brought up the report of the East-India Bonds bill. On the question that the amendments of the committee be read a second time,

entered into a detailed statement of the affairs of the East-India company, in order to shew that its debts and embarrassments were the consequence of measures which had been forced upon the company, by the government and board of controul, for the effects of which, the company ought not to be responsible. It was in consequence of such measures, that the wars which had taken place in India, had embarrassed the company, that the participation on the part of the public had taken place but once, and contended, therefore, that the public had a right not only to make good to the proprietors their stock, to the amount of 12 millions, but also to discharge the whole of the floating debts of the company.

replied, that that was not the time for entering into a detailed examination of the India accounts. It was a most extraordinary doctrine to maintain, that the expence of wars undertaken for the defence of the company's territories should be defrayed by the public. As to what had been said respecting the participation on the part of the public, he should only answer, by referring the hon. gent. to the act, in which there was an express exception of times of war.

declared it to be his intention to resist the further progress of this bill, at least until the India accounts should be before the house, and the ground of his opposition was, that by the papers upon the table, the affairs of the company appeared to be in a dilapidated state.

could notagree in the position of his hon. friend, that the public should be responsible for the sums to be borrowed under this bill, or for any other of the East-India company's debts; and unless it should be understood from an explicit protest, a resolution of that house, that, by sanctioning this measure, it did not make the public a guarantee for the debts to be incurred under it by the India company, he could not consent to the measure.

was surprized that any doubts could be entertained upon this subject, after the manner in which it had been discussed on a former night. Undoubtedly, by passing this bill, that house was no more bound to guarantee the debts contracted pursuant to its provisions, than it was bound to guarantee the debts of any private company or corporation, authorized by act of parliament to raise money for the purposes of its institution. The money, in this instance, was to be raised on the sole responsibility of the company, to which alone, and not to the public, the lender was to look for the repayment of the sums he advanced.

should support the opposition of his noble friend to the further progress of the measure, unless he should be given to understand that the third reading would not be pressed before the end of next week, by which time he understood the India papers would be before the house.

argued against the supposition that the public guaranteed these bonds, in allowing them to be issued. He contended, that the exclusive charter of the East-India company was the only means of preserving India to this country. The contingencies on which a participation in the company's profits had been promised to the public, had been retarded and prevented by a state of war. They had been calculated to accrue upon a prospect of peace.

argued, that the fear of the eventual liability of parliament arose from the want of sufficient proofs of the validity of the company's security, which parliament was bound to ascertain, before it should give its sanction to the issue of the Bonds. After some further explanation, the amendments were agreed to.

insisted that time should be allowed to make enquiry into the solvency of the company before any farther proceedings on the bill.

had no objection to a delay of a few days for the production of the accounts now ordered; but he feared, a total ripping up of the company's affairs was intended.— The bill was then ordered to be read a third time this day se'nnight.

On the motion for going into a committee on this bill,

said, he assented to the bill's going into a committee, from the assurance he had received of the present alarming state of the country from others, besides those who now directed its government, and because he hoped to find it in a much less objectionable shape when it came out of the committee. To the preamble in particular, he must object primâ facie, as not applicable to the state of the country now, compared with its situation in 1796, when the bill originally passed.

spoke to the same effect. The preamble was grounded on the circumstances existing in Ireland, in 1796, which were very opposite to the circumstances of the present time.

did intend to propose an alteration of the preamble. On the reading of the clause for enacting the capital punishment of persons convicted of being present, aiding, abetting, and assisting, in the administration of unlawful oaths, some discussion took place. Sir J. Newport, Mr. Whitbread, lord H. Petty, and Mr. Grattan, were desirous the clause should be so worded as not to involve innocent persons, accidentally present, in the room where such unlawful oaths might be tendered, but without their knowledge or assistance, in a capital punishment: and therefore it was proposed to word the clause, "present, and knowingly and wilfully aiding," &c. Sir A. Wellesley, the Attorney-General, Mr. Simeon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Croker, were of opinion, that the clause was worded in the ordinary legal language of all indictments for similar crimes; and that it was impossible to find a man capitally guilty under it, unless it should be proved, that, beside being present, he was knowingly and wilfully guilty of aiding, abetting, and assisting, and that therefore, the change proposed would be only an unnecessary translation of the well-known and explicit language of the law, into that of common parlance. The clause was agreed to in its original form.—Amongst the various amendments and new clauses that were proposed, there was one suggested by sir J. Newport, on the clause which gave a power to the magistrates to arrest strangers in their several districts. The amendment proposed was, that a power should be given to the lord lieutenant, or the magistrates at the quarter sessions, to release the party arrested, on giving good security for his appearance, where nothing particular appeared to charge him with any act of criminality. It was contended, on the part of government, by col. Vereker and others, that the power might be vested in the lords lieutenants, who might be supposed to be possessed of all the information necessary to know whether the party ought to be detained or not; but that it ought not to be given to the magistrates, because their party divisions were so great that some of them would be glad to release a prisoner, because he was committed by a magistrate of the other party. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Whitbread, sir J. Newport, and Mr. Morris, that if such divisions amongst the magistrates did exist, the house should be more cautious how they gave up the liberty of the subject without sufficient guards; and that strangers, as they were denominated in the bill, could only be Irishmen coming from some other county, or perhaps from the next parish, or, it might be, from the next street, or the next door, as the word stranger was undefinable. A division took place, on which there was, for sir J. Newport's amendment, 18; against it, 27. The clause was then so far modified that the magistrates should be compelled to transmit to the lord lieutenant the story of the stranger, or other accused person, along with his accusation.—The other clauses of the bill were agreed to, without any material amendment.