Footnote 24: On the 4th of June, two native regiments had mutinied at Cawnpore, and the English residents, under General Sir Hugh Wheeler, were besieged. After many deaths and much privation, the garrison were induced by the perfidy of Nana Sahib, who had caused the Cawnpore rising, to surrender, on condition of their lives being spared. On the 27th of June, not suspecting their impending fate, the enfeebled garrison, or what was left of it, gave themselves up. The men were killed, the women and children being first enslaved and afterwards massacred. On the 16th of July, General Havelock defeated Nana Sahib at Cawnpore, the city was occupied by the English, and a sanguinary, but well-merited, retribution exacted.
Footnote 25: The ex-King had been living under the protection of the Indian Government. The arrest took place early in June at his residence at Garden Beach.
Viscount Palmerston to Queen Victoria.
DEBATE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Piccadilly, 27th July 1857.
Viscount Palmerston presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and begs to state that Mr Disraeli this afternoon, in a speech of three hours, made his Motion on the state of India. His Motion was ostensibly for two papers, one of which does not exist, at least in the possession of the Government, and the other of which ought not to be made public, as it relates to the arrangements for defending India against external attack. He represented the disturbances in India as a national revolt, and not as a mere military mutiny; and he enumerated various causes which in his opinion accounted, for and justified this general revolt. Some of these causes were various measures of improved civilisation which from time to time during the last ten years the Indian Government had been urged by Parliament to take. Mr Vernon Smith followed, and in a very able speech answered in great detail Mr Disraeli's allegations. Sir Erskine Perry,26 who evidently had furnished Mr Disraeli with much of his mistaken assertions, supported his views. Mr Campbell, Member for Weymouth, who had been many years in India, showed the fallacy of Mr Disraeli's arguments, and the groundlessness of many of his assertions. Mr Whiteside supported the Motion. Lord John Russell, who had after Mr Disraeli's speech communicated with the Government, expressed his disapprobation of Mr Disraeli's speech, and moved as an Amendment an Address to your Majesty expressing the assurance of the support of the House for measures to suppress the present disturbances, and their co-operation with your Majesty in measures for the permanent establishment of tranquillity and contentment in India.27 Mr Mangles, the Chairman of the Directors, replied at much length, and very conclusively to Mr Disraeli's speech. Mr Liddell, with much simplicity, asked the Speaker to tell him how he should vote, but approved entirely of Lord John Russell's address. Mr Ayrton moved an adjournment of the Debate, which was negatived by 203 to 79. Mr Hadfield then shortly stated in his provincial dialect that "we can never keep our 'old upon Hindia by the Force of Harms." Mr Disraeli then made an animated reply to the speeches against him, but in a manner almost too animated for the occasion. Mr Thomas Baring set Mr Disraeli right, but in rather strong terms, about some proceedings of the Committee on Indian Affairs in 1853, with regard to which Mr Disraeli's memory had proved untrustworthy. Viscount Palmerston shortly made some observations on the Motion and the speech which had introduced it; and the Motion was then negatived without a division, and the Address was unanimously carried.
Footnote 26: Chief Justice of Bombay 1847-1852, and M.P. for Devonport 1854-1859.
Footnote 27: "One of those dry constitutional platitudes," said Mr Disraeli in reply, "which in a moment of difficulty the noble lord pulls out of the dusty pigeon-holes of his mind, and shakes in the perplexed face of the baffled House of Commons." Mr Disraeli was admittedly much annoyed by the statesmanlike intervention of Lord John.