Star.
London, England, 1807-07-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Lottery Bill, the Irith Spirit Bill. the kith ProvlSon Bill
the Militia Pay and Cloathing Bill. and the Subaltern Officers'
Bill, were read a third time and palled.
Mr. HOBHODSF. reported from the CoMmittee of Supply, a
refolution for granting docol. far the repair of King Henry the
geventh's Chapel.
The Bill for allowing the divillan of Stoke Re Tory produced a
long convelfation, in which Sir EDWARD LIT I' LETON, Mr.
HAWKINS BROWN, Mr. W. SMITH, and ether Gentlemen,
fupported the Bill, on account of the increafing population of this
Parini. It was tended by Nit.. WARD, Lord MILTON, and
other Gentlemen, on the groui.d of the °Ned bel..g only to get a.
fum of money for the Redlur, by the dietitian, and that there was
no other neceffity for it. The Houfe divided—For the Bell, 63
againft it, 9.

INDIA BnIIDS BILL.

On the order of the day being read, for the further
confidcration of the report on this bill,
_ _

Mr. PETER MOORE role, and took a general
vievi of the influence exercifed by the Board of Con
troul over the Company. He fuppofed the preterit
Meafure originated rather with his lA...jetty's Mini-
fiers than with the Company. He thought the
Company ought not tobe refponfible for thole meafures
which were rotted upon them by the Board of Con
troul. He confidered that the greater part of the
wars which had lately taken place in India were by
no means the wars of the India Company, but of his
Majefly's Minifiers. To the extraordinary meafures
of atrocity committed in Oude and Arcot, he would
declare, that the Company was no party ;—and he
thought it rather unfarr that they fhould be obliged
to pay all the debts occafioned by fuch wars. The
only thing in which he thought the Compr..y were
to blame in thole tranfialions was, that they did not
make that firm nand againfl the Board of Controul
tirhich jullice and honour required that they fhould
make. He hardly remembered any Rand they had
made, except when the Board of Controul required
them to pay 1,300,0001. to the Nabob of Arcot. The
Board of Direttors rejeeed the propofition by a ma-
jority of 32 to j. The Court of Proprietors alfo re-
Reed it, but the Board of Controul were determined
on carrying it through. The Indian empire contain•
ing so millions of indnfirious people, ought to give
three millions annually to the parent (tate (bellies
the commerce) infiead of being a drawback. He
law not the lealt chance of the participation that had
been fa often promifed.
Mr. R. DUNDAS confidered moil of the ()bier-
vations which had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman
as completely irrelevant to the fubjeel. The general
Bate of India could not fairly be argued upon a bill
of this nature For infiance, the Houle could not',
decide, merely upon the H towable Member's al.'
fertion, that all the wars in India were forced upon
the Company by the Board of Controul. He could
only anfwer that affection by a contrary affertion.—
He would fay, that the wars which Lord Cornwallis
or Ma'quis Wcllefley had thought it necelfary to
wage in India, were purely from the ideas of what
was neceffary for the defence of the Company's pot.
feffionr, and certainly were not prefcribed by the
Board of Cnntroul. For wars undertaken for this
object, it was but jufi that the Company fhculd pay
the expence.
Lord FOLKSTONE oppofed the bill, on the
ground that the Company's affairs appeared to be
ttl fpch a Bate of dilapidation, chit the Houle ought
t 6 have fome better information of their fecurity be-
fore they allov el them to borrow any more money.
Mr. W. 4141T4 agreed generally in the opinion
delivered 1.4 his Honourable Friend (Mr. Peter
Mlore) : he thought that if the- Company wanted
another million, it would be much-the fajta way of
railing it, to increafe their capital: He thought the
*ate. was entitled to better informati n as to the
nOturc of the debt, end how it was contracted.
' Mr. GRANT totally denied that Parliament, in
aMosigrthistill to pats, affurned any relponfibility,

or gave any guarantee for the rolveney of the India'
Company. He faid, the exchifive charter lit the
Company was the only fource left for preferving the
poffoLon of India to the Britilh empire, and that it
was by a Rate of war,-wholly unexpected, that the
Company were prevented from devoting the promif-
ed (hare of their profits, in payment of their debt tp
the public.
Dr. LAWRENCE contended that the Houle, be-
fore
it could pats this bill, was bound to examine into
the Rate of the Company's affairs ; for if, withotit
examining, they farglioned the iffue of thole bondi,
the public who gave their money on loch fecurities,
would have an equitable, if not a legal claim to cow!
potation, in cafe of the Company's infolvency.
Mr. WHITBREAD aflimilated the cafe of the
Houle giving its fan&ion to this bill, in preference to
letting the Company raife money by the means al-
ready in their power, namely, the enlargement of
their capital, to that of mince is the affairs of 'a
man generally reported infolvent, who, without ex-
amining the affairs of his truft, would tanClinn him in
borrowing money upon his bonds ; and would theta-
by, in juftice and confcience, affume a refpnnfibiPty
to thofe, in confequence of failure, who should be the
holders of fuch bonds. Be fides, he law no • nedeifu'y
for precipitating this hill, without examining the (late
of the Company's affairs, which was now printing,
and would be ready ih a very few days. Where!
could he the difference to the Company, whether this
bill naffed a week fooner or later, if all was fair N—
and why prefs it forward to a premature Aecift.tn,l
without the' decency of 'a previous inquiry into their I
account!, unlefs they believed the Rate Of thofe was ;
fuch as mull render the palling of the bill wholly un
watrantable ? If the Houle, after palling the bill,
fhould find loch was the Rate • of the Company's
affairs, how could they juftify their precipitancy to
themfelves, or to the country ? • • •
Mr. DUNDAS had no objeaion to pofipone the
bill for a few' days, if the Honourable Gentleman-
meant merely pro forma, in order that the accounts
(horrid be laid on the table before the third reading.
But if the Honourable Member meant that a mintve
invefligation of the whole of the accounts, b•ith Indian
and domettic, was indifpenfable, or that the Company's
debts in India were to be funded, he could not ac-
-cede to the delay.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT faid, that in the bargain
for the lall renewal of their charter, fir a monopoly
ni,the India trade, the Company had equally broken
their engagemei•is with England and Leland.
Mr. CREEVY fuggefted the third reading of the
bill on f liday next.
Mr. GRANT expreffed a willingnefs to meet the
Honourable Gentleman's wifhes ; and tonicnccalion
again to declare, that the EAU India Company's al
fairs did not appear to be in that deranged (late,
which had been fuppofed by an Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Whitbread). But thould the public be of that
opiainn, of courfe they would not lend their money
up•in the Company's bonds.
Dr .LAWRENCE explained. Af er which it was
agreed, and ordered that the bill lhould be read a
third time on this day fennight.
The Eaft India Company's Gov, ?lament Regulation Bill paffed
through a Committee, and the Report ordered to be received to-
TIOITOR.

IRISH ISISURRECTMN BILL.

On the motion for refulving into A Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. WHITBREAD laid he alfented to the
going into a Committee, from the affurance he had
received of the prelent alarming (late of the country
from others, befide thole who now directed its go
vernment, and becaufe he hoped to find it in a much
lefs objeaionable Ihape, coming out of the Commit-
tee. To the Pieamble in particular, he mull uhjea
prima facie, as not applicable to the Rate of the country
now, compared with its fituatiun in 1796, when the
Bill originally paired.
Sir J. NEWPOR r Paid a few words to the fame
purport.
Sir A. WELLESLEY laid, he intended to pro.
pole an alteration in the preamble.
The Houfe then refolved into a Committee.

On the reading of the claufe for ettaaing the eapi•
tal punifliment of perfons convi&ed r‘f being prefer'',
aiding, abetting, and affilling, in the administration
of unlawful oaths, fume difcutlion took place.
Sir J. NEWPORT, Mr. WHITBREAD, Lord H.
PETTY, and Mr. GRATTAN, were defirnus the clank
lhould be to worded a! not to involve innocent per.
tons, accidentally prefent in the room where fuch
unlawful oaths might be tendered, but withour their
knowledge or atlittance, in a capital ponilhment—
and therefore it was prop fed to word the clatife
4‘ prefent, and knowingly and wilfully aiding. &c."
Str ARTHUR WELLESLEY, the ATT,IINEY GRNE•
LAL, Mr. SIMEON, the CHANCEI.LoI of the EICHP.
osse, and Mr. CKOl[lll, were of opinion, that the
claufe was worded in the ordinary legal language of
all indiaments for
,fimilar crimes; and that it was
impoffible to find a man capitally guilty under it,
unlefs it firruld be proved, that betide being prefent,
he was knowingly and wilfully guilty of aiding, abet-
ting,
and affirting—and that, therefore, the chant*
propofed would be only an unneeWsry tranfiati..n of
the well known and explicit language of the kw. into
that of common parlance.
The claufe was agreed to in its original form.
Among the various amendments and new clanfes
that were prOspnfed, there was one tuggefted by Sir 1
JOHN NEN roar, on the clank which gave a power
to the Magistrates to arrest tirangers in their feveral-i
dillri&s.

The amendment propofed was, that a power
fhould be given to the Lord Lieutenant, or the Ma
giflrates at the Qarter Set:firms, to releafe the party
artefied, on giving good fecurity for his appearance,
where nothing particular appeared to charge him
with any aft of criminality.
It was contended on the part of Government, by
Coknel Via EKS it and others, that the power might
be welled in the Lord Lie,renants, who might
be flippored to be poffefred of all the information
neceffary to know whether the party ought to be de-
tained or not—but that it ought not to be given to
the Magiftrates, becaufe their party divifions were fo
great, that force of them would be gild to releafe a
prifoner, bec4ufe he was committed by a Megitirate
of the other party.
On the other hand, it w4l argued by Mr. WHIT.
BREAD. Sir I. Na% TORT. Said Mr. Motets, that if
Inch divilinas among the Magiltrateirdid exit), the
Houle lb be more cauticus how they 'gave up
the liberiy .of the fibjett without fufacieat guars;

•
•

and that &angers, as they were clenominatedib-the
Bill, eoUld• only be billstnen coming front Come other
ming: or perhaps fro, the next pariflt, or it might
-be Iron" Oe next Brett; or the next door, as theword
Qranger was undefinable. -
Qn this ruble& Mr. Croker, Colonel Vereker, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (poke feveral times
On one fide, and Mr. Whitbread, Sir J. Newiktrt,
and Mr. Morris, on the other.
A divifion took place, on which there was,
For Sir J. Newport!, Pioyifo 18—Againft it 27
Majlrity 9.
We were not again admitted into the Gallery, but we
underttood that. Mr. Whitbread fired the Committee
on his Poor Belief Bill, patomc on to.morrow.
Adj turned.