presented the seventh Report of the Select Committee appointed to take into consideration the affairs of the East-India Company. The hon. Member observed, that the Committee had sat for two-and-twenty weeks. During that time, a great deal of evidence had been heard before it. Upwards of 6,000 questions had been put to witnesses. He had the pleasure to say, that this Seventh Report contained, in a short compass, a summary of the evidence which, in the opinion of all the members of the Committee, five-and-thirty in number, was most impartially drawn up, and which certainly gave universal satisfaction. Of course, it had not been drawn up by himself, or he would not have given it such a character. He moved that the Report be printed.

expressed his hope, that in the next Session of Parliament, when the subject would, no doubt, be again referred to the investigation of a Committee, that Committee would especially consider Indian affairs, with reference to the interests of the natives of India. He now begged leave to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a topic, which he might not have an opportunity of again mentioning in that House, It was a sub- ject which he had nearly at heart, and which, but for the sitting of the Committee, he would have brought forward in the House in the course of the present Session. The subject to which he alluded was, the land-revenue of what were technically called the ceded and conquered Provinces under the government of Bengal. He was convinced that a flagrant breach of faith had been committed with respect to the natives of India, as to the settlement of their lands. It was a question of extreme importance, and deserved the especial attention of the Committee on East India Affairs. He spoke after long experience upon the subject, which he knew was one that was considered of vital importance in India, and in which the national honour was deeply concerned. He trusted that both the House and the Committee that might be appointed, would take it into their most serious consideration.

was glad to hear, that the Report which had just been presented by the hon. Member for London had received the general appre. He must be permitted, however, to repeat what he had said when that Committee was appointed, namely, that the mode in which it was constructed did not seem to him to be one from which the public was likely to derive much benefit. It had too great a leaning in favour of the East-India Company. It would be improper on his part to give any opinion with respect to the Report which had that evening been laid on the Table; but with reference to its predecessors, he must say, that they seemed to him to betray a prejudice and partiality in support of the East-India monopoly, which he could not have expected to find in them. The Committee would, no doubt, be re-appointed in the next Session of Parliament. If so, he would be more cautious and watchful, and inquire previously with more care of whom the Committee was to be composed, than when he was taken by surprise in the early part of the present Session. It was impossible that a Committee appointed to consider so great and important a question as the opening of the trade with China could be constituted too impartially. He repeated, however, that he was glad to understand from his hon. friend that the present Report had received the unanimous approbation of the Committee.

denied that the former Reports of the Committee were justly liable to the imputation of partiality cast upon them by the hon. member for Liverpool. There were undoubtedly in the Committee persons holding high offices in the East-India Company; but there were also many persons, among whom he begged leave to include himself, whose only object was, to elicit the truth. The Report which had been presented by his hon. friend received the complete approbation of the Committee, and received only a few slight verbal alterations. As to the ceded and conquered provinces, he could assure his hon. friend who had adverted to that subject, that if he (Mr. S. Wortley) had the honour of belonging to the Committee next year, he would use every possible means of obtaining information upon a subject of so much importance.

observed, with reference to the charge of partiality, which had been preferred against the Committee by the hon. member for Liverpool, that the present Report was confined solely to a summary of the evidence, and that those members of the Committee who were most opposed to the claims of the East-India Company, expressed the highest opinion of its impartiality. If the result of that evidence was favourable to the Company, it ought to be recollected that the Committee could not constrain witnesses in their answers.

confirmed the statement of his hon. friend as to the impartiality of the Report. It contained no expression of opinion. It was merely a summary of what had been established by evidence. In the next Session, however, he should certainly suggest to his Majesty's Government, on the re-appointment of the Committee, to include in it some Members who had been in India, and who were not connected with the East-India Company. Those who were now in the Committee, were either servants of the East-India Company, or connected with its shipping. But there were no individuals in the Committee, as originally formed, who had local knowledge of what might be beneficial to the inhabitants of India, and who were, nevertheless, unconnected with the East-India Company.

, in explanation, denied having any intention to throw an imputation on the fairness of the present Report.

Report to be printed.

presented a Petition from Patrick Thompson, the unfortunate man whose case had lately been mentioned in that House, complaining of various grievances which he had suffered in New South Wales. It deserved the attention of the House: for if the complaints were well-founded, which they appeared to be, the conduct of the Governor of that colony had certainly been most unjust and oppressive. On returning to Chatham, Thompson had been there confined for nine weeks. Subsequently he was discharged; but notwithstanding he had previously received a free pardon, the words "discharged with ignominy" were inserted in a different hand-writing into the order for his discharge. He (Mr. Stewart) had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the allegations of the petitioner, who was thrown on the world, and utterly destitute of the means of finding his way to his native parish in Ireland. He begged to recommend the petition to the consideration of the House.

observed, that the petitioner had been tried at Chatham by a court-martial for some act of insubordination, and sent to prison for nine weeks. If it were a fact that the words "to be discharged with ignominy" had been introduced in a different hand-writing into the order for his discharge, he (Sir H. Hardinge) would inquire into the subject. As the allegations in the petition were not correctly stated, he thought that the petition had better not be printed.

On the motion that it lie on the Table,

stated, that he had seen the unfortunate man in question, and he appeared to have been most illegally and harshly used. How far it was impracticable to re-admit him into the service he (Mr. Hume) could not know. But he was sure, that if any thing in proper had taken place in the mode of his discharge, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be the last man in the world to allow it to pass unredressed. The petitioner was an object of deep commiseration; he had not a shilling, and was a perfect stranger in the world.

was sure, that if there had been any improper insertion in the unfortunate man's discharge, it would be investigated. It was undoubtedly true that the act which he had committed at New South Wales was, in a military point of view, exceedingly improper; and it had subjected him to a heavy military punishment. He had committed a trespass, to get out of the service; an offence inexcusable as a soldier, but not bearing any felonious character. The wretched man was now thrown on the world, with a stigma from which he could not recover. As the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonial Department was not present, he (Mr. O'Connell) would abstain from any remarks on the Government of New South Wales. He would only express his! regret that so many complaints were every day received from that Colony of the conduct of the Governor, who appeared to have little feeling, and to be more unpopular than any of his predecessors. That very circumstance disqualified him for the office, as it showed his want of management. If he should have the honour to sit in the House next Session, he would bring the subject under consideration.

was quite unacquainted with the governor of New South Wales; but he had in his possession an Address to that Governor, signed by all the Magistrates and respectable inhabitants of the colony, expressive of their strong disapprobation of the means which had been resorted to for injuring him, and their sense of his gentlemanly character and demeanour. This Address was signed by every individual holding office, and by many persons not at all connected with the Government. If he had been aware that the subject would have been discussed that night, he would have brought the document in question with him.

said, he had also received a copy of the document in question. Adverting to what had fallen from the hon. member for Clare, he observed, that although he did not mean to say that the matter ought not to be examined into; yet he must deny the soundness of the doctrine, that the want of popularity on the part of a Governor of a colony, at once disposed of the question of his fitness for the station.

begged to remark that he had been misunderstood. He did not mean to allege that the unpopularity of a Governor was conclusive against him; but that it was one evidence of his unfitness. More prosecutions for libel had been in- stituted in New South Wales since the accession of the present Governor to his office, than during the government of all his predecessors.

would not insist on the printing of the petition, as the right hon. Gentleman had said that it did not state correctly all the circumstances of the case, and that he would inquire into the particular fact of the interlineation in the order for the petitioner's discharge. He would merely observe, that it was necessary for the purposes of public justice that the petitioner should be placed in a situation in which he might be forthcoming in any future proceeding against the Governor. He also had in his possession a copy of the document to which the hon. Baronet referred; but he begged to observe, that it was signed by only 125 persons out of a population of 36,000.

had read the Address alluded to, a copy of which was also in his possession; which copy he would bring down to the House to-morrow, and make an analysis of it. He was persuaded that there had never been a grosser imposition attempted upon the people of England than in the way in which that Address had been got up. In a letter which he had received from an officer in his Majesty's service in the colony, the Governor's conduct was designated by-epithets which, if true, implied conduct of the most reprehensible character. Although he knew that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonial Department was favourably impressed toward the present governor of New South Wales, he would to-morrow point out such circumstances, contained in the document in question, as would warn him on the subject. He would avail himself for that purpose of the motion for papers respecting the colony.

considered the present as a most unfair mode of attacking the Governor. He (Sir H. Hardinge) had already said, that the petitioner had been imprisoned at Chatham for an act of insubordination; and that he would inquire if any error had occurred in the mode of his discharge. But it was most unfair towards the governor of New South Wales to take advantage of the presentation of a petition to quote letters from New South Wales, complaining of his conduct; and that because, with a difficult government, he was supposed to be unpopular. He (Sir H. Hardinge) was satisfied, from the high respectability of the officer in question, that he would never do any thing to disgrace himself.

observed, that it was a very inconvenient proceeding to allude to a letter from an officer in the colony, containing epithets abusive of the Governor; and for this, among other reasons, that it might lead to some disagreeable speculations as to who that officer might be. He knew nothing of the present governor of New South Wales, and little of his proceedings. But, if gentlemen holding high situations in the colonies were to be held up in this loose and vague manner to public censure, great evils must ensue. He would recommend the hon. member for Aberdeen—and he was sure the hon. Member would pardon him for his candour—to well consider his subject, and to be perfectly prepared upon it, before he got up to throw serious discredit on any man in a high public station.

observed, that he had not introduced the subject. An hon. Member having stated that he had a copy of an Address to the governor of New South Wales in his possession, he (Mr. Hume) had remarked, that he had a copy; and he entertained a very different opinion of that Address from the hon. Member who first brought it under the notice of the House. The hon. Member who had just spoken was probably not aware, that one of the leading barristers in the colony of New South Wales had impeached General Darling, by bringing against him six charges that might affect his life. On that point, however, he would not say any more, as he would bring the Address down to-morrow. He hoped, however, that the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department would say if any measures were in contemplation, founded on the charges to which he (Mr. Hume) had alluded. He trusted that at least General Darling would be recalled to answer them.

said, he understood that the hon. member for Aberdeen had implied that he (Sir G. Murray) had evinced too great partiality for the present governor of New South Wales. He begged to observe, that in his official capacity he never allowed himself to be influenced by partiality for any one. As to the epithets in the letter in the possession of the hon. Member, epithets involved no proof. The hon. Member said, that articles of impeachment had been preferred against the Go- vernor by a person of considerable note at the Bar in New South Wales. But the hon. Gentleman spoke as if to prefer such articles was tantamount to a conviction of the individual against whom they were preferred. Those articles were contained in a pamphlet which had been published; but he (Sir G. Murray) had laid papers on the Table of the House, explanatory of all the circumstances of the case; and could see no reason to induce him to advise the recall of the Governor, unless some stronger matter were to appear against him.

explained, that he had only referred to a document in his possession, to show that the Governor was not the unpopular man he had been represented to be by the hon. member for Clare.

said, that unless the Governors of our distant colonies were kept under proper control, there was no extent of despotism which they would not practise; more especially in cases of libel. By the last intelligence from New South Wales, it appeared that four prosecutions were at that time instituted. What was likely to be the consequences, when of the Jury seven members were military men, appointed by the Governor.

Petition to lie on the Table.

, in withdrawing his notice of a Motion for "An Address to his Majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to take measures to have drafts or plans of a Code of Laws and procedure, either in the whole or in parts, to be laid before that House," observed, that it was too late in the Session to enter upon the consideration of so important a subject. He regretted extremely that the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, was prevented from presenting a petition on this important question, from a man whose name was his highest eulogy—he meant Mr. Jeremy Bentham—to whom the world was so deeply indebted for his works on the subject; which petition contained an offer to submit to the House the draft of a full Code of Laws and procedure, with reasons for every article, if the House would think proper to go to the expense of printing it. He (Mr. O'Connell) was instructed to say, that Mr. Bentham, in his plan, met the objection which had hitherto been made to all codes, that they were subject to misinterpretation.

, in the absence of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough, presented a Petition from certain Danish Claimants, complaining of the losses which they had sustained from the confiscation of British property in Danish ports. After describing the amount of the property originally seized, and the circumstances under which it was sequestered, and the assurance to the petitioners that they should be compensated out of the droits of the Crown, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to state, that by the 11th Article of the Treaty of Kiel, concluded in 1814, it was provided, "That all sequestered property not already confiscated should be returned." The Danish authorities, however, who were previously aware of what would be the nature of this Article, took care that all the property which had until then been only sequestered, should be immediately confiscated. The petitioners had thus lost the whole of their property, and had received no compensation.

said, that this was not the first or second, or third or fourth time, that this question had been brought before the House; and he was therefore disposed to think it ought to be considered as decided. He solemnly declared, after a perusal of all the documents on which he could lay his hands, that there had not been any pledge given by the Government, that the demands of these claimants should be satisfied. He contended, too, that it would be improper to establish the precedent of affording compensation in that case, as it would open the door to an infinite number of other claims of a similar nature, which had been already negatived by the Treasury.

supported the petition. In this case the property of English merchants had been confiscated to swell the droits of the Crown. It was a case of astounding injustice.

hoped the hon. Member would pledge himself to move for a Select Committee, to investigate these claims next Session.

Mr. Hume expressed a similar wish.

declared, he would decidedly support such a motion, if he had the honour of a seat in the House next Session.

Petition laid upon the Table.

warned the Government, that the people of Newfoundland were determined to try their right to fish on the banks which had been ceded to the French, and had accordingly sent a vessel to fish, concurrently with the French, and would do so till prevented by force. He was sorry the Colonial Secretary was not in his place, but even in his absence he thought it was well to make that statement, because the question would soon be brought before the Government in such a shape as would compel a decision.