well knew that there were instances of the most cruel oppression that might be stated. But the honourable baronet below only looked to the future, and had laid irresistible grounds for his proposition. He had stated his object to be to protect the officers and the crown itself from doing what was known to have been done, and from the secret whispers of slander and malice. His lordship, however, expressed his hope, that the hon. baronet would withdraw his clause, and bring the subject forward in a separate bill, for so grave and important a matter required the most serious deliberation and the fullest discussion. The hon. baronet he allowed could not, however, be liable to the charge of precipitation from the other side. The noble lord opposite had brought forward his clause in a manner equally sudden; and as the hon. secretary had expressed so strongly his aversion to changes, he, no doubt, would give his vote against the change proposed by the noble lord near him. He earnestly requested the hon. baronet to withdraw his clause for the present, as he should regret extremely to be obliged to give it his negative. he introduced it. If he did not cite cases of abuse, it was not because they did not exist, but because he was unwilling to hurt any one's feelings unless forced to it. He was surprised and astonished to hear the hon. general declare himself ignorant of such instances.-He declared his intention to withdraw his motion. Mr. Calcraft rose to move an amendment, the object of which was to reduce the Mutiny bill to the state in which it was last year, and to take from his majesty's ministers the power of enlisting men for a term longer than that which the bill had hitherto prescribed. He replied to the arguments that had been used against limited service. In the East Indies the example of the company was a sufficient inducement for its adoption. In the West Indies, a regulation of that sort was absolutely necessary to enforce the regular relief of regiments. The character of the soldier was improved by the introduction of limited service; the greatest. part of the army who conquered in Egypt, were composed of men who enlisted from the militia for a term of years. The success of his right hon. friend's system was rendered undeniable. He reprobated the mode in which it was attempted to subvert that system. Adverting to the 16,000 men that had enlisted from the militia into the regular service, he contended that each man cost the counties, upon the average, 25l. which, added to the 101. of bounty to induce them to enter into the General Fitzpatrick thought that all in- regular army, made an expence of 351. novations on the constitution of the army per man, or all together a sum of 640,000l. ought to be attempted with the most cau- and this not equally raised, but ultimately tious deliberation, and never without falling on the landed property of the strong facts to warrant and call for them. country. He concluded by moving, to The hon. baronet had adduced no such omit the words in that clause of the bill facts, and he himself knew of none. He by which the option of entering for lishould therefore give the clause his de-mited or unlimited service was allowed to cided negative, if the hon. baronet should the recruit. bring it up. The constitution of the army was as much an object of nice attention as the constitution of the state. The trial by jury was preferable to the trial by court martial in point of justice; yet nobody thought of introducing it into the army. He hoped, if the honourable baronet withdrew the clause to bring it forward in the shape of a bill, he would at least make out a case. Colonel Duckett said, there was no time, no country, no army, in which the power here complained of did not exist. To abridge the power of the crown in this point would not add to the liberties of the people, but to the independence of that army which was so much the object of constitutional jealousy. Sir F. Burdett found in the speech of the hon. general, arguments to induce him to persevere in bringing forward his clause, rather than to withdraw it. He had maturely weighed the clause before The Secretary at War restated the opinion which he expressed on a former night, that the plan of the right hon. gent. had met with no success whatever, and that the former system from the second battalions was infinitely superior to it; producing every advantage of his system, while it was totally free from the inconveniences of that system. Mr. Windham entered into an examination of the nature of that system, which, he contended, it was the plan of the present administration secretly, covertly, and clandestinely, to undermine. The measure which they proposed was impotent as whether to good, but powerful as to mischief. | Lord Castlereagh spoke at length against the motion. Lord G. Cavendish and sir Ralph Milbanke spoke shortly in favour of Mr. Windham's measure, amidst frequent calls for the question. The house then divided, when there appeared For the clause proposed by lord Castlereagh 189; For the clause proposed by Mr. Calcraft 116. Majority 73. Calvert, N. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, March 15. [OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] On the order of the day being read, for the third reading of this bill, Lord Redesdale renewed his former objections to it. His lordship in the course of his speech entered into a defence of himself against a charge made against him on a former evening, of political bigotry, and argued, that political bigotry was rather to be found amongst those who called themselves Friends of the People. The Duke of Norfolk defended the bill, which he thought rather tended to support than to attack the king's prerogative. Earl Grey combated the arguments of lord Redesdale, and observed, that political bigotry consisted in a blind adherence to old notions, and bringing them forward in opposition to reform rendered necessary by an alteration of circumstances. From the arguments advanced by the noble and learned lord, he must, on the same principle he now urged, have opposed the abolition of the star chamber, as an innovation most dangerous to the constitution. The noble earl vindicated himself and his friends from the attack made upon the Friends of the People by the noble and learned lord, and observed, that he had always been and still remained the advocate of moderate and temperate reform; which he considered the best means of maintaining the constitution, and of averting the danger which might ultimately arise from long continued abuses. Lord Hawkesbury said, that the proposed amendments having been rejected by the committee, he must give the bill his decided negative. The house then divided on the question, that the bill be read a third time: Non-contents 69 Contents - 26 Proxies 59-128 80 22-48 Proxies Majority against the bill [PROTEST.] Dissentient, 1st, Because the bill does not in our opinion invade any of the legal prerogatives of the crown, or diminish any of its constitutional influence, but tends rather to secure both, by removing the temptation to negligence or abuse in the disposal of offices. 2d, Because it appears to us to be necessary in this and every other instance, to secure to the subjects of this country, suffering under the pressure of an unprecedented accumulation of taxes, the means of economical retrenchment, and reform of such offices, as can either be reduced in their emolument or entirely abolished, without injury to the dignity and powers of the crown, or to the interests of the public. 3d, Because with respect to places granted in reversion, all means of retrenchment and reform are taken away so long as the lives for which they are granted shall continue. 4th, Because reform and retrenchment in the public expenditure have been recommended to us from the throne, and because we are apprehensive, that the rejection of the present bill may be con sidered by the people of the United Kingdom, as indicating a disposition in this house, not to give effect to that wise and salutary recommendation. (Signed) Essex, Jersey, Vassall Holland, King, Cowper, Ponsonby of Imokilly, Lauderdale, Grey, Albemarle, Ponsonby, Stafford, Carrington."-" Dissentient for the 1st, 2d, and 4th reasons: Spencer, Clifton (Earl of Darnley).” HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, March 15. [IRISH EXPRESSES.] Mr. Parnell moved, that there be laid before the house an Account of the sums expended for the establishment of government Expresses between the ports of Holyhead and Dublin, from the 1st of Jan. 1801, to the 1st of Jan. 1803. The hon. gent. said it was too general for expresses to pass between the two countries, for no other purpose than to give a favourite government newspaper a priority of intelligence over their less dependant competitors. The paper he particularly alluded to was an evening paper, which had been very active in its disapprobation of the late changes in his majesty's ministers. But the same paper was now the warmest advocate in support of the measures of the men it had not long since opposed. Sir A. Wellesley, though he did not object to the motion, could not think the object of so much importance as it appeared to the hon. gent. It appeared to him to have no other object than to ascertain what newspapers in Ireland had or had not prior intelligence of the London news, and to prevent papers from having thirty or forty hours prior intelligence. paper alluded to had some ground of preference, as it was the only daily evening paper in Dublin, and had an extensive circulation. The Mr. Parnell contended, that the unjustifiable partiality of government, in procuring for that paper prior intelligence by extraordinary expresses, was what had increased the circulation of that paper, and injured that of others, to such a serious degree, that one paper had already suffered a loss in circulation of no less than 5000 copies weekly. Sir A. Wellesley said, that the expressescost government 201. a day, whether they went or not, and that therefore the dispatching them could not be productive of any additional expence.-The motion was then agreed to. CONDUCT OF MARQUIS WELLESLEY-RE- | the house, at the commencement of every SUMED DEBATE ON THE OUDE CHARGE.] sessions, the names of those members we The house resumed the adjourned debate think most fit to form a judicature for the on the conduct of the Marquis Wellesley trial of these offences? But I think the relative to the Affairs of Oude (see p. 993). hon. gent. founds his objection to the proThe first Resolutions being read, ceeding of the noble lord, because he (lord Folkestone) does not mean to follow it up with an impeachment against the noble marquis; but, whilst I am not surprised at the reluctance of the noble lord, on this head, after what we have seen of impeachments, yet is it not competent to any other member of this house, to propose such a measure? Or cannot the house address his majesty to direct his attorney general to file an information against the accused person, in conformity with the spirit and letter of the East Indian Judi is there a serious doubt, on the mind of any member in this house, that whatever the precise nature of its judicial functions are, this house can, not only entertain the question in its present state, but pursue all those measure, which the character of a great nation demands, in order to bring to condign punishment all those who, at whatever distance of the globe, in the administration of its government, violate its principles of justice and good faith? But, sir, I am almost ashamed to argue this point--no one can seriously doubt it; and, to dwell on it longer, would be a waste of the time and attention of the Sir Thomas Turton spoke as follows:Mr. Speaker; considering this question as intimately connected in its policy with that which it will be my duty shortly to submit to the house, (the Carnatic Question)-viewing it as one great link of the same chain of Eastern policy, (if policy it can be called) that distinguished the administration of lord Wellesley, I cannot content myself with giving a silent vote on the motions of the noble lord. Before, however, I enter upon the question itself, I must submit to the house a few ob-cature act? If these motions are carried, servations on the very extraordinary objections to the motion, which were advanced by an hon. gent. on the floor, (Mr. Bankes) who concluded the debate at its adjournment. The objection of the hon. gent. to our proceedings, was founded on the incompetency of this tribunal to take cognizance of the subject. I think the hon. gent. stated, that its functions were of a legislative, not of a judicial nature.' Without entering into a minute investigation of the powers and constitution of parliament, the history of which would fully demonstrate the extent of its judicial, as well as legislative functions, for the purpose of instituting criminal proceed-house.-In proceeding to the merits of the ings-I would ask that hon. gent. if, on reflection, he can entertain a doubt of the right, and even of the expediency of parliament, to receive this application to its justice. Even, I think, in the experience of the hon. gent. many, very many instances must have occurred, of this house entertaining, nay encouraging, applications of a similar nature. Let me ask the hon. gent. where, or to whom in this particular instance, could the appeal against British injustice and oppression be made?-Not to our courts of law and equity; there it has been already determined, that an independent sovereign (yes a 'dependent nabob', as he is called) can neither institute or defend a suit. To the sovereign, in council, can he appeal?The constitution of our Indian government permits not this. Where then can he apply, with a possibility of success, but to a British parliament, and to parliament only? Do we not invite this appeal against the misconduct of our Eastern governors and servants, by the act of placing on the table of VOL. X. question, I cannot but lament that it has been treated, not so much as the revisal of a great political measure, involving a system of government, as the case of a distinguished individual. I cannot treat it in that light, for respected as the character of the noble marquis, and his individual interest in the transaction ought to be, it is still only that of an individual, and as such, least in importance. For, what is the real state of this question in a great political view? The government of India (over which it is true the noble marquis presided at the time) has violated a solemn treaty executed between lord Teignmouth, the then governor general, and the nabob of Oude, in Feb. 1798, and to which the faith of the British government was pledged which existed at the, time, and to the performance of which, we were at the very mo ment binding the nabob. The particulars of the violation were-1st, The reduction of the army of the nabob, against his will, an interference expressly guarded against in the 17th article of the treaty; and se 4 A he executed with him a treaty offensive and defensive, by which the two states agreed mutually to assist each other, in case of attack, with part or the whole of their respective forces, as might be necessary. If, therefore, you had the right of subjugation by conquest, did you not abandon that right, when you concluded this treaty with Sujah-ul-Dowlah? And is there a single word in all the treaties since executed with the sovereigns of Oude, in which this right of conquest is referred to in the most distant manner? But, says the hon. gent. to whom I last alluded, the nabob of Oude was never considered as more than the ward of the company, who were his guardians.' Well then, if the company were his guardians, the disposi condly, the taking from him by violence, one half of his territories, and reserving to ourselves the complete controul over the remainder, by a paper, which we chose to denominate the treaty of 1801. The pretences assigned for this conduct, particularly by a right hon. baronet, whose connections with, and obligations to, the noble marquis, have induced him to stand forwards as the champion of the government of India, on this occasion, are three-fold; first, the right; secondly, the expediency and even necessity of the exercise of it; and thirdly, instructions of the government at home. First, sir, as to the right of the government of India, to commit these acts of tyranny. From whence is it derived? The right hon. bart. has not condescended to tell us. Is it derived from the treaty of 1798?tion of their ward and his property ought, That in the article to which I have referred, expressly guarantees the right of the nabob to a full authority over his household affairs, his troops, and his subjects. As long as this treaty existed, therefore, government could have no right to disband a sol-ple, the characteristic of that sacred name, dier, or to interfere even with the lowest of his subjects; but says an hon. gent. (Mr. Whitshed Keene) the right is that of the sword, obtained by conquest, by that alone can your government in India be supported.' What occasion then for treaties, if the will of the conqueror is to be the only law? Willing am I to acknowledge, that when Sujah-ul-Dowlah, after the subjugation of his ally, Meer Caassim Ally, the nabob of Bengal, fell into the hands of the British, at the battle of Calpi, in 1765, it was the undoubted right of the India company, to have disposed of the territories of Oude, in the manner they deemed most advantageous to their interests. Indeed it appears they did so, for after having granted the emperor of Delhi, (for whose cause, and at whose mandate the nabob of Oude first entered on the war with the British government) they actually, by a firmaun or agreement with the emperor, made over to him the greater part of the dominions of Sujah-ul-Dowlah, which they had so conquered, and reserved a part to themselves. This was the right of conquest; a dreadful, but legitimate right. The sovereign was a prisoner in your camp -his dominions at your feet; but what was the conduct of lord Clive when he heard of this agreement? He refused to ratify it; he considered that in every view of policy an extension of territory was to be deprecated; he released the captive monarch; he restored him to his dominions; in some degree, to have been subject to their disposal. Their agent ought not to have acted without their authority. He ought not to have constituted himself the guardian, and in violation of every princi to have first robbed him of half his proper- |