the course of the day; and, for the present, he would content himself with moving the resolution.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (the Hon. Hugh Lindsay) seconded the motion.

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.-Nothing has fallen from me which tends to produce the effect which the hon. Proprietor seems to think. On the contrary, I invited every gentleman in the Court to state his sentiments fully; all I said was, that I could not anticipate any objection to the resolution.

Mr. HUME.-When my learned friend has had more experience in the proceedings of this Court, he will find that no difficulty was ever interposed to prevent a gentleman from fairly expressing his sentiments. (2) I have been a Member of this Court a number of years, and I must say, in justice, that though my opinions are not always in accordance with the sentiments of the Court, yet I always find gentlemen disposed to pay attention to my observations. I state this lest any unfavourable impression should be made by what has fallen from my learned Friend as to any disposition manifested not to hear him. It was not my intention originally to offer myself to the Court in this stage of the proceedings, for I candidly confess that I expected some individual either within or without the bar, would have thought it his duty to state the foundation upon which his opinion rested. In justice to the Noble Lord, some gentlemen should have been prepared to have declared the grounds on which a question of such vast importance to this country and India was to have been decided. Having, however, waited some time, and observing that no gentleman appeared anxious to address the Court, I felt myself called upon to say that I am one who cannot concur in the full extent of the resolution now proposed.

If there be any thing more important than another to a public man-wielding the sword and enjoying those powers which may impart happiness to millions, or which might, on the other hand, effect the destruction, not only of those immediately under him, but of all neighbouring communities-it is that his motives should be properly known and appreciated when he called those powers into action. When war was carried on it was a most important question for the Court to consider how it had originated. In a case where the honour and interests of millions are concerned, I think we should be very cautious how we accord our sanction to a war without, in the first place, having the fullest information upon the subject. There are, perhaps, some gentlemen in this Court who were not perfectly aware of what Proprietors were about to do-I will tell them. You are called on to thank Lord Amherst for

(2) We do not know whether Mr. Hume meant to be ironical in this declaration or not; but, if he did not, we think he must have forgotten the repeated and pointed interruptions given to all speakers who oppose the views of the Directors on different occasions when subjects have been debated in this Court. Of these our pages have recorded many instances, even within the last three years. How many times has Colonel Stanhope, Sir Charles Forbes, Sir John Doyle, Mr. Hume himself, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Gahagan, Dr. Gilchrist, and others, been called to order by various members of the Court, and on appeals being made to the Chair been declared out of order, and prevented from proceeding because what they were saying was unpalatable? Were there no such interruptions in the Hyderabad debates? in those on the Indian Press? and in many others that might be named. If there were, Mr. Hume's praise is undeserved; if there were not, we shall no longer have faith in our

own senses.

bringing to a successful issue the war in which the Company has unfortunately been engaged for the last three years. Now, before I can concur in any approbation of Lord Amherst, as the principal mover, and, I believe, author and originator, of that war, I shall put a case: I shall ask myself, and call upon every Proprietor to do the same, whether, if Lord Amherst had set fire to his house, and by that intentional and wilful act had not only destroyed his own property but also the property of his neighbours placed under his charge, whether if, by that premeditated, rash, and hasty act, property to the extent of four or five millions should be destroyed, would they, because Lord Amherst (he having commenced the mischief) had exerted himself to put an end to it, think him worthy, therefore, of approbation. Suppose, along with this property, if, of the individuals employed to put out the fire, to the amount of twenty-five or thirty thousand men-some were starved, some died of disease, and some were put to death; suppose that the inhabitants generally, were exposed to famine, to the sword, and to pestilence-all arising from this wilful conflagration of Lord Amherst-I will ask whether, under such circumstances, any man would be ready to come to a vote of approval because, after having set his house on fire, the noble Lord had used all the means at his command for the purpose of extinguishing it! I will ask-suppose the property was insured in a London insurance office, would the noble Lord receive an acquittal, with thanks and approbation, from that office for his exertions in putting out the fire, without entering into any consideration of the causes and origin of the conflagration? The case I have put is not at all at variance with the facts connected with the resolution now before the Court. I put this case (founded on circumstances which sometimes occur in this city) to make the matter clear to all. I demand of the gentlemen about me whether, without due information, without inquiry, without having an opportunity of estimating the conduct of the noble Lord, in commencing this fire, or, as I shall now call it, this war, they were ready to thank him for his exertions in bringing it to an end? I will admit, for argument sake, that the noble Lord had brought it to an advantageous and beneficial conclusion, or, as the resolution has it, to a "successful issue." I am free to confess that, as far as regards the conduct of the troops, as far as regards the individuals employed by the noble Lord in the execution of the duties imposed on them in the course of the war-there cannot, I believe, be found one man in this Court, or elsewhere, who would refuse them that meed of approbation and applause which devoted heroism and continued perseverance in the performance of the duties allotted to them so justly merited. In the observations, therefore, I am about to make I wish to draw a distinct line between the officers and men, who were called upon to carry certain orders into effect, and the noble Lord with whom the war originated, and by whom it was directed. (Hear, hear.)

In England they were unfortunately ignorant of many transactions which took place in India, in which hundreds, nay thousands, of lives were sacrificed on either side. Resolutions have passed this Court while the transactions which gave rise to them were very imperfectly understood. I do not mean to upbraid the Proprietors for any vote they have come to, for we should judge of any proceeding as it is placed before us, and we are seldom in the situation of having such information as will enable us to come to a calm and dispassionate decision. In this state of ignorance we are kept designedly by the Government abroad, and not less designedly by the Government at home. This rendered it difficult for any hon. Proprietor of the Court to give a correct and candid opinion. I did not, therefore, complain of any opinions delivered here; they were, I believe, in most instances, given under the impression that the individuals were acting rightly and properly, because they were acting consistently with the information laid before them, but looking at the Court in a political, or in any other situation, I contend, that the Proprietors who should censure and control, if aught were wrong, and who should applaud and approve, if aught were right, did not do their duty, in agreeing to vote on any subject without full information. No man (if I understand the subject) should give his vote in this Court except as he would give his vote

in a jury box, where he is on his oath; like a juror he ought to found his judgment on that information which he believed to be the best. He ought not to act in blind submission-in dutiful obedience and humble subservience-to the executive body. Now, I ask you, individually, to put this question to yourselves: "Should I, if placed in a jury box to give my decision on the veriest trifle, be warranted in forming an opinion on the subject without due information ?" If no man would, (and I hope no man in this Court will say he would decide otherwise,) then, I ask you, in a matter of so much importance as the present, not to give an opinion without information, but to act in the same upright and honourable manner as you would do if you were on a jury. You are here not called on to decide a case relating to the property of your neighbours, but it is demanded of you to give an opinion on a case where thousands of lives have been sacrificed, and millions of property have been wasted; I, therefore, loudly demand of you not to act with the usual subserviency to the constituted authorities, but to decide fairly on the evidence, for yourselves, not merely as proprietors of East India stock, but as British subjects. If you do this, I shall have no hesitation in standing by the verdict. This being the case, I am one who could not, under all the circumstances, agree to the resolution, and I call upon the Court to adopt my opinion if I adduce arguments sufficiently strong in support of it.

I think that the question of peace or war, is a question of such momentous import, that this Court ought to be very cautious how they applauded the origin of hostilities or their progress. You ought not to approve of war, however successfully carried on, unless you are satisfied that it was undertaken in your own defence, was strictly just, and absolutely necessary. (Hear, hear, hear.) If I could convince myself for one moment, that the late war could not have been avoided, and that it was just and necessary, I would be the last man to object to it. I therefore wish gentlemen to inquire, before they declare their approbation of Lord Amherst's conduct, whether the war which he began was just and necessary, or such as should have been prosecuted by any Christian people. I will at once pronounce my opinion upon that point. I do so with great diffidence, but my own candid and dispassionate opinion is, that there are no grounds before this Court, or before the country, to warrant me in believing that the war was inevitable or just, or provoked in any degree by those who were the objects of it, and who were so severely punished for the conduct that was imputed to them. Therefore, I said,-proceed cautiously -ask for information-do not decide on proceedings of such immense moment in the way in which you are called on, and which has been too generally adopted, but wait until you have proper means of judging correctly.-In my mind, there is nothing before the Court or before the public, to enable you to come to a decision as to the origin of this war; but to make up for this want of official information, I have gleaned something from the work of an hon. Baronet, (Sir J. Malcolm,) who is now in Court, and who has detailed the proceedings with the Burmese prior to the breaking out of the war. If any gentleman looks to Sir John Malcolm's statements upon the subject, brief as they are, though they embraced a period from 1795 to 1821, (at which period the hon. Baronet's account closes,) and if, after having examined them, however favourably any person might at first have thought of the war, he did not arrive at a different conclusion; then I should be very much mistaken. I contend that the conduct of the Indian Government, I mean the Government of Lord Amherst, in waging war with the Burmese at the time, and in the manner he did, was contrary to the Statute Law of this realm, and at variance with the feelings and principles of a Christian community. You have had, within a very short time, an exemplification by a very high authority, of what ought to be the law of nations in such a case as that of the Burmese. No later than last night, the British Legislature was called on to sanction his Majesty's Ministers in sending a body of British troops to Portugal, for no other reason than because a party of Portuguese rebels, who had been received on the Spanish frontier, had re-entered Portugal, carrying with them devastation and ruin. Their conduct, I admit, Sir, was attended with all the circumstances

which usually accompany an invading foe. What was the argument founded on this event? Spain was not accused of having fomented this invasion, though it was thought she must have been privy to, or connived at it. The movement of the Portuguese was, however, declared to be a hostile aggression, and under our treaties was considered as affording grounds sufficient for our interference, which might, perhaps, ultimately lead to a war with Spain. If this one transaction,-this march of the Portuguese insurgents, (for it did not appear that any inroad had been made by the Spaniards themselves,) were considered to be a sufficient cause for this or any other Government to commence hostilities; if it were deemed to be a just ground of war,-then, I ask the Court to state what their opinion is as to the unprovoked warfare which the British Government have carried on against the Burmese?

In order that they may understand the subject thoroughly, I will, Sir, point out to you and the Court, what have been the proceedings of the British Government towards the Burmese for the last thirty years. Their conduct, I must say, has been one of continued inroad and aggression. I say this advisedly, because, by the doctrine which I have quoted as having been used in the House of Commons, it was laid down that if one country gave refuge to the subjects of another, and those subjects thought proper to invade their native land, then, if they were not prevented doing so by the State which had succoured them, that State must be considered as guilty as the actively offending parties. I have much cause of complaint, after the readiness which had been expressed to produce all the documents relative to the proceedings of the Burmese before the year 1823, when I find that every document on that subject had been withheld. Those papers, which detailed the cause of the heartburnings and disputes that had arisen between the Burmese and the British Government, have been cautiously kept back. Are you, then, when the parties in power are garbling and withholding evidence, blindly to support a vote of thanks, applauding the individual who carried on the war, and declaring it to be a just contest, rendered necessary by provocation on the part of the Burmese? I have received an account from a correspondent, which I believe to be perfectly correct, describing the state of affairs between the Burmese and the British Government for several years; but knowing the weight and importance attached to the opinion of the hon. Baronet, Sir J. Malcolm, I shall waive the information I have received, and confine myself solely to the statement of the hon. Baronet. If there be any gentleman present who would attend to this detail, and would permit it to influence his judgment and decision, I am confident that that individual will agree with me, that this Court is, at the present moment, in a state of comparative ignorance, and therefore not prepared to give its approval to a war carried on under such lamentable circumstances It appeared that in the time of Lord Teignmouth, a Burmese force followed some refugees into the British territories.

Mr. RIGBY rose to order.-Mr. Chairman-I submit to the consideration of the hon. Proprietor, as well as to the Court, how far the hon. Gentleman is in order upon this part of the question. The Court is called upon to consider a vote of thanks to Lord Amherst, for his conduct in conducting and concluding the war, and the hon. Proprietor, instead of confining himself to that question, has referred to a publication of Sir J. Malcolm's, detailing circumstances which commenced in 1795, and ended in 1821. The circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman was about to call the attention of the Court, had occurred long before Lord Amherst proceeded to India, and therefore cannot, in my opinion, be introduced here.

Mr. R. JACKSON.-I contend, Sir, that my hon. Friend is in perfect order. We have been invited to a full discussion of this question, and my hon. Friend, whose opposition to the resolution is founded on the supposition that the war was unjust, was only quoting matter to show that it was as he had described it. I must entreat the hon. Gentleman not to call any of his brother Proprietors to order unless they are so palpably out of order as to render it necessary. It will put an end to discussion altogether, if those who are conversant with

Indian affairs are to be called to order whenever they refer to the pages of history.

Mr. RIGBY. As this is a discussion concerning the conduct of Lord Amherst, I think it is not fair for the hon. Proprietor to go back to transactions with which that noble Lord had no connexion.

Mr. HUME in continuation.-I wish, Sir, to offer one observation on the gross irregularity of the conduct pursued by the hon. Proprietor, and to expose the ignorance which he has displayed on this occasion. The hon. Proprietor ought to have known that the Governor-General, like the King, never dies. (Hear.) The acts of different Governors-General flow from one to the other, in an uninterrupted stream. I object to the conduct of Lord Amherst, because, if the proceedings of Lord Amherst's predecessors, to which he had alluded, were improper, it was the duty of that noble Lord to have corrected them. When a Governor-General is appointed he may either continue or modify any act of those whom he succeeds. It is no excuse to say, "Because I found matters in such and such a state I thought it was proper to leave them so." If the hon. Proprietor means to come to an impartial discussion, he must, in justice both to Lord Amherst and to the East India Company, weigh attentively the statement I am about to make. It appears, then, that the first "official bickering," between the British Government and the Burmese, took place in 1797 and 1798: the following circumstance occasioned it: The cruelty of the Burmese Government in Arracan, caused large parties of people, denominated Mughs, the subjects of the Burmese Monarch, to fly from their country; they crossed the river Naaf, the boundary between Arracan and our settlement of Chittagong, and they appealed to us for shelter. That shelter was given by the East India Company, or their agents. Whether that was a wise or unwise step I will not stop to inquire, but when twenty, thirty, or forty thousand individuals, pressed by famine and dreading death, claim a shelter from us, I think no British officer could, or ought to refuse such a protection as he could extend to them. (Hear.) However feelings of policy might be opposed to such a proceeding, I am sure that the proverbial humanity of Englishmen would not suffer them to reject such a melancholy appeal. Those refugees having been received by us, a public officer, Major Cox, was sent down, in 1799, to provide for their settlement: this circumstance was at the time a matter of notoriety, and I recollect having heard of it when I arrived in India. Major Cox, who was armed with the authority of the Governor-General, in pursuance of the instructions he had received, located thirteen or fourteen thousand of those individuals on the waste lands of Chittagong, situated on the Burmese frontier. The neighbouring ryots, or farmers, gave shelter to thirteen or fourteen thousand others. Thus were these Mughs situated precisely as the Portuguese refugees were situated in Spain. Thus settled, under the protection of the Company, they soon began to enter the territory of Arracan in numerous bodies, which country they laid waste with fire and sword. At length a body, of not less than ten thousand men, made an irruption into the Burmese territory. On their retreat, four thousand Burmese troops were sent in pursuit of them; those troops penetrated into the Company's territory, for the purpose of chastising the invaders. Much prudence was displayed on the part of the then Governor-General. Unquestionably the Company's territory had been violated, but the Governor-General, unlike Lord Amherst, did not instantly declare war against the Burmese; he considered, that a body of men living under our protection, had, in the first instance, invaded Arracan, and he thought it was but fair to set off the aggression of the refugees against the incursion of the Burmese troops. Those troops established themselves in a stockade, and a force was sent from Calcutta to dislodge them from their position; but that force was repulsed. The Burmese, however, retreated, of their own accord, leaving behind them a letter, which Sir J. Malcolm quotes, and in which they state, that "no cause of discontent exists between the Burmese and the Company, except that which arises from the conduct of the refugee Mughs who are settled under the British Government. That (say they) is the only ground of displeasure between us."'