The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from St.
Giles's-in-the-Fields, and St. George's, Bloomsbury,
complaining of the manner in which the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests conducted the building of what
was called the metropolitan improvements. The peti-
tioners stated, that in order to carry out these improve-
ments the Commissioners palled down streets, but they
showed no disposition to build them up again. The
consequence of this was that trade in the particular
neighbourhoods had been stopped, and the petitioners
prayed the House to call upon the Commissioners to
proceed more rapidly with their work. The Hon.
Member also presented a petition praying for Universal
Suffrage.

GRIEVANCES.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Pollock-
shaws, in Scotland, praying the House to take into its
consideration the grievances of the people before grant-
ing the supplies.
METROPOLITAN BRIDGE TOLLS.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition praying fo
the abolition of the Metropolitan bridge tolls.
TEA DUTIES.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from
the merchants of Preston, praying for a reduction in the
duties on tea.

ARMY ESTIMATFS.
Sir H. HARDINGE presented the army estimates, by
order of her Majesty, and gave notice that as they
would be printed and in the hands of Members in three
or four days, he should move them in Committee of
Supply on Friday, the 16th of February.
NOTICES OF MOTION—BRAZILS.
Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice that he would on
Thursday, the 22d of February, bring forward a motion
respecting the relations between this country and the

Brazils.
CRIMINAL LAW OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would on the
22d of February move for a Select Committe to inquire
into the administration of the criminal law in Scotland
so far as related to the punishment of prisoners.
COURT OF CHANCERY—COMPENSATION,
Mr. WATSON gave notice that he would on the 22d
move for a Select Committee to inquire into the orders
for compensation made by the Court of Chancery
with regard to persons tilling the offices of Six
Clerks and Walting Clerks under the 6th of Victoria,
and for an inquiry into the emoluments of those offices
before the passing of. that statute ; and into the amount
of compensation due at that time, and for seven years
'after the death of each officer ; and into the circum-
stances relating to the passing of the Act ; the appli•
cation of the money raised thereby, and the propriety of
continuing the same.—(Hear, hear.)
SLAVE TRADE.

Lord PALMERSTON stated that he: would post-
pone: the motion of which he had giveni notice la-t
night with regard to the slave trade till this day fort-

night.
LAW OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS.
Mr. MILES gave notice that he would bring in a
Bill to amend the laws relating to masters and servants.
Mr. FERRAN' gave notice that to-morrow evening
he should put a question to Sir James Graham, unless
in moving, this evening, his announced Bill for the
amendment of the Poor-law, the information he sought
should be elicitated. Lord Chief Justice Denman
having, on a recent occasion, declared it to be the unani-
mous opinion of the Judges that, in some cases, it was
necessary to break in on an Act of Parliament ; and it
having also been decided that the mother was always
the proper party to be appointed as trustee to her own
children, he (Mr. Ferrand) proposed to ask whether, in
the Bill which it was intended to bring in to, amend the
Poor-law; the Government had inserted a clause fur the
purpose of prohibiting the mother and child from being se-
parated in the event of their becoming the inmates of
a workhouse.
THE AMBERS OF SINDE.
Lord ASHLEY, in rising to bring forward the motion
_ _

of which he had given notice, in reference to the Ameers
of Sinde, said it would have been more agreeable to hini-
self, and not a little so to the House, if the subject he
was about to introduce had been brought forward
by some Member of greater importance. He had
waited until the close of last session, partly to
see whether any other Member would undertake
the office of speaking in behalf of these impri-
soned Ameers, and partly in expectation of the arrival
of certain appeals from India to her Majesty in Council.
These appeals had not arrived, but why they -had not
arrived no one could say. It might be that their pos-
sessions being confiscated, they had not the means to
forward or to prosecute them ; it might be that it was
out of their power to do anything in their own behalf;
on account of the rigorous imprisonment to which they
were subjected. But whatever was the cause, it was
most fitting and necessary that justice should be done to
those unfortunate princes— (Hear, hear)—and the na-
tional honour of the country vindicated. Now, having
felt most deeply that the question should be entrusted
to other and abler hands, he had, since he gave a notice
on the subject last session, determined altogether to
abandon it, not from any want of confidence in themerits
of the case, but on account of his own incapacity to do
justice to it. But when there appeared in the columns
of the Morning Chronicle—that important paper—a letter
bearing the signature of Sir Henry Pottinger—and such
a letter—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—from such
a man—he did feel that it was his duty no
loner to shrink from the task of bringing the
subject before that House. In this remarkable
letter Sir Henry Pottinger says —" I lamented
over the fallen state of my old friends, the Ameers, of
whose case I all along said, and ever shall say, under all
circumstances, and in all states and parties, that it is
the most unprincipled and disgraceful that ever tarnished
the national honour. No explanation or reason can, in
my opinion, justify such proceedings towards them,
and I know more of them than any man living.
You cannot use too strong language in expressing
my disapprobation and disgust at these proceedings.'
True, true to the very letter. These unhappy princes
have strong claims, and he asked, in their name, what
heswould not ask in his own, that the House would be
kind enough to give him a patient and even a favourable
hearing.—(Hear, hear.) With the permission of the
House, he would now procevd to state the history of our
connection with that country, and the claims which
these princes put forth to the consideration
and sympathy of the British Parliament. These princes,
whose case he was now bringing before the House, are
—that is to say, were dum reyna erant—a combination,
or federation, of crowned heads, ruling conjointly under
the style and title of the Ameers of Sinde ; they ac-
quired their country by conquest, and ruled over a
people of different language and religion from them-
selves, but if that was to be used as an argument
against the Ameers of Sinde, as he perceived
it was used in one of the minutes of the
Governor-General, that argument would recoil with ten-
fold force upon ourselves. Why, what were they in
India ? If they allowed this to weigh a single instant
on their minds as an argument for the course of proceed-
ing against these fallen princes, it would be retorted with
tenfold vigour upon ourselves. The Ameers were recog-
nised as the governors of that country by several suc-
cessive Viceroys of India. They endeavoured to in-
stitute friendly relations with the Ameers of Sinde,
and endeavoured to prove to them that nothing but be-
nefits could acrue to them from an extended intercourse
with the British empire. From 1758 to 1799 the East
India Company passed through every variety of favour
and disfavour—of suspicion and fear—of confidence and
jealousy; but at last in 1801 a treaty was made between the
East India Company and the Ameers. It was the first docu-
ment in the blue-book, and contained this passage : " There
shall be eternal friendship between the British Govern-
ment and the Ameers of Sinde." A second passage stated
that " unanimity shall never cease between the two
nations." The same thing was declared in a new
treaty in 1802, by which the relations of the
former treaty were expressed in still stronger terms.
The Ameers asserted that they had faithfully observed
the conditions and spirit of the treaty. Those who
espoused the cause of the Ameers said that the British
Government had completely violated the treaty. To
form some estimate of the character of the two parties it
would be well to refer to history. They would find by
a book lately published by a most intelligent author, that
the-demeanour of the Ameers towards the other States
was most peaceable. Could the same be said of
us ? Now the primary object of our efforts in India
was to obtain the free and unrestricted navigation
of the Indus, scruple after scruple was overcome in the
minds of the Ameers, who acquiesced in each request
made to them for our political advantage. In the year
1832, we obtained the partial navigation of the Indus,
and, in 1834, the Ameers made further concessions to
meet our views. in the second article of the treaty of
1838, it was conceded that the British Minister should
reside at Hyderabad, with liberty to change his residence
as he thought expedient. From this time up to 1840, there
was a spirit of suspicion, of fear, of alarm, and of
everything likely to excite distrust on both sides. We
then called upon the Ameers to perform parts of the
treaties which we ourselves had violated. In 1840 the
rebellion broke out at Gwalior ; large bodies of troops
were then sent through the country of the Ameers, and
if they had been at all in hostility to us it
would have been of the most alarming consequence
to the British Government in India. They
would find in the accounts of Lieut. Postans, who was
at the time a resident in Sinde, that the Ameers at that
time gave to the British Government the most cordial
co-operation. The importance of their aid under the
circumstances was rendered unquestionable by the evi-
dence of Sir John Keane himself. He said, in writing to
the Governor-General that it would have been impossible
to have proceeded if they had left Sinde in a state of hos-
tility. Now, after this, the difficulties of the British Go-
vernment in India increased, but as those difficulties in-
creased there was no disposition shown by the Ameers to
diminish their friendship. They would find, in the ac-
count of Lieutenant Postans, that at the time the officers
of Candahar assumed so fearful an aspect as to direct at-
tention to that quarter that the chiefs were left in full
possession of their property. There was then nothing
in the conduct of the Ameers to suppose that any hos-
tility existed, although at that time they might
have materially injured us, if not have crushed the few*
troopsr emem bwehreich a,
st ha
se natoacctilmipeiewd
hSeinndalle.lnTdihais;aist
amnxuisotusblye
watching to catch the spark of rebellion, and to strikethe blow which we were then endeavouring to ward off.
But still the Ameers were true to us in spite of the
efforts of political subordinates, to whom
was
trusted the duty of stirring up, as much as possible
the minds of a fiercely bigotted Mahommedan people,.
Let the House observe what forbearance they had shown;
let them observe the precautions which were taken not
to offend either on one hand or the other. The manlier
in which the Ameers then acted was strongly indicative
of the faith they entertained towards this empire. There
could be no doubt that they were then subjected to
great temptation by every argument that could be used'
011 such occasions by the disaffected, the resistance to :