Vtlutito unit Vrnaticiugo it Vartirinaut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.
HOusg or Loans. Monday, May 10. Lord Canning and the Government ; Con- versation—Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill read a third time and passed—Excise Duties Bill read a third time and passed—Exchequer Bonds (2,000,0001.) Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, May 11. Royal Assent to Exchequer Bills (20,911,500/0 Bill, Exchequer' Bonds (2,000,00014 Bill, Excise and Customs Duties Bills—Lord Canning and the Government ; Lord Ellenborough's Statement—Transfer of Land Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, May 13. Ascension Day, no7sitting. Friday, Slay 14. The Ellenborough Despatch ; Lord Shaftesbury's Motion, "previous question" carried. Horse or Commas. Monday, May 10. Lord Canning and the Government ; Mr. Cardwell's Notice of Motion—The Oaths Bill ; Lords' Amendments considered— Military Matters ; Conversation on—Prince Edward Island Loan ; leave given to bring in a bill. Tuesday, May 11. The Oaths Bill ; Baron Rothschild nominated on the Com- mittee—illininK at Hanley ; Mr. Ricardo's Motion—Private Bill Committees ; Lord R. Cecil's Motion—Barrack Accommodation ; Lord Ebrington's Resolutions—Stamp Duty on Draughts Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, May 12. Poor-Bates Metropolis ; Mr. Ayrton's Bill withdrawn— Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Bill read a second time. Thursday, May 13. The Oude Proclamation ; Mr. V. Smith's Explanation—The Oaths Bill ; Report of the Committee agreed to—Masters and Workmen Bill with- drawn—Joint-Stock Companies Bill read a second time—Church-Rates Abolition Bill passed through Committee. Friday, May 14. The Ellenborough Despatch ; Mr. Cardwell's Motion, debate adjourned.
TIME-TABLE.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. Ali:iamb:tient. Monday
Tuesday 4h .(rn lh 15w 9b .(.(m12h 15m 511 .(m) lh Om Friday Noon .... 5h oin
4h .(m) Ilk 45m Thursday No sitting. Thursday Wednesday Friday 4h . (m) Ilk hiss Sittings this Week, 3; Time, 12k lam Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 40k Om t..
—this Session. 49; — 100h 95m his Session 60; — 396h 12 THE OVDE PROCLAMATION.
Signs of a battle of parties on the conduct of the Government towards Lord Canning appeared early in the week. [There was a meeting at Cambridge House, Lord Palmerston's residence, on Sunday.] On Monday, the Earl of Suarressony gave notice that on Friday he would move a resolution condemnatory of the publication of the late despatilh to the Governor-General.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved that the despatch' should be produced in extenso. He explained that the whole had been placed before the House of Commons, but not before the House of Lords, in consequence of an accident. 'He had intended to present the whole. At a late period, Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and himself, agreed that certain passages should be omitted. But in the mean time Mr. Baillie, the Secretary of the Board of Control, had already laid the de- spatch in extenso before the other House. He also explained that copy of the despatch bad been sent privately and simultaneously to Lord Granville and Mr. Bright. In reply to questions, he said further, that there is no other in- formation bearing on the proclamation in his possession. He did net know that the proclamation had been published in India. For nearly a month the Governor-General had been silent with respect to that pr.- clamation. Earl Grusrvns.x said that Mr. Vernon Smith had received a private. letter from Lord Canning stating that the proclamation required an ex- planatory despatch, Lord ELIJENBORODIIII said. lie was quite unaware
The Lords.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday 5k . 61130m Tuesday Mt 7h 45m
Wednesday No
sitting.
of that. The Earl of MALMESBURY said that Lord Clarendon had sent him all' private letters on matters of public interest. It is the duty of a Minister to send such letters to his successor.
The result of a conversation on the subject was a statement that Mr. Vernon Smith had not received the note until after Mr. Disraeli had answered Mr. Bright.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE postponed his motion relating to the annex- ation of Oude "lest he should be supposed to sanction in any manner whatever the extraordinary conduct of the Government."
Very early in the sitting of the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. CARDWELL gave notice that on Thursday he should move the following resolution— .
"That this House, while it abstains from expressing any opinion upon the policy of any proclamation which may have been issued by the Go- vernor-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 are of opinion that such a course on the part of the Government must tend in the present circumstances of India to produce most prejudicial effects by weakening the authority of the Governor-Gene- ral, and by encouraging to further resistance those who are still in arms against us." (Cheers.) Further proceedings took place in the House of Lords on Tuesday of a very interesting character. First Lord SisAreasseuR-r laid on the table the terms of his motion. They are as follows- " 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 the 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 has reached this coun- try by correspondence published in newspapers that the intended proclama- tion has been issued, and with an important modification, no official ac- count of this proceeding having yet been received; that this House is there- fore still without full information as to the grounds upon 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 ajudg- ment 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 Godernor-General, since this public condemnation of his conduct is calculated to weaken the authority of the Govenor-General of India, and to encourage those who are now in mars against this country."
Next the Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that he had been led into an error in regard to the private note received from Lord Canning by Mr. Vernon Smith. He had been under the impression that Mr. Smith received the letter at the time Mr. Disraeli replied to Mr. Bright. He found that it was not so, but that the letter had been received before the .answer was made. Lord DERBY accepting this explanation asked the ,date of the letter. Lord LANSDOWNE said—after the 19th April, when the despatch was sent out. Lord DERBY said that the despatch, al- though dated April 19, was not sent out until April 26, so that had Mr. Vernon Smith given the note to Lord Ellenborougb, the object contem- plated by Lord Canning that the note and proclamation would reach the same hands would have been achieved, and Lord Ellenborough would not have been led into the premature condemnation of a policy which 'the Governor-General asked time to explain. It was the bounden duty of Mr. Smith to forward the letter to Lord Ellenborough. Lord GRAN- VILLE said he could not contest the principle that any one quitting office _should communicate all information on public matters to his successors. He had tried to read a letter to Lord Ellenborough in the lobby, but Lord Ellenborough entered upon such a long statement of his own views, that Lord Granville, after one or two ineffectual attempts to get a hear- ing, put the letter in his pocket in despair. As to the letter received by Mr. Vernon Smith he found it on his return from Ireland. It contained one meagre paragraph stating that Lord Canning would have liked to have sent an explanatory despatch along with the draft proclamation but had not had time. That was all the information Mr. Smith could have given the Government.
Lord ELLENEOROUGH said the despatch was written on the 18th, dated on the 19th, and sent on the 26th April, so that there would have been ample time to consider Lord Canning's letter to Mr. Smith. But further reflection convinced Lord Ellenborough that it was absolutely necessary to send the despatch as originally written. He was not accused of writ- ing the despatch. He had not yet heard any one find fault with it.
The only .question is—was it or was it not right to publish the letter which was written ? As I understand the resolution which is to be moved on Friday it relates to that question only. Now, my Lords, the publication of that letter was an act as wholly mine as the writing of the letter. I take upon myself the whole responsibility, and I will tell your Lordships how it happened that that publication took place. Some time before I had written a letter in contemplation of the capture of Lucknow, which was subsequently laid upon the table, and which was published as soon as we knew we were in possession of Lucknow in which I directed the Go- vernment of India, having exhibited their arength, to temper justice with generosity, to proclaim an amnesty, to disarm the people, and wherever the amnesty was proclaimed to establish the ordinary. administration of the law. I apprehended obstruction to the Government in the execution of these orders .from subordinate officers, maddened, as I expressed it by the scenes they had witnessed. I desired the Government to persevere in doing what theyy thought right, and I told them that in acting in that spirit they would have the unqualified support of her Majesty's Govern- ment. (Cheers.) Soon afterwards, my Lords, I received this proclamation, which is in direct contradiction to the principles laid down in the letter of which the noble earl opposite approved. (Cheers.) The principle of con- fiscation of the whole proprietary rights of the landowners of Oude was not clemency; it was inconsistent with amnesty ; it was persecution after defeat ; it was contrary to the principle laid down in the first letter, to the feeliugs of the Government, and to the principles upon which they had deter- mined to act. When I read that proclamation I felt it was my duty at once to eas my own sentiments on the subject, which were adopted by my noble friends. I should have been unworthy. of a scat in this House if I acted otherwise ; but I felt at the same time that if that proclamation were rally published as it stood before me, it was quite impossible that my
letter with respect to it should be withheld from the public. I knew that the moment the proclamation was published in this country questions would be asked in Parliament, and that neither in this House nor in the other House could the answers be satisfactory without the publication of this letter, which we could not resist. My Lords, l did desire its publica- tion ; and I will tell you upon what grounds. Having informed the Go- vernment of India that I would remove all obstructions raised against them by subordinate officers, and that I was determined they should be assisted and supported in doing what they thought right in the prosecution of principles of clemency, I was determined they should know—the governors as well as the governed—that the Cabinet were resolved to enforce that system of clemency be the person who he might who acted in opposition to the principles thus laid down. I felt and I still feel that letter is a message of peace to the people of India ; I hold that it lays down principles which, if not so laid down, never would have been generally adopted throughout that country ; I know that it will offer conciliation to those who dread re- tribution—that it will compel all in office to act in the spirit of the Govern- ment by which that letter was sent out, and therefore, for the public peace, I desired that that letter should go forth. But I take to myself the whole re- sponsibility of having given publicity to the letter. I know it was right to do so, and I did it at once. I might very properly, no doubt, have taken the letter to the Cabinet, and in the Cabinet have asked the opinions of my colleagues before deciding to make it public. That might have been the right course, but that course I did not adopt ; and therefore, to accuse my colleagues of any misconduct with respect to the publication of that letter is to raise a constitutional fiction. I am responsible, and let me alone bear whatever censure may be attributed to the act of publication. I thought this explanation to be due to my noble colleagues in this House, and to my right honourable friends in the other House of Parliament ; but now I have to consider, under these circumstances, what is my duty not only to my colleagues but to the people of India. I have served the people of India as much out of office as in office for nearly thirty years. The most earnest endeavours of my public life have been used with a view to their benefit, and I will not do any act towards the close of that public life which by possibility might injure their interest. This question will be differently construed in this country and in. India. Here it is a question between one party and another. (Cheers.) Here it is more a question whether my noble friend near me should remain in office, or whether we should submit to that to which we have an intuitive dislike— the restoration. This is the real practical question to be brought under the consideration of this and the other House of Parliament. (Cheers.) The question in India is a very different question. The question there will be understood to be the conflicting principles of confiscation and clemency ; and I feel satisfied that, according as the decision of this and the other House of Parliament may appear to incline to one or the other of those principles, there will be broadcast throughout India the seeds of perpetual war, or hopes will be given to the people of India and of England—the hopes of permanent reconciliation and peace. I know well that, be the public importance of a question what it may, and no matter how great may be the interests in- volved in it, personal considerations but too much sway the decisions of both Houses of Parliament. I have determined, therefore, to remove those per- sonal considerations. lam resolved that this question shall be considered on its merits ; and, determining to do everything I can to the last moment of my life for the benefit and peace of India. I have tendered to her Majesty my resignation, and it has been accepted."
Earl GREY would not anticipate the discussion on the propriety of publishing the despatch. But he protested against its going to the country that it is a question between confiscation and clemency. That is not an accurate version of Lord Canning's proclamation. He would not be dragged into the unfair course of discussing the justice of a policy while they were ignorant of the grounds Lord Canning may assign for it. The House is bound to reserve its judgment. As to the letter re- ceived by Mr. Smith, too much has been made of that. Until the home Government received a despatch, stating that the proclamation had been issued, they were bound to presume that some explanation would arrive in due time. The non-communication of the private letter left the Go- vernment in ignorance of nothing which they were not bound to imow without seeing that private letter.
Lord DERBY said the fault found- with the Government was, that on receiving the proclamation they had depressedtheir disapproval in a se- cret despatch, and he must say that the Gosteantoeut mien-undoubtedly of opinion that the issue of a proclamation *which confiscation was made the general rule would produce the most &rigorous consequences, driving many to despair and inducing others to cetaibine. (Cries of " Order ! ") Lord GRANVILLE rose to order. Lord Derby had spoken once and hod no right to make a speech applicable to a motion to come on at the end of the week.
The Marquis of SAusimay moved the adjournment of the House, but Lord ELLENBOROrGH saved them from that necessity by moving that the order for the second reading of the Chief Justice of Bombay Bill he
discharged. -
Lord DERBY continued his speech. It was the bounden duty of the Government not to lose a single mail in pressing upon the Governor-Ge- neral the apprehensions of the Government respecting the effect of the proclamation. Their despatch did :..ot enjoin Lord Canning to recall his proclamation. It only expressed a hope that he would mitigate the ri- gour of the doctrines he put forth.
" Although the proclamation as we have since received it does not go the length which I might desire in that sense, yet undoubtedlytlems paragraph, which has been inserted since the receipt of the copy to which. the despatch of my noble friend the President of the Council applied, doeamaterially mo- dify the terms of the original proclamation." '
The Earl of ELLENBOROUG11—" Not with respect to thiprinciple of con- fi • The Earl of DERBY—" My noble friend says not with regard to confisca- tion, but I hope and believe it must be the intention of the Governor-Gene- ral, although unfortunately he lays down confiscation as 'a rule, to make large exceptions, for the purpose not only of freeing from-farther penalties, but of restoring lands and property to those who may have forfeited them by their recent conduct." When the proclamation came home it excited considerable animadversion. "My right honoustible friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived late in the House thatslay.. A question of. which no notice had been given was immediately asked as to whether the procla- mation had been received, whether any despatch had been, written in an- swer to it, and whether we were prepared to lay that ilespotch upon the table of the House. Without any communication with 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or with any other person in either House of Parliament, un- fortunately, as I think, the Secretary to the Board of Control rose and at once stated that a despatch had been sent out, and would be laid on the table. Now, I concur with my noble friend the President of the Board of Control in thinking that sooner or later it was indispensable that that de- spatch should be published. Questions must have been asked as to whether such a despatch was scut and whether we approved the policy indicated in made." Lord Ellenborough, with t at frankness and honesty which character- ize him, said the act was his and that he alone should be responsible for the consequences. "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. 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 Govern- ment upon their liability for ah 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 de- fend ; or whether they should a mept the noble self-sacrifice of my noble friend, and thereby through his generosity allow his colleagues to have justice done to them. The conclusion to which I came, and I never felt greater pain than when I arrived at that determination, was that, in justice to the public interests, it was my bounden duty to accept the self- sacrifice of my noble friend; and, painful as I felt it to be to separate from one for whom personally I entertain the highest respect, whose knowledge of Indian subjects, whose long experience, whose devotedness to the cause of India, and whose entire abnegation of all selfish feelings for the promo- lion of the public welfare, render him an invaluable counsellor on Indian affairs—(sheers)—and whose withdrawal could not but be regarded as a great loss to the Cabinet of her Majesty, I yet felt bound by still stronger considerations, though with the deepest pain, to concur in the suggestion of my noble friend that his resignation should be received."
Lord GRANVILLE said he was not prepared for the important announce- ment made by Lord Ellenborough, in a speech most honourable and straightforward. What he wished to know was—whether Mr. Baillie was really not aware that that question would be put to him, and whe- ther ho gave his answer without knowing the wishes of his colleagues ? The Earl of Danny—" My noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) stated distinctly that Mr. Baillie gave the answer by his authority and on his responsibility, without the knowledge of any other member of the Ca-
could he have communicated with the noble earl upon the subject ?
been issued by the Governor-General of India in relation to Oude, or upon
The House of Lords did not sit on Thursday, but in the House of second is the obligation imposed on every Member to observe the for- Commons some further incidents occurred. In reply to a wide question malities which precede the discharge of his duties. The first is the only from Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST, Mr. DISRAELI said that he had no one to be determined. If there were a call of the House it would be the doubt the motive that led Lord Ellenborough to take the "not unconsti- business of the House to see that a Member did not take his seat without tutional but unusual course" he has taken was that he knew if the observing the necessary formalities. The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll had question of his resignation had been put to his colleagues " their regard been referred to. In that ease the House of Commons resolved to ap- for his personal qualities and their admiration of his genius would have led point a Committee of twenty-one Members to look into documents re- them unanimously to request him to withdraw that resignation." 1 lating to the peace recently concluded. The names were chosen by bal- Next, moved thereto by Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. VERNON SMITH entered lot, and among them was that of Sir Joseph Jekyll. He was at that upon an explanation of the reasons that induced him to withhold from time on circuit as Chief Justice of the County Maine of Chester. An Lord Ellenborough the passage in Lord Canning's private letter relating objection was raised that he had not taken the oaths, but the answer was to the Oude proclamation. This explanation was rather long, but the, this arose from no voluntary neglect on his part; and it was re- sum of it was, that he did not think the passage of importance sufficient ! solved that he was capable of being elected a member of the Committee, to call far its communication ; and he could not communicate the whole although he had not been sworn. It did not appear whether he sat letter because it was of a very private nature. Was he to tell Lord without taking the oath. Probably he did take it. What the Solicitor- Ellenborough that he had heard privately that Lord Ellenborough had General desired to show was that there was nothing in the act of Podia- received a despatch publicly ? Was he to assume that Lord Ellenborough meat to prevent the House from nominating Baron Rothschild to sit on would act without waiting for explanations ? He had at once read the i the Committee. But he would not pretend to say whether Baron Roth- passage to Lord Palmerston, who did not think that it should have been ! schild, before he sat on the Committee, would be bound to take the sent to Lord Ellenborough. ; oaths. On that point the precedent of Sir Joseph Jekyll is silent. The As some reports had gone abrorelyd a Mr. CARDWELL intended to mo- 1 act of George III. provides a penalty in case any one should vote without dify his resolution, he stated, in rply to Mr. DISRAELI and Mr. GIESON taking the oaths, and enacts that no one should claim to be a Member
that he should move it as it stood in the order book. ' 1 without taking the oaths. He did not say that the act applies to Com- Bill into consideration on Monday. ; Mr. WnrrsasAn argued that there was no real distinction between
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House should disagree to the voting in Committee and voting in the House. Were they sure that ob- amendment omitting clause 5. (This clause enables Jews to take the jections might not be raised in another place to the reception of a body oath without the words "on the true faith of a Christian."] He made a containing a Member who had not taken the oaths. Were they taking a very brief speech. The old oaths related to forgotten battles and causes. course likely to pave the way to conciliation ? Mr. HEADLAM said the If he were to frame a bill in accordance with his own !views, be should act mentioned voting in the House, and did not mention sitting on Com- put nothing in it but a simple oath of allegiance. He had inserted pro- ! mittees. He would not go one jot beyond the act of Parliament. Baron fessinns required by the prejudices of others in order to obtain a settle- Rothschild may be appointed on other Committees and manage the con- ment of the question. Again, the House had sent up the bill to the ference with the Lords. Mr. MACAULAY saw no force in the precedent, Lords by a majority greater than ever was known before. Another fact and characterized the course taken as highly derogatory to the dignity of is that the Government opposed the bill, so that we are living under a ' the House. Mr. COLLIER cited a passage from Hatsell's Precedents— Government opposed to the principle of religious liberty. I " Notwithstanding all these laws, which are introductory to a Member's the proclamation • and if the subject had given rise to discussione we should their opinions, the House might consider whether no other constitutional have been expected to show the terms in which we had written to the Govern- course is left to them.
or-General. ButI regret that that premature announcement should have been He would not enter at present into the reasons—which hereafter he hoped he might be spared to give to the House—why be thought he should be able to recommend a course of proceeding consistent with the duty of that House and consistent also with constitutional law and usage. He admitted that he should regard the necessity of taking that course as a very great sacri- fice, and would not adopt it without deep regret. Indeed, he should regret as a great misfortune the establishment of such a precedent—c' Hoar, hear !" from the Hinisterial benches)—the consequences of which he readily admitted it might be an exceedingly fearful thing to contemplate. He could assure the House that the course which he would recommend would be altogether clear of anything which would involve the House in the neces- sity of asserting by a strong hand its authority in overruling and overpower- ing in any way the ordinary authority of the courts of law. The result of the rejection of this clause by the House of Lords was that the bill was con- verted into a measure for imposing a greater amount of disabilities upon the Jews within these realms than they were exposed to antecedently to the introduction of the measure. He ventured to prophesy that it would be the herald to some further proceeding that would put an end to the ne- cessity of repeating these attempts to carry a measure by legislation in which both Houses of Parliament, acting in conformity with the public voice during the last thirty years, ought to concur. Sir JOHN Pexisurrox said that be adhered to the opinion referred to by Sir Richard Bethel, but he did not consider that it pledged him to submit a motion to the House. Mr. WA-RERN took great exception to the " minatory language" of Sir Richard Bethel.
On a division the House disagreed with the Lords' amendment by 263 to 150. The House also disagreed to the omission of clause 8. Then it was agreed, on the motion of Lord JOHN Busses!, that the following gentlemen should be appointed a Committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' amendments, and to present them at a conference—
Lord J. Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Pakington, Lord Stanley, Sir F. Kelly, Lord Palmerston, Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir G. Grey, ' Mr. Labouchere, Sir J. Graham, Sir R. Bethell, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Card- well, Mr. Bright Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hemmen Mr. Byng, Mr. Dill , Mr.
bmet. For myself, I had not the slightest idea that that question, or T. Buncombe, dr. Roebuck, Mr. Headlam, lir. Moncneff, Mr. J. D. Fitz-
gerald, Mr. Sergeant Deasy, Mr. J. A. Smith.
any other question upon that subject, was going to be put." I Mr. THOMAS Dr moved that Baron Lionel de Rothschild Earl GRANVILLE—" It has been stated that the question was put should be a-member of the Committee. He founded the motion on a without previous notice. Mr. Baillie must have had notice of it, or how'
recedent esblished in when Sir J Jek altho ugh had „ p
(A laugh.) not taken the oaths, was1715 nominated by 225 tooseph 117 toyll sit on a Committee
of Secresy. Mr. Dris.wyrs seconded the motion. It took the House
Lord Ellenborough's motion was then withdrawn, and the bill to by surprise. Mr. NEWDEGATE described it as absurd. Mr. Wasross
which it referred was read a second time. said he should not object, if Baron Rothschild were entitled to sit by a In the House of Commons no announcement was made of Lord Ellen- constitutional precedent. Mr. Bonmsaus said the act only prohibits a
borough's resignation. person who has not taken the oaths from " sitting and voting." Lord Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST gave notice that he should move as an Jens Russell. would vote for the motion if pressed. Mr. DIINCOMBE amendment to the resolution of which the honourable Member for Oxford said that if the effect of the motion should be that the House found itself had given notice for Thursday— 1 in an anomalous and absurd position " so much the better." Finally, " That this House, in its present state of information, abstains from ex- it was agreed that, as there were precedents to be looked into, the debate pressing an opinion upon the policy of any proclamation which may have should be adjourned until the next day.
the course pursued by the Government in reference to such proclamation." I When the debate was resumed on Tuesday, the Somerron-Gnsiesses eon- In consequence of Sir John Trelawny's resolve to persist in bringing cursed in Mr. Duncombe's motion. There are two questions which should on his Church-rate Bill on Thursday, Mr. CARDWELL, with the consent be kept distinct. One is the right of the House to call upon every Member
of Mr. Disraeli, postponed his motion of censure until Friday. ! to perform the duties which, as a Member, he has to discharge. The ; mittees. Baron Rothschild must inform himself on that point and act
THE OATHS BILL. I on such advice as he may think proper. Sir HUGH CAIRNS added that The House of Commons took the Lords' amendments of the Oaths Mr. Walpole entirely concurred with him.
Mr. NBWDEOATE opposed the motion. 1 taking his scat in the House, arson when returned, is, though he should
exclusively of Christians the Christian character of the House would be destroyed. The motion was carried by 251 to 196, and Baron Rothschild's name was added to the Committee.
The report of the Select Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' amendments to the Oaths Bill was presented to the House of Commons by Lord JOHN RUSSELL on Thursday, and re- ceived. It is as follows- " 1. Because the words ' on the true faith of a Christian,' were originally introduced in the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament with a view to bind certain Roman Catholics, and were not intended for the purpose of excluding persons of the Jewish persuasion. "2. Because the exclusion of British subjects from seats in Parliament and offices in the State on the ground of their religious opinions is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience. "3. Because no charge of disloyalty or unfitness for public employment and a fair share of legislative power has been alleged, or can be alleged, against the Jewish community. " 4. Because the infliction of disabilities upon any class of her Majesty's subjects solely on the ground of their conscientious adherence to their faith savours of persecution, and is totally inconsistent with those principles of religious liberty which, in the case of more powerful communities, have been applied by Parliament with such happy effects. "5. Because the Commons having already on ten previous occasions, and in five Parliaments, passed bills for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, and having of late years agreed to such bills by constantly increasing majorities, are convinced that the opinion of their constituents and of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in favour of the removal of such disablilities.
" 6. Because such bills have been supported by many of the most emi- nent Members of both Houses of Parliament, who, while differing upon other political questions, have concurred in the justice and expediency of measures for the relief of the Jews.
"7. Because the rights of the electors of the United Kingdom have been peculiarly affected by a law which has been construed to prevent the ad- mission to the House of Commons of persons who have been lawfully re- turned as Members of that House.
"8. Because the first and third clauses of the bill are open to the con- struction that the new oath which the former of them contains, should be taken not only in all cases where the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration are now required, but also where the oaths of allegiance and su- premacy are at present required, though without the oath of abjuration ; the result of which construction, if the bill should pass into law without the fifth clause, would be to exclude, the Jews from practising as solicitors and barristers, and from offices under the Crown, to which employments and offices they are now admitted.
" 9. Because such result would be contrary to the intention of the two Houses of Parliament, appearing from the sixth clause and from the title of the bill under consideration."
A motion that a conference with the Lords be desired was agreed to. CHURCH-RATES.
The House went into Committee on the Church-Rate Abolition Bill, on Thursday. The first clause abolishing church-rates led to a repeti- tion of the debate on the principle of the measure amidst recurring cries of "Divide !" On a division the clause was agreed to by 227 to 153. Clause 2, providing that church-rates may still be levied for the pur- pose of paying -off money due on the security of such rates, was agreed to. Clause 3, providing that the act should not extend to Scotland or Ireland, was omitted as unnecessary.
Sir ARTHUR &Tort moved several clauses, but only one was adopted. It provided that all rates made before the passing of the act might be levied. The bill passed through Committee.
MILITARY Msrraus.—On the motion for going into Committee of Supply General CODRINGTON complained of the present system of recruiting. It is not worthy of the country. We seduce by dishonourable and degrading means.- Sometimes the standard is high, sometimes low. The lowering of the standard for India has brought in recruits inferior in moral and physi- cal capacity. He recommended that we should pay well for men of 5 feet 6 or 7 inches, and induce them to enter the service by arrangements con- ducive to their comforts.
General PEEL said that in 1857 the strength of the Army was 157,000 men • in 1858 it is 223,000 men ; showing an increase of 66,000. So many men have been sent.to India that we have had to raise two new regiments of Cavalry, one of Infantry, the Canadian regiment, and twenty-five second battalions, and to raise the strength of the regiments. During the last eight months we have recruited 48,000 men. India requires many men, the casualties being so great, and sonic regiments on foreign stations must be relieved. These facts will show the pressure there has been for men. But some means might be employed to make the permanent staff of the Mi- litia more available for recruiting and drilling.
In Committee of Supply there was a smart discussion on barrack accommo- dation. Colonel Non= desired to see more money expended on ban-acks. Recentimprovements have actually curtailed the aoldier'saccommodation. Sir BARRY VERNEY, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, and Lord EBRINGTON, COM. plained of the enormous sums fooled away at Aldershot-413,7701. already, while 100,0001. more is required to complete the barracks. Lord EBBING- TON said that it is vain to try and bring up arrears of mismanagement with- out expense. Mr. TrrE said that the House had been liberal of its money, but the Government had not proceeded upon any distinct and well-under- stood plan. General PEEL said that the barracks at Aldershot are good bar- racks. The fault is in having permanent barracks there at all. But it is of no use to inquire what has been done or left undone in regard to barrack accommodation. He took the question as he found it, and he was pledged to consider the recommendations that may result from an inquiry now being made. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT concurred. He had confidence that General Peel would deal with the question in a proper spirit. BARRACK ACOOMMODA.TION.—Lord EBRINGTON moved the following resolutions, and supported them in a speech recapitulating facts derived from the Report of the Royal Commission with which our readers are already familiar- " That the long-continued excessive mortality of the British army has been mainly caused by the bad sanitary condition of the barrack accommodation. That this House has viewed with satisfaction the efforts of successive Governments, aided by Parliamentary grants, to improve the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of the British soldier, and is encouraged by the happy results of such efforts and grants to hope much from a continuance and furtherance of the same. That much still remains to be done with regard to barrack accommodation ; firstly, for its increase, with a view to the discontinuance, as far as may be, of the present practice of billet- ing, as being alike oppressive to the civilian and demoralizing- to the soldier; and, secondly, for its improvement, both with a view to the healthy accommodation of the troops in general, and to the decent accommodation of the married soldier. That in the opinion of this House such increase and improvement are imperatively called for, not lessby good policy and true economy than by justice and humanity."
Sir FREDERICK SMITH said that the truest policy with regard to the sol- dier is to make him comfortable, but he doubted whether Lord Ebrington'a objects could be accomplished. Mr. WILLIAMS complained that a pavillion had been built at Aldershot for the Queen, out of moneys voted for the ac- commodation of the soldier. Colonel NORTH in the name of the Army thanked Lord Ebrington for having brought the subject under consideration. Mr. PEASE objected that the present is not the time for any large outlay. Sir JOSEPH PAXTON supported the motion, and complained that barracks are unhealthily built and in unhealthy situations. Lord Paumnasvosr said the accommodation Lord Ebrington wished to provide is of the highest import- ance. Money spent in improving barrack accommodation is economically spent, for it promotes the efficiency of the Army. It is only of late years that mankind have found out that oxygen and pure air are really conducive to the well-being of the body ; and therefore he did not think blame could be attach- ed to those departments by which the evils have not hitherto been set right. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT defended the report of the Commission, and supported the motion. It is absurd to suppose that we can carry on improvements upon an enormous scale without considerable expense, but we cannot do any- thing so extravagant as to kill good men whom we have trained at a great expense. General PEEL repeated that he was ready to submit to the House the recommendations of the Commission. The motion was agreed to nem. eon.
THE METROPOLITAN Poon.—In moving the second reading of the Poor- rates Metropolis Bill, on Wednesday, Mr. AYRTON repeated his former statements tending to show that the rich parishes escape the burden of poor- rates which falls upon the poor parishes. By the prostitution of the law those best able to pay are exempted from payment. The people are suffer- ing injustice at the hands of certain wealthy noblemen and gentlemen. But the people will be heard ; the House must deal with the subject ; and he left the bill in the hands of the President of the Poor-law Board, with the warning that he would incur a serious responsibility by refusing to en- tertain the question. Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said the bill had been thrown into his hands charged with something like fulminating powder. If Mr. Ayrton had been as long a Member of the House of Commons as himself he would have known that threats held out to that assembly are rather calculated to prevent the realization of the object in view. He answered Mr. Ayrton's statistical statements, and showed that the bill would take from those who contribute the money all share in its expenditure, a proceeding at variance with the constitutional principle that taxation and representation should go together. He moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. The bill was opposed by Mr. BING, Sir BENJAMIN HALL, Mr. MILLER, and Mr. THO3IAS BUNCOMBE; and supported by Mr. JOHN LOCKE. Mr. AYETON then withdrew his bill, because he said lie could not stand against the argument that there should be a local supervision of local funds.
Joiner-STOCK BANNING.—Mr. HEADLAM moved the second reading of the Joint-Stock Banking Companies Bill. This measure extends the prin- ciple of limited liability to joint-stock banks. Mr. BLACK moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, and Mr. FINLAY, Mr. DRUMMOND, and Sir ROBERT CARDEN supported him. Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR, Mr. MALINS, and Mr. BAXTER supported the bill on the ground that the extension of the principle of limited liability to joint-stock banks would be beneficial ; while Sir GEORGE LEWIS supported the motion be- cause he thought they could not refuse to put those banks on a level with other trading associations. Mr. Disri.tnis gave a similar reason for the sup- port he gave the bill. It was read a second time.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.—In a Committee of the whole House, Lord STANLEY obtained leave to bring in a bill guaranteeing for twenty years the payment of a loan of 100,0001. to Prince Edward Island. Guarantees of colonial loans are objectionable in principle ; but this is a special and exceptional case. By Imperial legislation an absentee proprietary was imposed upon this colony. Grants of land, upon certain conditions, were made at low rates. The conditions have never been fulfilled ; and the colonists and the proprietary are in a state of perpetual hostility. The colonists have attempted to have the grants declared forfeit from non- fulfilment of conditions. They have attempted to drive away the pro- prietors by imposing undue taxation. Sir George Grey sanctioned this course hoping to avert greater evils. Mr. Labouchere declared he would re- sist such measures, and suggested that the question should be settled- by the purchase of the lands. The local Legislature agreed to the plan and asked for the loan of 100,0001. for twenty years to enable them to carry it out. The colony is free from debt, and has a small surplus. A sinking- fund will be provided. Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PRIVATE BILLS.—Lord ROBERT CECIL moved a resolution professing to transfer the investigations into the merits of private bills from Select COM- mittees to a paid and permanent tribunal. He urged that the beat men in the House do not sit on these committees, that they are varying and incon- stant; that their proceedings arc therefore contradictory, and that the pre- sent system entails enormous expense. Colonel WILSON PirrEN replied that if there were a preliminary inquiry there would still be an appeal to the House, and that a preliminary inquiry had been tried, had failed, and had been abandoned. Lord STANLEY admitted that the present system sa- tisfies very few persons, but he held that the difficulties in the way of i
amendment are insuperable. After a brief discussion the motion was with- drawn.
MINING AT HANLEY.—Mr. RICARDO moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the mining operations of the Duchy of Lancaster near the town of Hanley. His complaint was that mines had been made under the town of Hanley by the lessees of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that, unless some remedy were applied, the town would be swallowed up. The answer given by Mr. BAINES, Mr. WALPOLE, and Sir RICHARD BETH= was, that the in- quiry would do no good ; that the persons who had suffered had bought and sold land and built houses with a full knowledge of what was going on un- derground; and that if the lessees had done anything wrong, the true remedy was in an action at law. The motion was negatived, by 128 to 63.
THE OUDE PAPERS.—The following is a copy of the instructions which accompanied Lord Canning's proclamation, addressed to the Ad- ministration in Oude.
" Allahabad, March 3, 1858. " Sir—I am directed by the Right Honourable the Governor-General to enclose to you a copy of a proclamation which is to be issued by the Chief Commissioner at Lucknow, so soon as the British troops, under his Ex- cellency the Commander-in-chief, shall have possession or command of the city. "2. This proclamation is addressed to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude only, and not to the Sepoys. " 3. The Governor-General has not considered it desirable that this pro- clamation should appear until the capital is either actually in our bands, 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 ca- pable of perversion, if not preceded by a manifestation of our power; and that this would be especially the ease at Lucknow, which, although it has recently been the scene ofimparalieled heroism and daring, and one of the most brilliant and successful feats of arms which British India has ever wit- nessed, is still sedulously represented by the rebels as being beyond our power to take or to hold. " 4. If an exemption almost general, from the penalties of death, trans- portation, 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 u likely that resistance would have been en- couraged by the seeming exhibition of weakness, as that it would have been disarmed by a generous forbearance. "5. Translations of the proclamation into Hindee and Persian accompany this despatch. "6. It will be for the Chief Commissioner in communication with his Excel- eney the Commander-in-chief, to determine the moment at which the pro- clamation shall be published, and the manner of disseminating it through the province ; as also the mode in which those who may surrender them- selves under it shall be immediately and for the present dealt with. " 7. This last question, considering that we shall not be in firm possession of any large portion of the province when the proclamation begins to take effect, and that the bulk of our troops, native as well as European, will be needed for other purposes than to keep guard through its districts, is one of some difficulty. It is clear, too, that the same treatment will not be appli- cable to all who may present themselves. " 8. Among these there may be some who have been continuously in arms against the Government, and have shown inveterate opposition to the last, but who are free from the suspicion of having put to death or injured Europeans who fell in their way. " 9. To these men their lives are guaranteed and their honour ; that is in native acceptation, they will neither be transported across sea, nor placed in prison. " 10. Probably the most easy and effectual way of disposing of them, in the first instance, will be to require that they shall reside in Lucknow under surveillance and in charge of an officer appointed for that purpose. " 11. Their ultimate condition and place of residence may remain to be determined hereafter, when the Chief Commissioner shall be able to report fully to the Governor-General upon the individual character and past con- duct of each.
" 12. There will be others, who, although they have taken up arms against the Government, 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. " 13. One obvious security will be that of making it clearly understood by them, that the amount of favour which they shall hereafter receive, and the condition in which they shall be reestablished, will be in part dependent upon their conduct after dismissal. 14. The permission to return to their homes must not be considered as a reinstalment of them in the possession of their lands, for the deliberate disposal of which the Government will preserve itself unfettered. " 15. There will probably be a third class, less compromised by acts of past hostility to the Government, in whom the Chief Commissioner may see reason to repose enough of confidence to justify their services being at once enlisted on the side of order, towards the maintenance of which in their respective districts they might be called upon to organize a temporary police. "16. The foregoing remarks apply to the talookdars and chiefs of the province. As regards their followers who may make submission with them, these, from their numbers, must of necessity be dismissed to their homes. But before this is done their names and places of residence should be regis- tered, and they should receive a warning that any disturbance of the peace or resistance of authority which may occur in their neighbourhood, will be visited, not upon the individual offenders alone, but by heavy fines upon the villages.
" 17. I am to observe that the Governor-General wishes the Chief Com- missioner to consider what has been above written as suggestions rather than instructions, and as indicating generally the spirit in which his Lord- ship desires that the proclamation should be followed up, without tying down the action of the Chief Commissioner in matters which may have to be judged under circumstances which cannot be foreseen.
18. There remains one more point for notice.
" 19. The proclamation is addressed to the chiefs and inhabitants of Oude, not to mutineers.
"20. To the latter, the Governor-General does not intend that any over- ture should be made at present. "21. But it is possible that some may surrender themselves, or seek terms, and it is necessary that the Chief Commissioner should be prepared to meet auy advances from them.
"22. The sole promise which can be given to any mutineer is that his life shall be spared ; and this promise must not be made if the man belongs to a regiment which has murdered its officers, or if there be other prima fade reason to suppose that he has been implicated in any specially atrocious crime. Beyond the guarantee of life to those who, not coming within the above stated exception, shall surrender themselves, the Go- vernor-General cannot sanction the giving of any specific pledge.
" 23. Voluntary submission will be counted in mitigation of punishment, but nothing must be said to those who so submit themselves, which shall bar the Government from awarding to each such measure of secondary punishment as in it justice it may deem fitting. "I have, &c. (Signed) G. F. EDMONSTONE." The copy of the despatch of Lord Ellenborough to Lord Canning pre- sented to the House of Lords did not contain the following paragraphs, but they were included in the copy presented to the House of Commons. " 8. 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 hare of national feeling. " 9. We cannot but in justice consider, that those who resist our au- thority in Oude, are under very different circumstances from those who have acted against us in provinces which have been long under our govern- ment.
" 10. We dethroned the King of Oude, and took possession of his king- dom, 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.
" 11. That sovereign and his ancestors had been suniformly faithful to their treaty engagements with us, however ill they may have governed their subjects.
" 12. They had more than once assisted us in our difficulties, and not a suspicion had ever been entertained of any hostile disposition on their part towards our government.
" 13. 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 long given wealth, and distinction, and power to their families."
Previous page
