The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-26 00:00:00

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN INDIA.

Mr. LIMBTON rose, pursuant to notice, to present &
petition from Mr. Buckingham, late Proprietor and Editor of
the Calcutta Journal, relating to a series of acts of grievance
on the part of the Indian Government. These details were
connected with another subject of high importance, the Liberty
of the Press ; which was no where more requisite than in India,
where the happiness of so many millions depended upon.
their being rescued from ignorance, which was slavery. t .!ai
whichshould, 1 v
a s ihowever,nvolv e abstaind in the frompeit i
ndn discussing ebuns
complaint of Mr. Buckingham. These were detailed
to
inreturned
an
e x 13 teo..
petition,
stated, that in
state them shortly to the House. The petition
at considerable length, hut he should
vey.
1813, Mr. Buckingham left England upon a s commercialway
on
to
age. Having proceeded to Egypt, he
.tsincognfine bim.sle,lif
Bombay, where he was obliged to return to
Company
in.
cause he had no licence from the East ti
India in 1816. In 1818 he was r 9
his possession. Having obtainedmade
eo
England, be.
btnee.
fethueirnlave Trade, which he
dition deNoted to the purpos;
declared was repugnant to h" journal, which he did by pars
that he set up the Calcutta
other Papers, at an expense of
chasing the stock of :9f:elings. At this period it was
, conducted so much to the satisfaction of
t3wThooheoreot 1 'hl:.n
PapergolTi'soh}oli htlsi ani : id'iabaniiideeijrnaiteePle: ra:htgliczacewddlihbioi ymrt
ht time
vet har
paymente(licence,iyearlytht eaotchitoei
propertyonihonfreef° ctemtanet endeavour
cii
ffl4tßeieoTtsroaew"i thetb:aPlj3. se:
stage for the circulation of it through..
ItTeitli:'t: period of its establishment there was no such
score of postage ,
h' on. the press of India, the .o‘bleman, in a.nswer to an address presented to him
ia, Marquis of
" tisving abolished the existing restrictions. The speech
ticieants°rshe wouldT trespass upon the time Lift he
of that
o,.mili
thing
nu: eamtonsltat 1
nnoodfnni
sat ,
this subject, was inserted in the Petition nd douse
"nwort., .
I ding it.--" The Hon. Member here proceeded to read the
by reading
weed] in question, the substance of which was an eulogiuni
upon the freedom of the press, with the expression of a hope that
the blessings of its establishment in India would be known and
felt to the furthest bounds of the British Empire in that quarter
of th e glob e.l—There was one thing, the Hon. Member observed,
which might be stated in favour oi`Mr. Buckingham • this was,
that during the whole period of his being editor of the Calcutta
Journal, he was convicted of no libel, public or private-, A.

great change in the sate of the press took place upon the
aieparture of the Marquis of Hastings. He was succeeded
by Mr. Adams, formerly one of the censors of the Press,
and who performed the functions of the Governor-General
until the arrival of his successor from England. One of the first
Acts of this Gentleman had been to reverse all that the Mar-
quis of Hastings had done, with reference to the emancipation
of the Press, and to revive a criminal prosecution against Mr.
Buckingham, which had been quashed the year before, and
which was considered by Sir F. M'Naughten as so cruel and
oppressive, that he had refused to try it. The licence. or Mr.
Buckingham was annulled, and he was ordered to quit India
garithin two months. Nothing could be more despotic than this
treatment. The reason assigned for it was some severe re-
marks made by Mr. Buckingham upon the appointment of a
Dr. Price, a Presbyterian Minister, to supply the Government
with. paper, pens, ink, and various articles of stationary.—
The appointment appeared to Mr. B. as incompatible with
the holy calling of the individual, and it was remarkable that
ialad since been annulled as such `by the East India Com-
pany; and severe animadversions cast upon Dr. Price by the
general Assembly of Scotland for having accepted the situa-
tion. Yet it was for censuring this appointment that Mr.
Buckingham had been ruined. He, had committed no one
illegal act to render him obnoxious to such treatment. Im-
mediately upon his return to England, he applied to the
Board of Controul, and to the East India Company for a Li-
cense. This he was refused. He then commenced legal proceed-
ings against Sir. Adams ; but such was the tardines of his soli-
citors in India, and so great the reign of terror where Mr. Adams
presided, that he was obliged to abandon the suit. It might have
_been expected that Mr. Adams would have been satiated with
the ruin of Sir. Buckingham, but it was not so—he pursued
his hostility to the last remnant of his property. Upon quitting
the country Mr. B. hall made over his paper to an individual
born there, and who, therefore was not required to have a
licence to remain. To meet this difficulty, Mr. Adams made
a sweeping regulation that all should have licences. By one
stroke of the pan he had reversed all that the Marquis of (last-
ing* had established, and considered requisite to the welfare of
India. His success in this respect was followed up by another
arbitrary act ; for he actually prohibited all English subjects
from circulating, vending, or even giving away any unautho-
rised publication. Such despotism in India could not fail; he
thought, to ensure the interference of that House. In the
other measures of active hostility against Mr. Buckingham, his
interests wera never lost sight of. He was denied permission
to convert his collection of books into a circulating library, nor
was he allowed ttnhave any mercantile intercourse with the
country. This was the state of things when Lord Amherst ar-
_rived ; since which, the same process of tyranny had been'
carried on to its conclusion. Mr. Buckingham's successor (Mr.
Arnold) was imprisoned ; but obtained his release by Habeas
Corpus, when the Court decided upon the arguments of his
Counsel, that he could not legally be imprisoned. The use he
made of Isis freedom was, to take refuge in a foreign settle-
ment. There he was followed, seized by a military force,
and put on board of ship to be sent home. Such was the
spirit of this proceeding that he was unable to obtain leave
to take his passage in any other vessel, which he was alone
anxious for in order to avoid the unhealthy settlement of
Bencoolen, by which the ship, in which he was forced to em-
bark, was to proceed. The next act of arbitrary government
was directed against the work of Colonel Leicester Stanhope,
who, he was proud to say, was now gloriously, engaged in the
cause of Greece. His work was devoted merely to record the
speeches of the Judges. Lord Aniherst had the justice to sup-
press this work. The Journal of Mr. Buckingham was per-
mitted to be published, provided it was edited by a person ap-
pointed by the Indian Government. This was actually done;
Mr. Buckingham's property being assigned over to the Editor
thus appointed, 1,0001. a year paid as his salary, with the addi-
tion of Mr. B.'s house, which he had let for 5001. a year to a
merchant. Thus had he been lured on by the pretended liberty
of the press to his destruction, whilst his own means were made
subservient to the propagation of principles which he abhorred,
and to oppose which lie had actually commenced his 'ander-
taking. -He had thus presented, he hoped, a clear analysis of
the case, unencumbered with any unnecessary details. He
should use no argument upon the policy or impolicy of a free
press in India, as it was his intention to bring the question be-
fore Parliament early next Session. At present he should rest
upon the particular case of this Petitioner, which, together with
that of Sir. Arnott, he contended-was marked by wanton and
aggravated despotism. If it were passed over in silence, it
would
.he nonsense to talk of the responsibility of the Indian
Government hereafter; for that responsibility would be power-
. less where the rights, the properties, and the persons of English-
men were at stake, and where the very existence of the empire
was threatened.—( Hear, hear !)—The lion. Gentleman con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring up the Petition.
The petition was accordingly brought up. Upon the ques-
tion that it be laid on the talae,
Mr. WYNN said, that the House was indebted to the Hon.
Member for the clear manner in which he had stated the con-
tents of the petition, which, bad it been read, would, from its
extreme length, have occupied much longer time than the
-speech of the Hon. Member. Ile should ce-tainly follow his
example in abstaining from discussing the great question in-
• volved in this subject, upon which the Hon. Gentleman had
notice for next Session. Whenever it came before the
house lie should lae ready to meet it, and maintain that the
every principles which made a free press the safeguard of liberty
-in England, proved it to have a contrary tendency in India.
With regard to the facts of the case, he confessed he was in
:this embarrassment as regarded Mr. Adams. Mr. Bucking-
ham was under heavy recognizances to prosecute a suit against
Mr. Adams in the English Courts. Any information, there-
afeee, which he (llr. Wynn) might give in making the defence
of that Gentleman, would be placing him at a disadvantage with
his opponent when the question came to be tried by another tri-
bunal. He could only state that Mr. Adams was ready to make
' his defence, and from what he (Mr. Wynn) knew of him he had
no hesitation in saying it would be satisfactory with regard to
i.,the case now made out against him ; one statement would be
sufficient for him to notice as a sample of all the rest. He
understood the lion. Gentleman to have declared that up to
the period of the Marquis of Hastings quitting India no pro-
- ceedings had been taken against Sir. Buckingham. The fact
was, that he had been told that he had forfeited all claim
. upon the protection of the Indian Government. It was said
-that Mr. Adams was the first to institute proceedings against
the petitioner. He could only state, in answer to this as-
• section, that he had been five times previously warned of
-the danger of his course. The last letter lie received prior
to this period concluded by informing him that his licence,
-would be immediately annulled, and he was ordered to de-
part immediately for England. In this the whole Council
`had been agreed. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Ar-
nott, he should decline going into that question, as it was
now under the consideration of the Supreme Council, and he
-vests sure the House would feel the propriety of his pursuing
that course. The last part of his case referred to Lord Am-
herst. The individual was residing in India without a licence,
• and his Lordship was bound, in discharge of his duty, to order
him to depart. With reference to Bencoolen, he really could
say nothing at all about the matter—he could neither athrm nor
deny, having no knowledge one way or the other. • From the
- well-known mildness of his Lordship's character he could not
believe that lie had acted harshly but where he considered it
absolutely necessary to the discharge of his duty. He had no
objection to let the petition be brought up and printed, but he
should reserve. what he had to say-on the other topics touched
- upon by the Hon. Gentleman till he brought forward his gene-
.gal motion next Session.

Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY spoke,but could not be'distinctly
-heard in the gallery. .
Mr. HUME trued on the House not to be satisfied with the
testimonials offered as to the general character of the party
complained of, but to look at the . facts charged, which, having
remained for two years uncontradicted, he could not help -re-
zarding as well founded. Ile dwelt on the hardships which Mr.
Buckingham had sustained, and on the absolute ruin which
had overwhelmed every one at all connected with him from
the exercise of arbitrary power in England, and hoped the
:time was not very remote when the principles of the British
Constitution would be extended to every British Colony. The
Governor-General had no right to remove an individual but on
grounds which he could well justify, and he felt it right to say
that Mr. Adam's conduct towards, Mr. Buckingham appeared
Through Mr.
premeditated malice.
et wishedoneptaopkenro, know if
to him to be marked by
Adams that gentleman had been ruined. He
principleH
the Government were to act on one
ther One paper on a different principle towards ano
mast
ter had been
outrageous
himself
encouraged to malign Mr. Buckingham.in the
manner, and when that Gentleman defended was sent
• out of the country like a felon. He
'v i -r
would challenge. an
dual to go over the files of Mr. Buckingham s paper forsthe io
years during which.he had conducted it, him to u
prove
and defy.
that it contained one hundredth pa 46 John Bull"
of the scurri ity to be found
in "--John . Bull"—(A laugh.)— The Indian .
h Indan
i
he meant. Government, to its credit, had disclaimed any con-
nection with the " John Bull" in this country; but t e
John Bull" had been set up, as he believed, by
tary of the Government and Mr. Adams, for the purPos! of
the .tl_ ecre..
,writing Mr. Buckingham down. Mr. Buckingham liadclann ed
no exemption. Ileliad only claimed to be treated as an Engi
-Rahman, and to be put on his trial for any offence charge(
-against him. He had been put on his trial and acquitted. -He
. then brought an action against the Editor of the John Bull,but
was prevented from following it up by his removal from India.
He was confident that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, could not give his sanction to proceed-
ings like these. Of that he was convinced, from the course that
Right lion. Gentleman had pursued when he was at the Board
of Contxoul• While he was there the Directors of the East India
companj, had come almost unanimously to a resolution for re-
,eitablisllinga censorship over the press in India. This resolu,'

tion had been forwarded to the Right Hon. Gentleman, who had
returned it to those from whom it came. He called upon the
House to look into the documents connected with this subject,
and to examine the restrictions which had been imposed on the
Press in India. He hoped the arbitrary power now exercised
there would be restrained, and tiovernment would consider how
deeply many millions of their fellow-creatures were interested
in their decision on this subject. By allowing Governors to
-abuse the powers entrasted to them, the loss of that import-
ant Dependency would be risked, and he therefore entreated
the Right Hon. Gentleman to take effectual means to restrain
them. .. ..... . _
Mr. ASTELL complained of the improper motives imputed
to Mr. Adams, and begged that the House would not without '
further proof take up the idea that he deserved to be so men-
tioned. He proceeded to shew that the Government of India
had not been indisposed to countenance Mr. Buckingham. That
Gentleman was in India ire 1818, without a licence. One was
granted to him as a free mariner, or merchant. This would have
enabled him to pass7as a mariner from place to place, but he
had been permitted permanently to reside on shore, and to pub-
lish his Newspaper. In May 1819 he was warned to be more
careful in what he published on pain of being sent from India.
He received. similar warnings in Nov. 1820, and in July 1821.
This was during the administration of Lord Hastings. Scarcely
had he received the last warning, when he commenced an inde-
cent attack on the Bishop of Calcutta. lie was again warned
that lie would lose his licence, but continued his attacks. In
May 1822, in consequence of his persevering in the same course,
a proposition was brought forward for his removal from India,
and under the circumstances it appeared to him that
acting thus Mr. Adams had only performed his duty. Mr.
Buckingham having neglected the repeated warnings which
he had received, it became necessary to remove him at last.
He thought it would not be equitable for the house to take
up this subject, while those legal proceedings which Mr.
Buckingham had commenced were still pending. With ree
sect to Mr. Arnott, as he had no license, he had no right to
complain of ' being removed. If the present Court of King's
Bench in India were of opinion, that an individual so circum-
stanced was not liable to be removed at any moment, Sir W.
Jones, and other eminent persons, had been of a different
opinion, and therefore in this instance they ought to pause be-
fore they censured the step taken by Mr. Adams. The ques-
tion as to the importance of the liberty of the press iii India,
he had no hesitation in saying, was too large to be entered upon
by him; but as the Hon. Gentleman who opened this business
thought India, of all other places, was the place where a free
press was of the first importance, he felt disposed to give his
[ opinion that it was there of least value.
Sir C.FORBES read some letters of recommendation which he
had received from Mr. Palmer; which spoke in very high terms
of Mr. Buckingham. After these lie thought any man would
pause before he believed that Gentleman to deserve the severity
with which he had been treated. It would have surprised him
if the Indian Government had borne with patience any stric-
tures on its conduct. He bad known natives sent from some
parts of India for slight offences. Once it was intimated to a
native that he would be sent away because he had had the good
fortune to make an advantageous bargain with the Government
which they wished him td abandon' and found little disposed
to comply. The individual he alluded to wrote to the Gover-
nor with a spirit worthy of an Englishman—a spirit which the
natives frequently manifested when not ceushed to the ground,
which he was sorry to say was too frequently the case. - He
wrote to this effect :—" Sir, I am told you intend sending me
off. I believe this is said to intimidate me, but I trust you
know the laws of your own country too well- to treat me so, and
II shall therefore disregard the intimation." Ile thought
nothing done by Mr. Buckingham deserved such a tremendous
punishment as had been inflic;cd, and he therefore hoped that
the- Hon. Gentleman who had, brought this subject forward
would follow it up.
Sir F. BURDETT hoped that his Hon. Friend, who had
brought this subject forward with so much perspicuity, would
not content himself with a general motion in the next Session
on the advantages of disadvantages of a Free Press in India, but
trusted he would bring forward a motion in the course of this
Session, to give the petitioner the benefit of his talents, and call
on the House to punish what seemed to be the violent conduct
'of the temporary Governor. Ile did not feel the force of that
common-place argument, viz. that Mr. Buckingham might seek
redress in a court of law. Whether he did so or not, violent and
arbitrary conduct on the part of a Governor ought not to pass
unnoticed in that House. It had not been proved by the Hon.
Gentleman who had spoken of the repeated warnings received
by Mr. Buckingham, that at that time he was not fairly, pro-
perly, and laudably emproyed in commenting on the conduct of
the Indian Government. His having censured the appointment
of Mr. Adams, seemed to have led to the vielence which was
the subject of complaint. Mr. Buckingham, it appeared
to him, had been entrapped into that situation which had
caused his removal from India. -Ile had been encouraged by
the more liberal views of Lcrd Moira, who thought a free press
would be a great benefit to India, to act as he did. But for
this he would perhaps never have incurred censure. Ile pointed
out the evils resulting from the exercise of- arbitrary power,
which left the subject no security under successive Governors,
or even udder the same individual Governor. Ile therefore
hoped the case of Mr. Buckingham would again be bought bee
fore the House separate from the question respecting the Press
in India, and also from another great question, that with re-
gard to the situation in which British subjects were placed gh-
ing there. If the House wished to encourage a free trade to
India, they ought to insure those who went thither the protec-
tion of English laws, and put down the despotic power which
at present existed. Colonization ought to be encouraged ra-
ther than prohibited, and this subject lie also regarded as en-
titled to their most serious attention.
Mr. Secretary CANNING would not detain them by going
into those topics which, by the common consent of the House,
as well as of the Honourable Gentleman who had brought the
subject forward, it was agreed to reserve for consideration in a
future Session. He would confine himself to the petition,
and decline entering upon the great question relative to-the
advantages or disadvantages of a free press in India, and the
still larger question adverted to by the Hon. Baronet, as to
the policy of encouraging colonization in India. These were
matters which in his judgment ought not to be discussed
collaterally, when they were entertained at all, Should the
Honourable Gentleman follow up the present proceeding, by
bringing forward that motion on the individual case which
the Hon. Baronet hoped to' sec made in the course of the pre-
sent Session, the cause now pending between the parties would,
he doubted not, weigh materially with the House, and incline
them not to go into a debate which must prejudge a question
to be disposed of elsewhere. Whether it was originally wise
in the framers of a Constitution-for India to impose any
peculiar restrictions on Englishmen going thither, was a
point not now to he debated. It might with propriety he
considered, when the question how Far it would he proper
to put the Constitution of India on a new footing after the
expiration of the present Charter of the East India Company,
came before Parliament, whether or not the present guards
should give place to unlimited freedom, or whether the restric-
tions heretofore
.deemed necessary should be maintained in
their present vigour, or modified to meet the altered circani-
stances of the times. But those who were in the administration
of India at present had a right to have their conduct judged by
existing laws, and it was not fair to them to consider their con-
duct was faulty, because the system on which they were hound to
act was wrong. The conduct of those individuals must neces-
sarily be faulty with those who identified them with the system
which they disapproved, because it was conformable to the laws
which the authorities in India were bound to observe. But
who was to blame for this, if blame must fall somewhere ?
Not the individuals now in the Administration of lndia,—not
the East India Company,—not the Executive Government,—
but the Legislature who had framed that law which they deemed
necessary for carrying on the Government of that great, anoma-
lous, and astonishing empire. As to the conduct of the Indian
administration, repelling as unfair and invidious the use made of
the word transportation, as applied to the removal of an indi-
vidual from one country to another, he would consider whether
the conduct of Mr. Adams towards Mr. Buckingham was justi-
fiable. The Act of Parliament, which gave the Governor-Ge-
neral the power of removing an individual from India, pointed
out the specific means by which redress could be obtained where ,
that power was unjustifiably exercised. But here was a case
in which the Governor-General was complained of, because ,
he had acted on a law granted, not in his own behalf, but for
the security of India, which prescribed the punishment of
sending from India persons guilty of such offences as had
been imputed to the present Petitioner. If Mr. Buckingham
were not guilty, lie would readily .agree that he was a most
aggrieved individual, and for this case the Act of Parliament,
which gave the power, provided for the punishment of the party
misusing it. He was reminded by his Right Hon. Friend that
this was not provided for in the same Act, but in one which
had preceded it, which however had been incorporated with the
last Act for renewing the exclusive privileges of the East
India Company. By that law, an individual complaining of
the abuse of the power in question was enabled to seek redress,
horttbefore an Indian, but before an English tribunal, and the
first steps towards obtaining such redress had, in the present
Icase, been taken by Mr. Buckingham. Such being the fact,
he would ask with what propriety that House could interfere
in this
il have a
Country,_ cause
at present, any more than they could between individual and
o f
Kin individual,es Benchwho might
se endinga
case was made out I, on
had commenced should be brought
could not, with propriety, in because prima
aCiyaucri;
J e of theni. Till the proceedings wnich
stbroentogrep.
to a conclusion, the House
interfere. Those terminated, the
case would' be wholly different, and it would be open for con-
sideration how far the present system was favourable to the
interests of British subjects, and whether or not, after the
period to which he had alluded, it ought to continue.. He
should then be ready.to givelhe question -his best coneider-

ation; but he could not consent to discuss a great political ques-
tion now incidentally on the ease of a particular individual,
and while legal proceedings were pending, to the prejudice
of the accused, and for the benefit of the accuser.- He had
certainly manifested much -surprise when. Lord Amherst was
mentioned as he had been on this occasion. When he heard.
him described to have become a tyrant since he went to India,
he was astonished. From what he knew of that Noble Lord,
he should as soon have expected that through being removed
to India, he would become a tyger.—(A laugh.)—He was sur-
prised at what he had heard, and certainly looked at the state.
went with the greatest incredulity, but still open to convic-
tion, as lie held it to be his duty, in the case of a friend as in the
case of an indifferent person—in the case of the highest as in
that of the most obscure individual. It might prove true..
Power had a tendency to change men from what they had been
wanting power. It was possible, that a character, the mildest
the noblest, had become savage and ferocious. This might be
so, but if such should prove the case, it would to him appear
among the most extraordinary physical phenomena of which he
had ever hear4.--,(A laugh.) sr
',rite respect to another point, it
was due in forbearance for himself, and in justice to others,
to restrain within moderate limits the kind suppositions of the
Honourable Gentleman opposite, as to what his conduct had
been. He would do this by stating facts. It seemed to
him that a mistake prevailed as to what the conduct of Lord
Hastings had been. It was supposed that all the guard of
the Press had been thrown down by that Nobleman—that he
had perMitted, nay, that he had almost offered prizes to en-
courage free discussion in India on all the most delicate and
dangerous subjects that could be brought into debate. Lord
Hastings had done- no such thing. Ile had withdrawn one set
of guards, but for these he had substituted another. The ques-
tion which had come before him was not whether there should
he any restrictions on the Press in India, or none, but whe-
ther the restrictions devised by Lord Hastings, which, without
betraying any secrets, he might mention, or whether those
which had previously been in force should be restored. Ire
was- not responsible for either, but would state how the case
had stood. After the destruction of the old restrictions the
East India Company had certainly wished them to be restored,
in place cf those which had been substituted for them, and
the draft of a regulation on this subject had been sent to the
Board of Controul, from he unquestionably had withheld the
sanction of the Crown. If proved to be equally efficient, he
should certainly prefer the latter to the former regulations—a
course of admonition to one of supervision and restraint. He
had no hesitation in saying, that in the first instance he did not
know that he should have recommended the abolition of the cen-
sure on the Indian press, but being abolished, and a new set of
regulations in force, he did wish that their efficacy should be
tried before recourse was had to the old system. As far as he
could recollect, it was in 1820 that accounts were received of
what Lord Hastings had done. The draft of the order on this
subject which the East India Company wished to he sent out was
then sent to the Board of Controul. This came to him about the
middle of the year; he kept it by him unapproved tili.the end
of it, when he ceased to have any farther responsibility on the
subject. He had wished the new plan to be fairly tried before
peremptory instructions should be sent out to rescind them,
and to restore/those which had previously been in force.—
But when such unqualified panegyrics were bestowed upon
him and the Marquis of Hastings as had been pronounced
on this occasion. Gralemen ought to knew the true state of
the case and understand exactly what had been done. When
Lord Hastings went to India, he found regulations in force
which. had been framed by Lord Wellesley, who, in his judg-
ment, was no great enemy to the press in the abstract, and who
had in many instances been found the friend and, the patron of
literature. These were as follow :

" Every Printer to put his name at the bottom of each news-
paper he publishes.
Every Editor and Proprietor of a Newspaper to give in
his name and place of abode.
" No Newspaper whatever to be published on a Sunday.
" No paper to be published at all till inspected by the Go-
vernor-General, or by some one for him.
The penalty of breaking any of these regulations, immediate
embarkation for Europe."
Those restrictions Lord Hastings certainly abolished, and then
the idea was that the Press became " free as air," and was-re-
lieved from all restraint. Such was not the case, but other checks
were devised which he would now repeat. The restrictions of
Lord Hastings were these —First, " Editors of Newspapers were
prohibited from 'publishing any thing under the heads of anim-
adversions on the proceedings of the Hon. Court of Directors, or
of any other public body connected with the Government of In-
dia—Disquisitions on the political or local administration, or
offensive remarks on the conduct of Mealiers of Council—the
Judges of the Supreme Courts, or the Right Rev. Bishop of
Calcutta.—(A laugh.)—Secondly, They were prohibited from
publishing any thing calculated to create alarm or suspicion
among the Natives, that Government had it in contemplation
in any way to interfere-with their religion.—Thirdly they were
restrained from reprinting from English newspapers articles
that came under any of the above heads ; and fourthly, they
were prohibited from giving p:lblicity to private scandal or
remarks on individuals tending to create dissensions in So-
ciety."—(A laugh. )—These were the regulations of Lord Hast-
ings.. He was not defending or inculpating them, but they were
not exactly what they might suppose who represented that Noble
Lord to have made the Press free as air," and to have en-
couraged free and uncontrouled debate throughout India.—
When it was urged that a free press might do good in India, he
should certainly be inclined to say, " give me a free press re-
gulated by Lord Hastings, and there can be nothing to fear
from its excessive license."—(A laugh.)—lt was necessary that
these things should be known. Ire stated them at a great sa-
crifice of reputation with those who had included him in the
Panegyric bestowed. on Lord Hastings. He however wished
it to be fully understood, that the qUestion which had come
before him wits merely this—whether the change being al-
ready made, it was necessary to send out a peremptory or-
der to rescind the new resolutions. Ile certainly thought
it not worth while to do so till they had had a further trial,
and if they were found to succeed, then certainly Ile should
not have advised rescinding them at all. But he did not re-
main long enough in office to know whether they succeeded or
not, and therefore could not say what course he might ultimately
have pursued. What he did do was to negative the draft of a
new order on the subject, which had been sent to the Board of
Controul.by the Directors of the East India Comrany. Great
as his attachment might be to liberal principles, when he saw
two such men as Lord Wellesley,and Lord Hastings concur in
thinking some controul over the press in India necessary,
differing only in degree, he did not say that they must
necessarily be right, but this he would say, that the wisest
among them might well pause before lie pronounced an una
qualified condemnation en that which they had approved.—
He had considered it due to Lord Wellesley, and even to
Lord Hastings, as reputation gained on false grounds could
never last to state these facts. When the case- which he con-
sidered to be pending between Mr. Buckingham and Mr.
Adams should be decided (when that would be he could not say)
lie would admit the utmost attention ought to be.given to some
of the subjects which had now been touched upon. He, how-
ever, would not consent to. discuss it on abstract principles,
and with reference to the happy and enlightened state of
society in this country, but practically, and with reference to
a state of society, not only different, but opposite, were the
untrained manners of the natives had only given way to the
restraints of a succession of conquerors. The question, as
he had said, ought not to be disposed of on the abstract merits
of the case without regard to the peculiar circumstances by
which it was surrounded, guided by such practical information,
as they could obtain, and where would they find greater au-
thorities than the two Noblemen he had named to assist them
in the performance of their task. Whatever M r. Adams had
done under the law of India, his conduct must be judged by
that law and not by those superior laws which England en-
joyed, however we might wish that the liberal principles on
which they were founded should, When practicable, be extended
to every place where our authority was acknowledged. With
Mr. Adams he had no acquaintance, but it would be injustice
-not to say that he was a man who had raised himself by the
most undoubted merit, acknowledged not only by one favour-
ing superior but by a succession of distinguished individuals
who had witnessed his exertions. He himself could truly say
that in situations dsingular difficulty, Mr. Adams had in a great
degree distinguished himselfby the manliness and integrity ofhis
conduct, which impressed upon him a belief that the leading de-
termination of his mind was to act with honesty and uprightness,
cost what it might. He might nevertheless have overstepped his
duty—he might have been guilty of violence and oppression.
If this were so, the case was in course of being brought to trial
beitbre that tribunal which Parliament had appointed to take
cognizance of such misdeeds ; and if he were guilty, God forbid
that he should not be punished ; but he thought it would be most
improper for that House to step in and prejudge the question
to be fried in another place. He objected to enter upon the
case there, where the system would be confounded with the
conduct ctf the individual. The party accused ought not to be
censured for the administration of a law which was disapproved,
and exercising under that law a power which it was now their
opinion ought to be restrained. There, the two subjects of con-
siaeration could not be separated, as they would be in a Court
of Justice, but the case of the individual disposed of he should
not only not object, but should desire that the advantages of a
free press in India should . be fairly considered, together with
those restrictions which might be necessary to regulate our in-
tercourse with the Indian Empire, with a view to apply those
principles which were acted upon here so far as they should be
suitabie to the progress of wealth and civilization in those re-
gions.—(Hear, hear !)
.. Mr. DENMAN thought the close of the speech of the Right
Honourable Gentleman who had just set down, and the
opening remarks of the President of the Board of Controul,
were founded on a mistaken view of the case before the

House. They supposed Mr. Buckingham to have offended the
laws now in force, but the fact was, he had 'contravened no laws
at all. Mr. Buckingham, on coming to England, had done
him the honour to take his opinion on the case, and considering
legal proceedings completely at an end, he now spoke as he
should not otherwise have felt himself .at liberty to do. He
had no intention of going on, and if after presenting the
petition which was before the House, in which tkiis was stated,
he were now to bring the case into a CourtkoNustice, he
would do under 'circumstances disgraceful to liThiself, and
he (Mr. Denman) would on no account be connected With it as
a legal advocate. He wished to 'knot* how long the circum-
stance of Mr. Buckinghain'a having-entered into recognizances
at Calcutta was to preclude him from the benefit of having his
case taken into consideration in that House. He wished to
know if it were to operate against him next year as well as this.
He for one had advised Mr. Buckingham not to go on, conclud-
ing the remedy held out to persons in his situation to be but no-
' moral. There were laws for protecting Authorities against abuses
of the press, and Wl.:y were they not to be resorted to in India ?
He had heard the defence made by the Right Hon. Gentleman
with horror. It was introducing an Indian atmosphere into that
House which he was not prepared to breathe. If restrictive laws
were to exist, such laws were to be resorted to : and as the
Hon. Baronet had said, nothing could tolerate the existence of
this enormous and cruel power but some overwhelming emer-
gency, such as the law could not reach. With regard to what
had been said of the influence of arbitrary power upon the
minds of men, it happened to him that he was a schoolfellow
of Mr. Adam, and remembered him as possessing a most mild,
humane and amiable disposition. But here was an illustra-
tion of the principle that no man could be safely intrusted with
such a power; for he declared most conscientiously that he
believed Mr. Adam to have done a most cruel and unjusti-
fiable act. He was sincerely thankful that this discussion had
taken place, because it exposed the system under which the
colony of India was governed, and sheaved the necessity of re-
vising it from top to bottom, and of afibrding protection from
its oppressive character to our Indian fellow-subjects.
Mr. LAMBTON replied. Ile had satisfied himself that the
proceedings alluded to were abandoned, or lie should not have
presented the petition.. He would not , have been a party to
obtaining this discussion under false pretences, for the purpose
of prejudicing a question which was afterwards to be decided
by law.
After some further observations by the Hon. Gentleman, the
Petition was ordered to be printed.