Commons Sitting of 6 February 1817

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c.
Lord Cochranerose for the purpose of presenting a petition, signed by 30,050 of the inhabitants of Manchester, praying for a radical reform in parliament, and for the abolition of sinecures and pensions. He thought it his duty to state that he had read the petition, but that he could not take upon himself to be responsible that the language of the petition was such as the House was likely to think unobjectionable. At the same time, he thought there was nothing in it very violent or obnoxious, although the petitioners stated their grievances in strong terms. After stating that the distresses of the people at the present moment were such as to justify their stating their complaints to the House, he took the opportunity of mentioning that he had calculated the comparative amount of the contributions of some of those who had put their names to the subscriptions for the relief of the poor, with the annual amount of the sinecures which they held; and it was with much pain that he found that no sinecurist had paid above a penny in the pound on the annual amount of his salary. One noble duke had paid only 16–17ths of a farthing in the pound on the income which he derived annually from his sinecure. For the present, he would content himself with moving that the petition should be brought up, not taking upon himself any responsibility as to its contents, farther than the rules of the House required with relation to his motion. He then moved that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that the noble lord unintentionally he was convinced appeared to him to have taken the only method that could be adopted to prevent the petition from being read. It was signed, it seemed, by 30,000 of his fellow subjects, and the noble lord must doubtless be anxious that it should be read; but in order to attain that object, it was not necessary he should voluntarily inform the House, before any question was asked, that it contained matter which might be deemed objectionable. The rule had been so laid down by the chair, and sanctioned by the decision of the House. It was enough for any member, when he had a petition to present, to move that it should be read, and if no other member expressed his doubts of the propriety of its language, the House would assume that it was not improper; but he apprehended it was utterly inconsistent with parliamentary usage for a member gratuitously to state that he had read a petition, and then

235
to give his opinion, that it was couched either in respectful or disrespectful language.
Lord Cochranesaid, that knowing the petition contained expressions precisely similar to those which had been found in others rejected by the House, he thought it his duty to mention it, that he might not incur their censure for appearing to disregard their recent decision.
The petition was then brought up and read. It was couched in the same language, with one exception, as the petition from Saddleworth, presented by the noble lord on the second day of the session. When the clerk had read the first sentence, stating that the House of Commons was in no rational or constitutional sense, the representatives of the nation, and that a House so constituted, was a subversion of the constitution,
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that it would be unnecessary to trouble the House with any further perusal of it, for being expressed in language similar to that which had caused the rejection of a former petition, they had only the same course to adopt on the present occasion.
Lord Cochranehoped the House would not reject the petition upon the reading of a single line or two.
The petition was then read throughout, and lord Cochrane moved that it should lie upon the table.
Lord Castlereaghrepeated his former objections, and urged that, as the petitioners described that House as an usurpation upon the constitution, no other arguments would be required to induce them to reject the petition.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he had thought the present petition was precisely the same as the one which the House had formerly rejected, from the observations of the noble lord who presented it; but now, upon its being read, and that was one of the advantages of reading it, it turned out to be very different. If he rightly recollected the proceedings on the former occasion, the objectionable passage of the petition related to what the petitioners called, the tedious and disgusting debates of that House; and upon that ground the petition was rejected. That passage however, was now left out. He admitted the words of the petition were not very prudent or very moderate, but in substance, they contained no other statement than what every man must use who supported the question of parliamentary reform in that
236
House. Had the words "constitutional and rational" been left out, the sentiments of the petition would have been much more objectionable, in his opinion, for then they would have amounted to an absolute denial of their functions and authority.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the former petition was not rejected on account of that single libellous and insulting passage alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman, but from its whole tenor. The present petition was the same in every respect, except that one paragraph, as the former, and that paragraph had been supplied by another equally offensive; for the petitioners now stated, that "in all the discussions of that House they saw nothing but a direct tendency to keep the people in all times under the unrelenting lash of a taxation, which already exceeded the utmost extent of human endurance." He thought that House would exceed the utmost extent of human endurance if they suffered such a petition to lie on the table.
Lord Cochrane, with reference to the passage which had just been read, could only say, that he conceived it to be true that the misery now suffered by the lower classes of society had got to the utmost extent of human endurance. He could only say, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, that when he read this petition he conceived it to be in exactly the same language with that which the House had rejected, and that not intending to press upon the House what they had already rejected, he thought it his duty to preface his motion with the statement which he had made.
Mr. Curwenacknowledged that the expressions were strong, and the conduct of the petitioners highly injudicious; but the House should rather extend the principle of free petitioning than seek to limit it. The language might indeed sound harshly to their ears, but it must be allowed, that while the people approached the House with their petitions, it was a perfect acknowledgment of the power and authority of parliament. A petition, of a nature at least as offensive as the present, had some years ago been presented to the House. It stated that the sale of seats in that House had been as notorious as the sale of cattle in Smithfield; and yet, when objections were raised against its being received, Mr. Pitt himself contended for its admission, on the principle that more injury must result from its rejection. If there were in

237
the country any class of persons desirous of stimulating the people to acts of violence, must not the House be aware that their objects would be seriously advanced if the petitions of the people, were rejected.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, no man was more desirous to facilitate and extend the right of petitioning than himself, and there were many things prayed for in the present one, such as reform, economy, &c. which had his cordial support. But so long as he had a vote to give, or a voice to raise, in that House, he would use them both against receiving any petition, the language of which was evidently to convey an insult. He knew there was a set of men in the country, who studiously endeavoured to induce the people to word their petitions in such a way as would occasion their rejection, in order to promote their own views [Hear, hear!]. If the House wished to be respected out of doors, it must continue to respect itself. The cause of reform and retrenchment was one which he would always advocate; but he saw no reason why the members of that House should, in their collected state, consent to put up with language which no man singly would endure; and therefore he should vote against allowing this petition to remain on the table.
Mr. Lockhartcontended, that it was impossible to collect the real sentiments of the people, from the manufactured petitions which were prepared by others for their signature. He had never heard or read of any legislative assembly in any country, who were respected, trusted, and looked up to, in proportion as they suffered themselves to be insulted. An hon. gentleman opposite had said it would be more magnanimous not to notice such language. He confessed he did not understand that sort of magnanimity which consisted in the tame endurance of an injury. He believed that persons who used that kind of language, in speaking of the unconstitutional nature of the House of Commons, did so, in order, if any concessions should be made, if any reform granted, that they might be able to deny their validity, and thus endeavour to render them abortive.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he thought the dignity of the House would be best consulted by reforming its own abuses. The present petitioners might perhaps be somewhat indecorous in their language, but they had great and strong grievances to represent; and unless there was something extraordinarily offensive, something unlike what
238
had ever been tolerated in any former petition received by the House, he did not think it would be prudent to reject it, in the present situation of the country.
Lord Cochranewished the noble lord, or the right hon. gentleman opposite, would state the particular sentences or expressions that were objectionable, that they might be avoided in future petitions.
The House then divided, when the numbers were, Yeas, 17; Noes, 50. The petition was consequently rejected.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE MARQUESS OF HASTINGS—NEPAUL WAR.
Mr. Canningsaid, that in rising pursuant to his notice to call the attention of the House to the gallant conduct of our army in India, he was aware how comparatively deficient in importance it would appear when contrasted with the brilliant achievements and splendid victories of our armies in Europe. He was aware that distance operated to diminish and to obscure. He was aware, too, of the degree of interest which attached to those transactions nearer home, on which depended, not the preservation of any distinct branch of our empire, but our national safety and independence. But under all the disadvantage of such comparisons, he felt that both justice and policy made it incumbent on the House, not to pass over without notice those transactions which had lately taken place in India. Justice was not local or comparative. With whatever feelings the soldier went forward to his task, whether in a distant country or nearer home, he exerted all his energies and incurred equal dangers. And in India, where our army was opposed to a force of a very peculiar nature, and fought in a strange country under many disadvantages, their achievements were not less severe or less difficult, and the House would feel that it ought rather to seek than to shun an opportunity of showing these gallant men that their services were duly estimated. But he thought that there was good policy in noticing any achievements in our Indian empire, because it would show that the House had a watchful eye over the most distant part of his majesty's dominions, as much to give praise where it was due, as to control where there was blame. The country of Nepaul, which was the scene of the actions to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was some years ago probably almost unknown to most members of the House. It had grown
§

239
up into importance within the last few years. Its situation was that adjoining the British empire in India, along the borders of which it extended for 600 or 700 miles, with the exception of a comparatively small interval. It was ruled by what was in practice and theory a conquering government. The incitement of ambition and the experience of success had made it singly an object of danger; besides which, it was a rallying point for those powers which might be disposed to attack the British possessions in India. It was the only power which had never bowed its neck to a Mahommedan conqueror; and those who knew how much Mahommedan conquest paved the way for British dominion, would understand how much the more formidable the Nepaul power was by its having successfully resisted it. The power which was now called Nepaul, had not existed above half a century. It was in the year 1767 that we first became acquainted with it. In more early times the whole tract of country which it lately embraced was laid down as occupied by a series of independent states. At the period which he had mentioned, the attention of the government of Bengal was first called to Nepaul by an attack made by it against one of our Indian allies, in consequence of which an expedition was fitted out and sent against it, but it was quite unsuccessful. The impression made by this defeat was, of course, very unfavourable to the British interests; and its results tended to increase the Nepaul power, by enabling it to extend its territories. From the union of Nepaul with Goorkha, and some other smaller states, arose that power which bad been extending and enlarging itself by successive occupations, from the year 1798 to 1808, when it made the aggregate power, and comprehended the extent of territory which he had described. They were a very warlike people, and made many incursions on the neighbouring powers. In 1791, they fitted out an expedition, and committed some acts, which drew down upon them the wrath of no less vindictive a sovereign than the emperor of China, with whom they were then compelled to make a tributary league. After that they turned their forces towards the west, and endeavoured to conquer the territory of Cashmire, an enterprise in which they did not succeed. But from 1804 there was no year during which they had not some quarrel with the East India Company, or some of its allies.
240
Border quarrels certainly might sometimes be passed over. But those who knew that country must know well the importance of not tolerating any aggression, or passing over any insult, which might tend to shake the British influence in India. Such was the impression made upon the government in this country by the representations of the Bengal government, respecting the aggressions of Nepaul, that orders were framed for the purpose of directing that very course of conduct which had then already been adopted by lord Hastings. Before recourse was had to hostilities, every mode of remonstrance and negotiation had been exhausted, and, apparently, with such success, that the Bengal government, more than once, thought that all disputes and differences were at an end. But it was found that during these negociations they had taken forcible possession of a neighbouring and friendly state. Then it was seen that forbearance had extended too far, and recourse was had to arms. It would be unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by attempting to give the details of a military campaign, where there were so few of the common data to proceed upon, which was carried on in a country with the geography of which we were for the most part unacquainted. The chief purpose of the war was to detach from the Ghoorkha power its more recent conquests. But no addition to the, territories of the British empire was contemplated, except where there were no means of restoring the former governments. The campaign ended by leaving no less than one-third of the Ghoorkha dominions in the power of the British, and by the rest being restored to its former condition. In the conduct of the expedition the names of sir David Ochterlony, of general Gillespie, and of colonel Nicholls, were particularly distinguished. The second of these brave officers he might be permitted to name more particularly, as he fell while gallantly leading on one of the first attacks made in the campaign, which was on the fort of Kalunga. It had been said of this attack, that he had made it rashly; but if rashly, the error had been atoned by his fall. The failure in the first attacks upon the fort had been nobly retrieved by the wonderful success of sir David Ochterlony, the result of whose operations was, that at the end of the campaign he was left in possession of the whole territories of the enemy, to the western point of Ghoorka.

241
This success led to negociations, the result of which was such as he had stated. The war was then thought to be concluded, and so certainly was this opinion entertained, that it was announced in the Speech from the throne at the end of last session. But a new and perfidious aggression on the part of the Nepaul government made it necessary again to have recourse to arms; and general Ochterlony was on his march to reduce the enemy to submission, when he was stopped in his progress by the news that the treaty was ratified without any alteration in its terms. The governor-general felt that enough had been done against this state; that its power was sufficiently crippled, and its resources exhausted, without pursuing to extermination a war which might be ended with security and honour. Thus ended a power which held out the appearance of growing into a formidable and dangerous rival, and threatened the safety of our Indian territories; but with which we were now happily not only on terms of amity, but of friendly intercourse. It was now so reduced and humbled, that it could no longer be looked upon by any of the native powers in India as a rallying point for the enemies of the British government. The firmness and moderation of the governor-general led to this result. On this short statement he hoped he might venture to found a motion for the thanks of the House, to him, and to the officers and the army by whose exertions the war had been brought to a successful issue. He had abstained from details on which he was not competent to enter, and which were not required. He hoped he had refrained from any exaggerations. The result of this war he believed to be a source of safety—certainly of honour and glory to this country; but in its future consequences of an importance not easy to trace. He concluded by moving, "That the thanks of this House be given to general the marquess of Hastings, knight of the most noble order of the garter, governor-general of the British possessions in the East Indies, and commander in chief of the forces there, for his judicious arrangements in the plan and direction of the military operations against Nepaul, by which the war was brought to a successful issue, and peace established upon just and honourable terms."
Lord Morpethalluded to the necessity of supporting the moral force on which our empire in India was founded, and
242
observed, that nothing could do that so effectually as preserving inviolably our good faith with the natives. The noble lord expressed his concurrence in the vote of thanks to the governor-general.
Mr. Broughamdid not intend to oppose by any means the vote of thanks to the noble marquis, although he had heard that a diversity of opinion existed with respect to some of the measures pursued by the noble marquis. Under these circumstances, he should have thought it not inconsistent with the respect due to parliament, that ministers should have given the House some information, by presenting papers upon the subject for its perusal. The difference of opinion, as to the policy and conduct of the war, to which he alluded, existed in a quarter well known to that House and the India board. Mr. Edmonstone and Mr. Dowdeswell's names were familiar to all persons conversant with Indian affairs; one had been at the head of the military, the other at the head of the civil department, during a splendid career of successes, and an able administration of our affairs in that part of the world, not to be equalled in the history of India, or of any of our colonies. He alluded to the distinguished period of the marquess Wellesley's administration. He, however, could not but feel it a duty particularly gratifying to the House, to return thanks to the gallant and meritorious officers and soldiers concerned in the operations of that campaign. Yet even here he could not but regret that, a set of arrangements had been made by the institution of the new order of the bath, by which all officers in the East India service who had not attained the rank of major, were excluded by positive regulations from becoming members of that order, as well as all officers engaged in affairs previous to the present war. There was an exception to the first rule in favour of such captains as had been appointed captains in the field, from the circumstance of their superior having fallen in action. By these arrangements it would be seen, that most of the officers engaged in that war, which, in 1799, had, under the conduct of the marquess Wellesley, completely overthrown the power of the most inveterate and dangerous enemy of the views of this country, Tippoo Saib—were, notwithstanding such gallant exploits, precluded from the only order of merit now known to our military establishment. Hence it arose, that the time

243
of service necessarily required to become a major in other branches of our army might be taken at about six years, while an officer in the eastern service would not be eligible who had served almost twenty long years, in an unhealthy climate, at an immense distance from his native country, and under many inconveniences and privations, not known to other services. Something ought, therefore, to be done immediately, to render the distribution of; honours more equitable. Formerly medals had been given to reward the services of individuals. This practice had, since the late great extension of the order of the bath, been discontinued. Without expressing himself invidiously, he must say, that most assuredly this was not an arrangement which would have been sanctioned by the concurrence, had they been consulted, of either the marquess Wellesley, or the gallant duke his brother: the former would have too well appreciated the merits of his faithful and deserving servants, during the period of his distinguished career; the latter would never have consented to disqualify his gallant companions in arms from receiving the reward of all their severe toil and laudable exertions.
Mr. Canning,in consequence of what fell from the hon. and learned gentleman, thought it necessary to observe that it was totally a mistake to suppose that any difference of opinion as to the policy of the war existed between the marquess of Hastings and his council.
The motion was agreed to nem. con.
Mr. Canning then moved, 1. "That the thanks of this House be given to major-general sir David Ochterlony, Knight Grand-Cross of the most hon. Military Order of the Bath, for the skill, valour, and perseverance displayed by him in the late war with Nepaul, to which the successful result of that contest is mainly to be ascribed; and also to the several officers of the army, both European and native, for the bravery and discipline displayed by them in that arduous contest. 2. That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the general discipline and bravery displayed by the non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, both European and native, employed against the troops of Nepaul, and that the same be signified to them by the commanders of the several corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour."—Agreed to nem. con.

BANKRUPTCY REPRESSION BILL.
Mr. Lockhartrose, according to notice, to move for the introduction of a bill to amend the bankrupt laws. He conceived this subject to be one of the highest importance to the honour, the honesty, and the morals of the country, and was sorry it was to be his misfortune to bring it forward in so thin a House. The evil of which he complained, was the multiplication of fraudulent bankruptcies to an extent which threatened the most frightful consequences to the commerce and morals of the country. He was far from meaning that kind of bankruptcy which had been on so many instances of late occasioned by the fluctuations of our currency, or the precarious situation of trade. Neither did he mean, for the prevention of the evil to which he alluded, to propose the formation of any new tribunal, or to throw any onerous burthen on the courts that already existed. His remedy should contain very little of novelty in it. The notorious evil to which he now adverted, was defined in the very first statute passed on the subject of bankruptcy in the reign of Henry 8th. The preamble of that statute spoke of the practice of men obtaining possession of other people's property by fraudulent means, and then fleeing into foreign parts. Notwithstanding the numerous statutes which had passed successively since then, fraudulent practices of this nature were daily on the increase; and this increase he was inclined to ascribe to the mode of examination pursued by the commissioners, which was mainly directed to the point, whether the bankrupt had concealed any part of his property, and only incidentally, if at all, to the arts by which he came into possession of that property, or how he had made away with it. When satisfied on the first of these points, the commissioners generally agreed to sign his certificate; the next part of the process was, for the bankrupt to obtain the signatures of 3-5ths in value of his creditors, and that once obtained, the whole only awaited the fiat of the chancellor. Thus the bankrupt was again let loose on the world, whatever his fraudulent practices might have been; without any distinction of character being made between him and the honest bankrupt, who had failed in his engagements through unavoidable misfortunes. The mode of remedy he meant to propose was, that the commissioners instead of investigating merely whether the bankrupt

245
had fraudulently secreted any part of his property, should also inquire into the means by which it came into his possession, and how he had made away with it: that they should examine into the whole of his transactions, and report on his conduct, which report should be submitted to the lord chancellor before he granted the certificate, together with their opinion whether it was proper that such a person should go free into the world This, he conceived, would be attended with little difficulty or burthen on the commissioners, who now amounted to about 70 in number. If he recollected aright, there had been only two or three persons executed under the act making it felony for a bankrupt to conceal his property: one of these persons, of the name of Clark, said, on his examination by the commissioners, that the fact was, he had spent the property which had come into his hand on wine, women, and other extravagancies; but the commissioners, not believing this account, ascertained the fact of concealment, and on the evidence brought forward he was executed. He meant it, therefore, so to form part of his bill, that the commissioners should inquire into the means by which the bankrupt got the property into his possession, and how he had spent it; and also that a particular day should be set apart for such examination. The bill which he proposed was, in fact, founded on the principle of the insolvent act, which prevented fraudulent persons from taking the benefit of that act, and remanded them back to confinement for a period of five years. This was the penalty he proposed for the punishment of fraudulent bankrupts, and which had this additional recommendation, that it introduced a uniformity into our law in regard to fraudulent debtors. He concluded by moving, for leave to bring in a bill, to snake better provision for the repression of bankruptcy.
Leave was given to bring in a bill.