Sitting of 22 February 1808

MINUTES.
Col. Stanleybrought up the report of the Evesham Committee. The report stated that the sitting member, sir M. Lopez, bart. Was not duly elected; and ought not to have been returned; that the petioner,H. Howorth, esq. was duly elected. and ought to have been returned; and that the:Opposition of the said sir M. Lopez, bart. to the petition of the said H. Howorth, esq. was not frivolous or vexatious.

SALTASH RIGHT OF ELECTION.
Ordered, That Mr. Wharton do make the Report from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the Petition of James Buller, esq. Arthur Champernowne, esq. Matthew Russell, esq. the rev. John Buller, clerk, John Evans, gent. John Stephens Croft, and Isaac Toby, each of whom are seised of an entire ancient Burgage Tenement, situate Within the Borrough of Saltash, whereon an ancient Welling house now stands or formerly stood; and also of the Petition of W. Henry Fremantle and Tho. Francis Fremantle, esquires, respecting the Right of Election for the said borough.—.Mr. Wharton accordingly from the Said committee informed the:house, That 'the. said committee required the counsel for the several parties to deliver to the clerk of the said committee statements, in writing, of the Right of Election for which they respectively contened: That, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the Petitioners James Buller, esq. arthur Champernowne, esq.
692
Matthew Russell, the rev. John Buller, clerk, John Evans, gent. John Stephens Croft, and Isaac Toby, delivered in a statement as follows: 'The petitioners contend, that the Right of Election of members to serve in parliament for the borough of saltash, is in every Person seised of an estate for life, or some greater estate, in an entire ancient burgage tenement, situate in the borough aforesaid, whereon an ancient dwelling house now stands or formerly stood, and in no other persons.'—That the counsel for the petitioners W. Henry Fremantle and Tho. Francis Fremantle, esquires, delivered in a statement as follows: That the Right of Election for members to serve in parliament for the borough of Saltash is in the mayor and free burgesses of the said borough, being members of the corporation within the same, and in no other persons:' —That upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the petitioners, the said W. Henry Fremantle and Tho. Francis Fremantle, esquires, the said committee have determined; "That the Right of Eiection, as set forth in the said Statement, is not the right of election for the said borough of Saltash:" That upon the Statement delivered in by the counsel for the Petitioners James Duller, esq. and Others, the said committee have have determined; "That the Right of Election, as set forth in the said Statement, is the right of election for the said borough of Saltash, so far as. the said right is therein described:" That the said committee having duly Considered the said statements, and the evidence adduced before them, touching the right of election for the said borough of Saltash, have determined; "That the Right of voting for members to serve in parliament for the borouhgh of Saltash is in every person seised of an estate for life, some greater estate, in an entire antient burgage tenement, situate in the borough aforesaid, whereon an antient dwelling house now stands or formerly stood, and in no other persons." And the said determinations Were ordered to be entered in the Journals of the house.
PETITION FROM BOLTON FOR PEACE.) Col.Stanleypresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bolton in Lancaster, setting forth, "That the petitioners suffer great privations on account of the depressed state of the manufactures, whereby the price of labour is reduced in the most unprecedented degree, and thousands of the petitioners threatened with the want of

693
employment: that, in the judgment of the petitioners, the great suspension of commerce arises,chiefly from a want of the customary intercourse with the continent of Europe; and that the depressed reduction of trade reduces thousands of the petitioners to the most extreme distress: that Many useful enterprising and ingenious manufacturers, have been reduced from afluence to complete poverty, the consequence of which is, that number of the petitioners have been reduced to the absolute want of the necessaries of life for themselves and helpless offspring; and that the present situation of affairs still threatens the petitioners with additional sufferings to those they now experience: that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the present evils under which they so severely suffer, are owing to the continuation of the present war, which causes the extensive depression of foreign commerce, which the petitioners humbly presume can only be restored by the blessings of Peace: that the petitioners are not induced to petition the house on the subject of Peace from any dread of the enemy, but from a desire that no opportunity may be omitted to enter into negociations for that purpose; and that the petitioners, should the enemy, from ambitious motives, be induced to make demands inconsistent with our national honour and independence to grant, will ever feel it to be their duty, with one heart and mind, to think no sacrifices or privations too great when made for the honour and security of their king and country; and therefore praying, that the house would, in its great wisdom, recommend to his majesty, that no means be omitted, consistent with our national honour and security, for restoring to his faithful subjects the blessings of Peace."—On the motion, that the Petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Secretary Canning said,—"Sir, I do not rise to object to the motion, satisfied as I am of the propriety of the terms in which the petitioners have claimed the attention of the house to a subject so highly interesting to the whole country; although I cannot but, at the same time, feel that it is a subject which must always be in the contemplation of this house, and of those whose duty it is to advise his majesty. I trust, sir, 1 shall not be considered as deficient in feeling for the situation of the petitioners, if I express my sincere opinion and conviction, that even were peace to be the immediate cure of the evils
694
of which they.complain, the mode of obtaining that cure which they have adopted, must necessarily retard its acquisition. While I allow that it is perfectly natural for the petitioners, experiencing the privations which they do experience, to look eagerly to any remedy that appears to promise them relief, yet, on the part of those who ought to take a more extensive view of the subject, I must deprecate any accusation of hardness of heart, if they declare their firm opinion, that, should they be driven to a negociation under circumstances in which they must feel fettered and embarrassed, such would unquestionably not be the mode of obtaining the object prayed for by the petitioners; namely, a peace, consistent with the security and honour of the country. In expressing these sentiments, sir, I am speak those of my colleagues. We are anxious to avail ourselves of the best means to accomplish this desirable end. Our duty and our interest, unite to induce us, if possible, to obtain a peace consistent with the security and honour of the country. We have missed no fair opportunity for that purpose. Sir, I am anxious to repeat, that we feel most strongly the distress of that situation from which the petitioners, wish to be relieved; but we are bound to advise his majesty conscientiously to the best of our judgment, and we are satisfied that, by a premature negociation, or one commenced on any grounds but those of perfect equality and independence, not only would the object of the petitioners fail of being realized, but any subsequent hopes which they might be led to entertain would be disappointed, in a manner the most injurious to them, and to the country at large."—The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

TREATY WITH SWEDEN.
Mr. Ponsonbyobserved, that on the first day of the session he had noticed. a passage relating to Sweden, in the Speech of the lords commissioners, and having inquired of the right hon. secretary, whether by that passage it was implied, that the house should make good a subsidiary treaty with Sweden, the right hon. gent. had replied,-that he expected shortly to have his majesty's commands to lay on the table of that house, subsidiary treaty with Sweden. Above a month had elapsed, but no such treaty had been produced, although, it was rumoured, on what authority he knew not, that a considerable sum of money had actually been sent from G. Britain to that country. He

695
wished to know whether any money had been so transmitted? and if it had, whether it was under the conditions of a treaty subsisting prior to the observation in the speech, or in consequence of the conclusion of a more recent treaty?
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that the reason why the passage in his majesty's speech had not been followed up by the presentation of the treaty was simply this until within these few days there had been, no arrivals from the continent. No less than eight or ten Gottenburgh mails had become due. Within these few days, however, dispatches had been received from the British ambassador at Stockholm, stating that the Treaty with Sweden had been actually signed. His majesty's government were in daily expectation of receiving it, and within as short a period as possible after the arrival of the treaty, he should feel it to be his duty to bring it down to the house. It was unquestionably true, that a sum of money had been sent to Sweden, not in pursuance of any prior treaty concluded with that country, but in the contemplation of the treaty that had recently been signed.

EXPORTATION OE COTTON WOOL AND JESUITS BARK.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that he understood, by representations from various quarters, that it would be more acceptable to have a direct prohibition of the exportation of certain articles, the produce of neutral states as well as of this country, which it was intended to have prohibited by duty. The mode of prohibition under the Orders in Council was certainly generally intended to be that of imposing duties. However, as 'a direct prohibition of the exportation from this country of such articles as were produced by America as well as our own colonies appeared to be considered the preferable mode, he should adopt it. He would therefore, move for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the exportation of Cotton Wool and Jesuits Bark; with a proviso, however, that licences might be granted in certain cases for such exportation. As to the prohibition of the exportation of Bark, he was led to it by the information that the severest pressure was already felt on the continent from the want of that article. It was of great importance to the armies of the enemy, He understood that at Paris it had risen from 10 s. to 70 s. per pound, and that attempts had been made to procure it in spite of all obstacles. The object of the prohibition
696
in this instance was,. that it might ultimately be the means of introducing other articles into the continent. He moved, that the house should go-into a committee to consider of the prohibition of the exportation of Cotton Wool and Jesuit's Bark.—The Speaker left the chair. The resolutions were put and agreed to; the report received; and bills ordered.
[ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] The report of the Orders in Council bill was brought up.
Mr. Tierneyobjected to the bill on the ground of informality. This was a bill not only for imposing duties, but for the regulation of trade. But it was provided by a standing order of the house, founded upon that of 1703, that no bill for the regulation of trade should orginate, except in a committee of the whole house, called a Committee for the Protection of Trade and Navigation. That part of the bill which went to the regulation of trade, ought therefore, in his opinion, to have originated in such a committee. He had looked for precedents, and found one exactly its point in the Convoy Duty act. The course which had been pursued by the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Rose) in that instance was this —that part which was matter of commercial regulation was referred to a committee of trade; that which regarded the duties was referred to a committee of ways and means. The resolution of the ways and means was first reported and a bill ordered. The other resolution was then reported, and an instruction given to those appointed to bring in the Duties bill to make provision pursuant to that resolution. The present was a bill precisely of the same nature, and the same course ought to have been pursued. The right hon. gent. opposite (Foster) was to move resolutions of the same sort with respect to Ireland; and he would ask him, whether he would not feel it his duty to adopt the course which he had described?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that all that was required by the Standing Order of 1772, which had taken place of that of 1703, was that any regulation as to trade should originate in a committee of the whole house, and a committee of ways and means was such. But, besides this, there was a clear difference between the Convoy Duty act and the present bill. There the alteration in the trade was the work of the legislature: here it was the work of the king, and. to make the alteration, he contended the king was fully,

697
competent. All that the legislature had to do with it was to impose the duty, and for that the committee of ways and means was the proper place.
Mr. Tierneymentioned some of the clauses which went to make new regulations in trade, and touched incidentally upon the pernicious custom the house was getting into, of overlooking the principle of confining the ways and means within the limits of the supplies. The words of the Property Tax act placed the proceeds from time to time in the hands of ministers, so that they might have the supplies under that act without any committee of ways and means at all. The war-tax act placed some millions in the hands of ministers beyond the estimated supplies. On the principle he had stated, he strongly objected to the bill going forward without an estimate of the expected amount of the duties imposed. Returning to the essential ground of his objection, he said, that the king might regulate the mode in which ships were to come to England, but,he could not regulate the mode of their going out. There was also a clause for remitting forfeitures which could not be regulated by the crown. The bill, therefore, ought to be divided in order to proceed in the proper way.
Mr. Rose said,that there was a radical difference between the case of the Convoy. Duty bill and the present. There a distinct alteration in trade was made by the legislature, here it was made by the crown. The regulations in the bill were minute points, and it was customary in the committee of ways and means to allow such regulations as were not essential, in addition to the duties.
The Speaker stated,that it was customary in the committee of ways and means to interfere in regulations respecting trade, such as in the instance of the expiring laws. Though the committee of ways and means was the only place for duties, yet, since 1772, the house had been in the habit of admitting there of certain minute regulations, closely connected with these duties. Unless they were thus connected, the house would order a separate bill, originating in another committee. This was the principle, the house would apply it as it thought fit.
Mr. Tierney said,that the question was, whether the regulations in question were such as the. Speaker had said might he adopted in the committee of wags and means, along with. the duties?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admittedthat there was something in the argument respecting forfeitures. He would therefore not object to the dividing of the bill when it came to the committee.ߞThe report was then received, and the bill ordered to be re-committed on Wednesday; and, on the motion of Mr. Tierney, it was agreed, that there should be an instruction to the committee to divide the bill if it thought fit. He also gave notice, that he would then move for the reference of the matter of regulation to 4 committee of trade.

GREAT GRIMSBY ELECTION.
Mr. Hornerrose to move that the order for taking into consideration the Petition complaining of the undue election for the borough of Great Grimsby, should be discharged. The grounds upon which his motion rested were, that the standing order of the house had not been. complied with by the petitioner in the last session; that order requiring that the petitioner should give in a statement of his qualification within 15 days after notice to that effect had been served upon him, subsequent to the presenting his petition. Such notice had been given to the petitioner last session, but no qualification had been accordingly given in; and thus the qualification had, within the regular time after the renewal of the petition in the present session, been re, turned to the house, in the absence of any precedent, since the enactment of the Grenville act, that the house should be governed by the analogy of its practice, antecedent to the passing of that act, which would be fatal to the claim of the petitioner to be heard. He therefore moved that the order be discharged.
The Solicitor Generalstated, that he agreed with the learned gent. as to the practice of the house antecedent to the passing of the 10th of the king, the Grenville act. But he contended, since the enactment of that statute, which transferred all jurisdiction on matters of controverted election from the house to. the committees chosen under it, it was not competent to time house to discharge any order for a committee to determine the merits of; an election, in any other manner than as prescribed by the act. The whole jurisdiction rested with the committee, which alone was to decide upon the question specting the qualification, and therefore the house could not have power to discharge the order pursuant to the motion of the hon. gent—After a few words from

699
Mr. Croker, the motion was negatived Without a division.

CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY.
Lord Folkestonemoved the order of the day for taking into consideration the papers; and on the question that they be now take into consideration,
Mr. Creeveyrose to give his negative to the proposition,. for two reasons: in the first place, because it was impossible for the house to come to a decision upon the conduct of the marquis Wellesley, without at the same time deciding upon the general question of Indian policy; and in the second place, because it was quite impossible that gentlemen could so have digested materials which would fill seven volumes, and which had been collected from the administration of that country, during a Period of 17 years, which had been moved for by different persons, and with different views, and which brought into comparison the administrations of lord Teignmouth and the marquis Cornwallis with that of the marquis Wellesley, as to be able to decide upon the merits of that complicated system with which the conduct and character of the last mentioned nobleman were inseparably interwoven. The papers were in such confusion that it was indispensibie that they should be arranged before they. could be perused, so as to convey the information necessary to enable the house to form a judgment upon the facts to which they related; and though he was pretty generally acquainted with them; he had not met with three gentlemen. who had read them. The course, therefore, which he would recommend was, that they should be referred to a committee. He did not care how that committee was formed. He had no objection that the three brothers of the noble marquis should be members of it, and it should be appointed exclusively by the hon. gentlemen on the treasury bench. As matters now stood, the house could not enter into a discussion of the question, because it was connected with a variety of others which required a detailed examination. The question before the house was the propriety of the treaty by which the Nabob of Oude was dethroned and stript of his,territory. But this was not a solitary instance of this species of policy. He had concluded many treaties of the same kind, and each was referred to in his instructions to his agents as a model for the other. They could not, therefore, decide upon one treaty without also tak-
700
ing into consideration the model upon; which it was formed. The justification of some of them was the perfidy of the prince who was dethroned; but would it be contended, that all the princes who had fallen the victims of his policy were equally perfidious? And if a general view was taken of the whole policy of his administration, what light, he would ask, was there to guide the house in forming its decision The hon. gent. quoted the opinion of the court of directors, as it was expressed in a printed dispatch that had been published, in which that court, while it expressed a high consideration for the talents of marq. Wellesley, condemned in the most pointed terms, the general tenor of his administration, as contrary to the existing laws, as an open defiance of the authority of the directors, and as an attempt, on his part, to convert the government of India into a simple despotism. In the same dispatch the profusion of his expenditure was censured, and the whole of his conduct to foreign powers reprobated, as a departure from those principles of moderation by which they were desirous that the governor-general should be actuated.—Here
The Chancellor of the Exchequercalled the hon. gent. to order, upon the ground that at the opening of a proceeding, instead of arguing upon matters of fact, he was bringing forward the opinions of those who were to be considered in the light of accusers.
Dr Laurenceon the other side, contended, that his hon. friend was completely in order, because in stating his objections to the proceeding, it was certainly competent for him to mention the grounds of those objections, and his reasons for thinking that a different course should bet adopted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted,that it was irregular to refer to opinions which were not before the house.
The Speakerthen decided, that if this parliament had refused the document which the hon. member was quoting, it would never consent to receive that indirectly. which it had directly refused. But if the, paper had not been refused by this parliament, he was of opinion that the honk gent, was perfectly in order when he made use of it in the course of his argument.
Mr. Creeveyproceeded to read another part of the dispatch, in which the system adopted by the marquis Wellesley, for extending the territory and increasing the revenues of the company, was reprobated

701
as unjust, illegal, and impolitic. He contended, that it would be extremely rash for the house, in the face of an opinion so decidedly pronounced by those who were the best judges of the subject, and with an unanimity almost unparalleled (this dispatch having been signed by 23 out of 24 Directors) to come to a decision with their present inadequate means of information, directly the reverse of this opinion, which would be the effect of a resolution of acquittal, passed in favour of marquis Wellesley. It ought to be considered, too, that the very circumstance of the marquis Cornwallis having been sent out to supersede marquis Wellesley, then in the prime of life, in the government of India, was a proof that a disapprobation of his conduct was not confined to the court of directors, but that government likewise participated in it. It had been said, that any farther delay would be extremely hard towards lord Wellesley. He admitted that it was hard upon lord Wellesley. But was there not a third party who likewise merited some consideration? Would it not be hard on the East India Company to be defrauded of their possessions, in consequnce of his mal-administration? or would it not be hard upon the country if, in consequence of his measures, its Indian dominions should be severed from it for ever? What he wished was, that this question should be examined as all other Indian questions had been examined. For if the noble marquis had, during his administration, furnished more materials for discussion than any other governor, it would scarcely be maintained that, on that account, a decision should be more speedily adopted. He thought that one of two expedients should be recurred- to, either that the house ought to follow the same course that had been pursued in 1772 and 1782, and that a committee ought in the first place to be appointed to make a compleat revision of the affairs of India, or that if lord Wellesley's conduct was to be discussed separately, that the evidence before them should be previously arranged by a select committee, so as to render it intelligible; which it was not in its present form. Were parliament to come to a decision upon the conduct of that noble person by this night's vote, he asserted it they would commit an act of injustice to the noble marquis,: and that it would be wanting in its duty both to and to the country; and proposing some farther delay, he fully expected the support of those gentle-
702
men who had not made themselves masters of the papers, Who; he was convinced, formed a large majority of the house.
Sir John Anstruthercalled the attention of the house to the present state of the proceedings. Three parliaments age, a charge had been brought against marquis Wellesley, by an hon. gent. (Mr. Paull) who was no longer a member of that house; all the evidence necessary for supporting the charge, had been moved for and granted; an inquiry had been challenged by the friends of the noble marquis, the charge originally brought forward had been abandoned, but upon the papers that had been produced, other accusations had been founded by a noble lord, and this night had been fixed for the house to pronounce upon the justice or injustice of these accusations. Nothing had been said of any deficiency of evidence, or of any confusion of papers, till about ten days ago He contended, that the delay now proposed, was neither more nor less than an attempt to arrest the course of justice, in as far as lord Wellesley was concerned, for the purpose of entering into a detailed examination of the affairs of India, and to blend two subjects which were totally different and distinct. The Dispatch which had been read, ought to have no more weight with the house, than the opinion 24 printers, and it Would have been only fair in the hon. gent. when he read it to the house, to have read also the Answer to it, which was made by the Board of Controul, whose opinion he thought was as valuable upon such a question as that of the Court of Directors. Upon the general merits of lord Wellesley's admintstration, he should be ready to meet either the hon. gent. or any other person, When they came to be discussed. At present, that question, was not before the house, and after the delay which had already taken place, he thought the house could not consent to postpone their decision upon the particular and personal charges, without committing an act of gross injustice to the noble and distinguished individual character was implicated in them.
Mr. Robert Thorntonprofessed his decided disapprobation most highly of many of the political measures of the noble marquis, at the same time he wished that the house should decide upon the charges that had been brought against him with dispatch as well as with as boldness. For this reason he was against the appointment of a committee, because that mode of pro-

703
ceeding would tend to postpone a decision which had already been too long delayed. He animadverted with severity upon the backwardness Which had been shewn by some gentlemen at a certain period, to prosecute the charges which they had pledged themselves to institute, and alluded particularly to the conduct of Mr. Sheridan, in declining, while in the last administration, to bring forward the Carnatic question, because he found that it would not be agreeable to some of his colleagues. His wish was, that the character of lord Wellesley should be either cleared by a Vote of the house, or that the censure should be passed upon him which his conduct had merited. He denied that the Directors of the East India Company appeared as the accusers of lord Wellesley, but the, along with many of his colleagues, had disapproved of many of his measures, and it was necessary, in their own defence, that they should state the grounds of this disapprobation.
Mr. S. Lushingtoncontended, that the only mode of doing justice either to marquis Wellesley, to the injured natives of India, or to the character of the British nation, was to institute a general inquiry into all the measures of the noble marquis's administration,
Mr. Hallthought that if the house had any sense of national justice, or any regard for its own character, it would not suffer any further delay to retard its final decision upon this question.
Mr.S. L. Lushingtonasserted that already British India had to lament the measures which had lately been adopted in this Country. The charge in the present instance he maintained was personal, and therefore ought to be decided without finger delay.
Lord A. Hamiltonwas of opinion, that as gentlemen were not Very forward to encounter the obloquy of taking up such charges, and the noble lord had undertaken this with such laudable attention, the business ought not to be taken out of his hands. If his hon. friend should hereafter propose a committee to inquire into the transactions in the Carnatic, or at Furruckabad, he would be ready to support him; but in the present instance he thought course proposed by his noble friend should not be rejected.
Mr. Grantwould have supported the motion for a committee, if that had been originally proposed; but as the noble lord had taken up the question with a view to
704
another course of proceeding, he was not prepared to resist it. He hoped the house would not judge of the conduct of the court of directors on an ex parte statement, but that their case, as well as that of the noble marquis, would be considered with reference to the whole of the circumstances.
Mr. Windhamrose, amidst a loud cry for the question. He said that he certainly should not be deterred from delivering his sentiments on this occasion by any such cry, more particularly as it was this importunity for the question which he was desirous to combat, and which he hoped to be able to do with somewhat better argument than mere clamour. He confessed, however, that he had little to say, on the present occasion, in addition to what he had stated on a former evening. The question now before the house was, whether it would come to a decision now upon a subject of the greatest magnitude and importance, or defer that decision till they were competent to judge of it? If it was asked, why the house was not competent to decide upon it now, he would leave it to every gentleman-to give an answer for himself. He believed, that not one in 20 members had read the papers, and if this was the case, it was a sufficient reply to all that had been said on the opposite side. He allowed that marquis Wellesley was a man of high rank, of considerable talents, and that his conduct had been arraigned e but none of these circumstances was sufficient to counterbalance the material consideration of the incapacity of the tribunal in its present state of information, to pass a decision upon the charges which had been brought against him. The accusations which had been lodged against him were what were incident to the lot of every great man. they were taxes which greatness and distinction had to pay, nor was the. noble marquis so destitute of friends, or so run down in the world, that they bore upon him with any peculiar degree of weight. On the contrary, if his conduct was arraigned it ought to be recollected that it was in the nature of that conduct to beget friends. He denied that there had been any unnecessary delay. It was not fair in calculating this to count the number of parliaments since the subject was first introduced to notice, for the present parliament was not supposed to be acquainted with the proceedings which had been instituted by any preceding parliament. And when

705
the period during which the present discussions had been pending was considered, it certainly did not afford any reason for such a complaint, when it was compared with the time that was occupied with the prosecution either of Mr. Hastings or lord Clive. But even supposing that there had been more delay than was necessary, this was no reason why the house ought to pass a premature and precipitate decision. It might be said, to be sure, that members might have carried the papers to the country with them during the recess, but since parliament met there had been such a press of other business as completely to occupy their time. But even if they were chargeable with remissness, that was no reason why they should now pass a judgment for which they were totally unprepared. In such circumstances, an acquittal would be no acquittal, and condemnation would be no more than condemnation. He had made himself so far master of the subject as to have formed an opinion very unfavourable certainly to many parts of the noble marquis's administration, but what he wished was, that some farther delay should be granted to those who had not made themselves masters of the subject. He concluded with deprecating a hasty decision upon a question in which the national character was most deeply involved. Were the house, by a vote this evening, to give its sanction to all the flagitious outrages which had been committed in India against the rights of independent princes, in violation of all the principles of justice, honour, and good faith, he was afraid that, in the estimation of the world, this country would stand chargeable with many of those crimes which we had reprobated so much in others, but of which we had in several recent instances, he was afraid, been too successful imitators.
Mr. B. Bathurstsaid, that if the house was unprepared to decide upon the question now, this want of preparation might be a good reason for adjourning the debate to some future day, but it did not appear to him that it furnished ground for instituting-a new proceeding. In proposing to appoint a select committee one or two objects must be in view, either that this committee should merely form an index to papers, or that it should enter into an investigation of the whole affairs of India, and report thereupon to the house. But, in either case, what security had they that those gentlemen who. had not read the
706
papers in their present state, would read them after they were arranged, or that they would read the report, which would probably be still more voluminous than the papers?
Sir T. Turtonexhorted the house not to hurry a proceeding of such great importance. This was not a case in Which a private person alone was interested. It affected the rights of a whole people, who had no tribunal but that house to whom to apply for justice. They had no friend but that house, and if it slighted the appeal now made, it forfeited its own character and honour, and the character and honour of the country. At all events, he trusted it was not meant to proceed to the consideration of the question to-night.
Sir S. Romillyadmitted that justice to the noble marquis required that no unnecessary delay should take place. Justice, however, could not be done to him, and, what was of still higher importance, to the national character. if the house came to a premature decision. A great deal had been said of the number of parliaments which had passed since the papers Were laid on the table; let it, however, be recollected, that there were many members in that house who had sat there for not more than seven months, not one of whom, of course, had heard a single word on the subject of these papers, which could enable them to form any idea as to the facts which they were meant to substantiate; and wet they were now called on to give a decision on evidence of which they did not know the bearing. This was said to be a question personal to the noble marquis, but still it-was no less a judicial question, and he had never yet heard of any proceeding by which a fair result of such a question could be obtained, unless those who were to judge of it, were previously acquainted with the facts charged, and the nature of the defence. Was there a man in that house prepared at the present moment to say, that he was ready to come to a right decision on the case? He had, with great inconvenience to himself, gone through a considerable part of these papers, and if obliged to come to his decision this night, he must give it against the noble marquis, though he did tot say, that in the mass of evidence before the house, there might not be evidence in the noble marquis's favour of which he was at present ignorant. He was of-opinion, that to send the evidence to committee to return a digested report of it to the house, would be the only means

707
of arriving at substantial justice. None,? he was convinced, ought to desire this so anxiously as the friends of the marquis, and nothing could be more unsatisfactory than a premature decision.
Sir A. Wellesleysaid, it was for the house to decide what mode of proceeding would best suit its own convenience and the ends of justice; but, he contended, that it had been always asked, and it was the only thing that was asked, on the part of the noble marquis, that the case should be brought to as speedy a decision, as a regard to justice and fair inquiry would allow. The propriety of this principle had been laid down and enforced by the highest authority on all sides of the house, and among others, by an hon. gent. now no more (Mr. Fox), whose opinion would weigh very much with the gentlemen on the other side. He did not suppose that every member had read the papers word for word: but he was satisfied there were very few who had not read them sufficiently to enable them to give a conscientious vote. All that he asked now, was what he had asked before, as speedy a decision as the house in its sense of justice could admit.
Lord Folkestone,thought the house was sufficiently in possession, at least of the main facts of the case, to come to a decision on the Oude question at once, without going into the general policy of the system of government in India, which he thought belonged more properly to the general consideration of the Finances of India, of which the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Dundas) had given notice, or the other general view of that part of the empire to he brought Forward by the hon. gent. below him (Mr. Creevey). It was e-their own fault if any gentlemen were unprepared to come to the decision
Sir. F Burdettthought it impossible to decide this night upon the merits of the case, when the minds of gentlemen were not made up as to the proper form of proceeding. He moved as an amendment to the motion, the insertion of the words "to-morrow se'nnight," instead of the word now."
Lord Folkestoneagreed in the impossibility of going into the merits of the case at so late an hour this night. He was ready to agree in the hon. baronet's motion, if the house thought fit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerallowed, that it was impossible to go into the merits of the case this night. He wished the
708
amendment to be withdrawn, in order to allow the house to decide, whether it would proceed in a house, or refer the case to a committee. When that question should be decided, the proper time for proceeding might be considered; and he was of opinion, that to-morrow would be preferable to to-morrow se'nnight. It was a vacant day, and it was agreed that it was desirable to hear the noble lord's charges stated as soon as possible.
Sir F. Burdettwithdrew his amendment for deferring the further proceeding to tomorrow se'nnight.
Lord Folkestonewas ready, for his own part, to proceed to-morrow; but he understood the gentlemen about him preferred to-morrow se'nnight.—A division was then called for, when there appeared, For the ordinal motion, 21. For referring the bussiness to a committee 34.—While the gallery was shut a conversation took place about the proper time of taking the subject into consideration again, when it was agreed to make the order for to-morrow se'nnight.