admirable exposition of Lord Fitzgerald
in the late debate:--

"But there were other circumstances which compelled the
Governor-General of India; he meant, which made it his duty to
proclaim the motives of the policy of the Government; and why?
--because a different policy had been proclaimed by his predecessor;
and when it became necessary to withdraw from Affghanistan, it was
necessary to show that this was not a retreat. We were compelled to
show that we were not shrinking from setting up a king, because we
could not sustain him there. He said it was the duty of the
Governor-General to make that known to the Indian public. He would
not attempt to shelter Lord Ellenborough in this respect, by
saying--'it was prudent,' or, 'it did no harm:'--he maintained it
was his duty. What had been the language of the late Ministers of the
Crown, in the last session of Parliament? And these debates, as the
noble Earl had well said, 'went forth to India;' the discussions in
that House went forth to the Indian public. He found one Minister of
the Crown saying--'He should like to see the Minister, or the
Governor of India, who would dare to withdraw from the position we
occupied in Affghanistan.' (Hear, hear.) He found another noble lord,
in another place, stating, 'they took credit for the whole of that
measure, and he trusted that at no time would that position in
Affghanistan be abandoned.' These were views of public policy which
went forth to India, and it was not inconvenient nor unjust that
those who administered the government of India on different
principles should proclaim their views. The noble earl opposite,
knew that at that period it was not intended altogether to confine
the operations of the army to the westward of the Indus. It was very
well to say, that it was unwise and impolitic, and calculated to
destroy the unanimity which was so essential to the Government of
India, to issue public information as to the reasons for the
withdrawal of an army, although its advance was heralded by a
declaration on all these points, because the withdrawal of an army
was supposed to terminate the operations; but in the eyes of India
and Asia, if the declaration of the noble earl, dated from Simla on
the same day of the same month of a preceding year, had remained as
a record of British policy after that declaration had been followed
by a campaign, brilliant at its commencement, but as delusive as
brilliant, and terminated by a most