13thatto nutr Vturttlaugo iu Varlioutut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

Homni or Loans. Monday, May 17. Protection of Female Children Bill com- mitted—Chief Justice of Bombay Bill read a third time and passed—Loan Societies Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, May 18. No business of importance. Thursday, May 20. Protection of Female Children Bill read a third time and passed—Stamp-duty on Draughts Bill read a third time and passed—Consolidated Fund (11,000,0001.) Bill read a third time and passed—Lord Canning,'s Explanations laid on the table.

Friday, May 21. Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund (11,000,0001.) Bin, Stamp Duty on Draughts Bill, Loan Societies Bill—House adjourned to the 31st May.

Horse ON COMMONS. Monday. May 17. The Vote of Censure ; Debate resumed and adjourned.

Tuesday, May 18. The Dude Proclamation ; Questions and Answers—Real Pro. perty ; Mr. Williams's Motion—Public Playgrounds ; Mr. Slaney's Bill read a first time—Manning the Navy ; Sir Charles Napier's Motion—Weights and Measures Bill thrown out—Church Rates Abolition Bill considered as amended—Stamp-duty on Passports Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, May 19. No sitting Derby-day. Thursday, May 20. Lord Canning's Private Letters read by Lord Palmerston— Common Law Procedure Act Amendment Bill read a second time—Chancery Amend- ment Bill read a second time—The Vote of Censure; Debate continued and again adjourned.

Friday, May 21. Breach of Privilege ; Mr. Clive's Motion—The Vote of Cen- sure ; Mr. Cardwell's Motion withdrawn.

TIME- TABLE.

The Lords, The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hoar of

Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. lournment,

Monday 5h 5h 45m Monday 411 .(a; 12h 45m Tuesday 511 5k 25m Tuesday 4h .(no lb Om

Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday No sitting. Thursday 511 51120m Thursday 4h .1.) 30m Friday bh Mx Om Friday 4k .... 8k Om Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 2h 30m Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 30h 15m — this Session. 53; 1035 brit this Session 64; — 426h 27m

THE CANNING DEBATE IN rss COMMONS.

Before the debate on Mr. Cardwell's motion was resumed on Monday, Mr. LYGON asked whether it would be possible to produce a return of the number of private letters received at the Board of Control since the "accession of the present Government to power." Mr. BAILLIS said that no record was kept at the Board of private let- ters. He might state that since "the present Government came into office" no private letter had either been received by or shown to the Government, or received at the Board of Control until Saturday last. Then three private letters from Lord Canning were received, all ad- dressed to the President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough, a fact showing that he was in the habit of corresponding by private letters with the Board of Control. (Cheers.) After this preliminary, Mr. Rosancs immediately resumed the ad- journed debate. He enlarged on the importance of the question before the House. They were to determine whether our dominion in India over 200,000,000 of people shall be guided by principles of humanity; virtue, and justice. Mr. Ct;dwell's motion was one of the most trans- parent party moves ever seen. At a moment when they were discussing the transfer of the government of India to the House of Commons,—for it is idle to talk of the Crown,—there came before them a mere matter of party polities. (Cries of "No, no !") Was any man so like a blind puppy as not to see that they were fighting, not for the happiness of India, but for the government of this country ? Turning to the question before the House as proposed by Mr. Cardwell, he held that Lord Ellen- borough was bound to write his despatch ; that he wrote the right answer ; and that he was not responsible for its production. The history of mankind affords no parallel of the act of Lord Canning. It would have been far better to annex Oude when we conquered it in 1801, than to establish an intermediate government, and afterwards to break our own compacts and confiscate all the landed property. Lord Canning's proclamation was issued in opposition to the opinions and wishes of Sir John Lawrence, Sir Colin Campbell, and Sir James Outram. Private letters from India said that the effect of the proclamation is equivalent to a demand for 20,000 additional troops. He contended that if it were wrong to publish the despatch, the blame rests upon the House and act upon Lord Ellenborough. "There is this wonderful peculiarity-'-I will not say mischief—of a Go" vernment like ours,—that the people should not know what is going on. I believe that the arguments used in this debate go further than some honour- able gentlemen think, and that they condemn the hidden diplomacy whidt is the curse of this country. (Cheers.) I firmly believe that, if we knew from day to day what the Government are doing, we should be better of than we are. (Cheers.) Now we are led blindfold into every error. War comes on us, and we are told we must not inquire. Peace comes on us, and we are told we are too late. When it is important that we should know, the public interests step in and when to know is of no use at all we are told all. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I want to know if this is not a fair description ? There was no other course before the Government except that which they pursued. They were called upon to give an opinion. They did give an opinion, and they gave it according to the honest bias of their own minds. (Cheers.) When they were called upon to publish that opinion it was by this side of the House, and they had no alternative. It was published in spite of them- selves, and the publication is not to be laid at their door." (Cheers.) "I entreat my countrymen to remember that there are things above party. If they are to consider mere party moves I will ask them what they will get if the Government are in a minority tonight ? Why, a Government that we have cashiered lately—(Loud cheers)—because they neglected the honour of England. (Continued cheering.) We are to allow honourable gentlemen on this side of the House, after passing a few weeks in the cold regions of Oppo- sition, to go in state across to that (the Treasury) bench. (Cheers.) And for what ? Do the people of England expect any change in the policy of the late Government ? If they do they are wofullv deceived. Sir, I believe that good government, that happiness for the people, that the advance of liberal measures, which we all desire, are more to be obtained from that weak Go- vernment[pointing to the Treasury bench] than from the strong insolence of this. Pointing to the front Opposition bench amid great cheering.] I have seen, Sir, both, I have tried them both, and I am sure that we are further advancld in a course of improvement and liberty than we should have been under the guidance of the noble Lord [Palmerston.] " (Cheers.) Sir OBJLRLES WOOD said that great ingenuity had been shown in di- verting the attention of the House from the question before it—(Cries of "Oh !")—and Mr. Roebuck was not an exception to the rule. The Op- position say that the Government prematurely condemned Lord Can- ning's policy ; condemned it in unjustifiable terms ; and published those terms to the detriment of our power in India. He refused to condemn, he did not ask them to approve Lord Canning's policy. (Derisive cheers.) The policy of Lord Canning is not a necessary portion of the question. The fault and crime of the Government is the publicity they have given to their censure. He denied that he acted from mere party feelings. He was not indifferent to them—who is ? And if the effect of the mo- tion were to remove the Government, the country would not regret that result. He disclaimed another motive—that the motion is personal to Lord Ellenborough. Those who say that the resignation of Lord Ellen- borough makes all the difference between right and wrong, are they who make it a personal question. "That is not our view. We believe the Government to be responsible, and upon the Government we charge the responsibility of what they have done." When it was popular to de- nounce Lord Canning for clemency some of those who sat on the Trea- sury bench endorsed the cry. Now the cry of clemency is popular, they want to persuade the people they are its only advocates. Sir Charles Wood next examined the proclamation to show that it only confiscates the proprietary right in the soil in some instances granted to, in others usurped by the talookdars ; that it does not confiscate the endowments of mosques and religious establishments ; nor the property of village com- munities. He described the talookdars, in the words of Sir Henry Slee- man and Sir James Outram ; showing how they have gained lands by fraud, collusion, and open violence, and how they have reduced the people to a state of destitution unexampled in India. When the Pun- jaub was annexed the landed property and jaghires were confiscated, and the practical effect of Lord Cannires policy will be the same—" those who are in arms against us will have their property confiscated, and those who submit will be confirmed in their rights.' If it be possible that what was right in the Punjaub will be right in Oude, is the Go- vernment right in condemning Lord Canning as if they were personally hostile to hire? Was he the man upon whom to fix a charge of inhu- manity and cruelty ? If the Government had thought the proclamation too severe, they might have expressed that opinion in more appropriate language. Did they wish Lord Canning to resign ? If he do resign, then the Mall who has held the rudder with a calm and firm hand vrill be taken away at a critical time. If he do not resign, then confidence between the Government and the Governor-General will be destroyed. Sir Charles argued against Mr. Roebuck that the Government alone is responsible for that worst thing, the publication of the despatch. It was written and intended for publication. It is a proclamation and not a despatch.

Instead of taking the manly course of recalling Lord Canning, they had weakened his authority. "The publication of this despatch will stimulate the people of Oude to a more determined resistance to our arms, and thus the blood of our soldiers will be shed more copiously than if it had never been written. (Loud cheers.) You tell them that if the Government of Oude was bad it was at least native. But did we not put an end to the bad Governments of the Punjaub and of Scinde, although they were native ? Your despatch will be published in every newspaper in India. If the peo- ple of India, upon reading it, should come to the conclusion that the Go- vernment of this country thinks that any Government in India however bad., is if native, preferable to English rule, in what comer of are we to be is, from insurrection and war ? That question is ten thousand times more important than a change of Government. I hold that this despatch, which you tell us is a message of peace, is a firebrand of war." (Cheers.) Mr. HARDY replied for the Government. He vindicated Lord Ellen- borough's despatch, made use of the suppressed letter, drew support from the despatch of the Court of Directors to Lord Canning, and recom- mended Lord Canning to follow the example of Lord Auckland, who, when similarly treated in 1839, did not resign. The noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, using in the heat of debate expressions which in his cooler moments he must regret, had said that the Government taught the mutineers and rebels to feel that, if they had a Governor-General against them in India, they had powerful friends to assist them in England. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Honourable gentlemen, amid the excitement of party spirit, were ready to cheer that sentiment, and dared to assume that those who had their dearest friends and relatives fighting our battles in India, wished to encourage the rebels in arms against them—that they were negligent of British honour who in de- fence of that very honour had assisted to drive a Government from office which had failed to uphold it. (Cheers and laughter.)

Lord DIINKELLIN in a maiden speech, stoutly defended the policy of the Governer-Genend. Not all right to land, but the territorial right, is confiscated by the proclamation. The proprietary right was vested in the King of Oude. It has now passed to the Governor-General. The course taken by Lord Canning in defining the tenure of land, making regular assessments, and other prudent measures, will tend to the pros- perity of Oude far more than a general amnesty.

He remembered on the occasion when it was propoited to vote the thanks of the House to Lord Canning, the right honourable gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty, condemned the Governor-General on what he had since called "an hypothesis." Lord Dunkellin could not but think that all that was indicative of a desire on the part of the Cabinet to get rid of Lord Canning. Talk of "hypothesis"!. That word expressed the exact Position of the Government. They took office on hypothesis ; they held it on hypothesis; they brought in an hypothetical India Bill ; on an hypo- thetical document they censured the Governor-General and now they were trying to whip up a majority on the division on the motion before the House on the hypothesis of a dissolution. (Cheers and laughter.)

It was now dinner-time, and a number of abort speeches for and against the motion were made. On behalf of Ministers Lord LovAutz alone ap- peared. Mr. BERESPORD Hopu condemned both parties, and decided to vote with Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. BYNO, Mr. Aram:eras, and Lord ELcno Spoke on the side of the Opposition. The first shining speech, after this interval of obscuration, was made by Sir ROBERT PEEL. He delivered a discursive sally upon the Oppoai- ton, intermingled with arguments in favour of Lord Derby's Govern- ment, and denunciations of Lord Canning's unequalled act of arbitrary

spoliation. He had a high and noble opinion of Lord Canning, but if he does not intend to assimilate his conduct to that of the Spanish conquer- ors of America, let him moderate his rule in accordance with the pruici- pies of civilized nations.

" The resolution says that this House sees with regret and serious ap- prehension that her Majesty's Government have addressed to the Governcr- General,' &c. Now, I must say there seems to be something concealed in this expression of regret and serious apprehension. There is something hypocritical about it. (Loud cheers.) It is not a straightforward expres- sion of opinion. I want to drive home the hypocrisy of certain disinterested politicians. (Cheers and great laughter.) I want to show that it is not that they feel regret and apprehension because the Secretary to the Board' of Control made his statement, or because the despatch was prematurely published, but lest India should not be made the shuttlecock of party. (Loud cheers.) The Member for Halifax said that he would not muds care if her Majesty's Government were turned out tomorrow, for the people would rejoice. Well, there lies the question. This is a party move. The question we are now discussing lies between Lord Derby and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. I venture to say I am not speaking merely my own opinion, but that of thousands in this country, when I say that the question really is whether Lord Derby shall continue to advise the Crown and exercise the duties of that position which he has honourably and fairly acquired, or whether this House of Commons is with trembling humiliation to the Piccadilly manifesto, to allow the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to scramble back to power. (Loud cheers.) It would be a very serious matter, after such a manifesto, after we have with justice condemned the policy of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, to let him now come back to office upon a party question relating to India. It is said by some that if the Government is beaten Lord Derby must go out, on account of the want of strength of his party ; but in these days the strength of a Government depends not so much upon its numerical force as upon its being in accordance with the ac- tive sympathies of people out of doors, and the general sympathies and feel- ings of the public will always be in favour of any Government, be it pre- sided over by Lord Derby, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, or the noble Lord the Member for London, who, after all, is the legitimate leader of the Liberal party, if it is evident that they are equal to the conduct of public affairs. Now, as this has been made a party question, let me ask you before we come to a decision upon the subject to consider the position of the champions in the struggle. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton baa just been convicted, upon the clearest evidence, of toadying to foreign in- fluence. (Loud cheers and counter-cheers.) He has just been convicted, and very properly convioted, of preferring the favour of despots to the friendship of those living under a constitutional sovereign—(Cheers and laughter)—and yet you want to bring the noble Lord back to office. ("No ! ' and cheers.) Why, the noble Lord has shown in a crisis—in a moment of emergency—that he is wanting in moral courage." (Cheers.) If the Government are beaten there may possibly be a dissolution—(Loa cries of "Hear, hear ! ")—many honourable gentlemen may lose their seats simply because they have not had time to prepare their plan of action. And is oivtetyht that gentlemen thus situated should be subjected to this party m

Sir GEORGE Lswts repeated what Sir Charles Wood had asserted— that the Opposition had not acted upon any party motives. They could not have passed over the question without a dereliction of duty. If the present Government had intended to raise the question of the annexation of Oude, they should have done so on entering upon office. As they did not do so, Lord Canning had a right to assume that no change of policy in Oude was intended. He also examined the proclamation point by point, and showed that the re-grant of the lands is the general measure, and confiscation the exception. The confiscation meant by Lord Canning is threatened not actual. He declares the proprietary rights tg be for- feited as a penalty for rebellion. "No sane mankean believe that it was the deliberate intention of Lord Canning to dispossess the entire population of Oude of their property, to send them adrift to seize the whole country in the name of the Govern- ment, and to for‘t the land in the manner in which, for example, the land of Lord Derwentwater was forfeited. My belief is that what Lord Canning in- tended to say was Your proprietary rights, in consequence of your rebellion,' are forfeited to the Government; but if you fulfil certain conditions, if yen will satisfy us of your loyalty, if you will give us such securities for the future as we may think adequate, we shall again reinstate you in possession of your former lands.' (Cheers.) That is a reasonable construction of the

proclamation." Mr. WHITESIDE, rivalling Sir Hugh Cairns, made a long party speech that occupied upwards of four closely-printed columns of the morning journals. It drew abundance of " cheers " and "laughter" from the" House, being full of party hits dealt out right and left. He pointed out that while Mr. Cardwell, in the most earnest manner, asked the House, to express no opinion whatever on the effect of the proclamation, Sir George Lewis, forgetting his more artful friend, said the whole question was the meaning of the proclamation ; and Mr. Vernon Smith drawing conclu- sions that no other rational man could draw, called the proclamation a. message of peace. He rallied Sergeant Deasy, who at Cork has such strong opinions on tenant right, with supporting confiscation in Oude. He made a great deal of the suppressed letter, described the consultation between Mr. Smith and Lord Palmerston upon its contents ; sarcastically asked why Mr. Smith did not consult his churchwarden ; and hinted that other letters may have been suppressed. "For aught we know the right honourable gentleman may have a bagful of private letters." He quoted Lord Wellesley, Lord Minto, and Lord Dalhousie to show that confiscation has not been the practice in India. He contrasted Lord Sohn Russell's conduct on the China debate with his conduct now. .And finally he made a warm defence of the Government, who have discharged their duty. The debate was again adjourned on the motion of Mr. COLLIER.

The debate was not resumed on Tuesday, because Sir Charles Napier insisted on proceeding with a motion respecting the manning of the Navy. But there was some skirmishing early in the evening.'

In reply to Sir DENHAH NORREYS, Mr. DISRAELI said the Govern- ment had not received a copy of any proclamation issued to the chiefs and people of Oude after the taking of Lucknow. With respect to any explanatory despatch from Lord Canning, they had received only three private letters. " There are references in these- letters to the proclamation, but previous letters, in which the Governor-General may have given the explanations which he had promised, and in which probably there were other statements that seem to be referred to in those letters, and which are consequently in,- volved in obscurity, have never reached us." (Ministerial cheers.)

In reply to a further question he said—" We have not received from the Governor-General any positive information that such a proclamation has been issued ; but we have positive information that it has been issued."

Lord PALMERSTON said that as Mr. Disraeli's answer seemed to con- tain an insinuation which some Members accepted in the sense it was probably intended to convey, he begged to say that Mr. Vernon Smith had received no explanations from Lord Canning in any private letter, with reference to the proclamation in Oude. Mr. Disna.ma warmly, rejoined that he had made no insinuation. If he had a charge to make he should make it in language that could not be mistaken. Some gentlemen are ever ready to believe that insinuations are made with regard to their con- duct.

Other questions were put by Sir Jolts SHELLEY and Sir CHARLES Woon. Sir Jona Pasta-01'mq said that a gallant officer [Colonel Franks] who had arrived from Lucknow on the preceding night, re- ported that Sir Colin Campbell had stated to him in conversation his opinion of the proclamation. Further pressed, Sir John said that the explanation he had received was that the proclamation had been sent to Lueknow. Mr. CRAWFORD, referring to a statement said to have been made by Colonel Franks, wished to know whether it was true that the proclamation had been issued in obedience to instructions from home. MT. VERNON Sierra said the question was "obviously ridiculous" ; but he would state that the proclamation was not issued III obedience to in- structions from home.

Sir JOHN PAXINGTON said that Colonel Franks had given him in- formation of the greatest importance, but he expressed his extreme re- luctance to be a party to anything reflecting in the slightest degree upon Lord Canning. "I feel bound, therefore, to say that the honourable Member for the Oity of London has been misinformed with regard to what fell from Colonel Franks. He had heard the rumour himself to which the honourable Member has referred. Colonel Franks had heard the rumour that he was informed by Lord Canning that the proclamation was the result of instruc- tions from home. Colonel Franks assured me that any such impression was altogether erroneous. Lord Canning did not tell him that he had received instructions to the effect supposed, and the mistake had probably arisen in consequence of the fact that Colonel Franks did infer, from his conversa- tions with Lord Canning, that, under all the extraordinary circumstances of the proclamation, that proclamation could only have been issued in con- sequence of instructions from home. That, however, was only the general inference of Colonel Franks, and he does not for a moment pretend to say that the proclamation was issued in consequence of instructions from home."

Mr. Druarrar inquired whether, in case his amendment became a sub- stantive motion, it would receive the support of the Government. Mr. DISRAELI replied that if Mr. Cardwell's motion were negatived, he saw nothing in Mr. Dillwyn's amendment to which he could not give a wil- ling assent.

It was arranged that the debate should be resumed on Thursday, Mr. LOCKE Kum giving way to facilitate that course.

• It was not resumed until Thursday evening, because Sir Charles Napier persisted on bringing forward a motion touching Naval reform. Before it was resumed the overland mail arrived ; and when the House of Lords met on Thursday, Lord DERBY stated that it had brought impor- tant despatches—the recommendations of Sir James Outram respecting the proclamation, and Lord Canning's reasons for issuing it in its ulti- mate form. The result of a brief conversation was that Lord DEBBY agreed to produce these papers and formally moved for theta.

• Before the debate was recommenced in the House of Commons, Lord PALMERSTON read extracts from letters received by Mr. Vernon Smith, in obedience to the wishes of the House. He first referred to a letter from Lord Canning to Mr. Smith, dated the 20th of February, drawing a wide distinction between the mutineers and the Talookdars of Oude. The former he could not pardon because it would be regarded as a sign of weakness ; for the latter he would "proclaim a large measure of mercy and indulgence after Lucknow is ours." Then came a letter dated March 6. [It contained the suppressed passage, which is as follows]—

"My letter of the last mail mentioned a proclamation which I intended to address to the Oude chiefs and landholders. It goes to you officially by this mail. I hoped that it would be accompanied by an explanatory de- spatch, showing why it is in some respects so sweeping, and in others so in- dulgent, and defending it by anticipation (for it is sure to be attacked) on other points ; but I have had things more urgent pressing upon me for every hour of the past week. You will not, of course, print it until it has been acted upon ; at present it stands only as part of an instruction to Outram." Those were the passages from Lord Canning's letters to Mr. Vernon Smith. He also read a letter from Lord Granville, stating that Lord Granville had read to Lord Ellenborough as much as Lord Ellenborough would let him of the only letter of political importance he had received from Lord Canning. "Nothing of real importance was omitted. Every word relat- ing to the proclamation was read, including the fact that General Outram had objected to its severity, and that Lord Canning had in consequence added a sentence to the proclamation which would make it clear that, though con- fiscation of proprietary right in the soil is the general penalty, restitution of it is the reward for coming in and behaving well." Lord Ellenborough admitted in a letter that Lord Granville's statement was correct.

There were further preliminary conversations, in the course of which a pressure was put upon the Government to produce the despatches just re- ceived from Lord Canning ; but Mr. DISRAELI declined then to promise that he would produce them. Some unopposed business was forwarded ; and then the debate was resumed by Lord GODERICH ir a closely-reasoned speech against the Government. Mr. Bniona said that although he was hardly able to take part in the discussion in a manner becoming its magnitude, still he could not give a silent vote. In the first place he wished to explain that he had made no arrangement with Mr. Bailie respecting the question he had put with regard to the proclamation. Mr. Dickinson had informed Mr. Bright that some proclamation would be issued, and Mr. Bright said he should put a question. Mr. Kershaw informed him that the proclamation had appeared in the Times and also, that he Mr. Kershaw, had told Mr. Bernie that Mr. Bright would probably ask a question. That is the *hole case.

Turning to the motion before the House Mr. Bright went over a wide field in dealing with it. He drew a contrast between the speeches of Mr. Card- well and Sir Hugh Cairns, unfavourable to the former, and inferred from Mr. Cardwell's manner that he was not perfectly satisfied with the course he Was pursuing. The motion may be considered in two aspects—as it affects *party at home, and as it affects the people of India. The chiefs of India will not understand the result of a political conspiracy in Parliament ; they will ask only what Parliament thought of Lord Canning's proclamation. No one defends it ; some say it means something it does not say. He was sure Mr. Cardwell did not wish them to pronounce an opinion in favour of confiscation. But if they voted against the censure passed upon the pro- clamation, how can the people of India form any other opinion than that

the House is favourable to the proclamation. The motion, in short, is a disingenuous attempt to lead the House into a dilemma, for no judicial mind would deny that by voting for the resolution the House would acknowledge the principle of the proclamation. (Cries of "No, no ! " and " Hear hear !") The Court of Directors laid it down that the people of Oude are not rebels, and should not be treated as rebels. The people of England will accept that proposition. He described at length the injustice of confiscating the proprietary rights in the soil of Oude. The result

be that there will be no one connected with the land but the Government and the humble cultivator who tills the soil. The share of the Government in the produce will increase, and the share of the cultivator, as it is in Ma- dras, will be a handful of rice per. day. He described our pecuniary deal- ings with Oude, whence we have drawn 31,500,000i. in subsidies and loans, dealings which should make us pause before we consent to any measure which shall fill up the cup of injury which we have presented to the lips of this afflicted people. Two years ago we deposed the king ; now we propose to confiscate the land, and do in Oude as we have done in every province in India. When the Government disavowed this policy, every man below the gangway cheered it, and they would not have been Englishmen if they had not done so. It was not until the fatal influence of party had been brought to bear that they found there was something dangerous in this despatch.

He had something to say about the manner of Lord Ellenborough'a despatch. Lord John Russell read a passage to show how much sarcasm and invective there is in it. "I could read a despatch of the noble lord in such a manner as to astonish the House with its concealed irony and sarcasm." It should be remembered that Indian despatches have never been gentle in tone. "But the noble lord the Member for London ought to be very forbearing, inasmuch as he lives in a house as brittle as that of any of us. (Cheers and laughter.) When the noble lord takes his pen in his hand it is impossible to say what he will send forth to the public. (Laughter.) I have known the noble lord write an extraordinary letter, which he doubtless intended to be very proper in its phraseology, to a Bishop. (Renewed laughter.) I am not anxious to deal severely with the noble lord, but when a grave statesman writes to so holy a man as a Bishop one might at least expect that he would avoid sarcasm and invective. (Great cheering and laughter.) Yet, in the letter to which I refer the noble lord hurled his sarcasm and in- vective against sonic 6,000,000 of his fellow subjects, and did great mischief to the peace of the United Kingdom at the time. (Cheers.) I can tell the noble lord of another letter, in which there was not much sarcasm or invective, but an amazing amount of insinuation of the most unpleasant character. It was written not to the Governor-General of India' a proconsul 10,000 miles away, but to a nobleman filling one of the most delicate and difficult offices connected with the Home Government of the United Kingdom. Upon that occasion the noble lord transgressed further, for in the most heedless manner, when nobody asked him, he pub- lished the letter, and thereby for a long period weakened the hands and damaged the character of the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton."• (Cheers and laughter.) He saw in the proclamation, not an emanation from the just and humane mind of Lord Canning, 'but an emanation from tha mixture of red-tape and tradition which is the foundation of the policy° f the old civilian Council of Calcutta. But if the choice lay between hurting Lord Canning's feelings and denouncing his proclamation he should not hesitate. He would treat Lord Canning as he treated Sir John Bowring. "Do not let us have in the service low-caste men who may be trampled upon at pleasure, and high-caste men whom nobody dare criticize." (Cheers.) Next Mr. Bright dealt with the party aspect of the question. He passed a high eulogium on the manner in which the Government had received de- putations and their suggestions, and on the civility with which they had treated the House of Commons—" during the existence of the late Govern- ment civility was entirely unknown." He praised their mode of dealin„a with the Conspiracy Bill, and with Naples and said that when he showed his hostility to them it would be for something he could clearly understand. Then he adverted to another point. It was not only feared that the Go- vernment might get firm in their seat, but that some Members near him might get less firm in their alliance with certain right honourable gentle- men. Something was going on in committee-room No. 11, which it was thought, unless it were put a stop to, would break up powerful ranks, which, if united, might storm the Treasury, bench, and replace the last Government in office. I believe it was intended that there should be a des- perate effort made to change the state of things here before Whitsuntide." (Loud cheers.) Lord Ellenborough's despatch offered a pretext on which right honourable gentlemen might ride into office, and it was supposed the old Government, with which they were so discontented, might come back. Unblushing articles, evidently written by somebody, were published in newspapers, holding up the glittering ball of office to gentlemen who took a leading part in committee-room No. 11. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway received flattering and beautifully-engraved cards of invita- tion to great parties in splendid mansions. Appeals were made to instincts which every honourable mind repudiates. If they succeed what sort of Government shall we have ? " We are told, and the whole country is fixed in expectation and wonder at the event, that eminent statesmen have actually dined together. (Cheers and laughter.) I am very glad to hear that men engaged in the strife of politics can dine together without personal hostility. I will say nothing of the viands eaten, or of the beverage drunk from the loving cup' that went round. One of the oldest and the best of beverages was that nepenthe' drink of sore- rayne grace, devised by gods ' but that drink was given to the wise, who had arrived at that time of life when they were prepared to take their place with heroes in another sphere. (Cheers and laughter.) It could not be that liquor which filled the flowing cup, for these ancient and wise statesmen were determined to cling to this world, and mix in all the con- tention and turmoil of polities." Would the House overturn the Govern- ment, delay all Indian legislation, plunge the country in the turmoil of a general election, and, when the whole of India is trembling with volcanic fires, avow the policy of the proclamation ? "I am willing to avow that I am in favour of justice and conciliation —of the law of justice and of kind- ness. Justice and mercy are the supreme attributes of the perfection which we call Deity, but all men everywhere comprehend them. There is no speech nor language in which their voice is not heard, and they could not have been vainly exercised with regard to the docile and intelligent millions of India. You had the choice. You have tried the sword. It has broken' it now rests broken in your grasp; and you -stand humbled and rebuked. (Some cries of "Oh, oh !" from the 0 0- *Won.) You stand humbled and rebuked before the eyes of ci

Europe. (Renewed cries of " Oh !" and cheers.) You may have another chance. You may by possibility, have another opportunity of governing India. If you have, I beseech you to make the best use of it. Do not let us pursue such a policy as many men in India, and some in England, have

advocated, but which hereafter you will have to regret, which can end only, in I believe, in something approaching to the ruin of this country, and which must, if it be persisted in, involve our name and nation in everlast- ing disgrace." (Loud and prolonged cheers,'.)

Mr. Comizat replied to Mr. Bright on the general question, and re- marked that if his counsels had been followed it would have probably been impossible to maintain our settlements at Hongkong, and the war with Russia would probably have ended in our humiliation and dis- grace.

Dinner-hotir had now arrived, and the House grew thin. The Go- vernment were supported, during this period, by Sir W. FRASER, Mr. KER SEYMER, Sir ARTHUR EvroN, and Mr. Guorisr, and opposed by Captain VivraN, Lord Buns, and Mr. LAI3OUCHERE. Sir JAMES GRAHAM made a speech of great length and much force. For some time past his shattered nerves and drooping spirits had dis- suaded him from taking a part in angry contention, and he now gave his reasons for opposing Mr. Cardwell's motion from a sense of public duty. He was no adherent of the Government ; his sympathies were with the Liberal party ; and he had resumed his friendly intercourse with Lord John Russell. It was with pain, therefore, that he could not support Mr. Cardwell. He did not ow Lord Canning as intimately as many. He thought the greatest praise due to him up to the present time. It was said the motion was promoted by his personal friends_ Lord Aberdeen is no lukewarm or fairweather friend. He was willing to concur in a vote orcensure, but from the time Lord Ellenborough withdrew, Lord Aber- deen thought, as Sir James Graham was authorized to state, that all due to the vindication of the honour and administration of Lord Canning had been achieved ; when pressed to concur in the vote of censure he re- fined, and, "to use his own plain and emphatic language, he declared that he was not prepared to take part in a faction fight."

The position taken up by Sir James, in the general debate, was that the proclamation was impolitic ; and that the publication of the despatch was "a harsh and unjustifiable proceedinf " ; the answer of Mr. Disraeli to Mr. Bright was an "indiscretion." The publication, for which Lord RIlenborough is alone responsible, is atoned for by his resignation. But he justified the writing of his despatch under the circumstances. The proclamation reversed the instructions sent to Lord Canning ; no expla- nations arrived ; private communications were withheld ; the Cabinet believed that the despatch would be secret ; the Government knew that there were differences between Sir Colin Campbell and Lord Canning, that the Governor-General had directed military operations with a high hand ; they knew that Sir James Outram protested against it ; that Sir John Lawrence was for an amnesty ; that General Mansfield expressed strong doubts as to the policy of the proclamation ; that General Franks called it unfortunate. Such was the conflict of authority, such the weight of evi- dence that should make them pause before censuring the Government for taking measures with reference to its revision and limitation. Then the object of the proclamation is new. Neither Aurungzebe, nor Tamerlane, nor Nadir Shah attempted such a proceeding as confiscation. No British conqueror, not Lord Wellesley, nor Lord Ellenborough, nor Lord Har- dinge, attempted an operation of this nature. Even Napoleon on his re- turn from Elba was dissuaded from confiscating private rights. Lord Dathousie's Oude proclamation in 1856 was directed against individuals on proof of guilt. Lord Canning pronounced a sentence, next in severity to death, without proof. He threw the onus of proof of innocence upon an entire people, reversing great English principles. To show the bad effect it will have he adduced documentary evidence from Sir James Out- ram, Sir John Lawrence, and Sir William Sleeman ; and showed that Lord Canning had mitigated the proclamation in consequence of the strong reprehension expressed by Sir James Outram. He could not ap- prove the language of the despatch. Every topic ought, under the seal of secrecy, to have been communicated to the Governor-General. The Court of Directors had written a despatch agreeing in sentiment with that of Lord Ellenborough. His general conclusion was, that the pro- clamation is substantially wrong, the despatch substantially right. "The error of the proclamation is in its essence; the error of the despatch is in its form and expression."

"A change of Government being sought, I am bound to ask those who naturally aspire to succeed to the present Ministers what is their policy ? (Cheers.) Are they for the proclamation, or are they for the despatch ?" (Continued cheering.) Those who said it was not a party motion drew on his small stock of credulity and made him an unbeliever. "Three months have hardly passed by since by a deliberate vote of this House we expelled the late Government from power ; and are we prepared to reinstate them upon such a motion as the present, wherein the principle which has been asserted by her Majesty's advisers is not explicitly or openly condemned ? Can I be a party to any such vote, entertaining the opinion I have ex- pressed in this House ? I cannot do it. All my party wishes still linger about—(Cries of" Oh !" from the Opposition.) An honourable gentle- man on the front Opposition bench sneers at this. I say at once that what- ever others may be I am no candidate for power. (Cheers.) I exercise a most dispassionate and disinterested judgment, and let those who sneer on that bench make the same declaration. (Loud and repeated cheers.) I never gave a vote with more pain or regret in my life. (" Oh, oh P') I never discharged a public duty with a more clear conscience. (Cheers.) I would gladly have voted for the previous question, and I gladly and cor- dially adopt the amendment of the honourable Member for Swansea. If that, however, be rejected, I shall reluctantly, yet unhesitatingly, give my vote against the motion of my right honourable friend the Member for Ox- ford." (Loud cheers.) Sir RICHARD. Birrinimr. began an argumentative speech, by denying that he had joined in a cabal, a faction fight or a party movement. To cries of strong doubt he replied, that those who expressed it, and those who made these accusations, must feel internally that they would be themselves capable of such conduct. Then he turned upon the Go- vernment "The complaint made by the present Government, that they have been treated factiously, is one so entirely without foundation—(Laughter from the Ministerial benches)—as to add another to the various ridiculous posi- tions in which they have already placed themselves. Now, let us review their antecedents ; and let us consider whether there ever existed a Govern- ment which in so short a period of time made so many errors. You [said the honourable and learned gentleman, addressing the Government] have been treated with much forbearance. (Cries of" Question !") The chief antagonist you have had has been the noble lord the Member for London ; yet how ninny times did he pluck you out of the mire ? (Cheers and laughter.) How many times did you go in abject submission to that noble krd, and even offer to abdicate your functions to him ? You brought in an In- dian Bill, and in it I trace the same hand as dictated this despatch. Your bill was received with universal derision. (Cries of" Oh ! " and cheers.) It was our policy ; it was that to which you had bound yourselves. What need bad we to do more than to have allowed you to reap the fruits of that pro- ceeding; but the noble lord came to your rescue, and you most gladly accepted his suggestion. (Cries of "01* P' "Question !" and cheers) Then, again, with inconsistent obstinacy you insisted on retaining your opinions, notwithstanding you adopted the course of proceeding by resolu- tion suggested by the noble lord. Having at last given up what you had originally determined on the climax of absurdity was reached— (Laughter, and cries of "Oh !")—when your leader in this House rose to pronounce an eulogy over the measure you had abandoned. (Cheer8 and laughter.) Was not that an opportunity to take advantage of your posi- tion; but how were you dealt with ? You were covered with good-natured ridicule ; and therefore what I desire you to observe is this, that once you were simply ridiculous—(Cheers, laughter, cries of "Olt !" and " QUM- lion P')—and we were content to leave you unassailed ; but it is our duty no longer to bear with you when your conduct endangers the best and dearest interests of the empire. (Cheers and cries of " Oh .") Now I desire to know whether my declaration was not correct that you have been treated with forbearance ?" (" Oh, oh !" and cheers.)

In his argument Sir Richard Bethell contended that the language of the despatch was the language of the Cabinet ; that they were respon- sible for its publication ; that some parts of it amounted to the abetting of treasonable proceedings in Oude, and that a few years ago there would have been found in it matter for the impeachment of Ministers. He vindicated the proclamation, condemned the publication of the despatch as a grave political offence, and called upon the House to declare the Ministry unworthy to be trusted with the destinies of the country. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Sir Enwann Lrrrow.

At a late hour, Mr. Disu following the lead of Lord Derby in another place, laid the Canning proclamation papers on the table.

MANNING THE NAVY,

Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved a resolution praying the Queen to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy, and improving its management with a view to reduce its expen- diture without impairing its efficiency. The system of impressment has never been abolished, and unless some regular mode of manning the Navy be adopted we must, in a moment of emergency, have recourse to that system again. But the seamen, who know their rights better now, would not stand it. We are in a defenceless state, and ought to put the Navy in a 'proper condition without delay. Greater encouragement should be held out to those who enter the service. The wages of petty officers should be increased, and they should be allowed to rise to the rank of mate. The Merchant Setiman's Fund should be better managed. Sailors should be entered for five years. Ships should be kept constantly moving about. Sailors should be allowed to go ashore. The French have forty, we have forty-throe screw steamers ; but they have 70,000 seamen. A quarrel might arise, and we should be prepared to send a fleet to sea certain of victory. Admiral BUNCOMBE moved that the subject should, be investigated by a Select Committee. Mr. LINDSAY, who had seconded the motion, said he should prefer a Select Committee. Lord CLARE-NCE PAGET expressed the same preference. He thought the Navy could be efficiently and economically manned ; and he suggested that thousands might be saved by using men-of-war as transports. Mr. BENTLNCK was for a Commit- tee, as more expeditious. Admiral WALeorr preferred a Commission.

Sir Jorix PAIMMTON regarded a return to impressment as impossible; and as we cannot rely upon that we must put the Navy on so perma- nent a footing, that we can at all times rely upon having an ample de- fensive foree. How that can be done is a fair subject for inquiry. But the inquiry proposed is too large either for a Committee or a Commis- sion. He would consent to the motion, omitting all words after "man- ning the Navy." Lord PaLmmisToN reinforced Sir John Pakington's view by giving practical reasons, showing that as a working instrument the Commission is superior to the Committee.

Admiral BUNCOMBE withdrew his amendment, and the resolution, as amended by Sir John Pakington, was agreed too.

REAL Pnormery.—Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved a resolution declaring the opinion of the House that real property and impropriate tithes should pay Probate-duty, and that the succession-duties should be extended to ecclesi- astical corporations. Mr. Hanermia seconded the motion. It gave rise to a languid debate. Mr. GLADSTONE briefly referred to the difficulties of the question ; and excused himself for not having extended the succession- duties to real property. Mr. BRIGHT supported Mr. Williams, and took occasion to express the great hopes he has from the party to which Mr. Dis- raeli belongs. Mr. DISRAELI complimented Mr. Bright and Mr. Williams, but opposed the motion. Sir GEORGE LEWIS took the same course. Before the Probate-duties can be extended to real property there mint be an altera- tion of the law as regards the disposal of that property by will. Mr. HEN- LEY and Sir Jammii Ow spoke against the motion ; and it was nega, lived by 172 to 68.

PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS.—Mr. SLANEY has obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable grants of land to be made near populous places for the recreation of adults and as playgrounds for poor children. He did not expound its provisions, being cut short by an attempt to count out the House. It failed ; but Mr. SLANEY took the hint, and at once moved for leave, which was granted.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Mr. JOHN LOCKE moved the second reading of this bill which made it compulsory that all descriptions of grain and fruit should be sold by measure. The debate showed great differences of opinion on the best mode of dealing with the question. Mr. HENLEY said the question is not ripe for legislation. The bill was thrown out by 92 to 84.

Loan CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.—The following copy of a letter from the Court of Directors to the Governor-General in Council was presented to Parliament yesterday week.

"May 5.

"1. You will have received by the mail of the 25th of March.a letter from the Secret Committee, which has since been laid before us, respecting the policy which it becomes you to pursue towards those natives a India who have recently been in arms against the authority of the British Govern- ment.

"2. That letter emphatically confirms the principles which you have al- ready adopted, as set forth in your circular of the Slat of July 1857, by impressing upon you the propriety of pursuing, after the conquest of the revolted provinces, a course of policy distinguished by a wise and discrimi- nating generosity. You are exhorted to temper justice with mercy, and,

except in cases of extreme criminality, to grant an amnesty to the van- quished. In the sentiments expressed by the Secret Committee we entirely concur. 'While there are some crimes which humanity calls upon you to punish with the utmost severity, there are others of a less aggravated cha- raeter which it would be equally unjust and impolitic not to pardon and to forget. "3. The offences with which you will be called upon to deal are of three different kinds. Firstly, high crimes, instigated by malice prepense, and aggravated by treachery and cruelty. Secondly, offences the results rather of weakness than of malice, into which it is believed that many have been drawn by the contamination of example, by the fear of opposing themselves to their more powerful countrymen, or by the belief that they have been compromised by the acts of their associates, rather than by any active de- sire to embarrass the existing Government. And, thirdly, offences of a less positive character, amounting to little more than passive connivance at "evil, or at most to the act of giving such assistance to the rebels as, if not given, would have been forcibly extorted, and which in many cases it would have been death to refuse to bodies of licentious and exasperated mu- tineers.

"4. It is the first only of these offences the perpetrators of which and their accomplices it will be your duty to visit with the severest penalty which you can inflict ; and it is happily in such eases of exceptional atro- city that you will have the least difficulty in proving both the commission of the offence and the identity of the offender. In the other cases you might often be left in doubt, not only of the extent of the offence committed, but of its actual commission by the accused persons • and although we are aware that the retribution which may be righteously inflicted upon the guilty may be in some measure restricted by too much nicety of specification, and that in dealing with so large a mass of crime it is difficult to avoid the commission of some acts of individual injustice, we may still express our desire that the utmost exertion may be made to confine within the smallest possible compass these cases of uncertain proof and dubious identity, even though your retributory measures should thus fall short of what in strict justice might be inflicted.

5. As soon as you have suppressed the active v of the enemy your first care will be the restoration of public confidence. It will be your privilege, when the disorganized provinces shall no longer be convulsed by intestine disorder, to set an example of toleration and forbearance towards the subject people, and to endeavour by every means consistent with the security of the British empire in the East to allay the irritation and sus- picion which if suffered to retain possession of the minds of the native and European inhabitants of the country, will eventually lead to nothing less calamitous than a war of races.

"6. In dealing with the people of Oude you will doubtless be moved by special considerations of justice and of policy. Throughout the recent con- test we have ever regarded such of the inhabitants of that country as, not being Sepoys or pensioners of our own army, have been in arms against us as an exceptionable class. They cannot be considered as traitors, or even xebels, for they had not pledged their fidelity to us, and they had scarcely become our subjects. Many-, by the introduction of a new system of go- vernment, had necessarily been deprived of the maintenance they had lat- terly enjoyed, and others feared that the speedy loss of their means of sub- sistence must follow from the same course. It was natural that such per- sons should avail themselves of the opportunity presented by the distracted state of the country to strike a blow for the restoration of the native rule, under which the permitted disorganization of the country had so long been to them a source of unlawful profit. Neither the disbanded soldiers of the late Native Government, nor the great talookdars and their retainers, were under any obligations of fidelity to our Government for benefits conferred upon them. You would be justified, therefore, in dealing with them as you would with a foreign enemy, and in ceasing to consider them objects of punishment after they have once laid down their arms.

"7. Of these arms they must for ever be deprived. You will doubtless in prosecution of this object address yourself, in the first instance, to the ease of the great talookdars, who so successfully defied the late Government, and many of whom, with large bodies of armed men, appear to have aided the efforts of the mutinous soldiery of the Bengal army. The destruction of the fortified strongholds of these powerful landholders, the forfeiture of their remaining guns, the disarming and disbanding of their followers, will be among your first works ; but while you are depriving this influential and once dangerous class of people of their power of openly resisting your authority, you will, we have no doubt, exert yourselves by every possible means to reconcile them to British rule, and encourage them, by liberal arrangements made in accordance with ancient usages, to become indus- trious agriculturists, and to employ in the cultivation of the soil the men who' as armed retainers, have so long wasted the substance of their masters and desolated the land. We believe that these landholders may be taught that their holdings will be more profitable to them under a strong govern- ment, capable of maintaining the peace of the country and severely punishing agrarian outrages, than under one which perpetually invites, by its weakness, the ruinous arbitration of the sword.

"8. Having thus endeavoured, on the reestablishment of the authority of the British Government in Oude, to reassure the great landholders, you will proceed to consider, in the same spirit of toleration and forbearance, the condition of the great body of the people. You will bear in mind that it is necessary, in a transition state from one Government to another, to deal tenderly with existing usages, and sometimes even with existing abuses. All precipitate reforms arc dangerous. It is often wiser even to tolerate evil for a time than to alarm and irritate the minds of the people by the sudden introduction of changes which time can alone teach them to ajpreciate, or even, perhaps to understand. You will be especially care-

in the readjustment of the fiscal system of the province, to avoid the imposition of unaccustomed taxes, whether of a general or of a local am- meter, pressing heavily upon the industrial resources, and affecting the daily comforts of the people. We do not estimate the successful administra- tion of a newly acquired province according to the financial results of the first few years. At such a time we should endeavour to conciliate the people by wise concessions, and to do nothing to encourage the belief that the British Government is more covetous of revenue than the native ruler whom it has supplanted."

TEE CANNING DESPATCHES.—These papers presented to Parliament yesterday consist of three letters, one dated March 8, from Mr. George Couper, Secretary to Sir James Outram, Chief Commissioner of Oude ; a second and third, dated respeetively the 10th and 31st March, from Air. G. F. Edmonstone, Secretary to the Government of India, to Sir James Outram.

By the direction of Sir James, Mr. Couper acknowledges the receipt of a copy of a proclamation to be issued to the landholders, chiefs, and inhabitants of Oude after the fall of Lucknow : and then proceeds to comment upon it.

There are not a dozen landholders who have not borne arms against us. "The effect of the proclamation will be to confiscate the entire proprietary 'right in the soil." Hence it will be hopeless to attempt to enlist the Ian

on the side of order. On the contrary, the chiefs would immediately

prepare for a desperate and prolonged resistance. Sir James Outram, there,. tore, submits his views "once more." The landholders were unjustly treated under the settlement ; they did not join the mutiny until Oude was overrun ; they ought to be considered as "honourable enemies" to whom terms should be offered. "If these men be given back their lands they will at once aid us in restoring order, and a police will soon be organized with their cooperation which will render unnecessary the presence of our enormous army, to reestablish tranquillity and confidence. But if their life and freedom from imprisonment only be offered, they will resist ; and the Chief Commissioner foresees that we are only at the commencement of a guerilla war for the extirpation, root and branch, of this class of men, which will involve the loss of thousands of Europeans by battle, disease, and exposure. It must be borne in mind that this species of warfare has always beenpeculiarly harassing to our Indian forces, and will be far more so at present when we are without a native army." He proposes that the chiefs not accomplices in the murder of Europeans should be enlisted on our side by the restoration of their ancient possessions. The immediate reply to this was a letter authorizing Sir James Outeam to destroy the old proclamation, and to issue a new one containing a clause promising "large indulgence" for prompt submission.

At a later date, the 31st March, Mr. Edmonstone replies at length, and gives Lord Canning's reasons for adhering to the confiscation clause.

Sir James Outram's proposal is declared inadmissible. Lord Canning regards the peculiar circumstances of Oude as palliating acts of rebellion. Accordingly punishment by death or imprisonment is at once put aside. Means of obtaining exemption from the general penalty of confiscation are within the reach of all without injury to their honour. "Nothing more is required for this than that they should promptly tender their adhesion, and help to maintain peace and order." To have followed Sir James Outram's suggestion would have been to treat the rebels as enemies who have won the day. It would have been held to be dictated by fear or weakness. Had all the landholders been unjustly treated the Governor-General would have concurred in Sir James's suggestion. But that is not so. Six eases are mentioned where chiefs, dealt with liberally under the settlement., have become our most active enemies. "The moving spirit of these men and of others amongst the chiefs of Oude must be looked for elsewhere ; and in the opinion of the Governor-General it is to be found mainly in the re- pugnance which they feel to suffer any restraint of their hitherto arbitrary power over those about them, to a diminution of their importance by being brought under equal laws, and to the obligation of disbanding their armed followers, and of living a peaceful and orderly life."