lowing no one claim but what was clearly founded in equi-" fy and honour; it was for these reasons that the present bill was submitted to the consideration of the House. The great object of the bill was to furnish the commissioners with power to examine upon oath, and to subject the party breaking it to the penalty of perjury. He was free to say that from those who viewed the claims in the most unfa vourable light he expected aid rather than opposition. If they thought that most of the debts were fraudulent and unjust, why were they reluctant to arm the commissioners with such a degree of authority as would enable them to detect fraud and injustice? He would, however, keep his word with the House, and though many observations pressed upon his mind, he was resolved not to be led into greater length; he would trespass no longer upon the attention of the House.

After some further conversation the gallery was cleared for a division, but the bill was read a second time by the general assent of the members present.

Mr. Hobhouse obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the duties on malt.

The linen drawback bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day.

The other orders of the day were then postponed, and the House adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, JULY 8.

In the appeal "Rennie v. Tod and others, Mr. Alex ander was heard for the respondent. Further hearing the next day.

The debtors' relief bill was read a third time, and passed.

Mr. Baldwin, and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the Irish roads bill, and some private bills, which were read a first time.

The Irish poor bill, the Irish spirit duties collection bill, the Irish customs bill, and the assessed taxes allowances bill, passed through committees and were reported.

The second reading of the slave ship limitation bill was postponed till Thursday.

10

SITUATION

SITUATION OF INDIA,

The order of the day having been read, for the Lords to be summoned to attend this day, the Lord Chancellor called upon Lord Melville.

Lord Melville rose, and spoke to the following effect :My Lords, I regret much, that the House is not in possession of those official documents which would enable us clearly to see our way in the discussion of the important subject to which I think it my duty now to call your Lordships' attention. For want of these we are obliged to grope in the dark, and take the prevailing rumours as the grounds of our arguments. I shall first, however, 'be obliged to give some kind of historical account of the trans action on which the discussion of this night will principally

turn.

When Lord Cornwallis had undertaken the government of India, and when in his zeal for the public service, he left the banks of the Ganges, and made a distant journey for the purpose of giving effect to the negociations for peace, Sir George Barlow, considering the delicate state of his Lordship's health, and the danger he exposed himself to in his country's service, thought it proper to quit the seat of government, in order to assist his lordship in the negociations; and in case of that event taking place, which has since happened, to receive his dying instructions, and to carry them into effect without delay. Sir George Barlow had then for his instructions not only the system which Lord Cornwallis actually pursued, but the orders of the Court of Directors, and the instructions given to General Lake on the 19th of September. The general principle of the negociation 'with the native powers, as also the system of retrenching unnecessary expenditure, was begun by the Marquis Cornwallis, and was afterwards pursued by his successor, Sir George Barlow. Such was the situation of India, as it was known in this country upon the 29th of January last, when bis Majesty's ministers with great wis dom and propriety, considering that it was not proper to len've India without the full benefit of those powers of go vernment which had been always confided to GovernorsGeneral, recommended to the court of directors to give those powers to Sir George Barlow, in order that he might not be fettered either in conducting the negociations, or in Carrying on the government in India. With this recommendation,

mendation, the Court of Directors readily and cheerfully complied. No appointment was ever less complained of, and no dispatch had since been received from India that did not convey the most sanguine expectation of success, from the measures pursued by the successor of Marquis Cornwallis. The appointment, in consequence of the re-. commendation of his Majesty's ministers, was made on the 25th of February, and upon the 8th of March the Court of Directors received an intimation of the wish of his Majesty's ministers that a successor should be appointed to Sir George Barlow. The Court of Directors were very unwilling to comply. They foresaw, or they thought they foresaw, great difficulties and great objections to complying with this intimation. Nothing effectual was done from the 8th of March till the 12th of May, when a communication was made to the Court of Directors, suggesting the recall of Sir George Barlow, and recommending the appointment of a noble Lord (Lord Lauderdale) high in his Majesty's councils. This recommendation did not accord with the ideas of the Court of Directors, and some more delay was occasioned by the correspondence and communications that took place on this subject. At length, at the latter end of the month of May, his Majesty was advised to recall Sir George Barlow, by an instrument under his own sign manual. Since that time it has not appeared that any Governor-general has been appointed, or any step taken to fill up the vacancy in the government of India. In th course of the last day or two, there has been a rumour that a noble lord (Lord Minto) has been appointed; but this rumour is the only thing which the House is now possessed of, instead of that information to which it is entitled upon so important a subject. The intended recall of Sir George Barlow has been, however, notified to India in all the cor respondence, both public and private, that has taken place with that country since the beginning of March; and it must occasion great uncertainty with respect to the system of government to be adopted for India, as well as great surprise in those who are best acquainted with the services, the talents, and the zeal of the honourable baronet. It will be now necessary to consider the act of Parliament itself, under which his Majesty was empowered to recall the Governor-general appointed by the Company. It is by the VOL. III. 1805-6. 30

act

act which passed in the year 1784 thathis Majesty obtained that prerogative, and it will not be foreign from the subject to call the attention of your lordships to the circumstances under which that act was passed. It will be recollected that it was at that remarkable period when the whole country was convulsed with different opinions on the subject of the best mode of governing India. The different systems might be said to be contained in two bills; the one was commonly known by the name of Mr. Fox's Bill, and the other by that of Mr. Pitt's bill. In the latter, however, to which Parliament gave its sanction, the power of recalling a Governor-general, or other officer, was given to his Majesty by an express clause in the bill. If the House will, however, recollect the circumstances of those times, and consider the mode in which those two bills were universally understood at that period, it will appear that it was the general opinion at that time, that the real difference between the bills was a struggle for the patronage of India, whether it should be in the hands of the Crown or of the Company. The opposers of the bill of 1783 (Mr. Fox's bill) contended, that giving the patronage of India to ministers would overturn the independance of the Lords and Commons, and be subversive of the privileges and prerogatives of the Crown. The privileges of 1784 (Mr. Pitt's bill) disclaimed this patronage, and went upon the sup position that the patronage of India might be more fairly and beneficially exercised by the East India Company themselves. I do not now mean to argue, which of those opinions were right or wrong. I merely mean to state, that the opinion of the legislature in the year 1784, when they agreed to Mr. Pitt's bill, was decidedly for leaving the Company the patronage of India. The clause therefore in that act, which first gave his Majesty the power of recalling a Go ernor-general, can never fairly be construed as directly militating against the whole spirit of the act. The most decided sense of the country was then in favour of the spirit of that act, and with this generally prevailing sentiment the legislature concurred; it therefore never could have been the intention of the legislature, that a bill passed in this spirit should contain a clause which was to be at complete variance with the whole object of the bill, and should enable his Majesty's ministers, by exercising at pleasure this power of recall, to gain the entire patronage of India.

The

The meaning of the clause is obvious. It only was intended to give the Crown the power of negativing any improper appointment, which partiality might ever induce the Court of Directors to make. The Court of Directors were also checked in that respect by the Court of Proprietors, and there was a most remarkable instance then recent, of the Court of Proprietors having refused to acquiesce in the recall of Mr. Hastings when the Court of Directors had proposed it. It therefore was necessary, that in cases of that nature the government should have the power of recall. I therefore think myself now warranted to appeal to the recollection of every noble lord who remembers the circumstances under which the act of 1784 was passed, whether I have not stated fairly the intentions of the legislature at the time of its passing. I know that as to the merits of the two different bills, there must be a great variety of opinions, and every person must be subject to some particular bias. The noble Lord (Minto) may, probably, be more attached to the principles of the bill of 1783, or Mr. Fox's bill, as it is usually called. On the other hand, I'may appeal to another noble lord, whose opinion I may bring forward as a balance in point of authority, and whose bias I must suppose to be in favour of the bill of 1784, from the part he took upon that occasion (Lord Melville here alluded to Lord Grenville). He must know the spirit in which that bill was passed, and whether it would not be contrary to the spirit and meaning of that bill, that any clause of it should be construed as giving the patronage of India to his Majesty's ministers, whenever they should be pleased to insist upon this power of recalling, at their pleasure, those who had been appointed by the Company. It would be contrary to the spirit and to the obvious meaning of the law, if the power of recall should be exercised merely for the purpose of enforcing the appointment of the person whom his Majesty's ministers wished to be the Governorgeneral of India. The power that the Crown possessed would be grossly abused, if it were applied to any other purpose than what was intended by the law, to the nega tiving of an appointment made in favour of an improver person. If this be the only fair, rational, and true construction of the act under which India has been governed for the last twenty-two years, then it is incumbent on his Majesty's ministers to shew some cause, why they advised

302

his