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

man's warrant did apply in a case of a prisoLer b9.ft,re us
on a felony ; and on being further advised—
" Did you take advice?—We
" What advice ?—We sent for the recorder.
" What day did you send for the recorder ?—On Saturday

evening.
" After you received the rule nisi p—Yes ; both doeu•
ments were shown to the recorder.
" You did not send for the recorder until you got the rule
nisi?—Yes ; I think we sent for the recorder on the first
service of the Chairman's warrant ; he did not come until we
had both documents in our hands; it was only about three
quarters of an hour."
The Hon. Hon. MEMBER, who n-as very imperfectly heard,
concluded by stating, that he did not think that any one
who had read the evidence could deny that the conduct of
the Magistrates was strongly reprehensible, and be should
conclude, therefore, by moving, " that Samuel Bignold and
E. T. Booth, Esqrs., be taken into the custody of the Ser-
geant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker
do issue his warrants accordingly."
Mr. W. WYNN thought that there was no precedent for
the course proposed to be pursued by the Hon. Member for
Ipswich, and he hoped that the Hon. Member would see the
propriety of abandoning his present motion.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. STEWART objected to the specific motion of the
Hon. Member for Ipswich, because it appeared to him that the
decision of the Committee did not warrant it. At the same
time, he felt it his duty to move an amendment to the motion
of the Hon. Member, which he believed would meet the wishes.
of all parties. He was persuaded that the impression made on
the Committee was precisely that stated in the report, and he
was equally convinced that no one who heard the evidence
with an impartial mind could come to a different conclusion.—
( Hear, hear.) Therefore, without going into any details which
were already before the House, and which would speak for
themselves,. he was anxious that some further information
should be afforded to the House on the conduct of the Magis-
trates on this occasion. This might, he conceived, be effected
without touching upon,-oe extending too far, any of their pri-
vileges by the motion which he would submit, and which was
to this effect—that Messrs. Bignold and Booth be requested
to attend at the bar on Friday next.--( Hear, hear.)
Lord STORMONT said that the anxious wish of the Ma-
gistrates was to have their conduct fully and closely examined.
He should, therefore, accede to the motion as a matter of course.

Mr. S HE IL was under the impression that these Magistrates
belonged to the city of Norwich only. He had,:•however, on
reference to the evidence, perceived that they were county Ma-
gistrates. This being the case, he should, if no other Member
&(1 so, move an Address to the Crown, praying that they may
be removed from the Commission of the peace.
Mr. SCA R LETT remarked that the subpoena of the Court
of King's Bench would not justify the Magistrates in releasing
Pilgrim from custody when he was subjected to the charge of
felony.
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that the parties should at-
tend on Saturday, at one o'clock.--(No, no.)
After a few words from Mr. Wynn, Mr. Blackstone, -and
Sir J. Wrottcsley, Mr. C. Buller gave notice that he. would
to-morrow move that Mr. Keith be ordered to attend on Sa-
turday. Some further conversation ensued, in which Mr.
Stewart, Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. Hug,lies Hughes, Sir R. Peel,
the Solicit,:,r-General, Mr. Pease, and Mr. C. Buller, parti-
cipated. Eventually the motion before the House was agreed
to; and it was also ordered (as we understood, but from the
number of speakers, and the low tone in which the conversa-
tion was carried on, it was extremely difficult to collect even
the tenour of what passed) that Mr. Meney, Mr. Pilgrim, and
Mr. Barnes, be also ordered to attend.

LORD HEYTESBURY.
Mr. PRAED then rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move
for copies of any communications which had passed between
the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India and the
Court of Directors of the East India Company, on the subject
of the revocation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury as
Governor-General of India. When the Hon. Gentleman be-
came intelligible to us, he was stating that in October last a
difference existed between the then Government and the
Court of Directors of the East India Company, with reference
to the appointment of a Governor-General of India in the
room of Lord William Bentinck. On the Ist of October, in
the course of a correspondence between the Court of Directors
and the Board of Control, the Court of Directors suggested
that Sir Charles Metcalfe should be continued in the autho-
rity of Governor-General of India until a successor to Lord
William Bentinck should be appointed. The then President
of the Board of Control, however, stated that Government
declined to approve of the continuation of Sir Charles Met-
calfe in the possession of that authority, and that it was their
decided opinion that in the existing state of affairs in India no
time ought to be lost in appointing a successor to Lord Wil-
liam Bentinck. A change in the Government soon after took
place. By the new Government, in January, 1835, the ap-
pointment of Lord Heytesbury as Governor-General of India
was approved of, and that approval was notified to the Direc-
tors of the East India Company. It scarcely became him,
holding the situation which he at that time held, to speak of
the Noble Lord who was at the head of the Board of Control
at that period, but be would unequivocally declare his convic-
tion that the only motive by which Lord Ellenborough had
been actuated in selecting Lord Heytesbury was that he was a
fit man for the situation. Between Lord Heytesbury and the
then President of the Board of Control there was scarcely a
perscnal acquaintance : no motives of improper partiality could,
therefore, be imputed to his Noble Friend. He would fear-
lessly assert, therefore, that Lord Ellenborough was wholly
free from any imputation of that kind. When the present Mi-
nisters came into office, in April last, the appointment of Lord
Heytesbury was declared to be vacated. No opportunity was
afforded to the Court of Directors to take the subject into con.
sideration, and to give their opinion respecting it. He would
now state the reasons which, in his mind, ought to induce the
House of Commons to take an early opportunity of investigat-
ing the subject. In the Act of 1833 it was provided that if,
after the vacating of the Governor-Generalship, the Directors
of the East India Company failed to recommend a successor
to the Crown in two months, the appointment of that succes-
sor should lapse entirely into the hands of the Crown. He
understood, however, that it was the intention of Government
to count the two months, not from the vacating of Lord Heytes-
bury's appointment, but from the period of Lord William
Bentinck's return. If that were really the intention of the
Government, he (Mr. Pracd) maintained that it would be an
anomalous and unconstitutional proceeding, and would be
placing the East India Company in a position which they
had never occupied before, and which could not fail of beings„:
most injurious to their interests, as well as to the good govern-
ment of the great empire of India. Under these circum-
stances he had mentioned, if the Court of Directors were to
recommend any successor to Lord Heytesbury, they would do -
so with the knowledge that the appointment, whatever it
might be, would not be approved of by the Government.
Was there any reason whatever which could enable a Govern-.
merit fairly to object to the appointment of Lord HeytesbuitY?
Was the Right Hon. Baronet ( Hobhouse) sure that because
Lord Heytesbury was selected by a Government professing a
different line of policy from that pursued by the Right Hon.
Bart. and his colleagues, that the nominee of that Govern-
ment could not be a fit servant of theirs ? He appealed with
confidence to the Right lion. Baronet (Hobbouse) himself
upon that point. Was there in Lord Ellenborough's adminis-
tration of the affairs of India anything of such a nature as led
the Right Hon. Baronet to think that any person appointed
by him would necessarily be unfit to take part in the Govern-
ment of India ? The very -first measure of that Noble Lord
was the reduction of a lucrative office established by his im-
mediate predecessor, and of which his immediate predecessor
had undoubtedly contemplated the continuance. Beyond that
he recommended the disuse of a foreign language in the Courts
of law, the discontinuance of the practice of paying the
Judges by fees, and finally he recommended the abolition of
the expensive establishment of the Bombay Marine. Then,
with respect to patronage, he would give a single instance of
the manner in which patronage had been dispensed by Lord
Ellenborough. Within the course of a week after the ap-
pointment of Lord Heytesbury, Lord Ellentoreugh received
an application on behalf of an officer, requesting the Noble Lord
to make interest with Lord Heytesbury to give him some situa-
tion under his Government in India. Lord Ellenborough at
once inclosed the application to Lord Heytesbury, adding, in a
note by which it was accompanied, these words :—" I assure you
that in transmitting to you these applications from others, the
farthest thing from my desire is to influence your judgment
in the selection of the fittest persons." Again, he would ask,
WV there anything in Lord Heytesbury's personal character
which could induce the present Government to object to his
appointment ? Lord Heytesbury had filled high and re-
sponsible situations under his Majesty—he had been much
before the public eye-aahis integrity and ability were uniry
peached, even by his political adversaries. He (Mr. Praed)
maintained that difference of political opinion was not a rea-
sonable or a sufficient ground for this exercise of the King's
prerogative. He did not deny that the power was vested in
the Crown—he did not deny that anything bad been done
which the Act of Parliament did not authorize ; but he ques-
tioned the propriety and discretion of the manner in which
the prerogative of the Kitig and the powers of the Act of Par-
liament had been exercised. By the Act of 1784 it was
clearly intended that the appointment of Governor-General
of India should be made not by the Crown, but by the Court
of Directors, subject to the approval of his Majesty. The
Act of 1813 renewed the same powers, and he begged the
House to observe that the political power thus continued to 71,
the Court of Directors was reserved to them in much more -•
distinct terms by the Act of 1833. By the 'last- named Act
the Legislature took from the East India Company all their
commercial privileges, deprived them of their character of
' merchants, and left them exclusively the governors of India.
If, therefore, it was deemed wise before that they should ex-
ercise this power with respect to the choice of officers and
servants, it must necessarily be more desirable now, when they
existed for no other purpose than that of governing
India. Since the passing of the Act in 1784, when this
power was first vested in the Crown, there was not a single
precedent for the exercise of it in such a manner as in the re-
cent case of Lord Heytesbury. He might perhaps be told
that the case of Sir George Barlow, in 1306, was analogous to
that of Lord Heytesbury, but a moment's investigation of the two
eases would show that there was no analogy whatever between
them. What were the circumstances of Sir George Barlow's
case? Lord Cornvallis died holding the Governor-General-
ship of India. In the difficulty—the almost impossibility of
obtaining an immediate successor to Lord Cornwallis, Sir
George Barlow was temporarily appointed. This appoint-
ment was declared as never intended to be permanent. But
even supposing it to have been permanent upon further consi-
deration of Sir George Barlow's fitness, the 'Government of
the day recommended the Crown to exercise its prerogative
and to withdraw him from the Government. But there was
this striking difference between the case of Sir George Bar.
low and the case of Lord Heytesbury.' The same Govern-
moot which recommended the appointment of Sir GeOrge
Barlow, recommended the revocation of that appointment...
• ( Hear.) Its, revocation might bare been wise or unwise, but