House, and probably his being called on to give evidence might preclude him from delivering his sentiments.

Mr. Pull conceived it absolutely necessary to establish his charge, that the honourable gentieman should be ex

amined.

Mr. Johnstone was then examined at much length by Mr. Paull; he had been a considerable time at Lucknow, and acted as British resident there in the year 1794. He had heard that the Vizier Asuf Dowlah was addicted to opium and spirituous liquors, but could not state this of his own knowledge. He knew that the system of Lord Cornwallis with respect to Oude was, never to interfere in its internal affairs, except in the way of advice and admonition, and that the Vizier and his officers were at that time treated with great respect by the officers of the Company. It was his opinion, that if Lord Cornwallis had been governor when the Vizier was deficient in the payment of the sums stipulated by the treaty, he would have examined to what this deficiency was owing, and if it proceeded from inability, that he would have reduced the demand, instead of seizing his territories.

After a long conversation upon the admissibility of it as evidence, a paper was allowed to be laid on the table, which was a copy of a statement made by Mr. Johnstone in the year 1792-3, of the revenues of Oude, which then were estimated at two crores or twenty-one lacks of rupees, being about 2,400,0007.

Mr. Johnstone was asked a variety of questions respecting the affairs of Oude, by Sir Arthur Wellesley, Mr. Hurst, Mr. Martin, and other members.

Sir Alured Clarke was then called in and examined respecting the affairs of Oude, and the opinions entertained about the administration of that country, when he was vice-president of the council of Bengal, as well as at the time when the changes in the system of its government were introduced by Lord Wellesley. Those changes appeared to him to have been made with the concurrence of the Vizier, and not against his consent.

Another difficulty arose upon a question put by Mr. Paull to Sir Alured Clark, as to his opinion, whether the demand of seventy-five crores and 500,000 rupees, from the Nabob of Oude, on a particular occasion, was not a violation of the treaty of 1798 ?

This question was strenuously opposed by Mr. Wallace,

Mr.

Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Huskisson, Sir Arthur Wellesley, and other members, upon the ground that as the treaty itself was on the table, the committee could form its own de cision upon the subject, and ought not to receive evidence of opinion from any witness.

Mr. Paull contended, that he was grounded in this ques-tion upon the undisputed admission of the House the preceding night.

This produced a debate of considerable length, when the committee divided,

For the Question
Against it

Majority

16

46

-30

Mr. Paull stated, that the next question he had to put was also a question as to opinion, namely, whether if the Bengal army had been marched to the frontier of Oude, with a view to repel the enemy, then marching to attack that territory, the witness thought it would be fair or just, and not contrary to treaty, that the whole expence should be charged to the Nabob Vizier? But as the committee had decided that night contrary to its own practice the preceding night, he wished to adjourn the further proceeding, in order to re-consider and new-shape the questions he had still to ask, and to give an opportunity for the attendance of other members.

This produced another debate, which terminated in permitting, at the request of Mr. Wellesley Pole, the question. to be put for the opinion of Sir Alured Clarke; and the answer was, that "not recollecting the words of the treaty, he could not now form any opinion, nor did he know that such a case had occurred."

Another discussion arose upon the question of adjournment, when it was at length agreed to adjourn the further proceedings till the next evening at five o'clock; and Mr. Paull pledged himself to close the evidence of Major Ouseley in three hours.

Sir Arthur Wellesley said, that in order to the defence of his noble relation against one of the principal charges of profusion and extravagance, it would be materially important to have the testimony of a gentleman, named Salmon, who had been the military auditor at Bengal, and who had formed the estimates upon which the sums in allusion were expended. He therefore called upon the honourable gen

tleman

tleman who brought forward those charges, to move that Mr. Salmon be summoned to attend the committee.

Mr. Paull thought it very extraordinary, that the hon. gentleman should dictate to him what witnesses he should bring forward in support of his charges, which he had no doubt of being able to substantiate.

Sir Arthur Wellesley said, he hoped when the committee. should decide upon this part of the case, it would be recollected that the honourable gentleman had been called and refused to summon a most competent witness. upon, Colonel Wood said, if the honourable member refused to comply with a claim so fair, the House had the power, and he hoped would, for its own satisfaction, summon Mr. Salmon.

The chairman at length left the chair, and obtained leave' to sit again to-morrow.

Ordered, upon the motion of Colonel Wood, that Mr. Salmon be summoned to attend the committee,

Mr. Windham then brought up his bill for obtaining correct returns of the persons liable to be balloted for the militia, and for suspending such ballot for a time to be limited. Read a first time, and ordered for the second reading the next day.

At twelve o'clock the House adjourned.

.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, JUNE 20.

The royal assent was given by commission to the Irish malt duty bill, the mutiny bill, the Chelsea allowance bill, the Dublin paving bill, and twenty-two private bills. The commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Walsingham, and Lord Auckland.

In an appeal from Scotland, "Martin v. Macnabb," the Lord Advocate of Scotland was heard for the appellant. Further hearing on Wednesday.

Mr. Hobhouse, and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the Duke of Grafton's agreement bill, the Irish mine bill, the additional assessed taxes bill, the Gibraltar and Malta postage bill, the Prussian yarn bill, and some private bills, which were read a first time.

The West India auditors bill passed through a committee and was reported.

The

The report of the insolvent debtors bill was, on the mo tion of the Earl of Lauderdale, ordered to be taken into consideration on Wednesday.

TORTOLA FREE PORT BILL.

Earl Spencer moved the second reading of the Tortola free port bill.

The Duke of Montrose expressed his regret at the thin atten lance of their lordships on a question which he conceived to be one of the greatest importance. He was at a loss to conceive the reasons upon which the measure was founded. The present board of trade had acted in this instance diametrically opposite to the decision of the board of trade of last year. He had hoped that upon this question the noble lord at the head of the treasury would have attended, but understanding that noble lord was prevented from attending by a slight indisposition, he must request his noble friend in the blue ribbon (Earl Spencer) to act as umpire upon this question between the two boards of trade. The principle upon which the board of trade of last year had acted was clearly this, that in allowing the free importation from foreign islands into one of our own islands, of sugar and coffee, and those articles which our own islands produced, it was impossible afterwards to prevent the im portation from thence into this country, of such foreign produce, upon the same terms as the produce of our islands, thereby materially injuring the interests of our own West India islands. This principle applied to the island of Tortola, from whence, if foreiga sugar was to be allowed to be imported thither, all the ingenuity of man could not afterwards prevent the ingenuity of man from finding means to import that sugar into this country, under the pretence of its being sugar of the growth of our own islands. The establishment of a free port, according to the provisions of this bill, in the island of Tortola was therefore, in his opinion, a measure highly impolitic, and a measure which he thought the noble lord at the head of the board of trade could only have been induced to bring forward by the representations of the very ingenious agent of that island. He thought, therefore, that the consideration of the bill had better be postponed for the present session.

Lord Auckland defended the bill, which he considered a measure of sound policy. The object of it was to render Tortola a carrying island, and to take from St. Thomas's VOL. III. 1805-6.

some

some part of the carrying trade in the possession of that island, in which a number of British shipping were employed. This was a measure which he conceived would therefore be beneficial to our commerce and our navigation, whilst, with respect to our West India trade, it would not be injured, nor did any of these persons concerned in that trade, or connected with West India interests, whom he was in the daily habit of seeing, make the least complaint, that any such injury was likely to result from it. As to the dangers which the noble duke apprehended, there was an express provision in this bill for the purpose of preventing the importation into this country of foreign sugar, as there was a clause by which no more sugar was to be imported into this country from Tortola than the amount of the average annual produce of that island. This, therefore, negatived all those evil consequences apprehended by the noble duke; as it was not to be supposed that officers employed in the customs of Tortola would grant false documents, when, at the end of the year, on making up the accounts, the fraud must necessarily be discovered, and those guilty of it lose their offices.

Lord Hawkesbury supported the arguments urged by the Duke of Montrose, and supposed that this measure must have come before the board of trade in the absence of the noble lord (Auckland) opposite, whose accurate knowledge upon the subject forbade the supposition that he had been present when the measure was discussed.

Earl Spencer observed that, in his new office of umpire, conferred upon him by the noble duke, he had little difficulty in deciding, as he found that the present board of trade had, in this measure, only followed the example of the former board of trade, by whom an act similar to the present was brought forward, last session, for establishing a free port at Nassau, in the Bahamas. His lordship likewise supported the bill, on grounds similar to those urged by Lord Auckland.

The Duke of Montrose and Lord Auckland explained. The bill was read a second time, and committed for Monday.

Adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE