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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1844.

previous session of Parliament made a long—he feared a too
long—defence of the Affghanistan expedition, and the
attempt which had been made by two Honourable
Members to impugn that policy having received so
cold a recep'ion from that House—he did not think it so
very likely that the subject would, in the last session of Par-
liament, have been again brought on. This was his sincere
excuse for nut being present, though he did not choose to admit
that a man was to be bound on a notice given by an Hon.
Member to attend, or, failing to do so, was to be looked upon,
or charged, with shrinking from taking part in the defence of
his friends or colleagues.—( Hear, hear.) For he found that
the Hon. Member for Bath, last session of Parliament, gave
notice that he would bring the subject before the House,
and he appeared somewhat to complain of the_ Noble Lord
the Member for Dorsetshire for taking up the subject, and pre-
suming to poach on his manor—(Laughter and cheers)—as if
he (Mr. Roebuck) had a sort of freehold in grievances—
(Laughter)—and as if it was a kind of offence in any one but
himself to address the House in regard to wrongs or to wrong-
doers—(Cheers and laughter)—and as if he, the Hon. Member
for Bath, could manage all these sort of things with much more
force and dignity than either the Noble Lord or any other
Member of that House. —(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Gentle-
man ( Mr. Roebuck) must excuse him for stating that in
giving his notice the other day, it was impossible for him (Sir
John Hobhouse) or his colleagues to guess exactly what he
meant, for his notice then was something to the effect—that
the House, while giving the due meed of praise to the skill of
the Generals and the valour of the troops by whom the terri- '
tory of Sinde had been conquered, nevertheless deemed it
necessary to condemn that selfish and meddling policy which
forced upon our arms the necessity of such a conquest. Why,
that notice was in fact an implied attack and censure upon the
whole history and policy of the East India Company.
When he read the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
he had no idea that he intended to make a long, detailed, and
perhaps he might say able, charge against the late Govei nor-
General. In all his experience as a member of the House, and
it extended now over a space of twenty-five years, never was
that House, from a notice of 48 hours, called upon to decide
upon three questions of such importance as the present. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman asserted that, whatever was
done by Lord k llunborough was done in consequence of the
impolicy and injustice of his predecessors • and he further
stated that to restore dominion to the Sindians was im-
possible. The Honourable Gentleman should not have said
so, for whatever is right is possible. By an ingenious—
he would not term it fraud—no, by an ingenious artifice— he
laid upon the table of the House three propositions, which, in
point of injustice, unfairness, and disingenuousness, were un-
paralleled in the history of Parliament.—(Hear, hear) And,
somehow or other, the House seemed to entertain the same
opinion.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") The Hon. and
Learned Member had room enough for the race—he had no-
body to back him. The imputation of injustice, impolicy, or,
in the Hon. Gentleman's own language, of monstrosity against
Lord Auckland, he thought could have scarcely entered into
the imagination even of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The Hon. Gentleman was, at all events, singular in his opi-
nion, and (turning to the chair) you, Mr. Speaker,
will be freed front the trouble, the disgust, of
further listening to an accusation which has not
found in this House, and I believe would not find in this coun-
try, a seconder. The Hon. Gentleman made a variety of accu-
sations, but they were not founded on fact. Hardly any asser-
tions he made, except a just tribute to the character of the gal-
lant Napier, were just and well founded. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, after the fashion of a certain French au-
thor, said that he would begin at the beginning, and accord-
ingly he went into the history of our early intercourse with
Sinde, and mentioned some of the treaties, amongst other
treaties that of 1809. Up to that time he said our policy
towards Sinde was of a voluntary description, which signi-
fied that they might not do anything that they
did not wish. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
further stated that our policy towards them was subsequently
of an involuntary character. But what was the treaty of
1809 ? What was the 4th article of that treaty ? It was to
the effect that no Frenchman should be allowed-to settle in the
territory of Sinde. Was that voluntary? The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman said that we deprived Sinde of its inde-
pendence, and oppressed it because the Ameers wrote a
friendly letter to the Shah of Persia. A friendly letter it cer-
tainly was to the Shah of Persia, but most unfriendly to us.
Why what was that but the stronger imposing upon the
weaker? Surely no country would voluntarily adopt such a
restraint. The fact was, that Sinde was not then an independent
i a
nd the
Americanstre aty with
soul nation. In 1820, at a suggestion of Shah Mahomed, a clause was
in
hd not the
Indian
settle
in Government,
siSinde
that
sEuropeanserte
d nterri-
tory. This country had all along in their dealings with the
Studien people, treated them not as an independent tribe, but as
subject to the King of Caubul, and they were subject to him
until we made them independent. They never were free from
the control of Shah Mahomed. The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman after going through the treaties of 1829, 1832, and
1834, came to the treaty of 1836, of which he gave
a most completed misrepresentatiou from beginning to
end.—( Hear, hear.) He charged Lord Auckland with
trickery and treachery, which if his Lordship were guilty of, be
would deserve to be instantly impeached, and he pretended to
derive his information from garbled extracts from the Blue
Book. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that Lord
Auckland had conveyed to the Ameers, -that Runjeet Singh
was about to invade them, and thereby induced them to sup-
plicate the aid of the British Government. That was not the
fact. Lord Wm. Bentinck, in 1831, had become acquainted
with the intention of Runjeet Singh to take the first opportu-
nity of invading Sinde. The Indian Government had endea-
voured to dissaude him from it, and in 1336 he marched upon
Sinde from the Punjaub, and encamped in the neigh.
bourhood of Caubul. Shah Mahomed sent a messenger
to Colonel Pottinger in Cutch to require his interference, and,
what was very singular in that communication, he did not
confine his request to Affghanistan, but requested that a British
force might be sent to Shikarpore. Was that baseness and
treachery ? in assisting the Ameers, did not the Indian
Government assist the weak against the strong ? Did they not
assist the Sindians, and save them from the grasp of Runjeet
Singh ? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that in the
tripartite treaty the Indian Government had all at once dis-
posed of Sinde by the sixteenth article of that treaty. Dis-
posed of Sinde ! Why that was the first acknowledgment of
the independence of Sinde—acknowledged to be a nation whose
influence was paramount in the east. They had been ele-
vated from dependence on Caubul into an ally of the British
nation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had asked what
reason was there to suppose that Lord Ellenborough could be
guilty of any baseness. He (Sir John Hobhouse) knew no
reason why Lord Ellenborough should be guilty of baseness,
and he knew no reason why Lord Auckland should be guilty
of it. He believed they were equally free from the charge of
baseness, and he believed Lord Auckland to be as honourable
and as upright as Lord Ellenborough, and at !east as well ac-
quainted with Indian affairs as the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man. He said that Lord Auckland took money from the
Ameers of Sinde. Twenty-one lace of rupees were received, but
it should not be forgotten that the Ameers obstructed
our march into Affghanistan, which was delayed five weeks by
them. Fifteen lacs of rupees had been given to Shah Soojah,
and if Shah Soojah had remained upon the throne, as Lord
Auckland contemplated, that payment would effectually have
prevented future demands on the Ameers. He considered that
the independence of Sinde, and freedom from the control of
the Affghan Sovereign, was cheaply purchased by twenty .one
lace of rupees. The other six lace were paid to Runjeet
Singh, and were no more than sufficient to liquidate the ex-
penses of one regiment. The Learned Gentleman recapitu-
lated what he termed the horrors of the Affghan expedition,
and besprinkled himself and his Noble Friend Lord Auckland
with blood. The policy of that invasion had been already
fully discussed, and he would not revert to it further, than by
saying that it was then deemed -judicious, and, having been
deemed so, Lord Auckland was perfectly justified in
marching his troops through the Sindiau territory.
We had the same right to call for the assistance of the people-of
Sinde as from the others of our allies ; and we were justified
in the course which we had taken. But the Learned Gentle-
man had said that Lord Auckland took the wrong route—that
he ought to have passed into Affghanistan, through the terri-
tories of a Prince with whom the British Government in
India was in friendly relations. He (Sir J. H.) had a right
to say that Lord Auckland was bound to consider his Govern-
ment as being in as friendly relations with the Ameers of
Sinde as with Runjeet Singh—(Hear)—who, instead of
assisting us, was doing all he could to oppose us.—( Hear.)
The Learned Gentleman said that they ought to have taken
the way by Khjber Pass ; but he might as well have said that
they ought to have taken the way by the Gulf of Mexico.—
( A laugh.) At the time, Runjeet Singh had a large army,
and there was no more reason for relying upon his friendship
than upon that of the people of Sinde. Besides, the British
army took the route through the countries in which there was
the greatest prospect of a sufficient supply of provisions, and
they rejected the other• route, because, in the words of the
Learned Gentlemen himself, it was impossible.—(Cheers and
laughter.) The course taken by Lord Auckland's Govern-
ment, and the measures taken by them, were forced upon
them by the exigency of the times.—( Hear, hear.) With
respect to Sir Henry Pottinger—he (Sir J. Hobhouse)—most
say that he had now heard, for the first time, the accusation
brought against him, that he was one of those Indian servants
who thought too much of their own importance.—(Bear.)
But he might remind the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that
Indian servants were not the only persons who thought too
much of their own importance.—(Laughter and cheers.) He
would undertake to say that the Gallant Officer was not more
likely to be led into hasty expressions or unconsidered state-
ments than the Hon. and Learned Member himself.—(Laugh-
ter and cries of " Hear, hear.") The Government, however,
had not acted upon that officer's communications, without well
considering the grounds upon which his suggestions were offered.
He (Sir J. H.) had not distinctly heard all that the lion.
Gentleman had said; and, therefore, it might be that he was
obliged to pass over some of his assertions upon that part of
the question. He could, therefore, only say, that, what they
had really to look to, was what the Governor-General had done?
In fact, he had not acted upon the suggestions of Sir H. Pot-
linger ; but, on the contrary, departed from them, as a refer-
ence to the Blue Book would show. Now, with reference to
the alleged aggressions of Lord Auckland in Sinde—the Hon.
Gentleman seemed to think that they consisted not only in
forcing an army across the territory of the Ameers ; but in
his interference with the navigation of the Indus. Now, the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman would see, by re-
ferring to the papers (pages from 110 to 160), that
Lord Auckland did not ask anything, which the Ameers
were not bound to by treaty.—( Hear, bear.) And, further,
that they never objected to that treaty, or objected to carry out
its provisions. More than that, the Indian Government did
protect the interests of Noor Mohamed, and the people of
Sinde approved of all that had been done by the Government.
--(Hear, hear.) The Learned Gentleman was entirely mis-
taken as to what had been done in respect to the ports of Kura-
chee. We never did take possession of them. All that we
had done was by agreement with the Ameers that we should
not take possession of them, but that we should have troops there
during the period when they were necessary. The Ameers
never made the slightest objection to our having troops there. The
Hon. Gentleman said that when Lord 'Ellenborough came into
possession of the Government of India, he had to contend
with great difficulties. Certainly he had, and he (Sir John
Hobhouse) did not feel called upon to say more in reference to
what was proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman than
that what had been done by Lord Ellenborough was net the
necessary consequence of what had been done by Lord Auck-
land.—( Cheers.) The dates of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman did not bear him out in his own statement that the
conduct of Lord Ellenborough was occasioned by the affair
of Caubul. He had received the news of the success in Aff-
ghanistan before he had taken those steps respecting Sinde
which the motion of the Noble Lord was intended to impugn.
Certainly the Governor-General had much to contend with.
There was the most unscrupulous Press that ever existed.
There were persons at home who were scarcely less scrupulous;
and he had also to contend with gentlemen in Parliament who
had thought proper, after four or five years, for their own
amusement, and that of the public, to bring forward charges
which might possibly be seconded.—( Cheers and laughter. )
He did not feel called upon to say more of Lord Ellenborough's
conduct than that it was not the same or continuous with Lord
Auckland's. Lord Ellenborough objected to the employment
of agents, even to that of such a distinguished man as Sir
Charles Napier, whose name could never be mentioned hut
with respect, not only on account of his own merits, but on ac-
count of the associations with which that name was connected,
and no man in that House could deny that we owed more to
that officer, perhaps, than to any other in India.—(Cheers.)
In concluding what he had taken the liberty to say to the House
he might be allowed to state that he had risen to give an
unnecessary defence against unnecessary attack.—(Laughter. )
He would only put it to the House whether when justice was
required for the Ameers, they were to forget what was

the Affghan war, but he could not join in a vote of censure on
that policy at the present moment, and to bring the whole
weight of Government to bear against those whom he had
succeeded in office.—(Cheers.) It was not necessary for his
purpose to question the policy of Lord Auckland, but in vindi-
cating the policy pursued by Sir Charles Napier and Lord
Egenborough, it was impossible to forget the position in which
they found themselves placed at the close of 1842. What
was the position in which the British Government was placed
with regard to the Ameers of Sinde ? It was described in a
dispatch which Lord Auckland addressed to the. Government
at home. That dispatch was No. 166, and in it he stated that
he congratulated the Directors of the East India Company,
upon the results of the policy of the Indian Government as the
political and military ascendancy of this country was esta-
blished in Sinde. He said that the confederacy of the
Ameers was dissolved; and now that each would be respon-
sible for his own individual acts. A change had been produced
in the constitution of Sinde. It was placed under British pro-
tection. It was brought within the circle of our Indian relations,
and a British force was to be placed in Tatta, or to such
other place west of the Indus as Government might think fit.
Lord Auckland stated that their empire would be consolidated
by, and their commerce extended through, Affghanistan
thereby. He recommended to have 2,500 men placed in Sinde,
which might then be looked upon as a frontier station. These
passages from Lord Auckland showed that the independence of
Sinde was at an end, for he says, " your military and political
supremacy is established." But they gaine i these great advan-
tages, not only for themselves but for the sake of civilisation,
which would be advanced in consequence of the opening of the
Indus. Such were our relations with Sinde when Lord El-
lenbourgh went to that country. They had met with reverses in
Caubul, and Lord Ellenborough found it necessary for thesecurity
of their Indian Empire to make a retrograde movement, and
to evacuate Caubul. They could not do that without raising
an opinion, through the Nepaul, Bundelkund, and Gwalior coun-
tries, possessing betwixt 30,000 and 50,000 troops, that their
military supremacy was drawing to a close. How was Lord
Ellenborough to deal with Silvia in such circumstances ?
Caubul was evacuated by the Khyber Pass, an operation of
great danger. There was at the same time a simultaneous
evacuation of the Lower Indus. What impression would this
leave upon the minds of the public of India, if they saw them
thus abandoning their hold upon the Indus? Could they, under
these circumstances, make their retreat in security.—(Hear,
hear.) Would not their rear be pressed on by an
enormous force, which would have rendered their retreat
difficult ?—( Hear, hear.) They must have abandoned all the
advantages which the previous policy of Lord Auckland had
obtained. They must have abandoned Kurachee, and given
up their security for the free navigation of the Indus.—
( Hear, hear.) The treaty had been violated by the Ameers.
Sir Charles Napier gives an account of their constant ob-
struction of boatmen—of the duties imposed on the traffic, and
there was a disposition manifest to close the Indus. Suppose
the country had been abandoned, would it be contended that
there was any guarantee that the Ameers would observe the
stipulations of the treaty. It became absolutely necesaary for
Lard Ellenborough to do what he had done, as a means of
securing the observance of the treaty. The violation
of the treaty on their part justified him in in-
flicting a penalty on the Ameers, which left them
no alternative but to submit. His Noble Friend said that the
charge brought against the Aineers, and the treachery of
Roostum Khan, was not proved, because it was toot satisfac-
torily shown that the letter which was said to convict him
was written by him and that it would not be satisfactory in
a Court of Justice. That might be so, but if they were to
wait in their dealings with Indian Governments till they had
proofs which would be satisfactory in a court of justice, he
was afraid they must be prepared to receive very serious blows.
—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend would find in the papers
that the Minister of Roostum Khan was disposed to act
treacherously to England. And would they establish the prin•
ciple that the Minister may intrigue as he pleased, but that the
imbecile Ameer was never to be punished unless the guilt
was brought home to him") If that principle were once
established, he was indeed afraid that their supremacy in India
was held by a very slender thread. If the doctrine was esta-
blished, that an old Ameer of 85 was to be considered innocent,
while his Minister was engaged in intrigues hostile to them,
they might take us by surprise and overwhelm us.—( Hear,
hear.) When a charge was brought, in 1839, against the
same Ameer for treasonable correspondence with Persia, it
was very difficult to bring home the fact to him. There could
be no doubt that one o the Ameers was guilty, and strong
suspicion rested upon the others. With regard to questions of
treachery, they should act upon moral conviction, and unless
they did so they would not be able to carry on the Government
of India. Lord Ellenborough wrote to Sir Charles Napier to
procure the best evidence he could of the intentions of the ,
Ameers, and he did not know what better means they could
adopt than the course Lord Ellenborough took on that occa-
sion. With regard to Sir Charles Napier, he should have oc-
casion, on Monday, to move a vote of thanks, which was justly
due to the character of that most distinguished individual. He
should only say on this occasion that, if he took the advice
given him, and trusted to the information of the
Ameers to displace his force if he separated himself
from that army, which he not only led to victory under the ex-
traordinary and unparalleled circumstances in which he was
placed, but to whom he set an example not only of military
skill but of personal courage—(Cheers)—and of desperate
fidelity to the cause of his country—( Continued cheering)—
his firm belief was, that not a man of that army would have re-
turned alive. Throughout the whole of these transactions Sir
Charles Napier showed not only the highest personal courage
and the greatest military skill, but an admirable civil capacity ;
but, as he had said before, it would be his duty on another occa-
sion to attempt to do him justice, when he trusted they should
all come to an unanimous vote, for it was his intention studiously
to avoid any reference to political matters.—( Cheers.) With
respect to the motion of his Noble Friend, it was
quite out of the power of the Government to acquiesce in it.
His Noble Friend ( Lord Ashley) did not propose a condemna-
tion of the present Government, or of the policy of Lord El-
lenborough, but to address the Crown to take into its conside-
ration the condition of the Ameers, with a view either to give
them their liberty and the enjoyment of their estates, or such a
maintenance as might make an equivalent for their loss. He
(Sir Robert Peel) trusted the House of Commons would not
consent to lay down rules which would have to be followed out
at a distance of five thousand miles.—he sincerely trusted they
would not sanction a course so fraught with inconvenience and
danger. In respect to the proposed measure, the immediate
restoration to liberty of the Ameers must be the necessary con-
sequence of passing this resoluiion. Why, he (Sir R. Peel)
declared that he could not profess confidence even in their
present allies—(Cheers)—but the result of the adop-
tion of this resolution must be the release of these Ameers,
whose first act, on their return, would, perhaps, be, to coalesce
with those already not too faithfully disposed towards us, in
order to re-commence intrigues which must again end in trea-
son against us.—(Cheers.) He trusted the House of Com-
mons would undertake no such responsibility.—( Loud cheers. )
But the Noble Lord proposed, not only that they should
be restored to their liberty, but to the enjoyment of their
estates also. It might be fairly open to consideration if they
would establish these Ameers in some humbler station than
that they formerly enjoyed, and so allow them liberty ; and to
this an earnest consideration had already been given by the
Executive, to whom he thought the subject had much better be
left. The opinions which he (Sir Robert Peel) had
formed on this point, were that it would not be safe
to allow the Ameers to return, in this humble capa-
city, to their native country. The restoration of their
estates, depriving them of political powel, might leave them
with feelings of mortified pride to suggest, and the means to
work out fresh intrigues. But the Noble Lord proposes an
alternative—to give them a just equivalent for their estates.
He (Sir Robert Peel) answered, " No I" and he called on
the House of Commons to give them no power, no means, no
opportunity by which they might again involve the British
arms in fresh struggles.—(Hear, hear.) One sentiment there
was of the Noble Lord's, in which he entirely concurred, and
that was that they should yield to these Ameers every com-
fort and consideration that was possible. Whatever were
their misfortunes they ought not, and they should not be ex-
cluded from every indulgence and every species of liberal
treatment consistent with their proper custody.—( Hear, hear.)
The height from which they had fallen would not, he could
venture to assure the House, be forgotten either by her
Majesty, the Government at home, or the Government in
India—(Loud cheers)—and there should be no restraint on
them for the mere purpose of punishment, and no restraint on
their personal liberty which was not justified by considerations
of policy.—(Hear, hear.) It was now the subject of their
consideration, whether their removal to some other part of
India, distant from Sinde, might not admit of less restraint
being placed upon them.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") With
respect to their personal treatment, he would with truth de-
clare that no narrow notions of economy should be permitted
.o interfere with their comfort and happiness.—( Cheers.) At
present the sum allowed to the officer for the expenses of the
aggregate of them was not less than twenty thousand pounds ;
and if that were deemed by them insufficient to obtain any of
the comforts they had heretofore been accustomed to, he
could assure the House that a further sum should be allowed.—
(Hear, hear.) Trusting he had satisfied the House that every
thing that could be done consistently with prudence would
be done for these unfortunate Princes, and warning the
House, above all things, not to assume a responsibility
which they might hereafter deeply deplore, he should con-
clude the observations he felt it his duty to make, by giving
his decided opposition both to the motion of the Noble Lord
(Ashley) and the amendment of the Honourable Gentleman
the Member for Bath.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, the Noble Lord who had brought
forward the resolution before the House, had done so entirely
irrespective of the original policy of the war, and of the annexa-
tion of the territory of Sinde to the British empire. In what
had fallen from the Right Honourable Baronet in refer-
ence to it, he pretty generally agreed, and he was
highly pleased to hear his declaration that no con-
siderations of economy should stand in the way of every
safe indulgence being conceded to the unfortunate Ameers.
He quite agreed that it would be most inconvenient far the
House of Commons to require from the Government any as-
surance that the Ameers should be restored to the enjoyment
of their liberty and their estates. He was not aware what
might be the actual state of Sinde at that moment. The
Hon. Member for Bath had read a. letter to the House, from,
he believed, Sir Charles Napier, in which he said
he had found it necessary to disarm a considerable
portion of -the inhabitants of that country. Why
they could not be sure that if the immediate liberty of these
Ameers took place, that, although the country might be getting
tolerably quiet, their re-appearance might not be the signal of
immediate anarchy and confusion; and, therefore, he (Lord
John Russell) for one would have nothing to do with a re-
sponsibility which might have such consequences.—(Loud
cheers.) After the assurances of the Ministers of the Crown,
he could not give his support to any portion of the resolution
of the Noble Lord, though he gave to him (Lord Ashley) the
fullest credit for his motives, and concurred in several of the
observations which had fallen from him. The Right
Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had, however,
entered into another question which was not before
the House—the question of the policy pursued in
India by the present Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough.
He felt the force of the observations made by the non. Gen-
tleman, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the supple..
mentary papers had been only a month in the hands of the
Members. Those papers threw great light on the occurrences
in India, and it was very difficult to come to a conclusion
justificatory or condemnatory of the policy of Lord Ellen-
borough at the present time. He wished to avoid giving any
opinion regarding the policy pursued by Lord Ellenborough.
I he Noble Lord, assuming the Government of India was
placed in a position of great difficulty, he might have con-
ceived it necessary to make an impression in order to
remove the opinion then prevalent that British power
in India was on the decline. On the other
hand. he must say that his confidence in the
present Governor-General had been greatly shaken by
the inconsistency of his policy with the declarations which he
made on arriving in India.—( Hear, hear.) One of his first
declarations was that his policy was to keep within the Indus,
which he said was the natural boundary of the British empire,
but as far as he (Lord J. Russell) knew, our empire was not
natural there in any sense of the term. On the Ist of October
he made this proclamation; but a month after, on the 4th of
November, he decided upon seizing additional territory
West of the Indus.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him
perfectly clear that Sir Charles Napier had acted accord-
ing to his instructions, and with a moral courage, and a
personal bravery, which deserved nothing but commendation.
He acted with regard to the safety of the army and maintaining
the supremacy of British arms—(Hear, hear)—and he be-
lieved the Gallant Officer could not with those considerations
have acted otherwise than he had done; arid as an humble
Member of that House, he was willing to bestow upon him
ample commendation. The Right Hell. Gentleman bad laid

due to our own functionaries who took upon themselves
those tremendous duties, and who were distant from the per-
, sons who could advise them ? (Cheers. ) 'They held in their
hands the balance of the fate of this empire, and in justice to
them, those attacks which had no object, and could
serve no purpose but the gratification of spleen
and vanity should be received with caution at the least.
Indeed, he believed that the time had come when they would
never hear of such charges brought forward after the lapse of
years, except from the Hen. and Learned Member himself.—
(Hear, hear.) Let them only see when this charge was
brought. In 1839 the treaty with Sinde was laid on the table;
in 1840 it was discussed, and in 1844 the Hon. Member
brought forward his charge. The only reason why the charge
was not sooner made was, that it was not tenable. It required
more special pleading than. an every-day Member of Parlia-
ment could make anything of.—(Cheers and laughter.) With
respect to the motion of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Ashley), he was inclined to think with the Right Hon. Secre-
tary for the Board of Control, that it was not right to inter-
fere with these matters, and that, in the present situation of
the Ameers, every attention should be paid to them, and
their personal liberty should not be interfered with more than
was necessary for the preservation of the peace of India.
As a general rule the less interference there was on the part of
the Members of Parliament, or of that House, with the Indian
Government, the better. That was his opinion ; but at the
same time he would not say a case might not arise, and if such
a case should arise he would go a great deal farther. He
should not content himself with casting a side-wind upon the
Government. He should make a positive charge which should
end with something like a conclusion, and a serious
one too. But he owned he would cot interfere while
there was a Government to regulate the affairs of India. On
this account he was sorry to say, and with the greatest respect
for the Noble Lord who made the motion, that it was impos-
sible to come to the conclusion that he ought to vote for it.
Sir C. NAPIER said that he rose, not to pass any judg.-
wlt on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough or Lord Auckland,
he left that to gentlemen who were better acquainted with India
than he was ; but he was about to say a few words relative to
what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Ashley) respecting
his (Sir Charles Napier's) gallant relative. The Noble
Lord had stated, in one of his observations that had
Sir C. Napier followed the advice of Major Outram, there
would have been no war in India—that things would have been
brought to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. He (Sir C.
Napier) differed entirely from the Noble Lord, and he was
decidedly of opinion, after having read all the correspondence,
that he could only compare his conduct to that of Mr. Frere,
relative to Sir John Moore, when the latter commanded the
army in Spain. He was astonished that a military officer like
Major Outram should have given the advice he had to Sir C.
Napier. He was of opinion that if any blame whatever was
to be attached to Sir Charles Napier, it was for his
having delayed his march on Hyderabad so long. It was
clearly stated that Major Outram had tilted him to
delay au,e days, and it appeared he had delayed
four days with the prospect of hot weather coming on, and
thus exposing his army to destruction. Tu another part of his
speech the Noble Lord had fallen into error. There was not
au Hon. Gentleman who admired the Noble Lord more than he

(Sir C. Napier) did, as a just and humane man ; but still it
showed how even such a man, when he took up such a sub-
ject, might be swayed by erroneous opinions. The Noble
Lord had quoted the letter of Sir C. Napier to the Ameers ;
but the Noble Lord ought also to have quoted another letter
of the Gallant General to show in what condition he was when
he penned the letter to the Ameers. On the 18th of
March, 1843, the position in which the Gallant General,
as appeared from his letter to the Governor-General himself,
was that he had but 1,500 men without any reinforcements ar-
riving. He was in the midst of an insurgent population with
all the magazines and hospitals filled with wounded men, and
having a large fortress and immense treasure to guard, and
treacherous Ameers to deal with. Now, he (Sir C. Napier)
would ask the No'ole Lord, placed in the situation in
which the Gallant General was, with only 1,500 men,
in a hostile country, and in a climate enough to destroy
any army—whether it was fair or just to excite the
feeling of the House against him in the manner in which he
had crone ? He compared the conduct of Sir C. Napier to.
wards the Ameers to that of Lord Cornwallis with the sons of
Tippoo Saib. It was impossible for a single moment for any
Hon. Gentleman in that House to make the slightest compari-
son between the conduct of the two. The Noble Lord had
defended the intentions of the Ameers. New, had the Ameers
gained the victory, what would have been the fate of the Bri-
tish forces 1 Every one of them would have been
massacred.—( Hear, hear.) So the confidential servant of
of one of the Ameers stated, on his examination before
Captain Browne. He believed that to be true. Every soldier
would have been put to death with the exception of the Gallant
General, who would have been towed to Hyderabad with an
iron ring in his nose.—( Laughter.) The House of Commons
would then have said that General Napier was a vacillating,
undecided man, that he had not courage to go on, and that he
had foolishly listened to the political agent, who ought
never to be employed in war. For God knows, said the
Hon. and Gallant Member, those political agents do mis-
chief enough in peaceable times.—( Laughter.) After having
read all the papers, he was surprised how the Noble Lord
could have made the declaration that the Ameers had no in-
tention of attacking the Resident's house, but that they were
unable to control the Beloochees. The contrary was the ease.
He would not detain the House longer, nor would he have
made any observations, but for the attack that had been made
•upon his gal'ant relative. He did not think he would have
been doing his duty if he had not made these observations.
With respect to the motion before the House he thought the
Ameers had been sufficiently punished—that they ought to be
detained at Bombay, but with perfect liberty, and a sufficient
allowance, but he certainly would not allow them to go back to
Sinde.

Lord JOCELYN said that if he had been ware that the
letter of Sir C. Napier to Major Outram would have been
read he would have been prepared with an answer, which he
trusted he would have an opportunity on a future occasion of
reading. He would support the motion, because he thought it
a just one. The Noble" Lord then entered at some lesigth into a
defence Lf the conduct of the Ameers, whom he thought ought
not to be made responsible for the acts of their Ministers.
Ile could not pass over the treatment which had been experi-
enced by the unfortunate Meer Roostum. He had been our
trusty friend in times of danger—and he, an old and unfortu-
nate man, when he asked for the protection of the British Ge-
neral, was refused it. The terms which we had sought to
exact from the Ameers were such as it was impossible that they
could grant. it had boon shown that thr Ameers could not
possibly exist upon the allowance which would then have been
left to them. The Ameers had signed the treaty, which was
all but ratified, when Sir Charles Napier made fresh demands
upon them. He demanded that the Ameers should quit the
country. What right had he to make such a demand ?
He then marched upon one of their forts, and committed
other acts of aggression. He (Lord J.) however, made no
charge against the General, he. was merely carrying out the
policy of the Governor-General of India at that time. Sir
Charleshe
c onl Napierns. hoh
orufepc
foernievs
congratulatingtot wehdh
aa
what he
aggressions.
h lettere h adf r
4? me
nTeLord n
history
s tl
oernyb urgingo
orfo
himug
ourh
connexion with Sinde was the history of a continued series of
unjustifiable acts. Lord Ellentiorough in his letters
brought it as an accusation against the Ameers, that
they were collecting troops without legitimate cause ;
but he had forgotten the letter of the 19th February, which
stated that these troops had been collected solely for the pur-
pose of defence.
.Lord Ellenborough's• letters were full of
rtli
_:etioaents ,
al
lines
teiess ns
udoeefd.
_ctoo(i
fide:
raiuwe
ns
uowaf at
npHueboafl
ri
which
hht tieeoanhr t. i
)ohne fromHhon
twvhaeegr uereetaghleonqs eeureag:
d
spoken to be formed? the expense of their formation
could not be defrayed from the revenues of Sinde;
for while the revenue of that country was only forty lacs, the
expenditure amounted to eighty lacs. He trusted the House
would see the same justice administered to Asiatics that was
ad ninistered to Englishmen,—( Cheers.)
Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE had expected that the
Si,icernebtaorryonogfhthe
uponßoard of Control in supporting the case of the
Gevernment would have relied' for the defence of Lord
E
something more than the vague
and general statements of Major Outram. He did
not believe that the Ameers had been anxious
for the overthrow of the British power, and he did not believe
that any of the more enlightened of the natives of India, who
were aware that it was necessary that that country should be
under the rule of some great power, were really desirous that
the British empire should be overthrown. He had been in
India in 1836, and he had then wondered how it had happened
tihhaotsteheAAmmegeregrfsoormf
eSdinadecohnadfedreermacayin, eddiviidneddepbeyndentso long.
quar-
rels. In 1836, if they had not received our assifsatmianclye,theymust have been conquered by Runjeet Singh, and after 183(1
independence
was attempt of theirs to achieve for themselves
was regarded by themselves as hopeless and impossible. On
our meditating an hostile attack on Affghanistan, the occupa-
tion of Sinde was necessary as a basis for our military
operations beyond the Indus. Shortly afterwards our
Resident was withdrawn from Hyderabad? the Ameers
were at a loss to understand the meaning of this—some of_ the
Ameers thought it was preparatory to a hostile attack upon.them
--while others, knowing that we were withdrawing ouF troops
from Affghanistan, imaginedithat we were about. withdrawto
aape from
hfraorthSeiynddeeasilrseod.
that every day Major Outram was receiving Ea
lt _g
glisehss Resident
Here
but wasso
tar independencefrom
desiringsvi
one or other of them, begging that some. thrt
it theirperearaecdh
to withdraw entirely, the Ameers felt convi
He could
might be left at Hydertaubraed,amboecangusstethief
themselves.
not must soon come to a rupture
during the war in Affghanistan, and how any one could believe
that they were plotting our overthrow while they werefur-
nishingl
not but recollect the great services they had rendered to us
us with the means of carrying on a successful
warfare was quite beyond his comprehension..—(Hear.).
Sir ROBLRT PEEL cordially agreed in the sentiments
convinced Het t wt
he el.;
which had been expressed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that
in discussing questions relating to Indian policy the House
ought to put a liberal construction upon the motives and the
conduct of public men who were entrusted with such immense
responsibility, and who had the destinies of an empire com-
mitted to their charge.—( Hear, hear.) No consideration on
earth should induce him to rest the vindication of Lord Ellen-
borough on the charges which had been preferred against Lord
Auckland.—(Cheers.) He could not, therefore, support
the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath.— ( Cheers. ) He must extend to Lord Auck-
land the same credit which he asked for Lord
Ellenborough.—(Cheers.) He had not hesitated freely
to express his opinion of Lord Auckland's policy in invading
Affghanistan ; but from his own personal knowledge of Lord
Auckland he felt bound to say . that he believed that Lord
Auckland had always exercised his political functions to pro-
mote that which he deemed to be the best interests of the
giving any opinion on Lord
country—(Cheers)—and that Lord Auckland's motives had
dwatguhtt
.to consider the position in
always been of the highest. and purest nature.—(Cheers.) But
although he would not vindicate Lord Ellenborough by attack-
ingwhichAuckland's
Lorditileinbhoreohueagt h found himself placed with regard to
Lord Auckland, y
the Ameers at the time that he assumed the office of Go-
vernor-General of India. It was impossible to regulate Indian
politics by European rules.—(Cheers.) They might pass
Acts of Parliament interdicting Governors-General from ex-
tending their empire, but he was afraid there was a great
principle at work whenever civilisation and refinement came
into contact which made it difficult to apply those principles.—
( Hear, hear.) He was afraid that there was a necessity for
the extension of our empire in India---( Hear, hear)—and that
it was utterly impossible to adopt the same principles with re-
gard to the independence of small States in India on which we
acted here. Let them take the case of Affghanistan. Let
them assume that it was necessary for the security of our Indian
empire, and to counteract the designs of Persia and Russia, that
that expedition was necessary. They found Sinde a country no-
minally independent, interposed between them and Affghanistan.
Would it be possible for the Governor-General to act on the
thepr troopsinipl
principle that,
pass, their territ?ry wag to be preserved inviolate ?
at, unless the people of Sinde voluntarily permitted
—(Cheers.) Would it be right for the Governor-General to
look to his N'attel and Puffendorff for precedents, and if he
could not find them there, . to give up the expedition?—
( Cheers.) There was a principle at work by which the small
States in India were necessarily absorbed into our empire.
Perhaps we did not conquer them by force, but we took posses-
sion of them by means equally effectual, we had Residents at
their Courts, we subsidised their troops, and then gained a con-
trol over their territories, and if they looked to the proceedings of
of other civilised nations when they came into contact with
savage nations, it would be found that the same principle which
forced us to extend our Indian Empire applied with equal truth
to other countries.—( Hear, hear.) He would not rest his vin-
dication of Lord Ellenborough. upon the inculpation of Lord
Auckland. He bad already given his opinion of the policy of

U
MTY--

down certain general opinions with respect to civilisation to
the inapplicability of all the laws of nations, very loose as these
laws generally were, and very favourable as they had been to
conquest and aggression of all kinds. The Right Hon. Gen
tleman, he repeated, made certain observations upon that subject
which seemed to admit a latitude of aggression in which
he (Lord John Russell) would be very sorry to participate.—
( Hear, hear.) It would seem that the next conquest was to be
the conquest of the Punjaub. There was no doubt that the
treachery of the Ameers—the dread of their conspiring with
the Russians or Persians against British power might induce
the Governor-General to direct an advance across the Indus.
It was said with respect to the Punjaub, that it was in a state
of anarchy, that its native princes had been dethroned and
assassinated, and that the country was torn by dissen•
sions. It was further alleged, with respect to the State
of Sinde, that it had been immersed in barbarism, and
that much was to be expected from the progress of civili-
sation there, and the Right Hon. Baronet observed that the
regulations which controlled European nations could not be
applied to Simle. All this would lead one to expect that we
opposed civilisation to their barbarism, and the successful in-
troduction of the former was sufficient to justify aggression.
If such principles were acted upon, it was hard to say where
Briti-h conquest would stop—they would go on conquering
one country after another, but they might depend upon it that
the extent would cause irremediable weakness.—(Hear, hear.)
He wondered that none of the Directors of the East India
Company had spoken. The Noble Lord who introduced the
resolution had at all events elicited the opinion of that House
that the Ameers, in whose defence he stood up, would be
treated by the Indian Government with liberality and kindness.
Sir ROBERT PEEL explained. The Noble Lord had
not represented chat he said truly. What he said was,
that he was afraid it would be impossible to decline inter-
ference in the affairs of Sinde on the same grounds as might
be urged by the nations of Europe.
Mr. HUME said that the Noble Lord seemed to wonder
that no member of the East India Company had spoken on
the present subject. Why, the late Government had de-
stroyed their power, and therefore it was perfectly farcical
to eel: them why they did not interfere.—(Laughter.)
The whole conduce. of Lord Ellenborough towards the Ameers
had been founded upon one single letter, and on that account
he thought the policy of the Governor-General in this case was
the most unjust that ever had been pursued since we first made
footing in India. —( Hear, hear, and " Question.") At the
saine time he saw in the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet
a desire to alleviate the condition of the Ameers. But so far
did lie consider their power of no avail against the influence of
India, that he thought there would be no danger whatever in
restoring them to their dominions.—(Hear.) And he be-
lieved that the expense of maintaining the authority of England
in Sinde would cost four times as much as any advantage that
could he derived from the possession.
Mr. V. SMITH, ( who spoke amidst loud cries of ":Question,
question," " Divide, divide,") was understood to say that he
thought there could be no objection whatever to liberating those
unfortunate Ameers, and allowing them to return to their own
country.—(Question, question.)
Lard ASHLEY said that, at this very late hour of
the night, he would not trespass at any length upon
the House, even if it were necessary to make any
reply to the objections offered to his motion. But as it was,
he had heard nothing to make it necessary. Yet one thing
which had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet, to the effect
that this House ought not to interpose, required him to ask—
is hat redress was there in cases of oppression, if the House was
not to interpose?—( Cheers.) What became of the responsi-
bility of the Governor-General? (Cheers.) What became of
the controlling power of the House?—(Cheers.) The whole
argument of the Hon. Member for Bath, and of hi 3 friend the
Prime Minister, was, that the conduct of the Governor-Gene-
ral was founded upon reasons of state. If that argument were
of any weight, was it to be said that those unfortunate princes
should be robbed of their dominions, torn from their homes, and
incarcerated ?—( Hear, hear.) He could not sit down with-
out sat) ing, in explanation to the Gallant Commodore opposite,
the Member for Maryiebone, that, in referring to the letter of
that Gallant Officer's distinguished relative (Sir C. Napier),
he had r o intention of lowering his character, for he held him
in the highest esteem.—( Hear, hear.) He was happy to hear
the s) repathy of the house so strongly expressed, and it led
him to hope that the Ameers would be restored to liberty.
But, unwilling as he was to vote against the friends with whom
he was in the habit of acting, he felt bound to divide the
House, because he was convinced that the policy of which he
complained was injurious to the character of this country, and
inconsistent with the religion which this country professed,
The !louse then divided. The numbers were—

=i

For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —134
MR. BONHAM. .

Mr. DiVETT then rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had 'seven notice, "'That an humble address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to dismiss Francis Robert Bonham, Esq., from the office
of store- keeper of her :Majesty's Ordnance." He said he had always
considerable reluctance in venturing to trespass on the attention
of the House, and if that was the case in reference to a public
concern, it was much more so with a matter that concerned
himself personally, and therefore it was only from a sense of
public duty that he had put his motion on the books respecting
Mr. Bonham. He thought he had great reason to complain
of the conduct of that gentleman, in reference to certain pro-
ceedin,!;i at the last London election. Mr. Bonham, who held
a public situation, w s the general electioneering agent of the
Conservative party.--( Ironical cheers and laughter from the
Ministeri,l benches.) Honourable Gentlemen might laugh at
it, but it was notorious to all the political world,
and should be made notorious to the whole community. It
was notorious that, as political agent, that Gentleman did
things for which he ought to be made responsible, and, on the
occasion of the last London election, the services which he
usually rendered to his party were more particularly. called into
play. lie (Mr. Divett) might be allowed, in passing, to ad-
vert to the language of the Attorney-General on the matter,
which was something in the shape of a menace, namely, that
his (Mr. Divett's) having put that notice on the books in re-
ference to Mr. Bonlyan, was not decent—(Cheers from the
Ministerial benches)—just as if he said lie would move
his (Mr. Divett's) expulsion from the House. At the
time of the election for the City of London in October
last, he (Mr. Divett) was residing in Devonshire. His name
was on the register of electors for the City of London, and Sir
Gregory Lewin had proposed to pair off with him. Sir Gregory
had written to Mr. Bonham on the subject, and Mr. Bonham
had written down to state that his (Mr. Divett's) name was
not upon the register.—(A laugh.) Ile (Mr. Diseit) told
Sir Gregory he was sure it was a mistake; that he would
ge to London with hint. They did go to town, and they had
voted. —( A laugh.) There had been no difficulty; when he
came to the poll-book, his name was found on the re-
gister at once.--( A laugh.) Sir Gregory Lewin had written
to M. Bonham for an explanation, but no explanation had
be, n afferded him front that day to the present.—( Hear, hear. )
flail Mr. Bonham written to say that it was a mistake, he (Mr.
Divett) should have thought nothing further of it, but lie felt
that Mr. Bonham had cast an imputation on his honour by re-
presenting that he (Mr. Divett) was capable of saying that his
name was on the register when it was not.—( Cries of " No,
no," (heirs, and laughter.) He felt justified, under these cir-
cumstances, in bringing the matter before the House.—
( A leugh ) lion. Members might laugh, but he considered the
honour of public men should be scrupulously guarded; and he
hoped never to see the day when it would be otherwise.—
(Cries of" Move ! move !") The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by moving, amidst roars of laughter, that an address be pre-
sented to her Majesty praying her to dismiss Mr. Bonham.
The SPEAKER—Who seconds the motion?
No one seconding the motion, it fell to the ground.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, not to second the motion, but
to move the adjournment of the House. As, however, the
Hon. Gentleman had made his statement, he (Sir R. Peel)
felt it his duty to come forward and defend an honourable and
high-minded man—(Cheers)--a man he was proud to call his
friend--(Loud cheers)—from the charges which had been
brought against him.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman,
ace ,riling to his own showing, was not actuated by any sense
of public virtue, because he himself had said that if Mr. Bon-
ham had written to him, the House would have heard nothing
of the matter.--( Cheers and laughter.) The state of the case,
as he understood it, was this :—Sir Gregory Lewin had called
upon the Right Honourable Gentleman in Devonshire, and
had proposed to him to pair off for the City of London election.
Ihe Right Hon. Baronet then read the letter, which stated
that he and Mr. Divett had paired off for the City of London
election, and that he went to Mr. Bonham to inform him of the
fret, that Mr. Bonham sent him a letter stating that the name
of Mr. I ivett was not to be found upon the register; that he
(fir Gregory Lewin) informed Mr. Divett that his name
was not to be found on the register, at which Mr.
Divett seemed annoyed. He (Mr. Divett) said it was a trick
that his name was not on the register, and that he would go
to London to vote. There was nothing in this letter (said the
Right lion. Baronet) to show that Mr. Bonham had ever
charged the lion. Gentleman with not having a vote at the
election. He only stated the information that he had re-
ceived himself from the General Committee, the chairman of
which was Mr. Russell Ellice, a gentleman well known to be
of the highest character.—( Hear.) He would now read a
liter from Mr. Ellice to Mr. Bonham, written after the notice
of the Hon. Gentleman. The letter stated that, on the pro-
duction of Sir Gregory Lewin's letter by Mr. Bonham, the
Committee had, according to their invariable rule, looked into
the register for the name of Mr. Divett. No person could
regret more than he the mistake which] had occurred,
and which he believed arose from not knowing
to what Livery Mr. Divett belonged.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Benham, in a letter to Sir Gregory Lewin, also expressed
his regret for what had occurred ; it was a mistake, and he
could soy no more.—(Cheers.) if he (Sir 11. Peel) had been
told that his name was not on the register for the City of West.
minster, he should be sorry to impute a bad motive to any gen-
tleman for saying so. The only complaint against Mr. Bonham
was that he made an apology to Sir Gregory Lewin and not to
the lion. Gentleman—(Cheers)—and yet for this the
lion. Gentleman gave notice of a motion for the first day of
the session, without any communication with Mr. Bonham,
which would lead the friends of that gentleman to suppose that
he was guilty of some gross official misconduct.—(Cheers.)
But, considering that the Hon. Gentleman had not even found
a seconder, his speech would very little diminish the estimation
in which Mr. Bonham was held by his private friends.—( Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. DIV ETT,
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said that he rose for the
purpose of apologising to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Divett). He did state to the Hon. Gentleman that, in his
opinion, it was cot right to obtrude private matters upon the
I louse—( Hear, hear)—and that it was about as proper a pro-
ceeding as if an lion. Gentleman, in order to make his speech,
should move for the expulsion of another Hon. Member.—
( Ileac, hear.) He was in habits of more than ordinary ac-
quaintance with the Hon. Gentleman, and he told him frankly,
and with good will, what his opinions were upon the subject.
The Hon. Gentleman appeared to receive the information with
a smile, but he bugged to apologise to him if he misunderstood
the terms upon which he stood towards him. He (the At-
torney-General) had meant no offence, and ho merely stated,
in perfect good humour, what he thought was the character of
the motion. He begged to say that anything like menace was
equally foreign to his thoughts and intentions. He little
expected that that short conversation would have been

f~f~~,

) t.-..,-----,
.70.7\0
:,„:,,, ii:::,;:,•74. 12

WEEKL
AN TI-CORN-LAW L'A.`GUE !!‘
MEETING
AT COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.

:~',~
`.~;

The weekly meeting of the Anti-Cornelaw League was
held at Covent- Garden Theatre yesterday evening. The chair
was taken at seven o'clock by George Wilson, Esq., at which
time the theatre was no less crowded than on former occasions.
The following is a list of some of the principal persons on the
platform :—George Wilson, Esq., Chairmain ; Hon. Clearles
Pelham Villiers, M.P. ; Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P. ;
Thomas Milner Gibson, Esq., M.P. ; Sir William Baynes,
Baronet ; George Moffatt, Esq. ; Richard Moffatt, Esq. • John
;
Potter, Esq., Manchester ; Richard Baxter, Esq. F. Ricardo,,
Esq. ;.R. L. T eedale, Esq. ; R. R. R. Moore, Esq. ; F. H.
Toone, Esq. ; John Egan, Esq. ; R. W. Cole, Esq. ; J. T.
Norris, Esq. ; John Williams, Esq. • P. Wells, Esq. ; AI. B.
Sampson, Esq. ; S. Lees, Esq., Manchester ; J. E. Parry,
Esq., North Devon ; J. B. Smith, Esq., Manchester ; E. W.
Squarey, Esq., Salisbury ; A. T. Squarey, Esq., Salisbury ;
Crosby, Esq., Liverpool; Bridges Harvey, Esq. ; J. Bro-
therton, Esq. ; Cowden Clark, Esq. ; General Sir De Lacy
Evans, K.C. B. ; W. A. Wilkinson, Esq. ; Samuel Lucas,
Esq. ; Ralph Ricardo, Esq. ; William Leaf, Esq. ; J. P.
Burnard, Esq. ; Foster, Esq ; John Lyons, Esq. ;
J. Ivimey, Esq. ; Richard Napier, Esq. ; J. Coppock, Esq. ;
Dr. Cooke Taylor ; Francis Place, Esq. ; D. Dewar, Esq. ;
P. A. Taylor, Esq. ; Keeling, Esq. ; Thomas Hodgkin,
Esq. ; J. D. Cummings, Esq. ; A. Pattison, Esq. ; P. H.
Le Breton, Esq. ; Arthur Adams, Esq. ; John M'Leod, Esq. ;
Joseph Fletcher, Esq. ; M. Andrews, Esq. ; George
Waneey, Esq. ; Hemmant, Esq. ; Alexander Morris,
Esq. - George Moore, Esq. ; Thomas Harbottle, Esq.,
Manchester; Charles Lattimore, Esq., Wheathampton,
lierts ; J. B. Scott, Esq., Manchester.
The minutes of the last meeeting having been read by the
Secretary, on the motion of Mr. Leaf, seconded by Mr. S.
Lees, of Manchester, they were confirmed.
The CHAIRMAN then said—Ladies end Gentlemen, another
week had rolled away, opening up and developing events
which although, perhaps, not of a striking character, would
have no unimportant influence upon this question at some fu-
ture day.—( Hear, hear.) Parliament had been opened—her
Majesty's speech had been read, and he did not know whether
or not any one there present had expected that it would con-
tain an announcement that the corn-laws were to be abolished ;
but if any did he had certainly been doomed to great disap-
pointment. The Premier had stated, in his place, that it was
not his intention to make any 'alteration in the corn-law ; and
a Ministerial journal said that the announcement was received
with loud cheers from a great majority of the House of Com-
mons. Now, that such should be the fact, and yet that fact
not by any means overwhelm them with astonishment, could
surprise no one who had paid the slightest attention to the sub-
ject.—( Hear.) They never expected that Sir Robert Peel, as
a great statesman, was going to put forth his hand
to heal the wound whichi monopoly had inflicted, and was in-
flicting, on the industry of this country. They never eon-
ceiveerthat, situated as he was, placed in power by the vary
parties who now told him they would remove him from power
the moment he abused the confidence they had reposed in him,
pledged to maintain their interests intact, watched on every
hand, all his speeches conned by rote to be cast into his teeth
should any change take place; they never supposed that, under
such circumstances, Sir Robert Peel would come forward and
abolish the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) He had consented to
serve his party, a party which a single word from him could
shatter into a thouaand fragments in a moment. He had con.
seated to become the instrument of a party which distrusted
him.—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) A party which placed,
no reliance or, his word, as they might gather from the minis-
terial journals and the speeches made at the protection
meetings. It would not be long, he trusted, before
another party would rise up in this country, which
would be able to put an end to all the mono-
, policing factions which had ruled over it for so many ages.
—( Cheers.) Monopoly was a hard task-master ; it spared
neither young nor old, neither rich nor poor. It would not
spare Sir Robert Peel if he consented to serve it, and became
its willing instrument, any more than it would spare those who
were its unwilling instruments. It had no respect for talents,.
however high aed commanding ; it exacted from all, rich and
poor, high and low, all that they could contribute to s eel! its
enormous gains, and it made no restitution on account of the
poor and the defenceless, according to the principles of mercy.
The monopolists, the rent-leaguers, had, no doubt, been well
satisfied by the declarations in Parliament, and yet they had
had their field days in the country since those declarations were
made.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The tenant-farmer's
farces had been acted over again during the present week.
They had seen how suddenly the tenant-farmers had become
conversant with literature, how anxious they were to engage
in corresponder,ce with their brethren, who were tenant-
farmers in all parts of the kingdom, and, at the same time, they
had seen that the tenant-farmers had no complaints to make at
these meetings. They had heard of special burdens on land,
but there appeared to be no burdens under which the farmers
were labouring, neither rent, nor tithes, nor tenure, nor any
other burden which might have been supposed to affect the
tenant-farmer. The only expressions which were heard at
these meetings were denunciations against the Anti-Corn-law
League.—( Hear.) Why the whole thing was extremely well
managed, well dressed up for stage effect; but it would scarcely
pass muster for all that.—( Hear, hear.) The hand was tl.e
hand of Esau, whatever hand might be presented for examina-
tion. Strip any one of these meetings of all deceptive appear-
ances; take from the speakers the landlords, the parsons, the
land stewards, the bailiffs, and all those who were interested in
maintaining the present law ; and what would be the roll of
the tenant farmers, who took part in this movement ?—( Hear,
hear.) They had had, from all the parts of the country, letters
giving them information as to these meetings. Niue out of
ten were scarcely worth notice on account of the smallness of
numbers. Ile had a letter in his pocket respect-
ing a meeting, in Lincolnshire, where it was said
in a morning paper, one hundred tenant-farmers were pre-
sent. The writer of this letter said he counted the parties in
the room. There were forty-nine persons. There were two
clergymen—(Laughter)—there were four lawyers—( Great
cheering)—there were six publicans—(Roars of laughter)—
there were four butchers, there was a banker, there were two
reporters and the writer, all, of course, tenant:farmers.--( Con-
tinued laughter.) The speakers were gentlemen who had
taken an interest in a meeting held on the previous day, in a
distant part of tho county. The chairman was the gentleman
who, on the previous day moved the first resolution at the
other meeting ; and the gentleman who moved the first resolu-
tion at this meeting took the chair the day before.—( Loud
laughter.) There was a complete change of persons ; and
some one in the room, more indiscreet than the rest, ob-
served that " it was better that this arrangement should take
place, in order that it might appear as though it were another
meeting."—( Laughter.) That was a sample of the meetings.
of which they saw such glowing descriptions in the newspapers..
—( Hear, hear.) The landlords and squires were not satisfied
with their majority in the House of Commons, or their still
greater majority in the House of Peers ; but they were ob-
liged now, in acknowledgment of the power of the League,
to prepare against the next general election.--( Hear, hear,
and cheers.) They knew they were growing weaker day by
day ; that, array their forces as they might, all they could:
muster were canvassers, candidates, the old electioneering Com-
mittees, and the political parties who were most interested in
the results of an election. They knew well enough that.
when the question was stripped of a political character, in the
counties, as in the boroughs, the landlords were in a mi.
nority.—(Cheers. ) Since they last met, there had been an
election for the borough of Devizes. Under ordinary circum-
stances it would have been held to be one of the most absurd
things in the world to contest that borough with the mono-
polists ; but Mr. Temple, a leading member of the legak
profession, and Queen's Counsel, declared that if there were
but twenty good men and true in Devizes, he would meet
them on the day of nomination, explain his opinions
in reference to free trade, and abide the result.
--(Cheers.) Mr. Temple stood, and, as was expected, lost
the election. But good seed had been sown. The monopolists
might learn, that if they contested Devizes, a town in the
middle of North Wiltshire, they would certainly contest those
boroughs where they were more likely to be successful.—
(Hear, hear.) They would contest all boroughs.—(lmmense•
cheering.) They might have a Devizes next week, and next
week a Alr. Temple would be found to contest that borough on
the principles of tree trade.—(Cheers.) They knew what was
the case at Durham, at Walsall, and at Stockport ; in each c
which places the advocates of free trade, after being once re-
jected, were eventually successful.—( Loud cheers.) Since they
last met a number of Anti-Corn-law meetings had taken,
place in some of the smaller towns in Lancashire and Yorks-
shire, where considerable subscriptions had been received "far
the League Fund. A meeting had also been held in the Town-
hall, Birmingham, to receive a deputation from the Coemcil of
the Anti-Corn-law League. The meeting was open, to all ; its
was held in the middle of the day, and 4,000 peoel,e attende,t;
Mr. Cobden, Colonel Thompson, and'Mr. Mo'ere, addressed
the audience, and upwards of 8501. was collected in the room
towards the great League fund.—( Cheers.) Birmingham had
now taken up its proper position, and joined the other towns
which, allied together, composed the National Anti-Corn-law
League. Everywhere independent local efforts were being:
made in support of the League. They would not deceive;
themselves, they would neither over estimate their (ran
strength, nor underrate the strength of those who were banded
together by interest against them ; but they knew chest the
time was gradually approaching when the commerce of this
country would be unfettered, and the labour of the peeve, re•
ceive its just reward.—(Loud cheers. )
The Hon. C. P. Vreereas, M.P., then rose, to address
the meeting. He said that when he ealii the pro-
gress of their cause, he felt with the Chairman
that there was little cause for disarray, at the new
and would-be threatening attitude which their opponents had
recently assumed. If their cause were based on truth and jus-
tice, he anticipated no disadvantage from the general discus.
sion of the subject which they were inviting, and if it were.
true that those who were doomed by Heaven to tall were
doomed to become foolish first, ho did think that in this meent
movement their opponents had some intimation of their fete.—
( Hear.) They were making themselves known to tt,e coun-
try ; they were telling the people who they were,, and what
they were, for whom such great sacrifices had hem, and were
yet being, made, in their trade, their industry, their
wealth, and their greatness.—(Hear, hear.) They seemed to
forget how much their power was rooted in the imaginations
of men, and how much they profited by a eenfusion in men's
minds between what was great and what rims good—what was-
rich and what was respectable. There were many who tbougit
that men of high station and deseer.;t would be above sacri-
ficing the interests of the community at large for their own pri-
vate purposes; but haw could these people remain longer un-
der that delusion, when these men declared, in fact, that they
would serve their own interest at the expense of every other,,
and that they would, under al! circumstances, adhere to a lave
passed to the injury of the community at large.—( Hear, hear.)
They had now entered the lists with those whose proceedings
they had pretended to condemn, and he ventured to predict
that they had not the qualities which were essential for the
struggle.—( Cheers.) They were strong in rank ; strong, Le
seemed, in language ; and unless monopoly had foiled theta,
they would be strong alto in pecuniary means ; but, strongest
of all must they bet In their imagination, if they fancied that
by mere bluster, by the use of no better weapon than vulgar
diction, they could dissipate a power which had been brought
to necessity and a sense of wrong, and which received
its support from that indomitable love of justice which
had ever pervaded, as he trusted it ever would per-
vade this nation.—( Loud cheers.) He believed theirs
opponents would first disagree and then disappear.—(Laughter,)
It was a most diverting scene, he heard, to see these great men
in their waggons and at their windows, teaching their tenants.
what it seemed they had yet to learn, how much good they e
d
done them, how much they had been protected by Parliament,vast; advan-
tage would accrue to them from suppressing how prosperous they were, and, above all,
c what
en a
who ventured
to dispute these things. Theyehain f
t, m
found that the
whole machinery for maintaining monopoly
was
giving
way,
ant
e
A Noble Lord told a meet.
most seeraed to be the, ch 4(
that the farmers
'zihould now show their
ing in Hertfordshire
screw Prim otfhiet whichpriteeTjyhtidsitsetsr.iiited
their teeth would raise the price of
teeth, and the labourers of Essex wet e told to speak out. How
the farmers " showing
corn, or whether speaking out ' was precisely the use of the
mouth which the labourers in their present condition would
most wish to make, he wo'ald not pretend to 5ay....-(Laughter.)
At a public meeting lately held in the county of Dorset, a gen-
tleman had undertaken to describe the purposes
Anti-
Corn-law League. He said—" These persons?
," alluding to who attend these meetings, " are re+tying a s
arose under Alr. Pitt; it was tE the
.idledd by the bioomety
d,

made the subject of complaint against him. .And now
he would just throw in, by way of parenthesis, that a gen-
tlemen of more independent mind did not exist either in that
House or out of it, and, having stated this in a parenthesis,
he would conclude by expressing his opinion that he did not
think the HonouraMe Member (Mr. Divett) was the most fit
judge of those matters which he had so rashly ventured V,'
bring before the House.— ( Laughter and cheers. )
Mr. LEADER said that the gentleman Who had
been described as the confidential serv!':nt of the
Government in certain matters—the P.L'anager and dis-
burser of their Secret Service monty—would not, he (Mr.
Leader) would venture boldly to assert, ever do anything re-
pugnant to propriety and honour—(Hear, hear)—and that
he was not a very virulent politician might be gathered from the
fact that he had voted for him at the last election. Sure he was
that a snore honourable man did not exist, and he really thought
it rather too bad that a man should be exposed to the surmises
which such a notice as that on the paper was sure to produce
in the public mind from a mere mistake in an election vote.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said he had one more to add to the
many mistakes already committed by the Hon. Member for
Exeter (Mr. Divett). He had said or insinuated that at the
time alluded to Mr. Bonham had gone into the coun-
try, in order to settle some business in which he
(Air. Cochrane) was concerned. Now Mr. Bonham neitherr
went down nor was sent down to arrange. these matters fo
him, nor had he ever had anything to do with them. (Great
laughter and cheers.)
The Neuss then adjourned, at Five Ninutet to TWQ o'clock.