sure upon them, could not hold here; if | Sir H. Montgomery approved of the they were what they should be, promul- present system, and thought any innova gation could do them nor the country no tion that might be made would be very harm, and if they were not, they ought to dangerous to the interests of this country. be known. The right hon. and learned He, however, could have wished the trial gent. had, in speaking of the Madras trials, in question had been allowed to be pubstated, that permission was asked to published, as it might have prevented the inlish them, this was a mistake, no such permission had been asked. He concluded by stating, that the motion of the noole lord should have his cordial support. Mr. Wallace did not think that the noble lord had made out his argument in support of the present motion, even upon his own grounds. The noble lord had laid it down as the grounds of his motion, that the regulations were illegal and unjust. This had by no means been made out: still less had it been established that the refusal of permission to publish the trials at Madras had been an undue and inexpedient exercise of power. The hon. baronet had denied that permission had been asked: he begged leave to correct him in that statement, and to assure him, on the best authority, that permission had been asked. There were other reasons justifying the suppression of that publication one trial took place on the 11th of January, another upon the 2d of Marchthe publication of the former trial, in the intermediate time, might have operated in an unfair way to the prejudice of either party, and therefore to the prejudice of substantial justice. But the right hon. and learned gent. had reminded them of the state of Madras at that period: it had been justly described as being then in a violent ferment-and under such circumstances would it have been wise to have permitted such a publication? Mr. Hutchinson observed, that the last speaker had avowed, that the object was, to keep the people of India in darkness as to the nature of their government. The more important, therefore, it was, that this House should take care, that our government there, such as it was, should be well administered. He would certainly vote for the motion, Mr. Grant contended that despotism had not been established there by England, but that it had been found there, where it had existed for many ages. The introduction of the liberty of the press might lead to the most fatal consequences, and in the present state of things, would unhinge the whole frame of Indian society. He did not think any case had been made out for the production of the paper. troduction of a report of it into this country, which he had been given to understand was spurious. Mr. Lockhart observed that the govern ment of India had been acquired, like most other governments, partly by con quest, partly by compact, and partly by forfeiture. Under these circumstances, to allow of the unrestrained liberty of the press would be dangerous. Their situation, however, was not such as it had been said to be; for though they did not enjoy a free government, they were governed by persons who were responsible to this country, and answerable for their conduct to that House. He thought the motion had been brought forward merely as a compliment to the abstract liberty of the press. He was a friend to that liberty, and though it should run into some excesses (and some licentious strides even in this country he thought it had taken), he was far from wishing to impose any new restriction. The liberty of the press had done much good; it had also been in some instances, a source of the most tremendous evils. It had been spoken of as that which ought not to be discussed. From its magnitude and importance, he thought it ought often to be brought under their consideration. He remembered what had taken place in the National Assembly of the island of St. Domingo, where, in consequence of the attempt to extend the libeity of the press, the most dreadful scenes occurred. Those who were to be benefited by it, rose and massacred their friends indiscriminately with their foes, and at length succeeded in making themselves sovereigns of the island. might be the consequences of the introduction of the liberty of the press in India. Such Mr. Whitbread said, the hon. gent. who had just spoken, had mentioned the licentiousness of the press, and observed that it had even in this country taken some strides. He (Mr. Whitbread) was also of opinion that it had taken some strides, but those strides appeared to him to be taken backwards. If the hon. gent. looked back to what had been published many years ago, and compared those publications with what issued from the press at the present day, he thought he also would be of opinion, that the motion of the liberty of the press was retrograde and not progressive. His noble friend was aware, that to place the press in India on the same footing as in England, might be dangerous. The government of India had been acquired, as the hon. gent. had said, by conquest, by compact, and by forfeiture, but he had omitted one short monosyllable, namely, that which had tended more to give us that acquisition than any thing else. He had not mentioned the word "fraud." If those ills might arise from extending the liberty of the press to India, which the hon. gent. had ascribed to that measure in St. Domingo, still he thought no evil could be expected to result from an attempt to soften the misery of the people; but, on the contrary, that it would tend to prop that power which must otherwise crumble into dust. The paper moved for ought to be produced. If the régulations made by the marquis Wellesley were good, they ought to be brought forward to justify him; and if they were unwise and impolitic, they ought to be produced, that they might be canvassed and corrected. The hon. gent. had said, the people of India were not in the situation in which it had been said they were, as they were governed by persons who were responsible for their conduct to that House. After this, however, when they were called to account in that House, that hon. gent. opposed the production of the paper requisite for their information. Not only was it considered right to withhold from the natives of India moral and political information, but it was even thought proper to deny them a knowledge of Christianity. To support a political despotism, they would not let them have the light of that Gospel through which they hoped for salvation themselves.- (No, from the Treasury Bench!)-One hon. gent. had expressed himself nearly to that effect, and the right hon. Secretary himself had seemed about to say so, when the enormity of the proposition appeared to startle him. He was sorry this discussion had taken place, to shew the world the wretched situation of those who were called our fellow-subjects, but who were not so in fact," but those (said Mr. W.) whom we and our fellow-subjects are despots over." He thought this discussion would have been well avoided by the production of the paper. It would have been perfectly harmless, and it must have done good, as it would have justified the marquis Wellesley, or benefitted the country, by shewing what was wrong. Mr. R. Dundas explained. He was not for withholding from the natives of India the light of Christianity; he only wished to keep that from them which would lead to tumultuous proceedings. Mr. Whitbread had understood him to say that to attempt to do away the laws and the superstitions of Hindostan would be improper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the arguments of the hon. gent. were by no means sufficient to justify the produc tion of the paper. Gentlemen should remember that the liberty of the press was not withheld merely from the principles of the government, but from the dispositions of the natives themselves. They were in that state that it might do thein much harm, though if they were less ignorant it might be expected to be productive of the greatest good. He was glad his right hon. friend had so well explained away what had been said of withholding from the natives the light of Christianity, No such disposition existed, but it was wisely thought that government should abstain from openly exerting itself to further the cause of Christianity, lest they should be represented to the people as attempting to impose upon them a new religion. On all occasions when papers were moved for in that House, he thought a better reason should be given, than that they were desired out of curiosity; and the paper required by the noble lord ought not, in his opinion, to be given, as if they were to grant it without any substantial reason for its production having been given, they would seem to admit that there appeared grounds for censuring the government of India. Sir J. Newport supported the motion, and thought no one reason had been given why the paper should not be granted. Lord A. Hamilton said, that after the very able manner in which his motion had been supported, it would be unnecessary for him to trespass further on the time of the House, than merely to make one or two observations on some arguments from the other side of the House. He had to make one general complaint of almost all the gentlemen who had opposed him, that they had thought proper not only to impute to him what he had not said, but what he had actually disclaimed. He had disclaimed distinctly, and repeatedly, all The House divided, when the numbers were-Ayes, 18.-Noes, 53.-Majority, 35. Mr. Dundas then moved for the appointment of a Select Committee on India Affairs, which he proposed should consist of the same members as before, with only two exceptions, the one, that of an hon. gentleman who could not attend, and the other that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was likewise prevented from attendance. The two new members he mentioned were Mr. Porcher and Mr. De Ponthieu. intention of claiming for India a perfectly | been misused, and was fully convinced free press. He did not even introduce that the most mischievous effect would that question at all; it was unnecessary for result from allowing a free press to exist his object, and he had cautiously avoided in India. it. Yet all the hon. gentlemen who opposed his motion, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had spoken as if such had been his principal motive. He had stated, at first, not only what his object was, but what it was not. He had said, it was not, to demand for India a press perfectly free, but merely to enquire by what authority it had one perfectly fettered. One hon. gent. (Mr. Lockhart) had called his motion "an abstract compliment to the Liberty of the Press." Without stopping to notice the obvious insinuation of that phrase, he would merely say, that if the hon. gent. should ever become liable to Mr. Creevey complained that the Comthe penalty imposed upon the transgres-mittee was so formed as to prevent any sion of this formidable law, which was the report except such as would be agreeable object of his motion, the hon. gent. would to the government and the East India then probably change his tone, and not company. The Committee was only an think the matter altogether of an abstract adjournment of the Directors and Board of nature. Immediate embarkation for Eu- Controul up stairs. They never gave infor rope, without trial, or a hearing, or delay,mation except when they wanted money. or preparation, would surely be no very Their maxim was, give us all the money abstract injury or hardship. If, as an hon. we want, or we shall force it from you, gentleman had said, " India must, at all and call you all the names we can invent events, be governed as it now is," there into the bargain. After some further obwas an end of his motion, and of every servations on this political farce, he other of a similar nature. He remember-moved, as an amendment, That the Comed, however, to have heard in that House; very different arguments held by those who sat on the Treasury bench; some of whom spoke in favour of the present, some of the past, and others of the future. He recollected a certain dispatch which had a few years back been drawn up, but not sent to India, which reprobated that doctrine to which he had just alluded, and said positively, that India should not be governed as it then was. For his own part, he was of opinion, that if India must be governed as it now is, though the India Company might not think so, he believed the public had much better not have it at all. He had only one word more—this month was the time when the government must give notice, according to the act of parliament, that the Company must quit their exclusive privilege. He would beg to know of the right hon. gentleman, whether it was intended to give such notice? Mr. Dundas said, he had on a former night been asked that question, and he had then answered that it was. Mr. Johnstone would vote against the motion. He was not aware that the power entrusted to the government of India had mittce should inquire into the conduct of the Directors and of the Board of Controul in the management of Indian Affairs. Lord Mr. Dundas read over several of the names-Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Fitzhugh, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Long, Mr. Creevey, &c. &c. and asked what particular bias they could have against the truth? Folkestone, and Mr. Whitbread supported the amendment. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Grant opposed it. The House divided, For the original motion..,.........56 Against it......... Majority HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 22. 19 -37 NAVY ESTIMATES. ADMIRALTY COURT.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Yorke said it had been his intention on a former day to move for the sum necessary for the Ordinaries of the Navy, which he had divided into three parts, under one resolution. This, however, through a mistake, had not been done; he had therefore now to move, That a sum not exceeding 1,157,7511. be granted for the Ordinaries of the Navy. Sir William Scott rose in consequence of a charge which had been preferred on a former day against the Court over which he had the honour to preside. Considering the situation in which he stood, he thought justice should make every member who might have any charge to prefer against him, in his official capacity, give notice of such an intention. Out of the multitude of causes which had come before him, it was impossible for him to remember every individual case; and if such notice were not given, he might be taken by surprise, and be unable to reply to such charge when made, though it might be as unfounded as those which he had formerly refuted, or as unfounded as he trusted to make that now brought forward appear. That it was a great many years since the prizes to which allusion had been made were taken, it was unnecessary to call witnesses to prove. He remembered the captures, which were six in number, were made in the year 1799. This he would admit, but this was not sufficient to prove that any improper delay had originated in the Admiralty Court. The delay might have been caused by the parties themselves, as was the case in a cause which had been before him that very day. It might happen, that such delays had occurred in a variety of instances, where no party whatever could be blamed. It was to be remembered, that the suitors were persons employed in the service of their country, who might be at such a distance that they could not be communicated with on the subject; or merchants residing in foreign parts. The witnesses necessary to elucidate the business might be in the same situation-might be dispersed all over the world. From these circumstances delay was often unavoidable, and little as it was desired, without it no correct administration of justice could be obtained. The Court of Admiralty sat not merely for the purpose of examining the claims which might be made for prize-money, but likewise to protect foreign and British merchants; to restore property which had been improperly seized, and to do justice to all parties. It might sometimes happen, and it frequently did, that some of the parties concerned were resident in Silesia, in Bavaria, in Bohemia, and in the remotest parts of the globe. It was certainly desirable that the money to be distributed should find its way into the pockets of the captors as soon as possible, but still it was necessary to allow a proper time to elapse before such a distribution was made, for the proper security of neutral property. With respect to the facts of the present case, it was stated that the ships had been taken at the battle of Camperdown. This was not correct, as they were taken two years after that action, during the subsequent blockade of the Texel. It had been agreed, that only one of the ships should be proceeded against in the prize court, to save the expence necessarily attendant on proceeding against the other five. A great variety of claims were put in by different merchants, and some by persons residing in Silesia, Bohemia, Trieste, and Fiume. Much of the delay complained of was occasioned by the time taken up to investigate these several claims. A great deal of time had been so occupied. He believed the investigation commenced at about the end of the year 1799, and the final adjudication of all claims took place on the 13th of May 1801. The money was left to be distributed, and if the agents did not act properly, it was not the fault of the Admiralty Court, as they did not employ those agents. These persons were employed by the parties themselves, and with them the court had nothing to do. After the condemnation of the vessels, it so happened, that a great question arose among the gentlemen of the navy as to the persons entitled to the benefit. This was a question which could not run parallel with the other. It was of no use agitating this till the other was settled, and therefore both could not be decided at the same time. After much discussion and negociation, it was at last agreed to take the opinion of the proper court on the subject. An application was in consequence made to the Court of Admiralty, with an agreement that the decision in this case should determine all others; the cause came on in the usual way, and in July 1803, the court gave an opinion, but it did not sign its final judgment, though he strongly and distinctly expressed his sentiments on this ground. There was at that time another question respecting the blockading squadron off Cadiz, the circumstances of which were nearly the same, and the case altogether similar, before the Lords Commissioners of appeal. It was thought better for the parties to take the final decision from the Court of Appeal, rather than from the Court of Admiralty. In the ings. When all this was considered, and be stated to the House, that after so many years there were not more than twenty or thirty appeals remaining before them of all that had been made, though it might have happened that delays in some instances had taken place, still it must be felt that they were very far from deserving censure. The case had not been six months before them when the subject was taken up. It happened that the necessary witnesses were then in the Mediterranean. Commissioners were obliged to be sent out to Malta and other places, to examine those witnesses wherever they could be found. It was taken up just before Christmas in the year 1808, and in six months after the cause was determined. He then proceeded to justify the Court of Admiralty in not proceeding earlier than it usually did to try prize causes. In the present extended scale of maritime warfare in which we were engaged, and which was the cause of our making captures in all parts of the globe, it was necessary that twelve months at least should elapse before a distribution took place, otherwise a man's property might be captured and condemned before he knew any thing at all of the matter. When the money was ready to be distributed, a new question arose among the gentlemen of the navy, and a third suit was instituted, which the Admiralty Court was obliged to entertain. This caused new delays, which it was obvious they had not the power to avoid, which protracted the case till last Novem ber. He then explained the causes of the delays which had subsequently taken place, and concluded with hoping that such attacks would not again be made on slight mean time, it was proposed that the money (which had been all the time at interest), should be vested in Exchequer Bills. He did not know whether or not this was good advice, but he knew that it was most agreeable to all the parties concerned. The decision was in consequence referred to the Court of Appeal by universal consent. The case before them, was pending there for six years. On the face of this, it might appear that there were some grounds for arraigning the proceedings in that Court. This was not his opinion, but if such were the fact, the Admiralty Court had nothing to do with it; but it had been the fate of that court, for some years past, to be frequently censured for that with which it had nothing to do. Last year there was a gallant officer, now he hoped better employed, both for his own credit and the service of the country, who had made certain charges against the Admiralty which had been repeated at taverns, coffee-houses, and alehouses. And what had those charges come to at last? They had merely proved to have been founded on certain bargains made between the agents of the Crown, and the agents of private persons out of court, with which the Admiralty had no more to do than any other court of justice had to do with any case that might be taken out of it by the consent of the parties concerned. With the delays which had occurred in the Court of Appeal, the Admiralty Court had no more to do, than the Court of King's Bench had to do with the delays which might occur with the writs of error carried up to the House of Lords. If, then, there was any cause for blame, it ought not to be laid, under such circumstances, at the Admiralty's door. He begged, how-grounds, nor without previous inquiry. ever, to say, he did not think such delays were fairly chargeable to the Lords Commissioners of Appeals. He knew what imputations had been thrown out against them; but it ought to be remembered, that in the eventful period of the last sixteen years, from the situation in which this country had been placed with others, there had been a greater number of important questions before them than had arisen for a century before. It should also be remembered, that they received all the appeals from every court in the kingdom. All this devolved on four or five members of the Privy Council, who sought no remuneration for their labours, and who Mr. Rose said, it had struck him as an received none but those injurious censures extraordinary circumstance that no distrifrequently launched against their proceed-bution had taken place for ten years. On He hoped, before such charges were again preferred, that the whole of the circumstances would be taken into consideration, that it would be remembered who the suitors were. They were brave men, but the lower classes had warm passions, and might grow discontented if they were told their interests were neglected by the Admiralty. They might become dissatis fied without reason, and the most fatal consequences must follow. It should be recollected, the suitors, on the other hand, were subjects of neutral nations, and that conse quently, to do justice without delay, was unavoidable. |