THE RIGHT HON. EARL CAIRNS. LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR. FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY RUSSELL CHICHESTER BLACKIE & SON, LONDON GLASGOW & EDINBURGH Lord Canning--by the heroism almost un- | My proposition is this--you make war with paralleled of small handfuls of men, ay, and women, who maintained their position in the country until our troops arrived-by all these means the contest in India has resulted in decisive and, I trust, a lasting victory. But now we are victorious, let me ask what is the policy which as victors we ought to pursue? I am prepared to declare what that policy should be upon the broad grounds of justice. But first let me examine the question upon the narrower grounds of prudence and self-interest. Do you mean to hold Oude? If so, how do you propose to effect that object? Is it by the aid of a standing army? You may achieve your end in that way, but its attainment will cost you dear. Do you desire the willing and cheerful submission of the people of Oude? How can you procure that submission? Is it not an important element in the question to gain the good-will of the landowners of that country? A child could answer that question. Which of two things do you do, let me ask-provoke hostility or conciliate good-will by taking from them that which they hold dearer than their lives? Let us go a step further. Do you desire to put down the mutiny of the sepoys? Of course you do. Then it follows naturally that you must also desire to prevent the sepoys from taking refuge and obtaining support in neighbouring states. Where is it most likely that they would obtain that support which would enable them again to make head against us? In the kingdom of Oude. If we have the people of Oude in our favour they will assist us in beating down and delivering up those sepoys who may take refuge in their country; but if you alienate the feelings of that people the consequence is easy to foresee; you will throw them into the arms of the sepoys--they will combine with the sepoys, and you will have in that distant and separate territory to crush and to subdue, not merely the natives of the territory, but also the sepoys, who will certainly assemble there. Therefore, I say, upon the lowest ground of self-interest and policy it is for the advantage of this country to conciliate the affections of the people of Oude. But I desire to rest the case on broader grounds than these. Whatever other nations may do, England ought not to retrograde from those laws of war which civilization has introduced. How, then, upon the principles of justice and the practice of civilized nations, which this country is bound to observe, ought we to treat the property of a conquered people? kings and governments, but not with individuals. If in the course of war individuals commit crimes, they put themselves beyond the pale of that rule; but, except as to such cases, every individual is entitled to protection of life and property from the victorious nation. You might as well confiscate the lives of the conquered as their property. Sir, I have gone through the right hon. gentleman's charges against the government, which are reduced to the charge of writing and the charge of publishing the despatch. The charge for publishing it has fallen to the ground. The charge of writing it depends upon the higher and broader question of the policy of the proclamation. On this question, sir, the right hon. gentleman and myself are at direct and positive issue. He appeals to the house to be silent-I appeal to the house not to be silent. I appeal to them on behalf of the dearest interests of this country and of India—on behalf of 5,000,000 of people-who may be misguided, misgoverned, and even barbarous, but who are men with like passions, feelings, perceptions, and prejudices as ourselves. I appeal to the house in the cause of humanity and justice. I make that appeal to the British House of Commons, to which that appeal never has been, and never will be, made in vain. Do not let this go forth as a matter of doubt, or as a matter to be slurred over by a captious and catching motion, prepared by a cabal to embarrass and displace a ministry. Tell it out by your vote, in terms neither vague nor indistinct, to the people of India, that you desire submission and not spoliation-that the war we wage is the war of nations, and not the war of freebooters-that England knows how to make war and conquer, but also knows how to treat those who are conquered-that she offers to those who are conquered, and who submit to her arms, that protection for their lives and property which will be the best earnest to them of the mildness of the rule which the fate of battles has assigned to them. Sir, if ever there was a time at which it was necessary that our policy with regard to India should be clear and distinct, it is the present. We are upon the point of transferring the government of India from the Company to the Queen. In the course of the discussions in this house upon the subject of our past government of that country some confessions have been made, which you may rely on it have not escaped the attention of the people | in a very singular way. He said it was quite of India. There was a confession made by the right hon. gentleman, the member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis), which I heard, I must say, with respectful amazement. The right hon. gentleman, the then chancellor of the exchequer, the minister of the crown, who was advocating the bill which was introduced into parliament to transfer the government of India to the queen, was speaking of the past government of that country. It is true he was speaking of the government prior to the year 1784, but at a time when not the most insignificant parts of our acquisitions in India were made. The right hon. gentleman said: "I do most confidently maintain that no civilized government ever existed on the face of this earth which was more corrupt, more perfidious, and more rapacious than the government of the East India Company from the years 1765 to 1784." Sir, in this sentiment I, for one, do not concur; but, at all events, let there be no mistake with respect to our future government. Let us tell the people of India that we are not ashamed to confess that we offer them mercy and justice, and not spoliation; that the war which we wage against them is a war consistent with mercy and justice, and not for the sake of plunder, and that no faction and no intrigue will tempt the House of Commons even for a moment to lay themselves open to suspicion that the dynasty we are about to introduce into India is to be a dynasty of reckless, ruthless, and indiscriminate confiscation. THE EMPRESS OF INDIA.1 Upon a subject of this kind there is, in a country like ours, a higher authority to appeal to with regard to the views and wishes of the people than petitions. I have always understood that it was one of the advantages of a country possessing representative institutions that the views of the people of the country could be ascertained through the mouths of the representatives of the people. It so happens that this bill has passed the ordeal of the representative assembly before it has come to your lordships. The noble earl (Earl Grey) who spoke the other night near me dealt with this difficulty 1 Extract from speech on the Royal Titles Bill, April 3, 1876. true that this bill had passed the House of Commons by a large majority, but that a great number of those who voted for it did so with great reluctance. The noble earl is one to whom we look for instruction upon all matters of parliamentary and constitutional practice; but it is a dangerous doctrine for this house to hold or listen to, that we are so to regard the votes in the House of Commons. I know what your lordships would think if, after your lordships had arrived at a decision, some person in the House of Commons-not some novice, but some one experienced in public life, some vir pietate gravis-should rise in his place and say, "It is quite true in voting they were discharging a great public function, but in reality their votes were not given on any principle of that kind, but on another principle, and from other motives, with reluctance and against their judgment and conscience." If the noble earl's observations do not amount to that, I am at a loss to know what they do mean. There is one other observation I may make with regard to the majority of which the noble earl spoke so lightly. It might be said that the majority supporting the government were bound by the bond which usually attaches them to the government; but, my lords, that ground is entirely cut away from under the noble earl, because it so happens that the majority which carried this bill was, if I mistake not, something like double the ordinary majority by which the government is supported. He This being the evidence which we have of the feeling of the country, the noble earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) asks your lordships to carry to the foot of the throne a statement which, under these circumstances, appears to me to be both violent and unjustified. proposes, in effect, that your lordships should inform her most gracious majesty that the title of Empress-even if assumed for India, even if used for India—is a title which will not be in accordance with the loyal feelings of her majesty's subjects. That is, he proposes absolutely and unreservedly to state to the crown after the House of Commons has stated its opinion-not what is the opinion of this house, but what is the opinion of the people of this country. I must say that if anything could be imagined which is an usurpation of the powers house to go out of its way to express, not our of a representative body, it is for this own opinion, but something which we undertake to say is the opinion of the people of this |