captured Madras. Since its accession to Great Britain, those local resources had been applied to great advantage in the Nepaul war; and, perhaps, were at this moment found to afford effective assistance against the Burmese. Mauritius was surely entitled to share in the benefits extended to other colonies. There was no other ground that he could see for refusing the present grant, except what consisted in the peremptory assertion, "sic volo, sic jubeo." His own experience, corroborated as it was by the despatches of sir Lowry Cole, justified him in pronouncing it as his decided opinion, that at the present moment there was no slavetrade carried on in the island of Mauritius. He would allow that four or five years ago a slave-trade was carried on, not by the respectable inhabitants, but by a set of French renegadoes, concerned in privateering. Every step, however, had been taken by the British government to put an end to the traffic, by treaty and otherwise. Radama, prince of Madagascar, and the Imaum of Muscat, had observed the treaty most religiously by which they had bound themselves; and there was every reason to hope, that through the efficacy of the slave laws, and the vigilance of the police, the benevolent intentions of parliament would continue to acquire strength in that part of the world. The House should also be cautious not to confound the slave-trade of the Mauritius with that of the Isle of Bourbon. In his opinion, the whole of the trade was now confined to the French in the latter island. Mr. Gordon would vote for the bill, if it were postponed until 1828. Mr. Plummer opposed the bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Hume was favourable to the taking off the restrictions from the trade of the Mauritius, but thought that the state of the West-India colonies should be considered also, and the duties unfavourable to those interests remitted. The House divided: For the second reading 37; Against it 14. Majority 23. HOUSE OF COMMONS. mitting the practice of widows immolating themselves on the funeral piles of their husbands. He held in his hand a petition from Crail upon the subject; and it would be impossible for any member to give his attention to the subject without feeling a desire that an end should be put to so revolting a practice. He wished to know when the hon. member for Weymouth intended to bring forward his motion. The evil was of great magnitude. This practice was not enjoined by, or consistent with, the Hindoo religion; and it was the opinion of the best-informed persons, that an end might be put to it, without danger of any sort. Mr. F. Buxton said, he had been restrained from bringing this question before the House, chiefly by the political state of affairs in India. He proposed to do so in the first week of the next session. He remarked, that in five years, there had been, in the province of Bengal alone, 3,400 females burnt on the funeral piles of their husbands. The real amount, in all probability, went far beyond the official returns. Gentlemen conversant with India had assured him, that the real numbers were nearer 10,000. He feared that the conduct of government had unintentionally promoted this wickedness. To say the least, the natives had not been made acquainted with the feelings of the British legislature, by any declared disapprobation of the practice. The police of the Indian government were required to attend the burnings; but they were directed not to interfere to prevent them. This was construed into a silent acquiescence in these abominations. Now, what rendered these facts the more melancholy was, that the practice itself was not absolutely enjoined by the Hindoo religion. Some of the most active of the local magistrates and judges had recorded their opinions, that the practice might be put a stop to by the mere expression of the will of the British government, and that the natives would be gratified with the change. Mr. Trant said, that having had considerable experience in this matter, from a long residence in India, he could not refrain from giving some expression to his sentiments on this occasion. He observIIINDOO WIDOWS-FEMALE IMMOLA-ed, that Bengal exhibited a greater number TION.] Mr. Hume rose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which, he regretted to say, had not been noticed in an earlier part of the session. He alluded to the government of India, per of these sacrifices than any other province of India. It was, in fact, the chief seat of Hindoo superstition. Why it was so, he did not pretend to determine. But, sure he was, that it would be highly miserable victims would be happy to take refuge under a law of the British legislature making it murder for any one to aid or abet these sacrifices. Until something of this kind was done, it would be in vain to expect the suppression of the abominable rites. dangerous for the British government to interfere, with a violent hand, in any thing which concerned the religious rites of the Hindoos. He had himself known a native of that country, the most enlightened man of all the Asiatics he had met with. This person saw enough of the superiority of European education to induce him to have his children brought up in those schools. In a conversation which he had with this person upon the atrocity of these burnings, that man, clever as he was, had justified the practice, and said, "That is a point of our religion, and your government must not interfere with it." Mr. Wynn thought it was highly desirable to put an end to such ceremonies, or if not, to check them as much as possible. But, it was a subject which must be treated with much caution and delicacy. In his opinion, no legislative measure could remedy the evil. Its abolition must be the work of time and circumstances. They must not think of legislating for India as if it were a confined district, to the inhabitants of which our laws, habits, and manners were perfectly familiar. they wished to succeed, it must be by acting gently and progressively upon the feelings of the people; and this could only be done by the local authorities. If Sir Hyde East was convinced, that the sacrifices had been considerably increased by the repeated discussions in parliament on the subject. He attributed many of them to the growing jealousy which the natives entertained of the interference of government, and of the shoals of missionaries who had mingled with them. If these men merely preached the gospel, he would have no objection to their residence there. They might persuade the unfortunate widows that it was "better to marry than burn." Mr. W. Smith said, that so far from thinking that parliament ought not to interfere, he felt convinced that nothing effectual would be done towards quashing this abominable idolatry by the local authorities, until they were compelled by law. Mr. Hume said, that the hope of effecting the extirpation of these cruel rites by the mere disposition of the court of Directors, and their instructions to the local authorities, might be judged of from this fact-that from 1787 down to the end of 1820, there had not been one line, not even a word of disapprobation expressed by the Directors to those authorities. The first movement of the kind took place in consequence of the motion of the hon. member for Weymouth. He was convinced, that the business must be effected by a committee of that House. No half measures would do here. All that the government and the court of Directors had hitherto done, had only had the effect of legalizing the murders in the eyes of the natives. They ought first to inquire in a committee as to the safest and most efficacious means of suppressing them; and then to adopt a law for the peremptory enforcement of those means. Sir C. Forbes said, that when lord Wellesley was in India, he might, with one stroke of his pen, had he not been restrained, have put an end to the practice. He applauded the government of that great man in India, which was nearly as perfect in mildness, wisdom, and firmness, as could be expected from the defects of our common nature. That nobleman had put a stop to infanticide, which was as stoutly defended on the score of superstition as this horrid practice of burning widows. The case had materially altered since then. The religious jealousies of the people had been awakened. Shoals of missionaries had been allowed to go in among them; and their feelings had taken a posture of hostility which before they would not have experienced. Still, Sir I. Coffin said, that the readiest way he was of opinion that the British go-to lose India would be to interfere with vernment would do well to compel the the superstitions of the people. Directors, and through them the local au- Sir Hyde East applauded the local authorities, to interfere. It was absurd to thorities for their successful efforts in suppose that the love of life was less pow-reducing the number of sacrifices. erful in the bosom of a Hindoo woman Mr. F. Buxton was obliged to the hon. than in any other person. The sacrifices were not voluntary. They were the effect of persuasions from the Brahmins and the relatives of the women. The member for doing away in his second speech with the charge which he had made in his first. He had first charged him with increasing the number of immolations: in the second speech, their numbers were said to have declined considerably. Mr. Money said, it was in the power of the government to suppress the practice without offending the native population. He referred the House to several instances, wherein the local magistrates had, by mere persuasion, prevented the burnings. Ordered to lie on the table. DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Brougham said, he should propose an amendment, with a view of affording every member an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this subject. It had been truly said on a former night, that there never was a question on which the general feeling of the country was more completely in unison with the opinion which the House had twice recorded, and which they were now in effect called upon to retract. The ground on which the question stood was simple, obvious, and capable of being stated in a very few words. They were not now called upon to consider the adequacy or the inadequacy of the provision formerly granted to the duke of Cumberland, but they were called upon, by an indirect, circuitous, and by no means a frank, candid, or honourable way, to rescind a former vote of that House. If any member thought that vote a wrong vote, he might have called upon the House to review its decision, and retrace its steps. That would have been a manly, candid, and honest way of proceeding. If any member still thought so, let him now, in God's name, stand up and say so. He doubted whether there was a member in that House who would do so. He had no doubt of the way in which the House would dispose of such a motion; but, if any hon. member took that course, it would at least be a fair, manly, and direct course. But, let not any man vote for a provision for the duke of Cumberland by a side wind. If no man had the manliness to attempt to get rid of the former vote in a plain, direct, and honest way, let not the House be ensnared into a reversal of their former decision, under the flimsy pretext of a provision for the child of the duke of Cumberland. He should move therefore, as an amendment, "that the House do resolve itself into the said committee upon that day six months." Mr. Coke thought it was preposterous to demand an annuity of 6,000l. for the duke of Cumberland's child, when it was evident that the grant was intended for the duke himself [hear,hear]. He looked upon this proposition, especially when he considered the retainers and placemen by whom it was chiefly supported, as a direct insult on the House. As a representative of the county of Norfolk, he felt it right to raise his voice against this grant, which he was convinced was highly displeasing to the public at large. The duke had an abundant provision without this additional 6,000l. a-year. He should be grievously disappointed if the House voted this abominable, this insulting provision. He was sure they would not; but if they did, then should he be more than ever confirmed in the opinion, that this was a most corrupt House, and ought to be reformed. Mr. Davenport thought the House would be guilty of gross inconsistency, if they now voted for a proposition which they had twice before rejected. This child for whom an annuity of 6,000l. ayear was asked, did not wear a cloak long enough to conceal the real object of the grant. He felt it is duty, on this occa sion, to vote against his hon. friends on the Treasury bench, and he could not compliment them on their skill in military tactics, in having put the infantry in front of the battle [a laugh]. Mr. H. Sumner said, that if this vote were agreed to, he could look upon it in no other light than as a retractation of the votes given some years since. In opposing the present vote he felt a great degree of delicacy, because he was actuated by motives, the grounds of which he could not, with propriety, develope to those whom he now addressed. If the duke of Cumberland, chose to settle abroad, a grant might be made for the education of his son in this country. But, in that case, 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year would be sufficient. But to give 6,000l. a-year, by a side-wind, to the duke of Cumberland, he never would consent. Mr. J. Benett congratulated the House on the burst of honest indignation which this grant had excited. When he saw gentlemen of different political sentiments uniting on a question of this nature, it almost made him doubt the necessity of a parliamentary reform. Sir G. Warrender said, that when the grant to the duke of Cumberland was be fore the House some years ago, he had thought that illustrious individual was very hardly dealt with. Much obloquy had been levelled at this royal duke; but he would say, on his honour and conscience, that those accusations which had been industriously circulated through the country were destitute of foundation. The duke of Cumberland and his duchess were at present enjoying the highest degree of domestic happiness and comfort [a laugh]. But laying aside the individual merits of that royal duke, it would be most unjust to deprive him of the fair provision to which he was entitled from his rank and station as a prince of the blood. His present allowance was by no means adequate to his support. Numerous applications were made to him, and large sums were distributed in charity; and, could any thing be more unreason. able, than that a young prince of the blood, who was likely to ascend the throne, should be deprived of a suitable education? It would be inconsistent with the feelings of Englishmen to separate the father from the son; and there could not be a worse lesson to teach the young prince, than that his first duty was to separate himself from his parents. Sir J. Sebright said, let this question be placed on its true grounds, and what did the proposition amount to but this-to give the duke of Cumberland 6,000l. ayear-a proposition which the House had already resisted. It would, therefore, have been more manly in the government, to have brought forward the subject on its true grounds. He was anxious to maintain the dignity of the royal family; but he thought the provision which the duke already possessed, together with 3,000l. a-year which the duchess received from the king of Prussia, was quite sufficient. Although he did not think an objection on the ground of moral character was sufficient to prevent an adequate provision to the members of the royal family, yet it was a sufficient reason to prevent his giving them more than was necessary. He thought the vote bad in itself, and worse from the manner in which it had been brought forward. The royal duke appeared before them like an individual who requested the parish, in formâ pauperis, to enable him to maintain his own child. Oh, fie! The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the proposition was not made on the ground that the present income of the duke was inadequate to his maintenance. He was quite prepared to justify the grounds upon which it rested. He had no hesitation in saying, that, if the circumstances were the same now as at the period when the question had been discussed before, any proposition to give the duke that which the House had twice be fore refused, would expose the government to all the reproach and hard language which gentlemen had dealt out to them; for it would be nothing less than calling on the House of Commons to rescind their former vote. But the circumstances were completely different. You gave 6,000l. a-year to the other princes; on their marriage. The duke of Cumberland had had two children since that period and yet you refuse to put him on a footing with his royal brothers. It was, of course, competent for the House to deal with the question as they pleased; but he denied that it was any outrage to the country, or any insult to the House for ministers to have proposed it. Although the hon. member for Hertfordshire did not ground his opposition altogether on the personal character of the duke, yet the member for Surrey had done So. Now, amidst all the insinuations which had been thrown out on this subject, he never had been able, for the soul of him, to discover on what point it was that gentlemen really founded their opposition. He could perceive no circumstance which could induce the House to refuse this grant, which might not also be put forward as an argument for depriving the duke of that income which he at present enjoyed. He thought the House would be acting unreasonably, nay, unjustly, if they did not agree to the proposition. Sir J. Sebright said, his expression was, that where only a necessary provision was called for, he would not look to the personal conduct of the individual; but that where more was demanded he certainly would. Mr. T. Wilson said, he would vote for the grant, on the ground of confidence in the government. Here was a prince born, in whom they must all take a deep interest; and he conceived that every means should be afforded for his proper education. The House divided: For the amendment 113; Against it 143: Majority against the amendment 30. List of the Minority. Knatchbull, sir. E. Lester, B. L. Monck, J. B. Osborne, lord F. Rice, T. S. Tavistock, marquis TELLERS. Duncannon, lord Sebright, sir J. On our re-admission to the gallery, the House being then in a committee on the bill, we found Mr. Brougham on his legs. He said, that there was upon the face of the bill an evident inconsistency, inasmuch as it It pretended to have one object, and was calculated to accomplish another. proposed to provide for the education of the prince of Cumberland, and it secured an annuity of 6,000l. to the duke of Cumberland for his life. The hon. baronet (sir C. Forbes), who had addressed the House at a period when, of all others, it was most convenient for those who favoured the duke of Cumberland to express their opinions [the hon. baronet spoke after the gallery had been cleared, and before the division took place], thought that sufficient justice could not be done to his royal highness, unless he was paid up all the arrears of the annuity which the House on a former occasion refused to grant him. The duke, he had no doubt, would, without hesitation, accept the hon. baronet's generous offer; and nothing, he dared say, could be more grateful to his feelings. But ministers were not affected by the enthusiasm which had so far led away the hon. baronet. They proposed that the annuity should only be paid henceforth, and that it should be continued from this time as long as his royal highness's life should last. There wasa provision in the second clause, which limited the payment of the grant of the duke on condition that the prince should live in England, unless the king should give licence to reside abroad. This was the notable manner in which the framers of this bill had introduced it to the House. He, however, wished to give the committee an opportunity of doing properly and fairly that which it was pretended this bill was to accomplish. If there was any gentleman who thought that the duke of Cumberland could not educate his son on 18,000l. a-year, he would give him an opportunity of voting for the means of educating him. He would propose that a sum should be given to the king, who was by law intrusted with the care of all the branches of the royal family. He would give his majesty, by a legislative enactment, an ample sum, a sum more than enough to educate the young prince, even if he were the son of the richest nobleman of this country. He would propose to give him 3,000l. a-year, providing that the king should employ this money for the education of the prince. He would give this sum to the king, who now had a legal authority over the prince, and whose ministers were responsible, in whom the House could trust, because over them they had some control, while |