stated, that in consequence of some of his friends having suggested to him, that it would be inconvenient to the House, if he brought forward the motion on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, of which he had given notice, and which stood for Friday, he was inclined to postpone it for that session. But he said that if no more able person should agitate the question, he should feel it his duty to submit to the House a motion on the subject early in the next session.

said he would state very shortly the objects of the Bill. It was to release those debtors who had been confined for a certain time, on their giving up all the property they possessed, and was intended to prevent the necessity of frequent periodical Insolvent Acts. It proceeded on a principle different to any contained in any former Bill. It put an end to the principle of the existing laws, by which a debtor might be confined for life; a punishment more severe than any inflicted by the criminal code; for he knew of no crime that was punished by imprisonment for life. The Bill, therefore, should not be viewed with reference to the law as it stood; it was certainly not so perfect as he could wish, but if it were materially altered, it would not perhaps meet with the concurrence of the other House. It was not to be expected to reach perfection at once; hereafter the measure might be rendered more perfect. He advised gentlemen to pass it with some imperfections, rather than risk its loss by any material alteration.

After a Few words from Mr. Alderman Combe, and Mr. Kenrick, the House went into a Committee on the Bill.

proposed an amendment, to limit the time of imprisonment to three months instead of six. His object was to prevent persons contracting those bad habits, which were usually learnt in a prison, and to prevent persons confined for debt, from being so long lost to the duties of society.

said that when the Bill was first introduced into the House of Lords, the term of imprisonment was much longer; but had been reduced to six months at the suggestion of some noble lords. If the term were limited, creditors would not have sufficient time to oppose the liberation of debtors, who might not be entitled to the benefit of the Act.

The House divided: For the Amendment 22; Against it 42; Majority in favour of the original clause 20.

took that opportunity of asking ministers what would be the fate of a Bill for the relief of the insolvent debtors in the Isle of Man. He understood such a Bill had passed the Manx legislature.

said he was uninformed on the subject; but would make the necessary enquiries.

After some further conversation, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received on Wednesday.

presented a Petition from Diana, wife of Francis Hargrave, esq. one of his Majesty's counsel in the law, recorder of Liverpool, and treasurer of the honourable society of Lincoln's Inn, setting forth, "That the said Francis Hargrave is possessed of divers books and manuscripts, collected with great labour and at a considerable expence during the course of a long professional life, which books and manuscripts would form a valuable addition to the national collection, having been selected with the greatest skill and judgment; and that, owing to the afflicting illness of the said Francis Hargrave, he is no longer able to follow his professional pursuits, whereby his family is in danger of being exposed to great difficulties; and praying the House, that the circumstances of the case may be taken into its kind and liberal consideration, and that the acquisition of the said books and manuscripts may be made for the public upon such terms and for such consideration as to the House shall seem meet." Mr. Whitbread said, it was unnecessary to say much respecting the merits of Mr. Hargrave. His profound learning and extensive information were well known to most of the members of that House; and no one, he was convinced, would be more ready than his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly), to bear testimony to the great value of Mr. Hargrave's writings. [Hear, hear, from sir S. Romilly, and others.] By those writings, and by the publication of several valuable manuscripts, Mr. Hargrave bad rendered great service to the public in the advancement of legal and constitutional knowledge. He was now unhappily prevented by illness from attending to his professional pursuits, and it became necessary as a provision for his family to dispose of his library, consisting of a large and valuable library of books and manuscripts, collected by him with very great skill and judgment during the course of a long professional life. The acquisition of such a library would undoubtedly be of great advantage to the public, and it would be proper that some reward should be conferred by the legislature upon Mr. Hargrave. Mr. Whitbread trusted, therefore, that the object of the Petition would meet with the unanimous concurrence of the House. [Hear, hear!]

rose to second the motion. He fully concurred in what had been said by the hon. gentleman, and acquainted the House, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, having been informed of the contents of the said Petition, recommended it to the consideration of the House.

Ordered to lie on the table.

said, he had mentioned a few evenings since, that if the noble lord (Castlereagh) did not think fit to lay before the House the Russian Treaty, as connected with that recently entered into with Sweden, he should feel it his duty to make a motion, for the purpose of procuring its production; because it was impossible for that House correctly to understand the Treaty with Sweden, unless the Convention between that country and Russia were laid before them. It was his intention also to move for certain documents connected with the subject; the nature of these he would state to the noble lord, who, when he heard them, would be able to judge whether or not he could agree to their production. The first document he should move for was, "An account of all sums of money paid or advanced to the king of Sweden, or for his service, with the respective dates of such advances." The next information he would call for was, "The specific day on which the Swedish army landed on the continent" (as it was termed in the Treaty, a manner, certainly, in which he should not have expressed himself, as it seemed to imply that Sweden formed no part of the continent of Europe) "in conformity with the stipulations contained in the first Article of the Treaty laid before the House by the command of the Prince Regent." He should next call for "A copy of the Treaty concluded between his Majesty and the Emperor of Russia," if any such had been entered into, relating to the same subject. He did not know how this fact stood, whether Russia acted under a separate treaty, concluded with her, or only in conformity with the Convention entered into between her and Sweden. And, therefore, the information which he should derive from the noble lord, on this point, would direct him in shaping his motion properly. The last papers he should move for would be, "copies or extracts of all correspondence between his Majesty's minister for Foreign Affairs and any accredited minister of the king of Denmark." He conceived information on these points, absolutely necessary to the forming a correct estimate of the Treaty with Sweden. If the noble lord could point out any error in the form of his intended motions, he would willingly alter it. If, however, he did not, and that he resisted the production of the papers, he then gave notice, that he would, tomorrow, move for them.

in answer, observed, that, as to the production of the correspondence between his Majesty's government and that of Denmark, he was not prepared to accede to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. With respect to the inquiry, whether any Treaty had been entered into with Russia, he had to inform the right hon. gentleman that no such Treaty had been concluded. Russia acted in consequence of her stipulations with Sweden. As to the amount of advances made to Sweden, with their dates, there could be no difficulty in furnishing such an account. And, so far as his Ma- jesty's government possessed the information, they were perfectly willing to state the day on which the landing of the Swedish troops took place. This latter information, he believed, would be as accurate as the right hon. gentleman could wish, for any purpose he might have in view. He felt very considerable difficulty with reference to the Treaty concluded between Sweden and Russia, which had been confidentially communicated to his Majesty's government, but which neither of the two powers had promulgated. He was, however, aware, that it was impossible for the right hon. gentleman to argue on the propriety of the stipulations entered into with Sweden, unless the nature of her connection with Russia was understood. Still, however, the right hon. gentleman must perceive the situation of delicacy in which his Majesty's government stood, and would, perhaps, be satisfied, if the articles, immediately connected with the recent Swedish Treaty, were substantially laid before the House, instead of pressing for the production of the Treaty itself.

inquired in what manner the noble lord meant to give this information? He did not think it would be satisfactory, if he intended merely to give it in the course of his speech.

replied, that the information should be regularly laid on the table.

said, that would answer perfectly well. He did not wish the government to take any step which might be prejudicial to the public service. It should be understood, however, that the noble lord would give all the substantial information necessary on the Russian and Swedish Convention; the choice and selection of the extracts depending on himself. With respect to his wish to know the day on which the Swedish troops landed, the noble lord would recollect, that, by the Treaty, Sweden promised to employ a corps of not less than 30,000 men, in direct operation upon the continent, and, by the fourth article of the Treaty it was stipulated, that all the future advances to be made by this country, after the first, were to depend on the actual employment of the Swedish army. These were the very words of the Treaty. Now, he wished to know in what way Sweden was considered, by the government of this country, as having so far fulfilled her stipulations, that she became entitled to the promised subsidy? He thought it was necessary to learn, whether only a part of the Swedish troops had landed, or whether the entire number had been furnished, before they considered that power as having a right to claim the intended succours.

intimated that every possible information should be granted.

was desirous of learning from the noble lord, whether it was intended, along with Guadaloupe, to cede the islands of St. Martin, Marigalante, Deseada, and the Saintes, which were. always considered as its dependencies?

answered, that nothing was ceded, except Guadaloupe, properly so called.

then observed, that there appeared to be no point of difference between him and the noble lord, except as far as related to the correspondence between this government and that of Denmark, for the production of which he would submit a motion to the House tomorrow.

wished to ask the noble lord whether he had any objection to postpone the debate on the Swedish Treaty, from Wednesday until Friday? Such an arrangement would be most convenient to himself and some of his friends, who were anxious to take part in the debate.

said that it was desirable for the House to take the Treaty as early as possible into consideration; but under such circumstances, he had no hesitation in complying with the hon. gentleman's request.

moved, that the farther consideration be postponed to Monday, in order to let the House go into a committee upon the affairs of the East India Company.

objected to the question being farther postponed, as it had already been inserted twice in the orders of the day. The question deeply involved the character of the House, and he conceived it would not be consistent with their dignity to delay a decision longer.

said, the Report had been of the table since the 24th of March. He was in favour of proceeding in the question.

wished the subject to be postponed, but not until next session.

acceded to the proposition of the noble lord (Castlereagh), but did not know how it would affect the prosecution which he intended to advise. The Attorney General could tell him.

said, if the business were proceeded in, it would be impossible to bring the persons to trial, or even to obtain a plea from them, by the next assizes.

spoke in favour of an immediate proceeding.

said, he would not have delayed the business one hour, if it had not been to suit the convenience of gentlemen. When the present motion was disposed of, it was his intention to move, "That the Attorney-General do forthwith prosecute the most noble George Frederick, duke of Leeds, and four of the aldermen of the borough of Helston, for practices subversive of the freedom of election." The House, if they thought proper, might order proceedings against such of the freemen as were concerned in the business, though he conceived they would not appear so culpable as the parties he had mentioned. He would also move for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent bribery and corruption in the elections for the said borough.

said, he would move that the fifth alderman be included in the prosecution.

shortly stated his reasons for confining the prosecution to four of the aldermen.

The Report was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.

moved the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned proceeding upon the further consideration of the Report, which upon the 3d day of June was made from the Committee of the whole House to whom it was referred to consider further of the Affairs of the East India Company.

said:—Sir, to the Resolutions in the form now submitted to the consideration of the House, there are, as I conceive, important objections; but reflecting on the vast variety and extent of this subject, in all its bearings and rela- tions, on its magnitude as it regards the people of this country, and on its extreme importance to the natives of India, I am convinced that his Majesty's ministers, with the best intentions for the public service, and with the most impartial disposition to provide for, and satisfy if possible, the various and adverse interests engaged in, and involved in this great question, could not form a plan, to which some plausible, some serious, and perhaps, some solid objections may not be opposed. The situation in which we stand with regard to India, is an anomaly so extraordinary, as to set aside all theories: an immense empire in the East, brought under the control of a little island in the West, acquired, maintained, and preserved through the instrumentality of a commercial body, is a new case, unprecedented in the events of the world; and the only safe way in which legislation can be introduced under such circumstances is, by the rational application of rules, drawn from the practical knowledge acquired, in the course of this unexampled accession of territory. But with regard to the Resolutions now brought up, surely it is important, that the first Resolution should declare in whom the sovereignty of India is vested, and by whom the sovereign authority is to be executed, parliament should determine in what form it should be avowed, and to what extent it should be exercised. The question of right to the territorial possessions in India, between the government and the East India Company, has always been mooted, and even in these Resolutions, the right of sovereignty is foisted in the body of an appropriation resolve, and not where I think it ought to be, in the preamble of the Bill. An explicit unqualified declaration of sovereignty is absolutely necessary; the lately published speech of a noble lord in the other House of Parliament, states, "that the territory of India belongs to the crown." Under a monarchy no subject or class of subjects can acquire a political dominion but for the crown; at present, India acknowledges no British sovereign, it acknowledges and submits to the power of the East India Company, transferred to them as they believe by various grants of their native princes, and all the treaties hitherto made in the East Indies, are made in the name and on the behalf of the East India Company. We are known as merchants, but not as monarchs; what may eventually result from undeceiving them, it is not in my power to determine: I have no intention of following up these remarks with any specific motion, but merely to suggest that it appears to me of importance that the preamble to the intended Bill should declare in whom the actual sovereignty of the territorial possessions in India is vested, and by whom that authority is to be exercised.

so perfectly agreed in the sentiments expressed by the bon. gentleman who had just sat down, that he had himself prepared a resolution, declaratory of the right of sovereignty, which he would propose to the House. It was the more necessary that this declaration of sovereignty should be plainly and explicitly made, because the Company, in one of their resolutions, laid a claim to that sovereignty, to which, he contended, they had no right. He conceived, that previous to any commercial. regulation, previous to any regulation of taxes and revenue, it should be decided to whom the right of territory and revenue belonged. He had, therefore, drawn up a resolution for that purpose, which he would move as an amendment to the first resolution of the noble lord. He would not detain the House longer, but move his resolution, to which he could conceive no ground of opposition, unless it were shewn that a necessity existed for departing from those principles by which every government was regulated. His resolution was, "That the sovereignty of the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, over the territory and population of India, is paramount and undoubted—and with it the receipt of territorial revenues is inseparably connected; that parliament, in legislating for that great population, is bound primarily to provide for the security of their civil and religious rights—for the administration of speedy and impartial justice—and for their moral improvement and happiness; that with these sacred obligations of sovereign power, no prospect of commercial advantage can be allowed to enter into competition." His motive for mentioning civil and religious liberty was, because, as it was intended to give the natives an opportunity of becoming Christians, he would, in the first instance, give them to understand, that their adoption of Christianity was a matter of free choice. He also adverted to the speedy administration of justice, the necessity for which must be apparent to every person who recollected that one of the gentlemen examined at their bar slated, in evidence, that no less than 60,000 cases were pending in the principal court of one province alone. He concluded by moving his Amendment.

thought they ought not to proceed in putting this proposition forward, until they had well considered what parliament had done on a former occasion, when as great an anxiety was felt to discharge the great social trust to the people of India with fidelity, as could be entertained by any persons in the present day. They had come to certain practical resolutions, on which a Bill was to be founded; and he was sure, unless some great advantage could be pointed out, it would not be wise to depart from the course of proceeding pursued by parliament at a former period. But he believed, it was not customary in matters of a practical nature, to set out with stating those great moral principles by which they must be guided upon all occasions. He was not aware of any resolution by which the Company claimed from the crown the sovereignty of India, although they had claimed the rights of property and revenue under the crown. He did not think it would be good policy to labour too much the authority of parliament on this subject; because, as no resolution to this effect, was introduced when the charter was formerly renewed, it would seem to be throwing a doubt, where no doubt existed, if a specific resolution were agreed to, on this point. It was also rendered the less necessary, because there was, in one of the resolutions, an incidental declaration on the subject: and that he conceived was the most proper way to introduce it.

spoke in favour of the Amendment. He did not think they had any thing to do with the conduct of parliament on a former occasion. If that parliament omitted to do that which was necessary, it only formed a strong argument against their neglecting it at present. When he looked at the Resolutions, and found that they all, with the exception of one which was lately introduced, referred to matters of private commerce, trade and revenue—when he saw but one Resolution, which adverted to the general interests of such an immense population, he could not agree that parliament had done its duty; and whatever slur might thereby be cast on any former parliament, he contended, as the consideration of the happiness and improvement of the people were paramount to all others, that a Resolution, similar to that proposed by his right hon. friend, ought to stand in the fore-ground of the picture. Though he was ready to admit, that the situation of the inhabitants of India was improved considerably from former times, still he attributed that improvement to the exertions of individuals, and not to the excellence of the Company's constitution, which he by no means approved of. When he recollected, for 30 years past, the mode adopted in canvassing for the Direction in the city of London—when such a person was stated to be supported by the shipping interest, and another person by a different interest—he could only say, that if India were well governed under such a system, it must either have been the effect of individual ability, or else the mere work of chance—for many of the persons thus elected were as much fitted, by their habits and education, to fill any employment in the whole course of human existence, as to become governors of India. But even if the people of India were improved under the government of the India Company, it was the duty of that House to consider whether these people were capable of further improvement, either in their personal comforts or moral habits, and if so, to provide that such improvements should be communicated to them. The House, however, had heard it stated in evidence, that this improved people were in such a situation, that although their country yielded almost spontaneously all the productions necessary to subsistence, they were still destitute of every comfort, and therefore unlikely at any time to become purchasers of British manufactures. How this could be the case appeared rather extraordinary. It was said of the people of Sicily, that notwithstanding the peculiar fertility of their soil, and the favourable circumstances of their climate, they were still in a state of extreme wretchedness;—and to. what was this owing? Why, to the execrable nature of their government, and was it not excusable under all the circumstances, to make a similar inference with respect to the system of government in India, especially when told that the people of India were not only wretched in their condition, but totally indifferent to the obligations of truth?

did not approve of the amendment. It contained two propositions, neither of which it was necessary to assert and he had yet to learn that it was intended to follow up with any practical measure this Resolution, if adopted. It was not necessary to assert the sovereignty of the crown, as it had not been disputed; and the other proposition which the amendment contained was even still more unnecessary.

concurred with the opinion that any such recital of the duties of a government as that proposed was not necessary, and that it might therefore be dispensed with, particularly as it referred to the government of India, which never appeared to have been much influenced by such declarations. For he recollected a declaration, or resolution, of both Houses of Parliament, that the Indian government should not engage in any wars of aggression or conquest; yet from the period of passing that resolution, the Indian government had been marked by a continued progression of such wars. But there was another part of his right hon. friend's proposition which he was anxious to support, namely, the declaration of the paramount sovereignty of the crown over the territory of India. This declaration he thought peculiarly necessary, as well from certain assertions which had been made by an honourable director in that House, as to a claim of property in India, independent of the crown, as from several publications which had gone forth affecting to support the pretensions of the East India Company. But this declaration was also expedient with reference to the claims frequently advanced heretofore by foreign powers; which claims might be renewed on the return of peace.

argued against the correctness of that part of the proposition which his hon. and learned friend had supported; for according to the terms of that proposition the crown would be entitled to receive the territorial revenue of India; nay, more, the crown would not only be invested with the sovereignty, but become the landed proprietor of India, would not only receive the taxes as sovereign but the rent as landlord. If such were the object of the proposer—["No," from sir J. Newport]—as it appeared from his proposition, he appealed to the consideration of the House, whether it was prepared to adopt such a resolution—whether it would be fair towards the India Company (particularly if that Company should decline to accept the charter under the new arrangements) to publish a declaration that all the land in India, much of which had been actually purchased by the Company or obtained in grants from the native princes, belonged de jure to the crown. For himself, he declared that he could not think it consistent with truth or justice to vote for such a proposition.

said, that he had been for many years in the habit of reviewing the documents and authentic publications of the India Company, and that he never saw a line to justify the charge of any pretension on their part to the sovereignty of India. On the contrary this Company, which was on all occasions most distinguished for its loyalty, distinctly acknowledged the sovereignty of the crown, and for that reason combined with other considerations, he saw no necessity for the declaration proposed by the right hon. baronet.

in explanation, stated that he did not mean to assert the claim of the crown to any such property in India as that described by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Stephen), namely, property obtained by purchase or grant; but any territory in India acquired by arms or conquest, was, he contended, acquired for the crown, and that in such territory the India Company had no claim of property whatever.

observed, that the great question properly before the House was, whether the charter of the East India Company granting them an exclusive trade to India should be renewed, and upon this discussion as to the claim of property, it would be right to look to the charters of the Company. By these charters it appeared that the Company were invested with the right of building ships and employing armies, and it seemed an extraordinary assumption, that to territory acquired by these armies, which were paid by the Company, as was the army of the crown when it assisted them, that Company had no right of property whatever. He did not mean to offer any peremptory opinion upon this point, and all he desired was, that no peremptory opinion should be offered on the other side, that nothing should at present take place affecting the rights either of the crown or the Company, but that this matter should be left for fuller consideration. Indeed, this point and the resolution referring to it appeared to have arisen out of lord Grenville's speech, but he could not deem it just to support such a resolution. He appealed to the candour of the House, whe- ther it would be just to allege that the crown was the proprietor of land purchased by the Company, in the purchase of which, in fact, the Company had contracted considerable debts? Would it be now fair, he asked, to say to the Company "you pay the debts and we will take the property?" But while he disapproved of that part of the proposition before the House, which referred to the question of property, he was ready to vote for the other part, reciting the moral duties of the India government. If parliament were about to invest the crown with additional power, he should think such a recital rather ungracious, but he thought differently when power was about to be delegated to others. Indeed, in such a case of delegation as the present, it would peculiarly become the House to impress upon the delegates the duty of considering and contriving by every means to promote the religious and moral improvement of the people committed to their government. By religious, he of course would not be understood to recommend any improper or offensive interference with the prejudices of the Indian people: but in legislating upon this important subject it would not become the House wholly to confine its views to matters of trade, overlooking the higher considerations which called upon it to improve the morality, and provide for the happiness of the vast population of our Indian dominions.

argued that the people of India were capable of improvement, and strongly attached to their property. The hon. and learned gentleman alluded to the dissolution of the marriage articles between the Company and India, and contended that the change of the system of property introduced by lord Cornwallis, must necessarily be to the disadvantage of the ryots, the tillers of the soil. He thought the Amendment might be adopted with propriety by the House.

sen. said, the East India Company had never laid claim to the sovereignty of the country; they had only asserted that right in the soil, which they conceived to be given them by their charters. Whether they were correct or not in the view they took of this subject, at any rate it was a question not yet decided against them. The situation of the natives had been much improved by the Company. They had less to pay than formerly, their property was secured to them, and justice was impartially administered.

stated, with reference to what had been remarked on a former evening, of the extreme, misery of the Indian peasantry, that he had inquired into the fact, and on the best authority, that of persons who had been in India during the government of the marquis Wellesley, he had been assured, that their condition was in general as comfortable as laws could make it, or as could be expected or desired.

conceived that the words of the Resolution were to be understood as relating to political power, not to civil rights, or individual property.

The Amendment was then put and negatived.

then moved, that the words "twenty years" be substituted, instead of "an unlimited period," with respect to the duration of the charter.

on the question being put, said, he did not see any great advantage that could be gained by the Company by such an arrangement, but that much inconvenience might be sustained by the public. From the present state of Europe it was not unlikely that negociations might take place that would require parliament to be unfettered with respect to India. He knew it was the opinion of some that the Company could not have less time than the twenty years proposed, because the people under their government would be uneasy, from a knowledge of its short duration; but from this opinion he completely dissented, because the people, he contended, must be sensible, that if the government of the Company were done away, parliament would provide for them as good a government as they now enjoyed. There was another opinion, that if the Company should be limited to a shorter period, it would become so sickly, that government might easily seize the whole patronage, and take it into their own hands. He readily coincided, that it would not be wise to place the Company in such a state that it would not be able to defend itself. He by no means wished to wound the Company; but the motion he meant to make was founded on the opinion, that it was by no means necessary to make the Company legislate so long for India. The fact was, that if he knew how an end could be put with safety to the government of the Company, he would move it openly and avowedly, as he was no friend to monopoly in any shape; but this he did not see so clearly. The period of ten years, however, he thought, would be quite enough, as the government in that case would not be disabled from negociating with foreign powers. He looked on the present arrangement as a mere experiment, and as such it ought not to extend beyond ten or twelve years. He would move, therefore, that ten years be substituted instead of twenty, as such a period would render it more easy at any time for parliament to interfere. He concluded therefore by moving, that the charter be limited to the period of ten years.

on the question being put, gave his decided negative to the whole of the Resolution, because it placed the Company in the situation both of sovereigns and merchants. This was the first renewal, Since the reign of king William, of the Company's charter, that did not provide some compensation to the public for the monopoly. In the reign of queen Anne, 1,200,000l. was given as a consideration for the exclusive monopoly. In the year 1781 three-fourths of the profits were given to the public after paying the dividends of the Company. In the year 1793, 500,000l. were to be paid to the public annually, as a compensation for the exclusive trade, out of the territorial revenue. It was now, for the first time, that it was proposed to renew the Company's charter, without any consideration to the public. The last stipulations, he admitted had not been fulfilled, but that was no reason why the usual stipulations were to be dispensed with. Had this 500,000l. a year been paid, the public would now have had 11 millions of money which they had never received. All participation, therefore, of the trade on the part of the public was a mere mockery. The noble lord, when president of the Board of Controul, had always given a flattering statement of the Company's affairs, it was therefore rather extraordinary that he now came forward and told them that the Company could not any longer go on in its present circumstances, as the India trade was a losing concern. They were now trading, he contended, on the surplus of their territorial revenue, which must be both hurtful to themselves and the country, as that surplus, particularly in time of war, must ever be precarious. The Company, he contended, had little interest in the trade. The payment of their dividends was their only object. The directors themselves had less interest in their mercantile speculations than in the patronage they derived from writerships and cadetships. How many old ladies were there attached to the stock of this Company who, in the choice of the directors, did not consider that they were to legislate for sixty millions of human beings, but merely considered the friends that were most likely to serve them by granting them writerships or cadetships. With respect to the Company's dividends, he contended that the best way of returning them was by the private trade, or, if that should not prove sufficient, to make certain duties on the articles in this country to cover the expence. It had been said that considerable influence would be added to the crown by this arrangement. This he certainly did not wish, but the best way to oppose that influence was to have an open trade. The Company, as proprietors, had no real stock. In other stocks, there was a permanent property, but there was no such thing with respect to those of India.

said, that he should not follow the hon. member in all his arguments as to the general question. It would be unwise in the public to expect any consideration from the Company, who were under the pressure of so heavy a debt. He should observe, on this head, that there had been no deception practised by the Company in engaging in former charters, to give a sum to the public. The fact was, that peace had been expected, but that the Company, as well as the government at home, had been involved in wars. As to the proposition for shortening the term to 10 years, it was natural that those gentlemen who thought that the Company's government was not the best for India, should wish that the term should be shortened. On the contrary, those who wished the continuance of the Company's, charter, would be careful not to shake the Company in the opinion of the natives; and the shortening the term of the charter would be felt as a preliminary to the extinction of the Company. The term of 20 years would certainly be too long, and any term would be too long in such a case if India were taken entirely out of the controul of parliament; but parliament had the same power over the Board of Controul, which shared the government of India, as was possessed over any other of the King's ministers. The authority still possessed by the government of this country, would extend suffi- ciently to any adjustment with foreign powers. Many Acts relative to India, had been passed during the term of former charters, and the same thing (regard being had to the Company's rights) might be done under this charter. By the measure now under consideration, the House recognized the principle of a free trade, although great facilities, much greater than those possessed by individuals, were left to the Company, and by these means, to a certain extent, it would possess a monopoly. It had been said, that their political power would enable the directors to injure, if not to ruin, competitors; but a high sense of the duty they owed to the country would deter them from a maladministration of their authority; besides which every reasonable security had been imposed and obtained by parliament. It was true that the Company, for the purpose of removing all competition, might, by possibility, attempt to carry on a mighty trade in some degree injurious to themselves, and ruinous to the private trader; but two modes by the Bill were adopted to prevent it—1st. It was required that the directors should keep their political and commercial accounts separate, so that parliament would always be able to inspect and controul them.—2nd. The Company was united in the mode and in the extent to which their trade should be carried in opposition to the merchant. With regard to the intercourse with China, there were, in his lordship's view, many reasons for adopting the larger term of 20 years, instead of the amendment. 1st. The great public advantages that would result from the commerce being placed in the hands of the Company for so long and so certain a period. If, indeed, the directors did not chuse to act politically, his lordship was fully persuaded that a government might be formed in India, not only adequate to the conduct of affairs there, but perhaps even more beneficial to the natives than the establishments at present existing. 2ndly. The nature of the Chinese government rendered it a matter of speculation, whether trade could be conducted with any other individuals than the Company, even though under the immediate protection of the crown of Great Britain. 3dly. A free trade, properly so called, could not be established, because on the one side, it never could be open, and consequently a partial monopoly must exist, and the price of the article would not be reduced. 4thly. It was not in the power of parliament to give the monopoly of the China trade to any other individuals, even though they would have given a premium for its possession, nor was it easy under all the circumstances, to deprive the Company of the enjoyment of it. 5thly; The continuance of the China trade in the hands of the present holders was absolutely necessary at present, to enable them to execute the functions of government; but if at any future time it should appear that the expences of government were not so great as to require it, this part of the monopoly might also be removed. Upon the whole, therefore, his lordship saw nothing to induce the House to alter the practice of former times, by renewing the charter for a less period than 20 years; and in his opinion, in a less period the experiment of an open trade to India could not be fairly tried. Parliament would be rather misled than assisted in its deliberations on a future occasion, if ten years only were allowed for ascertaining the benefits or defects of the system now about to be established.

commenced with reading several extracts from a Report of a Select Committee of the House, for the purpose of confirming his statements on a former evening, respecting the ruinous system on which India was governed. He would not say that all the parts of the system were equally bad, or that some were not even good; but what he contended for was, that its general tendency was ruinous. To refuse to hear the defects of any system pointed out was to shut the door to every thing like improvement. There were many accounts in circulation respecting India; but these accounts were to be taken with great caution. It ought always to be considered that they were our own accounts of our own acts. Justice, benevolence and moderation were always proclaimed as the chief objects of our government of India; and there were many who really believed that such was the nature of the government, because they wished it so. He had no desire to throw any imputation on any of the public officers at present, or who had served in India, whom in general (always excepting himself) he considered as meritorious a class of public servants as could be found any where. With respect to his own conduct, an hon. director in the House had thought proper to throw out imputations on a former evening. The papers now on the table bore the highest testi- mony to the zeal and the talents of those individuals who filled high stations in India. But was it not wonderful, that with such wisdom and abilities India should still be stationary, and that it should be pronounced incapable of improving by the means which in other countries have uniformly led to prosperity. There must therefore, be some radical defect in the system, and this defect he took to be the exorbitancy of the land tax. He conceived the great means by which that country could possibly be improved was a free commerce; and he had ventured formerly to suggest that as few restrictions as possible should be laid on the trade, and that the East India Company should withdraw from it, as their longer continuance in trading could only be ruinous to India and to themselves. He had had some means of becoming acquainted with many sources of the losses sustained by the Company in trading, not generally known, from the opportunities he had of knowing their affairs while abroad. It was impossible to discover their losses from their accounts, because a number of charges of a commercial nature did not appear under the head of commercial charges, but were incorporated among the political charges. Here the hon. gentleman went into a variety of detailed statements, explanatory of the manner in which the Company's concerns were managed at the several factories, and in China. Taking all the charges together, it was impossible for the Company to carry on trade without the aid of their revenues. It would be better, therefore, in his opinion, that the commercial concerns of the Company should be brought as speedily as possible to a close. And he wished the period to be no longer than merely to enable the Company properly to wind them up. When they withdrew from trade, and turned their attention solely to their political concerns abroad, India would soon have cause to rejoice. The hon. Gentleman then read an analysis of the debt of India, from which he contended that the debt of India arose from the commercial losses of the Company. He then argued that the regulations of the Company were insufficient to protect the manufacturers in the interior. The commercial resident of the Company had a power over the weavers, and in Madras, it appeared, by lord Wellesley's letter of July 1804, that no merchant could purchase goods but through the Company's commercial agent. Lord Wellesley had at- tempted to abolish this system; but he (Mr. R.) had been informed by respectable authority there had been no change for the better. In Bombay force had been often employed to procure the Company's investment. Surat, which was a most flourishing place before the Company's government was established in India, had since rapidly decayed. The weavers in this town employed by the Company had wished to leave the town, but guards were appointed at the gate to prevent them. Such was the repugnance to work for the Company, that one cast paid the resident three or four thousand rupees to be allowed to work for private merchants. In Guzerat, the Company's agents fixed the price of cotton, which, together with the low price in China, threatened the extinction of this branch of trade. These, and a thousand other evils, of which it would take a volume to contain the enumeration, were the natural fruit and results of a system which ought to be done away, and therefore he would give his vote for fixing the duration of the Company's charter at the shortest possible period.

said, he should rather vote for an extinction of the Company altogether than for the shortening the term to 10 years, as such an unusual measure must shake the allegiance of their subjects. He contended that the hon. gentleman who now brought charges against the Company's judicial and commercial administration, should have laid the foundation for these charges by examining witnesses in the Committee, and not have come forward with charges of abuses which had been put a stop to for 30 years, and which had no existence but in heated imaginations. He contended in favour of the zemindary settlement and the civil administration of the Company, and concluded by saying he should vote against the amendment.

said, he should follow the example of the noble lord (Castlereagh), and consider the present question as connected with the consideration of the length of the term of the trade to China, for the arguments applied equally to both. The argument on which most reliance had been placed by those who contended for a term of 20 years, was mere assumption; namely, that the usual term was for 20 years. It might have been thought from this, that for centuries, the custom had been to renew for 20 years; but the fact was, that exact term was granted only once before, namely, in 1791. It was also held out that the Company had a right to a renewal of their charter since the acquirement of their territorial possessions; but the first renewal of their charter after the acquirement of their territory, was merely on the petition of the Company, and on consideration of a sum of 400,000l. He thought it the most expedient method not to extort from the Company any pecuniary remuneration; for he did not approve of the principle of farming out nations—that the people were well governed should he the only consideration. As to the China trade, it had been said that it was necessary to the support of the government of India, but it remained to be proved, even if pecuniary aid were necessary, that it should he derived from this branch of trade, and not from some other source. He did not wish that the trade should be thrown open at present:—but he did not wish that they should preclude themselves from doing it at some future time, especially as this was contended to be the only lucrative branch. Those who wished the trade to be shut for twenty years were inconsistent if they did not wish it to be shut for ever, in support of which no satisfactory argument had been adduced. He should vote for the amendment, reserving to himself the power of proposing (in case it were negatived) another amendment, which would limit the trade to China to ten years.

said, that from what he had heard in the course of that debate, he should vote against the Resolution The Company had no title at all to the China trade, and even if he had voted for the continuance of the Indian monopoly, he might have voted against the continuance of it as to China. As to the government of India, he conceived the Company had no right to claim the merit of it, for after having governed it badly, they had been cashiered by parliament, and had ever since the mark of disgrace sticking to them. It would be better to take the power out of the hands of the Company altogether than crumble it, as was done by the Resolutions proposed by the noble lord. This parliament had a perfect right to do; for, however presumptuously the Company talked on the subject, their charter was at an end in 1814; and after their violated promises—violated, whether unavoidably or not—they had no claim of any kind on the public. No right could be raised out of their contracts with sub- monopolists, ship-builders, and others, for they had formed these engagements at their own peril. The hon. member concluded with stating, that he should vote for the limited period, and if that amendment were negatived, he would vote against the original Resolution.

spoke against the Amendment, being persuaded that it was indispensibly necessary to the authority of the India Company, and the maintenance of their system, to extend their duration to twenty years. In fact, if they had not any right, as the last speaker asserted, still, from the debts they had contracted, and from the expences they had incurred in the formation of various establishments, but still more in the support of several wars for the common interest of the empire, the Company had a claim upon the consideration of parliament. If the House, indeed, should not agree to the longer period, it would be more manly at once to vote for the abolition of the Company altogether, for with a shorter period of existence, the Company must be inefficient to the objects of its institution.

A division ensued on Mr. Ponsonby's Amendment, when the numbers were—

The House again divided on the original Resolution, and the numbers were—

On the second Resolution, viz. "That the existing restraints respecting the commercial intercourse with China, shall be continued, and that the exclusive trade in tea shall be preserved to the said Company, during the period aforesaid,"

objected to the monopoly of the India Company. He maintained, that by throwing open the trade the India Company would not suffer any loss, although the general commerce of the country would acquire considerable gain. It was on historical record, that although a great outcry was raised in Spain against the government which abolished the monopoly of the South American commerce by a particular company at Cadiz, which. abolition was decreed without any previous notice whatever to the Company of monopolists, that the trade of that Company actually increased three-fold within twenty years, while the general trade of the Spanish provinces, which received a stimulus from the abolition of the monopoly, was considerably extended. A similar consequence would, he had no doubt, follow in this case. The India Company would be benefited by pursuing only that description of trade which was profitable, and instead of overstraining its efforts to exclude private traders, it would proceed with those advantages of established connection, and superior capital, against which no private competition could injuriously operate, while private enterprize would be allowed a free scope for action. If such scope for action had existed, he appealed to the House whether it was probable that Great Britain would have derived such limited benefit from the island of Java, to which the Company had only sent two ships since it came into our possession; whereas, if it had been fully open to private traders, it would most probably have been visited by above 100 vessels. This, however, he cited, but as one instance, in which the Company, by eagerly endeavouring to grasp at every branch of trade in our Indian territories, had excluded others, without adequately, if at all, benefiting themselves.

The House then divided on Mr. Canning's motion to limit the monopoly of the China trade to 10 years.

The second Resolution was then carried. The further consideration of the Report was postponed until to-morrow.