Star.
London, England, 1813-04-14 00:00:00

1

EAST-INDIA AFFAIRS.

Lord CASTLEREAGH moved, that the House
should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the
affairs of the East-India Company. He wished„hpw-
ever, to suggest, that the mode in which the exami-
nation of witnesses had been hitherto carried on often
interrupted the business of the House, and that the
business of the House embarrassed the proceedings'
of the Committee. He would therefore propose that
a Select Committee should be appointed to sit out of
the House, and to take the depositions of witnesses.
A similar step had been taken in 1791, when the
examinations before the African Slave Trade,Com-
mittee were going on. He did not think any disad-
vantage would follow from the Committee being held
up stairs, as the attendance of the House was nut in
general such as to promise any advantage in the re-
sult greater than would be obtained by Members
reading the printed accounts of the evidence. His
Lordship concluded with moving, that the examina-
tion of witnesses on this question be referred to a
Committee to sit out of the House, and that every
Member who chose to attend should have a voice.

Mr. H. THORN'rON, on the part of the East-
India Company, opposed the motion. He said they
had been hitherto speaking to the ear of the country,
and now that they had begun to make an impression,
it was pr9posed to put them into a corner, to lay them
on the shelf, and to defeat the impression which the
publicity of the evidenc‘would makftin their favour.
It was not only his wish, but the wial of the Direc-
tors, from whom he had just come, that the evidence
should continue to be given at the bar of the House.
Mr. BATHURST could not conceive how any in-
conenience could arise to the East India Company
from referring the evidence to a Select Committee.
Mr. TIE RNEY thought there was as much -reason
for having this examination conducted at the Bar of
the House as any other, and if the arguments used
by the Noble Lord went,to any thing, they went to
this, . that all examinations whatever ought to be
referred to a Committee up stairs. The hardship of
not having the evidence given at the bar, applied
equally or still more to those who wished to establish
their claim to an open trade, none of whose witnesses
had yet been brought forward. It was possible, how-
ever, that their evidence might be such, that they
would rather be desirous that it should be given in a
corner, than exposed to the broad face of day. If it
would not too much distract the attention of the No-
ble Lord (Castlereagh), who he supposed was reading
some India paper, (a laugh) he wished to be informed
whether it was his intention that the Select Committee
should sit atter this night, or not till after the holidays?
Mr. PJNSONBY was of opinion that the India
Company appeared in the character of defendants,
that they had to maintain a possession, which it was
proposed to take from them, and that therefore they
had a right to the m Ist favourableand patient hearing.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, it was true the East-India Company were peti-
tioners to that House ; they were petitioners to have
the sovereignty of sixty millions of people continued
to them for twenty years longer, and to retain the ex-
clusive monopoly of the trade of Asia. He saw not
the slightest ground for resisting the motion for a Se-
lect Committee, where every Gentleman would be
able to put any questions, and to cross-examine evi-
dence in any manner he pleased.
Mr. C. GRANT, speaking on the authority of the
Directors of the East India Company, declared, that
that body would think itself grievously injured if the
conclusion of the evidence on their behalf were not
heard at the Bar.

Lord CASTLEREAGH added, that his object
was to consult.the convenience of all parties ; nor did
he think, that by the proposed arrangement the Com-
pany would have any right to complain of severity.
He could not admit, with Mr. Ponsonby, that the
East India Company, or any other body, ought to
dictate to Parliament the mode of its proceeding—
such a doctrine was most unconstitutional and dan-
gerous, since the House was a fit judge of the steps
it would take with regard to the cases of persons who
appeared before it merely.as petitioners; asking the
favour to be heard by their witnesses.
Mr. ASTELL opposed the motion, maintaining
the unfairness of smothering the remainder of the Pe-
titioners' case, by sending it up stairs. •
Lord CASTLEREAGH replied, that nothing
was further from his wish than to do injustice to any
of the parties.
Mr. PONSONBY denied, very strenuously, that he
had asserted that the House was to be controuled in
its proceedings by the dictates of the East India Com-
pany-. The Noble Lord, in truth,- was the author of
all the inconvenience that had yet, and would here-
afiei result ; for if the examination at the Bar was
objectionable, lie ought to have opposed nit in limine.
Lord CASTLEREAGH rejoined, that he was
not aware, originally, that the testimony upon one
point only would be protracted to such a length.
Mr. CANNING said, his reason for 'Voting for the
motion of Lord Castlereagh was, that if it were not
agreed to, the evidence would ..delay the decision to
so late a period of the session, that it could not be
concluded, and the interests of the Company would
be endangered.
Mr. TIERNEY observed, that if other parties
were to be allowed the choice of being heard before a
Select Committee, the Company. ought not to be de-
prived of its option of being heard before a Commit:-
tee of the whole House. If two whole days were
applied to the subject before the holiday, the same
time after the recess would, he belinad, conclude
the' whole subject on the part of the Petitioners.
Mr. G. SMITH opposed the motion shortly, as did
also Mr. GRENkELL. After a few words from Lord
CASTLEREAGH, the question was put.
Mr. LUSHINGTON (the Chairman) declared

that the motion -had been carried.,--A division w
called for, when the numbers were—For Lord Cat.
tlereagh's motion 95—Against it 37—Majority 58.
When the Gallery was re-opened, we found Lord
CASTLEREAGII upon his legs, observing that it would
now remain for the House to decide upon the rec.-orn-
mendation of the Committee, and to form the select
body upon such regulations to the time of its sitting
as it should deem expedie:-.t.
Colonel Monroe was again called in, and unde-
went a long examination by Mr. ADAM and Mr. Fl
LAY. The Colonel stated that private traders wet f!
generally very obnoxious to the native population r.:-
India, in consequence of tl!e harshness with wl.iet:
they demeaned themselves. Indeed, he had heard of
indigo merchants having put native Indians in tilt-
stocks, and subjected them to other inflictions per•-•
liarly abhorrent to the nature of the Indian cliaracttz.
In the course of his own experience in India, he had
seen much.to justify the prejudice which the Indians
entertained against the private traders. Acts of in-
justice and oppression were never, to his knowledge,
attributable to the agents of the India Company, who
were, therefore, much more popular among the In-
dian population. Commerce, he said, had never yet
effected any alteration in the manners and habits of
the native Indians.

The Chairman reported progress, and obtained
leave for the Committee to sit again.
Mr. LIJSHINGTON then moved that a Select
Committee be appointed to examine the further evi.
hence on Indian affairs, who would report thit evi-
dence from time to time to the House. On the ques.
tion being put, it was agreed to. •
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose to move that the
House continue the examination of evidence on In-
dian affairs to-morrow.
After some observations, it was at last suggested
by the &queen, that to obvitte this difficulty it
might be proper to move, that the further considera-
tion of the question be continued till to-morrow (thlt
day). This was accordingly moved and agreed to.
DOCTRINCS OF MAYNOOTII.
Mr. RYDER moved that there be laid before the
House a copy of the course of lectures and instruc-
tions, particularly on theology, dogmatical and mo-
ral, of the Royal College of Maynooth, for the
year 1812.
Mr. W. FITZGE RA LD approved of the motion ;
and stated, that he had been desired by the
that
of
the College to communicate to the House that they
were ready to lay before the House any information
that it might call for.—(Hear, hear).
Sir J. NEWPORT thought the motion one of the
most extraordinary he had ever heard (Hear, hear)—
and could not but lament that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, While Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, if so desirous of • knowledge on this parti-
cular subject, had not availed himself of all the in-
formation then within his reach—for it might have
assisted him in the arduous duty of settling the
nightly watch !—(Laughter).
Mr. PEELE thought the motion a very fair one,
as it would be much better to go direct to Maynooth,
than to ask for it: doctrines from some five or six
Universities abroad.

Mr. W. WYNNE was of opinion, that as nothing
less than a copy of the whole course of lectures
would satisfy the Right Hon.. Mover, that he ought
also to move for copies of all the sermons preached by
all the Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland in 18121.

Mr. BRAGG- E BA-THURST. contended, th-at
they had a 'tight to know what were the documents
promulgated in a Roman Catholic seminary main-
tained by the royal boUnty
Mr. W. FITZGERALD and Mr. W. WYNNE
explained, the latter observing, that he did not under.
stand the motion since it had been explained, for by
the whole course, he could not think that a part only
was required.
Lord CASTLEREAGH considered that the mo,.
Lion meant a summary of the lectures.
Mr. WHITBREAD would be very glad to know
what really was moved for ? To the motion, as it
stood, what could be returned but a copy, verbatim et
literatim,_ of all the lectures, dec. delivered in 1812
Mr. ABERCROMBIE; Mr. WHITBREAD, ME. RYDER,
Lord DESART, Lord CASTLEREAGH, Sir H. PARSILLLip
Mr. PEELE, and Mr. WYNNE, made some further ob-
servations on the wording of the motion.
Mr. WHITBREAD moved, as an amendment,
that the College be required to give the head: of the
Lectures.
Colonel BARRY suggested the propriety of call.
ing for the substance only.
General MATHEW supported the amendment.
Mr. FITZGERALD believed the Trustees were
anxious to afford useful information to the House.
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON contended that the
Motion, as amended, would.not produce information
satisfactory to the House.
Mr. WHITBREAD immediately withdrew his
amendment, and the original motion was agreed to.
PORTUGUESE AND SICILIAN SUBSIDIES.
• Mr. LI;SHINGTON brought up the Report of
the Committee of Supply, and the Resolutions grant-
ing two millions sterling for the service in Spain and
Portugal, and £400,000 for the Sicilian service, to
his Majesty, were read a first and second time.
IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The Resolution of granting a sum of 832,965 for
Icarrying on the public works in Ireland being read,
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, this vote was di.
rectly in contravention of the agreement respecting
the Irish Civil List, of which the inviolability had
been so strongly urged, but which had constantly
been departed from.
Mr. FITZGERALD said, that in the King's let.
ter on which the Act in question was founded, the
sum in question was proposed in accordance to the
usage ever since the Act in question had been passed.
Mr. BANKER objected to the grant, which, after
some discussion between General MATHEW. Mr. Ft rz.
GERALD, and Mr. PEELS, was agreed to.
On the vote for publishing Proclamations being
read,

Sir J. NEWPORT said he should oppose this
grant, which had a pernicious influence on the Irish
press. From the Press, one of the papers encouraged
by a share of this annual vote, the infamous fabrica-
tion against the Catholics, which had excited such in•
dignatton, had issued.
General MAT HEW objected to. the Vote, on as
count of the influence exercised by the money thus
granted over the Irish press. In one instance, when
the Editor of the Clonmel Herald had voted in favour