The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1818-05-22 00:00:00

I . . ••t c.ll f a the accounts or the City or London, ex r..iit it should appear that a case of great abuse had been satiifactorilv made out. The Corporation l'i.m elves h4il prayed in this instance to be heard 11 their cotiosel why these accounts and papers •'uwld not be publicly exhibited. He was as well aware as most persons of the delay and inconveni -I•ncr re...lilting from hearing counsel, but he cer i.iitily thought the City entitled to be heard in their tlefeeiee, through the beet medium of advocacy they Wight with to wire., sho•rld the order for the pro duction of these p•alwrs aud accuouts be persevered in. The Sit sera f.•lt it necessary to state what, in this inetesice, he considered ought to be the rule of proceeding to which the Blouse ought to conform, although he, from a severe cold, was scarcely audi ble. The tnotion of the Honourable Baronet was, that the Petition should be referred to a Select Committee, whilst the Petition requested that the case of the City should be permitted to be argued by coutisel. This was rawly the place where counsel could not be heard, counsel being usually heard at the bar or the Douse. Nor would it he tom:rent in the House that counsel shodld be beard against their own order for the production of these papers. As it now stood the only motion *as, that the Petition should be referred to • Committee.' I r that were adopted, then it might be considered kerhaps expedient to allow the Committee to ascer tain from the coausel certain legal point*, the i•ounisel actin rather as witnesses, on points of law, than as counsel arguing upon such points, and stating how far they, isorfessioually, knew whe ther the production of such paper* or accounts tn'glit he prejudicial: Mr. 111 , en hoped the Honotiretile Baronet would withdraw the Bill for a grant from Pairlia;. Ment in aid of the City's fnude, upon which this )Petition was founded. Mr. N. CALVERT obserVerl, there had been ant 'muralsl delay in this application to the House, and which would by uo means be considered to iasply respect to the order of the Uouset which was made on the 44th of February, whilst the motion of t h e lion. Baronet had not been made un til the 210 of May. Mr. Car.citseT said, that If the Bill now pend ing were *Withrow the order for the production of these papers, as .1 1 lag out of that Bill, ought, as • natural conseque cc, to be rescinded, as, in that ease, the necessity for further inquiry on the sub ject would lw alto , getlwr at an rut!. Sir I% l St. CURTIS consented to withdraw the Bill for aiding the funds of the City, which had been read a first time.—[This Bill had refereuce to the repairing of gaols to Inc City, as far as we could collect.] Mr. Lawns considered the question of import- Uwe. Au absolute order of the House hail been • Welted on ilw City to produce certain iuformation, .gis which the City thought proper to demur. Then the City Member came forward to move that the Prtiti , osi of the City, begging to be heard by it. counsel, should be referred to a Select Committee. The precedent was one which might he carried to o dangerous length, and the future orders of the House for the production of iiifo.rination might be treated with equal diorepect, and be demurred tit, as in this instance, to the manifest inconve nience of public discussi and the transaction of interesting public business. Although the order had been issued in consequence of the solicitatino of the City for a vote in aid of the charges depen dant on its estate, still the House ought not to adopt hastily any precedent on the subject, lie should rather suggest, that, on the Bill being with drawn, the order should also be withdrawn. Mr..BRAND considered that ma with reference to ally future prucerdings which might bake plaice ill aid of the City, that it would he better, the Bill bring withdrawn, that the order should also be withdrawn ; although it might le necessary, in case the application of the City were repeated hereafter, to move a similar motion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM would not consent to with drawing the order, except the Members for the Cay of London should actually withdraw the Bill now pending. Mr. CALCRAPT considered that the lion. Baronet bail consented to withdrawing the Bill already. Mr. THORNTON concurred in the necessity of rescinding the order as best calculated to preserve 11w form. of proceeding adopted by the House. The SPEAKER considered th.t it would be needs airy it should appear on the Journals that the Bill had actually been withdrawn. A motion therefore to that effect would be necessary. Sir Wm. CURTIS should adopt the advice of the Speaker, and therefore moved. that the Bill alluded to it Id be read a second time tins dsy six months ; which was agreed to. After a few words from Mr. SUMNER and Mr. Alderman WooD, the order of the Wl' of last Fe bruary, connected with the said Bill, was also with drawn. Sir FRANCIS BVIDUTT presented Petitions from AlOogdosi, Westminster, Newington, Thornybank t Middlesex, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hud dersfield, and other places, praying fur a Reform Ilsr'world ; which were read, and ordered to lie on the isble. Lord I.►uLt.t.d moved for a Select Committee on the as:. mwd taxes, a n d taxes affecting shop window's. fie 'stated that he had, previously to leaving the country, had various communications nn this subject with many persona in los quarter of the country. The grievances of which they had ..m.,l4isiefi were or three kiwis The first arose frens she severity with which, since the last order from the Tex-office, the duties ou shop-windows had hero enforced, and the high rates at which honors had bren assessed, to which had beets attached very extensive show, although the house, themselves were inconsiderable--ia these cases they had teen all rated at a 'such-►etst. The next evil cornplaisied of was, the frequent visits of tra velling assessors going about the country to endeavour to tioni out something which hod not been adequately, as the Tax-office thought, as.. sew(' by the resident assessors. The last subject of complaint was, the practice of assessing, as re gula►ly-employed servants in trade, children who hail hers, at any time discovered carrying out par cels from the ►hops of their parents. Ile did not his motion fo► • Com- subject of these 'unso und hoped. if the Commit wake Bey progress is the investigation this Session, their report would be ready early in the neat, and that the Howe would proceed immediately to set upon it. The Committee was agreed to, and thereupon nominated. Sir JOHN NEWPORT postponed his motion for • Bill to extend to Ireland the Modus for • Tithe of Flax, as established by the law of England. USURIOUS SECURITIES AND RILLS. Sir S. ROMILLY rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render valid Usurious Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes in favour of Endorsees not implicated in the usurious trausaction. In moving fur leave to bring in the Bill, he highly compli mented his Hon. Friend (Mr. Serjeaat °inlays) upon the advantages the country had already derived from that Learned Friend's late Bills, one of which (the Bill fur extending the beuent of the Habeas Corpus Act to certain persons) he must consider the moat serviceable to the public and the interests of society to be found in our legal records. To fol low up the project of that Learned Friend, with respect to the abolition of the laws respecting usury, was one of his principal objects. It was well known that in the present state of the law, under the sta tute of Queen A ime, that all securities given for money upon usurious conditions, were void in any person's handr. The spirit of mercantile transac tions was hereby excessively cramped ; and it would be a natural consequence of the relief given by this Bill, that all good bills would immediately be di... counted without any apprehrsision being excited that they were usurion4 iii their origin. Discoulits would be thus reudered more easy, and trade would be proportionably facilitated. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill ; and after a kw words from Mr. Serjeant Otist,ow, Mr. FINLAY, and Sir SAMUEL. BoMILr.Y in explana tion, who disclaimed any intention to include within the provisions of the Act securities given for rambling deists, the Bill was read a Gist and se cond noir, and ordered to be committed on Mon day next. Mr. COOPER brought in the Bill to amend the laws regarding County Infirmaries in Ireland; which was resit a first and second time, arid order ed to be committed on Monday. anticipate ally objection to metier to inquire iota the sottish and cuniplainto, and lee afiout.l not Lc able to RAPE-SEED GROWERS. Li reply to r question frem LordIASCEL LES - Mr. !tont 'isn't stated, that although the Duties Consolidation Bill had been withdrawn for this Session, it was still his opinion the protecting du ties on the importation of rape-seed into this country were too high. lie should not, however, advise Government that these duties should lie im mediately 111 ttt illished, kit the considerable proper ties embarked in speculating on the growth of nun-- seed should be prejudiced, by not having suffici ent timely ounce of the intentions of the Legis- Irturr. When r Bill to tins purpose should be ill troduced, it wars his intention to propose that the duties should not be removed until the sth of July, 1820. PERSONS CONFINED UNDER LORD SIDSIOUTIVS CIRCULAR. Mr. BENNETT rose to 'twee for a Committee to inquire into the Oleos' of the Petitions of J. B. Mellor and Samuel Pilling, of Warrington, d.►ted the 9.1 of March ; nod Robert Swindells, of Macclesfield, dated the 13th of the same month, who had been confined under the con►truction gives by the Secretary of State to the offence of libel, by the reilowned circular letter of Lord Sidinouth. He should first state the case of the two former, as established by their Petit . These parties were taken up iii con►equencr or One of those libels of Mr. Done being bought nut of their shop, by persons connected with the police, and on that occasion a most illegal outrage had taken place, by the police officers causing their house to be ran sacked, and searched tl►rnughuut, to find out if there were any more of those productions on the premises. Against the illegality of such a pro ceeding, the House hail long since decided, in the memorable case of 1765. The parties making the search carried off various volumes, amongst others Rollin's History— Wynne's Ame ►ica, &c. and the Magistrates sentenced them to give bail for tool. each, and also find two securities for ea! It for 50/. Bring 'suable to cons . ply with these condi iionN they were stilt to the work , house, and confined at hard labour, f whesice, after wine time, they were seat, chained together, to Preston gaol, contrary to the well-known and est.:blished principles of the laws in the case of libel ; I r had they been committed for libel by the sentence of the Court of King's Bench, that high authority could wily have sentenced them to coofineinent in the best rooms of their own prisons, whilst in this case they were obliged to spend the whole day in the yard with the eorninon felons, After suffering a considerable time in prison these parties were enlarged in the following month of Septeinber—upon what ?—merely on their own se curity. Al'as then this cruelty to be sauctioned by the House > Although lie would admit there might be considerable exaggeration, and some unfounded facto introduced in these Petit• ,be still thought enough had been •hewn to resider iiivestigat a duty on the part of the Douse. The next was the case of Robert Swindells, of Maccle►field, who had hero taken out of his bed on the id of March, 11117, at twelve o'clock at night, from his wife, who was then in bed with him, and in the eighth mouth of her pregnancy. The officers threaten ing to break in the door, he came down stairs, followed by his wife, in a state of alarm, and newly naked ; on opening the door he was nearly run down by the officers in the pas sage, hastening up stairs to examine his house. They then inquired for a specification of the num ber of persons in his house. During these proceed ings, his wife continued exposed to the cold, which subsequently affected her extremely, to the et►dan geriug of her life. lie himself was lodged iii gaol as having published a prohibited work, whence, after five weeks confinement, he was liberated. His wife was, on the 26th of the same month, delivered, and died on the 28th. The little inland survived its mother but a few days, owing to its being de prived of her ottentiou and care. The character of this man was well known, from the circumstance of his having been eleven years in the navy, where he had conducted himself with spirit and propriety. The Petitioner, after all his sufferings, hied cape iienced the additiontil mortification of being charged without trial. Alr. DAVENPORT endeavoured to refine. ia -4 - Heat measure , the allegations of the Petitioner, obert Swindells. He was well acquainted with the Gentlemen who, having been sworn in as spe cial constables on that evening of alarm in Mac clesfield, had proceeded to the Petitioner's house to search for a Committee of conspirators said to be there sitting. There was no violence com mitted. Indeed these persons were men perfectly incapable of any of the atrocities alleged against them, as he himself well knew; and so far from this man's wife having been starved with cold, aiid hence falling a victim in childbed, it was a fact she had gone to her work at the silk factory newt day. without ever having complained that she was unwell. It was further denied on the part of the Magistrates, who had consulted the medical man who attended her, that she was more than six months advanced in her pregaancy, and he had also stated that, during her time of gestation, she had been *object to a vio lent cough, and occasionally to hysterics. Mr. BLACIIBUIINE stated, from the authority of the Magistrates from whom he had this day commu nications, that the two other parties had received whilst in the workhouse every accommodation which the place afforded—that their removal to prison was not attended with any unnecessary rigour, they be ing placed in an open cart, and connected together, for the sake of security, by a light chain. Their situation also in Ibres•oli gaol was Stated to be as little irksome or inconvenient as it would have beep had they been sent to Lancaster Castle, fur that gaol was at this period, m common with others in the neighbourhood, excessively full. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended, that in this instance if he had hero at all guilty, it was rather from a dereliction of duty then an excess of cruelty in his conduct with respect to these parties. He begged to state to the House what had been his conduct on this occasion. He sent down an in dictment to the Grand Jury at the Quarter Ses sions, who found a true bill. On subsequently re fleeting upon the nature of the charge, it struck him, that a charge of publishing a libel of this na ture ought rather to be tried before the Judges of the land than before the local jurisdiction, he there fore removed the case by certiorari. Reflecting on the delay which this would occasion, and the consequent additional nutirissoment it might impose on the party, he immediately sent down an order, of fering them a discharge on their own recogrozance, to enter plea in the Court of King's Bench on the first day of the next Term. If this offer was fur a time rejected, he was not the cause of it, but the party or parties who obstiriately refused the indulgence.— On the subject of the committal by the Magis trates, the Hon. Genileman denied dust they had authority to commit in this manner, before trial, to the House of Correction. Now, on this point, he (the Attorney-General) would only say, that this power existed by virtue of two statutes; and fur ther, that it was given because it favoured the ac cused. In many counties there was only one gaol, and that perhaps at some distance, but iu every place almost there was a workhouse; so that the accused, instead of possibly bring removed to a distance, had the opportunity of remaining in their own immediate neighbourhood. He was willing to admit, that if the parties were before trial put to hard labour, such putting would be a stretch of the law-- ft/earl—but under the 22d George 111. c. 24, they might be set to easy work if they were sup ported at the expense of the country, and the, were entitled on their discharge to half their earnings. In stating thus much he was ready to add, that he had lately, rind for a purpose quite unconnected with this subject, considered the Statute, and lie rather thought that it was not corn 10 universal applicatiori.—(Cries of Hear, hear, hear.). — This he was free to say. But let the House look at the sort of labour to which these people were put—te pick a couple of pounds of cotton per duy. Was this consistent with the assertion that they were seat to the House of Correction merely for oppression, and to put to bard labour? As to that part of the case of Swindells, fur a libel, all lie should say was, that no man had been prosecuted with less severity ; he had never been arrested (is was said) by a Magistrate. or by the authority of one. Ile (the Attorney-General) felt it his duty to have filed an er-officio information against him ; no warrant whatever had been issued but the ordi nary law process by sa6pena ; he had merely a notice to appear, and no more—/ Hear) — and in default of his appearance, an attachment was imbued sg►aiust him. This attachment was not issued from the Crown-office until thirteen days after the 6th of June, when lie was bound to appear. %Viten taken up for this contempt, it was true he applied to the Mayor, who answered (and truly) that he knew nothing of the cause of the arrest. The party was by this process, merely called upon to enter an appearance, no recognizince was either given or wanted, and an offer was made to hint that if lie was unable to bear the expense of com ing to town. he had only to authorise the Solicitor fur the Treasury to enter • plea for him, and he should have a copy of the information gratis, with a sopersedeas by return of post.—( Ileur.)—So iu his case there was a complete relaxation rather than an aggravation of puiiishinent. Now as to the do mestic sufferings lie stated lie had endured on the 10th March, lie begged, on his honour, to state, that lie never heard of them until after the pro cess had been issued.— (blear, hear.)—lt was right, however, in justice to the Magistrates, to call the attention of the House to the circumstauces attending this part of the case. It would be recol lected that the 10th March was the day when the persons called the Blanketeers had set out from Manchester, with the intention of proceeding by two routes (Stockwell and Macclesfield) to London. At Macclesfield the greatest bustle prevailed among the lower classes on that day, iii the ex pectation of one of these bodies, and the Magistrates had the greatest difficulty in preserving the public peace. On the reciting of that day a body of 1,000 of these blanketeers entered the town, and the leaders or delegates of them were said to have gone to the house of Swindells, who was said to have been act ing in concert with them. The Magistratei went there merely to ascertain the fact, and aeon some of the political catechisms in the place, and ether inflammatory publications, they certainly carried them away. He del not justify this act, or mean to say that it was legal. but the time and situation of the place would, he thought, plead much in exte nuation of the Magistrates, who were at such a crisis responsible fur the peace of the town, Theta again as to ti►e ill health of the wife ; this was true, but it was equally true that her indis position was not caused by this visit of the Magid testes, for he had seen an affidavit from the surgeon who attended her for some time previously, and who described her to have been in a very weak state— ( Hear )—and further, he bad information from her fellow-work persons in the manufactory, that while she worked there after this matter had occurred they never heard her complain plains as being either the cause or the aggravation of her illness.— ( Hear.)—The man also had gone so far as toady, that his wife was refused medical aid ; now, on the contrary, he could prove, that a surgeon continued to attend her until the husband told him he might spare himself further trouble, as l►e had got her into the Dispensary.—(Hear.)--This man was again contradicted, when he sail, l►e had been kept ou bread and water for months, whereas the fact was, lie had the general gaol allowance which the debtors had in Chester gaol, and which was sub stantial ('pod.—( Hear.)--When such evidence in direct contradiction to his statements were given, where was the necessity of going into this inquiry' —(Hear.) Sir S. ROMILLY conceived this to he a most im portant question, and one which involved two great and paramount privileges—he meant the freedom of the press and the liberty of the subject.—(Hear, hear.)—He deeply regretted the feeling winch the House seemed disposed to manifest on a question of such vital interest-4e could not but express his astonishment that they seemed disposed to go to a division with so little ceremony on points of such magnitude.—(s 'ries of " No !" from the 7'reasery Bench.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman re pented his assertion, and said, that his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) had seen the gallery half cleared before he rose to speak on the subject, and when he had spoken, lie had carefully abstained from noticing the great bearings of the question. —( Hear, hear, hear.) — lie had argued it as if it were a charge brought against himself, which in fact it was not, except so far as his act in removing the case by certiorari, when one would suppose that, if the object were to suppress the libel and punish the libeller, the pro per course would be to proceed at once against him, and not let the matter rest at the time, and after wards revive the libel by a distant prosecution. But the great question was, in the float instance leading men with irons who were merely charged with publishing a political libel.—(Hear, hear.) — This outrage was so strous, that but a few years ago no man would have believed such an oc currence could have token place. The Member for Lancashire (Nlr. Blackburne) hurl, in the excul patory letter (as he called it) which he read, gently alluded to this treatment, by reading that die par ties were sent to prisati " with the usual precau tions."—(llEar, hear.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had called these libels blasphemous; he (Sir Samuel) did not like to hear such a term applied to those productitn►s, because it was not warranted by law. They were certainly, to say the least of them, very• reprehensible—to parody the sacred parts of the Liturgy, was an ex tremely bad form for the writer to convey his de testation of corrupt practices--it could hut be justi fied, but it was not yet blasphemous in a legal sense. Knowing the liberal sentiments which his Hon. and Learned Friend held in early life, and he hoped still held, it was astonishing how he could have so slightly touched on the real oppression dis. closed in these cases—he was astonished how lie could have listened without indignation at the avowal by Magistrates, that they sent a man charged with a political offence to prison in iro►►s, before his trial. To say that they had acted thus, because he had published abet was pronounced a libel, was to say nothing ; for some excellent production• had fallen under that title, not indeed in the opinions of country Ma gistrates, but • according to the declarations of leading Crown Lawyers--such, for instance, had been the case in the respectful Petition of the Bishops in the time of James the Second.—(Hear, hear.)—See the situation iii which die liberty of the subject Lutist stand, if Magistrates had the power of thus putting persons, in the first instance, in irons, and sendi n g them to gaol like convicted felons. Mr. BLACKBURNE here rose to say, that be had not admitted they were so sent. The Hon. Gen tleman then referred to the letter • which he had previously read, and repeated, that the persons bad been sent to the workhome, where they were placed by the fire-side merely with a chain round their legs to prevent their escape.—(llear, hear. front Sir S. Romilly.) Sir S. Rommt.v—" That is what I allude to; and did not the Hon. Member read from the other letter that they mere sent to Preston gaol with the usual precautions,' and were not these precautions irons ?"—(Hear.) Mr. BLACILBUItNe admitted that he had read such an extract.—/ Hear.) Sir S. RUMILLY Oro resumed, and said, that was precisely what lie had been arguing upon. He denied the power of the Magistrates to commit such an outrage. The single question wee, whe ther the House could hear such a doctrine without indignation ; or whether, having heard, they could allow the matter to rest without further inquiry ? If they did, what would their constitnents think of such an abandonment of public duty ?—( His lion. and Learned Friend had also but slightly glanced at the seizure of Swindell's papers. New whatever differences of opinion lawyers may hold on a number of points, on this, relative to the sei zure of private papers to rake out evidence against an individual, lie did mat believe thete had been • dissentient voice since Lord Camden's celebrated decision condemnatory of such a practice. It was both illegal and disgraceful, and entirely arose out of Lord Sidinouth's Letter, michising the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General to whet the zeal of the local authorities is their several district*. The coneequence of it in this particular instance was, that the ignorant individual sent forth to hunt for libels, discovered in one titan's custody a volume of Kellin's Ancient History, Law's Serious 01/Iwpins Good C'h►istians, and The Evangelical Magazine—all of which, on the maxim of noscitar a seciis, were seised and carried off, because they were found on the mass /shelf with The Liverpool Mercury, and some cumbers of Cobbett's works— (4 laugh.)—lf such a practice were tolerated, no man would chim e like Sydney, to put his thoughts - 4 to paper on the public transactions of Government. The facts, it was said, were denied. Where, lie would ask, was this denial to be found ? Was it net admitted, that the persons were put in irons before the Magistrates, and their papers seized ? The other parts were, it was true, in some instances contradicted ; but he saw no reason why the statement of the oppressed should not receive as much credence as that of the oppressor ; indeed, except as it would seem in political cases, the former was usually believed in preference—, (Hear)—and the zeal of those who came form;il,l to contradict what the Petitioners had asserter:„. might in some degree be estimated, when some o!: them had the hardihood to swear that neither dells nor his wife " had made complaints to ally pt i• sons whatsoever." The Hon. and Learned G.-wit-- man concluded by warmly calling upon the House. to consider the situation in which the liberty of the subject would be placed if acts of this kind %vile tolerated, and if the people of the country were to be told that that House would not deign even to inquire into so heinous an abuse.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BATHURST contended that his Host. and Learned Friend had given a full explanation in support of the conduct of the Magistrates, in send ing these individuals to the House of Correction. They were authorised to do so by law, and such sna uniformly the place of committal in these cases in Lancashire. Sir S. ROMILLT and Mr. BATautsr, severally explained. Mr. LocKitatre said, that the explmation given by the Attorney-General, of the part he had taken in the transactions, was entirely satisfactory. On e topic, however, had been left unexplained, that re lating to the irons. It seemed, too, from the pal liation endeavoured to be made for it, that stich a practice was, in similar cases, general. If such a practice was resorted to by the Magistrates, as al leged, for convenience in transporting prisoners accused of misdemeanors from one gaol to an other, without any fouticei,n of law to warrant it, that alone was a reason why the House of Com mons should institute an inquiry on the first of such cases brought before thew. Misdemeanor %vs* an undefined sort of offence—new cases of it arose every day ; and it was hard in the extreme, to allow Magistrates a discretionary power of punish ing it by ironing before the guilt was established. But above all, should they prevent supposed abuses of the liberty of the press to be piiiiiihed a priori? Was it to be endured that Men only accused of publishing a libel should be put int° a cart, bound with chains, and paraded in this state of de gradation from one town to another ? On such grounds, he conceived the House was bound to go into iiiquiry, and he should therefore support the motion for a Committee. Mr. BENNETT replied. The persons petitioning. were Englishmen —every alleged oppression of such demanded the consideration of the House. Shoutd they reject the motion, the country would recollect that one of their last acts was to refuse inquiry intr. a caae of violation of liberty. in which any man might have the misfortune to be involved.. Tile House then divided, and the numbers were— for the motion Agaiuct it Majority against it CLAIMS ON THE CARNATIC. Mr. MARSH then rose to bring forward his mo tion fur a Committee on the claims of certain err. doors on the Nabob of the Carnatic. In the years 1796 and 1797, the Gentlemen who had now pe_ titioned the House, Messrs. Chase, Chinnery, and Co. Messrs. Abbott and Maitland, and Mr. Perry, of Madras, had advanced large sums of money, to the amount of above one hundred thousand pounds, to the Nabob, to be repaid by monthly instalments. This money was lent in • fair open way, with the consent of the local authorities, and the Pe titioners had the receipts for it. But in 1801, a most important revolution took place in the territory, the revenues of which bad been pledged as security for the debts. The East India Company took possession of the whole admini stration of the Carnatic, civil and military, and an them it of course depended whether the assignments on the country should be made good. They thought proper to reject the donne of the Petitioners, on the ground that the money had hero alvanced contrary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. However, the Company and tl►e cre ditors came to a compromise ire the year 1805. It was agreed that all bo•a fide claims, adjudicated to be so by commissitoners to be appointed in India, should be allowed by the Company, and liquidated out of the revenues of the Cartiatic. The claims in question originated out of tuonies abso lutely advanced to the Nabob. Why, then, it might be asked, had the justice of them not liven admitted by the arbiters ? They rejected thew, bemuse, by a clause in an Act of Parlia►nent, p►a:sed in the year 1797, with • general object quite dif ferent Irons any thing in these trimeactions, persens iu India were prohibited from lending money to any of the native Princes without the consent of the Governor and Council expressed in writing—the professed purpose of the clause was to check and put a stop to usury and extortion. Neither of these characters could apply to the deal i►►gs of the Petitioners; because, during the two years they were engaged in them, all was done above board, and they had actually obtained the consent of the local authorities, not, however, re duced to writing. The want of this last formality altogether vitiated, in the opinion of the Commis stoners, and rendered void the contracts. They had been excluded from the recovery of their ilt not from any want of consideration in the contisct— not from any thin unfair in the manner of coo ducting it—but solely because they had nut coin. plied with the directions of an Act of Perliument, of which at the time they were actually ignorant. He would not argue on die severity of extending the principle that ignorance of a law does nut ex cuse a transgression of it, to so remote a part uf the empire as ludic—because, in point of fact, the Petitioners had been deceived ou the subject. In the copy of the Act that they saw published in Ma dras, not a syllable appeared on the necessity of the authorities bring expressed in writing ; so thst the only requisite wanting to substantiate their claim under the Act, was a thing they could scarcely have known. If the Petitioners spoke what W:l4 false, that would easily be discovered by the acute and intelligent 'Members of the cola- a