Houses of Parliament, in the earlier part of this session. The Proclamation issued by Lord Ellenborough in the month of October, 1842, and addressed to "all the Princes, Chiefs, and People of India," which will be found in the preceding volume of this work (Hist. of Europe, p. 257), had called forth strong expressions of censure and condemnation from its first promulgation in this country. The pompous and inflated style of this much-criticised and ridiculed document, it would certainly be difficult to defend, nor was it defended, but generally allowed to deserve the animadversions which it received in point of taste and judgment. Still more serious, however, were the charges to which it exposed the noble author, than that of tasteless bombast of composition. He was charged with holding a language, with reference to a foul and idolatrous form of worship, ill-becoming the character of a Christian Statesman; and the more scrupulous part of the community pronounced the proclamation to be a deliberate insult to the national religion. These feelings were not slow to find exponents in the Legislature, and very shortly after Parliament had assembled, notice was given in both Houses that the subject would be brought under discussion. While this notice was still pending in the House of Commons, a debate on the question was precipitated by some remarks made by Mr. Vernon Smith, on the 9th February, in moving for the production of some Papers relating to Indian affairs, of which he availed himself to make some observations upon Lord Ellenborough's famous Proclamation. He referred to the

Spoliation of the Temple by Mahmoud the Guznehide, to illustrate the effect which the Proclamation must have on the religious feelings of the Indian Mussulmans. Instead of allowing an idolatrous superstition to die away, Lord Ellenborough had taken the course of reviving it by this address. Mr. V. Smith argued that the Proclamation would have the effect of bringing one portion of the population of India into fearful collision with another. Among the troops which had been appointed to escort the Gates from Affghanistan to Guzerat were British and Sepoys -men of all creeds-Christian, Mussulman, and Hindoo. Nothing was more important than to preserve unanimity among the troops; yet the course adopted by the Governor-General was calculated in the highest degree to endanger that unanimity. He believed that the Court of Directors would give expression to a very strong reproof: that they would reprove, if not recall him, unless restrained by the highest authority. He would take upon himself to say, that the noble Lord who could issue such a Proclamation was utterly unfit to be intrusted with the administration of such an empire as that which we possessed. He said nothing of the designs for ribands which the noble Lord had sent home to be approved of by the Government at home, and then returned to him, that he might bestow them to commemorate his victories. Of these he should say nothing; but he could not avoid saying that, in common phraseology, the Government of India had quite turned the head of the noble Lord. He was therefore unwilling any longer that so important a

He asked on behalf of the public that Her Majesty's Government should now give their opinion on the fitness of the Governor-General to hold so important an office as that which invested him with the uncontrolled dominion of a great empire.

Mr. Bingham Baring vindicated Lord Ellenborough for having brought back the gates, on the ground that a negotiation, which had taken place between Schah Soojah and Runjeet Singh, when the latter was asked by the former for succour, had evinced, that the possession of those gates was con⚫ sidered by the Hindoos as a glory, and the surrender of them as a disgrace. The Governor General had had no intention to identify himself with the idolatry of the people. Nor was his conduct regarded with displeasure by the Mahomedans, who rejoiced to see the tide of conquest turned back upon their Affghan enemies. The Proclamation showed no disposition to accredit these trophies as religious objects, or in any other way than as symbols of victory. The plain, practical good sense of the English people would judge men by their acts, and would not forget the realised effects of Lord Ellenborough's policy. His object had been to inflict on the Affghans a punishment which should be felt as severe, and yet not be inhuman. No despatch had accompanied the Proclamation; but if there were any passages in any of Lord Ellenborough's public letters which could throw light on the subject, those passages should be produced with the Proclamation.

Sir R. Inglis said, that Sir R. Peel, by not at once disclaiming the Proclamation, had forced indi

press their displeasure at it. The defence made by the last speaker had been wholly unsuccessful. The persons whom Lord Ellenborough addressed as his brothers and friends, were Hindoo princes, who would receive his statements in a very different sense from that in which Europeans would have understood them. The gates, which he boasted that he was about to restore to the Temple, had no longer a Temple belonging to them

the Temple which they had once graced was no longer in existence. It was said that the Governor did not know that the Temple was destroyed, but that only showed that he was as deficient in historical as in some other qualifications. Between one idolatry and another there was no distinction in criminality; but if such a distinction could exist at all, it would operate most especially against a worship attended with atrocities such as those which had once been practised in this Temple, now intended, as it should seem, to be restored by the British Governor. And whom had he conciliated by his sacrifice of principle? None. Whom, on the other hand, had he alienated or run the risk of alienating? Four millions of Mahomedans. It would not be sufficient to disclaim the Proclamation, the Government ought also to censure it.

Sir R. Peel complained that a debate had been precipitated on a motion for documents, that should have been evidence on which to found a future debate, the question thus being prejudged. Mr. Smith had disclaimed party feeling, but he was a warm opponent of the Government; Lord Ellenborough had entirely reversed the policy of his

naturally be prejudiced. All, however, who knew Lord Ellenborough, must acquit him of any intention to slight the religious feelings of the people of this country, and in proof of it, Sir R. Peel quoted a letter, in which Lord Ellenborough said, "I enclose for you a copy of a Circular Letter, which I have addressed to all the clergy in India. You see I am not unmindful of the real source of the uninterrupted success which has attended my exertions, alluding to the request he had made to them to return thanks to Almighty God for the restoration of the blessings of peace. He cited authorities in proof of the warlike rather than religious character of the trophies -Gibbon attributed Mahmoud's devastation of Guzerat to his avarice, and the project of discovering the golden and aromatic isles of the Southern Ocean. If his hon. Friend had read Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone's History-a work of the greatest authority and learning-he would find that they were there mentioned, not as an object of religious devotion, but, as he believed Lord Ellenborough intended to refer to them, as a great trophy of war. These gates were also alluded to by Dr. Kennedy in his recent work on the North-west of India; he said that, when he was at Ghuznee he could not help recollecting that it was the place where the tomb of Mahmoud was situated; that he had so long resided in Guzerat, where the name of that destroyer was well recollected, that in hearing it it sounded in his ear as a household word. This was the feelings of an Englishman on visiting the tomb of this conqueror.

view of Lord Ellenborough's motives: he believed that the feeling that actuated his noble Friend the Governor-General was, that as trophies of war, and being recovered in the way in which they had been, they would prove most acceptable to the people of India. His noble Friend never for a moment meant or intended that the matter should be regarded as any manifestation of religious feeling, as it appeared to have been in this country. When he spoke of the restored Temple, Lord Ellenborough evidently was under the impression that the Temple which was restored by the wife of Holkar was still in existence. He apprehended that all that was intended was to hand over these gates to the ruler of Guzerat, that they might be placed in the Temple of the place from whence they had formerly been taken as a military trophy. The expression " restored temple" implied that the gates of the former temple should be placed in it ; and it never was contemplated to reconstruct a temple for their reception. He admitted, however, that the attention of Government had been drawn to the subject; and it had been thought necessary to make representations to India with respect to it. The great question, however, for the consideration of the House, was, whether it was consistent with justice and equity, to take one particular act of a public man, and make this a ground of censure on his conduct.

When the right honourable Gentleman brought forward the Motion for censure on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough for this proclamation, he would appeal to the House on the ground which he

say that no difficulties were likely to arise from it; he would not say that no possible danger could result from it: he would not say, that it was a fit and proper compliment to pay to the people of Hindostan. He would not take such a course; but he would say, 'Do not destroy a public man's character by his conduct in one particular case, but look to his general character, and allow his general conduct and services in five thousand instances to plead against one individual act." He called upon the House to compare the state of matters on the 9th of February, 1842, and the present 9th of February. At the former period, there was a general feeling of grief and indignation at the news of the greatest disaster that had ever befallen a British army; which had arisen from the most atrocious treachery, and in which 17,000 men had perished. The Governor-General arrived in India at that time; and he found some portion of the army dispirited, and a feeling of general despondency prevailing at the unhappy events that had taken place. But what was exhibited after the lapse of ten months? They found the same Governor-General at the head of an army of 40,000 men, after having effected the evacuation of that country, which had been the scene of such base treachery; they found that every disaster had been retrieved almost on the spot where they severally had been experienced; they found that the passes, which were so full of the bones of the Sepoys, had been forced by an army which was almost dispirited; and in its place they had now an army full of enthusiasm, and fit and ready to

brought against them. "Then, exhibiting this contrast, I will remind you," continued Sir Robert Peel, addressing the Opposition, "of the language you held on this subject at this time last year. I will then ask you whether it is consistent with justice, with decency, or with common sense, that you, whose policy has been reversed, should take this single Proclamation, and tell the Governor-General, 'True, you have conquered; true, you have re-established the British name in Affghanistan ; true, you have created one universal feeling of security throughout Hindostan ; but you have issued an unwise, an improvident proclamation; and the reward of your labours shall be that you shall be disgraced by a vote of condemnation ?""

Mr. Mangles having supported the view taken by Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hume having called for evidence to Lord Ellenborough's general conduct,

Lord J. Russell said, that after what had passed in the debate, and particularly after Sir R. Peel's intimation of his own disapproval, he should hardly have thought it necessary to trouble the House, had not Sir R. Peel travelled into other topics, and in order to shelter Lord Ellenborough attacked his predecessors. He would now say, that this Proclamation was not the only act of Lord Ellenborough which he thought censurable. On the military part of the subject he would not pronounce an opinion before the production of the papers; but of the Governor's civil conduct the House could adequately judge without them. He had behaved with a blameable discourtesy to several persons of high descent; he had

naturally be prejudiced. All, however, who knew Lord Ellenborough, must acquit him of any intention to slight the religious feelings of the people of this country, and in proof of it, Sir R. Peel quoted a letter, in which Lord Ellenborough said, "I enclose for you a copy of a Circular Letter, which I have addressed to all the clergy in India. You see I am not unmindful of the real source of the uninterrupted success which has attended my exertions, alluding to the request he had made to them to return thanks to Almighty God for the restoration of the blessings of peace. He cited authorities in proof of the warlike rather than religious character of the trophies -Gibbon attributed Mahmoud's devastation of Guzerat to his avarice, and the project of discovering the golden and aromatic isles of the Southern Ocean. If his hon. Friend had read Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone's History-a work of the greatest authority and learning-he would find that they were there mentioned, not as an object of religious devotion, but, as he believed Lord Ellenborough intended to refer to them, as a great trophy of war. These gates were also alluded to by Dr. Kennedy in his recent work on the North-west of India; he said that, when he was at Ghuznee he could not help recollecting that it was the place where the tomb of Mahmoud was situated; that he had so long resided in Guzerat, where the name of that destroyer was well recollected, that in hearing it it sounded in his ear as a household word. This was the feelings of an Englishman on visiting the tomb of this conqueror.

view of Lord Ellenborough's mo tives: he believed that the feeling that actuated his noble Friend the Governor-General was, that as trophies of war, and being recovered in the way in which they had been, they would prove most acceptable to the people of India. His noble Friend never for a moment meant or intended that the matter should be regarded as any manifestation of religious feeling, as it appeared to have been in this country. When he spoke of the restored Temple, Lord Ellenborough evidently was under the impression that the Temple which was restored by the wife of Holkar was still in existence. He apprehended that all that was intended was to hand over these gates to the ruler of Guzerat, that they might be placed in the Temple of the place from whence they had formerly been taken as a military trophy. The expression " restored temple" implied that the gates of the former temple should be placed in it; and it never was contemplated to reconstruct a temple for their reception. He admitted, however, that the attention of Government had been drawn to the subject; and it had been thought necessary to make representations to India with respect to it. The great question, however, for the consideration of the House, was, whether it was consistent with justice and equity, to take one particular act of a public man, and make this a ground of censure on his conduct.

When the right honourable Gentleman brought forward the Motion for censure on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough for this proclamation, he would appeal to the House on the ground which he