moved the second reading of the Bill.

said, that the House laboured under great difficulties as to this Bill, from the total want of information. He had strong objections to the Bill. By the statute of William, conveyances for the purpose of splitting votes were declared void. This Bill went to put conveyances by devise on a footing with other conveyances. He did not see why this law should be confined to Weymouth; he believed, that in most of the western boroughs, the same method of splitting votes prevailed. This Bill went to disfranchise a number of persons, and this ought not to be done hastily; he acknowledged that the splitting of votes was a great evil, but he thought substitutes ought to be provided for those disfranchised, and care should be taken that the borough should not be put in fewer hands. This case did not resemble any other with which he was acquainted, but it was a case of great importance; and this was the only place besides London that returned four members.

said the thing complained of was a novel experiment made of splitting votes by will. There was an Act in existence against the splitting of votes, but it did not anticipate the possibility of doing it by will; but according to the spirit of that Act all devises for the splitting of votes ought to be null and void, in the same manner as conveyances were.

said, he held in his hand a Petition from the inhabitants of Weymouth, praying that the House would not interfere with the independence of the borough. He wished to know only, if the House should attempt to new model the election there, on the ground of convenience, why it should not extend the same proceeding to other boroughs, where there was just as little shadow of right as in the voters of Weymouth? He was advised that the real operation of the Bill would be to lodge the power of returning four members to parliament in about thirty or forty persons. He felt extremely anxious that nothing should be done by the House that might produce an impression on the public that such was the antipathy of parliament to every principle of reform in the representation, that al- though they uniformly resisted any proposition for extending the elective franchise, they had no objection to narrow its exercise on any occasion which might afford them a plea of mere convenience in so doing.

would not protract or enter much into the discussion at present, as a more ample opportunity would occur of so doing. He had only to ob-terve, that if this Bill did, indeed, go to new model a borough, or alter the elective franchise, he could not support it. It had, however, no such object, and was simply declaratory of the law as it stood in the reign of king William. A practice had crept in in the usual course of the progress of an abuse, by which the power of communicating the franchise by devise had been perverted, and carried to the extent of a principle which would countenance an indefinite divisibility. Upon the practice which now prevailed, by which a sixpenny rent was sufficient to qualify twenty voters, it might be extended to the qualification of five hundred thousand.

said, it had appeared to the Committee that the only proper remedy which could be applied in this case, without disfranchising the inhabitants, was to designate the value of the rents which should in future be deemed a sufficient qualification. There were no votes now which had been acquired by devise that were of a higher value than five shillings annually, some of sixpence, and one witness had been called who enjoyed eight votes, which were altogether of the annual value of two-pence rent. It was not deemed equitable to give the Bill a retrospective operation, or to deprive those who had exercised the right previously without dispute of this franchise, but to provide against the possibility of a continuance of the abuse, by ascertaining and fixing a certain rent as a necessary title to a suffrage in future voters.

After some further conversation, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.

. May I be permitted to add one observation, as a close to the evidence which I have given in answer to the questions which have been put to me respecting the consequences of an unrestrained intercourse of Europeans, not in the service of the Company, with the natives of India; for, from I believe the uniform tenor in which my opinions have been delivered, it is possible, but I hope not, that suspicion might be entertained, that I have delivered them under the bias of an attachment to the East India Company. It is necessary that I should obviate the possibility of such an imputation on the credit of the evidence which I have delivered. An attachment to the Company I certainly do feel; an attachment of gratitude for the service which has given me bread, and employed what I possessed of talent, during all the active part of my life; and for the bounty from which, though its source is now closed, I still draw my subsistence: but neither is this the place, nor the present an occasion, to admit of the influence of that sentiment: I wish to prove that this profession is not loosely stated, nor the declarations which I have made, made on slight grounds; and that my opinions are neither new, nor drawn from me by the occasion. Twenty years ago, when the present charter was under consideration, I addressed a letter to the chairman, or chairmen for the time being of the court of directors upon this very subject: in which, so far as I can trust to my recollection, I strongly urged the necessity of providing against the irruption of British adventurers into India, and beyond the bounds of our settlements; arguing from it, that they would molest and oppress the people, and plunder the country: and I believe I expressed a wish that some provision should be made against it, in the charter then depending. I have either lost or mislaid the letter, so that I have no access to any copy of it: therefore I can only speak to its identity, and to the general import of it. I mention this to show that it is not a novel doctrine which I humbly deliver to this honourable House. My letter, I know, was seen, and I have a pleasure in thinking that it was approved, by the gentleman that then presided over the board of commissioners for the affairs of India; a man, who certainly if it could be said of any man, required no light from the judgment of another to aid his own; and therefore it would be the height of arrogance in me to suppose that I had any share of merit in the event which followed. I have mentioned the fact only to show how early my opinion was formed, and with what anxiety and earnestness I acted upon it. A clause was inserted by Mr. Dundas, in the act of parliament and in the charter constituted from it, by which it was enacted, "that no British subject not being a servant of the East India Company should be allowed to reside in India, except at the principal settlements, unless by a special license from the Company or the governors of India." This license I thought defeated the essential purpose of the prohibitory clause; but I waited till another occasion induced me to address the court of directors through the similar official channel of the chairman and deputy chairman of that body; which I did, in a letter dated the 12th of March 1802, strongly remonstrating against this exception to the general clause, as liable to be productive of greater mischiefs from the few favoured Europeans who were allowed the benefit of it, than if all men in-discriminately were allowed, to possess the same privilege. Again, on the 28th of April last, I a third time took up the same subject, and addressed a letter upon it to the present chairman of the court of directors, reiterating my former objections, and the arguments connected with them, and proposing as a means of preventing the deprecated abuses, certain restrictions to which I have alluded in my answer to one of the first questions proposed to me: this letter contains all that I had written upon the same subject in my preceding letter of March 1802, in a quotation from it; this will, and the first letter which I have mentioned would (if I could produce it) strongly prove that such always was my opinion. This honourable House will have ample means of knowing, from more recent testimony than mine, whether the mischiefs which I apprehended have actually come to pass, and the records of the court of directors will afford a more authentic evidence still of their existence, if they have existed. I have the permission of the court of directors, in whose possession the last letter is, and I humbly refer this honourable House to it; and if this shall appear to be clearly the case, the inferences that I drew, so long ago as twenty years past, of the connection between the allowance of British adventurers in India, not in the service of the Company, with its influence on the peace of it, and the reiteration of the same opinion through so long a series of time, to be no longer argumentative, they were predicted, and in that sense are an irrefragable proof that such consequences must inevitably follow such premises.

(Examined by the Committee.)

Do you recollect, during the time of your residence in India, whether any persons employed themselves as missionaries in converting the natives to the Christian religion?—I do; I remember a very worthy gentleman in that character, Mr. Swartz, in the Carnatic, another in Bengal, named Kiernander; I do not know whether I can call him a missionary; he was sent out from London, and supported, I believe, by the Society for propagating the Gospel. I remember his conversion of one Indian, because it was announced with great pomp and parade. I also recollect a Catholic priest, who resided somewhere in the district of Dacca, and had a large flock of men, whom he called Christians, about him; but he himself appeared to me to be ignorant of the com- mon languages of the country; and that his converts were Christians only in name and dress, but could not have acquired a knowledge of our religion from a man who had no medium of language to communicate it. I do not recollect any others; I know there were more of the Catholic missionaries,

Were the persons so employing themselves as missionaries, under the control and subject to the restraint of the Company?—I do not know that Mr. Swartz could be considered as a subject of the Company; he visited, and occasionally resided, I believe, in every part of the peninsula, and Was every where respected. Mr. Kiernander, whom I too inconsiderately named as appertaining to this character, was a constant resident in Calcutta, and equally amenable with every other inhabitant of it, to the British laws and government. The Catholic priest I have mentioned I knew during the time in which the nabob Jaffeer Ally Cawn held the nizamut; he was then very old; I do not know whether he survived the revolution that afterwards took place in the government of that country.

What in your opinion would be the consequences, if persons were allowed to employ themselves as missionaries in converting the natives to the Christian religion, unlicensed and subject to no restraint on the part of the Company?—Unlicensed, and under no restraint? I do not know how that possibly could be, therefore I beg that that may be expressed with a little greater latitude.

Unrestrained as to the mode which they may think proper to adopt for effecting their object of converting the natives to the Christian religion?—I cannot tell what the effect would be generally; if such a case had happened when I held the first place in the government of India, and such persons demeaned themselves properly, I should have taken no notice of them; but if they gave occasion to a belief that the government itself tacitly encouraged their designs, from an apprehension of the consequences which such a belief would produce upon the minds of the people, and especially the irritable spirits of the Mahomedans, I certainly should have checked the attempt, and withdrawn them to Calcutta, or, if they afforded sufficient cause for it, compelled them to quit the country; when I speak of myself in the first person, I mean I should have recommended that conduct to the members of the government over which I presided.

Upon what grounds do you form your opinion, that the residence of certain persons in India by license, would be more dangerous to the interests of the Company in India, than the indiscriminate resort of all Europeans to India?—If it refers to the license which is made an exception from the prohibitory clause in the Act of parliament, my objection is a very strong one. Other adventurers would go under the jealous eye of government, and would excite their attention, and government would certainly use the most efficient means in its power to keep them under control: but if none were allowed to go into the country with a permission and license to trade in it, to erect factories and dwelling houses, and to carry on a traffic with the natives, but such persons as went out patronized by the Company or by the governor of the presidency, those are the worst men you could let loose amongst them; they would go armed with power and an influence which no man would dare to resist; and those are the men that I should apprehend more danger from, than an indiscriminate rabble let loose upon the country; in opposing the attempts of such men, every man would think that he was acting in opposition to their patron.

Did you or did you not, as governor general of Bengal, at different periods after the Company began its practice of laying in investments from its tribute, remonstrate by letter to the court of directors, upon the pernicious effects of this system?—I remember no such remonstrance; and if I clearly understand the intent of the question, I think I could not have made such remonstrance; at the same time I am well aware that something implying it must exist in that re-port, or the question would not thus be put to me. I ought long ago to have apologized to this honourable House, and to have bespoken its indulgence for any inaccuracies, or for any hesitations or mistakes which I may have committed in delivering my evidence. I have never, in any part of my life, been accustomed to speak in public, and I am now less qualified for it at my very advanced time of life; with this apology, I hope it will not give offence, if I say that I do not clearly understand what the Company's tribute is.

By tribute is meant dealing in the superfluous rent, after paying all charges civil and military, applying the superfluous rent in the purchase of investment?—It was the custom of our government ultimately to bring all receipts of money, however produced, into one indiscriminate head of treasury; ail our advances for the different services of the government were made from this general mass; and I do not know how, in such advances, any discrimination could have been made of the peculiar fund from which it had been supplied. I am afraid I speak from weakness of apprehension; but I am very willing to refer to the documents themselves, which will better show than any comment I could make upon them, if I saw them, whether my conduct and opinions, delivered at that time, were contrary to the general mode which I have described.

What is your opinion as to the political effect of the measure proposed, respecting a church establishment for India?—The question is one of great intricacy, and of such delicacy, that I should almost fear to speak to it; but that my respect for this honourable House enjoins it; because, though it specifically mentions only political effect, yet it intimates no allusion to the nature of the office itself; of the religious uses or present necessity of such a creation, I cannot be a judge, and therefore can say nothing to it; and unless I knew both circumstances, and the objects of the creation, it would be impossible for me to conjecture in what way they could affect the peace of the country. May I say without offence, that I wish any other time bad been chosen for it? A surmise has gone forth, of an intention in this government to force our religion upon the consciences of the people in India, who are subjected to the authority of the Company; it has pervaded every one of the three establishments of Bengal, Fort St. George and Bombay, and has unhappily impressed itself with peculiar force upon the minds of our native infantry, the men on whom we must depend in the last resort for our protection against any disturbances which might be the effect of such surmises. Much would depend upon the temper, conduct, and demeanor of the person elevated to that sacred office. I dare not say all that is in my mind upon this subject; but it is one of great hazard.

Would there be, in your opinion, the same danger now, as 20 years ago, from the admission of Europeans into India, considering the great political changes which have taken place in that country? —I think there would be as great danger; from circumstances, I think the danger would be greater. There were not the same pretensions then raised as have since been; and any such adventurers now would go out armed with rights, which at that time were not thought of.

Do you think there would be any danger to the British interests in India, from the residence of a few additional European merchants and agents at the different presidencies, or from their admission occasionally into the interior of the country for mercantile purposes, under the present restrictive regulations of the Company?—I think there would; I think I have already said so, and assigned my reasons.

What is your opinion of the effect of the union of the sovereignty and commerce of India, in the hands of the Company; is it beneficial, or otherwise, to the interests of that country?—The sovereignty of the Company is certainly beneficial to the country. The union of its commercial with its political interest in it, has never yet produced, to my knowledge or belief, any detriment to the inhabitants; I do not know how it should. Their investment affords a livelihood to thousands; it animates the industry of the people, and is equally beneficial to both. I know not whether this question alludes to a trite maxim, that a government can never take upon itself the conduct of mercantile concerns, without injustice and oppression. I suppose the meaning of this maxim is, that it would apply all its authority and influence to exclude or oppress all its competitors. The Company have no competitors yet; and I know not in what other sense. the union of the two concerns can be deemed incompatible.

Are you of opinion that the commerce of India, as at present regulated, is as advantageous to that country and to Great-Britain, as it would be, if free and equal to all the subjects of Great Britain?—Certainly, as much, and much more so.

Do you recollect having written a review of the state of Bengal, many years ago?—I do.

Do you recollect having stated, in that review, that although we had been so long in possession of the sovereignty of Bengal, yet we had not been able so far to change our ideas with our situation, as to quit the contracted views of monopolists; and that thence, in all the correspondence of the board of trade were found constant complaints of private merchants making advances to the Company's weavers, and their giving greater prices than had been hitherto given by the Company; upon which occasion did you express, as your opinion, that it was of less consequence that the investment should be procured cheap, than that the commerce of the country should flourish; insisting upon it, as a fixed and incontrovertible principle, that commerce could only flourish when free and equal?—I do not remember those words in the publication of mine alluded to; I have no doubt they are there, but I do not come here to defend my own inconsistencies: if I have expressed myself in the terms which I have listened to, and clearly understand them, I positively abjure them; they are not my present sentiments: my sentiments are, and I cannot say when I changed them from others of a different description, that the commerce of every country, how much soever extended, is beneficial to it abstractedly considered, without any other circumstances connected with it. With this sentiment I was of opinion, when the rumour first existed of an intention in the Americans to send ships to the port of Calcutta, that they should be admitted, and that they should be even encouraged to come: I think such admission, if allowed as an indulgence, and not conceded or enacted as a right, would be good policy, not only with the Americans but with every other country: but I should think it a very unwise policy to grant it as aright; because in the first instance, the government would hold an effective controul over the trade to prevent the abuse of it; and in the latter they would have a national interest to contend with in every disagreement, and involve its own parental state in the contest.

Would it be consistent, in your opinion, with the security of the British empire in India, to allow missionaries to preach publicly, with a view to the conversion of the native Indians, that Mahomet is an impostor, or to speak in opprobrious terms of the Brahmins and their religious rites?—It would neither be consistent with the security of the British empire in India, to treat the religions established in the countries of their dominion with contempt and opprobrium; nor with common humanity. If such a declaration of war was made between the religions of the country, between the professors of ours and those of the established religions, I know not what would be the consequence. There have been among the Mahometans, bigots more ferocious than any that have shed the blood of their brethren in Europe If a fanatic should arise amongst them, and preach the doctrines inculcated in their Koran, I do not think it impossible that he might excite the zeal of thousands of abettors, and a religious war be the consequence of the first provocation. I do not say that such an event is likely to happen; but such have happened; and our government is not exempt from the chances of their recurrence.

Was the Christian dress worn by the converts, to whom you alluded in your former answer, of European manufacture?—I never saw them; but they were of the meanest of the people, and I should doubt whether they had any garments at all, more than the most necessary and scanty portions of dress, such as belonged to that order of the Bengalees.

In your calculation of the mischiefs that will arise, in consequence of individuals residing in India, who are not servants of the Company, can you make any distinction between Americans and British subjects?—By individuals, I meant British subjects only.

Can you state to the Committee any distinction between Americans and British, or Europeans?—If at any time I have mentioned Europeans, which I do not recollect, Americans could not have been at that time in my recollection, or I should have included them as participating in character, though not in name, of the same order of people. I certainly make a distinction between Americans and British.

In what does that distinction consist?—In the right of appeal, which an Englishman could make to the laws of his country, or the prejudices of his countrymen. I do not mean that our government should not be amenable to the laws; but at the distance of India from the parent state, such appeals wantonly made would prove vexatious to government, and uncontrolable in many instances. The American competitor possesses no such advantages; but if, peace being restored with America, they shall be allowed a right, under the sanction of a treaty with our nation, to trade in all the territories of the Company in India, I think American adventurers of the same character as those whom I have described in speaking of adventurers from Great Britain, would be equally mischievous; that I understand did not happen when the Americans were allowed, I forget on what terms, but I believe of a right, to trade with our settlements in India; nor do I know that they ever went beyond the capital settlements, or that they afforded any ground of complaint. [The witness withdrew.]

The Right Hon. Lord TEIGNMOUTH was called in; and a Chair being placed for his Lordship within the Bar, was examined as follows:

]—How long was your lordship in the service of the East India Company?—From 1768 to 1798. I was not the whole time in India, but constantly in the service of the Company during that period; of that period I was 24 years resident in India.

How long did your lordship fill the office of governor general of Bengal?—About four years and a half.

During any part of your lordship's service, were you in the revenue department?—I was chiefly employed in that department before I succeeded to the situation of a member of the supreme council.

Did such employ afford to your lordship an ample opportunity of studying the characters, manners, and habits of the natives?—I certainly endeavoured to form an opinion of the character and habits of the natives.

Did your lordship acquaint yourself with their languages?—I was acquainted with the common language of India and the Persian.

Looking to such character, manners, and habits, and supposing an influx of Europeans to have access according to their discretion, to every part within the limits of the charter of the Company, and to sojourn there, according to that discretion and their own opinions, what effect do you suppose that such sojournment might have upon the general interests of the Company, or of the British empire in India?—I should think that an unrestrained influx of Europeans into India would be prejudicial to the interests of this country, as connected with India. People unacquainted with the habits and characters of the natives, are not disposed to give that weight to their prejudices, which people brought up in the country are disposed to give.

Supposing that influx to consist of seamen and traders, would those evils to which you refer, be likely to occur?—Not in the same degree, in my opinion, as would occur from an unrestrained admission of Europeans into the interior of the country.

Are there not many sea-ports on either side of the peninsula, at a considerable distance from either of the principal seats of government?—I believe there may be some, both on the Coromandel and the Malabar coast; but I do not recollect at present, any sea-ports where there is not some established authority on the part of the Company.

Supposing such an influx to have access to such ports, might it not be difficult to restrain them from making their way into the country?—Under the present system of regulations established in Bengal, I should think that they might be in a great measure restrained from penetrating into the country; or if they succeeded, that the police would discover them, they might be stopped, and would be sent back.

Supposing a free trade to take place from every port in the United Kingdom to every port within the limits of the Company's charter, at the discretion of the adventurers, is it not likely that the numbers would increase in a very considerable degree?—At first, the numbers I think would be great; but the disappointment which I should conceive would arise in the commercial speculations, supposing them to be carried on to the extent specified in the question, would prevent that great influx of Europeans which it supposes.

While those numbers should continue great, would not the difficulty be considerable of restraining them, either as to conduct or place of abode?—It would be difficult in proportion to the numbers, but not altogether impracticable.

Supposing such adventurers to meet with the disappointment alluded to, would not they be driven to seek other means of maintenance in India?—They probably would attempt it, and some might contrive to obtain a residence in India.

If such free trade be allowed not only directly to the ports within the limits of the Company's charter, but coastwise from port to port, would not then that difficulty be increased, or rather would not such restraint become wholly impracticable?—I do not think the restraint would be impracticable, where the Company's authority extends.

Supposing, under the circumstances stated, of coasting from port to port, and the unlimited communication which has been described, the restraint should not be found sufficient, what do you then apprehend from the unrestrained intercourse which would take place between such persons and the natives?—If there were an unrestrained intercourse between such persons and the natives, that is, an intercourse that could not be restrained, it would imply a defect in the exercise of the superintending powers of the government that would in fact amount to a suspension of its functions; and in that case an unrestrained multitude would certainly be dangerous in many points of view.

Supposing such defect to exist, will your lordship state the evils you apprehend would arise from such intercourse with the natives?—There is one general consequence which I should think likely to result from a general influx of Europeans into the interior of the country and their intercourse with the natives, that, without elevating the character of the natives, it would have a tendency to depreciate their estimate of the general European character: such an effect I should think highly dangerous in a country, where the estimate of the power of the government depends greatly upon opinion, in a country where the proportion of the natives to the number of Europeans is probably not less than 2,000 to 1; other inconveniencies would arise in this way, from a disregard to the peculiar prejudices of the natives, and by a conduct calculated to irritate them.

Does your lordship think that such intercourse would tend to shake that opinion, upon which you have stated, so much to depend?—It certainly would have a tendency to it, which tendency would be very much increased by the number of Europeans.

Would not also much depend upon the station in society that such persons filled?—I think it might; but probably the evil would be less likely to arise from people in a higher station of society, than from those in low ranks of society.

If they were composed of seamen and traders?—If they were composed of seamen and traders, the danger would be pro-portionably great, I conceive.

Would there be danger of oppression towards the natives, among other dangers?—Occasionally acts of oppression might be exercised; but in the present efficient state of the administration of justice in Bengal, I should suppose few acts of oppression could be exercised, for which redress might not be obtained.

At present are Europeans answerable for their conduct in any criminal courts, except the supreme courts at Calcutta or Madras, and the recorder's court at Bombay?—European foreigners, not British subjects, are subject, I believe, to the native courts established in the interior of the country; British subjects, in criminal matters, to the supreme court of judicature in Calcutta only, to the court at Madras, and to the recorder's court at Bombay. In civil suits, British subjects are amenable to the country courts in Bengal.

If violence or oppression were to take place up the country, would the native have any means of bringing the oppressor to justice, unless he could afford to indict him in one of the supreme courts, or the court of the recorder at Bombay?—I would wish to confine ray answer to Bengal only, with which I am better acquainted than with Bombay: A native, under the circumstances described, would be obliged to apply for redress to the supreme court of judicature in Calcutta, if it were a criminal action.

If adventurers were to make their way in any numbers up into the country, is it your lordship's opinion that the present power of the magistrates would be equal to their entire controul, or the prevention of their intrigue?—In proportion to their numbers, the difficulty of controuling them would be great; but by a proper exertion of authority, I think it might in a considerable degree be effectual.

Does your lordship apprehend any evil consequences to arise from such persons being allowed, for the purposes of trade, or the professed purposes of trade, to pervade any material part of the interior of the peninsula?—I should suppose that no persons would be allowed to go into the interior, but by the knowledge and consent of the governing power; exclusive of those inconveniencies which I have already stated as possible to result from a general intercourse of Europeans with the natives of India, no others occur to me at present.

Supposing them for the circumstances of the free trade, and their consequent numbers, to elude that vigilance, what are the evils which you apprehend?—The evils which I have already stated to arise from a general intercourse of Europeans with natives.

Does your lordship suppose that opening the trade to India would lead to a much greater degree of consumption of European articles by the natives of India, than takes place at present?—I certainly do not.

Will your lordship have the goodness to state your reasons for that opinion?—Those reasons are founded upon the particular habits and customs of the natives. I know Very few articles of European manufacture that are used by the natives in general, or that are likely to be used by them in any considerable degree.

Does your lordship know of any wants of that description, that have not been most amply supplied by the existing system of commerce to India, with regard to European articles for the consumption of the natives, as far as that consumption may go?—I am not aware of any.

Does your lordship conclude, that any material increased consumption of European articles upon the part of the natives, is wholly unlikely?—I think very improbable.

Has the intercourse between the natives and the Europeans, at the principal seats of government, apparently induced any taste or desire towards the greater use of European articles?—There may have been some few instances in which the natives, out of compliment to Europeans, those natives in particular who are in the habit of giving entertainments to them, may have introduced some European articles of furniture. The nabob of Oude had amassed a very large collection of European articles, but I do not recollect any other native who had imitated his example; from my own experience, I should not suppose the desire or taste mentioned in the question, to exist in any but a very limited degree.

With regard to the great bulk or mass of the population, have they it in their power so to indulge, were it their desire?—I should think not.

Have those who have had the means of accumulating some property, directed their expenditure towards European articles?—Not according to my experience.

(Examined by the Committee.)

Would it be consistent with the security of the British empire in India, that missionaries should preach publicly, with a view to the conversion of the native Indians, that Mahomet is an impostor, or should speak in opprobrious terms of the Brahmins or their religious rites?—I think the practice of preaching publicly the doctrines as stated in the question, would be attended with danger; but I do not think it is at all necessary that such doctrines should be publicly preached for the purpose of converting the natives of India; there is nothing, as far as my experience goes, in the character of a missionary, that is offensive to the people of India; and if his conduct is regulated by prudence and under the influence of that piety which he professes to teach, I think that he will be highly esteemed by the natives. The question states public preaching; there is a distinction between public preaching and conferences with individuals; what might be said in conversation to an individual upon these topics safely, might not be said safely when publicly preached to a multitude. I recollect in an account which was printed of the first Danish missionaries, I believe about the year 1717, there are conversations between the missionaries and natives, and this at a period I believe, when the authority of the natives was established in India; all those conversations go upon this principle, that the religion which the missionaries meant to preach was true, and that which they meant to oppose was false. I do not recollect that any ill consequences appear to have happened from such conferences between those Danish missionaries and the natives on the Malabar coast.

Would the dangers that might result from the exercise of an indiscreet zeal to change the national religions, be greater or less in India than most other countries, from the peculiar habits and feelings of the people?—I have no hesitation in saying, that the dangers attending an indiscreet zeal would be considerable; at the same time, we have proofs, that a judicious and prudent zeal may be exercised effectually, and to the conversion of the natives.

Would it be desirable, in your lordship's opinion, that persons professing to teach Christianity in India, should act under the licence and controul of some ecclesiastical authority residing in that country?—I should think it would be more advisable to leave the controul at the discretion of the government of the country, who would be much better judges how to exercise that discretion prudently.

Is your lordship aware that an opinion prevails in India, that it is the intention of the British government to take means to convert the natives of the country to the Christian religion?—I never heard it, nor suspected it.

Has not your lordship heard, that one of the chief causes of the mutiny at Vellore, in which a British regiment was massacred, was an opinion of that kind?—I certainly did see it asserted in print in this country, but I took some pains to clear up that point, and cleared it up completely to my own satisfaction that the assertion was to-'tally without foundation; I would beg leave to mention, that my opinion upon the subject is in print, in a pamphlet that does not bear my name, but was very well known to be written by myself, entitled, "Considerations on the practicability, "policy and obligation, of communicating "the knowledge of Christianity to the natives of India." I refer to that pamphlet, as containing an answer to the question put to me.

Allowing the opinion, stated before, to have existed in India, of the intention of this government to force the Christian religion on the natives, would not the sending put a bishop tend to strengthen that opinion?—I should think it would be viewed with perfect indifference by the natives.

Your lordship having stated, that you have known proofs of persons being converted from the Hindoo to the Christian religion; will you state where those in-stances have occurred?—The proofs to which I referred, were the conversions by Swartz on the Coromandel coast.

Does your lordship know any instance of a respectable Hindoo being converted to the Christian religion?—When I was in Bengal, I do not recollect that there Were any missionaries from this country in that part of India, excepting for a short time before I left India, and I had had no knowledge of them, so that I cannot speak of any conversions of my own personal knowledge in India.

Should any provision be made in an act of parliament, empowering missionaries or others from this country to go to India for the purpose of converting the Hindoos to Christianity, do not you think it would be a document placed in the hands of our enemies, of the agents of France, or any other agent, of which they would make an ample handle to set that country in a flame?—I do not think that the agents of France, or any other public enemies, would be able to make that use of it.

Your lordship does not then think, that were the Hindoos possessed with an idea that we had an intention of changing their religion and converting them into Christians, that it would be attended with any bad consequences at all?—I will expatiate a little in my answer to that question. Both the Hindoos and Mahometans, subject to the British government in India, have had the experience of some years, that in all the public acts of that government every attention has been paid to their prejudices, civil and religious, and that the freest toleration is allowed to them; that there are many of the regulations of government which prove the disposition of government to leave them perfectly free and unmolested in their religious ordinances; that any attempt at an infringement upon their religion or superstitions would be punished by the government of India: with that conviction, which arises from experience, I do not apprehend that they would be brought to believe that this government ever meant to impose upon them the religion of this country. [His lordship was directed to withdraw.—His lordship was again called in.]

Is it relying upon the good opinion that the natives have of our conduct hitherto towards them, your lordship has answered; or will you give a direct answer to the question, without; that should the state of things be altered, and we not observe that conduct we have hitherto observed, but introduce new modes and enact new laws for the carrying into effect the converting the natives to Christianity, that that would not be attended with disagreeable consequences to us?—If a law were to be enacted for converting the natives of India to Christianity, in such a manner as to have the appearance of a compulsory law upon their consciences, I have no hesitation in saying, that in that case it would be attended with very great danger.

Is it not rather your lordship's opinion, that the good effects to be derived from inculcating the precepts of the Christian religion amongst the natives of India, had better be attempted by what is termed conferences, than by any enactment in an act of parliament?—If that enactment goes only to allow persons to reside in India, for the purpose of instructing the natives in the doctrines of Christianity, I mean as far as they are willing to receive them, I should see no danger in it; in truth I believe that all attempts at conversion are by conferences between missionaries and individuals, and that public preaching is seldom resorted to, till there is a congregation of converted Christians.

Does your lordship know of any converted societies or congregations?—I un- derstand the question to have a reference to my personal knowledge; I have no personal knowledge, but I have heard and read of conversions since I left Bengal, which I received as creditable and authentic.

Does your lordship know of any missionaries, who have conducted themselves indiscreetly?—I recollect some years ago, hearing one or two instances alleged of misconduct in the missionaries; I do not recollect now of what nature they were; probably instances of injudicious zeal.

Is it not usual for Europeans, on obtaining permission from government to go into the interior of the country, to enter into a penalty bond to hold themselves amenable to the courts of adawlut in all civil cases, with the view of protecting the natives from injustice and oppression in their commercial dealings with Europeans?—I do not recollect whether they enter into a penalty bond or not, but that they are amenable in civil causes to the courts of adawlut in point of fact, which gives the same protection as if they entered into a penalty bond.

Has it, or not, been found fully to answer the purposes intended?—I recollect no instance to the contrary.

Would there not be in your lordship's opinion, a greater consumption in India, of our manufactures, if they could be supplied cheaper?—I hardly know what articles of our manufactures are consumable by the natives, excepting perhaps some woollen cloths; certainly some people, if they were much cheaper, might be induced to purchase them, who do not now purchase them: but as to manufactures in general, I really do not know what manufactures of this country are used by the natives in India.

Would not our woollens, in particular, be acceptable to all classes of natives, and of all religions, in the cold and rainy seasons, if they could afford to purchase them?—I know of no objection on the score of religion to the use of woollens in that country; but if the natives had preferred them to their own manufactures, I should think they would have used them in a much greater degree than they have hitherto done: if they were much cheaper than they have been hitherto sold, the sale of them might probably in some degree be extended.

Does not your lordship think the natives would prefer our woollen manufactures to their own cotion manufactures, in cold weather?—I think some of the natives who could afford it, would prefer the woollen to the cotton; but the poorer people cannot afford to purchase them, and. the higher class prefer their own shawls.

When your lordship speaks of regulations and restrictions, by which the influx of Europeans may be prevented into India, do you speak of India generally, or only of Bengal?—Whenever I have mentioned India, I meant particularly that part of India in which I have resided; but in all those parts where the Company's authority extends, those regulations and restrictions might be adopted.

Would your lordship have the goodness to state what are the sort of regulations and restrictions to which you allude, when you speak of providing against the influx of Europeans into the interior, provided an open trade were established by law?—The regulations would be, that the commander of every ship would give an account of all his passengers; and the police would be directed to prevent any European, or, under the present regulations, would stop any European from petrating into the country, without a pass or authority for that purpose.

Your lordship has spoken of other ports on the coasts of Malabar or Coromandel; does your lordship think regulations of that kind could be practically enforced at those ports?—At those ports where the Company have a settlement and a jurisdiction, where there are police magistrates.

Are there any ports, where the Company have no such police magistrates, though they have a jurisdiction, into which ships might run, who had it in contemplation to land passengers to go into the interior?—The whole extent of the coast from Madras to the Bay of Bengal, I believe, is open to ships, where Europeans might be landed; but I do not recollect any port, except ports where the Company have authorities on the spot.

Supposing a ship to go with a view of landing passengers in India, is your lordship aware of any present regulations, or which could be enforced, to prevent an influx of strangers into the interior of India?—Strangers might certainly go into the interior in the manner described in the question, but they could go to no place where they would be without the cognizance of the police in India, and they would be amenable to that police.

What is the nature of that police, and the strength of it at present?—An Eu- ropean, under the title of a magistrate, has a certain jurisdiction; and there are natives who act under his authority, and who will make their report to him of all the occurrences within their particular superintendence, as for instance the arrival of an European, or any thing else that might happen; but I really speak without sufficient recollection of the regulations for the police magistrates, which regulations are in print, and would explain the matter very clearly.

By an open trade, would your lordship understand a trade subjected to such regulations, that no person could go at all into the interior of India, without being liable to recal, provided he had not the special licence of the magistrate at the port at which he landed?—Under the existing regulations of the government, no European can go into the interior of India, without permission from the government at the port at which he lands; and I should suppose that some such permission would be required under any opening of the trade whatever. I think, if an unrestrained admission of Europeans into India were permitted, that it certainly would be attended with danger, and with the consequences which I before pointed out as resulting from an unrestrained admission of Europeans into the interior of India.

Is your lordship of opinion, that any regulations can be devised of a nature altogether practical, and to prevent strangers going into the interior of India, the whole coast of India being open to them?—I have already said, that I think they may obtain admission into the interior of India, under the circumstance of the coast being open to them, and that no regulations could be established probably that would prevent it altogether; but that when they get into the interior of India, the vigilance of the police might detect them, and they might be apprehended and sent back again.

By the vigilance of the police, your lordship means the native officers attendant upon the magistrates, whom you have spoken of as being the persons to give the information?—Not altogether, though principally so; because, if a European were to go to any place, the residence of a police magistrate, he might know it by other means than that of his own officers.

Is there any magistrate under whose cognizance he would fall, if he were to go to Poonah or Hydrabad?—When I spoke of the interior of India, I meant that part of the interior which is subject to the Company's jurisdiction or authority; I did not mean to allude to any places in the possession of the Mahrattas, or without the jurisdiction of the Company.

Supposing the case of a person landing on the coast of India, being desirous of going to a place where those magistrates do not reside, what difficulties would those persons encounter?—In some cases it might be very difficult for him to penetrate to any place beyond the jurisdiction of the Company; and in some there might be a facility for it; but I should suppose that, generally speaking, no great number of Europeans could proceed into the interior, beyond the jurisdiction of the Company, without great probability of their being detected by the way.

Does that answer allude to Bengal and its dependencies, or to India generally?—To India generally; the difficulty would be much greater in Bengal than in any other part of India.

Do you conceive, that if, by an act of the legislature, the right of every person in the British empire to go to India were recognised, it would not materially weaken the power of the government, to enforce the regulations of which your lordship has spoken?—I think it would.

Does not your lordship know of any ports on the peninsula of India, belonging to native powers on the coast of Malabar?—I believe there may be, but I really do not recollect; I speak from want of recollection; if I had a map before me I could answer the question satisfactorily.

Does your lordship know of any regulation of the Company, that could prevent Europeans landing at those ports?—None; unless there should be some specific treaty between the Company and the native powers, in whose possession those ports are.

Referring to the low rate of wages, of labour in India, is it your lordship's opinion that the purchase of our woollens is within the reach of the means of the great mass of the population of that country?—I should think certainly not.

Does your lordship believe that there are any other articles of European manufacture which are within their reach, so as to give a prospect of extending considerably, in the case of a free and open trade, the export of those articles to India?—I do not recollect any.

Does your lordship happen to know what the rate of wages is in India?—I cer- tainly once knew, but have forgotten; I know that subsistence in India may be procured easier than in any other part of the world, and that a native of that country, for 3s. a month, may live luxuriously; that may be some rule for estimating the rate of labour.

Your lordship having stated 3s. a month to be sufficient for the subsistence of a labourer in India, does your lordship happen to know what further sum may be necessary for his clothing and his other necessary expences?—I have not a sufficient recollection to say what further might be necessary for supplying him with clothing; it could not be much, because cloth is very cheap in that country, and the quantity which a labourer wears is very little.

In reference to your lordship's personal acquaintance with the Gentoo natives of Hindostan, what is the general standard of their moral character, in comparison with the inhabitants of Christian countries in general?—My estimate of their moral character is very low, and certainly I should say greatly below the standard of Christians in this country.

Can your lordship specify any particular vices for which they are remarkable?—Falsehood is a very prominent part of their character. I have very often drawn their character, which has appeared in the public records of the government; but I feel some difficulty to do it, viva voce, at present; my opinion of the moral character of the Hindoos is very low indeed; I think it is a compound of servility, fraud, and duplicity.

Does your lordship think, that their religious faith has any direct influence upon that character?—That character may have originated, in a considerable degree, in the despotism of the ancient government, which would naturally produce servility and deception, as the only guard against extortion; I do not think that their religion is calculated to correct it.

Are there any particular crimes that are directly inculcated by their religion?—Certainly: what would be called crimes in this country; for instance, such as the burning of widows on the funeral pile of their husbands.

Is that a very common practice in India?—From my own experience, I should not think it very common, but from the information which I have obtained from other sources, and which I believe to be authentic, it is very common.

Is not the practice of infanticide very common in Hindostan?—Not, I believe, by any means general; it has been practised by some particular districts; it was practised in a particular district of the province of Benares, till it was prohibited, I believe, by an express law of the Bengal government; I think it was by a regulation of the Bengal government.

Did that interference of the government, in preventing infanticide, create any popular tumult or discontent in that country?—I said a regulation of government, but I am not certain that it was; in the first instance, I believe an application was made to the pundits or priests of the Hindoo religion, and they declared it to be contrary to their religion; and they gave an opinion, which was used by government, as a means of putting an end to it.

Is it not a practice, enjoined or encouraged by the religion of the Hindoos, to immolate themselves as a sacrifice to some of their deities or idols?—I believe it was practised at the festival of Jaggernaut, when they throw themselves under the wheels of the car in which the idol is carried, and suffer themselves to be immolated.

And that is a religious rite enjoined or encouraged by their religion?—How far it is sanctioned by their books, I cannot say; but it was considered as a religious rite and meritorious sacrifice, by the Hindoos themselves; there are many practices which, I believe, are not sanctioned by their books of religion.

Do their brahmins or priests sanction it, by their precepts or their presence?—I should suppose (though I never was present at an exhibition of the kind, and I only speak from what I have heard) their brahmins or their priests did certainly sanction and approve it.

Are there not other modes of suicide or murder, as by throwing themselves into the Ganges, that are in common practice among them?—I believe there are; but I do not speak from my own knowledge on the subject, but what I have collected from others.

Are not some of their religious festivals celebrated by rites of unnatural obscenity?—I never was witness to any such myself. I have known very indecent pictures in their temples, but I never was present at any indecent rites, nor can I speak to them with any certainty.

Is not the Brahminical law a rule of very great oppression upon the other casts in India?—The laws of the Hindoos are cer- tainly peculiarly favourable to the brahmins who are their priests; they have exemptions and immunities, which the other casts have not; but I do not know that the Brahminical law operates as oppressive upon the other Hindoos, further than in the mode I have mentioned, if that can be called oppression.

Is the murder of an individual of another cast by a brahmin, or the murder of a brahmin by an individual of another cast punished in the same way, or what are the distinctions between them?—They are certainly not punished in the same way; for, I believe by the Hindoo law, a brahmin cannot be put to death; he may suffer punishment that shall be worse than death, but he cannot be put to death. If a person kills a brahmin, he is guilty of a crime which is inexpiable; and is, moreover, liable to all the temporal punishments of the law.

Does your lordship speak there of malicious killing or murder, or killing a brahmin under any circumstances?—I certainly meant to consider it as murder; as killing with an intent to kill: how far the accidental killing of a brahmin might be expiable, I really do not know.

Is there not such a prejudice upon that subject, that a brahmin will sometimes threaten to put himself to death, in consequence of a quarrel with an individual of an inferior cast, so as to bring upon that individual the guilt of an inexpiable crime?—Instances certainly have occurred of that, in which brahmins have used that threat as a means of extortion, or to gain a particular point; that is, they have threatened to kill themselves, unless the point which they meant to gain, should be conceded to them.

In your lordship's judgment, is not the distinction of casts, enforced by the religion of the Hindoos, an insuperable obstacle to their advancement in civilization, and in moral character?—I do not know whether it is an insuperable impediment; but it certainly is a very great impediment to the improvement of the moral character.

What is the condition of the female sex among the Gentoos, as affected by their religion and prejudices?—They are so concealed, that we really know little or nothing of them;. nor is it usual to talk with the Gentoos about their female sex: I believe that their state in general is merely that of slaves to their husbands.

In your lordship's judgment, would the introduction of Christianity among the Gentoos tend materially to the improvement of their civil condition?—I think it would tend to the improvement of their civil condition.

During your lordship's acquaintance with India, were any efforts made by the Company, for the propagation of Christianity in Hindostan?—None that I recollect.

Were the missionaries, of whom your lordship spoke, sent out and maintained by the Company, or by the charity of individuals?—When I was in India I did not know them; for the greatest part of the last year that I was in India, I was absent from Calcutta; they certainly were not sent out by the Company, but must have been sent out by individuals.

In your lordship's judgment, would the discreet and well-regulated efforts of missionaries, as they have generally conducted themselves hitherto in India, be dangerous to the peace or security of the British-dominions in that country?—I think not.

Does it fall within your lordship's knowledge or information, that other Christian countries, possessing dominions in India, have been more or less active than Great Britain, in the attempt to propagate Christianity in that country?—From what I have read, I should suppose much more so.

Did not the Danish government, while it possessed settlements in India, use some efforts for that purpose?—I believe it did; but those efforts were materially assisted by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge in this country.

Did your lordship ever hear of any inconveniencies or evils that followed the efforts of the Danish government to teach Christianity in India?—I never did.

Are there not at present in India, considerable numbers of Christians, natives of the country?—I believe a great many in the southern parts of the peninsula, particularly the Syrian Christians.

Are there not considerable bodies of Christians in the island of Ceylon, who have been converted under the dominion of the Dutch?—I believe there are.

Has your lordship ever heard of any political evils that attended the efforts of the Dutch in that line?—I have not, but, at the same time, I am totally unacquainted with the Dutch proceedings.

Are there not considerable bodies of Christians, who were converted to Christianity under the dominion of the Portu- guese, while they had territories in India?—They certainly made great numbers of converts; and, I believe, there are many of their descendants now remaining to this day.

Was any opposition made by the native powers; or did any convulsions follow in those parts of India, in consequence of the introduction of Christianity by the Portuguese?—I know very little of the history of the introduction of Christianity by the Portuguese. When I say I did not hear of any convulsions, allowance must be made for my ignorance of the history.

Having given it as your lordship's opinion, that the gradual introduction of Christianity among the Hindoos would tend to improve their civil and moral condition, is your lordship of opinion, that the improvement of their civil and moral condition would tend to increase their consumption of the various manufactures of their own or of any other country?—I do not know that it would, in any considerable degree.

Would it have a tendency to that effect?—I do not think it would have a tendency. Can your lordship give the Committee any information respecting the general character of the Danish mission in India?—There were two of the missionaries, Swartz and Gericke, who were men that possessed the esteem of the natives in the greatest degree; and with respect to the general character of the Danish mission, the impression upon my mind is highly favourable to it.

Does your lordship know, whether Either of those missionaries was able, at any time, from the influence which he possessed with the natives, to render any material services to the British government?—Swartz I believe was, in a very considerable degree.

Does your lordship confine the description you have given of the character of the Hindoos, to the Hindoos of Calcutta, or generally?—To the Hindoos as generally known to me on that side of India, not merely Calcutta.

Is the Committee to understand, that the Hindoo women are kept in confinement, shut up?—I believe perfectly so; in a perfect state of seclusion.

Does your lordship conceive that the translation of the Scriptures into the native languages of India, would be attended with any dangerous consequences?—None at all in my opinion.

Your lordship was understood to say, that the government in the East Indies had never lent itself directly to the encouragement of Christianity among the Hindoos; from your own knowledge, or any information you have had the means of acquiring there, was the government in India ever known to give any discouragement, or to show any aversion to any fair, reasonable and discreet attempts, on the part of judicious persons, to introduce Christianity?—I do not recollect that I said the government had never lent themselves to the encouragement of the introduction of Christianity in India; because when I was in India there were no missionaries, nor any attempts made in India, that I know any thing of. The missionaries who arrived at that time employed themselves principally in learning the languages; which it was necessary for them to know, before they could talk to the natives, or attempt to convert them.

Have the government ever shown any discouragement to a fair and judicious attempt on the part of discreet persons to introduce Christianity?—When I was in India, the question never occurred, for them to show either encouragement or discouragement; I have never heard, since I left India, that they have shown any discouragement.

From your acquaintance with the native character, if they were to entertain the apprehension, that the government of India was secretly favourable to the propagation of Christianity among them, what effect, in your lordship's mind, would it produce upon them?—I do not think it would produce any material effect upon the natives of India, as long as they were convinced that no forcible attempts would be made to convert them.

Would not the appearance of bishops, or of an ecclesiastical hierarchy among them, tend to encourage that apprehension among the natives, that force would ultimately be used to establish Christianity amongst them?—It does not occur to me, that any such idea could possibly arise from the appearance of a bishop in that country.

Have there not been, for a considerable number of years, bishops of the Roman Catholic persuasion in different parts of India?—Not in the part of India in which I have resided; on the Malabar coast there have.

Does your lordship know of any discontents having been occasioned by a jealousy of those bishops or ecclesiastics?—I cer- tainly do not; but, at the same time, I have to say that I hare heard very little about them at all.

Was the missionary Swartz in India at the time when your lordship was there?—He was; but not in the same part of India.

Does your lordship know whether Mr. Swartz went into various parts of India, professing to teach the people about Christianity among whom he went?—In the part of India in which he resided, which was the southern part of the peninsula, he certainly did profess, as I have understood, to teach the people Christianity; and I believe since his death, the rajah of Tanjore has granted a spot of ground for building a church within his dominions, for the use of native Christians, out of respect to the memory of Swartz.

Does your lordship know that any dissatisfaction was expressed by any number of people in India amongst whom Mr. Swartz lived, or to whom he attempted to teach Christianity?—I never heard of any dissatisfaction of any kind, expressed at the conduct of Mr. Swartz.

Does not your lordship know that the missionary Swartz was highly esteemed by the rajah of Tanjore?—I have always heard so, and believe it.

Does not your lordship know that he was in the greatest credit with the natives of Tanjore?—I have always understood so.

Not merely credit as a respectable character; but does your lordship know whether, at a period when the English had lost their credit with the natives of that country, the natives did not enter into contracts with the missionary Swartz; and whether they did not take his word for the fulfilment of those contracts, when they would not take the word of any other person?—The circumstance, as it has been represented to me, has this difference, that they took the word of Swartz when they would not take the engagement of their own rajah. Before I with-draw, I beg leave to state, that many questions have been proposed to me, upon which, if they had been given me beforehand, I should have taken two or three days to consider of them, before I returned my answers. I have given the best answers which occurred to me at the instant; and I trust the nature of the questions will be my apology for any mistakes I may have made in my answers. [His lordship withdrew.]

The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.