The Press.
London, England, 1853-08-06 00:00:00

THE PARSEE MERCHANTS.

Mr. J. Putt.i.twonr. moved on Tuesday an address
to her Majesty, praying that the case and memorials
of two Parsee merchants, Jevanjee Merjee and l'es-
tonjee Merjee, should he referred to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. He described the
case of these merchants, who were native subjects
of the British Government, and had had the manage-
ment of certain cotton districts in I3erar, in the
territories of the Nizam, as the most cruel, short of
injury to life or limb, that had ever come before Par-
liament. They complained, he said, that, in spite of
solemn declarations and instruments deliberately
signed, they had been grossly wronged by the Nizam,
and the East India Company had not only not inter-
fered for their protection, but were at this moment
in possession of the very lands upon the mortgage of
which they had advanced money to the Nizam, and
that money had been expended almost exclusively
for the support of the contingent, composed of troops
of the Company themselves. In support of his
motion Mr. l'hillimore entered at much length, and
with great minuteness, into the particulars of the
pecuniary transactions between the merchants and
the Nizam, and their correspondence with his
minister, Chundoo Lall, and the British resident
at Hyderabad, and stated that the balance due
to the merchants was 211‘1,1X11/. In considering
the law of the case, he argued that, by every code,
hypothecation carried its burden with it ; that even
had these persons been subjects of the Nizam,
instead of being British subjects, the East India
Company, having come into possession of the
districts in question subject to all the Nizam's
obligations, were legally liable to this undisputed
debt.

Mr. J. A. SMITH, in seconding the motion, declared
that a personal investigation of the alleged facts had
convinced him of their truth. He recapitulated
some of the details, and adduced some further cor-
roborative evidence as to the justice of the appeal
now made to the British Crown.

Sir C. Woon, disclaiming any intention to depre-
ciate the characters of the two Parsee merchants, or
to deny the assertion that they had suffered wrong,
resisted the motion on the ground that the British
Government could not be called upon to make repa-
ration. No guarantee had been given by the British
resident to the petitioners for the money they ad-
vanced to the Nizam , and, indeed, it was a violation
of the Company's laws for a British subject to loan
money to the native princes. The appeal now made
was urged rather upon the feelings of the house than
their judgment ; and to yield to it would imperil the
independence of all the native states :

" He conjured the home to resist it, and to maintain a
policy which had been the salvation of our Indian empire..
The penton by whom these merchants had been wronged
was the Nizam, and the sole question was, whether the
British Oovernment were bound to compel that Prince to
pay this debt, the British tiovennuent owing these parties
no money, and having dime theni no wrong. The Nizam
titmice! their claim; but, conceding that he did owe the
money, the claim was upon him. He had assignee! not
only lands as security for the advances, but moneys due by
certain zemindars; and the Company would not have been
justified in interfering on behalf cif these parties. Remaly
an arrangement had been entered into with the Nisam,
who had been long in anear of his payments for the con-
tingent, by which certain districts had been, not ceded, but
put in the possession of the British liovernment, as a
means of providing for these payments in future, and
among those districts was a portion of the lands formerly
assigned to these parties. The assignment of land by a
native prince to any British subject was contrary to our
municipal law, which these parties had violated by lending
money to the Nisam If we were called upon to interfere
on behalf of such claims, the independence of all native
states would disappear. anti we should have no alternative
but to annex their territories; but it had always been the
folicy of our Indian tiovernment, in all cases, to refrain
rom enforcing any debt due from native princes to British
subjects."

Mr. H. G. LIDDELL supported the motion, con-
tending that the acts of the British resident had
fixed an equitable responsibility upon the Company's
Government.

Mr. Pinny SEYMOUR also advocated inquiry into
the case, there being no other tribunal to which
these parties could appeal ; and he thought Sir C.
Wood. instead of devising ingenious objections,
would have acted more consistently if he had ad-
mitted that the question was fairly open to investi-
gation. The Indian Government, he added, were

THE PRESS.

now in possession of the very lands upon which the
debts (4 these Parsee merchants had been secured.

Sir J. W. HOOO declared that the ease, stripped of
all disguise, was this, the Nizam borrowed money
from every one that would lend it, and afterwards
paid nobody. If repayment was insisted on, he made
over certain lands by way of security, leaving his
creditors in possession for such time as he thought
sufficient for them to have paid themselves, and then
turning them out. This was the case with the pre-
sent petitioners, who were warned as to what would
happen to them. They were turned out like other,.
Doubtless► they were great losers; they were most
respectable natives, and their case was a very hard
one. They had borrowed moneys to make these
loans, and ruin in a great measure was the con-
sequence to them and other houses embarked with
them. They were deserving of all sympathy; but,
however the►r case might be commiserated, it gave
them no claim on the Government of India, or on
the British Parliament.

Mr. BRIGHT urged that a priced facie case had
been made out for investigation, which was all that
the petitioners required in the first instance. If the
house felt unequal to decide upon certain points of
law, the case might be referred to some judicial
tribunal. The material facts were hardly disputed ;
the wrongs of these Parsees were admitted, and the
Company were in possession of the lands which had
been assigned by the Nizam as security for the debt.
Considering the relations of the Company with that
puppet monarch, there could be no doubt that the
Indian Government had it in its power, without a
violation of its policy, to insist upon the Nizam con-
tinuing the security till the debt was paid.
Mr. Ititonfrat warned the house that the Judicial
Committee was a tribunal not constituted efficiently
to take cognisance of a complicated case of disputed
accounts. if they were satisfied that there existed
a just demand against the Indian Government, it
would be better to follow precedents, and interfere by
bill. His opinion, however, was, that no foundation
had been shown for such a demand, or for the inter-
ference of the house.

Sir It. IL Isom also apprehended that that case
could not be satisfactorily dealt with by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.
Mr. INOHAX, on the other hand, considered the
Judicial Committee quite competent to deal with this
question, and upon its merits argued in favour of the
claim.

Mr. Hum: said he should vote for the motion,
because a wrong was admitted, and a remedy re-
fused.

Mr. MANor.Es observed, that it was not alleged
by the petitioners that they had any claim upon the
Company, and whatever decree the Judicial Committee
might make would not bind the Nizam.
Mr. E. l3r►ra. likewise supported the motion.
On a division the motion was negatived by 111
votes against 69.

CHICORY.

The enormous frauds committed by the retail
dealers in coffee, by selling (under a Treasury sane.
Lion) an adulterated article of which chicory formed
the principal ingredient, were once more brought
under the consideration of the Legislature, on Tues-

day, when Lord TORRINOTON presented anti enforced
a petition from the merchants and planters of Cey-
lon, complaining of those frauds as a result, and of
the last " Treasury minute" on the subject as the
cause, whereby the growers of coffee sustained serious
loss, and the consumers suffered under an outrageous
deception. The late Government had effectually
stopped the evil by prohibiting every sale of a mixed
article, ordering, under penalties, the dealers to keep
and sell coffee and chicory in separate packets, so
that customers might know what they were buying.
By the present Ministry a new order had been sub-
stituted, permitting grocers to sell a mixed article, if
only marked as such. This at once opened the door
to fraud. The label was easily concealed, and the
term " mixture " was so vague that, as it was proved
by analysis, in many specimens of " mixed " coffee
the chicory largely predominated, sometimes to the
extent of nine tenths or even more of the whole
quantity. This facility for evasion the noble lord
traced into various lamentable consequences with

regard to the public health, the purses of the com-
smilers, the prosperity of coffee-growing colonists,
and the general morality of the commercial public.
The Earl of ABERDEEN pleaded intense weariness
of the subject, which he said had monopolised far
too much of the legislative time. He felt exceed-
ingly indisposed to reopen the question, or alter the
last "minute," which had been issued solely on the
ground of public and trading convenience:—

" The alteration that had been made was rendered ne•
cessary by the inconvenience, hardship, and difficulty
which the common people of this country experienced in
using coffee as directed by the minutes of the late Govern-
vernment. This was the first time he had ever heard the
assertion that chicory was an injurious substance. Why,
half the coffee in Europe was chicory—(laughter)—and
especially in the south of Europe. The great mass of the
consumers of this beverage preferred the mixture. The
question then was, how they were to be enabled to mix it.

SATURDAY,

Not, he conceived, as attempted by the minister of a late
Government, which made separate packets necessary, for
coffee when ground remained a powder, whereas chicory
became a sort of cake which it was impossible fur the pm,
chaser himself to mix. It consequently became necessary
to grind them together in order that the mixture should
exist. Another reason was the expense involved in making
up the articles in separate papers. Suppose a poor man
entered a shop for an ounce of coffee and an ounce of chi-
cory. The making a separate packet of each added greatly
to the expense and trouble of getting his wants ►upplied.
The great mass of the common people infinitely preferred,
therefore, that the two ingredients should be mixed by the
dealer for them. The noble lord had intimated that highly.
respectable officers had neglected their duty, and were
guilty of a sort of complicity in fraud. This was a most
incorrect assertion. The return of prosecutions stated
that

" ' there were upwards of 130,000 persons licensed to deal in
coffee in this country, and that each of them had been served
with a copy of the enclosed general order. The officers of the
board had made 2,527 official visits for examination, buying sam-
ples which had been analysed at the laboratory, and for which
470 prosecutions had been instituted. And there bad not been
a single prosecution without a conviction.'
It at least showed there had been activity and honesty in
carrying out the provisions of the present minute, and the
insinuation against the conduct of the officers was utterly
destitute of foundation. The noble lord had also stated
that the amount of consumption of coffee had diminished
under the operation of the present minute. Now, he held
in his hand a return of the quantities of coffee taken out
for home consumption in the three months ending July 0,
185:1, as compared with the quantities taken out for home
consumption in the corresponding three months of the
preceding year, 1852. The quantity in 1852 amounted to
r 4,000,11410 and odd pounds; but in 1853 it reached
8,977,000 pounds, or an increase of nearly 1,000,00- i pounds.
At least, therefore, there was no ground for saying there
had been a diminution. (Hear, hear,) The fact was that
chicory was a substance which up to last year, up to the
issue of the minute of the late Government, he believed
had been used without any restriction whatever. From
the year 1840 up to the year before last it was left to the
dealers and the public to please themitelver in the use of
the mixture ; and it had not been regarded in the light of
adulteration, because the matter which had been mixed
with coffee was not an injurious substance, but rather salu-
tary in its properties. Be that, however, us it might, it
was left open to the public and the dealers to do as they
thought proper. And it had been found impossible, or at
all events inconvenient, to execute the minute of last year,
on account of its increasing the expense and trouble, and
preventing the possibility of the mixture taking place and
its being ground and packed in the proper manner. Before
issuing the existing minute the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer instituted the most deliberate and careful inquiries
and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was, convinced that the
:
great body of the consumers of this country—and the lower
orders especially—had every reason to be satisfied with
that minute in its present shape."

The Earl of MAIiiESBURY denied that any suffi-
cient reason had been shown why the minute of the
late Government should have been superseded.

He confessed he was lather astonished at the cause
of the change which the noble earl had explained to
their lordships. For, if he rightly understood the
noble earl, he said that unless the two substances,
coffee and chicory, were mixed, the chicory would not
last long.
The i.arl of AiwanEEN: Chicory became caked if it
were packed in a separate paper.
The Earl of MALMESIIIIRY could only see in that fact an
illustration of the partiality for coalition and fusion which
was so characteristic of the Government of the noble
earl. ("Hear," and a laugh.) if the noble earl would con-
sult some of the best chemists in London, they would tell
him that the extent to which adulteration was carried on
in every substance that was sold in the market, of which
we ate and drank, was positively frightful ; mid that the
only comfort we had was the reflection, that in nine cases
out of ten the adulterations were not actually deleterious.
But as to getting any simple substance in its naturally
pure state, that was altogether out of the question. He
thought the noble earl had been rather hard upon the
minute of the late Government; but he begged to say that
that minute was greatly preferred by the public and con-
sumers to that of the noble earl.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE remarked that the "minute"
of the late Government had been reicinded before it
was fairly tried.
Lord BEAUMONT, believing that a strong case had
been made out for the petitioners, and but a weak
defence offered by the Government, suggested the
appointment of a select committee next year to in-
vestigate the question.
The Duke of ARGYLL defended the ministers, and
gave some explanations touching the chemical
hypotheses involved in the case.
The Earl of Wiexi.ow apprehended that the minute
under which trade then existed occasioned u loss to
the revenue, and sanctioned fraud upon the pur-
chasers

Lord MoNTEAGLE contended that the allegation of
fraud was improperly introduced, because chicory
was so perfectly harmless, and wished to leave things
as they were, since the condition of the working
classes was better and higher now than at any ante.
cedent period.
Lord REDESDALE noticed that the chicory-growers
were treated with more favour than anybody else,
and apprehended that the impression would spread
through the country that "the producers of the
article possessed undue influence with certain

AUGUST 6, 1853.

parties in securing particular arrangements for their
advantage."
The subject then dropped, the petition being
merely " laid on the table."

BARON DE BODE.
The claims of the Bartel de Bode were on Monday
once again submitted to the House of Lords by Lord
Lviontuasr. The claim arose, as the noble lord
stated, out of the losses which the predecessor of the
present petitioner had suffered through the confisca-
tion of some extensive property in Alsace, at the
period of the first French revolution ; and the
equity of his demand for compensation against the
British Government followed from the function
which that Government had voluntarily assumed,
namely, to provide fair restitution for all damages
suffered by British subjects in regard to their pos-
sessions in France, through the troubles and con-
fiscations which were so rife at that period. Lord
Lyndhurst then recapitulated the vicissitudes that
had attended preceding claimants during their many
and various endeavours to obtain compensation by
different appeals to the English law and Legislature ;
and showed that the steps taken had left the appeal
under these conditions :

" That the house had referred the petition of the baron
to a select committee, which committee hail reported that
the following facts were established—namely, that the
claimant was a British subject within the meaning of the
treaty and conventions ; that he was the bomi tide posses-
sor of a valuable property in Alsace ; that the property was
unduly confiscated by the French revolutionary authorities;
that the late baron presented his claim for compensation
within the time limited by the convention ; that after the
payment of all other claims presented within the time
limited there remained a surplus more than sufficient to
satisfy the baron's claim ; and that the rejection of the
claim originated principally in a mistake of the commis-
sioners."

Contending that the case was one of great hard-
ship and injustice, though admitting that the absence
of any legal power of compulsion left them altogether
at the mercy of the Government, the noble lord con-
cluded by an energetic appeal to their sense of equity
and moral justice as the most powerful inducement
upon the house and the Ministry to see right done
to the present petitioner.
The Loan CHANCELLOR contended that the claim,
which was now urged in the name of equity, ori-
ginated solely in a fiction of law. By a point of law
only was the former Baron de Bode entitled to call
himself a British subject : his property was held by
him altogether in the character of a Frenchman ;
and under the denomination of a French emigrant
was the decree by which it was confiscated pro-
nounced against him. The tribunals formally
appointed at the time had decided that the deceased
baron had no claim on the " compensation fund."
That decision was confirmed on appeal by the Privy
Council ; and the residue of the fund had long since
been distributed in what had been considered the
most equitable manner. Before all legal tribunals,
therefore, the claim of the baron's successor wag
completely barred ; and, if it were now to be urged
through the Legislature, he inquired where the
system was to stop, and what other disappointed
claimant could in that case be refused a rehearing?
The case had also now been brought forward in a
most indefinite manner. They were asked to give
the case a "favourable consideration;" but, if that
meant " fair consideration," he urged that the case
had already been fairly considered. If the claim
were just, their lordships should have been asked to
pass an act at once for its full satisfaction. His own
conviction was that the claim at the beginning rested
on an error, and had never a basis either in law nor
equity.
Lord Tnt:ito having supported the petition, whose
rejection, he said, would be a " disgrace to the
country," and after a few remarks from Lord MONT-
MOLE in opposition, of the Earl of HARROWBY in
favour of it,
The Earl of ABERDEEN briefly declared his resolve
" not to disturb the previous decision" in this case.
Their lordships then divided, and Lord Lyndhurst's
motion was negatived by a majority of 16 votes to 6.