The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-03 00:00:00

charter would soon expire, and their labours could not be de-
voted to a better service ; and whatever might be the fate of that
charter, they had a field of exertion before them, where by their
wisdom they might raise to themselves a claim to the gratitude
of millions, and excite the admiration of the world. But to-
wards Lord Hastings let them not act the reverse of this—let
them not deprive him of that " which naught enriches them,
but would leave him poor indeed." He (Captain Maxwell) was
of opinion, that if the Hon. Chairman would withdraw his mo-
tion, one might be made that would do, but if that should not
he approved, then there was another, course; a Committee
might be appointed to inquire into the accounts, which lie
thought would have every good purpose..
Mr. N. WASEROUGII said, that he for the first time ad-
dressed the Court, and he thought it necessary to state why he
had taken this opportunity to do so. He thought that the whole
weight of influence on the part of the Governor-General had
been exercised in a manner not to the interests of India. He
thought that the question was not. one of pounds, shillings, and
pence, but one of as high importance to.this Court as any that
had occurred since the impeachment of Warren Hastings. He
did not mean to set himself in opposition to the Hon. Pro-
prietors who were the friends of the Noble Marquis, nor did he
ask the Court to come into his opinion. He came *et there to
speak so much with a view to its being a question of party, as
one involving the .principle of our policy t iroughout the whole
of India. But before he went into an expianauon of his viewe,
of the transactions at Hyderabad, he begged to be permitted
to apply himself to some course observations that had been
made by Honourable Proprietors in the course of the present
debate. He knew not whether he might be allowed to mention
the name of the Gentleman who spoke it, but something had
been said about nothing having been thrown out against the
character of Mr. Adam. Now, if he (Mr. NV.) had heard it
said that, if the original motion failed, Mr. Adam must be im-
peached, he considered that this was an unfair proceeding, when
that Gentleman was not present to defend himself. The Hon.
Proprietor then referred to the letter addressed by the Marquis
of Hastings to Messrs. Adam, Pendell, and Bayley, in conse-
quence of certain remarks of the Court of Directors on the con-
duct of that Nobleman, in which he requested them to answer
the following questions : Whether they had ever discovered in
him any- management or apparent inclination to evade an order
from-the Hon. Court, which could without distinct injury to
the Hon. Company's service be fulfilled ? Whether, in case
of instructions from the lion. Court, the most irreconcileahle
to existing circumstances, consequently the most embarrassing,
they have ever heard from him remark upon the inapplicability
of the orders with any irreverent levity ? Nirhether, on the con-
trary, they have not observed in him an invariable solicitude to.
warp the exigencies of the juncture, as far as possible, to the
Hon. Court's wishes, so as that the latter might be satisfied to
the utmost extent safely practicable? These were the questions
that Nobleman required those Gentlemen to reply to; and
what he was now about to read was their answer. After ac-
knowledging the receipt of his Lordship's letter, they said—
" To the two first of these questions we can have no hesitation
in replying distinctly and unequivocally in the negative ; while
we can with no less truth and sincerity declare, that in every
instance which has come under our observation, your Lord-
ship's conduct has been invariably governed by the principle
stated in the last question. The tenor of your Lordship's ques-
tions has necessarily prescribed the limit to our answer, and
has restrained us from bearing testimony more at large to the
marked deference and attention to the wishes of the Hon. Court
which your proceedings have uniformly manifested, and to the
constant anxiety evinced by the general spirit of your adminis-
tration to uphold their dignity and authority." Now, he would
ask any impartial person, whether in the manner of this answer
there was even it sladow of. hostility from these Gentlemen to-
wards the Marquis of Hastings ? The Hon. Proprietor then
refereed to the minute, addressed by Mr. Adam to the Hon.
Court, dated Dec. 90, 1822, in which he lamented the necessity
of opposing the views of the Governor-General,. but he was
consoled by the consciousness of having performed an impera-
tive though painful duty. The pion. Proprietor next made quo-
tatitins from documents of Sir Charles Metcalfe, in answer to
the charge of inconsistency brought against that Gentleman.—
He afterwards read extracts from Mr. Stuart's minutes, in
order to rebut the accusation made against him of having contra.
dieted himself' respecting the character of Chundoo Loll, the Mi
nister of the Nizain Government, and also with regard to his opi.
nions asto the propriety of the 60 lac loan. The-Hon. Proprietor
Crlanes L utiles; respect, :catp.r.e.n,La.at the last meetinsf bv.Sir
by the Government of India during the Governor-Generalship
of Lord 'Wellesley, and asked how that Hon. Baronet had
made out his statement of 34 per cent. having been paid ?
Why, said Mr. NVasbrough, lie made 8 per cent. payable on
the exchange of the securities; but he (Mr. W.) did not con.
ceive that to be interest. But the difference between that trans-
action and the one by Palmer and Co., at Hyderabad, was
this :—ln the for-I'm-case, Lord Wellesley made a purchase of
money; they said—" NVe want so much money, and we will
pay you by bills, at twelve months to bear interest. and trans-
ferrable into the Bengal Government Security." The interest
and the disco-ant on the transfer amounted certainly to 34 per
cent. ; but if this had been payable yearly, then the Honour-
' able Baronet would have been right ; but being payable only
' for one year, there was no similarity between the two cases,
and therefore not a fair ground for argument. He thought that
the question before the Court, if carried either way, would not
throw any imputation on the Marquis of Hastings, and he
would state why he thought it would not. The thanks to the
Marquis of Hastings by the Court of Directors, was passed on
the 22d May, 1820, and by the Court of Proprietors on the 29th.
The CHAIRMAN said the vote of thanks was in 1822.

Mr. WasnuoUOU observed,-that that made still better for
Ins argument. He was going to observe, that the first letter to
the Marquis, by the Court of Directors, was written only two
days after the vote, but now it appeared that the vote was passed
two years after the letter. Then what was the inference? Why,
that the question now under discussion was an incident that
was taken out of that course of administration which had met
with such unanimous approbation from all parties. But it was
said that the Marquis of Hastings was thanked with a full
knowledge of these transactions. This was so in part, but
several circumstances had since been communicated that were
then unknown to them ; and if it should be denied to the Court
of Directors to alter their opinions on arriving at this know-
ledge, then there would be taken away from this lion. Court
the power of appreciating what actions were entitled to reward,
and what to censure ; which would in effect do away with the
vote altogether; for the thanks of the Court was not worth re-
ceiving, unless that Court possessed the power of discriminat-
ing what was meritorious and what was not. The lion. Pro-
prietor then entered into a very full statement of the various
transactions to which the documents referred, and made his
comments on them as he proceeded. lie particularly adverted.
to the policy that had been observed by the Legislature towards
India in respect to prohibiting pecuniary transactions between
Europeans and the native Princes of that country ; and he ad-
verted to the fact of Mr. Palmer having sought to render him-
self not amenable to the English jurisdiction, by the. plea of his
being a native subject of the Nizam. He therefore ventured
to affirm, that from this and other acts he was justified in
saying there had been much chicanery on the part of the
house of Palmer and Co. He (Mr. Wasbrough) thought the
terms of the license granted by the Governor-General to the
house of Palmer and Co. very vague and loose, and that No-
ble Marquis was chargeable of remissness in not ascertaining
the particulars of the loan which his license was to sanction,
previously to its being granted. But he admitted that what-
Bever might be said of the unfairness in granting this license, 1,
it was most evident, that when the Marquis granted it, lie cer-
tainly did it from the best of motives ; for he admitted it was
done for the purpose of aiding the Nizam. He thought there
had, been a great deal of shuffling in the accounts with respect
to the 60 lac loan, and that although this house had laid
claim to much good, having been of by them, yet these
accounts took away considerably from that merit. He certain-
ly did considery that the Marquis of Hastings had been •im-
posed upon by the represesentaiions of this house. But the
question was, whether the Noble Marquis aught not to have
informed himself better upon the facts before lie adopt-
ed the measures he did. Upon the whole, -it appeared
to him (Mr.Wasbrough) that in carrying the amendment, they
would not be reflecting on the Marquis. He took it for grant-
ed that it would not expunge from the records of that Court
those high eulogiums that bad been passed upon the general
conduct of that Nobleman. This transaction was distinct from
his general acts ; when those thanks were passed, the greater
part of the facts connected with this transaction was known,
' hut some were not. If Hon. Proprietors doubted those facts,
there was another step to be taken—they should bring the per-
sons who communicated those facts here before thorn, and who
would be able to answer for themselves. But with regard to
the amendment, he wished to remark, that all that the Chair-
man said was—We do not accuse the Martinis of Hasiing*
of any improper motive, we admit his character to be unini•