The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-19 00:00:00

[MORNING CHRONICLE•]

We observe that in a conversation on the
Game Laws, on Thursday night, Mr.S. Wortley,
s ho is accounted the very mirror of country
Gentlemen, " justified the use of Spring Guns,
contending, that by setting them himself he had
avoided scenes of a most painful kind, and had
prevented much crime." We should like clearly
to understand Mr. S. Wortley ; we should like
much to know what he means by avoiding
scenes of a most painful kind by virtue of Spring
Guns. In one sense we are ready to.grant that
painful scenes may be avoided by means of
these engines. It is a painful scene to see
a man mutilated by a charge of slugs, and
writhing in the agonies of death, and such
scenes are avoided by the use of Spring
,Guns, for the eye of - the contriver of the
mischief does not witness the catastrophe,
and a gentleman of the finest sensibility
may bring about the death of a trespasser with-
out being shocked by the painful spectacle of
mortal agony—thus Spring Guns are a sort of
shooting made easy to the tenderest souls. One
may kill by them and avoid the painful scenes
of .death. But Mr. S. Wortley finds, from
.ex-
perience, that they also 'prevent much crime.—
Wire a Country Gentleman, with his own be-
nevolent hand, to pull ,a 'trigger, and shoot a
poor fellow through the head, who had strayed
from the path, the censorious world would call
it murder, which is ordinarily reputed a crime,
but this straight forward work is rendered unne•
cessary by his deputy man_siayer—.the Spring
Gun, which shoots on its own account as it
were, and when • a wan is killed by it, it is
not .called murder but ming-Gun—thus the
thing is done and the crime is not. committed.—
taking this view, we therefore must agree that
scenes of a most painful kind, ;and inuchcrime
are prevented by the use of this machinery.
Still there are inconveniences belonging to this
practice which a writer in The Edinburgh Re-
view has. forcibly pointed out. The . Spring
Gun knows no distinctions of persons, and May.
chance, now and then, to kill or maim the wrong
man, the, favourite game-keeper instead of the
poacher, or some iffilucky, labourer, taking a
short cut to his work, through the forbidden way.
These are accidents of almost daily occurrence ;

and to prevent such tragedies, the Reviewer sug- 1
gested, that a Bey of an estate, to distinguish
between persons, might be placed behind a tree,
with a horse pistol in his hand to shoot poachers.
Such an agent would exercise some discre-
tion, in butchery, and might be instructed to
spare the persons of those trespassers, who vote
for the Tory County Member. As the Legis-
lator on the Game laws is himself a setter and
lover of Spring-Guns, we cannot, indeed, hope
to see the nuisance of shooting trespassers
abated in his Bill ; but yet some plan may be
devised, by which the accidental mischief may
be obviated ; for instance, suppose the Game-
keeper's qualification to kill game were ex-
tended to the slaughter of trespassers. But, then,
Mr. S. Wortley may object to the painful scenes,
and the crime, and the consequent difficulty of
procuring honest servants to do the work, now
so efficiently performed by his favourite engines,
and we must confess that, without a libel on hu-
manity, we cannot answer the objection ; it is
hard to imagine that men could be prevailed on
to do that for wages which 'Squires do, for the
sake of partridges and pheasants, by machinery.

[THE TIMES.]
We have heard it more than whispered in
some circles, that one of the Members for Ox-
ford is not quite secure of that life-interest in his
seat which has hitherto, almost without excep-
tion been enjoyed by his predecessors in office.
Mr. H., it is rumoured, has, from one cause or
another, failed to satisfy the expectations of
certain powerful Colleges. Whether the views
of those who most actively favoured the election
of the Hon. Gentleman were turned to his indi-
vidual eloquence and learning, or to a contingent
interest in those repositories of other men's ge-
nius, of which he is known to have accumulated a
treasure unlimited and matchless, it is no busi-
ness of ours to inquire ; but that the question of
his possible removal from the easy chair of Ox-
ford has been stirred with more or less alacrity,
and has beeu provoked by disappointment of
some kind, we are assured on credible authority.
In that case, there arises a glimmering, half-
defined prospect of changes in the University
politics, to which Mr. Caiming's recent disclo-
sure of his early hopes and sacrificed ambition
might be regarded as particularly pat.

GOOD OLD PARLIAIIIENTIRVRULES,
ON QUESTIONS WHERE MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED !

From Mr. lIATSELL'S Precedents.
1. On the 12th of June, 1604, Mr. SEYMOUR, a party in a
Bill, then under consideration, goes forth during the debate,
" agreeable with former order and precedent in like cases."
2. On the 4th a February, 1664, a Member appearing to be
" somewhat" concerned in interest, his voice is disallowed, after
a division (1).
3. On the 20th of May, 1626, Sir Jorm ELIOT withdrew,
before the question is stated upon his conduct.
4. On the 21st of October, 1667, a witness at the bar having
reflected on a Member, and he in his place having made his de-
fence, withdrew whilst the matter was in debate.
5. On the 22d of November, 1669, a Member accused of de-
taining a writ, is commanded to withdraw (2), before the mat-
ter is debated.
6. On the 16th of February, 1697, a debate, arising upon a
question relating to Mr. MONTAGU, then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and a question put, " that he do withdraw," it
passed in the negative.
7. On the 17th of January, 1711. after the examination into
Mr. WALPOLE'S conduct, and -before any question proposed,
he was heard (3); and a doubt arising, " whether he ought to
withdraw, before a question stated, or any debate had of the
matter relating to him," the Journals of the 16th of February,
1710, were read, and thereupon Mr. WALPOLE withdrew,
" before any debate had, or question proposed." So did sir
RICHARD STEELE, 00 the 18th of March, 1713 (4).
8. On the sth of April, 1715, Sir WILLIAM WYNDHAM
being called upon to justify some words he had used, and re-
fusing, a question is moved against him, and then he is heard;
and being called upon to withdraw, refuses, and a question is
' put for his withdrawing.
9. On the 28th of February, 1720, after the examination re-
lating to Mr. STANHOPE was concluded, and before any ques-
tion concerning him was ' proposed,' 1u withdrew.—So in the
case Of Sir GEORGE CASIVALL, the 3d and 10th of March ;
and of Mr. A ISLABIE, on the Bth of March, 1720 ; and of Mr.
VERNON, on the 3th of May, 1721.
OBSERVATIONS.
The rule laid down in the two first instances, is not, in many
cases, sufficiently observed ; it was always attended to in ques-
tions relative to the Seat of the Member, on the hearing of con-
troverted elections ; and has been observed very strictly in cases
of great moment ; but, in matters of lesser importance, yet
where the private interest of the Member has been essentially
concerned, it has been entirely neglected, contrary not only to
the laws of decency, but of justice; and it would be for the
honour of tbe House of Commons, if this rule, which 170 years
ago, was " agreeable to FORMER order and precedent in like
cases," was revived and established !
As to the doubt conceived in the case of Mr. WALPOLE,
" at what time the Member should withdraw," as it was then
very properly decided, so that decision has been uniformly sup-
ported by the practice in all the similar instances that-have hap-
pened since that time. (5) Where there is any proceeding in the
House, which diets the character of a Member, as soon as the
matter has been examined into, the Member is to be heard,
and then to withdraw, even before any question is moved upon
his conduct. In the case of Sir Was. ‘VYNDHAM, the question
that was moved and proposed, arose out of the expressions used
by him at the time ; he therefore ought to have laid before the
House what he had to say in exculpation of the charge, as soon
as the motion was made, and then to have immediately with-
drawn. After the examination -of the evidence, in relation to
Lord CLIVE'S conduct in the East Indies, Lord CLIVE was
heard in his place, before he knew what question was to be
moved against him, and withdrew on May 21, 1773.
(1) No Member of the House may be present in the House,
when a Bill, or. " any business" concerning " himself," is
" debating ." but while the -Bill is but reading or opening,
he may,—( Parliamentary Debates, 1620-1, Vol. I. p. 141.)
1 (2) See the debate upon this subject in the Ist vol. of Grey's
Debates, p. 179 ; where Mr. FINCH beginning to argue upon
it, is taken down to Order, " for speakin to the merits of the
cause, without the Member being withdrawn."
(3) In the proceeding against Mr. WALPOLE, the Com-
missioners' Report was read, and Thursday appointed to con-
sider the Report. Mr. WALPOLE desired to be present at the
debate, until a question was formed upon the SPEAKER'S pa-
per ; ' but denied,' and ' he' accordingly ' withdrew.' The
rule here seems to be, " that if the charge against a Member
be contained in a Report,
&c. then he is to withdraw, before the
question is moved or stated; but if nothing previous to the
question contain a charge, the question is the charge, and that
must be stated' before' he' withdraws.' "_(Mr. 0.)
Ho(u4s)eTehneteJreod uponurnalofatnhye
debate.
(5) July 171, ~ of the proceeding
relating to Mr. PRYNN, was read ; ' ;vho withdrew' before the
I
(5) The rule laid down by Mr—ONSLOW, in the preceding
note, seems to be perfectly just and proper. The Member is
not to withdraw ' till' he knows what will be the substance
of the charge against
him, and till he has had an oppor-
tunity of explaining to the House the motives -of- hisfecinduct
in the matter alleged against him. Where this charge arises a
and may therefore be
out of a Report from Committee,
or from 'an examination
of witnesses in the House, the Member accused knows to what
points he is to direct his
heard to those points, exculpation,before any question 'is moved or stated
against him, and in this case he is 'to be heard, and to withdraw,before any question is moved—as in the instances of Mr. W-111.11;
POLE, Sir RICIIAItD/a-1
STEELE, and Mr. STA"E'
,
where the question itself is the charge, for any breach of the
ordm of the House, or for any matter that has arisen in
mast
debate, there the charge must be stated, i. e. the question
be moved. The Member must be then heard, in -his explana-
tion or exculpation, and then, and not till then, he is to with-
draw—as in the case of Sir WI T,LIASI WYNDHAn. In the
case of Mr. Maw 'spoken b
and then withdraw, before
' CAESAR, the 19th of December, 1705, the
,words h
takY-
, them are taken down by order Of the House, and, by_ suc
heard,
and g down, becomes
LY, the 9th of November,
matter of charge ; they are therefore
1696 • and of Mr.
any que.
stance of Mr. SUIPPEN on-the - 4th of December, 1
him,
from spoken by him were"
against
from a Committee ; he therefore was heard, and withdrew, be-
stion is moved. .In the in.
fore any question was stated.

HYDERABAD PAPERS.

(No. III.)

FOR THE SUN.

Ma. EDITOR—Among those Native Princes
who have been the dupes of necessitous and designing Euro-
peans, none stand more prominent than the late Nawaubs of
Arcot (Carnatic) and the Nawaub of Oudh. The Parliamen-
tary records will afford a sorrowful and plentiful proof of the
iniquitous conduct of Europeans towards the former unfortu-
nate Prince : indeed, I need not go further than to point out
the long standing Commissioners appointed under an Act of
Parliament, and now sitting for many years, to satisfy my
readers how dangerous and impolitic it is to allow Europeans
to have access to those misguided and improvident Princes.
These very men, to obtain money would pawn their country,
nay, sell their patrimony, for the illegitimate purpose of
supporting their licentious habits, or for the still more dan-
gerous purpose of engaging in warlike movements. The bane
and curse of all Asiatic Governments is the total want of all
moral obligation, or sense of fidelity and gratitude, to their
superiors, and a grinding and cruel system of exaction towards
the mass of the people who have the misfortune to be under
their controul ; this is carried to such an excess, to such a
refinement in espionage and plunder, that I am certain if I
related what I know my statement would be disbelieved.
I will take upon myself to say (and own it under my name
and rank if required), that there is not a Minister to any Prince
in India who is not in the highest degree corrupt, venal, and
unfaithful; and there is not a Prince possessing rectitude of
principle, patriotism towards his country, and a desire to im-
prove the State over which he rules, and the condition of his
miserable subjects—no, there is not one.
The little security the people do enjoy, the occasional acts
of justice in the Prince, and the punishment of delinquents,
have their origin in either the influence or the interposition of
the British Resident. This is the fact, and I defy malignity
or party to contradict with a semblance of truth what I now
advance.

I have no hostility towards the late house of Messrs. WIL-
LIAM. and HASTINGS PALMER, established at the Court of
His Highness SECUNDER. Jon, Nizam of the Kingdom of
Hyderabad—it is the principle I most solemnly protest against
of allowing Europeans, except accredited, and in the ser-
vice of the King or Company, of having any connection,
or possessing any direct or indirect influence with the Go-
vernment of. a Native Prince; not because these persons
may not be very honourable and mean well, both towards
the Nizam and the British Government, hut the principle in
itself is so radically bad, and there is no knowing where it
would end, or how many other adventurers would follow with
their assistance and their interference, and the result must be,
politically situated as India is, a total subversion of British in-
fluence ; and internal broils and cabals would follow, produced
by the machinations of foreigners. It is well known that among
the Native Governments there is not a Rajah, a Valkeel, a
Zemindar, a Aumil, a Aassaldar, or with the Governor of
Provinces or Administrators of Justice, or other public officers,
who has not his price ; what must be the effect in such a so-
ciety, and in such a state of political and moral degradation,
for the enterprising, the needy and designing European, to
enter into? It is quite clear that nothing but a cautious, re-
strictive, and- honourable line of conduct, on the part of the
British, can protect these countries. To maintain ourselves,
and at the same time guard the country from the inevitable
misfortunes which would assuredly ensue by the introduction
of the persons to whom I have alluded, a most vigilant eye
must be kept on all whose sole object is to benefit and aggran-
dize themselves at the expence of the miserable Prince who has
fallen into their grasp, or of the ill-fated country destined to
become their prey.

It appears to me as something like folly going into argu-
ment on the subject; have we not at home our Poyais bubble,
our robberies and plunders, in the shape of one-half of the
Public Companies lately established ? Have not many of these
been instituted for the sole purpose of fleecing the unwary and
the uninitiated ? But India is an untried country ; the natives
are sanguine, rich, and ignorant of our manoeuvres, our specu-
lations, and practical experience ; a fine soil to plough up, and
a credulous people to act upon. I implore most solemnly the
British Government to watch them, to protect them ; they' de-
serve every care and friendship at our hands : nay, it is their
right—they are loyal subjects—we have benefitted their condi-
tion ; and shall we at once abandon them to the merciless sway
of their rulers, or, if possible, the more desolating and injurious
influence of unknown European adventurers? I call upon the
Government, Home and Foreign,, to protect them as they have
hitherto done; but if from, partiality, fear or weakness; they
abandon the Natives of India, a heavy curse, ought, and I
pray God it will' fall on those who aid the Tyrant, or abet his
minions and supporters, be they Europeans or Natives.
It is not, I before observed, the late house of Messrs. PA4mEit
that my objections are directed at ; it is the principle of allowing
strangers, aliens, and needy adventurers, to interfere or tamper
with the Native Governments, to raise loans, consequently to
create friends and dependents, who seek employment and emolu-
ment at their hands ; these they must attend to, either by cor-
rupt or indirect practices, such as creating situations, quarter-
ing!h
es
e themtne
auspuorne
st h(
aenddi s
by
ryi c
wt shoi re
ho n
alone the CEouur
or tp ;e
atnhse
etoeunldde nrceyt a
ionf
their footing. at a Native Court), must be productive of hostile
feelings, drain the treasury, and still farther exhaust the almost
worn out and oppressed people ; and for what end is thiS to he
done ?—is it to benefit the commerce or agriculture of the
country? Nothing of the kind : the whole entire business,
from beginning to end, is, that some half dozen Gentlemen
may put money in their pockets, regardless of the interests of
Great Britain and the cries of an afflicted country. •
These observations, neither directly nor indirectly, apply to
the late house at Hyderabad. Of that firm I know nothing,
save that some of my-most intimate friends are involved in
their misfortunes. - •
It is the establishment of any House of Agency at a Native
Court that I object to ; and that is not on account of the want of
principle or integrity on. the part of the British merchants, than
whom a more honourable class of men does not exist among his
Majesty's subjects. • It is the political state of these countries,
the weak and intriguing character of the Princes, the necessitous
and venal habits of a Military Nobility, and the turbulent
state of the Districts, that must, on the introduction of
are strictly honourable men that their Eu-
iosfchtiheef
Bt or i t
itsi
hi e
Ec oe
pu
rnetsreyn, t
aatni
vde . injureltis the
t ahue --
eni.artisrEn.
cause
:at ny al,
en csdsa
rups so. ewp,
successors are to be the same, or that another house of business,
established under similar circumstances, are to be equally re-
spectable. In time of civil commotion one house may assist
the father, another may be disposed to assist the son, on the
occurrence of these events, and they are by no means in the dis-
tracted and restless state of ' Native Courts, what becomes
of the salutary and protecting influence of the British ? and
what becomes of the unfortunate country and. people?
Allow the precedent at Hyderabad, and it follows as a mat-
ter of course, in the common order of things, that houses would
be established at Lucknow, Nagpore, Augein, Indoe, Mysore,
I3urida, &c. •
What use would Sundiah make of the assistance of such a
house ? In the late war, could he have raised a loan, he certainly
would have bought the troops and guns of the celebrated Partizan
Chief Ameer Is he had not the needful, and what was bet-
ter for
,us, he did not know where to get it. We had, and by
that means received the neutrality, and procured the troops of
one of the most difficult and daring mercenary Chiefs in India .
• For a moment putting hostile movements out of view, will it
not be'adinitted that a Banking-firin, with whom the State is
deeply involved,' and to whom the Prince personally is under
heavy pecuniary obligations, must possess an undue and pre-
ponderating influence in the Cabinet of the Prince ? and when
we take into consideration that nine out of ten of the members
of the family, the Nobles, and the Public Officers would Me-
, vitably, from their dissolute habits and extravagance, be in-
debted to the House; that the establishment of any firm is in-
compatible with the secdrity and prosperity of the country.
Among the AI tissulitan Princes of India, we must not pass
by the Nalieb of-Mershalohad ; it-is-necessary to allude to him-
, in illustration-of our argument against all Loan Cbntractors or
Jobbers, whether at Hyderabad, Lucknow, Arcot, or Bhopel.

COURSE OF 14:XCIIANGE, February le.

Amster dam
Ditto, at Sight
Rotterdam
Antwerp
Hamburglt
Altona

12 3 C. F•.
12 0
12 4
12 4
37 1 gi Vi'
3' 2 2075'

;57
Paris, 3 Day's sight
Ditto
Bourdeaux, ditto
25 45 0
Berlin
5 • • •i,
1511 Ex. Ikroe
Frankfort oti the Main
9
Petetsburgis
0
-
Vienna 10 4
. 10 4
...a
Trieste
RG Effee'
Madrid
;vs,
351 Effect, vs
Cadiz
35 Effect'
Bilboa
Bareebma ..............
... •
.
ie5evi11e................ .
Gibraltar ...... ...........
Leghorn ....................... .
, Geili,a .......... 14/---Venite, 'ltal. Li v 27
Palermo,
Malta ........ —Naples • 4O
Lisbon
.
Oporto ..................
..................
Rio Janeiro
...................
................. :
Bahia .................. .
Ditbliti ..• •9} ........ Cork (fri pet Cent.

35f

51

BULLION.

..•
OP'
Portugal Gold, i n Coin 1 0 0 0 PP!..
Foreign Gold, in Bars 3 17 9
..,
NeW Doubloons ......... . 3 IS 0...
0 4 101
New Dollars
Silver Standard in Bars, 05 04
'

On the lath instant, the IadyBIRTH. of Nathaniel Gould, Esq., or
Tavistock-square, of a daughter.

DIED:
On the 16th instant, Hephzibali Eden, wife of Mr. pte
Elwell, of Wolverhainpton, and third daughter of the -
Richard Smith, Esq., of Hammersmith.
a.hillf
On Wednesday evening, the 16th instant, at Highwco
William Anderson, Esq., late of Russell-square..

If` Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, at the 51114'
I OFFICE, No. 112, Strand, by J. B. CARSTAIRS.