HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, May 14.

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

HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, May 14.

The Earl of Shaftesbury yesterday moved the resolutions of which he had given notice, relative to the ptiblication of the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch to Lord Canning. The noble Earl, after declaring that he was actuated by no personal or political animosity towards the existing Government, with whose supporters his own individual sympathies generally speaking went, stated that his sole reasons for bringing forward these resolutions were, the gravity of the case, the interest which he had long taken in India, and the necessity that something should be done in the present case to counteract the effect' which the publication of the despatch of the noble Earl, the late President of the Board of Control would be likely to produce iu-India. He denied that the resignation of the noble Earl had by any means lessened the responsibility of her Majesty's Government collectively, but, on tho contrary, that step, if it had made any difference at all, it was by making matters a great deal worse. Logically and morally, the case remained precisely as it was before, and it was as if the right arm was cut off while the

body remained the same. It was a most important principle of the Constitution, acted upon from the year 1626 up to the present day, that the members, of a cabinet presented an uniform responsibility, one and, undivided. He should therefore, consider the publication of the despatch in question as being still the act of the existing ministry as a whole. The noble Earl then proceeded to comment on the despatch, and enlarged at considerable length on the evil effects j which such a condemnation of the policy of^ the annexation ,of Oude must, under existing circumstances: produce upon the minds of the natives of India. 'Under every point of view, the proclamation was not only unjust towards Lord Canning personally, but impolitic to such an extent as to involve "the future Government of India in very great embarrassment, Tht motion of which he had given notice was intended to counteract its injurious influence, and- he hoped it would receive their lordships' sanction.

The Earl of Ellenborotjgu vindicated the course which he had thought it his duty to pursue with reference to Lord Canning's proclation, which he contended was fraught with the greatest danger to the rule of this country over the vast empire of ludia: :

The Duke of -Argyle disclaimed being actuated by any personal feeling against the noble Earl who had retiredfrom the Government, but he was bound to say that the government of Lord Canning in India would be remembered when that of the noble lord opposite would be forgotten. The ; noble duke pointed out ;the errors which he conceived the Government had committed, arid commented upon their damaging effect upon the "Government of India.

The Earl of Carnarvon defended the despatch and. blamed. Mr. Vernori Smith for not having communicated to the Earl of Ellenborough the passage in the letter to himself from Lord Canning.

The Duke of Somerset condemned the despatch, as upholding the King of Oude at the expense of the British, Crown.

The Lord Chancellor declared the course taken by the Opposition on the question to amount, ,in his judgment, to absurdity; for the point submitted to the House was really not more than this, that the despatch was premature. The noble and learned lord contended that the Government could not. be: held liable, as the noble Earl, the late President of the Board of Control, had taken upon himself the entire responsibility. He concluded by moving the previous question.

Lord Cranworth said he would not deny that a case might occur in which blame should be thrown on an individual minister, but he altogether "denied that in the present instance the whole of the ministers were not involved in the responsibility. The" noble lord believed it would turn out that the proclamation was in accordance with justice and sound policy. Tee Earl of Donoughmore defended the Government. -----

Earl Grey condemned those parts of the despatch which related to the annexation of Oude, and deprecated the publication of such a despatch under any ; circumstances. He should support the resolution.

The Duke of Newcastle also expressed his intention of supporting the motion, declaring his pure intention thereby to be the counteracting in some degree, of the pernicious effects which' the despatch must produce in India.

The Earl of Derby defended the course which the Government had pursued. Viewing the proclamation of Lord Canning in the light which they did, they deemed it most important that not a moment should be lost in expressing their views upon it. So long ago as the 26th of March the noble Earl, then at the head of the Board of Control had communicated the views of the Government; recommending that a course of clemency should be pursued; and an amnesty granted. The noble Earl contended that the Government Avere not responsible for an act of which they knew nothing, done by one who had ceased to be a member of the Cabinet, He regretted the publication of some portions of the despatch, but not of others, as in India it would be regarded as a message of peace and reconciliation.

Earl Granville said the Government could not escape from joint responsibility in the publication of the despatch, which was the charge brought against them. It was quite unprecedented for a Government to meet a vote of censure by moving the previous question.

The House then divided, when the motion was rejected by 167 to 15S, being a majority of nine in favor of ministers.

The House adjourned at one o'clock.