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

conveying a foolish insult to his predecessor, grossly misrepresent ing his conduct and his motives,

and this in his absence. Then he had made unwise declarations about the natural limits of the British Empire in India, and given out that this Empire is to be for ever limited by the Indus. The course taken by him was not accurately represented as a reversal of the former policy; and a Governor capable of calumniating his predecessor as Lord Ellenborough had done, was not a man in whose hands such an empire as that of India could safely be left. Mr. C. Buller thought the Government would find reason to regret that they had challenged enquiry into the general conduct of Lord Ellenborough, instead of suffering him to be condemned upon a single issue, and moved for documents relating to the Governor General's financial policy.

Both Motions were agreed to. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, March 9th, the Marquis of Clanricarde brought the same subject into discussion. After many expressions of personal regard and admiration for Lord Ellenborough, he called the attention of their Lordships to his celebrated proclamations on the termination of the war in Affghanistan, and the restoration of the gates of Somnauth. He declined to enter at all upon the question of the policy of which those documents professed to be the exposition, but contended that under no possible circumstances should a Governor-General have publicly canvassed, and criticised the acts of his predecessor, as Lord Ellenborough had done. Lord Cornwallis and Lord Wellesley had felt

which they found in operation upon their arrival in India ; but their disapprobation had been addressed not to the Indian nation, but to the secret Committee of the Directors. The affairs of India had been constantly a subject of party conflict at home; but until now party politics had never been imported into that country. No example could have a worse effect either on our native subjects, or upon the Indian army. An undue laxity of discipline had been imputed to the latter, but what could be conceived more calculated to encourage such a spirit than to find a Governor-General publicly condemning the conduct of him whom he had but just supplanted? He ridiculed the terms in which the Somnauth proclamation was conceived, and especially the sending of such a present to a temple which had long ceased to exist. If the gates had been intended merely as a military trophy, they should either have been set up in Calcutta, or transmitted to this country; but bestowed as they had been, their application appeared to be a direct encouragement to a gross and detestable idolatry. It was difficult to determine what should be our course of action as a Christian people among the many creeds of India, and the many jealousies they created; but it was evidently dangerous to tamper, however slightly, with the religious feeling of the people; and yet Lord Ellenborough had issued an edict than which nothing could have tended more to excite religious tumults, and to let loose the fanatical frenzy of the Mussulmans. Circumstances had never been more favourable for the consolidation of our East

now from internal disturbances; and as Lord Ellenborough had, by his proclamations introduced a new element of discord, he had thought it necessary to bring his conduct under discussion. The noble Marquis concluded by moving the following resolution :

"That this House has seen with regret and disapprobation the proclamation of the Governor-General of India, dated the 1st October last, and his letter to the princes, chiefs, and people of India, of the 16th of November; because those papers may tend to mislead the native population with respect to the motives and conduct of the British Government in India, may excite religious dissensions, may be construed into a direct countenance of gross superstition, and are calculated to introduce the practice, hitherto unknown to our Indian administration, of publicly commenting and reflecting upon the previous acts and policy of the Government, thereby interfering with that conviction of permanence and stability which is essential to the interests of the British empire in India."

The Duke of Wellington rose after the Marquis of Clanricarde, and began his defence of Lord Ellenborough by complaining that the Marquis had framed a kind of "cumulative resolution," that is to say, it led to a discussion on one resolution with respect to two papers on totally distinct subjects. He denied that the case of Lord Cornwallis was in point; for Lord Ellenborough's predecessor had issued a proclamation stating, for the information of India and the world at large, the circumstances under which operations were commenced; and he thought it was

make known the existing state of the case, in what form he found the arrangements, and how he should provide permanently for the defence of the vast dominions under his government. It must be remembered that British India and the Affghans were not the only parties to be informed: but there were also the Sikhs, who were concerned in the military arrangements. And, he asked, whether there was anything in that proclamation but what was stricly true, and strictly the fact. The disasters to which it referred were military disasters. Lord Clanricarde had referred to the Duke as giving opinions to Lord Ellenborough: now he had done so; but he had given none which could be the foundation of anything in the proclamation. Yet he entirely concurred in it; and he could not help saying, without attaching blame to Lord Auck land, that in the course of those operations, from first to last, grievous errors had been committed. The first error was attributable to the gentleman who fell a victim very much owing to his own errors (Sir William Macnaghten): it was the formation of Shah Soojah's army. The army was partly English and partly Hindoo; and upon it devolved the maintenance of the whole system of government, including the collection of the revenue. It had consequently become necessary to support the army with some of the Company's troops, and in so doing to violate a rule of the utmost importance in the administration of Indian affairs-that the Company's European troops should never be employed in the collection of revenue. The next error was the manner in