The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-14 00:00:00

EAST INDIA NOM.

A Spacial General Court of Proprietors of East India Stock
was held yesterday, for the purpose of laying' before the pro-
prietors, papers respecting the late war with Ave, and the ope-
rations against Bliurtpore, and certain resolutions of thanks, rela-
tive thereto, which had been agreed upon by the Court of Directers.
Colonel L. gratittope wished, previously to entering, on the
discussion fixed for that day, to ask a question olthe Hon. Chair-
man. It had, he understood, been officially stated by Captain
Amherst, that Lord Amherst had been recalled from India ; and
he (Colonel Stanhope) now wished to know, whether there was
any truth in that report—and whether the Duke of Buckingham
was going out as' Governor-General of British India?
The CHAIRMAN (Sir G. A. Robinson)—There was no foun-
dation whatever for the statement of the recall•of Lord Amherst,
and that, of course, constituted au answer to the Hon. Proprie-
tor's other question.
- - - -

THANES TO EARL AMHERST.
The.CuaramAx stated the purpose for which the present
Court was specially summoned. The papers transmitted to the
Court of Directors, from India, relative to the war with Ave, and
the operations against Bhurtpore, had been open to the inspec-
tion of the proprietors since the 29th of November. The reso
lotions concerning the war with Ava should sow be laid before
them ;- and after they had been read, he would proceed to submit
them to the Court for the approbation of the proprietors.
The resolutions were then read by the Clerk. Tilt first set
forth—
" That the thanks of this Court be given to the Right Hon.
Earl Amherst, Governor-General of India, for his active, strenu-
ous, and persevering exertions in conducting to a successful issue,
the late war with the Government of Ava, which was provoked

..._ ._ _ . . _
by the unjust aggression of the enemy, prosecuted under circum-
stances of very unusual difficulty, and terminated so as to uphold
the character of the Company, to maintain the British ascendancy
in India, and to impress bordering states with a just notion of the
. _

Latioual power of Great Britain."
Then followed resolutions of thanks to Sir T. Munro, Sir A.

Campbell, and to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and pri-
vates, employed in the Burmese war.
There was also a resolution of thanks to Commodore Sir James
Brisbane, and to the officers and crews of His Majesty's and the
Company's ships engaged in assisting the army in their operations

against the enemy.
The CHAIR-MAN then proposed, " that the Court do approve of
the first resolution, with reference to Lord Amherst."

The motion having been read
The CHAIRMAN observed, that it had been framed in the
anxious expectation that it would meet with the unanimous con-
currence of that Court.
Dr. GILCHRIST said, it appeared that this resolution had not
passed unanimously in the Court of Directors ; and he thought it
but fair that those who were here assembled might be supposed
also to have a difference of opinion amongst them as well as the
Court of Directors ; and he hoped, if any individual rose to state
his sentiments, he would not be considered as acting irregularly, or
as appearing before the Court in a questionable shape.
The CHAIRMAN said, that nothing which had fallen from him
had the tendency to which the hon. proprietor seemed to allude.
Mr. Hume stated that they were called on to thank Lord Am-
herst for bringing to a successful issue the war in which the Com-
pany hail been unfortunately engaged for the last three years.
Now, before he could concur in any approbation of the conduct of
Lord Amherst, as the principal mover, and, he believed, the author
of that war, he must ask himself, and he called upon every pro-
prietor
to do the same, whether, if Lord Amherst had set fire to
his own house, and, by that wilful fire, hail destroyed not only his
own. property, but that of his neighbours, which had been placed
under his care, to the amount of 3,000,000!., 4,000,000!., or
5,000,0001. ; and suppose also that of the individuals employed
to.put out that fire (some 25,000 or 80,000 persons), many were
starved and some put to a violent death ; would it, under such
circumstances, be just, to come to a vote of approval of Lord Am-
herst's conduct, because, having caused the conflagration, he
exerted all the means hi his power to put it out? He demanded,
if the property were. insured in a London insurance office, would
theproprietors of that office award to him acquittal, thanks, and
approbation, on account of his exertions in putting out this fire,
without a consideration of the causes in which that conflagration
originated ? In the same way he would ask the gentlemen around
him,' were they really to thank Lord Amherst for having put an
end to this war, in the absence of all details ? In his opinion,
and he pronounced it with deference, there were no grounds before
the Court or before the country, to warrant him in believing that
the war was either inevitable or just. To prove this position the
Hon. Proprietor entered into a history of the disputes between the
Burmese Government and that of the Company, from the year
1/95 to 1821. This information, lie stated, he had extracted
from Sir John Malcolm's work on Indian Policy; and he was

apt to think, if that portion of the work, Shalt IN it was, were
attentively considered, it would induce many gentlemtit to come
to the conclusion, that the conduct of Lord Amherst, in waging
war with the Burmese at the time he dick and In the way he did,
was contrary to the law of nations. After pointing out the ab-
solute necessity for having documentS, explanatory of the conduct
at Lord Amherst, laid before them, before they ventured. to vote
their thanks to that Nobleman, the Honourable Proprietor con-
cluded by moving, as an amendment, " That this Court cannot
agree.to vote its thanks to Lord Amherst for his conduct in the
war with the Burmese, as the details of the cause and progress of

the war are not laid before the. Court, to enable it to ftran-a calm
and deliberate opinion on such an important subject."
_ .

Sir .I. 11Ist:cinat said, that the conduct of the Burmese was
such as left no choice for the Indian Government but that of open
hostilities. In fact, -the Burmese, were so swelled up with a
notion of their own strength, that they held in contempt the
natioui which had submitted to the British arms. They never
had au opportunity of trying their strength as compared with that
of a British army, and they were therefore anxious to have some
ground of quarrel with them. When that quarrel was once com-
menced it was absolutely necessary that it should be carried on,
on our ,;,ale, with the utmost promptitude. The Holt. Gentle-
man had called on the Court to suspend their opinion till they got
more information as to the conduct of the war. Now, he would
say, that in the absence of complete information, he had every
confidence in the Executive administration of the Company, and
would therefore give his vote for the motion on their recommen-
dation.

Dr. Gmcnalwr supported the amendment.
Mr. 11. Jamas supported the original motion, and contended
at considerable length, that the war with the Burmese was just
and necessary, that it had been conducted with great ability, and
had been productive of results highly advantageous to the interests
of the Company.
Colonel L. Sratmore supported the amendment.
Sir Join( SMELL admitted that he had not gone through the
papers left for the inspection of the Proprietors, but lie had read
quite enough to justify him .in refusing his ascent to a vote of
thanks to Lord Amherst. The war, he contended, from the be-
ginning was unjust and unnecessary, as it was for the disputed
possession of a miserable little island, containing a few acres of
bad land, to which the title of the Company was by no means
clearly made out. If the Company's title to the island of Sba-
poree was indefeasible, the question of right should not have been
submitted to arbitration, as Lord Amherst at first offered ; but
if otherwise, arbitration alone should have been left to decide the
question of right. From some of the papers be had examined,
this was stated to be a char, which meant a piece of neutral
ground, and this could not have been admitted if it were in the
Company's possession in 1790.
Dr. GILCHRIST here observed that a char meant an island.
Sir J. SEWELL proceeded. He had so read it in the papers
left for inspection ; but, be it island or neutral ground, he thought
the title was not so clearly established as to make its possession
the object of a war, and for such a war he could never consent to
a vote of thanks.
Mr. Titan contended that the island was in our possession ;
that a troop of sepoys, which had been seat on it by the Corn-
patty, had been attacked, and most of them put to death by the
Burmese.; and such a wanton aggression left the Government no
alternative.
Mr. Maim contended, that the refusal to pass a vote of thanks
to Lord Amherst would 'be a gross act of injustice to that Noble
Lord. The daring of the Burmese was almost inconceivable.
They not only menaced Bengal with invasion, but absolutely
threatened " to march to England.”—(Hear, and laughter.)..,,_
He quoted the very words in the papers before the Court. Look-
ing at the whole of the case, he thought the Noble Lord fully en-
titled to the thanks of the Proprietors.
Mr. S. Ettiote supported tbe original motion.
Sir C. FORM contencled4hat the conduct of Lord Amherst
did not entitle him to the thanks of that Court. The war, he
thought, might well have been avoided. Looking at the rewards
which luul been given to Lou.' Amherst and others for the con-
dnot of the late war, he was sorry to find that that most descry-
ing
A officer,
amendment:
Well ent►tled, and even better, to some honourable Mt-
t owte rust, wrp
i nta hroisehdada
tr etcheei sb,eadd
te ofs rferncdts toi n
iLbo
611.1.
i
tere
ch
wa s u rs, Campbell, had not been mentioned. He thought
" Arracan" to his new title-of Earl—that place
sv
,taillitliap:erteroovfed the charnel-house of the British army.
The
put, and negatived by a considerable
majority._ On the original question being put,
Mr! PATTISON said, it seemed to be understood that the vote
of thanks bad not been carried with a'large majority in the Court