The Sun.
London, England, 1806-07-09 00:00:00

whiCh two -bodies ailed independently of etch - i
_others, but each -havivg- a Check upon the other. ,
The right of appointment was vested in the. Court ,
'of Directors, but the right of recalling, the Dover-,1
nor-General or any of the' Officers, in. India, was
in the Government. Was it,to he argued that the
right', vested in Government Without the means of
judging -of the expediency of 'exercising it ? and yet
the argument. of - the Noble Viscount Went to this
crier I. He rested' himself unoti Zhe law; not accord 7
ing to the fisociful interpretation put upon it 'by the • '
Noble Viseount, but -according to,t he terms of the -
law itself, as clearly and plainly expressed.; and if it
was not intended by that law .to give to the Go--
vernment the right of recallitig the Governor-Gene-
ral,
or any of the Officers civil and military-, in
India, then the Legislature who passed it had en-,
trapped those who had now' acted under it by a
species of fraud. * Ministers had aced, according to
the terms of the law, and by the laW 'they would
be judged. The Noble Viscount bad appealed to
him as to the intentions of those who framed that
Ac ; and he had, a dear and distinct 'recollection of
the progress through Parliament of that Act, pro-
ducing as it did an important azra in his life which
had impressed it on his memory.' He distinctly re-
membered that the chief ground of opposition to the
very Clause in question was,, that it gave an Unli-:
mired right of recall to Government ; so clearly, was
it ascertained at the time that such was the intention
and operation of the Clause. It was not to ,be an.-
' gOed, that bec,ause the right of 'appointment vested
in one bpdy, and the right of recall in anotber, that
theiefore they might act in continued- opposition to
each other. This argument might equally be applied
to theConsl,ltution of: this Country, where the Crown.
had the right of appolotmentto dffices, and Parlia-
ment the right of addressing the King to praT the, re-
moval' of persons so appointed. ' It might equally
be applied to the two Houses of Parliament, and it
might be said that if they refused_to act in concert
business could not go on, and yet the Constitution .
of this Country. bad gone on for many hundred years
without ply of these obstacles arising. The Noble.
Viscount had assumed that which ha (Lord- Gren-
ville) utterly disclaimed,' that Sir . George Barlow
had been recalled' for the purpose of foreing,another
Governor-General on the. East India'Company. He
e:
admitted, that-
.to recall Governor-General with a
view to any priVate purpose would be a violation of:
the spirit of the Act;. but he utterly disclaimed that
any such motive had in the present Instance arcuated.
His Majesty's Ministers.. The_right of recall rest-
'ed with Government by the terms of the Act, and
.that right consequently became'an important duty-to
be exercised, by Ministers in their advice to His Ma- •
jesty under great responsibility. In the exercise of .
that duty many important consideratins must come
sunder reviev.r, and it must not be- forgotten how im-
portant a part of the British Empire Our Possessions
in 'lndia fOrmed. How nearly their prosperity was
connected with that of this Country, and how im-
portant it was that these possessions should bego--
verned with ability. That a correspondence Should
take place between Ministers and the Court of Di-
reaors respecting the fitness and unfitness of in-
dividuals, was a perfealy natural result from their
respective situations .and their respective dutiei;
and surely from the Noble. Lord, of all others; was
least to be expected any objection to the practice of -
recommending to the Court of 'Direaors persons
judged fit to govern
,India. From the time the A6t
passed sttlsthe year 18 0 1 no Governor had been, sent
out to Bengal or to Madras who had not been re-
commended by the Noble Lord. That practice had
been continued to the present' time, and surely
Would not be objected to now:. .He did not mean to
blame the Noble Lord for that praelice=---if there was--
any blame he was ' ready to take his share of it
The Noble Lord had spoken of a determination on
the part of Ministers to send out only men of rank '
from this Country as. Governors to India. The
advantages to be deri.fed from sending out men
of rank and: talent • from this COunta7 to India,. who
were free from any partialities which might be sup-
posed to actuate the servants 'of the Company, and
who gave additiOnal *eight and, confidence to the,
British,dovernment in India, were obvious. This,:
however,••was-'no new determination ; on the con-.
trary, it was one which had 'been repeatedly. acted
upon : thus, the Earl of Pow'is, Marquis Welles-
ley,: the Earl -of BAckin;;hanashire, the Marquis :
Cornwallis, and other men of rank and ability had
been sent thither,' all of whOro had materially bene-
fited the British interests in India: In the'present
case it was .a matterofpublic notpriety,notwithstand-,
ing the assnmption of the Noble Lord,that no attempt-
bad been made to force a Governon:General upon the
East-India Company ; shut that the direct' contrary
was the case. Two individuals had been 'recom-
mended, both.of whom Were high in the confidence
of Government—both of whom were met of rank
in this Country, and of distinguished ability,and ta-
lent. ,They'had, however, these disadvantages in the
eyes or the' Noble Lord, that they were not servants
Of .the ComPany, and that ,they were not reborn-,
mended by that Noble Lord himself . The Noble,
Lord had dotibted that any "intimation : had -. been
made to the Court-of Directors, at the time of recom
. .
mendina Sir George jlarlow, that it was not intended
c, -., s -,
to 'retain him in the situation of Governor-General..;
but the fa& was, that such an intimation. was made
at that time. Sir George . Barlow was in a similar
situation .at the departure of Marquis Wellesley, and
'until the arrival of, Marquis Cornwallis ; but then
he had bean previously appointed provisionally Go-
vernor-General,' in the eyentof the death or depots--
tare ,4it- Marquis Wellesley... Bl'a culpable neglect,
however, on the parteof the late Administration,
no such provision was made .oil sending to India
Marquis Cornwallis; and though it was evident to
every one who knew that. Noble Lord'how much
his health was impaired previous to his. setting out;
and,though it was scarcely supposed; from the en-
. feebled state of his constitution, that he could live
to Arive in India, yet no provisional appointment
was male of a Governor-General to act in case of
that melancholy event happening, which,was foreseen
by every, one.., Thus it .Was, that within twenty-
four hours after Ministers had kissed,His Majesty's
hand on receiving their appointments, they received
two, most affiiaing pieces of intelligence ;, the first,
the death of MarquisCornWailis, and the other, that,
through the, negio of their predecessors,' there was
actually no Governor-General in India. Sir George
Barlow succeeded of course, as the Second in.Conn-
cil, but without those powers, which were so necis-.
sary to the British Government in India, and which
)

-co.i!d• only Vet in a GUVelii sr•-General. r.e1.1'43
ed, riot art hour was to be lost in appOinting a Go--
yernor-general, ,but to nominate-one in whom they
could phice entire confidence, and on whose ability
and talent they could rely, was a work of deliberation.
Nothing else, therefore, could be done at that mo-
ment, than to apilont Sir George Barlow-Governor'
General pro tempctee ; and the ai'pointment was dis-
patched with every possible expedition to India. The:
appointment; however; was not intended to he per-
nranent;' and'it was so intkiNted. He did.not mean
to. arraign the conduel 'of Sir George. Barlow.; that,
Gentle Man; on the contrary, had his esteem for the
active co-operation which he aft'ordedto the mea-
sures. of Lord Wellesley during- the brilliant and gl6--
riot3s Government of that Nobleman.. In his judg-
inent, the Gnvern t flf Marquis Wellesleyadded
lustre tOthe British name, and was inOA advantageous
.to the British interests in India. Some persons had
arraigned the conduCt of that Nobceman, wit h great se-
verity ; he •did not mean to celisure them fOr holding
such an opinion, but at th9'saole time he claimed the
-right of forming an opinion himself ; that apinion he
had expressed, and .to that -he adhered. With.
respeift to the recall 'of Sit- Geo. Barlow, their• Lor-
dships might imagine reasons which would render
such _a measure necessary; he Should not Stale the
reasons which in.:o„ced it. The Noble Lord bad.
contended, in died, that no Go.vernor GeDeral
ought to be recalled, unless for criminp..4 in his
own conduCt, but had
_contradiaed this' by his own
argument. The. Noble Lord had put supposed eases
of Court- of Diredors in hostility with. Govein-
Ment appointing the Archbishop of Cauterbury, and -
afterwards,the ChiefJustic6 of England.' Supposing
such cases to exist, what,motives would operate in the
recall of those perSonages ?—certainly not criminality •
in their condua, but 'Motives of policy '.anti expe-
diency.—Such " motives must always operate in.
.didating the recall of a Governor-General of India
such motites Operate in, the app ointment
of his successor, whilst
,M e. inisters 'executed the
ditty unposed upon them • by the Aft; under, the
responsibility. of their situations. There were
some parts of the Noble Lord's speech, which, un-
intentionally, no doubt, 'tended in etfedt to weaken
tbe.cordial co-operation which ought 'to 'subsist be
veen Governmea, nd the Court of Direaors ; and
other parts of his
,speeeh; which, dpubtless, without
intention on. his part, tended to.weaken he con-
' fidence of the.iative 'Powers of India in the Britist,
(Government. Lipon these, . however, be should
make no -other eomment.- 'The Noble. Lord had
established .no ground for grant mg the Papers.,
which he had moved for, nor could he coin:v.4-e
that their
,Lordships. would assent, to Rropositions
of such a itature—that, a confidential correspond-
ence between Government 'and the court of Di-
reaors, necessarily involving a discussion Of the per,-
-sonal eharaeter and qualifications .of itadividu4ls,
should be made the subject of public discussion in
that House, a proposition to wisich :he ".4.';:s con-
vinced' their Lordships would never agree, -nor did it-
appear that the slightest benefit could be derived from
any part Of the public diseussiOh' which the Noble
Lord urged rb be necessary., With this view of the
Bubje6t, he must,
~Papers
,course, decidedly obje& to the
produetion of the Papers moved for by the. Noble
Lord.

' Lord ILIIVKESBURY supported the Motion
the Noble Viscount. He did, not do so, however,',
solely on the ground of thit:rea4l of-Sir G..13a-rlow,
but frotn this circumstance, that not more than ten.,
days had intervened bet Ween the time of his app6int- '
rnent and that of his recall. •• •

Lord MINTO shewed that no aetriMent to the •
affairs of the Company could arise from this circum-
stance, the one Government remaining whole and
entire until another was appointed in its place.
Lord ELDOA' supported the Motion, while he
at the same. time admitted that alo
.commission or
Warrant in favour of any Governor or other Officer
Could begin to operate till it arrived in India. • ..
The Earl of BUCKINGHAMSHIRE taxalled to
the
,recolleaion of the Noble Viscount the period,
when, during his Administration, the Noble Earl,
then Lord Hobart, had been GoVernor of .IMadras
as such he might have been conSideredas one of the
CoMpany's. Servants ; , but he presumed to think..
that though removed by the Noble Viscount, he did
continue, and would have continued to do his duty
till a successor was appointedao him.
Lord MELVILLE, in justification of his condaa
in theseveral instances alluded to, stated the motives
by which he ha 4. been actuated. He had never laid
down'as a rule, that the Servants of the Company
were not proper persons to be alipointed to the Go.:
vernruent General; neither had he:asserted that they.
ought exclusively In. be 'appointed to that high (Alice.
His condutti shewed; that neither had been his rule
of. ae:tion.' Whoever shoUld be .appointed ought to..
be a person of chara6ler*id of abilities to fill the
ithedrtant office. He ha:i argued 1.1-th a view to a
ruinours which bad gone abroad, that the objj...6tiota
to Sir Geo. Barlow was, his having been a 'Servant
to the Company. He should say, however, that
the suspicions he hid enterttlioed on the sub ea had
not been weakened by any thing Ito had heardin that .
Debate. If the Papers should be granted, and they
should confirm. those suspicions, he intended to found
upon them an ulterior proceeding,
Lard ELLENBOROUGII could not sit silent
whenle•heard an objedion started which he did not
expe6f to be repeated. The warrant could. hive nd
effeattillcOmmunicated to the party ; and he agreed
with the Learned Lord
.C,ldony that the clause for
pu,blicatary at Caldutta weea nugatory. That the coin-
manication gave.legal effeot'to fie warrant would-
aepearsin the instance of the Judges in the event of
ther demise of the CrOwn. fie rit:t.;ht on such an
eventlie in the discharge of his .ahoy, in an extreme
part'olthe country, and if .his CoMMissien.could be
vacated without communication, any.excreise of his
.pbwer, after Such demise; in ordering a man c'On-
' vitlied Of a capital offence for execution, would be
murder at Common taw. It was the nnty of, the ,
persons who advised, HiS,MajeSfy to issue the war,
rant to communicate, it to the Court of Directors hi
eight days, in order that they might fill up that ap,
.ointment. Wit it wts not their du
`y, nor, had it
ever been intended, that they shoula send out the
warrant as rapidly as possible. casteof the ap-
, pointment of a 'Lard Lieutenant to Iceland was an
illustratiQn of this priwipie. Ti'; the instance of the
intended recoil of one LOrd Lieutenant, his successor
was to be the bearer or the he often
:kept with him mapy nionths in this country, until it
swa6 his couyenitticu: to VIQCeCti to tia Government.