The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-05 00:00:00

PETITION OF THE CALCUTTA BANKERS.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, that in opening the case of the Pe-
titioners, he should be saved the trouble of narrating the cir-
cumstances of their petition in detail to the House, by the state-
ment which he had made regarding it on a former evening.
The claim of the petitioners arose out of a loan made by thean
to the Government in India, on the security of the territories of
Oude, The money so advanced was borrowed to pay certain
subsidies to the East India Company, and being so paid came
• into its coffers. The territory upon which the money was ad-
vanced had since been partitioned, and half of it had come into
the hands of the East India Company. Though the revenue
of the territory thus acquired br the East India Company
amounted to 3,000,0001. sterling, they refused to pay the debt
claimed lat the petitioners. As the petitioners were thus de,
fronded of all means of redress and repayment, and as they
could obtain no relief from the Courts in India or in this coun-
try, owing to the sovereign!), of the East India Company, they
were obliged to seek for justice in the power and wisdom of
Parliament. To show the justice of the claim made by the
petitioners, Mr. Brougham read extracts from the dispatches
of several of the Governors-General of India, and, particularly
relied upon a letter from the Marquis Wellesley. After seve-
ral observations upon them, he concluded by moving that a
Committee be appointed to inquire into the justice of the claim
of the petitioners, and to report their observations thereon to
the House.
Mr. ROBERTSON opposed the motion; but was 'for the
most part inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say
that the money had been lent at a most extravagant and usuri-
ous rate, and to deprecate the interference of Parliament to
compel the payment of it.
. Mr. WETHERELL supported the motion, and contended
that the loan had not been contracted upon usurious terms.
Mr. HUME dissented altogether from the view which his
Hon, and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham) had taken of this
case. Instead of looking upon it as matter fit for public in-
quiry, he thought it, both according to principle, precedent,
and practice, 'a private, subject, and to be settled between the
individuals who were affected by the claim, and the party
against whom it was made. Lord Cornwallis had Icing since
declared that the Government ought not to interfere with mat-
ters of private debt in India ; and had the Miirquis Wellesley
(as was insinuated by the reference to his private letter)con-
sidered. the present subject fit for public interference, he had
had abundant opportunities, while Governor-General of India,
of promoting inquiry into the transaction. The Hon. Member
then adverted to the manner in which the prisate affairs and
transactions of the native Princes in India had been conducted,
and explained the manner in which business was Conducted
among them ; and said, that if the House tolciated an inquiry
into this case, they Would next session have no time, even if
they sat through the whole of the ensuing year, for anything
else than considering applications of a similar nature respect-
ing matters of private account in India.. He should therefore
most decidedly oppose the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. PRENDERGAST said, that in the pecuniary trans-
actions in which he was engaged in India, aria to which allu-
sion had been made, instead of being remunerated for his
losses, he was left a severe sufferer. For his own part, he had
been obliged, on the principle that htilf a loaf is better than
none, to accept one half of his claim in lieu of the whole. He
was compelled to abandon the other moiety, to which he
was equally well entitled, on every principle of equity and
right, to the Vizier. From this statement, the House might
judge of the fairness and correctness with which an Honour-
able Member (Mr. Hume, we believe) had stated that he
(Mr. Prendergast) was the only claimant who had received full

compensation. Before this discussion terminated, he would
take the liberty. of 'moving that' the papers connected • with his
own case be laid before the House.
Mr. G. SMITH (as we understood), having been appealed
to, felt'it his:duty' to bear his testimony to' what he believed
to be. the just claim of his Hon. priend•who had last addressed
the House. • His case, he thought that Hon. Gentleman had
clearly established. ' -•-
Mr. ASTELL thought-that no:Statomenthad been made by
or on behalf of-the East India Company, with regard to the
subject now under consideration, which was. not amply borne ,
out by the official documents before the House. If the-House
consented to entertain this petition, there would be no end to
petitions of a similar nature from the representatives of those
who might formerly have supposed themselves to possess claima
of Dris. nature,ijzsi which they hadged since
vcatboarsiadytTed
that. he had as yet
formed noopinion upon the, particular merits of the case; but
undoubtedly, a prima /Me case of "inquiry was laid in this pe-
tition. Among other matters, tending to found such a case,
the petitioners relied on this--that from the year 1787 to 1793
the interest upon their debt had been regularly paid. That cir. ,•
cumstance alone afforded some, though perhaps not an unan-
swerable, presumption, that theirs waa in fact an equitable claims
There were three classes of creditors of, the Vizier—European
creditors, of course subject to our Government ; IlindoO credi-
tors, subjects of the Vizier ; and Hindoo creditors, subjects of
our Government.' The latter .felt that though they were not
Christians; ye; as being subjects within the territories of the
East India Company, they had as much right to demand ins,
tice at the hands of this Government as 'if they were British-
born subjects- (Hear l),-and nothing was more important in
the case than this circumstance ;.for the foundation of the Com•
pany's power, and of their influence over the natives of India,
was the equal administration of justice between al/ the various
classes of their subjects.—(Cheers.)—The security of their do-
minions and their own character alike required that such an ad.
ministration of justice should be ever carefully maintained.—
The East India Company, on this occasion,were certainly placed
'in no ordinary situation.. These sums of money were advanced
on what was said to be due from the Vizier to the Com-
pany. That was one of the -allegations advanced on the
one hand, and denied on the, other. When this Vizier
died, the House wcre told the East India Company appoint-
ed his successor ; and in consideration of investing him with
the territories which had been governed by his predecessor, the
Company entered into an agreement with him, by which he
took upon himself the payment of the .debt due from the for-
mer Vizier, although he could not otherwise have been his re-
presentative in this matter. By another contract, in 1798, the
Company took under their own dominion one half of the Vi-
zier's territories, as an acquittance for this debt. Now, on this
statement of the question, it would seem that the Company •
could not be justified in refusing to meet the claims of the peti..
tioners; for, in- the case of a private person accepting the
assignment of an estate as the consideration for monies by him
advanced, it would not be competent to Min to refuse dis-
charging the incumbrances taken with the estate; but, on the
contrary, such an assignment would stand good in any Court
of Equity. Still, however, he (Mr. Plunkett). begged to be •
understood as not yet having formed any opinion on the merits
of this case. He was merely showing that something like a
prima facie ground was laid for the application., He was bound
to vote for the Committee, because, this being a claim of so
peculiar a nature, there was no other way in which the pe-
titioners could apply for redress but through this House.— ,
(Hear; hear!
Mr. W. WIGRAM, in a low tone of voice; defended (as
we understood) the conduct of the East India Company. The
Company ought not to be -called on .in this matter. It was
nothing more than an account between the Vizier and the
parties who had been thus concerned with him. The Vizier
alone, or his representative, could be answerable for it..
Mr. P. MOORE was astonished that the Hon: Gentleman,
who was the professed agent for the petitioners, could for a
moment have been induced sa, far to sanction their petition as
to bring it forward. The lion. Gentleman proceeded shortly
to state what he considered to be the facts of the case. In con-
clusion, he thought that the House had no judicial authority,
and therefore voted against the Committee.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON did not mean to say
that the Company ought to pay the debt; but he thought that
there were parts of It to which they might be liable. What
part they ought to bear, and what part they ought not, he
hoped to learn from the report of the Committee.
Mr. W. WYNN thought there was such a prima facie case
made out as justified the house in going into a Committee.
The claim, it should be recollected, was not for services per,
formed, but for money actually lent.
Captain MABERLY thought the claim could not be sup.
ported.
Mr. MONEY was most anxious that justice should be done;
but on looking at the papers already before the House, he
thought the main allegations of the petition were disproved.
Dr. PHILLIMORE would have voted against the Com•
mittee, it he could have seen that the statements of the petition
stood disproved ; but after looking attentively at the documents
before the llouae, lie did not feel competent to determine whe-
ther the claim was or was not established ; and therefore he
should vote for farther inquiry.
Mr. GEORGE SMITH was against the Committee.
Mr. RICARDO thought that the Right Hon. President of
the Board of Control could not have sufficiently attended to
the papers before the House. In his opinion it would be most
impolitic to grant a Committee.
Mr. W. WYNN', Dr. PHILLIMORE, and Mr. WiGRAM,
explained.
Mr. T.P. COURTENAY said this was a claim, not of libe-
rality, but of right, and there was no judicial tribunal either in
this country or in India by which it could be decided. The
Board of Control might, undoubtedly, have sent their mandate
to the Court of Directors, ordering them to send a dispatch to
India, Commanding the payment of the, debt claimed, which was
about 150,0001.; but they did not like to adopt such a proceed,
ing, as they understood,that the whole 24 DirectorS were op-
posed to the claim. It therefore appeared to them far more
eligible that it should be investigated before a Committee of
drat House, by whom evidence might be heard, and the whole
of the facts be thoroughly inquired into.
Ur. BROUGHAM, in reply, said, the Hon. Secretary to
the Board of Control had put the question on its true footing.
This was not a question of liberality, but a atria claim of right,
and could not be decided by any. judicial tribunal. The
Learned Gentleman then went into a detail of all the circum-
stances of the case, and contended that the petitioners were jus-
tified in making the demand they had done. The money due
to them had been raised, to pay a subsidy of the Company, and
was secured on the revenue, that `as, on the rent of certain
lands, and consequently on the land itself. That land the Corn-
pany had now got
,into their possession, partly by fraud and
partly by force; but not one quarter of a rupee, either princi-
pal or interest, would they part with. This, then, was the
claim of right—it could not be decided by any Court of Jos-
tice—and, he demanded, would the House' refuse to the, peti-
tioners the only constitutional mode by which they could ob-
tain redress—the appointment of a Committee to investigate the
circumstances ? The Company said, this was not the proper
time to investigate them ; but they had not deigned to state,
When the proper time would arrive. If the Company had of-
fered to wave their right of sovereignty, and to go before a
Court of Justice, onto subject the claim to a reference, or to
'go before the King in Council, the petitioners would have
gladly listened to such an overture. But they did no such
thing—they contemplated no such thing. They adhered to the
• strict letter of their rights and prerogatives, and all that the
petitioners could do was to bring the subject before. Parliament.
Atte', a short explanation between Mr. Hu ME and Mr.
BROUGHAM, the House divided—
For the Motion -82 1 Against it 3111 Majority -43
The Committee was accordingly appointed.

IRISH INSURRECTION ACT,

Mr. GOULBURN rose to move the second reading.

Sir ROBERT WILSON hoped that a subject so important
would not be entered into at this late hour. He was willing
that the Bill should pass through one stage, but hoped the de-
bate would be taken at a future period.
Mr. GOUIA BURN expressed his readiness to undertake that
this should be the first subject on Monday.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be commit-
ted on Monday.