rose to move for Copies or Extracts of all Communications from India, respecting the Burning of Females on the Funeral Piles of their Husbands. In introducing this question, he disclaimed all intention of casting reproach upon any body; for he was aware that a feeling of delicacy upon the superstition of the natives alone restrained the British authori- ties from interfering to prevent these dreadful spectacles. Still the question was not, in fact, one of religious toleration; but whether murder and suicide ought tacitly to be permitted under the British jurisdiction. It might be sufficient for his purpose to state the extent to which this shocking practice had been carried in one presidency alone—he meant that of Fort William. Within the last four years, in that presidency, 2,366 females had been seen to ascend and perish upon the funeral piles of their husbands. That was the number that had openly perished under the eyes of the magistracy, exclusive of the number which had been consumed in secret, or by the connivance of a mercenary police. By the Mahommedan law the practice was discountenanced, and therefore in many places discontinued; but it was to be regretted that it still prevailed to a great extent in countries under the British jurisdiction. Not only had the disciples of Mahomet abolished this practice, but the French, Dutch, and Danes had accomplished the same object in their East Indian settlements. Many of the native princes, amongst whom were the rajah of Travancore, and the peishwa, the latter of whom was a Hindoo and a brahmin, had also put an end to this revolting custom. He hoped that, when the proper time arrived, the British government would exert their utmost efforts to extinguish so great an evil, and show that they would not be behind hand with their predecessors in the great work of justice and humanity. He did not wish any thing to be done on this subject which would be likely to excite the apprehension of the natives of India, or to shock their religious feelings or prejudices; but he certainly was anxious that steps should be taken to prove the detestation with which this government viewed so abominable a practice. Many of these murders took place contrary to the Hindoo law itself. By that law, females under 16 years of age were not allowed to ascend the funeral pile; yet, it would appear from the papers for which he was about to move, that girls of 12, 13, and 14 years of age had been sacrificed; and, in one instance, a child of eight years old became a victim to the barbarous custom. By the Hindoo law those widows were also exempted, who in the event of their death, should leave children behind them under 3 years of age, unless some security was given, that the infants would be taken care of. It was also specifically set down, that the sacrifice should be perfectly voluntary—that no drugs should be administered for the purpose of causing intoxication; but these provisions of the Hindoo law were not complied with. No later than yesterday he had a conversation on this subject with a most respectable gentleman, the rev. Mr. Thompson, one of the East India Company's chaplains, who stated, that as he was sailing on a river in the neighbourhood of Calcutta he observed a crowd on the bank, and found that the people had assembled for the purpose of witnessing the burning of a widow, who was then performing her last ablution. When that part of the ceremony was concluded, she was led to the pile, but she fainted repeatedly. The people began to grow impatient; and she was at last placed on the pile in an insensible state, and lashed to the dead body of her husband. The unfortunate creature, however, recovered her senses, and struggled to escape. A brahmin immediately placed a torch, in the hand of one of her children, who set fire to the pile, and the whole was consumed in a few minutes. He had also been informed of an instance where the family of the individual had not money to procure wood enough to form a proper pile. In that case, the child of the parties about to be consumed began by applying fire to the face of his deceased father, and then proceeded to place the flame beneath the body of his living mother. The fire soon took effect, but it was a considerable time before the sufferings of the unhappy woman were terminated. Though he did not think it would be proper to put an end to this practice by force, yet he was of opinion that the natives of India ought to be restrained within the laws of their own religion. Beyond these they should not be suffered to depart. All these evils arose from one cause—the ignorance of the natives; and the only cure for them was their instruction. Every person, therefore, must perceive how imperative it was on the government of the country, to extend as far as possible the benefits of education to the natives of India. He was happy to observe what had been done by the governor-general with reference to this object. The natives began to admit the superiority of European intellect, and the gratitude they felt for the benefits which were conferred on them led them to be- lieve that those by whom they were now governed must, in some former period, have moved in a more exalted state of existence, as they could not otherwise, account for the virtue, wisdom, and talents, which they displayed. The hon. gentleman then moved "for Copies or Extracts of all Communications received from India relative to the Burning of Females on the Funeral Piles of their Husbands."

doubted the expediency of European interference. It was admitted that great exertions had been made by the governors in India to put down the dreadful practice in question. One effect of those exertions, however, had been to invite breaches of the native law; and it was a melancholy fact, that in consequence of that circumstance the interference of the Indian governors had led to an increase of the number of victims. If any mode were to be adopted for confining the natives to the letter of their own laws, it could be carried into effect only by causing a European officer to superintend those dreadful executions, which would be to give a sanction to them on our part. He therefore doubted the policy of any direct interference. It was a strong fact, that the practice was not at present allowed either in Madras or Calcutta; the consequence of which was, that the destined victims were taken to be sacrificed out of the boundaries of those towns. He was persuaded that the gradual dissemination of knowledge among the natives was more calculated to produce a beneficial effect on this subject than any forcible interference on our part.

willingly admitted that the government of India had made great efforts to abolish the dreadful practice. Undoubtedly he was an enemy to compulsory proceedings; but provided the prejudices of the Hindoos were not insulted, he was convinced that no people in the world would more willingly listen to instructions in religion and manners. It had been proposed to institute a college at Calcutta, for the purpose of educating and preparing missionaries, to be sent among the Hindoos. Indeed, by proper attention to certain essential points, he had no doubt that the conversion of these people might be effected. It was a mistake to suppose that this practice of immolation was in general voluntary. There were very few cases in which it was so. A reluctant consent was extort- ed; but when the unfortunate victim came to the pile, she frequently shrunk from the consummation when it was too late, the priests taking care to prevent all retreat, and in some cases even proceeding to tie the unhappy female down to the logs of which the pile was composed.

said, that about the years 1793, 1794, and 1795, several regulations were made on the subject which had a most beneficial effect. The impression on his mind was, that in Benares, where most of the burnings took place, the practice had almost disappeared. If the treatment of asses and mules were a fit subject for parliamentary consideration, surely the treatment of thousands of human beings was so. Many of those unhappy individuals were sacrificed to the interest of the parties connected with them. The heirs of their husbands' property induced the brahmins to persuade them that they would go to heaven by making this sacrifice, in order that that property might come unburdened into their hands. In his opinion, the government of India might counteract the evil by strong regulations, and among others, by charging a thousand or two of rupees for a licence to perform the sacrifice.

observed, that whatever difference of opinion there might exist on other points of this interesting subject, there were two on which all must agree—first, that it would be in the highest degree gratifying to the feelings of the House, if the inhuman practice in question could be completely put down; secondly, that it would be extremely inexpedient that any attempt should be made to put it down by coercion. It was with a reference to both those considerations that parliament ought to act; and hon. gentlemen ought especially to bear in mind, that of all the exercises of human authority and discretion, the most delicate and difficult was such an interference on the part of a superior power with an inferior, as, while on the one hand it should be effectual, on the other hand it should be divested of that harshness of character which too frequently belonged even to the appearance of control. He apprehended that the effect of any manifestation of a direct interference of authority, would be not so much to stimulate a government which evidently required no stimulus, as to alarm the natives, and, perhaps, even to render necessary some relaxation in the measures already adopted to eradicate so barbarous a usage. Very far was he from contending that every possible effort ought not to be made to put down the barbarous practice in question, by reasoning and by the, diffusion of knowledge. But in that case, the greatest attention ought to be paid to the feelings of the people; otherwise, with that repugnance to control which was inherent in human nature, they would shrink from foreign interposition, and the habits which a milder course might eventually have subdued, would be rendered still more firm and inveterate. An observance of this principle in our conduct to the natives of India was especially expedient; as we might shake and loosen that cement by which they were now bound in affection and gratitude to the British government. We must look for amelioration in the improvement of the people in the arts of peace, and in the gradual introduction of a purer system of morals and religion. The policy of the Mahometan conquerors of India had been held out for our imitation. But was the conduct of Mussulmans to be the guide of Christians? The religion of Mahomet was one of conquest; the religion of Christ was one of persuasion. The former triumphed by power; the latter triumphed in spite of power. We must be content to pursue a slow and silent and forbearing course before we could hope for the extinction of that ignorance of which superstition was the invariable concomitant.—After a short reply, the motion was agreed to.

said, that his object, in making the present motion, was, to support the cause of liberty all over Europe—that liberty which was seriously threatened by the conduct of the allied sovereigns. Indeed, he thought that the present state of Europe was most awful. He would refer back, but not in detail, to those events which had, in his view of the subject, been carried on for years, for the purpose of subverting liberty, and which had produced that confusion and dismay which now existed in many parts of the continent. If the allied sovereigns pursued the conduct lately pursued by them, and if the noble marquis opposite went on supporting them as he had done, instead of opposing their proceedings, then he would say that the noble marquis and his colleagues, were abetting and supporting that system which would, if not checked in time, be productive of the most fatal results. The whole of the continental system, of which the noble marquis was an active supporter, was in violation of all the principles upon which this country had engaged in the late wars. In 1793, it was declared by this country, in a declaration of ministers, that its object was, to put down military aggression. It was said that both the throne and the altar of this country were in danger, in consequence of what took place in France at that period. The same principles were pretended to be acted upon in the war of 1803. We engaged in that war, as it was said, to protect the liberties of mankind, and for the purpose of protecting the independence of the minor states of Europe. The same thing was repeated in 1814–15; but the peace of 1814–15 was in direct violation of the principles upon which we made war in 1793 and in 1803—wars which were carried on with the loss of so much blood and treasure. If the House would refer to the Treaty of Vienna, they would see that the peace was made on principles of spoliation and oppression. Belgium was given to Holland; the territories of Hanover were increased; Prussia was aggrandized by the annexation of a part of Saxony; Venice was given to Austria; Genoa was given to Sardinia; and the liberties of Sicily were destroyed. What, then, was this but a peace of spoliation? It was said that the overthrow of Buonaparte would put down tyranny. He had hoped that the sovereigns, profiting by experience, would have rewarded their subjects by restoring to them those rights which belonged to them, as they had solemnly sworn to do. But how did they proceed? The noble lord would say that he was not accountable for the conduct of the allied sovereigns. But the noble lord had made himself a party to those acts, as, according to the papers before him, the allied sovereigns declared that their whole proceedings were founded on the principles laid down at the Congress of Vienna, and that in those principles they were determined to persevere. What were those principles? Naples wished to establish, and did establish a, free constitution, Austria and Russia interfered, and what was the consequence? They put down the feelings and wishes of the people, and restored things to their former situa- tion. He maintained, that the object of the allies was aggrandizement. There was not in Europe a more ambitious power than Russia. The noble lord knew that the military establishments both of Russia and Austria were immense, and he (Mr. H.) maintained, that their only object was, to tyrannize over smaller states. The hon. member complained that ministers had not only done every thing in their power to countenance the holy alliance, but they had, in fact, endeavoured in some measure to imitate them in the measures introduced here. We had repeated suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act; ministers refused all inquiry into the most desperate outrage that had been committed upon the people of any country; we had also the bills of the noble lord, throwing the greatest difficulties in the way of the right of petition. They had also that system of espionage which had been encouraged of late years to a most lamentable extent; and lastly, they had that dreadful combination (the Constitutional Association) to which the names of men of rank and fortune, of peers and members of parliament were attached, by which the system was encouraged and carried on. The hon. member next condemned in strong terms the introduction of the Alien bill, which he observed was only for the purpose of making ministers the head police officers of the continental sovereigns, and to enable them the more effectually to carry on their despotic designs. He next adverted to a report which had reached him of an Italian priest, who, on his return from St. Helena, had been prevented from landing in this country. The noble lord had stigmatized those Italians, who struggled for liberty, with the name of Carbonari. He might as well call the hon. member for Aberdeen and those other members who sought to reform abuses here, the Carbonari of England; those who pointed out abuses in Ireland, the Carbonari of that country: and so of the friends of liberty in France, Germany, or any other part of Europe. He next alluded to the detention of Buonaparte in St. Helena, and condemned, the part which this country had taken in that transaction. It was said, that Napoleons detention in prison was to put down tyranny—but had it that effect? How could a pretence of this kind be urged, when the allies were daily committing acts of the greatest tyranny, without even a shadow of those excuses which might be pleaded for Napoleon? Had that imprisonment given peace or satisfaction to Europe? Were not Austria and Russia, in interfering with Naples, and in objecting to the constitution of Spain, guilty of greater tyranny than Buonaparte? Upon what ground, then, could we pretend to continue any longer the gaolers of that individual?—Adverting to the declaration from Troppau, he wished to know whether the noble lord approved of that paper? He did not hesitate to declare, that it was as unqualified tyranny as had ever been promulgated. The declaration from Laybach began by stating, that the conduct of the allies was founded upon the principles laid down at the Congress of Vienna. The hon. gentleman, after commenting on this state paper, observed, that, if he could suppose that the ministers of this country were to make an open attempt to put down the liberties of the people, the governments of Austria and of Russia, acting upon the principles avowed by those powers, would aid them in such an attempt, and would treat the people of England, if they resisted, as rebels. If the noble lord would, in such a case, send out ships, those legitimate monarchs would be ready to send over troops to crush the spirit of liberty. There could be no doubt but that the leading principle of the allied monarchs was, to suppress every attempt to correct ancient abuses, or to enlarge the liberties of mankind. Russia would have sent its mercenaries into Spain, with as much readiness as Austria sent her troops to Naples, if circumstances had not rendered such a step hazardous for the present. The hon. gentleman next adverted to the present state of Greece. Russia had an immense army hanging upon that country; and Austria had another prepared to march. No person could contemplate without horror, the atrocity perpetrated by the barbarous Turk in that devoted country; but much as he should rejoice to see the Greeks relieved from slavery, he was not yet satisfied with the conduct of Austria and Russia; the object of those powers was, not to give freedom to Greece, but by availing herself of the present commotion, Russia looked for an ascendancy in the states of Greece.—The hon. gentleman next adverted to the present state of Naples. Her gaols were filled with thousands of persons whose only crime was, that they acted under the authority of their king, whom the allied monarchs had, in the most disgraceful manner summoned before them at Laybach. All these odious proceedings were adopted under the eye of the Austrian force. Much as he deplored the present distresses of the country, he yet did riot see how England could any longer tolerate the insolent pretensions of foreign powers: better by far would it be for her to speak her sentiments boldly and openly at once; for if she remained silent much longer, Europe in all probability would suffer unheard of convulsions. The noble lord wanted peace; but peace purchased by an acquiescence in all the acts of ambitious and unprincipled governments, was not the peace for England. With respect to Spain, he believed that all the troubles of that country were to be attributed to the hostile views of the allies. The people were not, could not be contented. Europe must, indeed it ought to be, convulsed. If he were a subject of any of those countries which had been attacked, he would sooner die than submit. The allied powers made the proceedings at the Congress of Vienna, to which the noble lord was a party, the groundwork of their subsequent policy. It remained for the noble lord to disavow any participation in their acts—in their aggressions on independent states—in their barbarous proscription—in their undisguised hostility to the liberties of the world. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, stating to his Majesty, that this House, the Representatives of a free and enlightened people, has witnessed with the greatest concern and alarm the events which have lately taken place on the Continent of Europe; and also the open and insulting avowal of pretensions as novel as they are dangerous, and which are in direct opposition to the principles of our own Revolution, and to the independence of all other nations; and humbly requesting his Majesty to use his influence and authority to secure to the Minor States of Europe their undoubted, and till now undisputed right to choose their own form of Government; and also, to remonstrate with his Majesty's Allies on the assumption of powers never before claimed, which introduce new principles into the Laws of Nations, in direct opposition to all former practice and precedent, and which, if persevered in and acted upon, would not only prevent the establishment of all rational liberty, but tend to render perpetual despotisms of the worst kind.

hoped the horn gentleman would not consider him wanting in respect, if he declined to follow him in his general attack upon the foreign and domestic policy of the government of this country for the last thirty years. He should consider the motion and the statement which accompanied it, as a protest against the policy pursued by the government in its domestic and foreign relations. With respect to himself, the hon. gentleman attributed to him a station of more importance in those transactions than properly belonged to him. He for a great part of the period which the views of the hon. gentleman embraced was not in a station which could enable him to influence the policy of the country. It certainly might be a satisfaction to the hon. gentleman to put upon record his protest, but more he could not do, because it was utterly impossible for the House to come to any conclusion upon the various topics touched on. The hon. gentleman ascribed to the government something like a disposition to encourage tyranny. He would only say, that whilst he considered the policy of government in a very different point of view from the hon. gentleman, he was yet as sincere a friend to rational liberty as the hon. gentleman or any other man. That House were the natural guardians of the liberties of England, not the regulators of the policy or conduct of other countries. However anxious this country might be to see the principles of liberty diffused, they surely could not wish to see the government take up every state paper issued by other governments to censure and disapprove of it. He protested against the mode of review adopted by the hon. member; and as the hon. member had protested against the system of government in this country, the House could not do better than leave the subject with protest against protest.

said, the noble lord forgot that the manifestoes and documents alluded to were accompanied with arms, with invasion and occupation, with bloodshed and oppression. The allied powers stood condemned, not by documents, but by acts. They showed their love of independence by invading independent nations. They testified their love of liberty by proscribing a whole nation of the damnable heresy of a constitutional creed. They consigned to punishment in Italy more persons in two months, than the French government had done in two years. Their liberty of the press was, to suffer no book to be printed but at the government press. Their attachment to monarchy was manifested by placing on a throne, one who left his people pledged to support their rights, and returned to consign them to death or imprisonment. The allied powers had declared that they would recognize no change but such as should emanate from the well-weighed consideration of those whom God had made responsible for the exercise of power. This restored monarch was one of the enlightened persons whom God thus made responsible. As a proof of his enlightened wisdom he appointed two chambers, and reserved to himself to reward the second according to their services. This was the constitution which this enlightened and responsible monarch gave. It was a select vestry government. Such had been the treachery of that government, that all the circumstances of the dispersion of the army, had been the subject of official communications to the courts of foreign nations. He would support the motion of his hon. friend.

said, he could not see the grounds on which any one of the propositions contained in this bill ought to meet with the approbation of the House. Fie was of opinion, that the evils said to result from the Poor-laws were greatly exaggerated. Being a friend to the principle of those laws, he was necessarily a friend to an unrestricted and compulsory levy for the maintenance of the poor. The first proposition of his learned friend went to cut up this entirely; and to fix a maximum, beyond which no levy should be raised. His learned friend, however, soon felt doubtful of the propriety of such a proposition; and the principle of a maximum was now entirely done away with. The second was, that no relief should be given to any man able to work, who should marry after the passing of the bill. Any person acquainted with the manufacturing districts, must know that a great demand for hands might exist at one period, and, at another, owing to the caprice of fashion or other causes, that it would be impossible for workmen to obtain employment that would support themselves, much less their families. How was it possible, then, to refuse relief to persons in this situation? If the proposition were carried into effect, it must be attended with one of two alternatives—starvation or intestine commotion. He was equally adverse to the third proposition of his learned friend, which went to abrogate the law of settlements. He would appeal to the House, whether any of the three propositions could possibly assume the shape of law. His learned friend said that the effect of the Poor-laws was, to injure the morals and destroy the energies of the people; but he thought that if the morals of the people of the present day were compared with those of their ancestors at any period of our history, the comparison would not be disadvantageous to the present generation. Who could say that any people ever existed, braver, more heroic, or more industrious than the English people of the present day? His learned friend had stated, as an objection to the law of settlement, that it prevented a free circulation of labour. He denied that a free circulation of labour did not exist in this country. He thought the argument was contradicted by the number of hands employed in public works in distant parts. He denied, also, that the Poor-laws had the effect of increasing the population to such an extent as was asserted by the supporters of the bill. There were other causes much more likely to produce that effect than the operation of the Poor-laws. The high price of labour during the war, and the increased pay given to soldiers were circumstances tending to the increase of population as much as any cause that could be assigned. No time could have been selected more inapplicable than the present for trying the experiment. Let the House consider the stagnation which existed in every branch of trade. The only favourable circumstance for the introduction of the measure was, the low price of provisions. But the wages were also low, owing to the superabundant supply of labour. It should be recollected, that a large portion of the poor-rates was applied as the wages of labour. If the present amount of those rates was compared with the amount sixty years ago, it would be found that they had only increased in proportion to the increase in the price of provisions, in the amount of taxation, and in the rental of the kingdom. The weight of the poor-rates fell exclusively on the land, whilst another species of property, which was in point of law equally liable with the land to the support of the poor, bore no part of the burthen. He trusted that in the next session this subject would be treated in a more comprehensive manner than was now possible, and that it would undergo the ordeal of a committee, before any propositions were made respecting it.

denied that the poor had been represented as a demoralised people. The argument was, that the existing laws had a tendency to make them so.

agreed in the great objects of the bill before the House, but regretted that he could not support its provisions. The present system, if continued, would in time destroy the foundations of our national prosperity. He traced the increase of the poor-rates from the year 1748, when they amounted only to 690,000l., to the year 1820, when they considerably exceeded eight millions. He pressed upon the House the injurious effect of the existing laws upon the lower orders. He objected especially to the change which the bill attempted to introduce in the law of settlement, because the effect of it would inevitably be to place paupers in a worse situation. The amount of the poor-rates would be augmented by this measure; and with regard to-the maximum suggested, it appeared to him to be incapable of being fixed. The true remedy was not to-be found so much in new enactments, as in a strict examination of the law as it now stood, and a declaration of what it was meant to be by our ancestors, and what it ought to be in future.