The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-24 00:00:00

list; it was already made public, and could not, thereforeiz'
now he refused on any ;;rounds of confidence. There was
one doctrine laid down in the course of his speech by the
Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government which
appeared to him (the Earl of Winchilsea) most strange and
unconstitutional. The Noble Viscount had said that their
Lordships had altered that part of the Bill which vested
the appointment of magistrates in the town councils, and had
then added that though Parliament had decided that thy
clause should not constitute "part of the Dill, vo.- ;is Ma- I
I iesty's Government had deemed fit in act upon the princi-
pie contained in
.that ele.uste why ? it seas useless far 'hate
Lordships &It crate on any measureae.lt C'. it for
I'atluun ;t to sit at all--if arty individual holding at any
time tee reins of Government might be at liberty to saT,
;:,u have made such an alteratiou, but, nevertheless, in
spite of that, we will act upon tl*. principle which you have
condemned.
The Duke of WELLINGTON rose) Mad WA My
Lords, I must beg leave to suggest to the Noble Viscount
opposite that he has totally omitted in his consideration of
the present question One . very important printiple, which
was frequently laid down by that Noble Lord, and other
Noble Lords on his side br the House, particularly a
Learned Baron vs-ho is now absent, during the discussion
upon the measure last session, viz., the extreme importance
of dividing the administration of justice from the mulieipal
government of the corporations—the extreme importance of
earning that principle into effect by the Bill then under con.
sideratiun. It was with that motive, my Lords, qua for the
furtherance of that object, that I gave my vote in favour of
vesting exclusively in the Crown the appoietntent or the
municipal magistrates. The principle of the exclusive nomi-
nation by the Crown having thus been assented to both by
this and the other House of Parliament, I centeas, yLords,
it does appear to me that the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State far the Home Department ought ever to have been
induced to make that declaration which he did in the other
House, respecting the course which he should think fit to
pursue in the nomination of magistrates; in the propriety
of that declaration I cannot concur, because it is a decla-
ration entirely inconsistent with the principle of the mea-
as it received the Royal assent; and because it is entirely
inconsistent also with another principle of law, whioh is
this—that it is the duty of the Lord Chancellorettnd not of
the Secretary of State, to advise the Croton as to the appoint-
ment of mag strates. I do not gay that he may not take the
advice of this council or that, but I do say that it is my Lord
Chancellor whose duty it is to advise the Crown upon the sub-
ject—that it is my Lord Ohancellor who is responsible to this
and the other House of Parliament for the appointment of per-
sons fit and proper for the administration of justice in the li
country. The nomination of the present Magistrates has not
given general satisfaction. The statements of the Noble Lord
himself have clearly proved that it was a party nomination.—
(Hear, hear.) Is there any man in this House who does not
believe that it was a party nomination ? And these are nomi-
nations made by the Secretary of State, while the Lord Chan-
cellor is the person who ought to have advised the Crown as
to the appointments. This, my Lords, is a subject well de-
serving the serious attention of Parliament, because I do say
that the conduct of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State is
quite and irreconcileably inconsistent with the principle of the
measure. I know that the nomination of magistrates which
has been made by his Majesty's Government has produced very
great dissatisfaction in many parts of the country. There are
many Inrties who feel strongly that they are not likely to have
jl:stice fairly and impartially administered to them—to fiave
their rights anti interests duly protected—or their affairs satis-
factorily administered. Under the circumstances, I beg also
to return my sincere thanks to my Noble Friend for having
brought the subject under the consideration of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Noble Duke
who had just sat down had thought it right to remind him (the
Lord Chancellor) of his duty. Of that he did not complain ;
but he mould take the liberty of stating that he was fully aware
of the responsibility under which he stood before the Noble
Duke had thought fit to remind him on the subject. It was
singular. that the Noble Duke should have thought it necessary
to remind him of his duty in that particular instance, since on
a former occasion he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated pre-
cisely the same doctrine with that laid down by the Noble
Duke. The Noble Baron ( Wharneliffe) had urged that the
responsibility attending the appointment of magistrates rested
upon the holder of the Great Seal ; but then, in the case of
counties, the Noble Lord held it to be a dereliction of duty
not to take the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant. It was
impossible for the individual holding the Great Seal to per-
form that branch of his duty in any other manner than by
applying for advice to those whose local knowledge enabled
them to form a more fair and accurate judgment upon the
fitness of persons for 'the office, than he himself by any pos-
sibility could.—( Hear, hear.) In the case of counties it was
natural to apply to the Lord Lieutenant as a person best
" calculated to acquire the necessary information for arriving at
a correct conclusion. It was then the duty of the Lord
• Chancellor to consider well his advice ; but if, after due

half, or that 'of his crib EIJI Jr fCnotin.tin
the right ,r ftc (.;rows:—(Cries of ",l-tear.") His Noble
Friend hhd done th4t. Whia he (Lord Lanidownej %%els sure
future Ministers Would dil--=prOnrei hi the ilritt iristtirJ:c; ad-
vice And iiihitinailori from local (i,tiarter-4, btit always .reserying
the right to inquire. for theinselveS., It. mast lie abundantlyevident, h.ciVtiet-er; tii4 (+4d eite4t anticipated from
the not be produced until the qualincation; to
.—aarg,e the duties of a magistrate were estimated t!pon
principles totally, detached }}ft ,',4„
ye:ln t-t• 11.614. Ori.1!8 ;1:8U-)At !!'id f!.t.4.1-2- •
Siued, that would he the 'vie* *hie', Parliament would take
'OI" the subject': the ricti while the 68rpilratoH tbe.rnselres
also *odd tittq. prinelpiil ti4scti dfiti6 perm letn athity
ire whitii he ( Lord Lansdewne) lived, immediately after the
utmost excitement had prevailed, and but one month preceding
the recommendation I:vat sent to the tiolli6 Mlle*, there
beilig. a 'decided majority of Whig AlertillOrt In the town
councils the Very first acct df that council -was to tend in a list
consi.stiitt; about an equal division Of Whigs and gonser-
Vatives Now, le did rty that ehhibitibtli of such good sense
and feeling doerYed to be encouraged by his Atjestv's Go-
vrrtirtkent--(Cilecrlng)—and he knew that the sole orlieCt of
his Noble Friend was to soften down those party feuds and
animosities width were so detrimental to the due administra-
tion of justice.
Lord WHARNOtArPB replied: He quite agreed with
many ol_.”,:,•l'Vatithis that had fallen frOni Noble Lords On the
opposite side of the noose t it was indeed most desirable that.
party spirititetnd animosity should be entirely banished from
the consideration OF the appointment Of Magistrates ; but he
could not concur In the statement that, in every instance in
which any interference had taken place with the recommends-
tions of the councils, it had been exercised in favour Of the
ConserVative party ; the case of Guildford was an instance of
directly the contrary course. There was one point in the
speech of the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) to which he should
at once allude—he meant the reference that had been =de
to a speech delivered by him at Sheffield ; but he must In'
the Noble Viscount, in the first instance, to be more explicit
in his attack—he begged to ask to what part of that speech
the Noble Viscount had alluded?

Viscount M E LI3OURNE—To the whole of the speech and
to the inference which had been drawn, that his Majesty's Go-
vornment had given up their opinions to those Gentlemen
whom the Noble Lord was pleased to designate as Radicals
The Noble Lord said the Radicals had given up none of their
opinions, and therefore it was to be inferred that his Majesty's
Government had given up theirs. The Noble Lord said that
for the sake of power, for the sake of place, and he believed
the Noble Lord said for the sake of the emoluments attached
to it, his Majesty's Government had made this sacrifice. At
least he had seen that statement in other speeches, particularly
in a speech made by a Noble Lord, a near relative of the
Noble Baron, viz., that, for the sake of power, place, and base
lucre, (it was so, and he could produce the report) his Ma-
jesty's Government had given up the whole of their prin-
ciples.—( Hear, hear.) He did not object to this ; everything
was fair in politics—every sort of abuse ; but at the same
time, when Noble Lords of high character and great in-
fluence, most amiable manners, and most Christian princi-
ples—when they found themselves betrayed in the violence
of the moment, and by the heat of party animosty, into
casting such base, odious, and groundless imputations on others,
they should at least take with some allowance the attacks made
upon the Government by any other or opposite party. —( Hear,
hear.) Of abuse, then, he did not complain. But what he
did complain of in the Noble Lord's speech was this, that the
Noble Lord inferred that he (Lord Melbourne) and his col-
leagues, and those who acted with them, had given up their
principles entirely into the hands of other persons for the sake
of obtaining place and the emoluments attached to it. He
begged to tell the Noble Lord that his deductions had utterly
failed, and that his powers of reasoning, great as they were,
had, at least in this case, led him to a false conclusion. It was
not true that they had sacrificed one principle or one single
opinion to any individual or party whatever.—( Hoar.)
Lord WH A RNCLIFFE did not wish to indulge in any-
thing like abut, or to draw any unfair inference. If the Noble
Viscount called it abuse to accuse his Government and the
Whigs generally of having sacrificed their principles to other
persons, he begged to say he was not singular in that opinion.
_.( Hear, hear.) These other persons themselves had pub-
licly said so. Had they not said, "We have not changed
our opinions—we have not gone to the Whigs : the Whigs
have come to us. The Whigs now are not the Whigs
of other days—they have changed their .. pr.c.p.es, and
not we ours."—(Hear, hear.) Had the Noble Viscount
and his colleagues rejected the support of those opinions ?
—( Hear, hear.) He asked the Noble Viscount to tell him
what was the difference between the opinions of that body of
persons and his own ? He had a right, then, to say, that the
Noble Lord had given up his opinions for place,' but that he
had done so for the emolument attached to it was a very dif-
ferent thing. He doubted much, indeed he was almost sure,
that no such words had been uttered by him. He did not be-
lieve it. He had never believed it. He did not believe that
the public men of England were often swayed by such motives.
But he might have said, and he believed he did say, that this
Government could not have taken or continued in office, ex-
cept by the means and support of persons holding extreme
opinions, and this he would now repeat. Now, with reference
to his motion, it had been said that he objected to the majority
of the magistrates being of the same opinion as the town coun-
cils in the respective boroughs ; but this was but natural ;
and, therefore, he had no right to find fault with the Govern-
ment on that account. The Noble and Learned Lord had
mistaken him entirely. He never said any such thing.
What he said was, that a principle of exclusion had been esta-
blished—that principle to eradicate which Reform had first
been called for—that principle the alleged adoption of which
had been made a theme of the loudest complaints against
former Governments, and which it would seem to be the
intention to perpetuate under the present system.—( Hear.)
It has also been objected, that he had not grounded his mo-
tion to-night on the impropriety of any of the appointments
that had been made. Why, he had guarded himself, espe-.
cially in his opening speech, against being supposed to en-
tertain
.any desire to make charges against any individual.
There was no individual whom he had implicated. He had
certainly referred to one who was a collector of the customs
of Rochester. He did not object to that gentleman per-
sonally. He was no doubt a highly respectable man, and,
perhaps, fully qualified for the office of magistrate. But his
situation as a collector of the customs, in a place where a great
number of the cases brought before the magistrates were
connected with the collection of the revenue, made him one
of the last persons who ought to have been appointed. The
Noble Viscount had said that 'Rochester was placed in great
difficulty, in consequence of the division of the town-council
on the subject of these appointments. To this, however, he
would not further advert. There was a Bill now before the
other House to amend the Municipal Reform Bill, which
would, he hoped, guard against such a transaction in future.
As to the general question, the observations of the Noble
Viscount and of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack had not in the least degree shaken his opinion. He had
made his motion, he confessed, in the first place, with the hope
of checking this practice in future ; and, he confessed, from
the Noble Lord's answer, that he had done well to do so. He
was also greatly comforted by what fell from the President of
the Council, and he believed in future so partial a system
would not be pursued. There was another reason. They
were all aware that they would shortly have before them a
Bill for the reform of municipal corporations in Ireland.
In dealing with that Bill he loped the House of Lords,
he hoped the public, would take warning by what had oc
curred in England. An attempt had been made to pledge
them to pass that measure on the footing of the same
principles as those of the English Bill.—( Hear.) That
attempt their Lordseips resisted, and resisted success-
fully. That the boroughs of Ireland required reform, even
in a higher degree than those of England, no man was more
ready to confess than he was, and no man more ready to pass
any measure for the purpose of effecting that reform. But
the experience of the present Bill would induce him to take
especial care to support no Bill which might be perverted to
party purposes, br be made the instrument of throwing politi-
cal power into the bands of a faction.—( Cheers. ) Having
said thus much, he would not add more than that, as the
Noble Viscount had objected to name the persons who had
been proposed by the town councils, he would not press that
part of his motion, since, if he required their names for any
particular object, he had only to turn to the newspapers pub-
lished in the respective boroughs, and he would find them
immediately. Ile would therefore give up that part of the
motion.

deliberation, he could not concur in that opinion, he was, then,
bound to act upon his own unfettered judgment.,--( Hear,

hear.) If that doctrine, then, was true with -counties, 'was it
not equally so with towns ? They must go for advice to those
whose local information—( Hear)—rendered them the best
judges as to the qualifications for the office. But what said
the Noble Lords opposite ? They would urge us to go, not
to the majority for advice, but to the minority, and to act upon
the opinions of that minority. It did so happen that in cer-
tain counties there was a large majority of persons of one way
of thinking, with a Lord-Lieutenant of the same opinions,
and there a very great majority of the magistracy would be
also found of the same opinion ; and the result, therefore, was,
according to the Noble Lord's opinion, that where there was a
majority cf persons of oneopinion, there should be found also
a majority of magistrates of the same. But when the Noble Lord
came to the question of towns end not counties, be was then sur-
prised that, when it was admitted the great majority'of the people
were liberals, there should be a great maim ity likewise of
Liberal magistrates. In short, with the Noble Lord the doc-
trine was excellent in respect to,counties, but quite the re-
verse as to towns. He admitted, however, most fully, that it
was very proper that there should be a fair admixture of per-
sons of both parties; and lie might be permitted to state that
the interference of the Secretary of State had never been em-
ployed but for the purpose of infusing into the constitution
of the body a certain number of persons opposed in politics
to the present Government.—(No, no.) Whether the Noble
Lord believed him or no his statement was as much entitled
to credit as those of the Noble Lord himself. The case of
Dover had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of
magistrates; In reference to Rochester; it was peffectly ob-
vious that by no possibility could magistrates have been
appointed, the town council being divided, but in the me-
thod which had been pursued by -his Noble Friend the Se-
cretary of State. For his own part he was perfectly willing to
admit the responsibility which- rested upon the holder of
the Great Seal, a responsibility from which he would not
shrink. The Noble Baron had admitted that there was no
complaint against the appointment as far as the individuals
themselves were concerned. What then did his objection
come to? Why to this--assuming that there was a prepon-
derance in the lists in favour of one party, he complained that
the uniform leaning was to that line .of politics opposed by him-
self and Noble Lords on his ( Lord Wharncliffe's) side of the
House. Now, could the Noble Lord think it advisable that
the magistracy should lean to the opinion of the minority? In
respect to counties, he ( Lord Wharncliffe) admitted the con-
verse ; and he (the Lord Chancellor) would again ask, why
should not the same principle be applied- to towns? In con-
clusion, he begged to say, th;st the charge brought against the
Covernment seemed to him to have fallen wholly to the ground.
The Earl of RIPON said that he was -not disposed to
doubt that in future the Government would be guided by
principles which all would be disposed to approve. He could
not, however, concur with the Noble Lord upon the Wool-
sack in thinking that, because it was consistent with propriety
in the appointment of county Magistrates to take the advice
of the Custos Rotulorum—( Hear, hear)—for he was the
proper person for that purpose—therefore the same would hold
good in respect to towns. It appeared to him that the cases
might be as different as possible.--(Hear, hear.) The
original and fundamental danger was in making appli-
cation . to the town • councils at all ; for what would happen
upon the receipt of the letter from the Home Office, request-
ing the advice of the bawd euunell ? The town council would
meet, difference 6r epinion would arise, there would be a divi-
sion' awl the business would become a mere matter of can.
Vass6g. The result must consequently be to mix up the se-
lection, of magistrates with all the most violent passions ; and
if that course we e persisted in—but he sincerely believed it
would not—party prejudices and violence would grow to an
extent entirely incompatible with the due administration of
justice, —( float, 'wale) It seemed likewise to him particu-
larly unfortunate that the letter should have been written at
the time that it Was, when the greatest excitement prevailed
on the tu'lject. ile trusted that the circular letter of the Se-
crobry of State was nut to be taken 55 a general and fixed rule
to guide the continct of the municipal bodies for were that
the case, he should topsider the character of that measure,
which lit hind %ealously supported in that House, altered, its
bi'leilts destroyed, and its mischiefs enhanced.
The Marquis of SALISBURY saki that the coMplaint
was that the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State, having ta-
ken upon himself the power of the Lord Chancellor had so
executed that power as no Lord Chancellor ever. had done.
Not a single instance was on record of the nomination of a
Lord Lieutenant having been set aside by the Chancellor ; and
the inference therefore was that no Lord Chancellor had ever
been able tb fix a charge upon any Lord Lieutenant in respect
to those appointments. No Lord Chancellor had ever thought
fit to interpose his authorita', and vet the Noble Secretary of
State, possessing no aptharity, had' Interfered in a way much
mere etieteelve to the Lords Lieutenant than any Lord Chan-
cellor ever would have done. Upon the present subject it
was to be remarked that there was a vast difference between
the recommendation of. a town council, composed as it was,
and of a Lord Lieutenant, a responsible officer of the Crown.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose chiefly with a view
of alluding to an observation that had fallen from Noble Lords
opposite ins-eferenee to a declaration made by a Noble Friend
of his (Lord John Russell) elsewhere, and he begged those
Noble Lords to understand that his Noble Friend had no in=
tention whatever of declaring that he would set aside or disre-
gard the intentions of Parliament, or the principles of the Act
itself. His Noble Friend was at the time deeply engaged in
',chat Noble Lords would admit to be the very laudable task of
..econciline- the differences then existing between the two
branches Of the Legislature, and he (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) knew of no course which his Noble Friend could have
adopted to effect that object, better than the one which he
did purse.e, viz., letting it be perceived that, though that House
differed from the other upon the subject, and though the clause
ebjecteel to should be given up, yet there would be -an oppor-
tunity .afforded to the Government, and making a pledge that
he wereeld avail himself of it liberally, of going for advice to
that 4ot Tee from which the other House deemed the recom-
rnendatj, •)n should come ; bvit in so 49ing, neither on his own

The motion, with that exception, was then agreed to ; and
their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 24.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at four o'clock.
Colonel PACKE took the oaths and his seat for South Lei-
cestershire.

your of the
- Mr. Campbell, from the India-house, presented papers at
the Bar relative to the compensation of redueed officers of
that Company.
MM
rr.
HC roil !Le presentede
speanpt cc rds
tflrsoom
ptebtei t iTo
nr
se a
insu ryf
a.
Birmingham and Gloucester Railway.
GATESHEAD AND NORTH LEEDS RAILWAY,
Mr. BELL brought up the Report of the Committee on this
Bill, stating that the standing orders had been complied with.
The Hon. Member then moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the- formation of a railway from Gateshead to North Shields,
Colonel SIB'F HO RP complained that in this case the stand-
ing orders of the House hal not been complied with. The Gal-
lant Colonel also complained of the personal applications which
parties wanting to promote these railroads were in the habit of
making to Members of that House. He looked at all these
speculations with the greatest possible suspicion. If he were
satisfied that any of them was for the public good he would be
the first to sacrifice any private object of interest to promote
it ; but he had a right to know that it was for the public
good before he W3,,3 called on to do so.
Mr. BELL assured the Gallant Officer that the Commit-
tee were unanimously of opinion that the standing orders had
been complied with.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
PRIVATE BILLS.—(RAILWAYS.)
The standing orders respecting private Bills having been
read, it was resolved upon the motion of Mr. POULETT
Titomsoia, that in the cases of the respective railway bills now
before the frouse, for which notice had been given for the
second reading on Monday last, the seven days which were
required to intervene between the second reading. and the
sitting of the Committee, should, be reckoned from the day
for which notice appeared to have been given, as it the Bill
had been then read a second time.
MR. BUCKINGHAM'S CASE.
Lord W. BENTINCK pfesented a petition from Glasgow
ia favour of Mr. Buckingham's claims.
Mr. TULK moved the second reading of the Bill for com-
pensating Mr. Buckingham for his losses in India. He did
not feel it necessary to detain the House by any Observations

TIIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, 141131tVARY 24, ItM,

upon thg measure, piopoged the itestiee of the case wag Ls:
t epparent to every on. Members
, Ait HON: MEMBER made Some obsersetlon respccthi the
Bill being a priVate One, and asked a question of Mr. Tulle,
but it, as ii cjltie thR Port. Gentlernen's aiseweti was inaudible
the gallery:
Mr. 1,4 W eO,N felt it his duty to bring tifinet` 4.14. rat ice •
9f. tNe linuse th' Griner .iii wriiels this case was got tie.
Within a few weeks tie ree.ei,:red, a letter, With' au inclo-
sdre; which he felt it his duty to read. We' n'taff-
nee sir whiA he spoke na. an unusual and almost an
liamentery t'in6 „4d!tilim 4 pVtitly'ns: He should read the
enclosure to which he alluded, aria
1~•". 4d la:av'e it to the
Hope to , say whether or not a case comint,4 iseNre it
eh‘
.l.n;:etkistances. was worthy of serious consi-
deration :—" Mr. f3uctifi7:lMrti
presents his compliments, and
will feel obliged if Mr. Ofi; le.eloeed letter
fruit ell to some one of his constituents, who IS AiNfain
an espressieti ef-pehlie opinion in support of the recommen-
dation of the select committee in favour of his claim, which,
notwithstanding, it still resisted by the East India Companv."
He (Mr, Lawson) had not taken the step required of him,
because, if he had, he would feel in some measure pledged to
the principle cf the Bill, and he wished to:come into the House
free to judge of the merits of the question. He was sure he
only did his duty by bringing the matter under the attention
of Members, mid he thought the practice of one Gentleman
addressing another-to get op petitions, tended to lower the
character of the House, and was more worthy of the American
Conelessllian the Ori:isti Parliament. He should move, tnat
the Bill be re id a second time that day six months.
Mr, PO ULTE R had at one time doubted propriety of
supporting the Bill, because he thought it a (Wittiest be-
tween the clear right of the gait India Company Directors on
the she hand, to act as they thotegitt proper, and a clear
speculation of the Member for Sheffield Oil illd ether, But
looking more into the summum jus of the mattef, he
found that Mr. Buckingham had been induced by the then
Governor-General of India, LOrd Hastings, to enter upon the
speculation, and to establish a journal Upton - the principles
avowed and maintained by that Governmefit itt
It was a most remarkable addition to those facts, that the oilly
time the case of Mr. Buckingham was brought before a jury,
he was honourably acquitted; and the explanations given by
Mr. Buckingham to the Governor-General of India were de-
clared by Lord Hastings to be perfectly satisfactory. He
might also adduce another fact in proof of the feeling which
existed amongst those in authority as to the manner in which
Mr. Buckingham's paper was conducted, A Noble Lord near
him (Lord W. Bentinck), who formerly filled the office of
Governor-General of India had expressed his regret that they
had not a paper in India conducted on the principles of Mr.
Buckingham's. These facts had completely altered the impres-
sions he formerly entertained with regard to Mr. Buckingham's
claims. He knew, however, the abstract right of the Directors
must always prevail over private speculations. But the prin-
ciple for which Mr. Buckingham then contended has since
been recognised, and the charter of the East India Company
is now placed on the footing which he so strongly recom-
mended. Mr. Buckingham under these circumstances was
therefore entitled to equitable compensation. He might also
mention another valuable testimony in favour of the validity of
his claim, which was a declaration of Sir Charles Vorbes,
that Mr. Buckingham had been an injured man, and ought to
be compensated. This testimony, from a political opponent,
was surely entitled to consideration.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said it was the intention or the
President of the Board of Control to have been present on
this occasion. He (Mr. Smith); however, would repeat upon
his .behalf the same opinion which he expressed last year,
namely—that he did not think Mr. Buckingham had any claim
upon the Eastelndia Company. He could not agree in the
reasons given by the Honourable Gentleman who spoke
last for altering his opinion—(Hear, hear)—nor did he
think the opinion of the Noble Lord (Bentinck) went
the length of saying that the East India Company
was liable to that demand. It was true the law had been
altered, but the East India Company should not be accoun-
table for what took place before this alteration.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) If the Honourable Gentleman oppoSite
persevered in his motion, he would certainly support it.
The East India Company were certainly entitled to be heard
at the Bar of the House. This Bill had been set down
in the paper of yesterday as a private Bill, but it had
been adjourned to this day as a public one ; so that the
Honourable Gentleman had two strings to his bow.—( Hear.)
The question was not whether the law was good or whether it
ought not to be altered, but whether the East India Company
bad a right to do what they bad done to Mr. Buckingham
tinder that law.—( Hear.) He did not think that House the
best tribunal to decide upon the merits, not of Mr. Bucking-
ham's legal claim, for he has not made any, but the equity of
his present demand. He had applied to that House for re-
dress, and he had sent out letters to Hon. Members to induce
them to come down and vote upon that question, in a manner
which he ( Mr. V. Smith) thought should not be made use of for
the purpose of influencing Members of that House.—(Hear.)
If the proposition was made by any Hon. Member to put off
the second reading of the Bill, he (Mr. V. Smith) should
certainly support it. One argument that had been used in
favour of the Bill, was the course which Sir Charles Forbes
had taken with respect to it in the Court of Directors. But
many Hon. Members must be aware, that although Sir Charles
Forbes was a hot Tory while in that House, he was a very
Ultra-Radical in the Court of Directors.—(Much laughter.)
No person so closely scrutinizes the proceedings of the Board
of. Directors as he does, and therefore the mere fact of his
taking that course was not proof of the justice of these claims.
He should only say that if any proposition was made to put off
the second reading, he should give his individual vote in
favour of such a proposition.
The SPEAKER explained that there was nothing irregular in
the postponement of the second reading of the Bill from yes-
terday evening.
Mr. VERNON SMITH explained.
Mr. ROEBUCK felt it a very painful duty to oppose
claims of this sort put forth in a popular assembly. But as a
member of the British Parliament, and on behalf of the peo-
ple of England, he must oppose that Bill. ' Every person
-establishing a Press in India was bound to submit to the re-
strictions and the discretionary power which was vested by the
Government in the East India Company, and the Indian Go-
vernment. The people of England had vested that discretion
in the authorities at Hindostan, and they having acted upon
that, it was now unfair to come before the people of this
country, and ask them to pay compensation to any indi-
vidual who had transgressed the restrictions to which he
was legally subjected.—( Cries of Hear, hear.) It was
calling upon the wrong parties to pay for him, and that he
(Mr. Roebuck) for one, would not consent to. Let Mr. Buc-
kingham appeal to the people of England—( Hear, hear)—or,
let the Government include his claim in the estimates, and
come down with a proposition to that House to vote a sum of
Money as compensation ; but, under the present circumstances,
he (Mr. Roebuck) would not support the Bill.—( Hear.)
He had himself run the risk of a prosecution in this country
by a publication which lie avowed. He:said lie had not broken
pc einesaavtei o na?n d— ( Hmera. r,
Hetherington
i n
the law, Ims. had the Government prosecuted him to conviction
—had they got a clear verdict against him, did the House sup-
pose that he would have come forward with a claim for corn -
gtolin had
e (M
good
(Mr.
)sda aid that Mtra
-compensation as the Honourable' Member for Sheffield—
.
(Hear, hear)—and he would advise these Gentlemen, if
this Bill were carried, to bring in their Bill—( Loud
Laughter)—for compensation for injuries sustained by them
under a bad Act of Parliament.—( Hear.) He would be
the first to vote for a Bill establishing a free Press in
India, but he would not be a party to giving a man
compensation for a breach of that which was law, by the
discretion vested in the Company by an Act of Parliament.
'Mr. ROBINSON bad voted against the Bill last year, and
he had seen no reason for altering his opinion. This was an
alleged wrong done to an individual by the Government of
India, who were placed in the situation of guardians of the
public Press in India, by an Act of Parliament. They had a
perfect right to act. as they had done, It was proved before
the House last year that the Hon. Member for Sheffield had
been repeatedly warned that the course he was pursuing was
calculated, in the opinion of the Government, to injure the
English interest among the natives; yet notwithstanding
those repeated warnings, lie persisted in acting according to
his own views, and persevered in the course he bad pointed
out for himself. Under all these circumstances he ( Mr. R.)
felt bond to say that all the suffering which had fallen upon
the Hon. Member and his family had been brought upon
them by his own conduct. Several petitions had been presented
to that House in favour of that Bill He did not know what
representations had been made in order to get up those peti-
tions, but he would have considered that, much more weight
would have attached to them, had the money been coming out
of the people of this country, in place of those from the people
of Hindostan. He trusted that the House would not allow the
Bill to be read a second time, in the hope, or upon the under-
standing, that the Bill -would be opposed by the Company be-
fore the Committee. They would be recognizing a most mis-
chievous principle, that of the right of Parliament to interfere
in the disputes between private persons and public bodies.
Major BE AUCL E RK was one of the Committee to which
Tie Bill was referred last year, and, with the exception of one
Member of the Committee, was unanimous in its favour. The
case did not stand as stated by the Member for Bath. The
Hon. Member for Sheffield was not only banished from India,
but his presses, and all his other proeerty, were destroyed so
far as he (Mr. Buckingham) was concerned.—( Hear. hear.)
No man, in his opinion, was more entitled to compensation
than the Hon. Member for Sheffield ; and he felt convinced
that had not Lord Glenelg expressed a desire that the
parties • should endeavour to settle the matter amicably—( Hear,
hear)—the Bill for compensation would have been passed last
Session. He thought the House.would lower itself in the es-
timation of the public if they refused to listen to these claims.
He knew nothing of Mr. Buckingham further than in his public
capacity, but he never would be the man to sit still while so
gross an injustice was being committed against any individual
Mr. PEASE, after having attentively considered the state-
ments of counsel at the bar, was decidedly of opinion that the
House was bound to grant compensation.
Mr. WARBURTON rose amid cries of " withdraw." He
thought the House was called upon to interfere, as no man
could doubt that great injustice had been perpetrated towards
Mr. Buckingham. As to the statements that had been made
that the English people should pay Mr. Buckingham, it must
be remembered, that the Central Government of India had
committed the injustice, and:in his opinion, therefore, the people
under that Government ought to pay it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw,
The House divided, when there appeared—.
-

For the amendment
•125
For the second reading
81
Majority against the Bill -44
RAILWAYS.

Mr. WAKLEY presented two petitions against the Lon-
don and Brighton Railway Bill.
Lord SANDON presented a petition, signed by the pro-