The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

REMARKS ON THE VAGRANT ACT.

Notwithstanding the degree of perfection to which we ,
are supposed to have arrived in our system of British
jurisprudence, we fear that an attentive examination of
that system will by no means bear us out in the repute-'
non we have acquired. We are most willing to admit
that the English Constitution, administered in the truth
and simplicity of its first principles, furnishes a degree
of protection to the subject unknown in any other coun-
try. But we have penal laws upon our Statute book that are
a disgrace to an enlightened age : the character of the
mass of the people from whom our Juries are taken ;
their good sense, their humanity, and their love of justice,
when they are not under the control of passion or of
party ;—these alone preserve us from the oppression
which they are calculated to produce, and form our only
security against the ill-digested and intolerant princi-
ples which pervade them. But this security we are in danger
oflosing ; the increased and exclusive power given, Session
after Session, to the Justices of the Peace, has gradually
withdrawn this protection; and, if the attention of Parlia-
ment and of the public is not strongly drawn towards it,
will imperceptibly subject us to the arbitrary domination of
individual Magistrates, who will have the power, in fact
they have it in a great degree alreatly,—to inflict punish-
ment at their pleasure, and to pronounce sentence without
APPealt
Before we proceed to remark on the VAGRANT ACT, and I
to examine its principles and enactments in detail, it may
be as well to lay down what we conceive to be, and what
we are satisfied every man of hound reflection will admit to
be, the fundamental maxims of penal jurisprudence. lo
the first place, there is no one, we apprehend., but will ad-
mit that punishment can only be inflicted where some of-
renCe has been committed ; that to constitute an offence the
act committed must be injurious, directly or indirectly,
either to the community at large, or to some indiridaal mem-
ber of it. Now, carrying these two incontrovertible positions
in our minds, let us proceed to examine the enactments of
the Vagrant Act, which at present cuts so conspicuous a
figure on our Penal Code. It is new on our Statute Book,
and we may therefore approach without any of that supersti-
tious reverence which we feel for consecrated abuses. It may,
indeed, be said to embody in its own loins a long line of
ancestry. It purports to be " An Act for consolidating
into one Act and amending Me Laws relating to idle and
disorderly Persons, Rogues and Vagabonds, incorrigible
Rogues, and other Vagrants in England.- The title is im-
posing.; but single vices gain nothing by being condensed
Into one solid body: wrong cannot be ennobled into right by
compression. IVe must therefore examine this Act as if its
provisions were not intertwisted with all the former laws,
but stood not divorced and separate, each claiming to be
discussed in the individuality of its own merit.
It must strike every one, in the outset, that in the very
classification of the criminals the rules of common justice
are outraged. Idle persons are linked with blew', igible
rogses. Now a person may be idle from the inability to
procure employment ; is be, on this account, an object of
punishment P The utter want of discrimination is manifest.
But let us suppose that a person can obtain employment,
end, from ill health or slothful habits, or any other cause,
prefers to be idle, what have the laws to do with that?
He disturbs no man in the enjoyment of his property ; he
interrupts no other man's happiness ; he infringes upon no
man s rights. What offence, then, is he guilty of ? What
crime does he commit ? By what authority, then, and on
what sufficient ground, can you proceed to punish a man
who has committed no punishable act Q What definition
can we give of tyranny, which this would not include ?
Mr. Cbetwynd, before he frames another penal statute,
should acquaint himself with the principles by which pu-
nishment should be regulated. Let him leave indigence to
find its own remedy : if it is brought on by idleness, it is a
sufficient reason for withholding public relief; hut be-
yond this, we have no legal warranty to inflict suf-
fering: as to the prison and the tread-mill, the inflic-
tion is iniquitous; it revolts against every rule of right, and
every measure of justice.
e will go through the separate enactments, as they
follow in their order of arrangement. In doing this we
shall not only have an opportunity of discussing the prin-
ciples upon which this Vagrant Act is framed, but of de-
veloping the principles which more or less pervade the
great mass of our penal laws. The subject furnishes a
vast fund of useful reflection; it is a subject in which we
have all of us a public and personal stake, and which oar
common duty, as well as oar common interest, makes it
Incumbent upon us to examine.
The first enactment merely repeals the former laws,
which it is the professed object of this Act to amend ; we
will therefore dismiss it, and proceed to the second:-
- And be it farther enacted, that all persons who threaten to run
away. and leave their wives or children chargeable to any palish,
township, or place; all persons who, being able to work, and
thereby, or by other means, to maintain themselves and their
leoilies, shall wilfully refuse or neglect so to do, by which default
eireffii/lect they or any of them shall become chargeable to any
, township, or place, from whence they have been legally
removed by order of two Justices of the Peace, and shall there be-
aux chargeable without producing a certificate ownirg them so
be settled elsewhere; and all common prostitutes or night-walkers,
wandering in the public streets or public highways, not giving a
a satisfactory account of themselves, shall be deemed idle ,end
*Welly persons; and it shall and may be lawful for any Justice of
peaceto commit such offenders (being thereof convicted before
iihn, by his own view, or by his, her, or their own confession, or by
the oath of one or more credible witnesses) to the house of OM-
ration, there to be kept to hard labour, for any time not exceeding
one calendar month.'•
To repeal all former laws, and to substitute such enact-
ments as this!—t. clear the way with such a solemn sweep
(fisprepa ra
w preparation, in andve here!—truly
to supply nothing
it
tis an beunttpoerrauus
tthinegoutse!
whattrin
meneement. The offence of threatening to run away and
leave the parish chargeable, is equally absurd and unin-
telligible. Who are to be threatened, in order to constitute
I he offence ? Is it the wife, or the pariah officers? 1 t is, more-
over, made no offence actually to run away ! It would be a
curious statute that should punish with transportation the
threatening to steal a horse and omit making it an offence
to deal it. When any individual is to be subjected to a
punishment so degrading and so severe as that of a month's
hard labour on a !read-mill, his offence ought, not cnly to
be very cautiously marked, but very distinctly defined.
The next class of persons upon whom we find it inflicted,
is " all persons who, being able to work, or by other means
to maintain themselves and families, shall wilfully re-
fuse or neglect to do so, by means they become charge-
able to the parish." To require such persons to maintain'
themselves " by other means,"/ is somewhat equivocal, as
this latitude of expression would seem to give a virtual
license to that means of maintenance which those unfortu-
nate persons resort to, who are immediately afterwards in-
cluded in this penal enactment. Nothing is so easy for
thine who see at their ace, who have never known want,
nor ever known what it is to labour—nothing is so easy
for such persons as-to denounce heavy penalties against
all who, being able to work, become chargeable to the
Parish. They little know how many there are in this
great metropolis, who, with every wish, and with every
exertion, to procure employment, are yet unable to ob-
tain it. It is not merely inconsiderate, it is cruel, to
attempt to enforce industry by law, without first se-
curing a demand for the labour of those who are willing
to work. Before you punish those who do not maintain
themselves, and their wives and children, you should be 1
brit well assured that the means of honest livelihood are
within their reach. Unless some provision is made to this
end, you are not in a condition to determine whethi r their
poverty is the result of sloth or of necessity. It is on this
unportant point that the enactment before us is defective.
It punishes. and that too with extreme severity, those whom
it chooses to denominate an idle, while it pronounces an in-
iisaindnate sentence on those who neglect to maintain
P"oelres, without affording any criterion of determining
"Ileacr such neglect is wilful, or adjudging under what
mcuinstanees it shall be considered as not corning within
`l, Purport and provisions of the Act.
The w'mle of this enactment is penned in an unreflective
aril unfeeling spirit. " All common prostitutes, or night-
"4er; wandering in the public streets, or public high-
*,+!ll, not giving a sat'sfaetory account of themselves,l
41411 be deemed idle and disorderly persons." What vague
numaning phraseology is this! How can such persons I
pre a " 6CCOUnd nfikinseloes 1?" Cut off as they I
"re, the far greater part of them, by the perfidy of our
7,1, from all the protective kindness and sympathy of!
a" 'me they know enough of wretchedness without,
consigned to the loathsomeness of a prison, and the
sic of a tread-mill:
" The world is not their friend, nor the world's law."
The Mere act of " wandering in the public streets" is not
Nif a crime : to say of any person that they " shall be

deemed idle slid dilorderly," and convicted as wick who
are sot actually so, is the essence of injustice. If
this principle Is once admitted, there is no standard
of guilt. It becomes utterly impossible, under this
stretch of constructive dclinqueuce, that the people,—the
lower classes especially,--,-can be secure against oppression,
and that, too, of the worst kind. Besides, if females, of
the unhappy description alluded to, are, when not publicly
offending by any outward indecorum, to be apprehended
and consigned to a month's impi isoimient and hard labour,
what is to become of them when their term of suffering is
expired and their constructive offence has been expiated ?
What habitation is to he found for them ? What path of
virtuous industry is opened to them? Who will afford them
shelter ? and—Who will give them bead ? Having alrea-
dy punished them so severely for •' wandering in the
streets," you cannot, in common mercy, turn them on the
streets again ; and yet this is done, but done with what
pretext of justice—with what colour of humanity ? But
thus it is that persons legislate who are surrounded with
ease and prosperity—who have never "exposed themselves
to feel what wretches feel," and who are wholly unfitted, by
their practical views of life, to make laws for the moral
welfare of mankind. Such persons legislate not so much
in wantonness as the thoughtlessness of power : they never
stop to reconcile their principles to their reason, or to their
conscience. Ilad Mr. Chetwynd done either, the Vag rust
Act, such u it is, could never have been framed.

We shall pursue the examination of it through the
whole of its enactments ; but our space is limited ; and,
for the present, we must lay down our pen.

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

IL,.ILEYBITRY COLLEGE.

A Special Otneril Court of Proprietors of East India Stock was
held yesterday, at the Company's House in Leadenhsll-street, on
the requisition of ten Proprietors, to take into consideration the
propriety of applying to Parliament for the repeal of the 46th
clause of the Act of the 53d Geo. 111. cap. 155, by which the Court
of Directors is prohibited from sending to India, in the capacity of
a writer, any person who shall not hare resided during four years
at the Haileybury College, and for introducing a clause appointing
a public examination at such times and under such regulations as
the Court of Directors, with the approbation of the Board of Con-
trol, may direct; to which examination all persons shall submit
their acquirements and qualifications for approval previous to their
being permitted to proceed,. in the capacity of writers, to either of
the presidencies of Fort %Vahan], Fort St. George. or Bombay.
There was a very numerous attendance of Proprietors.
The minutes of the last lieneral Court having been read,
The CHAIRMAN (William I% igrain, Esq.) stated the purpose
for which this meeting was rendered special.
THE 3IARQFIS Ok HASTINGS.
Slr JOHN 1)0Y LE said, before they proceeded to enter upon the
, li•ineas of the day, he wished to solicit the attention of the Chair
I fora few minutes. _ _

.....
The CHAIRMAN rose to onler. The meeting was convened for
special business, and he could aot allow it to be deferred for any
o her purpose. .
The lion. U. KIN NAIRD said it wan customary in courtesy to
allow any Proprietor to put a question before the regular business
of the day was begun.
The (I'm ILMAN repeated, that the meeting was for special busi-
nets, and he conceived he could not with propriety allow it to be
deferred.

111 r. Hintz expressed his surprise that the courtesy usually ob-
served towards the Proprietors was departed from in the person of
his gallant friend (Sir J. Doyle). To illustrate the impropriety of
this departure front the rules of courtesy, he would suppose a case :
—His gallant friend might have risen to ask • question, whether
some great officer of the Company had not embezzled 300,0001. or
400,0001. of their money, and whether, in consequence of this em-
bezzlement, it was not the intention of the Court of Directors to
impeach hien ? (Hear, hear.) As a man of honour and justice,
he (Mr. Ilunie) appealed to the Chairman, whether every Pro-
prietor had not a right to put such a question, and to insist upon
an answer, " aye" or "no t' (Hear.) if any imputation of that
description had been made against any officer of the Company.
would he not have the right, would not the public at large have a
right, to call upon the Court of Directors for an answer? and, if the
imputation was groundless, would they not both have a right to re-
quire from the Chairman a denial of the calumny? (Hear, hear.)
The Court of Proprietors were movers of their own proceedings,
and though they were then assembled for special business, they
ought, if they saw reason, adjourn it, and give audience to another
question of more pressing interest.
Mr. S. Dixox was quite satisfied of the right of the Chairman
to interpose as to the point of order; but though he advised the
Honoutable Baronet to rive way at present, lie would suggest the
propriety of his obtaining a pledge that he should have an °ppm-
(unity of puttirg his question before the meeting was adjourned.
Sir JOHN Hoyt. e.—[f I had been permitted to state my object
when I first rose with confidence to appeal to the joule,: and
honour of the Chairman, I am quite sure that both he and every
other member of the Court would have prevented the interruption
that has taken place, and that I should have clearly shewn the rte.
unity of being heard. The suggestion of my honourable friend
(Mr. flume) is quite correct. 1 rose to put a question affecting
the character of one of the highest and most meritorious officers tbs.
Company ever bad. (Hear, heary. An anonymous writer in a
periodical paper hes stated that the Court of Directors have
canned an enthralment to a large amount during the adminlstra.
don of the Marquis of Hastings, and that they have it in contem-
plation to impeach him on that account. (Hear, hear, hear). I
now come to justify the honour and character of the Noble Marquis,
and to challenge any man to say that there is the smallest truth in
the charge thus insinuated against him. (Hear, hear.) The max.
tions I would put to you, Sir, are these :—First, whether any em-
bezzlement or deficit by the Marquis of Hastings, to the amount of
300,0(101. or any other sum'
s has been discovered by the Court of
Directors? Secondly, whether,, in consequence of such discovery, the
('ourt of Directors have negatived any intended grant to the Marquis
of Hastings of 11.0001. per ann. ? and, thirdly ; whether, in conse-
quence of such discovery, it is in the contemplation of the Court of
Director to impeach the Marquis of Hastings? In the presence
of this Court, and in the face ot our common country, I all on the
Chairman to give a plain and distinct answer, " aye" or "no," to the
questions I have asked him, and among men of honour I know
that I shall not ask in vain. (Cheers.)
Mr. I•OWNDEI said he was there also to canvass the same busi.
new He had seen strange insinuations in the newspapers, and as
he knew nothing on the subject, he was desirous of learning what
truth there was in the reports in circulation. (Laughter, and
cries of " Order!") . . . .

The CHAIRMAN.—With the fullest disposition to answer any
question that may be proposed to the Court of Directors, I hope
tile gallant General will allow me to state that it is impossible I
can give en answer to his question, because I have no instructions
from the Court of Directors to give any answer to any question on
the subject.
Sir Joust Dov cr.—lf I had called on you, Mr. Chairman, to
deliver the sentiments of the ('nun of Directors, or even to give
your own private opinion on any subject whatever, 1 should un-
derstand your refusal to answer me, but I declare I am at a loss
to know how to construe your refusal to answer an inquiry as to a
matter of fact which you must know to be either true or false, and
if true, you must equally know ought to be avowed, or if false,
disavowed. (Cheers.) As a man of honour. then (and I believe
you are so), I call upon you again to say "aye" or" no." If such a
discus cry has been made by the Court of Directors, let it be brought
forward in a bold, manly, and honourable way, and not left to be
insinuated by the pandits to the calumnies of the day, who, while
they whisper away the characters of honourable men, pretend to
disclose matters of undeniable fact. I know you too well, Sir, to
suppose that you meant the corollary that must be drawn from your
answer; but it is, I trust, permissible for me to say, that it that
answer had come hom another and less honourable man, the corol-
lary would be, that your refusal to answer the questions was calcu.
lated to give aid and coutnenance to the calumny. (Hear, hear.)
I regret, Sr, that your sense of duty induced you to interrupt me,
but .1 again call upon you as an honourable man, to shake off from
yourself the possibility of such an inference. (Cheers.)
Mr. Low NOES said, that as a proprietor. and a lame one too, he
ought to know what had become of this 300,0001. Ile had seen it
mentioned in the papers that the money was gone (a laugh); but
he came to the meeting quite ignorant who had embezzled it.
Now to his surprise andregret, he heard it was the Marquis of
Hastings. (Cries of " Order !" " Spoke.")
The lion. D. Kt rC XAI SI) said, he rould not be silent while such
a libel was pronounced on the character of the Msrquia of Hastings.
The Chairman was not asked for an opinion, but for an answer,
"aye' or "no," to a plain maoter of fact,fully within his knowledge
(hear, hear), and which, if not answered, would sanction the cur-
rency of a base calumny on a most distinguished officer—an officer,
too, whom the Court of Directors had nut requited as they ought,
but whom the public would compel them to requite, at least in this
instance, with something better than silence. (Cheers.) Geed
find! (extlainted the Hon. Proprietor), am I in an ass:mbly of
Englishmen ? is it possible that when such a charge has been
whispered or insinuated, much leas openly and loudly asserted,
antoagat Englishmen, it shall be found that they will not do the
common justice of giving an answer by which the calumny must
be destroyed ? When the transactions of this Court shall to-nor.
row be read by our countrymen. they will not believe them. Ac-
customed as they are to fair dealing, they will reject the report it-
self as a calumny upon us. Hut if tit:, should give it credit, it
will not be the character of the Marquis of Hastings that will be
sacrificed by such conduct, but our own. (Cheers.) We shall he
condemned as men listening in silence to a charge which we could
have refuted, but which we preferred to countenance. (Cheers.)
But, 31r. Chairman, an answer we must have, and I will mores.
adjournment till it is had. (Hear, hear.) There shall be nu tricks
in this Court by which that fair dealing amongst honest men, which
lis our national characteristic, shall be prevented. The Court of
Directors dare not keep slimes In the case of a menial servant
whose character has been aspersed. no gentleman dare to hold his I
tongue without being liable to an action of defamation ; nor in the
face of his country dare the Chairman of this Court refuse an an-
swer to the questions of the gallant General (Sir John Doyle); and
moreover, I can foretell that when the HOll. Chairman dot" answer
these questions, he dare not say "Vas." (Laud cheers.) Is the elm-
ratter of the Marquis of Hastings no part of the properly of the
Court of Directore, whose most distinguished servant be has been ?
If it were possible, which I know it is not, that this matter could
be slurred over, what man of honour weukl ever again embark his
character as .1 future Governor. General with such men as you will
this day prove yourselves to be, unless you do justice to the Mar-
quis of Hastings ? (Cheers.)

The Hon. W. F. EerefrirsToWir—t will rarer, if the Chair.
man does not. the questions that have been put to him. f declare t
that no such thing has ever been thought of in the Court of Dime.
tors an • charge of embezzlement, or as an intention of impeach-
ment against the Marquis of Hastings. I will nay more • I will I
add that he never was suspected of having embezzled 300.0001., or
any other sum belonging to the Company. The charge is wholly
unfounded ; there is not a word of truth in it. As an individual
Director, I thought I ought not to sit silent and suffer the calumny
to spread. without contradicting it. (Loud cheers).
Sir Joint DOTLE—I ant satisfied with the declaration of the
lion. Director. I am gratified with his manly statement. But
why would not the organ of the Court of Directors make the same I
statement as the lion. Director ? If my qtieations had involved
any .introverted point of Indian policy, I should not have been
surprised at your refusal to answer them ; but relating, as they did
rarely, to matters of fact in which the character of a distiartielited
Nobapn and most praiseworthy servant of the Canpeer wes I
deeply concerned, I was amazed to see you sheltering yourself un-
der the shabby pretence of • point of form, until at last one of your I
own body stands forward to voliinteer that denial which you refused
to give. I have always considered the character of a British mer-
chant as honourable, but if such proceedings as these are sanc-
tioned by this Court, I shall be inclined to say with Bonaparte, I
that you are only a set ofgrovelling shopkeepers. (('heers.)
The Curti nasex.—The two Honourable Proprietors who spoke
last have chosen to address themselves personally to me as an t
individual, but I beg to remind them that I ant placed here in
consequence of my situation as Chairman of the Court of Directors.
In that view I understood the Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Doyle) pro-
posed his questions, and I stated in reply that I had no instruc-
tire from the Court of Directors to answer them. It was not my
individual opinion he wanted, hut the collective judgment of the
Court of Directors. If my reply was unsatisfactory to the Noble'
Marquis's friends, they must impute their disappointment to the
course they have chosen. The questions answered by the Hon.
Director (Mr. Elphinstone) were not those proposed to me by the I
gallant General (Sir J. Doyle).
Sir Joule Doe I have misconceived the course I should
have followed, I am yet ignorant bow I should have proceeded. I
I h or certainly been misunderstood by you, Mr. Chairman; for
so far was I from putting the questions to you es officio, as the
Chairman, that I studiously avoided it. It was in your individual
capacity as a Director, and not as Chairman, that I asked for an
answer. I called upon you, because, from your situation, every
thing that passes in the Court of Meat& must necessarily corns
under your cognizance ; and I merely wished you to answer •
common matter of fact.
The CuenthlAN.—The Hon. Outcast, I coneeve, has no more
right to select me individually than anyany ether Director. I stand
here as the organ of the Court of Directors, and my answers are
always so considered.
Mr. Loy/lines said he had a right, and he would exercise it, of
asking whether any fraud had been committed by the Marquis of
Hastings, or any other person. He had are to the meeting in
consequence of the statements he had seen in the newspapers that
300,0001. had been embezzled; and if it was not true, he thought
it hifih time to contradict it. (Cries of "Order spoke.")
Mr. PATTISON said, from whatpassed, he MIS apprehensive
Court
that the whole Cou of Directors night be implicated in the act
of the Chairman, and he therefore, as one, begged it to be under-
stood that he was no party to the Chairman's silence.
Mr. AST ELL (the Deputy Chairman) said, the experience of
that day would prove the practical inconvenience of the course
followed by the Honourable Proprietor who had insisted on an
answer to the questions. Not only bad those questions given rise
to a long continued debate, but to • most disorderly one. (Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Director (Mr. Penitent) who had die.
claimed being a party to the Chalmette's silence, might have his
own views of the due of the Chair, bet in his (Mr. A.'s) opinion.
the Chairman could do no otherwise than refuse an answer, because
he was called upon as the organ of the Court of Directors. (Cries
of " No, no.") Ile knew not what right any Proprietor had to call
upon any Director individually for his opinion on any subject not •
mere mattes of fact. The questions were then, for the first time,
made known, and it was, therefore, impossible for the Chairman
to have answered them consistently with his duty. The Honour-
able Director (Me. Elphinstone) had spoken only as to matters of
fact. Ile bad given no answer to the questions put to the Chair-
man. Looking at the inconvenience they had suffered that day, he
(Mr. A.) trusted that in future they would, as far as possible, ab-
stain from discussing any matter not regularly before the Court.
• Mr. PATT MX said, that as an honest straightforward man, he
felt bound to give his opinion on the subject. To him the qua-
dons apprred to relate to the simplest matters of fact such as
whether the sun shone, or whether that was a stool or desk he saw
I before him ? No doubt could exist as to the meaning of any of
I the terms used in the questions. They were all as clear and as
• intelligible as human ingenuity could render them. As to the first,
every man knew that the word " embezzlement," as there used,
meant to take from the public purse and put into one's own pri-
rate pocket, and that the word " deficit" meant a sum wanting to
balance the accounts which some person had entered to his own pri-
vate account. If he (Mr. P.) differed with the lienourable Ban.
I (Sir J. Doyle), it was as to the propriety of having made his in.
t quit), of the Chairman in his individual capacity as a Rimier. lie
(Mr. P.) would not be satisfied with an individual rower. He
• would have it collectively from the whole Court of Virortors.
(Hear, hear.) The question was, whether the Marquis of /las-
I tinge had robbed the Company of 300,01.001.? (Hear, hear.) Was
I this question to be passed over without a full and satisfactory an-
' swES So tlir as he could give one, be would ; and In answer teethe
I lint question, therefore, he would say distinctly " No." (Cheert)'
• That question was answered as fir as his power went. Would
I to God l for the sake of the Court of Directors, the Chairmatul
could have overcome his regard to.foreit, and breaking through the
I difficulties which he supposed himself to be surrounded, had
I also answer" No." (Cheers.) The question was not whether the'
Marquis, of Hastings bad committed any mistake in his p-
• 'ermine of India—he who bad added mfllleas to its revenue,
• and need shrink from comparison with none of his predecessors in
any respect (—the question was simply whether he was a thief or
, pickpocket. (Here hear.) Was it fitting, that after all the
achievements of the Noble Marquis, for the benefit of the Com-
pany, the proprietors should leave the Court with a doubt whether
he was a thief? (Cheers.) As to the second question, he (Mr. P.)
r would answer that it was true that the Court of Directors had ne-
gatived the grant of 00001. a year so the Noble filarquis, but not
t in consequence of any such discovery. Hie answer, therefore, to that
I question also, was briefly, " No." (Cheers) As to the third, if he
had been seated in the chair, he would have said that an impeach-
' ment had never been mentioned in the Court of Directors; that no
I such thing was ever in mineable costernplation (hear, bear) i that
it was as much in contemplation r that the coma should strike us
t fiat, or burn us to ashes (a laugh); that, in fact, it had never been
hinted at, glanced at, or inocudoed was an active verb at the
present moment, and he did not see why he might not enlist it in
• the regular corps) in any shape. (Hear, hear, hear.) To the third
I question, then, his answer would be briefly, " No." (Cheers.) He
had given an answer for himself to each of the questions; and as
an hotted MSS he felt bound to give them. (Cheers.)
Mr. Low w Des.—ls there any deficit at all? (A laugh.)
Mr. TRANT justified the conduct of the Chairman in not an-
swering the queetions, by reference to the practice of the House of
Commons. the Chairman was bound to answer all questions
I that might on a sudden be propounded to him, very great inconve-
nience would result. He felt as much, for those who had served
the Company as any Proprietor, and particularly for the Marquis
of Hastings, and it certainly was desirable that those most un-
founded rumours should be met by an early denial.
The lion. D. Kix Kitten congratulated the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Trent) on his prematurely official sentiments, and hoped he
had not deserted that active canvass which was destined to seat
him within the bar. He would doubtless much conciliate his furore
constituents by telling them that should any future Governor.
General return charged with robbing the Company, and betraying
his trust, he, as the Chairman, should he then till that important
station, wrapping himself up in the dignity and consistency of
filen, would refuse him his official testimony to his innocence.
(Hear, hear, hear.) Ile (Mr. Kinnard) had little doubt that the
lion. Gentleman would, under these circumstances, be the suc-
cessful candidate for a post for which his generous sympathy had
already fitted hint. (Hear, hear.) Reverting, however, to the sub.
ject, he (Mr. K.) was anxious to have an answer to the questions of
his gallant friend. The Hon. Director (Mr. Pattieon) had.given foe
himself a most satisfactory answer in his monosyllabic replies • bat
the Chairman still refused to give any answer. He understooil the
Chairman to say, that the Hon. Director (Mr. Elphinstone) who
gave the first answer, had not replied to the questions put to him.
'the other Hon. Director (Mr. Pattlann)had most fully and catego-
rically answered the questions. He (Mr. )(inhaled) wished there.
fore to ask the Chairman whethdt he coincided in the concise and
direct answers of that Hore Director.

Mr. Lows cgs said he was too often accused of. wandering from
the question (a laugh); but it should be seen that day that he
would stick to it (a laugh). It was highly n that this dark
cloud impending over the Noble Marquis shot' be dissinated.
He believed the Noble Alarquis tole much too high-minded a man
to be guilty of so base a fraud. If there was any embezzlement. he
believed it would turn out as in the use of the late Lord Melville,
that it was the clerks under hint, and not his Lordship, who was
guilty. But the question was, had any error at all been discovered ?
And if it had, was it a mere error? for if it was, the Court well
knew that in all accounts errors were excepted (a laugh).
Mr. TRMIT vindicated himself from the personal attack made
upon him by the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. D. Kinnaird). The Hon.
Gentleman was proceeding to state the grounds or. which he hes
came a candidate for the Direction, when he was interrupted by cries
of " Octet."

The Hon. D. KrX114111111) WI still anxious to know whether the
Chairman coincided in the negative given by the Hon. Director'
(Mr. Patinae?* As to the assertion that the Chsimian was taken
by surprise, he would prove it to be wholly groundless. On the
30th of January a letter, containing questions in substance the
same, in words only somewhat different, was sent to the Chairman,
and by him laid before the Court of Dircrtoni. No grammarian or
sophist could find any difference in meaning between them. This
letter was written by the Noble Itlarquis'a nearest friend (Colonel
Doyle). with whom his Majestic communicated persorally with
the Noble Marquis's other self. The letter was to this effect
Alontagu-square, Jan. 94).
" beg leave to call your attention to a paragraph which
appeared in the Sunday Times of the 9fith instant, a copy of which
I inclose. You will perceive that it contains in substance a direct
charge against Lord Hastings of having embezzled 300,0001. of
the monies of the Honourable Company, or of having been 'party
to an embezzlement, by which a deficit to this amount has been
incurred.

" It further states, that in comiequence of such malversuilem,
which had been recently discovered, the Court of Directors had ne-
gatived a proposal to
_grant to him a pension of 6,110C1. pa annum,
and finally, that it is in the oesitemplation of that body to edict his
impeachment. The general slanders of an anonymous libeller, it
may be well to gem with contempt! huts particular charge, deeply,
greeting the public character of an individual, however distinguish- ,
ed, must be specifically repelled. Under this impression, I have

the honour of addressing myself to Ton N Chairman of" the. Court
of Directors, in the full confidence that you will enable meat once
to give that distinct anti authoritative contradiction to these false-
hoods, which the form they have assumed demands, and which it
is so important to the honour of the Noble Lord should no longer
be delayed. ‘Vith this view. as every question that arises in the
i Court of Director must be officially known to you in your caps-
' city of Chairman, I have to request that you would be good enough
to give me answers to the following qtteries :
lat. Whether the Court of Directors have Made any discovery,
or have received any. inffimation, or have reason to suspect, that
the Marquis of 'listings has embizzled, or been party or privy
to the embnilement of any monies, or to the creation of any de-
ficit, to the amount of three hundred thoutand pounds, or of any
other sum ?

" 2d. Whether the Court of Directors have threatened, or in-
tend, to impeach the 111srquis of Hastings for embezzlement, or
for any supposed deficit of money, or otherwise ?
. 3d.Whether the Court of Directors hate, in ebnsequence of
any such supposed embezzlement or deficit, ahead y negatived a
motion to grant a pension of 5,1,11121. per emit= to the Marquis of',
Hastings ?

" I am persuaded that your own high sere of what is due to the
honour and character of a public man, will sufficiently account to
you for the anxiety of the Noble Lord's friends, to lose no time in
vindicating him from these foul charges, which have already attain.
ed extraordinary circulation, and be my apology, at the same time,
fur prtssing the subject upon you as a matter of immediate im.
portance, as it is by you alone, from your official situation, that,
without injurious delay, the means or effective contradiction can be
furnished. In preferring, therefore, the above request, I feel as.
'Lured that I shall be only meeting your desire of &tog the earliest
justice to the character of the Marquis of Hastings, whicil, la the
paragraph in question, has been so wantonly assailed and that I
shall be favoured with an answer to the queries at your earliest
convenience. "I have the honour to be, Sit,
" Your obedient bumble servant,
'• W. Wigram, Esq." " F. HaStisdl DoTit.
No man labouring under stronger feelings could have written in
a more respectful style, or mid more perfectly have succeeded in
preventing his agitation front rendering hint intrusive or importu-
nate. This was the answer to such a letter

" East India-House, Feb: 3, Int.
" am commanded by the Court of Directors of the East
India Company to acquaint you, that the Chairman ha laid before
them your letter of the 30th of January, Wrestled to him upon the
subject of a paragraph of which you inclose a copy, which is stated
to have appeared on the 23th of- that month, fa a newspaper called
the Sunday Times, assailing the character of tie Marquis of Slant-
ing!, sad with reference to which you hare framed certain interro-
gations, which you request the Chairman, as the organ at the Court
of Directors, to answer.

--•7the regret the attack which has been thus made
Imo. the character of that distinguished Nobleman : they cannot,
however, but feel that it would be highly inexpedient for them to
engage in any correspondence arising out of the vague charges of
anonymous writers and they are persuaded that you will yourself
perceive, on a review of your letter, the inconvenience of putting to
a collective body, and the impossibility of their answering, VIM.
dons of the mature proposed by you.
" I have the honour to be, Sir,
" lour most obedient humble servant,
" J. Delft, Secretary.
" Colonel Francis Hastings Doyle, ac."
The Hen. Gentleman proceeded. The public will not believe that
such an answer could have been sent to such a letter; they cannot
believe the tact. I feel sorrow for the man whose official situation
compelled him to record for ever against himself that he signed
such a letter. But lam utterly astonished at the statement of the
Deputy Chairman, that these questions have now come for the
first time before the Chair. (Hear, hear, hear.) After the tub-
duction of this letter of Colonel Doyle, if you were willing to
deny the Noble Marquis justice, and disgrace yourselves, you
could not. I, as a proprietor, call on you to do justice to our
servants. I say, that infamy rests on him or elsewhere. (Cheers.)
He who denies his servant the benefit of his testimooy, when it
has been asserted that he intends to prosecute that servant for em-
bezzlement, becomes himself party to the calumny, and shares the
guilt of its originator. There is falsehood by silence as well as by
speech. (Cheers.) The figure which the French call riticesce.
expresses perhaps of all others the most base and cowardly mode
of effecting the object of calumny. Were the Marquis of Hast-
ings without claims on our gratitude, to an amount which history
only will acknowledge, it would surely be no unreasonable expecta-
tion on the part of his friends, that the Court of Directors should,
by their official organ, deny that they had ever contemplated the
measures alluded to. I feel that the Chairman is bound, as a man
of honour, to answer the questions. (The Hon. Proprietor, hay-
ing paused a few moments, proceeded.) I leave the public to
judge between silence of the Chairman and the character of the
Noble Marquis. I think the Court of Proprietors are now bound
to take his mute into their own hands. They ought no loam, - to
trust it to the Court of Directors, who leave it to be circulated,
that they have negatived his pension for such reasons as are
contained in the questions which the Chairman refuses to
answer. (Loud cries of Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis
challenges the proprietors to investigate his character. Let him
not remain. not only your moat successful and least rewarded, but
also your moat calumniated Governor-General. (Cheers. After
what bat passed I value not the opinion of the Court of
at one fig's end.' I challenge their competency to act as jurors.
They now stand as the accused calumniator,of the Marquis of
Hastings: let him come to trial when he may, I ern satisfied that
he will be acquitted by acclamation. It will be for the Court of
Directors to defend themselves; and the Honourable Gentleman
that. Tram), wll/ perhaps be retalbed, as the best expounder alb(
masons why, when a great and gallant officer was calumniated, they
should not contradict the slander. (Cheers.) The warmth of my
has led me fee beyond the bowie* within whist% I
con myself. I have a due reaped for the Court of =lt
and I uum have always shown It; but when the ciliation is that I
should acquiesce in the dictates of authority The the pauses of
iijustice, I cannot forbear from breaking through the ordinmy
limits of my duty, and expressing myself as eausely as I feel
warmly. lam no personal friend of the Ilerquis of Hastings. I
have been In his company only twice since his return home ; I
never was in his company before. I believe that he has been ca-
lumniated ; but if it can be shown that he forgot his duty, I will
be one of the first to bold up my band for his conviction.
(Cheers.)
Mr. Lowwnus nee to addrag the Court again ; but
The CHAIRMAN called bin to order, and requested that the
busbies' of the Oar might now be proceeded with.

_ -
HA I LEY BURY COLLEGE.
Mr. Hours doubted whether the Court was in a condition. Ate
the discussion that had taken place, to enter upon tile subject,
which it was litended that day to have considered *wildly. The
Confer had been for a considerable length of time a subject of
cussion amongst the proprietors, and he wished to see them MOO.
bled in a mate divested of all party feeling. He therefore thought
they would act wisely if, considering what had pared that morn.
ing, they were to adjourn the question for fourteen days.
An Hon. Proprietor, whose name we could not learn, suggested
that the adjournment would probably prove Inconvenient to the
Court of Directors.
The CHAI m•w said, though the business was so arranged as
to have allowed the Court of Directors to have devoted that day to
the diactuision, yet if they thought it advisable to adjourn, for
the reason stated by the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Hume), that should
form no consideration.
Mr. bow sums opposed the adjournment. He saw no rational
ground for it. He should be absent 170 miles from town a fort.
night hence, though that, perhaps, with some of the Proprietors,
would alone be a good reason for adjourning the question. (A
laugh).
General THORNTON supported the adjournment. He also pro-
tested against the conduct of the Chairman, whose refusal to
answer the proper questions of the Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Doyle)
had created all the confusion of the day.
Mr. CARRUTHERS TOSS to order.
General THORNTON, in conclusion, said he did not think the
Proprietors were in a proper temper to proved to other business.
1 he question of adjournment was earned jfy a bur majority.
INTEREST ON INDIA BONDS.
As the Proprietors were leaving the Court,
General TN turn*, as we understood amidst the noise, asked
the Chairman whether any measures were in progress foe reducing
the interest of India Bonds?
The CHAIRMAN replied, that he was hi the same situation as
before; and considering himself as the organ of the Court of Di-
rectors, be could not, without their authority, give an answer to the
question.
The Court was than adjourned.