The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

if ministers to the croWn and to the people on which he dwelt
cith so triuL:h.emphasis and so touch studied energy. (Laughter
front ttte ,ipp:iiition.) Ha begged t.) thank the right hanourable
;entteinan, however, for the ground on which he put the post-
ponel,nent of the clause. He was perfectly satisfied with his
Ixplauation, and, having his assurance for its truth, he could
out doubt it. Ii he applied unpalatable language to the hon.
gentleman, supposfng that his postponement of the clause had
reference to discussions pending in another place, and which a
threatened vote of this house would be supposed to overawe, he
oegged, after the explanation of the right hon. gentleman, to
say that he was entirely content. It was his pleasure, as wellas
it was his duty, to retract that language as regarded him.
However, he did not retract the language as referring to the
sentiments that he heard uttered on the other side of the house,
and now he would transfer it from the right hon. gentleman to
the two hun. members opposite (Hume and O'Connell), for
'they had advanced dangerous doctrines, tending to upset all
freedom and independence of action in the other branch of the
legislature, which bad as sound at constitutional right of judg-
ment as that house, (Cheers.)
Mr. O'CoriNELL said be accepted the transfer, and returned
it back with contetnpt—(a laugh)—for be loathed the slavish
doctrine that would bend the people to the yoke of the crown or
the aristocracy. He (Mr. O'Connell) was'not the vile traficker
in politics who would run a particular course in order to run the
chance of selling himself at a good price to a dominant faction.

STAMP DUTY UN NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. E. L. BULIKEIt rose for the purpose of impressing upon
the mind of his right lion. friend, the. Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, the question of some relief to the people as regarded
the stamp duty on newspapers, and concluded by moving that
the house do resolve itself into a committee to consider the ex-
pediency of reducing the stamp duty on newspapers to one
penny.
A t Ile close of the debate the motion was negatived without a
division.

On the motion of Mr. Tutx, the adjourned debate on air.
Bnckingham's 'claim was resumed, and tl.e hon. gentleman ad-
dressed the house in support of the motion.
Sir J. HOLIHOUSL regretted that the hon. member for Sheffield
was present iu the house during the discussion of a question in-
volving, his own pecuniary claims. The claim for compensa-
tion had twice been brought before the court of proprietors and
had been rejected, and the subject, from 1825 to 183:, had not
been taken up. A committee had been granted at the latter
period, and the house was now called upon to tax the people of
India to the amount of £40,000. If the vote was agreed to
neither the court of directors nor the court of proprietors would
lose one shilling, as the interest of the company was guaranteed
by act of parliament. He denied that parliament hair the right
to levy a flue on the territory of India for such a purpose and in
such a case as that now before the house. If there was any
just ground of interference he would not have oppaiied the mo-
tion. He wished to know why the bill had‘been postponid till-
this period of the session? Why had it not been brought in-
before ? ,He recommended the hon. gentleman not to proceed
With it. .There was no passibility, as far as he could judge, of
his carrying it. He had no case at all. Mr. Buckingham's
loss could not be proved, his property could not be assessed,
and, he believed, no injustice was complained of. This was
not a tribunal to decide such a case. He should most streuu-.
ouslv oppose the motion.
The SPEAKER asked whether the consent of the crown had
been given? .
Sir J. HoeHousE said he would waive that question.
Mr. Hume was surprised at' the course taken by the right
honourable baronet. Mr. Buckingham suffered great iujustice
by the arbitrary conduct of the Governor. He was in India on
a licence, and his newspaper was realizing him a profit of nearly
£B,OOO a year, when he was banished and it was suppressed.
This was for publishing an article objecting to an official ap-
pointxnent which the East India Company and the Government
themselves sent out an order to cancel. He hoped the house
would allow the bill to go into committee, where some, com-
promise might be effected. Perhaps they, could not ascertain
the value within £lOO or even £l,OOO, but the select committee
desired to make some approach to justice. Let them, grant
£30,000 or £20,000, or whatever, was thought reasonable. In
the committee, some compromise might be effected.
Mr. ROBINSON opposed the motion. He questioned if the
bill were passed, if the East India Company could be forced to
pay the money.
Mr. BAINES supported the motion. He was prepared to
prove that the loss of Mr. Buckingham was a substantial loss.
Mr. V. SMITH felt considerable embarrassment in being
under the necessity of speaking on this question, in the pre-
sence of the hon. gentleman who was the subject of it. The
proposition was not one in which he could feel disposed to con-
cur; and those who had supported it seemed to have lost sight
of •one party who were deeply concerned in it—the natives of
India. The obvious, and only course for the hon. gentleman to
pursue, if he bad been wronged, was that of suing the Governor
General of India. With reference to the account of the injury
which had been suffered—be would observe that while the•bon.
member for Middlesex had stated it to ,be *the loss of £B,oooa
year, the income derived from his newspaper, Mr. Bucking-
ham himself had variously stated it at 1:000, £6,000, and
£B.oooa. year. -

,--..
Mr. O'CoNNELL contended for the necessity of allowing the
Lilt to be brought in, and leaving the details of it to the com-
mittee. A prima facie case had ucen established in the report
of the select committee upon the subject.
Mr. WALKER supported the motion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
, • For the motion
Against it
Majority in favour of the motion —32.
•
The other orders of the day were then disputed of, and the
house adjourned at Two o'clock.