un

of the Indian character, nor could he believe that they were so foolishly inflammable as some gentlemen seemed to apprehend. He thought that in the present state of trade, no man could say that India ought to be for ever hermetically sealed against this country; and as for jea. lousy, he thought the regulations to be adopted should be as jealous and scrupulous to protect the security of the British merchant in this friendly territory, as to preserve the monopoly of the Company. He conceived the general principle to be pretty well disposed of, except between those classes who went to the extreme length of contending, on the one side, that the East India Company should be abolished, and those who, on the other, maintained, that not a single feather should be taken from their sovereignty and prospe rity. He thought that the decision of the House should be between those two extremes; and although he did not apprehend any insurmountable difficulty, in providing a government for India, independent of the Company; yet no man wished more than he did, to continue it in their hands. He was sure, that no system could be radically bad which had produced such able and enlightened statesmen as had been examined on the part of the Company. He was sure that such a system must be good, if it did not degenerate into a system of exclusion; and that under proper arrangements, it might best promote the happiness of India, and the true interests of this country.

were not, therefore, now at liberty to shift the guilt and disgrace of the trade (which had subsisted and been sanctioned for more than a century) from the nation to any particular set of men. It was not fair to impute the wickedness of this trade to a set of men who were comparatively innocent. As to the free trade with India, however, it was opposed principally on two grounds. In the first place, it was said that the expectations of gain by the merchants was so exaggerated, that there was every probability of its leading to their ruin; and secondly, it was stated that such was the immutability of the character and habits of the natives of India, that there was no probability of increasing the trade. It had been said, that for 3,000 years that nation had subsisted and witnessed all manner of convulsions of the earth, and rivers changing their course, while they themselves remained changed. What proof was there of this immutability of character? Had they not lately seen a change in the whole tenure of landed property without a murmur? Had they not seen an entire change in the judicature of the country, without a murmur? Had they not given 150,000 men to fight under Christian banners; and was it now to be said that this people could bear no changes? He could not see upon what principle we were to be told that in those territories of our allies, if not of our own empire, British merchants should not be allowed to trade on terms at least as favourable as others,-why the Americans should be admitted when the Mr. Ponsonby would have wished not to British were not admitted. All the argu- be called upon now to give a vote upon ments on the other side went to vituperate the first Resolution, as he thought the the character of the British merchants; House would be better prepared for the but when the great danger of admitting decision after the discussion of the other them to the China trade was urged, it Resolutions. He, however, felt himself should be recollected that the Chinese more inclined to the opinion of the noble themselves considered and called the lord (Castlereagh,) than to that of the Americans second-chop Englishmen. And right hon. gentleman who had just sat was it now to be contended that British down. If he were called upon for an merchants ought not to be trusted to trade, opinion upon the general question, he not only with China, but even with our would say, that the inclination of his mind own territories? The question was not was, that the government of India ought now about their trading without restric- not to be continued in the hands of the tions, but their trading subject to restric- Company. When it was stated that the tions and regulations. It was now con- East India Company had introduced every tended that this people, who had not reform that was practicable in India, he changed for 3,000 years, would change must say that this was not historically their character all of a sudden, if a few correct. It was not the East India Compedlars were allowed to travel in the coun- pany who were the reformers. India as try with a pack of scissars or other hard-well as this country owed all the grand ware at their backs. He, however, nei- reforms which had taken place in that ther believed in the alleged immutability country, to that great and extraordinary

Mr. Robinson, in supporting the Resolution, took occasion to warn the advocates of the India Company how far they contributed to extend the discussion of the question, whether it would be wise and expedient to govern India altogether independent of that Company. He strongly supported the suggestion for opening the trade. The only objections which had been urged, and which resulted from all the evidence that had been adduced, was the probability of smuggling, and the ine jury likely to be sustained by the natives

could be fully and completely obviated.

General Gascoyne said, he thought the India trade in general ought to be opened to the mercantile spirit of this country at large; but with respect to China, he should have no objection to let it remain in the hands of the Company for some short period of a year or so.

man who now rested in the lap of earth, the late Mr. Burke. It was to his great genius, perseverance, and unexampled industry, that all these great reforms were owing. If, when his right hon. friend who sat near him (Mr. Grattan) should rest like Mr. Burke, the Catholic question should be more favourably received, it must at all times be acknowledged that it was to his labour that it was principally owing. In the same manner, it must be confessed that it was to Mr. Burke that the reforms in India were principally owing, and that it was the British parliament, and not the-and those he had not the slightest doubt India Company, that introduced those reforms. He saw nothing in the nature of India that required those territories to be governed by the Company, although he would allow that unless proper regulations were made, there would be great danger in transferring so much patronage and influence to the crown. There were some persons, however, who held out the government of India by the Company as a thing in itself deserving the greatest admiration. He would ask those persons, however, if they had not found such a government accidentally established there, could they propose such a system of government for any other territories or colonies belonging to the empire? Could they, for example, propose that such a system of government should be adopted for the West Indies, or for Canada? It was, however, a very different thing to continue a system that we found established, from admiring it as a thing which was in itself most excellent. He should, however, have no objection to continue the government of India in the hands of the Company, for six or seven years, in its present state. He could not see on what grounds the British merchants were to be excluded from the trade to China, as the East India Company could not pretend that they were the sovereigns of China. They might say that the Indian trade was necessary to their Indian empire, but he could not see how they could assert that the monopoly of the China trade was also necessary to their Indian empire. He could not see how it could be fairly argued that the British merchants should be the only ones in the world that must be entirely excluded from all participation in the trade. He should not, however, object to the monopoly being continued a few years longer, but he could by no means agree to a proposition for extending it to 20 years.

Sir J. Newport said, he thought the management of the trade of this country with India would be carried on much better under the controul of parliament, rather than by the monopoly of the Company. It was most evident, that in the course of every ten years since 1774, the Company had been under the necessity of applying to parliament for relief; and this application very forcibly evinced that this monopoly was not the most favourable mode of carrying on the East India trade. In almost every year during that period of time, they had been obliged to recur to parliament for assistance, and did not hesitate to own, that if that assistance were not granted, they must become bankrupt. In this way they had, during the whole of that long term of years, been supported by the public money, and yet had taken the advantage of their monopoly, so as to make the public pay whatever prices they chose to put upon the commodities they brought from India. If, therefore, they could not carry on their trade with all the advantages of their monopoly, without having through the medium of parliament recourse to the public purse, it was evident the country was the paymaster, and was fairly entitled to a participation in the profits of the trade.

The first Resolution was agreed to without a division.

Lord Castlereagh said, the second Resolution would very probably lead to a considerable length of debate. An hon. gentleman opposite had a notice which in the regular course of the business of the House,

was entitled to precedence, but he hoped on such an occasion the hon. gentleman would consent to wave his privilege.

Mr. Creevey immediately consented to wave the precedence of his motion, which stood for to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, June 1.

not greater importance, to all who are British in their feelings, as well as blood and birth, that on the 21st January, 1813, at Huddersfield, himself and six other persons, who, on hearing of his arrival, had waited on him merely as a testimony of respect, were seized by a military and civil force, and kept in close custody for several hours, subjected to gross and abusive insinuation from the commanding MAJOR CARTWRIGHT'S PETITION.] Lord officer, relative to the character of the peByron rose and said :-My lords, the Peti titioner; that he (the petitioner) was tion which I now hold for the purpose of finally carried before a magistrate and not presenting to the House, is one which I released till an examination of his papers humbly conceive requires the particular proved that there was not only no just, but attention of your lordships, inasmuch as, not even statutable charge against him; though signed but by a single individual, and that, notwithstanding the promise and it contains statements which (if not dis-order from the presiding magistrates of a proved) demand most serious investigation. copy of the warrant against your peti The grievance of which the petitioner tioner, it was afterwards withheld on divers complains, is neither selfish nor imaginary. pretexts, and has never until this hour It is not his own only, for it has been, and been granted. The names and condition is still felt by numbers. No one without of the parties will be found in the Petis these walls, nor indeed within, but may tion. To the other topics touched upon to-morrow be made liable to the same in- in the Petition, I shall not now advert, sult and obstruction, in the discharge of from a wish not to encroach upon the an imperious duty for the restoration of time of the House; but I do most sinthe true constitution of these realms, by cerely call the attention of your lordships petitioning for reform in parliament. The to its general contents-it is in the cause petitioner, my lords, is a man whose long of the parliament and people that the life has been spent in one unceasing strug-rights of this venerable freeman have been gle for the liberty of the subject, against violated, and it is, in my opinion, the that undue influence which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished; and whatever difference of opinion may exist as to his political tenets, few will be found to question the integrity of his intentions. Even now oppressed with years, and not exempt from the infirmities attendant on his age, but still unimpaired in talent and unshaken in spirit—" frangas non flectes"-he has received many a wound in the combat against corruption; and the new grievance, the fresh insult of which he complains, may inflict another scar, but no dishonour. The Petition is signed by John Cartwright, and it was in behalf of the people and parliament, in the lawful pursuit of that reform in the representation, which is the best service to be rendered both to parliament and people, that he encountered the wanton outrage which forms the subject matter of his Petition to your lordships. It is couched in firm, yet respectful language-in the language of a man, not regardless of what is due to himself, but at the same time, I trust, equally mindful of the deference to be paid to this House. The petitioner states, amongst other matter of equal, if

highest mark of respect that could be paid to the House, that to your justice, rather than by appeal to any inferior court, he now commits himself. Whatever may be the fate of his remonstrance, it is some satisfaction to me, though mixed with regret for the occasion, that I have this opportunity of publicly stating the obstruction to which the subject is liable, in the prosecution of the most lawful and impe. rious of his duties, the obtaining by Petition reform in parliament. I have shortly stated his complaint; the petitioner has more fully expressed it. Your lordships will, I hope, adopt some measure. fully to protect and redress him, and not him alone, but the whole body of the people insulted and aggrieved in his person, by the interposition of an abused civil, and unlawful military force between them and their right of petition to their own repre sentatives.

His lordship then presented the Petition. from major Cartwright, which was read, complaining of the circumstances at Huddersfield, and of interruptions given to the right of petitioning, in several places in the northern parts of the kingdom, and

sions of the petitioner, which he then heard, he thought it his duty to make a few observations upon their import and tendency. It was stated that the civil power of the country endeavoured to op. press the poor of those formerly disturbed districts, by means of intimidation and persecution. Very fortunately the greatest tranquillity now prevailed in that quar

to have moved as a peer. Under these considerations, he did not denominate the statement which had been read a petition, but the written speech of the individual who had signed it. The noble earl who had last expressed his sentiments, spoke much of the poor, and of the situation of the poor. Indeed, talent and labour with that noble earl, had, on all occasions, been the only just claim to richester of the country; but in the times of conand rank. He (lord Lauderdale) had spent much of his life in the consideration of systems of policy and economy amongst nations, and those who were best acquainted with him, would do him the justice to say that his political life had not been inattentive to the interests and happiness of the poor; but, unlike the noble earl, he was not disposed to lay any temptation for the poor to desert the paths and the pursuits of industry. It was necessary for their interests and their comforts every where, that they should be industrious. If a man exercised his talents, or persevered in his labour, it was right he should receive the reward; and he believed there was not a country where those advantages were so great as in our

own.

The Duke of Norfolk said he could not agree to the motion, and particularly as the Petition conveyed a censure on the conduct of a most respectable magistrate (Mr. Ratcliffe), who had acted in such a manner as to deserve praise, instead of reproach.

Lord Byron replied, that he had, from motives of duty, presented this petition to their lordships' consideration. The noble earl had contended, that it was not a petition, but a speech; and that, as it contained no prayer, it should not be received. What was the necessity of a prayer? If that word were to be used in its proper sense, their lordships could not expect that any man should pray to others. He had only to say, that the Petition, though in some parts expressed strongly perhaps, did not contain any improper mode of address, but was couched in respectful language towards their lordships; he should therefore trust their lordships would allow the Petition to be received.

Viscount Sidmouth was not aware, before he entered that House, of any petition of this description being intended to be presented to their lordships. The Petition had been presented, and some progress made in reading its contents, at the time he took his seat; but from some expres

fusion and alarm, he would challenge the noble lord, or any other person, to prove any act of oppression on the part of the civil or military authorities. That right hon. gentleman, who was so nearly related to the noble earl opposite, and who had the military power in that part of the kingdom, would not have permitted such acts as the Petition referred to, and all who knew his character would free him from such an imputation. There was also mention made of a magistrate, Mr. Ratcliffe; and with respect to this gentleman, he thought it his duty to state, and he was glad he had an opportunity of publicly stating, that if one individual had more particularly distinguished himself in the exercise of mildness and clemency towards the poor and the lower orders, while those disturbances existed and while he was actively employed in counteracting the mischief, it was Mr. Ratcliffe. The country was indebted to him for his services upon that occasion. The noble viscount, after stating other arguments against the propriety of receiving this Pe. tition, insisted, that the poor of this country could, in no possible case, suffer the oppression represented by a noble earl; for such was the constitution of a British public that an oppressed poor man would find, at all times, benevolent men to advocate his cause. He trusted their lord. ships would reject the Petition.

The motion being put by the Lord Chancellor, the Petition was not received. Viscount Sidmouth then moved, That the Petition be rejected.

The Earl of Radnor said he conceived, that when a negative was put on a Petition's lying on the table, that such peti. tion was in fact rejected.

Earl Stanhope said, he had never known so irregular a motion as that just made by the noble viscount. He should have conceived the noble viscount, from having been the Speaker of another assembly very near them, must have been better acquainted with the rules of order, and that he would have known, that when a petition