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

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
*lcsoaunldds ,a
pbrothers,or
consolation, sons, or
Asa
prison allowance no
doubt the allowance to the Ameers was liberal, but, as
osris
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 services.—(Hear, hear.)
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 conducted, and the insults
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 surprised at the 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 ordered their people to kill the
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.—(Cheers.) He would not enlarge upon their
love of hunting, or their treatment 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 the beginning 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 House to mitigate that despotic power
which it was, perhaps, necessary to entrust to those to
whose care was C3nfided the Government 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.