§ On the Motion of Mr. Tulk, for the Ad- 1095 journed Debate on the Committal of this Bill to be resumed,
§ Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he was anxious to know from the Speaker whether this was to be considered a private or a public Bill.
§ The Speakerwas understood to reply that it was undoubtedly a private Bill.
§ Sir John Hobhousebegged to read one of the Standing Orders with respect to the reception of private Bills. It was laid down in the standing Order, which he read to the House, that the House would not receive any petition for a private Bill after the 13th of March; that no private Bill should be read a first time after the 13th of April; and that no Report should be received after the 13th of June. He thought, therefore, that this Standing Order of the House precluded their proceeding with this Bill.
§ The Speakerwas understood to say that the further consideration of this Bill, though a private one, was not shut out by the Standing Order which had been read; for the House had it in its power to dispense with such order if it pleased; and this very day the Royal Assent had been given to several private Bills introduced without compliance with such order.
§ Mr. Humewas really surprised that the right hon. Baronet, the President of the India Board, should raise a technical objection to a Bill, the principle of which had been admitted by its passing through a second reading. Indeed he must say it was an act of cruelty to Mr. Buckingham to interpose such a technical objection at such a moment as this; for what were the facts of the case? Why these: that the late Cabinet of Lord Grey, composed of very nearly the same members as the present Cabinet of Lord Melbourne, granted a Committee of Inquiry—the Committee reported unanimously that Mr. Buckingham ought to receive compensation—the resolutions being drawn up by the hand of Lord Glenelg, still a Cabinet Minister, and approved by the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department, now the leader of the House of Commons, and yet, in the face of all this, the new President of the India Board, in opposition to his predecessors, as well as to his colleagues, comes forward, after failing to carry the House with him on the merits of the question, to put it aside by a purely technical objection. This conduct of the right hon. Baronet was to him perfectly unaccountable; and he would have done himself more honour if he had come forward manfully, waving all techni- 1096 calities, and put the question on its merits, and its merits alone, for on these only ought it to be decided.
§ Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the objection he had stated was no technical one, but an objection which had been very properly taken by the Counsel for the East-India Company when they were heard at the Bar. If this Bill were to be proceeded with, contrary to the established rules of the House in the case of private Bills, the East-India Company would not have time to get up their case. Justice could not be done to either party, unless the question were referred to a Committee up stairs, and it would not be possible that a determination could be come to by such a Committee during the present Session.
Mr. O' Connellhoped, that the Bill would be allowed to go forward as it had commenced—as a public Bill. The House had permitted it to be brought in as such, it had been read a second time as such, Counsel had been heard before their Bar instead of before a Committee, which would have been the proper place had the Bill been regarded as a private one; and now when the opponents of the Bill were beaten on its merits, and had not an argument left to stand on, they turned round and met it with a miserable technicality, Really it was high time that such courses as these should be laid aside; they were unworthy the character of a tribunal of justice; and if ever there was a case in which they were unbecoming this was one. It was said, too, that there was no time to consider the subject properly during the present Session. Why should there not be time? The evidence lay in a very small compass, and the House might hear it and determine on the amount of compensation that should be given, in a single sitting. There was always time for justice, if persons were but willing to employ it for that purpose. For himself, he must say, that he thought a clearer case of robbery had never been established than that which had been perpetrated towards Mr. Buckingham. Not even the history of the Colonies—bad as it was—could present another such case of unparalleled wrongs; for after the acquittal by the Government for four of the articles complained of—and acquittal by a jury for the fifth—he is banished for a-sixth article which so far from being an improper one, was a mere anticipation of the very judgment passed by the India Directors themselves. It condemned, in very mild and gentle terms, the appointment of a Scotch 1097 parson to be a Stationer General, and the tenor of the article was to shew, that the two offices were incompatible, that the person holding the two should abandon one and adhere to the other—be either parson or stationer, but not both—as in that case the duties of either would be sure to be neglected. And what really happened? Why this. That as soon as ever this appointment was heard of in England, it was condemned by the Court of Directors—condemned by the Board of Control—and condemned by the General Assembly of Scotland, to whom the parson was amenable, and was annulled by all three, though Mr. Buckingham, who had been the first to call public attention to its impropriety, was made the victim of his public virtue—for really this was an act which did him honour, and for which he should have been thanked and rewarded, instead of being banished and ruined. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would wave these technical obstructions, and let the House deal with the question on its merits, as on those alone it ought to be decided.
§ Mr. Wilksconcurred in every word that had been uttered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and added his earnest prayer that the House would not suffer justice to be defeated by a mere technicality. He was familiar with the subject from the beginning, and he had watched its progress to the end: and he must say, that he had never entertained but one opinion on it, which was this—that Mr. Buckingham was most unjustly, oppressively, and cruelly deprived of his personal liberty and ruined in his property, not only without having committed any fault, but for conduct which did him the highest honour, and which could never be mentioned but to his praise. The facts were so familiar to the people of England generally, that this was the almost universal sentiment: and his conviction was, that the conduct of the right, hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) in opposing this just and reasonable claim would excite the greatest astonishment wherever it was known, if even stronger feelings were not engendered by it. Mr. Buckingham, he would contend, had acted with the greatest delicacy in not pressing these claims forward before. He sincerely hoped that the Bill would be allowed to go forward as a public Bill, and secure the sanction of the House at least in the present Session.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that Mr. Buckingham had been warned of the consequences of the course which he was pursu- 1098 ing, but that he had nevertheless persevered in that course; another, that it was not in India, as in England, where any Government might laugh the attacks of the Press to scorn, knowing that there was a popular assembly in which those attacks, if unjust, might with case be repelled; a third, that if the claim were granted, it would assume the shape of a tax on the natives of India, who were altogether uninterested in the subject.
§ Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that it was with great reluctance that he presented himself to the notice of the House on this occasion; but in doing so he was actuated by two powerful motives, each of them, he believed, of sufficient force to satisfy the House that he was justified in the course he was about to take. This first motive was a desire to set himself right with the House as to certain personal imputations that he thought had been most unjustly cast upon him by the right hon. President of the Board of Control; and his second motive was a desire to save the time of the House and shorten the discussion, by putting them in possession of the main facts of the case in as brief and connected a form as the extent over which it was necessarily spread could admit. On these two grounds he in treated the indulgence of the House while he addressed to them the few observations which he thus felt it his duty to offer. The right hon. Baronet had, in his first speech, delivered on the introduction of the Bill now before the House about a week ago, deprecated the presence of any hon. Member during a debate on a question in which he was himself personally interested; and complained of his (Mr. Buckingham's) presence as being unprecedented and embarrassing; and he had next described the measures taken by Mr. Buckingham to put hon. Members in possession of his case, by sending them a printed paper, and to ensure their attendance by issuing a written circular, as wholly inconsistent with the character of a Member of Parliament. Now these were very grave accusations, and such as, if substantiated, would deservedly prejudice him in the eyes of his constituents and the country, and indeed render him unworthy to sit among those by whom he was now surrounded. He therefore felt it his duty now to rise in his place, and give these imputations his most strenuous and most unqualified contradiction. But he would not content himself with this; he would shew to the House that he was acting on well-established precedents, on examples of the 1099 strictest honour, on rules of every-day practice, as well as of reason and common sense. As to example and precedent, he would content himself with quoting two of recent date as sufficient for his purpose. When the hon. and gallant admiral, the Member for Devonport, (Sir Edward Codrington) brought forward the claims of himself and his brother officers and seamen, to the prize-money due for the capture of the Turkish fleet at Navarino, that gallant Admiral, then belonging to a profession, the very soul of which is honour, felt no scruple whatever in being himself the individual to advocate the claim, to make the motion, and to take the lead in carrying it to a close; and not a whisper was breathed on either side of the House in objection to such a course. And if it should be said that the gallant Admiral was claiming for others as well as for himself, (though his own share was by far the largest in the amount that I he claimed for the whole) so also in his, Mr. Buckingham's case, there were others, whose property had been invaded, and to I whom compensation was due, he meant the seventy English gentlemen who were co-proprietors with himself in the Calcutta Journal at the time of its suppression, and whose rights he was bound to defend and advocate as well as his own. But there was a case still more in point, in which the amount was much larger, and the claimants more numerous; he meant the case in which 20,000,000l. sterling had been voted by that House as compensation to the West-India proprietors for the abolition of slavery. Of these gentlemen there were several who were Members of that House, and he would ask, whether there was any feeling of delicacy which kept these gentlemen away when the case of their compensation was coming on for discussion. On the contrary, was it not notorious, not only that they were uniformly all present, but that the greater number of them spoke in favour of their claims, and that they all voted for the large sum of money of which they were to share in the receipt. Did any one condemn them for this? and was it not the constant practice for hon. Members belonging to the various interests which were represented in that House, agricultural, manufacturing, and shipping, to be present, take part in, and vote on questions affecting, their pecuniary interests, without reproach and without blame? Now as to voting on his own claim, or even on that of his co-proprietors, he (Mr. Buckingham) had abstained from doing this; and he only 1100 wished that other Gentlemen pecuniarily interested in the decision of various questions that came before the House, whether for the adjustment of tithes, the appropriation of corporate property, or the regulation of the corn laws, would only follow his example, and abstain from voting on questions in which their pecuniary interests were at stake. As to the complaint raised by the right hon. Baronet of his (Mr. Buckingham) having forwarded to the Members a printed statement of his case; and a circular desiring their attendance on the debate, to hear and judge for themselves, and give their votes accordingly; this was even more groundless than the preceding. Every one must be aware, that as these transactions took place many years ago, and in a very distant quarter of the globe, it was hardly probable that hon. Members should be familiar with them in all their details; and as the evidence on the subject filled a large folio volume, which it was very unlikely that most Members would read, considering the vast mass of papers presented to them for examination every morning during the Session, he thought he should be consulting their convenience, and advancing the ends of justice, if he placed in the hands of every Member as brief a view of the case as he could possibly compress within the compass of a single sheet of paper. This was done; and the sheet contained only extracts from the large volume of evidence arranged in consecutive order. But the very circumstance which made this document so disagreeable to the right hon. Baronet, was that which made it especially valuable in his (Mr. Buckingham's) eyes. Not a fact in it could be controverted—not an opinion in it could be overturned—and there it still remained, unrefuted and irrefutable, for present conviction, as well as for future reference and use. As to the circulars that were issued to request the attendance of Members, he (Mr. Buckingham) had very high and very unexceptionable authority for such a course:—for almost every morning he himself received a written circular from the Treasury, sometimes respectfully requesting his attendance to put the Speaker in the Chair, or in other words, to assist in making a House, when the Ministers wished this for their own purposes. Sometimes earnestly entreating attendance on some important debate; and sometimes most earnestly and most particularly urging attendance for some certain division expected to come on in the evening,—the 1101 lines being underscored to give the utmost possible importance to the injunction—and these delivered at the public expense, by the public messengers of the Treasury. What therefore it was not unbecoming in the Government to do, it could hardly be wrong in any individual member to follow,—more especially as the invitation was merely to attend, without asking support, or endeavouring, in any way whatever, to influence the decision of the party attending. He would next, with the permission of the House, address himself to the question of the Bill, and the arguments of the learned counsel against it: and in doing this he was happy to say, that besides the general authorities for such a course, before referred to, he was able to cite the particular authority of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hobhouse) himself. On the occasion of his (Mr. Buckingham's) explaining to that right hon. Gentleman, the reasons which induced him to give circulation to the printed statement of his case—he said that one of his motives was a desire to put hon. Members in possession of its leading facts, which he might not perhaps have an opportunity of stating in his own person, by a speech made from his place in Parliament—as there might be some difficulty, especially if the House should be late, of his obtaining any lengthened hearing—to which the right hon. Baronet replied, that he (Mr. Buckingham) need not be under any apprehension on that account as the House would be bound to hear any Gentleman addressing himself to their attention on a subject so deeply connected with his own interests and character, though it was not easy to reconcile this opinion of the right hon. Baronet with his subsequent declaration, that he (Mr. Buckingham) ought not even to have been present at the debate—for how any Member could address himself to the House, or obtain their hearing, without his being present within its walls, it was rather difficult to understand.
§ Sir John Hobhouserose and said, he certainly did not recollect having stated what had been described. He had no doubt that he had so stated it, as the hon. Gentleman Mr. Buckingham) asserted it, but it had certainly since escaped his recollection.
§ Mr. Buckinghamresumed, and said he could repeat, with the greatest confidence, the statement he had just made. His own recollection of the matter was perfectly distinct and clear, however faint might be the recollection of the right hon. Gentle- 1102 man; and considering that the conversation occurred only a few days ago, he was rather surprised at the imperfection of a memory from which it could have so soon escaped. He would next advert to the arguments of the learned Counsel employed by the East-India Company. He should be able to show to the House, that all the counsel taken together, (the learned Solicitor-General included) had made no satisfactory defence for their clients, and left their conduct wholly unjustified, as it was, indeed, wholly unjustifiable. The first learned Gentleman (Mr. Spankie) began, and he was followed in this respect by the learned Gentleman opposite, (Sir R. M. Rolfe) by stating, that on his (Mr. Buckingham's) arrival in India, the press was under severe restrictions, and that he knowing this to be the case, was fairly visited with the punishment he had received for his disregard of its regulations. But this was not the case. On his (Mr. Buckingham's) arrival in Calcutta, in the year 1818, the press appeared to be as free as in England; the previous censorship having been abolished. It was found, however, about three months after his (Mr. Buckingham's) Journal was established, but it was not known to him before, that when the censorship was removed, certain written rules or resolutions of the Council were substituted in their stead; and certainly as a specimen of regulations for the press they were a great curiosity. But these never had the force of law, because the charter enjoined that all regulations before they could become law, should be passed through the Supreme Court, and receive the sanction of the King's Judges in India. These regulations never received such sanction. It was not until after he had been banished from India, without a trial or hearing, for a pretended infringement of these then unlawful resolutions, that these resolutions were passed into a law with the proper formalities, thus giving them an ex post facto application, or rather punishing an individual by banishment and ruin on a mere circular resolution, and then making it a law afterwards, a course never before pursued, perhaps, in any civilized community. The hon. Member then entered into a long argument in reply to the Solicitor-General, to show that there would be no danger from a free press in India, and quoted the opinions of Mr. Warren Hastings and other authorities. But passing away from the theory of the subject, the learned Counsel (Mr. Sergeant Spankie) 1103 came to the practice, and asserted, with more boldness than truth, that the Calcutta Journal teamed with dangerous and inflammatory matter, calculated to excite sedition and rebellion among the troops, and dissatisfaction in all ranks of society. Was it not, however, remarkable that, with all this magazine of dangerous materials before him, he never ventured to select a single specimen so as to allow the House to judge of the nature of its composition. Not a solitary article was cited—not a single line was read: and why? Undoubtedly for the best of all possible reasons—that not a single article, or paragraph, or passage existed, which, taken with the context, could be made to bear out such statement, and therefore assertion was offered in lieu of proof. The hon. Member next showed from several authorities, that the Calcutta Journal did not deserve the character given to it by Mr. Sergeant Spankie. He then continued: the fact had often been mentioned, that a certain Dr. Bryce, a presbyterian clergyman, had been made Clerk for the supply of Stationery, and that the article for which he (Mr. Buckingham) was banished, was one condemning that appointment, but in terms so good humoured and gentle, that no human being, probably, except the Governor-General of India for the time being, would ever think of punishing a man in any way for writing it, much less consigning him to banishment and ruin. This same Dr. Bryce, of whose improper appointment he (Mr. Buckingham) had spoke so mildly, avowed a doctrine so atrocious, that it was scarcely credible it should ever have been publicly proclaimed; the doctrine was this:—that when a public writer could not be refuted in argument, and when his arguments derived strength from the excellence of his character, it was fair to attack that character, and overthrow it if possible, so as by that means, if by no other, to bring the argument into disrepute. And to show how well this half-clergyman, half-stationer, followed up his doctrine in practice, it might be added that he became the editor of the Indian John Bull Newspaper, in which he published a series of libels on his (Mr. Buckingham's) private character, which were prosecuted in the Supreme Court, which were followed by conviction and damages, and which drew from the learned Judge, then presiding on the bench, one of the severest censures probably ever passed on an individual holding that rank in life, and so recently advanced in station by the Indian Government. Yet, 1104 while he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished without trial and ruined, for having condemned this appointment as improper, on which he had only anticipated the Directors' own views, this same convicted libeller was retained in his office for a full year beyond the receipt of the order for his dismissal from home, and was honoured and rewarded to the fullest extent of the power of the local authorities so to do. The learned Counsel had said, that he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished by a lawful power, and that, therefore, he was not entitled to ask for any redress; and great stress had evidently been laid on this argument by the small minority by whom this Bill had been opposed. But he (Mr. Buckingham) again contended—first, that there was no infringement of the regulations laid down for the guidance of the press in the article for which he was banished:—next, that those regulations never had the force of law until after he had been punished for the alleged infringement of them:—and, lastly, that though the power of banishment, by withdrawal of licence, was a power given by the law in the last India Charter, it had never been given for such a purpose as this, but for one entirely different. The hon. Member quoted several authorities to confirm this view, and after observing that Lord Hastings and his Council were divided as to the propriety of establishing the liberty of the press in India, concluded by saying, that he fell a victim to his attachment to the liberal principles by which Lord Hastings's Government was characterized, and in the conflict between that Nobleman and his council, he fell a sacrifice. The learned Counsel had said too, that if any wrong had been done, the Governor-General should have been sued for damages or prosecuted for his offence—and this too had been the language held on a former evening by the hon. Secretary to the India Board (Mr. Vernon Smith). But both these hon. Gentlemen knew very well that the Governor-General by whom this great wrong had been perpetrated, had died on his passage to England, so that no proceedings could be followed up against him; and next they knew, or ought to know, that supposing him to be alive, there was no possibility of reaching him through any process of law in this country. The very worst part of the whole affair, had been, strange to say, passed over in entire silence by every one of the speakers who had opposed themselves to the progress of the 1105 Bill; for neither the right hon. President of the India Board (Sir John Hobhouse)—nor his zealous coadjutor and secretary (Mr. V. Smith)—nor their near ally, the learned Solicitor-General (Sir R. M. Rolfe)—nor the hon. proprietor of East-India Stock (Mr. Robinson)—nor either of the learned Counsel, (Mr. Spankie and Mr. Wigram) had said one word about the transfer of the copyright—made valuable by his (Mr. Buckingham's) capital and labour—to Dr. Muston, who had bestowed on it neither the one nor the other; but who, after its transfer by the Indian Government, sold it for his own benefit and realized the profit. The history of the affair was this:—when he quitted India, he left the whole of his Journal and its attendant property under the management of competent persons, who, as the law then stood, could not be punished but by legal process, and could not be arbitrarily banished, as he had been, without trial or conviction of any offence—for this was a distinction reserved for those who were of British blood—no other person could be so tyrannically dealt with. While, however, he (Mr. Buckingham) was thus relying on the security of the property he left behind him, the Government of India were already concocting measures for its destruction. Accordingly, when he (Mr. Buckingham) had embarked, and was fairly out of the way, the Government of Bengal first passed the resolutions for the press,—for the pretended infringement of which he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished—through the Supreme Court, giving them then for the first time the force and power of law. They next had another law drawn up by Mr. Sergeant Spankie, who was then their Advocate-General, the object of which was to prohibit all books as well as newspapers which the Governor-General chose to prohibit; and to subject persons having them in their possession, whether they were printed in England or elsewhere to severe fines and imprisonment for this heinous offence. When an attempt was made in July 1826, three years subsequent to the transactions at Calcutta, to introduce this same Asiatie piece of legislation into Bombay, the two King's Judges of the Supreme Court there—Sir Edward West, and Sir Charles Chambers rejected it with disdain, as wholly repugnant to the laws of England, and as such, contrary to the Charter of the Supreme Court, and wholly inadmissible as a lawful regulation. Yet it was upon this illegal regulation, and by virtue of this 1106 illegal power, that the Calcutta Journal was, soon after his banishment, wholly suppressed and destroyed. Indeed, it might be said that this regulation was made and passed with no other view or object—and too skilfully it effected its destructive end. The hon. Member went on to explain that this was effected in consequence of his having reprinted Colonel Leicester Stanhope's pamphlet, on the freedom of the Press in India. The Journal thus suppressed, its agents made an effort to get it revived; and the Government of India promised from day to day to grant a new licence. A large establishment of printers and pressmen, with clerks, messengers, and other requisite assistants, was kept up, on full pay, waiting from day to day the pleasure of the Governor-General, and many weeks of time was thus consumed, every day deteriorating greatly the value of the property, besides adding largely to the actual loss. At length a verbal assurance was given that the Journal should be revived, and on the faith of this a new Prospectus was issued; but this Prospectus adverting briefly to the late regulations for the Press, as being in their nature calculated to throw a damp on the freedom of discussion, and make the Journal less interesting than before, which was put forth, indeed, as a sort of apology for its apprehended inferiority in attractiveness; this innocent announcement, written too by a personal friend of one of the Members of Council, and most devoted to the Government, drew down the new displeasure of the Governor-General, or his Secretary, and the revived Journal was put down almost before its appearance, and was literally strangled in its birth by the very hands of the person who had but just given it existence. Still further negotiations and further delays went on, till at length it was resolved by the Government of India, that the Journal should not be revived, but under an editor of their own choosing; and even when that editor was appointed, he being one of their own servants, and son-in-law of one of the Cabinet Ministers, or Member of the Indian Council—they then further resolved that even the editor of their own choice should not be permitted to carry on the Journal, so long as he (Mr. Buckingham) or any of his former co-proprietors had any beneficial interest in the profits accruing from the same—thus making it no longer a war against certain sentiments, but a personal persecution: and assigning as a reason for this proscription, that unless it was made, he might again return 1107 to India, to exercise a control over his own property; though this could not be done without the permission of the Directors in England; so that at length the whole property was transferred to Dr. Muston, the editor of their own choice—and the copyright made his, without any consideration—which copyright he subsequently sold to the proprietors of another paper in India, to whom its subscribers were transferred, and realized to his own private and personal use, the profits of this transaction. If this then were not a robbery perpetrated under the authority and sanction of the Indian Government—though under the due form of law—he knew not what could deserve that name. Indeed one of the strongest proofs that could be offered of this persecution being personal, and not being confined to mere hostility to the liberty of the Press, was this, that on his (Mr. Buckingham's) first hearing of these destructive proceedings towards his property in India after he had left it, he applied to the Court of Directors in England, where he then was, for leave to return to India for ever so short a period, and under any securities that they might require, merely to wind up his affairs, pay his just debts, and receive the various sums of money due to him from persons scattered over the face of the whole country, so that he might wind up his affairs and return home with what he might be able to gather up from the wreck; but even this just and reasonable request was peremptorily refused. The Board of Control was then appealed to for interference, as a case of appeal; but there also redress was equally denied; and as it now appeared for the strongest of all reasons, namely, that the authorities of that Board had been secretly encouraging the India Directors and their servants abroad to the commission of the very acts complained of; a fact only brought to light by the production of the secret documents from the India House confirmatory of this view, so that to grant redress to him (Mr. Buckingham) would be to pass censure on themselves. The hon. Member next adverted to the several periods at which his case had been brought before the House of Commons and the public, and shewed that on all the occasions of submitting his case to the House of Commons, Sir John Hobhouse had supported it. The hon. Member then explained the circumstance which had brought the question to its present state, and which made it necessary for him to appeal to Parliament, and concluded as fol- 1108 lows:—If he were asked why he should object to postpone the consideration of the subject to the next Session, his answer would be—first, that twelve years had already elapsed, during which it had had as much consideration as it was ever likely to receive again; having been so repeatedly before the House and the country, that all those who took any deep interest in the progress of public affairs must be tolerably familiar with the outline of the subject at least;—and next, that he was now past the prime of life, and had children grown up and dependent on him for support; and that having seen during the present Session, two of his personal friends, as young, and to the full as healthy, as himself—he meant the late Members for Hull and Belfast, drop into the grave—he knew not but that he, too, might descend to the tomb before another Session might arrive, and he was not willing that his children should lose the benefit of his advocacy, for it was their property as much as his own, that he wished to have restored to them, while he had yet life and health to persevere in their claims for justice. Those claims he had now presented to the House in the best way that the circumstances of the case would admit, and if he had justified himself to the House in the steps he had taken, and shown that there was nothing inconsistent with his character as a Member of Parliament, in being present at the debate, and taking part in the discussion, though he should not, of course, presume to give a vote on the question, he should sit down with a consciousness of having done his best to discharge a solemn duty; and, for the rest, he had the fullest confidence in the justice and integrity of the independent portion of the House of Commons; in their hands he was willing to leave his case, and to their judgment he should bow with resignation and submission, believing, as he did, that they would consult the ends of justice as paramount to every other consideration.
§ Mr. Warburtonwas entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill; but viewing it as a private and not a public Bill, he did not know how it could be proceeded with in the present Session. If the House one broke through the broad and plain principle, and chose to regard as a public Bill that which every man must feel and know to be a private Bill, there would be no end to the jobs that would be attempted to be passed through the House; though he did not by any means say that this was one, as it had been clearly conducted with the greatest 1109 fairness and openness, and under the belief on all sides that it was really a public Bill. In whatever light the Bill was regarded, whether as a public or private one, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it for the present.
§ Mr. Tulkwould be quite prepared to act upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) if it were understood that, on the introduction of the Bill next Session, the first and second reading should not be opposed.
§ Sir John Hobhousesaid, that having stated distinctly and with earnestness he was opposed to the principle of the Bill, he knew not how such a pledge could be required from him. He begged to observe, that Mr. Buckingham was mistaken when he supposed that his (Sir John Hobhouse's) opposition was merely ex officio. He had more than once told the hon. Gentleman that that was not the case; and he thought he had some reason to complain of the manner in which the supposition was repeated. He confessed he was unwilling to make any sort of bargain upon the subject; and knowing how strongly he was opposed to the principle, and seeing that the greater number of his colleagues were not present, he knew not how the hon. Gentleman could expect him to enter into any arrangement which should affect the course of proceeding next year. After the course which things had taken, it was a little too much to expect that he should give way. He had certainly anticipated that the Chair would have stopped the debate before it had been extended to so great a length.
§ The Speakerconceived that he had no right whatever to stop the debate. He begged to slate, however—what indeed he had before observed—that he considered the Bill to be a private one, and to repeat that, being a private Bill, if it were to be proceeded with this Session, it was necessary, in compliance with the Standing Orders of the House, that seven clear days' notice should be given between the second reading and the committal, whether to a Committee of the whole House, or to a Committee up stairs. That being the case, he could only put it to the House whether it would be possible to proceed with the Bill at this period of the Session.
§ Mr. Aglionbyhoped that some understanding might be come to that the Bill should in the next Session be allowed to pass the second reading, as the House was clearly in favour of the principle, and the details could be settled in Committee.
§ Mr. Praedopposed the Bill, and deprecated the idea of asking the President of the India Board to make any agreement on the subject.
§ Mr. Robinson, as a proprietor of India Stock, protested against the power of the House to compel the East-India Company to make compensation.
§ Mr. Bainesapproved entirely of the principle of the Bill, and hoped to have seen it pass into a law. But if the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) insisted on pressing his technical objection, of course the Bill could not be proceeded with any farther during the present Session. Under these circumstances, he should advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Tulk) to withdraw it for the present, and re-introduce it as a private Bill early in the next Session. He could not sit down, however, without saying that stronger or clearer claim to compensation had never in his mind been made out, than had been established by Mr. Buckingham. He (Mr. Baines) had attended all the sittings of the Committee—he had heard all the evidence while it was proceeding, and he had read it all over carefully since, and no conviction was ever deeper on his mind than this—that in all Mr. Buckingham's conduct in India, in the management of his Journal, his moderation had been exemplary in the extreme, there was not an article that could be characterized as inflammatory, intemperate, or unfair; and he doubted whether any journal could be named, in which so uniform a course of mild and temperate argument—and fair and impartial statement of facts could be found. Yet, notwithstanding this, his punishment had been more severe than had ever before been inflicted on any public writer of whom he had ever heard—banishment from all his property and friends, and utter ruin of all his hopes and prospects; these were the rewards heaped upon him for all his careful and honourable exertions to promote the good of his country. If the parties could come to no terms, he did hope that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Tulk) would persevere in his intention of bringing in the Bill as a private Bill in the earliest part of the next Session, when it should have his most cordial support, as he doubted not it would that of the House at large; for it was impossible that hon. Members could make themselves acquainted with the facts without giving the claims their most cordial support.
§ Mr. Wilksfeared there was now no course left but to withdraw the Bill for the 1111 present Session, and re-introduce it early in the next, when he felt assured it would receive that general support to which, the more the subject was examined, the more it would be proved entitled to receive.
§ Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that his hon. Friends, the Members for Leeds and Boston, had anticipated to a great degree what he himself had intended to say. He was sorry that this unexpected obstacle of a technical objection had arisen; though to be defeated thus, by such an obstacle being interposed in the eleventh hour, was less painful than being beaten on the merits of the case, which happily stood untouched. He should concur, therefore, in the propriety of not pressing the Bill further during the present Session; he hoped that in the next Session of Parliament, when the subject would be more generally understood, and more time would be allowed for its discussion, such an impression would be made on the minds of hon. Members, as to ensure for the Bill that favourable reception which would ensure its passing into a law. In the mean time, he should still be open to any fair and honourable compromise; but if that still were refused him, he should persevere, while he had life, until justice was done him.
§ Bill withdrawn.