Lords Sitting of 8 July 1806

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.—RECALL OF SIR G BARLOW.
The order of the day having been read, for the lords to be summoned to attend this day,
Lord Melvillerose and spoke as follows:—My lords, I regret much, that the house is not in possession of those official documents which would enable us clearly to see our way in the discussion of the important subject to which I think it my duty now to call your lordships' attention. For want of these we are obliged to grope in the dark, and take the prevailing rumours as the grounds of our arguments. I shall first, however, be obliged to give some kind of historical account of the transaction on which the discussion of this night will principally turn,— When lord Cornwallis had undertaken the government of India, and when in his zeal for the public service, he left the banks of the Ganges, and made a distant journey for the purpose of giving effect to the negotiations for peace, sir George Barlow, considering the delicate state of his lordship's health, and the danger he exposed himself to in his country's service, thought it proper to quit the seat of government, in order to assist his lordship in the negotiations; and in case of that event taking place, which has since happened, to receive his dying instructions, and to carry them into effect without delay. Sir G. Barlow had then for his instructions not only the system which lord Cornwallis actually pursued, but the orders of the Court of Directors, and the instructions given to general Lake on the 19th of September. The general principle of the negotiation with the native powers, as also the system of retrenching unnecessary expenditure, was begun by the marquis Cornwallis, and was afterwards pursued by his successor, sir G. Barlow. Such was the situation of India, as it was known in this country upon the 29th of January last, when his majesty's ministers with great wisdom and propriety, considering that it was not proper to leave. India without the full benefit of those powers of government which had been always confided to governors general, recommended to the court of directors to give those powers to sir G. Barlow, in order that he might not be fettered either in conducting the negotiations, or in carrying on the government in India. With this recommendation, the Court of Directors readily and cheerfully complied. No appointment was ever less complained of, and no dispatch had since been received from India that did not convey the most

949
sanguine expectation of success, from the measures pursued by the successor of marquis Cornwallis. The appointment in consequence of the recommendation of his majesty's ministers, was made on the 25th of Feb. and upon the 8th of March the Court of Directors received am intimation of the wish of his majesty's ministers that a successor should be appointed to sir G. Barlow. The Court of Directors were very unwilling to comply. They foresaw, or they thought they foresaw, great difficulties and great objections to complying with this intimation, Nothing effectual was done from the 8th of March till the 12th of May, when a communication was made to the Court of Directors, suggesting the recall of sir G. Barlow, and recommending the appointment of a noble lord (Lauderdale) high in Ins majesty's councils. This recommendation did not accord with the ideas of the Court of Directors, and smile more delay was occasioned by the correspondence and communications that took dace on this subject. At length, at the latter end of the month of May, his majesty was advised to recall sir G. Barlow, by an instrument under his own sign manual. Since that time it has not appeared that any governor general has been appointed, or any step taken to fill up the vacancy in the government of India. In the course of the last day or two, there has been a rumour that a noble lord (Minto) has been appointed; but this rumour is the only thing winch the house is now possessed of that information to which it is entitled upon so important a subject. The intended recall of sir G. Barlow has been, however, notified to India in all the correspondence, both public and private, that has taken place with that country since the beginning of March; and it must occasion great uncertainty with respect to the system of government to be adopted for India, as well as great surprise in those who are best acquainted with the services, the talents, and the zeal of the honourable baronet. It will be now necessary to consider the act of parliament itself, under which his majesty was empowered to recall the governor general appointed by the Company. It is by the act which passed in the year 1784, that his majesty obtained that prerogative, and it will not be foreign from the subject to call the attention of your lordships to the circumstances under which that act was passed. It will be recollected that it at that remarkable period when the whole
950
country was convulsed with different opinions on the subject of the best mode of governing India. The different systems might be said to be contained in two bills; the one was commonly known by the name of Mr. Fox's bill, and time other by that of Mr. Pitt's bill. In the latter, however, to which parliament gave its sanction, the power of recalling a governor-general, or other officer, was given to ins majesty by an express clause in the bill. if the house will, however, recollect the circumstances of those times, arch consider the mode in which those two bills were universally understood at that period, it will appear that it was time general opinion at that time, that the real difference between the bills was a struggle for the patronage of India, whether it should be in the hands of the crown or of the company. The opposers of the bill of 1783 (Mr. Fox's bill) contended, that giving the patronage of India to ministers would overturn the independence of the lords and commons, and be subversive of the privileges and prerogatives of the crown. The privileges of 1784(Mr. Pitt's bill) disclaimed this patronage, and went upon the supposition that the patronage of India might be more fairly and beneficially exercised by the East India Co. themselves. I do not now mean to argue, which of those opinions were right or wrong. I merely mean to state, that the opinion of the legislature in the year 1784, when they agreed to Mr. Pitt's bill, was decidedly for leaving the Company the patronage of India. The clause therefore in that act, which first gave his majesty the power of recalling a governor-general, can never fairly be constrned as directly militating against the whole spirit of the act. The most decided sense of the country was then in favour of the spirit of that act, and with this generally prevailing sentiment the legislature concurred; it therefore never could have been the intention of time legislature, that a bill passed in this spirit should contain a clause which was to be at complete variance with the whole object of the bill, and should enable his majesty's ministers, by exercising at pleasure this power of recall, to gain the entire patronage of India. The meaning of the clause is obvious. It only was intended to give the crown the power of negativing any improper appointment, which partiality might ever induce the Court of Directors to make. The Court of Directors were also checked in that respect by the Court

951
of Proprietors, and there was a most remarkable instance then recent, of the Court of Proprietors having refused to acquiesce in the recall of Mr. Hastings when the Court of Directors had proposed it. It therefore was necessary, that in cases of that nature the government should have the power of recall. I therefore think myself now warranted to appeal to the recollection of every noble lord who remembers the circumstances under which the act of 1784 was passed, whether I have not stated fairly the intentions of the legislature at the time of its passing. I know that as to the merits of the two different bills, there must be a great variety of opinions, and every person must be subject to some particular bias. The noble lord (Minto) may, probably, be more attached to the principles of the bill of 1783, or Mr. Fox's bill, as it is usually called. On the other hand, I may appeal to another noble lord (Grenville) whose opinion I may bring forward as a balance in point of authority, and whose bias I must suppose to be in favour of the bill of 1784, from the part he took upon that occasion. He must know the spirit in which that bill was passed, and whether it would not be contrary to the spirit and meaning of that bill, that any clause of it should be construed as giving the patronage of India to his majesty's ministers, whenever they should be pleased to insist upon this power of recalling, at their pleasure, those who had been appointed by the Company. It would be contrary to the spirit and to the obvious meaning of the law, if the power of recall should be exercised merely for the purpose of enforcing the appointment of the person whom his majesty's ministers wished to be the governor-general of India. The power that the crown possessed would be grossly abused, if it were applied to any other purpose than what was intended by the law, to the negativing of an appointment made in favour of an improper person. If this be the only fair, rational, and true construction of the act under which India has been governed for the last 22 years, then it is incumbent on his majesty's ministers to shew some cause, why they advised his majesty to recall the person whom they had originally recommended to be appointed as governor-general. For the whole period of 22 years, since this act was passed, there was no instance of his majesty's ministers having exercised this power, and they should be aware that the Most pernicious consequences might result
952
from an indiscreet exercise of it. The situation of India now was delicate in the extreme. The negociations which were pending with the native powers, and the retrenchments which were to be carried on, required a government armed with the usual powers and confidence. If then, at such a time, this power of recall was exercised altogether without reason, and apparently with no other view than patronage, it was enough to irritate the Court of Directors. If, then, the Court of Directors were irritated by such conduct (and it was known, that whim and ill-humour had often influence on the determination, of public bodies); if they supposed that this power of recall was exercised capriciously and wantonly, they could find from the words of the law sufficient means of resisting any appointment that his majesty's ministers might wish to make. I have already stated to your lordships the situation in which India was placed at the death of marquis Cornwallis, and at the time sir G. Barlow succeeded to the government; and also that the first act of his majesty's ministers upon that occasion was to recommend to the Court of Directors the extending the power of sir G. Barlow. On this recommendation there was great joy in Leadenhall-street; for never was there an individual in the service of the Company, whose-conduct had received more marked approbation than that of sir G. Barlow, nor did the records of the Company shew a greater number of testimonies of approbation of the conduct of any individual that ever was in their service. The former administration had concurred with the Company in their opinion of his merits; for when marquis Wellesley was about to depart from India in 1802 sir G. Barlow was the person whom they had named as his successor. When, however, lord Cornwallis was recommended to supersede sir G. Barlow, the Court of Directors gave no opposition, and he himself readily gave way to the appointment of the noble marquis. Sir G. Barlow received marquis Cornwallis with open arms, because he knew that his appointment was made merely on public grounds, and for the public good; but when it should appear that an appointment was made from other motives, it cannot be expected that it Would be acquiesced in so cheerfully. Sir G. Barlow most readily joined in all the plans introduced by marquis Cornwallis both for securing the tranquillity of India, and for the retrenchments

953
that were to be made in the expenditure. In speaking on that subject, I beg that I may not be considered as giving any opinion on the conduct of a noble marquis (Wellesley), winch is now the subject of conversation. If, upon the appointment of sir G. Barlow, there was much joy and exultation, that joy was quite suppressed, when in ten short days after that appointment, government intimated their wish to have him recalled. If this were done capriciously, and without sufficient reason, ministers were much to blame; but if it were done for the purpose of seizing the patronage of India, it was worse—it was a direct violation of the spirit and the meaning of the act of parliament. I have heard it, however, surmised, that in the original recommendation of sir George Barlow, the government never deceived the court of Directors, but they told them at that time, that the appointment was merely temporary and liable to be changed. This appointment, however, which lasted but ten days, would not enable him to do any good, while the suddenness of his recall must be felt by him as a mortification and disgrace. It would have been a Very different thing to have left him in a subordinate situation, from what it was to appoint him governor-general, and recall him after he had keen only ten days appointed. It certainly appeared like some disgrace, or as if, in the course of ten days, ministers had found out something in his conduct that rendered him unworthy of their confidence. The reason would not be confined to the cabinets of Downing street or of Leadenhall-street, but it would be reported through the metropolis, and the report would reach to India, that sir G. Barlow, in whom they had been accustomed to repose great confidence, was found unworthy to retain the government of India. I should therefore now wish, that the correspondence on the subject between the directors and the board of controul should be laid before the house. It cannot be said to be a secret: not only the 24 Directors, but their children, their wives, their daughters, and their servants, must all of them be acquainted with the nature of this correspondence. As I have no official document to go on, and am obliged to rest upon reports, I must state, that it is also reported that the principal reason for recalling sir G. Barlow is, that it is the system of the present administration that none but men of rank in this country should ever be appointed to the
954
situation of governor-general in India. I do not know how this doctrine will be relished by the gentlemen in India, who have spent the greater part of their lives in the service of the Company in that country, but I think it never can be taken as a general rule of conduct. If the governor-general should die in India, it must necessarily follow, that he should be succeeded in the government by the senior of the supreme council. This parson must of course exercise the office of governor-general until time should elaspe sufficient to transmit the news of such decease to this country, and until a successor should be actually appointed. It therefore appears, that on the death of a governor-general it happens of necessity that the senior of the supreme council will have that situation for a year. It will, however, be necessary, that the Company's servants in India may know to what extent his majesty's ministers think that confidence may be reposed in them. It would be right that they should know what situations they might aspire to, and what situations they should ever be debarred from. It should be told them at once, that the whole career that was open to them was this, that from writers they might get to be factors, and from that to be junior merchants, senior merchants, and collectors of the salt duties; and arrive to all the lucrative situations of the country; but that they must not, in any case, hope to attain to the honours of governor-general, which some, who passed their lives in the service of the Company, in the burning climate of India, might hope to aspire to. I myself, my lords, have often heard the private opinions of the directors of the East India Co. upon the subject of appointing unite but men of great family and high rank to the government of India. They have always thought that a person of this description, who was really distinguished for talents and the qualities desired, would be of all men the most proper, as he would arrive at India free from those partialities in favour of particular servants of the Company, which might interfere with the right administration of the country. It would, however, appear very strange in the ears of lord Teignmouth, sir Charles Oakley, and many other servants of the Company, who had held the highest situations India, to tell them, that, by the modern system, it was discovered that persons of their description ought not to have been placed in the highest situations; and that, if they

955
had been in India in modern times, they could have no petentions to such distinction. This would be, indeed, strange music to their ears. Upon all these grounds I conceive I am warranted in stating that, prima facie, it is a most extraordinary thing that Ministers should have conceived themselves warranted in exercising the power of recall, which a clause in the act of parliament vested in his majesty. I should wish to learn from the noble secretary (lord Grenville), whether the instrument, under the sign manual, for recalling sir G. Barlow, was ever sent to India? I apprehend, that, from the repeal of the commission, there is now no existing government in India; and I cannot conceive in what manner the Court of Directors are to proceed to fill up the vacancies in the supreme council in India. If the instrument of recall has remained for two months in the pocket of the noble secretary, how are the Court of Directors to make out their warrant? It must also be considered in what situation the temporary government that subsists in India is placed. Although the treaties may be concluded, the negociatious and the consequences of them may not vet be at an end. There were probably yet remaining many things which were most important in the execution. By the treaties which lord Cornwallis was on the point of negotiating, the river Jummah was to be the western boundary of the British possessions in India. Lord Cornwallis had sent to general Lake instructions to fix that river as the boundary of that part of the conquered countries which the Company meant to retain. There was, however a most extensive district of the conquered countries respecting which the treaty, which was lately published, was entirely silent. Whatever might be the disposition of them, Holkar and Scindiah had no right to complain; but as marquis Cornwallis had renounced the occupation of them, it would be a matter of the most serious moment how they were to be disposed of. They must be reserved for some one of the native princes; but, until it was ascertained to which of these they were to he given, India could never be considered in a settled state of tranquillity. Under these circumstances I declare most solemnly, that if the person appointed to the government of India were my brother, or my nearest and dearest friend, I should deprecate his appointment at the present time. The Court of Directors did not insist upon the appointment of sir G. Barlow,
956
in any other light than as a temporary measure, in consideration of the circumstances of the present time. If therefore the person who should be anointed would consent to delay for six months the gratification of his ambition, I make no doubt that he would meet with no opposition from the Court of Directors. If he should, however, go out now, and raise his rank upon the unmerited disgrace of sir G. Barlow, he must feel that he goes out with the disrespect and ill-will of the Court of Directors, and he must consider how he is likely to be received in India. He must consider what effect the doctrine will produce there, that none but men of rank and title can ever hope to attain the highest offices in India. I can venture to foretell that With the degradation of sir G. Barlow, a servant who has their hearts and their confidence, all the servants of the Company in India will feel themselves degraded. I repeat again, that if my brother or my nearest friend were going to India under these circumstances, I should endeavour to dissuade him. I should tell him, that even the support of the board of controul would not balance the disgust with which his appointment would be received by the Court of Directors, and the servants of the Company in general. I should therefore most sincerely recommend to whoever may be appointed, to defer for six months the gratification of what may be a very laudable ambition; at the expiration of that time I have very little doubt that he may go to India with the perfect acquiescence of the Court of Directors, and the good wish of their servants in India. I have nothing more to add at present, and shall conclude with moving, 1st, for Copies of all letters and dispatches from the governor-general of India to the Court of Directors, respecting the finances of the Company, and the retrenchments proposed to be made; and when that motion is disposed of, I shall move for Copies of the correspondence between the board of controul and the Court of Directors, their chairman, and deputy chairman, respecting the recall of sir G. Barlow from his situation as governor-general."—Upon the first resolution being put.
Lord Grenville roseand remarked, that in the whole course of the noble lord's speech, not a single word had been said which at all alluded to the resolution which was then proposed to the house. For the other resolution no ground had been stated

957
but the suggestion of the person who brought forward the motion, that the affairs of India were in a deranged and delicate situation. If the affairs of India were in this unsettled state that been described, it would certainly not add much to the means of tranquillizing them, to bring forward discussions of this nature in parliament. As to the resolution that was then submitted to the house, not a single word had been said in support of it. He did not, however, mean to rest upon a captious objection, but would come at once to the consideration of the second resolution, respecting the recall of sir G. Barlow, which was, in fact, the point upon which the discussion must turn. Upon this subject the noble viscount had not, in his opinion, laid any plausible grounds for the production of the correspondence for which he moved. It was not enough to say that such correspondence must be known by this man's child, or that man's servant; the real question was, whether that correspondence was of a nature that was proper to lay before parliament. It was not until near the conclusion of the speech of the noble lord, that he heard him say something about restoring tranquillity in India, retrenching unnecessary expenditure, and savings in the finances; and therefore he should direct the principal part of his answer to what he conceived to be the most serious part of the speech, that which relates to the recall of sir G. Barlow. Without discussing the reasons which induced his majesty's ministers to recommend the recall of sir G. Barlow, he must state, that he was much surprized at the only remedy which the noble lord proposed for what he complained of, and which was merely that sir G. Barlow should be continued six mouths longer. What could be the reason for this recommendation? When in the course of the six months he should do what the noble lord said it was impossible for him to do; when he should have remained so much longer under those difficulties, which (as was stated must completely weigh him down, then the noble lord himself would be ready to acquiesce in Ins recall. The noble lord had insinuated that there was some intemperance in the letters from his majesty's ministers upon this subject. This was a charge, however, which he must utterly. deny. He did not know on what grounds the noble viscount could presume to impute, that the object of his majesty's ministers, in advising the mead of sir G. Barlow, was merely dictated by the wish to extend their
958
patronage. If there was any fixed principle which his majesty's ministers felt should for ever govern their conduct with respect to India, it was this: that between his majesty's ministers and the court of directors there should be a spirit of mutual conciliation and co-operation, that each should endeavour to understand the other, and that they should act together for one common object, the good of the countries which were committed to their government. Nothing could so much tend to break this harmony, as to bring forward, for parliamentary discussion, the various correspondence which passed between them. The noble viscount had supposed a case of the court of directors and board of controul acting at cross purposes, and only impeding one another. This was certainly a possible case, but it was by no means a probable one. As for those mutual checks and controuls, the history and the analogy of the constitution of this country proved that they might subsist without at all impeding public business. The constitution of the country was altogether a system of checks and balances, and yet it was found that those mutual checks contributed materially to the benefit of the empire; and, from the same analogy, he would infer, that it might also be beneficial to the system of the government of India. This was, perhaps, the first time in the history of parliament, that ministers were called upon to assign a reason why they advised the recall of one individual, or the appointment of manlier. It was strictly parliamentary when the general conduct of ministers was such as parliament disapproved of, to address his majesty for their removal; but it was quite unusual to call upon ministers for their reasons for every separate appointment which they had advised. During the 22 years which had elapsed since the passing of the act, the noble lord certainly could adduce no precedent of a similar correspondence being laid before parliament. If the house would call to their recollection all that had passed during those 22 years, they might be surprized that the charge of grasping at Indian patronage should have come from that noble lord. For his own part, he always wished that those who were accused should be tried by the law itself, and not by any fanciful interpretations and constructions that could be put upon it by other people. In this instance he stood upon the law, and called upon their lordships to look at the law as it now stood. If the law in stating one thing

959
meant another, the country would have a right to complain of that legislature that would enact such laws. Those whose business it was to carry the laws into execution might also complain of the legislature for leading them into error by fraudulent prevarication. The law however (as he contended), must be construed by the plain meaning, and the expressions that were found in it. The noble lord himself must admit, that the law gave a power of recall, and he could hardly deny that wherever there was a right there was also a duty. If at a future time ministers should be arraigned before that house for a neglect of their duty, it would be a very weak defence to say, that the reason they neglected their duty was because they had taken the noble lord's construction of a very plain law, and had misunderstood the obvious meaning of it. He had been appealed to personally, as to his recollection of the intention of the legislature in passing the act; he should therefore declare most solemnly, that it was as clearly in his recollection. as if the transaction was but of yesterday, that it was certainly intended that his majesty's ministers should have the power of recall at their own discretion. He recollected even the arguments which were urged in the discussion of the bill of 1784, and he recollected that those who opposed it, took precisely the grounds that the noble lord now rested upon, and said, that the power of recall might virtually give ministers the patronage of India. It was answered then, as it might be answered now, that it never could be contended, that because the crown has the power of negativing an act of parliament, that therefore it could direct the legislature; and by a parity of reasoning, it might with respect to India, have the power of negativing an appointment, it did not follow that the whole of the appointments must necessarily fall under the controul of his majesty's ministers. If the noble viscount could shew that this power had been exercised merely for the purpose of procuring the appointment of a person whom they wished to appoint, it would certainly be a violation of the law. The noble lord must, however, recollect, that from the passing of the act in 1784, to the year 1801, there had not been a single governor-general appointed either to Bengal or Madras, that had not been recommended by himself to the directors. If therefore the same system of recommenda-
960
tion should have been continued from the year 1801 to the present time, it would appear that the noble lord should be the last to shew any surprise upon the subject. The noble lord had undertaken to prophesy, that whatever might be the exalted character of the person whom his majesty's ministers should think proper to recommend, however disposed the directors might be to acquiesce in his choice, still the servants of the company would be so disgusted as to make his situation painful and disagreeable. His majesty's ministers had recommended two noblemen of the highest rank and talents for the government (lords Lauderdale and Minto). He hoped the circumstances of their rank and talents would not be urged as an objection to either of them; but when he heard the noble viscount talk of the prejudice of sending men of rank to India in the situation of governors-general, he could not forbear asking, if the affairs of India did not go on well when lords Cornwallis, Wellesley, Powis, sir A. Hamilton, and many other persons of consequence, none of whom were servants of the company, were employed in the government? He believed there had been many persons of distinguished merit in India, who had not been recommended by the noble viscount, and who could not claim the honour or the recommendation of being his personal relation. If the correspondence that was now moved for should be granted, it would destroy all the confidence and harmony which ought to subsist between the board of controul and the court of directors. The late administration had appointed sir G. Barlow as successor of marquis Wellesley, and almost immediately superseded him for marquis Cornwallis, who was a man of that high rank that the noble viscount now appeared to think ought not to be employed. Lord Cornwallis, however, although he possessed every other quality, wanted the essential qualities of youth and health. It was generally supposed in London that he never could bear the voyage to India, or that if he did arrive there, he would survive it but a very short time: although that was the prevailing opinion, yet the ministers at that time were so remiss upon the subject, that they made no provision for the event which had happened, and what might have been expected to happen. It was from this criminal neglect in the preceding administration that his majesty's present ministers were informed, only 24 hours after kis-

961
sing his majesty's hand on their appointment, that marquis Cornwallis was dead and that by neglect of their predecessors, no governor general existed in India. It could not be expected of the present administration that in the first twenty-four hours, after they were in office, they could find a proper successor for lord Cornwallis and obtain the assent of the court of directors. Neither could it be expected, that in the first twenty-four hours they were to be perfectly acquainted with the talents of sir G. Barlow or his fitness for the situation of governor general Their first idea was, to give him the full powers of governor general, in order to compleat the negotiations he had then in hand. They therefore recommended it to the court of directors to give him the necessary powers, but they never thought of this appointment as being any thing more than a mere temporary appointment. It appeared, however, that what the noble lord called ten days, or ten little, days was in fact a period of near three months. He certainly had no personal prejudice against sir G. Barlow: that honourable baronet had anxiously and zealously cooperated in the measures of lord Wellesley, whose government was, in. his opinion the most splendid and glorious administration which India ever knew. He had such a high opinion of the splendid abilities, the unshaken integrity, and the ardour of mind in the public service which was always manifested by lord Wellesley, that it would be to him a great recommendation of sir. G. Barlow to say, that he co-operated zealously in the measures and in the system of marquis Wellesley, whose conduct he so much admired. As his conduct was now under discussion, he did not wish to add more upon the subject. The court of directors had formed one opinion, he had formed another diametrically opposite. He should not dispute with them the exercise of their judgment, and he hoped no one would refuse him the exercise of his own: time would shew whose opinion on this subject was the justest. As to the production of the correspondence moved for, he trusted the house would see that it was highly improper. Although, to follow the analogy of the British constitution, the lords and the commons were a mutual check to each other, yet it was found that they always
962
drew well for the public interest. He trusted that it would be the same way between the board of controul and the board of directors. If the private reasons and personal objections which made ministers refuse the appointment of any individual were to be made a matter of public discussion, no persons would be found to take the situation of ministers. There might be many reasons why, without any crime being imputable to an in-individual, ministers might suppose him unfit to be trusted with the interests of millions. If, however, in every individual case, ministers were obliged to tell each individual to his face the personal objections they had to him, or if (which, would come to the same thing) their correspondence upon this subject was to be laid before parliament, the situation of ministers would be intolerable to any one who possessed the common feelings of a man. On these grounds he must object to the pro duction of the correspondence moved for.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, that if any public inconvenience were stated as likely to result from the production of the correspondence moved for, that would be a sufficient reason for negativing the production. If, on the contrary, no public inconvenience were stated, and any advantage to the public were likely to result from the production, he did not think those motives of private feeling entitled to so much weight. He agreed that the person who brought forward any motion for papers, was obliged to make out a prima facie case, at least, to support his motion. Such a case appeared to him to have been made out in the present instance. There was upon the face of the transaction sonic ground of blame, unless ministers could shew that they had good reason for advising the recall of sir G. Barlow. As to the act of parliament, he did not see that there could be much difference of opinion. There was no doubt that the act gave ministers the power of recalling a governor-general, and the only question was, whether they had not made a wanton and capricious use of their power. He was perfectly ready to admit, that by the bill there was a discretionary power vested in the government. The question was not as to the right, but whether it has been soundly or unsoundly exercised. It would be proper to enquire a little into the state of India

963
Upon the decease of marquis Cornwallis, the government devolved upon sir G. Barlow. He had frequent communications with that noble lord previous to his departure for India, and considering his advanced time of life, he never knew a man more likely to live, or against whose decease it was so little necessary to take More than ordinary precaution. Such was the opinion of the friends who had last seen him at Portsmouth. His astonishment was of course great when he heard of his decease, and considering all the circumstances of the case, it was his opinion, that no person could have been more proper to succeed him than sir G. Barlow. He would not, at the same time, say that it might not be right, in the first instance, to send out a person of rank in preference to a company's servant. Sir G. Barlow's being a company's servant was neither for nor against his appointment; but he would maintain, that if inflexible integrity, if the greatest capacity for and attention to business, if the utmost devotion to the interests of the company deserved that preference, no one could be better entitled to it than that gentleman; and, what perhaps Would be of no little weight, he had the entire confidence of the noble person he succeeded. It was for these reasons that he thought it would be wiser in government to appoint sir G. Barlow, but still he would not blame them for exercising that right. What was the situation of sir G. Barlow? Engaged as he was in critical negotiations, invested With great authority, and afterwards recalled, what impressions might not tin public receive from such an act? One of two things should have been done. Either sir G. Barlow should not have been appointed, or he should have been continued. He did not suppose that an appointment likely to be attended with such important consequences had been made upon private grounds, but he wished that the noble baron had condescended to explain the public reasons for it. It had been said there had been no instance of such a motion as the present, but had there been an instance of such a proceeding as that which gave rise to it? His lordship concluded with expressing his opinion, that under all the circumstances of the case no person should have been appointed to supersede sir G. Barlow in the government of India.
Lord Mintoadmitted, that if the papers
964
moved for were matters of course, no objection ought to be made to the production of them. But as that was not the case, and no distinct ground had been made out, their lordships, he was convinced, would not agree to the motion. The powers of the governor and council were in as full force at present as ever in India. The principle of the noble lords opposite that because a successor was to be appointed to sir G. Barlow, a cessation of government, and anarchy would ensue in India, went too far. It would equally apply to all changes of the government of India. No such effect could happen where there was no change of sovereign, but a transfer of power from one individual to another, both subject to the same sovereign, and governed by the same laws. A governor general may die or resign, without notice to his superiors, and yet no such consequences would be apprehended. The supposition was a fallacy. As to the warrant, it undoubtedly had not been sent out, yet he was ready to meet the responsibility for having detained it. The act gave a power to retain the warrant in such cases, till the most convenient time for sending it out, with a view to the public interests; as no ground whatever had been laid for the motion, he should oppose it.
Lord Eldonwas of opinion, that the communication of the warrant of recal to the governor general was sufficient to supersede his powers, and looked upon that clause in the act which required the publication of the warrant in the Calcutta Gazette as unnecessary. He contended however, that, according to the true intent and construction of the act, the warrant ought not to have been detained in this country, after a convenient time for transmitting it to India, when executed by his majesty. He thought, therefore, that the appointment in this instance ought not to pass without inquiry.
The Earl of Buckinghamshirecontended, that if ever the principle, that no servant of the company should be appointed governor general, had been acted upon, it was by the noble viscount himself (lord Melville). That noble lord might not have promulgated that doctrine; but all his recommendations, whilst he presided over the affairs of India, proved that to be his impression. In the appointment of Marquis Wellesley, the noble viscount had done well for the public service, who-

965
ever might be injured by it. The noble viscount would not in that instance suffer a servant of the company to hold the government even for a few months, but sent a commission to the commander in chief to take the office upon him till the arrival of marquis Wellesley. The same course had been pursued by sending a commission to general Harris to take provisionally the government of Madras, when he had been superseded. If the noble viscount had not promulgated this doctrine, these acts were strong indications of it. He should not have said a word on the subject, but that he wished the poison of the noble lord's speech to be accompanied with the antidote.
Lord Melvillein justification of his conduct in the several instances alluded to, stated the motives by which he had been actuated. He had never laid it down as a rule, that the servants of the company were not proper persons to be appointed to the government general. Neither had he asserted that they ought exclusively to be appointed to that high office. His conduct spewed that neither had been his rule of action. Whoever should be appointed, ought to be a person of character and of abilities to fill the important office. He had argued with a view to a rumour which had gone abroad that the objection to sir G. Barlow was, his having been a servant to the company. He should say, however, that the suspicions he had entertained on the subject had not been weakened by any thing he had heard in that debate. If the papers should be granted, and they should confirm those suspicions, he intended to found upon them an ulterior proceeding.
Lord Ellenboroughcould not sit silent when he heard an objection started which he did not expect to be repeated. The warrant could have no effect till communicated to the party; and he agreed with the learned lord (Eldon), that the clause for publication at Calcutta was nugatory. That the communication gave legal effect to the warrant, would appear in the instance of the judges in the event of the demise of the crown. He might on such an event be in the discharge of his duty in an extreme part of the country, and if his commission could be vacated without communication, any exercise of his power after such demise, in ordering a man convicted of a capital offence for execution,
966
would be murder at common law. It was the duty of the persons who advised his majesty to issue the warrant, to communicate it to the court of directors in eight days, in order that they might fill up that appointment. But it was not their duty, nor had it ever been intended, that they should send out the warrant as rapidly as possible. The case of the appointment of a lord lieutenant of Ireland was an ilustration of this principle. In the stance of the intended recal of one lord lieutenant, his successor was, to be the bearer of the warrant, which he after kept with him many mouths in this country, until it suited his convenience to proceed to his government. If his noble friend had kept the warrant back longer than was necessary for the convenience of public business, he would allow it to be censurable, but he contended that the contrary was the case.
Lord Redesdalecontended, that there was an essential difference between the warrant of recal of a lord lieutenant of Ireland, and of a governor general. The former was to have effect only upon the arrival of the new lord lieutenant in Ireland, whereas the latter was to have an immediate effect. It was an improvident discretion therefore, on the part of his majesty's ministers, to retain the warrant in trust, and he maintained that it had been kept only with a view to constrain the court of directors to choose another governor general and council.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his surprise at the violent strain that had been adopted. The former objection was, that an interregnum existed, the present objection lay against the means that had been resorted to to prevent that interregnum. The construction put upon the statute by the noble lords who supported the motion, instead of tending to the security of our distant government, seemed only to perplex mens' minds, and was founded on a quibble. The king had unquestionably the power of recalling a governor general; but the appointment was vested for good purposes, in tie great corporation. The warrant of recal was to be communicated to the court of directors in eight days, and here was an interregnum without any objection being made to it. The directors had two months to appoint another, a space of interregnum to which no objection was

967
mode; and yet the government in that case must be contemplating the event of the appointment of a successor. It was most desirable that the governor going out should carry with him the order for the meal of the former one. He had attended to the noble viscount throughout, and thought that he nibbled at the prerogative given to his majesty by the act. In judging of the meaning of the act, it ought to be collected from its obvious import, and not by substituting legal conundrums and quibbles for the fair construction of the act. To understand the act, the noble and learned lord should consider the spirit of it; to look at the time when his majesty got the prerogative, and at the time when he had it not; to regard the resolution of the house of commons upon which it was founded. It was rather too late to read such lectures in that house. His majesty's advisers were undoubtedly responsible for the exercise of this prerogative as well as every other. But it did not follow, because they thought fit to advise his majesty to remove any officer, suppose to take the seals from him, that they ought to lay the grounds upon which they acted before that house, or that the house could call for them. Many things had been stated in the course of the night of a dangerous tendency. In drawing the character of sir G. Barlow, the noble lord had stated, that he yielded to marquis Cornwallis, but that he might not be so well disposed in the present instance. This went the length of establishing the principle, that the governors of distant provinces might raise a rebellion, if they should not approve of their successors. The distant possessions were the mortal part of every power; and in these times, when so many thrones, and states, and powers, had passed away, it was dangerous to countenance such doctrines.
Lord Eldonobserved in reply, that there would have been no difficulty in framing the warrant so as to avoid the inconvenience of an interregnum. If an illegal assumption of power was to be denominated from the woolsack a conundrum or quibble, he should feel it incumbent on himself to bring that principle to some specific form before the house.—The. question being put, the motions made by the noble viscount were rejected without a division.