Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

threatened aggression on our empire. Sir John Macdonald, who rather decried the notion of a Russian invasion of India, said, it would be made under the mantle of Persian authority, by Persian troops, officered by Russians. Sir John Malcolm said, the danger was lest through too much caution and reserve, England should allow the policy of Russia to be carried so far, that Russia could not retrace her steps. The events of the last few years had justified their foresight; the King of Persia actually began the aggression on Herat. Lord

John Russell read a letter by Lord Auckland, dated 13th May, 1838, in which he spoke of recent circumstances having altered his views, as it might now be necessary to op pose the advances of Persia and the activity of Russian agents; which proved that originally he was not disposed to a rash interference. Dost Mahomed's own demands had defeated the alliance with him. He cited official letters, and the Indian newspapers, to show the state of feverish excitement and apprehensions which the rumours of Russian intrigue kept up in India. One newspaper de clared, that "the conquest of the Heratics by the Persians, is, indeed, the conquest of the Punjaub and Hindostan ;" and the worst forebodings were strengthened by the advance of a Russian army to Khiva. At the same time, it must be remembered, the ground of India was strewed with ruined thrones and broken sceptres; and there were those always to be found who were ready to seek the revival of their lost power. The British power in India depended upon displaying that boldness in encountering danger which had formerly been displayed. The opiThe opi

[99

nion of Sir Henry Fane, the late Commander-in-Chief in India, had been cited against the expedition; Lord John Russell read letters from Sir Henry offering himself to relieve Herat; though he had doubts as to whether Dost Mahomed or Schah Soojah should be supported; and after the army had advanced 400 miles, he did express an opinion against the continued occupation of Affghanistan; but that was a question altogether different from that of its original occupation. Lord John Russell cited several precedents of interference in the affairs of fo reign nations as that of Holland in the affairs of England, after the Revolution; of France and England in Spain; and of the British Government, in supporting the Great Mogul. He also quoted the testimony of Mr. Masson, Dr. Lord, Major Tod, and Sir A. Burnes himself, in favour of Schah Soojah's popularity. As to the military disasters on which Mr. Roebuck had touched lightly, they formed no necessary result of the occupation of the country; and had they not happened, he believed that we should have left the country in a state of neutrality, with the arts of peace prevailing; but, undoubtedly, that able officer Sir Wm. M'Naughten was deceived into a state of undue security. He cited the testimony of General Gubbin and others, that the proclamation of Simla in 1838 had had a great effect in restoring confidence and tranquillity in India. He enumerated several internal improvements which Lord Auckland had effected in India. Mr. Roebuck had said, that Russia should have been met in the Baltic-that would have brought war on this country; whereas the

object was merely to repel her advance on India; and the result had been satisfactory to the security of India, and to peace with Russia. Lord John Russell contended that Lord Palmerston's policy had tended to maintain the peace of the world—as in the case of the settlement of Belgium, and of Turkey defended against a rebellious vassal: and he concluded by offering a direct negative to the motion.

Mr. D'Israeli said, that Lord J. Russell had made no answer to Mr. Roebuck; and he went on to argue against the policy which had disturbed the natural barriers to the invasion of India. Russia, from no moral fault of her government, but from her, physical and geographical circumstances, held a position menacing to the whole world, and might ultimately possess both the Sound and the Dardanelles; commanding points now in the possession of the two weakest powers in Europe; but it was not on the Sutledge, nor in the Hindoo Cush that encroachments were to be met. If the inquiry were refused, the responsibility of the Whig Ministers would be voted a dream.

Mr. Escott supported the motion in a vigorous speech, follow ing up several of Mr. Roebuck's arguments. The question was, whether the representatives of a free people were not to be allowed to inquire into the causes of the war, and its necessity, for the true interests of the country.

Sir R. Peel remarked, that two distinct and separate questions had been brought under the consideration of the House; whether or not the expedition into Affghanistan was consistent with sound policy; and whether it was fitting

appoint a select committee to enquire into the policy of that proceeding. From the first, when the expedition was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, he had entertained strong doubts of its policy, and had said that the restoration of Schal Soojah was the same as if Charles the Tenth were forced upon the French. The Duke of Wellington too had predicted that the difficulties would commence when the military operations had succeeded. If, therefore, he opposed the present motion, it must not be inferred that he approved of that policy. Subsequent events, indeed, had confirmed his opinion that Schah Soojah was unpopular; Colonel Dennie had remarked that the Prince's court was composed solely of Hindoos, without a single Affghan in it. He therefore doubted the policy of sup porting a Prince who could not command the affections of the people; and of separating the army at a distance of 600 miles from its resources, with passes in the interval which could not be commanded. It was a different question whether he should lend the influence of Government to procure an inquiry into a great operation that had taken place four years ago; and he could not disregard what had been the usage and practice of governments on succeeding to the secrets of office. The foreign policy of Ministers would always be a subject of contention. "Revolutions of Governments have taken place; has there been an instance where those who have succeeded to power on such revolutions have ever used the influence of their office to condemn the acts of their predecessors And would it be just to establish

that those who are in power and in office ought to be most careful that the use of that particular authority and power which office gives them should not be influenced by party considerations. I for one will not be influenced by them. If I were to submit to such influence, certainly party considerations might induce me to give my vote in support of this motion. I complain of the course intended to be adopted towards the present Governor-General: a right honourable Gentleman opposite proposes to move a vote of censure upon that noble Lord: I think that vote unnecessary and uncalled for here is an opportunity for retaliation; but I decline being influenced by any such feelings." Nor could he forget that in 1840, when he was in Opposition, the subject was equally open to debate, and they then possessed nearly all the information that they now had. "We had at that time the means of judging of the policy of the operations: the papers then produced gave us that power; but while in Opposition no motion was made founded upon those papers; and I must say, that now we are in power, I will not be the man to adopt a course which I did not adopt in Opposition, and at a time when there were better grounds for doing so." When he had opposed the grant of money to Lord Keane, some of those who were now loudest in reprobating the principle of the war were then loudest in approbation of it. If this committee were granted there ought to be another on the Syrian War. Such a course would end in transferring the Executive Government from the Crown to the House of Commons.

tionable policy this House were to have a Committee of inquiry-if such Committee were to have the power of sending for persons, papers, and records-if it were to ransack every public office for official documents, and summon every Minister of the Crown to give evidence before it, the practical result must be that the Executive Government would be suspended. Sir R. Peel bore testimony that the published papers were not garbled, but that they gave such an account of the motives for undertaking the expedition as enabled the House to form a fair and unbiassed judgment on the policy which had led to its adoption. The proposed inquiry would lead to a development of all the grounds of suspicion against Russia; Russia might retort with complaints of English agents in Circassia, and avow that her agents had been sent to Cabul in retaliation; and the inquiry would be forced on at a time when our relations with Russia were on the most friendly footing, and when by the new treaty, the foundation had been laid, and it was but the foundation, of a more liberal commercial intercourse with that power. That Russia had taken no advantage of our military disasters in Čabul proved the sincerity of her friendly disposition. On the contrary, her influence had been exercised in attempting to save the lives of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly in Bokhara. The power of the British arms had been vindicated on the scene of their reverse, and our unfriendly relations with Affghanistan had ceased. Let not the House, therefore, establish a precedent which would be at once prejudicial to the public interest,

present subsisting with foreign powers.

Lord Palmerston contrasted the harshness of Mr. Roebuck's terms with the weakness of his argu, ments; and remarked, that it was singular that members should have lain in ambush for four years, and then attacked those whose position now was altered, and who had not the same means of defence. He declared that the accusation of garbling was false and unfounded; the letters of Sir A. Burnes were printed with no omissions such as Mr. Roebuck had alleged. Sir Alexander urged the necessity of active measures in Affghanistan, though at one time he was disposed to favour Schah Soojah and at another Dost Mahomed; points of difference which related merely to the mode of operation. Lord Palmerston read extracts to show that the "hallucination" which Mr. Roebuck only had not shared, extended at the time to the press, quoting the Times, a paper not favourable to the Government of that day. It was said to be a fault that we did not attack Russia herself; we did go to St. Petersburgh, though not with a fleet; an explanation was demanded ; Russia disclaimed hostile intentions, and disavowed the acts of her agents; and they were recalled. How, therefore, could the British Government have sent a fleet to the Baltic? and how could such a step have cured the anarchy in Affghanistan, fomented by Russian agents mistaking the intentions of their government? Lord Palmerston commented on the designation of Akhbar Khan as a "mistaken man," him who had treacherously murdered Sir William M'Naughten, and massacred

defenceless camp followers? He proved the unpopularity of Dost Mahomed by the fact that his own army would not fight for him; and he finished by asserting that the policy of the late Government had proved successful in all parts of the world.

Sir R. Inglis was not one of those who idolized the privileges of the House, but still he did not wish to see it abdicate its just functions; and he wished to be informed if it were not to inquire into such a case as had now been brought forward in one of the most remarkable speeches he had ever listened to, on what occasions were the functions of the House as regarded inquiry into public transactions to be exercised? Was the House to be confined to the considering how far sheriff's officers should be arrested for executing legal process, and to allow cases of alleged misconduct on the part of the Crown's highest officers to pass uninvestigated. Sir Robert Inglis censured the defences which had been set up for the war, amid loud and significant cheers.

The Motion was supported by Mr. Borthwick and Lord John Manners.

Mr. Roebuck began his reply by congratulating the late Ministers on the support which they had received from Sir R. Peel; and he made a prophecy that the time would come when it would be suggested in party debates-"Oh, recollect the painful motion on which we treated you with candour and generosity, and from which we rode off on that happy mode of getting out of a difficulty, namely, that that was not the proper time for such a motion. Recollect that we, in our genero

ence we possessed." He justified the language which he had used, which had been called "libel," "abuse," "calumny," and "vituperation;" he had said, for instance, that Lord Auckland's proclamation set forth as facts what were not facts; was not that "false" As a further precedent to satisfy Sir R. Peel, he referred to Lord Porchester's motion for inquiring into the Walcheren expedition. He adduced further evidence that Sir A. Burnes's despatches had been garbled; refer ring to a despatch to Sir William M'Naughten, dated Cabul, July 26, 1838.

The extract given in the Parliamentary document went no farther than to say that Dost Mahomed had designs on Peshawur, and there it stopped; but reading on, it appeared that the writer added, "It seems that the chief is not bent upon possessing Peshawur, or on gratifying his personal enmities, but that he is simply securing himself from injury." All this was left out. The despatch went on to say that the

views stated were worthy of consideration, and the more so when an avowed partisan of Dost Mohamed Khan supported them. Any man might see why those parts had been left out; and he did maintain that it was an instance of very gross falsification. "Here was Burnes, your own Minister, sent to the court of Cabul, stating distinctly that Dost Mahomed did not desire to make an attack on Peshawur, but only to defend himself against aggression; and yet you came forward and declared as broadly as it was now denied, that Dost Mahomed had such designs on Peshawur, and that he did make certain demands in furtherance of those designs." He had adduced one instancethe book was full of similar instances. In conclusion he threatened, that if he found in the estimates one tittle of charge towards payment of the expenses of the Affghan war, he should exercise the right of inquiry which it was incumbent on the House to exercise. On a division, the motion was rejected by 189 to 75.

« ForrigeFortsett »