could not be expected to be acquainted. If the issue of the contest should prove such, as he for his own part was not sanguine enough to hope for, then he would say that their proposition was a good one, and that they were entitled to the thanks of the country.

The motion was then carried without a division.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, MARCH 21.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.

Mr. Yorke, in moving that the Lords' amendments in the Marine Mutiny Bill be agreed to, felt it necessary to state to the House the nature of an amendment which had been made to the Bill in the House of Lords. The Bill had been prepared in the usual form, and consequently on the face of it provided for the regulation of his Majesty's Marine forces while serving on shore in the British dominions only. A doubt had arisen whether the Act, or the articles of war founded on it, could extend to marines serving on shore in a foreign country, and not immediately detachments from his Majesty's vessels upon that station. In serving as detachments they would be subject to the provisions of the Marine Mutiny Bill. But there was a brigade of marines now serving in Portugal which could not come within the description of detachments from the vessels on that station, and the doubt had arisen how far the provisions of the Marine Mutiny Bill could be considered to extend to them. An amendment was introduced by the Lords to remove that doubt, and that was the amendment which he had felt it his duty thus to explain to the House.

The amendment was then agreed to, and Mr. Robert Ward ordered to acquaint their Lordships with the concur rence of that House therein.

General Gascogne put off his motion relative to the halfpay of the Army, from Tuesday next, to Tuesday the second of April, on account of the probable absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Palmerstone on the former day.

A message from the Lords informed the House that their

Lordships had agreed to the Silk-Manufacturers' Bill without any amendments.

STATE OF THE PRESS IN INDIA.

Lord Archibald II amilton, in rising to submit his motion for copies of all orders and regulations respecting the Press in India, felt it necessary to state, not only what his object was, but what his object was not. It was not his intention in that instance to find fault with any of the regulations to which his motion referred. All he asked was, that an opportunity might be afforded him of knowing what were the laws which were in existence upon this subject. The late trials which had taken place at Madras would, in his opinion, afford a sufficient ground for his motion; but upon the general reason of the case, he felt he was still more strongly fortified in calling for the information he wished to have produced. He wished the House to be informed, what was the law that existed respecting the press in India, and what the penalty to be incurred by the transgression. He was aware that it might be urged against him, that, though there might be no positive law, a long practice was sufficient to establish an usage, and that such usage must have the efficacy of law. But he would not admit that any usage, unsupported by law, could justify such regulations respecting the press as now existed in India, and as had never been sanctioned by that House. He wanted to know, not only what the law was, but upon what authority it had been established. They were all aware that it was contrary to law to make conquests to extend the territories of the India Company, and they equally well knew how that law had been obeyed. If that House should not interpose its authority to restrain the violations of law in India, it was impossible that that important branch of the Empire could be well governed or long retained. He should, in the next place, beg leave to inform the House as to what he understood to be the substance of the regulations respecting the press in India-if not the whole, at least a considerable part of these regulations. By these regulations, no newspaper could be published in India which did not previously receive the sanction of the Secretary of the Government. Whether this regulation was right or not, he did not mean then to contend; he only wanted to know by what authority the regulation had been established. The penalty for transgressing this regulation was immediate embarkation for

.

[COM Europe. The noble Lord here`quoted the authority of a learned judge (Sullivan) in India, to shew that no power could exist in the Government arbitrarily to restrain the liberty of the press in India-that liberty of the press, which was the right of every Englishman-which was the surest guard for his freedom, and the best check upon the Courts in the administration of justice. It was to ascertain upon what grounds this breach of the law had taken place, that he wished to call for copies of the orders and regulations. He found it also laid down in the regulations, that certain rules were framed for the guidance of the Secretary of the Government in revising the newspapers. He was to prevent all observations respecting the public revenues, and finances of the country-all observations respecting the embarkations on board ships-of stores, or expeditions, and their destination, whether they belonged to the Company or to Europe -all statements of the probability of war or peace between the Company and the Native Powers-all observations calculated to convey information to the enemy, and the republication of paragraphs from the European papers which might be likely to excite dissatisfaction or discontent in the Company's territories. If the press was to be prevented from publishing any thing under these several heads, he was at a loss to know upon what subject any observation could be published. Though he would repeat, that he did not now mean to say that any of these regulations were wrong, yet when the papers, if granted, should be produced, he was of opinion that others would be of the same sentiments with himself upon the subject. As to the trials at Madras he should only observe, that hitherto the adminis tration of justice was considered pure; but in this instance, the Courts seemed to be ashamed of their proceedings, inasmuch as they would not allow the publication of the proceedings. If they were not ashamed of them, they ought to allow the publication, if only to allay the ferment which was excited by these trials. The publication could do no harm, and might do much good. The noble Lord then stated, that two grand jurors and three petty jurymen had been sent away from Madras for their conduct on these trials. He would ask, whether, under the present ambiguity of the law, any man could have a fair trial. The noble Lord concluded by moving for copies of all orders, regulations, rules, and directions promulgated in India since the year 1797; regarding the restraints of the press at

the three presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay; whether acted upon by the Government there, or sent out by the Court of Directors or by the Board of Controul.

Mr. Dundas wished to state shortly his reasons for opposing the motion of the noble Lord, not only in its present form, but in any possible shape in which it could be framed. The noble Lord had objected to the Courts, their not allowing the report of the trials at Madras to be published. Whatever might be his present impression on that subject, he must forbear stating it now, as it would be improperly anticipating that which must take place on this subject hereafter. With respect to the state of the press in India, the noble Lord seemed to infer that no restraint ought to be imposed on it by the Government there or here; at least that was the conclusion which he drew from the premises, which the noble Lord had laid down. If that was the case, he must say, that a wilder scheme never entered into the imagination of man, than the idea of subjecting the Indian press to the same regulations as the English press. There was no man who knew any thing about India that would ever think of such a regulation. Except the rules which the noble Lord stated, there were no other rules relating to the press, in India, of which he was aware. Would the noble Lord, then, say, that there ought to be no rules for the press in that country? Would he say that the press ought to be unlimited? No; the noble Lord had himself allowed that there ought to be a censorship, and there could be no doubt of it; there could be no doubt that the very government would be shaken to its foundation, 'if unlicensed publications were allowed to circulate at the will of the publisher, over the whole continent of Hindostan. There could be but two descriptions of persons in India: either those who went to that country with the licence of the Company, or those who lived in it in the actual service of the Company. There could be no doubt then whatever, that the Company had a right to lay any regulation they chose on those who in such a capacity chose to live under their power, and who, when they went into the territory, knew that the will of that country and submission to their mandates were the tenure on which their stay depended. It was completely at the option of the resident to remain in India or retire from it as he thought proper. If he chose to remain in it, he must submit to the laws; if he did not submit to the laws, he had no alternative but to leave it. The VOL. II.-1811.

& F

subjection of the press was absolutely necessary, the existence of our empire in that country. In fact, some publications had been circulated there, attacking the customs and the religion of the natives. Now there was no point more delicate than this; there was no subject on which the feeling of the country was more alive than the sanctity of their laws, their ancient customs, and their chosen religion. By revering those, we were enabled to govern them; that reverence was the basis and substratum of our dominion. He could not agree to the production of the papers; those with respect to the proceedings at Madras would come before the House in due time, and those extracts from which the noble Lord had read, were already approved of by the Court of Directors in this country.

Lord Folkestone said, that the right honourable gentleman had very truly stated, that the East-India Company had a right to make what rules they chose in their own territory. No doubt they had, but still that was no rea son why the House should be kept in ignorance of what those rules were. It was not only proper, but in the highest degree expedient, that we should know to what our fellow-subjects in India were subjected. The argu

ment of the right honourable gentleman would go very far indeed; it would go to say that the Company had a right to send any one home, even at the risk of ruin, for a trifle. This, according to Indian policy, might be right; but still we had seen enough of the Government of that country, to make us view it with an eye of se vere jealousy. He would support the motion.

Sir John Anstruther thought, that no case had been. made out; no instance whatever of individual hardship or oppression had been stated. Every man who went out to India knew the regulations under which he went there; and he must know also very well, that the moment he thought fit not to comply with those regulations, the term of his residence was at an end. There were but two classes of people in India; first, the servants of the Company; and secondly, those who criminally remained there without their cognizance or permission. Now with respect to this last class, no man would say that the liberty of the press should exist for them; and with respect to the first description of residents, it was not necessary. No person could say, that it was necessary that one set of the public servants should set about enlightening the other; that the