Sitting of 8 March 1830

MINUTES.
Mr. PORTMAN moved an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would cause to be laid before the House returns of the expenses incurred by the office of sheriff during the years 1828 and 1829, as far as such returns could be made out, and also specifying the fees received during the same period.
The Marine Mutiny Bill was brought in and read a first time.
The Dramatic Writings Bill went through a Committee.
Sir J. NEWPORT inquired whether there was any intention on the part of Government to introduce a measure for the purpose of removing the restrictions on the growth of tobacco, which at present pressed so severely on the tobacco-growers?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to reply, that a measure of the nature mentioned was in contemplation.

NOTICES.
By Mr. SADLER, that he would, on the 30th of March, move a Resolution on the Laws of Libel, and by Mr. C. CALVERT, that he would, on April 6th, move to refer the petition, of the tobacco manufacturers of London and Southwark to a select Committee.
RETURNS were ordered, on the motion of Mr. HUME, of the number of contracts now existing for supplying his Majesty's Dock-yards, the number of the contractors, &c., and the sums for the Ordnance and Army; of the number and strength of the Military Guards mounted within the Bills of Mortality, on January 1, 1829, and January 1, 1850; of the manner in which the 6,500 l. expended on the Milbank Penitentiary for 1850 was to be appropriated; of the number of clerks admitted for the first time into any, and all of the civil establishments of the State, Customs, Excise, Stamp, and Post Offices excepted, since 1822; the duties of their appointments, the amount of salary granted to each, with an account of the number of clerks and officers superannuated since 1822;—On the motion of Mr. ATTWOOD, of the Scale of Stamp Duties on Bills of Exchange in England, from January 5, 1828, to December 51, 1829. Shewing the number of stamps of each class issued per quarter, with an account of the number of country bankers' notes stamped in Great Britain in each quarter, between 1827 and 1829 inclusive; of the number of Banks which have commuted for the stamp duty since 1826; of the amount of duty paid by them on promissory notes, payable on demand, and on bills of Exchange; on the motion of Sir H. PARNELL, a copy of Mr. ABBOTT'S Letter to the Treasury, dated Nov. 27th, 1829, with the observations thereupon, by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belby, dated Dec. 18th, 1829; of a copy of the accounts laid before the Committee appointed in 1828, to inquire into the Public Income, &c. relative to the collection and expenditure of the Revenue; on the motion of Mr. M. FITZGERALD, of copies of the Memorials presented to the Irish Government, praying for advances to build a Court House at Kerry; on the motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, of an abstract of the expenditure for the relief of the poor; and on the motion of Mr. BULLER, of the number of persons declared Bankrupts from January 1825 to January 1830; and of the number of persons declaring themselves insolvent during the same period.

FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.
The Speakerinformed the House, that he had taken some care and pains to arrange and regulate the List of Fees charged in the Private Bill Office, by the clerks of the House, on all matters relating to private business, to which he was anxious to call attention, particularly of those hon. Members who
1344
were interested in private business. The great object was to elucidate the charges, so as to make the reason of every one of them intelligible. On inquiry into the whole, he found that in the aggregate they were as reasonable and as moderate as could be wished; but some of them were not quite intelligible. By the assistance of other persons, who were infinitely more competent to the task than himself, he had arranged the whole into what he hoped would be found a regular list. That list he would now lay on the Table, and if any hon. Member would move that it be printed, and the House should consent, it would come into the hands of every Member. And if, as he had reason to hope, the charges there set forth were reasonable, the Table of Fees should be hung up in the two Bill Offices, so that every person would know at once what he was called upon to pay, and would not have to pay more or less. It would be found that in the aggregate the amount of the fees was the same as before; but some which were before unintelligible, were put into a regular shape. If the House should approve of them, it would have the effect of undeceiving the public with respect to the amount of fees charged by the officers of the House.—The List was laid on the Table.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving that it be printed, said, he was sure the House would feel much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the pains he had taken in elucidating a subject of so much interest to parties having to introduce private bills.
Lord Althorpexpressed his entire concurrence in what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the House and the country were much indebted to Mr. Speaker for the pains he had taken to elucidate a subject on which there had been so much misconception as to the nature of the charges.
Mr. D. W. Harveyalso thought, that thanks were due to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done; but he regretted to hear, that in the aggregate the amount, of the fees was to be the same as before. If this were so, they would be an alteration without an improvement. Some of the fees charged were extravagantly high. He would mention, for instance, a case where two persons recently petitioned the House, to be heard by themselves or counsel, against a private bill. The House acceded to their prayer, and

1345
they were heard, not by counsel, but in person; but afterwards they were surprised to find a demand of 19 l. each made for fees. This was certainly most unreasonable, and should be inquired into.
The Speakersaid, from what had fallen from the hon. Member who last addressed the House, he feared that he had not made himself understood when he called the attention of the House to this subject. No doubt, when the Table should be printed, and in the hands of Members, whatever should be found capable of improvement would be open to the suggestions of every hon. Member, and such suggestions would be not only not opposed, but courted. It was not for him, not being acquainted with the particulars of the case to which the hon. Member referred, to make any remarks upon it, but the hon. Member must be aware that it was impossible any such charge should have been made by officers of the House.
Mr. D. W. Harveyhad thought it his duty to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that case, particularly after the challenge made by the right hon. Gentleman to every Member, to come forward with any objection to any fee in the list that might be considered objectionable. It was right that the subject should be examined; for if such charge were not made he must have been imposed on by those who made the statement to him.
The Speakerfeared that he was not yet well understood. The Table of Fees which he had made out were of those charged by officers of the House. He had not offered any comment on the charge to which the hon. Member had alluded, beyond the assertion that it could not have been made by any clerks of the House. There was, the hon. Member must be aware, a great distinction to be made between the fees charged by parliamentary agents, and those demanded by the clerks of the House.
The List ordered to be printed.

NATIONAL, DISTRESS.
Sir E. Kerrisonpresented a Petition from the borough of Eye, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for relief. He was aware of the great distress which that class suffered, and he did earnestly hope that some measure would be adopted for their relief.
The Petition to be on the Table.
Lord Clivepresented two Petitions from the county of Salop, praying for a reduc-
1346
tion of the duties on malt.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Dickinsonpresented a Petition from Taunton, most numerously and respectably signed, complaining, not as the petition presented by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Kerrison) below him, of agricultural distress alone, but of the distressed state of the country generally, which pressed, the petition justly stated, on all classes. The petitioners said, that Ministers could not have paid serious attention to the subject, or they could not be so unacquainted, as the petitioners feared they were, with the distressed state of the country. They stated, in proof of the kind of distress which existed in the county of Somerset, that in a parish containing 1,900 inhabitants, 1,000 were depending on the poor-rates for support. He would not dwell upon agricultural distress alone, though he was certain that its extent was greatly underrated, for the value of farms and cattle had fallen fifty per cent below what they were at this time last year. Other interests were also suffering to an equal, and all were suffering to a dreadful extent. It was indeed impossible that one class or one interest could suffer without bringing suffering on the other. Burke had correctly remarked, that those who gave employment to the poor were their bankers, and whatever deprived the opulent of the means of employing the poor, must cause intense distress among the latter. For the existing distress there was one remedy; and though it might not go to the full length of the relief desired, yet it was essential, and, whether by Ministers or the House, it must be done; the people must, be untaxed to a considerable extent. He hoped, therefore, that many days would not elapse before the House was informed that relief to a considerable extent had been afforded.
Sir C. Burrellwas glad that his hon. friend had stated his opinion on this subject, for it was absolutely necessary that Ministers should be fully informed as to the actual state of the country, on which they seemed not to possess any accurate knowledge. He was borne out in this assertion by what had gone forth to the public, as having been said by the noble Duke at the head of the Government. That noble Duke was represented to have stated (hat as a fact, which was no fact at all; namely, that timber, which the noble Duke classed as an agricultural

1347
produce, had not fallen in value. Now he (Sir C. Burrell) could state, on the authority of a person perfectly acquainted with the subject, that timber, which a twelvemonth ago produced from 11 l. to 13 l. per load, would at present not brine: more than from 7l. to 7l. 10 s. Bark, also, which was an important article to landowners, had fallen from 42 l. the thatched load (two tons and a half) to 20 l. and 21 l. Ministers ought to get their information on the change which had taken place in the value of the produce of the land from those who were well acquainted with the subject.
Sir T. Lethbridgerose to corroborate what had fallen from his hon. colleague as to the state of the country generally, and the severe distress which affected the county of Somerset in particular. There was no class exempt from distress; it pressed alike on all. Within the memory no person living, was such distress felt in of the country. The only thing he regretted was, that the petitioners (for whom he had the highest respect) had not waited till after the 15th, when, no doubt, they would have heard of some measure of relief in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Except in that point, he fully concurred with them, and he hoped that. Ministers would look not merely to the distress which affected agriculture, though that was severe, but also at that which preyed on all other classes, commercial and manufacturing. He agreed in what was said about the fall in the value of landed produce, which, with the exception of wheat, did not afford a remunerating price. He thought that the state of the other articles called for a revision of the laws for the protection of the British grower and unless that were done, he was of opinion that the country would suffer even more severe distress than at present. The landowner was left without any protection in the home-market as to the articles of wool, hemp, tallow, and others, in all of which he was undersold by the foreigner. He was not prepared to propose any remedy for the general distress; that was the business of Ministers, and he looked for that at their hands. He should wish, however, for a revision of the Banking system. A change in that, would give the country great relief. He did not mean that we should give up our present metallic currency, for whatever opinions he might formerly have entertained on the point, he was convinced
1348
now, that it was too late to retrace our steps; there was at present a great want of confidence in the country. A man who had produce could obtain no credit; he was obliged to sell it on any terms. He did hope, therefore, that Ministers, or some Member, would introduce a plan to place our Banking system on an improved footing and they should have his warmest support. Such a revision of our Banking system was wanted as would produce greater confidence, and give greater accommodation than could now be obtained.
Colonel Sibthorpdid not know what might be the condition of the county of Somerset, as to the price of Wheat; but in other counties, particularly in Lincoln, he could state that it did not afford a remunerating price. The value of all other articles had fallen considerably below that price.
Sir M. W. Ridleyregretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Lethbridge) had not stated the specific alteration which he would wish to have in the Banking system. If there was any difficulty felt from the operation of that system, the House had to blame itself for it, by the hasty and inconsiderate measure they had passed respecting the small-note circulation. He would not, however, bring back the state of the currency to what it was before that change took place—that would do more harm than good; but he was prepared to show, that the withdrawal of the small notes from circulation had been productive of much distress. Though he admitted that great distress prevailed, and the price of cattle was low, particularly in the northern counties, owing to the depressed state of the manufacturing towns in Yorkshire and the neighbouring counties; he was not prepared to concur with those who drew such a desponding picture of the state of the country. It was his consolation, to believe that the distress was partial, temporary, and passing. In that part of the country where he dwelt, there was not that want of confidence the hon. Baronet had mentioned between the bankers and their customers, but if there were he did not see how the Government could remedy it, and certainly the hon. Baronet had not proposed any plan for the purpose.
Mr. Portmanbore testimony to the great distress which existed in the county of Somerset. A great deal of that felt by the agriculturists there was the result of two bad seasons: not only the sheep and

1349
cattle, but young horses turned upon the moorlands, had been destroyed, and there was not enough cattle left to stock the land.
Mr. Beaumontobserved, that his experience induced him to believe that the distress was not so extensive in the districts which were exclusively agricultural, as in those where agriculture and manufactures jointly prevailed. The overwhelming taxation was in truth the real cause of the present sufferings of the people, and a considerable reduction of that heavy burthen he had no doubt would be the only effectual means of administering relief.
Mr. Dickinsonconcurred with the last speaker, in thinking that the House must look to reduction of taxation for relief.
On the Question that the Petition be read,
Sir Thomas Lethbridgesaid, he found it necessary to state, that what he meant as of our Banking system was, that it admitted of improvement, which he inferred from the bankers who had traded in one-pound notes having now given up the business of banking altogether. He was one of those, however, who did not wish again to see a paper circulation. As to the distress, some business might yet be carried on to a considerable extent, but he did not believe any business obtained large profits. It was not for him to propose plans to improve our banking system; he would only say, therefore, that joint-stock banking-companies would fill up the vacuum now felt; and he thought country banking would not be on a safe footing, till the banks of England were established on principles similar to those of Scotland.

TAXATION.
Mr. Brightpresented a Petition from certain inhabitants of Bristol, praying for a reduction of Taxation in consequence of the general distress. This petition, the hon. Member stated, had been got up at a public meeting, very numerously and respectably attended. He fully assented to the prayer of the petition, and ascribed the distress complained of, in a great measure, to the alteration in the currency. The country, he contended, felt strong dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, more particularly at the oppressive means resorted to, to collect the taxes, and loudly demanded more extensive retrenchments, and a material reduction in taxation. It was highly desirable, in his
1350
opinion, that the House should enter into an earnest investigation of this subject, and thereby ascertain exactly what the people could bear, consistently with the low condition of their resources. The assessed taxes were universally complained of; the surcharges on them were extremely vexatious. The most rigorous methods were employed to fill the coffers of the state, and the hand from which the people expected relief contributed to their distress. Under such a system it was idle to talk of an increase in the revenue being a sign of national prosperity, for the public ability to pay, bore but a small proportion at present to the amount of the taxes which were imposed.
The Petition to be printed.
Lord Althorprose to present a Petition from Kingsport, in Norfolk, praying for a reduction of Taxation. Such a concession to the distresses of the people, he maintained, was unavoidable, and he hoped that Ministers would not be the last to perceive the necessity of so far acceding to public opinion, unequivocally manifested as it had been. In urging the necessity of a reduction of taxes, particularly of those which pressed more immediately on the productive industry of the country, he begged to say that he had no wish 1o see Ministers removed from their places. He had no such object in view, having no personal wish for office. Indeed, he was sure that he spoke the sentiments of those with whom he usually acted in that House, when he repeated that he had no desire to see the present Administration changed for any other which could be brought together under existing circumstances. Still he felt it to be incumbent on the House to press the Government, that to reduce our taxation was the only remedy for the distress so generally admitted to oppress the country.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
The noble Lord presented a similar Petition from Lynn, also in Norfolk.—To be printed.

AFFAIR AT PATRAS.
Sir G. Cockburnwould take advantage of that opportunity to give the explanation required by the noble Lord a few nights since, respecting the conduct of the Admiral (Sir E. Codrington) commanding the British and allied fleets at Patras, a few days before the battle of Navarino. The noble Lord had asked why an account of that affair

1351
had not appeared in the Gazette, and he had designated the transaction to which he alluded as a brilliant action; but the noble Lord went too far, inasmuch as no active hostility was engaged in, either on the part of the British admiral or the Turkish commander. The facts were simply, that Sir Edward Codrington being-informed that a part of the Turkish armament was proceeding towards Patras, put to sea, and coming up with it, found it was commanded by the Patrona Bey. He informed the Turkish commander that his conduct was a breach of faith, to which the latter replied, he did not understand that he was not to go to Patras. "Either you must not before have said this, "he added," or the interpreter must have deceived me. If you allow us to go to Patras, well; if you do not allow us it is still well; but if you send us to the bottom, we shall not resist, unless we receive orders to do so." Upon receiving this communication the Admiral rejoined, "then you must not go to Patras," and fired one gun. Upon this the Turks retired, and Admiral Codrington went back to Zante. The Admiral, however, heard, soon after his arrival at Zante that the Patrona Bey was communicating with Ibrahim Pacha, and accordingly bore down alongside of his vessel. The Turkish captain said, all he wanted was a written declaration of the Admiral's purpose, which "was accordingly given him, in the name of the commander of the allied fleet, and the matter then ended; the Turkish fleet going off to Navarino, though the wind was fair for Patras. The noble Lord, therefore, was in error about the loss of lives, as no resistance was offered by the Patrona Bey.
Lord Althorpsaid, his statement was derived from what he must consider the very best authority. He understood the gallant Admiral to say, that only one gun was fired, whereas he was given to understand that a considerable firing took place; and that several Turkish sailors were killed. The Turks, he believed, did not fire at our ships. He repeated that he spoke from the very best authority.
Sir G. Cockburncontended, that no authority could be equal to the official documents from which he spoke. He had not read the official letters in the House, but he had stated the substance of them.
Lord J. Russellwas much surprised that the matter had not been gazetted at the time of its occurrence. It was strange that a transaction so essential to the
1352
thorough understanding of the Battle of Navarino, should be first made known to the public, not by Ministers, but by a periodical, the Foreign Quarterly Review, in which it is fully explained. The matter here ended.

SUPPLY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. He was anxious to take advantage of that opportunity to request the hon. Member for Aberdeen to postpone his motion, which stood for Wednesday, for abolishing the office of Receiver-general of Taxes, till he had heard his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) promised financial statement.
Mr. Humeagreed to defer his motion till the 24th inst. hoping that, in the mean time, the right hon. Gentleman would make the motion unnecessary.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. Bankesmoved that 16,143 l. be granted for the expenses of the British Museum during the current year. The estimate was something less than that of last year, but did not require, he thought, any detailed explanation. He was willing to afford every explanation in his power on any point connected with the expenditure of the grant.
Mr. Humewished to know why greater facilities were not afforded to the public for viewing the Museum? Why was it open but three days in the week, and even then but for a few hours? He would not go so far as to assert that the great diminution of visitors last year to the British Museum, as compared with those of the preceding, was altogether owing to the want of greater facility of ingress, for he was aware that the satiating of public curiosity must tend to diminish the annual number of visitors; but he would contend, that there must be more than this circumstance to account for so great a falling-off as from 127,000, the number of visiters in 1829, to 68.000, the number of last year. He saw no reason why the Museum should not be open five days in the week instead of three, for the salaries paid to the officers were sufficiently liberal to command a greater portion of their time and services. Even those days on which the Museum was

1353
open were not made sufficiently public. He thought a board should be exposed outside the gate of the building, on which the days and hours on which the Museum, might be examined should be painted in distinct characters. The public paid for the Museum, and therefore had a right to insist on every facility of ingress.
Mr. Jephsonbegged leave to suggest the expediency of keeping the reading-room of the Museum open to a certain hour in the evening. He would suggest that it ought to be kept open at least till six o'clock. There were many respectable gentlemen, clerks in public offices, to whom such an arrangement would be peculiarly grateful, being engaged all day at business, and thereby prevented from availing themselves of the advantages which the national library afforded. Should no other hon. Member urge the matter to the Trustees of the Museum, he would, on a future occasion, bring the matter before the House.
Mr. Trantconsidered the present regulation, by which children under a certain age were prohibited from visiting the Museum, highly objectionable. It only opened a door for lying; for parents said, their children were of such and such an age when they were not so much, in order to ensure their admission. He had taken his own children, but had the satisfaction of seeing others younger admitted, while they were refused, merely because he had a regard to truth.
Mr. Bankesbegged leave to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Montrose, that the officers of the Museum were engaged six days of the week, though the Museum was, as he had stated, open but three days to the public. On the other days it was usual for the trustees to admit their friends, and those who sought a private visit, as a favour, to the Museum. With respect to the falling-off in the number of visiters, he was sure the House would be gratified to learn, that though there was a diminution of the number of visiters to the Museum, there was a larger increase in the number of students who frequented the reading-room, and studied in the gallery of art. He was ready to admit, in answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Mallow, (Mr. Jephson) that it was very desirable that the public should enjoy every facility of reference to the library consistent with its
1354
safety; and he was sure the trustees would endeavour to prolong the time, during which it was deemed expedient to keep the reading-room open. This, however, must depend on the period of the year, for under no circumstances should the introduction of fire or candles into so large and valuable a library be permitted.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonconceived, that the necessary caution with respect to the use of candles and fire might be attained by introducing them into a chamber apart from the main building. He should wish to see the liberal system pursued by the governors of the Royal Library and the Mazarine Library at Paris, acted upon by the trustees of the British Museum. In those places any gentleman who gave a fair proof of his respectability might take home any work which might be necessary to his studies, with a view to the promotion of science or literature. The hon. Member might perhaps recollect that a celebrated foreigner (Mr. W. Schlegel) came over here to consult some Sanscrit manuscripts, but was obliged to forego his undertaking, because he was not allowed to take them home with him.
Mr. Bankeswas sure, that under no circumstances would the House or the trustees of the Museum consent to the abstraction of a single volume from its present locality. He also objected strongly to introduce either fire or lights into the library.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, he should like to hear any valid reason against the reading-rooms being open on Saturdays; and in summer till seven or eight in the evening, when no fire or candles would be necessary.
Mr. Sadlermaintained that it was never intended that the Museum library should be employed as a mere reading-room, but as a place of reference. He did not think the time ought to be extended.
Mr. Brightagreed with the hon. Member for Newark. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for keeping the reading-room open on Saturday were acted upon, Sunday would be employed in regulating the books and cleaning the rooms.
Mr. Humecontended that the public had a right to every facility which could be afforded by the Museum. If money were the objection—that is, if the expense of additional officers were the reason for not extending those facilities, why let the public pay on the additional days on which the Museum would be open.
Mr. D. Gilbertwas sure the trustees were anxious to afford every facility to the public in their power, compatible with the safety and integrity of the various treasures intrusted to their care. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol, that if the reading-room and Museum were open on Saturdays, the Sabbath would be expended in regulating matters for the ensuing week.—Resolution agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
Sir H. Hardingemoved that 126,000 l. be granted for the pay of General Officers, not colonels, for the year 1830.
Mr. Maberlywished to direct the attention of the Committee to the annually-increasing amount of the present estimate. The whole amount of pensions, superannuations, and allowances of this description in 1827 was 5,456,000 l., being for the army alone, in that year, 3,023,000 l. In 1810, however, it was only 687,000 l.; and in 1817, 2,195,000 l. This showed the rapid manner in which this charge was increasing. The same increase took place in the naval and in the civil departments. The subject had occupied much attention in the Finance Committee, and an hon. relative of his being a military man, had made a report on the subject to the Commander-in chief; according to which it appeared practicable to save about 300,000 l. a year. Since then the right hon. and gallant Secretary had turned his attention to the subject, and but for him the amount would have been much greater. He had great pleasure in bearing his testimony to the great ability and indefatigable zeal of the gallant officer in putting a stop to the alarming increase of the dead weight of the Army. The thanks of the country were due to him for his endeavours to check the amount of this estimate,—one, indeed, which it was more difficult to reduce, for many reasons, than perhaps any other in the army department.
The next Resolution was for 36,669 l. 7s. 8d. for defraying the expenses of Garrisons, at home and abroad, for the year 1830.
Mr. Humethought, that this grant really deserved more consideration than he had ever been able to obtain for it. A great part of this vote went to support military sinecures. No sooner was one governor dead than another was appointed in his
1356
place, though no duty was to be done. It was not his wish to object to any grant that was really necessary for the defence of our garrisons. He had no wish, he said, to deprive the Government of the means of providing for old officers; but it was really too much to have governors, for instance, for such places as Carrickfergus. These situations, too, were not always given to meritorious officers, but to persons of a different description. He saw a long list of governors, lieutenant-governors, and majors without any duties to perform, and those persons who were thus pensioned were by no means the most deserving. He had no desire to interfere with existing appointments, but prospectively important savings might be obtained by a revision and alteration of the prevailing system.
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that all these offices and appointments stood on a peculiar basis; namely, that of being the only means in the hands of the Crown for the remuneration of old officers. He readily admitted that they were military sinecures; but, when he stated how few they were, they amounting only to seventy, compared to the list of 13,000 officers on full and half-pay, whose services they might be bestowed to reward, he thought it would be ungracious indeed to deprive the Crown of this mode of repaying old, and faithful, and disabled officers. He would add, that the greater number of these offices did not give the holders of them above 200 l. a year, and therefore they were not such large rewards as the hon. Member seemed to intimate.
Mr. Sadlerthought, that naval officers should have a similar provision, or at least that they should participate in the like retiring bounty.
Mr. Maberlythought that, on the whole, British officers were worse paid than those of any other European army: still upon principle he objected to this mode of remuneration by sinecures.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Humecomplained of the form in which these accounts were made out. Why not put some of these items of expenditure upon the head of effective service, instead of making them up under colonial accounts? These colonies ought to be made to supply this expenditure, instead of palming upon Great Britain the payment of their governors, lieutenant-governors, town-majors, &c.
Sir H. Hardingeassured the hon. Mem-

1357
ber that the Government were taking every means of economizing in this department of the public service, and making the colonies as available as possible in this respect.
The Resolution for 104,000 l., the full-pay of retired officers, was agreed to without any conversation.
On that of 720,859 l. 12 s. l0 d. for half-pay and military allowances,
Mr. Humeobjected, and complained; that the Government had not reduced this list, by filling up commissions from it as vacancies enabled them, instead of saddling the country with new pensioners. In 1818 this vote was 661,000 l.; and in 1822, instead of having decreased, it had increased. Had the Government filled up vacancies as they occurred with officers from half-pay, good soldiers would have been employed, the country would have had the services of veterans, not of boys, and the half-pay list might have been reduced one half. That was the policy pursued by the great Duke of Marlborough, who wrote to the Secretary of War in 1715 as follows, and he would quote the letter for the benefit of the Duke of Wellington, hoping that he would follow the example of his illustrious predecessor:—
"Sir;—His Majesty being determined to provide as soon as possible for the broken officers, as well as those who are upon half-pay, with intent to ease the nation in time of the burthen thereof, as to reward the particular merit of those officers who have distinguished themselves during the course of the late war by their services, I am commanded to signify to you his pleasure, that as any commission shall happen hereafter to become vacant in the army, of what degree soever it be, the same shall always be filled up with a half-pay officer; and that for the future no person through favour, interest, or any other practices, may unjustly obtain a commission to which he has no right, in prejudice of another officer older than himself. It is his Majesty's pleasure, that the first regard shall always be had to the seniority of the commission, provided his Majesty shall have good reason to be satisfied of the character and merit of the person, and of his zeal and fidelity for his service: still observing, that a reduced officer of the same rank in the regiment where such vacancy happens, is to be preferred before all others. This his Majesty's pleasure you have to cause to be entered in the books of your office as a standing rule and direction in this behalf.—I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant,
"MARLBOROUGH.
"June 30th, 1715. "
To the Secretary-at-war. "
1358
"It is his Majesty's pleasure, that all colonels, now and late in the army, do certify to me the date of each officer's commission reduced out of their respective regiments, to the intent that all officers so reduced may be provided for according to his Majesty's pleasure, signified to me as above by his grace the Duke of Marlborough; and the said colonels are hereby required to send such certificates as soon as possible.
"(Signed) W. PULTENEY."
An order recommended by such high authority, was, he presumed, still enrolled at the War-office. The Letter was published in the Gazette, in July, 1715. He did not know that it had ever been repealed; and if it were not, he did not know why it was not acted on. There was, moreover, a Resolution of the House of Commons, agreed to nem. con. on the motion of Mr. Sandys on Dec. 12, 1740, precisely to the same effect. He would read it, however, to satisfy hon. Members:—" Dec. 12, 1740, resolved, nem. con. on the motion of Mr. Sandys, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that for the present and future ease of his Majesty's subjects, he would be graciously pleased to employ in his armies such persons as now remain upon half-pay who are qualified to serve his Majesty." Being unaware that either the War-office order of 1715, or this Resolution of 1740, had been revoked, he was at a loss to know why they were not both acted upon. He was also desirous of knowing what steps had been taken to buy up the half-pay of certain officers, according to the existing regulation. In making these remarks, he begged not to be understood as being unwilling to do full justice to the right hon. Secretary's exertions, which were, he knew, very beneficial and meritorious; the extravagance of which he complained lay at the door of his predecessors in office.
Sir H. Hardinge Sir H. Hardinge, in reply to Mr. Hume, said, that the hon. Member complained of Government having given away new commissions, instead of filling up vacancies by appointing officers from half-pay, contrary to the recommendation of the Finance Committee; but no such commissions had been given away, neither was it the case that individuals who had received first commissions since the peace had been put upon half-pay. It was not possible by the Act of Parliament to create new half-pay. As to the hon. Member's second question, he believed that about

1359
one hundred and twenty commissions had been bought up and cancelled, and that a saving had been effected for the public of about 125 per cent on the whole sum cancelled. As to the observation of the hon. Member regarding the never appointing any persons to the army but officers on half-pay, he must remind him that our army now was in a very different condition from what it was in the time of the Duke of Marlborough. At that time we had only two colonies; now we had a great number, and it would be very hard on officers serving abroad if they were not to receive promotion. Great injury, he believed, would be done to the service by giving all commissions to officers on half-pay, though that principle was acted on as far as possible. In 1815 the number of officers on full and half-pay was 18,405, and now there were only 14,910, making a reduction of 3,595 since the peace. As large reductions had been made as possible, though they were not perceptible on account of many of the casualties on the half-pay list having been absorbed by placing people on it from full-pay. The actual amount of the sum which had fallen in was 38,000 l. though the estimates showed only 18,000 l. He must say, also, that a great part of the reduction he had mentioned of 3,595 officers, was due, not to him, but to the noble Lord who preceded him.
Mr. Humesaid, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman's remark applied to the troops of the line; but had there not been, at the same time, new commissions given in the Guards and Household Troops?
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that there had been a reduction of certain companies in these troops, although, of course, some fresh ensigns must have been appointed since the peace.
Mr. Moncksaid, he could not understand why our army should not be governed on the same principles as the armies of the continental states. In the French army there was no half-pay or pensions, except for wounds or being disabled in the service. Quarter-pay, not half-pay, was the reward for mere service. Though those armies had not the large pay and emoluments of our troops, they were not less efficient.
Mr. Maberlyreminded his hon. friend, that the British officers purchase their commissions, which the officers of none of the continental armies did.
Sir H. Hardingeacknowledged the justice of the remark, and added, that, in future, half-pay was in fact to be given contingent on a certain period of service on full-pay.
Some further conversation ensued between Mr. Monck, Mr. Hume, and Sir H. Hardinge, to ascertain how far the amount for any new commissions sold had been rendered available in reduction of the military expenditure, and Sir Henry promised to furnish any accounts which were necessary to elucidate this subject.
The vote of 720,859 l. 12 s. 10 d. was then agreed to, as well as another of 94,900 l. for foreign half-pay.
On the Resolution that a sum not exceeding 47,686 l. 1s. 8d. be granted to his Majesty for the purpose of defraying the charge of the In-pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals,
Mr. Humeobserved, that the time was come for doing away with this grant. In this case the pay of the officers alone was no less than 11,300 l. He found that there was a comptroller, a surgeon, and a secretary, who was also deputy-paymaster, and the services of all these persons, in his opinion, might be dispensed with. He should like to know from the hon. and gallant Secretary how many men these hospitals contained.
Sir H. Hardingereplied, he believed Chelsea about 500, and Kilmainham about 400.
Mr. Humethought the whole charge enormous for such a few persons.
Sir H. Hardingeexplained, that the expense of the establishment was not only for the maintenance of the men within the hospital but for the payment of 8,500 out pensioners. Kilmainham could not be abolished without increasing the expense, but reductions were in progress.
Mr. Humesaid, he was glad to hear that, but he hoped the reductions would be principally in the salaries of the superior officers; for the clerks of Chelsea Hospital were worse paid than the officers of any other Government establishment, while the paymaster received 1,200 l. a-year though several of the clerks did not receive above 90 l
Mr. Calcraftwas of the same opinion, and had wished the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the salaries of those clerks, but could not get him to advance one shilling.
Lord Althorpasked, whether there was

1361
any difficulty in procuring clerks for Chelsea Hospital at the present rate of payment. If there did not exist any difficulty, he saw no reason for raising the salaries.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that when applied to by the hon. Member on the subject, he had asked the very same question as the noble Lord had just put.
Mr. Humesaid, he had no wish to see the salaries of those clerks increased, but he thought that the salaries in other departments ought to be brought down to the scale adopted at Chelsea Hospital.— Resolution carried.
The Question, that a sum not exceeding 1,241,601 l. 17 s. 8d. be granted to defray the charge of the Out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, was put.
Mr. Humenoticed the frauds which had been committed by claimants on this fund, and complimented the right hon. the Secretary of War for the inquiry he had instituted, and the money he had been thereby enabled to save the country. He declared his conviction, that if the late Secretary of War, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, had continued in office, that inquiry would not have been set on foot.
Sir John Wrottesleyinquired if any commanding officer had lent himself to the abuses which had been detected?
Sir H. Hardingereplied, not one. The parties were interested persons, and the system of fraud was found out by a forgery having been detected. He had good reason to believe that it would not happen again.
Sir John Wrottesleyinquired whether the regimental books were not under the care of the adjutants?
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that the frauds were committed several years ago, and in most of the cases the adjutants had been removed.
Sir John Wrottesleyadmitted that this explanation was satisfactory, but he was bound to observe that these abuses could not have been perpetrated without gross mismanagement. He did not mean to enter into details, but it was a plain common sense view that the country could not possibly support in idleness a vast number of persons whose maintenance cost the country as much as the whole effective army. While the labourer was obliged to work fifteen or sixteen hours a day for a miserable pittance, that scarcely preserved his existence, the pensioned soldier
1362
was living in luxury and idleness, often setting an example of drunkenness and debauchery. The labourers, from witnessing such examples, became reckless. They had no motives for good conduct, and therefore the House must not wonder at the number of petty crimes which were continually committed.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the number of persons on the half-pay list was 81,000. Mr. Trant believed that the discovery of the frauds was accidental, and he affirmed that the hon. member for Montrose was not warranted in casting any reflection on the noble Lord the late Secretary-at-War.
Mr. Humedid not mean to cast any reflection on the noble Lord, but he did not think the discovery was altogether accidental. A person was tried by a court martial, which found the charge vexatious; the circumstances which transpired led to an inquiry, and the accuser was dismissed from the army. From what had then occurred he was satisfied that the abuses could not have taken place, if the attestations required had been preserved at the War-Office. He believed that these frauds were quite unknown to the officers, but he also believed that they could not have occurred had there not been a considerable degree of negligence in not enrolling the attestations.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, it was not possible, under the old system, to check those frauds, and he must say that both the War-Office and the late Secretary at War were entirely blameless.
The Question was agreed to.
The Question being put that a sum not exceeding 20,986 l. 13 s. 3d. be granted to defray the expense of the Royal Military Asylum,
Sir John Wrottesleycomplained that half of the amount voted was expended on the officers, instead of being applied to the benefit of the orphans in the institution. He admitted that the objects of the charity were meritorious, but he must contend, that under the circumstances of the country a reduction in the expense ought to take place.
Mr. Humesaid, that that institution grew out of a state of war, was at present uncalled for, and would, he hoped, be gradually done away.
Sir H. Hardingedid not concur in opinion with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. The country was bound to provide for the

1363
orphans of those who had died in its service, and there was no other or better means than the Asylum. Many of them were born abroad, when their fathers were on foreign service, and had no claims on any parish. Since last year the number had been reduced by 300: the expense was only 20 l. a head, and he thought such an institution, kept up at so small an expense, deserved support.
Mr. Humesaid, he was of opinion that if there were no establishment, then there would be no children to provide for; the friends and relatives of the orphans would take care of them; but as long as the Government took the charge upon it, the relatives naturally said, why should we be inconvenienced by those whom the Government taxes us to provide for. Children were accordingly sent from all parts. Public establishments put an end to private charity. Once say, that after 1831 or 1832 this establishment should cease, and nothing more would be heard of orphans claiming the support of the country.
Mr. Monckthought, if the vote were continued, it ought to be more definitely appropriated. It could not for one moment be affirmed, that all the children of soldiers who chose to marry should be supported at the national expense. In principle he thought the children should not have a claim, as a matter of right, to be placed in the Asylum.
Sir John Sebrightsupported the grant, because it was proper to provide for the children of those who had died in the service of the country.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that great reductions had been made in the establishment since the peace.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that if this principle of providing for the children of those who died in the public service were once admitted, it ought to be extended to all functionaries, and then he did not know why the committee should not grant 40,000 l. instead of 20,000 l. In fact, though not an enemy to charity, he was disposed to resist such a principle.
Mr. Protheroewas also opposed to the grant, being convinced, by what the hon. Member for Montrose said., that if the public did not undertake to provide for such orphans they would be taken care of by their friends.
Sir H. Hardingeassured the Committee that no larger sum would ever be required, and he would also assert that the strictest
1364
impartiality was observed in admitting applicants.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for a sum not exceeding 145,267 l. to defray the Pensions to be paid to the Widows of Officers of the Land-forces for the year 1830.
Mr. Humesaid, that the number of widows who died and the number who were put upon the list during the year ought to be specifically detailed. He inquired whether any regulations had been adopted by Government since last Session, as to the manner of granting these pensions. It was necessary to have more information before voting the sum required.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that these pensions were in future to be granted only to the widows of officers who had served ten years, and who had been on full pay for that period, or to the widows of officers who had been killed in action. It had also been settled, that when the widow married again, the pension should cease.
Mr. Humethought it desirable, that the estimates for Navy and Ordnance pensions should be placed upon the same footing with the Army. There was a reduction of five per cent made upon the pensions of the soldier, while no such reduction was made in the pensions granted to the Artillery or the Navy. The soldier, therefore, considered himself plundered, though, if the Estimates were properly stated, he would see that credit was given him for the reduction of five per cent in his pension. All the military and naval pensions should therefore be stated in the same way.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, the reduction of five per cent was made upon the pensions of the soldiers serving in the line, by an Act passed in the reign of Geo. 2nd, and it was then conceived but fair, that such reduction should not apply to the Ordnance, as the individual serving in the Ordnance was at the expense of his agency, and it was thought also, at that time, that he could not be admitted to Chelsea Hospital. The reduction was, in fact, equal, both in the Line and in the Ordnance.
Mr. Monckcontended, that we ought to take example by France and America, and endeavour to reduce the present extravagant expenditure connected with our army. He objected to the extravagant amount of this estimate. Why should officers' widows receive pensions, while

1365
the widows of private soldiers, who were equally deserving, and more in want of such assistance, received no pensions? They made a provision for the rich widows, while the poor widows were left without any provision at all. It was worth remark also, that the poor were the largest contributors to the fund. In 1745 it appeared, from a report then made to the House, that the pension granted to a Colonel's widow was 50 l., and that to an Ensign's, 16 l. At present the widow of a General officer received 120 l., of a Colonel, 90 l., of a Lieut.-colonel, 80 l., of a Major, 70 l., and of an Ensign, 16 l. This statement showed what an increase had been made in the pensions of the superior officers' widows since 1745; while no increase had been made in the pensions of the Ensigns' widows. Formerly, too, these pensions were not granted without strict inquiry; that check was now withdrawn, and numerous instances had occurred of pensions being drawn by persons after they had ceased to be widows, having married again. By such neglect, the sum required for these pensions had gone on increasing. In 1806 it amounted to 104,000 l., in 1823 to 136,000 l., and then the Committee was asked for no less than 145,000 l. This was an enormous increase during a period when our army had been diminished in numbers. In none of the Continental states were there are any such charges connected with the army estimates, and if the expense increased in the same ratio, henceforward, we should soon have to pay more for our small army of 90,000, than was paid for all the armies of the Continent. Economy was strength, and profusion weakness, and if profusion were continued, we should by-and-by be in the most lamentable state of debility. It appeared from the accounts published of the French army, that it consisted of 190,000 men, and was as efficient as any army of Europe. Though that army was well provided with Staff-officers—indeed it was a complaint that it had too many—it cost only 121,640,000 francs, or a sum short of 5,000,000 l. a year. This army was even maintained at a less expense than that of Prussia, though the government of Prussia be one of the most economical of Europe. The Prussian army at present amounted to 100,000 men, and it cost 78,000,000 francs, or more than 3,000,000 l. a year. The French army of 190,000 men, was maintained at a less
1366
expense than our army of 90,000. The House of Commons, which was bound to watch over the public expenditure, was to blame for this. It had allowed such extravagance that our establishments were conspicuous, not for their efficiency, but for the enormous sums they cost. He believed the reason of all this was to be found in the constitution of that House. The Members sitting there as the proprietors of boroughs, or the nominees of Peers, represented their patrons or themselves, and not the people. They helped themselves, or provided for their masters, out of the public purse. According to his view, therefore, there was no other efficient remedy for all this extravagance but a reform of Parliament. As long as that House only represented a few peers, or a few borough proprietors, economy would not be thought of. He would call on the House to look particularly at the superannuations and pensions. One public servant out of every score was superannuated, or pensioned; and besides all these pensions and superannuations, there were charges for widows and orphans. There was a vast sum so expended, which went, he believed, to persons who were altogether inefficient, and who had never been otherwise. In the present state of the country it could not be tolerated, when labour was obtaining little or no reward, that it should be taxed to support these useless burthens. The system by weakening the resources of the country, went to deprive it of independence, and rob it of honour; and by plundering the industrious people, it destroyed at the same time, both their loyalty and their honesty. Such a system could not possibly be continued, and he, therefore, not saying one word as to the amount of the grant, should object to it on principle.
Mr. Humethought it was monstrous that the country should be called on to vote pensions for upwards of a thousand widows, and that no specific information should be laid before the House of the circumstances which made it proper to grant those pensions. A detailed description of every new case for which a pension was granted, with an account of the number of pensions which ceased every year, ought annually to be submitted to Parliament.
Sir Henry Hardingehad no objection to lay such information before Parliament, as to the classes of officers whose widows were receiving pensions; but there was no

1367
law requiring such information as that specified by the hon. Member to be laid before Parliament. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member, as to not continuing the pensions to those widows who re-married, Lord Palmerston brought a measure of that kind before the House in 1818, but was compelled to abandon it by the Gentlemen on the opposite side. With respect to the small expense of the French army, he could inform the Committee that a proposition had recently been made to increase the pensions of the French military officers. In America the number of pensioners was nearly double the amount of the effective force.
Lord Howickvindicated the Opposition side of the House from the charge of encouraging extravagance. Only the year before last, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues opposed the reduction of the useless office of Lieut. General of the Ordnance.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for a sum not exceeding 185,036 l. for allowances on the Compassionate List; for allowances as of his Majesty's Royal Bounty; and for pensions to officers for wounds.
Mr. John Stewartsuggested, that as all pensions were only granted as a means of support to persons supposed to be otherwise destitute, that pensions ought in all cases to be withdrawn when the circumstances of the persons rendered them independent of that means of subsistence.
Mr. Humewished to know whether care was taken in the granting of the last-mentioned pensions, that the officers to whom they were granted were wounded, as he had known individuals without wounds in the receipt of such pensions.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that an officer must, under the existing regulations, undergo the examination of five medical men, and he must prove before the Medical Board, that he had suffered a permanent injury, equal to the loss of a limb, before a pension could be granted for a wound. That examination also must take place five years after the wound had been received, and if it could not then be proved that the injury was permanent, no pension was granted.
Mr. Monckinquired what was meant by "The Compassionate List" and "The Royal Bounty."
Sir H. Hardingeexplained, that the former was to provide for orphans, and
1368
that the latter was for widows whose husbands had fallen in battle.
Mr. Monckfurther inquired if those widows were not entitled to pensions under the preceding estimate. To him it appeared that these widows was the very class of persons for whom the last estimate was meant to provide.
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that the allowances were not, in fact, granted to the widows who might have no claim, or having a claim, might also have large families, and no means to provide for them, but were granted to the children of those who had fallen in battle. The total amount of pensions under this head did not exceed 40,000 l. and the sums granted varied from 6l. to 16 l. They ceased, he had also to observe, when the boys were eighteen and the girls twenty-one years of age.
Mr. Humesaid there were no means, if these items were not included in the regular estimates for the army, of checking the amount of them, which might grow up to be enormous.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, if the Compassionate Fund went to provide for the children of those who had died in the service, the Royal Bounty was limited to persons whose husbands or fathers had been killed in the service. Such an employment of funds was one, he was sure, which the Committee would never refuse to sanction by its vote.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for the sum of 54,204 l. for allowances, compensations, and emoluments in the nature of superannuated allowances, to persons formerly belonging to the several public departments in Great Britain and Ireland.
Mr. Maberlywished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this estimate were made up in conformity with the Act of Parliament? Pensions sanctioned by the Treasury, or by an order of Council, were not legal until sanctioned by that House. There was no better mode of checking these pensions than by having them specifically stated in the army as they now were in the navy. He would recommend to the hon. and gallant Secretary that this should in future be done.
Sir H. Hardingeadmitted that these pensions were specifically stated in the Ordnance estimates; but said that that was not ordered by the Act of Parliament, but had been adopted in consequence of a

1369
suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. He had no objection against the plan which the hon. Member had suggested being adopted, in future years, in the army.
Lord Sandonsuggested, that the particulars of every case in which superannuation was granted should be made out.
Sir H. Hardingeagreed with his noble friend, that such an account would be very desirable.
Mr. Humeexpressed himself of the same opinion, and thought that the names of pensioners, and the length of their service should be added. He wished to know how it was that such a number of Lieutenant-governors of the Military School were placed on the pension list.
Sir H. Hardingeexplained, that the late Lieutenant-governor was upwards of seventy years of age, and at that time of life a man ceased to be very fit to manage young boys. And as it was customary to give the situation to officers of long standing and respectability, a few years additional service at the college brought their public lives to a close.
Mr. Humeinquired if the present Lieutenant-governor of the Military College received pay from any other corps or office.
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that the Lieutenant-governor was a Lieutenant-colonel of Cavalry, and received his regimental pay as well as his staff pay, consistently with the rule of the service.
Mr. Humesaid, that was a practice to which he must object, as in fact it kept out of sight a part of the expense of the establishment. When an officer was placed on the staff in India, his regimental pay ceased, and he thought the same rule ought to be followed at home.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that it had always been customary for the officers in the English service to retain their regimental pay when placed on the staff, and he thought he could prove that this practice was at once the most economical, as well as the fairest. At the close of the war the staff officers returned to their regiments, and continued in active service without any additional expense to the country.
Colonel Bailliewas of opinion that the hon. Member for Aberdeen made a mistake as to the Indian army, the officers of which, when placed on the staff, continued to receive their regimental pay.
Mr. Humesaid, that as he had been a Paymaster himself for some years he could venture to say that he was right.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for 32,000 l. for the purpose of defraying the charge of Exchequer fees.
Mr. Humeand Mr. Maberly both objected to the payment of these fees, which they considered disgraceful to the country.
Resolution agreed to.
On the motion that the Chairman should report these Resolutions to the House,
Mr. Gordonrose to ask the hon. Secretary when he meant to bring up the Report, as he intended upon that occasion to propose a Resolution to the following effect:—" That it is the opinion of this House, that as long as the regulation is in force by which Officers on the Half-pay of the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Marine, are prevented from receiving the whole of their half-pay, or any part thereof, whilst they are enjoying the emoluments of civil office, it is expedient and just that the same regulation should extend to officers on full-pay of the Army, Navy, Marine, and Ordnance, who enjoy the emoluments of civil office, or of any other naval and military allowances."
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that it would be most agreeable to him to have the report on these resolutions brought up to-morrow. He should certainly oppose this resolution; and if the gentlemen who had motions for to-morrow would give him precedence for but half an hour, he thought that he could dispose of it most effectually in that time.
The Chairman left the chair; the report to be received to-morrow,

BOMBAY JUDICATURE.
The Order of the Day having been read for the House to resume the adjourned debate on the Bombay Judicature,
Mr. Humeexpressed his decided impression that the interference of the Government with the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bombay was uncalled for by any exigency. The facts of the case by no means bore out the allegation of the noble Lord (Ashley) that an excitation bordering on rebellion would have prevailed in that part of India, if the Judges had been allowed to act as they wished. It was plain that the conduct of the

1371
Government tended to place the Supreme Court in a state of subserviency, contrary to the Act of Parliament appointing that Court; and if he were right in saying that the noble Lord had not made out a case of exigency, the interference of the Government was as uncalled for as it was illegal. He had never said, and never would say, that circumstances might not arise to place the Judges of the Supreme Court at Bombay, or in any other part of India, in a situation calculated to endanger the public peace, and which would justify the exercise of the powers of the Government in stopping their proceedings. That he fully admitted; but he denied that such had been the state of things when the Government of Bombay had interfered with the Supreme Court. What was the purpose for which the Courts in question were originally established? To protect the natives of India from oppression. But the conduct which had been pursued by the Bombay Government contravened that purpose; he allowed that both the Judges in question might have said less in open Court, and might have treated the Government with more respect—and, he allowed, therefore, that they were, in some degree blameable—yet nothing in their conduct warranted the steps taken by the Government of Bombay. The noble Lord too, at the head of the Board of Control, had disgraced a Judge, by superseding him, who had no doubt acted conscientiously, without hearing a single word in explanation of his conduct Six weeks before Sir J. P. Grant's statement arrived, his Majesty decided in council that he should be superseded. Through that Judge was the Supreme Court reprimanded and disgraced. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control, who it might be supposed would be above all the little party feelings of provincial governors and judges, had lent himself to the views of the governor. He considered the conduct of the Government of India to be improper; but that of the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control to be much more so. The noble Lord ought to have viewed the dispute between the Government of Bombay and the Court with more impartiality; and he was apprehensive, that unless the House signified their indignation at the conduct which had been pursued, very injurious consequences might ensue with respect to the letter of that noble Lord, which a noble Duke in
1372
another place had not hesitated to avow as containing sentiments approved of by the Government; he would only say, that if those sentiments were acted on, it would be in vain to expect independence in the Judges of India, or that they should ever resist, however oppressive it might be, the authority of the Government. Conceiving that the conduct of the Government of Bombay was reprehensible, and the conduct of the Board of Control was still worse, he should with pleasure support the Motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he meant to confine himself to the legal part of the question, and he would first state that he conceived the production of the papers necessary for the vindication of Sir John Malcolm. In the accounts already published, two cases were mentioned, that of Bappo Gunnes and that of Moro Ragonath, concerning which disputes had arisen between the Judges and the Governor. Bappo Gunnes, as he understood the matter, being committed to gaol, applied for a copy of his committal, which was refused. He then applied to the Supreme Court for a Habeas Corpus, and this writ being granted, was obeyed. A return was made to it in due course, and Bappo Gunnes carried, in answer to the writ, before the Supreme Court at Bombay. The Court thought the return to the writ defective; time was accordingly given to amend the return, and the man sent back to prison. But after the Company's law officer had accepted the time to amend the return, he neglected to avail himself of it, and at the end of the time allowed, the subject being again brought under the consideration of the Court, Bappo Gunnes was discharged. As a lawyer, he meant to contend, that the Supreme Court at Bombay had acted constitutionally and legally in this adjudication. The return made to the writ was inaccurate in many respects. It was necessary to set forth the nature of the inferior jurisdiction, and the particulars of the charge against the accused; neither of which things were done. The return stated that Bappo Gunnes had been found guilty of applying seventy rupees of the Government money to his own use, but it did not state where and when he had received them. The return was therefore defective, and the Judges were bound to hold that the proceedings of the inferior court were untenable. Under such circumstances, if the Judges had not discharged

1373
the prisoner, they would have deserved to be discharged themselves. In the other case, that of Moro Ragonath, the party was a youth, fourteen years of age, possessed of a considerable fortune. He was living with his maternal relations, and had married one of them, according to the custom of the country; while under their protection, he was seized, and carried oft by his uncle, Pandoorung Ramchunder, who kept him a prisoner in his own house for a whole twelvemonth, without any authority whatever. The young man endeavoured to make his escape to Bombay, but by the instrumentality of Mr. Dunlop, a British magistrate, he was compelled to return against his inclination, and even in spite of his tears and entreaties. His uncle who thus took, and was enabled to keep possession of him, by means of the British power, was his next heir, and had an interest in his death. Under these circumstances, some of the young man's friends made an application to the Supreme Court at Bombay, and these facts being sworn to, the Court issued a writ of Habeas Corpus. A return was made; the Judge's decision on which, in his opinion, was wrong; subsequently the Court issued an alias habeas, which was not obeyed. If Ramchunder was the natural guardian of Moro Ragonath, it would only have been necessary that he should have stated that in the return, and there would have been an end of the matter. Instead of doing that, however, he set the Court at defiance. It would be said, he was aware, that being a Hindoo, Ramchunder was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court; but the man who served the writ might possibly have been able to enforce it, had he not been resisted by a detachment of native infantry, exhibiting the edifying spectacle of the East-India Company's troops opposing the execution of the King's writ. The man applied to three magistrates, who, one and all, refused to assist him. All that he could do, therefore, was to place the writ in the hands of one of Ramchunder's servants. As far as the law was concerned he contended that the Judges were decidedly right, whether they had jurisdiction or not must depend on the Act of Parliament constituting the Court, and on the patent appointing them. But the commission, under which they acted, appointed them "further justices and conservators of the peace in and throughout
1374
the island and town of Bombay, and in all factories, settlements, and territories, that now are, and hereafter shall be subject to, the Presidency of Bombay, and to have jurisdiction, and rule, and authority in all things the same as the Justices of the Court of King's Bench throughout the Kingdom of England," which, in his opinion, gave the Judge the full authority of the Court of King's Bench in England, one of the privileges of which was, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, whenever it was required by any one of the King's subjects; the moment, however, the Court at Bombay issued this writ, the civil and military Governor prevented its being obeyed. In this country such a proceeding would be rebellion; but in this country it never could happen that any individual should interpose between the judge and the execution of his authority, for the whole people would regard such interference as the violation of their dearest, right. In India, however, the Courts were more necessary to protect the people against the military government than they ever could be here. There, then, they ought to be treated with double respect, and their authority ought to be steadily upheld by the legislature. He knew that the Privy Council had come to a decision different from his opinion, but as a Member of that House, he could not surrender his own unbiassed, independent judgment to the decision of any court or council whatever. Notwithstanding that decision, he had no hesitation in saying, that the Judges were in the right; but even if they were not, they still deserved to be treated with respect by the civil government. He thought, in what had been said about programmes and ceremonies, and in the anxiety manifested at home to place the governor above the judge, he could detect some of those jealousies which sometimes exhibit themselves among men about equal in authority. He could not, however, think that any paltry, mean motives of that kind had operated on the mind of the Governor. At any rate, the Governor ought not to be placed, like a dictator, above the Court, with power to control its proceedings, and decide what was legal for it to perform, and what not. If there were to be any opposition, any conflict between these parties, he should wish, quite contrary to the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control, to see the authority of the law and the constitution

1375
rise superior to the power of the Governor. Not wishing to decide on ex parte statements, he should cordially support the Motion; being satisfied that it was only by having the fullest information that the House and the country could come to a correct decision on the subject.
Mr. George Bankessaid, it surprised him that the hon. and learned Member for Clare should vote for the Motion, when he appeared already so fully informed on the subject. He trusted the House would allow him, from his official situation, to enter into some explanations, and he thought he should be able to show that Sir John Malcolm did not mean to insult the Judges, and that he interfered for the protection of the natives. The hon. Member for Clare said, there were two cases; but the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that Bappo Gunnes was a British subject. The Habeas Corpus was not directed to him, but to a gaoler of a court not under the authority of the Supreme Court at Bombay, who made a return to which that Court objected. The gaoler, he admitted, was a servant of the Company, and might as such be amenable to the Supreme Court. As a gaoler of a country court, he was not bound to obey the Supreme Court. The return which he made was deemed insufficient, and the Supreme Court required another, or else it declared that Bappo Gunnes should be set at liberty. That man had been convicted of one offence, and stood charged with another. Sir John Malcolm authorized the gaoler not to amend the return, and the consequence was, that the Supreme Court set Bappo Gunnes at liberty. He would say no more on this case, except that it had been brought before the Privy Council upon the appeal of Sir John P. Grant, a person the most competent to state his own case, an able and learned man; and on his appeal the Privy Council had decided against him. It had ruled that the Supreme Court had no authority to issue a habeas to the gaoler of a native court, nor to any man not a British subject, and not within its jurisdiction. The Privy Council went further, and declared that the Supreme Court was bound to recognize the authority of the native Courts, requiring from them no other voucher than their declaration that they had decided in any particular manner. The question at issue here was, whether the Supreme Court had authority to send its writ to the gaoler of
1376
a native court, commanding it to bring up the body of a prisoner. The Privy Council decided, on this point, against the Supreme Court; but it even went further, and declared that the Supreme Court had no power to set any prisoner at liberty confined under the sentence of a native court. But it also appeared plain, and so the Privy Council had decided, that the Supreme Court could not object to a return, as defective, from a Court over which it had no jurisdiction. Whatever might be the learned Member's opinion of the Privy Council, nobody speaking on behalf of Sir J. P. Grant, could think of questioning its judgment or authority, when it had been appealed to by him. As to the case of Moro Ragonath, it unfortunately happened that there were violent disputes in his family, while he, being an infant, was under the guardianship of his relations. According to the custom of the country, his great-uncle, Ramchunder, was his legal guardian; and after having been taken from his maternal relations, he was residing in his uncle's house, when the disagreeable circumstance occurred which was then the subject of discussion. It was wrong, however, to suppose that Ramchunder could be the heir of Moro Ragonath, that being, according to the Hindoo law, quite impossible. The affidavits on which the Judges acted in this case, and on which the hon. Member for Clare seemed to place considerable reliance, were contradicted by affidavits from the opposite party, and have actually been made the grounds of a prosecution for perjury. The object of the parties, in making these affidavits, was to get the Supreme Court to interfere in the dispute, the family residing eighty miles from the Presidency, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which extended only to the island of Bombay, exclusive of the island of Salsette, and to the British subjects within the provinces dependent on the Bombay Presidency. The boy, however, never was in Bombay, nor was he a British subject, nor was he in any manner, in the ordinary sense of the term, under the control of the East-India Company. There was no ground whatever for making the uncle amenable to the Supreme Court, and the false affidavits were made with a view to get him brought there, where he would base been under its jurisdiction. In one of these affidavits it was sworn, that the boy was imprisoned,

1377
and was kept in imprisonment, and it was in consequence of these false affidavits that the Supreme Court issued its writ, or rather a summons, which did not, however, justify or order the capture of either the boy, his uncle, or any other person; the summons was merely calling on him to appear. To serve this summons, a low person, a Portuguese, was employed, who, fancying that he possessed all the authority of the Supreme Court, behaved most insolently at the house of the Mahratta chief. He did not, on that account, impute blame to the judges, for they could never suppose that any insult would be offered to the party summoned. The Portuguese, however, being full of. his commission, produced his staff, and boasted that he would take the Governor himself; which, in a country like India, was a proceeding that might have been attended with dangerous consequences. Was it not plain from this one fact, that the power claimed to be exercised by the judges might have very disastrous results. The abuses which might be committed by their inferior officers would soon fill India with discontent. In this case, the family of Moro Ragonath, knowing nothing of the purport of the writ, but as it was described by the Portuguese, were on the point of proceeding to Bombay, when they were stopped by the Governor. The young man was restored to his uncle, and the parties who had applied in the first instance to the Supreme Court, then applied o it for a Habeas Corpus. He could but lament exceedingly, that the judges should have thought themselves, under such circumstances, bound to comply with the application; and he still more lamented the consequences which ensued from issuing the writ. When it was done, Sir John Malcolm was applied to by the guardian of the boy, and knowing that he did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court; and knowing too, that by an express treaty, he was exempted from the judicial interference of the East-India Company, for these persons were Bramins, and exempted from all such jurisdiction: Sir John Malcolm, knowing all these circumstances, did, when applied to, interpose. A great excitement was caused among all the people, whose privileges, secured to them by treaty, were invaded by this act of the Supreme Court, which persisting in the exercise of its authority, issued another and another writ. Hon.
1378
Members seemed to suppose that the interference of the Governor was against the wishes of the natives; the fact was the very reverse; they dreaded the authority of the Supreme Court, and were anxious not to be subject to its jurisdiction. He would then assure the hon. Member for Clare, that no petty jealousy influenced the conduct of Sir John Malcolm, he was above any such thing; but he was obliged, though unwillingly, to interfere for the protection of those persons against the Supreme Court, whom the East-India Company were bound by treaty not to subject to its authority. He meant, certainly, to contend that, on general principles, Sir J. Malcolm did right by interposing, and he could fortunately confirm this view, by a minute made by the Marquis of Hastings, when on a tour in the provinces. In a letter addressed to the Chairman of the East-India Company in 1818, he says, "It is a curious circumstance, and one which I cannot suppress, that in all the annexations that have lately taken place, the only fear of the natives is, that our judicial system should be introduced. As far as it has been introduced t has been wisely planned, and uprightly and temperately administered, but it is not fit for the natives. The delays and vexations to which they may be subjected are evils, in their eyes, of no small character, while the prejudices of the high-caste people cannot be overcome." These observations were applied to the country courts situated amongst the people, and they, therefore, must be still more disgusted at being compelled to go many miles to the Supreme Court, the forms and the proceedings of which were not less intricate than those of the provincial courts of the Company. He might quote many similar authorities, but he hoped that one would satisfy all impartial persons, that Sir John Malcolm had sufficient ground to interfere and protect the natives, who asked him to do so, against the illegal authority of the Supreme Court. With the most upright intention that gentleman wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, imploring the judges to wait till a reply was obtained to the despatch he had immediately sent off to England. The judges, instead of receiving this Letter in the spirit of conciliation in which it was written, treated it as an additional violation of their privileges. He would appeal to the House if there were any

1379
propriety, in a question of doubtful jurisdiction, where nothing would have been sacrificed by waiting: for the result of the appeal to the higher authorities at home, if it were consistent with the calm temper of a judge, to treat the letter, making such a proposal, as little less than an insult. It was greatly to the honour of Sir John Malcolm, and he would mention the circumstance to satisfy the hon. Member for Clare that no feelings of jealousy or ill will dictated his conduct, that in the despatch which he sent home on the occasion, he pronounced a justly-deserved eulogium on a judge whom he highly valued when alive, and whose death, notwithstanding the little collision which had taken place between them, he sincerely regretted. Sir Charles Chambers, however, did not live to see the affair brought to a termination. The decision of the highest authorities here, when applied to by Sir John Malcolm was, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had no right or authority whatever to extend his jurisdiction, and send his writs of Habeas Corpus, beyond the well-understood and long-defined boundaries of the court. In his opinion, those authorities were perfectly correct, and the decision of the Privy Council was fully justified, both by expediency and by Acts of Parliament. It. never was intended that the Supreme Court should have power over the native chiefs, and the decision of the Privy-Council was accordingly consistent, both with practice and principle. He was surprised to hear an hon. Member contend, that the case was not fully before the Privy Council when it decided. Sir John P. Grant had sent his own statement to this country, and the case was argued by those well acquainted with the law, and well acquainted with the facts, and it was heard by persons perfectly competent to decide, possessing both legal knowledge, and a knowledge of the interests of India. He could not conceive a case more fully argued, or more carefully examined; and he was at a loss to know what exception could be taken to the solemn decision. That being the proper tribunal to hear such a case, he could not conceive for what purpose that House was then called on to review the decision of that court. It would be highly wrong in that House to re-hear and re-try a case that had been already decided by a tribunal far more competent to decide on such a subject
1380
than the House of Commons. He did not mean to deny the power of that House to interfere, but he put it to the wisdom of the House, if it would be expedient. Sir John P. Grant, he would also remind the House, had been recalled; his case would undergo another investigation, and was it consistent in that House to step in between him and that investigation. That judge, in the exercise of his authority, had thought fit to shut up the Supreme Court at Bombay for three months; thus, while he sought to extend the powers of the court over those who were not under its jurisdiction, he had excluded all those from redress for whom that court was the only tribunal. From April to June did he stop all the legal business at Bombay, and prevent all persons injured or defrauded from obtaining justice: the consequence was, that men set the law at defiance. These proceedings were so extraordinary, so unauthorized, that Sir P. Grant had been called home to account for his conduct. It would be unfair towards him for that House then to institute another inquiry. He would observe, however, that this judge bad not been, as the hon. Member for Clare seemed to suppose, degraded before trial; no intention existed any where to degrade either him or the high office he filled, but it was impossible not to order an investigation into all the circumstances connected with his extraordinary conduct. It had been asserted that a hardship, or even an injury, had been inflicted on Sir John P. Grant, by not raising him to be Chief Justice; but would it have been prudent to place him in that situation? Although the Members on his side of the House admitted that this judge had acted on a conscientious conviction, the Members of the other side did not affirm that this conviction was correct. Not a single person, as far as he could learn, supposed that Sir John P. Grant had taken a correct view of his duty, and of the authority of his office. With such an impression he did not think it possible to contend that he ought to be raised to the situation of Chief Justice. His noble friend, the President of the Board of Control, could harbour no intention of degrading the character of a judge, and of degrading the judgment seat. That noble person could not forget the respect due to the judicial office, without forgetting the rank he held in society; without forgetting the

1381
talents, and virtues, and services of his father, the name he bore, and the title he inherited. His hon. and learned friend (Mr. R. Grant) had, the other evening, in reference to something which had fallen from him, quoted the works of Sir Wm. Jones, on the subject of the establishment of the Supreme Court: he wished his hon. friend had proceeded with his quotation, and had read to the House his first charge to the Court at Calcutta, for he would have found there a passage which bore strongly on the present question, and justified Sir John Malcolm. "The object of this court," said Sir Wm. Jones, in a charge that could not, for its many beauties, be too much admired, "which is thus supplied with ample power is to do strict and impartial justice, under a government very peculiarly constituted. In administering justice we must not innovate. The natives of these provinces must be indulged in their prejudices, civil and religious. They have, on very many points, their own peculiar feelings, and those feelings we are bound to respect. Now, this end will be best attained by upholding the supremacy of the executive government." This was a very decisive opinion, and the man who delivered it was a judge, but a judge superior to all the prejudices of his profession or his office, and who was persuaded that it was the duty of the judges in India to support and uphold the supremacy of the government. He knew, equally well, what was due to the feelings of the natives, and to the high functions of the government. Happy would it be for the people of India, should every judge conduct himself in the same prudent, cautious manner, as this great and wise man. Should, unhappily, the reverse be the case,—should collisions ensue between the courts and the presidential governments,—and should the natives be apprehensive, contrary to the faith of our engagements with them, of being subjected to the power of those courts, the consequences must be most deplorable. Dreading the effects of a process which they did not understand, they would conceive themselves at once insulted and oppressed. Having hitherto enjoyed many advantages from our rule in India, should the reverse ever happen to be the case, our empire there would either not be of long duration, or it would have to be maintained by a continual contest. For that House to interfere, would only serve to revive the
1382
apprehensions which were fast subsiding. Conceiving that the documents already alluded to, and the decision of the Privy Council, were sufficient to settle the legal part of the question, the remarks he had made would, he hoped, satisfy the House of the inexpediency of interfering with regard to the political part of the question. On these grounds, he saw no reasons for the hon. Member for Beverly pressing his Motion. With respect to any thing which has occurred since the decision of the Privy Council, it would hardly be proper for that House to inquire. Sir John P. Grant was under orders to return home, and his case would come before the best tribunal for calmly investigating it. The Motion, moreover, would gain nothing, as there was no official correspondence between the Judges of India and the Board of Control, except in some few instances. As far as he was aware, the government at Bombay had no correspondence with the Board of Control, but only with the Court of Directors. He should be far from meeting the Motion with mere technical objections if any thing could be got by it; but as it was, conceiving that it could only tend to keep up irritation and apprehension, he should meet it by a direct negative.
Mr. W. W. Wynneagreed, he said, with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the House of Commons was not the proper place to try the dispute between the government of Bombay and the Supreme Court, but the Motion before the House had no such object. The House was not called on to declare which of these two parties were wrong, but to decide if it. should not have official cognizance of a letter, written by a great public functionary, which had already appeared in print. He was satisfied that both the public functionaries in India had acted from conscientious motives, and he thought Sir J. P. Grant might reasonably have arrived at the conclusion he had adopted, and have acted as he had done. [The right hon. Gentleman then quoted the passage of the Act, appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court, already quoted by Mr. O'Connell, to show that the judge might conscientiously have formed the opinions on which he had acted.] The same interpretation was put on the Act in 1827 by the Chief Justice of that day, who declared that "the Supreme Court had a jurisdiction over all native and other subjects." He did not

1383
mean to dispute the decision of the Privy Council, which was different, but only to contend that no blame could be cast on the judge for giving an interpretation to the Act different from that adopted by the Privy Council. Sir J. P. Grant, acting on his own interpretation of the Act, thought there had been an unlawful interference with his authority; and he therefore concluded, as that authority was essential to the public welfare, in which he professed himself much interested, that he was bound "to exert the strong arm of power, to effect that which he conceived he had a right to effect, notwithstanding any opposition that might be offered to him." He did this, like a conscientious man, on his own responsibility, and at his own risk. Parliament was not called on to examine the dispute in its legislative capacity. The conduct neither of Sir J. P. Grant, nor of Sir John Malcolm, was perhaps deserving-blame, but it would be well for the House to investigate in what degree the Supreme Court was, or ought to be, dependent on the government, and to define the authority of each of these conflicting bodies. He would like to know in what manner any decree of that court, or any other court, could be enforced, if it were left optional with the government to step in at any time, and from any views of expediency, public or private, forbid the execution of that decree, instead of lending its power to carry it into effect. In this country, such collision never happens, and all such matters are reduced into regular order; but in what situation must the courts in India be placed, if they have no peremptory process to enforce their decrees. He conceived that the independence of the judges in India ought to be enforced by that House, and therefore it ought to define precisely the limits of their power, and the extent o their jurisdiction. This was the more necessary, because he knew, from the experience he had had while presiding over the Board of Control, how very difficult it was, to find persons of sufficient experience and ability to fill the office of a judge in India. Every thing in the power of the legislature ought, therefore, to be done to encourage men of integrity, learning, and talents, to undertake the office. A reflection of that nature ought alone to have been sufficient to have prevented the noble Lord from writing the celebrated Letter so often alluded to; and when he remembered that the Government
1384
could only look to the courts, and to an ordinary process at law t6 enforce its own orders, unless it meant to govern only by violence and the sword, generating confusion and anarchy, and becoming a curse instead of a blessing to the people, he thought that the Government was playing a losing game in weakening and opposing the authority of the Supreme Court. If its respectability were not maintained, it would be unable to execute its duties, it would be inefficient to administer justice, and would be only an expensive plague. Differences between two such high authorities, at so great a distance from any higher authority to settle their disputes, must be attended with serious evils. If the governor had any doubts as to the propriety of the proceedings of the court, it was his business to send home for instruction; he had no authority to interfere with its writs. He regretted very much the language which had been used by the noble Lord, in the letter already alluded to, particularly that part of it in which he seemed to intimate that it was necessary to keep down the judges of India, and even by intimidation, if gentler means failed. To that doctrine he could never subscribe, looking, as he did, on the independence of the judges as one of the surest means of enforcing obedience to all the legal orders of the government. He could not help expressing his surprise that no copy of the Letter in question had been kept, for it certainly was a letter of great importance; it pledged the Board of Control for the time being to a certain course, and to certain opinions. As the writer was the responsible Minister of the Crown, and the head of that department; as by his advice all judges in India would of necessity be appointed; any communication coming from that quarter must necessarily be one carrying with it the weight and authority of an official despatch. It was in vain to say that it was a private letter from one private individual to another; it was a communication from one great public functionary to another. Suppose the Duke of Wellington addressed a letter to one of our Ministers abroad, would it be contended that such a Minister would feel himself justified in disregarding that letter, merely because it did not formally come from the Secretary of State, the official organ of communication? and, on the other hand, the letter of the First Lord

1385
of the Treasury would pledge the Government as much as any official despatch could. If the House were called on to vote, he should vote for the Motion, though he doubted whether the coming to a vote at all were desirable.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, he hoped the House would do him the justice to believe, that no relations subsisting between him and the East-India Company could have the effect of influencing the vote he intended to give on that occasion. He had given the question then under discussion the fullest, and, he trusted, the most dispassionate consideration, and that led him to the conviction that the Court of Bombay had decided in error. He had had the advantage of passing seventeen years of his professional life in India, in the course of which a considerable quantity and variety of business came under his observation, and within the sphere of his practice; he might say, perhaps, that he had more professional business than any man in India; yet in the course of that he never had the slightest reason to imagine that any judge could think of saying that there was no native of India not subject to the jurisdiction of the British courts in India. He was quite sure that no lawyer would differ from him, when he said that no natives were subject to British courts except such as were distinctly specified to be so. If the inferior court were wrong —of which he had not the slightest doubt —the Supreme Court was not less in error. Had such doctrines as were now contended for by the Supreme Court been maintained since our first conquests in India, our hold of our Indian possessions would now be extremely insecure. A pledge has been held out to the inhabitants beyond the pale of the English courts, that they should be allowed to retain their Hindoo laws to which they were attached. Had they supposed that they would have been subjected to laws with which they were unacquainted, they could not have been induced to submit to British authority. The liability to British laws, on the part of Hindoos, was what no judge had ever thought of, and it was a doctrine which he expected would never receive the sanction of any man acquainted either with the law or with the state of India. It was, he conceived, indisputable that English laws had their local boundaries in India. On these grounds, then, he thought there ought to be a declaratory act, and, that it
1386
would be well worth the attention of his Majesty's Government to consider the expediency of some such measure, stating precisely what the law was, and putting the question beyond further dispute. If the Court at Bombay had the right assumed by it, and could exercise all the privileges of a Court of King's Bench, then it might remove all the circuit cases within its own jurisdiction, and itself try every case with English judges and English juries, and bring up all the witnesses and parties before it. He need scarcely tell the House that these matters had already excited the greatest alarm amongst the natives of India, and that the supposition of its being possible for the Supreme Court to exercise such a power, would throw all India into a ferment. The present was the case of a writ of Habeas Corpus, and the old man by whom the return was made stated, "I am the relation of Moro Ragonath, and I have never been the servant of the English government; but at the time you took this country you gave me your word that I should live without fear. Depending upon that I remained at Poonah, and my grandson, Moro Ragonath, was placed under my charge. The said boy is now fourteen years old, and for that reason, according to the Shastra of the Hindoos, he is without knowledge, and obliged to live under the charge of the person who has the care of him; and there is nothing more done for him than is usually observed in Hindoo families. After the death of his mother I took charge of him; and without the authority of those from whom I received him, I will never deliver him up." This was, he, thought a sufficient proof that the person to whom the writ was addressed had a higher reverence for the laws of his; country than for our institutions; and that it would be doing him and all his caste a great injury to subject them to our tribunals. They would look with horror on any process by which women and children might be taken from their homes, to the disgrace of their families, as committing the grossest possible outrage on their feelings and prejudices. Though he had no doubt that the Chief Justice at Calcutta, and the Court at Bombay, had acted from the most conscientious feelings and convictions, yet he was bound to say, and he said it with pain, having lived on terms of friendship with them both, that he thought them mistaken. He was also obliged to

1387
admit, that he thought they had both indulged in language which the survivor must now regret: neither did he conceive, from the course adopted by them, that Sir John Malcolm could have acted otherwise than he had done. He held it to be sound doctrine, that a writ going beyond its bounds was nothing but waste paper. It might be said that a writ of Habeas Corpus was a writ of great authority—a prerogative writ; but yet even at their own door it was one of no force. Let a writ of Habeas go down to Scotland—let the bearer of it go down and seek to remove one of the prisoners from the gaol of Edinburgh, and if he raised any disturbance, he would probably soon find himself an inmate of that gaol. Any man was, in his opinion, bound to disobey an illegal summons, which was all that Sir John Malcolm had caused to be done. That gentleman would not allow the Supreme Court to assume an omnipotent power and annihilate those superior courts in which justice was administered to the natives by laws congenial to their feelings. Some Members had expressed themselves as if the natives would be deprived of all means of obtaining justice unless the authority of the Supreme Court were upheld; the reverse, however, was the case. The provincial courts administered justice to the natives; they understood the practices and the laws of these courts, and it was their authority which the Supreme Court had weakened. The question was not to be decided exclusively by English laws and practices, but by the practices of Hindostan. In both the cases under discussion the individuals were out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. One was resident at Poonah, and the other was imprisoned by the order of a provincial court. It was part of the law of Hindostan, that beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the Adawlut Court should have jurisdiction, and consequently the measure of the Supreme Court was undoubtedly illegal. He approved, therefore, of the interference of Sir John Malcolm, who had properly exercised his power to prevent the privileges of one court being infringed on by another court which had no jurisdiction. The governor was bound to support the legal proceedings of the Supreme Court, but he was equally bound to oppose its illegal proceedings. He was the only authority on the spot to which an appeal could be made,
1388
until the higher authorities in England decided the question, and prevented future disputes by lessening the authority of the Supreme Court. Without finding fault either with the conduct of Sir John Malcolm or Sir John Grant, he wished for a declaratory act, and for an end to the authority assumed.
Mr. Robert Grantexplained, that he still was of opinion that the decision of the Privy Council was extra-judicial, because the native suitors were not heard. He wished for a declaratory act.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could not allow the present discussion to close without making a few observations. When he considered the great responsibility which devolved upon public functionaries, he had no hesitation in saying, that, when guilty of error, if it were found that they acted at the same time with upright intentions, and were actuated by conscientious feelings, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that they were entitled to the most indulgent consideration. But if, as in the case of the governor of Bombay, it was found that the parties had acted in a manner the most discreet, prudent, and proper, he thought they had a double claim to be supported by the Government; and that claim would, he thought, be recognized by the House. He wished to have it understood, that he desired, like his right hon. friend Mr. Wynne, with whom he concurred, to leave the legal question entirely out of view—they had nothing to do with the legal question. The hon. and learned Member for Clare, however, had discussed the legal question; a proceeding which had been rendered altogether unnecessary by the decision of the Privy Council—a tribunal much more competent to decide such a question than was that House. The authority of that decision, he believed, would not be lightly questioned, when it was recollected that two Chief Justices, Lord Tenterden and Sir N. Tindal were present, as also Lord Wynford, and his right hon. friend, whose habits, professional and official, so fully qualified him for assisting in such a decision. He had no doubt the House would feel that it was not necessary to place the independence of Indian judges upon a lower footing than that of English judges; this was not a case affecting their independence, but a question relating to the assumption of authority unwarrantable and dangerous. For the exercise of

1389
authority beyond proper boundaries, he apprehended an action of trespass might be brought; but for the exercise of unwarrantable authority within acknowledged bounds, there lay no such remedy; and, should no adequate remedy exist, it must be the business of the legislature to devise one—in doing which it would, of course, be influenced by no considerations but the nature of the case and a due regard to its own character. With reference to the injury our authority might sustain in India by the conflict between the Courts and the Executive Authority, the House should recollect that it was impossible to suppose that the natives of India had the same respect for English courts of justice that we had. The question ought not to be argued as if the Indians had a great respect for the jargon of our laws, which we ourselves did not understand. They could have no attachment to laws administered in a foreign language, and couched in forms which even the inhabitants of this country could not comprehend, and which they regarded as contrary to their customs and religion. They did not like a court before which they were dragged from a distance, and the authority of which they did not acknowledge. The claim which the Supreme Court in India made to extend its jurisdiction created great alarm among all the natives, and even in the executive government, as being contrary to the engagements it had entered into with them. The Provincial courts had, on the contrary, merited and obtained the confidence of the natives, particularly under the government of Mr. Elphinstone. The fact was stated in the valuable work of the late Bishop Heber. Those courts are there described as acting on the principles of jurisprudence with a due regard to the prejudices of the natives, and as doing much gradually to accustom them to our laws. The conduct of the Supreme Court had a great tendency to bring these courts into disrepute, and Sir John Malcolm was bound to uphold them as well as the executive authority. Thinking that Sir John Malcolm had only done his duty, he should be ashamed of himself if he had not supported him, and if he had shrunk from the responsibility of sharing his opinions. He thought that Sir John Malcolm had done quite right in addressing the letter which had been mentioned to the judge; he could not adopt a better course, and it seemed to him (Mr. Peel)
1390
the only one that was likely to prevent a collision between the judicial and executive authorities. The letter was intended to prevent any necessity for making known to the public the difference of opinion which existed between them. He believed that the two judges, Sir Charles Chambers and Sir J. P. Grant, of whom he was disposed to speak with all that respect which was due to them, acted on as pure and conscientious motives as Sir John Malcolm. They supposed, undoubtedly, that their construction of the law was correct. With respect to the Letter of his noble friend, Lord Ellenborough, a great many erroneous and unjust impressions had got abroad as to its purport and intentions. He conceded to hon. Members that his noble friend could not—and he did not claim it for him—shield himself behind the privilege of a private letter. A public man had no right to give instructions in private letters, and then say they were private; but at the same time he was sure that the public service could not be carried on effectually unless public functionaries were allowed to write private letters, without having the terms in which they were expressed too severely scrutinized. What he claimed for such letters was, that they should not be exposed to have their terms so severely scrutinized, nor be subjected to such fastidious criticism as public despatches, and he would only claim for the words of his noble friend's Letter some indulgence. He denied that anything in that Letter implied an intention to destroy the independence of the judicial authority, or make it subservient to the views of the executive government. He would take the two strongest passages; the first was that in which his noble friend spoke of Mr. Seymour being knighted, and where he said that as it would not be proper to leave Mr. Dewar without that honour, he should consider how it might be done; he believed it might be conferred by patent, but perhaps it might be conferred through the governor, in such, a manner as to mark the superiority of the executive government over the judicial authority. It would place the governor above the court, and mark him out as the King's representative. By this Lord Ellenborough had no intention to degrade the judges, but to make the people of India aware that the executive government was the supreme power. He objected to the Motion, therefore, as imply-

1391
ing a censure on his noble friend which he did not deserve. Nothing could tempt him to refer to the language used by Sir C. Chambers and Sir J. P. Grant, in consequence of the letter addressed to them by Sir J. Malcolm, more particularly as one of those judges was now no more. Nothing should tempt him to speak with disrespect of the dead; and he would only refer to Sir C. Chambers's charge in as far as was necessary to do justice to the living. The letter of his noble friend must be misunderstood, without a knowledge of the charges to which it in fact referred. Sir C. Chambers, in his address to the court, spoke of the extraordinary letter he had received from Sir J. Malcolm, in which the court was dictated to by persons who had no right to address it, except in the capacity of humble suitors. "A heavy responsibility, the judge said, rested on those who, under the pretext of supporting the Government and the State authority, used their power to extinguish the exercise of the King's authority, and screen their servants from the restraints of the only authority and power which was able to check that tyranny into which irresponsible power had ever a tendency to fall." Here was a distinction drawn between the King's and the East India Company's authority; and the judges assumed that they represented the King's authority, "while the civil government only represented that of the Company. Then the natives were told by the judge that this Letter was a pretext to extinguish the King's authority; against such language and such proceedings he should always protest. His noble friend had stated, that the civil government was above the court, not with any view to interfere with the independence of the judges, but to show that the civil government was the depository of the King's power as well as the court; his noble friend wished to give the President the power of conferring knighthood on the judge, in order to notify to the inhabitants that he represented the King. The other passage of his noble friend's letter to which he would refer, was that which concluded with the comparison of the two elephants. He did not mean to vindicate that manner of speaking of the judges; he did not mean to vindicate the expressions of his noble friend; but he claimed for those expressions the candid consideration which was due to them, as contained in a letter not intended to be published. His noble
1392
friend by those expressions never intended to degrade the King's judges; his whole official conduct was a proof that he could not mean it; and if he had, he would have been guilty of a great public offence. His noble friend meant nothing whatever derogatory to the character of the judges; but his noble friend was justified in saying that he hoped Sir J. P. Grant would review his decision, and that if he should not come to a different conclusion, then he would be rendered harmless by having with him two other judges who were not likely to join with him in opinion, or be opposed to the civil government. His noble friend had not at first advised the King to recall Sir J. P. Grant, though he believed that he had assumed an authority which he was not justified in assuming; and not wishing to advise his Majesty to recall that judge, he placed two other judges with him, in whom the Government could place confidence. Conceiving that the Motion was intended as a censure on his noble friend, he should, on the grounds he had stated, resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. C. Fergussonexplained, that he meant to cast no censure on Sir J. P. Grant.
Mr. Stewartexpressed his regret that Government, after having, at so short a period before, expressed its readiness to supply Parliament with all possible information concerning India, should refuse the first paper it had been asked to produce. The question had not been fairly met by his opponents; for all the arguments they had urged about the jurisdiction of the Court at Bombay, and the decision of the Privy Council, had nothing to do with the question. The Letter of Lord Ellenborough was obviously a public document, because it was an answer to representations sent from the Indies before the noble Lord was in office. He was in hopes that the documents he moved for would have tended to justify the Bombay Government. Thinking that the correspondence would at least elucidate that conduct, and being willing to put the professions of the Government, to which he had just alluded, to the test, he should certainly like to take the sense of the House on his Motion.
The House then divided—For the Motion 15: Against it 106: Majority against the Motion 91,

List of the Minority.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Rice, T. S.

Ebrington, Lord

Thomson, C. P.

Grant, R.

Townshend, Lord C.

Gordon, R.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.W.

Jephson, C. D.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Morpeth, Lord

Tellers.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

Protheroe, E.

Stewart, J.

EAST RETFORD.
On the Motion for bringing up the report of this Bill, Mr. Stewart objected to proceeding with it at so late an hour. Such a measure ought not, in the then state of the House, to be forced forward; and he moreover had an amendment to propose, which he should like to hear discussed.
Mr. Nicolson Calverthoped the hon. Member would allow the Bill to proceed, considering the length of time it had been in the House, and how often it had been discussed, he did not think this an unreasonable request.
Mr. Stewartsaid, he must oppose the further progress of the Bill.
Mr. Secretary Peelput it to the candid consideration of the hon. Member, whether such a course would be advisable, after the numberless discussions the Bill had undergone.
Sir John Sebrightwas of opinion, that the Bill had been amply discussed, and ought not to be delayed.
Mr. Humethought it might as well be stopped then as at any subsequent stage, and, in his opinion, the sooner it was strangled the better: he hoped the hon. Member would persist in his opposition.
Mr. Tennysonwished to state, that he continued as hostile to the Bill as ever, but he would not then join in opposing it. As the hon. Member, however, wished for delay, with a view to further discussing his clause, his wishes, he thought, ought to be the guide of the hon. Member who had brought in the Bill.
The Question was then put, and the report brought up. On this,
Mr. Stewartrose to propose a clause similar to that which was proposed in the case of Penryn. When that was proposed hon. Members objected to it on account of its applying only to one borough, and expressed themselves willing to vote for some general measure; and yet when a noble Lord, a few nights before, proposed a general declaration applying to all boroughs, the
1394
right hon. Secretary of State objected to it as too sweeping. He told the noble Lord, he might apply it to his own constituents, but he would not concur in applying it to his (Mr. Peel's) constituents, the honest electors of Westbury. It was not fair, to object to a measure, that it was at once both special and general. He would certainly have a general declaration, but he would begin by making it with regard to East Retford. It had been proved in evidence that a peer of the realm had endeavoured to influence the return of a Member to that House. Jonathan Fox, who was examined in March 23, 1828, stated that a large sum of money was paid into Mr. Foljambe's bank by Earl Fitzwilliam, to be applied, he believed, to election purposes. Richard Hannam had stated, that the Duke of Newcastle resided near East Retford, and had considerable property in the hundred of Bassetlaw. The Duke of Norfolk and Lord Manvers had also property in that district. He would not positively assert that either of these Members had endeavoured to influence the return of Members to that House, but it was notorious that peers did use such influence, and they did this now as they had done it when the Duke of Newcastle was a minor. The House, knowing these circumstances might with propriety, he thought, require of any Member returned for East Retford or the hundred of Bassetlaw, that he should declare, before taking his seat, that he had not obtained it by any bribery or corruption. It was said, that by extending the franchise to the hundred, any tendency to corruption would be neutralised; but if it were extended only to those who might be under the influence of peers, instead of being neutralised, the poison might be rendered more virulent. The House would, in fact, open the door wider than ever to that influence, of which they ought to be most jealous. It was on this ground, as corruption had been proved to exist in this borough, that he would apply to it the proposed clause. He would not limit it, indeed, to this one borough, but extend it to every borough or place that might hereafter be proved guilty of corruption. The clause he would propose should run thus, "And be it further enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, any Member who shall be returned to serve in Parliament for the said borough of East Retford, shall, on coming to the

1395
Table of this House to be sworn—make a declaration to this effect, ' I, A. B. do solemnly declare, that I have neither given, nor promised to give, nor intend to give, or promise hereafter, any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of my election as Member for the Borough of East Retford; and I solemnly declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that my Return has not been procured, or promoted, by the influence or interference of any Peer of Parliament.'" To such a declaration no person returned for that borough could, he thought, object, and therefore he moved that the clause be brought up.
Mr. Nicolson Culvertsaid, the hon. Member appeared as if he had passed the whole of his life in India, and were totally unacquainted with the nature and forms of our Constitution. With the professed object of preventing bribery and corruption generally, the hon. Member proposed a clause that was applicable only to one borough. He would not object to a declaration of that kind, if it were to be made by every Member; perhaps even if the number of the electors in the borough under consideration were less than 200 he might be disposed to adopt it, because the smallness of their number might warrant the presumption of bribery; but it was ridiculous to imagine that bribery could be extended over a body of electors amounting to more than 2,000. The assumption that the electors of the hundred of Basset law would be under the influence of the peers who lived there had no foundation but the hon. Member's own imagination. On the whole he considered the clause so preposterous, that he was persuaded, were the House as full as the hon. Member had wished it to be, that he would find very few supporters.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Member, in admitting that he saw no objection to a general clause of this description, had proved that the one proposed had in it nothing preposterous. The hon. Member could not call that absurd for one borough which he would not object to apply to all boroughs. He should like to see the clause, in the first instance, applied to one borough as an experiment. The hon. Member seemed to think that the influence of peers would not be exerted on the electors of the hundred, but the House was acquainted with too many instances of that interference to adopt the hon.
1396
Member's conclusion. Money had been paid to a peer for a seat in that House, and there was, therefore, no impropriety in assuming that it might be paid again. He meant to support the clause, and he hoped the House would do the same.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, if the same electors as before were to retain the franchise, he should be disposed to agree to the clause, but to them was now to be added 2,000 others, and it would be unfair towards these infant electors to stigmatize their birth by branding them with a suspicion of bribery. Moreover he thought it would be wrong to make any distinction between the Members of that House. They ought all to be placed on the same footing, though he did not mean to say that they ought all to make a declaration of that kind. Seeing no reason for selecting the two Members for the Borough of East Retford from among the 658 who composed that House, and seeing no public advantage likely to result from the introduction of the clause, he should certainly oppose the Motion.
The clause was negatived without a division. On the Motion that the Bill be read a third time that day week,
Mr. Humesaid, as the constitutional amendments to the Bill had been all lost, it would be better to reject it altogether, and he hoped that all those who had, on any occasion, objected to it, would oppose it on the third reading.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he had voted for transferring the franchise to Birmingham, but not being able to obtain that, he had been willing to accept the hundred of Bassetlaw, as preferable to uniting the franchise to the old corrupt borough. The borough of Cricklade, which he represented, had had the franchise so extended, and he was persuaded that it was as independent as any borough in the kingdom. With that experience he thought it would be unwise to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Stewartsaid, he differed from the hon. Member, and he should, in the next stage, oppose the Bill.—Motion agreed to.

LAW REPORT.
The Second Report of the Commissioners, sitting to inquire into the State of the Law, was brought up by Mr. Secretary Peel, and ordered to be printed.

CLARENCE MARKET.
Lord Lowther Lord Lowther, having obtained leave to bring in a Bill

1397
for the removal of the Hay Market, in the Haymarket, St. James's Parish, to York, Clarence, and Cumberland Squares, it was brought up, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
The noble Lord, in answer to a question from Mr. Hume, said he did not anticipate any expense to the Office of Woods and Forests from the removal of the market.

CORRIGENDA.
Page 117.—The observations on the present state of Manufactures ascribed to Lord Tullamore (page 118) were made by Mr. Ewart, one of the Members for Bletchinley:—in the same Speech, another error has crept in, where the word yards is repeatedly put for pounds.
Page 687.—In the Marquis of Blandford's Speech on Parliamentary Reform, a quotation is given incorrectly; it should be "Sum ex iis, qui mirer antiquos."
As in adverting to any Proceedings in Parliament, the Reader must have frequent occasion to refer to "HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY," and to the Two Series of " HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES;" the subjoined TABLES, which exhibit at one view the period comprised in each volume of those Works, will be found very useful.

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

Showing the A. D. and the A. R. in which the Thirty-six Volumes of HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND respectively commence and conclude.

VOL. I

6

WM.

I

1072

to

22

JAMES

I

1624

II

1

CHAS.

I

1625

to

18

CHAS

I

1642

III

18

—

I

1642

to

12

—

II

1660

IV

12

—

II

1660

to

4

JAMES

II

1688

V

4

JAS.

II

1688

to

13

WM.

III

1702

VI

1

ANNE

1702

to

13

ANNE

1714

VII

1

GEO.

I

1714

to

8

GEO.

I

1722

VIII

9

—

—

1722

to

6

GEO.

II

1733

IX

6

GEO.

II

1733

to

10

—

—

1737

X

10

—

—

1737

to

12

—

—

1739

XI

13

—

—

1739

to

14

—

—

1741

XII

14

—

—

1741

to

16

—

—

1743

XIII

16

—

—

1743

to

20

—

—

1747

XIV

20

—

—

1747

to

26

—

—

1753

XV

26

—

—

1753

to

4

GEO.

III

1764

XVI

5

GEO.

III

1765

to

11

—

—

1771

XVII

11

—

—

1771

to

14

—

—

1774

XVIII

15

—

—

1774

to

17

—

—

1777

XIX

17

—

—

1777

to

19

—

—

1778

XX

19

—

—

1778

to

20

—

—

1780

XXI

20

—

—

1780

to

21

—

—

1781

XXII

21

—

—

1781

to

22

—

—

1782

XXIII

22

—

—

1782

to

24

—

—

1783

XXIV

24

—

—

1783

to

25

—

—

1785

XXV

25

—

—

1785

to

26

—

—

1786

XXVI

26

—

—

1786

to

28

—

—

1788

XXVII

28

—

—

1788

to

29

—

—

1789

XXVIII

29

—

—

1789

to

31

—

—

1791

XXIX

31

—

—

1791

to

33

—

—

1792

XXX

33

—

—

1792

to

34

—

—

1794

XXXI

34

—

—

1794

to

35

—

—

1795

XXXII

35

—

—

1795

to

37

—

—

1797

XXXIII

37

—

—

1797

to

39

—

—

1798

XXXIV

39

—

—

1798

to

40

—

—

1800

XXXV

40

—

—

1800

to

41

—

—

1801

XXXVI

42

—

—

1801

to

43

—

—

1803

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

Showing the A. D. and the A. R. in which the Volumes of the First and Second Series of HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES respectively commence and conclude.

First Series.

VOL. I—II

44

GEO.

III

1803/4

III—V

45

—

—

1805

VI—VII

46

—

—

1806

VIII—IX

47

—

—

1806/7

X—XI

48

—

—

1808

XII—XIV

49

—

—

1809

XV—XVII

50

—

—

1810

XVIII—XX

51

—

—

1810/11

XXI—XXIII

52

—

—

1812

XXIV—XXVI

53

—

—

1812/13

XXVII—XXVIII

54

—

—

1813/14

XXIX—XXXI

55

—

—

1814/15

XXXII—XXXIV

56

—

—

1816

XXXV—XXXVI

57

—

—

1817

XXXVII—XXXVIII

58

—

—

1818

XXXIX—XL

59

—

—

1819

XLI

60

—

—

1819/20

new Series.

VOL. I—III

1

GEO.

IV

1820

IV— V

2

—

—

1821

VI—VIII

3

—

—

1822

VIII—IX

4

—

—

1823

X—XI

5

—

—

1824

XII—XIII

6

—

—

1825

XIV—XVI

7

—

—

1826

XVII

8

—

—

1827

XVIII—XIX

9

—

—

1828

XX—XXI

10

—

—

1829

MINUTES.
The 26th Report of the Carnatic Commissioners was presented at the Bar.
The Marriage Validating Bill was read a second time.
Earl STANHOPE stated, that indisposition would prevent his noble friend the Duke of Richmond from bringing forward his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Country on Thursday next. The noble Duke intended to bring the subject before the House as soon as the state of his health would permit, and would give due notice of the motion. Meanwhile, he should move that the order be discharged.—Discharged accordingly.

BANK NOTES ISSUED.
Lord Goderichsaid, a return had been laid upon the Table of the amount of country bank-notes stamped in the last three years, and of the unstamped notes allowed for at the Stamp Office. There appeared to be a progressive increase in both respects. He wished to know whether this account included Scotland; and if it did not, whether there would be any objection to furnish a return, distinguishing the amount of notes in the two countries.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the account did include Scotland, but it might be difficult to distinguish between those parts of it which related to the two coun-

1343
tries. However, he would inquire into the subject.