The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-09 00:00:00

• IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 8. . The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES ON GAMING DIS CONTINUANCE BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, in the absence of the Duke of Richmond, moved the second reading of the Actions for Penalties on Gaming Discontinuance Bill. Their Lord ships were aware that the Liegislature had at various times passed laws for the suppression of gambling, and among those laws was one imposing certain 'penalties on parties who should lose more than 101. at a sitting at any game. The courts of law had chosen to apply this statute to horse-racing, although he was at a loss to understand how they could come to such a conclusion ; yet such was the case. The Legislature, however, always reserved the power of pre venting its decisions being abused, and in the case to which he referred, many most respectable persons, among them many Noble and Hon. Friends of his own, had had qui tam actions brought against them to recover penalties to an immense amount on account of their having betted en horse-races. These Noble and Honourable persons -titers merely desirous of encouraging manly sports, and of improving the breed of horses, in which we surpassed all Europe. They were ignorant of the law on the sub ject. They betted, and when they lost they paid their bets honourably ; but many of the persons with whom they betted were dishonourable persons, who refused to pay when they lost. Steps had of late been taken at all respectable meetings to drive these dishonourable persons from the turf, and, not from any honest and honourable motive—not from any desire to put down gambling, but from motives of mere spite—these persons had raked up the penal clauses of these Acts of Parliament, and had brought qui tam actions for the recovery of penalties against these noble persons. He did not know the exact amount of the penalties sought to be recovered, but one Noble Friend of his was liable to 68,0001., another Noble Friend to 102,0001., and a county Member, a gentleman whose character stood very high, to no less than 120,000/. The whole amount was probably 300,000/. He understood that all these actions were brought by the sons of the keepers of places, the name of which respect for his audience prevented him from stating.—(Laughter.) But it was notorious that these actions were brought by the keepers of gaming-houses of the worst description. He had no knowledge of gaming whatever, but he had been assured that the case was as he had shortly stated it. What the Bill proposed was, not that any prospective law should be passed, but only that the bad parts of the old law should be repealed, and some good and sound provisions substituted in their stead. It was proposed that, on application to the Judges in chambers, an order should be obtained to stop the pending actions on pay ment of the costs out of pocket of the parties bringing them. The Bill had the full approval of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the greatest common-law Judge in England. He proposed also to add a clause, on the third reading, for suspending future actions, as, if they did not,- the moment the present writs were ended new actions would be commenced. Lord CAMPBELL felt much pleasure in supporting the Bill. He was assured that the actions were brought by infamous persons—that was clear—either for the pur pose of extorting money, or to avenge' themselves for some supposed wrong. At the same time he thought the Noble Lord, out of respect to the g'ra've' apr Venerable sages of the law might have spoken less severely " of the decisions pronounced for the last hundred years in Westminster hall on this question. The Act against gambling, included " any other games whatsoever ;" now horse-racing was a game ; chariot-racing was a game ; it was one of the ancient Olympic games. He agreed that the common informer was a pestilent cha racter; but the law had hitherto given them the penalties on convictions and the costs of action. He thought to .deprive them, now of, what the Legislature had always . , awarded them was unadvisable. . The Bishop of LONDON did not intend to oppose .the second reading of the Bill. .Some doubts that he ::had felt with regard to it had been removed by the • Noble and Learned Lord who had moved the second reading. He apprehended that the third clause only extended to' such a time as would enable the House to give a due consideration to the subject, Lord BROUGHAM—Nothing more. The Bishop of LONDON said, the principle of admitting common informers to give evidence was similar to that which admitted particeps cri minis to give evidence against their confederates. . The whole proceeding appeared to him somewhat ob jectionable, and partook of the nature of modifying the existing laws on behalf of the rich at ,the expense of the poor. If poor persons incurred debts and responsibilities which they were unable to pay, the Legis lature would not interfere on their behalf to relieve them from the payment. Unless they also made the law stringent and salutary against gaming, he thought the present Bill might be considered as rather favourable to it. He could not approve of any measure that tended to encourage betting, especially among the poor. They might leave the rich to do what they chose with their property, but they ought to interfere to protect the poor. Lord BROUGHAM said the law had always ad mitted common informers to put the law in force. It was a great anomaly, but the law having trusted to the popularis actio,and confided to common informers the work ing of different Acts, he thought it ought not now to deprive these men of their costs out of pocket, and the penalty also. But were they to go on for ever on this most bar barous system, with no one to watch over and enforce the laws, no public prosecutor, the enforcing of Acts being given either to the worst possible characters, or to the offended and aggrieved parties ? The want of a public prosecutor was productive of great mischief. He knew a case in which forgery to the amount of 5,0001 was committed at Plymouth, and the party escaped, by his friends subscribing and buying off the prosecutor, so that when the trial was called on, no one appeared. He remembered once to have seen a most respectable gentleman—a man worth 20,000/. a year—standing in the dock to be tried for his life on a charge of murder ; and he believed that his not be ing of the same sect as the grand jury entered very much into the cause of his being so charged. The murder consisted of not his, but his bailiff's, having neglected to hang a lamp across a road which he was getting mended, in consequence of which an old woman lost her life. He should never forget the indig nation of the L6arned" Judge when he asked where was the grand jury, and had ascertained that they were gone. The man, of course, was acquitted. This was an instance of the system that he deprecated of committing the execution of the laws to the irrre sponsible conduct of private individuals. The Bishop of EXETER said it was his painful duty to give expression to sentiments at variance, not only with those of the Noble and Learned Lord who had just sat down, but also with those of the whole House. It appeared to him that the law of the land having given certain rights to these informers, the Legislature should be reluctant in repealing them. It had been said that the sovereigns of the country for the last two centuries had, by giving King's and Queen's plates, encouraged this sort of amusement. In the reign of Charles the Second, however, who had very much encouraged that species of amusement by giving such plates, a statute was introduced to put down, what ? Not horse-racing—not to restrain betting—but to restrain excessive gaming. Now what was the great plea upon which the House was called on to put an end to those outrageous cases ? It was, that if those actions would proceed, it was po sible that all the damages that might be awarded would amount to half a million. He ven tured to ask any of their Lordships if that were not exces sive gaming? '1 hey were asked to put an end to the statute which would check that excessive gaming ; and why ? because the Legislature found that there were persons base enough to avail themselves of the faults of others, to enrich themselves. But it must be remembered that the law gave to these very individuals the right of action. It had been said that this was not the first time theta measure of this sort had been brought before th •ir Lordships. He was aware of a remarkable case that had reference to the penal ties incurred by the clergy. A person availed himself of information obtained in an office, to inform the proper authorities that certain clergymen being resident in one living were not resident at other livings in their possession. Of course the Legis lature gave them relief from the action that was brought against them, but it was coupled with the condition that they should be allowed a certain time to put up a notification of their intended absence, and that if such notification were not well founded, then that the ac tions should proceed. Thus the Legislature in 1814, in that case stepped in to protect the objects of the law. That was a precedent for their Lordships to follow and it was for their Lordships to consider whether the parties who came for relief in the present case, had offended or not against the principle of the law, which it • was now sought to repeal. The object of the law they were called on to suspend—was to prevent excessive gaming ; and the question to be considered was, whether those parties who now came before the House had or bad not offended against the principle of the law. He had come down intending to propose that the Bill should not be proceeded with for six months, but, after hearing the authority of the Lord Chief Justice on the subject, he would content himself with saying " Not Content." Lord BROUGHAM said, that although it was quite true that th e pena l t i es to b e recovere d aga i ns t som e of these parties were very heavy, the fact was that they were not th e i r own debts. It was well known that a man's f r i en d s betted for him in various parts of the country, and thus the agg regate sum was made up of various independent de bts. He should move an amendment with re gar d to co sts . and the limitation of time, on the third reading. Lord CAMPBELL said the ground on which he supported this BUJ was, that the statute in question had become obsolete, and no action h a d been brought upon it, for, he believed, fifty years. According to the la w of some countities, as of Scotl an d, for examp le, iv this desuetude o f the law would be tantamount to repeal. In this country, however, it co u ld b e reviv e d for vexatious and .oppressive purposes. When the object VMS to put the- law in force for such purposes, and not to carry out the just intents of the law, he thought the Legislature ought to interpose to stop those actions. After a few w ,rds from the Bishop of EXETER, the Bill was read a S 4 Tond time, and ordered to be read a third time to-mo n ow. THE TE A CHE: fri OF SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was Am ad a second time. The House tht n adjourned. .HOUSK OF COMMONS, Feb. 8. The SPEAKER Look the Chair at Four o'Clock. METROP C►LITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. T. DUNG V3MBE presented petitions from St. kis, and St. George's, Bloomsbury, complaining of ;h4) manner in which the Commis sioners of Woo de and Forests conducted what was galled the met. topolitan improvements. The peti tioners stated, th rat in order to carry out these improve ments the Comm' Latiioners pulled down streets, but they showed no disposition to build them up again. The consequence of this was, that trade in the particular neighbourhoods had been stopped, and the petitioners prayed the House to call upon the Commissioners to proceed more rapidly with their work. The Hon. Member also presented a petition praying for Universal Suffrage. GRIEVANCES. _ _ Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Pollock shaws, in Scotland; praying the House to take into its consideration the grievances of the people before grant ing the supplies. METROPOLITAN BRIDGE TOLLS. Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition, praying for the abolition of the Metropolitan bridge tolls. TEA DUTIES. Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from the merchants of Preston, praying for a reduction in the duties on tea. ARMY ESTIMATFS. Sir IL HARDINGE presented the army estimates, by order of her Majesty, and gave notice that as they would be printed and in the hands of Members in three or four days, he should move them in Committee of Supply on Friday, the 16th of February. NOTICES OF MOTION.-BRAZILS. Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice that he would, on Thursday, the 22d of February, bring forward a motion respecting the relations between this country and the Brazils. it ought to have been produced. That paper was never shown to the Ameers. Whatever might be the result of the present motion he trusted that the treatment which they had experienced with re gard to that document would not be suffered to pass without the marked reprobation of the House.—(Cheers.) However, the Commissioner proceeded. "The ques tion is," he said, " whether you will or will not accept the new treaty ; if not, the army under Sir Charles Naper will continue to advance." The Ameers replied—" If the army advances, our Beloochees will not be restrained, and we shall be blamed for the consequences." The Comsaisioner said it was in their own power to prevent them. The Ameers said, "We deny the charges on which the treaty is imposed, but still we will subscribe it." Major Outram proceeded—" The Ameers beg me to write to the General to delay his march, and to say that if the British troops did advance it would be impossible to restrain the Beloo ches." On the 10th February, Major Outram wrote to. Sir Charles Napier, stating that he had sent off Fitzgerald with a dispatch on the previous night, announcing that the Ameers had subscribed the treaty. On the 12th, he said "these fools are in the utmost alarm, in conse quence of the continued progress of your troops." He said "he feared that they would be impelled by their alarm to assemble their rabble with a view to defend themselves. On the 13th, he wrote that the Ameers of Upper and Lower Sinde had accepted the new treaty. But now it was to be observed, that so desirous were these Ameers to maintain peace with the British empire, that in their steps to accomplish this object, they ex posed themselves to the obloquy of their own people. Major Outram wrote that the Ameers were execrated for their dishonourable submission to what was termed robbery, and that they hazarded their own lives to guard his person. Major Outram wrote that the Ameers had sent to him to say that the Beloochees were quite uncontrollable, and that they had begged him to leave the residence as soon as possible, stating that they gave the advice from pure affection. Then occurred the attack. He must take the liberty of remarking upon the slovenly and incorrect manner in which these charges had been made, which involved such enormous consequences. Sir Charles Napier, in writing to the Governor-General an account of the battle, said, that on the night of the 14th the treaty was signed, and, on the morning of the 15th, the residence was attacked, and the Governor-General, in his pro clamation, repeated a statement implying the utter treachery of the Ameers. Whereas, by referring to the documents they would ascertain that the treaty was signed on the night of the 12th, and that between the 12th and the 14th the Ameers• endeavoured to dismiss their people, and warned Major Outram of the danger in which he was placed.—(Hear, hear.) He complained very much of this sloven lines, and of the refusal to show them the letters. But he had another complaint to make ; he complained of those running comments, those foot-lines, appended to the letters of Major Outram, which he thought were highly objectionable, unless it should turn out that Major Outram had seen them. The Ameers were defeated and dethroned. In the dispatches of the Governor-General the Ameers were spoken of as if they were responsible. The Governor-General, writing to the Secret Committee, said the Ameers were entirely masters of their own troops. It seemed to be doubtful even now that such was the case. The Governor-General admitted since then that the Ameers had not control over their troops ; and if this weak and miserable Government was unable to restrain even those who were said to act for it, was it not cruel that they should be held responsible for deeds over which they had no control whatever ? He carefully abstained from touching on the original policy regarding the annexation of the territory of the Ameers. He did not hesitate to say that he still entertained very strong opinions on the subject, but he would consider the deeds of which he spoke in the abstract. It was utterly impossible that these Princes could be supposed to have entertained any hostile intentions to wards this country. Why, if they had, would they have left their women and their valuables in our power? would they not have taken the ordinary precautions ? (Hear, hear.) Would they have left those things which they valued most at Hyderabad—all their treasure, and their wives and children ? If they had intended to march out and conduct hostile operations, it was mani fest they would have disposed of them, and sent them westward. They had on former occasions done so ; why not do so then ? Was it consistent with common sense —was it in the course of common reason—that at a period when our troops were almost defenceless and in significant in numbers, that the Ameers would not have fallen on them, but reserved their attack for a period at which our troops werenumerous, and they had no reason able chance of overcoming them ?—(lslear, hear.) But even if the Ameers had been guilty, had they not been already sufficiently sacrificed ?—( Hear, hear.) Let the House consider the position in which the Ameers were placed. They had been deprived of their throne, of their rank, of their property, and of all inde pendent sustenance for themselves and their children. They had been imprisoned and exposed to the greatest privations. He would take the liberty of reading a portion of a letter which had been addressed to the Go vernor of Bombay, by one of the captives. The writer said—" I have received a letter from the ladies of my family complaining that 565 rupees per month, allowed. by Sir Charles Napier, is not sufficient to keep up their establishment." The House must recollect that what would be a fitting establishment here would be consi dered as almost pauperism with the Ameers. This fact, contained in theletter to which he had referred, was con firmed by a private letter which he (Lord Ashley) had received from Bombay, dated the 28th of November, in which it was stated that the grant to the ladies was in sufficient, and although application had been made to increase it yet that application had not been attended to. Unless the accounts contained in the letters from Hyder abad were grossly exaggerated, the condition of the poor women was really wretched, without their hus one to whom they *l c s o a u n l d d s , a pbrothers,or consolation, sons, or Asa prison allowance no doubt the allowance to the Ameers was liber a l, b u t, as o sr i s if it were any allowance to the same persons at large, it was contemptible. Was it the intention of the Govern ment that they should be treated as prisoners ?—(Hear, hear.) In a letter he had received from Bombay his correspondent stated that the Ameers had been thrown into the deepest grief, as they be lieved that they were to be prisoners for life. They were surprised that such a return should have been made to them for past serv i ces. —(H ear, h ear.) They stated that while the Beloochees were in a state of insurrection, they remained quite tranquil, and they stated that they were entirely innocent of the charges laid to their account. It appeared that the two sons of Dost Mahomed had been confined in separate prisons, and their separation had plunged their mother into the deepest distress. She stated that it would much lessen her grief if they were allowed to be in the same prison together. He would next refer the House to a letter of Sir Charles Napier, and in doing so he did not wish to cast any invidious reflection upon that gallant and dis tinguished officer. He thought that Gallant Officer was entitled to every honour that the Crown could bestow upon him, to the thanks of the House and of the country for his gallantry. But still, speaking for the Ameers, he felt bound to draw the attention of the House to this letter, in order to show the spirit in which the inter course with them had been con d uc t e d, an d t h e i nsu lt s and degradation to which they had been subjected. The letter was dated on the 18th of March, and was addressed by Sir Charles Napier to the Ameers in captivity at Hyderabad. (Tile Noble Lord here quoted from the letter of Sir Charles Napier, in which the Gallant General stated that he was s ur p r i se d a t th e false hoods the Ameers were telling him in their letters, and that if they continued to tell those falsehoods, he would not kill them as they had orde re d th e i r peop l e to kill t h e English—an accusation, observed the Noble Lord, which has never been proved—but that he would put them in irons on board an English ship ; that Shere Mahomed was a weak man, and would soon be destroyed, and so would they unless they abstained from a repetition of their falsehoods. Was that language that ought to be used to defeated men ?—(Hear, hear.) Even convicted felons were permitted to urge a good character in miti gation of punishment, and the House should not forget the services of the Ameers at the time when we had experie • need reverses in Affghanistan—when the country was in a state of the greatest anxiety—when our Indian empire was in danger, they had faithfully rendered us every assistance.—(Cheers.) In 1841, supplies were de manded of the Ameers, and were liberally bestowed. Detachments of our army were marched through their country, not only without opposition, but with their free concurrence and cordial' co-operation. They had done everything they could to serve the British empire. If they had been our enemies only, in our prosperity, it should be remembered that they had been our friends in the period of our adversity ; and on those grounds he called upon the House to interfere in behalf of men who had been stripped of their public honours, of their private property, and transferred to the solitude ofa prison.—(Ch eers .) H e w ould not enlarge upon their love of hunti ng , or th e i r t re atment of their subjects; that had nothing to do with the question. The question was one of justice.—(Hear, hear.) Let them contrast the conduct of the present Governor-General towards the Ameers, with that of the illustrious Cornwallis towards the sons of Tippoo Saib. He, the hereditary enemy of the British in India, had delivered up his children as hostages, and, as had been recorded by Mr. Mills in his " History of British India, • " the Marquis of Cornwallis had received and treated them like a father.—(The Noble Lord then read, amidst loud cheering, a passage from Mr. Mills' work, relating to the reception and treatment of the sons of Tippoo Saib.) When, seven years afterwards, at the final overthrow of Seringapatam, those princes were taken with arms in their hands, how different had been the treatment which they had experi enced from that which had been experienced by the un fortunate Ameers ? A fortress had been fitted up for their reception, and a liberal allowance made for their support. Such was the treatment which they had ex perienced from the Marquis of Wellesley. They. had been our hereditary foes ; they had been brought up in hatred of the British name. Their father and their grandfather had wrought as much mischief. They had been conquered in a conflict, the last of a long war. To the Ameers we owed much. If they had been once hostile, they had been oft times friendly, and if they had been conquered in one fight, that fight had been th e b e ginning and the ending of an unwilling hostility.—(Loud cheers.) He had often been told that our empire in, India was founded on opinion. He would ask, was it on the opinion of our justice, or of our force ?—(Loud cheers)—and he would appeal to the Ho use to m i t i gate t h at d espo ti c power which it was, perhaps, necessary to entrust to those to whose care was C3nfid e d the Govern ment of our Indian Empire.—(Loud cheers.) But despotic power might be generous and just, and many men believed that a really Christian empire would contribute to elevate and raise the people of India. Whether by such means as these Great Britain would hold the empire of the East, re mained to to seen. At all events they had not made a very auspicious beginning.—(Hear, hear.) If they made no more accessions to their empire, let them not lose rnE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY 'MORNING, FEBRUARY 9, 1844. CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND. Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would, on the 22d of February, move for a Select Coinrnitte to inquire into the administration of the criminal law in Scotland so far as related to the punishment of prisoners. COURT OF CHANCERY—COMPENSATION. Mr. WATSON gave notice that he would, on the 22d, move for a Select Committee to inquire into the orders for compensation made by the Court of Chancery with regard to persons tilling -the offices of Six Clerks and Waiting Clerks under the 6th of Victoria, and for an inquiry into the emoluments of those officers before the passing of that Statute ; and into the amount of compensation due at that time, and for seven years after the death of each officer ; and into the circum stances relating to the passing of the Act ; the appli cation of the money raised thereby, and the propriety of continuing the same.—(Hear, hear.) SLAVE TRADE. Lord PALMERSTON stated that he would postpone the motion of which he had given notice last night with regard to the slave trade, till this day fortnight. LAW OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. Mr. MILES gave notice that he would bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating •to masters and servants. Mr. FERRAND gave notice that, to-morrow evening, he should put a question to Sir James Graham, unless in moving, this evening, his announced Bill for the amendment of the Poor-law, the information he sought should be elicited. Lord Chief Justice Denman having, on a recent occasion, declared it to be the unani mous opinion of the Judges that, in some cases, it was necessary to break in on an Act of Parliament ; and it having also been decided that the mother was always the proper party to be appointed as trustee to her own children, he (Mr. Ferrand) proposed to ask whether, in the Bill which it was intended to bring in to amend the Poof-law, the Government had inserted a clause for the purpose of prohibiting the mother and child from being se parated in the event of their becoming the inmates of a workhouse. THE AMEERS OF SINDE. Lord ASHLEY, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, in reference to the Ameers of Sinde, said it would have been more agreeable to him self, and not a little so to the House, if the subject he was about to introduce had been brought forward by some Member of greater importance. He had waited until the close of last session, partly to see whether any other Member would undertake the office of speaking in behalf of these impri soned Ameers, awl partly in expectation of the arrival of certain appeals from India to her Majesty in Council. These appeals had not arrived, but why they had not arrived no one could say. It might be that their pos sessions being confiscated, they had not the means to forward or to prosecute them ; it might be that it was out of their power to do anything in their own behalf, on account of the rigorous imprisonment to which they were subjected. But whatever was the cause, it was most fitting and necessary that justice should be done to those unfortunate princes— (Hear, hear)—and the na tional honour of the country vindicated. Now, having felt most deeply that the question should be entrusted to other and abler hands, he had, since he gave a notice on the subject last session, determined altogether to abandon it, not from any want of confidence in the merits of the case, but on account of his own incapacity to do justice to it But when there appeared in the columns of the Morning Chronicle—that important paper—a letter bearing the signature of Sir Henry Pottinger—and such a letter—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—from such a man—he did feel that it was his duty no longer to shrink from the task of bringing the subject before that House. In this remarkable letter Sir Henry Pottinger says " I lamented over the fallen state of my old friends, the Ameers, of whose case I all along said, and ever shall say, under all circumstances, and in all states and parties, that it is the most unprincipled and disgraceful that ever tarnished the national honour. No explanation or reason can, in my opinion, justify such proceedings towards them, and I know more of them than any man living. You cannot use too strong language in expressing my disapprobation and disgust at these proceedings." True, true to the very letter. These unhappy princes have strong claims, and he asked, in their name—what be would not ask in his own—that the HOuse would be kind enough to give him a patient and even a favourable hearing.(Hear hear.) With the permission of the House, he would now proceed to state the history of our connection with that country, and the claims which these princes put forth to the consideration and sympathy of the British Parliament. These princes, whose case he was now bringing before the House, are —that is to say, were dum regna erant—a combination, or federation, of crowned heads, ruling conjointly under the style and title of the Ameers of Sinde •, they ac quired their country by conquest, and ruled over a people of different language and religion from them selves, but if that was to be used as an argument against the Ameers of Sinde, as he perceived it was used in one of the minutes of the Governor-General, that argument would recoil with ten fold force upon ourselves. Why, what were they in India ? If they allowed this to weigh a single instant on their minds as an argument for the course of proceed ing against these fallen princes, it would be retorted with tenfold vigour upon ourselves. The Ameers were recog nised as the governors of that country by several suc cessive Viceroys of India. They endeavoured to in stitute friendly relations with the Ameers of Sinde, and endeavoured to prove to them that nothing but be nefits could acrue to them from an extended intercourse with the British empire. From 1758 to 1799 the East India Company passed through every variety of favour and disfavour—of suspicion and fear—of confidence and jealousy; but at last, in 1801, a treaty was made between the East India Company and the Ameers. It was the first docu ment in the blue-book, and contained this passage: "There shall be eternal friendship between the British Govern ment and the Ameers of Sinde." A second passage stated that "unanimity shall never cease between the two nations." The same thing, was declared in a new treaty in 1802, by which the relations of the former treaty were expressed in still stronger terms. The Ameers asserted that they had faithfully observed the conditions and spirit of the treaty. Those who espoused the cause of The Ameers said that the British Government had completely violated the treaty. To form some estimate of the character of the two parties it would be well to refer to history. They mould find by a book lately published by a most intelligent author, that the demeanour of the Ameers towards the other States was most peaceable. Could the same be said of us ? Now the primary object of our efforts in India was to obtain the free and unrestricted navigation of the Indus, and scruple after scruple was overcome in the minds of the Ameers, who acquiesced in each request made to them for our political advantage. In the year 1832 we obtained the partial navigation of the Indus, and, in 1834, the Ameers made further concessions to meet our views. In the second article of the treaty of 1838, it was conceded that the British Minister should reside at Hyderabad, with liberty to change his residence as he thought expedient. From this time up to 1840, there was a spirit of suspicion, of fear, of alarm, and of everything likely to excite distrust on both sides. We then called upon the Ameers to perform their part of the treaties which we ourselves had violated. In 1840 the rebellion broke out at Gwalior ; large bodies of troops were then sent through the country of the Ameers, and if they had been at all in hostility to us it would have been of the most alarming consequence to the British Government in India. They would find in the accounts of Lieut. Postans, who was at the time a resident in Sinde, that the Ameers at that time gave to the British Government the most cordial co-operation. The importance of their aid under the circumstances was rendered unquestionable by the evi dence of Sir John Keane himself. He said, in writing to the G overnor-General, that it would have been impossible to have proceeded if they had left Sinde in a state of hos tility. Now, after this, the difficulties of the British Go vernment in India increased, but as those difficulties in creased there was no disposition shown by the Ameers to diminish their friendship. They would find, in the ac count of Lieutenant Postans, that at the time the affairs of Candahar assumed so fearful an aspect as to direct at tention to that quarter that the chiefs were left in full possession of their property. There was then nothing in the conduct of the Ameers to suppose that any hos tility existed, although at that time they might have materially injured us, if not have crushed the few troops which then occupied Sinde. This, it must be remembered, was at a time when all India was anxiously watching to catch the spark of rebellion, and to strike the blow which we were then endeavouring to ward off. But still the Ameers were true to us, in spite of the efforts of political subordinates, to whom was en trusted the duty of stirring up, as much as possible, the minds of a fiercely bigoted Mahommedan people. Let the House observe what forbearance they had shown; let them observe the precautions which were taken not to offend either on one hand or the other. The manner in which he Ameers t v he ic fait t htheyente thenrt entertained d ac t ted was owards s th tr i o s n e g m ly indicative of pire.There could be no doubt that they were then subjected to great temptation by every argument that could be used on such occasions by the disaffected, the resistance to an a which arguments was l oo k e d upon as almostp°Btae in their faith. Yet, i n sp i te o f this, they had continued true to the British Government.—(Hear.) All this was borne out by Major Outram. lie stated in 1 1840 that the conduct of the Ameers was most peace able, and greatly facilitated the progress of the troops. The Governor-General himself also wrote, and bore the same testimony. The Governor-General said that the conduct of the Ameers towards the officers and towards the troops in their passage through Upper and Lower Sinde was most friendly. This was all the evidence which could be shown of those famous circulars. On the 22d of May, the Go vernor-General sent a letter in which he stated his final conditions to Major Outram. Let any one read them and say, whether they were not most harsh and severe ; but little time, however, was allowed for deliberation, an army having been assembled on the frontier; the nego tiations which we proposed were backed by the presence of a considerable force—violence naturally begot vio lence, and distrust and dismay pervaded the whole country. It was wholly impossible for the Ameers to control their subjects, and they made an attack upon the house of the Resident. Then followed a battle— the Ameers were beaten and carried into captivity, and thus those famous treaties, which began by declaring the inviolability of the country, were wound up by the imprisonment of the Ameers and the conquest and an nexation of Sinde to our empire in India. But those princes were charged with treachery. No doubt they were —of course they were—charged with treachery. Every one who undertook to establish such a weighty inputa tion against them would of course be provided with a precious pretext for it. But where was the proof ? Again and again he (Lord A.) asked, where was the proof that those persons were guilty of treachery, either to the person of the Resident, or to the rights and privi leges and power of the British ? No doubt there was great distrust among the inhabitants—no doubt there was great desire to get rid of our troops—and no' doubt they availed themselves of whatever opportunities pre sented to effect that purpose. But was there not a cause for the course of policy which the Ameers had been compelled to adopt? He would pass by all the violence of language on both sides, and would come to the simple facts which must have produced that effect upon the Ameers, and compelled them to enter upon that course of intrigue and distrust which ultimately was used as an argument for their destruction and ruin. In July, 1838, the Governor-General, having determined to carry on a system of operations in Affghanistan, was desirous of putting Sindian affairs in such a position as would best favour his ambitious intrigue. He therefore directed a letter to be sent to the Resident in Sinde, in which there was this famous passage, "The Governor-General is averse from contemplating such a result as a refusal on the part of the Ameers to enter into a composition with Shah Soojah." Such a compo ' sition as what ? Such as might be conducive to their interest ?—such as they upon due deliberation might think desirable for their independence ? No such thing. " Such a composition with Shah Soojah as the British Governor may think just and reasonable." That was a pretty way to treat an independent State. But this was not all. He then went on to say, "In case , of refusal" what was to happen ? That they should retire from the negotiation, lamenting that it had utterly failed ? No such thing. "In case of refusal temporary occupation should be taken of Shikarpore and of so much of the country adjacent as may be necessary." Nor was even that all : still more was demanded. " While the present exigency lasts," said the Go vernor-General, " you may apprise the Ameers that the article of the treaty with them"—(the House would remember with what difficulty the treaty of 1832 was obtained)—" respecting the freedom of the Indus, and the transit of military stores, must necessarily be suspended." They must recollect that nothing had yet been charged against the Ameers. Subsequently, in deed, they were involved in intrigues with the Court of Persia. He did not mean to defend their policy; but he would simply ask, whether they had set them an unblemished example ?—(Hear, hear.) Whether their own performance of treaties and open and honest dealings were so manifest that they could fairly call upon the Ameers to lay aside all in trigue, and not resort to that plotting which was the usual subterfuge of the weaker party? The interval was filled up with the observance of conditions, and all anger appeared to have passed away. But in November, 1838, there occurred a demand of far greater importance. The Governor-General signified his desire to occupy for a time the fortress of Bukhur. Now, the extreme value and importance of that fortress might be best gathered from the words of Sir Henry Pottinger. Sir Henry Pottinger, in a letter, set forth the advan tage of which that fortress would be to them. The ces sion of that fortress would put Roostum Khan's friend ship to the test. He begged of the House to bear this in mind, that they might hear the recom pense which the old man received.—(Hear, hear.) Sir Alexander Burnes was employed in the negotiation for the cession of the place, and in a letter written by him it was said, "If you do not get the place you must take it." And this was the way in which they dealt with the independence of those people, and now they were surprised that the Ameers re sorted to intrigue, for the purpose of defeating them. On the 25th Sir A. Burnes writes thus :—" It is with the highest satisfaction I inform the Governor-General that the fortress of Bukkur has been ceded to the British Government on the terms proposed." He trusted he was not wearying the House by entering into these details. He would now show what pangs it must have cost the Ameer Roostum Khan to have ceded this place. In a letter written by Sir A. Burnes, he said the consternation of the Ameers was very great when it was signified to them that this fortress was demanded. The whole family of Roostum Khan were opposed to its being given up, and they consi dered the honour of the country was involved in the mat ter. This showed the greatness of the concession made for the advantage of this country. Sir Alexander Burnes, writing in December, 1838, says, that he visited Roostum Khan, who told him he experienced the greatest difficulty in ceding the fortress of Bukkur, and that his whole fa mily opposed his giving it up. He told him he was an ' old man, and had but few years to live; that henceforth he had nothing to do but submit, and be the humble and obedient servant of England. Now all the use had been made of him; and in Decem ber, 1841, Lord Auckland, actuated by a high sense of honour, and feeling himself bound to redress the acts of violence and of wrong which had been committed, directed Sir James Carnac to do all he could to make compensation. Such being the case, let the House imagine the dismay and disgust with which the Ameers must have heard the announcement which followed, when after such wishes of the Governor-General when after such a long period of conflicting friendship -after snch services as they had rendered to the British Empire, came forth this verbose and grand epistle to Major Outram. The Secretary to the Gover nor-General wrote to Major Outram to say, " The Governor-General directs me to inform you, that he contemplates taking , possession of Kurrachee and the island of Bukkur.' Now he did ask that House, was there any amount of distrust—was there any species of self-defence—which it was not justifiable for these Ameers to resort to to defend themselves against the unscrupulous endeavours of the English to retain their possessions ? He (Lord Ashley) declared his solemn conviction that they had no ground, no right whatever to charge these Ameers with treachery, even had they taken the most- decided and determined mea sures to drive the British, not only from Sinde, but from the Indian possessions altogether. Now, to turn to other evidences in these papers. On the 4th of June, 1842, the Secretary to the Governor-General writes to the political agent at Sinde, and says : " The Governor-General has learnt with regret, but without surprise, your opinion of the infidelity of the Ameers." He proceeded—" The Governor- General wishes to be informed if your troops are in such a position as to make it easy to annex a portion of the Ameers' possessions to the British empire." So that on the single opinion—the mere opinion, of the Governor-General:as to the infidelity of the Ameers—the political agent was to proceed to cut off an enormous slice of their possessions, in order to annex it to the British Crown. Well, was it to be supposed that Roostum Khan was not apprised of this ? If they supposed that he, know ing these things, would not take every means in his power to save himself, they must have peculiar opinions of human nature. Sir Charles Napier, who of course was in direct and confidential communication with the Governor-General, says in a letter to that high functionary—" I have always maintained that we only want a fair pretext to coerce the Ameers." This was actually announced by the representative of the Governor-General, and was it to be supposed that while all this was going on, while all these schemes were hatching, the Ameers were .going quietly and un heedingly on—living as it were in a fool's paradise? At a subsequent period the Governor-General writes to Sir Charles Napier as follows :—" I adhere to my original intention, with respect to the Ameers ; if any one of them commits an overt act, his possessions shall be confiscated, and he shall depend for subsistence on the charity of his friends."—(Hear.) Now this was written at a time when we were assem bling horses, men, and materials at Sukkur ; and could it be matter for surprise that the Ameers became uneasy, and prepared to take measures for the safety of themselves and their possessions? On the 27th of November Sir Charles Napier writes to the Governor-General :—" I have made up my mind that although war has not been declared, nor is it ne cessary to declare it, I will at once march into the territory of the Ameers." How then could it be wondered atithat the Beloochees, excited by national pride and religious enthusiasm, should take the alarm, and prepare to act? Why, Major Outram admitted, in one of his letters, that it was in consequence of the advance of the British army that the Beloochees would not be restrained, and also (and let this fact be marked) also that the Ameers had been occupied the whole day in endeavouring to dis perse them. This brought him to the most important docu ment of the whole—the minutes of the Conference between Major Outram and the Ameers, on February the Bth and 9th, 1843, just previous to the battle of Meeanee. It was most important, because, although it had been commented on both by the Governor-Ge neral and by Sir Charles Napier, they had left untouched the most material part of the statement. The Governor-General repeated the charges of treason against the Ameers, and urged them as an argument to justify their dethronement. The Ameers in that con ference in reply to the charge of having written trea sonable letters to two of the chieftains, asked why those letters were never produced ?—(Hear, hear.) That included the whole case. Why were the Ameers not afforded an opportunity of proving that they had never written those letters ? He appealed to the House to do the Ameers justice—(Cheers)—and justice could never be done them, until they had had an opportunity of disproving these letters. It had been said that a comparison had been made of the hand-writing, but Meer Nusseer Khan denied that those letters had been written with his authority. His words were" If this letter is in existence show it to me." The document was not produced. Had such conduct ever been heard of before ?—(Hear.) Would it be tolerated in any of our courts of justice ?—(Hear.) Would the law officers of the Crown defend it ?—(Hear, hear.) He asked for justice for the Ameers.—(Hear, hear.) He asked for that which was theirs by the rights of human nature.—(Great cheering.) One letter, it appeared, had been produced. The Ameers asked to see it, and the reply was on the part of Major Outram, that that lwe who t o e r washad s us b e p e e % t e p d l ace of d h i a n vin th g e fo h r an ge d d s e v o e f r y A o l n i e l‘ , o l u f r t a n d e , letters.—(Hear, hear.) That letter had been put into the hands of Ali Murad. If it would have been produced ' what they had through injustice. Let them not weep at the awful review ; let there be be no cause for them to regret their confidence, and to exclaim, • Heu pietas I heu prisca fides! We perceive no hope of justice for us till God Almighty, on the last day, pronounces his award ! (Loud cheering.) The Noble Lord concluded by mov ing for an address to the Crown, praying that her Ma jesty will be graciously pleased to take into her con sideration the situation and treatment of the Ameers of Sinde ; and that she will direct their immediate restora tion to liberty, and the enjoyment of their - estates, or with such provision for their future maintenance as may be considered a just equivalent. The motion having been seconded, Mr. ROEBUCK began by justifying himself as to the course he pursued with regard to Sinde. He had given a notice on the subject last session, but the papers relating to it were not then ready, and he gave the ear liest notice he could in the present session, but he had been anticipated by the Noble Lord. -He did not want to complain of the conduct of the Noble Lord, but he wished to justify the course he himself pursued. He thought the Noble Lord took too narrow a view of the whole case—too narrow for so serious and so solemn a proceeding. It was easy, no doubt, to produce in dividual instances of oppression, but it was the busi ness of that House to begin with the beginning, and to consider who commenced the affair, when it was vo luntary, and when it became the inevitable consequence of what had been done by the predecessor of the present Governor-General.—(Hear.) It would not do to take a view of the question at any particular point. He would take a short review of the history of Sinde, and would divide it into certain great epoehs. Up to the year 1834, the object of the English Government was for the fair and legitimate purpose of enlarging her commerce, and thereby diffusing the advantages of civilisation throughout the Eastern world. After that their pro ceedings changed when Lord Auckland departed for India. Before coming to the immediate subject before the House, he would give a brief outline of the position of Sinde. It lay in the valley of the Indus from the Sea to the Sutlej, with an imaginary line drawn eastward to where the Sutlej disembogues itself westward of the mountains of Hindostan, and the terri tory of Gaulpoor was the boundary of the Eastern por tion. The Great Dourannee empire possessed Sinde, which was governed by the Golora tribe. About seventy years ago the Sovereign of the country, whose de scendant was still alive, was expelled by the Ameers who since governed it. The whole family of the former possessors were destroyed with the exception of one or two who escaped, and the descendant of the original possessors was actually in existence at the present moment. Sir Charles Napier, in one of his letters, says that he had a letter from this individual offering to him half his revenue if he restored him to his kingdom. his name was Timour, and he lived in the Punjaub. Thus, if it was a question of humanity, they ought go back to the son of the legitimate sovereign. The Ameers having got possession of the kingdom, England was desirous of entering into commercial rela tions with them, and a factory was established in the country which they thrust out from jealous feelings. In the year 1809, the wand leading figure was Napo leon Bonaparte, and this country stipulated with the Ameers that the French should not be allowed to enter the country. In 1816, a treaty was entered into with them which was renewed in 1820, with the additional stipulation that the Americans, as well as the Preach, were to be excluded. When Lord William Bentinck went to India, he believed it would be a benefit to this coun try if he could enlarge its commerce by way of the Indus. He sent Lieutenant Burnes accordingly to the Court of Lahore, ostensibly for the purpose of taking some fine white horses up the Indus to Runjeet Singh. The asserted object was one thing, but the real one was to survey the Indus, thus showing the corrupt nature of English policy. When Lieut. Burnes went in 1829 to Sinde, he was met by every possible opposition, but:by a tortuous and unworthy course, he was enabled to reach the Sutlej. So far, however, there was little to find to blame in any one. What next followed was a treaty, the consequence of the negotiations carried on by Colo nel Pottinger. This treaty, made in 1832, was a very important one. As all other treaties, so did this treaty, commence with swearing eternal friendship—(A laugh) —and with a mutual declaration never to look with a grasping eye upon each others power or dominions. In that treaty there were three conditions of the utmost possible importance for the House to understand, because, in reference to them, he (Mr. Roebuck) was about to bring against Lord Auckland charges of the most flagrant treachery that ever is pub lic man had been guilty of. The first condition to which he called their attention was that which bound the English not to bring any description of arms or military stores up the river or on the roads to Sinde—(A laugh) the second condition bound the English not to dispatch any armed vessels or boats; and the third condition was that no English merchants should be allowed to settle in Sinde, but come as occasion required, and having trans acted their business, they should at once return from the country. Now, thus far, they had got to the year 1834, at which period the British !authorities entered into a treaty with the Ameers. In this treaty with the Ameers they ratified all the conditions of the former treaties, adding to them certain new clauses. The object in this—the object from the first, though kept as carefully in the back ground as possible—was the opening of the Indus. In the last-mentioned treaty, it was arranged to put duties and tolls payable in a particular way. And now to the most extraordinary event in all these trans actions. An idea at this time became prevalent among the rulers of India of danger to the English dominions in India from attempts on the part of Russia. Russia was looked upon as influencing Persia, Persia was looked upon as influencing Affghanistan, and for the purpose of defence, it was proposed to fit out and send an expedition against Affghanistan. This was in the year 1838. Whilst this idea was brew ing.in the. minds of the rulers of India, Colonel Pottin ger was directed to undertake further negotiations with the Ameers, and proposals were made by him of a very remarkable description. Hitherto in all our intercourse with Sinde, all had apparently been fair and above board. The play, however, was now over—something serious was about to be enacted—and, like the tiger of their native jungle, it was found that though the paw had hitherto been velvet to the touch, it was soon to strike with a terrific and crushing effect. Every man in the House and the country knew the history of English in terference in India, how stealthily and carefully we pro ceeded, step by step, till the precise moment for action arrived, when we did act' indeed 1 It was the rule of this country never to interfere in India, or anywhere else, without getting something by it. What was the way Lord Auckland set about his designs ? He wrote to the Ameers of Sinde (see " Blue Book," p. 1, s. 36 to 38), requiring their consent to raise a body of troops to be stationed at their capital. Such was the proposition made to the Ameers of Sinde ; and in a moment they knew too well what they had to expect.—(Hear, hear.) They had seen India overrun, province by province, kingdom by kingdom, by the British power—they had seen her advancing steadily and stealthily, but too surely—they saw the finger of fate was pointing at them, and this was the last step in that inexorable des tiny which was to bring their own unfortunate princi pality under our sway.— (Hear, hear.) The request which we made was denied. What matter? What did we do? Why we put the screw upon them—we threatened them—we told them we would let loose the Sikh monarch amongst them. The Ameers at length well knew the consequences of not receding to our de mands. They had got a commercial treaty with a great, and, as we called ourselves, a magnanimous people. They had entered into a treaty with us, one clause of which especially prohibited us from having, or sending, or raising an army in Sinde—and yet was this proposi tion made to them. They had, previously to this, ac cepted a Resident of us. Now was matured the scheme of advancing on Affghanistan, and herein was the origin of all the evils—(Loud cheers from the Minis terial benches) —herein was the source whence flowed those waters of bitterness—(Cheers)—and he now charged Lord Auckland and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Hobhouse), as the cause of all the evils that had since beset our Indian empire, of all the disasters' in Affghanistan, of all the miseries which had befallen alike the Indian and the European community.—(Loud cheers from the Minis terial benches.) How did he (Mr. Roebuck) make out that charge? One of his resolutions charged the late Governor-General, first, with injustice towards the Ameers, and next, with conduct which denoted a total want of anything like a sound, wise, or national policy. Well, he had said that in 1838 hei had entered into a treaty with the Ameers of Sinde, and before the ink was dry with which it was written, before the year was out, Lord Auckland actually took it upon himself to dispose of the whole principality of Sinde. And he did it in this way. lie set on Shah Soojah to relinquish for himself all claims to supremacy over the country, on the condition of the payment of such sums as—as what ?—as might be determined under negotiations to be carried on— carried on by whom?—carried on by the British Govern ment.—(Hear, hear.) Now, unsolicited, unasked, we undertook to make ourselves mediator between an in dependent country and a poor unfortunate outcast, who lived on our charity, and whom we set up merely for our own purpose. He had no army, no revenue, no anything. The army was called Shah Soojah's, but it was recruited by the English, paid by the English, officered by the English. In fact, it was the English army, and we, having the power of this army to back us, laid down these laws to the Ameers, thus adding insult to injury. Well, Colonel Pottinger was now sent with ivhat was called the tri partite treaty, but was warned not to let the Ameers know anything about it until everything was ready, and then he was to announce the penalties to which they would be subjected, in the event of their not agreeing to the payments to Shah Soojah, as regulated by the Eng lish Government. Colonel Pottinger undertook that mission, and in the transactions which then followed, the Ameers loudly exclaimed against the injustice to which they were subjected. The English Government then insolently promised they would endeavour to pre vail on Shah Soojah to reduce the claims which he had on the Ameers to a reasonable amount. Now, was it not a downright insult to their understandings to be brouezht down there, and have to hear these things rea soned on, as doubtless they would be, by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse), as the off-pring of common sense and common honesty? Here we had dared to set up a man as a king who, at the very mo ment we did so, would have starved but for us. Shah Soojah would never have dared to open his mouth to the Ameers of Sinde but for our abominable intrigues; and yet the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) had the hardihood to palm these things upon us and the world as great and glorious actions. The next paragraph went on to say that " Shah Soojah had arrived with his own army." His own army I still carrying out the palpable fiction. The Gov - ernor-Genes ral " advised" the Ameers to the enter into, but at the same time suggested that it might be proper to remind them to come into, his views, and if there was a disposi tion among them to the contrary, his Lordship said he would regard the demonstration of such a spirit as the signal for the British troops taking possession of Shilcar poor—(Hear, hear)—and as much of the country as might be necessary for carrying on military operations. There was a threat held out by Lord Auckland to take possession of the Ameers. Ile would follow those nego tiations step by step. He would now read to the House a letter from Sir Henry Pottinger to the Governor-Ge neral, in which that " old friend" of the Ameers, as he called himself, recommended the Governor-General to take forcible possession of the territory of the Ameers. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read this letter, which advised the Indian Government to place a large body of troops in Sinde, for the purpose of creating a " novel effect. —(Laughte7.) That phrase was a specimen of that "rhetoric called rigmarole." It was the physical effect that was signified. And the letter went on to say, that if the Ameers should seem backward the military preparations would probably in fluence them. Sir Henry Pottinger charged the Ameers of Sinde with writing to Shah Soo jah, although at the time they wrote they they were an independent power, and had a right to communicate with any foreign potentate. But yet the fact of this communication with the Shah of Persia was made a pretext for usurpation and for tyranny. The Hon. and Learned Member then referred to the Blue Book, page 89, a letter of Sir Henry Pottinger's, who there expressed his opinion that the British Govern• ment should demand from the Ameers a cession of all that territory lying on the right bank of the Indus, by an imaginary line drawn to the Beloochistan territory-. He further recommended that a large quantity of Native and British troops should be placed at Latta, thus speaking of the Sinde as if (said the lion. and Learned Gentleman) it had been already subjugated. Yet this was the Sir Henry Pottinger who called the Ameers his " old friends," and on whose communications the Noble Lord had placed so much reliance, and by which he had been so much imposed upon. Lord ASHLEY—I believe they are correct. _ _ Mr. ROEBUCK—I have no doubt whatever that the Noble Lord believes them, nor have I any doubt that he has been imposed upon.—(A laugh.) A great deal had been said about the communication of the Ameers with the Shah of Persia. That crime had been punished, first by making them pay a large sum of money, and secondly by occupying their country with troops. But was this act—was all their talked of deceit, trea chery, and misdeeds at all comparable to the British going up the Indus with an armed force, and telling them that if they did not give up cer tain portions of their territory, they would annihilate them?—(Hear.) Why it would be comparing a mile hill to Mount Ossa. Under the pretence of carrying on negotiations with this defenceless people, the Indian Go vernment was, like one of the huge snakes of their own country, folding its mighty coils round its victim. The conduct of the Indian Government was most disgraceful, and imprinted an everlasting stain upon this country. Oppressing a poor helpless, abandoned, people, Lord Auck land committed injustice—blunderieg injustice. Shah Soojah was made the puppet, and the Ameera the victims. In the year 1841, we were at peace with Affghanistan, but the tribute became due, and a mortality oc curred in our army, of which the Affgha,ns took advan tage. They rose and destroy ed the miserable remnant of the army, and the example which was given was eagerly regarded by others of our Indian tributaries. The Ameers of Sinde said the Feringhe,s were thrust out of Affghanistan, and why should they not be thrust out of Sinde ? (The Hon. and Learned Member then read an extract from the Report, chiefly consisting of a communication from Colonel Arthur; but, from the extraordinarily low tone and indistinct manner of the lion. and Learned Gentleman, it was utterly im possible to guess at the purport of the extract, or even the persons who were mentioned in it. His running commentaries, as he proceeded, were, if possible more indistinct, and less intelligible, than th • r• ading of the document itself.) He proceeded to contend that. in consequence of the position in which Lord Auckland had left his successor, it was impossible for Lord Ellen borough to adopt any other course than that complained of by the Noble Lord who brought forward the motion. The Hon. and Learned Member then proceeded to read with the same rapidity and in distinctness a very long extract from the corres pondence, interspersed with remarks which were equally unintelligible in the gallery.) With the excep tion of one cession by Lora Ellenborough nothing more was proposed to be granted to the Ameers. Major Out ram proposed that Bukkur and the town and harbour of Kurachee should be ceded to the British Govern ment. Much had been said about the Ameers having been deprived of their hunting-grounds. There was a distinct proposition made by Major Outram, that the :pace within 100 cubits of the river bank should be al lotted for that purpose, and that beyond that limit the Ameers should not trespass. Those propositions of Ma jor Outram were in effect adopted by the Governor- General, and carried out by Major Outram himself. He (Mr. Roebuck) was not talking of the Ameers or their injustice. He did not mean to say that they had not a perfect right to drive us out of Sinde. His only question was, inasmuch as they were in that position, what was the proper conduct to be pursued by the com ing Governor, at the time he found himself surrounded by those enemies. He would now briefly give them the history of those transactions which the Noble Lord had not given. Roostum Khan, a Prince of eighty-five years of age, now under the control of a Minister.— The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here detailed the circumstances connected with the treaty which Major Outram proposed, in case of his driving out Roostum's favourite Minister, to conclude with Roostum Khan, and then proceeded to say that he could point out 20 passages in the correspondence of Lord Ellenborough, in which his Lordship said he did not think that the treaty could possibly be carried out, and he (Mr. R.), now asked the house, giving every consideration to the mis fertunes of those Princes, to look at the matter with calmness, and tell him whether the consummation that had happened was not the inevitable fate of Sinde as a protected State ? Was it not the inevitable destiny of Sinde, such as Lord Auckland had made it, to be ab sorbed in the Anglo-Indian empire ? And was it then not better that it should be done at once ? If it had not been done at once, long agony, constant disputes, riot and confusion. would be the consequence, and the end of all would be as it was at present, namely, Sinde would become what she now was, part and parcel of tho enormous dominion which we—successful traders—had created in India. Why at the present moment did they not see that another portion of territory would ac tually, in spite of us, become ours ? He knew it would be said to be unjust.—(Hear.) Why did they not then get out of IneFa?—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from both sides of the House.) Our possession of it was one great injustice from beginning to end. He would be a prophet.—(Laughter.) Th , y would possess the Punjaub before two years a oald elapse, in spite of them,elves. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh ; but h.,. re membered that two years ag he hail said they- would possess Sinde, and Sinde they now hail; and let then' mark his words, before two years sho,ld hale passed the Punja:ib they would pos-ess. lie no more doubt of that than he had of our w ole Indian policy being a great injustice, as well as an unwise one. The Hon. and Learned Gentlemen then detailed the circumstances which led to Sir C. Napier's advance upon Hyderabad, and commended that pliant officer's wisdom in not proceeding to Hyderabad without his army, as he had been advised to do by Major Outram, who was led to believe that at the time the Ameers had 20,000 men under their command, they had not one soldier under arms. Had Sir Charles Napier (he said) followed the advice of Major Outram, a scene of the greatest disaster would have ensued, and terror and alarm from Cape Comorin to the Himalaya would have been the necessary consequence. lie (Mr. Roebuck) gave the Noble Lord every credit for his humane feelings towards those unhappy Princes, but he asked his countrymen to give that great meed of praise to Sir C. Napier, which he so justly deserved; and that not scrupulously, but with a generous feeling for the heavy responsibility which he had incurred.. Major Outram thought that his personal influence would stop the 20.000 men ; but Sir C. Na pier, a wiser soldier and politician said, No ; arm your selves and be aware, because you have to deal with treacherous foes. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here turned round for a paper on the seat behind, and in doing so made some observations as to something which he alleged had fallen from Lord Ashley, which we could not catch. Lord ASHLEY begged to say, that what he had stated was, that the production of those foot-notes was unjust, unless they had been submitted to Major Outram. Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded, and read a lengthy letter from Sir C. Napier to Major Outram, giving an ex planation of all the circumstances and motives that influ enced his (Sir C. Napier's) conduct in the course he had taken with respect to the march to Hyderabad, and also detailing the nature of his correspondence with Lord El lenborough on the subject, and pointing out why it was he could not remain silent whilethe newspapers were filled with calamitous reports relative to his conduct in the mat ter. Allusion had been made to the negotiations with She re Mohamed. At the moment those negotiations were pending the Ameers were gathering that army which forced Sir Charles Napier to fight the battle. —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had complained of Sir Charles Napier's eonduct to the Ameers after the conquest of Hyderabad. Sir Charles Napier during the whole of that time had lived in a tent. He had never interfered with the Ameers more than was necessary to insure them safe custody, from the moment of their capture until that of their departure for Bombay. That was only what he should have expected from the character of the man. He knew him well, and he knew that as he was one of the most valorous so was he one of the most kind-hearted of men.—(Cheers.) Nothing could exceed his fearless ness and his courage, but then he had a heart like that of a child.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord bad com plained of the treatment which the Ameers had ex perienced, being deprived of their women. Nothing could exceed the horrible cruelty which the Ameers had practised towards the women. They were luxurious, lustful, and cruel. Many of these women had been torn from their parents, and subjected to the most horrible cruelty ; and General Napier had at this moment in his possession a cruel instrument of torture which had been taken from the zenana of the Ameers, which was formed of brass wire, and which was used to beat the women. It was satisfactory to know that our conquest of Sinde had delivered that country from one of the most horrible systems of tyrannical government which had ever been inflicted on a people. There were three species of people inhabiting Sinde—flrst, there were the Sindians, who were recent converts to Mahomme - and, thirdly, ; secondly, there were the Hindoos ; thirdly, there wer e the Beloochees. The Beloochees were the ,ere the governors of the c o untry. The Beloochees robbers—they never worked—they kept slaves, and they paid the slaves to work for them. phurb. conqu est had he been hailed as a blessing by the i a 'tants (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman ere read at . e s d ev t r at l extracts from a letter, in which ' l t was :4 the rains which had fallen shortly the after the English conquest were considered by inhabitants ng s a h s a proof that Providence approved of our proceedings, for after the Ameers had murdered the Colves, it was thus that the Sindians designated the conquest of the country ~.:~ _ice" by the Ameers : no rain had fallen for six years, an -- that the reduction of taxation which had taken place. had secured to us the affection of the people ; that five months before our conquest every Beloochee had • strutted about armed, but that now none except the chiefs were armed.) Sir Charles Napier had been ac cused of insult;ng the Ameers, while it appeared from thos , letter , that although he had disarmed the Beloo- chees generally, he had returned to the chieftains their • arms, because he did not wish to wound their honour. — (Hear, hear.) The letter then went on to state that Sir Charles Napier was endeavouring to get rid of the military tenures ; to give the iagheerdars a property in their jagheers, which they did not possess under the Ameers, and to turn the military chieftains into farmers. - The' body of the Sindian people were glad to escape from the tyranny of the Ameers. Colonel Pottinger • bore evidence to the happy effects ofour conquest of Sinde. The inhabitants were becoming industrious, and labourers from Kandahar were flocking into Sinde to obtain employ' ment. Would it be just after all to the Sindian peo ple to • bring back the Ameers ?—(Cheers.) He agreed with , the Noble Lord that every consideration should be paid to them, that everything. that could be done should be done to alleviate their misfortunes—(Cheers)—but he could not consent to the restoration.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord had spoken of the sons of Tippoo Sail). It should be recollected that their father had been slain in battle, and that they had lost a throne. The conquest of the country was a fatal necessity, but the same kind treat ment which they as captives had received from the Marquis of Cornwallis the Ameers, he doubted not, had received from Lord .Ellenborough.—(Cheers) He was convinced that they had not been subjected to • more restraint than was absolutely necessary to prevent them from escaping and returning to Sinde.—(Hear . ) He believed that he had travelled over most of the topics which had been alluded to by the Noble Lord. He had shown that the negotiations of Lord Auckland with the Ameers had been conducted with unnecessary harsh ness and cruelty. He believed that the position of Lord Ellenborough had been one of the greatest difficulty , but that he had adopted the wisest course of policy that he could have pursued. He believed that the steps whic h Lord Ellenborough had taken were the fatal, but necessary, consequences of the policy which had been pursued by his predecessor.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The people of Sinde were glad to escape from the rule of the Talpoore family ; and he believed that the people of England would never consent to place the Sindians again under the cruel tyranny of the Ameers. The subject was one of immense importance; and he hoped It would not go off without a vote. If the House nega tived the proposition of the Noble Lord, then his (Mr. Roebuck's) resolutions could be submitted seriatim, and the House would decide upon each step which had been. taken—they would decide first, wh e th er th e policy or Lord Auckland was right or wrong ; secondly, whither the policy of Lord Ellenborough was right or wrong ; and thirdly, whether it would he right to restore these unhappy Princes who had by force of arms been cow polled to surrender their territories.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches ) Mr. EMERSON TENNENT considered the House most unsatisfactory trilannal for the decision of questions of this nature. In order no come to a proper judgment on the sub' ject. Hon. Members should have given all the papers relating to the ease, nut only an.attentive perusal, but a careful coloi' deration ; and he thought the House was scarcely qualified to decide, considering that those documents h a d scarce ly bee°, one week before them. The Noble Lord and th e H on .• se" Learned Member for Bath had both gone into a mass of details to which he did not think it necessary to allude. There wea s no necessity for alluding to the early policy of Lord Aucklanw The justitication of the policy of the present Govertie r a i General rested not upon the condemn a ti on or t h e ac quitt h of Lord Auckland, but upon the c i rcumstances whie t had occurred since he had ass ume d t h e Government of India.—(Cheers.) By those alone was Lord Ellen't,„ borough to be judged.—(Loud cheer s .) W it h regar d to 1 "" polic, of Lord Auckiand, that had been completed in and the deth"onement of the Ameers had been occasiee_ A by their conduct since that period. The Noble Lord In *Lauded to what he called the previous meritorious conduct, the Ameers in relation to this country—he could tr t low the Noble Lord step by st'p, and could show that throughout those negotiations the conduct of the Alu,e,„e had been marked by the same treaehery and false' hood which had led to their ultimate downs '!• Noble Lord alluded to the treaty of 18043, w hen country took every security to strengthen themselves get s ~ the attempts of Napoleon. About thi s ti me C o l one l Potror e appeared in connection with these n ego ti a ti ons . an d he no r , than once expressed his unwillingness to proceed in col' l e quence of the conduct of the Am e er s . Th e presenc e of 6 e thousand men was necessary to compel th e A meers to obsegi the provisions of the treaty. Then ca me th e treat i es of L a and 1834, which conferred mutual ad van t ages on b o th sides: but the Ameers were unwilling to permit, not on l y an y Err s , but any European agent, to reside in the Indus.—Cri, e- ; hear.) Then came the treaty of 1e36, w h en R un j e et Song threatened to destroy the country, and w h en t hi s coun try inter' posed. Then they received a Br i ti s h R es id ent , b ut they.eutere d f into negotiations with the Durbar o f L a h ore f or t h e purPege 4't opposing British interests. The N o bl e L or d h ad re f erre d to 1 11 _, hebelieved was an apocryphal letter of Col. Pottinger's , there was nothing to show ry t p hat Col. Pottinger ever p kinds ed such a document, and there was ext erna l evidence of all Id, to show that he did not. No one li v i ng so we ll un d ers tood the character of the Ameers as he did. He would be able to shoo; from the correspondence of Col. Pottinger, that the Ang e l / were a wicked and vicious race, and that they even predict' s ' the fate which overtook them in their destiny. (The 1 10°. Gentleman then quoted several passages from the ' corces ponde o C f of Col. Pottinger, to show that the Ameers were unworthy oe being trusted and full of perfidy.) With regard to the troll of 1839, there were circumstances to prove that it was not Cal' culated to be oppressive, and was not even unp o pular in Sinde. For two years after the treaty, and when there was time to consider its operation, Noer Mahomed, on e of the enemies of British connection, applied to have a similar treaty and even submitted to be placed on a similar footing with those who were parties to the treaty of 1839.—(Heor hear.) Sir Charles Napier, writing in 1842, says, that the treaty, if rigidly adhered to, would render the Ameers more; rich and powerful, and even more happy than they were before but it was rendered abortive by violence on the part of the 0 4: and by bad faith on the part of the others. It sr° w k. justice, not only to Lord Ellenborough, but also to Lord There land, land, to insist upon those effects of the treaty of 1839. ' i" e i te was nothing whatever in his correspondenc e t o s how that provisions had been set aside by the B r iti s h G o vernine! „, : A whilst on the other hand the Ameer s o f H y d era b a d euteryi upon a persevering course of violence to violate the treaty to was but justice to the policy of L or d Ell en borough et say that he was bound to def ea t t h e mac hi na tions • agoing to destroy British connections, which had bee e s put into more active motion in consequence of the rev erses they had met with in Caubul , The Noble Lord then ref Wt with great confidence to the testimony of Major Outran] , w_`,"„ as a resident in the counrry, had every opportunity of obse oo , ing the conduct of the Ameers. The Noble Lord had t he mitted a most material er ror i n su pp os i ng th a t some 0 f re Ameers only were guilty. He (Mr. E. Tennent) t gere pared to show that all of them had be en gu ilty, though ar d might be some shade of difference in th e ir co nduct with r e f_ j o to this country, and that the conduct of the Government r It every single instance approved by Major Outran' hbuse we as was quite true that Major Outram mentioned that there , tha t difference of feeling existing among the chiefs, but he seL et lost the entire family were promiscuously involved in the trap g tha t of which the British Government complained. He says hut at first the Meer Soojah professed open friendship for the goo d when the crisis arose, he became hostile to them,_ and was h i eer .) associated with the rest of their enemies.—( Hea r ' re OW Major Outram said that all the Khans of Hyderabad *ge m . les * scions of their guilt, and that all of them were. mor e the° guilty of treasonable practices. The Hon. Gentlenouerbieh referred to the correspondence of Major Outralni ou ght suggested the measures which the Government d to pursue with regard to the Ameers who b at tl ed tl O peded the commerce on the Indus, and viol ehe o. treaty which had been agreed upon betty stated These, then, were the facts of the case ; that not (as tion ofe the Noble Lord) on a mere opinion, or a mere eke ed treachery by the Ameers, but on proof of falsehooate: 0 at crime, the Governor-General had taken such roeaeu_ority for once awarded punishment for the past and promised.e n e -eity . I the future. The integrity of the Ameers was an _l_2 b :N o t o uti• appearance only—it was . external but totally un" :lions The treaty had been signed without any one of itsp att aelt, being even objected to, and at the same time we were do U P 'to thatt we do P by ten thousand armed Beloochees, stirred by the Ameers themselves, which led o ld 0- action, than which a more brilliant or glorious one c ° The country' __A be found in the annals of thi, or any other eiteoo rag_ enemy was signally overthrown—those who hed__, B a rd of and brought it into existence, were subjected, .a!_w re ` oa rd to of subjected, to imprisonment. Now one word wlt", o r e ers, _ t the transaction of depriving the families of the.a:ght W it % their possessions. He (Mr. Tennent) t i n, that o 1 Major Outram was the last man in the wor h , he beir to make any complaint on that subject. ides sing , t let the very individual who started the i deo wing , so misconduct and merited chastisement. In e. It t him say one word in regard to Sir Charles Ner e ien oeeF he , obvious on the face of events that he was perfect_lloed f the charges which had been attempted to be fast% eo ey 0: t he the and that he was called upon to act upon the es o l l whifr oo e. moment.—(Hear, hear.) There was one point_ o fthe ea t) Noble Lord had strongly appealed to the fe e lings mr ..Telk it io It was in reference to Meer Soojah. Why, he( of a If v ise was prepared to prove that a foul murder S oojah ins i• officer had taken place, and that Meer e ,_ eatue,, r itish a party to it. This Meere Sooja", ot her o' t t he diously to Major Outram , warned him an d f o und °lt officers of their danger, and ' next morning was o f o fficer. head of the very assassins who had murdered e t X ee. bietu t `r h ' e had been asserted by the Noble Lord and the y work - be a. • to ry for Bath, that treachery and design were ever e tar' b° English in India, on purpose to get hold of Mor ,sed. avo w _ at of more power than that which we already P fia t the OW; „i denied this, and he most strongly asserted t _ result toy Sinde, from first to last, had not been tP",. nt the scheme or preconcerted plan whateve!to_juvenhorrooZi, tural consequence of events. On behalf of r i , ,r t l re d, an ot her especially, he could declare that he neither wa y t tha t nor practised any scheming whatever!ad this tiute,pga proved by his own declarations, made from honour with voisou with all the native chiefs who ket faith and and ° ell te j ot/ net:ha, o n. the • ens tne rt able concession made. With regard land, every friendship should be exercisedte amendment tr po t:on before the House, and also to the am to give _a e r t ,. to Member for Bath, he was not pupas d 11authorised, 11 0 7 0 . thl to either of them.—( Hear.) . 3 sent out baci state that in all the instruction injue ci d eoe borough the strongest r., guidance of Lord Ellen with ever y r eap c'' r bee I been given to treat the Ameers cus ii•aan , d e sideration consistent with their safe t personal comfort, ...,,tteeeda • was made for their t hotreati° irr Every provision rank. Tweet -four to, regard was paid to their d for their maintenance, and 91rgb per annum was a warded way that might in tnc r „torsTf t terference was made in any_ orta As to their of " e " degree impair their could hold out no hope the f: t to liberty, he could h incompatible with rei _ht re' —for it was whollylselin . a The House from rie tore peace and tranquillity of . would never be debarred rZerri't assured that the Ameers . ht desire to haves P a r° ot comfort er enjoyment they mil ;ht • for it .we s to to re; compatible to p with their safe custody t the was would' perm) . 1 0. the •• h a uthorities ; u trig ' ale supposed that -rive . former treachery, • wog. turn to the scene of their m uch t° soa o o had cost us SO Gen t e he crime, only to repeat what it (The H o °' he titue t with and suppress.—( Hear, hear.) ' gallery ell t- sad a who turned his back on the r . eporters gd throughout, indistinctly hear was speaking, was most ind ectse t(r times was wholly inaudible.) • C. Nap ier diat el/ Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE and Sir gheee inimed the gether, but the latter Honourable M ass ddress e d the before gave way. Sir John Hobhouse said,rti h 10 the k) , a ho self to the arguments, or, rat her , _, e. but ..a Hon. and Learned Member for Bath (lu re w h i t, he i:4 must take the opportunity of referring to hi ss e to. (Sir Joh n Viloofos fallen from that Hon. Gentleman as to e boo an d to the this then in the House, and of making ear w_ e _ o l o o. t an apology for not being in his placethat a?, 3. But, in Inking „ s ing subject was under discussion , himself that, having he mast be permitted to say for