Sitting of 20 June 1806

MINUTES.
The Assessed Tax bill, the Irish Mine bill, the Duke of Grafton's Agreement bill,the Prussian Yarn bill, and the Gibraltar and Malta Postage bill, were read a third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.—Lord Temple moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the American Intercourse bill. The house accordingly resolved itself into a committee on the bill, when the amendments proposed on a former night by Mr. Prinsep were adopted, and the bill ordered to be reported to-morrow.—Lord H. Petty moved, that there he laid before the house a copy of the Report of the Comptroller of Army Accounts, with respect to the mode in which the accounts of Mr. Trotter were made up, together with a copy of the Minute of the Board of Treasury thereon; also of two Minutes of the Board of Treasury on the Accounts of Mr. Pierce, Army Clothier for troops on the Continent.—Ordered.

AFFAIRS OF IND1A—MOTION FOR PRINTING THE FIRST CHARGE.
Mr. Paullmoved that the first article of charge against marquis Wellesley be printed. The printing of this article had formerly been discharged, in consequence of the evidence not being before the house. It was now, in a great measure, produced, and he ap-

781
prehended the objection on this head could not be supposed longer to exist.
Sir A. Wellesleyopposed the motion, and observed, that it was pretty extraordinary the hon. gent. should now move for printing this charge, which 3 months ago the house had by its vote, ordered to be printed, and afterwards reseinded that vote. The printing at that time, when there was a prospect that the charge might have been. taken into consideration in the course of this session, would have been perfectly fair and reasonable, compared with such a measure at this late period of the session, when there was no probability this subject could be taken into consideration, and when the charge, if printed, would not be for the consideration of the members, but for the purpose of going forth to the whole country, as one of the most heavy and criminal charges against his noble relation that ever had been brought against any man in a public situation; when afterwards it would depend entirely upon the discretion of the hon. gent. whether he should move the house to take it into consideration next session or not. He objected to the motion also in point of order, as the hon. gent. had not given any previous notice of such a motion.
Mr. Paulldid not conceive himself under any necessity of giving such previous notice by the rules and orders of the house, and persisted in his motion. He disclaimed any such motive as that imputed to him by the hon. relative of the noble lord, and said, that he moved for the printing now, because it would be impossible to understand the subject with a view to its consideration, unless members were enabled to compare the evidence since laid on the table with the several particulars of the charge, in order to see how the charge was supported.
The Speakerstated that the practice of the house required a notice every case where opposition to the motion was likely to be made.
Lord Folkestonedid not look upon the practice of giving notices as an established practice. It certainly was not uniformly enforced. He wished the point to be settled.
The Speakersaid he had no difficulty in stating, that every annual and ordinary motion of course, also every new motion, where the person at the head of the department to which it applied was present, and did not object, might be made without no-
782
tice. In all others he conceived, though he was ready to be instructed otherwise by the house, notice of a motion was necessary.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that when this practice began first to prevail, he foresaw the difficulties that would result from it, According to the old rules of parliament, any member was competent to make what motion he pleased, and it could not be withdrawn, if seconded, without the leave of the house. Notices, therefore, were mere matter of agreement; but in this instance, as the motion was objected to, he hoped it would be withdrawn.
Mr.Rosesaid, though there was no standing order to the effect, he wished the practice to continue as laid down by the Speaker.
Mr. Windhamstated the ancient usage of parliament to be, that motions might be offered without any notice. This usage was even now often applied with advantage. The recent practice, founded upon general convenience, was, certainly, that notice should be given. He was unwilling that any general unqualified rule should be established; but that every case should be left to the sense of the house on its own individual merits.
Lord Folkestoneobserved, that the rule was far from being uniformly observed; for, in a late instance, the house allowed the foreign secretary of state (Mr. Fox) to pass, at the hour of 12 o'clock at night, so important a thing as a Vote of Approbation for the conduct of earl St. Vincent, while at the head of the board of admiralty, without any previous notice.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that the vote passed in favour of earl St. Vincent, at midnight, and without any previous notice, was a singular and Unprecedented proceeding; and was entering more at large into that subject, when he was interrupted by
The Speaker,who observed, that it was neither orderly nor convenient to take this opportunity a entering into the discussion of a former motion.
Mr. Paullsaid, that as there were many instances of motions without notice, he thought his would pass as a matter of course; but having been opposed, he would beg leave to withdraw it, and give notice that he should renew the motion on Tuesday next; which was agreed to.—He next observed, that one of time witnesses necessary to this impeachment (sir J. Craig) was ill, and unable to attend at the bar of the

783
house. He, therefore, conformably to precedents, moved that a committee be appointed to examine him, to draw up questions, and report his answers to the house, which was agreed to, and Mr. Paull, sir A. Wellesley, and Mr. Hobhouse were appointed to be the committee.

AFFAIRS or INDIA—OUDE CHARGE.
Mr. Paullmoved the order of the day for the house resolving itself into a committee for the further consideration of the Oude Charge against marquis Wellesley.
Lord Folkestonebefore the house should resolve itself into a committee, wished to call the consideration of the house to a subject which strongly affected his own mind. He thought, that from the great extent of the evidence on both sides, upon those several charges, it would be utterly impossible for members to have sufficiently considered the nature a that evidence, to enable them to come to a deliberate decision upon those charges in the present session. He was of opinion, therefore, that the best way to proceed would be to have the evidence fully gone through in the present session, and that all the documents adduced on both sides should be printed for the use of the members, who, in the course of the recess, would have an opportunity of considering and weighing the testimony maturely, and -might come the better prepared, on the meeting of the ensuing session, to give a clear, deliberate, and decided vote on the subject. The hon. gent. who brought forward the charge would be greatly injured by a premature decision of the case. The noble lord would only have the disagreeable feeling of a charge having been made against him which had not been decided, a situation to which all persons in high situations must be aware that they were exposed. But he could not see what injury he could thereby sustain. Every person who read the one part of the evidence would have the curiosity to read the other also; and so no more injury would really be sustained than where the public, even after a decision, were entitled to read the evidence on both sides, and to form their own conclusions.
Mr. Paullsaid, that it would be highly conducive to his own ease, quiet and convenience, that the present charge should be determined during the present session. He, however, declared that he conceived himself as having come under no pledge to conclude the charge during the present session, if the evidence should not have been completely and fully gone through. He was conscious that he had proceeded with a de-
784
gree of rapidity unexampled in the annals of parliament, of course it could not be imputed to him as blame if the noble marquis found himself placed in an unpleasant situation. He confessed that one of the charges was of a very serious nature, being no less than that of murder. He held in his hand however, a copy of one of the charges against Mr. Hastings, containing an unqualified allegation of a foul and atrocious murder against several gentlemen, and among others against Mr. Hastings. Yet that charge was allowed to lie on the table two years before it was gone into. There all the talents, probably great part of the integrity of the country, were friendly to and carried on the prosecution. Here, though he acknowledged, and should recollect with gratitude to the latest moment of his life, the assistance and countenance he had received from the noble lord (Folkestone) and other members of that house, the load of preparing the charges. and of maturing the evidence in support of them, had, in a great measure, if not altogether, devolved on him. If he had to receive blame on any account, it was for having given advantages against himself. It was not to him but to the noble lord near him (lord Temple) that the delay was imputable, of not having brought the present charge forward upon the 10th instead of the 18th inst. and when the noble lord had mentioned his own intention to bring it forward on the 18th, with a view, as he understood him, to a final decision on that day, feeling, as he did, that such a decision would be impossible on a fair consideration of the whole body of evidence he had to produce, he had declared that he would take no part in the proceeding of the noble lord, and that he never would, until the whole of the documents for which he moved upon each particular charge were laid upon the table, move one inch to the right or left, slower or quicker than suited the perfect convenience of his purpose. But as the consideration of a charge so very important, in houses so very thinly attended, was utterly inconsistent with any possibility of due deliberation, he should probably feel it to be his duty, late as it was in the session, to move for a call of the house, in order to enforce an attendance, as consistent with the decorum of parliamentary proceeding, as with the essence of parliamentary justice. The three charges he had brought forward were undoubtedly charges of very great importance; but there was a fourth charge, not yet brought forward, still more important, and which he could not well bring forward

785
before next sessions, namely that of the ex-Pulsion of the Rajah of Sassni, from his territories. He concluded by repeating his most earnest eager wish for as speedy a decision upon the whole of the charges as was consistent with the due ends of justice.
Lord Templedisclaimed having ever expressed a wish or an intention to press the house to a final decision on the subject on any given day.
Here the conversation ended, and the house resolved itself into a committee, and proceeded to the examination of evidence.—Mr. Hobhouse then took the chair, and Mr. Cowper was called in, and examined at the bar on the Oude Charge. It appeared that Mr. Cowper was a member of the supreme council at Bengal, during the years 1798, 1799, and 1800, and the fact sought to be made out from his examination was, how far it consisted with his knowledge that the marquis Wellesley had endeavoured to obtain the entire possession of Oude, and failing in that attempt had contented himself with the half of that territory, in lieu of the sum of money payable by the nabob to the company. Similar objections to questions put for the purpose of learning the witness's construction of the treaty between the nabob the company, as those made toe preceding day, were again urged, and the questions withdrawn. Lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Paull, and Col. Wood, however, maintained that the witness being a member of the council, and one of the parties to the treaty, he must of all others he best qualified to give an opinion as to the fair construction to be put on it. Mr. Hurst asked the witness whether the line of conduct pursued by the marquis of Wellesicy was not, on the whole, calculated to promote the British interests in India, and to protect the dominions of the Nabob of Oude? Witness answered 'In the highest degree.—Sir T. Metcalfe asked whether any other governor the witness had heard of, had more frequently or more confidentially consulted the opinion of the government council than the marquis of Wellesley? The witness answered in the negative. Some further interrogatories were put by Mr. W. Keene, Mr. Paull, and sir W. Young, when the witness withdrew.
Mr. Hurstobserved that it was a fundamental principle of the law of that the accused should be presumed innocent until actually found guilty. Therefore he should feel himself warranted in stating that the noble marquis who seas the object of this accusation was innocent, and indeed
786
So far as the evidence. had yet gone nothing but his innocence had appeared. But as it was the object of the accuser to establish the guilt of the accused, he would suggest to him the necessity of bringing forward some evidence congenial to his views. This suggestion he thought it his duty to offer merely for the sake of regularity, without having the honour to know either the honourable member who brought forward the accusation, or the noble defendant.
Mr. Paullmaintained that that part of the charge which he had submitted to the house relative to the noble lord's having declined to resort to the advice of his council upon matters of great public importance as his duty prescribed, was fully proved by the evidence even of the last witness.
Mr. Rileywas called in and examined. His statements for the most part went to show that, in the district where he was magistrate, which appeared to be in the ceded provinces, the Zemindars and principle inhabitants, who influenced the mass of the population, were inimical to the British government, in consequence of the introduction of certain regulations, and that they were ripe for revolt. The presence of troops was necessary for the collection of the revenue.—Mr. Beresford, after the witness had been ordered to withdraw, said, that had he not been disinclined to interrupt the business, he would have objected to such questions being put, as they would give information to the enemy.
Major Ouesleywas then examined: he had long resided at Lucknow, and was in the habits of intimate acquaintance with the present nabob, in whose employment he is at present. As to his general character he stated, that he was a man of dignified. manners, and very princely deportment; that he was well versed in all the literature of the East, and was possessed of an excellent taste in architecture and other arts; and that in private life he was social, and fond of horses, of hunting, and of all field amusements. Notwithstanding the intimate acquaintance that the witness had with him, he never saw any great depression of spirits in him on account of the changes introduced by marquis Wellesley. His cavalcade was not quite so great as that of his predecessor, but it was better appointed. He had now in his stables about 3000 of the finest horses, including about 130 Arabian saddle-horses. He had about 1300 elephants, and in all the other expenses of his state he was more sumptuous than before; he went to

787
more expence in building palaces, and furnishing them; and upon the whole, according to his opinion, had had no reason to be dissatisfied with the change. He had, it was true, changed his turban for a while, and suffered his beard to grow, which in that country was considered as a sign of affliction; but since that time he had appeared perfectly reconciled. When Holkar inveded the Dooab he advanced ten lacks of rupees, (About 100.000l.)of his own free will, to enable lord Lake's army to march against him; and there was no less than 400,000l. collected at Lucknow for the same purpose. As to the police that subsisted formerly at Oude, nothing could be worse. It was true, there were but few executions by law, but then it was equally certain, that there was no security either for property or life. The country wasinfected with banditti, who plundered or murdered those who were not well guarded. As an instance of this, he mentioned Mr. Metcalf, who, having gone on a hunting party from his house, was attacked and maimed by some of those banditti, although he had all the necessary Mabratta passports about him. The nabob himself requested marquis Wellesley to suggest to him some improvement in the police and government et his country; to which the marquis replied,that he would first try, as experiments, on the ceded provinces, what he thought would be adviseable, and that if they answered there, the nabob could adopt them with greater confidence. The tendency of the remainder of the testimony of this witness was to exculpate the noble marquis from the matters charged against him.—Some questions were put to him, which he declined answering, on account of the violation that it appeared to him that this would be of private friendship and confidence. Some of the questions were then withdrawn.—Upon the examination as to the charge of the marquis having kept all Europeans from advising with the nabob during the negotiations, the witness was asked, had not the marquis accused Mr. Treves of advising the nabob contrary to the interests of the company? The witness objected on the ground that the answer might implicate the character of Mr. Treves, who was then out of England, and in the service of the company. This objection was, however, at length, over-ruled; and upon the witness being again asked the question, he submitted another objection, namely, thin he had no sort of knowledge except from confidential letters from friends, which he hoped the house would
788
not urge him to disclose.—A long debate took place in the committee respecting this objection and upon the motion of Mr. Johnstone, it was ordered that the gallery should be cleared. Strangers were not again admitted; hut after some further examination of major Ouseley, and of Mr. Johnstone, the chairman had leave to report progress, and to sit again.—At two o'clock on Saturday morning the house adjourned to Monday.

TORTOLA FREE PORT BILL.
Earl Spencermoved the second reading of the Tortola Free Port bill.
The Duke of Montroseexpressed his regret at the thin attendance of their lord-ships on a question which he conceived to be one of the greatest importance. He was at a loss to conceive the reasons upon which the measure was founded. The present board of trade had acted in this instance diametrically opposite to the decision of the board of trade of last year. He had hoped that upon this question the noble lord at the head of the treasury would have attended, but understanding that noble lord was prevented from attending by a slight indisposition, he must request his noble friend (earl Spencer) to act as umpire upon this question between the two boards of trade. The principle upon which the board of trade of last year had acted was clearly

779
this, that in allowing the free importation from foreign islands into One of our own islands, of sugar and coffee, and those articles which our own islands produced, it was impossible afterwards to prevent the importation from thence into this country, of such foreign produce, upon the same terms as the produce of our islands, thereby materially injuring the interests of our own West India islands. This principle applied to the island of Tortola, from whence, if foreign sugar was to be allowed to be imported thither, all the ingenuity of man could not afterwards. prevent the ingenuity of man from finding means to import that sugar into this Country, under the pretence of its being sugar of the growth of our own islands. The establishment of a free port, according to the provisions of this bill, in the island of Tortola, was therefore, in his opinion, a measure highly impolitic, and a measure which he thought the noble lord at the head of the board of trade could only have been induced to bring forward by the representations of the very ingenious agent of that island. He thought, therefore, that the consideration of the bill had better be postponed for the present session.
Lord Aucklanddefended the bill, which he considered a measure of sound policy. The object of it was to render Tortola a carrying island, and to take from St. Thomas's some part of the carrying trade in the possession of that island, in which a number of British shipping were employed. This was a measure which he conceived would therefore be beneficial to our commerce and our navigation, whilst, with respect to our West India trade, it would not be injured, nor did any of those persons concerned in that trade, or connected with West India interests, whom he was in the daily habit of seeing, make the least complaint, that any such injury was likely to result from it. As to the dangers Which the noble duke apprehended, there was an express provision in this bill for the purpose of preventing the importation into this country of foreign sugar, as there was a clause by which no more sugar was to be imported into this country from Tortola than the amount of the average annual produce of that island. This, therefore, negatived all those evil consequences apprehended by the noble duke. as it was not to be supposed that officers employed in the customs of Tortola would grant false documents, when, at the end of the year,
780
on making up the accounts, the fraud must necessarily be discovered, and those guilty of it lose their offices.
Lord Hawkesburysupported the arguments urged by the noble duke, and supposed that this measure must have come before the board of trade in the absence of the noble lord (Auckland) opposite, whose accurate knowledge upon the subject forbade the supposition that he had been present when the measure was discussed.
Earl Spencerobserved that, in his new office of umpire, conferred upon him by the noble duke, he had little difficulty in deciding, as he found that the present board of trade had, in this measure, only followed the example of the former board of trade, by whom an act similar to the present was brought forward, last session, for establishing a free port at Nassau, in the Bahamas. His lordship likewise supported the bill, on grounds similar to those urged by Lord Auckland.—The bill was then read a second time.