—I am extremely apprehensive, lest, in discussing the subject of those Resolutions which I had occasion to cite yesterday, any expressions that may have escaped me, may by possible construction be interpreted into an intention to impeach the motives of the gentlemen who framed those resolutions; on the contrary, I am satisfied that one and ail of the most respectable gentlemen whose names were signed to that paper, were actuated by the purest spirit of benevolence, and that they were under the strongest conviction that the greatest blessings would result from their exertions. [The last question and answer, in the Minutes of yesterday, were read over to the witness.] I particularly alluded to the mutiny, among the native troops at Vellore, originating as was very generally believed in some orders or military regulations forbidding the sepoys when under arms or on duty to make use of their distinctive marks of cast: this mutiny, as well as the cause assigned for it, whether true or false, must have been public in the Carnatic, over the Coromandel coast, in Bengal, and indeed throughout India; in point of time this deplorable event is too recent to allow a hope that it can have been forgotten, or the impression obliterated which it was calculated to produce among all ranks of the Hindoo persuasion.

You entertain the apprehension rather from what passed in the Carnatic and in Vellore, than from any thing you have yourself seen or experienced in Bengal, where your residence was?—Certainly; it is only the event that I have mentioned, that I am apprehensive would operate in the way I have had the honour to state last night. From all my own experience of the natives of that country, I am persuaded that nothing is so likely to produce even the expulsion of the English from India, as any interference with their religious tenets: I could cite instances of persons, whenever the subject of religion has come into question, losing all that respect and deference which at all other times marks their demeanour with respect to their superiors in India.

Would it be agreeable to you to specify one or two of those instances?—I will: it happened to myself to be conversing with a Mussulman native, who held a high situation in the Nizamut Adawlut; in the course of conversation, some unguarded expressions unfortunately escaped me, which he misinterpreted into some disrespect to his prophet; instantly his eyes glared, his countenance altered in the most extraordinary manner, and he looked at me with an aspect so ferocious, and indeed was so visibly agitated by passion, that I am convinced, unless I had imme- diately endeavoured, by soothing expressions and an acknowledgment that the offensive words had undoubtedly escaped me, I have hardly a doubt that he would, had he had a weapon, have employed it against me; this person was a learned Mussulman gentleman; circumstances had occurred, which had enabled me to be instrumental in his elevation to his situation which he at that time possessed, and which was in fact one of the highest stations that, latterly, our government had it in its power to confer upon that class of natives; but neither the recollection of this, nor any other consideration, the moment there was any question of disrespect to his prophet, seemed to operate upon him. I mean to infer from this, that there is almost equal danger of giving offence, in matters of religion, to Mussulmen and Hindoos. I cannot now specify any number of instances, but, from all my intercourse with them, I know they will greatly bear and forbear; their endurance is without limit almost, where the government and governors of the country are concerned; but if once it was to enter the imagination either of Mussulman or Hindoo, that there was any design or intention to interfere with the exercise of their religion, as I have already stated over and over again to the Committee, I am satisfied there is no extreme to which either class might not be driven.

Can you state any instance of an Hindoo?—A person in my own employ, for a great length of years, a bramin of a very high cast, was used to talk with me, and with every body, on the subjects of his own religious persuasion. He was always in extreme good humour as long as I seemed to acquiesce in all the points that he thought proper to state to me; but whenever it happened, as it did sometimes, that I grew weary, and took an optunity to point out some inconsistency or absurdity, as either might strike me, in the mere trifling rites and ceremonies which it was his custom to talk upon, I can hardly state in too strong terms the way in which this operated upon him; it seemed to harass and afflict him to the greatest degree.

These appear to be instances of direct insult or disrespect to these religions; do you conceive that a simple proposition of the principles of Christianity, by a missionary, without any power or any influence from government, or any sort of disrespect to those religions, simply pro- posing the doctrines of Christianity, would be likely to be attended with those effects?—As I recollect, I have also had the honour to state to the Committee, in the course of my evidence last night, that a missionary, or any number of missionaries, described as the hon. member has now described it, utterly unconnected with any of the ruling powers, would be a perfectly harmless being; but supposing these propositions to be so made under the sanction of government, in any form, the case would entirely be altered. It would be very difficult to make an Hindoo understand that a recommendation was not imperative upon him, inasmuch as in that country, as far as I am acquainted with it, whatever emanates from the ruler is considered by them as imperative; an expression of the most distant recommendation, on the part of persons in power, is received by the Hindoos and the Mussulmen as a kind of order.

Was the Resolution passed by this House in 1793, relative to the conversion of the native Indians, ever publicly known in India?—It was not; and I now understand that it never received the sanction of government; a circumstance of which I was not apprised yesterday.

Do you believe that the contents of any act of parliament to be now passed for the renewal of the Company's charter, or for the administration of the affairs of India, are likely to attract the attention of the natives of India, living under the British government?—Most undoubtedly.

Do you believe that fears and alarm and discontent are likely to be occasioned in the minds of our native subjects in India, by any expressions or provisions in such act of parliament, which should indicate an intention on the part of the British government to attempt their conversion to Christianity, or to encourage such attempts?—I think that the greatest alarm would be created in the minds of the natives of India, in the case specified by that question; I should even apprehend, that the very greatest danger would arise from any intention so formally expressed in an act of the legislature, even to the endangering of our empire at no very remote period.

Do you think that such feelings in our native subjects would be sufficiently guarded against, by the insertion, in such act, of a disavowal on the part of the British government to use force or compulsion for the purpose of such conversion?—Certainly not.

Do you think that any alarm or discontent would be excited among our native subjects in India, by the addition of a few dignitaries to our own church government, if such addition were stated in the act of parliament to be necessary to supply the spiritual wants of our own European servants in that territory?—Certainly not.

Are not subjects connected with the religion and religious customs of the natives of India, freely discussed in the college in India; and are not the following topics propounded and discussed by the students in that college, namely, "the Asiatics are capable of as high a degree of civilization as the Europeans; the suicide of Hindoo women, by burning themselves with the bodies of their deceased husbands, is a practice repugnant to the natural feelings, and inconsistent with moral duty; the distribution of Hindoos, in the casts, retards their moral improvement?"—I cannot answer that question of my own knowledge.

If such subjects were the subjects of disputation publicly in the presence of the moulavies and pundits, the learned men of India, would not you infer considerable danger to our establishments in India?—I should.

As you have stated that an observation made by you to a Mahometan of rank was received by him with such indignation, what effect do you suppose that an observation of this kind, made in the presence of persons of rank and character and learning, in India, would produce; "numerous indeed are the advantages to be derived from the ardent, diligent and unremitting toils of well-informed and zealous missionaries, impressed by the deepest sense of duty, and eager to diffuse the divine light of revelation; may we not expect to see this night of more than Egyptian darkness succeeded by the cloud-dispelling dawn of Christianity; and may we not hope to see these ignorant and deluded people learning justice from its law and mercy from its gospel?"—I should think a very dangerous one.

In a former part of your evidence, you have stated that the Resolutions passed at a meeting in this metropolis, were calculated to produce the most dangerous effects; which of the two declarations, that which has now been stated to you, or the resolutions which were published by the meeting referred to, was calculated to produce the greatest injury?—I should think that there would be very great danger in both.

Do not you know that the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, has sent missionaries to India, and supported them there for nearly 100 years past?—I do not know exactly; I certainly could not state from my own knowledge, what particular institution it was which enabled the few missionaries I have ever heard of or known in India, to go there for the purpose of propagating the Christian religion.

Did you ever hear of a very eminent missionary of the name of Swartz, in India?—I have; a most respectable person, universally respected and beloved; he was at Madras; but I had no personal acquaintance with him, nor ever saw him.

Have you ever been informed of the services which he rendered to the English government there, and to the natives of the country; and what was the nature of those services?—I know that this gentleman was attached to the court of Tanjore; and I have heard that he was respected by all ranks of people; that he was a great favourite, and had a very great influence over the rajah of that country; but whether he ever had an opportunity of making any converts from among the natives I really cannot state.

Do not you know that the rajah of Tanjore was extremely desirous of making him the guardian of his son, at his death?—I think I do recollect that circumstance; I believe it occurred while I was in council at Calcutta; I recollect that some such proposition came to the governor general.

Do you think it might not tend to the improvement of the Hindoos, and to their civilization, if schools were established in different parts of India, for the purpose of teaching the native children the English language?—I certainly think that the institution would be a very good one, but I very much doubt whether you would be able to prevail upon then to send their children, unless the persons instructing them were of their own persuasion; I should imagine, long before this period, there must be a vast number of persons, in Calcutta at least, even among the brahmins, who possess a very accurate knowledge of the language, both as to speaking it and reading it: before I left Bengal, I met with several persons who could converse very familiarly in English, and I understood at that time there were seminaries, to which the children of a great number of the Hindoos particularly were sent for education; and I conceive, that being many years ago, the same plan probably having been pursued, that description of persons must now be very much multiplied.

, esq. was called in. The substance of his examination is as follows:

—How long have you been in the service of the East India Company?—From 1769 to 1808. In Bengal I have filled all the successive stations in the civil department. I was in council during the government of lord Cornwallis for about eight months, and in the government of lord Wellesley for about eight months.

Are the habits and prejudices of the native Indians, generally speaking, of a fixed and unchangeable nature?—Certainly, they are no doubt of very quick sensibility; peculiarly susceptible of affront with respect to their religious prejudices; impatient of opposition with regard to their religious superstitions; quick and jealous of affront with respect to their women. I think a promiscuous intercourse of Europeans with the natives of India might lead to the most mischievous consequences.

Supposing the trade to India to be opened in the manner described, would it not be necessary for the new adventurers to have houses and warehouses, and other means of settlement?—I apprehend it would, unless they were to employ those agents, although established at the Company's settlements.

If unlimited intercourse was allowed with every port in India, would they be inclined to transact their own concerns?—They might endeavour to transact their own concerns, but I do not think that they would be successful, inasmuch as, having no agents, nor finding any agents at those places previously established, they would not be able to purchase any articles of commerce.

Do you apprehend that any material influx of new settlers could be kept (either with regard to their conduct, or emigration into the interior, or intrigue with persons living in the interior) in sufficiently strict control and coercion to prevent such consequences?—I conceive it would be exceedingly difficult to prevent them from improper interference in the affairs of the country.

Supposing them to have this licence of going to every port in India according to their discretion, do you think they could be kept from getting into the interior of the country, if such were their object?— Unless restrictions were to be imposed upon them previously to their going to India, I do not think that they could.

Supposing them to succeed including the authority of government, and getting into the interior, what are the consequences which you would apprehend to result therefrom?—That they would get into personal quarrels with the natives, which might be productive of general insurrection.

Supposing a native to be treated with violence or oppression by an European, can they prosecute an European but in one of the three principal courts?—They cannot a British subject.

Looking at the general circumstances of the natives, with whatever degree of violence or oppression they might be treated, would it be in their power so to prosecute; could they afford it?—They could have no other means of prosecuting but by proceeding to the principal stations where the courts of judicature were established, and that they would be obliged to do at a very heavy expence and inconvenience to themselves and families.

Supposing them, from the want of capacity or other cause, to be thus disappointed of obtaining legal redress, what do you apprehend might be the consequence?—That they would revenge themselves upon the individual who had been the cause of the offence.

Supposing redress to be practicable, and the punishment of the European the consequence, what do you apprehend with regard to the European character, in the estimation of the natives, should such punishments frequently take place?—I think it would tend very much to degrade their character, and take from the respect which they have been hitherto held in.

Do you apprehend the maintenance of that respect essential to the maintenance of the British authority in India?—I think it most important.

If any material number of those new settlers were to misconduct themselves, do you think that the government could with any degree of convenience send them home, a measure now resorted to but in extreme cases?—I think it would be extremely incommodious for the government to exercise that authority over such persons, inasmuch as they might be liable hereafter to be called upon to answer for their conduct in this country.

If such persons were expelled from the British territories in India, what do you apprehend might be the consequence?—Ruin to themselves I apprehend.

Do you think that they might find employ, or secret or open encouragement in any degree, from the native chiefs?—If they were to get into the courts of any of the remaining native chiefs, I think it very probable that they might intrigue with them, to the prejudice of the public interest.

Do you think, with this universal licence of visiting India, that British subjects might not find their way to the courts of the native chiefs, if such were their object?—I conceive they might,

Concluding upon the trade to India being opened from every port in the United Kingdom to every port within the limits of the Company's charter, and looking to all the circumstances which you are able to judge of from your experience, do you think that so opening the trade is consistent with the safety of the British empire in India?—I think the promiscuous intercourse that it would create might be the means of ultimately shaking the empire in India.

Do you think that thus opening the trade to India would increase the consumption of European articles among the natives of India?—I do not think it would.

Have the natives at present, the great mass of them, the power of purchasing European articles, were they so disposed?—Certainly they have not; because such articles as they want for their own use, they can manufacture at a cheaper rate. For clothing, they use the common muslins: and there are no other articles which at all associate with the description of European clothing, that they are at all in want of, or use. The cotton worn by the common people they get at a very cheap rate indeed; a family, or an individual of a family, can supply himself for a whole twelvemonth's consumption at the cost of a couple of shillings, comparatively speaking. Furniture they use none; their principal place of rest is on the ground, and they eat their victuals from an earthen platter, which they buy, I suppose, for not the value of half a farthing. This remark applies to 99 in 100.

In cases where the natives have acquired property, do they direct its expenditure to the purchase of European articles?—Some few, resident in the principal towns, do purchase some few articles, such as looking-glasses and glass ware.

Can you state whether such natives as have a desire for the purchase of European articles, have a full and perfect opportunity of making such purchase?—Certainly they have; at the principal settlements of the Company they are to be found.

Have you had an opportunity of seeing with what degree of success captains and officers have carried out adventures of European articles?—Of later years, I imagine, almost all of them must have been losers by their speculations in European commodities from this country.

Have you any doubt, then, that European articles are now, and have been for a considerable time past, rather a glut than otherwise in India?—Certainly they have been, and in many instances have sold considerably under prime cost.

Have European artificers and handicraftsmen began some of their respective manufactures in India?—They certainly have.

Do you think that an unlimited and unrestrained access to India might not very materially increase this disposition to manufacture in India such commodities as may be required?—As the commodities manufactured by European artists in India are generally for the consumption of either the army or the civil service, it is not likely that it would increase beyond the demand.

In proportion to whatever European demand there might be, do you apprehend such unlimited access to India might increase general manufacture, according to that proportion?—I apprehend that the pursuit would be entirely regulated by the demand, in as far as I could observe at the time of my leaving India, such persons as did so employ themselves were able to meet all the demands.

Do you conceive any individual going into the interior among the natives, would be likely to commit any such outrage as would bring upon him what you state would probably be the case, the being murdered or torn to pieces by the natives?—It is probable that, from ignorance, he would trespass upon some of their religious prejudices; and the consequence, in all probability, would be the forfeiture of his own life.

Do you think that if a person escaped the forfeiture of his life, he would afterwards, in consequence of any error he may have committed, of interfering with their religious prejudices, be a person likely to intrigue with effect with any of the native powers?—Certainly not, as far as the Hindoo chiefs may be concerned.

Can many of the Hindoos read English printing?—Many of them, resident at the principal settlements of the Company, not only can read, but they can write English, and remarkably well, some of them. They are of different casts; some of them of the first cast. They were in general very much in the habit, from curiosity, of reading English publications, particularly newspapers.

While you were in India, was the press licensed?—The press had no regular license in India; the business of printing was followed as a profession by those who had the means of carrying it on.

Were there any other restrictions upon the liberty of the press, than those which the common law of England imposes?—I am not aware that there were any other restrictions; I have understood that there was an order of government, directing newspapers, such as were published here, to be sent for inspection to the secretary, previous to their being circulated.

Do you recollect any person ever having been sent from India, home, on account of having written any thing which the government disapproved of?—I have a recollection that a person was sent home, but I cannot remember the name of the person.

Would the government have sent home any person who might have written any thing which the government might have conceived dangerous to be published in India?—I conceive it would have been their duty to do so. I conceive that the exercise of such a power is essential towards the preservation of a good understanding throughout the country.

Do you conceive that an unlimited communication with India by strangers might facilitate the publication of works dangerous to the tranquillity of India?—I apprehend that such publications would depend upon the means which the persons had of printing and issuing them.

Do you know whether the native princes of India are desirous of retaining in their service Europeans bred to the military profession?—Hitherto they have been, and I have no doubt would be at all times, desirous of having such persons in their military corps.

Do you know how many officers Mons. Peron had collected in his service?—I have no recollection as to the number, but I apprehend that may be ascertained by the returns that were made to government, at the time of the war in that part of the Country.

Do you know whether they might have amounted to four or five hundred officers?—I cannot charge my recollection as to numbers.

Do you know whether those officers, whatever number they might have been, consisted of the natives of various European countries?—They certainly did.

If any native power could collect a similar number of officers, would it be dangerous to the Company's possessions in India?—I have no doubt it would, and past experience tends to show it.

Do you know whether the Company derived any revenue from the procession of the idol Juggernaut?—They certainly did: not from the idol, but from permission to visit the temple.

Do you know whether they attempted, by all means in their power, to prevent the cruelty attendant upon that procession?—hey most certainly did.

Was it possible for them entirely to prevent it?—During the time I remained in India, after they were in possession of it, I do not recollect numerous accidents happening.

What are the cruelties with which the idol Juggernaut is connected, and to which you alluded?—Many of those going for the purpose of worship, when the car was drawn out in procession, used to devote themselves to destruction, by getting under the wheels.

In what manner did the Company acquire any revenue from the natives, as connected with that procession?—By issuing certificates of permission to visit it, for which they paid a certain sum; not the procession, but the temple.

The revenue, then, did not arise from tolerating the cruelties, but from permission to visit the idol itself?—No, the government endeavoured all in their power to restrain such mischiefs.

Had the Marattas laid on any duty upon the persons visiting that idol, before the Company acquired possession?—Certainly they had.

Do you conceive that there would be any serious danger to the British interests in India, from the admission of a few additional merchants and agents at the different presidencies and stations on the sea coast in India?—I do not, provided they were under similar restrictions as those who now are there.

Do you think that any danger would arise from the admission of those Europeans occasionaliy into the interior, former- cantile purposes, under the present restrictions and regulations of the Company?—Under the limited sense of the question, I do not conceive that any danger could ensue.

Do you conceive such interferences would be likely to arise?—I think they might, through the medium of the manufacturers respectively employed.

Do you conceive that such interference would be likely to create a competition in the market, which might raise the prices beyond those usually given by the Company?—I do not think it would.

Do not you conceive that such interference would be likely to create a rise in the price of the articles, the manufactures for instance, so as to increase the demand of the weavers?—I do not think they would, for the prices given by the Company for the articles provided on their account are very liberal, and the manufacturers themselves are perfectly satisfied with those prices.

Are the prices given by the Company equal to those given by the private merchants?—As far as I ever understood it, they are as high.

How comes it, then, that it was understood the natives prefer dealing with private merchants, to the Company?—My belief is perfectly the reverse; the manufacturers prefer the Company's employment, because they are sure of its permanency, and they look upon all other purchasers as precarious.

How comes it then to be necessary to station peons, or native officers, at the houses of the weavers, to prevent the interference of private merchants, till the Company's investments are provided?—Because of the manufacturers not being always so honest as to reserve the goods manufactured with the Company's money for the use of the Company, and to dispose of them very often to private merchants.

Then the Company pay for their goods before they receive them?—They make advances in money for the manufacture of them, previous to their being manufactured.

For what purpose are those advances made?—For the purpose of enabling them to buy the material with which they manufacture the goods, for they have no stores.

Are the weavers not kept constantly in arrears to the honourable Company?—I apprehend only in arrears from their own deficiencies of deliveries.

Are not the native weavers subject to corporal punishment if they do not fulfil their engagements with the Company?—During the whole of my residence in India, for 39 years, I never heard of it.

The further examination of the witness was postponed. The chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move, that the remainder of the evidence taken before the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Election Committee be laid before the House. He observed, that upon this subject some prejudices had prevailed, which he trusted he should be able to remove before he sat down, as well as to shew that it was important that all the testimony taken before the Committee should be produced. The Report made was, that three of the sitting members were disqualified, in consequence of a breach of the Act against treating, and a special Report was subjoined, stating that certain abuses prevailed to a great extent among the voters of the borough. Much of the evidence taken applied, however, to a third point not hitherto openly noticed, the improper and illegal interference of his royal highness the duke of Cumberland to procure the return of certain members—and what he then called for was the whole of the remaining evidence, which related to what he considered to be the improper and unconstitutional interference of the duke of Cumberland. Whenever a charge of this nature was substantiated, (as he conceived it to be in the present case) it became the duty of parliament to interfere, unless it meant to hold forth to the world, that its declarations and its resolutions against such illegal influence and interference adopted at the commencement of every session, were mere matters of form, that ancient but useless custom had prescribed. He did not intend to impeach the decision of the committee on the Weymouth election, although, perhaps, he had differed in the conclusion of the majority, but he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject not noticed in the Report, though expressly stated in the Petition against the return of the sitting members. If the House wished to preserve its own purity, or to maintain the respect in which it was held by the people, it behoved it very seriously to consider the present case, and to ap- ply to it the resolutions, which only a very short time since it had adopted upon the subject. Before he proceeded further, he should beg the Clerk to read part of the petition on the subject of the burgesses of Weymouth, setting forth the improper interference of the duke of Cumberland, and also the two resolutions which the House entered into at the commencement of each session, relative to the illegality of any interference on the part of peers of parliament in the election of members of the House of Commons. (The Clerk accordingly read that part of the Weymouth petition complaining of the interference of peers of parliament, and the resolutions of the House against such interference). Having thus proved the cause of the complaint, and that the offence complained of was contrary to their resolutions, he should call on the House to give him documents to bring home the fact to the persons charged with the offence. If their resolutions against the interference of peers in elections were not to be acted upon, if they were never intended to operate or be resorted to, he could only say that they were calculated to form a snare to himself and to others bringing forward similar measures, and a subject of derision to the country. It was, no doubt, disagreeable to pass any censure on persons of the rank of those charged in the present case; but their own character ought not to be sacrificed to such considerations. The subject which he had now brought before them had given rise to a rumour that the Committee would found an official report on it, and the evidence on it had been circulated through the country in the newspapers. This evidence he had verified by comparison with the Minutes of the Committee. He should read a letter from the duke of Cumberland which had been published, and which he had compared as above. The noble lord then read from a newspaper in his hand a letter from his Royal Highness, dated St. James's, October 2, 1812, to J. F. A. Stewart, and a part of the evidence, in which it was proved that his Royal Highness had a private conference on the subject with a candidate concerning the business of the election. He would not occupy the time of the House by producing any more evidence of interference; but, if any further was thought necessary by members, he assured them he was prepared to produce it. He should assume from what he had shewn that his case was established. It had been said out of doors that his Royal Highness acted only as a trustee, and this argument must, he supposed, have had weight with the Committee, but there were three other trustees who might have legally interfered in the motion, but they did not interfere, as it appeared that the duke of Cumberland wished to have the management of the whole business. The House had always scouted the idea of any parliamentary reform, (he spoke of the determination of majorities, and not of any speeches made in that House; but if they would give him the evidence he asked for, he would shew them a strong reason for a reform in parliament, indeed he knew of no greater reason for reform than that with which the evidence would furnish them) but if they rejected the motion with which he should have to conclude, the advocates of that measure would read this evidence and declare with justice, that the House of Commons was unworthy of their confidence. There was one fact which had escaped him, which he should state to them as strongly proving the fact of interference. The duke of Cumberland had got into his possession, the writ for the election, and had paid the price for it. This in itself was so palpable an interference, that if it did not rouse the House to resent it, any attempt to awaken them to a sense of their own dignity would be fruitless. He had waited for some time to see in the first place whether any special report were made from the Committee, and in the next place whether any member of that Committee would draw their attention to the subject; but having waited in vain, he could not see the evidence circulate without notice. He should in the first place call for the documents, and then, if the evidence were as he described them, he should feel it his duty to propose some measure, which, however, it would be proper at present to abstain from deter-mining on. As he had thought it his duty to interfere in other cases where the privileges of the House were at stake, he could not refrain from acting in the present instance, which he thought the most aggravated he had ever witnessed, and particularly induced him to come forward, as no other member thought proper to stir in the affair: he would not urge the House to do any thing more than to lay the documents on the table. He would not make any further motion, nor would he pretend to say what the nature of such motion should be; but he thought, if the evidence were produced and proved, the facts which he had stated would prove some ulterior proceeding must be had, in order to vindicate the character of the House, and to shew to the people that the House was not unmindful of their rights. He would conclude, by moving "That there be laid before the House such parts of the evidence, given before the Committee of the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Election, as are not included in the Special Report of the Committee to which the Report was referred".

observed upon the novelty of the motion before the House, and the dangerous nature of its tendency. When they referred a petition to an election committee, they referred the whole matter connected with it to their deliberation and decision, and nothing could be more obviously wise, than that they ought as seldom as possible to recur and re-investigate the evidence on which a determination had been come to by those to whom they had so delegated their authority. The Committee had the power of examining upon oath, the House had not. The noble lord had stated, as a ground for acceding to his motion, that the Petition alleged the improper interference. To him this appeared a very strong argument against the motion, for it shewed, that the attention of the Committee had been called to the subject; and, therefore, there was the less reason for the interposition of the House. The Petition had also contained accusations of the same kind against persons holding office; and he had been much astonished that he was himself the person so pointed at. Knowing how utterly unfounded this charge was, he was the more ready to suppose, that the charge against the duke of Cumberland was equally groundless. For himself he could say that he never knew any thing of these attacks till he saw the publication of the ex parte statements of an advocate in a news-paper; the same news-paper he believed would not do him the justice to insert the refutation of the charge. Of such publication (the first time it had ever taken place) he had hoped that notice would have been taken, and that it would have been prevented; for a practice so unjust could not be sanctioned by any party. As for the share he had in these terrible offences, he would briefly state what it was. He had written to a near relation of his to ask his vote for a parti- cular candidate to whom he wished success. He had thus acted towards his brother-in-law, and this was the dreadful matter arrayed up against him as the grossest and most atrocious infringement upon the elective franchise, and as a violation of the constitution itself. (A laugh) But there was still a grander discovery: it was found out that in his letter to his brother-in-law, asking his vote, he had employed the plural number, and said "we" are desirous of his being successful. By ingenuity worthy of the discoverers of this plot, it was argued, that he, being a cabinet minister, who used the word, (which he was not) that therefore 'we' meant all the cabinet ministers, and then, indeed, there was proof of a dreadful conspiracy against the elective franchise of the borough of Weymouth, in all his Majesty's ministers. The tyranny of Jacobinism itself had never yet attempted to prohibit any person holding official situation, either from exercising his elective franchise or canvassing his friends and his relations. The counsel on this occasion, he had heard, had handled him very roughly; and of this he did not complain, but merely mentioned it to shew that as the learned gentleman had been so grossly imposed upon and so much mistaken about him, it was not improbable that he might be in error respecting the duke of Cumberland; the circumstances relating to whom were no doubt highly coloured, exaggerated, or totally misrepresented. But the great argument against the motion was, that the Committee had had all these matters brought directly before them for their deliberation, and not seeing any ground to report thereon, ought to weigh strongly against the reconsideration of the subject. Upon these grounds he moved as an amendment to pass to the other orders of the day.

having put the question, with the amendment, for passing to the Weymouth Voters Bill, being the next order of the day,

having been the organ of the Committee, begged to say a few words. He referred to their special Report, and contended against any motion for fresh evidence, which the Committee to whose judgment the House delegated the investigation, had not thought to be necessary. The Committee, acting on oath, had examined into all the allegations contained in the Petition, and they had found that which charged the improper interference of peers to be unworthy of reporting upon. He would now, perhaps, astonish those who heard him, when he should give them a specimen of the manner in which this grave charge of interference on the part of the peers and of the government was supported. As an example of its nature he would state, that lord Rivers was one of the peers so charged, and one of the witnesses proved that it was said to a voter, "if you give your vote thus you will please lord Rivers;" but upon being asked "had the person any authority to use lord Rivers's name?" the answer was—"Oh no; only he thought it would be agreeable". The House must have thought little of the Committee had they troubled them with a report upon charges which dwindled into such insignificance as this. He expressed a hope that the House would not think it right on light grounds to disturb the result to which their Committee had come after an anxious discharge of their duty upon oath. With regard to his Royal Highness having obtained possession of the writ, he put it to the chair and the House, if that had not been for the conveniency of the election. No improper motive was alleged—no improper use had been made of it; but it had been taken to be forwarded to its destination with every possible dispatch. He could not help thinking that if the House were to entertain the motion of the noble lord, their doing so would be a serious reflection on the conduct of the Committee.

contended that the arguments of the last speaker were totally subversive of the rights of the House, and of election committees. The duty of the latter was to decide upon the seat, and with that decision their judicature was closed. Any other resolution they might come to it was not imperative on the House to receive. The House in this instance had however received a further report and part of the evidence, and he continued to be of opinion that they ought to have it all produced. The arguments on the other side had been no answer to the noble lord, who asserted that a breach of privilege had been committed. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Long) thought the interference of the duke of Cumberland had been exaggerated, because the representation respecting his own he knew to be untrue. The letter produced and read by his noble friend, clearly shewed the interference of the duke of Cumberland His noble friend had assured the House, that lie had compared that letter with the minutes of evidence taken by the Committee, and pledged himself it was correct. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Atkins) thought they should not enquire into the interference of the noble duke, though proved by his own letter, because a charge without foundation had been made against lord Rivers. Obtaining possession of the writ was, he argued, an offence in a peer, though it was blameless in a commoner; and though the House ought not lightly to re-discuss the matters which they had sent to a committee; he thought there were sufficient grounds laid for taking such a step in the present instance. The independence and dignity of the House required that they should accede to the motion on the grounds laid down by the noble lord: but even on the ground of further information being necessary to enable them to understand the Bill which stood next on their orders, the production of the rest of the minutes of evidence was necessary.

said, the last speaker had introduced a new view of the question, and called upon them to accede to the motion, on the ground that the information called for was necessary to enable them to form an opinion upon the Bill in progress through the House. The House had decided against this the other night, and he denied that any farther evidence was necessary on this subject. All that related to the points to which the Report was directed, was before them. He then came to the noble lord's argument, who had laid a case before them, with which if they complied, it would be the first example of the kind that had ever been given. There was no doubt that the House was competent to go into the matter if they thought fit, and he also agreed with the last speaker, that the determination of the return was the definite object for an election committee. But yet what the committee did not think proper to bring forward, was entitled to their respect, and ought not to be moved, except upon very strong grounds. If they went into such a practice of reforming the judgments of their committees, on their special report—if they took up questions of this sort, they did (whatever compliments they might chuse to pay them at the time), call the committee before their tribunal for trial, in a case where they had acted upon their oath, in the endeavour faithfully to discharge the trust reposed in them. He noticed the election petition from Westminster, which by many was thought to be presented merely to libel the House; but still the House would not act upon it, but pursued the principle which dictated the reference of such matters to a committee, upon whose report they should proceed. By the act of parliament the House did delegate its functions to its committee; they did not abrogate them now, as argued by the noble lord, if they refused his motion. As for the facts assumed by the noble lord, he knew nothing of them: but he knew that the committee did not think these matters worthy of a report to the House. But even were a committee to be in error, it would be better that it should be left so, than that by the interference of the House they should be placed in this obnoxious situation. Such a motion as that before them infringed on the principle on which their committees were founded, and as such he should give his vote for the amendment.

said, the arguments which had been adduced against the motion appeared to him to be inconsistent with each other. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, asserted that the act of the committee was so far decisive, but he would not go the length of saying, what was maintained by an hon gentleman (alderman Atkins), that it was final. The course taken appeared to him to be adopted for the purpose of blending a question of right with a question of decorum. It was said, that it was improper for the House to interfere in matters touching the merits of disputed elections in the first instance, it would be still more injudicious to do it in the second, after a committee had decided. But the cases were completely distinct; because, if they took cognizance of the case, in the beginning, their proceedings might probably affect the right of the parties sitting, or of those who petitioned against them, which was the specific point that must ultimately come before a committee; but where the committee had decided as to the right of sitting in parliament, the House were not precluded from exercising a discretion with respect to other circumstances. If it were a question relating to the seat, the House could not entertain it—on that subject they must agree with the committee; but it was for the House to judge whether other circumstances did not exist, though unnoticed by that committee, which required investigation. He was surprised at the hesitation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alderman Atkins) to give an opinion on the question, "Whether a peer of parliament procuring a writ of election, was an interference with the orders of that House?"—The order' expressly said," No peer of parliament shall interfere, in any manner, with the election of members to that House". Was it then no interference to get possession of the writ of election? The order in fact was stronger than he had stated it, for it said, that a peer should not even "concern himself" in such elections. But the hon. gentleman denied that any interference had taken place, because the writ was sent to Weymouth as soon as possible. That very expedition might be necessary to the object which a peer had in view, it might best answer his purpose to get it there as soon as possible. This was a case which peculiarly called for the intervention of the House, on account of the rank of the individual engaged in it—the higher the person, the more it behoved the House to be guarded in their proceedings—for in proportion to the elevation and rank of the party concerned, with the more suspicion and jealousy would the public view the conduct pursued by them. When such a case was presented to them, as that made out by his noble friend, he could not believe, until he saw a majority opposed to the motion, that they could so far forget their own dignity and character, as to refuse documents, tending to prove whether there had or had not been a breach of the privileges of that House.

conceived, that when the legislature conferred upon committees the power of investigating the merits of elections, it also determined to rest satisfied with the decision of these committees. He believed that there was no one instance to be found in the records of parliament, in which that House had required the production of any thing beyond that which was submitted to them by their committee; it would be highly inconvenient to have a precedent established, by which the House should be empowered in every case to investigate the proceedings of a committee, and so to have a distrust in the decision of those who had been solemnly sworn to try the merits of any election. By the Grenville Act, the whole of the charges against the election of the sitting members, of which the interference now complained of formed a part, was submit- ted to the Weymouth Committee. They accordingly had made their report, and he recollected no instance in which, after such a report was given in, the House had determined to make farther enquiries. If such a precedent was to be established, it would empower the House not only to try the merits of the question of election, hut also to try the conduct of every member of the Committee. Could the hon. member produce any instance of the House having investigated the proceedings of an election committee? The splitting of votes in the boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, was certainly an abuse which called for the interference of the House, and which should be prevented; but he could not see what that had to do with any concern which a peer might have taken in the election. On these grounds, he found it to be his duty to vote against the motion of the noble lord, as a contrary course would go to defeat all the salutary provisions of the Grenville Act to which he had alluded.

rose amidst cries of question! question!—observing that he should be glad if some of those gentlemen who had made up their minds, and were so clamorous for the question, would favour him with some of their arguments against the motion; for hitherto he had remained quite unconvinced by all that he had heard on the opposite side. The whole gist of one right hon. gentleman's reasoning was, that by acceding to the motion, the Committee would be placed in an awkward and embarrassing situation. But whose fault was that? Had they not done so themselves, by overlooking this flagrant invasion of the freedom of election? He observed that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) had merely said, that it would be inconvenient for the House to establish a precedent by which it might have the power of investigating the proceedings of any committee, and calling in question the conduct of the members of that committee. In fine, all the arguments which had been adduced against the motion, might be reduced simply to this, that it would bring the members of the committee in an awkward situation. He, however, begged leave to say, that the members of the Committee had placed themselves in an awkward situation, by not producing all the minutes which related to the flagrant breach of privilege. His noble friend had stated in the most express terms, that a royal duke had interfered with the rights of popular election, and in contravention of the resolutions of parliament, in two several ways: one was, that he got the writ for Weymouth into his possession, thus obtaining the control over it. To this it was replied, that no undue delay ensued: but it might as readily have been the royal duke's interest to send it expeditiously as to delay it; and the simple act of getting possession of the writ was an infraction of one of the annual resolutions of the House. Having thus obtained controul over the writ, the illustrious duke informed the electors that he wished them to vote for his friend; and to induce one of them to do so, he writes to him that he had some communication with lord Liverpool about some place which that elector wished to secure for a relation. The second charge made by his noble friend was, that the royal duke had written a letter to a Mr. Stewart, begging him to support what was called the Johnstone interest at Weymouth, and promising that he would use his interest with lord Liverpool to procure him a place. It appeared, also, that the duke of Cumberland had got connected with the borough by being trustee under a will, in which he had tree commoners partners with him,—but that he took upon himself sole management. Here, then, was influence and interference of the most palpable description; and it was really astonishing, that the same men should attempt to get rid of it, who, in a former parliament, in the case of the Hampshire election, had raised such an outcry, because a secretary of the treasury, himself a freeholder, had written a letter to a friend, requesting him to vote for a particular candidate. It might be in the recollection of many gentlemen, that a hideous clamour was then raised against this exercise of an undoubted right and privilege, by some who now deprecated any investigation of the grossest and manifest abuse. Was not this statement of his noble friend a proof of interference in the election? Why did the duke interfere with the Weymouth election, when his situation as a peer made any interference a breach of privilege? A certain learned gentleman had said, that as in a case of a nature somewhat similar, where he had been accused, nothing of importance had been proved; therefore it was to be supposed that nothing of importance could be proved against the duke of Cumberland. This was a mode of reasoning as strange as it was inconclusive.

A worthy alderman had gone so far as to say, that he doubted the right of the House to enquire into the proceedings of the Committee. He believed that this hon. member would be found to be as far wrong as his brother alderman, who had claimed it as a matter of right that the city of London should be allowed to present petitions by means of their sheriffs. The House had a right, and it was their duty to enquire into the proceedings of the Committee, neither ought it to neglect this duty, even although the members of the Committee were in an awkward situation. As a means of getting rid of the motion, the order of the day had been moved; but what was the order of the day? It was for the reading of a Bill, the very preamble of which showed that the House should not allow it to proceed until the motion before the House was complied with. Now, when it was offered to be proved that other gross abuses took place on the same occasion,—when, indeed no doubt could exist on the subject,—it was said, no, we will overlook these, and legislate for the other. Inconsistency like this would undoubtedly place the House, where it was said the Committee ought not to be placed, in an awkward and embarrassed situation in the eyes of the people, who would say, with much appearance of truth, that they strained at a gnat while they swallowed a camel. Instead of correcting abuses, and strengthening the freedom of the election, he verily believed that the real effect of the Bill would be to give this borough, fast bound, into the hands of the royal personage whose abuse of influence was offered to be proved. This would be the effect of the Bill. (No, no.) He would repeat it, this would be its effect, if carried as originally framed. Gentlemen on the other side must surely be aware, what a handle their conduct would give to the friends of parliamentary reform, whom they professed to regard as such dangerous innovators, but whose arguments, already convincing to his mind, must be rendered irresistible, by refusing to take cognizance of such notorious abuses. If the Bill was allowed to pass, and the motion of the noble lord rejected, it would give the borough, fast bound, into the hands of the duke of Cumberland, as long as he had the administration of its affairs. He therefore hoped that the House would accede to the motion.

thought that the hon.

gentleman had much better have urged any other argument in favour of the motion than what he had said about the preamble of the Bill. The hon. gentleman had stated, that in the preamble of the Bill it was specified, that great abuses had existed in the election for Weymouth; and this was really the case, for such was the substance of the preamble: but the hon. gentleman had said that the Bill purported to provide against these abuses, although the House had refused to enquire into their nature, and thus that the Bill professed to provide against abuses, the nature of which the House had not ascertained. Was this the case? The Committee had enquired into the abuses which existed in Weymouth, and the nature of these abuses had been specified. Would it not therefore plunge the House into greater confusion and injustice, were it, after delegating to the Committee powers of such extent, to reserve to itself the power of investigating its proceedings, and of calling in question the conduct of every one of its members. Supposing such a thing to be admitted, the House might perhaps take a very different view of the whole mass of evidence—of the conduct of certain witnesses—and of the credit due to the testimony of certain persons. By acceding to the motion, the House would introduce greater evils than those which were obviated by the Grenville Act. It would be highly unjust to drag persons to be visited with parliamentary vengeance, who had, to the best of their judgment, executed the functions of their office as members of a committee. If thirteen members of the House were chosen to try the merits of an election, the House could not take better security for the liberty of the subject and the privileges of parliament, than by resting on the judgment of those thirteen members. He thought the noble lord perfectly right when he said that the interference of peers in elections ought not to be allowed, and that it should be noticed when brought before the House in a regular way. Without denying to the House the right of jurisdiction on that subject, he thought that it would in the case then before them be best exercised by putting confidence in the decision of the Committee.

observed, that if any gentleman in his place were to state that a peer had interfered in an election, contrary to the Resolution of the House, would they reject any motion made on the subject? Why then reject such a motion because such an interference had been submitted to a committee, and that they had not reported it? He knew not why the Committee did not report it, but when a noble lord stated the circumstance in his place, the House were bound to entertain his motion.

though aware of the inconvenience which would attend a general interference of the House with the proceedings of committees, thought there were circumstances in this case, which called on them to enquire into it. The gentlemen who composed the Committee might perhaps think that their functions were limited to the right of seat, and did not extend to the guardianship of the privileges of the House, but whatever were their reasons for stopping where they did, good grounds had been laid for the House proceeding further to investigate this matter.

did not desire that this charge should be brought forward. In the committee he was of opinion that it was a very bad thing that such charges were preferred, but be thought it a much worse thing that such charges were irresistibly proved against his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. To the majority of the Committee it appeared that his Royal Highness, acting as a trustee, was a justification of his conduct: of that majority he was one, It was also thought by the Committee, that it was discretionary, not obligatory, with them to report on any collateral subject; and with this opinion he also agreed. But he did not think that a justification for withholding from the House all knowledge of the transaction, particularly as it appeared to him that his Royal Highness's interference arose out of a systematic intention on his part to procure to himself, to the exclusion of the other trustees, the administration, nay, the agency of the borough. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Long) who appeared rather sore on the question, from a charge, although without foundation, having been made against him, bad said, that he was incredulous as to the charges made against his Royal Highness, on account of the want of any foundation for the charges against him: but before the charge against his Royal Highness could be discredited, the right hon. gentleman must get rid of the letter of his Royal Highness, which had been allowed to be authentic by every person. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the transac- tion alluded to had been completed, and it was completed as far as depended on his Royal Highness, it would have amounted to direct bribery. He did believe, there was no doubt in the mind of any member of the Committee, but that the conduct of his Royal Highness was indecent and improper. The question before the House was extremely narrow: when a member of parliament stated, that he was able to prove a gross violation of the privileges of the House, and of the freedom of election, could the ears of the House be deaf to such a charge?

as a member of the Committee, thought it his duty to observe to the House, that the letter which had been several times mentioned, might receive an interpretation perfectly different from that which had been given to it by several hon. members. The Committee did conceive it to be their duty to enter into the consideration of every thing connected with the election; and if any thing very flagrant on the part of the duke of Cumberland had appeared, they would have mentioned it in their Report. Persons who knew not every thing connected with the affair, put that interpretation upon the matter which was most injurious to the duke of Cumberland, whom the better informed committee absolved from this censure. When he said this, he did not so much allude to the letter, as to what had been said about the writ. Had the noble lord been in the committee, he would have known that the letter was not a direct interference on the part of the duke of Cumberland, but was an answer to a letter from one of the electors.—In the letter the expressions were nothing more than would have been made use of by any person who wrote to an elector, whose vote he wished to secure. The Committee had felt how unjustly the duke had been attacked. He wished the House to put confidence in their committee, and to believe that they had done their duty, and taken all the circumstances of the case under their consideration. If the Committee have come to a wrong judgment, then it was competent for any member of the House to bring the whole business under the consideration of the House. He was apprehensive, that the measure proposed would lead them to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Committee. It would be transferring the House into an appellant jurisdiction.

opposed the mo- tion, on the ground that it would afford a precedent of the House entertaining by way of appeal, matters which by an act of parliament were referred to a committee. (He then read several clauses of the Act, to prove that the committee had the power to resolve and report on any collateral matters if they pleased.) He allowed, that the House might agree or disagree with such resolutions; and if the committee had come to a resolution on this subject, then the House would have been competent to decide. The Act, he contended, proved, that it was the intention of the legislature to refer all matters concerning the election to the committee. That by the method attempted to be introduced by this motion, every individual might be compelled to state their opinions as to the evidence before the committee for the space of three weeks, and could this be said not to interfere with the committee?—it would go to transfer to the House as an appellant jurisdiction, all that power which the legislature had given to the committee.

said, if he had not seen the hon. and learned gentleman reading clauses from the Act, to prove that the House should not agree to the motion, he should himself have read them, for the purpose of persuading the House that it was meet for them to concede it.—The act of parliament was elaborate in its distinction between those matters on which the committee were called, on their oaths, to decide, and those on which it was quite discretionary for them to report or not. On the merits of the petition, as it affected the election, they were bound, by the law, to give judgment; however difficult the case, the law compelled them to decide between the competitors in a disputed election—but all other points were matters of discretion, he might say, of indifference; and the committee might pass them over without notice. It was a matter of private judgment and taste in the committee, and not of duty, whether they should report on other points or not. As to the evil of an appellant jurisdiction, on which the hon. and learned gentleman had laid so much stress, it should be recollected, that jurisdiction existed already in every case where a committee reported specially. That report was not binding, but it remained with the House to say, whether the committee was right or wrong? Surely, the hon. and learned gentleman did not mean to say, that if a matter af- fecting their privileges was disclosed in evidence, the House should not examine the facts, because they were not noticed by the committee, The present was a question of propriety—"Was it fit that the House should interfere?" He contended that it was their imperative duty, where any peer meddled with the rights of election; but they were more peculiarly called upon to act, when the interference was not merely that of a peer—but was exerted by a peer of the blood-royal. For what would have been the case if the lowest nobleman in the peerage list had been concerned in such a transaction? would he have been screened by the House, as it was attempted to screen the noble and royal duke?—This conduct, however, in a member of the royal family, he considered as a double breach of the privileges of the House, as coming from a British peer, and from a member of that illustrious family who might one day sit on the throne of these realms. The right hon. gentleman then dwelt on the expression of a member of the committee, who had stated, that perhaps it would be better not to advert to the conduct of the illustrious duke, unless it had been extremely flagrant. Was the House then to understand, that unless the conduct of men in that elevated station were of the most flagrant nature, they were not to take notice of it while it affected their privileges? He thought the House bound to interfere in this case for the preservation of their rights, and for the sake of public opinion; for, from the expressions to which he had already alluded, it would be inferred by the public, that if it were not that a member of the royal family was implicated, they would have vindicated their rights. He was convinced, that unless the House now expressed its sense of the transaction, they would soon have more flagrant instances of those interferences.

and another member of the Committee declared upon their honours and consciences that they had made no distinction of persons.

said, that the gentlemen opposite, on the present occasion, did neither deny the case nor the law, but objected merely on the ground of some technical informality. He would, therefore, take the sense of the House upon it.

The House then divided, when there appeared, Against the motion 105; For it 57; Majority 48.