The Sun. — London, England, 1825-03-03 00:00:00

yens becoming East Lidia Proprietors ; and when Honnur a ; e-te Proprietors reflected that time with him and his friend_s t. w a in tact their stock in trade, lie hooel it would be considcrcil.ht he ail they were making as ^,reat a sacrific e, at least, when they came to attend to the duties of that Court, as any other gentleman whose pursuits were different from thes contained in a Alr. MADDEN complained of certain passages pamphlet which had recently been published, by Mr. Douglas :Kinnaird, reflecting on the character of Mr. an and insin R "er atiag that that Gentleman had made to him ( s Mr ar llladden u tein representations affecting the character of 3 r. ussell, the Resident at Hyderabad. Now he ( . =lr. adden) would, in the most unequivocal manner, and withont•tne least mental re servation, declare, that Mr. Stuart never did, in any . lenter to him, or many other manner, state either !reedy or indirectly, insinuate or in any wa y i m ply, that Mr. Russell was a partner in the house of Palmer and Co, at .Hyderabad. He hoped this declaration would-ae far clau the character of Mr. Stuart from ell the imputations thrown upon it by the author of that pam ehlet. He must now speak a few words with respect to 31r. ? iissell. He begged to say that he never did hear of that Gen tleman-ever having been in any way connected withthe house ; ,g ?aline , anti Co. until he saw it stated in that book, as being a matter of slander against that Hon. Proprietor. Mr. Russ ell had never in any way, however, explained. the nature of the connection between him and Palmer and Co. He had, indeed, :tend, that he had had pecuniary transactions with a namesake Of his who resided with him at the Residency, and who was in timately connected with Palmer and Co. He also said that in coneequence of that connection he had withdrawn his money, aed had ultimately desired Mr. Palmer to withdraw from the Residency, where it appeared he had a place; and that this cot:duct on the part of Mr. Russell had caused between him and Mr. Palmer a very great enmity. But nin Russell had ;tot explained what was the nature of those pecuniary transac tions with his namesake, whether he received a higher rate of interest, or what ? Nor did it seem that the differences which ensued from his conduct towards Mr. Palmer were of eternal duration, for it appeared by Mr. Russell's own let -ter to that same person, that he had advised the house of Peleter anti Co. to resist furnishing the accounts of Aurunga bad tre,nsactionse which had been callea for h part of the r engal Government. The letter was then read, " My dear Palmer—The openness with which you have come forward to exhibit the whole detail of your transactions in the Aurungabactconcern ought-to operate powerfully in favour of the house; but no - mercantile establishment oughtein common justice, to. be exposed to a scrutiny , of this inquisitorial cha racter. Sir Wm. (Rumbold) I should hope, would be able to , prevail on Lord Hastings, if this captious cavilling spirit con tinues to be displayed, to say that, whenever any substantial objection is• urged, he will call on the house to explain it, but that he cannot consent to call on them for an indiscriminate exposure of their concerns, merely under the expectation that some pound ,of objection may be discovered in them. Such a practice is subversive of the very basis on which society is founded." Now the license was granted to this house, subject to•certain restrictions ' • and one of the restrictions was, that the transac tions of this house were to be such as should be approved of by the British Governt. But how could the transactions be ap proved of without knowing what 'they were . ? The question was, did Palmer and Co. or did they not, obtain undue in fluence with the natives of•Hyderabati ?—(Cries of "*No, no," from Mr. D. Kinnaird, and some other Honourable Proprietor near him.)—Did they or did they not take exorbitant interest ? (No, no, from the same Hon. Proprietor.)--They were re quired to produce the accounts relating to the Aurungabad ar rangement ; they certainly did send them, but at the same time they dispatched one of the. partners to exert his influence at the seat of Government; that the accounts might not be put upon record and curious was the reason assigned for it. Lord Hest ings, in his minute of the 10th of November, 1819, said, " When Sir Wm. Rumbold was called before the Council, he explained that the supplication of the house for Govern men t's dis pensing with the delivery of a copy of the accounts, had this sole motive—the accounts once put on the proceedings of Coun cil must be transmitted home, so that the transactions of the house would be subjected, in London, to the inspection of per sons liable to form all kinds of false deductions from total ig norance of the habits of the country, and of every concomitant particular." Now who were the persons to whom these ac counts would have been referred ? The Court of Directors in the first place. He would divide them into two classes— those who had not been out to India ; among whom was him self ; but he begged to say that he had applied himself, and he had no doubt all the other Gentlemen to whom they had en trusted their affairs, had applied themselves to acquire a most intimate.and perfect knowledge of their affairs ;—the second classes were those who had been in India, who knew the lan guages, manners, and customs of the natives, and who had tilled high official situations there in the service. of the East In dia Company. These, then, were the proper persons to examine accounts. But who were the next persons ? There were the Commissioners appointed expressly for the purpose of investi gating these things ; and lastly there was the Court of Pro prietors, among whom were many very intelligent Gentle men quite conversant with East Jodie Affairs. He then sew aoc in name, the linancier-General in India, and whose know ledge was equal to the inspection of any accounts, however difficult. These, then, were the persons who in the judgment of Sir William Rumbold, were considered unfit and improper per sons to form a correct judgment on the Aurungabad accounts. The Hon. Director then adverted to the securities held by the house of Palmer and Co. from the Nizam, and expressed his surprise at its being said, that, supported as the house was by the British Government, the assignments held by them were no security. He (Mr. Madden) would assert, that with that support, those assignments were as good as Bank-notes. (Hear!) Some of the Gentlemen, belonging to the Bengal Council desired more particulars relating to those accounts, and the Accountant- General (Mr. Sherer) proposed that figured statements should be required of Palmer and Co. The Council accordingly ordered a letter to be addressed to the house to that effect. That order, however, was baffled; for instead of the accounts being put on record, they were withheld. A sort of protest was made by part -of the Council on what passed at the Council, on the occasion of Sir William Rumbold getting that order, . as it was an nulled. The Governor-General, Lord Hastings, replied to this ; and his first ground was, that the Nizam was an indepen dent government. What sort of independence this was he would - leave the Court to determine. But giving the house of Palmer and Co. all the benefits of that proposition, he would even suppose the Nizam to be as independent as the Sovereign of Ava, with whom we were now at war; but this independence did not abrogate an Act of Parliament—it did not abrogate the condition upon which the licence was granted, and therefore that point wholly fell to the ground. The Hon. Director then read the Resolution of the 3d March, 1824, viz.— " That there be laid before the Court all correspondence and ether documents to be found on the public records of this house, which regard the administration of the Marquis of Hastings, which may enable the Court:to judge of the propriety of enter -tam:ling the question of further remuneration to the late Gover -nor-General."—He should have been glad if the lion. Gent. (Mr. D. Kinnaird) had followed that resolution up ; but he hail narrowed it, first, by calling this Court to consider the papers relating to the pecuniary transactions of Hyderabad, so far as ' affected the Marquis of Hastings ; and now the motion had nar rowed it still more, by limiting the question to the personal in tegrity and honour of the Noble Marquis. But in his opinion the question went a great deal further than as it concerned the con duet of Lord H. It involved the conduct of the whole of the persons forming, the Bengal Government and of the Court of Directors. He believed the Council consisted of Lord H., Mr. Adam, Mr. Stuart ? Mr. Pendell, and Mr. Bayley. He would refer to passages in which were the opinions of the Coun- cil of which the Noble Marquis was the head, in which they expressed their disapprobation of the conduct of the house of Palmer and Co. Then what was the conduct of the Bengal • Government subsequent to Lord Hastings' - retirement? They had acted towards that house with great liberality, and would not say that they acted at all unwisely. They enabled the Nizam's Government to liquidate a just debt to Palmer and Co." by purchasing a tribute of that Gover€ient, in as fair and - liberal a manner as any gentleman in thin country could pur ' nliase an estate. They had paid the house of Palmer and Co. prom the 3d April to the 21st July, 1823, the sum of 7,870,870 payment annas. This included the Aurungabad contract, the of the Berar troops : it also included the 24 per cent. or speaking- more correctly, '25 per cent. interest; and it also embraced the 60 lac loan, excepting the bonus, which was - very properly set aside. And could it be said, after this, that the Government had acted hardly towards the house of Pal mer and Co. ? He would maintain that they had not only acted with great jostice, but they had also'acted with great liberality. Nay, it even appeared that the. Government had paid the house six or seven Lacs more' -than they were bound to pay them. When Sir Charles Metcalfe went into the territories of the Nizam, he found every thing in the utmost disorder and confu sion ; and could it be wondered at, that having such matters to inquire into, there should occasionally be some discrepancies? but he (Mr. Madden) would maintain, that Sir Charles Met calfe, in his representations, was substantially and truly right. The Bengal Government, with a scrutinizing eye, and with in telligent and 'zealous Minds, had rescued the country from de struction. The practices of Palmer and Co. were carrying delegation in their train. Had that system not been checked, "mon would they have had a scene like that of the Carnatic ' t housands of ruined persons would have come here to claim on the Inlz " ecti ° ll and interminable demands would have been made atri ti liany's treasury. in all probability, would have bee t , powered i e n. con l s . ecuences if S th u a c t h s ' ystem had been .. s e uffer ap ed pro to be _ appro bation to these the Court should refuse to give their his utroast amhi d ti l o sp n at w cl a i s es to , it would give him great pain, for meet with their approval But it would have mach worse effects ; for, if they should disap prove of them, it would teach future Governors-General to serve a friend whenever he was applied to, having this example to encourage them. Men with such power ought to be watch ed most scrupulously. High as their rank might be, they were, but men, and when invested with such authority, they were as capable of inclining to a partiality which was inconsistent with their duties as any other persons. He could not conclude with out expressing his testimony of approbation to the characters of those gentlemen whose names had been so often alluded to— Mr. Adam and Mr. Stuart, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and the other gentlemen connected with the Bengal Government. He would speak of them all as amiable and honest men, and who had faithfully displayed their duties to their employers ; and he hoped they would be rewarded by the approving testimony of his Court. Mr. RUSSELL begged to explain. He first appealed to the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinnaird) whether he (Mr. Russell) had any thing whatever to do with the composing of the pam phlet, or whether in any way he had -consulted upon - it or, its contents ? Mr. D. Kirrwairtp...." Certainly not." Mr. RUSSELL—He begged to state his reason for withdraw- , ing his money from the house of Palmer and Co. was because he wished to avoid its being appropriated in the manner he thought it was likely to be. Not that he disapproved of the plan proposed by Palmer and Co. but, as a resident, he was most desirous to avoid all connection with the transaction. He denied that Mr. Wm. Palmer was ever accommodated within the Residency walls. Mr. Russell, his namesake, had a pri vate property within those walls, to which Mr. P. used frequently to resort; but so soon as he (Mr. Russell) found they were concerned together in pecuniary transactions, he instantly pro hibited Mr. Palmer from entering within the walls of the Residency. The Honourable Proprietor then said, the note of his to Mr. Palmer, which had been alluded to, was no proof that the hostility which existed between him and Mr. Palmer hadnot been of " eternal duration." Up to the present time it had been or.. eternal:duration." And from the time he left Hyderabad, he had had no communication with that gentleman. The note was a private note; and had he been consulted, he cer tainly should not have assented to its publication ; but as it was published he would not recede-from its principle. Instead of its being written with a view to advise Mr. Palmer to resist the application far the accounts, it, on the contrary, expressed his (Mr. Russell's) approval of Mr. Palmer's intention to make a full disclosure - ; but he, at the same time, begged to say, that he disapproved of that principle which called for accounts from a mercantile house, not in explanation of any specific charge, but in order to furnish ground for crimination. It was upon that principle the note was written. The Hon. Proprietor next adverted to the character which he had given of Chundoo Loll, and for which he had been accused of having misrepresented that Minister, and -referred to the uniform representations that had been made of that person by his (Mr. Russell's) predeces sors. He thought he ha - d now added further testimony in vin dication of his conduct. Mr. STuAnT then complained of several passages in Mr. D. Kinnaird's pamphlet, which'he thought reflected upon his cha racter, and begged to explain. - Much discussion arose as to the propriety of this proceeding; but it was at length-agreed that Mr. Stuart should be allowed . to enter into an explanation. Mr. RANDAL JACKSON said, that nothing could have over come his reluctance at protracting the debate, but for the amendment which had been moved. He should have been quite satisfied to have let the question remain -with the forbearing speech of his Hon:Friend (Mr. D. Kinnaird) when he intro duced the motion. But dear as the character of the Mar 'quis of Hastings was to him (Mr. Randal Jackson), it shrunk into nothingness when he considered the consequences of the amendment. Let us see how the matter stood. Here came, in the first place, a mere proposition, whether the Marquis of Hastings was an honourable man ? It was agreed to by the Chair man, and had been published to the world ; and every gentleman came to that Court prepared to discuss that question. But no sooner was the motion put and seconded, without a single obser vation having been made by either mover or seconder, than the Chairman rose and moved an amendment. He never knew that such a similar circumstance had ever occurred. When he was a young man, he remembered that a question of great political im portance was brought before the Court ; and the Chairman on that occasion introduced an amendment as his own. Every Proprietor felt his rights to be in danger at this extraordinary proceeding, and one and all exclaimed against it. The Chair man felt the propriety of the reproof, and withdrew his amend ment. Now what was the case here ? Why, without any no tice or any debate, no sooner was the motion put, than the Chair man came forward and proposed an amendment. From that moment he (Mr. Jackson) felt assured that the honour of the Marquis of Hastings was gone for ever !—(II ear, hear, hear !) --He would now look at the motion, and then at the amend ment, and see what it was that was intended by their Honour able Chairman. The motion went to declare, that this Court saw nothing in the papers before them, that at all affected the honour and integrity of the Marquis of Hastings. The Chairman had changed the words " honour and integrity" into that cold wa.4 nailing to enAtge tile witn being " and then it was added, "or to any member of the Bengal Govern ment." There was also further added to this amendment an ex pression of approval of' the four accusatory documents which had been circulated throughout all Europe and Asia, and this too without the answer that had been given to them, although they occurred in the next page. You acquit Lord Hastings of cor ruption, though you say he has com Promised his character. But where is your proof ?—not a single instance is produced wherein the Noble Lord had compromised himself. Another . reason given for the amendment was, that it had been forced upon the Directors. How extraordinary ! Who produced this debate ?or what produced it? Why, the unfortunate silence of our Hon. Chairman's predecessor. He (Mr. Jackson) held in his hand a newspaper, accusing the Marquis of Hastings of having defrauded the atst India Company of 300,000/. Was there any truth in this statement ? Not the least ; and yet, when the predecessor of our present Hon. Chairman was appealed to to speak unequivocally on the question, instead of rushing from his seat, and with the paper in hand, exclaiming—" Calum niator and liar !" he very seriously shook his head and said— " I am not at liberty to answer." Now, could any vote of the House of Parliament, or any less than that of this very Court, reinstate the Marquis of Hastings in the opinion of the world after that solemn reply? But what was it the lion. Chairman and those who supported the amendment, were going to do ? Why, to circulate throughout Europe and Asia, that J. Adam had been acquitted of corruption. Who has said that J. Adam was guilty of corruption ? Where is the tongue that dare say that -John Adam was ever guilty of corruption ? But this ac quittal at least implied accusation and trial, and it was they therefore who supported this amendment that were the accusers of Mr. John Adam. The Honourable Baronet who had se conded the amendment, had declared that he was as ready as any man to testify to the honour and integrity of the Marquis of Hastings. Then why did he not support the original motion ? Why did not the Deputy Chairman second the amendment, as was usual. The reason was, that in the large volume of papers there was a most able and just eulogium on the Noble Marquis, that bad been signed by that honourable Deputy, and he could not consent to eat his own words. But the real reason why the Honourable Baronet seconded the amendment, was from a sort of nervous apprehension that if the motion was carried, some money was afterwards intended to he asked for. Let the Honourable Baronet allow him (Mr. Jackson) to tell him, that if this Court were full of silver and gold, and any motion were to be made for a further remuneration to the Mar quis of Hastings, while thereremained a shadow of an imputa tion on that Nobleman's character, he (Mr. Jackson) would not vote for a single shilling. And if there was one man in the world who though the Marquis should be reduced to the utmost poverty, and his palace charged into a hovel, would cast back the money into the teeth of the mover, it would be the Noble Marquis himself—unless his reputation had been previously restored to him pure and unspotted as before this fiery ordeal. If that Nobleman is to be thrown back to India with dishonour, for God's sake let it be done fully and completely, that he might know what he had to expect elsewhere. But if the amendment should be carried, he would at least have the anti dote to go with the documents mentioned in it. Let the an swers go forth to the world together with the accusations. He should certainly propose at least an amendment to embrace all those letters which afforded an explanation to the charges.- The Hon. Proprietor then went through the four dispatches, and sheived what it was the Court were called upon by the amend ment to sanction. He then proceeded to shew that the argu ments of the Hon. Proprietors in support of the amendment, had been grounded upon false premises, and that their conclu sions were therefore erron eous . Th e li on . Proprietor conclud ed a long speech, by reading a list of the documents which he thought ought, in common justice, to be attached to the amendment. Mr. PETER MOORE said, that he heartily applauded and approved, of the letter of the Court of Directors of 1820. There was no intention at that time to criminate Lord Hastings, who, he believed, had been inveigled into those things ; bu t as the Noble Marquis was made responsible for them, he must bear the consequences of responsibility. An adjournment was then called for amidst loud cries of " Question ;" when, after some observations - from Mr. D. Kinnaird, the Chairm an , and several other Gentlemen, the Court was further adjourned to Thursday (this day.) ITUNGERFORD MARKET.—The plan for the New Hungerford Market House was yesterday, we hear, re jected by the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred for consideration by the, House of Lords. —(Morning Paper. ) pARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCIi e. Prayers were read by the Bishop of CHESTER at ten o'clock, when the LORD DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded with the hear ing of Appeals. In the case of " Maberly and Co.*. the Bank of Scotland," on which their Lordships came to a-declaim - a on the 23d tat- ; the said decision was read by the Clerk at the table, as a final judgment, by which the bterlocutors of the Court of Session in Scotland were reversed, and were remitted back to that Court for allowing of proof. ‘t Roxburg v. Wauchope," i'!om the Court of Session, was next proceeded with: when Mr- Kaye was heard in conclusion, but judgment was deferred. In the cause of " Taylor -v. Kerr, also from the Court of Ses sion, Mr. Abercromby was heard for the appellant; but no Counsel appearing for the respondent, the appeal was dismissed with 1001. costs. " Graham v. the Keeper and others of his Majesty's Signet in Scotland," was next called for, when Mr. Tindall and Mr. Sandfort were heard for the alipellant, and Mr. Solicitor- General of Scotland and 31r. Warren for the respondents; after which the further hearing was adjourned to Friday next. ' Appellate Peers--Lords .111wyborough, Roden, and Ve rulam. At four o'clock the DEPUTY SPEAKER rose, and in half an hour afterwards the Loan CHANCELLOR came into the House. Mr. CAYENDISII and others from the House of Commons brought up the first Wad Bill, which was afterwards read a first time. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented,a Petition from the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Sarum, in the county of Wilm, praying that their Lo r d s hips would grant no. further concessions to the Roman Catholics. The Petition, which was read short, was laid upon the'table. Lord BEXLEY then moved the second readings of the Annual Indemnity Bill, the Exchequer Bills (20,000,000) Bill, and the Transfer in Aids Bill. The above Bills having been accordingly read a second time, the question for going into Committees on the Bills was nega tived in consequence of the absence of the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Lord Chairman of their Lordships' Committees ; and, upon the motion of Lord BEXLEY, they were ordered to be read a third timetto-morrow. The LORD CHANCELLOR now moved the adjournment of the House, which adjourned to to-morrow at ten. lIOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a quarter before four o'clock. LIVERPOOL and MANCHESTER RA I LWA -B I LL. . General GASCOYNE moved the order of the day for the House resuming the adjourned debate on the above bill. The question, that the debate be "now" resumed, having been put and carried, Mr. J. MACDONALD rose to present a petition against the further progress of the bill, on the ground that the standing orders had not been complied with. Gen. GASCOYNE objected to the presentation of a petition in that stage of the measure. The SPEAKER said, that in any stage of a private bill it was competent for the House to receive a petition, complaining that the first step which ought to be taken, with respect to measures of this kind, namely, the complying with standing orders, had been neglected. The ordinary course had been to refer such a petition to a separate Committee. If that Committee reported that the allegations contained in the petition were borne out by facts, the House had the power to stop the farther progress of the bill, even though it had been read a second time, and was committed. There was no stage, from the first to the third reading of a private bill, at which a petition of this nature could not be received. • Mr. J. MACDONALD said, the petitioner complained that the standing orders had not been comp lied with. When notice was given that this Bill was about to be brought he proceeded to London to examine the sect ions of the Bill the Private Bill-office, and he found that .songte of them differedthe clerk the sections of the Bill which ha d been de p osited with the clerk of the peace for the county. At this time, the Committee who had been appointed to inquire whether due legal notice had been given, had made their report in the affirmative; there fore,petition to that Commit tee, f , ar ,o a r s r w e a la s te c c l l os t e o d r a e g fe e r i r n i n s tee, h gh i l i s n. The petitioner stated, that the standing orders were not only complied with in a vague and unsatisfactory manner, but that much irregularity was dis closed in the course of the proceeding. It would scarcely take a moment to decide this question. The Committee would only have to compare the Bill placed in the Private Bill-office with, that deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Peace, and to re port whether there was any difference between them. Thi s would at once decide the question whether the standing orders had or had not been complied with. The SPEAKER suggested, whether it would not be better, for die convenience of the House, as the original question was, that " this debate be resumed," to use the contents of the pe tition as arguments against tke.Aeg.OP.ll Waillg . ,,of the Bill. The for opposing the second reading. If this course ;verip;ursued, a motion might be made, after the present question was dis posed-of, for referring the petition to a Committee. Mr. J. i%lACDON'll.Dacquiesced in this arrangement, and the debate proceeded. Sir J. NE W PORT said, he had nothing whatever to do with any Canal Company or Rail-road Company, and therefore what he was about to state was perfectly disinterested, and was founded on the best view he could form of this measure. In proportion to the increased commerce of the country, it was necessary that increased facilities of conveyance should be provided. It was said, in the present case, that the canal between Liverpool and Manchester afforded, at this moment, sufficient means of con veyance between those two places. But looking at the enlarged growth of Liverpool—looking at the increased commerce which now embraced every quarter of the globe, he was inclined to think, that though the existing modes of conveyance might have been adequate a year or two age, that was not now the case.—(Hear, hear !)—This project must not be considered as one of those wild and rash speculations which the House Might to view with jealously and suspicion, because they could not be serviceable to the country, and must be injurious to those who embarked in them. This plan was supported by the united wealth of Liverpool and Manchester, and the object which those who set it on foot had in view was to afford addi tional facility to contiiierce. They claimed from the House that protection for their commercial transactions which it was evident they deserved. —(Hear !)—lt was not sufficient for those who were connected with canal companies to say, " We have sufficient accommodation for you, the merchants, and that. too at a rate to which you cannot object." It was not for them, but for the mercantile body, to form a judgment on the subject. In this case, where a legitimate object was pursued, that object being nearly connected with the commerce of the country, it was just and right for. the House to take up a subject of such importance. They ought to afford every assistance to the en couragement and improvement of the mode of conveying goods, which was the very life and soul of comnierce.—(Hear !)—He bad no personal interest in this measure ; but, on the part of those who sent him to that House, he claimed the privilege of calling on the Legislature to increase the facilities of conveyance, He spoke the sentiments of every commercial body in Ireland, when he said, that an increased conveyance was necessary to enable diem to realize the benefits which the Legislature pro posed to confer on that country by the union. —(Hear !)—As they had united the two islands, he hoped they would now set the seal to that great work, by assenting to a measure which would so greatly assist die commercial prosperity of Ireland.— (Hear !) Mr. GREEN said, that a sense of public duty induced him to state his sentiments on this question to the House. Variou's representations had been handed about on this subject, and most of those were built upon such false calculatiOns, that he was bound at toe outset to oppose this measure. There was al ready a sufficient canal navigation between Liverpool and Manchester. There were already rival companies at work. It was their interest as well as it was their effort to oppose each other, and by such opposition to keep down the price of ton nage. Surely, then, no one could say that a monopoly existed, or that there was any wa n t o f competition But suppose that rail-roads possessed equal facilities with canals—the tonnage would be taken from the canals in nearly the proportion of one half, and so far their facilities for conveyance would be impro perly diminished. The canal rates were now very moderate in deed, and why should property embarked in these canals be unnecessarily subjected t risk or diminution ? All the land holders on the intended line of rail-road would not only be an noyed but injured by it; and he knew a Reverend Clergyman near Manchester, who would be liable to a loss of nearly 18,000!. by being obliged to let this rail-road pass over his land, which he could otherwise have most advantageously sold-for villas. The House, no doubt, was bound to look to public interests and the general welfare of the community; but it was also its duty to take care that the rights ofindividuals were not invaded and sacrificed by the schemes of speculators, however plausible and specious.—(Hear, hear!)—He implored the House not to be led away by a notion of affording facilities for the conveyance of goods; when, in fact, there existed as great a q uantity of tonnage power as was necessary for the growing i m p rovement of ce•,every branch 9f o ur commer and When the m eans already existed of increasing it the trade of the dis trict might require. Bet ha t the House would not deal trusted lightly with a matter whichq hear required the most a m p le and deli berate consideration. —(Hear re li tur r . 1 ) that the le is agreed Mr. HUSKISSON in the sentim ent, - lature ought not to sanction the invasio n of private property, without being satified that die case was one of imperious neceti to the interests of pri sity. On this occasion, if he looked only rate individuals—if he looked only to the interests of those whose fortunes were connected with the canals between Liverpool and Manchester—if he consulted only his own private feelings—he should feel rather inclined to oppose the second reading of this bill: but, like the Hon. Baronet, he stood there unconnected with any railway company, or any canal company. He stood there as a public man, considering what was best for the public interest, and he woulstatate the reasons why he did not feel him self called on to oppoie this measure. He did not "support it as railway oppose to canal.. Ile had Ira preference, except that which was connected with increased facility, dispatch, and economy, in removing merchandise from one place to another. He 'did not support this measure because it was a profitable thing to those by whom it had been projected. It was nothing to hint whether they had embarked their money in it for profit or loss. But he would say, that those who subscribed to it seemed to have a higher object in view than the mere accumu lation of wealth through this channel. They were not, perhaps, likely to obtain very high profits, but they would certainly ren der a great commercial benefit to the country. The subscribers were the bankers, merchants, traders, and manufacturers of Liverpool and Manchester. They had agreed that no person should hold more than ten shares each; and if Gentlemen would consider what amount of interest. could be realized from so small number of shares, they would perceive that the pro fit could not be an object. It was the great interest of the trading community, and not the profits that might be de rived from the Attires, which mainly actuated those indivi duals to call for this rail-way. He had seen those parties; and, recollecting the immense tolls and dues which were al ready levied on the commerce of this country, he told them that he would not support this measure, unless they were disposed Ito limit the amount of the dividends and profits they were to derive from the undertaking. They stated, that this was not a o n h ) a j e t t e e r t t o h f in e po d h i l v i i e d u at al i v e n tspeculat ion, advantage t and, as a s t to p p l r a o n fi , t , w t h h i e c t h w h e a s d e f i o ) r o t i n t s t of very little importance ; their great object was the encourage ment of commerce, and if they received 10 per cent., (which was not more than a fair commercial profit), or even sper cent. they would be satisfied. But it was said that there were two or three canals which were sufficient for every purpose of commerce in the districts through which this railway was to pass. That assertion, however, was not sufficient to stop the pro gress of this work. Let the matter go before a Committee, and let it be there ascertained whether the existing conveyance was sufficient, or whether some additional conveyance was de manded, in consequence of an increased commerce. 1 t was well known that, under the present system, cotton had been detained at Liverpool for a fortnight, while the manufac turers at Manchester were obliged to suspend their labours ; and goods which had been manufactured at Manchester for foreign parts could not be transmitted to Liverpool in time on account of the tardy canal conveyance. Not less than 1,000 tons of goods a-day were embarked on these canals between, Liverpool and Manchester; and if the carriage were not im mediate, the merchant and manufacturer were placed in a situa tion of great disadvantage. The Rail-way Company said, they would transmit goods not only at a less charge, but with greater facility that the Canal Companies could do.—(Hear !) —These were the great points to be looked to. We who main tained a commercial rivalship with all the countries in the world, ought to look to dispatch—ought to look to econo my—for the purpose of securing our present advantages.— ( Hear, hear !)—An. Honourable Ghtleman had observed, that if a rail-road were formed, and a toll of 6d. per mile de manded, that toll must be raised to Is., should another rail road be directed from and to the same places, because the busi ness would be divided between them, and the original charge 1 o f repairs, &c. would remain; but the answer to this was, that where two roads were formed, the traffic must have been doubled, and therefore the rate of 6d. would still remain, notwithstanding the formation of a new road. He would now say a word or two 1 with respect to the increased commerce of Liverpool. In 1821, only four years ago, the amount of goods exported from the port of Liverpool—a great part of which, he need not state, was brought by those canals to that town—was 11,500,000/. What was the amount in 1824 ? It was upwards of 19,000,0001. ; and that, too, exclusive of fuel, and other things necessary for the consumption of Liverpool and Manchester, which were carried on those canals. Under these circumstances, he thought the projected railway ought to be carried into effect. Those who were connected with the canals would then be obliged to pay more attention to the mode of conveyance—they would be necessitated to lower their tolls—and they would be compelled to use greater dispatch. These, however, were all advantages gained by the public; and the proprietors of the canals would find ample remuneration, since there would be sufficient employment, not only for the rail-way, but for a first, a second, and a third canal. If, however, those who were con nected with those canals refused the accommodation which they ought to afford to the public—if, instead of lowering their rates, they thought proper to raise them, the effect most probably would be to divert the conveyance to some other quarter. He made it a rule of duty, as a public man, never to interfere with private Bills. In this project, however, there was no appear ance of a desire merely to further private interast, or to realize improper profit. The great object seemed to be to confer a be nefit on the commerce of the country. Standing in the situation i'which he filled, he could not but feel deeply interested in the i --, , -- -a •i•- -----_---- ]1 tip of L',...„1- - a ma ul .C/Ailll. !la this measure was farm:rat:de to that commerce, he should give his support to the Bill; and if he had no connection whasoever with Liverpool, he should nevertheless have given precisely the same vote. Mr. W. PEEL viewed this measure, not as one exclusively olw,ieiterhre of There was howevers carcelyteKwiol enee nnspteelo-cahrntcooeeeau g d dwtw o ,oae: withdi sswe where nm t 1 e h l oou e wheeoleb beneficial to Liverpool, but as calculated to serve the commerce of the country generally, and more particularly the commerce (7.1 planncjrraceeel occupied sesshtpi, objected cneeia l dc a niti ,iondidnfttwrhdhtoehoi from woase that manner. 01 m t pa o lt:ao l pn r i oane3pert thereforese. .. of Ireland.—(Hear !)—lf this should fail, it would be in vain wished to stifle this measure, as there was in the petitions of the formerly employed in the carriage of goods ; o ff . oo f rr those success.a n ket navigation, because it interfered with their profits. In the y w projector,h neighbourho odibw T d nu u a l n The alteration waggons i e o oe n neb lse o elr t i w . e: a veer n nde e w must sy s t have eni . pressedrf This i son must thealways ow i) e b r es the o case those . w b a u g - t g it o a n ft s .o ; rd b e u d t ntlotearpgtutbmliecntlerinivepcolligeryeaotr justice, advantage ag f a r i o n m s t the tile intro duction adop tion- of an improvement. Mr. G. PHILIPS observed, that this was a great public mea sure, and he hoped the House would give it the most serious consideration. It appeared that there was a large body of landed proprietors, through whose estates this rail-way was to be carried, and they complained of it as likely to prove a great annoyance and nuisance. They said, that, before such a measure was de termined on, a strong case of public necessity and of public ad vantage should be made out, to justify the House in conveying the project in to effect. They asserted that such a case had not been made out. On the other side, it wasargued that the measure was required by public necessity, and that it would be productive of great public advantage ; for, though there were three commu nications by water betw een th e two towns, yet they were not suffi cient to meet the immense business which was daily transacted on fhe line between Liverpool and Manchester. They further stated, that there was, in fact, a monopoly amongst the parties ' who navigated those canals, and that there were not arrange.. ments sufficiently extensive for the prompt management of the business which was constantly in progress. it was also said, that time distance between the two towns, by the canals, was 50 miles, while that by the rail-road would only be 33 miles. They likewise asserted, that the time spent in conveying goods from Manchester to Liverpool, and vice versa, was not less than 36 hours ; whereas, by the rail-road, not more than six hours would be occupied, being a sixth part of the time required by the canal conveyance; and Mr. Saunders, who had been very active in forwarding the measure, and who had written a pam phlet on the subject, asserted, that the goods would be con. veyed by the rail-road at one-third of the present expence. The friends of the project farther added, that the same ad vantage was possessed by rail-roads over canals, that the latter possessed over common turnpike-roads. Now, if these assertions and representations were founded in fact, he should certainly be an advocate for the rail-road. Thus he had always determined ~ and when lie came up to town, it was his opinion that he should have voted for this measure. But on inquiry, it appeared to him that those assertions and representations were not only not founded in fact, but were at variance with fact. As to the representation made on this subject, that. there was no water communication between Liverpool and Manchester nearer than 50 miles, it was a matter easily ascertained. He under s t oo d that the distance b y the Merse y and irwell Canal was only 42 miles ; and that the measures now in progress would red uce it 39 miles,. being only four miles more -tit a n th e ra il -road con- As to the second assertion, that the average time v a teh s r they yg 2 eihlwaodua was been four oeaunnrd told, thates that bayn con sumed in proceeding from Manchester to Liverpool by water was 36 hours, he understood the fact to be, that by the Mersey v ten.— With and milesi t I h r aN respect 3 1 hp : oe C uc Canal, n , to, while the celerityo timen canalso f o c c c a u rr p ti i hae carriage, e s was new arrangements the time would be reduced to nine or ten.— on those rail-roads goods were conveyed at the rate of 10 or 12 hour. This assertion had been repeated over and over again in pamphlets and newspapers; and, in periment was publicly made. Th e n e n s d t et t i h e i o trusteesthe business, of t Ite rail-road, as N w o e w l I whatas o t others who the a p d r v o o o e f e t o e f s i o ts f t 1 1 11 1 e t h r , e ii a n. r o e tt x d appointed a day for trying the exp er i ment, with a l oco-mot i ve were i carriage, interested the best lomo-motive engine th e y result ? After a fortnight's preparation, and having selected and three quarters per hour, amid those persons only were pres ent w h very accurate account of the business , on an inclination it w as not more th a n four miles and could so,completelyahasdficni no find, , dr the eeax spoenr average iltilo ent atk rwae was on a plane surface was not thr ee m il es a half per hour. This experiment failed. But when made and then the rate was said to have been doubled. When he was in Lancashire, he was very anxious to procure some informati6n on the subject of railways. Pie met some gentle.; men, who had gone to different parts of the country to learn how the railways answered. He asked one of them who was friendly to this measure, whether he had ascertained the ex , pence of forming and of keeping the projected railway in re pair. He stated, that he had not, but that it was, notwith.e standing, decided, that a railway should be formed. The only person from whom he got any practical information on the subject, was an individual whose knowledge was founded on actual observation and experiment. He had been for many years superintendent of a canal and of a railway, and he told him (Mr. Philips) that a more extraordinary delusion never was known, than that of supposing that a rail-road was superior to a canal. He . w o nde re d that such an assertion shOuld be made ; and added, that he had, for a series of years, kept an accurate account of the expence of repairs on the canal, and oa the rail-road ; and though that rail-road was, at the time, the best constructed in England, yet the expence of re pairs on it, as compared with the expence of repairs on the canal, was as six to four. He had also the opinion of an eminent stir vtior, whom he met accidentally at Manchester, and who was ein , ployed to procure information on the relative merits of rail-roads and canals. That Gentleman said he came down as an unbiassed individual, not as a partizan, to survey the Mersey and Irwell na4 vigation, and also the railway. He surveyed both, and he also went into Cumberland, and made his observations on tbd rail-roads there. He had since returned, impressed with a perfect conviction of the superiority of canal conveyance: He was of opinion, that a rail-way could not enter into a success ful competition with a canal. Even with the best loco-motion engine, the average rate would be but miles per hour, which was slower than the canal conveyance. If the canals had an ample supply of water, it appeared to him that they would be perfectly competent to convey, with sufficient speed, all the merchandize that passed between Manchester and Liverpool. It was alleged, that the canal proprietors had not sufficient wharfs and warehouses for carrying on the bUsiriess. Yet, in the very face of this assertion, those who Were favourable to the present measure, would, if it were agreed to, carry the road through the wharfs and over the site of the warehouses of those persons whom they represented as being ill provided with ac commodations of that kind already. The Hon. Gentleman declared that he would, under these circumstances, oppose the measure. Mr. DOHERTY said he should vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought the assertions made on one side were as much to be relied on as those advanced on the other. He was therefore the more desirous that the truth of those as sertions should be investigated before a Committee of the House. The commerce of Liverpool had now increased so much, that if there were six canals and six rail-roads there would be employment enough for all of them. Mr. M' Mr. felt that enough had transpired to shew that the matter ought to go before a Committee in the first place, to ascertain the allegations as to the insufficiency of theCanale,. and in the second place, to consider of the practicability of the means to supply any deficiency. He hoped that Han.- Members would forbear committing themselves, until full enquiry had been made, and as the question was one of great public inte- ' rest, that they would not be influenced by ex-parte statements on the one side or the other. He would only add one word, • and that was as to the character of one individual, (now dead for some years) an individual who had done more than almost any other to advance the interests of commerce. Public bene factors were soon forgotten, but the exertions of the late Duke of Bridgewater should not be lightly treated. He expended a large fortune—he mortg age d hi s es t a t es to the l a st penny, and and his successors should be remembered with some degree of kindness, but that in saying this, he (Mr. 111‘Donald) meant • not to bar enquiry—quite the contrary. Mr. CALCRAFT only rose to bear testimony to the eminent services of the Duke of Bridgewater; no complaint was uttered against him, but against the m a n ageme nt of his successors, and of those tolls which prove most injurious to the commerce f the country. • Mr. BROUGHAM fully agreed with the premises of his Honourable Friend, although he differed with him as to his conclusion. All that lie had heard convinced him , of • the necessity for inquiry. He hoped that the Honourable Mem , bers would in the proposed Committee redeem their credit, and not job the matter, as was so often and so improperly done on private Bills. He hoped they would attend the Com- mitteee, and not decide upon the suggestion of Mr. such a one, who had shares in the Rail-road, or Mrs. such a one . the wife of Mr. such a one, who had considerable property embarked in the Canal. He hoped no one would vote with. , out hearing, without knowing the merits of the question-- for he now gave notice, that he would pursue the practice adopted formerly by the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Wil berforce), who was lately the Member for Bramber, and pursue all persons who should be guilty of a breach of privilege of Parliament, and move that a contrary Reso lution than that come to by any Committee acting impro perly should be adopted by the House.—(Hear, hear !) Having said thus much, he would only add a word or two more, and those to do justice to the memory of one of the greatest be nefactors the country ever had—an individual who had, perhaps, done more towards contributing to the commercial prosperity of who was justly considered the f a th , .' of the inland navigation of Englanct—he meant the late Duke of Bridgewater. It was unhappily too true that the merits of public benefactors were soon forgotten, and that public gratitude did not often survive the novelty of the services for which it was due; but he trusted and believed the memory of the Duke of Bridgewater would ever be cherished with veneration and re spect by all men who regarded our commercial and inanufac turing greatness. He had called into play the energies of the country at a most critical moment—when the spirit of enterprize and speculation, which had spread so wide in the present day, did not exist. He was a man of a great and enlightened mind, of great spirit,- and of unshaken perseverance, and he had a peculiar talent of seeking out and employing men of true genius, one of whom was Mr. Brindley, the t;' greatest engineer this country had ever seen.—(Hear, hear l)--• He concluded by impressing upon the House the necessity of patient and impartial inquiry, in justice to all_parties—in jos , tee to those who had already done s o much for the country, and in justice to themselves, whose duty it was to investigate • every thing that was held out as likely to promote the general welf'are and interests of the community.—(Hear, hear !)_And he again pledged himself, that if he should be in the House at . the time the Report was brought up, to see that the decision was according to the evidence produced, and the just and intrinsic merits of the case. Mr. HUSKISSON explained. He had no less respect for the memory of the Duke of Bridgewater than any man, but it was upon the conduct of other persons, and upon subsequent circumstances, that the present measure was proposed. The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to a pri vate Committee. The Irish Mining Company Bill was read a second time, and referred to a Committee. Leave was given, on the motion of Sir ROBERT SHAW, to bring in a Bill to amend the Dublin Gas Bill. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the Cham ber of Commerce, Dublin, on the same subject, which was laid on the table. CALL OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of the Mr. BROUGHAM, the list of per sons not attending at the call of the House was read over, when several persons were excused—and Mr. Beaumont, Mr, Crosby, Mr. Granville Leveson Proby, the Marquis of Tavis tock, and Sir Henry Wilson, were ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. On the motion of lord STAN LEY, certain returns of the du ties on Blubber and Train Oil for the year ending January, 1825, were ordered. Sir R. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin, for alters. , tion of the Banking Act. Mr. CAREW presented a petition from the Catholics of New Ross, praying for farther Education in Ireland. CLIMBING BOYS. Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved for a return of the number of boys apprenticed at the different police-offices of the metropolis, to chimney-sweepers, within the last twenty y ea rs. Th e Hon. Member stated that his motion was preparatory to a measure which he meant to bring forward to ameliorate the condition of climbing boys. ASSESSED TAXES. Lord F. OSBORNE presented a petition from the city of Ely, praying for a repeal of the Assessed Taxes. 111 r. HOB HOUSE, in supporting the petition, declared that the city which he represented felt any thing but satisfied with the late disclosure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He trusted that the Right Hon. Gen,tleman's mind was not so far made up but that some alteration Might be hoped for. Nothing, as far as the plan detailed went, had been done materially to re. move the burdens of the people. Lord F. OSBORNE presented a petition from Guisboroughs in Yorkshire, against the house and window tax. COUNTY COURT BILL. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented three petitions from parishes in Westminster, against that clause in the County Court Bill which proposed to put an end to the existence of their present Court of Requests. Lord F. OSBORNE presented a petition from Guisberough 9 in favour of the County Courts Bill. Lord A. HAM ILTON presented a similar petition from the borough of New Mahon. UNLAWFUL. SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL. Mr.CAREW presented a petition from the county of Welc" ford, against Bill lately passed. Sir H. PARNELL presented a similar petition from the Queen's county. Lord A. HAMILTON presented a petition from the candle. makers of Glasgow, for a repeal of the duties on.candles.