Mr. LAMBTON introduced on...
The Times, 1824-05-27T00:00:00

Mr. LA'uBTON introduced on Tuesday night to theHouse of Commons a petition from Mr. BUCKINGHA-M, whose name has been before the public for some time as Editor of a Calcutta paper, for his mode of conducting which he was expelled from India by Mr. ADAMr; Governor pro temporc after Lord HASTINGS had resigned. The petition is much too long to be inserted in this journal; but we must say, that if the facts detailed by the petitioner be not pure iln- ventions-if they be not at least grossly exaggerated, or shamefully discoloured, or their bearings perverted by the su.ppression of other facts capable of explaining them in a senSe more favourable to the Indian Government-if nbne oFthese things can be traly affirmed of Mr. BucIInoGrAD, we do say that his petition discloses, not oue, but a series of proceedings by the pro tempore Admiinistration of Cal- cutta, disgraceful for the spirit of despotism anid per- secution which distinguishes them in all their stages. It is needless here to enter upon the inquiry, whether a free press can or cannot exist without ultimately de- stroying an arbitrary Government. The grounds on which this peculiar case ought to be argued, embrace, as it seems, two principal questions, but they are of extreme im- portance:-1st, Whether 'Mr. ADAm ass'imed an ille- gal power in banishing Mr. BUCKINGnHAM from In- dia; and 2d, whether, if the letter of the law were with him on that point, he did not indulge a tyrannical exercise of his discretion, as well by renewing against Mr. Bu cK- INGIIAMr a criminal information which had been dropped by the Government of Lord HASrINGS, and which on its revival the Chief Judge, on account of its unjust and op- pressive character, refused to try, as by the occasion which he tookl to inflict the punishmentof expulsion on Mr. Bucs- INGHA?4; by the application of such an arbitrarypunish- ment, in preference to that which a trial by jury might have authorized; by the regulation proceedinz frotn Mr. ADAI'S own will, made in absolute contravention of the liberty establishedby Lord HASTINGS, through ivhich regulation the whole Indian press was subjected to a licence, to be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the Governor; by the subsequent regulation, in virtue of which no printed book or paper, no matter if sold and eircalate4 open- ly in England, shoald be sold, circulated, lent for perusal, or deliverel in any mainer to any persons in India, without permission of the Governor, on pain of heavy fine or imprisonment; and finally, by the repeated violences offered to Mr. ARNOT, manager of the Calcutta *Journal for iMr. BUCKI,;Gn Aa in his absence; by the long imprisonment of that person, and his transmission to Eng- land by a eircaitous route, at variance with the usage of the Company, and with the spirit of the law which au- thorizes deportation;-the question, we repeat, whether acts like these were not such as, when left unvisited by the Di- rectors of the Company and by the Board of Control, ought to attract the most serious notice of Parliament, is one which deserves the consideration of every man alive to the necessity of watGhing well the excesses of power un- der an arbitrary Government. WVe know not of any ra- fional motive which could actuate the editor of an English journal in the East, to publish matter injurious or dangerous to the interests of the Company, with which those of every European resident throughout the three Presidencies are in the main identified. But apart from that subject, which might lead us too far, it is enough to state that no reply was attempted by Ministers to the tacts alleged in the pe- tition. Mr. WYNN's defence was this-," Do not you (the "C House of Commons) interfere, with transactions now C subjud ice at Vestminster." But this was a mock defence of the Indian Governor, inasmuch as the petitioner had alrea.ly declared his resolution to give up all judicial pro- ceedings, from utterly despairing of redress; save only suclh as he might obtain through Parliament. The power of deportation was fneant as a safeguard to the Company-nat as a screen to mercenary jobbing, car- ried on against the true interests of the Company by their own servants. Of Mr. BUCKINGHRAM2 personally, we have no knowledge; nor is it for his sake, but for that of a great pablic principle, that we think it worth while to utter a word upon the present subject. We have seen under the name of the gentleinan in question accusa. tionsinsinuatedagainst the character of this journal; which would justify us in regarding him and his concerns as altogether uuworthy the notice of The Times: but a wrong infiictedany where on the press by men in power, is not exclusively the concern of Air. BUCKINGH &M.