pied.

No practicable communications had been kept up with Shikarpore, Candahar, and Ghuznee; and the passes had been left in the hands of banditti-neither the Kojuck Pass in the South, nor the Bolan in the North, had been kept open; but for this such disasters could never have occurred. But Lord Auckland had nothing to do with this. Again, Sir William Macnaghten was not a military officer; and that was another error. But the late GovernorGeneral, he thought, was totally mistaken in the arrangements he made with respect to the Resident. The Duke had himself held a similar situation, and knew in what relation he ought to stand to the troops his business was to see that the troops were provided with necessary resources, but not to command them. This, then, was one of the errors, military errors, to which he believed Lord Ellenborough adverted. The Duke now came to the other paper; which he contended was nothing more nor less than a song of triumph. He knew pretty well the feeling in the Indian army, and he knew its subordination and discipline to be such, that there was no feeling of distinction as regards religion or caste, any more than in the British army. He did not mean to say that there might not be a Moslem feeling in India: such a feeling might be written up, and spoken up to any extent; and in that manner such mischief as had been anticipated might be produced. The difficulties in India were greater now than they formerly were, because there was now what

is called a "free press," but what he should call a licentious press. With a British population in In

sons, including 25,000 troops, how could the country be governed, if the people were excited by observations of this description with respect to their feelings, commencing here and worked up by the press? The Duke went on to argue that Lord Ellenborough's proclamation could not have been meant to encourage idolatry ; resting much on his circular to the clergy, desiring them to offer a solemn thanksgiving.

Lord Auckland interposed the briefexplanation, that Sir William Macnaghten did not command the troops; that gentleman had no more authority than what for many years had been given to the political agent in that country.

The other defenders of Lord Ellenborough were Lord Colchester, Lord Fitzgerald, and Lord Brougham.

Lord Fitzgerald said that a private letter had been written to him by Lord Ellenborough, stating what pains he had taken to guard against misconception in his Somnauth proclamation: he had rewritten it three times; and in another letter he said, he hoped he had guarded against objections by a particular class of persons to whom he alluded, including Sir Robert Inglis, in which he had reckoned without his host.

Lord Brougham exposed the weak points of the assailants; who abandoned charge after charge, imputing "intention," and dwindling down to "tendency."

The Bishop of Llandaff did not believe that Lord Ellenborough meant any slur on religion.

The Bishop of Norwich thought the Somnauth proclamation injurious to religion; but could not concur in the political part of the

The Bishop of Chichester regarded the proclamation as a simple error in judgment, and on those several grounds those Prelates refused their votes to the motion. On a division the resolution was negatived, by 83 to 25.

Mr. Vernon Smith on the same night moved in the House of Com

mons:

"That this House, having regard to the high and important functions of the Governor-General of India, the mixed character of the native population, and the recent measures of the Court of Directors for discontinuing any seeming sanction to idolatry in India, is of opinion that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, in issuing the general orders of the 16th of November, 1842, and in addressing the letter of the same date to all the chiefs, princes, and people of India, respecting the restoration of the gates of a temple to Somnauth, is unwise, indecorous and reprehensible."

Mr. Vernon Smith contended that if Lord Ellenborough's acts were viewed as a whole as his defenders claimed, it made the case against him stronger; and he proved the proclamation about the gates to be a complete misrepresentation of the objects of the war. There were many passages in his letters which showed that he early contemplated the withdrawal of the troops; in his letter to General Nott, of the 4th July, 1842, he dissuaded from " any hazardous operations against Ghuznee and Cabul;" and yet his proclamation made it appear that the object of the war was to bear away the gates, Mr. Smith referred to the histo. rians Gibbon and Elphinstone, to show that the proceeding must

Hindoo religious feelings, by restoring the gates of their temple; but its effect must be equally offensive to the Mahometans-a smaller, but more concentrated portion of the Indian people, and, of course, to the Mahometans of our Sepoy regiments. That was proved in the case of the Sepoy who refused, on religious scruples to accompany a Hindoo procession, and who was tried before a courtmartial and acquitted.

Mr. Mangles declared that the Mussulmans hate the British Government with intense hatredloathing was not too strong a word

for wresting the Indian provinces from their sway; the feeling was shown in 1832, when a trooper was shot, and hanged in chains for having shot his commanding officer Capt. Wallace; and the body was obliged to be taken down because the people regarded it as that of a martyr, and flocked to touch it for the cure of diseases. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Mussulmans of India were originally indifferent to the invasion of Affghanistan; there was scarcely one of rank or distinction who had not Affghan blood in his veins.

Several speakers, among whom was Mr. Plumptre, regarded the proclamation as calculated to stay the progress of religion in India.

This point was strongly insisted on by Mr. Macaulay, who enumerated the characteristics of the Hindoos in their worship-their wild fables, rites fatal to morality, symbols not to be named, suttee, and thuggism, sanctioned by its horrid divinity; all of which had been too much tolerated by the British Government, and even in some instances made the source of revenue. Gradually, however, a

pied. No practicable communications had been kept up with Shikarpore, Candahar, and Ghuznee; and the passes had been left in the hands of banditti-neither the Kojuck Pass in the South, nor the Bolan in the North, had been kept open; but for this such disasters could never have occurred. But Lord Auckland had nothing to do with this. Again, Sir William Macnaghten was not a military officer; and that was another error. But the late GovernorGeneral, he thought, was totally mistaken in the arrangements he made with respect to the Resident. The Duke had himself held a similar situation, and knew in what relation he ought to stand to the troops his business was to see that the troops were provided with necessary resources, but not to command them. This, then, was one of the errors, military errors, to which he believed Lord Ellenborough adverted. The Duke now came to the other paper; which he contended was nothing more nor less than a song of triumph. He knew pretty well the feeling in the Indian army, and he knew its subordination and discipline to be such, that there was no feeling of distinction as regards religion or caste, any more than in the British army. He did not mean to say that there might not be a Moslem feeling in India: such a feeling might be written up, and spoken up to any extent; and in that manner such mischief as had been anticipated might be produced. The difficulties in India were greater now than they formerly were, because there was now what is called a "free press," but what he should call a licentious press. With a British population in In

sons, including 25,000 troops, how could the country be governed, if the people were excited by observations of this description with respect to their feelings, commencing here and worked up by the press? The Duke went on to argue that Lord Ellenborough's proclamation could not have been meant to encourage idolatry; resting much on his circular to the clergy, desiring them to offer a solemn thanksgiving.

Lord Auckland interposed the briefexplanation, that Sir William Macnaghten did not command the troops; that gentleman had no more authority than what for many years had been given to the political agent in that country.

The other defenders of Lord Ellenborough were Lord Colchester, Lord Fitzgerald, and Lord Brougham.

Lord Fitzgerald said that a private letter had been written to him by Lord Ellenborough, stating what pains he had taken to guard against misconception in his Somnauth proclamation: he had rewritten it three times; and in another letter he said, he hoped he had guarded against objections by a particular class of persons to whom he alluded, including Sir Robert Inglis, in which he had reckoned without his host.

Lord Brougham exposed the weak points of the assailants; who abandoned charge after charge, imputing "intention," and dwindling down to "tendency."

The Bishop of Llandaff did not believe that Lord Ellenborough meant any slur on religion.

The Bishop of Norwich thought the Somnauth proclamation injurious to religion; but could not concur in the political part of the

The Bishop of Chichester regarded the proclamation as a simple error in judgment, and on those several grounds those Prelates refused their votes to the motion. On a division the resolution was negatived, by 83 to 25.

Mr. Vernon Smith on the same night moved in the House of Com..

mons:

"That this House, having regard to the high and important functions of the Governor-General of India, the mixed character of the native population, and the recent measures of the Court of Directors for discontinuing any seeming sanction to idolatry in India, is of opinion that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, in issuing the general orders of the 16th of November, 1842, and in addressing the letter of the same date to all the chiefs, princes, and people of India, respecting the restoration of the gates of a temple to Somnauth, is unwise, indecorous and reprehensible."

Mr. Vernon Smith contended that if Lord Ellenborough's acts were viewed as a whole as his defenders claimed, it made the case against him stronger; and he proved the proclamation about the gates to be a complete misrepresentation of the objects of the war. There were many passages in his letters which showed that he early contemplated the withdrawal of the troops; in his letter to General Nott, of the 4th July, 1842, he dissuaded from " any hazardous operations against Ghuznee and Cabul;" and yet his proclamation made it appear that the object of the war was to bear away the gates, Mr. Smith referred to the histo. rians Gibbon and Elphinstone, to show that the proceeding must

Hindoo religious feelings, by restoring the gates of their temple; but its effect must be equally offensive to the Mahometans—a smaller, but more concentrated portion of the Indian people, and, of course, to the Mahometans of our Sepoy regiments. That was proved in the case of the Sepoy who refused, on religious scruples to accompany a Hindoo procession, and who was tried before a courtmartial and acquitted.

Mr. Mangles declared that the Mussulmans hate the British Government with intense hatred― loathing was not too strong a word

for wresting the Indian provinces from their sway; the feeling was shown in 1832,when a trooper was shot, and hanged in chains for having shot his commanding officer Capt. Wallace; and the body was obliged to be taken down because the people regarded it as that of a martyr, and flocked to touch it for the cure of diseases. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Mussulmans of India were originally indifferent to the invasion of Affghanistan ; there was scarcely one of rank or distinction who had not Affghan blood in his veins.

Several speakers, among whom was Mr. Plumptre, regarded the proclamation as calculated to stay the progress of religion in India.

This point was strongly insisted on by Mr. Macaulay, who enumerated the characteristics of the Hindoos in their worship-their wild fables, rites fatal to morality, symbols not to be named, suttee, and thuggism, sanctioned by its horrid divinity; all of which had been too much tolerated by the British Government, and even in some instances made the source of revenue. Gradually, however, a

Wellesley had abolished the immolation of female children; Lord William Bentinck the suttee, Lord Glenelg the pilgrim-tax; and in 1841 the East India Company sent orders to the Governor-General to have nothing to do with the native temples, to make no presents to them, and to employ no troops in doing them honour. But Lord Ellenborough had departed from the neutrality inculcated; he interfered in the concerns of an idol temple; made a gift to it, and sent troops with his present, that temple being dedicated to "Siva the Destroyer," and to the most repulsive rites. Nor was he even a popular divinity; for his temples were supported only by the Brahmins, and owned but small congregations. A proclamation which had excited such agitation in India, such condemnation in England, and such mockery in Europe, proved Lord Ellenborough's incapacity for his office. He should like to know if the Directors did not await the arrival of the next mail in extreme nervousness; could they answer the general cry, "What next?" Had Lord Ellenborough been his brother, Mr. Macaulay remarked, Lord Auckland could not have used more assiduity to leave him every advantage on assuming the functions which devolved on him; the requital of Lord Ellenborough was the proclamation of the 1st of October, stigmatising Lord Auckland in his absence, and moreover, violating official decency and that state unity which is so necessary to the good government of such distant and extensive possessions. The date was even falsified to correspond with Lord Auckland's proclamation of the 1st October,

not know on the 1st of October, that the prisoners were safe. (Mr. Hogg said that he received official information on the 4th.) Such a method of procuring a paltry triumph by the contrast, exhibited a mind and temper utterly unfitted for the high responsibility of his government. For the purpose of that paltry attack on Lord Auckland, he even incurred the liability of the reproach that he had disregarded the fate of the prisoners. Were the present Government prepared to carry out the late proclamation, to sanction the expectation of the Hindoos that there was to be a triumph for them, and that they were to be governed on Brahminical principles? Did they mean to authorize the restoration of the temple of Somnauth? or, rather, would not the gates be laid aside, and the gratification of the Hindoos be succeeded by disappointment? For the first time in history, the natives were beginning to laugh at a Governor-General. They acknowledged and respected the plainness and solidity of the English character; and though they bowed in the streets of Calcutta to the ostentation of a Nabob, with a beard to his waist, and turban and jewels of paste, they would have thought Sir Charles Metcalfe out of his wits had they met him in the same guise. Nor was the proclamation a real imitation of Eastern style; it was rather an imitation of the trashy addresses issued by the French Directory during the Revolution. It afforded, too, a very serious indication of the relation in which Lord Ellenborough stood to the civil service of India. It never could have had the approval of