The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON', TUESIDAIt, JUNE 30, 1835.

point urged upon him by the Chairman and Deputy Chair-
man, v.ho, although they said they were willing to take
his word, wanted to know how they were to be guaranteed
against the appointments of the preceding Government? To
this he had replied, that he could give no guarantee as to what
would be done, but that he thought they need anticipate no
difficulty if their opponents again came into power, as there
could be little doubt of Lord Heytesbury being again ap-
pointed ; but that they might be sure of removing all difficulty
by announcing every two months that they had made an ap-
pointment, which he, with all civility, would tell them could
not be agreed to. It was no fault of his ( Sir J. Hobhouse's)
that the Hon. Gentleman had dragged into the discussion the
name of a Noble Lord to whom he hoped he should not give
offence by the manner in which he should endeavour to speak
of him. The Hon. Gentleman had asked whether there was
anything about that Noble Lord to which he or the Govern-
ment had a right to object—whether there was any personal
objection to him ? meaning, he presumed, an objection con-
nected with his personal character. His answer was, " None
at all." How could the Hon. Gentleman ask the question ?
The Hon. Member asked, also, whether there was any poli-
tical objection to the Noble Lord, and at this question he was
equally surprised. Another question might answer it. Did
the Hon. Gentleman think that, supposing the present Govern-
ment had been in power at the time, they would have appointed
Lord Heytesbury?
Mr. PRA E D—No.

Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE—WouId it have been a charge

then, against the Government for not appointing him
( Laughter and cheers.) Did the Hon. Gentleman really think
that he ( Sir J. Hobhouse) was bound to state to him what his
objections were to Lord Heytesbury, except that his appoint-
ment would not have been justifiable in the eyes of the present
Government if its members had been at the time in office ?
But he would put another question to the Hon. Gentleman.
If Lord Heytesbury had, under these circumstances, gone out,
did not the Hon. Gentleman think, and would he not feel
himself bound in candour to confess, that the present Ministry
would have been responsible for the acts of that Noble Lord?
Mr. PRA ED—The late Government did not recal Sir R.
Grant.

Sir JOHN HOB HO U SE—Tbe cases were quite distinct,
as he should presently show. Had Lord Heytesbury gone
out, he would have had to receive his instructions from the
present Government, and supposing he had received instruc-
tions from the Office he had the honour to hold, would not the
Government and himself have been answerable for that Noble
Lord's administration of the affairs of India?
Mr. PR A ED—Certainly.
Sir JOHN HOBHO USE—Then that was the real long
and short of the objection.—( Hear, hear.) The King's Go-
vernment had to consider whether it would be answerable for
Lord Heytesbury's Government in India or would not ; and
not wishing to be answerable for it, the course it had to take
was simple and obvious. Not only-were they justified in va-
cating his appointment, but called upon by the Constitution
to do so, for it was one of the first principles of the Consti-
tution that there should in all cases be responsible advisers
for every act done. This was the real cause of Lord Heytes-
bury not going to India.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had
asked him whether or not, since he had bad the honour of
being at the Board of Control, he had not seen proofs of the
extreme liberality of Lord Ellenborough, and whether he had
not thought it his duty to confirm several of his acts ? He
( Sir J. Hobhouse) was a most incompetent person to reply to
such a question, for he had been in that office but a short
time compared with the Noble Lord ; but although he might
think him a fit head of the Board of Control, as far as capa-
city was concerned, that was a very different thing from ap-
proving of a nominee of his as Governor of India. Of course
he objected to that.—( Hear.) He did not object to Lord
Ellenhorong,h's capacity to sit at the Board of Control, but
he objected very much to his sending a Governor- General to
I :clia for him.—( Hear, hear.) He was willing to admit
teat he had seen proofs and documents which convinced him
that Lord Ellenborough took very large and enlightened
views of public policy ; but that opinion, which he only
gave because he was askcd for it, was quite a distinct
ihing from the inference the Hon. Member wished to be drawn
from it, viz., that because lie considered Lord Ellenborough
an enlightened and able man, calculated to play a distin-
guished part in any Government, he should, therefore, confirm
luis appointment of Lord Heytesbury, who had not sailed from
his country. There were, moreover, some points on which
he took the liberty of differing from the Noble Lord ; and the
abjection to confirming his appointment was much strengthened
by the singular fact that the Governor-General-received no in-
:tructiuns in writing on leaving this country. either from the
Court. of Directors or the Board of Control. If the Noble
Lord had gone to India with the verbal instructions he had re-
eeived from Lord Ellenborough, they might, as far as his ( Sir
J. Hothouse's) opinion was concerned, have been right or
:vrong, and the only mode there was of freeing himself from
his apprehensions, was by giving Lord Ileytesbury his instruc-
tions, that was, to become the Minister responsible for his acts
.which he did nut choose to do ; and therefore, with the con-
eurrence of the ether Members of his Majesty's Govern-
ment, the vacation of his appointment was advised. The
lion. Gentleman had not disputed the King's prerogative.
That was too bold a task for him to undertake. But he had
niade use of an argument which his reading must have in-
Cormed him had been had recourse to without effect in the de,
imte of 1806. He stated thikt by the Act of 1784 ( Mr. Pitt's
Art) the real substantial power of selecting the Governor-
General of India, was meant to be vestad entirely in the Com-
pany, and that the whole spirit of the Act was in favour of
That proposition. Now, in the debate of 1806, Lord Mei-
, file broadly laid down the principle upon which he (Sir J.
Hobhouse) now rested, and appealed to Lord Grenville, who
"-as in Parliament at the passing of the Act, to say who
-her the intention of the Act was not to establish that
orineiple.—( Hear.) Lord Grenville afterwards said, " He
had been appealed to personally as to his recollection of the
intention of the Legislature in passing the Act ; he should,
therefore, declare most solemnly that it was as clearly in his
recollection as if the transaction was of yesterday, that it was
certainly intended that his Majesty's Ministers should have the
power of recal at their own discretion."—( Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman, appeared willing to allow that proposition.
What complaint, then, was there against the Government for
having exercised its discretion in this instance? There was
none ; and the Hon. Gentleman had not been able in his
speech to make out any cause of complaint. He would here
take the liberty of making a remark upon one circumstance
which he was sure must have struck the Hon. Gentleman in
his consideration of this subject ; it was that those best ac-
quainted and most intimately connected with India had not
thought it worth while to take any special notice of this recal
of Lord Heytesbury. The lion. Gentleman must be aware
that it was in the power of nine East India Proprietors to call
a Special Court for the purpose of considering any subject of
importance ; but although the vacation of Lord Heytesbury's
appointment had taken place two months and a half back, no
Court bad been called for the purpose of considering it; and
on Wednesday last, which was the first opportunity the Pro-
prietors had of taking the slightest notice of the matter, so
little attention did it attract, that he was informed by an eye-
witness, there were no more than 20 Proprietors present beside
the Directors, when an ex-Director gave notice, on the part of
an absent Proprietor, that he meant on a future occasion to
bring the subject forward. If, then, those most interested in the
affairs of our vast eastern empire had not thought themselves
called upon to complain, what right, or perhaps more properly
s -waking, what just pretext for complaint could the Hon. Gen-
tleman set up ? The lion. Gentleman had said that the course
taken by the Government would be injurious to the authority
of the Court of Directors in India. Perhaps that effect might,
to a certain extent, follow, as it might have followed from
reading the accounts of the great discussions which took place
in the House in 1833, when the King's Government were op-
posed on all the important parts of this Bill by influential
members of the Court of Directors, and when the King's Go-
vernment carried the Bill through the House in spite of them.
But if it were necessary that a cordial sympathy should exist
between the head of our vast empire in the east and the King's
servants at home, it was better that the Court of Directors
should receive that shock, such as it was, than that the cordial
sympathy he spoke of should be destroyed. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated (and he believed correctly) that it had
I:een h;therto supposed that the appointment of the Governor-
General involved uo political feeling. However that might
be, he had the authority of a very distinguished member of
the present Court of Directors delivered in a letter written in
1833 in favour of' the doctrine, that the Governor-General
must have the confidence of the Administration at home. Mr.
Tucker, in his dissent to certain parts of Mr. Grant's (now
Lord Glenelginew India Bill, said, that although he thought
the councils of India should be appointed by the Court of
Directors, yet that the Presidents themselves could not be.
His words were these—" We do not exercise the same inde-
pendent power in appointing the Governors of India. His
Majesty's Ministers must, for obvious reasons, be parties to
such appointments. These high functionaries have generally
been political characters of distinction connected with the Ad-
ministration, and they must possess the confidence of the na-
tional Government."—( Hear, hear.) These were the words
of Mr. Tucker in 1833. If, therefore, Lord Heytesbury had
gone out, the anomalous precedent would have been esta-
blished of a Governor-General leaving England for India
in whom the Government of the day had no confidence,—
( Hear, hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman mean to say
that that would be right? He could not say so. For his
own part, looking to the complex manner in which India
was to be governed, they would have set a precedent
liable to the most pernicious abuse, if they had allowed to
proceed to India a man who, whatever his private charac-
ter might be—whatever his capacity might be, without the
approbation of the Government in concert with whom he
was to act. The Hon. Gentleman stated that the Right Hon.
Baronet lately at the head of the Government acted in a man-
ner very different from the present Government, and instanced
the cases of Sir Robert Grant and Mr. Macaulay. But was
there any similarity between the two cases ? Was the Right
Hon. Baronet responsible for the appointment of Mr. Grant or
Mr. Macaulay ? Certainly not ; and had Lord Heytesbury
been on his passage to India when the present Government
came into office, he was far from saying that he should have
been ready to advise his recall. With respect to Mr. Macaulay
individually he would say, with all respect for both sides of the
House, that he thought it might be quite as well for them that
that Right Hon. Gentleman was not recalled.—( Hear, hear,
and laughter.) But really what had Mr. Macaulay done that
Lord Ellenborough should take credit to himself for not re-
calling him ? When the Hon. Gentleman asked what Lord
Heytesbury had done that the present Government did not
confirm his appointment, be should have been prepared to show
that there was ground for recalling Mr. Macaulay before mak-
ingit a matter of boast that he was not recalled. It appeared
that there had been a difference of opinion as to the construc-
tion of a clauFe in the Act of Parliament, and that he had
siisned papers both in a legislative and executive capacity.
Cord Ellenborough, on learning this, took counsels' opinion
on the point, and had for answer, that the Act of Parliament
did not pbrmit Mr. Macaulay to gt iz any way except as 4

legislative member of the Council, and that a power of inter-
ference on his paat as an executive member was not sanctioned
by the Act.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") There were
however, some doubts as to the correctness of that construe-

tion, and when the matter was before him ( Sir John Hob-
house) three or four days ago, he was not quite sure whether
some precise order should be _sent out to prevent any mistake
in future. But that Mr. Macauley had committed any gross
error, of a nature that would justify his recal, he denied ;
and he denied any merit to the late Government for not re-
calling him,—( Hear, hear.) He would only briefly refer to '
the manner in which Lord Heytesbury's recal was made, and
for which, as he before stated, he alone was responsible. If
there was any thing improper in it, he was sorry for it ; but
he believed there had been no want of courtesy on his part,
and no informality of which the Court of Directors could
justly complain. It was his interest, as well as his pleasure,
to keep well with those Gentlemen with whom he had the
honour of conversing once a week. But the Honourable
Gentleman said that the fact was communicated to the Court
of Directors without those previous long conferences which
took place when Sir George Barlow was recalled from India.
There was not, and for the best of all reasons, that the only
question in this case was, that we had no confidence in Lord
Heytesbury, and no arguments of the Court of Directors
could have persuaded us to have confidence in him.—( Hear.)
He was not aware that it was necessary for him to trespass
any further on the attention of the House. Certainly the
King's Government might have taken a different course, and
might have shrunk from the responsibility of appointing a per-
son to this high office. By doing so they might have conci-
liated their political opponents under the mask of candour;
and might have taken credit for forbearance, but which, when
the truth came to be told, would only have been imputed—
and fairly imputed—to the fear of giving offence.--( Hear.) By
so doing he had no doubt they might have gained a little tem-
porary and insincere applause from those who were their con-
stant and conscientious opponents; but they would at the
same time have incurred—and fairly incurred—the censure
of their warmest friends and confidants.—( Ministerial cheers. )
But this course he thought would have been unworthy of any
Administration at any time ; but in these times he thought it
would be peculiarly so ; because it appeared to him that for
men engaged in a very great and perilous, and he trusted
also honourable enterprise, to delegate duties of the highest
importance to any but men who had not only a political, but
a personal attachment to them, was a feebleness not only
foolish, but fatal.—( Loud cheers.) That was his conscientious
opinion ; for after having yielded (as had been formerly the
case) at the outset of the grand struggle in which they had
engaged to difficulties of their own creation, in a manner not
only injurious to their interests, but also to their character,
they would in all probability have dropt from concession to
concession, until at last, after losing every remnant, not only
of power, but of character, they would have fallen, and de-
servedly fallen, under the bitter scorn of their enemies, and
the contemptuous pity of their friends. For himself—he
knew not what other Gentlemen might feel—he would sooner
fail in an honest enterprize, surrounded by sincere and ardent
friends, than owe a precarious success to the cold co-operation
of persons who were at the best but doubtful and mistrustful
allies—( Cheers) ; and he must take the liberty of adding,
that he could rather console himself under defeat with the one,
than he could reconcile himself to victory with the other.—
(Loud cheers.) These principles of Government, if they
be correct at any time, are peculiarly correct at this
particular time ; and he thought that amongst many
things worthy of notice, and which would descend in the page
of history to posterity, relative to the conduct of the Right
Hon. Baronet who was lately at the head of his Majesty's
Government, was the declaration of that sentiment in which
be declared and upheld the necessity of a cordial attachment
between men leagued together for a good purpose, and in
which he overthrew that miserable pretence of consulting
" measures and not men."—( Cheers.) He trusted that the
present Government would act upon that principle. He
trusted, that having commenced by this step ( which he ad-
mitted did seem to be a hardship, for lie owned that that was
his first objection to it, and that he felt that it looked as if par-
taking sometimes of personality and of political animosity--
but fee ing the necessity of actin.- upon this, to him incontro-
vertible pr he trusted that), the Government with which
he had the honour now to be connected would persevere in it,
and that whenever they were imperiously called upon to do so,
they would act in strict conformity with the principle upon
which he had now justified Lord Heytesbury's supercession.
Ile was quite sure that by so acting they would be supported,
not only as far as the authority of Parliament went, but would
be backed by their own consciences as well as by the ap-
proving voice of their country.—( Cheers.) He was obliged,
therefore, to oppose the production of these papers.
Mr. S. HER BERT supported the motion.
Mr. HOGG followed, and observed, that the entire speech
of the Right Hon. Baronet was a justification of the conduct of
tie Government in the rescinding of Lord Heytesbury's ap-
pointment, on the ground that it was a political appointment.
f he Right Hon. Baronet said, that he should be responsible
fir the conduct of the Governor-General, and therefore was
justified in the counsel he had given; but there was en ob-
vious distinctionl between the refusal of art appointment,
where no appointment had taken place, and the cancelling
of an appointment which' had taken place. , He (Mr. Hogg)
would contend that the appointment of a Governor-General.
which had been sanctioned by the Crown, ought not to be
rescinded, except for gross misconduct or gross ineapacity. If
the appoiutrnent of Lord Heytesbury was rescinded on either
of these grounds, the fact ought not to be concealed, but
should be made as public as possible. He would mention the
case of the appointment of Lord William Bentinck by Mr.
Canning. Two governments had intervened ; that of Lord
Gaderich, and else the Government of the Drake of Wel-
lington ; Lut neither one nor the other of those Govern-
ments interfered, and yet the appointment of Lord William
Bentinck was not exactly the one which the Duke of Wel.
lington would himself have made.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought that the conduct of the present Government tended
to lessen the respect due to the Court of Directors : it was
certainly contrary to precedent ; and would manifestly impair
the efficiency of the civil service and the influence of our Go-
vernment in India.—( Opposition cheers.)
Mr. R. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said that his Hon.
Friend who had just spoken, had addressed his arguments en-
tirely to the question of the recal of a Governor-General from
India, Is hereas the question before the House was not one re-
specting the recal. of a Governor, but merely as to the vacat-
ing of an appointment.—(Hear, hear.) He should be ex-
tremely sorry to say anything that could take away from the
respect due to the Court of Directors; but although he did
not attach any blame to them, or to the late Government, for
the appointment of Lord Haytesbury, yet lie did not think
that their authority would be impaired by the exercise of the
power possessed by the present Government over that appoint-
ment. This was a particular case. It was not a question of
recal. They were now at the commencement of carrying into
effect a system totally new in the government of India; and
which system was established by the persons who were now his
present Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) It was, there-
fore, but safe and right that those persons, beii.g now in
power, should select an individual most in their confidence,
and whom they knew to be most friendly to that new system
which they had established there, for the purpose of carrying
the objects of the new India Bill into complete effect.—
(Cheers.) Under the whole circumstances of the present
case, considering that the appointment was not complete, and
that Lord Heytesbury never had been sworn in, he.contended
that the Government would have failed iii discharging a duty
towards themselves, and incurred a responsibility they were
not bound to incur, if they had continued in office a person in
whom they had not confidence, and failed to propose an indi-
vidual in whom they had confidence, to carry into effect, when
the proper time for so doing should arrive, the great objects the
Government had in view.—( Cheers.)
Mr. BUCKINGHAM, from long experience and know-
ledge of the subject, bore testimony to the accuracy of the
general principle, that the persorr appointed as Governor-Ge-
ral of India, should be one in whom the Government could
repose the highest and most unlimited confidence. It was
perfectly obvious that the President of the Board of Control
would have to answer for the acts of the Governor-General in
that House. Was it not reasonable then, that he should ap-
point to the office some individual in whom he could place
entire confidence ?—( Hear, hear.) The Governor-General
of India had, at the present moment, duties of a far more im-
portant nature than usual to discharge.
Mr. CR E S SET PE L HA M strongly reprebattel the can-
celling of Lord Heytesbury's appointment.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
thought he might correctly state, had rested this recal on the
single ground that he had not confidence in Lord Heytesbury
on account merely of a divergence of political opinion.—( Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) Now he wanted to examine the
Right Hon. Gentleman's argument, and he must say in the
outset, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not convinced
him that this was a just exercise of the prerogative of the
Crown. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said in effect,
" I have not confidence in Lord Heytesbury, and that is the
ground on which I refuse to sanction the appointment. I
will not let Lord Etlenborough nominate my Governor-Ge-
neral of India." Why, if this argument were well founded, it
went to this extent—that they must introduce into India all
the colours and shades of political difference in this country;
and set an example which, derived from the fountain head and
extended to the chief offices of Government, would tend to in-
troduce into India, for the first time, party dissensions and party
differences ; and thus weaken the control which England pos-
sessed over the dominion of that part of the globe.—( Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said, " If Lord Heytes-
bury had left England I would not have recalled him, but the
appointment is incomplete ; he has not sailed." Was this con-
sistent ?—( Cheers.) If want of confidence in Lord Heytes-
, bury justified the revocation of his appointment, how could the
Right Hon. Gentleman have permitted Lord Heytesbury to
remain in die government of India, supposing him to have left
this country before the Right Hon. Gentleman's accession to
the office he held ? There was no distinction between the case
of an appointment in which the individual bad not set out,
and one in which he was actually exercising the functions of
his office in India. He quite agreed in the principle laid
down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was not right
or proper for a Government to continue in high executive
offices at home the persons who bad been appointed by their
predecessors; but admitting the principle to its fullest ex-
; tent, he would contend that it did not apply to India. It
was a neutral territory, in which politics ought not to enter.
The Act of 1784, which established the power of recal, was
passed under peculiar circumstances. After the House of
Commons had expresied in a resolution their opinion that Mr.
Hastings ought to be recalled, and after the Court of Direc-
tors had sanctioned his recal, the Court of Proprietors refused
to confirm it. Mr. Fox expressed his opinion that the Court
of Diieetors had the power to insist on his recal -without the
sanction of the Court of Proprietors ; butt as the Court of Di-
rectors hesitated to exercise it, the power given by the Act was
originally established. The intention merely was to reserve to
the Crown the power of Mauling for de,Jioqueney, not for the

purpose of insuring the appointment of a partisan in political
opinion.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had only
been enabled to refer to one precedent, and that was the case
of Sir George Barlow, the circumstances of which were so pe-
culiar that it was in fact no precedent at all. The case of Lord
Minto, who sailed in March, Mr. Perceval being appointed in
April, was precisely similar, except so far as the indivi-
dual hardship was concerned, to that of Lord Heytes-
bury. They had the power of sending out a swift-sailing
vessel to prevent his being sworn, and entering upon
the administration of his duties. The case of Lord W.
Bentinck appointed by one Government, and retained
after two changes, who did not sail until a month after the
Duke of Wellington's Government had been appointed, was a
second proof of the ratification and confirmation of the princi-
ple that, provided the Government had confidence in the ge-
neral integrity and experience in public life of the individual
appointed, they did not contract any personal responsibility by
continuing him in office.—( Cheers from the Opposition.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to consider he put a con-
clusive question when he said, " Would I have appointed
Lord Heytesbury ?" Certainly not; but then he ( Sir Robert
Peel) might put another question, and ask, " Would I have
appointed Sir Robert Grant or Mr. Macaulay ?" ( Loud cheers
from the Opposition.) One word on the bearing the course
pursued must have on the policy of this country in India. It
was impossible to conceal the peculiar circumstances under
which our dominion in India was preserved ; it was recom-
mended to eighty millions of people—the inhabitants of those
vast regions—not by any participation in our political
creed—not. by any admiration of our civil institutions—t
rested merely upon their general confidence in our Govern-
ment, and the native inhabitants were kept in awe by the
belief that there was complete unity among the foreigners
who presided over the destinies o f their country. Intro-
duce party dissensions, let the people of India be sepa-
rated by the same animosities that agitated this country, and the
secret of our strength was lost. It would tend also to weaken
the Royal authority in India if it were known that the Royal
sanction being given to an appointment meant merely the ap-
probation of the existing Government.—( Cheers.) When
the East India Company was stripped of its authority,
and deprived of its commercial functions, its political
functions were preserved, and the Company retained as
an intermediate body in India, on two grounds—first he
presumed from the force of prescription, and, secondly, be-
cause, in a constitutional point of view, the patronage of India
was too enormous to be exercised by the Government of Eng-
land. How could they expect a body existing only by opinion
to retain its character or preserve the exercise of its political
functions, if they reversed its very first act under its new
constitution.—( Cheers.) On those grounds he trusted the
Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition to the
motion.

Mr. VERNON SMITH contended that there was a very
wide distinction between recalling the individual appointed
and cancelling his appointment. The former proceeding,
certainly, would involve considerable disgrace ; .but the lat-
ter, as he conceived, rested on a very different footing.
The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to the case of Lord
William Bentinck ; but to have made the analogy complete,
he should have told the House whether that Nobleman enjoyed
the confidence of the Duke of Wellington. As to Sir Robert
Grant, he conceived that the case of Sir Robert Grant at
Bombay was very different from that of the Governor-General
of India; and with regard to Mr. Macaulay, he apprehended
that no Gentleman would seriously contend that the case of
that gentleman's appointment could be brought to bear upon
the present—( Hear, hear). In spite of the calm and tempe-
rate tone in which the subject had been introduced, he could
consider it as nothing but a party motion, brought forward for
party purposes.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches—
" No, no l" from the Opposition.) He really could not help
thinking that the present motion originated in a feeling of
anger and disappointment that the present Administration
should have displayed so much vigour in one of its first acts.
—(Cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The real question which the
Hon. Member for Beverley wished to propose to the House
was, after all, whether the present Government should or should
not have the power of refusing to intrust very high political
functions, extending over a great portion of the globe to a
person in whom they had not political confidence.—(Loud
cheers.) That the Hon. Gentleman should think Lord Hey-
tesbury worthy of all political functions was extremely natural
on his part—Lextremely natural on that of the Right Hon.
Baronet ; but he thought it would be rather strange and some-
what imprudent if his Right 'Hon. Friend knowing Lord Hey-
tesbury's political opinions, and not having any particular rea-
son to place political confidence in him, were to retain him in
the office to which he had been appointed, forward instruc-
tions to him as Governor-General of India from time to time,
and make himself responsible for his acts.—(Cheers.) Was
it not notorious that, for years past, the Governors-General
had always been chosen on account of their political senti-
ments Hear, hear.) Did not Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville
take care, in the appointments which they made, that the per-
sons chosen should have the .same general political senti-
ments and views with the Government from which the ap-
pointments emanated? Why did 'Mr. Canning appoint Lord
Wm. Bentinck, but because his general political views ac-
corded with his? He thought that the present Government
were perfectly justified in cancelling the appointment of Lord
Ileytesbury, and sending out another Governor with new in-
structions, and who will he ready to put in practice their gene-
ral opinions and views. It was of peculiar importance, indeed
it was the only safe course which could be adopted, that this
of
important functionarytiie G orirns
chi?
tuLd
(blio
aar ehresaorn. who)
Nvhi
tand
rtehsei
permanent appointments, it might, perhaps, be proper that they
respect to
dente o
should be continued; but as regarded the Governor-General-
ship, he considered that the Government would be betraying
themselves and the country, if they did not appoint a person
whom they could have confidence.—(Cheers.)
The House then divided, when there appeared,
Ayes
Noes
Majority for Ministers
CORPORATION BILL.

179
. 254

On our re-entering the Gallery we found the House in
Committee on the Corporation Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed the consideration of
the 10th clause for the purpose of considering further the
alterations which had been suggested.
The 11th clause was then moved.
Colonel SIBTHORP proposed an amendment, to the ef-
fect that every elector should be made liable to the payment
of all borough rates, parochial or otherwise, for the period of
six months from the period at which any shop shall have been
opened by him for the purpose of a sale, show, or trade in the
said borough. He contended that some security was neces-
sary for the resident tradesmen, to prevent the influx of fo-
,reigners, Radical adventurers, and the satellites of men flung
by chance into power.
Mr. A. TREVOR said that the amendment of the Gallant
Colonel was the only thing that could prevent the influx of
the tag-rag-and-bobtail from other, parts of the country, who
would inundate the respectable and old settled inhabitants of
the town—fellows who were not worth the qualification, and
who, if they got it, would turn it to the worst uses. Hon.
Members could not make black white, nor could they make
alien adventurers useful citizens in any town. The proposi-
tion contained in the clause was little short of an abomination
—it was mischievous in principle, and would be so in its re-
sults.
Colonel SIBTHORP said a few words which were not
heard.
The clause was passed without opposition.
Clause 12 was then moved.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the last
day for the payment of the rates should, according to the
suggestion of Sir R. Peel, be deferred from the last day of Au-
gust to the sth day of September, and that the final revisal
should take place on the 15th of September.
After a few words from Lords STORMONT and J. RUSSELL,
the amendment was inserted.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 13 being read,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had to propose an amendment to
this clause. The duty of forming the lists of voters was con-
fided by the Bill to overseers, but the experience of the Reform
Act had proved that unpaid officers seldom performed their
duty otherwise than negligently. At all events their Work was
generally full of imperfections. To obviate this evil, and to
provide against a passage in the clause before the Committee,
which would have the effect of conferring household suffrage
in place of rate-paying suffrage, he should propose—
" That the town clerk be empowered to examine the validity
of all claims to be inserted in the burgess roll, to make objec-
tions where he shall see just cause, and to sustain such objec-
tions on the revision of the list before the Mayor."
If that amendment were adopted, he meant to add another—
" That the cost of making and sustaining these objections
by the town clerk shall be paid out of the borough fuhd."
Lord HOW ICK said'he WAS not quite sure that there was
not some force in the objection of his Right Hon. Friend, as
regarded the inconvenience likely to arise from the circum-
stances mentioned by him; but he was satisfied that there wer e
-none which the town councils had not power to remedy. The
amendment was, however, open to the objection of giving the
ruling party in the council for the time being the power of
opposing the registration of unfriendly votes ; inasmuch as the
town clerk was always a creature of the corporation, and the
majority governed his actions. In his opinion it would lead to
the grossest partiality and injustice if the town clerk had a
power at the public expense of seeking out and supporting de-
fects in votes. He should therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. HOWARD was opposed to the amendment, and in
favour of the original clause.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that if it were desired to have the
duty now imposed on the overseers gratuitously properly per-
formed, there should be a paid officer, responsible for its due
performance and removeable for neglect of it.
Mr. MILES supported the original motion. From his
knowledge of overseers, he thought no grounds for probable
charge in respect of the present clause lay against them.
Mr. C. BULLER opposed the amendment. The creation
of a paid officer would have the effect of neutralising public
activity ; and that anxiety now so laudable to see matters
right would be at an end.
Mr. PLUMPTRE supported the amendment. Unless a re-
sponsible individual, regularly and sufficiently paid, were ap-
pointed, he was sure there would be gross mistakes and great
neglect. ,
The amendment was ultimately withdrawn.
Sir J. GRAHAM proposed another amendment, to the
effect that, instead of the words " every person's name in the
overseers' list," as it stood in the clause, there should be sub-
stituted, " every rate-payer within the borough."
Lurd J. RUSSELL was understood to agree to the
amendment ; hut ho spoke in such a low tone that we cannot
vouch for the fact.
VITAXI3I.IRTON objo'cted to it. It gave a fatility

fur raising objections against votes, and none for allaying
them.
Sir J. GRAHAM complained that when he sought the
extension of the franchise, his Hon. Friend opposed him.
Sir J. CAMPBELL saw nothing in the amendment to
make it objectionable. It did not appear very important to
him whether the voter was in the overseers' lists, or in that
of the rate-payers.
Mr. GROTE said that every rate-payer should be on the
burgess roll. If the rate-payer had an interest in objecting to
votes he had a similar interest in being on the roll.
Mr. BAINES said he thought the machinery of the Bill
was already rather overcharged than otherwise. If the present
amendment were carried it would make it the business for life
of every person in the borough to attend to registration, which
would become so exceedingly laborious .a duty that an exactly k
contrary effect to the one desired would result ; parties would
give up attending to the matter altogether, and the elective
franchise would thus degenerate into a sort of universal suf-
frage.—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial benches.) He did
not know whether he was right in applying the word degenerate
to this, but certainly he thought universal suffrage would result.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could see no as-
signable motive for this amendment. If a person were a rate-
payer he must in ordinary course become a burgess.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained.
Mr. BL ACKBURNE said if this amendment were car-
ried, every person who had rateable property in the borough
would be liable to be included within its operation, whereas
if the evidence of the Burgess Roll were adhered to, here was
some ostensible test to go by. But it had been said by way
of inducing the Committee to agree to the amendment, that
it was of little practical importance. If that were the case,
why press it, why not rather have the Bill as it was?
Mr. P. HOWARD thought they had in the present case
better copy the principles established in the Reform Art.
which provided that a voter only could take objection to ano-
ther party's claim to vote.
Mr. PEASE said a few words in favour of the amend-
ment.
Mr. H. HUGHES said that although it was provided
that a qualification of three years' rating was necessary to
the rights of freedom, he did not see that any provision was
appended to enforce the production of the rate books, in order
to establish the fact of the three years' rating.
Mr. JERVIS said that the term rate-payer was very loose
and general. and might lead to mistakes.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that although he had not felt dis-
posed to object to this amendment in the first instance, because
he did not consider it a very material one, yet, having since
heard so many objections raised against it, he should recom-
mend his Hon. Friend not to press it. An Hon. Gentleman
opposite had complained that that there was no provision made
by the Bill to enforce the production of the rate books, in order
to prove the fact of the three years' rating. If the Hon.
Gentleman would look on a little further, he would see that a
proviso was made, whereby the mayor might call on the over-
seers for the production of the books, with the view of decid-
ing upon a disputed case.
Mr. H. HUGHES said he was perfectly aware of the pro-
vision referred to by the Noble Lord ; but that did not em-
brace all that he meant, namely, to enable any person who
might be seeking for an objection to a vote, to call for the
books, in order to satisfy himself of the fact before he pro-
ceeded to raise an objection in the matter.
Sir R. PEEL said he should be sorry if the Right Hon.
Baronet consented to withdraw his amendment, and he was
sorry that the Noble Lord, who at first consented to it, had
afterwards altered his mind upon it. He had hoped to have
been able to have gone along with the Noble Lord in making
this Bill as perfect as possible. Now, as to the principle of
tho amendment, he thought it a very fair one. It was very pro-
perly provided that persons only of a certain standing in the
borough should be entitled to vote for the persons by whom
their affairs were to be managed ; but still every other person
who had paid rates even for a shorter period, should be en-
titled, he thought, to object to the qualifications of those who
did vote, and thus indirectly taxed him, if he saw fit.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
After a few verbal amendments, and some desultory con-
versation between Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Grote, Lord J. Russell,
Capt. Pechell, Mr. Borthwick, Lord Stormont, Mr. C. Bul-
ler, &c., the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On the next clause being rend,
Lord J. RU SSE LL..said that he was anxious that the duty
of revising the lists shleira not be left entirely to the Mayor.
—(Hear, hear.) By a subsequent part of the Bill, the bur-
gesses were entitled to elect three auditors, and he was abort
now to propose an amendment to be inserted in the present
clause, directing two of these auditors to sit with the Mayor
when occupied in revising the lists.
Mr. W YNN made a few remarks which, owing to the noise
of Members leaving the House, were inaudible.
Mr. P. THOM SON • thought that the proposition of the
Right Hon. Gentleman did not relieve the difficulty which he
wished'to remove. _ _ .

Mr. GO ULBURN said a few words, which we regret we
could not hear in the Gallery.
Mr. BORT El WICK submitted whether the amendment he
had first moved would not better remove the objections than
the course which the Noble Lord wished to pursue ? The
function bed better altogether he left to the Recorder.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished the Honourable
Member to recollect that a great many of the boroughs would
havo no Recorder at all.
Mr. BORTFINVICK thought that it ought to be taken
entirety out of the Mayor's hands.
. Mr. C. BULLER would wish the lists to he revised by the
Revising Barristers. There would be only thirty-six of the
whole number of boroughs that the Revising Barristers would
not visit.
Mr. C. WYNN contended that the Mayor was a political
officer that never would have credit given to him for a purity
of election.
Lord J. RUSSELL, under the feeling of the House, would
,consent to postpone the clause. He only wished to remind
the House that the employment of the Revising Barristers
would entail a great expense on the country, and render the
Bill more complex. He was of opinion that there ought to
'be a Board of four or five persons to act as a Commission of
appeal.
Sir J. GRAHAM contended that the Mayors of borough's
were quite incompetent to the duty. Where there were Re-
corders he thought that the duty ought to be performed by
them, and where there were not, it ought to be left to the Re-
vising Barrister.
The clause was then deferred.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the House proceeded
to the other Orders of the Day.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL.
After a short conversation upon this Bill, in which Colonel
Percival, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr.
Sheil took part, the gallery was cleared for a division, but
none took place, and the Bill passed.
The House adjourned at Two o'Clock.

LIST OF THE MINA
Of 175 an Mr. Praed's motion for " Copies e
which have passed between the Board of
Affairs of India and the Court of Direc
Company, on the subject of the revocati
of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-General
Alford, Lord Feilden' W.
Alsner, Richard Finch, G.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. P
F oett, Sir W. W.
Ashley, Lord Forbes, W.
Ashley, lion. H. Forester, Hon. C.
Bagot, 'Hon. W. Forster, C.
Baillie, H. D. Freshtield, J. W.
Baillie, Joseph Gaskell, J. M.
Balfour, T. Gladstone, T.
Baring, T. Gladstone, W. E.
Baring, H. B. Glynne, Sir S. E.
Bateson, Sir R. Goodricke, F. L H.
Bell, M. Gordon, Hon. W.
Beotinck, Lord G. Goulburn, H.
Bei hell, R. Goulbutii, Mr Serjt.
Blackburn, John I. Graham, Sir J. It. G.
Blackstone, W. S. Greene, P. G.
13,1i.ng, W. Griniston, Lord
Bonham, Francis It. Grimston, Hon. E.
Borthwick, Peter Halford, H.
Bram-ton, T. W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Brownrigg, J. S. Hanmer, H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Hardinge, Sir H.
Bruen, Francis H ,wkes, T.
Buller, Sir J. B. Y. Hay, Sir J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hayes, Sir E.
Calcraft, G. H. Henniker, Lord
Campbell, Sir H. Herbert, Hon. S.
Castlereagh, Viset. Herries, J. C.
Chandos, Marquis of Hill, Lord Arthur
Ch plin, T. Hill, Sir It.
Chapman, A. Hogg, J. W.
Chichester, Arthur :tope, Hon. J.
Chishvlm, A. Hype, H. I'.
Clerk, Sir G. Hallam, Lord
Clive, It. H. Houldsworth, T..
Codrington C. W. Hoy, J. B. ,
Compton, h C. Hughes, H.
Conolly, E. M. li.Ois, Sir It. H.
Cooper, E. J. lrton, S.
Corbett,'. G. Jackson, J. D.
Corry, H. L. Jermyn, Earl
Crewe, Sir G. Jones, T.
D'Alhiac, Sir C. Jones, Wilson
Dare, R. W. H. Kearsley, J. H
Darlingion, Earl of Kirk, P.
Dick, Q. Knatrhbuli, Sir E. .
Dottin, Abel Roos Knightb.y, Sir C.
Dowdeswell, W. Law, lion G.
outfield, 'l' D. Lawson, A.
Dugdale, W. S. Lefroy, A.
Duilehnike, W. Lewis, W. I
East, James Buller Lincoln, Earl of
Eaton, Richard J. Lowther, Viscount
Elley, Sir J. Lowther, H. C.
Elwes, J. Lygon, Colonel
Entwistle, John Mahon, Lord
Eslcourt, T G. B Mandeville, Vise.
Fancourt, C. S. J. Marsiaad, 'l'.

)RITY
of any Communications
Commissioners for the
tors of the East India
ion of the appointment
of India."
illeynell, H.
Miller, W. H.
Norreys. Lord
Palmer, R.
Parker, M. N.
Patten, Wilson
Peel, Sir It.
Peel, NV. Y.
Peel, Colonel
Peel, Edmund
Pelham, John C.
Pemberton, T.
Penruddock, J H.
Perceval, Colon 1
Pigot, IL
Plunkett, Hon. R.
Pollen, Sir John
Praed, J. B.
Price, Richard
Price, Samuel Grove
Printle, A.
Rae, William
Reid, Sir J. It.
Richards, John
Rushbrook, Robert
Ryle, J.
Sandon, Lord
Scarlett, Tt. C.
Scourfield, W. H.
Sheppard, T.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Sinclair, G.
Smith, A.
Stanley, E.
',Stormont, .Viscount
, H. C.
Icent, J. E.
' °toss, Colonel
Thompson,
Trench,Sir Frederick
Trevor, lion. A.
Trevor, Hon. U. It.
wisp, Horace
Tyrrell, Sir J.
Vere, Sir C. 8., Bart.
Verner' NV.
Vesey, Hon. Thomas
Vivian, John Ennis
Wall, B.
Walter, J.
Weill, G. E.
Whitmore, I'. C.
William, It.
Williams, T. P.
Wodeliouse, Hon. E.
Wynn, lit. Hon. C.
Yorke, Elliot Thos.
Young, J.
Young, Sir W. L.

Don Miguel is at present living at Porto d'Anzio,
a small unhealthy village on the coast of the Roman States.
What his views are in choosing such a place for his residence
at this time of the year, it would be difficult to predict.

MR. BECKFORD'S NEW WORK, " A Visit to the
Convents of Alcobaga and Batalha," is at length before the
world. The brilliant wit, the peculiar grace of expression,
the humour, and the poetical fancy of the writer, here find
capital subjects for their exercise. The pretended austerities
and real indulgences of conventual life—the splendour of the
Portuguese court, and the luxury and beauty of Portuguese
scenery, solicit, by turns, the vivid illustration of the pen of
the author of " Vathek," who has seasoned his pages with
abundant and racy anecdotes of •the''great personages, ecclesi-
astical and secular, with whom he enjoyed` fattilitr intimacy.
ROMAN COINS.—The 7: tiiernendenia. thunder storm
on Monday se'nnight, laid• open, to. view in one of the small
valleys near the Middle Bank. Copper Works, a pot or urn of
Roman coins, consisting' of Victorious, Gallienus, Claudius
Gothicus, Tetricus, Tetricus Czes, Posthumus Quintilius,
Marius, and Solonina, many of theM in perfect preservation.
Mr. G. G. Francis, of this town, has 'upwards of 130 in his
possession, and we are informed it is his intention to deposit
them in th'e Swansea Museum. Tho vessel containing them
was of an oval shape, about 8 inches long, 4 inches wide, and
4 deep, licit it was unfortunately broken either by the rolling
stones or the person who first discovered it.— The Cambrian.

THE MARKETS-(THIS DAY.)

HAY MARKETS.—(At per Load of 36 Trusses.)
CUMBERLAND. _

Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £4 0 to £4 5
Sim Meadow Hay 2 15 4 0
Useful Old Ditto 4 10 4 15
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye grass Hay
Clover Hay 3 15 5 15
Oat Straw '1 IS to £2 2 I Wheat Straw 2 6 tl 8