HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 607, 1 September 1858, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

May 14,

Mr. Carbwell moved the resolution of which he had given notice : —" 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." The right honourable gentleman having referred to the published and unpublished paragraphs in the despatch, proceeded to animadvert upon the attack made by the Government upon the proclamation and government of Lord Canning, and that at a time when-that, nobleman Avas grappling with the terrible rebellion that raged around him, and was using all his powers to preserve India to his country, and to maintain the dominion of his Sovereign and the authority of the Government which he represented in the disturbed provinces. He submitted that the act of the Earl of Ellenborough in writing the despatch condemning Lord Canning's government was the act of the Government, and that the resignation of Lord Ellenborough could not relieve them from their share of responsibility in the matter, contending that the

writing of the despatch was the collective act of the government, and not the separate act of a member of the Government. Mr. Deasy seconded the motion, contending that the proclamation of the Governor-General was .not one of either confiscation or undue severity, and that he had been most harshly treated by the Ministry. The Solicitor-General said the resolution was, in fact, intended to facilitate an attack on the Treasury benches in this country, and had no reference to operations in India. But though the assault has been confided to able hands, Mr. Gardwell had not acted according to the rules by which such attacks were regulated. The resolution was a complex proposition, which first called upon the House to pronounce no opinion on the policy of the proclamation ; secondly, to censure the Government for having condemned that policy; and lastly, to censure them for having published that censure. Unless the House discussed the first proposition, and decided whether or not the policy of the proclamation was wrong, it could not approach either of the other two questions. The honourable and learned gentlemen quoted Vattel and other authorities, to show that the mode of dealing with the people of India recommended by Lord Ellenborough was consonant with the 'law of nations, humanity, and justice, and then proceeded to justify the publication of the despatch. He called on the House, by its sense of justice aud humanity, to pronounce its decided opinion upon a motion which was intended to embarrass Ministers, and displace them from office, and which had been prepared and concocted by a cabal.

Mr. Lowe denounced the conduct of the Government for writing and . publishing so offensive a despatch to the Governor-General, before, at all events, they received his explanations. The right honourable gentleman concluded by calling upon the Government, if they did not avow the despatch, to go out into the lobby and join in a vote of censure upon themselves.

Mr. Lindsay said he disapproved of the proclamation of Lord Canning more than even of the despatch of Lord Ellenborough; and in his opinion it was far more dangerous to the safety of our position in India. Believing that there was more real advanced Liberalism among the present Ministers than in the ranks of the Whigs, he would be no party to ousting the Government from office, but would support the policy avowed by Lord Ellenborough, believing it to be one of justice tempered with, mercy. Lord A. V. Tempest censured Lord Canniug's proclamation, and contended that it was most unfair to ask for a vote of censure on Ministers, at the same time precluding, by the terms of" the house, all discussion regarding the causes that had induced the Government to act as it had done. The noble lord concluded by withdrawing his amendment, that the house should not express any opinion on either the policy of the Governor-General or the Government at home.

Mr. Dillwyn moved an amendment, to the effect^ that the house generally approved of Lord Canning's policy, but declines giving an opinion on the proclamation until it had further information.

Colonel Sykes said it never was intended by the Indian Government to carry out the policy of confiscation.

Mr. Baillie opposed the motion. Mr. Vernon Smith said the question before the House was not the policy of the proclamation issued by Lord Canning, but whether it was wise and politic for the Government to issue and publish the despatch now under consideration. He had no hesitation in saying that as he condemned the. despatch, he should vote for the motion which censured the Government for sending such a despatch to Lord Canning. Lord Stanley felt the deepest regret that a promise to produce the despatch was given in the first instance to the House of Commons. It was done at the instance of Lord Ellenborough, without the knowledge of his colleagues, and when it was given it could not be recalled. He hoped the motion was not made to serve party purposes; but be that as it may, the Government had reason to thank the right honorable gentleman for Oxford for having given them the opportunity of showing what their policy was. That policy was one of humanity and justice; and a better or more creditable battle-ground could not be.

Lord John Eussell said the argument of the Solicitor-General and other honorable gentlemen who spoke on the same side, resolved itself into this, that if you acquit the Government, you cast the severest reprobation upon the conduct and course of Lord Canning. Now that was not the question in issue. The question was whether the Government was not responsible, as a whole, for the despatch written by one of its members. Looking at the responsible position which Lord Canning held, it was his conviction that nothing could be more indefensible than both the writing and the publication of Lord Ellenborough's despatch, which partook more of the character of a political lampoon than a State document.

On the motion of Mr. Roebuck, the debate was adjourned to Monday, and the other orders having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter past twelve.