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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    to a demand for twenty thousand men , in addition to the number now in India . He held that a Government which shrank from their duty so far as to pass over such a Proclamation in silence , -would have deserved impeachment { cheers ) , and there Should have been nobody so ready as the right hon .. gentleman , the member for Oxford , to reproach the President of the Board of Control for not having expressed an opinion upon the matter . " ( Cheers . ) The Government could not avoid pioducing the Proclamation . The ' Secretary for the India Board--was questioned in that House 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 bo put off ) then asked for information as . to ' the-nature ' of the reply . On this , the Chancellor

    of the Exchequer said that the ' Government ' had disapproved of the Proclamation "in every sense . " It was clear , therefore , that the Government bad . only done what they were obliged to do . 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 has a right ' to-know what is . going on : hidden diplomacy is the curse of the country . ( Jlear , Itear . ) 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 the motion .

    Sir Cn . vni . KS 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" authority , had promulgated opinions almost incompatible wiihitd 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 bug 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 the gentlemen who now sat upon the Treasury bench . The Opposition defended that clemency -when it was unpopular , and her Majesty ' s Ministers must not presume that they were the sole advocates of clemency and humanity . They had now become the advocates of clemency when it was popular ; but , when it whs unpopular , they joined the cry against it . It hud been said that the Proclamation would confiscate all . the rights of property in Oude ; but lie was astonished to hear the noble Lord , or any man ac qu ; unted with India , venture to say that it would be so lead in Ouclo , for it was directed solely against the landholders . ( Cries of ' The 2 < - 'opf < i . ' \ The Proclamation was addressed

    to the people of Oude ( tumultuous cries of . ' Jlecu \ hear ! ' on the Ministerial side ) ; but let lion , gentlemen read the iirst line of the lGth paragraph of Mr . Ednionstone ' d letter , irliich said : — « The foregoing remarks apply to the talookdnrs and chiefs of the provinces . ' ( ' Hear , hew , ' from the Opposition . ) From that it " was clear that it was only intended to apply to the chiefs , and not to the people or Oude . " Tlie landholders of that country oppressed and maltreated the people , for -whoso good it is desirable that the talookdur system should tie extirpated . That , however , was not , he conceived , the meaning of the Proclamation , which w / is of the usual character and in ' accordance with the policy pursued in the Punjub . 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 shonld not have boon published . T 2 ie responsibility of that publication could not be shifted upon one Minister ; it must be shared hy the whole Caliinct . " If they thought by the course thoy bad adopted that they would encourage anybody to come and lay down arnia , they w « r « j grievously mistaken ; the only outlet of their proceeding would i > e to encourage the continuance of the , insurrection . ( Hear , hear , from the . Opposition benches . ) The Government had acted on this poli <; v too late , ibr they should have assumed it at first , and spared the blood of their soldiera which was shed on their behalf . What would be Die moral eilbet on the people of India ? Why , in their opinion , any form of government would be butter

    than that vacillating one in which this country at present exhibited itself . That despatch , instead of being a messngo of peace , -was a firebrand of war . Ho did not know how they would prevent the misehiel that would » esult from its publication . Hut lie held that it was the duty of that House to protest at tho t-arhesl opportunity against the conduct of the Government . They werti bound to tins people , of India and of * - »« land to act in Hint manner , nnd to endeavour to conn-, 1 , !" * . m ° Gvil alrftll ( 1 . Y produced by censuring tbnt eoii-: " , ¦ * ° y shoul ( l teH th « people of India that then- did *"" " « " « «« eh doctrines as were contained in tliodospiucu , and that they were prepared to rolnin the imnsesanT ^ T ^ } ° th 0 m ^ lho vnl "" () 1 "ritiah troops , Jriiwinl ™ p , " ' m tho kll | K « ' «« aoiio , but on the principles of clemency and nu-rcy . " 1 IlA" » Y opposed the motion , which ho described

    as being shaped to catch votes . Extraneous matter hud been introduced into the discussbii by the Opposition , such , for instance , as the tortures practised in India under 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 had been done by a-former Government , in connexion with-which some members of the late Administration had censured an act of Lord Auckland , without giving him an opportunity to defend it . —Lord DuNkkli . in * contended that the people of Oude were rebels ; that they h ; id forfeited their laud ; and that Lord Canniutr might effect-great good bvdefining tenures and

    adjusting titles in Oude . The Government hid behaved unfairly to the-Governor-General , and . had shown from the Iirst a disposition to get rid of him . —Mr . 15 \ sa took a-similar view . —Mr , ' I 3 euesford Uorrc observed that there had never been a case in that House in which both sides came into court with sucli 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 Verr . on Smith , "but as a President of the Board of Control . The despatch of Lord Ellenboroiigh , 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 EilenboTough had rendered it unnecessary . — -Mr . Atiierton- and Lord Elcho supported the motion of Mr . Cardwell .

    Sir Robert Pkel said that the attack , on the Government was purely factious : India was made the battle-ground of party . If carried , however , the motion would increase the embarrassinent 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 mile in India had 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 svstem 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 Must of power' which he now enjoyed . Did bis Lordship wish to imitate the example . of the Spaniards in Mexico , and the Russians iii Poland ? ( Hear , 7 iear . ) Confiscation wfis carried out there , to the fullest extent . In 1740 , the confiscation of the estates of the leaders in the rebellion under the Pretender was all 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 . '" Cllcav , hear . )

    Sir G . C . Lkwis denied that the Opposition wore animated by party motives . They were acting- simplv out of , i 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 tlio deliberate intention of Lord Canning to deprive the people of Oude of , their lands . The publication of the despatch was mo . st improper , and it was clearly the deliberate act of the whole Government . Mr . WiiiTF . siivE Paid ho repudiated from his heart the policy indicated in " that awful Proclamation v . hich had been laid before them . ' " Tlie Houses would negative the resolution unless they would affirm a proposition which nobody could accurately explain nnd few clear ! v under

    stand . " I he motion was fiwionded by Ihe lion , and learned member for Cork ( Serjeant Densy ) , who , "with an accurate knowledge of the English language ( laugh-/< " ?•)> attempted to show that confiscation did not mean confiscation . How could a gentleman express such views us he had dono who hail such a strong opinion upon tenant right and fixity of tenure ( henr , hear ) , and the rights of all to reap the fruits of their industry in the land of their hirLh Y ( LunljFitar and ironical cheers . ) If they could only satisfy the lion , and learned gentleman that f . infiscalioii meant coiiiiacation , lio would bo one of the most linn supporters of the Government ,

    (/ . anyliter . ) lie trusted Unit ., ' on the hustings of Cork , liciVirn a free and penerous people , his opponent would nu'tit him with Ihe I ' roehimfttion in ono hand and the condemnation of it in the other ; that he would rend the Hontonee of confiscation of tho entire property of n nation , mid lho Hontcnco which condemned that unrighteous Proclamation , and would ask them if the hon . and learned gnntlcmnn vore a tviui represontivtivo of their opinions when ho defended tlie former document . 1 To now bogged to call the attention of the IIoumo to n ,. curtain document which lia < l Ueou inquired aftertho private letter received by thu right hon . member for Northampton . ( lUar , hear . ) Ho had to inform tho

    House that , by the mail of Satui ^ ay , three letters were received by Lord Ellenborough not addressed to him at the Board of Control , but at Iiis private residence , and every one of then was marked ' private , ' though concerning the public business . ( Loud cheers on the Ministerial benches ) . From the beginning to the end of them tliere w . is not one single line or word in reference to that astounding Proclamation , though it -was stated in tlie private note received by -th « right hon . member for Northampton , that a full explanation would be forwarded . He should 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 . ( IIea >\ hear . ) Could that letter be considered private in which it was stated that a full explanation of the Proclamation would be given ? He ( Mr . Wluteside ) admitted that human memory is fallible , but a written document is not slippery . ( LaujJiter . ) Let the right , hon . gentleman produce tlie document , and he ( Mr . Whiteside ) would be satisfied . ( Ministerial cheers . ) But , if the document was not produced , they would—unless they differed from everv asseinblv of men who had ever to

    inquire into human transactions—make their presumption against the 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 irt it . These -were the men w 3 io 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 . ( Ministerial cheers . ) Had two ex-ministers ever before been guilty of sucli unconstitutional conduct ? It would be an 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 lion , member for Northampton should be suppressed . But he wished to

    know whether tliere was no other letter on the subject . The late Government might have a bag full of letters , and it was a natural supposition that the promised explanation had arrived . It was not for him to impute motives ; but lie 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 , Mr . Whiteside called attention to manifestoes issued under similar circumstances by Lords Wellasley and Dalhousie , and challenged the production of any proclamation issued by the British Government in -winch 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 smallproperties—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 waiy with reference to which he had said , " Let justice be done , and I am content . " His Dordship's present sentiments were not those of the great historic Whigs 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 oh a distinct motion , and tr } r whether or not it is condemned by the House and the country .

    Lord Godkimch moved the adjournment of the debate ; and the Chancellor ov the Exciikquer and Lord Palmeustox expressed a . hope that all hon . gentlemen having motions on the paper for the following night would give way . —Sir Charles Nafiek refused to postpone a motion of which he bad given notice . Tho Non-Parochial K . i : gisteus ISill was read a third time , and passed . Certain routine business liaving been got through , tho House adjourned at half-past twelve o ' clock .

    2 ' uesday , May 18 th . T 1 W . ROYAL FAMILY OK OUI > I £ . I * i the IIoiteUC of Lords , the Earl of Albkmakl *; presented a petition from lveighlcy , in the West Hiding of Yorkshire , signed by 1300 persons , pray big for the restoration of the lioyal family of Oude . He had , on a previous occasion , stated that he could not support the prayer of u similar petition , and , in consequence of the sentiments expressed in Lord Ellenborough ' s despatch of the ll ) th of . April , and Approved of by the Groverutneut , petitions of this kind , instead of being sent to independent members , ahoulcl bo forwarded to tho . First Lord of tho 'I ' reusury , or to some of the Lords sitting on the Miuiaturial benches .

    TITI 5 OATHS MIX . On tho proposition of Lord Lvtfpmmsr , it wa > agreed that their Lordships should , on Monday - \ vook , take into consideration the reasons of tho House of Commons for disagreeing to their Lordships' amendments on the Oaths Uill .

    rnouKKss . The CoN , soLTr » ATi : r > Fund ( 11 , 000 , 000 / . ) Thr , L , mid the Stamp L > uty on Draits linx , were rend a second time . Their Tiordslupa adjourned nt half-pnst live o ' clock . Tint OATHS HILL . — CONFKIUCNCK WITlf TIIK LOHDfl . In tho IIovkk ok Commons , at half-past four o ' clock , Lho SricAKicit reminded the House that the ho « r appointed for tlie conference with the Lords had arrived . — Lord John " Russkll accordingly moved that the members of tho committee- appointed " to draw up ronmoils for disagreeing with tho Lords' niiiendinunta should manage

    Untitled Article

    No . 4 , 26 , Mat 22 , 1858 . ] _ THE LEADEB . __ _ 483

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 22, 1858, page 483, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2243/page/3/