On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    JNTo. 426, May 22, 1858.] __ '. __ ¦: _ ...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Imperial Parliament. —-?—Ilfqnday, May I...

    to a demand for twenty thousand men , in addition to tlie number now in India . He held that a Government which shrank from their duty so far as to ¦ pass over such a Pi-oclamation in silence , would have deserved impeachment ( cheers ) , and there . would have been nobody so ready as the right lion , gentleman , the member for Oxford , " to reproach the 1 ' resident of . Board of Control for not having expressed an opinion upon the matter . " { Cheers . ) The Government could not avoid piodueing the "Proclamation . The Secretary for the India- board was questioned in that Housp . by Mr . Bright as to-whether the Proclamation had been answered . He said it had been ; and Mr . Bright ( who is not a man to-be put off ) , then . ngked for information as to the nature of the reply . On this , the Chancellor

    of the Exchequer said that the Government had disapproved of the rrucla ' . iiatLoii " in every sense . " It was clear , therefore , that the Government had only done what they ' ' re obliged to d > . If they had not produced it , they would have been blamed ; if they had not answered it , it would have been said that they approved it . It is one of the peculiarities of a country like our own that we should know what is going on in the Government . The House lias a right to know , what is going ^ on : hidden diplomacy is the curse of the country . ( Ilear , hear . ) If the Government were defeated on this question , what would the House get in exchange ? "Why , a Government that had neglected the honour of England . If the House sought simple honesty , simple justice to the people of India , they would give a decided negative to tlie motion .

    Sir Charli-: s Wood complained that the attention of the House had been diverted from the real question at issue . The supporters of the resolution contended , that the Government ^ in prematurely condemning Lord Canning ' s Proclamation , in condemning it in such strong terms , and , worse than all , in publishing- their condemnation , to the detriment of the Governor-General ' s anthority , had promulgated opinions almost incompatible -with , its maintenance- The question raised was irrespective of Lord Canning ' s policy in Oude , regarding which there was a deficiency of evidence . " It was not long that

    clemency to the people of India had become popular ; it was not long since a petition had been presented from Calcutta , denouncing a too indulgent policy towards the people of India { cries of ' The Sepoys' ); and that petition was endorsed by some of thegentlemen who . now sat upon the Treasury bench . [ J'he Opposition defended that clemency ivlien it tvas unpopular , and her Majesty ' s Ministers must not presume that they were ths sole advocates of clemency and humanity . They had now become tlie advocates of clemency when it was popular ; but , when it wad unpopular , they joined the cry against it , It hid been said that the Proclamation would cunliscate

    all the rights of property in Oude ; but he was astonished to he . a . r the noble Lord , or any man acquainted with India , venture to say that it would be so read in Oude , for it was directed solely against the landholders . ( Cries of ' The people . ') The . Proclamation was addressed to the people of Oude ( tumultuous cries of ' Hear , Jiear ! ' on the MinUtcrial side ); but lot hon . gentlemen lead the first line of the l ( 3 th paragraph of Mr . Edmonstonc ' s letter , which said : — ' The foregoing remarks apply to the talookdars and chiefs of the provinces . ' ( ' Jlenr , Itestr , ' J ' rom the Opposition . ) From that it was clear that it was only intended to apply to the chiefs , and aiot to the people of Oude . " The landholders of that country oppressed iiml maltreated the people , for whose

    good it is desirable that the tnloolular system should he extirpated . Thai , however , was not , he conceived , the meaning of the Proclamation , which was of the usual character and in accordance with the policy pursued in the Punjab . However , if the Government had thought the Proclamation too severe , they ought to have reproved Lord Canning in more appropriate terms , and not with harshness and invective . Furthermore , the reproof should not have be <; n published . Tlie responsibility of that publication could not be shifted upon one Minister ; it must bo . shared by the whole Cabinet . " If they thought 1 > y i he course they had adopted tlmt they would encourage anybody to como and lay down arms , they were grievouslv mistaken : the onlv effect

    of their proceeding would he to encourage the continuance of th « insurrection . { Hear , / tear , J ' nmi th-c Opposition bemhes . ) The Government liad acted on this policy too late , for they should have assumed it at first , and spared the blood of their soldiers which was shed on their behalf . What would ho the moral elrcot ou the people of India ? Why , in their opinion , any form of government would bo better than that vacillating one in which this country at present exhibited itself . That despntch , instead of being n message of pc-uee , was a firebrand of war . Ho did not know how they would prevent the nnsclnuf thnt would

    result from its publication . Hut he held tlmt it , was the duty of that House to protest at tho ourlieat opportunity against tho conduct of tho ( iovcrn-Jiicnt . They ww bound to (! k > people of India and oi J ' . iigliuid to jiet in that , manner , nnd to endeavour to counteract , the evil already produced by censuring that conduct . They Hhould toll the people of India that they did not hold Much doctrines ns wore contained in tlie despatch , nud that : they were prepared to retain the possessions preHcrved to them by the valour of British troops , and tomlo () u , |(! , not ns tho king had done , but on th

    as being shaped to catch votes . Extraneous matter had been introduced into the discussion by the Opposition , sucli , for instance , as the tortures practised in India imder native princes , which could be paralleled by those perpetrated in this country by our own kings . If it was an error to condemn an act of a Governor-General before his explanation had been received , it was no more than liad been done by a former Government , in . connexion with Avhich some members of tho late Administration had censured an act of Lord Auckland , without giving him an opportunity to defend it . —Lord Dunki : i / mx contended that the people of Oude were rebels ; that they had forfeited their land : and that Lord Canning mitrlit . eilecfc great good by defining tenures and

    adjusting titles in . Oude . The Government had behaved unfairly to-the-Governor-General , and had shown from the ( irst a disposition to get rid of him . —Mr . . BvxG ' took a similar view . — : llr , Bkuksford Hope observed that there had never been , a case in that House in -which both sides came into court-with such dirty hands as they showed in the present instance . On the one hand , they had a tried public servant hastily censured ; and , on the other hand , there was the member for Northampton exulting in the fact that he had withheld from the present Government a letter -which he had opened , not

    in the character of Vernon Smith , but as a President of the Board of Control . The despatch of Lord Eilenborough , -with its harsh language , would encourage rebellion in India ; but , with , the suppression of . the letter by the late Government In view , it was difficult to decide what course should be taken on the question before them . Still , he ' should vote against the motion implying censure , because he thought the resignation of Lord Ellenborough had rendered it -unnecessarj * . — Mr . Atoerton and Lord ItLcnro supported the motion of Mr . Card well .

    Sir Robert Peel said that tlie attack on the Government Aras purely factious : India was made the battle-ground of party . If carried , however , the motion would increase the embarrassment in India . In the course of our century of rule there , we had absorbed something like two hundred independent sovereignties ; and he could not but recognize the cogency of the fourteenth paragraph of Lord Ellenborough's despatch , in which " ' the revolt of Oude was put in the light of legitimate warfare . Lord Canning's rule in India bad been marked by many excellent features , and he had been placed under great difficulties .- ; but now that the neck of the rebellion had been broken , he came forward and recommended a system of confiscation such as had never been heard of in India , and was almost unparalleled in

    the history of the civilized world . " His Lordship had obtained the name of ' Clemency Canning ; ' but that was before he had . tasted the ' lust of power' which he now enjoyed . Did his Lordship wish to imitate the example of the Spaniards in Mexico , nnd the Russians in Poland ? { Hear , hear . ) Confiscation was carried out there , to the fullest extent . " In 1740 ' , the confiscation of the estates of the leaders in the rebellion . under the Pretender was . ill that the Government aimed at ; the estates of the followers remained untouched . And that was an example that Lord Canning might have followed . lie had heard that the Directors of the East India Company had met , and passed a vote of confidence in Lord Canning . If this were true , it was one of the most striking examples of the mischief arising from a ' double Government . '" ( JJear , hear . )

    Sir G . C . Lewis denied that the Opposition were animated by party -motives . They wore acting simply out of a sense of duty , lie did not believe that the Proclamation bore the meaning which bad been put on it , and ho could not think that it was tho deliberate intention of Lord Canning to deprive the people of Oude of their lands . The publication of the despatch was most improper , and it was clearly the deliberate act of the wholo Government . Mr . Wnni : sri > K paid he repudiated from hia heart tho policy indicated in " that , awful Proclamation which had been laid before them . " The House would negative the resolution unless they would affirm a proposition which nobody could accurately explain and few clearly * under .

    stand . " The motion was seconded by the hon . nnd learned member for Cork ( Serjeant Doasy ) , who , with an accurate knowledge of the English language ( laughter ) , attempted to show that confiscation did not mean confiscation . How could a gentleman express such views as lie had done who had such a strong opinion upon tenant right and fixity of tenure ( Jicar , hear ) , and the rights of all to reap the fruits of their industry in the land of their birth ? ( Lawjhtcr < tn < 1 ironical cheers . ) Tf they could only satisfy the hon . and learned gentleman that confiscation meant confiscation , he would be ono of the most firm supporters of tho Government .

    ( l . aurjhtd ' . ) He trusted that , on the hustings of Cork , before a free and generous people , his opponent would moot , liim with the Proclamation in one hand and the . coiidominition of it in the other ; that lie would rend the sentence of confiscation of tho entiro property of a nation , and the sentence which condemned that unrighteous I ' rni-lamation , and would ask them if the hon , and learned gentleman were a trim representative of their opinions when ho defended the former document . Ho now bpggodto cull the attention of tho . House to a ei'i'tnin document which had boon inquired after—( ho private letter received by tho right lion , member for Northampton , ( // car , hear . ) Ho had to inform tlie

    Hoiirfe that , by the mail of Satui Jay , three letters were received by Lord Ellenborough not addressed to-him at ¦ the Board of Control , but at his private residence , and everyone of the . n was marked ' private , ' though concerning the public business . ( Loudcheers on the Ministerial benches ) . From the beginning to the end of them there was not one single line or word in reference to that astounding Proclamation , though it was stated in the private note i-eceived by the right hon . member for Northampton , that a full explanation would be forwarded . He sliould like to have the opinion of a statesman like Viscount Palmerston , with half a century's experience , as to what was to be considered a private letter . ( Jhar , hear . ) Could that letter be considered private in

    which it was stated that a full explanation of the Proclamation would oc-given ? He ( Mr . Whiteside ) admitted that human memory is fallible , but a written document is not slippery . ( Lavjhter . y Let the right hon . ' gentleman produce the document , and he ( Mr . Whiteside ) would be satisfied . ( Ministerial cfieers . ) But , if the document was not produced , they would—unless they differed from every assembly of men who had ever to inquire into human transactions—make their presumption against tbe man who , being called upon to produce a written document , did not pledge his honour that it was destroyed , "but , under good and sage advice , refused to produce it , and then quibbled about a particular word in it . These were the men who came forward with loud

    protestations fjr the honour of the country , while they appeared to be a little forgetful of what was due to their own honour . { Ministerialcheers . ) Had two ex-ministers ever before be ^ n guilty of such unconstitutional conduct ? It would bean insult to the understanding of the House if they were asked to believe that a document of the nature of that addressed to the right hon . niember for Northampton should * be suppressed . But he -wished to know whether ' , there was no other letter on the subject . The late Government might have a bag full of letteri-, and it -was a natural supposition that the promised explanation had arrived . It was not for him to impute motives ; bufc he had so high an opinion of the noble Viscount ' s faculties that he believed he had some reason

    for what he did . With , respect to Lord Canning ' s Proclamation , ADv TThiteside called attention to manifestoes issued under similar circumstances by Lords " Wellesley and Dalhousie , and challenged the production of any proclamation issued by the British Government in which private property was not respected . This monstrous document of Lord Canning ' s could only be understood to be fulminated against both the large landholders and the holders of small properties—a class martial as well as agricultural . Lord John Russell had condemned the

    " policy' of Lord Ellenborough ' s despatch ; but his Lordship had assumed different ground in connexion , with the Chinese war , with reference to which he had said , " Letjustice be done , and I am content . " His Lordship ' s present sentiments were not those of the great historic AVhigs of former days , who condemned the rapacious acts of Warren Hastings . If the Opposition disputed the justice of the course taken by Government , let them bring the question to an issue on a distinct motion , and try whether or not it is condemned-, by the House and the country .

    Lord Godkrioii moved the adjournment of the debate ; and the Chancei . t . ou of the Exchequer , and Lord Palmeustost expressed a hope that all hon ,. gentlemen having motions on the paper for the following night would give way . —Sir Charles NArircu refused to postpone a motion of which he had given notice . The Nos-Pauochiai , Registers Bill was read a third time , and passed . Certain routine business having been got through , the House adjourned at lialf-past twelve o ' clock .

    Tuesday , May 18 th . THE KOYAL FAMILY OK OUDIC . Iii the House or Lords , the Earl of AL . BEMARL . ii presented ; i petition from Keighloy , in tho West Hiding of Yorkshire , signed by 1300 persons , praying for the restoration of tbe lioyal family of Oudo . He had , on a previous occasion , stated that he could not support the prayer of a , similar petition , and , in consequence of the sentiments expressed in Lord EMenborougirs despatch of tho 19 tli of April , and approved of by tho Government , petitions of this kind , instead of being sent to independent members , should be forwarded to the First Lord of the Treasury , or to some of tho Lords sitting on the Miniatcriul benches . THE OATHS Bn-T .,. On the proposition of Lord LYsmimnsT , it was agreed tlwit their Lordships should , on Monday week , take into consideration the reasons of the House of Commons for disagreeing to their Lordships' amendments or : the Oaths Hill .. PltOGHtTCSfl OV nUSINEflS . The CoKsor-inATBi ) Fund ( 11 , 000 , 0007 . ) Bn-i ,, and tVo Sxamt Duty on Drafts flu-i ,, w ore road a second time . Their Tjcrrdahips adjourned at half-past Civa o ' clock . THE OATHS I 1 IU ,, — CONKKItKNCIS WITH 'JI 1 K 1-OKDS , In the House ok Commons , at half-pnst four o ' clock , the Sprakkii reminded tho House thnt the hour nppointed for tho confmMicc with the Lords hud arrived . — Lord John Uussku ., accordingly moved ttiat tho members of tin ) committee- appointed to draw up ransom for diaagnjoUijr with the Lords' ninondments sliould manage

    Jnto. 426, May 22, 1858.] __ '. __ ¦: _ ...

    JNTo . 426 , May 22 , 1858 . ] __ ' . __ ¦ : _ ¦ _ ¦¦¦ T 11 JW Ju JbWL AJ ± iJLt . __ 483

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 22, 1858, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_22051858/page/3/