Lord Keane, who was shortly after succeeded by Sir W. Cotton; he came home, and was succeeded by General Elphinstone, who, from the time of assuming the command, never appears to have been in the state of vigorous health necessary for such a position.  Are not these circumstances to be taken into account?  If my Lord Auckland had had at his disposal any of those illustrious men who had honoured the British army in later days—­if such a man as Lord Keane had remained in Cabul—­my persuasion is, you would never have heard of such a disaster as that which took place at Cabul.”

We shall leave the Whigs to settle the question with their subordinates, as to the precise degree of blame which each of the parties shall bear.  But there is seldom blame with the servants without blame in the master; and it is one of Lord Ellenborough’s just titles to our praise, that he has been ably served by the officers whom he so ably supported.

If our Affghan disasters were imputable to gross errors in detail, was it not right to denounce the cause?  It would have been a melancholy thing if we had been thus betrayed and circumvented without errors in our own servants.  If British troops had been thus cut off, notwithstanding the use of every prudent precaution, the disasters would then have gone far to put in question the invincibility of our military power.  It was necessary to declare, that by individual and special mal-arrangement, this unparalleled disaster had arisen; so that none of our enemies should thence derive a hope to crush us again, until at least the incompetent officials of a confiding Whig Government should give them another such opportunity.

The proclamation of Simla had another purpose—­that of announcing the future policy of the Government, and repudiating those designs of aggression and aggrandizement which there was too good ground for imputing to us, and which could not fail to inspire distrust and suspicion in the minds even of friendly neighbours.  On this point nothing can be added to the 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;’