Commons Sitting of 28 April 1826

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.
Mr. Brightpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Coggeshall in favour of this bill. He took occasion to observe, that he had to apologize to the House for not having brought forward the bill relating to this subject at an earlier period. It was his intention to bring it forward on

723
Monday, when the House would have an opportunity of deciding upon it.
Mr. Sykesagreed, that this bill would be a most important improvement in the existing laws respecting debtor and creditor. He thought that the clause in the bill, which went to enable partners, if they thought proper, to arrange their affairs, without being obliged to undergo the expensive process of bankruptcy, would have the best effect. He could see no reason why the bill should not have a retrospective operation. There were many cases of parties who wished to settle their affairs, to which the application of this clause would be an object. He therefore thought that the bill should include all cases of compromise in future, as well as those which might now be in progress.
Mr. Brightwas willing to receive any suggestion which gentlemen would be so kind as to make with respect to this bill. All he wished for was, a full and fair discussion.

CORPORATE RIGHTS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Spring Ricerose to present two most important petitions, signed by upwards of 40,000 Roman Catholics. The first petition complainted of the law of Corporations in Ireland as it affected Roman Catholics; and the second complained that the conditions of the Treaty of Limerick had not been complied with. All parties, whether for or against the question of Catholic emancipation, seemed, he said, to concur in thinking that the present time was not the most favourable for the agitation of that question. In compliance with that feeling, he would not at present enter into any discussion on those petitions, as they necessarily involved the general question of Catholic emancipation. He could, however, if necessary, prove the injustice and impolicy of continuing those religious disabilities to which the Catholic population of Ireland were subjected; and if it were necessary, he could also show that the complaints embodied in these petitions were founded on truth and justice.
Mr. Dawsontrusted the House would excuse his saying a few words, for not only did these petitions concern the parties by whom they were signed, but materially affected the character of the government and people of Ireland. These petitions were the production of the new Catholic Association, which, not, withstand-
724
ing its professions of submission, had opposed itself in a manner so barefaced to enactments of the legislature. Nothing could be more unfounded than were the statements of these petitioners: and he thought it not a little strange, that no one could have been found in that body to express a dissent from assertions so inconsistent with the fact. The complaint of the petitioners was, that the restrictive laws by which they were affected were a gross violation of the Treaty of Limerick, and that the Protestants of the present day were equally culpable with those by whom the laws in question had been originally enacted. He would just call the attention of the House to the first article of the Treaty, lest, if these petitions be received sub silentio, it be inferred that they rested upon something like strong grounds. This article stated, that the Catholics were to enjoy all the privileges of which they had been in possession in the reign of Charles 2nd, undertaking that a parliament should speedily be called in Ireland, with whom influence should be exerted to obtain for the Catholics the free exercise of their religion. Now, if he could show that Catholics did not sit in either House of Parliament, the inference that there had been no violation of the Treaty would be unavoidable. A resolution agreed to in the House of Commons in the year 1642, after adverting to the lamentable condition of the country, owing to the conduct of persons of the Popish persuasion, declared that in future no member should sit in that House without taking the oath of supremacy, and that all who might refuse to do so should be considered as having vitiated their elections. To show that this was not intended to be a mere resolution, it was followed up by an order of the House, on the 10th of August, 1642, that a new writ be issued for the return of a member for Drogheda, in the room of Mr. Brick, who had refused to take the oath of supremacy; and it further appeared from the Journals of the Irish House of Commons, that those persons who did not subscribe to that oath were not allowed to take their seats. Now, admitting the right of the petitioners to have restored to them those privileges which were enjoyed by the Roman Catholics in the reign of Charles 2nd., it became necessary to see what their condition at that time was. It would be found that, in 1661, in the first parliament

725
after the restoration of Charles 2nd., a resolution was agreed to, nemine contradicente, that a committee be appointed, to guard against the admission to the House of persons who had not taken the regular oaths; and, accordingly, an order next day issued, nominating certain commissioners, who were to see that every member should, before he took his seat subscribe to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. These facts he contended, furnished the most incontrovertible evidence, that neither in the Houses of Lords nor Commons, were Roman Catholics entitled to sit in the time of Charles 2nd., and, therefore, that, as far as the Treaty of Limerick was concerned, they had no claims to that distinction. But then it might be said by the hon. gentleman opposite, that the resolution alluded to was nothing more than an ordinance of the House of Commons, and could not have the effect of depriving his majesty's subjects of those privileges to which they were by law entitled. To an objection of that nature he would reply, that it was a resolution of the Irish House of Commons which deprived the clergy of the tithe of agistment. A reference to the proceedings of the English parliament at that period would prove that there existed in this country the same apprehensions of the Catholics as were entertained in Ireland; for it would appear, that the Test and Corporation acts were passed here at the very same time that the Catholics were excluded from the Irish House; so that in both countries, the same exclusion was carried into effect. The Treaty of Limerick was signed on the 3rd of October, 1691, but was not to be binding until acquiesced in by the king. One of the articles of the Treaty provided that, as soon after the ratification of the Treaty as his majesty could summon a parliament, he would recommend the adoption of such further measures as would preserve to the Catholics the free exercise of their religion. The Treaty did not receive the king's signature until the 5th of April, 1692; but, in the intervening period, an act, purporting to be for the security of the nation, and the exclusion of improper persons, passed the British parliament, positively excluding all Catholics from seats in either House. This act received the royal assent on the 24th December, 1691. If, therefore, the Catholics did not remonstrate with the king during the progress of that bill, was it not fair and
726
reasonable to infer from their silence, that they did not consider it as a violation of the Treaty of Limerick? The act in question affected their political privileges, and still there was no complaint heard on their part. Independently of this evidence, in itself sufficiently strong, he could derive additional support from the opinions of those who would be most anxious to fasten on whatever furnished a plausible ground of complaint. Mr. Molyneux, for instance, a great advocate of the interests of Ireland, and a warm friend to the Catholics, in his list of the grievances endured by his country, mentions the act alluded to, as a proof of the injustice and injury to Ireland of English interference, but not as an injustice to the Catholics, and certainly not as a violation of the Treaty of Limerick. In fact, he merely enumerated it as one of the many attacks made by the English parliament on the independence of Ireland. Now, if it could be regarded in any other light, was it for a moment to be supposed that this gentleman, possessing, as he did, the most exalted ideas, the most enlarged understanding, would not, in his advocacy of the Catholic claims, have had recourse to it to strengthen his argument? The hon. gentleman was induced to throw out these remarks for the purpose of disabusing the English nation of the impressions likely to be created by statements purporting to come from 40,000 petitioners; but any person knowing how matters were conducted in meetings, such as this petition emanated from, would attach little importance to the number of its signatures. It was well known, that in these assemblies one or two gentlemen assumed to express the opinions of all the Catholics of Ireland, and that in the absence of any person to control or to contradict them, they distorted history, misstated facts, and turned every thing to their own purposes. They might be allowed to act thus at their Catholic associations; but when they sent their petitions to that House, containing unfounded assertions, they must expect to be met with a proper and prompt refutation: and, further, he wished to impress on them, that there was no use in clamour or violence, unless supported by truth and justice.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he regretted much the course which the debate had taken; but the responsibility must rest with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down,

727
and not with him, who had been in fact taunted for the simple manner in which he had introduced the petition. His hon. friend had, by his speech, imposed upon him the necessity of doing what he had carefully abstained from at the beginning; namely, arguing this question upon the grounds taken by the petitioners. Now, however, that the duty of using such a line of argument was forced upon him, his hon. friend had only to thank himself for receiving the triumphant and conclusive answer of which his speech was susceptible. He regretted to hear the speech of the hon. gentleman, and wished that he had not had recourse to that species of attack and vituperation with which it abounded. True it was that the petitioners talked of "the barefaced violation of a solemn treaty;" but, if they were violent in their expressions, were not others equally so? What! was there not some excuse for men smarting under the infliction of wrongs, whilst the opposite party were enjoying the blessings of fortune and the possession of officer Violence there was on both sides, but of a different character; one party had no cause to produce or justify it; they had no injuries to complain of. He wished that the Treaty of Limerick could be referred to a fair and impartial tribunal, to determine whether its letter and its spirit had not been violated in the exclusion of Catholics from political privileges; and he wished to be considered as fully agreeing with the petitioners, that they were entitled to their claims, upon the foundation of the Treaty of Limerick, and of the law of the land. The argument of his hon. friend, as well as of others who on former occasions had preceded him, had rested solely upon the first article of the capitulation. He would proceed to show that, upon that subject, the conclusions to which his hon. friend had arrived, were wholly irreconcileable with law, with facts, and with historic commentary; and he would proceed to demonstrate, that, waiving all arguments derived from the first article, the petitioners were well founded in their statements on other and independent grounds. The first article preserved to the Catholics all the rights they exercised in the reign of Charles the 2nd. What were those rights? Did they or did they not possess and exercise the right of sitting and voting in parliament at that period? His hon. friend asserted, that they did not, and how did he maintain his position? He traced their exclu-
728
sion to a mere resolution of the House of Commons. Was that a legal exclusion? Had the House of Commons, by resolution, a power of depriving the electors of the nation of their right of choosing a representative? This was force and tyranny rather than law. When the hon. gentleman referred to the resolution of the Irish House of Commons, where, he would ask him, had he read history? whence had he derived his constitutional principles, when he defined a mere resolution of that House as an act of the legislature? and when with a still greater infelicity his hon. friend referred to the act of the 4th of William and Mary, he would ask, where did the hon. gentleman acquire his notions of Ireland's independence, when he ventured to contend that the British parliament had, at the period in question, the power of enacting laws for the government of Ireland? As well might he have maintained that an act of that House was now binding on France or any other foreign country. He regretted the use that had been made of Mr. Molyneux's name. He had expected that the memory of that distinguished individual would have suggested better feeling. Still, on examination, it would be found that the evidence of Mr. Molyneux was on his (Mr. Rice's) side. Mr. Molyneux, it should be remembered, was not called upon to argue the Catholic question. Mr. Molyneux's admirable work had no reference to the Treaty of Limerick. From his silence on this point no inference could be drawn; but his substantial argument was conclusive against the statement of the hon. member for Derry. His hon. friend asserted, that Catholics were deprived of their rights by the 4th William and Mary, a British statute. Mr. Molyneux had asserted, that the British Parliament had no authority to bind Ireland. Which way, therefore, he would ask, did the authority of Mr. Molyneux incline? But his hon. friend was as directly contradicted by the statute itself as by Mr. Molyneux. He was equally unlucky both in his illustrations and authorities. That statute, so far from reciting that Catholics had theretofore been excluded from parliament, asserted the very reverse. On this legislative declaration he could rest the construction of the first article of the Treaty of Limerick. That act recited the liberty which Popish Recusants have had and taken to sit and vote in Parliament. Was not this a conclusive reply to the state-

729
ment of their prior exclusion? But his hon. friend had proceeded to say, that the Catholics were excluded by the oath of supremacy. He denied that fact. If the statement were true, they must have been excluded from the days of Elizabeth, whilst, on the contrary, they had sat and voted long subsequent to that time. In the first parliament of James the 1st, there were 93 Catholics in a House consisting of 220. How, then, did this fact agree with the assertion, that they were excluded from parliament? The truth was, that the oath of supremacy was never in either country an absolute exclusion. In England their exclusion was effected by the 30th Charles the 2nd, passed for that very purpose, and no contemporaneous statute of a similar kind had passed in Ireland. He therefore concluded, that Catholics possessed parliamentary rights in the reign of Charles the 2nd—that those rights had been secured by the solemn Treaty of Limerick, ratified and confirmed by act of parliament—that those rights had been subsequently taken away, and that consequently the articles of Limerick had been violated. He refused to admit the authority of the British parliament, and he denied that a mere resolution of the House could exclude any man chosen by the people for their representative. As well might the House now seek, by a resolution, to exclude Irish and Scotch members from being returned to sit in it. It was unfair to argue that the Catholics, by their silence, acquiesced in the act passed between the signing and the ratification of the Treaty of Limerick; it was not because they admitted the justice of that act, but because they were beaten down and oppressed. They had it not in their power then to remonstrate. Neither the acquiescence of the weak nor the usurpation of the powerful could determine a right.—But supposing that, hitherto, his argument had been as open to objection as he contended it was conclusive; the strongest part of the petitioners' case remained still to be stated. Waiving all consideration of the first article, and admitting for argument sake that the oath of supremacy did exclude, he would nevertheless contend, that the petitioners were warranted in their statement, and justified in their prayer. The hon. gentleman had only referred, or alluded to, the first article of the Treaty; but, if he looked to the 9th article he would find that the Catholics of Limerick stipulated, as
730
well for themselves as for their fellow Catholics, that they should be required to take no other oath but that of allegiance. If then the oath of supremacy had formerly proved as a bar to their political rights, was it not to be presumed that they would have been relieved from it by this ninth article, and were they not distinctly protected from the subsequent disqualifying oaths by which their present exclusion was effected? Were not those oaths a violation of treaty? William had promised, and parliament had ratified, the engagement, that no new oaths should be required, and indeed no oath but the oath of allegiance. Other and new oaths were now imposed by the legislature. Will any gentleman undertake the task of reconciling these promises with this performance? For his own part he thought that that man who read the Treaty of Limerick, and did not feel that it had been violated, had neither a heart in his bosom nor brains in his skull. That such was the impression, at the time, and that the Catholics were considered to have received the advantages of political eligibility, appeared from many eminent authorities. He would not appeal to such authors as his hon. friend's often-refuted archbishop King. He would not appeal to men who were removed by time or station from the events they described. His authority was not a Catholic writer, or a man ignorant of state affairs. His authority was that of the friend, the companion, and the historian of king William. He alluded to bishop Burnet, who states expressly, "That when the Irish came to capitulate, they insisted on very high demands, set on by the French, who hoped they would be rejected. But the king had given Ginckle directions that he should grant all the demands they could make, that would put an end to the war. So every thing was granted, to the great grief of the French, and the no small disappointment of some of the English, who hoped this war would have ended in the total ruin of the Irish interest. Those of Limerick treated not for themselves only, but for all the rest of their countrymen. They were indemnified and restored to all they had enjoyed in king Charles's time." Here the Bishop evidently alluded to the first article; but he then proceeded to comment upon the ninth, and added "They were also admitted to all the privileges of subjects upon their taking the oath of allegiance, without their being bound to take the

731
oath of supremacy." Here, then, on the evidence of a contemporary historian and statesman, was the complete and unanswerable support of his argument, or rather what he would venture to call his demonstration. "All the privileges of subjects," were the expressions of Burnet—words so large and comprehensive, that no person could deny the right of Catholics to sit in parliament under the Treaty, unless he were prepared to show, that to sit in parliament was not among the privileges of a subject. The petitioners, in stating that parliament, in continuing their exclusion, participated in the original guilt of the violation of the Treaty, had certainly not meant to allude to the majority of that House, which had repeatedly attended to their prayers. The language of the petition was forcible, as became men, and still respectable to the House. He had felt no wish to agitate the question, but, having been driven into the discussion, he had endeavoured to do justice to the truth and argument of the case [hear].—The hon. member, in conclusion, strongly enforced the arguments which were founded upon these undeniable historical facts, and endeavoured, as he said, to demonstrate on every principle, legal and historical, the correct view taken by the petitioners of the effect of the Treaty of Limerick, which had been entirely misrepresented by his hon. friend.
Sir John Newportsaid, that little remained for him to offer, after the triumphant answer given by his hon. friend to the speech of the hon. gentleman opposite. Indeed, attacks from that hon. gentleman upon the Irish Catholics for intemperance came with the worst possible grace; for, both in that house and out of it, he had been himself remarkable for heaping vituperation upon them. To follow up that practice on the present occasion, was very ill-advised, considering the official station which the hon. gentleman filled. Equally singular was it, that the hon. member, of all men, should have revived the worn-out attempt to bind Ireland by resolutions of a British House of Commons, when his constituents had eminently signalized themselves, at the time of the establishment of Irish independence, in resisting that usurpation, and had sent forth their volunteers to assert the cause of their country. He had, however, lived to see a member for Derry re-assert and venture to justify that gross and nefarious usurpation, long after the resistance made to it
732
by Ireland, and after the formal abandonment of the principle by England herself.
Mr. Dawsonexplained, that he only alluded to the acts of the English parliament, as illustrations of the mode in which the matter had been understood by the parties concerned. When confident assertions were made, unless something was said against them, it might be supposed that the House acquiesced in the accuracy of such assertions. The Catholics could not expect that they should, as in their own Association, have all the debate on their own side.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that whatever discussion had arisen, was provoked by the hon. member opposite, who had certainly taken a wrong view of the effect of the Treaty of Limerick. Indeed, until lately, this sort of argument in favour of the Catholic claims had not been thought of. The Treaty of Limerick was certainly not dwelt upon by the ablest advocates of the Catholics. He should, on the present occasion, confine himself to the record of his protest against the use of any arguments in behalf of the Catholic claims, founded upon a violation of the Treaty of Limerick.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that, not having been present at the beginning of this discussion, he would refrain from entering into the general argument, and confine himself simply to saying, that he by no means acquiesced in the view, that the privileges now withheld from the Catholics were so withheld in violation of the Treaty of Limerick. It would be time enough when that argument was formally urged, to combat it, which he should be certainly prepared to do; retaining as he did his original opinion respecting that Treaty, and not concurring in the assertion, that the admissibility of the Catholics to political power had been withheld in consequence of its operation. The petitioners themselves seemed doubtful of the extent to which they meant to press their argument founded upon the Treaty of Limerick, or on that particular article of it which was framed to secure them in the exercise of their religion, as far as was consistent with the laws of Ireland. Now, did they mean that by this provision they were to be free from molestation in the exercise of their religion, or did they construe it into an admission of their claim to equal eligibility to civil office? He rather; thought that they confounded both senses in their construction; for they asserted

733
their right to sit in both Houses of parliament, by virtue of this Treaty. If that were the true construction, there was an end at once to the question; but believing it not to be so, he must dissent from the view taken by the petitioners.
Mr. S. Rice,in reply, said, that this construction had been put on the Treaty of Limerick by some of the most eminent crown lawyers in Ireland. He should be most willing to argue the question on this ground with the right hon. gentleman.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION BILL.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the right hon. gentleman opposite had some objection to parts of this bill, and as he could not hope for any success in the other House, unless the measure had previously received the almost unanimous concurrence of this, he would postpone the measure till the next session; but he certainly would bring it forward at an early period then. At the same time, if it met the wishes of gentlemen opposite, he would consent to put his proposition in the shape of resolutions.
Colonel Daviesexpressed his regret, that his noble friend found himself under the necessity of postponing his bill. It was a measure much to be desired, and framed upon principles which could not fail to recommend it to the friendly attention of the House.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had an objection that the House should do that by bill which they were competent to do without the assistance of any other branch of the legislature. He was willing, however, to concur in any effectual measure for suppressing the evils against which this bill was directed.
The further consideration of the report was then postponed for three months.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. Secretary Peel, the order was then read for the third reading of the Criminal Justice bill.
Mr. J. Smithtook that opportunity of requesting the attention of the right hon. Secretary to the defective state of the police of the metropolis, with respect to the apprehension of offenders. At present, notwithstanding the facilities afforded by the magistrates, there was great difficulty in urging the officers to their duty, without the expenditure of large sums of money. In a case that had recently oc-
734
curred, in which the banking house with which he was connected had suffered greatly, their loss had been further aggravated by charges to the extent of 9,000 l., incurred by endeavours to secure the offenders. This was an evil of considerable magnitude, and tended directly to the increase of all crimes, except those of the most atrocious nature. Accordingly, it would be found that crimes, attended by acts of violence, were less frequent than formerly; but it was otherwise with respect to those of a fraudulent character.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he understood the object of the hon. gentleman to be the establishment of a Board of Police, like that of the Customs or Excise, in order that there might be a regular gradation of authority in that department. He was, however, inclined to doubt the policy of such a measure. He did not consider it desirable to create any new officer with greater powers than those possessed by an ordinary magistrate. He questioned whether the erection of any intermediate authority, between the Secretary of State and the magistracy in general, would not be contrary to the principles of the constitution. The police of the metropolis he certainly did not think defective. One great advantage resulting from it was, that there were always magistrates at hand, to whom the inhabitants could apply for advice and assistance. If, instead of having eight divisions, one chief officer or board were constituted, the hon. gentleman would find he had not advanced one step towards his object. The alteration would only have the effect of complicating the system of police, and lessening the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Mr. G. Lamb Mr. G. Lamb moved the addition of a clause, "that no indictment should be abated, annulled, or discontinued, on any plea of misnomer, or for want of addition; but that in such case, the court should have power speedily to amend the error according to the affidavits, and proceed with the trial forthwith."
Mr. Secretary peelagreed, that it was desirable that every facility for the escape of the guilty should be removed, if by so doing no security was taken from the innocent. On this principle, he saw no objection to the clause.
The clause was added by way of rider, and the bill passed.

WRONGOUS IMPRISONMENT BILL.
On the order for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he felt it was impossible, at that late period of the session, to pass this bill through the different stages with the deliberation to which its importance entitled it. He was aware, too, that the right hon. gentleman had not been able to give his attention to the subject. He would therefore postpone it to another year.
Mr. Secretary Peelregretted the necessity of deferring the consideration of a bill of so much importance, but his time had been so entirely occupied that he had been utterly incapable of attending to the measure. If, however, he did not give the hon. gentleman notice early next session, as to the intentions of government with regard to this subject, he would leave it to him to bring it forward at his own discretion.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that this was a question of the last importance, and he lamented, that, as the matter had been stirred, there was not an intention to proceed with it.
The bill was then ordered to be read a second time this day three months.

CHARING-CROSS IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Mr. Arbuthnot having moved the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Hobhousewished to ask the right hon. gentleman how soon these improvements were likely to be commenced, as it was of considerable importance to the householders, whose property would be affected thereby, that they should be made acquainted with this fact as early as possible, in order that they might make their arrangements accordingly.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that if this bill, should be permitted to pass into a law, the commissioners would feel it their duty to lose no time in carrying it into execution. He could not, however, speak accurately as to the time when these improvements would be commenced, until, by purchase or exchange, he gained possession of the buildings which would have to be pulled down. He should, however, feel it his duty to consult the public accommodation as much as possible. As he was up, he would take that opportunity of correcting a mistake which had gone abroad, respecting what he had said on a former occasion. It had been represented, that he had said, in answer to a suggestion that these improvements could
736
not be carried into full effect unless that part of the Strand in the vicinity of Exeter Change were widened, that the marquis of Exeter was averse to such a measure. Mow, he had merely said, that it was desirable, whilst we were devising public improvements, that we should interfere as little as possible with private property; and since then, he had had communications with the marquis of Exeter and the duke of Bedford, and both those noblemen expressed their anxiety to lend their aid towards the accomplishment of the proposed improvement.
The bill was read a third time.

EAST-INDIA WRITERS BILL.
On the order of the day for the committal of this bill,
Mr. Denmansaid, that the incompetency of the persons who had been formerly sent out to India, to fill the situations in which they had been placed, had been the cause of the most serious mischiefs, and had brought this country into great disrepute there. It was in order to correct this evil that the East-India college had been founded, and, in his opinion, the experiment had fully succeeded. The requiring of the certificate, that a party wishing to go out to India in the civil service had been properly educated for such purpose, had, in his opinion, had a most beneficial effect in preventing incompetent persons from being sent out. He could, indeed, have wished that the certificate had been incorporated in the bill itself. Some honourable members, and amongst them his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, supported this bill as a means of getting rid of the college, which they considered a failure altogether. Now, he looked upon the college in a very different light indeed, he considered it as the only mode which had yet been devised of controlling that abuse of patronage which had formerly prevailed so extensively amongst the directors. He appealed to the right hon. secretary opposite, who, on all subjects, was a high authority, and particularly on the affairs of India; he appealed to him, whether he could approve the expediency of removing this only effectual check over that large discretionary power possessed by the company. He trusted the subject would not be left in the vague and uncertain state in which it before was. In this college he felt a deep personal interest that would not influence his judgment,

737
if the course which he wished to see followed did not serve the permanent interests of our oriental dominions; but he should lament extremely if that institution which was adorned by the names of a Mackintosh and a Malthus, and other worthy associates, although their names were not so prominent in the public eye—he should be sorry that such an institution should be annihilated, and the labours of such men be lost to the country. He did not mean to defend the defects of the college. There had been a few rebellions amongst the boys; but they had proceeded from imaginary notions with regard to vested rights, which made them turn round on their governors; but it would be to him a matter of deep regret that this salutary restraint should be removed.
Mr. Trantsaid, that all his experience contradicted the assertion, that previous to the establishment of this college, the persons sent out to India were uneducated. It was now many years since he and his hon. and learned friend opposite were schoolfellows at Eton; and many of the young men who had at that time received their education at that establishment, had since been distinguished in the service in India. In his opinion, the civil service had been very little improved by the establishment of the college, which had, he conceived, totally failed to answer the purpose for which it had been founded.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that his concurrence in the bill before the House was not founded on any apprehensions that the temporary suspension of the qualification from the Haileybury College, would lead to the destruction of that institution. On the contrary, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned member opposite, that, although, in former times, great men had appeared in India, yet the country had a right to expect that there should be some competent security for the instruction and education to be possessed by those who were sent out to India. The nation had a deep interest in the question; and had a strict right to be assured, that those who were destined for India should have some preparatory education previous to their departure. At the same time, he concurred with the hon. member behind him, that if there could be a guarantee for the general education of those appointed to offices in India, he might hesitate between the present specific and a more general plan of instruc-
738
tion. For, he believed that, for all the purposes which men could be called upon to execute, the English gentleman's education was decidedly the best. But there were no means of obtaining this desirable object, except by the test of examination; and then there were partialities and a thousand other impediments to operate against the purity of such a test. With respect to the institution under discussion, it appeared to him that, under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, it had been conducted with eminent credit to those to whom its management was intrusted, and with great utility to the public service. At the same time he must say, that if it were to begin over again, he could wish that, instead of having the establishment in the centre of a barren heath, remote from all society, it were placed under the local supervision of one or other of the Universities. It was to be regretted, that the whole time of the students was devoted to their own studies, and their years spent in the society of those with whom their future lives were to be passed; for it would be much preferable if they were mixed up with the other youth of England, who were to devote their lives to other pursuits. He was sorry that any cause had occurred for the temporary suspension of the powers of that establishment; but, in giving his support to this bill, he could only give his pledge of honour that he had no such intention as to get rid of it altogether; and, if there should be any change in its future management, it would only be the kind of change to which he had alluded, that of introducing a general system of education, instead of the specific instruction which was at present pursued.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that, having had two sons at the Haileybury College, he was enabled to speak to the character of the education furnished there, and he must say, that it appeared to him that the system was excellent. One of his sons was reported to be qualified for the public service in seventeen days after his arrival in India, and the other in six months; and, when young men were thus prepared, he thought it was the best proof that the College fulfilled the purposes for which it was intended.
Sir T. Baringsaid, he could bear testimony to the dangers to which young men were exposed during their continuance in Calcutta. They often imbibed habits which proved extremely preju-

739
dicial to them in their progress through life. Any measure which could have the effect of shortening that residence, would be highly advantageous to the cadets, and beneficial to the service.
Colonel Baillieconsented to the bill, because he considered it expedient to supply the deficiencies of the public service. The regulations of the bill were not intended, in the slightest degree, to injure the College, but simply to provide a sufficient number of persons possessing the qualifications which were requisite for such situations.
Mr. Denmanexpressed his entire concurrence in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the propriety of engrafting such an establishment as an East-India College, upon one of the Universities.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that this bill was not brought forward for the purpose of diminishing, but of increasing, the qualifications of the young men who entered into the service of the East-India company. He defended the College from the attack which had been made upon it, and lamented that ninety-six was the greatest number of students that could be educated within its walls. There were only two plans by which the East-India company could obtain an adequate supply of efficient servants. One of them was, to allow young men to qualify themselves elsewhere than at the College, and the other to increase the number of young men educated there. Now, this latter plan could not be immediately adopted, since it would take some time to erect additional buildings for their habitation, and the company required an immediate supply of active servants. The first plan, therefore, must be acted upon for a time, and he conceived that much advantage might be derived from the competition which it would create among the promoters of the different systems of education for young men proceeding to India. He could not see any reason why a young man, who had gone through the usual routine of a public school, and had afterwards applied himself at the Universities or elsewhere to the study of the languages of India, should not be equally well qualified for service in India with a young man educated at the College. He could not forget that one of the company's most able servants, Warren Hastings, had been educated at Westminster-school, in the same form with Lloyd and Churchill, and
740
Colman and Cowper; and that he had retained the love of literature which he had imbibed there in his youth, amidst all the active pursuits of his maturer life. He could assure the House that the utmost care would be taken to render the examination of the young men previous to their departure for India, an effectual and searching examination. He agreed with his right hon. friend, that it would be desirable to connect the College with one of the Universities. He proposed to pass this bill only for three years, in order that it might be re-considered at the end of that time, when the House had obtained further experience on the subject.
The bill then went through the committee.

EAST-INDIA NAVAL FORCE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Brightsaid, that notwithstanding the thin state of the House, he would take that opportunity of making a few observations on this bill. He knew and lamented the indifference with which all subjects connected with India were treated by the people of England; but, involving as it did, the question of the government over a hundred millions of people, it was entitled to the most serious consideration. One reason of that indifference was, that the Commons of England had no opportunity of examining very minutely into the matter, for want of the information necessary to enable them to understand it. An immense quantity of papers lately published by the East-India Company did, it was true, contain that information; but they were not before the House. He had, with great labour, waded through the whole of the mass to which he alluded, for the purpose of enabling him to form his own opinion on the subject; and he wished that it was placed in the hands of all the members of the House. He believed that the result would be extremely beneficial to the country, and useful to the interests of India. At present, the generality of the people of England knew nothing of the affairs of India, but what they learned from the gazettes. It was a fact, that the very last papers respecting the progress of the Burmese campaign, which were published in the London Gazette, were not official papers, but copies, or extracts taken from copies, of private letters [hear, from Mr. Wynn].

741
He would take upon himself to say, that such was the fact; and, if there were any doubts entertained upon the subject, he would forthwith produce the newspaper which he had in his pocket, and which contained the publications in question. It had long been the case, that one of the very few means which the country had of knowing the real condition of things in our Asiatic possessions, was the periodical application officially made in parliament for the supplies necessary for the expenses of the naval and military services of the British government in India. But here was a bill, which, inasmuch as it went to vest the cognizance of the former of these matters solely in the East-India Company itself, would in future prevent the parliament from knowing any thing at all about the affair. True, it might be said, that the people of England were poor, and the East-India Company rich; and that the former ought to be glad of having the burthens of this particular naval service removed to the shoulders of the latter. He hoped it was true that the Company were rich. He hoped that parliament would not hear of any loans, either voluntary or forced, granted to them by the native princes of India, in order to enable them to prosecute the war in which they were now engaged. As to the relief from the burthen in question, which it was intended that the English people should experience, he could only say, that, although there was a general cry throughout the nation for economy in all the departments of the public service, he was still convinced that, if parliament consented to abolish the usual course of holding the Company to these wholesome applications, from time to time, of which he had already spoken, it would, by the same proceeding, most effectually deprive itself of all superintendence or control over the affairs of India. It really appeared to him, that the House ought to call upon the right hon. gentleman to produce those papers which had been recently published by the East-India Company; papers which contained more valuable information on the subject of Indian affairs, than any which had been lately promulgated, and which, although not printed by order of that House, could scarcely be said to be not official. On these grounds, he did consider that this bill ought not to pass the House; or, at all events, before any such bill passed, that the finances of the
742
East-India Company should be submitted to parliamentary examination.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the expenses of the war in India were paid out of the funds arising from the Company's territorial possessions in that country. By the Company's charter, the Indian government were bound to support 20,000 troops in India; and, if a war with any of the native powers should render an addition to that force necessary, then the expenses of that additional force were also to be defrayed by the Company. But a naval force, for the purpose of aiding the military operations in that country, being a new feature in their mode of warfare, had not been contemplated in the charter, and therefore the present bill had been introduced, for the purpose of regulating the method in which the expenses of that service were to be defrayed.
The bill was read a second time.