, was called in, and examined as follows:

—Have you not been in the military service of the East India Company, upon the Madras establishment?—I have been. I arrived in India in 1783, and have been ever since that in the service of the Company.—I returned from India about eight months ago.

Have your services in India been such as to afford you the means of general information with regard to the state of all the settlements under the government of the Company?—They have, having been employed in each.—I was resident at Mysore nearly nine years, but having been employed on various other political missions, I only resided there 14 or 15 months.—During the last 14 years that I was in India, I was employed upon 13 distinct political missions, which missions led me almost over every part of India, both Bengal and Madras; and three of them were to Persia, over which country I have travelled. During those missions I have conducted negociations with almost all the principal courts in India. I have resided at the principal settlements, as well as most of the principal towns and military cantonments in India.—From understanding several of their languages, and having had a great deal of intercourse with the natives of India, during the whole of my residence in that country, I had opportunities, which I endeavoured to take advantage of, to become acquainted with the manners and habits of all classes of society in that country.

From that knowledge, can you state how far an unlimited and unrestrained resort of British subjects, or Europeans, to India, would affect the Indian government?—If by unlimited and unrestrained is meant, that persons going there should be merely subject to the general law of the land, and not under specific restrictions of the local government, there can be no doubt that the resort to every place, except those settlements at which British courts of law were established, would be very mischievous, and ruinous to the government.

By unlimited and unrestrained is meant, that the state of India with regard to government and the restrictions and regulations are to remain as they are, but that the trade is to permit an intercourse of Europeans, and British subjects particularly, with India without limitation, and without the power of restraining them from going there, or preventing them from trading when they are there, in the interior or elsewhere, any where in India within the Company's limits; subject to that explanation, what effect do you think such an intercourse would have, under the circumstances described, upon the state of the Company's government in India?—I think of all the powers which are vested in the local government, there is none more essential to its existence in fall vigour and force, than that which enables them to restrain the local residence of every individual European to particular parts of the empire: if British subjects were allowed to go in the manner described to India, the effects would be various, agreeably to the places to which they went; if to the presidencies where British courts of law are established, there would be no other danger, I conceive, resulting from them, but what might arise from their great numbers, and the changes in the condition of the society, and eventually and gradually of the government, from that circumstance; but if they went to any ports where there was no established authority to controul them, and if they proceeded into the interior of the country, there would no doubt be much mischief arising from those quarrels which must inevitably ensue with the natives, which mischief would vary from a hundred local causes connected with the character of the natives of the places to which they resorted.

Describe what you consider to be the prevailing character of the Hindoos? The character of the different classes of Hindoos, which compose a great proportion of the population of the subjects of the British government in India, varies in different parts of that empire, perhaps as much, if not more, than the nations of Europe do from each other; under the Bengal establishment, there are two descriptions of Hindoos, of a very distinct race: below Patna, the race of Hindoos called Bengalese, I consider to be weak in body and timid in mind, and to be in general marked by the accompaniments of timidity, which are fraud and servility; I think, as far as my observation went, this class appeared to diminish, both in their bodily strength and their mental qualities, as they approached the coast; and those below Calcutta, are, I think, in character and appearance, among the lowest of all our Hindoo subjects: but from the moment that you enter the district of Bahar, or lather the district of Benares, throughout all the territories in that quarter subject to the Company and their dependent ally the nabob of Oude, and the Douab, the Hindoo inhabitants are a race of men, generally speaking, not more distinguished by their lofty stature, which rather exceeds that of Europeans, and their robust frame of body, which in almost all is inured to martial toil by exercises (I speak more particularly of the Rajpoots, who form a considerable proportion of this population) than they are for some of the finest qualities of the mind they are brave, generous, and humane, and their truth is as remarkable as their courage; the great proportion of the army of the Bengal establishment is composed of these men, and it is remarkable there are few corporal punishments in that army, the slightest reproach being in fact felt as the greatest punishment is among other nations. It is more than half a century since the army of Bengal was first formed, and I believe there is no instance of any officers being more sincerely attached to their men than the British officers have been, during the whole of that period, to the Hindoo native soldiery of that part of India; and it was within my knowledge that this class of men possessed, not only the esteem, but the affection of the late lord Lake, which nothing could have gained them but the qualities I have described. I have spoken more to the military class of Hindoos than to the others, because I am more acquainted with them; but from all I ever heard of the character of those who follow civil pursuits, it is much the same, allowing for the difference of the habits of life, as that of the Bengal sepoys. On the coast of Coromandel the Hindoo is a weaker man than the Rajpoot; but still there are many classes among them who are highly respectable. On the other side of India, under the presidency of Bombay, the Hindoos, inhabitants of Guzerat, our lately acquired provinces, are chiefly Mahrattas, and from all I have heard or seen of them, are much superior to the inhabitants that I have described along the coast of Bengal, and even to those along the coast of the Carnatic.

Do you consider that the influx of Europeans in the manner described in a former question, would be attended with the evils which you apprehend?—I certainly do; the servile and submissive character of certain classes of the Hindoos, would invite an oppression that would be attended with bad effects to the general character of our nation; and the high feelings of the other class would be certain to produce broils and quarrels with persons, who, by the question, I am led to suppose must in general be ignorant of their language and habits.

Do you conceive that those evils would be likely to be aggravated in any respect by the manner in which the natives of India consider their women, and persons of the female sex, under their protection, as objects of affection and regard?—Most undoubtedly, and more particularly with the Mahomedans.

What are the circumstances in the characters or manners of the Mahomedans, in this respect, that would render that evil more likely in their case than in the case of the Hindoos?—Because I think that race of men have (if it is possible) a still more violent jealousy of the character of their women than the Hindoos.

Have you had any opportunity of considering how far such an influx of Europeans as has been described might affect that particular part of the country where you were appointed political resident?—There were, as far as I can remember, no Europeans in Mysore, out of the service, during the time that. I was resident, except one or two suttlers in the military cantonment; and I certainly should have hesitated in recommending to government that any should have been allowed to reside there, because I deem it an essential principle to prevent by every means the occurrence of those disputes and quarrels between Europeans and natives, which never can happen without a certain degree of bad tendency towards the general character of our nation, and as far as that is concerned, must in a certain degree be hurtful to our government; and this was more particularly the case in Mysore, in which all such disputes and quarrels gave rise to political discussion, as that country is under the dominions of a prince virtually dependent perhaps upon our government, but certainly not directly subject to its authority.

Have you known, during your residence in the Mysore country, any disputes between natives and young European officers?—Such were very frequent; in most cases they proceeded from the violence of the European officer, or his ignorance of the manners and language of the inhabitants.

Do you think that Europeans out of the service of the Company, ignorant of the language of the natives, and going into the Mysore or any other part of India, are likely to get into disputes with the natives; and why?—If it frequently occurs that officers who are under all the restraint of severe military discipline, are embroiled in such disputes, I conceive persons not in the service, and equally ignorant of their manners and customs, would be still more liable to be so: one prominent cause of such persons being involved in disputes, will be the native interpreters, whom they employ as the medium of their communications, such persons, who generally speak broken English, are one of the lowest and most fraudulent classes of the community; their object is to derive a livelihood by cheating both the European by whom they are employed, and the native with whom he has any concern; and they have always art enough to direct the rage in which the European is, at being defrauded, against the person with whom, from ignorance of their language, he cannot directly communicate.

State whether the general population of India are likely to become customers for European commodities?—If by the general population of India is meant (which I suppose it is) the great mass, there is no doubt they are not likely to become customers for European articles, because they do not possess the means to purchase them, even if, from their present simple habits of life and attire, they required them.—I believe (for I have not very minute knowledge upon the subject) that the wages of labour and the pay of manufacturers differ in a very great degree over different parts of India, but that in no part is it sufficient to enable them to purchase luxuries; and such they consider every European article.

Is it the practice for the Indians of higher rank and greater wealth, to apply their superfluous wealth in the purchase of European commodities?—In the principal settlements and at some of the larger towns under the dominions of the British government, there are many natives who purchase articles of luxury, such as broad cloths, watches, and various articles of that kind; but I do not think such can be said to apply their superfluous wealth, that is more generally expended in feasts, marriages, and other things more connected with the usages and manners of their own country. I have known some who imitated (to flatter their superiors) European manners, and adopted almost their dress; but such, when they were Hindoos and Mahomedans, generally appeared to me to lose in the value of their own class, by a departure from the usages. The rich settlement of Bombay is perhaps an exception to this rule: the Parsees, who are extremely wealthy, and a perfectly dis- tinct class, have assimilated more with the European character than perhaps any other race in India, and they spend a great deal of money in furnishing houses, and purchasing carriages and other luxuries of a similar description; many of them are in the habit, I believe, of ordering very large supplies of articles from England, both for their own use and for sale, for they are almost all merchants. I have understood that the late nabob of the Carnatic had a vanity in purchasing many European articles; and I believe that the present nabob of Lucknow, Sadit Alli Cawn, and his predecessor, have purchased more European articles than all the rest of the persons in their dominions, put together; a conduct which has no doubt proceeded as much from the vanity of making the collection, as from any use to which they could be put.

Are you able to state whether the present mode of supplying, and the amount of supply of English and European articles sent to India, has been sufficient or more than sufficient to supply the demands of the natives?—I never was at any principal town, or any military cantonment, in British India (and I have been at most) that I did not see a superabundant supply of such articles, and which the natives might have purchased, if they chose.

Have you any access to know, from the situations you have been in in Persia, whether the Company have taken every means in their power to push the sale of European commodities in that quarter of the east; and if you have, state what the effect of those efforts has been?—When I went on my first mission to Persia in 1800, I was directed by the supreme government of India to attend to any instructions I might receive from the government of Bombay, and that government furnished me with every information upon the former trade with Persia, and earnestly desired my attention to the object of finding a mart for any European goods, but particularly woollens; and I had an opportunity of knowing, that so eager was their desire at that period to promote the sale of woollens in that quarter, that their agent at Bushire had been allowed to sell them at a rate, and upon a credit, the result of which was a very considerable loss to government: I made every inquiry that was possible; and in concluding the commercial treaty, obtained some diminution of the duties, but do not believe there was any increased sale: the north-western part of Persia, in which the court resides, is partly supplied with woollens and other European articles from Astracan, by the Caspian sea, and even British woollens are imported by that quarter.—I took every means within my power to promote a general intercourse between the two countries, and to give every facility to the sale of every article both European and Indian; and I had the satisfaction of believing, that by my endeavours the trade of indigo, which had before chiefly gone through Cabul to Persia, was turned to the port of Calcutta.

Have you found it practicable to promote the sale of English and European commodities there?—I had no means of promoting the sale farther than by establishing that intercourse which rendered the communication more amicable and easy; the trade was perfectly open to Bushire, and being carried on chiefly by Persian merchants themselves, who had resort to every port in India, I can have no doubt they carried every article to their own country that would produce them profit; but the consumption of European articles in Persia, with the single exception of woollens, is, I believe, very trifling, chiefly on account of the general poverty of the mass of the community, and also from their own country furnishing all such articles as are necessary for their habits of life.

Besides the poverty of the country and of the people, does not the insecurity attending the conveyance of commodities from one part of Persia to another, tend very much to prevent the sale of European commodities there?—That no doubt must tend generally to interrupt the commercial intercourse of the country, for till within the last 15 years Persia had been in a most unsettled state for a very long period; but that kingdom has been lately comparatively tranquil and settled.

You have mentioned the Parsees; are they not a small tribe confined to the small island of Bombay?—They are confined as a community to a part of the country of Guzerat and Bombay, they are certainly only a small tribe comparatively with any other class in India; I do not know their numbers established on the sea coast of Guzerat and Bombay.

Can you state what proportion of that number may be of the higher orders, who dealt in the luxuries of European commodities?—I cannot; but those were in a comparatively small proportion to the numbers of their own community, only the most wealthy.

Can you state whether, for the purpose of European or British consumption in the principal settlements of the Company in India, Indian artisans, or manufacturers of European commodities, have established themselves in those settlements?—They have; but the great proportion of such articles are manufactured under the direction at least of European artisans, who are settled at the various presidencies.

Have European artisans began to settle there, and to carry on their trades?—They have; in the different settlements of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, are to be found coach-makers, upholsterers, boot and shoe-makers, leather manufactories of all kinds, particularly at Madras; watchmakers, silversmiths, all Europeans, with native workmen.

Do the produce of those manufactures tend to diminish the consumption of European commodities sent from Europe?—They must, no doubt, have that tendency in a very considerable degree; and they are (as far as I could judge) extending as fast as Europeans come out to direct them.

You have said, that the artisans are Europeans with Indian workmen; from your observation, are not the Indians extremely ready in learning any handicraft art, and have they not been enabled to make those articles to very considerable perfection?—They are extremely apt at learning all such trades; various manufactures have been established; leather in all its branches is manufactured at a tannery established at Madras, at which they make military accoutrements, boots, shoes and other articles, even to ladies' gloves; carriages and other articles are made in very great perfection: many of the half cast, or children of European fathers and native mothers, are employed in such trades.

From this aptitude on the part of the Indians, is it not likely that they would, in process of time, supply themselves with all such articles, to a diminution of European importation to India?—There can be no doubt they would; I should conceive, from the price of labour, that they will be enabled to make those articles cheaper; I mean all such articles as the nature of the climate will admit of their manufacturing.

(Examined by the Committee.)

Do you think, or not, that the majority of the Hindoo population are contented with the British sway, at present?—I have answered that question as far as I am able in what I stated above; they appear to be so.

Do you think that the Mahomedan part of the population are equally contented and satisfied with the British sway, as that of the Hindoos are?—I think it. is probable that a great proportion of the Mahomedan population may not be so much contented, because they have a more recent recollection than the Hindoos, of that power which they have lost by the introduction of our government.

While the Hindoos are contented with the British government, do you imagine that any discontents or attempts, on the part of the Mahomedans, could seriously affect the British power in India?—The British power in India is spread over so vast a country, and the different provinces of that empire have such a varied population, that it is rather difficult to answer that question: but there are, no doubt, provinces in our empire, such as the Douab of recent acquisition, where the great majority of the military part of the populaton are Mahomedans; and any insurrection in that province, for instance, could receive no check from any good disposition of the Hindoo inhabitants. In. many other provinces the Hindoos form the great majority, and an insurrection of the Mahomedans would be of comparatively less consequence; but I certainly conceive that the attachment of the Hindoo population of India is the chief source of our security in India. It is however to be remarked, that in many parts of India the Hindoos and Mahomedans have amalgamated more than could be supposed from the difference of their persuasion; and the Mahomedans of India have not only become more lax in the performance of their religious duties than the Mahomedans of neighbouring countries, but seem gradually to have adopted some of the minor usages of the Hindoos; nor is it unusual for Hindoo princes, such as Scindia and Holkar, to conciliate their Mahomedan subjects and troops, by paying their devotions at the shrine of Mahomedan saints, and mixing in their feasts.

It appears, then, from what you have just stated, that the Mahomedans and the Hindoos live together in social habits, in many parts of India?—In as social habits as their faith will permit. In speaking of the Mahomedans of India, I have been led to state what I have done, from having had an opportunity of comparing their manners and usages with the Mahomedans of Persia, Arabia, and Turkey.

Do you think that there are any motives by which the Mahomedans could excite in the Hindoos a disposition to unite with them in putting down the British power?—I conceive there are no motives but such as should communicate to both a common sentiment of alarm or indignation at the conduct of the British government, or at that of any of its delegated authorities.

Are you of opinion that the Mahomedans would put down the British power if they could?—I certainly do not think it is a common desire with the Mahomedans in every part of India to subvert the British power, however it may be indulged by some of the turbulent of that class, and particularly the higher ranks, who have recently lost their authority; nor am I satisfied that all Hindoos are contented; I am able only to speak of the apparent general disposition of our subjects.

Do you think if any ground was furnished, to enable the Mahomedans to induce the Hindoos to make common cause with them, that the British power must not be speedily overset?—I can have no doubt that if a cause should operate, as is described by that question, our authority could not last a day: I understand by the question, that by the words Mahomedans and Hindoos, are meant all our subjects of that class in India.—[The witness was directed to withdraw.]

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

having moved the commitment of the Bill to take away corruption of blood as a consequence of Attainder of Treason or Felony,

observed, that as it was his intention to oppose the Bill, he wished the hon. and learned gentleman, with whom it had originated, would fix some day for the discussion of the various subjects it involved, and which he conceived to be of high importance. He should then have an opportunity of stating his objections, and he might perhaps think it proper to move for the re-commitment of the Bill, with a view of proposing such amendments as might appear necessary.

could not help expressing his regret that the right hon. gentleman had not taken the opportunity of discuss- ing the merits of the Bill upon its second reading, which was unquestionably the proper and more regular time for bringing forward the objections which he deemed material. It was, he would say, rather singular that the right hon. gentleman should have suffered that stage of the Bill to pass by unnoticed, and now express his wish to have a day fixed for discussion. He had also to remark, that no specific objection had been advanced, which could justify the opposition thus attempted to be raised against the measure.

contended, that in opposing the Bill, he merely exercised the right which every member possessed, of objecting to any Bill, in any stage whatever before the House. He should not, however, persist in his opposition on the present occasion, but would reserve himself for a full and fair discussion in the further progress of the measure.

A discussion on this point ensued, in which sir S. Romilly, Mr. Frankland, Mr. Whitbread, the Solicitor General, and lord Castlereagh participated. Eventually the Bill passed through the Committee. The House having resumed,

having first moved, 'that the Report be received to-morrow,' proceeded to say, that he should be sorry to appear pertinacious in the course he felt it his duty to pursue; but when he had introduced the present Bill, he had stated it to be connected with other measures which he had brought under the consideration of the legislature, and he was anxious to satisfy the House, that his notions were not so extravagant as some hon gentlemen supposed. There were many persons who erroneously confounded corruption of blood and forfeiture together, whereas no two things could be more distinct. Forfeiture was always a punishment inflicted for an offence; corruption of blood was a consequence of the feudal law. The House must be aware that corruption of blood was never intended as a punishment for an offence, for if it were, it would be punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty, and that, sometimes, at the distance of half a century, when the original offender was dead and forgotten. His hon. and learned friend had said, that this law had a salutary operation in preventing crime, from the consideration of the consequences to those who were nearly connected with the person who might otherwise commit it, but though he admitted this in some degree, yet he could not allow it to be a justifiable ground for retaining the present law. It was a necessary consequence of all punishment, that it caused the innocent to suffer as well as the guilty. In other cases there was the punishment of sympathy—in this it was different. By corruption of blood, if a man attainted of treason leaves a son who acquires a property invested in a real estate who dies without children, and leaves his property to some collateral relation, that relation cannot inherit, because his uncle, perhaps, had committed a crime which subjected him to corruption of blood. He could not be a link in tracing a pedigree from one remote relation to another. Could it be asserted, at the present day, that this extravagant subtlety and refinement should enter into the penal code of this country? Would any man be deterred from the commission of a crime, to which he felt strong present incitement, by the remote apprehension of the consequences which might ensue to some distant relative? It was also to be recollected that this law did not operate in producing forfeiture to the king, but escheat to the immediate lord.—Mr. Justice Blackstone in several parts of his Commentaries had expressed himself hostile to this doctrine, which he spoke of as one that it was desirable should be exploded.—Another objection to the law was the inequality of its operation, for in Scotland it was only made to apply to cases of treason by the Act of queen Anne, and again, it was law over all England, except the county of Kent. He asked, then, what consistency there was in not preventing crime in Kent as well as in the rest of England? In some cases also corruption of blood had been taken away by accident, and also in some new-created felonies, some of which were not of the most venial description. Such was the anomaly that prevailed at present, which, he was sure, ought not to continue, and for the continuance of which, he was persuaded, before one word had been said by way of argument, no one just or rational cause, could be assigned.

considered the present proceeding as very extraordinary, for he never recollected having heard the principle of a Bill debated on the question that the Report should be received on the following day. The hon. and learned gen-tleman had not said one word upon the question before the House, and therefore he really felt himself at a loss what course to pursue. He was inclined to move, that the Report should be received that day six months, or that it should be rejected altogether: but his respect for the hon. and learned gentleman induced him to adopt the former course. For his part, he entertained very strong doubts as to the propriety of taking away corruption of blood altogether, nor was there one fact stated as a matter of grievance which called for the interposition of the House, to remove one of the most ancient principles of the common law of the land. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that this Bill did not affect the question of forfeiture, but in his opinion, if it was passed, it would be found necessary to adopt some measure for guarding the prerogatives of the crown from being invaded in forfeitures. The hon. and learned gentleman had principally dwelt on some general notions of the innocent suffering for the crimes of the guilty; but he must say, that in examining questions of ancient law, he was inclined to decide on the reasons which had induced their ancestors to frame it, and he was exceedingly jealous of those new lights that would go to establish it as a maxim, that our entire penal code was founded in cruelty and injustice. He was one of those who were prejudiced in favour of our ancient laws, at least, so far prejudiced, as not to acquiesce in any alteration of them, until some strong case was made out to convince him of its necessity. He hoped he need not now argue that treason was the greatest and most atrocious crime that could be committed in a state; that the person guilty of it was accountable for all the crimes attendant upon it, and that therefore it was an abstract of all other crimes. This being the case, the highest penalty should be attached to it; and sir Matthew Hale, speaking of its character of enormity, had said, that "treason should therefore be subject to the greatest penalty." Was the state to have no protection against the greatest crime that could be committed within it? By the statute of William, the proof and the punishment of treason had been rendered more difficult: and were they to withdraw those terrors which their ancestors had wisely placed around this crime? There was no difficulty in applying to the crown for restoration of blood; and the statute-book abounded with instances of this kind, full as frequent as those of an opposite nature. But one would be led to imagine that the hon. and learned gentleman was proposing Bills immediately after the time of George the 2d, when the law was in active operation. Was it a time to relax the law against the crime of treason, when the memory of the rebellion in the sister kingdom was so recent—when it had been admitted, in that House, that there existed agitators who were anxious for the separation of the empire? Had they forgotten all that had happened in the north of England some months ago? Surely they should beware how they altered those salutary laws, at a period when all the energies of the state should be excited on the one hand to guard against foreign aggression, and on the other against internal commotion. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the Report be brought up that day six months."

defended the principle of the Bill, and denied that it interfered with the law of forfeiture in any respect; on the contrary, he maintained that it enlarged the rights of the crown. He then instanced several cases, in which the law, as it now stood, would apply injuriously to the possessors of property under different tenures; and concluded by saying, that, as a practical question, he felt himself bound to give the Bill his support.

said, that though he should vote in favour of the Report being brought up to-morrow, he was not fully prepared to accede to the whole measure. He confessed that he had heard no argument of any weight against taking away corruption of blood in cases of felony, while those on the opposite side appeared to be conclusive. But he was obliged to confess, that with all the respect he entertained for his hon. and learned friend, the considerations which appeared satisfactory in the case of felony did not extend to that of treason. On looking back to the history of the country, it was sufficiently evident that corruption of blood had operated, and was still likely to operate, on that description of persons who were most dangerous to the state in such cases. This law appeared still more necessary from the consideration that treason, in the popular opinion, did not possess that character of atrocity which was attached to other climes. He denied that the number of exceptions which appeared to the general principle of this law on the statute book was an argument against the law; for the loyalty of the son was thereby allowed to redeem the crime of the father, and he was driven to make a merit of giving his services to the existing power. The present state of the law, which left to the clemency of the crown and of parliament, the means of restoring estates to those who by their loyalty merited that restoration, might be called a base mode of bribing loyalty: but he was willing to accept that mode, if no better one offered itself. He did not see how they could avoid the consequences of making children suffer for a parent's default. Cicero entertained the same opinion, when he said, that nothing was more conducive to the public good, than that men's affection to the government should be influenced by the affection they bore to the future welfare of their posterity. Property, indeed, was the creature of law, which might attach to it such conditions as it thought fitting. He knew of no principle of common justice by which an elder son claimed a right above all his brothers: that was founded only on the common law, on a sort of immutable basis, and immemorial usage in this kingdom. He would not look back to the times of the Saxons, but would look only to the effects of this law. If it was, like some others, inapplicable to existing circumstances, he would vote for repealing it: but he thought otherwise at present, and must continue to do so, until he heard more convincing arguments. He was, therefore, unwilling to strip the crime of treason of its legal consequences.

agreed precisely in what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He was against doing away with corruption of blood altogether; and was for continuing it in cases of high treason. He admitted, with those who had gone before him, that the prospect of such a blot in the family escutcheon might fairly be presumed to operate on the mind, and therefore was he against that part of the Bill which went to abolish corruption of blood even in cases of high treason. He admitted the propriety of taking away the corruption of blood from cases of felony.

observed, that all the Bills of his hon. and learned friend indicated the intention of altering the whole system of our criminal laws. Of that intention he could not approve, as he did not see the necessity for such a systematic alteration. He contended for the propriety of not doing away with the corruption of blood, as the fear of such an affliction to their posterity might prevent the commission of crimes of such dangerous tendency. In cases of high treason, he thought it very right to be retained. It had been said that there was a difference between the laws of Scotland and England on this subject, and that there were even different laws for different counties in England; but he would maintain, that, to talk of introducing new Acts for the purpose of smoothing down these differences—of equalising these laws, was absurd. (Hear, hear! from the Opposition benches.) His hon. and learned friend had disclaimed systematic innovation; but what other character could be given to the Bills introduced by him? One. individual Bill after another had been introduced: his hon. and learned friend was proceeding step by step; in progress of time he would go round the whole circle of criminal code; and by and by, if the House were to give way, all the laws would be swept into this vortex of innovation. He was not for giving up the corruption of blood, sincerely believing in its necessity as now established by law; he should therefore support the amendment.

said, he disapproved of the Bill: and particularly that part of it which went to do away with corruption of blood in cases of high treason; for two reasons, first, the prevention of corruption of blood; and secondly, as to its operation on the mode of trial for high treason as at present established. Respecting the first point, in tracing a pedigree it undoubtedly might be somewhat inconvenient to find that blemish which would be left by those who had been convicted of high treason; but would that objection be sufficient for abolishing what tended so essentially to the protection of the state as this peculiar mode of punishment for high treason? With regard to his second point, the operation on the mode of trial, at present all persons accused of high treason must be supplied, agreeably to the 7th of king William, with copies of the indictment, the pannel, the list of witnesses to be adduced against the accused, and of all the overt acts charged. Here there was a most material difference from all modes of trial for other crimes than that of high treason, solely because the conviction carried such effects with it; but this Bill would go to do away with those privileges, if the severity of the punishment by corruption of blood were to be swept from the statutebook. He disapproved of the Bill therefore, because it went to take away a valuable safeguard to the security of the state, which was a most serious innovation.

said, that one objection to the Bill, which had struck him very forcibly, was, that which had just been stated by the hon. and learned member who spoke last. But perhaps, if the Bill passed, it would be easy to get rid of the objection by altering the Act of king William on this subject, and if so, the labours of his hon. and learned friend would not be at an end. The whole of this question was, in his mind, set at rest by the Act of 1799. That Act did what lord Somers had not, dared to do in 1708, nor lord Hardwicke in 1746; it extended the corruption of blood in cases of high treason, to perpetuity, which those great men in former times bad restricted to the life of the Pretender, or any of his descendants, from reasons of state, which existed at the time only. Those acts were not the fruit of contemplative and speculative wisdom, but of immediate policy, of a compromising and temporising spirit. They wished to secure the Union—they were therefore obliged to compromise with the Scotch. What took place in 1799 had put the question at rest. It was found that a disputed succession at one time, and a disputatious philosophy, at another, might breed rebellion and treason, and it was therefore thought necessary to provide against both at all times. The same arguments were, however, brought in array again, which had been before rebutted. Among these was the hardship done to the innocent offspring. But to this it had been well answered, that property was the creature of society, and that the right of property could not therefore be insisted on for the destruction of society. Now there were persons tempted to the commission of this crime of high treason, whose minds were so distorted and disturbed, that they cared nothing about themselves, every thing went wrong with them, the whole world Went wrong, all was a wide-spreading scene of confusion and desolation, they were ready to plunge blindfold and headlong into it, but a sudden thought shot across their minds—their children—their posterity—their property—what would become of them? Was it not a providential circumstance, that in a case of this magnitude and importance to society, where we had no other check upon the passions, where the mind was so slippery that we had no other hold of it we had this sure one in the prospective and unalterable attachment to kindred and posterity? This was equally manifest in the case of bank- ruptcy and suicide. It was an universal trait of human nature. It was a conclusion demonstrable from all law and all history. The same thing had been said by Cicero—amicitiores rei public. But difficulties present themselves—conveyancing difficulties; not that these were very important, even to those who had to solve them. But what were these difficulties arising from a flaw in the title of an estate, in competition with the maintenance of the first principles of all property, of all law, and all society? The authority of sir William Blackstone had been referred to as against the corruption of blood. But it was not fair to look at a few sentences brought in as ornamental flourishes at the end of a lecture, to enliven the students of a college. His opinion was to be collected from the whole bearing and tenor of his work, which was decidedly in favour of the prevailing system. In the whole course of this debate, not one word had been said about honours—were they to be transmitted along with the estate? Was the 'corruption of blood' to become a phrase? Were we to teach the youth of this country that there was a pure, untainted, uncorrupted blood, and another which was corrupted and tainted? He should do all in his power to prevent the introduction of such false and degrading maxims, and should therefore oppose the present motion. He supported the Bill so far as it went to do away the corruption of blood in cases of felony, but he thought it ought to be retained in cases of high treason. However far he might assent to the propriety of doing away the corruption of blood in cases of felony, he certainly could not agree to its abolition in cases of high treason.

rose merely for the purpose of not incurring the reproof which he had formerly received in consequence of his silence. He had read all the authorities upon this subject, and still maintained the opinion he had formerly delivered. He could not avoid considering this Bill as a part of a system which it would not be expedient to introduce. The present Bill was not called for by any necessity, and it would remove one of the safeguards of the constitution. This was the principal ground upon which he rested his opposition to it. He had been represented as having said, on a former occasion, that many people were found ready to destroy themselves for the good of their families. He never had uttered, such egregious non- sense. What he had said was, that when lives were insured by a policy of insurance, the consideration of the loss that such an event would produce to his family had often checked the hand of the suicide, and prevented the commission of the crime.

replied to the various arguments which had been urged against the Bill. He said that his motion went to a general principle, to take away corruption of blood in all cases whatever, of felony as well as treason; and it was only with respect to the latter that it was objected to. He thought, therefore, it should not be entirely thrown out. Both his hon. friend near him, and the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Yorke) had signified their approbation of the principle as it applied to all cases but treason, and he therefore was at a loss to know how the right hon. gentleman would reconcile his motion, to have the Bill read that day six months, by which it would be entirely lost, with his speech which approved of it in part. He had been accused of having a system, and to this charge he must plead guilty, if by having a system it was meant that in enacting or repealing one law, you considered the effect it would have upon other laws. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Wetherall) had completely exculpated himself from this charge of system, when he declared that he was for having one law in Kent, and another in Middlesex; one law in Scotland, and another in England. In another place, which he should not mention, it had been objected to him that he had not proceeded more systematically, that he had not laid down a general principle of legislation, and developed a regular plan of alterations in our criminal law. So impossible was it to provide against all the objections which would be made to any one who indiscreetly offered himself in the character of a legislator! The hints which had been thrown out about modern lights and modern philosophy affected him but little, when he reflected that his opinions were confirmed by the authority of some of our most eminent writers. One of these was Mr. Justice Blackstone. The corruption of blood, he had declared, was an injustice which ought to have been abolished with the military tenures. The late Mr. Yorke had been quoted against him on the subject of forfeitures, but unfairly. He had letters in his possession which had passed between that venerable character and sir W. Blackstone, on these very expressions in his Commentaries, which he did not consider as the mere ornaments of a college lecture. But it had been said, that that passage was of no authority whatever, that it was a mere idle flourish, though the work itself was of great authority. On the other hand, it had been said by a very high magistrate, that it was the work of a speculative man in his closet. It should be remembered, however, that that speculative man had been advanced to be a judge, that he sat many years in a court of justice, and that he, a little before his death, corrected the ninth edition of his work, as he had carefully done all the preceding ones. He sent the proof sheet relating to the corruption of blood to Mr. Yorke, who returned for answer, "It is one thing to explain the law, and another to wish to see it altered; the first is what I have done, I have never gone farther in what I have written on forfeiture." It was evident that his opinion could not be cited against sir W. Blackstone, even if forfeiture and corruption of blood were the same thing; but sir W. Blackstone had himself as strenuously defended forfeiture as he had opposed the corruption of blood. His hon. friend (Mr. Frankland) had discovered, that the whole question was settled in 1799; if so, it was settled without a single word being said of the matter: for that Act related only to forfeiture. He did not expect the charge of innovation to be echoed from the hon. member who sat on the opposite side of the House, who had himself brought in one of the greatest innovations in our law—the Armed District Bill. Neither did he expect the distinction to be taken which a learned gentleman had made use of with respect to real and personal property. If a man held an estate only for a thousand years, it would descend in spite of the existing law. Another inconsistency in that law was, that it only applied if the person died intestate, otherwise he could leave his whole property to his descendants, by will. It had been objected to him, that we ought not on his principles to punish the guilty at all, because their fate affected their relatives and friends; but it did this only indirectly and inevitably, from their sym-pathy with others; whereas the corruption of blood punished the innocent directly and voluntarily, and the guilty only from sympathy and virtuous attachment to those connected with them by the ties of blood. Why not, indeed, carry the reasoning a little farther, and inflict actual punishment upon the relations: This had been formerly done. In Arnot's cases, there was an account of a woman in Scotland, who had been put to the torture to make her confess. She had firmness enough to resist: but she had a son of 15, and a daughter of 7 years old; they were put to the torture also, and this was more than she could bear. The hon. and learned mover then added other arguments in support of the Bill, and hoped that the right hon. gentleman would not persist in his amendment, particularly as he had been taken rather by surprize in having the debate come on to-night.

The House divided, when there appeared, Against receiving the Report, 55; For it, 43; Majority, 12. The Bill is therefore lost.