asked to what period the bill was to be extended?

of Scotland replied; he proposed to extend it for the term of seven years.

suggested, that it would be more beneficial to limit the duration of the bill to the period of two years. This produced a short discussion.

maintained that the principles of the bill would not be generally beneficial to the people of Scotland, and that the learned advocate had deserted his duty in proposing it in the manner it was now framed.

defended himself against the insinuations of the hon. and learned gent. who he observed had long left his country, and therefore could not be so well acquainted with the laws relating to bankrupts. He had however, no objection to agree with the suggestion of an hon. gent. and would limit the continuance of the Bill for two years.

still insisted that he was justified in what he had before asserted, and though he did not differ with the learned lord upon the general principles of the bankrupt laws, yet he did, in point of fact, as to the application of those laws, which facts he had derived from the opinion of other persons.

conceived the hon. gentleman was not justified in repeating the charge against his learned friend, of want of duty to his country; and as the learned gentleman maintained his argument in opposition to the bill on the ground of opinion, he thought his learned friend had better adhere to his own opinion, in preference to that of the hon. gentleman.

After some further observations from Mr. Adam and Mr. Abercrombie, the amendment of the latter hon. member was agreed to. The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

wished to ask the right honourable gentleman whether the two Papers already moved for, contained all the information relative to the motives and circumstances which had induced the Irish Government to enforce the Convention Act?

had no objection to answer the question as often as it might please the hon. gentleman to put it to him. He had already answered three or four different times, and he now again answered in the negative.

said, that he had received the answer in a private communication with the right hon. gentleman, and was anxious to have it thus publicly, in order to found upon it his notice of moving to-morrow such other Papers as he might between this and then think necessary to be called for—and he now gave such notice for to-morrow.

rose for the purpose of adverting to a former notice he had given respecting the Household to be provided for his royal highness the Prince Regent. It might be recollected, that in the course of the discussions on the Regency Bill, he had alluded to the course which, in his opinion, would be the most eligible for the House to pursue in the establishment of the Regent's Household. He had accordingly been preparing to submit a plan which, by the temporary reduction of the office of the Chamberlain, would enable the country to provide and maintain such an establishment at the low rate of 12 or 15,000l. When his royal highness was pleased to signify his determination of continuing in the service of the crown the persons then carrying on the government, he felt that it became his duty to lay the plan of an Household before the Regent; but upon an audience with his royal highness, he learned that his royal highness remained fixed in a perfect determination of adhering to his former sentiments upon that subject. For the nature of those sentiments his royal highness was pleased to refer him to a learned and honourable friend of his opposite (Mr. Adam.) By him he had been informed, that from the moment that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had first communicated his intention respecting the course meant to be pursued by him respecting the Household, his royal highness had communicated to that learned gentleman his determination not to add to the burdens of the people by accepting of any addition to his public state as Regent of the United Kingdom. He was satisfied that neither that House nor the public would have felt any indisposition in contributing to the expence of the due support of the state and dignity of the Prince Regent. At the same time, the country would not be backward in duly acknowledging this instance of self-denial on the part of the Prince Regent, and his royal highness could not fail to find that such refusal would, in point of fact, throw around his character and station more real splendour than could be borrowed from any pageantry, however brilliant: that external magnificence, calculated to dazzle the vulgar gaze, and catch the giddy admiration of the populace, the Prince did not hesitate to sacrifice to those solid good qualities which had long since won, and promised to secure to him, the affections of the people. Having stated these circumstances to the House, it was scarcely necessary for him to add that it was not now his intention to submit to them any such plan; and he had only to call upon the learned gentleman to whom he had alluded, to corroborate such part of the statement as his knowledge enabled him to say was accurate, or to correct any mis-statement into which he might have inadvertently fallen.

accordingly rose and confirmed the statement of the right hon. gent., which he pronounced to be so accurate as to relieve him from troubling the House with more than his confirmation of it. He said, that previous to the day on which the right hon. gent. made his motion in that House, his royal highness had delivered into his hands, copies of the letters from that right hon. gent. to the Prince, and of the Prince's answer, accompanied with written instructions to him, requiring him in case any thing should be stated relative to the establishment of an additional Household for the Prince, to state on behalf of the Prince, that it was his royal highness's wish to discharge the duties of a temporary Regency without adding unnecessarily to the burdens of the people; and that he must, therefore, decline the intended establishment; such he knew to have been his royal highness's determination in the question of a temporary Regency. In case, however, of such circumstances occurring as might lead to a per- manent Regency, he conceived that the question would then be open anew to the consideration of his royal highness. He added, that he had had long opportunity of becoming minutely acquainted with the views and intentions of his royal highness respecting his domestic economy, and that his determination in this particular instance, was but conformable to the principles which had governed his royal highness's conduct; it was not then a time to go into a detail of such circumstances, but whenever the opportunity arrived, he should be enabled to give the House the most satisfactory information on this head.

rose to move for a Secret Committee to inquire into the cause for apprehending and detaining Monsieur Colville in the House of Correction. He, observed, that it would be unnecessary, and indeed premature for him to discuss the question now, as the appointment of a Secret Committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the case of this person, would be the preliminary step to that discussion. He then moved for a Secret Committee.

expressed his surprise, that no answer had been given to the statement made by his hon. friend with respect to the detention of this person. He did not, however, mean to object to the appointment of the Committee, and hoped that the result of their investigation would enable his Majesty's government to refute the statement of the hardships of his case.

observed, that the House must recollect that the statements made by the hon. baronet were not merely, that Colville had been apprehended and detained, but that he was denied the use of pen, ink, and paper, and, in short, closely confined, without knowing what were the charges against him: these were material circumstances for the House to inquire into. It was material to know, too, the circumstances attending his capture. Whether he was taken as an open enemy, as a spy, or in what circumstances he was placed, which induced his Majesty's officers to apprehend him. The Committee would inquire into all these circumstances, and the noble lord he conceived, would not find much cause for objection, when he informed him that he proposed to entrust him with the inquiry, in conjunction with some other hon. members. The right hon. gent. then proposed the following members to be of the Committee: Mr. R. Dundas, sir F. Burdett, Mr. C. Long, Mr. C. Wynne, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Leycester, lord Folkestone, Mr. Sumner, sir A. Pigot, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Fane, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Goulbourn.

wished to state that lord George Stewart had informed him, that so far from the assertion made by the hon. baronet being true of having inveigled Colville on board being correct, it was not true; therefore the hon. baronet had been misinformed. However an opportunity would now be afforded the Committee of examining lord George, and they would learn from him the particulars of the case.

The Committee as named were then appointed.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for papers relative to transactions, both civil and military, in the East Indies. He had last year moved for several documents respecting some extraordinary trials in the courts of law, at Madras, in the years 1808–9, to which no return had been made. He now proposed to revive his former motions, and also to call for new documents.—It was necessary especially that the military concerns to which he alluded should be distinctly elucidated, that it might be clearly seen where, if any where, blame ought to rest. In the first place, any one might see that the suspension of major Boles, on account of his obedience to the commands of his superior officers, was the immediate cause of the agitation which prevailed in the Madras army. This case had recently been considered by the Indian government here, and the consequence of the inquiry was, that major Boles was restored. Such being the result of the inquiry, the obvious inference was, that the conduct of sir G. Barlow could not have been regarded as in every instance correct. The next prominent feature in these transactions was, that by an order of sir George Barlow of the 1st of May, certain officers had been suspended upon an ex-parte inquiry. They, too, had appealed to the directors. He would abstain from calling for any document on this point for the present, reserving to himself the liberty of proceeding hereafter according to circumstances. The only other subject connected with the military transactions to which he would that night call the attention of the House, was the trial of several officers by courts martial. After the suppression of this unfortunate rebellion, the government of Madras selected for trial by court martial colonels Bell, Storey, and Duncan—and as the opinions of the courts martial were at so much variance with those of the government, it was proper that the House should have documents to enable it to decide upon that question. This much relative to the military transactions in the presidency of Madras.—With regard to the other case, certain trials at law, which took place at Madras in 1808–9, he must again say, that they were of a most extraordinary nature, and ought not to be passed over without inquiry and explanation. He had before moved for documents on this subject, but as it was one of great importance, he would shortly state the outlines of the case as they had come to his knowledge. It was well known that a certain sum, five millions, had been set aside by the East India Company to answer the just and legal claims upon the nabob of Arcot. Claims to the amount of thirty millions were preferred upon this five millions, and suspicions were naturally entertained that vast numbers of them were false. Commissioners were appointed to examine and ascertain the real and bona fide debts. A certain number of gentlemen at Madras, interested in this business, being bona fide creditors, and acting in behalf of bona fide creditors, instituted a prosecution against a native of the name of Reddy Row, for forging one bond, and for a conspiracy with respect to another cash transaction, involving the foulest perjury. Reddy Row was convicted by juries of Englishmen, upon all the charges. But the extraordinary part of the transaction was, that sir George Barlow identified himself with Reddy Row, and directed notice to be given Mr. Maitland, a justice of the peace; to Mr. Roebuck, an officer high in the government service; and several others, individuals of the first respectability, prosecuting in behalf of the bona fide creditors, that if they presumed to interfere they would subject themselves to the serious displeasure of the government. Authority was besides given to the advocate-general, Mr. Anstruther, to defend this Reddy Row, and an order was made to defray his expences, from the funds destined for the payment of the real creditors. The first thing done by sir G. Barlow, in execution of his threat, was to remove Mr. Roebuck, who had been 36 years in the service of the Company, from Madras and his connections, without stating any grounds for this proceeding, though earnestly applied to for that purpose. He was removed at the risk of his life to a distance of 500 miles, to a most unwholesome situation, with less than half his former emolument, and in a few weeks after Mr. Roebuck in fact died. The magistrate who committed Reddy Row was also removed from his office: a third was sent to England against law; and from each of the juries who convicted Reddy Row, some were selected and sent to a distance of hundreds of miles with far inferior situations to those they held before, and the duties of which they were incompetent to discharge. Sir Thomas Strange, the judge at Madras, seconded the efforts of the governor. He gave it as his opinion, that the commissioners might still pay the bond, though found to be a forgery, and sent to this country a recommendation of pardon for Reddy Row. The pardon was granted; but in its voyage out to India, fresh matter had come out, conclusive as to the character and objects of this gentleman, who at last thought proper to relieve the anxiety of his friends by administering to himself a dose of poison. If the facts bore him out in this statement, he would ask if ever there was a stronger case before the House? It was needless for him at this time to mention what further proceedings might be requisite; but he would now say, that if these facts bore him out, he would move for the recal of sir George Barlow, as necessary to clear the character of the nation. He concluded by moving for several papers relative to these transactions, to the production of which he understood there was no objection.

never heard a more aggravated statement of any case than that now laid before the House. When the papers were produced it would appear how very much the circumstances had been distorted. He would in a few words state his view of it. It was well known, that for 30 or 40 years back the Arcot debts had been a source of corruption. When the company took the territory into its hands, it was thought but justice to ascertain what claims there were upon it; and a commission was appointed; a branch of which sat here, and another at Madras. Before the arrival of sir G. Barlow at Madras, a large manufacture of forged bonds had been carried on, and the bonds were publicly sold. The law officers of the commission were directed to make inquiries, with a view to check this evil; and a case of forgery, by one Paupiah Brahminy, a native notorious for his want of character, a prosecution was determined upon; and an application made to the government, after the arrival of sir G. Barlow, for the assistance of its law officers to carry on the prosecution. This was granted. Upon which Brahminy turned round, and commenced a prosecution against Reddy Row, who had been 30 years a servant of the company, and of whose assistance the commissioners had availed themselves. Mr. Maitland, himself a creditor, took the evidence against Reddy Row, and refused to take it in the other case. Under these circumstances the government thinking the prosecution against Reddy Row to have originated in malicious or interested motives, ordered him to be supported. The whole settlement was divided into parties respecting this business; and by one of them the conduct of the government would of course, be represented in its very worst light. Mr. Roebuck had been removed not only for his interference, but for his factious conduct in other respects. The place to which he was removed was on the seacoast, and very healthy; but he was an old man, above sixty, and in bad health before his removal, which accounted for his death without ascribing any thing to the effects of a noxious climate. Maitland had been removed, because unworthy of office, as would appear from the papers when laid before the House. The governors had no object but to support the cause of justice against faction. With regard to courts of law, the directors had taken no notice of any thing except the conduct of its own servants. As to the death of Reddy Row, from whatever cause it arose, it was entirely unconnected with the case of the bonds. The commissioners had reason not to be satisfied with him, and dismissed him in the exercise of their discretion. He only requested that the House would suspend its judgment till the papers were produced. As to the military transactions, if the last session had been longer, all the documents on that subject would then have been produced. They would soon, however, be brought forward, and, he hoped, considered with a degree of attention suited to their importance. On a subject where so many individuals and interests were concerned, there would be a great deal of prejudice. But the Indian government wanted nothing but to have the whole investigated; and the more gentlemen considered the documents, the more reason they would see to distrust a great number of stories that were circulated by individuals. He had no personal connection with sir George Barlow. He had only corresponded with him as an officer of the government; but he viewed the great lines of his conduct as entitled to the highest approbation. Although in a situation of such difficulty, some of the minor steps might have been faulty, yet he had no doubt but sir George Barlow had done a great service to the public; a service which even men of considerable merit could not have rendered. It was a mistake to suppose that this business had originated with the suspension of major Boles. The origin of it was much more remote, but the whole would be before the House, and he trusted gentlemen would take the trouble to examine it thoroughly. They would find it well worth their labour, and in the mean time he only requested a suspension of their opinion.

would have been perfectly satisfied with the hon. member's statement, but for some little inaccuracies. It had been said, that Mr. Roebuck, from his time of life, and the peculiar nature of his services, which had lasted so many years, might have died, without leaving any other cause to be looked for than his age and services. But this argument cut both ways: and it was rather a singular vindication, that an old and infirm man—a man, too, whose infirmities arose from his services to the Company, should have been sent to an unwholesome spot, and left to take his chance of living or dying there; and that, after having made every submission that could have been required, and written a supplicatory letter. As to Mr. Maitland, who was removed from his situation as a justice of the peace, for receiving the evidence of one man, and refusing that of another, he ought to have been praised for his sagacity; for it turned out in the event, that Reddy Row was given up by the government, and Paupiah Braminy, though his trial had been put off for three sessions, for the collection of full evidence against him, was finally let off without their urging the trial to conviction. Thus, according to Mr. Maitland's judgment, the event actually ex- hibited itself. For Paupiah was not prosecuted, and Reddy Row was found guilty. That personage died by his own hands, after being found guilty by three successive juries, of perjury, forgery, and conspiracy to cheat and defraud. Full as this was for his disgrace, Reddy Row contrived still to find protectors in the Chief Justice, sir Thomas Strange, and the government; until a witness came forward, who saw him in the very act of forgery, and it was only then that he was given up. As to the military matters, it would not be proper to enter upon them, until fuller information was obtained. But if it was to be said that sir George Barlow put down the rebellion by his intrepidity and good conduct, let it be remembered, that to all appearance it was a rebellion of his own raising. The army appeared to him to have been driven to extremities by the harshness of sir George Barlow. It was to be hoped, that the entire business would meet with the most accurate discussion; and that gentlemen would come down to the House, not prepared, as they sometimes were on India matters, by canvassings and solicitations, but after the best examination which they could give to the evidence, and the best judgment which they could bring to matters of such high importance to the British character.

said that the Directors, though they approved in general of the measures of sir George Barlow in India, yet to that general approval there were a few exceptions; such, for instance, as the removal of colonel Capper. He said that the hon. mover in tracing the cause of the discontents in India was by no means correct; that cause was very different from the one that he had stated. That hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten the conduct of general Macdowal, and the arts he practised on the army under his command.—He spoke in high terms of the conduct of sir G. Barlow, both civil and military, who was placed, he said, in very critical circumstances. The noble lord opposite had particularly objected to the interference of the government in the civil trials at Madras. This interference was at the express desire of the commissioners, who stated it as absolutely necessary to enable them to discharge their duty; and the government conceived itself bound to give every assistance to the commissioners. With respect to Reddy Row, his death did not at all alter the nature of his case; and he did not believe that he had put himself to death, it being more likely, from his previous bad health and advanced age, that he died in a natural manner. As to Mr. Roebuck, who had been so much extolled for his fidelity and services—and so forth, he believed that that was very far from being a just character, though he knew nothing of Mr. Roebuck. (Hear! from opposition benches.) He meant to say, he had no personal knowledge. All he knew of that gentleman was from the papers which had come through his hands; and front them it would appear that he had been so factious that he had drawn upon himself the displeasure of the government. With respect to Mr. Maitland, he was removed for the commitment of Reddy Row under circumstances which by no means justified that measure. Two men were then brought forward as witnesses, whose characters were bad and undeserving of credit. One of the commissioners offered to prove that they were undeserving of credit; but this was refused by Mr. Maitland. And with respect to Mr. Maitland's refusal to commit Paupiah Braminy, he asked if any magistrate in this country, who was himself interested in the cause before him, had behaved in the manner Mr. Maitland had behaved, would he not, on the affair being brought before the King's-Bench, have been removed from his office.

declared that it was evident the causes of the late rebellion in India rested solely with the government of Madras. He did not mean to say that they had caused the rebellion, but that it was founded on something (whether right or wrong he would not now pretend to determine) which they had done. An hon. gent. opposite had deprecated the condemnation of sir George Barlow, until the papers illustrative of his conduct should be produced; be it so: but the same measure of justice was unquestionably due to the unfortunate general M'Dowall. It was very possible that sir G. Barlow might have been only firm; but until he saw proof to the contrary, in the papers which were to be produced, he could not help thinking that sir George, in substituting obduracy for firmness, had endangered the loss of our Indian empire; an empire which, he would repeat, we had obtained by our crimes, which we were enabled to retain only by our injustice, and which we should probably lose by our folly. The hon. baronet censured in strong terms the conduct of the Directors as exhibited in their dispatch of September 15, in which they refused to hear general M'Dowall's defence, and in which the inconsistency appeared of approving in the first instance of the whole of the course pursued by sir G. Barlow, and then of condemning the suspension of major Boles. As for the civil part of the question, it did not appear to him that there had been any ground for the interference of the home government on the representation of the commissioners. Of all the subjects connected with our Indian empire, which required immediate and serious investigation, no one appeared to him to be more urgent than the mode of administering justice in that country.

condemned the introduction into the discussion of topics, on which, under the present circumstances, the House was not competent to pronounce. This prejudging of important questions was fair neither to the individuals immediately concerned, nor to the House itself. The hon. baronet had complained of the mention which had been made by his hon. friend of general M'Dowall, but how was it possible in adverting to the origin of the disturbances at Madras, to avoid this? The hon. baronet had also most unjustly censured the dispatch of the Court of Directors as inconsistent, since it contained an approbation of the whole conduct of sir G. Barlow. Instead of this, however, it was distinctly stated, that in the opinion of the Directors, the Madras government had not entirely conducted itself to their satisfaction, which was rendered evident by the subsequent instructions to that government, to reinstate major Boles in the service. The hon. mover, in rather a sneering kind of way, had animadverted on the conduct of the Chief Justice of Madras, and of the government at home, as connected with the pardon granted to Reddy Row. In speaking most highly of the character, of the integrity, and of the abilities of the Chief Justice of Madras, he was confident that he uttered the sentiments of all those who were qualified to judge of him. When the papers should be laid on the table, it would be found that the conduct of sir T. Strange had been throughout most exemplary. What had been the course pursued at home? A report of the trial had been received, containing details of the evidence; this was accompanied by a statement from the Judge, of the charge which he had thought it his duty to give to the Jury, and of his reasons for thinking that in their verdict the Jury had acted erroneously, with this declaration super-added, that he did not appeal to the mercy, but to the justice of his Majesty. Now, what would have been said, if government, after receiving such a statement, had not advised his Majesty to extend his royal mercy to the party concerned?—He could not sit down without shortly adverting to the accusation preferred against him a few evenings ago by the hon. mover of the present question, namely, that he had last session urged the East India Loan Bill through its various stages at a very late hour of the night, until the third reading, which was proposed at an hour unusually early. On referring to those authorities which were in every one's possession, he found that on the evening when she India Bill was read a third time, a previous discussion had taken place in the House on the subject of the Assessed Taxes, and on the motion for the third reading, the hon. gent. and the noble lord who supported his statement had participated in a debate which terminated with a division. How far these facts were consistent with any intention to carry the bill through parliament by surprise, he left for the House to determine.

declared that if ever there was a subject which called for minute and particular attention, it was the present. He defended the conduct of his hon. friend from the imputations which had been thrown out against it. His hon. friend had been accused of prejudging sir George Barlow—of prejudging a man by whom so many brave officers had been condemned and punished without an examination or a hearing! Yet it was for this person that such extreme tenderness was manifested by the right hon. gent. at the head of the government of India. He would not justify all the acts of the Madras army; but this he would say, that it was the intemperance of sir G. Barlow which drove them to those acts. By law it was declared, that no servants of the Company were to be displaced without communicating to them the cause in writing, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard in their defence. This law had been directly violated. Even after the trials, the printing and publishing of them were refused, on the simple declaration that such a measure was not expedient. He deprecated the general inattention of the House and the country to subjects of this nature, and declared, that when he called to mind the various acts of tyranny and oppression of which the British had been guilty to the natives of India, he felt it his imperious duty to bring questions of this description under the consideration of parliament, as frequently as possible.

thought, that as this was only a motion for the production of papers, which there was no intention to refuse, it would have been better to have deferred all comment until the papers were actually on the table. If this was an important general principle, it was particularly important with respect to Indian affairs, because it was a long time before papers on Indian subjects could be produced, and therefore the impressions made in the speech of the mover of such papers, must remain for a long time without being wiped away. Such speeches also found their way to India, and naturally excited in that country great anxiety for many months before the ultimate decision of parliament could be known there. Still, however, when assertions were made on one side, it became necessary to balance the impression made by those assertions by opposite assertions on the other. He rose for the purpose of meeting by assertion, that which was only assertion. When the papers should be produced, he would take on himself to prove, not only that sir G. Barlow had shewn great talent, firmness, genius, and courage in the suppression of the mutiny, but that no part of his conduct during the whole of the military transactions in India could be fairly charged by any candid man as the cause of that mutiny. As to the civil transactions, it would turn out that sir G. Barlow had little to do with them. It would turn out that the conduct of the Chief Justice of Madras (consistently with his conduct while holding the same situation in Nova Scotia), was as honourable to himself as it was advantageous to the country. An hon. gent. had taken it for granted, that the Jurors on the trials alluded to had been punished for their verdict. This he positively contradicted. Not a single person who sat on those trials as a juror was ever punished by sir G. Barlow on that account. He hoped, however, it would not be contended, that because an individual had sat as a juror on those trials, that he was therefore to be indemnified from the consequences of any act which he might afterwards think proper to commit. Far from being punished, some of these jurors had been promoted. One of the most confidential servants of the government (the present Secretary), had been one of those jurors. He was willing to admit that sir G. Barlow had dismissed some of the officers in the Company's service without trial. In doing so, he had most wisely used the power entrusted to him; but if, in a military government, the individual at the head of that government were not allowed this summary authority, no army could possibly remain embodied for any length of time. What he had stated he desired distinctly to say were only assertions: but they were as good as the assertions on the other side: and on the production of the papers, he pledged himself to prove that they were facts.

believed that it was the course adopted by sir George Barlow which had produced the rebellion. When he first took upon himself the government, the army were perfectly obedient, and ready to wait with patience for the decision which should be taken upon their claims. When a spirit of discontent pervaded the army, he took no measures of conciliation. On the contrary, many officers were seized and made prisoners, at the point of the bayonet. Such conduct not only produced great irritation, but induced other officers to think of putting themselves on their defence. This was very wrong, and could not be justified; but still the officers had received great provocation. He considered that it was not any qualities of sir George Barlow which had put a stop to the mutiny, but that the principal cause was the expectation of lord Minto's arrival at Madras. The memorial of major Boles and colonel Capper had been treated with great contempt; and the governor had assumed a power which the Commander in Chief, in this country, had not, of dismissing officers at his pleasure.

felt it to be his duty to defend the Court of Directors from the charges which had been preferred against them. An hon. bart. had accused the Directors of having expressed their determination not to hear general M'Dowall in his defence. So far, however, was this from the fact, that, instead of the Directors evincing any indisposition to hear gen. M'Dowall, the general had declared, that he would not reply to them. With respect to the Madras army, it was on record in Fort St. George, in 1807, that that army was in an unsettled state. An hon. baronet near him had imputed the suppression of the rebellion to the arrival of the governor-general at Madras. Not so. The rebellion terminated, because the officers of the Madras army found that the native officers were not inclined to support them, and because they experienced in sir G. Barlow, a firmness of determination which they had not anticipated.

lamented that the chairman of the Court of Directors should have charged men, who from north to south, from east to west, had traversed the peninsula of India, and by their bravery and perseverance, had established the interests of the East India Company, with being factions. Was the hon. gent. aware of the danger of his second observation? Could any man who knew any thing of India, be so mischievous as to say that the mutiny was quelled, not by the arrival of lord Minto at Madras, but by the European officers not having been able to prevail on the native officers to concur with them in their object? With respect to the civil transactions, it appeared on the face of the proceedings, that verdicts of juries had been set aside, and that jurors had been punished. These were circumstances which demanded the most serious investigation.

The motion was then agreed to, as were also a number of other motions made by Mr. Creevey for different official documents on the same subject.

rose to make his promised motion on this subject; a subject which, he observed, was by no means new to the House, as he should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill precisely similar to that which he had introduced, and which passed that House last session. Adverting to the efforts which he had made to amend the penal law, he called the attention of the House to the good effects which had resulted from the repeal, in 1808, of the Act which made privately stealing from the person capital. Those good effects were, that a greater number of trials for that offence had taken place, and that of those tried, a much larger proportion had been convicted. A more decisive proof of the beneficial effect of the new law could not be required. Indeed, the anticipations in which he had indulged on the subject, had been verified. Many individuals, who, under the old system, would have experi- enced complete impunity for their petty crimes, had been stopped in the commencement of their career, and thus a great number of crimes of more magnitude had been happily prevented. He referred to the history of the three Bills which he had introduced into the House in the last session. The first, which repealed the Act that rendered it capital privately to steal to the value of five shillings in a shop, warehouse, &c. passed the House of Commons. The next, which went to repeal the Act that rendered it capital to steal to the value of forty shillings, in a dwelling-house, was lost by the small majority of two, in a very thin House. As to the third of those Bills, which related to stealing to the value of forty shillings on board vessels in navigable rivers, canals, &c. unavoidable circumstances prevented it from ever coming under discussion. He had maturely considered the subject since the last session, and he was more firmly convinced than ever of the solidity of the grounds on which he had proceeded, and of the great importance of the subject. Still more deeply was he impressed with a sense of the imperativeness of the duty which he conceived himself to be discharging. It was not from light motives that he presumed to recommend an alteration in a matter so important as the criminal law of the land. He had always thought that it was the duty of every man to use the means which he possessed, for the purpose of advancing the well being of his fellow-creatures, and he was not aware of any way in which he could himself advance that well being so effectually, as by adopting the course which he now pursued. Lord Coke used to say, "that he considered every man who was successful in his profession, as under an obligation to benefit society;" and the works which that great and learned man produced, after a life of labour, in the high situation in which he was placed, were his mode of paying the social debt. So for himself, his success and his good fortune in his profession, had laid him under a debt to the society amongst whom he lived; and the way in which he intended to discharge that obligation, was by endeavouring to meliorate the law, and thus to increase the security and happiness of his country. It was not a little that would discourage him. He was not to be discouraged by the consideration that he had hitherto spent a great deal of time on this subject without doing much good. He certainly would not persevere if the sense of the public were decidedly against him; but unless he was satisfied of the impropriety of the proceeding, he would persevere until his proposed measures were negatived by a much larger majority than that which had rejected his second Bill last session. By those who opposed that Bill, it was insinuated, that he had objects much more extensive than those which were immediately indicated. To this he could only reply, that he had no intention of proposing to the House any measure but those which he had already described; with the exception indeed of one, of inferior magnitude, proceeding on similar principles, and which he should perhaps submit to the House in a few days. But even were the suspicion that he had latent objects in view, well founded, ought that to militate against the adoption of measures in themselves beneficial? He conceived himself as the organ of a considerable portion of the community, asking the House to adopt measures which were recommended to them by the strongest motives of public advantage. Would it not be strange that because a person might afterwards make an unjust demand that he should be refused that which was just? Would it not be strange if a judge should withhold from a suitor his right, lest he should become litigious and acquire that to which he was not entitled? He would, however, detain the House no longer at present, but merely move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to repeal so much of the Act of the 10th and 11th of William 3, as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons privately stealing in any shop, warehouse, coach-house, or stable, any goods, wares, or merchandizes of the value of five shillings, and for more effectually preventing the crimes of stealing privately in shops, warehouses, coach-houses, or stables."

had certainly no intention to oppose the motion of his hon. and learned friend. He did justice to the motives by which he was actuated, and was convinced, however they might differ in the view they happened to take of the measure to be submitted to the House, that his hon. and learned friend was entitled to the most perfect credit for doing that which he felt to be an imperative duty. It however did not follow, that those who gave him credit for rectitude of intentions, must feel the necessity, and see the policy of bringing forward the measure his hon. and learned friend thought it would be expedient to adopt. Much as his motives were entitled to praise, he thought the hon. and learned gent. had given proofs of prejudice (a prejudice certainly very natural,) when speaking of the benefits derived from his bill. The increased number of prosecutions, which he thought went to establish the public utility of the measure adopted at his suggestion in 1808, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought far from being a decisive proof, that good had resulted from it; it was as equivocal a circumstance as could be stated to the House. The hon. and learned gent. had said, that he thought more prosecutions had been commenced, and that more witnesses had come forward, in consequence of the punishment being slighter than formerly, as many had escaped punishment through the reluctance of individuals to prosecute; when death must follow conviction. Now, it might be that more prosecutions were commenced than formerly against such offenders—not because prosecutors and witnesses came forward more willingly from the consideration he had stated, but because more offences were committed, and committed with greater hardihood, from a knowledge of the penalty incurred being less severe. This might be the cause of the increase of prosecutions, while at the same time it rendered conviction more easy. He did not say it was so; he would not decide either one way or the other, but he contended that the hon. and learned gent. in taking this as a most decisive proof in favour of the efficacy of his measure, had shewn himself not wholly free from prejudice. With respect to the bills, he could have no objection to their being again brought in, and again entertained by the House; but in giving his assent to their being so brought in, it was his wish that he might not be prejudged as pledging himself to support them. As to what his hon. and learned friend had said of the objections which had been made to his measures, on the ground that he had something further in contemplation, he did not plead guilty to having made such an objection, nor did he think it reasonable. Perhaps those who supposed the existence in his hon. and learned friend of a disposition to introduce further measures of an extensive description, objected to the present measures, on the ground that the principle on which they proceeded might become injurious by extension. He thought it fair to consider the proposition on its own merits, and rather to oppose the principle when it should appear about to be carried too far, than to give opposition at present, because the principle might hereafter be pushed to objectionable extent. He concluded by expressing himself content that the Bills should be brought in, but repeating, that it was his wish that those who so gave their assent, should not be considered as pledging themselves to afford them their future support.

thought his right hon. friend had forgot one of his reasons for thinking his bill had been of public utility. He had said first, that more had been brought to trial; and secondly, that more of those tried had been convicted. Now could there be any reason for imputing prejudice to him, when he spoke of his bill as having done good on the last-mentioned ground? Was it possible to account for the circumstance of 19 being acquitted and one found guilty out of 20 tried before the passing of the Bill, and 19 being convicted and one acquitted out of 20 tried after it had passed, but by supposing the prosecutors, witnesses, and jury to have done their duty in the one instance and not in the other, and that the change arose from the good effects of the law. On the first ground he also disclaimed prejudice; and contended, that the increase of prosecutors could not solely arise from the number of offences being greater than formerly.

reminded his hon. and learned friend, that he had supposed the offences to be committed with a greater degree of hardihood and less dread of the consequences than before, and thence accounted for the facility of conviction.

stated the grounds on which he had thought it his duty to oppose the Bill of the hon. and learned gent. in the last session. Without being more deficient in humanity than others, be might feel it right to oppose the principle on which it was grounded, if it should appear about to be pushed too far. Whatever he might feel on this subject, he could not object to the Bill being brought in.

thought his hon. and learned friend had been misunderstood. He did not take credit to himself for more feeling and more humanity than were possessed by other gentlemen, but it having been argued that the principle on which his motion was grounded was more objectionable than the individual proposition, submitted to the House, from the extent to which it might be carried, he had now stated it to be his intention to confine himself to the measures he had announced, and not to push the principle to a dangerous length.

observed, that his hon. and learned friend had stated there had been a greater number of prosecutions since the passing of his bills than before, and thence inferred, that witnesses and prosecutors came forward more readily, from a knowledge that the offence of which individuals were accused, was not to be punished by death, and that hence much benefit was derived to the community. This circumstance, which had been so brought forward, he thought extremely equivocal. From a salutary measure he should have hoped that such offences would have less frequently occurred, but when it was found that they were more numerous than formerly, the trials at least (which was one proof of the number of offences committed), he should be inclined to draw an inference very different from that drawn by his hon. and learned friend, and fear that instead of good, the measure had been productive of evil. But then the hon. and learned gent. had said, how was his second assertion to be answered, that of those tried a greater number had been convicted? To this he would reply, that the taking away the distinction respecting privately stealing, and making the effect the same whether the theft came under that denomination or not, might give greater facility to conviction. It was difficult to get correct information on the subject, as to the causes which had led to the effect spoken of by the hon. and learned gentleman. It could only be procured from those who were most concerned in trying for that species of offence. Offenders of the description alluded to, pickpockets, &c. might well be supposed to be most numerous in London and its vicinity, and those before whom such cases were decided, most competent to decide on the question, whether or not that species of crime had been diminished. He was sorry to say that on inquiry, he found those who had most experience, were of opinion, that the number of such offences was not diminished, but was become more frequent than before from its being known they were no longer punished by death. This he had been told, and this he really believed was the state of the case, as he feared it would be found on inquiry by his hon. and learned friend.

, in explanation, said, that in acting as he did, he considered himself strictly as doing his duty. He had no pretensions to more humanity than others; he had never proposed the measure merely on the ground of humanity; and he claimed no merit but that of doing his duty.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.