The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-25 00:00:00

hail read to the House to-eight.
'•
Sir CHAIIIsES FORULS denied that lie formed him minion
upon- sae setoctiljain.P.ti.tinnt.ehienctetisaratLerlioOnti.liart.tiu-
vaCsu rumor-General against
thGs heen
letter.eral t ofHlndiain
hyad twenty other levers in his possessive.
Aberdeen han, daring a long portion of that time, entertained some
ho.urrshesendijaAhlYl';hitsbidleibtaoter hotEbeXgt(t:ni.in:nQdLtlhEeß-11oFno. rnianterrriZethm.r fir
of his friends with a long speech upon the affinity of Indian The
speeches wneh he had heard were the most violent, the most uss.
founded, and the most unjust attacks upon' the characters of pul
men that ever he had lieteeed to. It was nst Lord Amherst alone
who had b• en the object of those attacks, but of the whole Govern-
ment of It di* Bat he would just state what lied been the nr.
ture of tie debate, in (seder rout those gentleenn who acre not
ntooftionit beititittrietthiethirleoubsen.w Liit
sewbeig..h tilin,antthinigthe %notion which had been Li:ought
spartesiia.; really e persona
tatadmt
toithiode,u)
forward by the Honourable Member (Mr. linnie) had nothing
w'intsoever to do with the conduct either of Lord Amherst or Sin
Edward Paget. Was it for despinches of 1824 that that Hon.
Member moved ? No, but for copies of the luilintry despatches
from India, of the yew 1819, at • period when that mosey was
under the government of the Marquis of Hastings; and the ling
M contrived very aeutrly to work the subject Into his motion,
because thou despatches did allude to the reoreanineion of the
litneal army, which that Noble Marquis recommended. But if
he did so recommeod, in what way could- it be intreduced into a
&vanish. non the Brahmins? The Hon. Member then asks for
copies of the despatches of the year 1823. It was true that at that
period Lord An:incest was in India; but what had his being the •
to do with the question ? What had it in any war to do with the
Burmese war ? When that Hon. Gentlemen (11r. flume) came
forward with a motion, ceiling upon the Cover item to censure
Lord Amherst, and coupled his motion with complimentary obses-
vations on that Noble Loral', ;niece character--observations
which being so coupled, were no•hing worth, he should have
battle m I that if there lad been goo] grounds for atia.kiug
that Noble Lord and Sir Edward Paget, a formal motion should
base been brought forward, aid an upponunity given to those dia.
tingu•shed persona to vin4reate themselves; they certainly (met
not to have been so spoken of, and so censured in die course of as
informal and desultory debate. The Honourable 31E-lobes (Mr.
flume) had stated that Lord Amherst never had the confidence al
the people, either at home ornin India. Thin let the llooourable
Member make this circumstance a matter on wine', to groans! this
motion of compLnit. But suppose the Noble Lord had made a wrong
decision, was this a reason why he ought to be held up to contempt,
and treated with obloquy bo h here and a; abroad, because he looked
at some things in • different view from that of two Honourable
Gentlemen. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew Lord
Amherst, but le did not stand up in the 11, use to defend
that Noble Lord. In justice to him he wo -Id not do so.
when he was attackei on with a sulnect and in such • way
But thin Noble Lord would knd many, aid many more able, ad-
vocates, if • illation tor censuring him were tot-many and Girl',
brought lodine the House. lie (the Chin it ellor of the Exchequer)
felt assured that the Meuse would not c rider the motion of the
Hon. Member (Mr. Hume as having a iy thing to do with the
general administiatim of the Government in India (bear, bear),
and could never consent to connect the letters lead Icy that lion.
Member with any official proceedings that had there taken place.
111 r. BRIGH l' said, that every one who had paid any attention
to the affairs of Ii 41.• n.ust be fully convinced that there was a very
general di.conts at amo g the army of that cmintry, and that it was
true that it had altruist niakee that great and important empire to
'its base. (Cries of n No.") A general order had been recently
issued which declared that a great portion of its army win one
state of mutiny, and that its Officers were not to be,trusted. He
would ask, when this was the ease, and when the Covera.nent of
that country was in manifest danger, was it not time to interfere,
and was not the house fully .;usiti d in making some inquiry into
the subject? The R {tit Hon.°, n (tI enhancellor of the Exchequer)
had stated that Ilene facts had nothing to do with the motion be-
fore the House ; but he (Mr. Bright) thought it necessary to begnt
with the beginning, and to seek fur the foundation of those disaffee-
tions and disturbances. The papers now moved for were the first
moved for on the subject ; but he hoped this motion would be fol.
lowed up by othere, until the matter was sifted to the bottom.
Certain honourable Members bad stated that the Sepoy army was
well affectel--hut to him it appeared the contrary ; and he would
put tt to any military man if he would not consider the document
issued after the n.utiny at Barrackpoie as casting and itnpreper
imputation on hien lie hoped the Hun. Member who had In.
traduced this subject would press it to a division, and continue to
bring forward motion upon motion until the matter were satis-
factorily explained.
Mr. ASTELL sain,that he was not now called upon to enter into
explanations or speculations on the cause of the mutiny at Barrack.
pore; it was to hint sufficient to say, that the Court of Inquiry was
still sitting, and to pray that the House would suspend its judg.
ment until the result of that inquiry were made known in England.
He would not either enter into die merits or demerits of Lord Ann
bent ; for when the topic was fairly before the House as a forma
motion, it would be time enough to defend him. But he tbougl t
there had been no arguments brought forward by the Honourable
Member (Mr. flume), to slimy that the papers beginning in 11119,
and ending in 1323, were at all connected with thesubjett of the
mutiny of the Sepoys. As one of the East India Director', he
(Mr. Astell) would observe that every exertion had been made by
the East India Company to meliorate the condition of the Sepoy
officers. He did not think there was any reason why the papers
inoeel for should be brought forward, but he saw many motors
why they should not. He would therefore give the motion his de.
Bided negative.
Mr. F. PALMER said, that he believed the Honourable Mem-
ber who had last spoken bad been n Winfred on the subject rela-
tive to the titan-in nt of the Sepoy officers. He (Mr. Palmer) knew
that they had been obliged to purchase and to pay dearly for many
of their comforts. Ile knew, also, that the army of India was not
in an effective state, and that taw ciders were sent to join them,who
were totally unfit for service. He knew that the whole Indian eta.
pine was in a state of jeopardy, and that some inquiry into the cause
was loudly called for.
Air. W WHAM, in opporieg the motion, observed, that he had
frequently seen the highest commendations passed upon the native
officers by the East India Company.
Mr. TRA NT opposed the motion.
Mr. WARRE said, that there did not appear to be any thing
irregular, unparliamentary, or unfair in the motion of his Honour.
able Friend (Mr. Runic), or inn to discussion arising out of it.
When the Indian empire was in jeopardy, it was rot surprising,
,
but it was quite natural t' at topics not perhaps strictly relating to.
the motion on the table should be entertained. To him it was mat. -
ter or astonishment that so many weeks had been suffered to pasi I
without the introduction of this sunicen Leery man who knew any
thing of the Made, character must be aware that when Semi. y
.•
were in a state of mutiny, and when British trocms had returned.
frem battle, beaten, and but the skeleton of what they were, there.
must be a tntural fear of losing that gigantic empire in which
there were but 30,000 Europeans and 18 millions of natives. He
did not then know on what grounds the Right Honourable Gentle.
man (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could complain of the dia.
cnnion of the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained. He
did not complain of the discussion of the subject, he only complain-
en that the motion was made the ground of cotnolaint against the
Governor-General and the whole Government of India.
Mr. H 1:31E said, that the reports of all classes in India had
stated, that there was a want of confidence in the conduct of Lord
Amherst and the present Government of India. Before that Noble
Lord commenced the duties of his office, the natives were loyal, and
had every confidence in England ; a change, however, had taken
, place and that change was not confined to the
natives, but extend-
ed to all. The Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had said that a motion of ensure ought to have
been brought forward, but if he (Mr. flume) had done so. the
nion.Baione:. below him (Sir n.Sebright) vaunt have said:" No; I
cannot vote for such a motion until I have official documents."
The way he had taken then was the only, way he consistently
could. He knew that Lord .Imherst had a weak and inefficient
Icouncil in every department; if this had not been the case, the eon.
duct of that Noble Lord might have been different. He (Mr.
Hume) had felt it his duty to lay the subject before the House, and
Ino moons bad been brought forward to induce him to withdraw
his motion.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House ctwided,
when the nnothers

Ft. r the Motion, 16.1 Againat it, 68.1 Majority againe the Mo.
fon, 43. .

GAME LAWS
The House then resolved itself into N C tmmittre on the GUI •
Last's Bill, an the motion of Mr. S. ‘VOSTLEY.
. .

Mr. LEWESTER opposed the first clause, on the ground tl at
it umouraged poaching.
Mr. WORTLEY said the Bill did not allow the sale of Game
unless tin property in Game was given to the owner of the so 1.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT recommended that Al encouragement
should be given to persons qualified to kill Game, to give mfortna-
tions against those who were not legally entitled to do so.
Mr. POYNTZ supported this Bill on the ground of the reasen-
shiniest of permitting persons who had pecuniary means to enjoy
Game also to possess the legal means of having it. The principle
that most deserved the encouragement of this House was, that the
qualification should be removed which gave a monopoly of Game
to persons merely possessed of manors.
11r. TENNYSON was not desirous of doing away altogether with
the qualification clause, a s it would be an encouragement to every
person to take a gun into hi: baud, and to kill game when and
wherever he pleased.
After a few words from Mr. S. WoaTLNY, Sir H. VIVIAN, and
Mr. PALMER, the qualification clause, which gave free and unre-
strained permission to kill game, was carried without a division.
Mr. S. IVORTLEY said, that it was his intention, in framing
this Bill, that the right of game should be in the owner of the soil.
The owner had a right to the rents and profits, and certainly to the
profit of the game, er to the profit in other respects. This clause
of the Bill involved a technical question of law, but it was pre-
pared by an eminent conveyancer, by whose cp.mon this part of the
Bill had been regulated.
Mr. J. MARTIN objected to the clause which took away the
right of the property in game from the lessee and gave it to the
landlord. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) told
him that this was not the effect c f the Bill; but he had an emMcnt
legal opinion that such was the effect of the clause under dis-
cussion.

Mr. BEN ETT was of opinion that the occupying tenant should
not hare a right to the property in game..
Mr. S. WORTLEY said. that one of the principal cbjeeti of
the Bill was, that the beneficial proprietor should not be deprived