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

TUESDAY, MARCH 1.

A Special General Court of Proprietors of East- India. StOck.
E3.•it •nhall-street
lating to certain pecuniary transactions Hi
and Co., so far as they respected the conduct of the Most Noble
the Marquis of Hastings, late Governor-General of India. •
The Chairman ( W. AsTELL, Esq.) informed the Court that
they were met pursuant to adjournment from yestcrdav (Mon-
day) of, a Special Court, called at the request of nine honour-
able Proprietors, to take into consideration the Hyderabad.
Papers, so far as they concerned the Marquis of Hastings.
The Secretary then read the requisition, andalso the original
motion and amendment.

Mr. WEEDING said he took the opportunity of rising to ,
order. He hoped every lion. Proprietor who might address the
Court would meet with that courtesy which it was desirable•
should always be shown by one gentleman to another. lie, it
was true, had not met with any interruption during the few ob.-
servations he had felt it his duty to address to the Court ; but. .
he was sorry to say, that such had been the case with sonic of .
the Hon. Proprietors who had subsequently risen to deliver their ,
sentiments ; and even the Hon. Chairman himself had expe- , •
rienced the same treatment yesterday, and was obliged to re-•, •
sume his seat. , ..
Mr. M. WASBROUGII regretted lie did not see an Hon. Direc;e :.
tor (Mr. Pattison) in his place, to hear the remark which he (Mr.: 1
W.) felt it due to himself to make upon an allusion that had .
been made by that Hon. Director to his (Mr. W.'s) occupation
out of that Court—namely, his connection with the public press...
The Hon. Director had said yesterday, that lie supposed he
1(
11 te l
br
e.
glglierbadrs bat rnooyu
sgsauhyc),hti
h)woulduart
p I, reportl,es
ei;
id ent the proceedings
dqcioal,
nifieetd ohimself
theiln ofscel question
fet
sal itsei
oanPro-
prietorCourti
in his newspaper, and of course his own speech at length. Now
pressed only with the importance of it ; and after having read ,
the whole of
,the papers with the utmost care, he certainly did
feel that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Chairman, in •
his individual character as a Proprietor, was one which ought.;
to be adopted by the Court. . .
Mr. Pave isoli having now entered the Court, and being
informed of what had been said, he observed, that his allusion .'
to the newspaper was made in a spirit of the utmost good,
humour, and that he had no intention of offending the Hon.
Proprietor.
Mr. EDMONSTONE then rose to .speak to the question be-
fore the Court. lie had made himself thoroughly acquainted
with the subject on which he was about to address die Court,
so far as the evidence contained in the papers then before them
enabled him to do; and his firm conviction was, that the Noble •
Marquis had not conducted himself, in the transactions rela-
tive to the house of Palmer and Co. with the Nizam's Govern-.
meet, with that judgment and discretion which ought to hare
been expected from so able a Statesman. lie could not help
observing, that the conduct of those friends of the Noble Mar-
quis who had induced the present discussion, appeared to. him
to be highly injurious. With respect to the original motion,
he conceived it to contain much more than on a first perusal
met the eye ; and that was one reason why he should vote for
the amendment: another reason was, that the amendment did
not, in the slightest degree, impugn the personal character of
the Marquis of Hastings. There were parts of the dispatchei
of the Honourable Court of Proprietors contained in the volume
of printed papers which certainly could not be approved of ;
but give him leave to ask, could the Honourable Proprietors on
the other side of this house say that they approved of the whole
of the Marquis of Hastings'. letters addressed to those II 011011r-
disposi-
able Directors? He for one float certainly could not. fir
Es
Court
traced in them a vast deal of vituperation and disrespect ioon‘ovattr.huaes
the Court of Directors ; he traced in them a disposition
part of the Noble Marquis to consider those dispatcheosnnstone)
being the act of that Court; nay more, he (Mr. Edna,
discovered.in the letters of the Marquis of 1-lasti%
tion-to insinuate and to represent that that
Now' ill grace from
11°w"he really did
had suffered itself to be imposed upon.
bfsselerving that a disP°,:,britt,i..aelacif.
ddressing.
!'cry;donthat the rnt
order to protepct their
think that such things as these came witlin
the Noble Marquis. .He was firmly of otn
Court ought to support those dispatches,
tnrove an n
maket( smf from oa
one
nes
gu cgthhbesiengrsinnanttolieu7 ito a particular
en of the law), be could not
pi nr i
et htoartsC, Court
public servants
Hear, hear !)
to make remarks upon that profession, in reference
Honourable d
idbheeanpr: evincedthpartoi
in
a chlealsps
observing
were most respectable men Now ad been
s;,veill:negfo.nreghe sat down he
to their peculiar callinugi
d receive the same impartial unobserved ~
that Court, they
shown towards other Propr.ietors, and which he felt
himself and his pro '.
re that there was any panic lu ar objection to
lie was not aware he
Posional friends entitled t0..._(
attention as sho

yens becoming East Lidia Proprietors ; and when Honnura;
e-te Proprietors reflected that time with him and his friend_s
t. w a
in tact their stock in trade, lie hooel it would be considcrcil.ht
he ail they were making as ^,reat a sacrifice, at least, when
they came to attend to the duties of that Court, as any other
gentleman whose pursuits were different from thes
contained in a
Alr. MADDEN complained of certain passages
pamphlet which had recently been published, by Mr. Douglas
:Kinnaird, reflecting on the character of Mr. an and insin
R "er-
atiag that that Gentleman had made to him (sMrarllladden u-
tein representations affecting the character of 3 r. ussell, the
Resident at Hyderabad. Now he (.=lr. adden) would, in
the most unequivocal manner, and withont•tne least mental re-
servation, declare, that Mr. Stuart never
did,
in any. lenter to
him, or many other manner, state either !reedy or indirectly,
insinuate or in any way imply, that Mr. Russell was a partner in
the house of Palmer and Co, at .Hyderabad. He hoped this
declaration would-ae far clau the character of Mr. Stuart from
ell the imputations thrown upon it by the author of that pam-
ehlet. He must now speak a few words with respect to 31r.
? iissell. He begged to say that he never did hear of that Gen-
tleman-ever having been in any way connected withthe house
;,g ?aline, anti Co. until he saw it stated in that book, as being
a matter of slander against that Hon. Proprietor. Mr. Russell
had never in any way, however, explained. the nature of the
connection between him and Palmer and Co. He had, indeed,
:tend, that he had had pecuniary transactions with a namesake
Of his who resided with him at the Residency, and who was in-
timately connected with Palmer and Co. He also said that in
coneequence of that connection he had withdrawn his money,
aed had ultimately desired Mr. Palmer to withdraw from the
Residency, where it appeared he had a place; and that this
cot:duct on the part of Mr. Russell had caused between him
and Mr. Palmer a very great enmity. But nin Russell had
;tot explained what was the nature of those pecuniary transac-
tions with his namesake, whether he received a higher rate
of interest, or what ? Nor did it seem that the differences
which ensued from his conduct towards Mr. Palmer were of
eternal duration, for it appeared by Mr. Russell's own let-
-ter to that same person, that he had advised the house of
Peleter anti Co. to resist furnishing the accounts of Aurunga-
bad tre,nsactionse which had been callea for h part of the
r engal Government.
The letter was then read,
" My dear Palmer—The openness with which you have come
forward to exhibit the whole detail of your transactions in the
Aurungabactconcern ought-to operate powerfully in favour of
the house; but no-mercantile establishment oughtein common
justice, to. be exposed to a scrutiny ,of this inquisitorial cha-
racter. Sir Wm. (Rumbold) I should hope, would be able to,
prevail on Lord Hastings, if this captious cavilling spirit con-
tinues to be displayed, to say that, whenever any substantial
objection is• urged, he will call on the house to explain it, but
that he cannot consent to call on them for an indiscriminate
exposure of their concerns, merely under the expectation
that some pound ,of objection may be discovered in them.
Such a practice is subversive of the very basis on which society
is founded."
Now the license was granted to this house, subject to•certain
restrictions ' • and one of the restrictions was, that the transac-
tions of this house were to be such as should be approved of by
the British Governt. But how could the transactions be ap-
proved of without knowing what 'they were.? The question
was, did Palmer and Co. or did they not, obtain undue in-
fluence with the natives of•Hyderabati ?—(Cries of "*No, no,"
from Mr. D. Kinnaird, and some other Honourable Proprietor
near him.)—Did they or did they not take exorbitant interest ?
(No, no, from the same Hon. Proprietor.)--They were re-
quired to produce the accounts relating to the Aurungabad ar-
rangement ; they certainly did send them, but at the same time
they dispatched one of the. partners to exert his influence at the
seat of Government; that the accounts might not be put upon
record and curious was the reason assigned for it. Lord Hest-
ings, in his minute of the 10th of November, 1819, said,
" When Sir Wm. Rumbold was called before the Council, he
explained that the supplication of the house for Govern men t's dis-
pensing with the delivery of a copy of the accounts, had this
sole motive—the accounts once put on the proceedings of Coun-
cil must be transmitted home, so that the transactions of the
house would be subjected, in London, to the inspection of per-
sons liable to form all kinds of false deductions from total ig-
norance of the habits of the country, and of every concomitant
particular." Now who were the persons to whom these ac-
counts would have been referred ? The Court of Directors in
the first place. He would divide them into two classes—
those who had not been out to India ; among whom was him-
self ; but he begged to say that he had applied himself, and
he had no doubt all the other Gentlemen to whom they had en-
trusted their affairs, had applied themselves to acquire a most
intimate.and perfect knowledge of their affairs ;—the second
classes were those who had been in India, who knew the lan-
guages, manners, and customs of the natives, and who had
tilled high official situations there in the service. of the East In-
dia Company. These, then, were the proper persons to examine
accounts. But who were the next persons ? There were the
Commissioners appointed expressly for the purpose of investi-
gating these things ; and lastly there was the Court of Pro-
prietors, among whom were many very intelligent Gentle-
men quite conversant with East Jodie Affairs. He then sew
aoc in name, the linancier-General in India, and whose know-
ledge was equal to the inspection of any accounts, however
difficult. These, then, were the persons who in the judgment of
Sir William Rumbold, were considered unfit and improper per-
sons to form a correct judgment on the Aurungabad accounts.
The Hon. Director then adverted to the securities held by the
house of Palmer and Co. from the Nizam, and expressed his
surprise at its being said, that, supported as the house was by
the British Government, the assignments held by them were
no security. He (Mr. Madden) would assert, that with that
support, those assignments were as good as Bank-notes. (Hear!)
Some of the Gentlemen, belonging to the Bengal Council desired
more particulars relating to those accounts, and the Accountant-
General (Mr. Sherer) proposed that figured statements should be
required of Palmer and Co. The Council accordingly ordered
a letter to be addressed to the house to that effect. That order,
however, was baffled; for instead of the accounts being put on
record, they were withheld. A sort of protest was made by part
-of the Council on what passed at the Council, on the occasion
of Sir William Rumbold getting that order, . as it was an-
nulled. The Governor-General, Lord Hastings, replied to
this ; and his first ground was, that the Nizam was an indepen-
dent government. What sort of independence this was he
would- leave the Court to determine. But giving the house of
Palmer and Co. all the benefits of that proposition, he would
even suppose the Nizam to be as independent as the Sovereign
of Ava, with whom we were now at war; but this independence
did not abrogate an Act of Parliament—it did not abrogate the
condition upon which the licence was granted, and therefore
that point wholly fell to the ground. The Hon. Director then
read the Resolution of the 3d March, 1824, viz.—
" That there be laid before the Court all correspondence and
ether documents to be found on the public records of this house,
which regard the administration of the Marquis of Hastings,
which may enable the Court:to judge of the propriety of enter-
-tam:ling the question of further remuneration to the late Gover-
-nor-General."—He should have been glad if the lion. Gent.
(Mr. D. Kinnaird) had followed that resolution up ; but he hail
narrowed it, first, by calling this Court to consider the papers
relating to the pecuniary transactions of Hyderabad, so far as '
affected the Marquis of Hastings ; and now the motion had nar-
rowed it still more, by limiting the question to the personal in-
tegrity and honour of the Noble Marquis. But in his opinion the
question went a great deal further than as it concerned the con-
duet of Lord H. It involved the conduct of the whole of the
persons forming, the Bengal Government and of the Court of
Directors. He believed the Council consisted of Lord H.,
Mr. Adam, Mr. Stuart? Mr. Pendell, and Mr. Bayley. He
would refer to passages in which were the opinions of the Coun-
cil of which the Noble Marquis was the head, in which they
expressed their disapprobation of the conduct of the house of
Palmer and Co. Then what was the conduct of the Bengal
• Government subsequent to Lord Hastings' -retirement? They
had acted towards that house with great liberality, and would
not say that they acted at all unwisely. They enabled the
Nizam's Government to liquidate a just debt to Palmer and
Co." by purchasing a tribute of that Gover€ient, in as fair and
- liberal a manner as any gentleman in thin country could pur-
' nliase an estate. They had paid the house of Palmer and Co.
prom the 3d April to the 21st July, 1823, the sum of 7,870,870
payment annas. This included the Aurungabad contract, the
of the Berar troops : it also included the 24 per cent.
or speaking- more correctly, '25 per cent. interest; and it also
embraced the 60 lac loan, excepting the bonus, which was-very
properly set aside. And could it be said, after this, that the
Government had acted hardly towards the house of Pal-
mer and Co. ? He would maintain that they had not only acted
with great jostice, but they had also'acted with great liberality.
Nay, it even appeared that the. Government had paid the house
six or seven Lacs more' -than they were bound to pay them.
When Sir Charles Metcalfe went into the territories of the
Nizam, he found every thing in the utmost disorder and confu-
sion ; and could it be wondered at, that having such matters to
inquire into, there should occasionally be some discrepancies?
but he (Mr. Madden) would maintain, that Sir Charles Met-
calfe, in his representations, was substantially and truly right.
The Bengal Government, with a scrutinizing eye, and with in-
telligent and 'zealous Minds, had rescued the country from de-
struction. The practices of Palmer and Co. were carrying
delegation in their train. Had that system not been checked,
"mon would they have had a scene like that of the Carnatic
'thousands of ruined persons would have come here to claim
on the
Inlz"ecti°ll and interminable demands would have been made
atritiliany's treasury. in all probability, would
have beet,
powered ien.conls.ecuences ifSthuacths'ystem had been..seufferapedprotobe _
appro-
bation to these the Court should refuse to give their
his
utroast
amhidtilospnatwclaisesto, it would give him great pain, for
meet with their approval But

it would have mach worse effects ; for, if they should disap-
prove of them, it would teach future Governors-General to
serve a friend whenever he was applied to, having this example
to encourage them. Men with such power ought to be watch-
ed most scrupulously. High as their rank might be, they were,
but men, and when invested with such authority, they were as
capable of inclining to a partiality which was inconsistent with
their duties as any other persons. He could not conclude with-
out expressing his testimony of approbation to the characters of
those gentlemen whose names had been so often alluded to—
Mr. Adam and Mr. Stuart, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and the other
gentlemen connected with the Bengal Government. He would
speak of them all as amiable and honest men, and who had
faithfully displayed their duties to their employers ; and he
hoped they would be rewarded by the approving testimony of
his Court.

Mr. RUSSELL begged to explain. He first appealed to the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinnaird) whether he (Mr. Russell)
had any thing whatever to do with the composing of the pam-
phlet, or whether in any way he had -consulted upon -it or, its
contents ?
Mr. D. Kirrwairtp...." Certainly not."
Mr. RUSSELL—He begged to state his reason for withdraw- ,
ing his money from the house of Palmer and Co. was because
he wished to avoid its being appropriated in the manner he
thought it was likely to be. Not that he disapproved of the
plan proposed by Palmer and Co. but, as a resident, he was
most desirous to avoid all connection with the transaction. He
denied that Mr. Wm. Palmer was ever accommodated within
the Residency walls. Mr. Russell, his namesake, had a pri-
vate property within those walls, to which Mr. P. used frequently
to resort; but so soon as he (Mr. Russell) found they were
concerned together in pecuniary transactions, he instantly pro-
hibited Mr. Palmer from entering within the walls of the
Residency. The Honourable Proprietor then said, the note of
his to Mr. Palmer, which had been alluded to, was no proof
that the hostility which existed between him and Mr. Palmer
hadnot been of " eternal duration." Up to the present time
it had been or.. eternal:duration." And from the time he left
Hyderabad, he had had no communication with that gentleman.
The note was a private note; and had he been consulted, he cer-
tainly should not have assented to its publication ; but as it was
published he would not recede-from its principle. Instead of
its being written with a view to advise Mr. Palmer to resist the
application far the accounts, it, on the contrary, expressed his
(Mr. Russell's) approval of Mr. Palmer's intention to make a
full disclosure-; but he, at the same time, begged to say, that
he disapproved of that principle which called for accounts from
a mercantile house, not in explanation of any specific charge,
but in order to furnish ground for crimination. It was upon
that principle the note was written. The Hon. Proprietor next
adverted to the character which he had given of Chundoo Loll,
and for which he had been accused of having misrepresented
that Minister, and -referred to the uniform representations that
had been made of that person by his (Mr. Russell's) predeces-
sors. He thought he ha-d now added further testimony in vin-
dication of his conduct.

Mr. STuAnT then complained of several passages in Mr. D.
Kinnaird's pamphlet, which'he thought reflected upon his cha-
racter, and begged to explain. -
Much discussion arose as to the propriety of this proceeding;
but it was at length-agreed that Mr. Stuart should be allowed
.to enter into an explanation.
Mr. RANDAL JACKSON said, that nothing could have over-
come his reluctance at protracting the debate, but for the
amendment which had been moved. He should have been quite
satisfied to have let the question remain -with the forbearing
speech of his Hon:Friend (Mr. D. Kinnaird) when he intro-
duced the motion. But dear as the character of the Mar-
'quis of Hastings was to him (Mr. Randal Jackson), it shrunk
into nothingness when he considered the consequences of the
amendment. Let us see how the matter stood. Here came,
in the first place, a mere proposition, whether the Marquis of
Hastings was an honourable man ? It was agreed to by the Chair-
man, and had been published to the world ; and every gentleman
came to that Court prepared to discuss that question. But no
sooner was the motion put and seconded, without a single obser-
vation having been made by either mover or seconder, than the
Chairman rose and moved an amendment. He never knew that
such a similar circumstance had ever occurred. When he was a
young man, he remembered that a question of great political im-
portance was brought before the Court ; and the Chairman on
that occasion introduced an amendment as his own. Every
Proprietor felt his rights to be in danger at this extraordinary
proceeding, and one and all exclaimed against it. The Chair-
man felt the propriety of the reproof, and withdrew his amend-
ment. Now what was the case here ? Why, without any no-
tice or any debate, no sooner was the motion put, than the Chair-
man came forward and proposed an amendment. From that
moment he (Mr. Jackson) felt assured that the honour of the
Marquis of Hastings was gone for ever !—(II ear, hear, hear !)
--He would now look at the motion, and then at the amend-
ment, and see what it was that was intended by their Honour-
able Chairman. The motion went to declare, that this Court
saw nothing in the papers before them, that at all affected the
honour and integrity of the Marquis of Hastings. The Chairman
had changed the words " honour and integrity" into that cold
wa.4 nailing to enAtge tile witn being " and
then it was added, "or to any member of the Bengal Govern-
ment." There was also further added to this amendment an ex-
pression of approval of' the four accusatory documents which had
been circulated throughout all Europe and Asia, and this too
without the answer that had been given to them, although they
occurred in the next page. You acquit Lord Hastings of cor-
ruption, though you say he has com Promised his character.
But where is your proof ?—not a single instance is produced
wherein the Noble Lord had compromised himself. Another

.
reason given for the amendment was, that it had been forced
upon the Directors. How extraordinary ! Who produced this
debate ?or what produced it? Why, the unfortunate silence of
our Hon. Chairman's predecessor. He (Mr. Jackson) held in
his hand a newspaper, accusing the Marquis of Hastings of
having defrauded the atst India Company of 300,000/. Was
there any truth in this statement ? Not the least ; and yet, when
the predecessor of our present Hon. Chairman was appealed to
to speak unequivocally on the question, instead of rushing from
his seat, and with the paper in hand, exclaiming—" Calum-
niator and liar !" he very seriously shook his head and said—
" I am not at liberty to answer." Now, could any vote of the
House of Parliament, or any less than that of this very Court,
reinstate the Marquis of Hastings in the opinion of the world
after that solemn reply? But what was it the lion. Chairman
and those who supported the amendment, were going to do ?
Why, to circulate throughout Europe and Asia, that J. Adam
had been acquitted of corruption. Who has said that J. Adam
was guilty of corruption ? Where is the tongue that dare say
that -John Adam was ever guilty of corruption ? But this ac-
quittal at least implied accusation and trial, and it was they
therefore who supported this amendment that were the accusers
of Mr. John Adam. The Honourable Baronet who had se-
conded the amendment, had declared that he was as ready as
any man to testify to the honour and integrity of the Marquis of
Hastings. Then why did he not support the original motion ?
Why did not the Deputy Chairman second the amendment, as
was usual. The reason was, that in the large volume of papers
there was a most able and just eulogium on the Noble Marquis,
that bad been signed by that honourable Deputy, and he could
not consent to eat his own words. But the real reason why
the Honourable Baronet seconded the amendment, was from
a sort of nervous apprehension that if the motion was
carried, some money was afterwards intended to he asked
for. Let the Honourable Baronet allow him (Mr. Jackson) to
tell him, that if this Court were full of silver and gold, and any
motion were to be made for a further remuneration to the Mar-
quis of Hastings, while thereremained a shadow of an imputa-
tion on that Nobleman's character, he (Mr. Jackson) would not
vote for a single shilling. And if there was one man in the
world who though the Marquis should be reduced to the utmost
poverty, and his palace charged into a hovel, would cast back
the money into the teeth of the mover, it would be the Noble
Marquis himself—unless his reputation had been previously
restored to him pure and unspotted as before this fiery ordeal.
If that Nobleman is to be thrown back to India with dishonour,
for God's sake let it be done fully and completely, that he
might know what he had to expect elsewhere. But if the
amendment should be carried, he would at least have the anti-
dote to go with the documents mentioned in it. Let the an-
swers go forth to the world together with the accusations. He
should certainly propose at least an amendment to embrace all
those letters which afforded an explanation to the charges.- The
Hon. Proprietor then went through the four dispatches, and
sheived what it was the Court were called upon by the amend-
ment to sanction. He then proceeded to shew that the argu-
ments of the Hon. Proprietors in support of the amendment,
had been grounded upon false premises, and that their conclu-
sions were therefore erroneous. The lion. Proprietor conclud-
ed a long speech, by reading a list of the documents which he
thought ought, in common justice, to be attached to the
amendment.
Mr. PETER MOORE said, that he heartily applauded and
approved, of the letter of the Court of Directors of 1820. There
was no intention at that time to criminate Lord Hastings, who,
he believed, had been inveigled into those things ; but as the
Noble Marquis was made responsible for them, he must bear
the consequences of responsibility.
An adjournment was then called for amidst loud cries of
" Question ;" when, after some observations - from Mr. D.
Kinnaird,
the Chairman, and several other Gentlemen, the
Court was further adjourned to Thursday (this day.)

ITUNGERFORD MARKET.—The plan for the
New Hungerford Market House was yesterday, we hear, re-
jected by the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred
for consideration by the, House of Lords.—(Morning Paper. )