been presented from those in which the dioceses were large.

Lord Kenyon did not mean to deny or assert that the petitions were numerous or few from any quarter; but he did say that it was a calumny to state that those which had been presented were procured by the clergy from interested motives.

The Bishop of Exeter said, that for himself he would declare, that he never used any influence in procuring petitions. It was unfair in the noble baron to make this assertion; for he (the Bishop) had before disclaimed the exercise of any influence; but the noble baron might, if he pleased, repeat the calumny, for calumny it was. With regard to one of the petitions, he had received a letter from the clergyman of the parish, informing him that no influence had been used to procure it, but that, on the contrary, the people had applied to him. A meeting was regularly called, and the petition was agreed to unanimously. He had used no influence with the clergy of his diocese. He believed the real cause of so many petitions being presented, was, that the people of the country were anxious that their sentiments on this question should not be misrepresented. Their lordships had been told of the danger there would be in refusing to accede to the claims of the Catholics; but was there no danger in refusing to listen to the numerous petitions on the opposite side ?

The Bishop of Hereford disclaimed all exercise of influence on his part to procure petitions. Only one had come from the clergy of his diocese.

Lord King said, he did not allude precisely to large or small dioceses; but, the fact was, that the petitions were few from those where there were no translations.

The Lord Chancellor did not rise from any wish to oppose the kind of observations in which the noble baron so often indulged. He had already said, and he was confident of the fact, that their lordships owed a great proportion of the petitions with which their table was covered to the observations of the noble lord; for the people of this country did not wish to be held up as indifferent on this important question. Let, then, the noble lord go on; because if he did, between that day and the day on which the measure was to be discussed, short as the time was, many more petitions against the Catholics would be laid on the table.

Lord Rolle asserted, that the petitions against the Catholic bill fairly expressed the sense of the country, and deprecated the throwing of reflections on the lower classes for exercising their right of petitioning.

Lord Holland was glad to hear this doctrine which was now held with respect to petitions. Whether the petitions against the bill were numerously signed or not, he was glad to find it admitted, that the voice of the people ought to be listened to. He felt, however, some difficulty in reconciling the assertion, that those petitions expressed the sense of the country, with what had fallen from several right reverend prelates and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; namely, that the great body of the people were hostile to the object of the bill which had now, for the second time, been brought up from the other House, and to which the Commons had twice solicited their lordships' assent. According to what he had always understood of the theory of the constitution, this could not be the case. At least, whenever the influence of certain secret parts of the constitution had been alluded to, he had been told, that in theory the House of Commons was the real representative of the people. This he had always been told, and he had assented to the theory. But, it seemed that he, in common with many of their lordships, had been labouring under an error. The Commons were no longer the representatives of the people. That House was, on the contrary, to be regarded rather as an oligarchy, as it had often been described by men who were called visionary reformers-as a body to which might be applied what a noble lord lately said which he somewhat whimsically compared to the French revolution; namely, that it was an ingenious contrivance to deprive the many of their rights in order to confer them on the few. It had sometimes been said, that there was no proper vent for public opinion; but that complaint could no longer be made, for now a voice had been found for democracy in that House; and the right reverend members of the opposite bench, and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, had constituted themselves the organs of the people. The noble and learned lord now looked to the bar, or to Palace-yard, for those whose opinions most deserved to be listened to on the subjects which came under the consideration of their lordships, For his own part, though rather a lukewarm reformer, he had really too much love for reform to deny the possibility of the vote of the House of Commons being different from the opinion of the great body of the people. After, however, that House had, not once only, but twice passed such a measure as the present, he did not think it could have been possible for any person to stand up and assert, that the universal feeling of the people was against it. In the face of the decision of the House of Commons, which represented the whole people, and in contradiction to the known wish of at least one-third part of that people, their lordships were assured, that the country was hostile to the measure; and this they were told on the authority of pocket petitions got up in holes and corners, of scraps of paper like private correspondence, which the members of the opposite bench, and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, were in the daily habit of producing. It would, however, be the duty of their lordships to consider what it was right and fitting for that House to do, without any reference to the opinions of others. But, if the opinion out of doors was to be in quired into, it would be found to be very different from the representation which had been made of it. Their lordships would find, that wherever there had been public meetings, the people had almost invariably decided in favour of the Catholic claims. Their lordships would recollect, that in speaking of public opinion on this question, they had to consider what was the opinion of the whole united kingdom; and, if there was any difference in the expression of that opinion, they were surely bound to pay some attention to the opinion of that part of the empire which was the most vulnerable, and through which this country might be most easily injured. He did not mean to say that there was not, on conviction, a decided objection in some reflecting minds, to granting the Catholic claims, and that there was not also an indifference on the subject in many others; but he would assert, that nothing had occurred which entitled any noble or learned lord to say that the feeling of the people of this country was hostile to the Catholic claims.

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 13.

EAST INDIA JUDGES BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Hume adverted to a provision contained in the bill, by which the Recorder of Prince of Wales's Island was liable to be removed from his situation, at the pleasure of his majesty. He wished to know, why the person appointed to the Recordership should be placed in a situation different from any other judge? Other judges held their appointment for life, unless they behaved improperly in office; and so ought the Recorder of Prince of Wales's Island.

Mr. Wynn said, the provision in question was not a new one, but was strictly in conformity with the act or charter under which a recorder had been originally appointed. He wished now to state the reason why an alteration was made in the payment of the judges. The salaries of the Madras judges had formerly been paid in pagodas, at 8s. the pagoda. That mode of payment had for some time been discontinued, and the salaries were paid in rupees. But, it was found that the quantity of silver to be obtained for the rupee was not equal, in proportion, to that which could be obtained for the pagoda, by which the judges sustained a loss. A memorial stating that fact, was laid before the Indian government, who, having submitted it to the proper authorities, determined on their report, to make the alteration. It was also thought better to pay the salaries in the local currency, rather than in British currency.

1

Mr. Hume said, he objected to the ape pointment of a judge who was removable at pleasure. If the right hon. gentleman could show him any charter in which such a provision was to be found, he would be satisfied not of the propriety of the thing, but that it was not a novelty. Such a system was most dangerous, since it tended to shake the independence of judges, who might act according to the dictates of those in power, for fear of losing their situations. The House, perhaps, was not aware, that Indian governors had sometimes punished even jurors, because they had done their duty. In one case, because a jury had acted contrary to the feelings of sir G. Barlow, that individual had displaced every man who sat on it. If a judge were also liable placed in a situation where he might find it beneficial to his interest not to perform his duty. Therefore he wished that part of the clause by which the judge held his office during pleasure to be omitted. It would not be forgotten, that at a former period sir H. Gwillim had been removed from Madras, in consequence of a dispute between him and the government. That individual was not allowed to state his opinion as to the law of the land. But, from that day to this, the custom of removing at pleasure, was not, he understood, permitted.

Mr. Wynn said, that the words of the act or charter of 1807 were followed in this bill. That charter, which appointed a recorder for Prince of Wales's Island, provided that the individual should hold the situation during his majesty's plea

sure.

Mr. Hume said, he would be satisfied if the right hon. gentleman would state that this bill made no alteration in the general law, and that the Indian judges were to be placed in the same situation as those of England ["no, no."]. Then, he contended, it was a question which called for the most serious consideration. The system of intimidation was carried to such an extent, that no man who differed from the government could hope to escape proscription; and the degree of despotism to which the executive power in India had arrived, was unexampled, even by that of the Stuarts. Many persons had been banished; and, within the last month, two indigo planters had arrived in England, having been deported from India without notice or trial. It became the duty of the House to consider whether such a system ought, or could safely, be allowed to endure. The half-castes were not allowed to sit on juries, and yet they were allowed to hold land; while Englishmen, who possessed the former privilege, were wholly precluded from the latter. It was quite necessary that some system should be established for securing the independence of the judges in India, and interposing the protection of a jury between British subjects and the public authorities.

Mr. Robertson said, that any alteration in the law, as far as regarded the judges, appeared to him unnecessary.

Mr. Wynn said, that the judges were in fact independent of the local authorities, and could only be removed by the Crown.

arising between the judges and the governors; but even in such cases the difficulty, almost the possibility, of bringing over the witnesses necessary for investigating them, rendered the exercise of a discretionary power necessary. He would be quite ready to give his attention to any measure which should propose a practical remedy to the existing defects.

Sir C. Forbes said, it was impossible that the people of India, having the know. ledge they had of the blessings and spirit of the British constitution, could long endure the tyranny of their governors. He thought the natives of India were not less entitled to protection than any other British subjects.

Mr. Sykes said, it was quite clear, notwithstanding what had been asserted, that the judges in India were not as independent as those in England, and that nothing could be more objectionable than that any confusion should exist between the executive and judicial authorities.

Dr. Phillimore said, that the judges were removable at the pleasure of the Crown, but not at the pleasure of the local government. He thought there was great wisdom in retaining this power for the Crown; because the distance between this country and India, rendered it impossible that a prompt inquiry should be had into cases which might arise, and which might require an immediate remedy. If any alteration were necessary, it must be provided for by another bill. The one now under discussion contemplated nothing but a change in the judges' salary. Mr. Hume had no objection to the judges' salaries being raised, but, he complained that the most important interests of India were neglected, while such paltry considerations as these occupied the attention of the House. The governors acted as umpires over the judges, who were therefore not independent. The half-castes, though much more numerous than Englishmen, were degraded and deprived of the right to set upon juries. The hon. gentleman read an extract of a letter from India, setting forth the evils of the present system; and concluded by asserting, that it was necessary to restrain, without delay, the power which the governor at present possessed, of transporting any individuals who might become obnoxious to him.

Mr. Wynn asserted, that the judges of India were as honourable and independent as any in this country. The greatest care had been taken in their selection; and in their subsequent conduct they had never shown themselves subservient to the power of the governor. The power of deportation was granted by the last charter. When it should again come to be considered by the House, it might be restrained in such a manner as the circumstances might authorize.

Mr. Hume had no doubt of the ability of the judges in India, but they ought to be as independent as they were able. He suggested the appointment of a temporary judge in cases of vacancy, in the same manner as was provided in case of vacancy among the members of council.

Mr. Wynn saw several objections to the proposed change. He had never heard of the case of the Indigo planters to which the hon. gentleman had alluded. Mr. Hume objected to the clause, empowering the authorities of India to transport offenders to Prince of Wales's Island, or any other place to which they might at present be sentenced, because the climate of that island was such as to ensure the death of almost any European who should be condemned to hard labour there.

Sir C. Forbes proposed, that the salaries of the judges should be raised from 58,000 to 60,000 rupees, and moved an amend

ment to that effect.

Sir C. Cole seconded the amendment. Mr. Wynn said, that the great loss of life rendered it necessary to offer every temptation to persons properly qualified to fill these offices. The proposed alteration amounted to not more than 200l. per annum, and he therefore thought it was not worth while to contest it.

The amendment was carried. After which, the Chairman reported progress.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS-REV. DR. DOYLE.] Sir J. Newport said, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, had received a letter from Dr. Doyle, which, in justice to that rev. gentleman, whose feelings had been wounded by something which had passed in the House, he would take the liberty of reading. The right hon. baronet then read the letter, in which the writer complained, that it had been attributed to him that the opinions expressed in the writings published under the signature of J. K. L., and those delivered in his evidence before the parliamentary committee, were inconsistent with each other. He denied that

the opinions contained in his writing could-unless they were distorted from their true and original meaning-be proved to be inconsistent with his evidence. He also declared that, in all the writings which he had published during the course of six years, he had ever expressed a most respectful opinion of the constitution, creed, and liturgy of the established church, although most of those writings were answers to unmerited attacks on his own religion and church.

WAREHOUSED CORN BILL.] Mr. Huskisson moved the third reading of this bill.

Sir M. W. Ridley expressed an opinion, that the duty of 10s., on payment of which the warehoused corn was to be admitted, was too high, and that it would act as a prohibition.

Mr. Wodehouse apprehended that much corn of the United States would be fraudulently imported, under the denomination of Canadian corn.

Mr. Huskisson observed, that he had no objection to fix the duty at less than 10s., if the House should concur with any proposition to that effect. At the same time he did not believe that a duty to the amount of 10s. would prevent the corn from being brought into the market. He

was satisfied that the owners of warehoused corn would not fail to bring it into the market before the next harvest, if they had an opportunity of doing so; because, if the corn in foreign ports should be imported, it would bring the price much lower than that which they could obtain for it now. With respect to what the hon. member for Norfolk had said about the importation of American corn, he believed his apprehensions to be without foundation. He had conversed with persons who were perfectly informed on the subject, and he found that, during the time when corn was at the highest price ever known in this country, there never was more than fifty thousand quarters of Canadian corn imported. The lowest price at which corn of the United States could be landed at Montreal, including the expence of carriage, the risk, and the duty, was from 20s. to 25s. In order, however, to allay the fears of those who dreaded the importation of American corn, he had no objection to say, that if, during five years, the average importation of what was called Canadian corn should exceed 100,000 quarters, he would take that fact as evidence that there had been a fraudulent importation of American corn, and that it was necessary to adopt some measures to guard against it [hear].

Mr. H. Sumner wished a clause to be introduced into the bill, to limit the importation of Canadian corn in any one to a hundred thousand quarters.

Sir E. Harvey approved of the suggestion of the hon. member for Surrey.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged to remind those gentlemen who supposed that large quantities of American corn would be fraudulently introduced into the home market, that the measure before the House was intended for the benefit of the Canadians themselves, who would therefore have an interest in preventing such a proceeding. There were so many difficulties opposed to the fraudulent introduction of American corn, that he believed the thing was almost impracticable. In the first place, the corn must be brought from some port in Lake Champlain in an American ship, and be landed at Kingston, Montreal, or Quebec: it must then be put on board a British ship; for only in such a vessel could it be brought to this country from Canada: and, before all this could be done, it was necessary that perjury should be committed over and over again, and the vigilance of the Customhouse be defeated; which would be somewhat difficult, seeing that a cargo of corn was a bulky article, and not easily transported, particularly in a country like Canada, where the roads were not very favourable, and the points of communication hundreds of miles from each other. If gentlemen would study the geographical situation of the two countries they would find that there was no ground for alarm. Sir I. Coffin said, there was no ground to suppose that American corn could be fraudulently introduced into this country.

Sir J. Wrottesley did not think the importation of American corn was so difficult as the right hon. gentleman had represented it to be.

Mr. W. Horton said, that the inhabitants of Canada were as much interested in preventing the importation of American corn as the English farmers.

Mr. Sykes expressed himself favourable to the lower rate. He would rather it should be 5s. or 7s. than 10s.

Sir E. Knatchbull could not concur in either a high or low rate. He did not think any alteration in the Corn laws necessary.

Mr. Curwen said, he did not think bonded corn would be brought into the market, except at the lower rate.

Mr. Whitmore said, he should be extremely glad, if the right hon. gentleman would concede the lower rate of duty. He agreed with the hon. member for Cumberland, that the bonded corn was not likely to come into the market at so high a duty as 10s. As to the amount of corn likely to be imported from the Canadas to this country, he believed the opinions which prevailed at the present moment to be most erroneous; since the average amount of wheat imported from the Canadas to this country did not exceed 23,000 quarters.

The bill was read a third time. Mr. Huskisson said, that, with a view of removing all cause for alarm, and giving an adequate security against the fraudulent introduction of Canadian wheat, he should propose a clause, by way of rider, that there should be the same certificate of origin as in the case of sugar. This provision, which was found a sufficient security with respect to sugars, must be still more satisfactory in regard to so bulky an article as corn. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Surrey, for limiting the quantity to 100,000 quarters, he should have no objection to adopt it, if he thought there was any probability that such a limitation would be necessary. increased importation should be so rapid as to give an average of so large an amount for five years, he should then consider that there was some evasion of the law, and the interposition of parliament would, under such circumstances, become necessary.

The clause was agreed to.

If the

Sir M. W. Ridley moved, as an amendment, that the duty on bonded corn be reduced from ten shillings to seven shillings.

Mr. Wodehouse supported the amendment. On behalf of the agriculturists, he was enabled to say, that they had no objection to the foreign corn being taken out of bond free of duty altogether.

Mr. Bright supported the amendment, as the low duty was due to the holders of bonded corn, in compensation for the losses they had already sustained.

Mr. Huskisson said, he would most willingly concur in any thing which would relieve the importers of the bonded corn, who, he believed, had already lost con