, the perfect truth and accuracy of which it appears to me that no three sane men in the House can deny. I therefore listened with great attention to the speeches which have been addressed to your Lordships. I should extremely regret to appear in the slightest degree to attack anything which has fallen from the noble Earl the late President of the Board of Control. That noble Earl repeated his magnanimous declaration, taking upon himself all the responsibility of those who were with him. Now, I must say, I regret ex-

663
tremely that this Motion should bear the slightest appearance of being directed against him personally. I wish to protest in the strongest manner against being supposed to feel any personal hostility to the noble Earl. I never had any such feeling, and I trust that I shall continue to entertain for him that respect to which some great qualities both of mind and character which he possesses entitle him. But his speech absolutely avoided all the difficult part of the question. He did not defend one word of his despatch, except two sentences which nobody has attacked. He merely, in eloquent and energetic terms, placed it before the people of India as a remonstrance against the conduct of the Governor General. I also paid particular attention to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is one of the things—and, to tell the truth, I do not at the present moment remember many others—for which I am grateful to the present Government, that it has been the means of introducing the noble and learned Lord to this House. I believe that his character, his personal popularity, and his ability will always make him a valuable acquisition to this House, and a powerful addition to the strength of the party he espouses. But I must say that I never heard a speech which appeared to me to carry with it less weight and to contain less argument than did that of the noble and learned Lord. Under how great a difficulty he laboured was shown by his continually diverging to the left and to the right to get hold of something which would enable him to go on speaking for a minute or two. He gave us some lessons—not in politics, because we heard from him language defending the against in Oude against the Queen's authority. [The Earl of DONOUGHMORE interposed an observation.] I did not interrupt the Vice President of the Board of Trade in his very animated and eloquent speech, and I really think he might allow me to continue without denying what I believe are mere matters of fact. The noble and learned Lord did most undeniably defend the conduct of the rebels in Oude, and gave as a reason for his defence that they belong to a State legitimately at war with us. I may be mistaken, but such language appears to me to be something very nearly trenching upon treasonable matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I never said one word about the kingdom of Oude being legitimately at war with us, neither did I
664
defend the conduct of the rebels. I explained the circumstances under which it was likely that the Proclamation would be very injurious to the public interests.
EARL GRANVILLE: Without wishing to question the recollection of the noble and learned Lord, I have a very strong impression that his observations went further than he has stated. The noble Earl at the head of the Government laid a good deal of stress upon the admission made by a noble Lord behind me, to the effect that if the Government supposed the Proclamation bore the interpretation they put upon it, they did right in sending a remonstrance to Lord Canning. If that admission can do them any good, I am quite ready to give them the benefit of it. Our case is this:—We do not go into the annexation of Oude, we do not discuss the matter of the Proclamation, although it has frequently been made the subject of remark this evening; but what we say is, that when the Proclamation arrived it was competent, nay, it was desirable, that the Government should send out to the Governor General such remarks as they thought fit; but that the letter which was sent was not at all such an one as ought to have been written, and that its publication was gross ill-treatment of the Governor General, and was calculated to weaken his authority and to produce great harm in India. The noble Earl defended certain portions of that despatch, but not one word did he say about the clauses relating to the kingdom of Oude. I therefore conclude that it is admitted that that portion of the letter is not defensible. He remonstrated with some noble Lords on this side for expressing some doubts as to this despatch being intended to be a secret one. As soon as the noble Earl states that it was so intended, I will admit that that doubt is unfounded; and yet there are circumstances which would lead we to the conclusion that that despatch was not intended to be a secret one, an impression which has been very much strengthened by the observations made by the noble Earl late the President of the Board of Control, who, twice in the course of his speech this evening, stated that he desired the publication of that despatch. Making allowances for certain exuberances of style, I do not believe that if that despatch had been meant merely as a warning to the Governor General to pursue a course of policy different from that which he seemed about to adopt, it would have been written in that magniloquent language which gives it the

665
appearance rather of a Proclamation than of a secret and confidential letter of instructions to a confidential officer. About twelve months ago the present Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long and eloquent speech "in another place," in the course of which, after condemning the annexation of Oude—having never taken any step to obtain a Parliamentary censure of that proceeding—he said:—
"You ought to issue a Royal Proclamation to the people of India, declaring that the Queen of England is not a Sovereign who will countenance the violation of treaties; that the Queen of England is not a Sovereign who will disturb the settlement of property; that the Queen of England is a Sovereign who will respect their laws, their usages, their customs, and, above all, their religion."—[3 Hansard, cxlvii. 479.]
Whether that is right or wrong, it appears to me to be almost an abstract of the secret letter written nearly a year afterwards by the noble Earl. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "Do this, and do this not in a corner, but in a mode and a manner which must attract universal attention." And I defy you to point out anything done in a more notable and extraordinary manner than the publication of this despatch. I do not say that it is wrong of Her Majesty's Ministers to entertain the opinion that the annexation of Oude was wrong; what I do say is, that if they condemn that policy, if they share the opinion of their colleague, who, two months ago recommended, and the ironical shouts of the House of Commons, that Oude should be restored to the King, the proper mode of carrying out those opinions would be by means of a formal Parliamentary Motion; and that they ought to have given instructions to Lord Canning indicating the policy which they meant to adopt with regard to that kingdom, instead of indirectly shadowing out that policy in a despatch conveying a severe censure upon that noble Lord. I am glad that the Proclamation has been discussed to-night, and I am glad that noble Lords have called the attention of the House and of the public to the opinions of some well-informed men upon this subject. The noble Earl tells us that several of the highest authorities in India disapproved this Proclamation. Will he lay on the table of this House the letters in which this disapproval is expressed?—for I need hardly remind your Lordships that there is nothing more unparliamentary than to refer to documents in proof of a statement when those documents are not regularly before us. Is he aware of the date at which the
666
objections of these high Indian authorities were taken?—because it makes a great difference whether they were taken to the original draught of the Proclamation, or to the modified form in which the Proclamation was subsequently issued, in order perhaps to obviate those very objections. Until the noble Earl gives us this information, his assertion as to the opinion of these high authorities in India is utterly idle and valueless. As to the despatch before us, I cannot conceive how your Lordships could think it a proper document to publish. The noble Earl opposite, having given up one portion of it without attempting to defend it, I do not think it necessary to enter into that point. As has been well observed, the despatch contains as eloquent a partisan statement of one side of the case, and that not the side of the Queen and Government of England, as could possibly be made. Passing now from the despatch, I come to the question of the responsibility of the Cabinet for its publication. A noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has laid down for us the doctrine of the joint liability of the Cabinet, indicating where it begins and ends. As the noble Earl said, down to a certain period in our history there was not such joint responsibility, and the want of it proved very mischievous. Since that time this principle has existed, and it is most desirable for every reason to maintain it. So clearly is this a constitutional doctrine that one of the most eloquent supporters of the noble Earl, on that very Motion to which he has referred, laid it down that there may be division of labour in a Cabinet, but no division of responsibility. I do not argue for a forced application of that maxim. It would have been perfectly childish, for example, to assert that if it had appeared that the noble Earl had Written this despatch without consulting his colleagues, and afterwards published it proprio motu, you could bring any charge of real complicity against those colleagues, who would have had no participation in and no cognizance of what he had done. I therefore hold that the case of Lord John Russell, which has been alluded to, does not present the slightest parallel to the present one, [A noble LORD dissented.] The noble Lord shakes his head, so that I must recount the leading circumstances of that case, to show that I am correct in my statement. Lord John Russell was accused of taking a certain line—an unpopular line, and one not concurred in by the Government—in regard to

667
the propositions discussed at the Vienna Conferences. After he returned to this country and resumed his place in Parliament, he made a speech that was construed as not being hi consonance with the course he had adopted at Vienna. That was purely a personal matter—the Government had absolutely nothing to do with it; and, more than this, no political consequences could possibly ensue from the question thus raised. I will say this, that the accusations made against that noble Lord were very unjust; and if his colleagues had had an opportunity of doing so, we should have stood by him; but my noble Friend resigned, as the noble Earl opposite has done. But it was impossible for us to assume the responsibility for a thing with which we had positively nothing to do. ["Hear, hear!"] Noble Lords may cheer; but I ask them, where is the parallel between that case and this? The noble Earl told us the other day that as soon as the Proclamation arrived he thought it necessary to express his views upon it, and that those views were sanctioned by the Government. The Cabinet agreed in condemning Lord Canning's Proclamation, and in sending out the despatch. There is surely complicity in that. Next, as to the publication. It is admitted that there was communication between the noble Earl and Mr. Baillie, and that both Mr. Baillie and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the sanction of the noble Earl for producing that despatch to the House of Commons. And here let me correct a misunderstanding which had gone abroad—that I asked in this House for the production of this despatch. The facts are, that on the evening that the question was put in an other place I came into this House in a great hurry, and stated that I had just heard, though I was not quite sure of its accuracy, that the leader of the Government elsewhere had avowed the disapproval by the Government in toto of the policy of the Proclamation. It row seems I was too classical in my rendering of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and that what he said was, that they disapproved it "in every sense." I then asked the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) whether that answer was made with his cognizance and after communication with him. The noble Earl replied, that he had not had communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that the right hon. Gentleman was cognizant of the despatch in answer to the Proclamation. I did not ask him to pro-
668
duce the despatch, but I ventured to repeat the question. I was not, like Mr. Bright, perfectly acquainted beforehand with the policy of the Government on the subject; I merely asked whether it was true that the despatch conveyed so severe a censure of Lord Canning's Proclamation as had been reported. The noble Earl then observed, "The best answer I can give you is, that I will present the despatch to-morrow morning." Was the despatch then published? No, not until the next day. It is true that that evening I also went to the noble Earl, and said—"I understand you are going to present that despatch, which is likely to produce immense consequences; we have only a night left before the mail starts; could you not present it this evening?" The noble Earl said he had no objection if Lord Derby had none. The latter noble Earl, however, demurred, the course being unusual; and the President of the Board of Control then remarked, "I am going home; I will send you the despatch." I observed, "It will be of no use to me if I may not show it to some of my political friends." I received it on the understanding that there was to be no publication, and I can assure the noble Earl that his injunction was strictly carried out. But was it nothing for the Government to have twenty-four hours for reflection? When the noble Earls opposite became aware of the sensation produced in this and the other House by their announcement, did they not consider for a moment how the mischief could be best averted? Why did they not carefully read the despatch over again, and pause to ask themselves whether it was not calculated to weaken the authority of the Governor General, and entail great evil? I will not insult the understanding of their Lordships by supposing that they did not think it would do great evil. And if they saw that, why did they not come manfully down to the two Houses and say, "We are ready to encounter some criticism and even some obloquy; but for reasons of public policy which we cannot consistently specify, we cannot be parties to the publication of our despatch." I believe that they were bound to do this. Indeed, they did it to a certain degree. The late President of the Board of Control stated that he and the noble Earl opposite and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted together, and thought it would be better to omit certain paragraphs. But surely that was assuming the whole responsibility

669
of the affair, unless you can show, which I utterly deny, that the publication of the remaining paragraphs was perfectly innocent and harmless. It may be said the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer created a difficulty; but that simple declaration of a censure of the Proclamation, mischievous as it might be, would not have been half so mischievous as the elaborate arguments of the despatch in favour of those whom it is the object of the Indian Government to reduce to submission. I say, then, that the Government participated fully in this act, and became accomplices in the publication of the despatch. No doubt, it would have been a drawback to have to deal a blow against the President of the Board of Control; but was that to be considered in a great question of this magnitude? What does the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack amount to, in plain language, but this;—"The noble Earl has taken all our sins on his own back; for God's sake, on his back let them lie." This House must for several reasons stand in a false position if it agrees to the Previous Question—certainly an unprecedented Motion for a Government to meet a vote of censure with upon an important part of their policy. It will go forth that we support a Government which adopts the strange and paradoxical course of saying that they do not wish to recall, but to support the Governor General, and yet they take the most effectual step to weaken and undermine his authority. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has, on this occasion, when we are called upon to come to a most serious decision, carefully avoided stating what course of policy the Government intend to pursue. We do not know if the Government have sent any despatch to Lord Canning, previous to the despatch of the noble Earl, telling Lord Canning that their policy with regard to India had changed. I myself do not know if the Government have any definite policy, or if they have prepared and matured any measures to carry out their somewhat vague and indefinite views. I trust that your Lordships will give an opinion upon these Resolutions, and I do not think any man in his senses can impugn their justice; and I trust that, however much we may be taunted with having been actuated by any party feeling, at the same time credit may be given to some of us for being actuated, not by mere party feeling alone, but by real indig-
670
nation at the treatment of the Governor General of India, and, still mere, by alarm and apprehension that if the mischief which has been produced be not checked, irreparable injury will be the result. For these reasons, my Lords, I shall most cordially support the Resolutions of my noble Friend.
Previous Question put, i.e., "Whether the said Question shall be now put;"—Contents 158; Not-Contents 167: Majority 9.
Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.

(PRESENT.)

Devonshire, D.

Chesham, L.

Newcastle, D.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Norfolk, D.

Somerset, D.

Congleton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dacre, L.

Camden, M.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne)

Lansdowne, M.

Townshend, M.

De Mauley, L.

Westminster, M.

De Tabley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ebury, L.

Airlie, E.

Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

Albemarle, E.

Carlisle, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Cawdor, E.

Glenelg, L.

Chichester, E.

Hatherton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

Cowper, E.

Denbigh, E.

Keane, L.

Effingham, E.

Leigh, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Lilford, L.

Essex, E.

Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

Fitzwilliam, E.

Fortescue, E.

Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)

Granville, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Grey, E.

Ilchester, E.

Petre, L,.

Minto, E.

Poltimore, L.

Munster, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Rivers, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Saye and Sele, L.

Spencer, E.

Sefton, L,. (E. Sefton.)

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Falmouth, V.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Sydney, V.

Torrington, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stewart of Stewart's Court, L. (M. Londonderry.)

Carlisle, Bp.

Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

London, Bp.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Ripon, Bp.

St. Asaph, Bp.

Sudeley, L.

St. David's, Bp.

Suffield, L.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Ashburton, L.

Audley, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Aveland, L.

Teynham, L.

Belper, L.

Truro, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Vivian, L.

Ward, L.

Broughton, L.

Wensleydale, L.

Camoys, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Campbell, L.

Wycombe L. (E. Shelburne.)

Carew, L.

671

(PROXIES.)

York, Archbp.

Fitzgibbon, L. (E. Clare.)

Leeds, D.

Gardner, L.

Sutherland, D.

Godolphin, L.

Portland, D.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Anglesey, M.

Breadalbane, M.

Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

Cottenham, E.

Holland, L.

Craven, E.

Howden, L.

De Grey, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Devon, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Kenmare, L.

Harrowby, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Home, E.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Leicester, E.

Londesborough, L.

Lindsey, E.

Lovat, L.

Lovelace, E.

Lurgan, L.

Morley, E.

Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

Radnor, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Strafford, E.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Monson, L.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Waldegrave, E.

Yarborough, E.

Mostyn, L.

Zetland, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Overstone, L.

Panmure, L.

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Portman, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Stafford, L.

Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Stuart de Decies, L.

De Freyne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dorchester, L.

Vernon, L.

Dormer, L.

Wonlock, L.

Erskine, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

(PRESENT.)

Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Carnarvon, E.

Dartmouth, E.

De La Warr, E.

Beaufort, D.

Derby, E.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Desart, E.

Doncaster, E.(D.of Buccleugh and Queensberry.)

Cleveland, D.

Manchester, D. [Teller.]

Northumberland, D.

Ellenborough, E.

Rutland, D.

Erne, E.

Wellington, D.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Abercorn, M.

Hardwicke, E.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lonsdale, E.

Exeter, M.

Lucan, E.

Salisbury, M.

Macclesfield, E.

Winchester, M.

Malmesbury, E.

Amherst, E.

Mayo, E.

Bantry, E.

Nelson, E.

Bathurst, E.

Orkney, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Pomfret, E.

Belmore, E.

Romney, E.

Bradford, E.

Sandwich, E.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Seafield, E.

Cadogan, E.

Stamford and Warrington, E.

Cardigan, E.

672

Stanhope, E.

Clinton, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Talbot, E.

Colchester, L.

Verulam, E.

Colville of Culcross, L. [Teller.]

Westmoreland, E.

Wilton, E.

Crofton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Delamere, L.

Denman, L.

De Ros, L.

Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

Dinevor, L.

Canterbury, V.

Downes, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Feversham, L.

Forester, L.

Combermere, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

De Vesci, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Doneraile, V.

Grantley, L.

Dungannon, V.

Kenyon, L.

Exmouth, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Hardinge, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

Lifford, V.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Sidmouth, V.

Strathallan, V.

Polwarth, L.

Bangor, Rp.

Raglan, L.

Cashel, &c., Bp.

Ravensworth, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Rayleigh, L.

Llandaff, Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Sandys, L.

Seaton, L.

Abinger, L.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

Bagot, L.

Bateman, L.

Sondes, L.

Bayning, L.

Southampton, L.

Berners, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Bolton, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Saint Leonards, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton.)

Tenterden, L.

Walsingham, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Castlemaine, L.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Wynford, L.

(PROXIES.)

Richmond, D.

Melville, V.

Bath, M

St. Vincent, V.

Abergavenny, E.

Ardrossan, L. (E. Eglintoun.)

Aylesford, E.

Beverley, E.

Blayney, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Boston, L.

Cathcart, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Chesterfield, E.

Guilford, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Hillsborough, E.(M. Downshire.)

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Dunsandle and Clancnal, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Manvers, E.

Farnham, L.

Mount Cashell, E.

Gray, L.

Onslow, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Orford, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Portarlington, E.

Poulett, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Powis, E.

Middleton, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Moore, L.(M. Drogheda.)

Selkirk, E.

Strathmore, E.

Plunket, L. (Bp.Tuam, &c.)

Tankerville, E.

Vane, E.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Bangor, V.

Saltersford, L.(E. Courtoun.)

Hill, V.

673

Scarsdale, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Sinclair, L.

Templemore, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

House adjourned at One o'clock, A.M. (Saturday), to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.