having moved that the Committee on the Wakefield New Gas Bill have leave to proceed with three Members and report forthwith.

said, that he should oppose any proposition which involved the principle of a Committee sitting during the meeting of the House. They had a specimen of what happened at these morning meetings on last Friday. On that occasion, for a long time, not more than fifteen Members were in the House, including one Member of the Government, and three Members of the party to which the noble Lord belonged. He thought such a proceeding was highly objectionable. When the House met at Twelve o'clock, the Government obviated the constitutional principle that forty Members should be present during its sittings. When forty Members were not present, it was in the power of any Member to stop the proceedings in the House, if he thought that the business of the country could not be advantageously carried on by only fifteen Members. After four o'clock there was some security that the Government would keep a House if public business was before it. When a House was made at Twelve o'clock, and when a number of Private Committees were sitting, a dozen or score of Members rushed out of the House, and in case of a division returned and voted, without having heard what had passed. He was strongly opposed to morning sittings, as it was only a sneaking mode of getting through the business of the country. If they would meet in the morning, however, he should do his best to enforce the attendance of Members. He should oppose the present Motion.

was satisfied the noble Lord was quite mistaken as to the constitutional time of meeting, for the custom formerly was to meet at Ten o'clock in the morning, and adjourn at five or six o'clock. As the noble Lord alluded to what had taken place on Friday, he felt called upon to make a remark on the singular proceedings on the part of the noble Lord on that occasion, which he should not have referred to but for the observations of the noble Lord. It had for some time been the custom for the House, towards the end of the Session, to meet at Twelve o'clock; and he found, generally speaking, that between twelve and four the attendance was as good as between seven and nine in the evening. The noble Lord had stated that he objected to the further suspension of the Navigation Laws; and on Friday morning the question was discussed fully by the noble Lord and himself. The Custody of Offenders Bill also went through Committee, and was treated in a way apparently to give general satisfaction. This was followed by the Stock in Trade Bill, against which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford entertained some objections; but when those objections had been disposed of, he had supposed that there was no real objection to the Bill before the House passing a second reading at that time; but to the surprise of those in the House the noble Lord spoke for a lengthened period, so as to reach four o'clock, when he moved that the House he counted. If the noble Lord had succeeded in his object, there would have been no House on Friday evening to go into Committee on the Health of Towns Bill, and thus the public-business would have been impeded. There was no precedent for such a proceeding; and, above all, on the part of one who was thought to be, and who considered himself to be, the leader of a great party. He would not characterize this proceeding further. He would, however, endeavour to avoid a surprise of this kind for the future. When the noble Lord rose on Friday morning, there was no further business before the House, and it was considered as a matter of course that they might as well adjourn until Five o'clock.

opposed the Motion. He objected to their proceeding with such an important measure as the Health of Towns Bill in a morning, when so many hon. Members were necessarily absent. He particularly felt this as regarded his right hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Hudson), who had taken great interest in the matter, but who was obliged to be absent to-day in attendance on Her Majesty. He should resist as long as he could any Motion for allowing Committees to sit during the meeting of the House.

observed, that there were upwards of fifty clauses in the Bill, which contained most important enactments; and it was neither fair nor just to press such a measure in the absence of so many hon. Members. The object of the Bill was nothing more nor less than to create a great social revolution, and it was understood by very few Members in that House.

conmemned the factious opposition with which this Bill was assailed, for under the screen of opposing the sitting of Committees, the object was to obstruct its progress.

denied that there was any factious opposition to the measure. He protested against the system of carrying a Bill of such importance, affecting, as this did, many of the smaller boroughs most materially, at a time when few Members were present. He must urge the Government to abandon the Bill at that late period of the Session.

denied that this Bill involved a social revolution; it would only produce a cleanly revolution—in point of fact, it was soap and water against dirt. He trusted the Government would not consent to postpone the Bill.

trusted his noble Friend would not press his opposition. He thought that it was objectionable to discuss such a Bill in a thin House, when there were scarcely any Members present. If this measure was not deemed absolutely necessary by the Government, he trusted that they would not press it at that late period of the Session. In saying this, however, be felt bound also to observe that the subject had been well considered throughout the country, and the principles of the Bill appeared to have been generally approved of.

stated, that under the Bill of last year not less than 30,000 poor persons had been turned out of cellars in Liverpool, where they resided, but lately the major part of these cellars had been taken possession of by the poor Irish.

thought it would be better to postpone the clause respecting the costs of preliminary inquiry. He did not think that the charge should be placed on the Consolidated Fund, for many towns, such for instance as Liverpool, could well afford to defray this charge from their own funds.

objected to the absolute power given to the Government under this clause, by which they could, by an Order in Council, put in force the Act in any corporate town. He thought the town-council ought to have some discretionary power in the matter. He objected also to the whole of the duties of carrying out the Bill being imposed on the town-council. He should propose to add to the end of the clause the following words:—

"Or that some commissioners should be elected out of their own body, or that the duties should be discharged by such other persons such town as they shall appoint resident in hereafter mentioned."

doubted whether it was advisable that a town-council, which was a fluctuating body, should have the power of delegating the performance of public duties.

thought that a power might be reserved as to putting in force the Order in Council in particular places, where at the present time an efficient and satisfactory system was carried out. In the town which he represented, they had in operation an Act for improvements, which was passed the year before last, and which worked most satisfactorily. The commissioners to carry out that Act were elected by each ratepayer voting for one-half the number. Thus, this body was divested of all political feeling, or bias. He did not think that merely for the principle of uniformity they should interfere in this general way with a system which worked well. He would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and propose the Amendment of which he had given notice.

thought that his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) had given ample reason, on a former occasion, why the powers under this Bill should be given to the town-council. He thought, however, there was great weight in what had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith). He did not see how the commissioners could be elected by the ratepayers without its being open to the same objections as were urged against the town-councils having these powers.

then moved the insertion of an addition to the clause, enacting, that any body of commissioners or trustees now invested with full powers to execute all the good purposes hereby intended, should be the commissioners or trustees, for the purposes of the Act, in the room and stead of the council of any such town or district.

was satisfied if the House agreed to this addition to the clause, it would damage the Bill.

was by no means satisfied of the advantage of this clause as it stood in the Bill. He thought there were very grave objections to giving these powers to the town-councils, although he admitted some advantages might result from their having them. The noble Lord, however, was now about to depart from the promise which had been made by him when he stated that it was essential that the town-councils should alone have authority in these matters. The noble Lord on that occasion said, that the political character of the town-councils could not be put an end to until they had to execute duties of this kind. He did not mean to say that the commissioners of King's Lynn and Northampton might not conduct their business in a satisfactory manner; but he doubted, as a general rule, whether a discretionary power should exist of continuing the present commissioners. He believed the town-councils would become unpopular in many instances in attempting to carry out this measure. If they looked into the Towns Clauses Consolidation Act, it was clear that they must look to different bodies from the present commissioners to carry out the regulations required by law. He would suggest, instead of giving these powers to the town-councils or to the present commissioners, that they should be entrusted to a body of commissioners elected partly by the ratepayers, partly by the town-council, and partly by the commissioners. Before he sat down, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the state of the Bill before the noble Lord withdrew the two clauses which originally stood at this part of it. He was satisfied that the omission of the 19th and 20th Clauses of the former Bill would render the measure nugatory in most cases. The first of these clauses was, that the boundaries of boroughs might be extended by Order in Council; and the other provided that when a new ward was added to a borough, the town-council might be increased. By the withdrawal of these clauses, the Bill had been reduced to an absurdity and an impracticability. They were now pursuing the same course with respect to sanitary matters which they did last year with respect to railways. They last year created a Commission for Railways; and they then said they would determine in the present Session the plan on which it was to act. They had now come to the end of the Session; but no new duties had been imposed on the Commissioners; and at present they had no more duties to perform than could he executed by a couple of clerks. This was precisely the course they were pursuing with regard to the Sanitary Commission.

, with respect to the omission of the clauses alluded to by the noble Earl, was prepared to defend the course he had taken. He had consented to the omission of these clauses because it had been repeatedly urged that it was hardly a constitutional power to enact that the Crown might make, without the consent of Parliament, alterations to any extent in the boundaries of boroughs. However important he might have considered the clauses, as assisting in carrying out this measure, he should persist in calling on the House to go on with the Bill, notwithstanding the omission of these clauses. In those places where the Bill could not be carried into immediate effect, advantage would arise from passing it; for under it they would he enabled to make inquiries as to the districts which should be added to the towns for the purposes of this Bill; and before next Session full reports could be made on the subject, so that then they would be enabled to bring the subject to a final settlement. In all those towns where an alteration of the boundaries was not called for, the Bill could be brought into operation without delay.

felt, if the object of the Bill was only to see what could be done next Session, it would be better to confine the Bill to the regulations as to making new boundaries to the boroughs and towns affected by it. It was clear that they could not enforce the regulations embodied in it at present.

thought, after the observations of the noble Earl, that it must strike every one as to the uselessness of proceeding with the Bill during the present Session. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be better to limit the Bill to inquiry into boundaries.

said, that his noble Friend had already stated very clearly that in many towns this Bill could be carried into immediate operation; but there were some places, in consequence of the way in which the Bill had been framed, in which it could not he carried into effect until there had been an alteration in their boundaries. In some cases an extension of the area for drainage, so as to carry out sanitary regulations, was absolutely necessary. The noble Lord (the late Chief of the Woods and Forests), in his Bill, proposed that entirely new areas and boundaries should he taken for the boroughs, and also that a new representative body should be created to carry it into operation. He thought the plan of the noble Earl was open to very grave objections. He thought the body which was entrusted with the administration of the municipal affthe administra-would best effect the objects aimed at by this Bill; and the creation of a new body for this purpose would he attended with great inconvenience by interfering with the municipality. According to the plan first proposed in the Bill, power was given to extend the boundaries of boroughs by means of Orders in Council. This was liable to the objection, and, as he thought, the very fair objection, that the power given to such Order in Council should only exist by Act of Parliament. His noble Friend, therefore, proposed to take those places where the area was already fixed by Act of Parliament, and where the measure could be carried out without interfering with them. He thought that the plan of his noble Friend was much better than the one proposed by the noble Earl. It was, he admitted, making the reform more gradually, but at the same time more securely.

thought, they were blindly legislating on this subject. It was most unreasonable on the part of the noble Lord for him to press this Bill, and endeavour to smuggle it through the House at a twelve o'clock sitting, when forty Members were not present. It would be better for the noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) to dispose of the measure altogether, if he could not induce the noble Earl (the Earl of Lincoln) to take it in hand, as he seemed altogether incapable of taking care of it himself. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham, with more candour and honesty than he could have expected from him as the representative of Cheltenham, said, that the town to which all infirm and ailing persons resorted for the recovery of their health was in a worse situation than any other with regard to the prevalence of fever and miasma. If such was the state of drainage under the commissioners, it was not calculated to increase the reputation of the town.

was sorry that the noble Lord, after their long acquaintance, should have charged him with a want of candour and honesty. he had merely stated that, according to the annual returns of deaths, the mortality at Cheltenham was greater than in any other place in England of the same size. He had never stated that fever and miasma prevailed to any great extent, for he was not aware of anything of the kind. Why he wished this Bill to be successful was, that the municipal affairs of Cheltenham were managed by a self-elected body of the political friends of his noble Friend, and they carried on matters upon the rotten-borough system. His object was to get rid of the friends of his noble Friend.

remarked, that it was the last thing in his mind to raise any doubt as to the honesty and candour of his noble Friend. Indeed, he believed his hon. Friend's honesty was greater than his own.

I stated at an early period of the day, that I would state this evening the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to take with regard to certain Bills which stand amongst the Orders of the Day. The first to which I shall direct the attention of the House is the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, the Committee on which stands for this evening. The object and intention of that Bill would be found, I am convinced, very beneficial to the country; but, from late inquiries that have been made upon the subject, it appears that very great alarm has been excited by it. Not an alarm occasioned by the special provisions of the Bill itself, but by the contemplation of new powers being given by an extensive measure of this kind. It is said, by persons well qualified to speak upon the subject, and well qualified, also, to be entitled to attention, that several millions sterling, which have been advanced upon mortgages of estates in Ireland, would be called in if this Bill were passed. If we were now in an early period of the Session, I think those objections could be removed, and the Bill appear unexceptionable; but at the present period of the Session I think it would be impossible to allay the alarm which exists. We think it necessary, therefore, to defer to another Session the further consideration of this Bill. There is another Bill which stands third upon the Orders of the Day, the Prisons Bill, which is likewise one that has passed through the other House of Parliament. The Secretary of State for the Home Department finds that the arrangements to be made under this Bill are not necessary to be carried into effect during the present Session. The further progress of it may therefore be postponed to another Session. Another Bill, which also was just introduced into the other House—I mean the Custody of Offenders Bill—it is proposed to go on with. A Bill which stands among the Orders for Wednesday, the Parliamentary Electors Bill, we will proceed with through the second reading. I propose to read it a second time; but it is not my intention to proceed further with it in the present Session than the Committee. With regard to the other Bills, the Polling at Elections (Ireland) Bill, the Navigation Bill, the Post Office Bill, and the other Bills that stand upon the Orders of the Day for to-night, we propose to go on with in the present Session.

rose to call the attention of the House to the present state of Portugal, and the situation of the British naval and military forces in that country. He said that in doing so he would promise the House not to delay them by entering at length into the proceedings in Portugal, which formed the subject of the recent debate. But he thought there were many hon. Gentlemen who would agree with him in opinion, that on a subject of such very great importance and magnitude as the late armed intervention in the affairs of Portugal, it was not right to leave the question as it now stood, or that the present Parliament should close without some defence being made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the course which he thought right to pursue towards that country. In bringing the subject forward, he trusted that the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown would not attribute to him the unworthy motive of obstructing the Government by preventing the House from going into Committee of Supply. He must premise that he did not think the speeches of the two Ministers of the Crown who took part in the debate on a late occasion, contributed to show any just or sound pretext for an armed intervention in Portugal; nor did he consider that the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—who was the real divinity that came to the defence of Her Majesty's Government, and not the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)—had been without an attempt to disguise the real state of that question. For what was the question? Why, that the Queen of Portugal having violated her oath on every occasion, and having trampled on the constitutional privileges of her subjects, forced them to rise in defence of their freedom. And it was not until success promised to attend their efforts that the British Minister thought fit to interfere in support of the Queen's Government. It might be said that the British Minister was induced to interpose from his love of constitutional liberty; but did he not per- ceive that, by the course which he took, he showed his love of liberty by kicking the popular party down stairs, and by giving his support to a Sovereign who had shown herself incapable of governing in a constitutional manner. He thought the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown and the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster General of the Forces had both failed in making out a case for armed intervention. It was quite true that they spoke of the necessity of maintaining the dignity of the Portuguese Crown; but he asked, was it possible to maintain the dignity of that Crown in the absence of all truth on its side, and in a state of things where the liberty of the people was trampled upon, and where there was neither security for private honour nor for public interest? Neither they nor the right hon. Baronet made any attempt to defend the unconstitutional conduct of the Portuguese Government. An endeavour was made to induce this country to believe that, however unwilling the British Government was to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, it was forced to do so in consequence of the remonstrances of Franco and the threats of Spain. He believed, however, that at the present day no British Government could stand up and defend armed intervention on such a dishonourable plea. He was prepared to prove that from the very commencement of the affair, to this day, the conduct of France had been throughout irreproachable. The French Government sedulously endeavoured to persuade the Portuguese Government to come to terms; and though it gave a lukewarm consent to the intervention in the end, it by no means expressed a wish to interfere in the struggle. In the French Chambers, M. Guizot distinctly denied the whole case laid down in that House, and refuted the assertion that he had ever impressed on the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs the necessity of interference in the affairs of Portugal. And was not that assertion on his part carried out by the recent acts of the French authorities and by the French forces in that country? What was the conduct of the French captain commanding before Oporto? When he was asked to sign the threat of menace, he did so with considerable hesitation; and even to the end declared that he did so in no diplomatic character, and that the Consul should be responsible for the act; while the French Consul, on being applied to for his signature, positively refused to put his name to the paper, and to that day he had not signed it. He thought these facts, combined with the very clear and concise spoech of M. Guizot in the Chamber of Deputies, were conclusive evidence that France was not the first to impress on the noble Lord the necessity of an armed intervention. Besides, the French steamers, on being applied to, actually refused to take the prisoners on board, saying to the Queen's forces, "If you want gaolers, go to the English fleet." It was very evident from all this that the noble Lord had been birdlimed by that great master of diplomacy—the French Monarch—who would in due time, no doubt, reap the harvest of the interference. He next came to the most extraordinary of all the declarations ever made by a Minister of the British Crown, namely, that the Government of this country was forced, in the nineteenth century, into an armed intervention in Portugal, from fear of Spain. He had pledged himself not to enter at length into the entire question, and he would promise not to road a single extract from the papers that had been laid on the Table; but he could not avoid quoting a few sentences from the French blue book on this subject. [The hon. Gentleman road an extract from a despatch of the Count do Jarnac, dated London, May 24, 1847, stating that the Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty had declared himself ready to offer and prescribe on the spot the co-operation of the naval forces of Great Britain in support of the Royal cause in Portugal; hut that the British Government, considering that a joint intervention of the allies would be infinitely preferable to intervention by any one of them alone, proposed that a protocol should be issued; that this advice was supported by the Portuguese Plenipotentiary; and that the Spanish Plenipotentiary stated that he was without any power from his Court to sign any such arrangement, but that he would write to Madrid that evening, to hasten the intervention of the Spanish forces in Portugal. It thus appeared that the proposal to support the Royal cause in Portugal, came from the noble Lord in the first instance, and that neither the Plenipotentiary of France or of Spain interfered in the arrangement. It also appeared, from this despatch of the Count de Jarnac, that the noble Lord actually proceeded himself to draw up the first draft of the protocol. After these facts, he did not conceive how the noble Lord would be able to explain away what occurred, or to satisfy the House that unless this Government had consented to interfere, they would incur the danger of a European war. All the evidence before them proved directly the contrary of this assertion. He believed the noble Lord was the only man in that House who was able to explain those facts; and he had no doubt but that the noble Lord felt delighted at being afforded an opportunity of doing so. But what was the present state of Portugal? As to the Junta at Oporto, he believed that even those who were opposed to them would admit that they had conducted themselves in a manner which did honour to their cause. he could not conceive under what pretence of law the attack upon their forces, under the Count das Antas, and the imprisonment of that officer, with 4,000 of his men, at St. Julian, was justified. Or why was it that this country should be put to the expense of 150l. a day for the support of the men who were taken prisoners? he did not think that the noble Lord, great as was his faith in the Queen of Portugal, would attach equal value to the Portuguese debentures issued in her name. On the contrary, the noble Lord was well aware that he was hourly plunging this country into expenses in support of the dynasty of that country, and that it would be very well if the proceedings did not in future run them into the expense of an European war. The attack on the forces of the Junta was certainly the most inglorious essay ever made by the British fleet. But what was the next step taken? The forces of the Junta at St. Ubes were ordered to capitulate; and Sa da Bandeira with 300 men repaired to the British fleet, while the remainder of the force, under Galamba, retreated. It was with feelings of shame at the disgrace which the transaction reflected on the British name, that he perceived a signal was given from the British fleet to General Vinhaes to attack the retreating forces, and that he led on his dragoons to massacre the fugitives. He hoped hon. Gentlemen in that House would not be bamboozled by any attempted excuse that might be made for such a proceeding. They had a people justly in arms in defence of their freedom; and yet there was the British fleet making signals that they might be attacked in their retreat. An amnesty was proclaimed on the 9th of June, and was at once made known to the supporters of the Junta; but no trouble was taken to inform them that a supplement to that proclamation was issued on the 10th. The first of these was issued from the Palace of the Necessidades—a very good name; for if the Queen had not been in necessity, the noble Lord would never have interfered at all. The House was aware of the nature of the amnesty; but it would not perhaps be wrong to remind it of the nature of the supplement which afterwards appeared. The decree declared—

"In order to obtain the submission which is due to me, and to re-establish public order, I have resolved to adopt all the measures which humanity and public safety demand; such as to accord an amnesty on an exceedingly wide scale, and the restitution of all the employments which the constitution and the laws have decided cannot he lost except after a formal order, motived by impropriety of conduct on the part of the holders; and the restoration of all honours. I have also resolved to convoke the Cortes, and have the elections proceeded with as soon as public order shall have been restored in all parts of the kingdom; maintaining in all its plenitude the liberty of electors, the free exercise of all rights, and the scrupulous and impartial execution of the constitutional charter in all its provisions."

The supplement, however, went on to state, that—

"Having conceded to all who have been implicated in the revolt which has been carried on since the 6th of October last, a full and general amnesty by my Royal Decree of the 28th of April past, and which was published conjointly with the Proclamation of the 9th instant, which called them to a rightful submission, assuring them after such submission the execution of the provisions of the said Decree; and having taken into consideration that in consequence of a wrong interpretation which has been given to those Acts, there have resulted excesses and disturbances of the public peace: It is hereby declared, that the above-named provisions of the Decree referred to, of the 28th April last, will only take effect after the complete submission of the revolutionary Junta of Oporto, and of the armed bodies who sustain the revolt; the Government being prepared, until such submission is given, not only to adopt all such measures as the security of the public peace may call for, but to adopt all necessary measures to put an end to the said revolt. The Ministers and Secretaries of State of the several Departments will take it as so understood, and see it executed."

Now, he would maintain that the Junta was strictly justified in not submitting until all the conditions of the first proclamation were carried into effect. One of these conditions insisted upon was the removal of the Ministry; but though their removal was promised, these very men, who were a disgrace to civilized Europe, were to the present day in the possession of power, and were the advisers of the Sovereign. He would defy any civilized country in the world to produce such a body of men as the Min- istry to whom the Junta wore expected to lay down their arms. There was no President of the Council, a thing, he believed, unusual in Portugal. The whole body, under the pretence of not being a Cabralist Ministry, was composed of the rankest Cabralists; and even greater partisans, if possible, than their predecessors of that Jonathan Wild of European diplomacy—Costa de Cabral. The first of them was M. Bayard, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose connexion with the proceedings of the 6th of October would be remembered. Then they had Tavares Proenca, Minister of the Interior, answering, he believed, to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport in this country. Viscount da Barca was Minister of War; and Count Tojal was the Finance Minister—the Sir Charles Wood of the Portuguese Government, but very unlike that excellent Minister in every one particular. It might be well to inform the House that this Count Tojal was a public defaulter in this country—that it was principally owing to him that the taxes on salt and burials bad been constituted—that it was at his suggestion the large creation of new Portuguese bonds had been sent to this country—and that he was, in fact, an individual too well known on the Stock Exchange. The fifth was M. Leitao, the Minister of Justice, who was said to be a very amiable man, but who had very little power in the Ministry. He wanted to know why it was, that at such a peculiar crisis as the present, the British Ambassador at Lisbon (Lord Howard de Walden) and Mr. Southern, two men who understood the condition of the country so intimately, and who had exhibited so much skill and judgment in the transaction of public business, had been recalled, and replaced by two Gentlemen, who, however amiable and excellent, had no more knowledge of Portugal than had been shown by the noble Lord himself. One of them, Sir Hamilton Seymour, had come from the Court of a Monarch to whom he (Mr. Osborne) was disposed to attribute some blame for what had taken place—he meant the King of the Belgians. Sir Hamilton Seymour knew nothing of Portugal, and had necessarily to go to the English Consul at Lisbon for advice and information. Now, the latter was married to the sister of the Count Tojal; and it was therefore very natural that all the information which reached Sir Hamilton Seymour and our Government came through Count Tojal and Mr. Smith. Lord Howard de Walden had displayed great knowledge of the country, and had conducted himself admirably; and why he was recalled would, it was to be hoped, be explained by the noble Lord. Our Government should have insisted upon an entire change in the Portuguese Administration. There would then have been no difficulty in bringing the Junta of Oporto to terms, and the whole question would then have been settled without any necessity for the noble Lord's protocol. One cause of the present state of things was the influence at the Court of Portugal of a certain Padre Marcos, chaplain to the Queen, a creature of Cabral. This chaplain was at the head of a political club of servants in the Palace; and his character might be estimated by the fact, that although he was a priest and confessor to the Queen, he was the father of a very numerous family of sons and daughters. The conduct of this person, in fact, had disgusted every party in the State; and he would ask the noble Lord what confidence could the people of Portugal feel in a Government which made such appointments. The conduct of the Junta of Oporto presented a perfect contrast to the proceedings of the Court. Greatly to their honour and credit, there had been no disturbances at Oporto; British life and British property were secure in that city; but we had been obliged to retain Das Antas for fear of assassination. It must be remembered, also, when the House was called upon to trust the Queen of Portugal and the armistice, that Marshal Saldanha had taken advantage of the suspension of the armistice to advance; and that, although the British Consul remonstrated, he refused to fall back. Then, there was the treatment of the Count Bomfim and the prisoners taken at Torres Vedras in the settlement of Angola. The noble Lord must confess, that the treatment of these persons had been in the highest degree exceptionable. They surrendered upon an honourable capitulation—their lives were to be spared, and their property saved; but what was the first step of Government? Why, positively to rob them of their property, and then to consign them to a convict ship to be transported to a penal settlement. These gallant men arrived at Angola in rags. So great was their destitution that a subscription was made for their relief, and they were clothed at the expense of the inhabitants. The Portuguese Government had treated them like the worst class of felons, They ordered the sons to be separated from the fathers, and dispersed amongst the most unhealthy parts of the settlement, with the exception of Count Bomfin, who was kept a prisoner on board a hulk. Now, he contended, that if the noble Lord could insist with firmness upon the retirement of M. Dietz from the Court of Portugal, it was much more incumbent upon him to have insisted, with all the vigour belonging to his character, upon the recall of these unhappy men. He regretted, however, to say, that throughout the whole of these transactions he saw nothing on the part of England but sympathy with the Court, and that the interest of the people had throughout been treated as a matter of secondary consideration. What was the next step taken on the part of this country? Why, to threaten the bombardment of Oporto by the fleet. This threat he regarded as nothing more than a brutum fulmen; but there was every reason to believe that a Spanish army, at this moment, was in possession of Oporto. Perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary were then reading the despatch informing them of this event. Did the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs forget, when he threatened to bombard Oporto, and when he actually allowed a Spanish army to march into it, that more than three-fourths of its commerce was carried on by British merchants? In 1842, the declared value of British manufactures exported thither was no loss than 1,102,746l.; and 161 British ships of 122,922 tons arrived there. In short, the whole trade of Oporto might he said to be in the hands of British merchants, yet the noble Lord was risking it, and for what? To set up a constitutional Government? No; but to maintain a despotic and ungovernable woman upon the throne of Portugal. He would tell the House there was a strong feeling growing up both in Spain and Portugal, that as they had lost their colonies, it would be for their mutual interest to be united; and at the same time it was a significant fact that the people of Oporto, sooner than surrender to their own countrymen under Saldanha, gave themselves up to a party of Spaniards under General Concha. No wonder, indeed, at the surrender of Oporto, when it was threatened by a Spanish army on one side, and by a British fleet on the other; but what security could the noble Lord give that as soon as the Spanish garrison had withdrawn, the insurrection as it was called, would not break out again? He was by no means certain, whatever might be said by that House, that the next House of Commons would be willing to place the same confidence in the assurances of the noble Lord that all would go on right; but in the meantime how long was this country to act the part of a police in Portugal? How long were we to pay for the support of an army of prisoners in Portugal? With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) daring the last debate on this subject, he would ask him to consider that we were now dealing with events in the nineteenth century, and that the public sympathies were with the people rather than with the Court. A struggle was in fact going on throughout Europe between popular and despotic principles; and he was certain that much of it was owing to the Quadruple Treaty. England ought to be extremely guarded how she entered upon the principle of intervention. The last remains of the independence of Poland had been swallowed up in Cracow. Austria was already pressing upon Italy, and encouraging France to press upon Switzerland. The King of Prussia was oscillating between the fear of offending the Emperor of Russia, and the wish to give a constitution to his subjects. And at this time the noble Lord, under the plea of guaranteeing the throne of the Queen, attacked the popular principle in Portugal. He founded a foreign throne upon a British fleet and Spanish bayonets. The noble Lord knew this was the last experiment he could ever make upon this subject. If there was a public in Spain (which he much doubted), they would not submit to this tampering with constitutional rights—this erection of thrones on foreign bayonets. One word, however, must be said for the English people. When they came to understand this question, an end would be put to protocolizing and intervention. They would not consent to be taxed for the support of despotic principles. They would recollect that under the two first Georges the wealth and blood of this country had been spent, not for their benefit, but for the aggrandizement of Hanover; and recollecting that, he much misjudged them if, for the selfish advantage of the House of Braganza or the House of Coburg, they would interfere in any war which had for its object the oppression of the Junta of Oporto, and the maintenance of the Queen of Portugal upon the throne. In conclusion, the hon. and gallant Gentleman begged to propose the following resolution, and he called upon the noble Lord to second it:—

"In the opinion of this House, it is incumbent on the British Government, as it has made itself a party to an armed intervention in Portugal, with the avowed view of adjusting internal differences in that country, to insure to the Portuguese Nation the full and complete enjoyment of their constitutional rights and privileges, and also to insist on the immediate recall of the Count Bomfin and his companions in exile from the penal settlement of Angola, and, if necessary, to facilitate their conveyance to Europe."

I certainly do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the Amendment which my hon. Friend has now proposed; not that I object, in any degree, to the spirit, and meaning, and substance of it, but because we are anxious to go into Committee of Supply. My noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on a former occasion stated the entire concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the substance of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury; and therefore I can have no difficulty in assuring the House that Her Majesty's Government will feel it their duty to exert the influence which properly belongs to Britain, for the purpose of obtaining from the Government of Portugal a full and perfect execution of the Articles that are recorded in the Protocol. My hon. Friend who has just sat down was perfectly right in his surmise that my noble Friend and myself wore engaged in reading the communication which announced the conclusion of the drama which has been going on in Portugal—that drama of which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) gave us the prologue, and of which my hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) has this day pronounced the epilogue—a drama in which, if we had not taken upon ourselves in some degree the duty of stage-managers, would, instead of being what it may in some degree be considered, as rather partaking of a comic character, have been a tragedy of a serious description, marked cither by wide-spread, destructive, and desolating anarchy, or by the establishment of a cruel and revengeful tyranny. Sir, the principles upon which we acted were those of avoiding either of these two extremes. My hon. Friend, however, has this evening appeared not merely in the character of the deliverer of a very able epilogue, but in a new function—one partaking somewhat of an obstetric character; for he has come forward to assist me in the deliverance of a certain speech. I am afraid, however, my hon. Friend will not be successful in delivering mo of the speech which it might have been my duty to make upon a former occasion, because the full-grown offspring which proceeded from the head of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), to whom he alluded, and who made, as he himself has stated, an able defence of our policy—[Mr. B. OSBORNE: I said special pleading.] The speech of the right hon. Baronet supersedes, however, the necessity of any delivery on my part of the infant effort which on a former occasion I might have produced to this House. I say, therefore, to go now, at this time of day, into the details of this question—to expound, step by stop, the course of policy Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to follow—would be only to weary the House by matters which, however they may be viewed by my hon. Friend, and by some who agree with him, are, I believe, settled in public opinion to the satisfaction of this country at large. I am convinced, however some hon. Gentlemen in this House may still view with dissatisfaction the course pursued, the country at large is satisfied our course was a wise one, and that our object was that which we avowed, namely, not the establishment of tyranny, but the maintenance of the liberties of the Portuguese people. I do not stand hero to defend the Government of Portugal from the charges which my hon. Friend has made against them. I do not stand here to vindicate the character of chaplains and confessors. I would rather be excused from stating my opinion upon the details of late transactions; but I have no hesitation in saying, that, in my humble opinion, the Government of Portugal was wrong in the course they pursued in October last; and I have no difficulty in avowing, when the Crown of Portugal, by its advisers, said to the people, "You shall have no Parliament in which to state your grievances," the people were justified in saying, "If you give us no Parliament in which to state our grievances, we will state them ourselves by arms and force." Sir, the object of our interference was a recall of the Parliament. It was to relieve the people of Portugal from the necessity of that irregular political proceeding—to give them a Parliament in which to state their grievances, and to restore the battles of political party to the legitimate arena of the Senate. That was our object—that was the mainspring which directed the policy which we have pursued. I think, if any man will take the trouble of reading patiently the pages of the blue book, he will see that was the course which, day after day, and week after week, we followed. Sir, what did we do when we were long ago appealed to by the Governments of Portugal and Spain? We were early in the day told by the Government of France—not, as my hon. Friend erroneously imputes, of an intention to interfere directly by arms; for the French Government did not call for actual interference—but I say, we wore told, early in the day, by the French Government, that the case which existed was a casus fœderis under the Quadruple Treaty. If a Government like that of France states that a case has arisen under the provisions of a treaty, according to which it is liable to be called upon for military and naval aid, it is establishing a distinction without a difference to tell us that that Government did not invite us to interfere. Sir, my hon. Friend denied that a case might happen, if the parties went on in the line in which they were then going, in which Spain also, under the provisions of the Quadruple Treaty, would be compelled to interfere by force of arms. Latterly, towards the conclusion of these negotiations—however my hon. Friend may repeat the notion that our interference was begun that we might not give displeasure to Spain; for it was not the fear of displeasure to Spain that was the motive for our conduct—he will see that Spain from time to time kept announcing its intended interference, with us or without us; and that at last, in April of this year, M. Pacheco told us that, anxious as he was to make the conduct of Spain conformable to the wishes of the other Powers, and would endeavour to do nothing without the accordance of England, yet, as he said, being deeply interested in the question, if the tranquillity of Spain and the security of the Throne of the Queen of Portugal should by circumstances be placed in danger, with or without England Spain must act, because the Government of Queen Isabella could not permit the Throne of Queen Maria to be overthrown by popular commotion. Well, then, we had two objects in view: we wished, first, to persuade the Portuguese Government to do that which we thought they ought to do, namely, to use conciliation toward the discontented people; to pacify the country by making proper concessions to those who thought they had grievances which required redress; to negotiate with the Junta, and in that way to put an end to the civil war. On the other hand, we were using our utmost endeavours to prevent the forcible interference of Spain. In the one object we unfortunately failed; in the other, up to the last moment, we have succeeded. Then it is said, why did we suddenly alter our course, and, having up to a certain time declined interfering, and preached negotiation and concession, all at once change our course, and agree to that interference which, up to that moment, we had declined? Why, I think, Sir, the blue book itself fully explains the reason for that change. We exhausted every method of persuasion to prevail upon the Portuguese Government to pursue the course which we thought right. The Queen of Portugal was willing to pursue that course; but her Government resisted it. Her Government at last partially gave way; but the head of that Government, who, being not only the President of the Council but also the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, was a person of considerable weight and consequence, without whoso concurrence nothing could be effected (the Marquess of Saldanha), at last declared that he would not be a party to any concession or to any measure of conciliation—that he would resign his offices and his command if conciliation were adopted, and if Spanish interference were not to be resorted to. Then it was that a decision became necessary: it became necessary that we should make a speedy and immediate decision; because events were then advancing much more rapidly than had hitherto been the case. We might have said, we will do nothing—we will leave things to take their course. Now, which of the two courses would my hon. Friend have had us take? Which of the two modifications of the course would my hon. Friend have wished us to adopt? we are told we should have adhered rigidly to the system of non-interference. Why, non-interference in a case like that of a Portuguese civil war could be nothing but a total and entire non-interference, leaving things solely and entirely to themselves. That statement means, then, that we should not have endeavoured to interfere to prevent the Spaniards doing what they wished; because if the Queen of Portugal—an independent Sovereign—asked a friendly ally (Spain) to render her assistance, then non-interference, to be consistent, says that we should abstain from meddling at all—that we had no business to check Spain—that it was for Spain alone to determine whether she should interfere or no—that we should upon no account put pen to paper, but should allow Spain to do whatever she chose. Now that would have been entire and equal noninterference; but I should like to know how that would agree with constitutional and popular principles. There was a Spanish army collected on the frontier—we were told that Count Thomar was pulling the strings at Madrid; that his agents and creatures were at Lisbon—why, Sir, the inevitable consequence of non-interference on the part of England would have been that a Spanish army would have entered into Portugal, and we should have had the very thing which my hon. Friend thinks so disastrous and so calamitous in its character, viz., Spanish interference in the affairs of Portugal—not such an interference as that which has now taken place, controlled, and regulated, and determined by a co-operation and conjunction with other Powers—not an interference directed to the legitimate object of re-establishing a constitutional Government in Portugal; but a Spanish interference directed by that Count Thomar, who is the object of dread to my hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Padre Marcos at Lisbon, a Spanish army being sent into the country by Count Thomar to carry out the views of Padre Marcos and the arbitrary party in Lisbon. That would either have produced a national revolt and struggle between the Spanish and the Portuguese people, or have led to the establishment of that system of arbitrary and tyrannical government against which the Portuguese people rose in May of last year, and again in October following. Nobody has yet said that that is the course which we ought to have pursued. Then it is said again, that we should have interfered not by force of arms and by an armed mediation, as we have done, but that we should have interfered to the extent of preventing Spanish troops entering Portugal, and not in any other way; that we should have said, "We will not interfere, and nobody else shall interfere." But, Sir, I contend that that would itself have been an interference. The Queen of Portugal sends for succour, and assistance. We say, "We won't help you, we won't mediate, we won't arbitrate, but we will prevent anybody else from helping you: we leave you, therefore, to fight single-handed against your discontented subjects." I say that would have been exercising a dominion over the Crown of Portugal which England is not entitled to exercise; hut it would also have been inconsistent with those ancient treaties and engagements which hind the Crowns of the two countries. It is evident, then, that either of those courses would have left Portugal to he the prey of great and serious calamities; hut if Portugal had been a country with which we had no political connexion by treaties, and no commercial connexion by trade—if the scene had been laid in some distant country, far away from us, and with which we had no concern or common interest, undoubtedly we should have left Portugal to shift for itself, and the Portuguese to take care as they best could of their own affairs. But looking, on the one hand, to the ancient treaties which hind this country to Portugal, and, on the other hand, to those interests of commerce which my hon. Friend described in regard to the single port of Oporto, it would have been of great injury and detriment to the interests of this country if Portugal had, by our neglect, been reduced to that state of anarchy which one event would have occasioned; and it would have been a matter of great regret to this country if we had been the cause of establishing an arbitrary despotic Government in Portugal. Then, Sir, the only course left was that which we pursued. We saw, on the one hand, that Spain would interfere. She told us so. We saw that unless we resorted to that extremity which has been suggested, of threatening Spain with war if she did interfere, no other course was open to us. But that was a proceeding which I think no man in this House would recommend; but I am sure if we had come down to this House, and had proposed a war with Spain, and perhaps, in consequence, a war with France, because we did not choose that a Spanish army should cross the frontier, that that proposition would not have been well received by this House or by the country. I say, then, that that was not the course which we ought to have pursued. Gentlemen talked of a war with Spain preventing interference with Portugal. Why, if the interference which Spain threatened had been an interference by way of sea, and we could have stopped it by a fleet, it might have been easy of execution; but would this House have sanctioned an expedition against Spain, in order to prevent the interference of Spanish troops. [Mr. OSBORNE: Mr. Canning did it.] Yes, Mr. Canning did it; but allow me to tell my hon. Friend that that was a very different case from the present. Mr. Canning did it in the exercise and the fulfilment of treaties and engagements. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose did not tell mo that Mr. Canning did it. He even objected to that measure, although it was proved to the demonstration and to the complete satisfaction of the House and the country that England was bound by engagements to take that step. But in this case there is no such treaty. We should have been borne out by no engagements and by no treaties. It would have been a purely Quixotic enterprise on our part to prevent what we considered an abuse of power; and I cannot myself imagine that the House or the country would have sanctioned such a proceeding. But, Sir, we therefore determined to regulate those events which we could not altogether prevent. We had urged the Queen of Portugal to negotiate with her subjects, and to redress the grievances of which they justly complained. She said she could not, because her Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief refused to be a party to that proceeding. We then said—"Then we will do what they refuse; we will enable you to make those concessions to your subjects which we think you ought to make, and which nothing but a want of power prevents you making immediately. There has been a rising in the country; grant those concerned in it a full and complete amnesty: there are decrees which you have been advised to issue which are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and opposed to the rights and liberties of the people; revoke them, and place things upon their former footing; you have postponed the meeting of Parliament indefinitely—let the elections immediately take place, and call Parliament together; objections have been taken to the Government you had in October, on the ground that it is a renewal of the Government of May, in consequence of which the insurrection took place—remove that Government, and until Parliament appoints another, place in it men who shall not be objected to as members of the Cabral party on the one hand, or of the Junta on the other." For what else hut those conditions was it that the people went originally into arms? The granting of those conditions would have been giving to the people of Portugal everything they asked, and even more than they had specifically required. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Nothing has been done.] The hon. Gentleman says "nothing has been done;" why, it is only this very day that I have received an account that the Junta has agreed to terms. The Junta, no doubt very wisely, waited to see what the British Parliament would say. They have heard what the Parliament has done. It appears that they are satisfied with what England has done. Peace is restored; and now that that event has happened, contingent upon which those other arrangements were to take place, it is understood that they will be carried into execution. An amnesty has been published applicable to all those who have been in arms against the Government. A revocation of the decrees will no doubt take place now that the civil war is, I hope, over. The elections—you would not have them going on whilst a civil war was raging; no man in his senses could expect them to take place in such a state of things—will commence the moment the country is tranquil, and as soon as they are concluded the Cortes will no doubt be summoned. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: The Ministry.] It is stated that the present Ministry is the same as that against which the revolt in October last took place. Allow mo to say that the men now in office are not the same men; and if they are—if any of them be liable to objections for not being in character conformable with the Fourth Article of the conditions—then I can assure my hon. Friend that all the influence of the British Government will be exercised to obtain from the Crown of Portugal a full and faithful exercise of that condition, as well as of all the other conditions. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend, however, says that the whole course of the British Government has been marked by a partiality towards the Crown of Portugal. Sir, that certainly is not the opinion of the party against whom the insurrection of the 6th of October was directed; on the contrary, complaints have been made of the partiality of Her Majesty's Government to the Junta. We have been accused of protecting them as much as we are now accused of protecting the other party. It was indeed said that they trusted to support from us, and that it was their confidence in the certainty and amount of that support which prevented them listening to the proposals that were made to them, or from themselves making proposals to the Government. Sir, my hon. Friend asks why was Lord Howard do Waldon removed from Lisbon? Sir, Lord Howard de Walden deserves all the praise which my hon. Friend has given him; and if he knew as well as I know the manner in which Lord Howard de Walden performed his duties during the long course of time which he represented the British Crown at Lisbon, he would even add to the commendation which he has so deservedly bestowed. But Lord Howard de Walden had private reasons which made it necessary for him to leave Lisbon—he was obliged to go to the West Indies to look after his interests there, which were suffering from his absence; and it would not have been fair to have called upon him to make such a sacrifice, if his duties at Lisbon could be transferred to anybody else. Sir Hamilton Seymour was then sent out, and has performed his duties in a manner perfectly satisfactory—he has done nothing that has not been fully approved by Her Majesty's Government. Placed, in my opinion, in very difficult circumstances, in very complicated difficulties, with regard to which he could have no previous instructions, and in circumstances in which he was compelled to act at the moment, and upon his own discretion, he has acted with judgment, with courage, with firmness, with honesty, and in a manner worthy, in my opinion, of the representative of the British Crown and of the British nation. Sir Hamilton Seymour has been impartial between the contending parties, and for that impartiality he has been blamed by both; and that, Sir, is the lot of those who endeavour to steer an even course between conflicting and contending parties; it is their lot to be blamed by everybody, but whilst they are acquitted by their own consciences they will be indifferent to the censures which may be heaped upon them. My hon. Friend asked why Mr. Southern had been removed? I am not aware that he has been removed. He had obtained leave of absence for private reasons connected with the health of his family; but he thought it his duty to live at Lisbon, and there he has been, much, I say, to the advantage and the interests of the public service. The conduct pursued by Sir Hamilton Seymour has been that of an honest, an upright, and an able man; and, instead of attempting, as my hon. Friend has done, to draw invidious distinctions between the different organs of the policy of the Government, I can only say that they have all followed their instructions to the best of their ability, and with a judgment and a zeal which render them deserving of approbation of the Government and the public. I think I have now explained the points to which my hon. Friend has adverted. I have stated that it was the policy of our Government to induce the Crown of Portugal of its own accord to make concessions to the just grievances of the Portuguese nation; that we pursued the course until we at last arrived at a point at which we found it was impossible to obtain our object in that way; that we found the Crown would not follow the advice which we had tendered; and that we then felt that rather than leave Portugal to those great and serious calamities which, without any further interference, seemed to threaten that country, it was hotter to pursue the only course which lay open to us, and to unite with the Governments of Spain and France, for the purpose, not of crushing the liberties of the people, not of setting up an arbitrary and tyrannical despotism, but for the purpose of re-establishing the constitutional Government of Portugal, and of giving to the people the means of redressing their grievances in a legal and legitimate manner. My hon. Friend said that there was a blue book in France as well as in England, and that the account given in that book of the mode in which the protocol was framed, differed materially from the statements made in this House. Sir, there is no difference that I can perceive between these statements. My hon. Friend says, "How happens it, you say that one of the great motives for the course you pursued was the apprehension of Spanish interference; and yet it appears, by Count Jarnae's despatch, that when you assembled at the Foreign Office to make the protocol for joint interference—mark that, 'joint' interference—the Spanish Minister said he had no instructions for joint interference, and hesitated to agree to such a proposition?" Where is the inconsistency between the statements? We said, Spain announced that if we would not go with her, she would go by herself. The blue book is full of proofs that there was a party, particularly the military party, in Spain, which had a great desire for separate and independent action; and we are told by Count Jarnae that the Spanish Minister hesitated to tie up his Government as to the amount and duration of interference to be allowed, by accepting the engagement which we proposed to regulate the actions of his Government. So far from there being any inconsistency, I maintain that the account which Count Jarnae very faithfully gives of what passed, confirms and corroborates the very statements on which we found, in part, our justification for the course we have pursued. Sir, the Spanish Minister did undoubtedly at first say that he had no instructions for a protocol which was to determine the extent, and the range, and the duration of the movements of the Spanish army, but that he was quite ready to write to engage his Government to send a Spanish army into Portugal. After a very slight conversation, however, and a simple statement of motives and objects to him, he did agree, and did take upon himself the responsibility of binding his Government as to the manner, the objects, and the duration of the interference which the Spanish troops were to effect in Portugal. Would my hon. Friend have preferred that the Spanish army should have marched into Portugal on its own account, without any restrictions as to the time during which it was to remain there, and the period of its return? Those simple articles which we thought it necessary, with a view to a conciliation, for the Queen of Portugal to offer to her subjects, were recorded by the Portuguese Minister in the protocol; and they became from that moment an engagement, not only from the Crown of Portugal to its own subjects, but an engagement from the Crown of Portugal towards its Three Allies. Therefore I contend that the protocol did give to the people of Portugal a security for their constitutional institutions, which they would not have had if Spanish influence were allowed to be exercised without the consent and co-operation of the Three Powers. We have been charged with a desire to crush popular liberty in Portugal, and to encourage despotic authority in that country; but that is not the course we took at any time—it is not the course which England in these days has taken—nor is it, I will say, the course which she ever will pursue. It was very well for that great and powerful people of ancient times to assume it as their peculiar right and appropriate duty to impose fetters upon every man whose bosom glowed with free sentiments, or who entertained a love of native independence, and only to spare from the ruthless edge of the destroying sword those nations that were subdued or had submitted. Far different, however, has been the allotted task and the duty of England. Our duty—our vocation—is not to enslave, but to set free; and I may say, without any vain-glorious boast, or without great offence to any one, that we stand at the head of moral, social, and political civilization. Our task is to lead the way and direct the march of other nations. I do not think we ought to goad on the unwilling, or force forward the reluctant; hut when we see a people battling against difficulties and struggling against obstacles in the pursuit of their rights, we may be permitted to encourage them with our sympathy and to cheer them with our approbation; and even, if occasion require, to lend them a helping hand, and bear them up against the difficulties that have beset them. we have done this—England has often and successfully exerted herself for the accomplishment of this object. If Greece has thrown off the yoke which bound her to the earth for so many centuries, and if she now enjoys a state of political independence, it is to England, in common with her other allies, that the thanks of the Greek nation are due. If Spain has escaped the double calamity of foreign domination and a domestic tyranny, it is to England that Spain owes her best thanks for having escaped from that double misfortune. If Belgium has ceased to be transferred from master to master as the tide of conquest ebbed and flowed over Europe, is it not to the influence of England—exerted under two opposite and conflicting Administrations, the Administration of the Duke of Wellington and that of Earl Grey—was it not England which had the greatest share in bringing about that happy event for the Belgian people? Then Portugal. If the House of Braganza has not ceased to reign, and if the people of Portugal now enjoy their civil and political rights, it is the strong arm of England that has enabled the people of Portugal at the present day to boast that they have a national dynasty, and that they enjoy political freedom. And though our neighbours on the other side the Channel are not disposed to acknowledge their obligations to this country, whom they very erroneously look upon as jealous rivals instead of single-hearted friends as we are—if the French people are able to enjoy the advantages of the revolution of July, without paying for it the penalty of a foreign war, it was the influence of England—also exerted under two Administrations, and exerted at least honestly, sincerely, and not without some effect, which hastened to secure for the French nation the enjoyment of those advantages. What, I would ask, is there in the conduct of the party now in power that justifies the hon. Gentleman in asserting that we are swayed by such base, dishonourable, unconstitutional, and un-English feelings as he has imputed to us? Sir, I repel that charge with as much indignation as is consistent with Parliamentary decorum. The reverse of these are the sentiments which have guided Her Majesty's Government. When we are supposed to have swerved from the proper path of duty, I can only say that the men who have suspected us to be guilty of conduct so unbecoming our station must very much alter their own feelings before they will be fit to hold similar situations in this country. Sir, our course has been straightforward and consistent. Our object has been neither to servo the Portuguese Crown nor to oppress the Portuguese people. We found Portugal a prey to civil war which threatened to lay waste the country, to deluge it with blood, to ruin its finances, to put an end to its prosperity, and to bring in famine as the only stop to military operations. Looking, then, at Portugal as our natural ally, as a country which it was important for British interests to maintain as a material element in the balance of European power—viewing it as very important to British interests that this country should remain a wealthy and prosperous friend, we thought we should best consult our duty in obtaining for the Portuguese nation those constitutional securities which, by the bad advice of the councillors of the Crown in that country had been suspended. Our object was to put an end to bloodshed, and in that we have succeeded. And in bringing the war to a peaceful termination—in transferring the struggle from the field of battle to the arena of Parliamentary debate, we have, I think, earned the thanks of political parties in this country, and given the Portuguese nation the means which the constitution and popular institutions of the country have secured to them of stating their grievances, of obtaining—and, if necessary, I will say of extorting—redress from the Crown. That has been our object, that has been the limit of our interference; and whatever some hon. Gentlemen may think, I leave our conduct with confidence to the country, and not only to our contemporaries, but to the impartial judgment of future times, to say whether we have swerved one hair's breadth from that constitutional course which it was the duty of this country to pursue.

complimented his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe on his success; for not only had he proved that our interference with the affairs of Portugal were uncalled for, hut he had proved by the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the most honourable intentions and the most consummate abilities when brought to hear upon the subject were futile, and inadequate to put his arguments before the country in a satisfactory manner. He felt bound to disclaim, as far as he was concerned, all participation in the feeling which the noble Lord attributed to some one—to the effect that the Government sympathized with the progress of despotism, and felt not unwilling to advance it. He believed no hon. Gentleman in that House attributed any such feeling to the Government; but there were those who contended with success that the champions of the French revolution were men of high reputation and distinguished for the possession of many excellent qualities; but who considered that in aiding in the revolution they were defending the constitutional rights and liberties of the people. He did not mean to draw a comparison between the Members of Her Majesty's Government and the champions of the French revolution; but he submitted there would be no use in discussion if they were to be precluded from canvassing the actions of public men, because it was generally admitted they were amiable and commendable in their private capacity. He was willing to award the noble Lord his just meed of praise for the highest ability and the purest intentions throughout these proceedings; but he could not award similar praise to those who held office immediately before him. The difficulties in which Portugal and the Peninsula were involved, Were the creatures of the inefficient policy which the Government that preceded him had adopted. He alluded to the period when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth occupied the position now better occupied by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and when the Earl of Aberdeen was at the head of the Foreign Office. With respect to the more immediate subject for consideration, it appeared to him that the whole of the able address of the noble Lord placed the question upon the same footing as that argued by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh. It was not insisted that the principle of international law did not sanction interference. neither was it asserted that the treaties from the earliest down to the latest date justified such interference. It was true, a special case might have arisen; but he failed to detect any arguments which went to show that a special case was made out. There might have been a special case to justify interference in which national independence was threatened, or in which rebellious subjects might have attempted to overthrow the Throne; but in the present case the aggressor was the Crown. The noble Lord at the head of the Government argued that the constitutional Monarch had always a right to dismiss his Ministers. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I was dismissed myself.] He knew that the noble Lord had been dismissed in 1834; and he remembered there was a noble Lord who said at the time that an illustrious Personage had done it all. The circumstance of the dismissal of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government, could not, however, apply to the dismissal of the Queen of Portugal's Ministers; for on the occasion of his dismissal he was not locked up in a room, neither was the Commander-in-Chief sent for and compelled to sign a decree issuing orders to the army, and told that if he did not comply he would be shut up. The noble Lord surely did not sanction such an exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. The Ministers of the Queen of Spain were dismissed immediately after her Majesty had solemnly promised that the people should he fairly represented in the Cortes. The Queen of Portugal invaded the constitution—she violated the charter of the people, and postponed calling the Cortes, and made it impossible that the Cortes, when called, should represent fairly the feelings of her subjects. Upon this what happened? No solitary faction—no discontented political section of the people, but the entire nation expressed in a loyal and respectful voice its determination that the Queen and the country should be saved from the unhallowed domination of a foreign faction. No violence was offered to the Queen; for the safety of her person was guaranteed by the Junta. The true character of the affair could best be gathered from the letter which Mr. Southern wrote to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, on the 22nd of October, 1846, In which he said—

"I feel persuaded that the late sudden change of Administration in Portugal was partly brought about by advice from Madrid, and that Marshal Saldanha has unconsciously been serving as an instrument to forward the plans of the Count de Thomar and M. Gonzales Bravo, in which I believe Spanish intervention, and an intimate union for the future between the Governments of Lisbon and Madrid, figure as principal features. I have observed to the Marshal Saldanha, that in case of the interference of a Spanish force in the affairs of the country, whether morally or physically, the natural Minister of the Queen under such circumstances would undoubtedly be the Count de Thomar, who would very shortly be his successor, and who alone could attempt to carry out the measures of violent reaction and arbitrary government which would become necessary to keep down the opposition which would be made everywhere to the presence of Spanish troops in Portugal."

The entire Portuguese revolution, which was, in point of fact, the Queen's revolution against the Crown, was nothing less than a union between the faction that was overriding the liberties of Spain, and the faction that was over-riding the liberties of Portugal, to distract the peace of Europe. But did the noble Lord succeed in establishing peace in Portugal—had he succeeded in establishing peace in the Peninsula? He did not believe the noble Lord had, for an attempt was being made to defeat the protest which the noble Lord had issued against the Spanish marriages; and at this very moment steps were taking for an arrangement which, when carried out, would make the Duchess of Montpensier de jure and de facto Queen of Spain. If he was right in that assumption, and, he believed he was, he asked in what respect had the noble Lord secured the prospect of peace? The noble Lord had referred to France and to Spain, and had claimed for England a share of the glory which had secured for them free institutions; but if it was indeed true that the people of Spain enjoyed liberty and the rights of free men, where was Espartero, the man to whom the Queen owed her throne? Where was he? Was he not in exile, and in disgrace? Was he any longer Duke de Victoria and a general officer? No, he was a private gentleman living in exile and retirement. Such was liberty in Spain. Not long ago a worthy burgher of Madrid was waited upon by an agent of police, and told to prepare himself for instant departure, as he had instructions to convey him to exile to the Canaries. No crime was even alleged, and no explanation was permitted, and the old man was carried away to die in exile. Was that, he asked, liberty—would the noble Lord say that the Cortes of Spain legally represented the feelings of the Spanish people? The noble Lord re-minded them of Carlos: why, if Carlos had been on the Throne, would he have come within ton degrees of the present Queen in oppression and cruelty? The noble Lord would not answer that question, for he know that the violation of liberty perpetrated by the Queen of Spain never was approached in the worst days of the Inquisition. The history of Isabella II. was written in the blood of her subjects. This was not an exaggerated statement—it was no dream of a heated imagination—but it was a fact which disgraced the nineteenth century and demoralised Europe, that for thirteen years the people of Spain groaned under tortures compared to which the horrors of the Inquisition were absolute liberty. Colonel Wylde, who had acted in direct opposition to the instructions he had received, and was throughout a partisan, had declared himself perfectly satisfied with Saldanha. Colonel Wylde knew at the moment he wrote that despatch that the Ministers had coerced the Royal will—had stood between the Royal will and the fulfilment of the obligations upon her; and yet he said these men would carry out, loyally, the conditions to which they had agreed. The noble Viscount, in his despatch of the 17th February to Sir H. Seymour, showed very clearly the injustice of sending the prisoners of war taken at Torres Vedras to the coast of Africa. Mr. Southern's despatch of the 9th February gave some reason to hope that the destination of the prisoners was altered; but on the 16th March following, the noble Lord reiterated his arguments. But all the while that the Spanish Government were making representations that the destination of the prisoners was altered, the prisoners were on their way to the coast of Africa, and were at present confined there in the condition described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Every one of those prisoners had risked his life in the service of the Queen of Portugal, and were now loyal subjects of the Queen. Did the noble Lord expect that people so enlightened as the Portuguese would believe a Government that would not keep faith even with so powerful a country as that of England? He was endeavouring to show, that even if a pledge could have been obtained from the Queen of Portugal, it would have been useless, because Her Ministers never meant that it should be carried out. He thought he might claim some credit for rectitude of views at least, for twelve years ago he had predicted in that House that if Don Carlos and all his generals were banished from Spain, tyranny would still exist there. The noble Lord himself would not deny that for the last nine years at least the cause of liberty had been retrograding in Spain. He had shown, that the insurrection was not by the people against the Queen, but by the Queen against the Crown, and against the charter by which she possessed the Crown. Was there in the Queen's party one man in whom any section of the country had the slightest shade of confidence? Was there in that party one man who had the prestige of a respectable reputation? M. Dietz was not the only person obnoxious to the feelings of the people of Portugal. In the Cortes of Lamego, summoned in 1143 by Alonzo I., when he had delivered Portugal from the Moors, it was decreed that a female might succeed to the Crown of Portugal, provided she did not marry a foreigner. This happened just after that tie had been formed, which up to this hour united England and Portugal in such a bond of amity. he referred to the aid which Alonzo I. received from the English crusaders at the taking of Lisbon, of which it was written—

"Our intimacy with Portugal commenced during the earliest days of that monarchy. An army of adventurers, stated to have amounted to 14,000 men, embarked in 200 ships, and composed of English, Normans, and Flemings, bound to the Holy Land, owing to stress of weather put into the Douro, where they waited eleven days for their leader, Count Arnold de Ardescot, whose vessel had been separated from the rest. In the interval a negotiation commenced, through the medium of the Bishop of Oporto, and it was eventually arranged that the fleet should proceed to the Tagus, where it arrived on the vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul, 1147. Alonzo I., lately proclaimed King, was at that time preparing his second attack upon Lisbon, a formidable position, garrisoned by a large army of Moors. The crusaders accepted the overtures made to them, and, having landed, materially contributed to the success of the enterprise. For this assistance they received a large portion of the plunder, together with valuable grants, of which many availed themselves by remaining in the kingdom. Almada and Sacavem were settled by Englishmen belonging to this expedition. On the taking of Lisbon an Englishman, of the name of Gilbert, also embarked in the fleet, was appointed bishop; and it is a curious fact that he ordered the breviary and missal of the Anglican church of Salisbury to be used in his diocese, which practice continued till the year 1536, when the Roman Liturgy was introduced."

The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office argued that we had a right to in- terfere in the affairs of Portugal, because France and Spain interfered—not that he feared France and Spain united, but he was afraid lest the Minister of the Queen of Spain might resign. In the Cortes of Lamego it was decided that the Queen of Portugal should not marry a foreigner. In 1383, Beatrice, the only daughter of the Queen of Castile, was married to John I., but was afterwards divorced; and in 1641 the Cortes confirmed those laws. They were also confirmed by the 90th Article of the Charter of 1826, and also by the Charter of Don Pedro, which forbids the Queen to marry a foreigner except under particular circumstances. Down to 1846 the Spanish nation were opposed to foreign marriages. He had gone into these details because he thought it right to justify from history the views which he took of this question. Vattel said that we make treaties, not with Sovereigns, but with States. When, in the reign of Joseph I., Portugal refused to sanction a family compact entered into between France and Spain, they said, "If you do not, we will annex you to Spain." What was the answer of Joseph I.?—

"It is true that my country is exhausted—it is true I have not resources; but I am bound to England by friendship and treaty; and I would rather that the last tile of my palace should fall on my uncrowned head than that I should prove faithless to my treaty with England."

That was the language of Joseph I. By the Treaty of 1703 the noble Lord was bound to protect Portugal from any invasion that might be made by France or Spain. The second paragraph had these words:—

"If ever it shall happen that the Kings of Spain and France, either the present or future; that both of them together, or either of them separately, shall make war, or give occasion to suspect that they intend to make war, upon the kingdom of Portugal, either on the Continent of Europe or in its dominion beyond seas; Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and the Lords the States-General, shall use their friendly offices with the said kings, or either of them, in order to persuade them to observe the terms of peace towards Portugal, and not to make war upon it."

The fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs were to the same effect. [Viscount PAL-MERSTON: Read the fifth paragraph.]

"But if the foresaid Kings of Spain and France, or either of them, shall make war, or give occaion to suspect that they intend to make war, upon the provinces or dominions of Portugal beyond seas, the above-mentioned Powers of Great Britain and Holland shall furnish to his Portuguese Majesty such a number of men-of-war as shall be equal, or even superior, to the ships of the enemy; so that he may be able not only to oppose them, but even to prevent such attack or invasion, as long as the war shall last, or occasion require. And if the enemy shall take any town or seize any place, which they may fortify, in the foresaid provinces and dominions beyond seas, these succours shall continue until such town or place be fully recovered, or more towns and places, if more should be taken."

The Crown was a part of the State; and Vattel allowed that if the subjects of a State rebelled against the Crown upon unjust grounds, the Crown had a right to call upon its allies for assistance and interference. That was the only conceivable ground on which the noble Lord could justify his interference in the affairs of Spain. The clause to which the noble Lord referred bound the Crown of Great Britain to defend the Crown of Portugal against the insurrection of her subjects; but he (Mr. Borthwick) had demonstrated that in this instance there had been no insurrection on the part of the people—that it was the Queen herself who rose in rebellion against her own Crown. The whole of his argument was to show, that in the present instance there had been no ground for interference, either from the circumstances of the case, the expediency of general policy, or the principles of international law. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend, because by this interference he contended that the Government had entailed upon themselves the responsibility of governing Portugal. The noble Lord was responsible to the House and to Europe for the acts of the Portuguese Government, which he had established against the constitutional and declared will of the people of that country. The noble Lord was also responsible for the confinement of the prisoners in Africa and at Lisbon. If the noble Lord had not interfered, the matter might have been properly settled, notwithstanding the threats of France and Spain, which should have been regarded as the idle threats on the tongue of cowardice. The whole affair, so far as France was concerned, was neither more nor less than a carrying out of the design so long harboured in the mind of Louis Philippe. From the time of his infamous succession to the Throne of France, in 1830, down to the present moment, be had but one view—that of establishing a tyranny over Europe. It had been said of him, that he was the Napoleon of peace; but his design was to effect by peace that which a nobler Napoleon attempted by means of war. At this moment life was held throughout the Peninsula only through the permission of Louis Philippe. He believed that before two years had elapsed it would be admitted by all, that the establishment of the Throne of Isabella in Spain had not contributed to promote the peace, tranquillity, and prosperity of that country. The noble Lord had taken on himself a great responsibility in establishing at Madrid a Throne which held up to Europe an example of mingled licentiousness, tyranny, and oppression, unequalled in the annals of preceding times.

denied the right of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to take credit to himself for having established the true continental basis of moral, political, and social liberty. The noble Lord had set forward the acts of his Government in a manner which would lead our neighbours to infer that we arrogated to ourselves full freedom to interpose in the internal affairs of every part of the world. Against these doctrines he protested. He was sorry that the noble Lord should proclaim such principles. They were unconstitutional in the last degree; and if we took on all occasions the course which the noble Lord defended himself for having taken in Portugal, on what ground could we oppose the intervention of Foreign Powers, if, unhappily, in future years, we should happen to be placed in a similar situation to that in which the people of Portugal had been now placed? He objected to the policy pursued during the last eight months; and he objected still more to the maintenance of that policy at this moment. If the noble Lord had interfered when the civil war might have been prevented, there would have been some justification; but he had never interfered until it was too late, and the result of the mediation had been to prolong the contest. The noble Lord had admitted the right of the insurgents to take up arms, and, with arms in their hands, to extort a full admission of their rights; but, if he was honest in that opinion, why, seeing that the people of Portugal were oppressed and deprived of their rights, had he permitted the intervention, the effect of which had been to withhold and deprive them of their rights? It did not at all follow that France would have interfered if we had refused. Even had it been so, there was no good reason for carrying the interference so far as we had carried it. The noble Lord had virtually undertaken the Government of Portugal. That being so, he (Mr. Hume) had a right to ask in that House, as the noble Mar- quess the President of the Council had been asked in another place, had the Queen, Donna Maria, been advised to act justly? Had she been counselled to recall those unfortunate men who had been sent prisoners to Angola, contrary to the faith of all treaties? [Viscount PALMERSTON: Yes.] He was glad to hear it. But, supposing that done, the noble Lord would nevertheless find himself in a kind of fool's trap, for, though Spanish troops were in possession of Oporto, and British influence prevailed, it did not at all follow that everything was settled. Nothing could be settled, tranquillity would never be restored, until those Ministers were dismissed from the Council of the Queen, to whom the noble Lord himself attributed all the mischief and all the evil. Why were those men retained in their position? Why. when it was found they refused to pursue the conciliatory policy suggested by the Queen, were they not at once dismissed? The first act enforced by the British Government should have been to call back the unfortunate exiles, to have advised Her Majesty to dismiss her Ministers, and then to allow the elections to come on throughout the country. Did the noble Lord think the people had any chance at the elections when such Ministers were in power? The noble Lord had represented this as the epilogue to the play of which he had pronounced the prologue. Nothing, he confessed, had occurred to alter the opinions which he had before expressed; and he feared that the real evil was only now beginning. Why did the noble Lord not advise, nay, compel the Queen to concede the political rights of her subjects? Until he did that, he would not act honestly to the Portuguese nation. Upon these grounds he (Mr. Hume) would maintain his former opinion; that opinion would go forth to the world; and if there was any common sense, or any respect for that constitution which England had hitherto enjoyed, remaining, the public would protest against the principles enunciated that day by the noble Lord. His hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) had placed a proposition before the House. On reading it over, it seemed to him that such a proposition would pledge them still further to the principles of intervention; and, as he was an enemy of all such interference, he could not approve of a resolution which, if adopted, would compel us to continue the course we had commenced.

did not wish to enter on the general question, because it had been very fully discussed on a former occasion; and he would not have risen but for the declaration of the noble Lord, that the result of the Spanish and French interference in Portugal would be believed by the public to be satisfactory. He protested strongly against this opinion going forth to the world. He considered, on the contrary, that the people of England were not one whit more satisfied now than they had been some short time ago; and as for that occupation of Oporto inducing satisfaction with the course the Government had taken, he thought that if one thing made that course of policy more unpopular in this country than another, it was the fact that the second city of the kingdom of Portugal was at this moment in the possession of Spanish troops. What a subject for congratulation was it with an English Ministry that the second city of our ancient ally was now at the mercy of a hostile army of Spaniards! If the noble Lord had been able to come down and say—"Look at the triumphant result of our policy; we are already able to point out to you the return of Count Bomfin and his fellow exiles; they are already restored to their country, reinstated in the confidence of their Sovereign, recompensed for the injuries which had been done them, and repossessed of the honours of which they had been deprived;"—then, indeed, the noble Lord might have had some justification for the assertion that the people of England were satisfied with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. He would say one word in reply to the argument of the noble Lord in reference to the probable policy of France and Spain. They had heard ad nauseam in the former debate, and again that evening, that Spain would have alone interfered had England refused to do so conjointly; and the despatch of Mr. Bulwer, quoted on the previous occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had been referred to that night, to show that M. Pacheco had informed the English Minister, that whatever the English Government might determine, Spain, under certain circumstances, was resolved to interfere. That despatch was dated the 5th of April; and that was the last relied on by the noble Lord in support and proof of his case. That despatch undoubtedly contained the words stated by the noble Lord; but on the 6th of April, the very day after, Mr. Bulwer wrote to his Government, relating an interview which he had had that morning with M. Pacheco, and detailing, as the result of the conversation, that, in reply to an intimation of Mr. Bulwer, that "the interference of Spain without our concurrence would be a serious affair," M. Pacheco said—"Of this rest assured, we shall do nothing without your concurrence." Why, after this distinct declaration on the 6th of April, what justification for his policy could the noble Lord discover in a despatch dated the 5th of April? And, it might also be asked, what did Mr. Bulwer mean when he told the Minister of Spain that an interference in Portugal without our concurrence was a "serious affair," unless, in fact, he was aware that his Government was prepared to take that course which the noble Lord now told them it was impossible for the Government, under any circumstances, to take? The noble Lord informed the House that we could not, on the principle of non-intervention, have justly objected to a Spanish interference in Portugal. The noble Lord had lived in the times of Mr. Canning, and he knew perfectly well that no such argument was heard in 1826. The principle of non-intervention was then laid down as distinctly as it had been now proclaimed by the hon. Member for Montrose; but it was then never said that we violated that principle in saying to Spain, "If you do interfere in Portugal, we shall go to war with you." That was then thought a very fair and very English way of vindicating the principle of non-intervention; and the reason simply was, that treaties, dated hundreds of years back, had been laid before the House, and had enabled us to come to the conclusion that we were bound by those compacts to take that course, and to tell the Governments of France and Spain that they should not interfere in the internal affairs of Portugal. The appointment and conduct of Colonel Wylde had been attempted to be justified in that discussion. He was one of those, though perhaps he was prejudiced on the subject, who did not think that the antecedents of Colonel Wylde rendered him the most fit and proper person to be sent on such a mission. But, if that appointment was justified by Colonel Wylde's intimate knowledge of the Peninsula, could the same reason be given for the appointment of the present Minister at the Court of Lisbon? What could be said of the appointment of a Minister who was utterly ignorant of the circumstances existing in Portugal, and who, of necessity, was obliged to de- rive all his information from the most prepossessed and partial of all the people of Portugal? To his astonishment, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth quoted one of the earliest of the despatches of this, from his position, ignorant Minister, to show how amiable, how virtuous, how beneficent, was the conduct of that maligned lady, the Queen of Portugal. That Minister referred in terms of eulogy to the humane conduct of the Queen towards the people who were to be found in the hospitals of Lisbon. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) before then expressing himself captivated by what might be called transparent and tawdry tricks; but anything so absurd as that eulogy by our Minister at Lisbon on the conduct of the Queen of Portugal, he had never listened to. The noble Lord, in vindication of himself, had told them that night that affairs in Portugal had arrived at such a pitch, that when we asked the Duke de Saldanha to accept our mediation, he positively refused, and that, therefore, we were driven to an armed intervention. But let that very fact be taken, and let it be made the test whereby to judge of the impartiality of our interference. The Duke de Saldanha, practically the King of Portugal, refused to accept our terms. What did we then do? Did we go and bombard Lisbon; did we attack Saldanha; did we capture that one frigate remaining of the naval forces of Portugal? No; we simply stated, through Colonel Wylde, that we should continue to be his humble friend and devoted follower, and that we could not interfere to prevent him being defeated by his opponents. Did we pursue the same conduct to the Junta, to Sa da Bandeira, or Das Antas? No; the only terms we submitted to them were—"Accept our proposals, or encounter us in the field." And yet they were now told that the interference had been impartial, and that we had acted the part of an equal mediator. Could anything be more grossly inconsistent than the conduct we had pursued with regard to the two different parties? It was now said that the end justified the means; that, as a consequence of our efforts, Portugal was tranquillized, that the balance of power was preserved, and that the peace of Europe had been, secured. He doubted and denied every one of those propositions. He thought, on the contrary, that the whole of our triumph, up to this moment, might be summed up in these lines of Dryden, which were so peculiarly applicable to the occasion:—

"The Duke shall wield his conquering sword,

The Premier make a speech,

The Queen shall pass her honest word,

The pawned revenue sums afford;

And then—;"

but it was impossible he could finish the quotation. Such at this moment was the only description that could be given of the results of our interference. To the future he looked forward with dread and alarm. He saw a principle admitted, which might, and, as he thought, would, be pushed to an extent that at present they were not prepared for. He believed that in Spain and Italy they would sec that principle of interference eagerly pushed by those by whom they would least desire to sec it adopted; and he could derive no consolation in thinking, that now a Spanish army and an English fleet had triumphed over the unanimous voice of the oppressed and unhappy people of Portugal.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not press this Motion to a division. He thought that his hon. Friend had not treated the House fairly; for the notice which he had inserted in the Papers of the House of his intention of calling the attention of the House to the subject of Portugal, was different from the resolution which he had moved that evening. For all practical purposes the Motion was useless. He considered every object had been gained by the declarations of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. On this occasion, he believed that Her Majesty's Ministers had not acted an unworthy part in the late interference in Portuguese affairs; and he could not, therefore, vote for a resolution condemnatory of their conduct. Indeed, his hon. Friend admitted that he did not mean to pass a vote of censure on the conduct of the Government. Why, then, did he bring forward his Motion? His opinion was, that the Government ought to have interfered in Portugal as long ago as the month of January last, and that they should not have hold themselves until matters had reached a crisis in April. He believed that in the course which they had taken, they had been actuated by a sincere desire to promote the interests of the people of Portugal; and his sincere belief was that the objects at which they had aimed had been finally and eventually promoted.

could not con- cur in the doctrines which had been laid down by the hon. Member for Montrose with regard to non-intervention, because those doctrines were entirely at variance with that international policy which had been acted upon for centuries. In a variety of the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion, he could not concur, although in the general object of it he entirely concurred. As it stood, he did not think that it expressed the slightest censure upon the Government. He should have been better pleased had it been drawn up in exactly the same terms as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe). He was glad that these Motions had been brought forward, because they had been the means of eliciting from the two noble Lords (Lord J. Russell and Viscount Palmerston) their avowal that it was the determination of the Government to carry out the course which had been taken to secure to the people of Portugal the enjoyment of their constitutional rights and privileges. And he had not observed any shrinking from that avowal on the part of the other Members of the Government. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eve-sham (Mr. Borthwick) had alluded to the various prophecies which he had made concerning Spain twelve years ago; and he proceeded to say that the history of Queen Isabella was written in blood. Why, he believed that the history of every Sovereign whose subjects had had the misfortune of having passed through civil war, might be said to be written in blood. He believed that the history of Henry the Fourth of France, one of the best Sovereigns that ever ruled that country, might also be said to be written in blood. The history of the revolution in the North American States, as indeed that of every revolution in which the people had struggled for constitutional liberties, might be denounced as having been written in blood. That was the case of the great revolution in France. Undoubtedly great horrors were committed during that great contest for constitutional freedom; but the blessings which had been achieved by that means were now beginning to be felt throughout the whole world, He was surprised to hear the absurd declamations and tirades which had been made that evening with regard to Spain, He thought that it was going a little too far to talk of the Queen of Spain being a tyrant. There was not the slightest foundation for such a charge. On the con- trary, it was a matter of notoriety throughout Europe that during the short period in which she had reigned, her people had been enfranchised from the domination which had existed previous to her accession, and that her sympathies had been on the popular side. He wished, then, that the hon. Gentleman would study facts a little more attentively before he ventured to make such broad assertions. He confessed he felt a strong interest in the liberties of Portugal. He must admit that the inconvenient position in which the Government was placed, rendered them in a manner responsible for the conduct of the Portuguese Administration. He was of opinion that Her Majesty's Ministers had been vindicated most completely, not only by the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign. Affairs, but by the speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and other men of eminence in another place, whose testimony must be received at least as impartial. He, as an independent Member of that House, must say that he thought the Government had taken the wisest and best course. With respect to the Angola prisoners, he thought the British Government had imposed upon itself a duty to see that these poor men were restored to their home and to their friends; and he also hoped very speedily to see the prisoners in the Castle of St. Julian liberated. He hoped, too, the Government of this country would use its influence to bring about the recall of the Duke of Palmella, who was still in London.

did not see the utility of the present Motion. It seemed to him that the last debate had settled the whole question. They were asked to agree to a Motion calling upon Ministers to interfere with Portugal, and enforce the constitutional rights of that country. This he thought wholly unnecessary, for, when a similar Motion was made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), Her Majesty's Ministers stated, that they accepted at once all the propositions in that Motion; that they acknowledged the obligations imposed on them by their interference, and were resolved to secure to the people of Portugal all the rights they were entitled to. Having this statement from the Ministers of the Crown, he could not, by acceding to the terms of this Motion, imply a distrust of those Ministers which he did not feel. He felt bound to state, that had this question come to a division when formerly before the House, he should have voted against interference with the affairs of Portugal; but, having stated that he would have so voted against such interference, it could not be expected that he would concur in a Motion calling upon the Government to continue that interference for the future. As far as his opinion went, he thought the doctrine of interference indefensible; and he held in his hand a copy of a despatch written by Lord Aberdeen in 1829, in a case precisely similar, when application was made by the Portuguese Government for the interference of this country in the affairs of Portugal. Lord Aberdeen said—

"It is either for the purpose of resisting successful rebellion, or of deciding by force a doubtful succession, that Great Britain is now called upon to act. But it is impossible to imagine that any independent State could ever intend thus to commit the control and direction of its internal affairs into the hands of another Power; for, doubtless, if His Britannic Majesty be under the necessity of furnishing effectual succour in the event of any internal revolt or dissension in Portugal, it would become a duty, and indeed it would be essential, to take care that no such case should exist if it could be prevented. Hence a constant and minute interference in the affairs of Portugal would be indispensable; for His Majesty could never consent to hold his fleets and armies at the disposal of a King of Portugal without exercising those due precautions and that superintendence which would assure him that his forces would not be employed in averting the effects of misgovernment, folly, or caprice."

This passage embodied the opinion which he entertained. Although he did not condemn the conduct of the present Government, he could not sanction the principle of interference, and he could not, therefore, vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Wycombe. He thought it better to trust to the discretion of the Government, and he did not desire to share their responsibility.

regarded the proceedings of Government, with reference to Portugal, as a violation of the great principle of noninterference. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion proposed a further interference, in the affairs of Portugal, by the Parliament. A violation of principle, whether in public or in private life, led inevitably to eventual evil; he looked, therefore, with apprehension to the final results which were likely to flow from these proceedings. But this was more than a mere Government interference. It was an interference by Parliament, for the Government interfered; and the Parlia- ment pledged itself to watch the Government. This was a new and, he believed, unexampled system of interference. Many might be inclined to ask, in the words of the old proverb, Quis custodiet ipses custodes? He thought it best now to look at the question (to use a French phrase), as an "accomplished fact." Taking it as such, much more vigilance than was generally supposed would be required on our parts. Parliament would have to watch over Government; and our Government to watch the Government of Portugal. But could they trust the Government of Portugal? These foreign Governments did not understand constitutional obligations. When they had power, they would use it. Nothing could more strongly exemplify this tendency than the treatment of the prisoners taken to Angola, and the treatment of those who had dared to intercede for them. The captain who described their miserable state was cashiered for daring to speak the truth. The surgeon of the vessel who deposed to their insufficient food and space, was dismissed. As the first act of interference, therefore, he was anxious that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should answer the question which had been put to him by several hon. Members, as to the treatment of the unfortunate captives who had been sent to Angola. He trusted that the noble Lord would—if not now, at least upon an early occasion—give that assurance which would be most gratifying to the House and to the British public, namely, that those brave men who had been so disgracefully expatriated would be speedily restored to their homes and to their families.

said: The Motion of the hon. Member for Wycombe is totally different from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury was to express the opinion of the House that it would be the duty of the British Government, on the restoration of tranquillity in Portugal, to use its best influence to secure to the people of Portugal the full enjoyment of their constitutional rights and privileges. But the Motion now before the House calls upon the Government to interfere, contemplating interference by force, with the Government of Portugal. This is totally different from the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member who has just sat down has put a question respecting the recall of Count Bomfin and his companies from Angola. In answer to that question, I have to state that one of the four articles stipulated that all prisoners should be restored to liberty. So that one of the articles which has been adopted by the Government of Portugal, secures the return of these captives; and there shall not be wanting any recommendation to induce the Queen of Portugal to carry that article into effect; and there is no reason to think that the Queen will not be ready to act in conformity with the treaty, and with that recommendation, and that she does not mean to recall the prisoners. I will add one word more. I trust that, after the news we have lately received, importing the conclusion of the civil war in Portugal, that country will be restored to tranquillity. I trust that the Government of Portugal will see that the only hope of prosperity and peace in that country is in a strict observance of, and compliance with, constitutional rights and principles. The violent factions which have prevailed in that country—factions which are disposed to indulge in the excesses of passion and revenge—may, I think, be allayed in a constitutional manner; yet I cannot but feel that the only hope of the continuance of peace in that country is in the Government of Portugal observing the constitution with the utmost strictness; and if there be a party in that country which has a majority, whatever that party may be, or whoever may be at the head of that party, I trust it will exercise the power it may possess in a constitutional manner, without any attempt to restrict or embarrass the Crown. It is from this course of proceedings alone that I can hope for any security for peace and prosperity in that country. However necessary may have been the recent interference in the affairs of Portugal, I agree with the doctrine that a perpetual interference with a Foreign Government can secure neither the rights of the Crown nor those of the subjects; and I do hope that in future years we may see the accomplishment of our hopes without the necessity of any interference whatever.

I think the noble Lord did not give a very satisfactory answer respecting that subject, of which we were all most anxious to be informed, namely, the recall of Count Bornfin and the other prisoners from the penal settlements. Considering the enormous force of ships of war and steam-ships which we had in the Tagus and in the Douro; and the cost, inconveniences, and expenses to which we were subjected in order to keep the Queen of Portugal upon her Throne, I think the noble Lord might have exercised his influence to have despatched one of the five ships—the Gladiator, the Phœnix, the Polyphemus, the Thetis, and the Terrible—which were now lying there in order to convey Count Bomfin and his companions from exile. But it is quite evident that the Government in this country viewed in a much more severe light the conduct of the insurgents than that of the Royal party, and was more energetic to assist the latter, than to promote the just demands of the former. The hon. and gallant Officer who spoke in support of the Government (Sir De Lacy Evans) said the Government of this country was bound by treaty to interfere. I do not know how or by what rules the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster interprets this treaty; but this much I do know, that there is no treaty between this country and Portugal, ancient or modern, by which the Government of England is bound to interfere between the Queen of Portugal and her own subjects. I know of no treaty, Sir, which provides that England must interfere in the affairs of Portugal, in order to uphold despotism, and to keep down the liberties of her people. The noble Lord seems now to look with a lenient eye on the proceedings of the Queen of Portugal, as he did on a former occasion, when treating of the breach of her coronation oath, and the violation of the articles of the Charter. When treating of this subject on a previous debate, the noble Lord spoke of the Queen of Portugal, who had not acted according to the advice of her constitutional advisers, but contrary to it—who had not reigned as the monarch of a free people, hut who had set up a military despotism—the noble Lord spoke of the breach of the coronation oath by the Queen of Portugal, and the infraction of every article of the charter in detail, as a mere imprudence. ["No!"] Oh, yes! the noble Lord spoke of the breach of the coronation oath and of the setting up of a military despotism in Portugal as a mere imprudence on the part of the Queen.

The noble Lord is very incorrect in referring to former debates. I did not say on a former occasion that the violation of the coronation oath by the Queen of Portugal, or any other part of her conduct, was merely imprudent. The noble Lord's reference to my speech shows the wisdom of that rule of the House by which we are prevented from referring to former debates.

Sir, the noble Lord may shelter himself, if he pleases, behind the forms of this House; but the records out of this House will show who is right; and I think the noble Lord will have no occasion to be gratified at the appearance he will make when the proceedings of to-night are before the British public. Does the noble Lord mean to say that this Queen did not break her coronation oath? What answer does the noble Lord give to that? I say again, Sir, that there is no treaty in existence, and never was, by which we are bound to interpose between the Queen of Portugal and her people. The only obligation we are under to Portugal is to prevent the invasion of her territory by the troops of a foreign country: that, Sir, is the only treaty by which we are bound to Portugal. But we are bound to act, not for the Queen of Portugal, but for the Government of Portugal. We are not bound to assist the Queen when she exorcises an unconstitutional power. It was laid down distinctly by Mr. Canning in 1827, when our aid was demanded by Portugal, that the Government of this country should not presume to interfere until both Chambers of the Cortes had confirmed by acclamation the proposal of the Portuguese Government that this country should he appealed to for assistance. By the 9th section of the 1st chapter of the Charter of Portugal, which relates to legislative power, it is distinctly stated that among the attributes of the Cortes should be to allow or to refuse the interference of Foreign Powers in the affairs of Portugal. Now, Sir, the Queen of Portugal had abolished the Cortes. She dismissed her Ministers and established a despotism, and therefore the Cortes had no voice whatever, nor had she a voice constitutionally to call upon this country to interfere. There is, in short, no pretence whatever, on the part of any Member of this House, to say that the Queen of England was called upon at the request of the Queen of Portugal to interpose in this civil war. As regards the question of foreign interference, I think my noble Friend behind me (Lord J. Manners) has disposed of it. He showed distinctly that it was not in the contemplation of Spain to interfere. No sooner had Mr. Bulwer intimated to the Spanish Government that Spain would be herself in a perilous position if she presumed to inter- fere without the consent of England, than M. Pacheco instantly declared in a most unequivocal form that he had not the slightest desire of interfering without the full consent of England. And as regards the French Government, the despatches published in the French newspapers distinctly prove that M. Guizot had no thought of interfering so long as England and Spain remained quiet. It was only when the noble Lord opposite had meddled in the affairs of Portugal that M. Guizot made up his mind that if England interfered, France should interfere too. [After alluding to the despatches, the noble Lord continued.] In truth, Sir, there was no need of our interference. So long as the Queen was triumphant, so long as she maintained a despotic rule over her own subjects by the aid of military force, we were quiescent; it was only when she was in danger, that we became energetic—in other words, it was only when her subjects were on the point of obtaining from Her Majesty their just rights and privileges, that we suddenly interposed, and took prisoners the whole army of the insurgents. Upon the Motion before the House, I feel great difficulty in deciding. I am against interference; but I say, truly, Sir, I feel that England is placed in a most disgraceful position by the conduct of the Government. I cannot see the end of our intermeddling in the concerns of Portugal. If we hold our hands now, what is to become of those unfortunate insurgents now in custody? How are those spirited men who were enlisted on the side of freedom, and in order to reestablish the independence of their country, to obtain their rights and privileges? It is mockery to suppose that, with a British force on the side of the Court, any national spirit can be evinced. There may be right upon one side, but there is overpowering might upon the other. I feel that I could not be a party to any resolution to the effect that this country is permanently to interfere in the affairs of Portugal. I would be prepared to interfere to the extent of requiring that the 5,000 or 6,000 men taken in arms should have a just share in the promotion of the army. I would be prepared to interfere so as to say that none of the men who have fought in the cause of liberty should suffer on account of the spirit they displayed on that occasion. But beyond this I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the resolution he has proposed to-night. But at the same time I feel that the insurgent Portuguese, who, it is admitted, constitute five-sixths of the entire nation, ought to be put in a fair and equal position by our interference. It is not an easy thing for a country, whatever may be their feelings against the oppressions of their Government, to rise against it when that Government is in possession of the moral power arising from its position, as well as of the army. But when the people had braved these risks, we have stepped in—we have taken their entire army—we have taken their ships—though I doubt whether we have done it altogether legally—without any proclamation of war—without any decision taken with the advice of the Council—and, therefore, I apprehend that is not altogether a legal war; and I think it may be a great question if the parties were to seek redress in our courts if they would not be entitled to redress for the ships that were taken from Das Antas and Sa da Bandeira; and more than that, it may be a question whether they are not legally entitled to redress from the officer in command of the squadron, for having illegally detained them. But while I feel all these difficulties—while I condemn the interference, and, more than all, while I condemn the interference as it was exercised in behalf of a Queen who had forfeited all title to our interposition by her previous government, still I cannot but ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw the resolution, and not to put the House in the false position of appearing to sanction that which I doubt much if a majority of this House, however sensibly they may be disposed to support the Government, could conscientiously approve.

said, on the understanding that the noble Lord would insist upon the recall of Count Bomfin, he would not trouble the House to divide upon the question.

said: Sir, I can assure the House that I feel great reluctance at the present time in having to bring forward this case; and no one is more anxious to expedite public business that should be gone through than myself; but, Sir, situated as I am, and looking back to the course that has been taken upon this case—having unfortunately laboured for a long time to obtain justice for an unfortunate individual—I cannot consider that I shall have done my duty unless I again place before the House that appeal, to which I think the British House of Commons ought to listen. Sir, I do so more particularly, because on a late occasion when I ventured to introduce the subject, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) took upon himself to declare that all my statements were fictions—that I had obtained information in a manner little creditable to any man in this or any other situation—that, in fact, I had placed myself a culprit at the bar, instead of venturing to address the House where I do. It is not for me to avail myself on this occasion, which I might do, of any single act of recrimination; it has not been my rule to take that course; I only lament that when the merits of a question are to be agitated, any individual, whatever his situation in this House, should resort to a personal attack, instead of meeting the merits of the question. I shall, therefore, pass over all that was said on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, however personal may have been his attack, and however other Gentlemen may think I ought to resent it. I have been too long in this House to pay much attention to such language; and I am one who certainly has had great grounds on many occasions to take offence, if I had not been fully aware of the folly of such a course. A friend of mine only yesterday said to mo, "Consider yourself in the situation of appearing before a judge, and that your client is perfectly innocent, but that upon you the advocate—the party opposing—has heaped all his abuse, not having one word to say upon the case which is the subject of consideration." I trust I may consider that to be the case here; and I therefore think—passing over the whole of that which passed between the right hon. Gentleman and myself—I am now entitled to ask the House to allow me to state the case; and I shall do it as shortly as possible; but it is not possible to be very short, because I have to meet by facts and by public documents what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be a series of fictions, and which he says he will be prepared to prove at the proper time. I am sorry it is now so late; still, I hope there will be sufficient time to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make any observations he may have to make. Sir, in the first place, an appeal was made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, whether I ought to have acked the character of an individual as I did, by stating that his conduct was unworthy any English officer. But I must beg to appeal to him and to the House—he having thought it of importance that the character of a public officer should be defended in the manner in which he attempted to do so—whether I ought not to stand excused for attempting to defend an absent individual who has been degraded—a Prince in station, a Sovereign in his connexion with this country—and I hope I may be allowed to show, who is the person for whom I am about to ask the interference of the House; and I will do that by quoting the authorities, and not venturing to state one word from myself. Sir, on that ground I must say, that the object of my advocacy is an independent Sovereign, who in 1819 was placed upon the throne after the Mahratta war. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Treaty of the 25th September, 1819 assured to him an independent sovereignty, and that he and his descendants should for ever enjoy a large revenue with that sovereignty. The treaty states—

"Whereas the British Government having determined, in consideration of the antiquity of the House of His Highness the Rajah of Sattara, to invest him with a sovereignty sufficient for the maintenance of his family in comfort and dignity; the following Articles have been agreed to between the said Government and His Highness."

Then it proceeds to state that he shall enjoy the districts specified in the annexed schedule, subject undoubtedly to certain conditions, one of which has been much commented on:—

"The Rajah, for himself and for his heirs and successors, engages to forbear from all intercourse with foreign Powers, and with all Sidars, Jaghidars, Chiefs, and Ministers, and all persons of whatever description who are not by the above Articles rendered subject to His Highness's authority."

Now, Sir, this individual—a lineal descendant from Sevagee, the first of the Mahrattas—was so stated to be entitled by the antiquity of his family to the attention and friendship of the British Government. The British Government by that treaty bound themselves to secure to him the throne, provided he did not violate the treaty. Now, my charge against the East India Company and against the Board of Control is, that they have removed him from his sovereignty, from his property, from his State, and made him an exile in a foreign country in Benares, without any ground whatever, and without any trial; they have alleged reasons, but without any just ground; and that he has never had what he has asked to have—a fair trial. He has never had the facts of his case brought before any tribunal whatever, but has been thus unjustly dethroned. Now, I wish to show that there are circumstances very much in his favour, with which this House ought to deal. If it had been an individual whose conduct had been open to censure from any portion of the Government, I should have said, there might have been some ground for treating with more severity than the light grounds of suspicion that are brought against him, warrant. But instead of this individual being liable to blame, he was for a period of twenty-one years treated as an independent Prince by the British Government. He is the only Indian Chief who has ever, during a period of twenty years, received the thanks and approbation of every Government up to the period almost of his dethronement. I therefore have to ask, that the House, in their indulgence, will allow me to state what was the character of this man who has been hurled from his throne, and turned almost a beggar into a foreign country; and I shall state this from the public documents which are contained in the blue book. I have first the testimony of four British officers resident at his court, of his having conducted himself in a manner highly honourable to himself, and creditable and useful to his people; and that against him no ground of complaint could possibly exist. I will not read the certificate of these officers in the year 1821; but I will state what the Court of Directors did. Mr. Elphinstone, on placing him on the throne, states with regard to his conduct, that from the period of his having been rescued from the authority of the Peishwa, "he had behaved himself extremely well;" and in 1829 we find the Court of Directors, in a letter to the Bombay Government, expressing themselves to this effect:—

"We are impressed with a highly favourable opinion of the administration of the Rajah of Sattara. He appears to, be remarkable among the Princes of India for his mildness, frugality, and attention to business; to be sensible of what he owes to the British Government; and of the necessity of maintaining a good understanding with it. Nor does he, in his intercourse with your officers, furnish any ground of complaint, except an occasional manifestation of that jealousy of our controlling powers, which it can hardly be expected that any native princes, however well disposed to us, should entirely suppress."

Now, up to 1829, therefore, a period of ton years, here is a character extremely fa- vourable. In 1831, again, the Court of Directors say—

"The information which your records supply, as to the proceedings of the Rajah of Sattara continues to confirm the highly favourable opinion we had formed of his disposition, and of his capacity for government."

Now, did anything happen to alter those opinions? I find the Court of Directors, in the year 1834, in answer to Colonel Robertson, then Resident at Sattara, who had written a despatch highly laudatory of the internal management of the country—and this Prince, I will say, is almost the only native Prince in India who has paid attention to the internal comfort of his people; I am anxious you should be satisfied of that not only from my statement, but from the documents I hold in my hand—in 1834, the Court of Directors, in speaking of the Rajah of Sattara, say—

"He appears to be most attentive to business, superintending every department of Ms Government without the aid of a Minister. He confines his expenses, and those of all under him, within fixed limits. He pays all his establishment with perfect regularity."

I will venture to say, there is no other native Prince in India to whom the Court of Directors of the East India Company could give such a character:—

"He pays all his establishment with perfect regularity; but when in any year his resources are inadequate to his fixed expenses, a rateable reduction is made from all allowances not excepting his own."

This is what is said by the Court of Directors. They go on to say—

"We should have regretted if a Prince, whose administration is a model to all native rulers, had been guilty of any infringement of the proprietary rights of a large class of his subjects."

There were some disputes respecting land with the Government of Bombay, which, I ought to mention, was the ground of the first displeasure on the part of the Government against him; and I have a letter of the Court of Directors, after examining the whole of that question, placing the Rajah in the right, and the Government in the wrong. Now, the Court of Directors say—

"We should have regretted, if a Prince, whose administration is a model to all native rulers, had been guilty of any infringement of the proprietary rights of a large class of his subjects. By his frugal and careful management, the Rajah has kept free from debt; and as he does not accumulate, he is enabled to expend large sums in liberality, and in the improvement of his country."

Now, let those who have joined in the degradation of this man, listen to what follows in the Court of Directors' letter:—

"He also maintains a well-regulated school at Sattara, in which he has teachers of great respectability, both as to character and attainments. This seminary was closely examined in all its details, last October, by a very competent judge, the Rev. Mr. Stevenson of the Scottish Mission, who, I am happy to say, expressed the highest satisfaction with it, and did not scruple to say, he considered it a far more useful establishment than the college at Poona. In this seminary his Highness teaches Mahratta, Sanscrit, and the sciences usually taught in that tongue; Persian and English, as well as arithmetic, surveying, and other kinds of knowledge useful in the transaction of public business. In this school his Highness has a number of youths of his own caste, and relations of his (whose forefathers despised all such tuition), training up for his public service; and this is one of the causes why the Brahmins are hostile to him. It appears to us," the Court continues, "just and right that you should from time to time signify to the Rajah, not only your own, but our high satisfaction at his public conduct, and the excellence of his administration."

Now, I beg the attention of an hon. Director, the late Chairman of the East India Company who took, I must be allowed to say, a most ungenerous and unfair view on a former occasion. I hope his conscience will have upbraided him a little by this time, and that he may now listen to truth and reason, and not allow himself to be carried away as he was at that time. On the 22nd of July, 1835, the Court of Directors came to this resolution:—

"Resolved—That having bad reference to the letter from Bombay in the political department, dated 21st of January last, in respect to the description of a testimonial that would be most acceptable to the Rajah of Sattara, as a mark of the Court's sense of his conduct, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman be requested to purchase a sword suitable to the occasion, and that a communication be made to the Bombay Government on the subject, at the period of sending out the sword, accompanied by a letter from the Court to be presented to the Rajah."

Now it must be borne in mind, that this resolution was come to in consequence of the Bombay Government writing home to the Court, and praising the conduct of the Rajah, suggesting that the Court ought to send him some substantial mark of their approbation—

"That, in framing such letter, it be declared, that this mark of distinction is founded, not solely on the public spirit evinced by the Rajah, in the construction of roads and the execution of other public works, as suggested by the Government of Bombay, but on the general and distinguished merits of his Highness's administration, which so justly entitle him to applause, as well as on the liberality which he has displayed in disbursing his private funds for public purposes."

My advocacy, therefore, is for a man bearing this character, who has been hurled from his throne, as I shall show, without any just grounds. What was the result? The Court of Directors, unanimously sanctioned by the Board of Control of the day, on the 29th of December, 1835, addressed the following letter to the Rajah of Sattara, sending out the sword as an additional mark of their approbation:—

"Your Highness—We have been highly gratified by the information from time to time transmitted to us by our Government, on the subject of your Highness's exemplary fulfilment of the duties of that elevated situation in which it has pleased Providence to place you. A course of conduct so suitable to your Highness's exalted station, and so well calculated to promote the prosperity of your dominions and the happiness of your people, as that which you have wisely and uniformly pursued, while it reflects the highest honour on your own character, has imparted to our minds the feelings of unqualified satisfaction and pleasure. The liberality, also, which you have displayed in executing at your own cost various public works of great utility, and which has so greatly raised your reputation in the eyes of the princes and people of India, gives you an additional claim to our approbation, respect, and applause. Impressed with these sentiments, the Court of Directors have unanimously resolved to transmit to you a sword, which will be presented to you through the Government of Bombay, and which, we trust, you will receive with satisfaction, as a token of their high esteem and regard.—With sincere wishes for your health and prosperity, we subscribe ourselves, in the name of the Court, your Highness's most faithful friends,

"W. S. CLARKE, Chairman.

"J. R. CORNAC, Deputy."

This was on the 29th December, 1835; and such a testimony of high character docs not appear in the annals or records of the East India Company, in favour of any native or European. I must also notice a letter written by Captain Grant Duff, the Rajah's first adviser, dated 31st October 1842:—

"He (the Rajah) never could he guilty of what has been alleged against him. I believe he never for one moment entertained inimical intentions towards the British Government. The whole story of intriguing with Goa, and of corrupting the sepoys, I also believe the Rajah had nothing to do with; and I think his deposal was impolitic and unjust. I have always said, that judging from all I ever knew of the Rajah, I do not believe him guilty of the silly crimes with which he has been charged, and for which, he has in my humble judgment, been unjustly set aside."

Now, to the extent we have arrived, I think I may say with confidence, that there is nothing to blame, but everything to praise. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman took a note upon my noticing the source of quarrel between the Bombay Government and the Rajah, which was respecting two jaghircs. Jaghircs are estates which belonged, it was supposed, to the Rajah, upon the understanding that when the parties died without heirs, they would return to the Rajah, and he again disposable, as is the custom of the country. The Bombay Government objected to that, and insisted that they should have the control, and then the unfortunate difference arose. After continuing a considerable time in dispute, the Court of Directors addressed this letter to the Bombay Government:—

"We are of opinion that great inconvenience would arise from our officially recognising references from native princes to a testimony or opinion in Europe on the subject of public transactions between those princes and our Government. We, therefore, transmit the letters to you for the purpose of being returned to his Highness, whom you will inform, in becoming terms, that he is under no restriction in respect to private correspondence with the gentlemen in question, although he may confidently rely on our always showing the utmost consideration for his rights and interests without its being at all necessary for him to solicit the intervention and good offices of others."

There is also a, letter from Colonel Bagnold, to the same purport, with regard to the native chiefs; so that the trifling ground which the Government have assumed for interfering with him vanishes immediately. However, we shall see what are the grounds of interference with the Rajah. He sustained the character I have described for twenty-one years. First, I have read the character given by the Court for twenty years successively—-I have read the character given by Captain Grant Duff, the first President—I have by me the testimony of the Court of Directors to his conduct—I have the resolution which I have read; all approving entirely of the Rajah's conduct up to that unfortunate period which I now approach. Sir, it may be curious for the House to know what were the charges brought against the Rajah, as laid before the House:—

"That your Highness attempted to seduce certain native officers of the 23rd Regiment, and, through them, the sepoys, from their allegiance to the British Government, in which attempt your Minister, Govind Rao, was also engaged."

The second charge, which I show to be utterly unfounded, is—

"That his Highness the Rajah of Sattara, in breach of the treaty, had entered into communication with the Viceroy of Goa, for purposes hostile to the British Government."

That is the second. The third is—

"That his Highness the Rajah of Sattara, in breach of the treaty, had entered into communication with Moodhojee Bhonsla, otherwise called Appa Sahib, ex-Rajah of Nagpore, now resident at Jondpoor, for purposes hostile to the British Government."

Now, if all this had been true, instead of being really more laughable than otherwise, still the claim that I make to the House ought not to have been denied. There ought to have been an inquiry; the Rajah ought to have been placed in that position which his petition to the House, as I shall presently show, requests; for he says, that if he had been the meanest individual in this country, he would have been entitled at any rate to be heard. This is the petition which was presented to the House in 1842, giving a complete answer to all the charges, and praying that he might be heard against each of them, and concluding in these words:—

"That your petit loner respectfully solicits from your honourable House a consideration of his case, and of the treatment he has received, as well as the high chareter he has invariably maintained amongst his people and the princes of India; while he implores from your honourable House that justice which, had his lot been that of a peasant, it would leave been his right to claim from the laws of the British realm. he cannot forget that it is as a dethroned and exiled Prince that he appeals to your honourable House. He trusts that the vast power which has been placed by Divine Providence in the hands of the Government of Great Britain will not be exercised to his continued wrong; and he hopes the injustice and degradation which he has suffered in innocence will not he permitted to appear on the page of history to tarnish the glory of the British name, and the conduct and character of that Government in India towards a Sovereign, once its honoured ally, now its helpless prisoner."

These, Sir, are the concluding words of the petition. I attempted before, in vain, to get the House to entertain it. I believe they were mistaken entirely; they were not fully informed on the subject, otherwise, I am quite satisfied, they would have listened to it. However, the question which I am now anxious to put to the House is, whether, however late, justice is not to be done to the Rajah by giving him a trial? The right hon. Gentleman has stated—and stated very correctly, as has been stated elsewhere—that the question, as regards the Rajah, has been so often presented to the House, that they are unwilling to re-open the case. Now, the right hon. Gentleman will give mo leave to say, that that ought to be no bar to justice. He was the first President of the Board of Control who gave his authority to the dethronement of this individual. He gave that authority without any inquiry whatever—without the individual having been brought before his judges, but being subject to a secret inquiry. Now, Sir, in relation to one of the charges—the second—there is nothing like taking the right hon. Gentleman upon his own evidence. On a former occasion, on the 24th of June, when the question was before the House, when the hon. Member for Shrewsbury appealed to the right hon. Baronet, and said he was astonished that he could have given credence to any such ridiculous charge, as a combination or an attempt to join the Portuguese, who never had more than 1,500 or 2,000 men in India; that by joining with the Portuguese Governor he could by any means attempt even to turn the English out of India, the right hon. Baronet himself said, as reported, and, as I recollect, correctly—

"The hon. Member for Shrewsbury has accused me of dethroning the Rajah of Sattara. That is not the fact. The hon. Member has also accused me of believing that the Rajah of Sattara was about to bring 30,000 Portuguese from Goa to invade British India. Where the hon. Member learned that, I know not. I have seen some trumpery statement in a newspaper, that I have said something to that effect; but the truth is, there is not a word of truth in it. As President of the Board of Control, I knew that those charges were brought against the Rajah of Sattara; but to say that I believed them, was what the hon. Gentleman had not the slightest foundation for saying."

The right hon. Gentleman said that; and yet the Goa conspiracy was one of the charges upon which the Rajah was dethroned. Well, thinking it very singular that no notice had been taken that that had been one ground taken by the East India Company and the British Government here—that intrigues had gone on with Goa—I ask, has the British Government ever applied to Goa, as they did to all the other stations in India, as I shall show? Did they ever apply to the Governor of Goa, to ascertain from him whether there was any such communication? I hold in my hand a letter in answer to an application made to that officer, who is now, I believe, in Portugal, in which he says—

"I consider it necessary, for the advancement of justice, and for my own honour, to declare, that during the whole time I governed the Portu-gueso possessions in India, I never had any correspondence on political subjects with the said Rajah of Sattara, and whatever documents have appeared on that subject are false."

This is signed "Don Manoelde Portugal." I recollect, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said, "If he had not been guilty, would he have confessed?" But I think there is no necessity for that, after the manner in which it is stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be a trumpery case. Sir, I think it necessary to put the House in possession of what may be done in India, and how easy it is, when a Government determine, to ruin any native, for them to obtain evidence of any kind, trumped up to make a case. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh to be a witness. In writing an account of the life of Warren Hastings, he inserts this passage:—

"They (the natives) considered him a fallen man, and they acted after the kind some of our readers may have seen in India, a crowd of crows pecking a sick vulture to death. No bad type of what happens in that country, as often as fortune deserts one who had been great and dreaded," [This is alluding to an Englishman, Warren Hastings.] "In an instant all the sycophants who had lately been ready to lie for him, to forge for him, to pander for him, to poison for him, hasten to purchase the favour of his victorious enemies by accusing him to an Indian Government."

I beg the attention of the House to this, because I accuse the individuals constituting the Bombay Government of influencing the whole case, and causing the whole of this injustice. Mr. Macaulay says—

"An Indian Government has only to lot it be understood that it wishes a particular man to be ruined, and in twenty-four hours it will be furnished with grave charges, supported by depositions so full and circumstantial, that any person unaccustomed to Asiatic mendacity, would regard them as decisive. It is well if the signature of the destined victim is not counterfeited at the foot of some illegal compact, and if some illegal paper is not slipped into a hiding-place in the house."

Now, Sir, here the right hon. Gentleman, in writing of the conduct of Warren Hastings, points this out to you; and it ought to be a guard to those gentlemen who have to carry on or conduct business in India, how cautious they ought to be of receiving any kind of stories such as are trumped up against this unfortunate man. At any rate, I hope the House will let it remain in its recollection, that what could be done at that time upon the authority of Mr. Macaulay, may be done by any Indian Government. Let them bear in mind the power which every Government has under such circumstances, and then judge when they hear the trumpery charges brought against the Rajah. Sir, as regards the first charge, that of attempting to interfere with the natives of the 23rd Regiment, then stationed at Sattara, the evidence in the blue book is, in the first place, so contra- dictory, that it is impossible for any honest man to sit down and read and weigh the evidence, without arriving at a perfect conviction that the whole is false. An able and intelligent man, who was living in the Company's service (Mr. Sullivan) for thirty years, has, in one of the clearest and ablest speeches that I think ever was delivered in any place, proved to the satisfaction of every unbiassed man the utter falsity of all those charges. Sir, in addition to that proof—I do not pretend to enter into that proof, because, whether it is good or had, my claim is merely for a trial and inquiry—I have a letter in my hand from an officer who commanded that very regiment at the time in Sattara, and he states that the whole affair was a hit of dirty Mahratta intrigue, which would have been seen through at once. This is the testimony of General Bagnold, who commanded the 23rd Regiment, who at that time knew what was the prevalent opinion on the subject; and I have plenty of other corroborative evidence; but I consider him from his station to be the best, and therefore I shall not trouble the House with any other. General Bagnold says—

"The whole affair was a bit of dirty Mahratta intrigue, which would be seen through at once, had a man of common sense (as far as regards natives) been there as resident. Sending Colonel Ovans to Sattara as Resident after he had sat as judge upon, and condemned the Rajah's conduct, was as great an act of cruelty, as the whole was unjust."

I shall not mention the name of Colonel Ovans, until I have finished my observations upon the Rajah. Sir, I wish the House to be put in possession of the course which the Government took for the purpose of obtaining information as regards alleged intrigues with other Courts, which is the cause of his removal. The 5th Article of the Treaty forbade that. He was accused of intriguing with the Rajah of Nagpore. On the 13th September, 1836, the Resident at Sattara—for the charge of conspiracy began on the very day the sword arrived from England; it was despatched in December, 1835, and I believe as early as May, 1836, this charge of conspiracy was made against the Rajah, and the Government directed the Resident at Sattara, to make strict inquiry as to how far it was true—on the 13th September Colonel Lodwick, then the Resident, writes to Sir Robert Grant, the Governor of Bombay, to this effect:—

"With respect to the alleged conspiracy of native States, I can discover no proof of it; and on full consideration I am disposed to think the Rajah has been imposed upon by artful impostors, and interested advisers."

Now, here is the Resident, on the 13th September, stating this fact to the Government. The Bombay Government, on the 15th September, write to the Court of Directors to this effect:—

"We deeply regret to have to report to your honourable Committee, that we have received intelligence of a conspiracy existing at Sattara, and, as is alleged, at several other native Courts in India, to seduce our native troops from their allegiance, with the ultimate design, by a combined effort, to subvert the British Empire in India."

This the Government of Bombay send home to England, two days after they had been informed by the Resident that no such proof could be obtained. [Sir J. C. HOB-HOUSE: That is a mistake.] It is not a mistake. It is like all other mistakes; for the right hon. Gentleman said he would show the whole to be a fiction; but I rest altogether on the blue books. Now, there is a short letter from the Government, dated the 7th December, 1839, from Fort St. George, to this effect:—

"In consequence of a communication from the Bombay Government, we requested to be informed by the Commissioners, whether the report of a confederacy against the British Government, of which the ex-Rajah of Sattara was a member, had been confirmed by their inquiries at Kurnool."

This is dated December, 1839. Those who are acquainted with the history of India, will know that the Rajah of Kurnool, in the centre of the Peninsula, had collected together some hundred pieces of cannon and supplies of military stores, with some intention or other. It has never been known with what object, or how, they were collected; but the Commissioners who were sent there after the fort was taken, were directed to inquire into the matter, having the whole of the Rajah's papers in their possession, having every document belonging to the Rajah, and consequently being able to make themselves masters either by witnesses or documents of every thing that happened. Now, these Commissioners, in reply, state that they

—"have not discovered any paper in which the ex-Rajah was in anyway mentioned; nor had anything transpired in the course of their inquiries which indicated that there had been any communication between the ex-Rajah and Goolam Rus-sool Khan, as parties to a confederacy against the British Government."

Now, these Commissioners, who were in possession of the Rajah's books and correspondence, found neither among his papers, nor from any witnesses, any evidence whatever of the Rajah having any treasonable intercourse with this prince. Now, Mr. Clerk, the Secretary at Fort St. George, says—

"I am directed by the right hon. the Governor in Council to transmit to you the accompanying copy of a letter from the Secretary in attendance upon the hon. the Governor of Bombay, dated the 13th inst., and to request that you will submit the information therein required, as to whether the report of a confederacy against the British Government, of which the ex-Rajah of Sattara was a Member, has been confirmed by your inquiries at Kurnool."

I have read the answer. After they had dethroned the man, they sent an order to obtain information in connexion with a man who had no doubt been in intrigue with somebody or other. Now, Sir, the following is from another of the Commissioners, dated 30th November, 1839:—

"Sir, we do ourselves the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a letter in the Secret Department (No. 503) under date the 25th inst.; and to state in reply, that no paper has been discovered here in which the ex-Rajah is in any way mentioned; nor has anything transpired during the course of our inquiries which can lead to a suspicion that there has been any communication between the ex-Rajah and the ex-Nawab as parties to a confederacy against the British Government."

So much for that. Here is another—and it was expected, that if there was a conspiracy with any one, it must be with the Nizam of Hyderabad. Application is made to the same man; and Mr. Frazer, the Resident, in answer to a similar letter, replies—

"On the receipt of your despatch of the 13th ultimo, giving cover to the copy of a letter from the Resident at Sattara, with its several enclosures, I hastened to address a communication to His Highness the Nizam's Minister, pointing out to him the importance which Government attached to the discovery of the ex-Rajah of Sattara's correspondence with Hyderabad, and urging on him, with a view to assist Government in their researches, to adopt immediate measures for seizing Jazee Karamut Oollah's papers wherever they might be found "

Now this is after the man is dethroned! They are trying to fish and obtain evidence, and what is the answer?—

"On a careful examination of the contents of the bundle, in the presence of myself and three other individuals, nothing was discovered tending in any way to confirm the belief that Kuramu-tollah had been carrying oil any correspondence with the ex-Rajah of Sattara, or that he had been engaged in any way in treasonable designs against the British Government."

Here, therefore, from another quarter, comes a complete denial of anything of the kind having taken place. In short, from every Court and every place in India where we have Residents, and where they expected to obtain evidence, they made application, and they obtained similar answers, denying that any such thing existed. Sir, the whole of this correspondence was forwarded to the Governor General of India, and the House shall hear what opinion was given by him upon this correspondence being forwarded to him. This is "Extract, Bengal Secret Consultation, 31st July, 1839;" and the letter which was forwarded to Bombay, is dated—

"Simla, 15th July, 1839.

"Sir—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 24th ultimo, with enclosures, and am desired to state that the Governor General has studied with much interest the Minutes received by the Honourable the Governor and by the Members of Council of Bombay, and that his Lordship assents to the general amnesty which it is proposed to be extended to the Rajah of Sattara, and to the conditions under which it is suggested that this amnesty should be granted; and that his Lordship also entirely approves of the intention of the Hon. Sir James R. Carnac's himself proceeding to Sattara, for the purpose of endeavouring to carry his views into effect, and again to place our relations with the Rajah on a friendly footing."

When they found they had failed in everything, they proposed to grant him an amnesty; and the House shall hear what are the conditions and what are the instructions Lord Auckland sends:—

"His Lordship feels it unnecessary to enter into any review of this case; he has already avowed his opinion that, whether led by malignity or folly, or a weak subserviency to bad advisers, the Rajah has committed acts which might justly forfeit to him all the favour of the British Government, and justify a sentence of severe retribution; he sees all the embarrassment which might arise out of a formal trial; he feels the strong objections which would be urged in quarters of the highest authority against a summary act of extreme severity."

He sees all the embarrassment which might arise out a formal trial; but he is aware of the strong objections that would be urged in quarters of the highest authority against a summary act of extreme severity. That is, deprivation without a trial; and—

"He is compelled to acknowledge the expediency of the milder course proposed, and would indulge the hope that the exercise of clemency may give rise, if not to better feelings, at least to more guarded conduct."

Now, mark, this is after they have failed in producing any proof whatever of the Rajah's guilt. This is a mere excuse.

"With regard to the precise course of proceeding which is to be pursued,"—

(I beg the attention of the House to this, because I believe that upon this rests a great deal of what his Lordship says)

—"his Lordship concurs with the Honourable the Governor in Council of Bombay in opinion, that the measure of amnesty being agreed upon, it should not be accompanied with any demands which might justly be regarded as a punishment; but there may be, as suggested by Mr. Anderson, warning for the future. Principles may be laid down for the more strict observance of the treaty; and, above all things, effectual protection must be secured to those who in the course of the late inquiry may, by having afforded information, be assumed to have given offence to the Rajah. With this expression of his views, his Lordship cordially assents to the propositions lay down by the Honourable the Governor of Bombay, in his Minute of June 20th, and adopted by his Colleagues. He would only suggest that great care be taken in framing the letter to the Rajah, so gradually and yet decidedly to express the views held by Government on his case, as that, if possible, discussion shall not be provoked or admitted upon his own guilt or innocence; and it may be doubted whether it has not been proposed too distinctly to assert the proof of personal criminality, and whether this assertion may not appear in too great a degree to be inconsistent with the leniency which follows."

He here, therefore, suggests, that in the offer of a complete amnesty, no question upon the guilt of the party should be made. Now, let me show the House how completely at variance with the fact that declaration of the Governor General is. I hold in my hand the amnesty; and if it is possible for any man to take up a written document, and say that upon the face of that document the innocence of the party assailed appears, I say the examination of the paper which I am about to read, proves beyond all doubt that the Rajah, upon having a paper submitted to him, in which he is called upon to acknowledge his guilt, spurns it; and he spurns it with indignation. The right hon. Gentleman shall hear the language. This is from Sir James Carnac himself:—

"On the same day his Highness came to the Residency; and a meeting took place between him and Sir James Carnac, in the presence of Mr. Anderson, Colonel Ovans, and Mr. Willough-by; at which, after stating his thorough convictions of his Highness's guilt, and reminding him of his dependent condition, Sir James Carnac informed him, that on certain conditions the British Government were willing to pardon what had occurred. During this address (as Sir James Carnac himself relates the particulars of this interview), the Rajah evinced a considerable degree of impatience, and frequently interrupted me by abrupt declarations that he had committed no breach of alliance. When I had concluded, he stated that he regarded me as his friend and well-wisher—asserted that the accusations against him originated in the intrigues of his enemies—that as long as the British Government entertained the idea that he had cherished hostile designs, he would agree to nothing, but this idea being removed, he would agree to anything I proposed—that he would consent to anything except to abandon his religion, or to acknowledge that be had been our enemy—that he would receive any conditions, reply to them, and vindicate his conduct generally. Finally, he observed, that if I had not leisure to attend to him personally, he could communicate what he had to say through the Resident."

Now, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the terms proposed to the Rajah were not disgraceful. I can only say that Mr. Tucker and several of the Directors who had the question before them, have so declared, as I will show in a very few words, their opinion. Sir James Carnac goes on to state—

"The ex-Rajah at once refused to sign the paper shown to him, and asked what violation of the treaty he had been guilty of. The three principal charges were then enumerated to him."

Those are the three charges which I have read, paltry and trifling as they are.

"And on his being asked, with reference to the alleged communications with the ex-Rajah of Nag-pore, whether he could deny that he had received letters from him, he forcibly answered, that 'a letter from a person does not establish guilt against the party to whom it is addressed. Where are my answers? There is Mr. Anderson: he may receive a letter; but this would be no proof that he answered it, or that he committed any fault in receiving it.'"

Now just conceive a man so situated. They charged him with guilt, because it was alleged he had received certain letters from individuals; and he makes a challenge for the production of a single letter from him in answer to any letter from any person. The further statement is a detail of Colonel Ovans' attending with a paper of conditions. "In the afternoon of the same day"—(I am sorry to weary the House, but those are details so full of information that it is necessary they should be stated):—

"In the afternoon of the same day, his Highness again saw the Governor, and repeated his refusal to sign the paper. Two more interviews took place between the ex-Rajah and Colonel Ovans, and one between his Highness and Sir James Carnac. In the first meeting with Colonel Ovans, his Highness begged to be allowed to show to him, which he declared he could do if he were protected from native interference, that the witnesses against him were altogether unworthy of credit. He was, however, cut short by the Resident, who observed, that the main point which he had now to determine upon, was, whether he would accept the conditions of the amnesty offered by the Governor or not. At the meeting with Sir James Carnac, the ex-Rajah delivered to him certain papers, some of which have been already alluded to, and which showed that forgeries of his Highness's name and seal had been carried on for some time at the instigation of one of his chief accusers. Every effort to obtain justice was, however, in vain; he was told that the documents he had given to the Governor did not bear upon the question at issue, and that if he did not sign the conditions he would be sent to Benares, and his throne and kingdom given to his brother. True to himself, however, the ex-Rajah still refused to preserve his kingdom by a false acknowledgment of guilt, choosing rather to pass the remainder of his days in an honourable prison, than to accept a throne purchased by the loss of reputation."

The Rajah, knowing the power of the Company to ruin him with a single breath—being told that if he did not sign a paper acknowledging his guilt, he would be removed to Benares, and removed from his throne—being conscious of his innocence, refused to sign the paper, and was removed in a manner which is disgraceful to a civilized country. But as the right hon. Gentleman doubts whether this is an improper proposition, let me read what Mr. Tucker, the precent Chairman of the East India Company, says in his dissent of the 1st April 1840, from the decision of his brother Directors, confirming the deposition of the ex-Rajah:—

"Guilt would hare found it easy to accept the conditions proposed, in order to escape from the threatened penalty. The consciousness of rectitude must be strong, when it impels a man to make a great sacrifice to a sense of honour, however mistaken; and I must own that I cannot regard otherwise than with feelings of deep commiseration that Hindoo, who would resolve to sacrifice a principality, to abandon his treasures, to relinquish his homo, and remove his family to a distant part of the country, rather than make a slight concession which he felt must compromise his character."

Those are the words of Mr. Tucker, the present Chairman, who only two months ago stated that he had not altered his opinion, but that he could not vote against his colleagues, who were against re-opening the case. Now, Sir, let me open to the House a scene of fraud and treachery on the part of the Bombay Government. (I beg the hon. Gentleman to take a note of this.) I say fraud and treachery on the part of the Bombay Government, and I will prove it. General Lodwick being Resident there, a paper of hints was sent to him; and General Lodwick, expressing his dissent from the treatment of the Rajah reminds them—

"A paper of hints was sent to me," [this is his letter to the Court of Directors] "suggesting that the native officers should ask to see the Rajah, tell him they had hoard their part of the plot had been discovered, beg that he would protect them, either by advancing money to escape with, or a pass under his hand and seal to insure their service; and if he gave them money, the evidence would he strong."

Trying to entrap the unfortunate man; wishing General Lodwick, the then Resident, to lend himself to this base proceeding. This letter is addressed to the Court of Directors on the 9th of October 1840, and is published in the Parliamentary papers. He states, in vindication of the opinion he formed, that at first he had been himself deceived while at Sattara, and had formed an unfavourable opinion; but on the strictest inquiry, and particularly when he got from Mr. Willoughby the paper of hints, he saw that he had been misled; and if the House will grant me a Committee, I will produce the very paper of hints, in order that there may be no doubt whatever upon the matter. I am authorized to say that. General Lodwick says—

"Many persons of weight went so far as to think the Rajah ought to he sent to Bombay to have his conduct investigated, and that possession should be taken of his country; but that, at all events, the affair could not be quashed; and the question was, how to make the inquiry most effective, though it was feared nothing more could be expected from the Rajah."

This is a quotation from a letter. Then he proceeds—

"A paper of hints was sent to me," [being then Resident at Sattara] "suggesting that the native officers" [alluding to the 23rd Regiment] "should ask to see the Rajah, tell him they had heard their part of the plot had been discovered, beg that he would protect them, either by advancing money to escape with, or a pass under his hand and seal to insure them service; that if he gave them money, the evidence would be strong; if a paper, convincing. If, however, he should give them up to me, with loud complaints of calumny, in this case I was to pretend to secure them, and, suspicion being hushed, an opportunity would be afforded of securing the principal agents. Honour and honesty being my motto in public as in private life, I spurned such shifts as these, and left the plot to develop itself, without secretly tempting the Rajah to afford me proof of his having aided it; determining to demand the delivery to me of the persons accused whenever the matter should transpire, and to take no active part in the Rajah's ruin."

When this letter came to the Bombay Government, they, seeing that General Lodwick would be no longer their tool, sent that General off; and then we hear of Colonel Ovans. I do, Sir, in the strongest manner regret that Englishmen placed in the highest and moist responsible situation in which the Government of India places them, should lend themselves to such proceedings. I am prepared to prove this fact from documents in the blue book. I want nothing but the blue-book evidence, and living witnesses upon the spot, to make out the case I am now stating in one week from the time the House will institute the inquiry. I have entreated the Government to appoint a commission at Bombay; to appoint any individuals, civil or military from Bombay to conduct this inquiry; and (as I shall show) all these propositions have been rejected, and there has not been the least yielding to the claim for justice. Now, Sir, I think I may also state with some advantage, the opinion of the Court of Directors in 1838, when all these proceedings were sent home to the Court. They seem to have been alive to what was going on; and on the 13th June, 1838, Mr. Lushington and Mr. Jenkins, being then Chairman and Deputy Chairman, addressed the Government of Bombay—

"We have perused with great attention the letters noticed in the margin, which relate to certain charges against the Rajah of Sattara. The Governor General has informed us, that he has required your proceedings on this subject to he transmitted and brought under the review of the Supreme Government at the earliest possible period. We hope and trust that these orders of the Governor General have been long before this fully complied with by you. In this belief we shall suspend our judgment on these proceedings till we are in possession of that of the Supreme Government; at the same time we have no hesitation in giving it as our decided opinion, that it would be not only a waste of time, but seriously detrimental to the character of our Government, to carry on any further inquiry in the matter."

This is the opinion of the Court of Directors upon having these facts before them. Again they address the right hon. the Governor of India in a letter of the 22nd of January, 1839:—

"As Sir James Carnac, the Governor of Bombay, has been in communication with us on the subject of your proceedings regarding the Rajah of Sattara, we are particularly desirous that you should suspend any final decision on the case, until you have had an opportunity of taking into your consideration such observations and suggestions as may be made to you by Sir James Carnac on a review of those proceedings. In the meantime it may be as well for us to state to you, that we see no reason to dissent from the opinion expressed by the Court of Directors in the letter of the 13th of June."

That is the letter I have just read, stating that the sooner an end is put to the proceedings the better, and that it would be "seriously detrimental to the character of our Government to carry on any further inquiry in the matter." Now, Sir, I have taken the trouble to read these documents, to show that not merely the Directors had a conviction of the innocence of the Rajah, but that this very man afterwards became the tool of some party or other, and was guilty of this act of injustice. I want to show what took place at this time, in order that we may ascertain whether anything new has come forward; because there has been no new charge since that time, and all these charges were made in 1836 or 1837. I now come to a most important point, upon which I appeal to the British public, and ground my claim to have a trial. I will show that Sir Robert Grant, who has been so often quoted, never could have concurred in this proceeding, had he lived, of dethroning the Rajah without a trial. Sir Robert Grant, in a Minute of the 15th of August, 1837, thus states his opinion on reviewing the evidence that had come from Sattara, which I shall allude to by and by:—

"I am further strongly of opinion, that before the case is conclusively disposed of, the Rajah should be made acquainted with the fresh evidence that has been elicited against him, and should he allowed the opportunity of offering defence or explanation."

He never was allowed such an opportunity. I will show that Colonel Ovans, when present at the commission, had promised the Rajah a copy of the evidence; and afterwards in his own handwriting to the Court of Bombay, declared he could not give him the evidence, because it was a secret inquiry; that secret inquiry involving the whole question against this unfortunate man. Again, Sir Robert Grant says (and I bring forward this evidence because the right hon. Gentleman shall not say it is my fiction; if it is a fiction, it is a fiction of Sir Robert Grant's), on the 20th of September 1837—

"I think also that Colonel Ovans should he instructed to prepare a complete statement of the case which has been established against the Rajah, in order that when his inquiries are concluded, it may be furnished to his Highness, for any such explanation or answer as he may choose to offer."

That is my complaint. It never was furnished. Again, on the 31st May, 1838, Sir Robert Grant, in his Minute, states—

"It will be asked, however, whether he is to be condemned without the opportunity of defending himself. The Rajah has not been told of the evidence taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans, and, undoubtedly, has a right to he heard in his own vindication. I have never meant otherwise, al- though I do not think that he will vindicate himself succesfully."

He then quotes the passage I have already read from the Minute of the 15th of August, 1837, and proceeds—

"I repeat that opinion; not meaning that there should be merely the form, or farce, of a trial, to be closed by a ready-made judgment."

A pretty idea he had of what was going on! Now, mark:—

"I wish," says he, "not merely the form or farce of a trial, to be closed by a ready-made judgment" [which he knew they had for him]; "but that the defence should be fairly heard and impartially weighed."

Sir, to this hour the Rajah has never had this statement, and he has never been allowed to be heard; and it is upon that ground we appeal to British justice for a trial. I said that Colonel Ovans should speak for himself. Here is the promise which he made, and which I will read. On a former occasion I stated the secret inquiry that took place at Sattara; and I will now only allude to it; I will allude to new matter entirely. Here is a statement recorded by Mr. Willoughby, one of the Commissioners, on the 13th of June, 1837. He says, that—

"His Highness evinced throughout the whole of this interview, which lasted about three hours, the utmost readiness and self-possession: he was at first embarrassed; but it was only the embarrassment natural to a person in his situation. Latterly he argued with clearness and acuteness, took notes and asked questions, and certainly did not evince the slightest appearance of aberration of mind. He requested a Mahratta copy of so much of the depositions of the Soobahdars and Brahmins as affected himself, which was not at the time objected to."

Now, here the Rajah said, after a long intercourse, "Well, you have taken evidence." They took it first in English: they translated it into Hindostanee. He said, "I do not understood that language. Give me a Mahratta translation of all the charges, and I will answer them." He was promised it; and then what takes place? Colonel Ovans afterwards objected to that; because in an extract from a letter to the Bombay Government, 23rd of June, 1837, he says—

"The only observations I feel called upon to make are with reference to what is stated in the third paragraph of his Highness's yad, on the subject of copies of the evidence taken before the Commission not having been given to him, and two of the members not having waited upon him before their departure from Sattara. As regards this, I beg leave respectfully to state, that the proceedings of the Commissioners being strictly secret, it did not consider itself authorized to grant a copy of any part of those proceedings to any person whatsoever; and with respect to the two members not waiting upon his Highness, it was evidently expedient to avoid any ceremony of this kind, considering the circumstances under which the Rajah was then placed."

The Rajah wrote to say—

"You, the Commissioners, are going away; you have not given me a copy of the charges brought against me; send it to me."

Here, therefore, is first a promise that he should have the evidence taken in secret; and, afterwards, the same officer (Colonel Ovens) refuses to send it, because it was private. Now, Sir, if ever such a proceeding disgraced a tribunal where Englishmen presided, it has not come to my knowledge. Sir, I have stated these circumstances; and I think it necessary to give additional evidence, to show that the Court of Directors were not unanimous in their decision. I have alluded already to the dissent of Mr. Tucker, and I think it is of immense importance that I should read it:—

"Because after stating that our former communications to his Lordship in Council on the Sattara case will have showed that we were disinclined to attach serious importance to the allegations against the Rajah which had been transmitted to us by the Governor in Council of Bombay, and that we were desirous that the proceedings in respect to the Rajah should be brought to a speedy close; after this clear and explicit intimation of our views which, as we continue to observe, 'coincided with the sentiments which your Lordship in Council expressed to the Government of Sir Robert Grant,' it was manifestly incumbent upon the Court, with a view to its consistency, to show by a distinct reference to some new fact or disclosures upon what grounds they had changed their opinion, and arrived at so very different a conclusion. Because, on an examination of the case upon its merits, I must think that the dethronement of the Rajah of Sattara was premature, uncalled for, and impolitic; and that the Government abroad was not empowered to resort to this extreme measure without the express sanction of the homo authorities. That the elevation of Appa Sahib, the Rajah's brother to the guddee was most unreasonable, injudicious, and unwarrantable, inasmuch as it is calculated to produce great embarrassment to the home authorities in the exercise of their free judgment in the case."

This is Mr. Tucker's dissent when he was a Director in 1840. Now Mr. John Cotton—for it is not one or two of the Directors only who have from time to time expressed these sentiments in the strongest manner—Mr. John Cotton, a Director, says—

"I deem it proper to place on record my reasons for giving such a vote. First, in respect to the deposition of the Rajah; because it appears by the Minute of the late Governor of Bombay, Sir Robert Grant, dated 31st May, 1838" [which I have read], "and by the Minutes of the Governor General, Lord Auckland, dated the 23rd Septem- her and 29th December, 1838" [which I have also read], that however strong and conclusive the exparte evidence obtained against the Rajah was considered to be, it was never contemplated by either of those authorities to depose the Rajah absolutely, without first giving him the opportunity of offering an explanation of the charges established by evidence against him, or of refuting them altogether in a formal trial."

The Rajah has had no trial; and therefore Mr. Cotton refuses to give his assent to the measure. Now, Mr. Shepherd, the late Chairman, in the same manner says—

"I concur generally in the view taken of this important subject by my honourable colleague, Mr. Tucker, which he has so ably expounded in his dissent. The offer of an amnesty to the Rajah of Sattara having been finally decided upon, it was injudicious to clog it with stipulations calculated to defeat its object. The preamble of the conditions which his Highness was called upon to sign, entangled him into an admission of guilt."

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that statement. He has said again and again, and I think also the right hon. Member opposite has stated, that the proposition by Sir James Carnac did not involve an admission of guilt. Mr. Shepherd, a shrewd and able man, a late Chairman, says—

"The preamble of the conditions which his Highness was called upon to sign, entangled him in an admission of guilt; it also involved the Government in the glaring inconsistency of propounding a principle which required the strongest proof of the Rajah's unworthiness to reign, as a necessary condition on which he was to be continued on the guddee. Who will deny that his rejection of the proposal furnishes presumptive evidence of his innocence, and raises him more in the estimation of the world, than if he had ignominiously complied, for the sake of retaining his sovereignty. The setting up of Appa Sahib, who had manifested hostile and most unnatural feelings towards his brother—who had been a long and anxious aspirant to the throne—and who was himself strongly suspected of being concerned in the Sattara intrigues—is, in my opinion, neither justified upon any view of policy or justice."

Here, therefore, is the dissent of three of those gentlemen. I do not know that I need trouble the House with more; but I have other dissents which are as strong as possible. The dissent of Mr. John Forbes goes into the whole details, and he expresses himself very fully upon it. But I do not want to detain the House; therefore I will merely say that he concurs entirely, and gives his reasons at length why he concurs in that opinion. I therefore do contend that the dethronement took place without any ground, and that it was protested against at the time; and it is upon that ground that I say the House is bound to grant an inquiry. Now, Sir, to conclude. I have passed over the inquiry; I have shown that the witnesses were examined in secret; that they refused to give the Rajah a copy of the evidence; and that in fact until he received the blue books from this country, he was ignorant of the charges brought against him. I will read a letter from an eye-witness—a gentleman who is now in London, who was police magistrate at that time—and which gives a clear account of the treatment which this unfortunate Prince received. When he would not agree to acknowledge his own guilt, they immediately determined to surround his palace and take him away by force, which they did at night. He says—

"On the arrival of the troops at Sattara on the evening of the 4th of September, 1839, we received orders to be on parade at two o'clock in the morning."

Evil deeds are done at night. These are the acts of the East India Company:—

"Daring the middle of the night we proceeded in front of the Resident's house, and as soon as the troops could be told off and formed, which is always a difficult matter during a dark night, we inarched into the town. Colonel Ovans and his staff officer were a little in roar of us. On arriving in front of the palace we halted. Colonel Ovans immediately entered the palace with one or two other officers. After a few minutes, the Rajah was brought out and placed in a palanquin; he was then in a state of nudity, with the exception of a pair of sleeping drawers. I subsequently saw a shawl thrown over him. It appeared that the Rajah was asleep at the time he was summoned by Colonel Ovans. It was stated by some, 'These are strange proceedings—depend upon it there is sure to be a serious row about this in England.' The Rajah was not taken to the village of Nimb, as is generally supposed, but some distance from it, to a mean-looking dwelling into which the Rajah was conveyed: it did not appear at all suitable for the reception of a fallen prince, who a few days before had expressed his anxiety to be relieved from the cares of government. It was quite evident cattle had been recently kept there, and it was overrun with rats and vermin."

That was the place to which he was carried. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What are you reading from?] I am reading from a letter of an officer who was police magistrate at that time. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What is the name of the officer?] If you will give me a Committee, I will bring him before it:—

"Although Colonel Ovans three times solemnly assured the Rajah that the Rajah's private treasure and private property should be respected and delivered up, every shilling of the one, and every atom of the other, were, at his instigation, afterwards appropriated and confiscated."

I will produce Colonel Ovans's own three letters before the Committee, in which he pledges the faith of the British Government to preserve and restore the whole of his private property; and I will prove the manner in which he falsified that promise. Now, Sir, the treatment of the Rajah and his followers on the road to Benares was really disgraceful:—

"At the Rajah's first place of confinement, whither his queen and family followed him, his daughter gave birth to a premature infant, which died on the spot, and with difficulty was the life of the mother, a prey to fear and anxiety, saved. Twelve hundred of the Rajah's subjects voluntarily followed him to his place of exile, nine hundred miles distant. With them he set out. The melancholy journey occupied five months. At one stage of it the wife of his intimate friend and cousin, the late commander of his troops, was seized with the pangs of childbirth. The Rajah implored a halt for this lady. His request was peremptorily refused; and the lady gave birth to an infant, without succour, by the road side. At another stage the exiles were overtaken by an armed body of men sent from Sattara, with the sanction of Colonel Ovans, and with orders to demand payment of a debt of many thousand pounds from the same person—the Rajah's cousin—or to take him back a prisoner to Sattara. He had left behind at Sattara property to three times the amount. To satisfy the demand, this gentleman and his family were stripped on the spot of everything they possessed, from the jewels of his wife and the ornaments of his children, down to the cooking pots carried by his servants. It has since been proved that no debt from him was due. A few days after this scene, this gentleman, a prey to shame, grief, and indignation, fell dangerously ill. A halt was again implored for him; it was again refused. On opening his litter at the end of the day's journey, this brave soldier, this 'noble fellow,' as General Lodwick called him, was found stretched in it, a lifeless corpse."

What should we think of the Duke of Wellington being taken out of his bed, put into a carriage, carried away, and driven till he was found dead? That is a similar case to this; for this man was Commander-in-Chief of the Rajah's troops. This is not denied. I have not read a single document, except that one letter, which is not from the blue book. [Sir J. W. HOGG: The officer who commanded denies it.] There is nothing they would not deny. Why not give me a Committee? I will prove that that denial is a forgery, like all the rest. I will bring living witnesses—men who accompanied him—and all the facts shall be proved. Let them institute an inquiry at Benares, and the facts shall be proved. I do not want an inquiry here exclusively; I only want an inquiry of some kind or other by which justice shall be done. It is rather too much to be told this is all disproved by the blue book. Let us know what is the authority; let us have the witnesses confronted; lot us see on which side the balance will lie. Now, Sir, I have the Proclamation to depose the Rajah, and place his brother in the throne, with which I think it unnecessary to trouble the House. I now come to another matter. I have shown the deposition; I have shown the treatment; I have shown the way in which evidence was bribed, or at least I will show it; and I will now show how the evidence was obtained and got up; but I cannot do that without implicating Colonel Ovans. I was anxious to leave Colonel Ovans out of the question; but I have before mo the charges that were made against Colonel Ovans, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. They were laid upon the table of the Court of Proprietors; and it is very true that Mr. Wigram, one of the law officers of the Company, advised them, instead of advertising them, according to the rule of the House, not to publish them, because they wore libellous, as they had been laid upon the Table of the House by Mr. George Thompson. But in the name of Mr. George Thompson, for the first time, let me tell the right hon. Baronet that he has spoken several times in a disparaging manner of that gentleman; and if Mr. George Thompson shall get into the House of Commons in the next Parliament—which is very likely—the right hon. Gentleman will be no more than a pigmy in the hands of a giant, if Mr. George Thompson gets hold of him. [An Hon. MEMBER: He belongs to the Peace Society.] Now, Sir, what is the case? Colonel Ovans is accused by Mr. Thompson; and Mr. Thompson has made himself perfectly master of the case; and I venture to say that he is better acquainted with the blue book than any one of us; and he has also been in India. He accuses Colonel Ovans—

"That he did, from the time of his assuming office as Resident, down to the period of the Rajah's dethronement, in the month of September, 1839, systematically intercept, and cause to be intercepted, the whole of the correspondence of the Rajah, his servants, and his friends; and that Colonel Ovans did convert such systematic intercepting, opening, and perusing of the said correspondence into a means of counteracting and defeating every endeavour which the Rajah made to obtain a hearing, and to make known his case to the British Government, and into a means of secretly calumniating the friends of the Rajah to the British authorities. That Colonel Ovans did, in the month of July, 1837, obtain the removal of Govind Rao, a subject and friend of the Rajah of Sattara, then confined at Poonah, to strict confinement in the fortress of Ahmednugger, where, by means of a secret emissary sent from Sattara expressly for the purpose, Colonel Ovans obtained from Govind Rao a paper purporting to be a confession of the truth of a petition criminating the Rajah, which petition, as Colonel Ovans had previously reported to his Government, had been proved by him to be the petition of Girjabaee, the mother of Govind Rao."

The House must understand what are these accusations. The first charge against the Rajah was an anonymous charge; it was put into one of the post-offices, and arrived at Bombay. The Bombay Government directed it to be sent to Sattara, and an inquiry to be made as to who the author of it was. It was supposed to be written by Girjabaee, the mother of the Minister, Govind Rao. It remained in mystery; the woman denied it, although Colonel Ovans declared he had seen her, and that she had signed that petition; and after a certain time, Krushnajee Sudasee Bhidey came forward, having been bribed to prepare this paper for 1,200 rupees. This is a fact stated in the blue book, that he had been bribed with a promise of 1,200 rupees to write the infamous charge against the Rajah. It remained an anonymous charge; and all these imputations of treachery and conspiracy were got up during this time; and afterwards, when this man came forward and tendered to Colonel Ovans evidence that he was the author of it, and that he was prepared to prove the whole, and did prove the whole, instead of Colonel Ovans sending that information to the Home Government immediately to let them know who was the author, he kept it secret for eleven months, and never let that fact be known, which was of the utmost importance to the Government. That is a charge, in my opinion, of a most serious nature. Mr. Thompson also states—

"That Colonel Ovans, in September, 1838, was offered by Ballajee Punt Nathoo, his chief adviser, and Ballajee Kasee Khibey, his native agent, a highly treasonable paper or proclamation, bearing the genuine seals of the Rajah of Sattara, and calling upon the native troops in the service of the British Government to rise and extirpate the English. That it was intimated at the time that this paper was probably obtained by foul means, and that if there produced as evidence against the Rajah, his Highness might establish such to be the case."

The Rajah wished to show that somebody had got possession of his seals, and had written this violent proclamation in order to attempt to establish a charge against him that he was acting dishonourably; and Colonel Ovans suppressed it all. Mr. Thompson continues—

"That Colonel Ovans afterwards suffered this paper to remain in the possession of his native agent for four months, until the 25th January, 1839. That during those four months Colonel Ovans wholly abstained from making any inquiry into the genuineness of this paper, or the means by which it had been obtained, and that he apprised his Government of its existence, only when he learned from the interception of the Rajah's correspondence, and from the Rajah himself, that his Highness had detected the plot by which the impressions of his seals had been fraudulently obtained, and the treasonable purposes to which they had been applied."

The charge goes on, that he purchased, bribed, and got up evidence. This is really a most disgraceful thing. Papers passing between the Rajah and his official agent—every letter from England from his agents, and from every other party—were opened and taken to Colonel Ovans, in order to try and make out a case. Notwithstanding all that, not one iota of actual guilt has been made out. Now, Sir, the accusation which has been made by Mr. George Thompson, and which, unfortunately, I am obliged to make against Colonel Ovans is, that he authorized the buying of evidence in order to support the accusations. Captain Durack, Line Adjutant to Lieutenant Colonel Ovans, in a letter dated 26th September, 1837, says—

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, together with its accompaniment; and, in reply, to subjoin the following statement. Some days after my return to Sattara, from leave of absence on medical certificate, in the month of June last, Lieutenant Harne, who had been performing the duties of Line Adjutant in my absence, mentioned to me that a young lad of the name of Pundrung, and a person calling himself Hijront Row, had called upon him and said that they had been instructed by one Bhow Lely to say, that if he, Bhow Lely, were handsomely rewarded, he would procure certain treasonable papers connected with the conspiracy on which his Highness the Rajah of Sattara and his Minister, Govind Rao, were implicated."

Having removed Govind Rao before, which they did, thinking they would find treason in him, and not finding any, every one was anxious to obtain evidence; and, as Mr. Macaulay, in his observations, very properly states—

"Any person who wants to got up evidence against a man who has incurred the displeasure of the Government, finds no difficulty about it."

Captain Durack goes on to state—

"On the 16th, Bhow Lely called, and I told him he might have 150 rupees for his expenses. He accepted the sum, on the condition of being rewarded on his return with the seditious documents."

The seditious documents did not come so readily; there was some hitch about paying; but Lieutenant Colonel Ovans, Acting Resident at Sattara, on the 27th of October, writes—

"With reference to the statement of the Brahmin, Bhow Lely, on which so much stress is laid, I beg to observe, that on my arrival here, Captain Durack reported to me that an offer had been made by this man to produce some treasonable paper on promise of a certain reward; and after ascertaining that he had been for some years in the employment of the Rajah, I authorized Captain Durack to pay him a certain sum for his expenses, and to give him a paper, and say that he would be rewarded according to the service he might perform."

Do you not call this subornation—giving money in proportion to the amount of service performed; giving him immediately 150 rupees, and saying that he shall be rewarded in proportion to the value of the documents he shall get, impeaching the Rajah? I have a, copy of the receipt for the money so paid and received. I have also, Sir, authority to say, that there is a letter from Lieutenant Harne of the 8th Regiment, dated Sattara, 26th September, 1837, in which he says—

"On several occasions during the month of May last, overtures were made to me through the agency of a Brahmin lad, called Pundrung, by a Brahmin, named Bhow Lely, to the effect that he, Bhow Lely, would, if inducement, together with guarantee of personal safety, were offered, produce certain documents bearing the signature of the ex-Minister of the Sattara Rajah and others, of a seditious and libellous nature, as connected with the relationship hitherto existing between the British Government and that of his Highness the Sattara Rajah."

Now we can multiply these proofs to show that Colonel Ovans and the party there were busy and anxious to obtain evidence and papers, and that in fact every device was resorted to to obtain them. That is one case; but here is another instance, where Colonel Ovans applies to have a gang robber pardoned; and this from the blue book. The following is an extract of a letter from the collector of Rutna Gherry, dated 23rd September, 1837:—

"I have the honour to report to the Governor in Council, that Ballarama Chuprassee, an agent sent by the Acting Resident, Colonel Ovans, at Sattara, to Warree, requested the chief of Sawunt Warree to grant a free pardon to Balkoba Kelkur, and permit him to proceed with the agent to Sattara. The agent added, that on these conditions Balkoba Kelkur was willing to surrender himself up, together with the papers and seals in his possession."

This robber was pardoned. He was sent out, and he brings back a statement respecting the documents, which Colonel Ovans considers of the utmost importance. Colonel Ovans sends them to the Govern- ment as documents of great value; and hear what Sir Robert Grant says—

"I have perused with equal surprise and regret the letter from the Governor of India, dated the 2nd; for I conceive, that if the course suggested be pursued, the credit of the British Government will be seriously impaired."

Then he says—

"Under these circumstances, however, it cannot be denied, that the character of the Bombay Governor is almost as deeply committed on the event of the present discussions, as that of the Ruler of Sattara."

Then he says—

"That Colonel Ovans first learned of these papers from Dajeeba Waeed, who, with Ballaram, was sent to Warree, to discover Balkoba, to obtain the papers from that person. Some difficulty was at first experienced, but the attempt at length succeeded. Tha papers were obtained on the payment of 400 rupees."

Now, these papers were sent with an English translation, purporting to be of the utmost importance; being papers to criminate the Rajah of Sattara, signed by Colonel Ovans. He forwarded papers for which he had paid 400 rupees, though attached to them were two seals, as seals belonging to the Rajah of Sattara; whereas Colonel Ovans had in his possession the Rajah of Sattara's real seals, which were of an oblong shape; and it was impossible for any man who was Resident there not to have known and immediately to have detected the fraud. Therefore the charge is, that he did first purchase these papers—that he did forward them, stating them to be papers implicating the Rajah of Sattara—and that he forwarded them with these seals, while the seals were acknowledged to be forged. Sir, I am quite satisfied that if the truth can possibly be elicited—if we can have an opportunity of inquiry, all these facts will be made as clear as the sun at noon day. No one was more hostile to the present Rajah than myself at first, when I heard of Sir James Carnac's removal of him, because I had the greatest possible confidence in that gentleman, and I believed he was not capable (as the right hon. Gentleman knows) before he went to India of any such act. But the evidence was such as to make upon me an impression so strong, that there is no case I have ever undertaken which appears to me more clear than that which I have now stated. Now, Sir, I will mention another argument. There were papers laid before the House on the 4th of July, 1845—I will not trouble the House by reading them, but I will state the facts. The Rajah of Sattara, at the time he sent a petition to the House of Commons, sent a petition to the President of the Board of Control also. I endeavoured, quietly and privately, to do all I could to obtain justice for him. At last, Lord Ripon being in office, in 1844, I went to Lord Ripon, and stated, "Here is new matter—here are forged seals—the individual who committed the first forgery has presented a petition to the House of Commons, and there it lies; I hope you will now open the question, as this is new matter. The whole conspiracy can he proved, and here is the statement in detail." Lord Ripon took the papers, and said he was very sorry, but there were difficulties in the way; and I left the papers. On the next day I received a letter from Mr. Baring, the Secretary to the Board of Control returning me the papers, and saying, "he was sorry he had been directed by his Lordship to send them hack; but the papers from the Rajah could not come otherwise than through the Governor General: they must keep up the rule, and therefore they refused to receive the papers." I wrote a letter immediately afterwards to the Rajah; and he sent a letter to me. I said, "I return to you these papers, because the rules of the Government here do not permit of their being received; I advise you, therefore, to send your statement to the Governor General." Sir Henry Hardinge was just then going out; I advised him to send the papers to him, and said that he would forward them no doubt. On the receipt of my letter, soon after Sir Henry Hardinge arrived, he laid the whole of his case before Sir Henry, and requested that it might be conveyed to the Court of Directors here. Will the House believe, that although I have moved three times for these papers—(I have got a copy of the letter which was sent to the Rajah)—that letter has never to this hour been produced? It has been kept back by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: What is the date of it?] The 12th of December, 1841. I have a copy of it. I have moved for that letter twice. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will recollect that he assured me that no such paper was in his possession. [Sir J. W. HOGG: What letter do you allude to?] A despatch respecting the letter addressed by the Rajah of Sattara to the Governor General, which has never yet been given. I have got the letter here, and it details the whole of the case. Thus, therefore, he is refused access to the Government here, and directed to send the papers home by the Governor General. The Governor General either does not send them, or they are intercepted. How can such a system be sustained as compatible with justice? Sir, I will mention another instance of the manner in which this matter has been conducted. When Krushnajee Sudasee Bhidey sent a petition to the House of Commons, stating that he was ready to prove the whole to be a forgery, referring to living witnesses in Bombay who could be called to prove the facts, I applied to the Chairman of the Court of Directors, Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd said, "It is very extraordinary. I have not heard of these letters; hut if you will send them to me, I will forward them to India." I wrote a letter, dated the 18th May, 1844, to Mr. Shepherd, containing eighteen enclosures, being all documents ready to be proved; for there were on the spot witnesses to ascertain whether they wore true or false; not the evidence of men who had been guilty of forgery, but other individuals who were cognizant of the matter, and could prove it. I charge Colonel Ovans in my letter with having suppressed documents—I charge him with having refused inquiry; and I desire that the witnesses named in the petition to the House of Commons shall be examined by some competent tribunal in Bombay, in order to ascertain the truth. I say that the innocence or guilt of the Rajah is not the question, hut I want an inquiry. On the arrival of these documents, what was the course which the Government took? They first placed the case in the hands of Mr. John Warden, who is called the agent for native Princes. Mr. Warden sent for Krishnajee Sudasee Bhidey, and said, "Have you sent this petition from India?" "Yes," said Krishnajee. "Do you know what you state; and are you prepared to prove those charges?" said Mr. Warden. "Yes," "Where are your witnesses?" "Oh, I have got all the witnesses." Mr. Warden directs him to attend the next day; and says, "Are you aware that if you fail to prove those charges, what the consequence will be?" "Yes; I am perfectly ready to undergo the penalty; I have given you, as you desired, in writing the names, and many of them are living—men of property—bankers, sheriffs, and men of considerable property." "Well," says Mr. Warden, "we must take security that you will proceed with your examination." "What security do you want?" "One thousand rupees yourself, and five thousand in other security." This is from a man earning a few rupees per month! A bond is signed, and security is entered into; and he attends on the next day and expects the inquiry to go on. But, no; he goes again and again; and the fact is, that to this hour no inquiry has been made. What did the Government do? The Goverment sent these charges to Colonel Ovans and the native Ballajee Punt Nathoo. They return them, and say, "These charges are all false; why do you entertain them?" That is the answer that comes home—the man who offers to prove the charges having given security for one thousand rupees himself, and five thousand re-pees as security from others! The charges remain to this hour uninquired into. Does that look like innocence on the part of the Bombay Government? No! I defy any Director, or the right hon. Gentleman, to explain that, otherwise than as a consciousness that if they permitted inquiry, the whole case would be proved against them. That is one case; and I say, in addition, that in every stage there is evidence of conspiracy. I wish I was at liberty to state the individuals who I think are implicated. Well might the Court say—

"The character of the British Government is at stake, if you proceed with such an investigation."

Now, Sir, I come to one other point, and it is of extreme importance—the overtures made to the Rajah. After this letter to the Governor General, application was made in September, 1845, to the Rajah to this purport; and this is very curious. The Rajah is addressed by the Resident, Major Carpenter—a man of high character, an officer in the East India Company's service, against whom I never heard a charge breathed. He says—

"'Your Highness is aware that in England there is a General Court of Proprietors of East India Stock held every three months for purposes of business, and that your case has been frequently discussed there. Now, I would beg to suggest to your Highness the expediency of having these reiterated discussions on your claims discontinued.' 'Why,' replied the Rajah, 'should they be discontinued, seeing that they form the only channel through which my wrongs can be brought forward to the notice of the British public? And if the publicity which they cause be suppressed, it would be tantamount to shutting the door of justice altogether to further inquiry into the facts of my case.' 'None of the authorities in England,' observed the Agent, 'have the power of causing the re-establishment of your Highness on the Throne of Sattara. With your Highness's permission, I should recommend that you should, in the first place, agree to one proposition I shall make, preparatory to those which I shall take the liberty of submitting for your Highness's consideration. First, you should acknowledge that, after having tried and exhausted every means in your power for a period of six years, in your efforts to obtain justice, you have at last retired, perfectly hopeless of receiving any acknowledgment of your rights; you have, therefore, relinquished all your claims to the Sattara throne and territories: secondly, that you will withdraw your agent in London, and discontinue the agitation of your case in England: thirdly, that you will solicit for some suitable place of retirement; for the restoration of your private property; for an increase of the monthly allowance made to you; and for Government to approve of the adoption you have made in favour of the little boy, Trimbukjee Rajay. You must empower me, under your hand and seal, to propose these terms for the consideration of the Governor General, who is soon expected in the Upper Provinces. Should the Governor General decline complying with these proposals, I will, as I am proceeding to England, undertake to submit them to the Court of Directors and the Board of Control.'"

Now, mark! In reply to this, his Highness observed—

"I am neither a mahajan (shopkeeper), nor a sowear (merchant), nor a baboo (Bengali gentleman), nor a temindar (landowner, or rather farmer), nor is it likely that I should forego my rights of sovereignty, for the conditions you have to offer for my acceptance. I shall act conformably to the manner in which my ancestors have acted; and I hope my successors will so act. This is only in accordance with what is enjoined in our religion. With reference to the proposal in which I am directed to solicit for a suitable place of retirement; for the restoration of my private property; and to ask for an increase of my monthly allowance: supposing these were offered me, can it be expected that I should receive them, and waive my sovereign claims? A friend and ally of the English, you have, without any cause whatever on my part, deprived mo of my throne and dominions, driven me from my country, and subjected me to every species of oppression and degradation; and is this the justice I am at last to receive at your hands? I would rather perish than subscribe to the terms you propose."

Here is the proposal which was made. Mr. George Thompson mentioned this in the Court of Proprietors; and, to the astonishment of everybody, nobody knew anything of it. However, he pledged himself that he had a copy; and he was prepared to produce that copy. The hon. Gentleman knows what followed better than I do. After the Court was over, great consternation was expressed. At a meeting of the Court of Directors, the opinion strongly expressed was, that information must be obtained, whether that compromise was offered or not. Is it true or false? For that purpose a despatch from the Secret Committee was sent, which I will read. This is one of the secret papers. It appears that after that exposure in the Court of Proprietors—after a declaration that such an offer had taken place—after a denial on the part of the Chairman that he knew anything at all about it—the Directors, for the vindication of their own honour, and to obtain information, directed their Chairman to write for that purpose. [Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: It was the Secret Committee.] The Secret Committee! Well, so much the worse; because acts of this kind should he done publicly, and not by the Secret Committee. But this is a copy taken from the paper sent to India. Mr. G. Thompson, the person who has been alluded to, found this paper upon his table one morning. This is the document—this is the paper that I stole in Bengal; though I could not be there and here at the same time. The fact is, this letter was written, and signed "Henry Willock, James Weir Hogg;" and the right hon. Gentleman opposite must have been a party to it. It is headed—

"DESPACH FROM THE SECRET COMMITTEE OF THE COURT OF DIRECTORS TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN INDIA. (Secret.) No. 1175.

"We transmit to you a paper purporting to be the subject of a conversation between the Governor General's Agent at Benares and the ex-Rajah of Sattara, which was read by Mr. George Thompson at a General Court of Proprietors of the East India Company on the 18th instant. The Court of Directors have no information with respect to the propositions stated in this paper to have been made by Major Carpenter to the ex-Rajah; and we, therefore, desire that a copy of the statement be sent to that officer, and that he be called upon to transmit to you, without loss of time, whatever observations he may have to offer upon it. A copy of these observations you will forthwith forward to us, together with any explanatory remarks which the case may appear to you to require."

Now, it is rather curious that a copy of that despatch should have led to all this dispute with the right hon. President of the Board of Control. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had it put into his hand—for I was out of town when the paper was moved for—and an application was made to the hon. Member, who proceeded to the right hon. Gentleman, and asked him whether he had any objection to produce the papers. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that they should be produced; but afterwards he altered the terms of the Motion. Now, here is a letter from the Governor General, dated the 15th May, 1846, to Major Carpenter:—

"I am directed by the Right Honourable the Governor General to transmit for your informa- tion the accompanying copy of a letter, dated the 24th March last, with its inclosures from the Honourable the Secret Committee," [which is what I read] "and to request that you will submit any explanation or observation you have to offer relative to the propositions you are alleged to have made to the ex-Rajah of Sattara."

Now those are two of the secret papers. The third is not the paper at length, which I am sorry for, but it is the substance of a despatch consisting of seven paragraphs addressed by Major Carpenter, the Governor General's agent at Benares, dated May 26th, 1846. Now I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this was correct or not. It is as follows:—

"Paragraphs one and two, refer to the conversations held at various times with his Highness the Rajah relative to his circumstances at Benares, and his wishes respecting the progress of his cause; also to the paper read by Mr. George Thompson at the India House, which is described by Major Carpenter as substantially correct, though in some particulars inaccurately translated. Paragraphs three and four state, that the representations from time to time made at the India House respecting the case of the Rajah, by the friends of that Prince, are true; and that the Rajah has been proved to be innocent altogether of the charges brought against him by the Bombay Government. Paragraphs five and six, contain proof, furnished by Major Carpenter himself, of the entire innocence of the Rajah of all the accusations brought against him. Paragraph seven refers to a conversation between Major Carpenter and the Governor General, while his Lordship was at Benares, respecting the circumstances of the Rajah; and the assurance of the Governor General that he would explain everything to the Court of Directors."

These are the papers which the right hon. Gentleman accused me of having stolen. These are the purloined papers that Mr. George Thompson produced, which I have asked two or three times to have produced, in order to see what they really are. I do not allege that these are true; we want to know that; and when I asked the first time, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh! you have taken these papers; we have a rule—we will not let you have them, because somebody has stolen them." The hon. Gentleman said I had stolen them, or that I was the receiver of stolen goods. I have since been told, that if any one person would be at the expense, and disregard the impropriety, any paper may be obtained. It was remarked to me by a gentleman from India, "What a fuss you are making about this! There is not a document belonging to the Bengal Government which I could not buy." But, Sir, here is the point. This letter purports to be the substance of a secret letter from Major Carpenter; and it is a paper which the right hon. Baronet kept seven months before it was known to be in England; therefore he had made up his mind to keep it. An hon. Gentleman, I believe also in the Court of Proprietors, alleged, if I recollect right, that the Directors did not know of it; but after it had been discovered to be a stolen paper, he said he could not give it up. It was seven months in the right hon. Baronet's possession before he knew there was a copy here. We have eight folio volumes, consisting of 1,680 pages from the Secret Department, in the case of the Rajah of Sattara. Everything that could criminate the poor unfortunate man has been laid upon the Table of the House; but the moment anything that looks like exculpation appears, it is locked up. Is that English justice? You refuse him a trial; you keep the papers. But the right hon. Gentleman says it is not so. Has he not admitted that he has the paper, and will not produce it? Why was it not produced months ago? We know that a despatch was sent out to obtain information. The Court of Directors, up to this moment, have refused that information. What have they done? I am sorry to say the Court of Proprietors have been treated with very little ceremony. When they asked for the information, the majority at first certainly voted against it. Afterwards a Motion was made by Mr. Lewis, in the Court of Proprietors, and against the Court of Directors: that Motion was carried, that these papers should be asked for; that the Court of Directors should apply to the Board of Control for the papers. The right hon. Gentleman answered, "I have received your letter;" but he did not condescend to say he would not give them, or that he would take time to consider, but simply acknowledged the receipt of the letter. Another letter was written, which received the same answer; and yet the right hon. Gentleman pretends to say we are dealing with fictions, when almost every allegation, except the two letters I have last read, is taken from the blue books! Now, Sir, let me ask you, why should the right hon. Gentleman, when this unfortunate Prince is suffering in exile, blame me for asking him to produce papers which I am informed contain statements which will prove his innocence? As I have said before, would it be tolerated in an English court, or in an English House of Commons, if any Poor of this realm had been tried for treason and degraded, his property confiscated, sent into exile, and it should after- wards turn out to be the result of a conspiracy—when that proof became as clear as the sun at noon day—could it be said, "Oh! these papers have been stolen; you shall not have them?" What has the mode of getting them to do with the question as to whether they contain any facts of importance or not? What have I to do with the manner in which they have been obtained, or what has the right hon. Gentleman to do with it? The right hon. Gentleman ought at once to have said, "These do not contain anything connected with the Rajah that can be of importance;" or, "My producing them will be injurious to the public service." But he has not ventured to say that. Why does an English Gentleman—an administrator of justice, maintaining the opinion that every man ought to have a fair trial upon the charges brought against him—I say, why does the right hon. Gentleman detain in secrecy documents of this kind; documents asked for by the Court of Proprietors, and refused to the House of Commons—and refused to the Court of Directors? I say, the right hon. Gentleman is culpable in the highest degree. It is a denial of justice. I have shown the House the doubtful manner in which the evidence bears on the charges; I have shown the House the mode adopted to obtain evidence. Is it not too hard that at this day we should have such proceedings going on? Whether the Rajah be guilty or not, I say he ought to be tried; I say he ought to be heard; I say that the prayer of his petition ought to be awarded to him. His petition to this House is, "Give me but the fate of a peasant in England; let me have a trial. Were I a peasant in England, I should obtain a trial; I should have justice done me; I am an exiled Prince, having been deprived of my sovereignty under these pretences; and yet I cannot get justice; no person will listen to me." I can only say that the character of the East India Company in India stands on very fragile grounds, if such a course of proceeding is to be maintained. No case has occupied so much of the attention of the natives of India as this case; and I should not wonder, to tell the truth, that some of those thousands who sympathize with that unfortunate man, hearing what the despatch alluded to contains—I should not wonder if some of them, unknown to any person, had obtained these papers, or even paid for them, in case they could not obtain them in any other way, in order to send them over here to give the Rajah a chance of the matter being inquired into. It appears to me to be a question which appeals to the justice of the British House of Commons. It is a case which appeals to English gentlemen. We do not ask you to say that the Rajah is innocent; we ask you to do common justice. What is the opposition? It is an opposition from the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control. Now, Mr. Tucker says "I have not altered my opinion"—I have read you his able dissent—

"I have not altered my opinion; but the question cannot be opened in the Court of Directors. It rests with Her Majesty's Government, and it rests with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control. He is the organ of Government upon Indian matters."

What can the right hon. Gentleman expect himself, if he should be placed in a situation in which he should be compelled to appeal to this House? If he should be treated as he has treated others, I think he would be very unfortunately situated. But, Sir, the time that has elapsed has been raised as an objection to inquiry. Now I hold in my hand a case exactly similar to the present; it is that of the Rajah of Tanjore. The Rajah of Tanjore in 1827 died, leaving a child. His uncle and relations combined by subornation of witnesses to prove to the Government that he was not the proper heir; and he was accordingly set aside, and his uncle succeeded to the throne. The same course of proceeding has been adopted against the Rajah of Sattara. The party who plotted is now on the throne; the Brahmin who was the first prime mover has got an estate of 20,000 or 30,000 rupees; every one who assisted in this conspiracy is now rolling in wealth. This individual, the Rajah of Tanjore, who ousted his nephew, sat for ten years on the guddee, and at last some of the party impeached him; an inquiry took place, and the conspiracy which had been entered into was discovered. When the Government of India determined to re-inquire into the Tanjore case, they recorded their reasons in the following words. Lord Wellesley, in his despatch, says—

"Adverting to the right of the Company to interfere originally with respect to the succession of Tanjore, it is observed, that the same right called upon them under existing circumstances to review the whole subject, and that if it should appear that the decision of the Government had been procured by imposition and intrigue, by which the legal heir had been deprived of his rights, a declaration to that effect, followed by his restitu- tion, would be more honourable to British justice, and more calculated to promote our political character and interests, than to suffer the continuance of an imposition obtained at our hands by sinister and undue means. It would manifest to the world that the principle of British justice is ever true to itself, and that if those entrusted with its administration should be betrayed into error (an event not impossible even from the integrity of their own minds), when truth shall have made its way, the hour of retribution must come, and the honour of the British name be completely vindicated."

That is the Minute of Lord Wellesley, which does him honour in my opinion. Do not, therefore, entertain any fear of retracing your steps, and replacing this individual, if it should turn out on inquiry that he is innocent of these charges that are brought against him. I therefore say, that time cannot be set up as a bar against justice being done; and it is only by inquiry you can solve the mystery whether he is innocent or guilty. My own opinion is, that he is perfectly innocent. I therefore intreat the House to agree to the proposition which I submit. I have put on the Paper a notice for a Committee of Inquiry; and the right hon. Gentleman complained, on a former occasion, that I had changed my notice half a dozen times. Why, Sir, if I had changed it a dozen times I had a right to do so; circumstances may change, and I must frame my notice to suit the times. The principle of the Motion is the same; and inquiry is all I want. I want the House to grant an inquiry—I ask no more—and I trust it will give me no less. I therefore move—

"That it is the duty of this House, to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the East India Company towards Purtuab Sing, the Rajah of Sattara, in depriving him of his Sovereignty, and sending him to Benares, where he is in exile, deprived of his liberty and property."

seconded the Motion.

hoped, that the Government would give hon. Members on that side of the House an opportunity of expressing the sense with which they viewed the proceeding of the noble Lord. The hon. Member ridiculed the noble Lord, as pretending to be the leader of a great party, for what he termed that obstructive policy which interrupted all public business.

said, it was very well for an hon. Gentleman who had been at his dinner to object to an adjournment; but those who had been present during the whole night must feel very differently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, two Lords of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury, had been fast asleep during most of the evening. Some of them were lying on their backs, with their heads down and their feet up. The noble Lord the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests was also fast asleep, and almost every official Gentleman was in the same state. The hon. Gentleman who objected to the Motion for adjournment the moment he returned from dinner, went also fast asleep. He did not see why those who had to meet in the morning on the Health of Towns Bill should be asked to sit after twenty minutes past One o'clock.