presented a petition from Thomas Atchison, formerly a captain in the artillery, stating that he had entered the Royal Artillery in 1804, and discharged his duty with an unblemished character; that he was discharging his military duties at Malta, in 1823, when he received, through the military authorities, a requisition of the Roman Catholic Church to toll a bell and fire from patteraroes, used by the churches and monasteries, a description of salute peculiar to the worship of the Host at mass, and the processions of the images of the tutelar saints, under the directions and signals of tile priests conducting the worship; that he was engaged to serve his Majesty under the obligations of a Protestant oath and worship, enjoined on the acceptance of his Commission, which oath denounced these ceremonies as idolatrous; that the petitioner addressed a letter to his commanding officer, respectfully stating his objections to carry these religions ceremonies into effect; and that the consequence was, that the duty was performed by the garrison gunner, without any censure being passed upon the petitioner, cither by the commanding officer or the lieutenant-governor of Malta; but that after a lapse of eight months, he was brought to trial on a charge of disobedience, in not carrying into effect an order to fire signals at Fort Angelo, and for writing a letter to his commanding officer of remonstrance, and that, on this charge, he was dismissed the service. The petition prayed the House to adopt means for investigating the transaction, in order to obtain a revision of the sentence. The hon. Member then read the testimonials of Lieutenant-General Burton, Major-General Salmon, Lieutenant-Colonel Desbrisay, Major Adams, and Colonel F. Rey, showing that the petitioner was a man of unblemished character, and a very useful and meritorious officer in the service; and proceeded to say, that he (Mr. Plumptre) was the last man in that House to use harsh terms, or encourage insubordination or disobedience to orders; but he must say, he thought it the most unjust and cruel case that had ever come before the public. For twelve weeks the case had remained before the authorities in this country, and it was eight months after the imputed offence that this conscientious man, and, he was warranted in believing, good soldier, was brought to a Court-martial and dis- missed. The hon. Member contended, that there was no breach of military orders. It was grossly unjust, and was a case of the greatest cruelty, not a whisper having ever been heard against the petitioner's character; yet for this act he had been degraded and dismissed from his Majesty's service, after having spent the best years of his life in it, and, instead of now enjoying a competency, he was compelled to seek his bread where he could. He could appeal to the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell), whether soldiers professing the Roman Catholic religion were not exempted from taking part in Protestant ceremonies; and even Dissenters were not obliged to attend the Established Church ceremonies. He begged to observe, that he had given notice to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War (Mr. Ellice), that he intended to present the petition.

said, he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition. It was incumbent on the House to call upon the Government to give the petitioner redress by reinstating him in his former rank. Having himself always contended for freedom of religious opinions, he was anxious that all British subjects should have the same freedom. He concurred with the hon. Member, that the ceremonies in question were purely religious ceremonies, and could not be termed military duties. They were such that no sincere Protestant could participate in them, unless he acted as a renegade to his own religion. He respected the gentleman the more for his resistance—his very respectful resistance—to the orders, even at great risk to himself. He thought it but a compliment due to the Government to mention that regulations were made by which the Roman Catholics were left to the free exercise of their religion; and he would mention an instance. A drummer of the Galway militia refused, when ordered to go to hear Divine worship at the Protestant Church of Rathkeale, and he was ordered into custody to be tried by a Court-martial; he (Mr. O'Connell) applied to the Court of King's Bench for a habeas corpus, and that Court held, that the man had committed no offence, and discharged him. He would say, that the case of Captain Atchison was much stronger than that case—for he did not refuse, but respectfully remonstrated. As to the navy, the same liberality was extended. Within the last ten days a Roman Catholic sailor complained to him (Mr. O'Connell) that he had been improperly interfered with in regard to his religion. He waited on the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the grievance was instantly removed. He hoped, therefore, that the petitioner, who had a very strong case, would receive proper consideration. He could conceive the feeling of a Protestant in being required to take part in a ceremony so repugnant to his own religious opinions, and so opposite to his own religious principles, that the Protestant designated it as idolatrous. It was a subject of the deepest importance. It could not be supposed, that because Captain Atchison refused to take part in those ceremonies, he would fear the less to face the enemy. In all the relations of the army the principle of honour was exceedingly fine; but give him the conscientious Christian, who carried into effect, with the most minute detail, the principle of "Do to others as you would that they should do unto you." He hoped the hon. Member would give notice of a Motion for the production of the minutes of evidence taken before the Court-martial, and then he hoped the House would unanimously address his Majesty to restore Captain Atchison to his rank. He respected the freedom of conscience, and he was glad they were going to give freedom to the Jews; but while they were doing that, they should not turn their backs on their fellow-Christians, and wholly disregard their feelings.

said, that undoubtedly the whole case would rest on the minutes of the Court-martial with regard to this individual; but he thought that the hon. member for Dublin rather misconceived the case in speaking of a military duty, because this he would say, although no man, of course, would wish to interfere with a man's religious scruples, that every man who was a military man was bound to obey the orders given to him, let those orders be what they might—["No no."] He begged pardon; he spoke as a military man, and he would still say it was his duty to obey the orders of the superior officer. It was perfectly true a man might receive an order which his superior officer was not justified in giving, but it was the man's duty to obey that order in the first instance, and afterwards to obtain redress. Much stress had been laid on this being a religious ceremony, but he thought, from the facts which had been stated, that it was a military duty he had been ordered to perform. Any military man who was ordered to fire a salute, or to perform any duty in his military capacity, whatever the nature of that duty might be, was bound to perform it; and if he refused, he would be liable, and ought, of course, to be brought before a proper tribunal to judge whether he had acted correctly or incorrectly in so refusing. If he had acted correctly he might find redress. Every body knew that by the articles of war, an individual, inferior in rank, might bring his superior officer before a Court-martial, and that if he failed in establishing the charge he was punished. He hoped the Judge Advocate would give some reason for his absence, as unquestionably it was his duty to have attended, especially after notice had been given to him. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was the Secretary at War at that time, and perhaps he could more satisfactorily answer this case.

thought, that every thing had been stated which was consistent with humanity and truth. He was satisfied this individual never did refuse—that, on the contrary, he only remonstrated, and that too in a respectful and proper manner. Under all the circumstances of the case, he felt it was consistent with justice and the duty of Parliament, to give this petition the greatest possible attention.

said, he considered the subject before the House as of great importance; his noble friend had, however, advanced one proposition which he (Sir Robert Inglis) must be permitted to qualify. His noble friend (Lord Darlington) had said that it was the duty of a military man to obey every command of his military superior. The necessary qualification was, that it should be a lawful and a military command: not one unlawful in itself, or unmilitary in respect to the parties. It was true that discipline must be preserved; and it was highly inexpedient to make a practice of bringing military grievances before that House, principally because it would tend to take the command of the army from the Crown, where the Constitution placed it, but in some degree also because, if the business of every department gravitated to that House, Members would have no time for the discharge of their peculiar and exclusive duties. This was, however, a new and remarkable case. The question here was whether the act condemned was disobedience to a lawful military command? He was prepared to deny it. He had but one doubt as to the propriety of discussing the matter, and that originated in the absence of his Majesty's Ministers, and particularly of the Judge Advocate; but as to him due notice had been given of the intention of the hon. member for East Kent to present the petition that night he abandoned that doubt. On taking the subject into consideration, it ought to be kept in mind, that when Malta was ceded to us, a special reservation was made, that all the religious rites of the inhabitants should be maintained and the Roman Catholic religion preserved entire. It was, therefore, evidently the intention of Government to give all possible protection to the national religion. Whether it were right to take the island on such terms was not now the question; but having assented to that stipulation, it became as necessary to maintain the Roman Catholic Church at Malta as to support the Church of England in the United Kingdom. Perhaps Government were right in wishing to give splendour to the ceremonials of the Roman Church there, but why was a British officer required to take part in them? Nothing could justify that. The British officer, as a Protestant, had as good a right to have his scruples considered as the Maltese, and toleration required as much, that he should not be compelled to take a part in a Roman Catholic pageant, as that the Maltese should have liberty to adhere to their religious Creed. The duty that had been expected from Mr. Atchison in Malta was non-military, as was proved by the fact, that from the moment when the Marquess of Hastings became Governor of the island, at the very time that Mr. Atchison was undergoing his trial, the military had been released from a participation in such ceremonies. He complimented the hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he had brought the matter forward, and was pleased, that no ulterior proceedings had been announced, as he was confident, that the feeling of the House would make any further steps unnecessary, and that an act of duty, though lardy in its operation, would eventually be done to the petitioner, from whom justice had long been withheld.

said, that he for one could not agree to the position that all the rights of a British subject were merged in the soldier, and that an officer in his Majesty's service was not entitled to consider whether a military order was an outrage to his conscience. It was deplorable, that none of his Majesty's Ministers, although notice had been given of this petition, were present; and it was the more to be lamented, inasmuch as the King had twice intimated to Captain Atchison, through Sir Herbert Taylor, a strong solicitude for his case. Twice had his Majesty expressed his anxiety, and yet at the Horse Guards nothing had been done. It was time for the House to interpose. There was not a man in the House, who had the slightest regard for the rights of conscience, who did not feel for this unfortunate gentleman equal respect and commiseration. He had been twenty years in the service, and was then, by an arbitrary mandate, committed to destruction, and turned from his profession in helplessness upon the world. For what? Had he been ordered to mount the breach he would have offered up his life with a chivalrous devotion, but of his conscience he had too much moral valour to make the degrading immolation. The case stood thus: orders were given by the authorities that a salute should be fired in honour of the Host. These orders originated with the Catholic Church, and were conveyed through the military authorities. There could be no doubt that this was a religious ceremony. Was Captain Atchison bound to obey it? The Catholic soldier is exempted from the necessity of attending Protestant worship; and where is the Roman Catholic who would not extend to others that privilege on which he sets so high an appreciation? It is notorious to every man who has ever read the history of the early persecutions that the Christians underwent martyrdom, not on account of the profession of particular tenets, but because they would not assist ill the rites employed in the Roman temples, and connected with the religion of the State. The martyrology of the early Church was pregnant with these illustrious examples. Let it be observed too that the honour paid to the Host touches the very point on which Catholics and Protestants differ, and Captain Atchison was justified in feeling that an implied recognition of the eucharist was exacted from him. But, after all, he did not disobey orders. He sent an expostulation to his commanding officer, and that gentleman, instead of repeating the command, directed the gunner of the regiment to go through the ceremony. Surely our Government might have allowed the matter to rest. It might have been permitted to pass in oblivion; but, instead of taking this wise course—instead of making allowance for conscientious scruples, this unfortunate gentleman was, eight months after, dismissed the service. This ought not to have been, and the House was bound to procure him redress. There was but one feeling in his cause, and those who themselves had once suffered privation for a conscientious adherence to their opinions felt the most earnest and the most strenuous anxiety in his behalf. What! after twenty years of service, after having conducted himself in the most exemplary manner, and won the approbation of all those with whom he was ever connected in his profession, was this gentleman to be given up to ruin, and should not this House, and the people whom it represented, interpose? Reparation must be made him, and although that reparation be tardy, it should be complete.

felt extremely glad that the petition had been presented by the hon. Member opposite. It was quite clear, that this was not a party question, and that no party feelings existed in the case. In his opinion, if ever there was a time when the absence of Ministers was more commendable than another, it was the present, because it looked as if they felt convinced they had no answer to give to this case. With respect to the noble Lord, he had certainly showed that he professed in a high degree courage which was essential to the military character; for in his (Colonel Evans's) opinion it would require no small degree of courage to be the only man in that House who would declare himself opposed to the petition which had been presented. He must, however, protest against the military doctrine which that noble Lord laid down. In the first place he had understood him to state that a soldier was bound to obey any order. With that observation he could not agree; nor did he believe it was required by the articles of war, strict and despotic as they were. He considered the case now under consideration as a melancholy proof of the want of confidence in past Parliaments, otherwise it would surely have been brought forward before, several having elapsed since the petitioner had been tried and placed in his present unfortunate situation. In his opinion the case was one of arbitrary, capricious, and unjustifiable exercise of authority. He admitted that during war it was advantageous that the most arbitrary power should be given to the Commander in Chief for the purpose of maintaining discipline, and regretted that greater powers were not given, such as conferring rank and station on persons who had distinguished themselves, but the ease was very different in times of peace, and a very different rule should be applied. He doubted very much the legality of the proceeding, as he did not find that the petitioner had disobeyed any orders that had been given, but had merely stated his religious scruples, which his superior officer bowed to.

explained: he had not stated that he did not concur with the prayer of the petition. All that he had said was, that he knew nothing of the transaction, and therefore could not enter into the merits or demerits of the case. He was still of opinion, notwithstanding all that had been said, that subordinate officers were bound to perform the orders of their superiors, even though it might interfere with their religious sentiments.

said, that no power on earth should dictate what his religious sentiments should be, and he could not but admire the man who firmly expressed his determination not to act against his religious scruples.

thought this purely a military question, and having nothing whatever to do with religious feelings. The question with him was not what the orders were, but whether they had been disobeyed or not. Upon that principle it was, that Captain Atchison had been tried, and judged not to be a fit person to remain any longer in his Majesty's service. He believed that Captain Atchison had acted from a mistaken conscientious view, but he could not think that exonerated him from performing duties which he was ordered to perform. As to the statement, that no officers of a different persuasion were required to act in Catholic religious ceremonies, he must state, that he recollected the Duke of Wellington assisting in those ceremonies in Salamanca.

explained, that the ab- sence of the learned Judge Advocate was on account of the melancholy duty of attending the funeral of a friend. He regretted the absence of Ministers, and recommended his hon. friend to follow the advice of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and move for the minutes of the Court-martial.

did not admit the justice of the excuse which had been made for the absence of the Judge Advocate, as his hon. friend would have brought forward the petition on some other day. He entirely and fully accquiesced in what had been said on the subject of Captain Atchison, supposing that the Court-martial could have come to no other decision. There was a higher tribunal, which ought to have reviewed the sentence with great consideration. Sir Robert Wilson, who was, perhaps, necessarily punished, was not for ever excluded from the honours of his profession. He thought the House was bound to follow up the case till justice was obtained, and he trusted that the unanimous feelings of the House would be sufficient, without further proceedings, to procure justice to Captain Atchison.

supported the prayer of the petition. He thought, if the question were put on the basis of its being a paramount duty in men to attend to their religious duties in preference to their military duties, it would go with great weight before the Government, and would be of great advantage to the clear understanding of religious and military duties.

was happy to see the unanimity of feeling on this subject, and trusting in that, he would not, in the absence of Ministers, give notice of any further Motion. But if the expression of the opinion of the House had no effect in the proper quarter, he should feel it his duty again to bring the subject before the House.

presented a Petition from the Tradesmen and others interested in the trade of Sugar Refining, in the Tower Hamlets. It was signed by 19,000 persons. The hon. Member read the petition at length. It stated:—'That the water side district of the Tower Hamlets is entirely dependent on commerce, and more especially on the numerous estab- lishments for sugar-refining, through which, in labour alone, a sum of nearly 600,000l. was annually circulated in this district; but which has been reduced to about 195,000l., owing to many kinds of sugar having been recently prohibited—a loss which is attended by unspeakable misery to the industrious inhabitants, who have, in addition, the desolating prospect of the whole trade being speedily, and for ever, removed to foreign parts, where a more liberal policy is pursued. That, upon these great establishments, most of the tradesmen and artificers totally depend, and the cutting off the means of their support will be followed by ruin to the shopkeepers and others of the district, while the rates for the relief of the poor, now becoming unbearable, cannot, by any possibility, be levied; so that the loss of this once flourishing trade will be followed by the most ruinous effects, to the destruction of a great portion of the industrious trading inhabitants. That if relief were extended to this important branch of British manufacture by the admission of foreign sugars, it would afford immediate succour to our suffering population, would revive the shipping and commercial interests on which we so entirely depend, and, by the proud pre-eminence of British capital, machinery, and industry, secure to this country the supplying of refined sugar to the whole world; but, by the continued prohibition for a few months longer, will establish the trade in foreign parts, so that it will be for ever lost to this country.' He could not persuade himself that the prayer of the petition of 19,000 persons, grounded on justice, and entitled to relief, should be refused. The petition was signed by the Lord Mayor, and by the most respectable commercial men in the city. It originated at a large meeting, and had been numerously signed, without having recourse to any of the arts by which signatures were usually obtained for petitions. It was necessary, he believed, to comply with the prayer of the petition; but he would not say more, till he brought forward his Motion on the subject.

bore his testimony to the correctness of the statements of his hon. Colleague. He was satisfied that the Government and the House would find it necessary to concede the prayer of the petition. The district was suffering much by an expenditure of upwards of 400,000l. having been withdrawn from it. No Government, having at heart the good of that district, and dreading the loss of that trade, with the increase of the burthens that would be thrown on the district, could do otherwise than grant relief. The Reformed House of Commons would never venture to part, without giving these petitioners that relief which they prayed for.

said, the Sugar Refining Act contained a clause which gave vast fortunes to a few individuals at the expense of the Revenue. It was impossible for the English colonists to compete with the labourers of Brazil and Cuba. It would cause ruin to our colonies, should a Bill be passed to allow the sugar of those foreign colonies to be refined here, with all the advantages of British capital.

said, that no law could prevent the refining of the sugar produced by slaves; and the West Indians, therefore, were inflicting, by opposing this measure, an injury on a body of British subjects without obtaining any benefit for themselves.

said, that any Minister who should continue to impose such fetters on our commerce as were here complained of would deserve impeachment.

supported the prayer of the Petition, It was necessary to pass the Bill during this Session, or otherwise the trade would be destroyed, and ruin fall upon the district in question. The petitioners sought nothing which would be injurious to the West Indians. He could have wished to see more conciliation on the part of the West-Indian body.

took the opportunity of asking the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), in case it should appear that the Lords of the Privy Council have recommended to his Majesty to leave the whole question of the distribution of the Deccan Prize Money to the Lords of the Treasury, and that his Majesty has confirmed that recommendation, whether the noble Lord was prepared to state, on the part of the Lords of the Treasury, that they would, before the final distribution, give the parties an opportunity of having their case reheard, in the manner contemplated by Parliament? The greatest irregularity and injustice, in his opinion, had taken place with respect to the distribution of the Deccan booty; but he should not enter into the details unless the answer of the noble Lord should render it necessary.

remarked, that the hon. Member appeared to assume what was the decision of the Privy Council; but he (Lord Althorp) did not believe, that that decision was yet known. The hon. Member had then asked what his decision would be in case a certain decision had been come to by the Privy Council. He could not pretend to say, what his decision would be about what was not yet officially before him, for he did not happen to have been present at the Privy Council. He should, however, be the vainest of men if he thought that his decision could be of any weight after that of a Privy Council at which the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice-Chancellor had assisted. It was quite impossible for him to pledge himself with regard to the course which he should pursue.

said, that in fact the parties in question had not obtained a hearing, for the Lords of the Privy Council had decided that the distribution rested with the Lords of the Treasury. He had also to complain of various irregularities and improprieties, during the progress of the proceedings on this subject, on the part of the trustees of the Deccan prize money, the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, as well as on the part of the Lords of the Treasury, particularly with reference to the fact that the minute of the Lords of the Treasury of 1825–6 was made upon a supposititious letter from the trustees to the Secretary of the Treasury, and also with respect to the alleged refusal of those parties to afford to the claimants the necessary materials for the collection of evidence in support of their claims; he should, therefore, move as an Amendment, for the production of a letter from the trustees to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 14th of September, 1825, for a letter dated the 22nd of, June, 1826, and for the Treasury minute made upon one of those letters.

complained that charges of corruption of so serious a nature against the above individuals should have been made by his hon. friend, without it being possible for them, unless by a mere accident, such as happened to himself, who was one of the Judges of this question at the time alluded to, and was by chance present in the House, to be prepared to make the necessary reply to those charges. He could say, that so far as his knowledge of the purity of motives and the desire to do what was just on the part of the individuals complained of went, he was in a situation to give a complete denial to those charges. It could only be their infirmity of judgment and not their dishonesty, which could have caused an appeal from their decision. He was most anxious for a full investigation of the question in dispute, and his hon. friend should have brought forward his Motion in a more tangible shape.

rose to explain as to the charges made by his hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) against the Treasury Board of the time in question. Information of every kind was given to all claimants on one side, until the matter came by a Motion before this House, when it was considered best, that all the documents which had been supplied by the one side should be given to the other. With respect to the specific letters alluded to by his hon. friend, the fact was, that the one he had mentioned as being that in place of which the supposititious letter was put for ward was not known of by the Treasury until it came in a printed form before the Privy Council, and whether or not there really were two letters would be seen when the matters came before the House. He thought it very doubtful whether there would be found to be any second letter in place of which the alleged supposititious one was stated to have been put forward; and although he was most anxious for a full investigation, yet he trusted there would be no more unnecessary delay, when it would be recollected that petitions were daily being presented against it.

hoped, that as the claimants themselves were daily dying, the House would not postpone the payment by involving them in another year of litigation.

said, that the money was on the point of distribution when the case was referred to the Lords of the Privy Council. If it were determined that they had no jurisdiction, and that the ease must be referred back to the Lords of the Treasury, the question was, whether the subject came before the Lords of the Treasury in the state in which it formerly stood, and as if there had been no reference to the Lords of the Privy Council. If that were so, then, unless the parties were again to be heard before the Lords of the Treasury, there would be nothing to do but to carry into effect the former intention of distribution. Now, it appeared to him, that what the hon. member for Bridport wished to know was, whether, in the event of the question standing as it did before the reference to the Lords of the Privy Council, the parties were to have a hearing before the money was distributed.

protested against the imputations of corruption which had been thrown out by the hon. member for Bridport against persons who were, however, far too high in character to be affected by them. It was an imputation also on the Lords of the Treasury, to suppose that there was any reason to believe that they would proceed to the distribution of the money without hearing the parties who were interested. He (Mr. Baring) confessed, that of all the Courts in the country, that before which he should be most sorry for any question in which he was interested to come, was the House of Commons; influenced in its decisions, as it continually was, by loose declamation and personal canvass. He had seen more injustice perpetrated by that House than proably by all the other tribunals in the country. If he had a bad case, he should be very anxious to bring it before the House of Commons; if a good one, it was the last place into which he should wish to introduce it.

said, that all that his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, wished was, that in the event of the case coming again before the Lords of the Treasury they would hold their hands until they had heard the parties interested. He (Mr. W. Brougham) had seen so much of the case, that he was greatly alarmed at the idea of the distribution of the money without hearing the parties. He hoped his noble friend would be induced to say, that he would do his best to prevent the distribution until the parties has been heard. That would not amount to a pledge on the part of his noble friend to procure them a hearing.

must persevere in declining to give any pledge upon a subject, on the law or merits of which he was at present ignorant.

, in explanation, denied having attributed corrupt motives, but only irregularities to the parties adverted to by the hon. member for Essex.

said, that by this clause Europeans might go to any part of India. It was proposed, that all the territories possessed by the Company before 1800 should be open to Europeans without licence; but that, to the territories obtained since that period, Europeans should not be admissible, except upon licence from the local governments.

said, that such an enactment would exclude Europeans from two thirds of India.

said, that these new provinces could not be opened to Europeans, except with considerable danger.

said, that power was given to the Governor-General, with the concurrence of the Court of Directors, to open any part of India, without restriction.

would not trust to the Court of Directors.

expressed his great regret that there should be any restraint at all in the admission of Europeans into any part of India.

said, the restrictions had been imposed from the fear of injury to the natives themselves; but he hoped, by the cautious experiment now about to be made, that they would be able gradually to adopt such measures as would safely allow them to do away with all limitation whatever.

approved of the clause, because he thought it would be dangerous at present to allow the free intercourse of Europeans with the nations of the upper part of India.

differed from the hon. Gentleman, and moved an Amendment which would have the effect of taking off all restraints upon residence in India, subject to a due obedience to the law. If a police were necessary it should be established.

approved of the restriction. They were to make a beginning by the present Bill, and he had no doubt that in the course of a short time they would be able to go further.

said, he had an Amendment of some importance to propose to this clause. As it stood at present it contained positive enactments for the extinction of slavery; but as positive enactments on such a subject might cause considerable difficulty, in consequence of slavery in the East Indies depending in some degree on the distinction of castes, and the rights of families, he should propose "that the Governor-General in Council should be required forth with to frame laws and regulations for the extinction of slavery, due regard being paid to the laws of marriage, and the rights and authorities of fathers and heads of families, and to report such laws and regulations to the Court of Directors before the 1st of January, 1835, and every succeeding year; and that the Court of Directors should within fourteen days of their receipt lay them before Parliament."

thought that the greatest care should be had in dealing with this matter. We were by a solemn engagement bound to observe all the rights of masters of families, whether preserved by the Gentoo or Mahommedan laws, in Malabar the soil was almost exclusively cultivated by slaves, they were considered to be complete properly, and if they were to be emancipated, some compensation would be required. It should also be remembered, that the slaves of India were people of particular castes while the slaves of the West Indies were brought within the memory of man from a distant country. In India too there was a variety of methods by which a man might be reduced to slavery, and all these matters would require to be taken into consideration, for a thoughtless proceeding on this point affronting the prejudices of the people might cost us our empire in India.

objected to the Amendment as going ton far; it would keep whole castes in slavery. It was proper to preserve parental and marital rights but the clause went too tar.

regretted that the clause had been introduced, for it would be likely to throw the whole country into a flame. It ought to be specifically stated how far the clause was to extend, for if it were to throw open the harems of the Mahommedans and the zenanahs of the natives to the inspection of the Company's officers, it would lead to the most disastrous consequences. He disapproved of any legislation as to slavery in the East, for it was a wanton meddling with the prejudices of the natives.

could not consent to the doctrine that the Legislature might not put an end to slavery in the British dominions wherever it might exist. He placed confidence in the discretion of the Board of Control, knowing that his right hon. friends connected with it, were averse from slavery, and, he trusted, that the time was not far distant, when the name of slave should be unknown in the British Empire.

said, that slavery in the East Indies was totally different from slavery in the West. Slavery existed in very different degrees in different parts of India. In Malabar it was in its worst form; in other parts of India the slaves were the members of the family. The natives generally had a very high idea of the sanctity of their harems; and if they were interfered with, it would unite all classes against our Government. The subject, therefore, could not be beneficial.

said, that the clause had no reference to domestic slavery, but only to predial slavery.

said, that there was no danger whatever of interfering with the domestic rights of the people, as they were expressly reserved from infraction, by those words of the clause, which related to parental and other rights. It was undoubtedly desirable to get rid of predial slavery, and certainly the safest way to accomplish it, was to leave it to the Governor General to make laws for its gradual abolition.

thought, that the harem and the zenanah would hardly escape violation by this clause. The strong feelings as to castes which prevailed amongst the Hindoos would make this a very difficult subject to deal with.

said, that the duties of the Bishop of India who was first appointed when the charter was last renewed, had been found far beyond the strength of the eminent men who had filled the see to execute them. It was proposed, therefore, without adding to the expense, to increase the number of dignified clergymen in India. At present the Bishop of Calcutta had 5,000l. a-year, and each of the three archdeacons had 2,000l. a-year, it was proposed to appoint two bishops each with 2,500l., an arch-bishop with 5,000l. a-year, and three archdeacons with 300l. a-year, making on the whole rather less than was now paid.

opposed the clause, because it went to establish a state religion in India.

said, it would probably be better to leave the Church Establishment as it stood for the present, in case any wish to change it should produce a stronger opposition than was expected. At any rate it would be better to postpone the clause.

would certainly take the opinion of the House upon the clause. The United Kingdom contained three great denominations of Christians. The Protestants, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholics. And it was a matter for consideration, whether they should erect an establishment in India for one only of these persuasions. He did not object to the Protestants in India paying for bishops of their own, as the Roman Catholics in Ireland paid for their bishops. He did not desire to have a Roman Catholic Establishment; for a salary had been given to a Roman Catholic Bishop in one part of the empire, and the consequence was, that instead of the harmony which used to prevail between the clergy and the people, there was almost a civil war.

was not an advocate for episcopacy; but he supposed the expense was the evil. ["No! No!"] Was it, then, the difference between an archdeacon and a Bishop? If 11,000l. was to be paid, was it of much importance how it should be distributed? If 20,000l. were asked for, it would be a different thing, and the hon. member for Middlesex might talk with some consistency of "increasing the evil," but the only thing increased by this proposition was the efficiency of the establishment. Was that an evil? But then, it was said, that it was going upon the principle of the Irish establishment,—an indefensible enormity. Did hon. Gentlemen consider the magnitude of the religious establishments of the Pagans and Mohammedans drawing from the State several millions? They ought not to complain of this small sum being appropriated to the support of the religion of their fellow-subjects. Instead of being a parallel case with that of Ireland, it was more like that of France, where Napoleon gave a large income to the many and a small income to the few. Not only were Mohammedanism, Paganism, and the Church of England, supported in India, but Presbyterianism and Catholicism. It was only within these few days that a despatch passed through his hands, authorizing the repairs of a Catholic church in Bombay. Why, then, object to 11,000l. being given to the Church of the dominant nation, when every religion was supported out of the revenues of the State in proportion to its extent? It was not, however, now proposed to lay on this burthen, but only to make it advantageous.

did not look to the sum, but to the principle of establishing one form of Christianity in India in preference to another. It was too late to discuss the clause, and, therefore, he would move, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the Motion, and said, he considered the provision for the Establishment insufficient; but he would support it, as he thought he was not likely to get anything better.

must take the liberty to protest against the doctrine of his hon. friend, that the religion of the Church of England was the religion of the empire. In England it was the religion of the law, and of a majority of the people; in Ireland it was the religion of the law; in Scotland, it was not the religion either of the law or of the people. In Scotland there was another establishment as efficient, though more poor; and if his hon. friend visited Scotland, he would find himself a dissenter there, and would attend the ministrations of a Bishop, who enjoyed no income from the national purse. He did not by any means undervalue the deserts of the sister Church; but as India was divided into four Presidencies, he should be glad to see in one of them a fair trial given to the development of Presbyterian energy and zeal. Give to the Church of Scotland half the sum allotted to episcopacy in a district of similar extent: with this, they would send out three times the number of Christian ministers, and accomplish ten times as much good. If it should prove otherwise, after an experiment of a few years, he would cheerfully consent to sec the grant withdrawn. As to the Pagan and Mahometan establishments, we had not introduced but found them there, and could not abolish those rites which the natives had so long adhered to, and would not relinquish the faithful and disinterested missionaries, the Schwarzes and Marshmans, who took neither purse nor scrip at the public expense, but were supported by the spontaneous contributions, and cheered by the prayers of their Christian friends, were the men by whom the principles of the Gospel would chiefly, though not exclusively, be maintained or revived amongst our own countrymen in India, or disseminated as a blessing to the native population. Me also thought it was an anomaly to place the new prelates under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Calcutta; he believed, that it was at least more usual that they should all be placed directly under a Metropolitan. The Finance Committee had recommended the withdrawal of public aid from ministers of the Presbyterian Church; and if the friends of that establishment should be called upon to support the clergy of their own denomination in India, the same rule might surely apply to the richer members of the sister Church. He hoped, however, that attention would be paid to both objects; and in that case he should not oppose the new arrangement of the existing revenues being appropriated to episcopal purposes, though he should have certainly resisted their augmentation.

opposed the Motion. He contended, that the establishment of chapels was occasioned by the fact stated by Mr. Burke, that the great majority of the Christians in India were really unbaptised. The natives had thus an opportunity of saying, "How is it that you have no means of extending the benefits of your religion to your countrymen? We have our pagodas and our institutions; how is it that you do nothing: for the instruction of your coreligionists?"

admitted, that the illustrious men who had, in India, successively occupied the situation of Bishop, had been distinguished for their zeal and their piety. But being-desirous to see the triumph of Christian principles in that country, he wished no Church establishment there. In an empire containing 100,000,000 of people, there were not above 40,000 individuals belonging to the Church of England. Could it be necessary to appoint three Bishops for them? They ought not to forget, that the great object of promoting the progress of Christianity had not been accomplished either by the chaplains or by the Bishops who had been sent out. The establishment of a Bishop in Canada, instead of promoting christianity, placed at hazard our dominion over that colony; whilst the Bishops who had been sent to the West Indies, had increased the irritation which before existed there. The progress of Christianity in India was owing, not to the Bishops, but to the missionaries sent out by the Missionary and other societies in England. It was the missionary labours in India which had exalted the character of our religion in that part of the world. It was Dr. Morrison to whom we were indebted for our best information on the subject of the language of China? It was to Dr. Carey that we were indebted for the translation of the Scriptures into the Indian tongue; and it was to Dr. Marsland, in conjunction with Dr. Carey, supported by the voluntary contributions of pious people in this country, that we were indebted for the firm root Christianity had begun to take in Bengal? Let the Episcopalians do the same, and let them be put upon the same footing as other Christian sects in India.

said, anomalous as the state of the Church Establishment was in Ireland, the condition of things proposed to be set up in India was ten times more absurd. If the House agreed to that, of what use would it be for the hon. and learned member for Dublin to complain of the Catholics of Ireland having to pay for Protestant Bishops, when the Treasury Bench would be able to say, "why, look at India; there 100,000,000 of Mohammedans and Pagans are supporting the Protestant establishment of 40,000 Englishmen." He looked upon the pro- position as one fraught with danger, and he trusted his Majesty's Ministers would withdraw it.

said, if the arguments urged against this proposition were good for anything, they were good against, having any Church Establishment whatever. The natives of India had a plain interest in the maintenance of a Church establishment, for it would be prejudicial to them, that those who were to govern them should be without religious instruction. Was it desirable, that the young men who went out to India should be left to their own zeal for obtaining religious knowledge? There were not many Gentlemen who would say that religion had not an important and necessary operation upon morality. If so, could it be a matter of indifference to the natives of India that those who were to exercise rule over them should be without religion? An hon. Member said, that some of the chapels had only a congregation of forty or fifty; but was it desirable that the many stations, where there were not above forty or fifty Europeans, should be without the means of cherishing the principles of religion? With chaplains scattered over India, it was of great consequence that individuals should be appointed to superintend their conduct. But a Bishop was also necessary to consecrate churches, and to admit to holy orders. This last was an important point, and a number of native converts,—those by whose means the Christian religion might be most effectually spread in India,—had received ordination from the hands of the Bishops. He said also, that they were bound to supply the means of religious worship to those who went to rule in India. Why establish a Supreme Court? Because when you sent out Englishmen to India, accustomed to English law, it was desirable that they should have Judges to administer that law. Yet he had not heard any proposal made to tax Europeans for the payment of the Judges. Why, then, tax them for the maintenance of those who were to instruct them in the religious doctrines, in which they would have been instructed, had they remained in England? An hon. Member had spoken of the danger which might result from its being represented to the Sepoys, after a disastrous day, that their countrymen were taxed to maintain the religion of foreigners; but we might just as well talk of abandoning India, be- cause it might be represented to them that their countrymen were taxed to pay the officers who commanded them, and kept them in subjection to Europeans. He could enter into the feelings of that man who said, that our whole empire in India was founded upon injustice, and that we, the inhabitants of a distant island, had no right to levy taxes for the government of India; and the only answer was, that it had so happened, and that it was for the happiness of India that we should continue to possess the government, rather than, by throwing everything loose, allow contending chiefs to fight for empire, or plunder in that arena. It was a necessary consequence that the country must bear whatever expenses were necessary for its good government; and the maintenance of the ceremonies of our religion among those who were to administer the government, was necessary for maintaining their morality, and was therefore necessary to the welfare of the people of India.

observed, that the question now before them was, whether they should report progress, a point which seemed to be lost sight of. Mr. Lushington had asserted, that the extension of the episcopal establishment would not be beneficial to India.

said, he would consent to proceed with the other clauses of the Bill, provided the House would agree to postpone the clause now before them.

then moved, that the debate be adjourned.

objected to the adjournment. The Established Church had done considerable good in India, and it ought to be supported.

thought the subject of too much importance to be proceeded with, and be therefore would support the Motion for adjournment.

said, he thought his friends had adopted a proper course in moving the postponement of the clause, considering that they had proposed to allow the other clauses to be discussed, passing over this. If the two new twin Bishops were allowed to be appointed, the consequence would be, that in a short time a Message would be sent down, stating the inadequacy of their income, and they would be saddled gradually with further expenses,

hoped the House would now see the necessity of adjourning the debate.

objected to the postponement of the debate, the wish for which he ascribed to the desertion and inattention of the gallery. He thought it unfair to proceed by a succession of vexatious motions for adjournment. He might have hoped that the Opposition would not follow the example of the Tories on the Reform Bill. They had begun their attacks at a quarter past eleven.

said, he had not any pretensions to the eloquence of the noble Lord, but he had been listened to with some attention, which he attributed principally to his brevity. The noble Lord had ascribed this vexatious opposition, as he called it, to the Irish Members. He, therefore, thought it his duty to press his Motion. The discussion had been calm and temperate till the noble Lord introduced his own acrimony into it.

said, that the debate had been calmly and temperately conducted until the two divisions were forced upon the House by the hon. and learned Member's friends. It was not surprising, that some acrimony should arise when, at a quarter-past eleven o'clock, the question of postponement was introduced. If the time of the House had been occupied in the fair discussion of the question, they might have made considerable progress.

admitted the calmness of the discussion. If hon. Gentlemen were not inclined to proceed, he would not press the immediate consideration of the clause; but he put it to them again, whether they should not postpone their objections till the discussion upon the Report.

said, admitting that there might be a vexatious movement for an adjournment, there might also be a vexatious opposition to that adjournment. It was not with any motive of getting rid of the Bill that he had voted for the postponement. He objected, therefore, to the use of the words "vexatious opposition."