Star. — London, England, 1813-07-17 00:00:00

on account of the territorial revenue in India, was comprehended under the fourth class of appropria tion. The Company's dividends were to be paid in preference to all other demands ; first, out of the proceeds of the Company's sales, except in the dis charge of the debt in India. The Earl of LAUDERDALE, whatever sense lie entertained of the enormous magnitude of the question then before their Lordships in all its bear ings, relations, and consequences, and howsoever strongly it called for full and ample discussion, yet when he looked round and saw the state of the House, he felt himself admonished to confine himself to,scanty limits of observation, and should chiefly employ the present occasion in registering his solemn protest on the Journals of their Lordships' House, against a measure which he considered so undigested, so alarming, and so injurious to the political and commercial interests of the country' and to the pro. sperity and security of our possessions in India. He was persuaded, that .not only was the commercial Reveaue inadequate to the discharge of the territorial arrears, but that the territorial debt was caused" and created by the commercial deficiency. In that opi nion he was fortified and sanctioned by the recorded testimony of the Marquis Wellesley. He had often solicited information and explanation on the subject of the Bill, and of the Resolutions, but frdm'first to' last was disappointed. The practice of railing loans in India, and paying the dividends in England, was of a most injurious and ruinous tendency, and in the end must affect the complete spoliation of that coun try.—Here the Noble Lord referred to the.anthority of Mr. Hastings, who had condemned and reprobat ed the practice,. which he said must lead to ultimate ruin. The capital of the Company, he contended, was ideal, and that they were trading merely on cre dit. As to the free trade to India, that had been tried. .under the provisions of 1793, and •the conse quence was, that no reasonable man who had made the experiment would proceed in his speculations. It was indeed a mere farce to suppose that the free trader could enjoy the advantages professed to be held forth in the Bill ; and lie would freely ; venture to predict, that if any one should proceed upon it, he would be tired of his experiment in one year. On the whole, his objections were not confined to the Bill itself, but to the general policy which had long pre vailed in the whole administration of affairs in India. In the continuance of that system, Government must advance more money to the Company p--that money must be supplied by means of further taxa tion, and it was not only adverse to all wise and pro. videnr political regulation, but directly hostile to the commercial interests of the country. He should trouble their Lordships no further than to state and record his solemn protest against the Bill. The Earl of BUCKINGHAMSHIRE was per suaded that the EastlndiaCompany possessed ample means, provided no extraordinary occurrence took place, for discharging every claim upon them, and he must distinctly enter his protest against the al 'edged impoverished state of their funds. The state of the Company was nourishing, their revenue ample, their credit great, and their trade increasing every , day. There was no reason to suppose that by the new regulations the advantages of that trade which foreigners had hitherto enjoyed, would be amply communicated to the British merchant, and America yield up a large proportion of her profits. As to the C impany's trade being conducted to disadvantage, in immense sum had been cleared last year, and he could produce the evidence of . Mr. Cartwright to shew that R 4,580,000 had been cleared in a period of no very wide extent. In short, the state of the Company's affairs was such, that in the ordinary course of things, the most prosperous resufts"might be expected, and eminent advantages laid open to the private merchant, provided ire proceeded with discretion. .The Earl of LAUDERDALE could by no means admit die jus , tre4 of the description which the Noble Earl had given of the state of the East IrOja Company's Aran s ;—but if even all that had been said of their prosperity and commercial re sources were true, all the territory, all the planta tirrrs, all the wealth and commerce of which they could boast, would not, in his mind, compensate for that system of spoliation with which those advan toges must be accompanied, and which, in the end, must beggar and ruin India. Ihe Bill was then read the second time, and or dered to be committed on Monday. PALMER'S REMENERATION. Upon the Order for going into a Committee on Mr. Palmer's Remuneration Bill, Earl MORTON thought it proper to make a few observations. He had heard of nothing on the part of Mr. Palmer, or those who urged the present Bill, to inauce him to alter the opinion which, in Common with the majority of their Lordships, he had often expressed before. Much had been said about the merit of Mr. Palmer in the discovery which he had made of facilitating the progress of the mails by the means of coaches. Really there seemed nothing very admirable in that ; it was little different horn the ordinary uses of stage coaches, which had existed be- • fore Mr. Palmer was born. That House had reject- I ed three successive Bills brought up from the other I House of Parliament, setting forth claims advanced by Mr. Palmer for an enormous sum of money, but which their Lordships, in his opinion, very properly threw out, thereby shewing themselves better guar dians of the public purse than that branch of the Le gislature which was supposed to have the special care of it. He could not discover any motive for depart ing from the principle on which he, with the House, had previously resisted the application of Mr. Pal . mer ; and he thought it was incumbent on those who supported the present 13ill to shew what new claims, or what new merits, Mr. Palmer had set forth to in duce their Lordships to sanction a measure which seemed too much connected with the object and in tention of passing Bills by solicitation. His Lord.: Ship was decidedly against the Bill. Tbe. Earl of 41VERP001., should offer but a few observations. He did not perceive the incon sistency to which his Noble Friend would advert, in their I...oldships passing the present Bill, though they had *lifted the former thee. He was among that majority which liad.opposed the former Bills, and he pposed them on two principles; first, he objected to • the charm of right set up by Mr. Palmer; idly, he • objected to the enormousness of 00 or 490,000, to. vt4t4 wish "000 emu, compepaii94 pore than adequate to the uunott merits which could be exhibited by the claimant, even under circumstatrces of the most correct and exemplary discharge of his duty. On Mose grounds he had resisted the Claims But it had never occurred to him, nor had he ever be / fore heard it insinuated, that no merit belonged to Mr. Palmer in the plan which he had suggested ; nei- Mer could he conceive the fairness of his Noble Friend's objection to the plan on account of its simplicity.- 1 If the use and ad v a n t ages were acknowledged, they obviousness of the means then first pointed out was no detraction from their value. As to Mr. Palmer's official conduct, he should pass it by. It might not be defensible before a judicial tribunal. But the ad vantages of his plan for facilitating the transmission of letters were felt and acknowledged universally.— His former applications to Parliament came in the shape of claims, or demands of right. As such, he felt it his duty to resist them. The present was an appeal to the equity and generosity of. Parliament, for the effect of benefits publicly felt arid recognised, and he felt himself perfectly free from all charge of inconsistency, in voting and recommending to their Lordships to vote for the present Bill. The Bill then passed through the Committee, and was ordered to be reported.—Adjourned. 1 LIST-INDIA HOUSE. Yesterday a General Court of Proprietors of East. India Stock was held, on business of the utmost im portance._ The Chairman (Mr. R. Timatrro):), stated, that a Case had been submitted to Mr. ADAM, on the sub ject of•the Company's accepting the terms of the Bill now pending in Parliament. Mr. ADAM'S opinion was as follows : ‘ 4 The East India Company exists as a Corporation, under the Charter of William the Third, which Charter is derived from the Crown, is independent of any Act of Parliament, and is par ticularly referred to, and saved by a proviso in the proposed B i ll. " When the proposed Bill passes into a law, it will impose on the East India Company, u a Corporation, the fulfilment of all the trusts and obligations created by the Bill, and will likewise fegulate the enjoyment of the rights of which the Company are in possession. . 4 1 hese trusts and obligations being the creation of the Legis lature, can only be got rid of by the intervention of Parliament. which may, upon the occasion contemplated, impose conditions as the terms of release. " It is almost unnecessary, therefore, to observe, that as the duties and obligations thus created, are not the subject of volun tary surrender, regulated by legal rules or forma, but are to be annulled only at the discretion of the Legislature, it is in vain to look to the opinion of Counsel, which deals only with rules of law, and not with matter of discretion, for a solution of this question. I feel it, however, to be my duty, in obedience to the Resolution of the General Court, to state, that there is no dm nection in taw between the Charters that now from the Crown, and the Bill which is the Act of the Legislature, so as to make the existence of the one depend upon the Company's remaioing under the provisions of the other; an unconditional obligation, therefore, of the proposed Act, would have no effect upon the Charters. " It is further to be observed, that the Legislature must be presumed to be guided by maxims of justice and of equity, and the East India Company (in wishing to deliver themselves from the provisons of the Bill) must be presumed to be actuated by sound discretion. " Under those impressions ft may be safely predicted (if the proposed Act should become dangerous to the safety, and inju rious to the inte►rsts of the Company), that Parliament would, in justice, relieve them from the provisions of the law, without any condition calculated to affect their corporate rights; in which case the Charter granted by the Crown for the purposes of trade would remain entire." time ordinary preliminary business was then gone through, and a Report of considerable length signed by nearly all the Directors was read. This Report embraced a circumstantial review of all the proceed ' ings that had taken place relatively to the renewal of the Charter, commenting upon those provisions which the Court of Directors considered as injurious to the General Welfare of the Company's concerns; and, with equal impartiality dwelling upon those new re gulations which promised to secure and increase their interests in the possession and preservation of the In dian Empire. The Report having gone through all those various topics, concluded with a declaration, that they (the Directors who had signed it) could nor, under all the circumstances of the case, advise their constituents to► decline accepting the Charter; nay more, they would positively advise them to make a fair trial of it, especially as it, the Bill, had been much and be. neficially modified in its progress through the legis lature. In coming to that conclusion, that had been considerably influenced, by reflecting what would be the situation of the many thousands who were depeo • ; dent, more or less, upon the commercial and politi cal existence of the Company, if they decline the Charter, as it was now tendered to them (the Dime tors.) For themselves they could only say, they were willing to undertake the labour and responsibility of executing the provisions of that Charter, if their con- I stitnents were willing to accept it. After the reading of this Report, which was re ceived with much applause by the Proprietors, a pro test from J. Bosanquet, Esq. against the sentiments contained in it was read, who dissented from the Re port, because he did not think the Bill tvas founded in justice to the East India Company, or likely to be productive of benefit to the public in general. Ano ther paper was then read, signed J. Cotton, (one of the Directors) which stated, that had the Bid been grounded upon the propositions as originally framed, he should certainly not have recommended the accep• tance of the Charter. But, it had received so many modifications, and it was so impossible for the Com pany, if reduced to a merecommercial body, to carry on even its commerce with advantage without the possession of political power, that he should now strongly advise accepting the terms offered. Sir H. IYGLIS said, that as it was understood the discussion of the subject was to be postponed to a fu me day, he should not now take up their time any further than to move, that the document, which had been signed by so large a body of the Directors, should be printed immediately, and likewise the dis sent of Mr. Bosanquet, that the Proprietors might have time to consider the respective arguments of those two productions, and come to a deliberate de cision on the question. When they met again, he would, with the permission of the Court, submit a , motion to them. The motion for printing the papers was seconded awl carried Mr. LowNots inquired whether any thing wee meant seriously to be done in behalf of the marine officers of the Company, that most deserving body of men.. If not, he had a plan in his pocket which would accomplish that object, without costing the Proprie- I tors one f4r,thing, • The Chairman replied, that the Court of Directors • _. bad Isennly Intefested t h e m se li e s on the subject, nor did they , mean to remit their exertions till they had obtained some relief for those meritorious individuals and about which they were particularly anxious. Mr. R. JACKSON alluded to the minutes of a con. suftation held on the 10th June, between certain of his Majesty's Ministers and k deputation from that Court ; and contended, that the appropriation clause was framed in direct opposition to the principle ad mitted on the part of Ministers at that interview. It was then areed, that the whole ' territorial surplus re venue shou ld be applicable to the discharge of the di vidends, while, in the Bill, it appeared that it was now narrowed down to the surplus of a single yeas. He could wish that the Bill, in its progress through the Lords, might be altered so as to embrace the plan admitted by Ministers in the conversation alluded to; and thought nothing more was necessary to induce them to make that alteration, than td exhibit the do cument in question. Mr. C. GRANT wished to state, in explanation of what had fallen from the last speaker, that at the time of that conference, no specific security for the pay anent of the dividend had been proposed; since that period, however, a specific security !sad been devised, and the commercial funds were not made liable to territorial demands till the dividend was satisfied. It I had been stated to Ministers as an act of injustice, that when the commercial character Was separated from the political, to make the funds of the former liable to demands from the lath;.' and that state ment had opened up a series of enactments, the ob ject of which was to provide an absolute security for the paytnent of the dividends, as long as the commer cial funds shall be adequate thereto. Mr. LowNna said, he had a plan in his pocket, which he meant to propose at the next meetirm, for creating a redemption fund, in order to pay off the ' India debt. He was also ashamed to see those two empty niches in the Court. Wbl were they not filled with the statues of Lord Wellesley and his im mortal brother, both-of whom had done such essential service is India ? They were the greatest benefactors ' India ever had. It they had not been sent there, the Company would not now possess 4 foot of Lind there. He meant to move, on a future day, that two noble statues of the noble brothers should be placed in the vacant niches—(Laughter.) Mr. WARD praised the zeal, diligence, and talent displayed by the Court of Directors in their negocia. tion with Government, and said that if better terms for the renewal of the Charter had not been obtained, it was owing to no fault of theirs. They would have obtained better, if better could have been had—(Hear.) The Court then adjourned till next Wednesday. LAP/ INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 16. WESTMINSTER E4CrIGN. MORRIs V. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. Mr. RICHARDSON opened the pleadings in this case, and stated, that the plaintiff was Arthur Morris, High Bailiff of Westminster, and the defendant, Sir F. Burdett, who, the declaration stated, was indebted to plaintiff far work and labour done, and for goods sold and delivered, for which the defendant promised . to pay. . I Mr. GARROW said, the question which the Jury : had that day to try, was rather of a whimsical na ture ; namely, they, sitting in Westminster Hall, in the city of Westminster, were to decide who were the ° Members who represented that city in Parliament ? 1 That was literally the verdict which they would be called upon to give. He imagined, it be met them in any other place than in Westminster Hall, that the only answer which they could give to such a ques t tion, would be, that Lord Cochrane and Sir Francis Burdett were the Sitting Members ; unless, indeed, they were to reverse the names, and say it was Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane ; but sure he was, Ithat they could not, by possibility, come to any other conclusion. This was an action to recover £225, the moiety of the sum of 4350, w hi c h wa s th e a m o unt o f , ' the expence charged for the erection of hustings at the last election for the city of Westminster, and which it was necessary and usual should be paid by the two candidates who had been returned. An Act was 1 originally passed, by which the Members for counties ! were called upon to pay these charges ; and subse quently the provisions of that Act had been extended to the City of Westminster ; and certainly it was very reasonable that those persons who reaped the benefit l ot an election, should pay those expences which were necessarily incurred in the prosecution of their object. The duty of the Returning O ffi cer was one not alone extremely arduous and laborious, but was also very expensive. He was obliged to keep twenty-six pall clerks, to prepare proper poll books, to employ per sons to attend the hustings to keep the peace fifteen days, or during such time as the election should last, and to take such other measures as were likely to prove conducive to the comfort and convenience of ' the candidates. It would be extremely hard, there fore, that he should, in addition to all these charges, be obliged to bear also the burden olerecting hust ings, a burden •which, when the nature of the bust. ings necessary to be erected at an election . for West minster was considered, was of no trifling nature. The law of elections, however, had distinctly :peel. tied that the candidate or candidates should pay this charge, and therefore he was prepared to contend, that Lord Cochrane and Sir F. Burdett, who were the persons returned to Parliament, were. in this instance, justly called upon to defray their equal portions of ' the charge stated in the declaration. There was a great singularity in the City of Westminster ; and, in point of purity and independence, it was like no other place in the world. The Electors here were of the most liberal character, for they held that the candi. date for whom they voted should not be liable to any • expence, but should be returned to Parliament inde pendent of all charge whatever. There was in law, however, a maxim rather of a conclusive nature, namely, , e That he who was acting by a Committee, or Agent, was, in truth, acting by himself." And, as it was a well known fact, that Sir Francis Burdett had a very active Committee, who went about soli citing and procuring for him votes, little doubt could be entertained as to his liability to pay this bill. If he was to ask any body of persons, who were the can didates for Westminster? he believed they would all answer with one voice, Lord Cochrane and Sir F. Burcht. But then, he supposed he would be told that they ctid not bring one voter, and that conse quently they were not bound to pay the exposes Q.l the election. And mere be mold not help observing th'e astonishing and truly extraordinary purity with which this election had been conducted. The Court were, perhaps, aware that at the ceremony of taking the oaths at the table of the House of Commons, previous to a Member raking his seat, there was an ancient custom by which he was called upon to pay a fee of two sAillings—after which he visisAntroductil to the Speaker, who congratulated him upon the ho. nour which had been conferred upon him. Now. in the case of Sir Francis Burdett, so tenacious were his friends of returning him, in the fullest sense of the word, free of activist, that they waited upon him r the morning previous to his going to take his seat. and gave him two 'wive petwes to pay this fee. could not help reg r etti ng that this rule was nre: mare generally practised ; for if it had, he should, in the course of the present Sessions, have been four shillings tie richer, as he had been twice elected—mice after the dissolution of Parliament, and once since, on his appointment to the office which he then had the ho. flour to hold. The High Bailiff, on the present oc casion, had frequently applied to Sir Frantis Burdett for payment of the expense which had teen incurred, but had been unable to effect his o:ij..ct, upon the ground that he (Sir Francis Burdett) had not been a candidate for the situation in which he had been placed, and hence the present action alose. Those who were acquainted with the scenes ut riot and con fusion which usually attended a contested electioa for Westminster, must be aware, that in the erection of hustings, the greatest attention should be paid to its solidity and strength; and as it had been gene. rally understood that a contest, and a very warm one, would have taken place at the late election, the High Bailiff had taken evtry precantiou to he prepa. red for such an event. la the end too, he had done more than ever had been done Lenore; for, contrary to the ordinary course, he had been, iron) the ntea. sure; wllich be too 4 enabled to preserve every pit. tide of that hustings, which, had it shared the fate of those emceed on similar occasions in former days, would have been torn to.pieces, and -claimed by Lk: rabble as their part of the spoil ; and by this merito rious conduct he had considerably diminished the ex pense which would otherwise have fallen upon the Members. After the election was over, he of course prepared his bills, and delivered them to the respec tive candidates, but to his astonishment, qeither would pay his demand ; he consequently had recourse to law. fiord Cochrane suffered judgment to go by default; and, however disposed to give battle, or to fight in any way and in any place, he had thought proper to submit, and paid the sem claimed. He supposed, however, that the worthy Baronet, for whom he entertained every personal respect, although he differed front him in many respects, and more particularly on a late occasion, when he and his No, ble Colleague were rises:, intended to retire to the last ditch. Having, he apprehended, driven him to that extremity, he had no doubt he would he obliged ? by the verdict of the Jury and the judgment of the Court, to surrender; and, in the confident anticipa tion of that event, he should conclude. Witnesses were then called to support the case. It was admitted, on the part of the plaintiff, that Arthur Morris was High Bailiff of Westminster. Mr. Witham, Clerk of the Journals of the House of Commons, produced the test-roll, in which the name of Sir Francis Burdett appeared, under the head of the " City of Westminster,". as the Member for that city. _ _ _ Mr. Took, the Depqty Bailiff', proved the creedal; of .the hustings, the retaining of poll-clerks, and the obtaining of books and the necessary stationery pre• paratory to a contest. He had expected that there would be a contest, as three or four Candidates had proposed themselves in handbills—Sir Imes Graham, Mr. Jennings, /cc.; but they wihdrew ott the morning of the election. The same arrangements were made fur the election as bad been made on for mer. occasions ; with this difference, that at the last election successful precautions were taken to prevent the mob from destroying the hustings after the termi nation of it. Mr. BROUGHAM here stated, that if the defendant were liable for any thing, he ghould not dispute the quantum:. Mr. BROUGHAM examined Mr. Took. 9. Were you on the hustings at the time of the election ? Yes. Pray did you see Sir F. Burdett there dining any part of the time of the election t Ne. Sir W. GARaow then said, that this was Ns case. Mr. BROUGHAM then submitted to his Lordship, that the plaintiff had failed to make oqt his cue, and that he must, accordingly, be nonsuited. The plain tiff had not proved that Sir F. Burdett was a candi. date ; something had been mentioned about candi dates by Mr. Took, but he had not given in evidence chat Sir Francis was there as a candidate or in any other character. Lord ELtaxsototrott.-.r" Indeed I do net see that the plaintiff can succeed; for though others may have become candidates, there is no proof of Sir F.Burdeit having been one. In the former action against the present defendant, if I remember rightly, there WAS some proof of agents baween one Pearson and Sir Francis, thewn in applying for the asie of the hustiqgs. That was the circumstance that fixed the fact of being a candidate en Sir F. Burdett; bin in the present in stance we have no such evidence; and the Act says. that the ell:tenses of the hustings, Sec. must be 4 , horns by the Candidate sr re:pettily Canettilater," and there fore it is necessary to prove that Sir F. Burdett was a candidate. ' Sir WILLIAM GARItOW then ref:rred to the judg. ment given by his Lordship in the case of Lord Coch rane, and contended that I' is Lordship there admitted, that the fact of the Member having taken his seat, was a proof of his having been a Candidate. Mr. BROUGHAM submitted, that the case here al- luded to had been decided, not upon the fact of th Member having taken his seat, but upon the ground that it had been proved be had employed an agent to secure his election. Lord ELLiNeoftovrot said, the question for consi deration was as to the meaning of the word Candi date," and whether the circumstance of R, Member taking his seat in the House of Commons constituted him a Candidate? He had no objection to save the point. The present defendant had not been proved as at all connected with the Committee, or with An Agent. Sir Witt.tast GARROW thougln there could be no doubt as to the lair conclusion ; and then offered to call Mr. Brookes, of the Strand, who was Chairman