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

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 Sande 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 mode was, that it was not tenable. It required
more speaial 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 legs 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. Ile should make a positive charge which should
end with something like a conclusion, and a serious
one too. Bet he owned he would Rot 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-
writ 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. Ile (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. Ifs was astonished that a military officer like
Major Outram should have given the advice he had to Sir C.
Napier. lie 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 asked him to
delay three days, and it appeared he had delayed
four days with the prospect of hot weather coming on, and
thus exposing his army to destruction. In another part of his
speech the Noble Lord had fallen into error. There was not
an 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, 1t143, 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-
riviog. 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 Noble 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 done ? lie 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
lion. 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 ? 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, mid the
lion. and Gallant Member, those political agents do mis-
reehaidef
alle n otuhgeh
pi na
pievr as
,c ehaeb l
wase t i maens —p r
i(s
eLaughter.h) e Aft
Noblee r having Lord
could have, made the declaration that the Ameers had no in-
ut ennatt! ol
en t ofn eattackingthe
the
B el
olloeeshi de
ee
sn.t 's
Thioieu seeo,
nbtur
at
rtyh awtasthey e Vica'esree.
He would not detain the House longer, nor would he have
made any observations, but for the attack that had been made
notdid notad
e these think h
oe
hws
eoruvl
adt
ihavee
been
n doing
gahl:: ndt
oty relative. i f
he h e
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 aware 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 length into a
defence of the conduct of the Ameers, whom he thought ought
not to be made responsible for the acts of their Ministers.
He 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 been shown that the 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
Charles Napier had received a letter from Lord Ellenborough
congratulating him upon what he had :tone, and urging him
to thb commission of fresh aggressions. The history of our
connexion with Sinde was the history of a continued series of
unjustifiable acts. Lord Ellenborough in his letters
brought it as an accusa44os,
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
vague generalities, intended to draw away public attention from
the real question at issue.—(
Cries of " Hear, hear.) How
were those great lines of communication of which he had
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 lass, the
expenditure amounted to eighty lacs. He trusted the House
would see the same justice administered to Asiatics that was
ad ministered to Englishmen!--(
Cheers. )
Sir EDWARD COLE BROOKE had expected that the
Secretary of the Board of Control, in supporting the case of the
Government would have relied for the defence of Lord
Ellenborough upon 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 1t136, and he had then wondered ho-s- it had happened
,
that the Ameers of Sinde had remained independent so long.
Those Ameers formed a confederac divided by family quar-
rels. In 1836, if they had not receyived our assistance, they
must have been conquered by Runjeet Singh, and after 1836
any attempt of theirs to achieve for themselves independence
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 our troops
from Affghanistan, imagined that we were about to withdraw
from Sinde also. Here was independence within their reach
had they desired it, but so tar from desiring it it appeared
that every day Major Outram was receiving a tne."l.srieesitdrenmt
one or other of them, begging that some English It
might be left at Hyderabad, because if the English were
they
to withdraw entirely, the Ameers felt convinced that
...e
could
must soon come to a rupture amongst themselves. H
could believe
that they were plotting our overthrow while they were fur-
nishings
not but recollect the great services they had rendered to us
us with the means of carrying on a successful
warfare warfare was quite beyond his comprehension.--( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL cordially agreed in the sentiments
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
country—(Cheers)—and that Lord Auckland's motives had
always been of the highest and purest nature.—(Cheers.) But
although he would not vindicate Lord Ellenborough by attack-
ing Lord Auckland, yet without giving any opinion on Lord
Auckland's policy, he had a right to consider the position in
which Lord Ellenborough found himself placed with regard to
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, bear.) 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
principle that. unless the people of Sinde voluntarily permitted
the troops to pass, their territory was to be preserved inviolate ?
—( Cheers. ) Would it be right for the Governor-General to
look to his Yattel and Puflendorff 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 territorie and 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
ftoerocethdeur us
etoot eextrtieen3Loutna
our Indian
hear.)ianEm l
Empire applied with equal truth
He
would not rest his vin-
dication of Lord Etlenborough- upon the inculpation of Lord
Auckland. He had already given his opinion of the policy of

the Affghan war, but he could not join in a vote of censure on
that policy at the present moment, awl 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 Lerd
Ellenborough, 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 Tette, 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 c‘nnmerce 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 gained these great advan-
tages, not only for themselves but for the sake of civilisation,
whieh 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
Cauhul, 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 Shute 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
I.,rd 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 Ameers, and the treachery of
Roostum Khan, was not proved, because it was not 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 brotight 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 of 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 nota 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 ditty 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 eqaivalent for their loss. He
(Sir Robert Peel) trusted the House of Commons would not
consent to lay down rulea 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 resolution. Why, he (Sir R. Peel)
declares! 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 powei, 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 r 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 net, 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 athome, or the Government in
India—(Loud cheers)—and there should be no restraint on
them fer the mere purpose of punishment, and no restraint OR
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
to 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
maedllowteed.—he
ee
that every
thew(eh
:Hhoui
ueledashcomfortsthe}
)ehi
get they
Trusting
House us
sthadeing thathhee
ar
he
fatuodrf
toshar
eet
fibr
stemee satisfied
shheaocHuel accustomed subt
so
thing that could be done consistently with prudence would
be done for these unfortunate Princes, and warning the
t things,
hereafter not
deeply o 'assumedeplo
rhe should
responsibility
co n -
elude 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.
lie quite agreed that it would be most inconvenient for 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
lion. 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) fur 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 Mon. Gen-
tleman, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the supple-
mentary papers had been only a month in the hands of the
Alembers. 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
assumingthe
policy t h e pursued GovGov
Government
mLeonrtd
of
s
l h e
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
placedNobleinregarding
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 'lndus.—( Hear, hear.) It seemed to him
perfectly clear that Sir Charles Napier had acted accord-
mg to his instructions, and with a moral courage, and a
personal bravery, which deserved nothing but conimendation.
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 het had date ; and as an humble
Member of that House, he was willing to bestow upon him
ample commendation. The Right Hen. Gentleman had laid

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 anti aggression of all kinds. The Right lion. 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.—
( Ilear, 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, arid
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 Sinde. 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
British 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 what 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 tsoble 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 ask them why they did not interfere.—( Laughter.)
The whole conduct 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
same time he saw in the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet
a desire to alleviate the condition of the Ameers. But so far
did he consider their power of no avail against the influence of
India, that he thought there would be no danger whatever ira
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 be 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.)
Lord 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—
what 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 lion. Member for Bath, and of his 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.) lie could not sit down with-
out saying, in explanation to the Gallant Commodore opposite,
the Member for Marylebone, that, in referring to the letter of
that Gallant Officer's distinguished relative (Sir C. Napier),
he had no intentlin of lowering his character, for he held him
in the highest esteem.—( hear, hear.) He was happy to hear
the sympathy 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 House then divided. The numbers were—

..- ..-.....-..., .....
For the motion

A gainstit

Majority against the motion
—134
MR. BONHAM.
Mr. DIVETT then rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given 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
111 r. Bonham. He thought he had great reason to complain
of the conduct of that gentleman, in reference to certain pro-
ceedings at the last London election. Mr. Bonham, who held
a public,situation, was the general electioneering agent of the
Conservative party.—( Ironical cheers and laughter from the
Ministerial 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. He (Mr. Divett) might be allowed, in passing, to ad-
vert to the language of the Attorney-General on the matter,
which was somethinr, in the shape of a menace, namely, that
his (Mr. Divett's) having put that notice on the books in re-
ference to Mr. Bonham, was not decent—(Cheers from the
Ministerial benches)—just as if he said he 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.) He (Mr. Divett) told
Sir Gregory he was sure it was a mistake; that he would
go to London with him. 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 Mr. Bonham for an explanation, but no explanation had
been afforded him from that day to the present.—( Hear, hear. )
Had Mr. Bonham written to say that it was a mistake, he (Mr.

Divett) should have thought nothing further of it, but he 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," cheers, and laughter.) He felt justified, under these cir-
cumstances, in bringing the matter before the House.—
(A laugh.) Hon. 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 mo'ion, 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,
according to his own showing, was not actuated by any sense
of public virtue, because he himself had said that if Mr. Ban-
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.
The Right Hon. Baronet then read the letter, which stated
that he and Mr. Divett bad paired off for the City of London
election, and that he went to Mr. Bonham to inform him of the
fact, that Mr. Bonham sent him a letter stating that the name
of Mr. Divett was not to be found upon the register ; that he
( Sir 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 Hon. Baronet) to show that Mr. Bonham had ever
charged the Hon. 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-
duetion 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 whichi had occurred,
and which he believed arose from not knowing
to what Livery Mr. Divett belonged.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. Bonham, in a letter to Sir Gregory Lewin, also expressed
his regret for what had occurred ; it was a mistake, and he
could say no more.—( Cheers.) If he ( Sir R. 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 arid sot to
the Hon. 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. DIVETT,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he rose for the
purpose of apologising to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Divett). He did state to the lion. Gentleman that, in his
opinion, it was not right to obtrude private matters upon the
House—( Hear, hear)—and that it was about as proper a pro-
ceeding as if an Hon. Gentleman, in order to make his speech,
should move for the expulsion of another Hon. Member.—
( Hear, 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 begged to apologise to him if he misunderstood
the terms upon which he stood towards him. Ile (the At-
torney-General) had meant no offence, and he 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. Ile little
expected that that short conversation would have been
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 Honourable Member (Mr. Divett) was the most fit
judge of those matters which he had so rashly ventured to
bring before the House.—(Laughter and cheers.)
Mr. LEADER said that the gentleman who had
been described as the confidential servant of the
Government in certain matters—the manager and dis-
burser of their Secret Service money—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 more 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. 11. COCHRANE said he had one more to add to the
many mistakes already committed by the Hon. Member for
Exeter (Mr. Divett ). Ile 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
(Mr. Cochrane) was concerned. Now Mr. Bonham neither
went down nor was sent down to arrange these matters for
him, nor had he ever had anything to do with them.—( Great
laughter and cheers.)
The House thew adjoutnedi at Five Plinates• to Tyro o'clock.