Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 2.djvu/37

ii s. VIIL JULY 12, 1913. NOTES AND QUERIES.

31 exist on the records. All these documents are believed to have been removed many years ago to the Government of India's secretariat."

I turned next to the vaults of the India Office, where I found a copy of a dispatch transmitted home by the Government of Lord Ellenborough which runs as follows:—

In the margin of this time-worn record is noted the fact that "either letter nor dispatch appears to have been sent to the Court of Directors." I wrote then to Lord Colchester, to inquire whether he had a copy of this dispatch, and, if so, whether the letter and dispatch referred to were attached. His Lordship has been unable to find Lord Ellenborough's dispatch amongst his papers.

I proceed to place before your readers two interpretations of this dispatch of 6 March, 1843. The most obvious inference to be drawn from its brevity and its relegation to official channels of the official issues involved is that it was intended to dispose of the "original dispatch," and merely to acknowledge ad interim the receipt of the letter and plan. By "original" the Governor-General meant something new and uncommon, not the signed authentic dispatch as opposed to a copy, for, of course, Napier wrote first hand and directly to the Governor-General. Then the comment "You have indeed placed all Sinde at our disposal" refers to the uncompromising "Peccavi" (I have Sind), while the reference is worked out, "and you have done so without an error," or, in other words, "and you have not sinned." That seems to me a legitimate construction to put on the dispatch. On the other hand, those who cannot accept that view argue that "original despatch" means only a dispatch of earlier date than 21 Feb. And it may be admitted that the first and fullest dispatch written after the battle was dated 18 Feb. This, however, still leaves the "letter of the 21st" unexplained, and the opponents of the views which I put forward are obliged to admit that no letter of 21 Feb. can be found. But they assume that it dealt with the capture of the city of Hyderabad. As to Ellenborough's remark "without an error," they explain it as a reference to Napier's full or "original" dispatch of 18 Feb., in which he wrote, "My conscience acquits me of the blood which has been shed."

Between these two inferences to be drawn from the dispatch of 6 March, 1843, your readers must judge. But, at any rate, I can add to the weight of tradition. When I served in Sind in 1876 the authorship of the pun was not questioned, and I here reproduce part of a letter from Mr. Frank Hutt, residing at Petersfield, which gives support to the correctness of the tradition. Speaking of his father, Mr. Hutt writes on 24 June, 1913, that he

"took part in the Sind campaign, he commanded a battery of artillery at Meanee, was at one time on Sir Charles Napier's staff, and must have been intimately connected with him from letters I have in my possession."

Such a witness is valuable, and Mr. Hutt writes:—

"I have on more than one occasion heard my father refer to the fact that the message 'Peccavi' was sent by Sir Charles Napier after the conquest of Sind. These statements were made when he was Secretary to the Board of Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and in full possession of his mental faculties, about the year 1880."

Mr. Hutt adds an interesting specimen of Napier's puns. His father applied for leave, and Napier is reported to have replied: "You would be much better employed in hutting your men."

That official dispatches and published letters do not contain a reference to the pun does not seem to me to throw the least doubt on the tradition. No one can read the debates in Parliament on the annexation without feeling that levity and humour would then have jarred on the public sentiment and given the Opposition a stick with which to belabour Napier. Obviously therefore jests were kept out of official records and papers presented to Parliament.

(11 S. vii. 488).—It is a difficult and uncertain query put by the questioner regarding the yearly stipend of a Cardinal of the Roman Church. The usual pay is 12,000 scudi, equal to 60.000 lire, for what is called the piatto Cardinalizio. But there are many sources of augmentation of the income. Besides the piatto Cardinalizio, or regular stipend, each member of the Sacred College differs from the others through the title and importance of his bishopric, receiving a further annual revenue, or mensa vescovtte,