The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

MR. J. 11. PELLY.

Mr. HUME, before the question of adjournment was put, felt
anxious to do an act of public justice to a servant of the Com-
pany resident in Bombay. In the course of this year, as the
Court well knew, a grant of money had been made to Mr.
Hinde Pelly ; and he (Mr. Hume) had on former occasions
stated his opinion on the subject of his claim to the Court, from
documents then before it. That opinion remained unaltered. In
the course of a speech he had on one of those occasions deliver-
ed, he had made use of some expressions which a Mr. Morgan
(solicitor, he believed, to the lion. Company, in Bombay) had
conceived to apply unjustly to himself, and in reference to
which he had published a letter, dated Bombay, the 3d of
July. That letter he (Mr. Hume) felt himself, not as matter
of right, but of honour, bound to notice. It would he recollected
that on the question of the grant, Mr. Hinde Pelly had asserted,
as his strongest ground for compensation, that no penalty had
been inserted in his contract; and it was said that the penalty
had been omitted by mistake. The Committee appointed by
the Court thought so too. He (Mr. Hume) then submitted
that a bond did appear to have been executed ; and the Com-
pany's advocate, Mr. Macklin, had expressed an opinion on
the question being referred to him, " that the contract alluded
to was binding, though no penalty was specified in it." Upon
the strength of this opinion, it would he remembered that he
(Mr. Hume) had contended, that the Company's Solicitor was
the person who ought to be made responsible for the loss that had
occurred, for having made such an omission. Now at that time
it was not known within the bar, that a bond had been entered
into by Mr. Hinde Pelly, a notarial copy of which was now
in his (Mr. Hume's) hands, by Mr. George Pelly and an-
other person, for the fulfilment of such contract, in 50,000
rupees.—(Hear !)-.-This bond, signed by Mr. Hinde Pelly,
was dated the 24th Jan. 1818. Mr. Morgan,, it seemed, was
very properly anxious that it should be known that he was
not the person to whom any neglect in this matter was im-
putable. If he (Mr. Hume) was rightly informed, the fact
was, as stated by Mr. Morgan, that in contracts entered into in
India, it was never the practice to insert the penalty. The
penalty was always specified in a separate bond, executed with
the contract. From these facts, it appeared that Mr. Morgan
had faithfully discharged his public duty as the Company's ser-
vant; and that the Company, howeVer, had made a grant to
Mr. Ilinde Pelly, in consideration, and on the credit of a cir-
cumstance which did not exist, namely, the omission of the pe-
nalty. Mr. Morgan said in his letter—" I think if this practice had
been known to Mr. Hume, he would have made a very different
statement with regard to me .... and a much more severe charge,
on the other hand, I think, he would have brought against
Mr. Hinde Pelly, had he known that he was accusing me most
unjustly ; and that the silent assent of those who were interested
in' keeping silent, could be no proof against me of guilt or
negligence." Mr. Hume then repeated the expression of his
conviction that Mr. Morgan had most faithfully discharged his
duty.

IMPRESSMENT BY NAVAL OFFICERS.

Mr. CHALMERS, after some observations, gave notice of a
motion for the next Court in•the following terms :—" That the
Court of Proprietors observe with regret the measures lately
resorted to by some of the commanders of his Majesty's ships in
India, by which the Honourable Company's ships are de-
prived of the most' valuable 'part of their crews ; occasioning
a great excess'of labour to the remaining parts of such crews,
and subjecting the Honourable Company's property to, ex_
treme and continued danger : that in a time of profbund
peace,flike the present, when the Navy is so much reduced, and
the facility of manning his Majesty's ships is, consequently,
so much increased, owing to numbers of seamen who would
be ready to engage in the service, this Court think that the ships
of the Hon. Company should be protected against every species
of impressment. The Proprietors, therefore, recommend to
the Court of Directors to adopt such measures with the Ad-
miralty as may tend to prevent the recurrence for the future
of a practice so injurious to the interests of commerce in gene-
ral, and to those of the lion. Company in particular."—(Hear.)
The Hon. Proprietor concluded by observing, that his object
in reading the resolution was, that the public might know that
the Proprietors were serious in the view they took of this pain.
ful subject. It was fitting that they should be generally known
to the world (hear !), as he had no doubt it would be, through
the exertions of the able and mvitoriou. individuals who sat
behind him.—The Court was then adjourned.

IMPORTANT TO TAVERN KEEPERS.-Mr. MIN.
SHULL, the Magistrate of Bow-street, has decided that the
publicans within his jurisdiction shall not be compelled to close
their houses on Sundays, except between the hours of eleven and
one in themorning, and three and four in the afternoon.

CASE OF IMPORTANCE TO SERVANTSOR Thursday
the 28th ult., the following dicision was given by the Justies
of the Peace at Dalkeith. A clergyman in that neighbourhood
engaged a kitchen-maid for the winter half-year, on what he
considered most respectable recommendation of character, to
come home at the time, and the girl arrived accordingly, on die
evening of the day appointed ; hilt was off again next
morning .by five o'clock,, without any cause assigned.—
The clergyman had her summoned before the Court, and the
Justices, after a full and patient hearing of both the complaint
and defence, decerned the girl to pay to the complainer three
pounds sterling, being the amounts of her half year's wages.