Who is lord auckland

Now was that an unusual mode for matter of such a communication? Baronet says, that there is no official record of it. Baronet must know that on such occasions it is usual before any public sanction is given to the continuance of an officer, that a private letter is written, asking if he can act under a new Government consistently with his honour.

I wrote him a private letter, and not an official despatch. How this communication was made without the knowledge of the noble Lord's Colleagues, it is not for me to explain.

The communication made to me was not of a confidential nature, and I had no motive for concealing the fact, or making a secret of it. While I admit, that the right hon. Baronet has cleared himself from participation in this communication, I hope he will do me equal justice in acknowledging that I had good grounds for making the statement I did, and for believing it.

Lord Auckland, it must be observed, had not been asked to stay a year after May, And what was his answer? Well, on the 7th of September last, it having become time that some step should be taken in the matter, the Government of India was asked, what was to be done?

What was the answer of the President of the Board of Control? He need not state to the House that he was not withholding any other communications than those he had read. He had read everything bearing on the point in his possession, and he could, therefore, only say again—of course not undertaking to answer for what private communication a man of generous feeling like Lord Ellen-borough might have addressed to Lord Auckland,—that the House would see he could by no possibility have been a party to any such communication.

The letter he had read on a former evening stated, that "it was very lucky that Lord Auckland had sent home his positive resignation. Therefore it was possible that the communication which the right hon. Baronet had just read might have been written to him after Lord Ellenborough had received Lord Auckland's positive resignation, and had come to a conclusion that the wish expressed in his former letter to Lord Auckland would not be complied with.

Of one thing he believed there could be no doubt—that Lord Ellenborough wrote a most flattering letter to Lord Auckland, urging him to remain in India. That he could slate from his own personal knowledge; he believed it to be quite true. On the 7th of September Lord Auckland's resignation must have been received by Lord Ellenborough, and therefore he was enabled to state to the right hon.

Baronet, notwithstanding his own most pressing letter to Lord Auckland, that the Government of India was vacant. He knew that among the noble Lord's friends at Calcutta great grief prevailed that Lord Ellenborough's letter had not reached Calcutta before Lord Auckland's own letter of resignation could have reached England, as the language of the former might possibly have had an effect on Lord Auckland's mind.

Now, he would appeal to the right hon. Hobhouse , whether he was not right in saying that that request would not justify the noble Lord in drawing any such inference? Under the then existing exigencies of the public service in India, looking to the state of the Affghan war, and other affairs, the Court of Directors did acquiesce in a suggestion which came from his right hon.

Friend the late President of the Board of Control, and they did think that in the then state of circumstances the best thing to be done for the public service was to press Lord Auckland to remain, and Lord Auckland on public grounds consented. Now, to prove that the letter of Lord Ellenborough, whatever it might have been, was a merely private intimation, he begged to say that he for one till that night never heard of the existence of that letter, and he begged leave most distinctly to say that it was not competent for the President of the Board of Control to intimate to the Governor-general his wish that he should remain for another year.

The President of the Board of Control must have the sanction of the Court of Directors before he could make officially any such request. He could most distinctly state that the acquiescence of the Court of Directors was never asked, much less given, to such a letter. Friend had made a direct appeal to him in respect to the interpretation he gave to the request of the Court of Directors, in May , to Lord Auckland, to remain in his government for a year longer, or for some time longer than the usual time for the stay of the Governors-general, and at which Lord Auckland himself thought that he should come back.

Now it had been his intention to have kept all these communications between the chairman of the Board of Directors and himself entirely to himself, except he had asked permission of the hon. Gentleman who was chairman when the Affghan expedition was determined upon.

But as the hon. Member had asked him in the face of the House and the public whether he considered the request of the Court of Directors to Lord Auckland to remain beyond the time which he had fixed for his return, to be an approbation of Lord Auckland's general policy and conduct, without the slightest hesitation he said "Yes. Gentleman telling them the other night, when the word "sagacity" was made use of in moving the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland from the East India Company in the Court of Proprietors, that sagacity did not mean sagacity.

That was what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman said—what he had of course a right to tell of his own conduct—that he had objected to the vote of thanks.

But the word was found in the vote, and the Court had been told that it was not objectionable, as it did not carry with it the sense which anybody else, certainly everybody in the House of Commons, would have supposed; namely, that the Governor-general had shown in this policy of his sagacity, or wisdom, or any other word by which they chose to interpret the expression "sagacity," and that the hon.

Member should have had, he would not say the courage, but the good-nature, to ask him whether he did or did not suppose that when Lord Auckland was requested to remain a year longer, it was a sign of approbation of Lord Auckland's policy;—why, in the name of God, what else could he take it for?

It was in consequence of communications between the Chairs and himself, and because Lord Auckland was considered to be the best man to carry out his own policy, that the request was made to Lord Auckland, and he had every reason to believe that Lord Auckland had the support of the chair. As he told the hon.

Member long ago, it was not until their late disasters that he had heard anything relative to the Court being opposed to Lord Auckland. It was all new what the hon. Member had told him, that there was not one out of twenty-four directors who did not condemn the Affghan expedition; that was all perfectly new to him. Ask Sir J. Lushington, the present chairman; ask that gentleman what communications he had with him.

Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. All rights reserved. Sign in to annotate. On the death of his elder brother, the MP for Woodstock, in , he took his brother's seat in the House of Commons and was re-elected for Woodstock in In , he succeeded his father as second Baron Auckland, taking a seat in the House of Lords as a supporter of the Whig Party.

He served briefly as First Lord of the Admiralty from until when he was appointed Governor-General of India. An excellent administrator, he introduced reforms in education and initiated famine relief in India but his desire to expand British trade and influence in central Asia led to a disastrous military campaign in Afghanistan. Recalled to England, he was replaced in office by Lord Ellenborough in In , he was again appointed Lord of the Admiralty, holding this office until his death on 1 January near Alresford, Hampshire.

In such cases the archivist will advise about any requirements imposed by the owner. These may include seeking permission to read, extended closure, or other specific conditions. The Directors disallowed the treaty but he did not inform the nawab about this.

His involvement in the first Anglo-Afghan War did not earn him any credit. The Afghan war led to the unnecessary breach in a recently signed treaty with the Amirs of Sind. Conducted in a callous way the war ended in a great tragedy for the British.