The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-11 00:00:00

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN INDIA.

Mr. HowoaTta rose for the purpose of asking
some information front the PreSident
of the Board of Control, With iefeTenc-e,to Ole ac-
counts which had been recently received from a
Gentleman who had arrived from India. These
.accounts stated, that two battles had been fought
between the East India Company's forces and the
Native YoWers: It appeared that the troops of
the Company, which, according to a treaty, had
been received on terms of amity by the Peisliwa,
and stationed in his territories, had been suddenly,
attacked by an army of 40,000 Mahratras, and
although the force thus attacked was composed of
only 4000 of the Company's' subsidiary troops,
tliCv succeeded, notwithstanding the immense dis-
parity of numbers, in repulsing •the enerny, after
a severe conflict and great slaughter. A few.days
mho wardsx-the Company's troops tieing strength-
ened by reinforcements, in their turn attacked the
Mabrattas, who were driven back,"and completely
defeated. But it %vas-stated Chat two British Of-
ficers fell into the hands-Of the'Peishwa, and that
they were by him immediately plan) death. On
such occasions it had always been usual for Go-
vernment, as soon as possible, to publish correct
accounts of such events. No such accounts had
yet been published by Government. He there-
fore. wished to know whether the intelligence to
which he referred was founded on fact ? At the
same time he hoped that Government would take
the earliest opportunity of publishing official re-
nuns of the killed and wounded, for the relief of
those who had relations amongst those who had
been engaged in these battles. But he under-
stood that, in addition to -what he had stated, in-
telligence of still greater importance had been re-
ceived, from which R appeared that the Rajah of
Bahrar had followed the same Course-as the Peish-
wa, and had fallen on the sabsidiary.force sta-
tioned within his territories. He wished to-know
whether this was true; and if it was, what had
been the result ?
Mr CANNING said, that' so far as his infoima-
lion extended, he would Stiecinetly.-answer • the.
questions of the Hon. Gentleman. It was un--.
doubtedly true that the Peishwa had. commenc7
ed war against the forces of •the East India Com-
pany. It was true that two actions had been
' fought, which, notwithstanding the disproportiou
in numbers, had both terminated decidedly•in fa-
your of the British forces. But it was not true
that the slaughter had been great in proportion to.
the disparity of numbers. As yet no such returns-...,
had been received, as it would. be proper to
under the authority of Go.'etnment ; and the Hon.
Gent. must admit the' impropriety of Government
sanctioning the publication of any returns of the
correctness of which they were not assured. The
Hon. Gentleman. Must know, that it Often happen-
ed that private intelligence from India out-run the
official dispatches; and such had been the case in
the present instance. -There were • some of the
facts which the Hon, 6elAletpail mentioned, of
which, morally speaking, he had no 'doubt, but
as to which, if he were asked to speak. offieially
to their truth, be could say nothing. He did not
believe that a single officer had been killed in
either of the actions, but he believed that three
officers had been wounded ; but of the names of
those officers nothing was knoivn but through a
copy of the Bombay Gazette, which bad been re-
ceived in town, but of which, it might appear
strange to state, no copy had been received by
Government. He believed it to be trite that two'
individuals had suffered death by order of the
Peishwa, and that one of those individuals was a
British officer, • and that they had not .fallen in
action. As to• the Rajah of Bahrar, all that was
known respecting his,proceedings rested on the
authority of a private letter without -any date. • If
he was asked whether he' believed the statement
in that letter, he would reply that he did be-
lieve it—if asked whether lie could state this

'CJ
ofliciafly, be intst reply that #ll'
The account only stated that the troop
5111
the Rajah had
been feP"ised. navi„gre
this much, hwi e Shed the Ilotiourable
mn to und-erstand that he had no dispositio:o,
withhold any intelligence Of wltch be was
session; nor, had any ChiogO wi
en done t"0ly
spect to that intelligence, in Oh not bei4Pflir
fished, which was not strictly according t"bstl
cedenr. Singulir as it might wear, it tieverla
been the practice to notice the iratisactioalo
India to Parliament, even inspeechei frost o
throne, unless when some particular cote4l
1 C
that subject was suggested by the Crown;iofit
the same time he was so desirous to furnish
information of which he was in possession,o
respect to the transactions in question, fbeiLiftelot
Hon. Gentlemen would frame any al°"-fort
havingthe purpose of that information laid bet/
the House, he would be happy to agree t°Ud
Or if the lion. Gentleman would do him tije 011
to communicate with him privately Itico
subject, he might enable hint to frame a 111" 0$
so as to have the information laid before
House. /tight
Mr. HOWORTH said lie felt obliged to tberol
Hon. Gentlemau for the information wi"cntt
had given, and lie %void(' avail himself of the ;ot
of the Right lion. Gentleman to CO
with hint on the subject. hi°
After a, few words from Lord MoitrEl'o,4;64#
could not distinctly be heard, the conves"
dropped.

MU:AM OF PRIVILFGE• ill!
',Lord A. iIAZ,IILTON, in rising, pnrsOnnt tile;
notice, said he was aware ht)*-disagreeB: 60
was td introduce to the notice of the 141-414, i
apparent breach of privilege. But be "% hi
far guarded liiillSelf, in the present instance, tilt
he gave his not ice, and• lie would now st°tedet
cause on ‘vhicla lie intended to found his '11°..)0
in such a way as would alleir the House 11t4-6
Meant nothing personal to the Noble L"ra %.$0.4
was implicated in the transaction. lie %•"s.,'l:iv! at '
that the freedom and independence of raoi'}o
was the source of all its power, and, the4(le7iti'
that whatever might be the result of the r:Oly
gation which he would propose, he woeld t)`‘ ca:t
sidered to. have done no more than dischargleijoi
duty in bringing the case before the House. Ivo% •
reproaches. had been cast upon the slate °I reko
sentation in the House by petitioners. 1° I be
he had always thought that the best answer:4°l4
given was the conduct of the House, in res—, in
all attacks upon its rivileges, by interfetetleibis
the election of its Members.. To attacks °, pd./
kind the country with which lie vvas co,,nect-oe !
lie meant Scotland—was peculiarly exP("ed oft
case which he had now to submit to the 00: e tea
this subject regarded the representattan (, oi
county which he had the honour to rePreftfe•
(Lanarkshire). Two years ago Sir A, Coch",l,l' re'
dared that he would stand Candidate for "; ral
presentation of this county at the next gjet- eel f
election. Since that time a keen contest ha'i iie 1lt;
carried on between the Hoti. Adinir3l and 'l-01
self, and their minim! friends. In the colmeio
this contest lie was justified in saying thartt tai: i
whole interest of every agent .and every Pa-lifira
of Government had been . exerted tagaitilt, i i
(Lord A. H.) The continuance of the cootess -T,
.probably irritated in an unusual degree the r",:i
tical feelings of;both, parties. Though in 110
respects he had met '‘'v ith unusual opposition, 0
notice which he had given reerred to wlOte
conceived to be an instance of utilair and i'ner't
per exercise of political influence directed ktObie
himself. He had communicated to the N't)
ti'
Lord who was implicated, that it .was his fic''tiete
lion to bring the matter before the 1-1011se t.''' ;hog
ng
mons, as he had no hesitation in asset." i,l 1115
it amounted to a breach of the privileges --ii -Id
House. The Noble Lord to whom he B"u` a
Clue WO
was Lord Douglas. He would read to Caren
a letter, ine which such circumstances were !
as be thought could leave no doubt in the /406
of the House that the privileges of the :ell
had been infringed upon. The case W 35 ersoo
simple.. The letter was written by 3 ,In'nlor,
of the name of Fergusson,- who was e,'-' es
ed as the factor of the Noble 1•°"' 1 :els
who was the person- whom he concur` of die
most likely to write 'under the infleence °:, ifii
Noble Lord, but especially when it UV tIS Ore ilif
expressed in the letter that it was written bitorfl
authority. When he informed the I,'l"b‘le,., the
that ire intended to bring the matter bei°,'-aeli
House-, he received an answer from tbe,-ia%
Lord 'containing a very general denial of It`' ref,
given any, authority to the writer of the le„-cc4'
and expressing that the Noble Lord felt the -'-- the
sation to he an•unfair one. This was rose of
case, He stood forward, not for the en..P,.Ael;is
makingaan unfair accusation, hut to dilcifonse°
ditty:by vindicating the privileges of tli TV
when he 'found them directly attaeltet'• too'
Noble Lord denied that he had given anY:,tto i
i e
city to Mr, Fergusson. Now he wished 1 Ordistioctlyaniderstood, that when the :N.7obte,. rt"' •
2. 4 .
asserted the very reverse of that which wsl ,:rseBo/
ed,by another person, he never entertaine A" of
doubt that the assert ton of the Noble buir: 'air
the truth. But at the same time, when t':-,, he ,• '
ctimstanties were so very strong on otie side,
did not feel himself justified in omitting to °it' be
attention of , the Muse to it. Nothing
to
more strong thtm the letter he was about ": 1 soften
In what he said to the House he very tnnea -uittert
ell his expressions, in consequence.of
which he had received from the Noble licle
contained' s 'log
which, so far as he understood it,
nial of the charge. But if it should appear to
14 •
he had misapprehended that letter, then be 7 -,ilelf
very much change his language in rarking ot s(' r
a transaction. The Noble Lot d then read the Pii
ter, which was slated the 2-lih May, 1817' s4f°
ilio
" Thomas Fergusson," and addressed to " not If
fort 'O,
Dyke, Esq." one of• the freeholdees
county of Lanark. The letter was to the fog
°
ing effect : ,',041
" Dear Sir—According to your desire, I hare connroinic'oc
the lei
ot,
at length to Lord Oringlas vonr,wrin to obtain a situatiotoffi
your yonfig blend Mr. Dykes, and I an authorised bY_hip'S
Dongdas to state to you, that if you will support his Luill',,our
views ian
vpt:i.ltticlisgfiiitoteliseittui t;,xtti(l):.ll,ac,,tii:;riiil l‘iveiwil iLlepit.,oruciiiitS,
tfol, :iiy,t'
friend
tended with vet y great ail% aatages, As you are pertect
27elti`
dependent, if you hare not mail,. any promise to Lord •-•1 soft
bald Hamilton, you mar, I think, get of from wbat Ytut-,/ fill'
as you certainly bare be'
en ill used. Therefore, if '',,n:,,',2?
cation is made to you from the Hatuiltoft family, 1 "u'L
i\)A

J
OOPS S
Ogp_lie,
CIW
to
s j t
g 10 Pug,.
rb,
toed
,eveniti
:tint the
t
frooa 0
ti "r

ion
attry
ifs
a°f 0 befit
0 c
e
to
its
the.
°° .0
fore

[ie
vbich
Ole °OO

obi
1, .4

tej
nielpC
tiOl
.ni
t,
be 3
;tIY
v•cll4
sql
a ppl;
YQ

"te

.I'tefa3e till I see yen in Glasgow, when I shall be able to
t
Zwutliustliow,
I.4_'!ll9Pleate with you. Sir Alexander Cochrane is I,itot.u,stt
acce otherwise I should hare written to
thi3 ..?re heady.partic Have the goodness not
.oynown3tion
matter till twbole is arranged. I think,. ci.,utssh_o..tr,isd
tli,r Lord Douglas's offer. I beg my co:opium!. , m
, i°,•c2, and am &c u
•• ' tie begged' leave' • , the
IL_
was,
--4,,use to two passages in the letter. One
f‘i
'lna authorised by Lord DonLdas," e‘c The
..,
' lother, which was 'fear the contittsion, '' I thmii
~,," should accept—not my offer, but Lnrd Dottg-
-''s ffer." T 1
-de letter also contained the names
• of
j 1 both the candidates. In short, it was perfect-
eferx,Plicit• lie must here say, that he could not
c-11111 from thinking that Ferguson must have re-
at
illed some authority in a circuitous Way; though
..
bi tile same time he wished not to say one syll
tre to throw the slightest imputation on the woard Lord Don i 13t.t. at the same time, he,
hMust observe;g
i that the terms of the Noble Lord's
Lter. to him were so very aeneral, that he might
c he
s",e mistaken as to their import. Howe'. r, .
'nought it
Ivritte,, . necessary to say, th a IVIr. Dykes had
pe.. - a letter to say that he did not believ,eietlz
~r,-gussou wrote the letter in que,tion, or ma ,
irp,°POSEll in it
'4ue„, , - •,, by the authority of Lord Douglas.
"dole *
at •• . . • , whether or not any
tact _ pout is.ut ‘s a
. by 1,1 atithorif y had been given to Mr. Fergusson
Cu Lot
Don:!las. It would certainly be vet y
• 1141tYlr' that a person it) Mr. Fcrgn„„so„,3 sitlita-
4er;)t,""ht take upon himself- to write such a
.ct-
,uhlieee ; .:°'lt any authority. Either it must be. tar.-
' 4ct:,,111" Le had some authority, direct or m(11.-
114(14:4 haft been guilty of such a tissue of a)-
. atilt, ~
as to Write such a letter -without any
ttli4P,itY• The difficulty was, how the House
eeed.:` proceed in the ease - Two modes of pro-
m'lV .1 b4tl been suggested to him ; either to
gottrp,P,ergdsson to beinou,lit to the bar of the
t f a-
° slate What authority lie acted,
~ ~,. 0, on . or to
Ile 'e whole case to a Committee of Prkileges;
thos w"
Perfectly indifferent as to which o
tiouettw° courses was adopted. His inten-
,t° the to move that Fergusson be brought
"e ler". of the House. Another mode in-
t! el,
"ul ben suggested—namely, to order
Atli,,, we'll:

Jou to be instituted 6y the Lon

aitist that individual ; but to tha(
Ladi° flt.) %visit to resort, although he di
tat'iteclille it front ativ notion that rh.F. Learned
offpt 'vt'abl not exert-all his skill in bit,igin the
gother
poi-t"er In punishment. There was only "
lii.'t 4) which it was necessary for him to advert.
t:141.
rhed‘iV" aWnte that there not any precedent
~iar.
kit, afely ill Point. There was one Act
If
(Ilia.
t,4,ll`lit indeecr which served to throw some
emu-
nic:itt,ll the wHy—namely, the Act of I b
tiv - e-alled Atr. Curwen's.Act. After an atten-t
e °e's' I .. x t lie could not find that I
t4'l:ettliellr‘ii";; anpfr:!isteaettir:ico-ti in such a case,unlleises
ctittel v4s an expre:s contract for treating.
}" 41•Ziell by moving, ''that Thomss Fergussou
21,t, t reel i o attend this House on Tuesday, the
Nir Itli' nionfli.".
I,llvideti I'NNe. sitegested, that the letter on
th,z t) it'', motion 'was founded ought, acc. theortl-
Cler}:.ille forms of the House, to be read h),
Lutd A ~
19tth t—thvv ilitiAthmlr TON arced to o ; the 14,:ttr -
this, and said, he
tt,i'lle c.l
h,t449‘tof the Houiee• should be del% leted
ti' Ili le..t was then delivered to the Clerikis,
tavnatsl
-4111
-t'ati diOlid to the House. When this Air ur
"ti. '•
°LIND s said, he thought that after the
tl,e ker'cnidettee 4 Si
I) had taken place between
Notlt)ble Lord opposite‘%'e and Lord Douglas,. the
ir 11-e. I-4d !night have spared his mr)o_ti.the
I,q).' COuid
not
satisfy the Noble Leto (11
tleJletet, he ~,,„s
sure lie 0•0111(1 be able to satisfy
t(')
t,i,,,t(1):8(........f„., 1,,,. .was desired
h,
is
yLc)rtl
t 0 Douglas
i:i,ikc
%ever did re f? the House,. upon honour, that he
‘11,,,Y such give any order to any person.
'Alio, Promise as was mentioned in the. letter
ilited: "54 been read to the House. He ‘Niastdleie-
‘l743 s t°o, by that Noble Lord to state,
111,4 are ..
ct the House was too generous to doubta.tst 1
ft 4 e tilit'italified and express denial, and too
ell . 1
'Orent"aio any unfounded suspicion. lie tslt)atree.
ehttht)-4ceived, that after having made this
House
c'1111"Y the desire of Lord Douglas,
%,.th-
ta,litj'a,ll7t agree to the motion now before it % 1
the
tQat NPILYi"g a distrust in the word of ofhonm'r
Sit,,l“';'"lernan. He could not sit down withoutb..
'ere trug 'the Noble• Lot el , whose motion was en
Ivhol'e 4'lse, of all old saving—'' that a tinam
ttanelve,s in a glass house should not throw
intifiltplifiriitiai
ute'ioic,.eis whene,l the Noble Lo rd complained
gainst him, Ire hi
of
II() 4rdlett and assisted by letters from a. personcie
mself'was
egofatli.llrY .rank for they were signed by I
41°i I the Noble Lord. He would oppose the
uh,
11 4e"
LItY-... IIrvNTIE.--This was a case of direct brii
'eti 11.4105 t serious invasion on the privileges o
:44 Zise• After the letter which had been read it
-cithrh. 1-4)"ible to deny that the offence had been
b ...hteo i,
.I.ollglas by some pne. That it was by
.Lorder
‘"
itn";" toan could for a moment suppose, al 1
Illitee-t (11.tite denial which that Nobleman bad
--tit tlt- t° be given on• his part to the eharge.e—r. IttsBo tat the offence had been committed by F t
the /pi the letter indisputably proved ; and ye
hyin °n• Gehtleman (Mr. AV. Dinulas) sat down,
h,that rt'cit,bat lie would oppose the !notion, and
—ustb " impossible but that every Gentleman
glas 0 e 3atiSfied—and why ?—Because Lord Don-
thoeitellied that he had given Fergusson any ao-
• tlenia?' After all, this was no more than the
FPe% (4 the person accused—mid, because the
°llhrl„accused denied the charge, therefore the
.1.'4 00-'4 of England were to rest satisfied, though
Ptiil'3ession of an indisputable proof that their
letaine°, 8 of
been infringed,
_lie would not
!v het; fife Rouse by quoting precedents. In 1779,
'ilezat_cottiplaint of this kind was made against
~ u" of Chatuks, the question was referred
NEiL,
ti °lntnittee of Privileges. 'flue same thing etet°,.ne in the case of Lord Oxford. If the
l'tatan' case was passed over, it would be the first
ttr)o-te or such a neglect of what was due to the
10a44 of the House. The course for the House
qki,tenPt was either to refer the case to a C
.O.M. -
ohie.. of Privileges to take evidence, or if it
natty""i b thotight more convenient, to order the
ateLi4 once to the bar of the House. But the
Litt, ;,.‘l°lllll be totally. forgetful of its own dig-
tat,L._ .1 It did not examine into this Case, and
iiir_lt proSeCUtion against the guilty person.
LOAD AI.)VOCATR of SCOTLAND beggLd the

" House to observe that the notice Was fora inotiOn
" regarding the interference of a Peer of the
Realm in the electiOn of a Member of Parlia-
!neut." uric begped to ask whether the motion
of the Notde Lord was conformable to this no-
tice ? In opposition to the statement in the let-
ter which had been read, the House had the aver-
ment of Lord Douglas, that the assertion in that
letter, that it was written by his authority, was
utterly unfounded. There was also the assertion
of the individual to whoM the letter was addressed,
that he did not believe the assertions contained in
it to he true. lie would therefore pot it to the
House, whether there was any grounds for an in-
quiry as to the conduct of Lord Douglas. The
question as to Fergusson was quite different.---
The motion was, that Fergusson should be
ordered to attend at the liar of this House.
He supposed that when the Noble Lord made
this motion, he had in contemplation the
questions which he would put to Fergus-
son ; and he would submit whether Fergwson
could be obliged to answer any question which
would tend to criminate himself. It the Noble
Lord had thought proper to adopt the course of
moving for a prosecution, he c.nild only say that
nothiug should have been wanting on his part to
conduct that prosecution with all the ability he
was master of. The Noble Lord talked a great
deal of the agents and partisans of Government,
used to remove him from the representation of
the county alluded- to. Ile could assure the
House, for his own'part„ that he had no means of
using any influence on any person in that county.
If he had any means of such influence, it might be
another question how he would use them. For this
reason, that, from his strong personal attachment
to the lion. Admiral, who was One of the Candi-
dates, he would be happy byoany means to contri-
bute to his success. Bit the Noble Lord talked
of the influence of the Peerage, and how it had
been directed against him. Would the Noble
Lord deny that the Noble Duke, his father, on

a former occasion, when the.eleet ion of the county
was contested, had used, his influence to create
30 new voters ? He would not have referred to
this, had it not been for what the Noble Lord

ad said about the independence of the electors

for that county. As to the present question,
whatever the House might think proper to do
with Fergnsson was a very different thing from
any thing with relation to Lord Dnnglas. He
admitted that Fergtisson should be proceeded
against, if he was guilty of improper interference
to influence the votes of electors.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, that among the old say-
ings from which the Hon:„Gentleman (Mr. W.
Dundas) had made his selection, there was one
which was peculiarly applicable to the speech of
the Learned Gentleman who just now sat down,
namely, that there is no new thing under-the sun;
for the Honse• had heard from that Honourable
and Learned Gentleman such a code of 'the Privi-

legcs of the House as was new in every chapter
and line. The Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man► had told the House that they could not call
Ferguson to the Bar, because the notice of his
Noble Friend related to a ),reach of privilege by a
Peer. But his Noble Friend, who knew what
were the Privileges of tlie Houle, made an apo-
logy when .he gave notice of his motion, for no
such notice was necessary. By the usage of Par-
liament such a motion as. the present might be
made without any ?twice at all ; for it was only
necessary for any Member to walk up to the Clet k
with such a letter as that this night produced, and

when it bad been read, forthwith to move that the
person who wrote it he brought to the bar of the
House. Such a motion would take precedence of
all other motions, whether they stood in the no-
tice-book, -or any where else. Then as
.to what the
Noble Lord said, of having in contemplation what
questions would be asked when the individual was
brought to the bar, he shrewdly suspected that his
Noble Friend -had turned over in his mind the
questions which he would ask, and that the first
of those questions would be," Are you the author
of this letter I.'" if the person at the bar refused to
answer this question, the Serjeant at Arms would
be ordered immediately to commit him to custody.

If the Learned Lord Advocate would take the
rouble to ask• any one Member accustomed to

questions of privilege_ (for of these the Learned
Lord knew nothing), he would find that this was
the mode of proceeding, and that it Wiruld be no
protection to an individual in such a situation to
say, " tshall not answer the question, because
my answer may be used to criminate-myself," be-
cause he was perfectly sate from. any use being
made in a Court of Justice .of any answers made
by him to questions put by this House. Tlic
1-louse would disgrace, and degrade, and vilify it-
self, if it did not protect•its privileges in- the pre-
sent instance. The motion w►►s confined-to Fee-

gusson, and nothing was said in it about Lord
Douglas. But he must say, that even if the mo-
tion had been against Lord Douglas, the House
ought not to be prevented from ewertaining it,
from any thing which had passed to-night. It he
were a friend of Lord Douglas, he would say that,
for his sake, the present case should be thorough-
ly sifted ; for it it vvas allowed to rest as it now
stood, great suspicion %vould rest upon the way
in Which Lord Douglas was implicated.
The Lo.rd Advocate and Mr. Brougham nnutu•
ally explained.
Mr. BATHURST said, that the questiori before
the House was on the conduct of an individual of
the name of Fergusson, who had certainly been
guilty of a very _great breach of privilege; but
then the House had to consider how to dispose
of the motion now before it. The Most usual
course was to refer such a case to a CoMmittee of

Privileges, rather than call the individual, in the

first instance, to the Bar of the House.—Aikother

course was that which had been followed in the

Bishop of Worcester's case in 1704, in which a
prosecution was ordered. But in tl►e present
case, he thought the most advisable course would.
be, to refer the matter to a Con►mittee of Privi-

eges ; and therelorehe submitted to the Noble

LOrd whether it would not be better to do so. It
the Noble Lord did not, he himself tvould move
that it should be so referred.

Lord A. HAMILTON said, he had no objection

o the case being referred to a Committee of

Privileges.

Mr. BATHURST wished the Noble Lord to with-

;lraw his motion. This was declined, and then

Mr. 13A;Tilt1tt-sT Moved as an amemhneut, that
the question shopld be refwed to a Committee of
nivileges. '

. .
Lord A. HAM ILTON said he hoped he had not
acted uncandidly, in the way in which he had
brought forward this question. He certainly felt
very. great satisfaction that the House had not
acted in the summary way which the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr Dundas) advised, who wished
the whole to be dismissed ou tbe denial of Lotd
Douglas. As to What had been alluded to 're-
specting the Elections for the County which he
now represented, the transaction mentioned took
place above thirty years ago, and when it took
place, might have been brought before ParliaMent.
The original question was then put anti nega-
tived, without a diyision, after which the aniend.
ments-were agreed to, and an instruction waS J;iven
to the Committee to sit and proceed on the said
COM pl din I to-morrow.
After a few words from Lord A. HAMILTON and
Mr. BATH U BST, his Lortkhip's name was added
to the Committee.