Star.
London, England, 1811-02-22 00:00:00

the subect of assessed tales took place, ht Which the
Chancellor of the Etchequer and a number of other
Members spoke at considerable length.
Sir JOHN ANSTRUTHER observed, that -on-
Sir
injury was occasioned by the propagation of
sreche., made by Members of that House, before the
lull explanation of the particular transactions had
taken place. He was ready on his part to bar test;.
Irony to the great talents, firmness and zeal of SirC.
Barlow, for his conduct do the late events in India;
send was ready to assert that no one act cf his could
be construed into a cause of the mutiny. It had:been'
stated that the Jurors who were etnpluyed on tbelate
trials at Madras, had been punished for their conduct
as Jurors. That he denied in the most unqnalified
Manner; but it was not admitted by that Gyvcrumetit
that indemnity should attach. to improper conduct,
merely because the persons guilty of it had served on
these Juries.. With respect to the power of dismissing
officers of the artny, it was a power which Sir George
Barlow had eertainly exercised, but with wisdom and
discretion. If the power of dismissing officers with..
out trial was taken away from the executive, no mili-
tary system could stand npott such
Sir HENRY MONTGOMERY, after a very ani-
mated panegyric on the services ofGeneral M'Dowall
and the Madras Atmy, contended, that to Sir George
Barlow's conduct the Mutiny was to be attributed..---
14e it was who had created it—(lfear, hear,)—and
instead of getting credit for its suppression, ought
to be responsible for its eitistence and consequences.
The original cense of the Mutiny was the suspension
of Colonel Capper and Major Bowles; and when the
atany saw that those who hid respectfully stated their'
claims, by memorial, to the GoiernMent, were thrown
into prison, the rest stoodupon their defence with the
point of the bayonet. He was aware that improper
memorials had been transmitted by ill-disposed per=
scns ; but the army was not to Suffer for their trims:,
particularly 'when not a single baker bad signed- theM.
Mr. GRENFELL asked the Right Hon. Gentle=
Man opposite a question,• which we believe related to
any communication that tnigbt have been made to
Colonel Bowles respecting his reinstatement ' • but we
were not able distinctly to collect the tenor of the in-
quiry, or of Mr. Maas's reply.
Mr. ASTELL observed, that all the charges made
against the East-Ind4 Directory, would be best an:
swered by a refesence to the Records on the table.—
With respect to the expectations, that the army would
la* acquiesced in the decision of Lord Minto, he beg-
ged leave to say, that the Madras Army did not sheet
any disposition to submit, until they found themselves
disapppoutted in their main stay, namely, the disaf-
fection of the native troops.
Mr. CREEVEY denied the justness of the charge
of taking any unfair course submitting the present
motions. Neither could' be- admit-the imputation of
having attributed improperly any charge against the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dundas) for carrying
through the House a very serious Bill in a clandestine
manner. He then repeated what he before said, that
the Bill which granted one million and a half to the
East•lndia Company, was carried last Session through
the House, on eyery stage of it save the last, in the
dead of the night, when the Members were exhausted ;
end that bathe last stage joins, at an unusually early
hour, introduced-to an audience brought together by
previous notice. '
Mr. HOWORTH 'deprecated the statement thei
80,000 men, who•had so gloriously extended the ter-
ritory and interests of the Country in India, were only
induced to submission by the .fidelity of the Native
troops. Such had been the statement of the Chair=
roan of the East-IndiaCompany. Cotild any man whit
knew India, make such a mischievous declaration?
The several motions were then put and denied.
PZNITENTIAAY NOMA.

Oft SAMUEL ROMILLY, in consequence of the Indisposi-
tion ot the Secretary of State for the Home Department, postpon-
ed for the present his motion relative to Penitentiary Houses
with &nomads's, however, of shortly submitting it to the Hone.
Es wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, whetter
any embarkation of convicts, and particularly of female convicts,
la New death Wales, wallop* to take place ?
The OKANCELLOR of the EX.CHRQUER iirofened him •
self unable to answer the question of his Hon. and Learned
/rind. He believed. however, that a number of convicts had
been waidng for some dale, and he supposed either that they had
already set sail or that they would soon set sail.

CAPITAL Pll/.3IIIIMISTS.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, it would not be
necessary for him to preface his motion with many
observations, as he did not understand that it was to
meet with any opposition. He thee stated the diffe-
rent Bills which he formerly introduced on the subject
of capital punishments. One only, that for repealing
the Act which made it capital to steal privately from
the person to the amount of five shillings, had been
passed last Session. He had the satisfaction to see:,
that from the short experience which they had of ate
consequences of repealing this act, great benefits lied
already resulted. The very principle on which he had
proposed most of those acts was, that the severity. of
capital punishments prevented men from prosecuting,
and juries from convicting, in cases which appeared
not to deserve capital punishment ; and that therefore,
if this great severity of the law was done mvav,"-there
would be more prosecutions, and crimes would not so
b-rful escape - with impunity,'. or offenders grow so
hardened in vice. This effect had followed from the
Bill which wets passed last Session. Since that time
there hal been many more prosecutions and convic-
tions than, before: The same effects, he was eEia-
vinced, would follow from the adoption of the other
which he now wished tojitroduce. The first of thesis;
that for repealing the act making it capital to steal to
the value of 40 shillings in a dwelling-house, was last
Session rejected in a tlain•House by a majority of two.
I')e ni-it was for repealing the act respecting steal-
in;; on navigable rivers and canals. He was con-
• cd that all the good effects which he had formerly
scktt'd would result from the adoption of them. He
• so convinced in his.ovm mind of the importanF
or t:a- principle, that he felt it his duty to penirere
it.ale had no other motive for giving up MS time
subjects, than that he thought (as alegreat
'3' Coke bad said as his reason for Wri!ing shook )
t: every man who had succeeded ht a profession,
• it as a debt to that prntession to dnsettiithing
its benefit and advanceinent: • He felt, upon
I:ii, principle, that he owed as much as any sub, a,
grist debt to his profession, which he could not dis-i
c:,arge in any better mattner, than in endeavouring
enrrect any defect.existing in the law, and labour-
as far as be could far the happiness and advance-
-1: 'sr.: of his country. 'Sir Samuel Romilly con-
a.'l4cd by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to re-