wished to take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House in reply to some questions which had been put to him by a noble Lord opposite on a former evening. These questions related to the conduct of Captain Drummond, an officer in command of a British vessel of war, the Scout, off Alicante. The statement which appeared in some of the newspapers was to the effect that a Spanish officer, Colonel Bonet, in apprehension of immediate execution, rowed off to the British vessel of war, and was refused admission. Soon after this statement appeared, he had been asked in the House to state whether Her Majesty's Government had given instructions to refuse admission under such circumstances as had then taken place. An answer was then given that no such instructions had been issued; that there was no intention of fettering British officers in the exercise of their discretion on such occasions; and immediately reference was made to Captain Drummond for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there had been any foundation for the narrative that had appeared. That officer, however, had anti- cipated the inquiry Perceiving an observation suggesting that inquiries ought to be made in the House upon the subject, on the 20th of April, he addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty in these words:—

"Her Majesty's sloop Scout, Gibraltar, April 20th, 1844.—Sir,—I have just read in Galignani's Messenger, of the 8th of April, an article taken from the Chronicle, containing a most libellous statement against a British vessel of war, at Alicante, during the late disturbances. As it concludes by hoping that the subject will be mentioned in the House in some questions put to Her Majesty's Ministers, I think it right to inform you that I was the officer on that part of the station at the time, and I beg you will make what use you think necessary of the following facts:—On the 23rd of February I arrived at Alicante. Mr. Waring, our consul,immediately came on board: on receiving him in my cabin he dated, that he had brought Colonel Bonet, the Governor of Alicante, on board to me: I replied, that I could see no such person, who was in arms against the established Government, that I was averse to seeing him, or to having any communication whatever with him. Mr. Waring replied, that he feared that my refusal to see him might greatly exasperate him, and that it might endanger the safety of the British residing in Alicante; upon which I consented to see him upon deck in the presence of the officers of the ship. Bonét then said, through Mr. Waring, that he came to offer me any assistance I might require during my stay at Alicante. I replied, that my sole object in visiting Alicante was for the protection of British property and British subjects. He then quitted the ship with his two attendants, and Mr. Waring, and returned on shore. This was the whole that passed, and he never came alongside this ship again during my stay at Alicante. I left it upon the 5th of March; the town was entered on the 6th of March. I had a most unpleasant service to perform, but I was quite prepared to act upon my own responsibility, had the unfortunate Bonét pulled off to me in the manner described, and I feel quite certain, that during the disturbances at Alicante I acted in such a manner that I carried out the wishes and intentions of Her Majesty's Government at home:

"I have the honour to be, your obedient servant.

"M. DRUMMOND.

"To the Hon. Sidney Herbert."

was very glad to hear the explanation which the right hon. Baronet had just afforded to the House.

then rose, pursuant to notice, to move for copies of the Correspondence between the Court of Directors of the East India Company and Her Majesty's Government respecting the recall of Lord Ellenborough, the Governor General of India. The hon. Member said, that believing this subject to be of great importance, he had to claim the indulgence of the House while he explained to them his views of the situation in which they were placed, in consequence of what had recently fallen from one of Her Majesty's Ministers. The House, perhaps, were not altogether aware of the present anomalous situation of the Government of India. They saw an immense Empire, in which upwards of 100,000,000 souls were subjected to the Government of this country by means chiefly of the East India Company, and they saw a very large and important establishment maintained by them in that country, conducted by the Court of Directors, a body appointed by the Proprietors of East India Stock, who now represented those merchants who originally acquired the Empire of India. Perhaps some hon. Members also were not aware how little power had been left to that body by successive acts of legislation. It was, therefore, important that the House should know that there were in this country two authorities governing India with, he should say, paramount power to check proceedings of any Government in that country. By law the Indian executive was charged with important duties for the Government of that country, but subject to the control of the Board of Commissioners for the Management of Affaire in India, who had power in everything connected with India to do what they might think fit. They had no power to interfere with the home establishment, but they had the power of supervising everything that occurred in India. One of the most important duties which devolved on the Court of Directors was the appointment of the Governor General. The law had reserved to them the power to appoint whoever they thought fit to that important office. A doubt had been lately raised in another place, how far it was in the power of the Court to recall the Governor General or any other officer, without the sanction of the Board of Control, but he believed no one connected with India had any doubt of their possession of this power also. It was important, however, to the view which he had taken of the question, that the House should see that the power reserved to the Court of Directors to recall their officers was actually provided for, and that the very circumstance which had now taken place, had been foreseen and provided for at the time of granting the last Charter. The House probably were not aware, that in 1833, Mr. C. Grant, then President of the Board of Control, proposed to take from the Court the power which they had always had of recalling any of their public officers in India, and that a hint was sent to the Court of Directors upon the subject. That measure, however, was opposed, as might have been expected, and the reasons assigned for opposing such an assumption of power on the part of the Government appeared to him perfectly satisfactory. He would read a part of the dissent of the Court of Directors on this subject to the House. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman, on the 10th of June, 1833, laid before His Majesty's Government these reasons for dissent:—

"Secondly, because we are of opinion that some legislative provision for giving publicity in certain cases of difference between the Board of Commissioners and the Court of Directors is indispensable for maintaining the independence of the Court, and consequently the good Government of India; for, unless it is known that the two co-ordinate authorities act under a positive responsibility to Parliament, the paramount authority may enforce their views and opinions, however contrary to good government or whatever rule, with the impossibility of the Legislature becoming acquainted with the facts, by the Ministers re-fusing the production of the Papers connected therewith to Parliament. Nothing can more clearly substantiate the truth of this position than what has already taken place with reference to the Papers now before this general Court, and which have been printed at the instance of the Proprietors.

"Signed by C. Marjoribanks, Chairman, and W. Wigram, Deputy."

They alluded to certain Papers which had been then lately produced, relative to proceedings in which the Court of Directors and the Board of Control bad differed, and either party had been blamed by their respective friends. This dissent, therefore, made an allusion to the course which ought to be adopted in cage of any such difference of opinion as the present taking place between the Government and the Court of Directors. At the same time, Mr. Tucker sent in a protest to the Board of Control, the language of which would bear out the wisdom of the reserva- tion of this power of recall in the Board of Directors. Mr. Tucker said, on the 11th of June, 1833:—

"I am willing to hope that His Majesty's Ministers intend to render the Court a useful and efficient organ of Administration; but, at present, I cannot conceive how that object is to be accomplished while all real power is reserved for the Board. We shall only, I fear, become a screen interposed between the Government and the British people. The Government will not have the direct responsibility which ought to attach to the exercise of power, and we shall have the discredit of measures which we may have disapproved and opposed."

These Papers had the effect, he believed, of inducing the Government at that time to withdraw their proposal to take this power from the Court of Directors, and to allow that Court to retain it. Mr. Grant after this had stated:—

"His Majesty's Ministers agree, first, that the Company shall continue to administer the Government of India for a definite period. Whatever changes Parliament may in its wisdom see fit to adopt will, I doubt not, be made without detriment to the substantial authority of the East India Company. It is possible, that the words in question have been inserted in consequence of the hint thrown out in the memorandum, that the Board should have a veto on the recall of the Governors and Military Commanders in India, To order to obviate misconstruction, I avail myself of this opportunity to inform you that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Ministers to insist on the suggestion just mentioned."

The consequence was that this power which was originally vested in the Company continued to be reserved to the Court of Directors. They now came to that late occasion on which the Court had exercised that power, and as he thought most wisely. That was his individual opinion, without having the Papers before him. But he might be wrong. It was of the utmost importance to the welfare of India that the Court of Directors should stand well in India with their own servants. It was of importance that they should stand well in public opinion and it was of importance that those who placed confidence in them by nominating them to the important situations which they held, should be satisfied that they were gentlemen fit and qualified to carry on the important duties of insuring good government in India, and on that ground he came forward to ask for information, to enable the public to make up their minds on the dispute which had taken place between the Government and the East India Company. It could not have been a question of ordinary occurrence which could have induced twenty-three members of the Board of Directors present (the 24th being on a sick bed at the time) to concur unanimously in recalling Lord Ellenborough. The dismissal of that noble Lord could not by any possibility be construed to be a political question. He thought he might venture to say, that eighteen out of the twenty-four Directors, were supporters of Her Majesty's Government. The large majority of them would therefore on every question of politics be disposed to concur with Her Majesty's Ministers, if an imperious sense of duty did not compel them to act otherwise. Believing, then, that there were reasons of the utmost importance warranting the Court of Directors to act as they had done, it behoved that House—nay, it was their bounden duty—to ask for the Papers connected with the disagreement respecting Lord Ellenborough. It was to Parliament that he appealed for this information, and it was by Parliament that the information should be given to the public. He knew of no other mode by which the information could be published. It was quite possible, and very probable, that the Court of Directors would be obliged in defence of their own character, if any opposition should be made to his Motion, to produce the requisite information refused by the Government. Judging from the feeling which had been exhibited by two Directors on a former occasion, and judging from what they had then said, he believed it was the wish of the Directors that the information should be produced to the House, and he came forward to ask the Government to grant that information, in the first instance, as the most convenient and proper course. Why did he ask for that information? Because a most important Minister of the Crown had in another place censured the Court of Directors. That noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had passed on the Directors a censure so severe, that he would venture to say, no parallel could be found of any Government having passed any censure equal to it against any individuals so situated. It was, therefore, of the first importance that they should know whether the Government were right in the censure which they had passed, or whether the Court of Directors were right in the conduct which they had adopted, and he knew of no mode by which that could be ascertained so fairly and properly as by having produced before them the correspondence which had led to the recall of Lord Ellenborough. It was no occurrence of a day, or of a week, or of a month—nay, he might say, or of six months, which had led to this result; were it so, he might call this a hasty transaction, and think it not worth inquiry; but they had it from the noble Duke who had passed this censure on the Court of Directors—they had his deliberate statement that no less than six months ago a proposal had been made to recall Lord Ellenborough, and the noble Duke stated elsewhere that the Court had been induced to withhold the exercise of their power, and had passed a Resolution. The noble Duke did not tell them what that Resolution was. He wanted to see it; he wanted to see that manifestation of their opinion, and how far the Court of Directors had been disposed to wave on that occasion what they considered to be the dignity of the East India Company. He wanted to have the terms of that Resolution, in order to be guided by it, and also to know why, after so many months' patience, they had been induced to alter their opinion. Application had been made to the Court of Directors to withdraw their Resolution respecting the noble Lord, and there must have been on the part of the Directors much obstinacy in resisting that application to induce any Minister of the Crown to make the declaration which the noble Duke had made against the Court of Directors. He would state in a few lines the result of the censure of the noble Duke. He held in his hand what he took to be the most correct Report of what the noble Duke had said. He had looked at, and compared all the public documents, by which they became acquainted with what past elsewhere; they did not differ much from each other, and he believed the Report to which he was about to refer, to be the most correct. In the course of the short speech made by the noble Duke (Lord Ripon not being present), he had charged the Court of Directors six times with "indiscreet conduct," with "gross indiscretion," and concluded his statement with" pronouncing this to be the most indiscreet exercise of power he had ever known." Was it possible for him to believe that the noble Duke, who had been so long in public life, and who stood so high in public opinion, had been indiscreet enough to make such a statement without foundation? No; he believed that the noble Duke must have had documents before him to warrant the statement. He had also had the experience of several months on this subject, during which the noble Duke had tried the conduct of the Court of Directors, and at last, on their decision being known, he came down to another place, and in that short speech repeatedly accused the Court of Directors of "gross indiscretion." This being the case, and a Minister of the Crown making this charge with all apparent sincerity, and looking at the manner in which India was connected with England, he could imagine no question of more importance to the House, than to have explained and cleared up the cause of this accusation by the production of the Correspondence for which he was about to move. It was not necessary in furthering this object, nor did he wish to make any comments on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough or to refer to a single instance of his Government, except with regard to what the noble Duke had alluded to. The noble Duke spoke of the condition of Scinde distracted and wasted as it was, and of what the noble Duke called "the brilliant successes of the army at Gwalior," and to which he (Mr. Hume) only alluded to say, that he (Mr. Hume) had arrived at a very different conclusion from the noble Duke. He thought that if ever there were a question which required to be sifted to the bottom, and that they should know the grounds on which the noble Duke had made the assertion which he had made, this was that one. The opinions of the noble Duke on this conduct of Lord Ellenborough at Gwalior, was so extremely opposed to his (Mr. Hume's) opinions so far as he was able to speak—[A Laugh.] The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was perhaps acquainted with the whole matter, and had a right to entertain his own opinion; he supposed the right hon. Baronet would allow him to retain his. Unless he were to be allowed to retain his opinions, and to express them there was an end of all discussion. On these grounds, believing that if an explanation were not given, the character of the Court of Directors must suffer severely and that this would have a prejudicial effect in India, he appealed to the House and called on it to support the Motion which he should submit to it for the production of the correspondence which had passed relative to the recall of Lord Ellenborough. He did not ask for the production of the Correspondence between the Secret Committee and the Board. Some Members of the House might perhaps not know that all the orders transmitted to India through the Board of Control were sent to the Secret Committee of the Board of Directors consisting of the elder Members of the Court. All those orders which were deemed of sufficient importance must go to that Committee and be examined by them. All orders which were of importance and which it was requisite to keep from the other Directors were sent to the Secret Committee. Now, he would admit that there might have passed correspondence between the Secret Committee and the Government which it might be improper to make public; he did not, therefore, ask for that; but he asked for all the correspondence which had passed between the Court of Directors generally and the Government; and he deemed it absolutely necessary that they should obtain that in order to free the Court of Directors from the aspersions cast on them, and the Government from the charge that might be thrown on them of having acted unjustly towards the Directors. If there were any doubt of the propriety of doing justice to such important bodies as the Court of Directors of the East India Company and Her Majesty's Ministers, he would appeal to the authority of the noble Duke himself on the question, because the noble Duke, when asked whether he was prepared to lay any information before the other House on this subject to enable them to judge of the indiscretions of the Court of Directors, said, " He was not prepared that night to state decidedly what papers would be laid on the Table of the House on this subject; but it was a question on which Parliament would be entitled to all the information that could be afforded." He thought the noble Duke had at least made out a case of indiscretion somewhere; before he (Mr. Hume) concurred in the charge of indiscretion, so often repeated, and so strongly enforced by the noble Duke against the Directors he must have what the noble Duke staled Parliament ought to have, the correspondence produced which had passed on this subject. That was the whole subject of his Motion. He did not wish to enter into the conduct of the noble Lord; but he wished to ask, in justice to both parties—in justice to the British public and to the Indian public, for the production of the Papers for which he was about to move. He did not wish to mix this question up with any other subject, but simply to do that which appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, namely, to bring the conduct of the Board of Control, and of the Board of Directors, in this matter, fairly before the House for the public to be able to form a judgment in the matter. He concluded by moving "That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence between the Court of Directors of the East India Company and Her Majesty's Government, respecting the recall of Lord Ellenborough, the Governor General of India."

—Sir, I feel myself bound, in the discharge of my public duty, to offer to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the most decided opposition in my power. The hon. Gentleman said this House is the authority to which an appeal ought to be made in cases of difference of opinion between the chief authorities through whom India is governed. If this be true, and this House is the proper court of appeal, and is to exercise its judgment on a case of difference of opinion, I am confident this House will not proceed to form its decision, and to pronounce an opinion on a question affecting the character of my noble Friend the Governor General of India, in his absence. The same consideration of justice and equity which induced the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macaulay), who had given notice of a Motion of great public importance, relative to recent transactions in Gwalior—I say the same considerations of equity and justice which induced that right hon. Gentleman to postpone that Motion because of the recall of Lord Ellenborough, and because he was reluctant to make any statement against the noble Lord in his absence, will, I am sure, induce this House to postpone its right of sitting in judgment on the conduct of Lord Ellenborough in his absence; and, therefore, even if the hon. Member got the Papers he has moved for, I very much doubt whether any advance would be made towards that enquiry which the hon. Gentleman demands. This, however, is not the ground of my opposition to the motion. The single point which I think ought to be considered in this case is this —what will most conduce to the interests of India and to the maintenance of British power? By that consideration, and by that alone, we ought to be influenced; all personal considerations are entirely subordinate to that one. Sir, I dont, deny the right of the hon. Gentleman to exercise his judgment as to the operations at Gwalior: when I intimated a doubt as to the position he was taking in the course of his observations, my doubt was this, that when the hon. Gentleman said, that "the Duke of Wellington has expressed a favourable opinion as to the operations in Gwalior, I entertain a different opinion. How is it possible to have that difference satisfactorily explained except by the production of Papers on this subject?"—I only meant to intimate a doubt whether that were a sufficient ground for the production of these Papers. No doubt a difference of opinion existed as to the recall of Lord Ellenborough between the chief authorities in this country. No doubt the East India Company have by law the right to recall him — there cannot be a question on that point, or that Her Majesty's Government dissented from the determination taken by the Court of Directors, maintaining that there was nothing in Lord Ellenborough's conduct or proceedings which made such a step either wise or just, and that when Government contrasted the present state of India with the state in which it was when Lord Ellenborough was first appointed to the office of Governor General, if they looked at his conduct and its results, they could d scover nothing that had passed which ought to diminish the confidence they placed in him when the appointment was first made, and which could fairly justify his recall. The Court of Directors, exercising the full powers which they possess, took a different view of the case, and they recalled Lord Ellenborough. I was asked when this subject was last under our consideration, whether or not I considered the Executive Government as responsible for the affairs of India after what had passed? My answer was, without reference to the differences which had existed, that the Government would feel it to be their duty to take those measures which appeared to them best calculated to di- minish any hazard that might arise from the recall of Lord Ellenborough. Sir, the question we had then to determine was, what should be done with respect to the appointment of a new Governor General? We might have taken one or other of two courses. We might have said to the Court of Directors. "As you have relied on the law, and acted on the provisions of the law in recalling the Governor General, act on its provisions also in respect to the appointment of his successor—select the man whom you think qualified to exercise this high trust under possibly increased difficulties, and, as your selection, the Crown will be satisfied with him whether it approves your choice or not." That is one course: we felt it our duty to pursue a different course. We thought it would conduce to the interests of the public service (the Court of Directors being of the same opinion) that we should continue to act in friendly concert in respect of the appointment of a successor to Lord Ellen-borough. The Court appealed to the Government to act according to the ordinary usage in respect of the nomination of Lord Ellenborough's successor. I had interviews with the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Court of Directors, and I gave it as my opinion that all considerations connected with past differences should be merged in the deliberation of this question —"What is best to be done in the present state of affairs?" I said, "You have appealed to Her Majesty's Government to assist you in the appointment of a successor: on the part of the Government I am willing to concert with you for that purpose; but I can suggest no one on the part of the Government unless I can have the assurance that he will have the confidence of the Court of Directors, and that it is probable that the line of policy which he will pursue will be approved." I named to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman the name of my right hon. friend Sir H. Hardinge, and thought upon the whole, in the present condition of India—from a long experience of his public character, from his military eminence and from his great experience in civil duties, that he was the man best qualified to undertake the office of Governor General. I was informed at once by the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman that the same name had occurred to them, and I was assured that no person could be sent out to India as Governor who would be more consonant to their wishes and they wished that I would undertake to propose the duty to my right hon. Friend. I did propose it to him, informing him at the same time that he commanded the confidence of the Crown and of the Court of Directors, and urged him to permit no private considerations to deter him from undertaking this great responsibility. My right hon. Friend did not hesitate; he at once accepted the trust; but my firm belief is, that he accepted it from the highest and the purest considerations of public utility, and not from motives of private ambition. Then there is with respect to the selection of a new Governor General between the Crown and the Court of Directors a cordial understanding; and I have every reason to believe that the general policy will be one which will meet with the general sanction, concurrence, and support of the Directors. My right hon. Friend will proceed at once by the next packet to undertake his new duties, and no considerations on earth shall induce me to fetter his administration of affairs by sending out by the same packet a detailed correspondence showing the exact nature of the differences which have prevailed. I have no hesitation in saying that nothing could be more calculated to add to the excitement which probably may exist, than to send forth to India, liable to all those misconstructions that probably will be avoided here, the exact record of the differences which have prevailed, and which, I believe, will not affect the future administration of India. I call on the House not to send out with a new Governor the decisive proof of the Home Authorities having held different opinions. I do hope the House of Commons will not, after that explanation, call on the Crown to produce these Papers. I see present here Members of the Court of Directors, and I ask them whether or not they concur with me that public evil might result from such publication. The hon. Gentleman says, that two of the Directors call for the production of the correspondence. [Mr. Hume: They say they have no objection.] This I am sure of, no personal considerations of any kind will influence them if they believe it for the interest of the British Government, and for the welfare of India, that the Correspondence should be produced. The hon. Gentleman said several times that my noble Friend charged the Directors with indiscretion. I never heard the hon. Member make a speech in my life without making such a charge against the Government. But whether my noble Friend, the Duke of Wellington, did use that phrase or not, is a question subordinate to the great question whether it be for the public interest that that Correspondence should be produced. I shall offer to the Motion the most decided opposition, and I hope that the House will not call for the production of these Papers.

would, under any circumstances, have offered only a few observations on this Motion. When he had last addressed the House, he had asked the House and the country to suspend their judgment, but he had given no opinion as to whether the Papers should be produced or not. He was decidedly of opinion, and he believed his Colleagues were also, that in the publication of those Papers they should be ruled by the determination of the Government. The Court had been accused of indiscretion, and they would not add to that indiscretion by giving publicity to the Correspondence. He repeated again, that it would be an act of indiscretion to publish what, in his honest conscience, he believed, would be injurious to the public interests. The Court of Directors had acted from public duty, and from public duty alone, and if there were any who meant to accuse the Court of Directors, and would bring forward the charge, he was there to defend them. The great interests of British India were confided to them; they were above all personal considerations; their object was accomplished by the removal of Lord Ellenborough from India. That object they had been endeavouring to accomplish, as they had been told, not for a day or a week; that object they had in view, and that they had accomplished. They had no desire to do anything more; they did not wish to do anything to affect the feelings of the Governor-General, and had only wished the House to believe that they had acted honestly and justly, and from the best intentions. At the same time, he was of opinion that the publication of the Correspondence would be injurious; and whatever his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) might say, he could not give him his support upon the present occasion.

had stated distinctly what was his own feeling, and what was the general opinion of his Colleagues—that it would be fit and proper to leave the Mi- nisters to exercise their discretion; and he had added his conviction, that in the exercise of that discretion, they would be influenced solely by a sense of what was most conducive to the public interests. That was his individual opinion, and almost the unanimous opinion of his Colleagues. The right hon. Baronet had stated that Lord Ellenborough continued to possess the confidence of the Government. It was essentially necessary for the interests of India that the person ruling should possess the joint confidence of the Ministers of the Crown and of the Court of Directors. Without that joint confidence the rule of no man could be conducive to the public good in India, and for that reason it was, that the power of recall was vested in the Government and in the Court of Directors severally. It did not become him to say more than that the Court of Directors had exercised the power of recall under an imperious sense of public duty, and had come to that resolution most reluctantly and with great pain. He had only to add, if the Court of Directors were to remain subject to the imputation of having acted indiscreetly, he would rather remain subject to the charge individually, than seek for the production of Papers to avoid it, if he thought it might be detrimental to the public interests. The Directors had been influenced solely by a regard for the public good, and they would stand ill before the public if they permitted themselves to be influenced by any personal considerations, or by any considerations but those which would be conducive to the future interests of India. He was bound to state his opinion that the production of the Correspondence sought for by this Motion would be most injurious, if not dangerous, to India.

Sir, one argument, and one only, have I heard since this debate commenced, to show, that at the present time it is not desirable that the hon. Member should press his Motion. I admit that there would be some injustice to the noble Lord whose conduct is so deeply implicated in this inquiry, if, while he is at a distance from this country, he were to have charges brought against him. The same feeling which led me a few days ago to postpone a Motion which I cannot but think it is my duty hereafter to bring before the House, will lead me to advise the hon. Gentleman to put off for the present the proposition which he has made; but I must say I have heard no argument whatever tending to convince me that on a future occasion, when the Governor General shall have returned, this Motion should not be made. It seems to me, that if ever there was a case made out in which Parliament had a right to call for information, it is this case. How stands the matter? We are absolutely certain of one thing,— that in an important department of the Government there has been gross misconduct. Where that misconduct lies we are not absolutely certain, but that there has been misconduct we are certain. The Government declares, by an organ of the highest authority, that a great corporation intrusted with the highest functions has been guilty not of indiscretion only, as stated by the hon. Member for Montrose, but of the greatest indiscretion known in the history of our times, of an exercise of power compared with which the sending forth of the Walcheren expedition was trifling—compared with which the Bill proposing Pains and Penalties against the Queen was a slight indiscretion—an exercise of power to which nothing that has taken place in our times can be compared for recklessness and rashness. That is a charge, Sir, which ought not to be made unless those who make it are prepared to substantiate it. I take either side. Suppose, either that the East India Directors have proved themselves unfit by an act of the greatest rashness and indiscretion for the high confidence which we have reposed in them—is not that a thing of which Parliament should be cognisant? Or suppose, on the other hand, that the Government is charged by the Court of Directors, in the exercise of its power, with being moved by party spirit to throw upon the Directors aspersions tending to excite the public mind of this country, and calculated to spread panic throughout the whole Indian empire—is not that a thing of which this House should take cognisance? I say, while I assent to the force of what the right hon. Baronet has observed, while upon the same principle that I put off my Motion with regard to Gwalior, I consent to put off for the present demanding those Papers, that when Lord Ellenborough shall have returned to this country from India, and this House shall take his conduct into consideration, those Papers must be granted unless this House means to abdicate all control over the Government, and unless Ministerial responsibility is to become merely a name. I must give to the right hon. Baronet, as I always have occasion to do, the utmost credit for the extraordinary dexterity and skill with which he has managed this subject, flying away as fast as possible from the past to the future, leaving out what has occurred, and holding out expectations, which I do believe will be fulfilled, of the administration now opening. I shall not, however, as I before said, go into the question of any particular act of Lord Ellenborough's, but I desire the House, since we are to be left in this state of doubt for some months to come—as every attempt has been made to excite the utmost prejudice against the Court of Directors—as every species of imputation has been thrown upon them—as, not Ministers, but those connected with them, have held out to the Directors a menace, that that power which those connected with Ministers represent as having been abused, ought forthwith to be taken away from them— as that power has been described as being, not only what it is, "anomalous," but as what it is not, "absurd," and as what it is not, "pernicious,"—I feel it my duty, if none of those more immediately connected with the Company stand up for a present settlement of the Government of India, and of the Charter, and as one of those concerned in bringing forward the present system of Government, I do undertake to say, that that power is a good power—that it is a power which they ought to retain, and that it is a power which shall not be taken away from them without a long and an obstinate struggle. But with regard to the exercise of that power in this particular case, since we are not to have laid before us any Papers which may guide our judgment, I will very concisely state one or two circumstances which I think ought to lead us at all events not to pronounce against the Court of Directors until those Papers shall be before us; and in what I am about to say I shall strictly confine myself to the limits which justice imposes on me. I will not touch upon any single act of Lord Ellenborough's, but I will treat the question purely as it lies before us upon the proceedings of the Court, and upon the proceedings of the Government I see that the Court has been unanimous. I know how it is composed. I know that in that Court there is to be found a great number of men eminently qualified to judge of Indian politics. I know that there is to be found in that Court one Gentleman, for example, who himself acted as Governor General of India for some time. I know that there are persons to be found there of the highest distinction, whether in war or diplomacy, or any other branch of the public service. I believe most firmly, and I believe that no person who is acquainted with India will dispute what I am about to say, that at least there are ten Gentlemen in that Court the least informed of whom is better acquainted with, and is better informed upon India, than (I say it without any disrespect to them) the whole of the Treasury Bench opposite. Those Gentlemen are unanimous; and can it be said, that they are not informed upon the subject on which they sat in judgment? It has been said—it has been ignorantly said— that they see nothing of the orders which go out to India,—that they are mere organs of conveyance. The fact is not so. The notion that all the Papers that go out go from the Secret Department is not correct, Papers of grave importance and secrecy, relating to matters of peace and war, do issue from the Secret Department; but all Papers relating to the judicial, financial, and revenue departments, and the great bulk of the diplomatic Papers, pass through the hands of the Court of Directors; and I will venture to say,—either the Board of Control or the Court of Directors can contradict me if I mistake,—that there is not one paper in 200 goes to India which does not pass under the survey of the Court of Directors. The few papers that issue from the Secret Department pass under the eyes of three of the Directors, and we know that the Directors were unanimous. One word more. When we have such unanimity amongst men so thoroughly informed upon Indian policy generally — amongst men who have such opportunities of judging of Lord Ellenborough's conduct, there is only one thing which I can conceive likely to have perverted their judgment—they might have been misled by violent party spirit. I could understand, if the Court of Directors were composed of Whigs entirely, or of Gentlemen opposed to the present Administration, that they might, spite of all their knowledge, have decided for Lord Ellenborough's recall unjustly. Is it so, however? Is it not notorious, that those Gentlemen are, with scarce an exception, attached to the present Government? Have not we heard two of those very Gentlemen rising this evening to support the Government? Did we not constantly hear them doing so in the debate on the gates of Somnauth? And I may mention the name of one Gentleman not in this House, a name great in Indian history—a name great in the annals of Indian policy—the name of a man of eminent qualifications and abilities—I mean Sir Richard Jenkins, who is a person notoriously attached to the present Government; and when I put all these things together—when I see the unanimity that existed—when I consider the knowledge that those Gentlemen possess—when I consider the opportunities they have of making themselves acquainted with the Governor General's mode of administration,— and more than all, when I consider that their feelings in favour of the existing Government are such, that it is only for a moment, and then with the greatest reluctance and after months of hesitation, that they just venture to strike one necessary blow and then start back, how is it possible for me not to feel in this case, since we are for six months to suspend our judgment, that we should do so with no bias whatever hostile to the decision of the Court of Directors? If the right hon. Baronet had given us an assurance that next Session, when the conduct of the late Governor General will come under the consideration of the House, he will make no objection to the production of the Papers, he would have removed some doubts; but if the Government be determined at the beginning of the next Session, when Lord Ellenborough may be in this country, to refuse the Papers, my firm conviction will be, that they refuse them only because they dare not give them.

In the course he should take upon this question he disclaimed being actuated by any party motives. India should not be governed with reference to the politics of the party prevailing at the time in this country, but with reference solely to its own interests. He would never consent to look at India through a party medium. He believed, without reference to the considerations urged by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, with regard to the absence of Lord Ellenborough, that the production of these Papers at this moment, when, as the right hon. Baronet opposite justly said, they could go out to India in the same vessel that would convey the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Hardinge) to that country, would be injurious to the best interests of India. If he did not express that opinion he should be inconsistent with himself, for upon a former occasion he reprehended in the strongest terms he could command the proclamation issued by, he was happy to say, the now "late" Governor - General in October, 1842. He then seriously blamed Lord Ellenborough for having for the first time, as he (Mr. Mangles) thought, at least, mixed up English party politics with the affairs of India. If he now took part in the production of the Papers asked for, he believed he should be taking the course which he bad previously deprecated upon the part of the noble Lord. He (Mr. Mangles) did not wish to confine himself with regard to the future. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that the time might come when the mischief arising from the production of these Papers might be obviated; and he believed it might be right and necessary, when the noble Lord returned from India that these Papers should be produced. He wished to reserve to himself the free right of exercising an opinion then, and not to be bound by the opinion he expressed now, that the production of the Papers at this time would be injurious to India.

I think it necessary, in consequence of the interest which this matter has excited, to say a very few words upon it. I agree entirely with what was so ably stated by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, that it would not be advisable to press for these Papers at the present moment. I think that some time hence, when the noble Lord has returned to this country, when the interest will not be so exciting as it is at present, the Papers may be produced without inconvenience to the public service. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I trust that my hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose, will not press at present for the production of the Papers. I cannot but think, however, that it was advisable that some notice should be taken of what has been done. If the Court of Directors and the Government had concurred in the recall of Lord Ellenborough it might have been well not to have said a word upon the subject; but everybody must be aware that it has gone forth that the Directors have committed a gross act of indiscretion, that it has been stated that they have repented of that act of indiscretion, and that they are willing to atone for it, and that their subsequent conduct has shown their conviction that they were wrong. Now, I was happy to hear two Directors state that what they had done was upon public grounds, and that they were fully convinced of the necessity and justice of the step they had taken. I, for my part, as far as my opinion goes, am fully satisfied that it will be a great blessing to India to remove the Governor-General of that country.

in reply, said, he had never asked the House to form any opinion of the conduct of the noble Lord who was now removed from the Governor Generalship of India. Quite the contrary. He said that the question lay between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors—that the Court of Directors had been censured as unworthy of the situation in which they were placed and of exercising the power reposed in them. Such were the opinions of the noble Duke in the other House, publicly expressed. It was quite true as the right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Government and the Court of Directors concurred in choosing Sir H. Hardinge to succeed the noble Lord, and he believed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would make a good Governor General; but that was no answer to the question whether the Court of Directors had acted properly or improperly in the recall of Lord Ellenborough; and he therefore did say that the House would stultify itself if it refused to order the Papers for which he had moved, and he was certainly surprised that his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, who went further than he, who in every sentence he spoke, and in every syllable he uttered, condemned the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, should all at once turn round and say it was better not to have the Papers. If the noble Lord who had just sat down expected to hear any more of these Papers, if he did not get them now, he was very much mistaken. The Court of Directors at present remained censured. When the hon. and learned Member for -Beverley stated, that should the Papers be produced they would show the conduct of the Court of Directors in a proper light, he thought the hon. Member was very fair and candid; but he turned round too, and actually, though one of those who had been abused and censured, was willing to sit down with the rest, liked cowed dogs well thrashed, with their tails between their legs. He wanted nothing to do with Lord Ellenborough on the present occasion, but he hoped that the noble Lord's time would come, at present it was between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors. It appeared to him that those who asked him not to divide the House only strengthened the necessity for the production of the Papers by their own statements. His right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh said, if ever there was a case of which the House of Commons should have full cognizance, this was the case, and yet he would not support the motion for the production of the Papers, which formed the only means of obtaining light upon the subject. He certainly must divide the House.

I only meant to make one observation. Lord Ellenborough has been recalled from India, his successor has been appointed. I am most anxious to know, whether Her Majesty's Government sanction in that way the past conduct of Lord Ellenborough, viz., by giving for a guide of future Government the policy which directed Lord Ellenborough's? I am anxious to know, whether or not the Court of Directors, who removed Lord Ellenborough, removed him for his public or private conduct? I want to know, whether or not there has been a compromise, or an agreement between the Government and the Court of Directors; that they having removed Lord Ellenborough from some private pique or peculiar personal feeling, will allow his successor to govern the country after the policy of his predecessor. That is all that concerns the House of Commons. We want to know the principles upon which Sir H. Hardinge goes out to govern India. Are they the principles which directed the Government of Lord Ellenborough? I say, Sir, however we may get out of the inquiry of the hon. Member for Montrose, that this is a question which it is incumbent upon the government of Her Majesty to answer. We want to know the principles upon which Sir H. Hardinge goes out to govern India? We want to know whether his principles of government are to be those which directed the policy of Lord Ellenborough? We want to know whether those which the Duke of Wellington sanctions by his authority are to be continued, and whether the indiscretion of the Court of Directors is got over by the happy policy of the right hon. Baronet?

I don't know whether these questions are intended to be put to me. I say there has been no sort of com- promise or agreement between the Court of Directors and Her Majesty's Government. I have stated to the House what passed between me and the Court of Directors. No word passed about a compromise. I informed the Court (my noble Friend the Earl of Ripon being unwell at the time), that I would not undertake to suggest a Governor General unless I was certain that he would be approved of by the Court, and was likely to possess their entire confidence and support. I then named Sir H. Hardinge; they told me that was a name which they should prefer to any other, and so Sir H. Hardinge was appointed. My belief is, that as regards the principles which will govern his conduct, Sir H. Hardinge will decide for himself, and that they will be the principles of justice and moderation I have every confidence.

The House divided—Ayes 21: Noes 197; Majority 176.

said, that last year, when he brought the subject matter of his Motion under the attention of the House, he was opposed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, on the ground that he proposed a declaratory Resolution; in consequence of this, he now intended to propose that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Laws of Mortmain. He believed that a Select Committee was granted whenever a prima facie case was made out for inquiry, and he was satisfied that nothing could be a better subject of inquiry than these laws which had a most injurious effect on the interests of the Church and the poor. These laws were originally framed to guard against evils which existed at the time they were enacted, but which no longer obtained in this country. Although these laws continued in the Statute-book, the course of modern Legislation abrogated them, although they occasionally were found to operate most objectionably. For instance, a recent case occurred at Stockport, where a Gentleman bequeathed an estate of 500l. a year to the infirmary in that town; but in consequence of the bequest being in landed property, it failed under the operation of the Mortmain Laws. Again, a recent case occurred in a parish of Somersetshire, where an old Gentleman, for two or three years previously to his death, had told the poor of his parish that he intended to do something for them: on his death it was found that be had bequeathed a house and a piece of land, of the value of 120l. a year, to the clergyman of the parish for the time being, on trust, and directing that the proceeds of this small property should be distributed periodically amongst the poor of his parish; but the bequest failed in consequence of the operation of these Laws. He did not think that he was asking too much when he requested the House to look into these Laws. He did not ask it at once to repeal or modify them, but merely to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, before which he could produce witnesses. If the House refused to grant the Committee, he should suppose that it arose from the circumstance that it either considered the laws to be so good and beneficial, or, which was more probable, that it considered these laws to be so full of absurdity that they would not bear investigation. The noble Lord concluded with moving for a "Select Committee, to inquire into the operation of the laws of Mortmain, and the expediency of revising the same."

said, that he thought it his duty to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord last year, but he had no objection to agree to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the effect of these laws. He would not express any opinion on them, but he thought that this great question of their policy was a proper subject of debate in the House.

Motion agreed to.

on moving the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Factories Bill, said, that he should move the Third Reading of it on Friday, when the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire would propose his amendment. He wished, also, to give notice that he should on that day move, that the Poor Law Amendment Bill be committed pro forma for the purpose of introducing a number of amendments, and he should afterwards move that it be reprinted.

On the Order of the Day being read,

took the opportunity of stating the alterations which had been introduced into this Bill in going through Committee.

wished to know whether there would be any objection to print the Bill, with the alterations and amendments which had been introduced into it.

would not object, provided that he should be able to proceed with the third reading of the Bill on Friday.

Report agreed to. Bill to be read a third time on Friday.

House adjourned at half-past eight.