The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-24 00:00:00

THE MARQUIS OF HASTINGS.

Some routine business being called on,
r..D. KINNAIRD rose, and said; the Court was aware that
all the clocnments-•and papers necessary for the consideration
of the Government of India for seven years, and for enabling
the Proprietors to come to a decision upon that important sub-
ject, had been ordered to be produced. In consequence a list
of papers hail been laid upon the table; but by whom selected or
on what principle, did not appear. When he came to look at
t:lem he found them quite insufficient for the purpose of coming;
t a decision on a case of so much importance as that of the
Coverntnent of the Marquis of Hastings. One most neces-
sary and important document was wanting—tlie expost; of the
Noide Marquis of what be thought the principal topics at' his
administration or government. He recollected that having said
on a former occasion, that other and additional papers were ne-
cessary, the then Chairman volunteered to say that the requisite
additional papers should be supplied. He could not, therefore,
cos:ceive upon what ground the document he had just referred
to had been withheld. • .
The CRAIII3IAN said, the paper in question had not been
laid before the Court, because the Directors were of opinion that
it was not a document coining within the meaning of the vote
of the Court of Proprietors. The paper was a letter from the
Marquis of Hastings, dated Gibraltar, and giving his view of
the state of India at the period of his entering upon the Go-
vernment. A letter to the Chairman of the Court of Directors
from the Noble Lord of the same date (sth of May), accom
patiied that document,- and both were laid before the Court of
Directors by the Chairman on the 18th May ; and the Court of
,Directors came to a resolution, that after the most mature ccet-
sideration of the. subject, they were of opinion, that the paper
in question, not being an official or recorded document, was not
of the descrlptiou called fbr by the Court of Proprietors to be
laid before them. _ _ _

~Sir J. Dovr. E was sure he was not mistaken when he so
posed that every Member of the Court was anxious that the
• ellest information on the subject ought to be laid before them;
he could not therefore view the statement of the Chairman as a
-s•Jfficient rewon for the non-production of the paper. He would
put it to the Court, was not full investigation the object ?—let
not the documents, necessary to its • completion be withheld
merely front poinv of form. The Gallant General concluded
by moving, that the paper alluded to, though not officially re-
corded, should he made a document fit for production before
the Court.
The Hon. D. KINNAIRD seconded-the motion, and said no
reason bad been given why the Directors had not considered the
paper moved for an official document; -no other ground had
-been stated than want of form.
The CHAT]: MAX begged the Hon. Gentleman's pardon ;
there were • many other grounds. The paper referred to con-
tained allusions to the conduct of antecedent Governors of India.,
and however inclined to serve the Marquis Hastings: the Diree-
aors might be, they had to take care that no injury to others
should be offered. The Directors could. not suffer the docu-
anent sought for to go forth tO the world, without accompany-
ing it by the declaration of their own opinions respecting it.
Mr. D. Kix-NA= felt happy in having at length elicited
'from the Hun. Chairman the Motives which influenced the Court
of Directors to refuse the production of the document.
Mr. PATTisoN said the opinion of the Court of Directors
was upon record, and stated that the -document was withheld
- solely because it was not an official one. - •
Mr. KINNAT RD thanked the Hon. Gentleman for the.infor-
,mation, and challenged every fair and honest man to read the
Pamphlet in question, and say was there in the breast of the
;Marquis of Hastings any intention to injure the fame of his
qpredecessors in the Government of. India ?—(Applause.)—
Wherever a suspicion of that nature was entertaired, there
must exist a desire to draw down censure upon the' Marquis of
-Hastings; and he would call upon Lord Minto and„his friends
to declare whether they entertained such a suspicion of the
i'oble Marquis. Lord Hastings had only mentioned the state
of India at the time of his entering upon its Government. Did
he in that document • mis-state one fact ? [lad he done so he
_would have been the most foolish man in the world to put upon
record circumstances which he might be certain of immediate
,contradiction. On his arrival in India the Marquis of Host-
-inns found-it involved •in'six different disputes ;he found it at
a crisis, produced by causes much more remote in point of date
than that of Lord Minto's Governorship Whosoever read that.
statement, and attributed to it motives different from those of
truth and public spirit, interpreted them ignorantly_...he would
not say maliciously. He therefore, in the name of Lord Hast-
ings, protested against the belief that the statement was written
'vita the view to reflect upon Lord Minto or any other previous
Governor-General..
Mr. T RANT thought the answer of the Chairman bad been
quite sufficient and conclusive, yet he felt himself under all the
circumstances bound to support the motion of the Gallant Ge-
.neral (Sir J. Doyle). ••
Mr• R. JACKSON
i had understood, from Newspaper reports,
that the late.Cnan had stated there would be no difficulty
in producing allhe documents required. He admitted that the
particularly t
paper then sought for was not upon record ; but
nothing could be
by any friend
of moreor easy than to give it that official character
ouof Hastings's sending a copy of it to the
Chairman, which a-course be received, and thus become
a record and document, for the production of which, subse-
quently, it was competent 'for any proprietor to move. lie
should, under all the eiactu
ustances of the case, support the
motion.
Mr. IMPEY defended the conduct
of the Court of Directors.
papers, m
The call had been for officialtoanion which the docu-
ment in question was not to be und, g
pardon for interruptin
Mr. MILLS begged g the Hon. Director.
The document was already an official docu •
not already so staled;' and he won-
It had been
won-
dered the. Chairman had

read in the Court of Directors, and was therefore a recorded
document.—(Applause.)
The CHAIRMAN called the lion. Director to order.
Mr. laivE Y proceeded to argue that the paper was not an
official document., - _

Mr. D. KINNAIRD rose to speak to a point of order. He
thought it better that the Law Officers of the Company should
be called upon for their opinion, whether the paper was or was
not an official or recorded documuit, than that the time of the
Court should be occupied in squabbling about it.
The CrtAIHMAN here referred to the Records of the Court of
Directors, to chew that on the sth May they had, resolved that
the letter of Lord Hastings not being an-official document could
not be produced.
Sir C. FORBES wished to know if the present proceedings
were quite in order.
The CHAIRMAN said that was a general meeting, at which
it was competent to any Proprietor to propose whatever he
deemed proper.
Mr. HU ME asked, was the Resolution of the Court of Direc-
tors declaring the letter of Lord Hastings not to be an official
document, subsequent or previous to the Resolution of the Court
of Proprietors calling for its production ?
The CriAruarAN—Subsequent.
Mr. Hu tux submitted that such a resolution was disrespect-
ful to the Court of Proprietors.
Mr. IMPEY said the letter had not been addressed to the
Chairman in his official character, but as an individual; and
he begged leave to say that he could not consider that such
brow-beating, or the use of such language as he had heard in
that Court, at all necessary to the defence of Lord Hastings.
Mr. MILLS would commence the few observations with which
he should trouble the Court by asking of the Secretary whether
or not the paper in question was upon record ? The late Chair-
man had felt as he did, that it was competent to the Court of
Directors to produce the document. It ought to be produced ;
and he thought it would have been more manly to have con-
sented to its production at once, as sooner or later it must be
brought forward.
The Hon. Hum{ LINDSAY supported the motion, and re-
gretted he had not been present when an lion. Proprietor (Mr.
Elphinstone) had done himself so much honour by his defence
of Lord Hastings. He hoped the Gallant General (Doyle)
Would persevere in his motion, which should have his (Mr. L.'s)
•
most hearty support.
Mr. PAT TISON considered that the proof that the document
had been recorded was as clear as the sun at noon day, for the
truth of which he would appeal to the Chairman himself.
Mr. R. JACKSON repeated his former observations.
Mr. HUME denied the right of the Court of Directors to
withhold from the Proprietors whatever documents they might
think proper to move for ; and contended that the reading of
the document rendered it official. He would also deny the
right of the Court of Directors to say what teat or what was
not official. It was not in the power of the Court of Direc-
tors to withhold the document; and it was unjust in the
highest degree to the Marquis of Hastings to refuse to produce
it, knowing as they did that it was necessary to that Noble
Lord's defence.

Sir G. A. ItoßrlrsoN'toncurred with those gentlemen wko
.wished for the production of the paper in question, on the un.
derstanding that the production of other papers, which would
thereby be rendered necessary, would not be opposed.
13DDIONSTONE also supported the motion.
Sir J. DoYLE replied. He would not at that late hour go
at length into the subject, but he would say that the Almighty
had never created a human being who would he so far from
attempting to raise himself upon the fall of another as Lord
Hastings.—(Applause.)
Colonel BAILLIE concurred in the call for the production of
the paper, at the same time he could not help saying that there
were passages in that document, to the correctness of which lie
could not subscribe.

The CHAIR:RA:4' wished to express his opinion, that the
Court of Proprietors could not call upon the Court of Directors
to produce the paper, without adding that its production should
be contingent upon the approbation of the Board of Controul,
and upon the production of the other papers referred to.
'Mr. IltritE thought it would be fully competent to the Court
of Proprietors to request of the Board of Controul to allow the
production of that paper.
Mr. I3trty was clearly of opinion that all the papers neces-
sary ought to be laid before the Court of Proprietors.
After a few words from the lion. D. KIN xarnri and Mr.
R. 'JACKSON,
Sir CHAS. FORBES MOVeIi.AS an amendment, that the words
" that the paper be accompanied with such observations as the
Court of Directors might think fit," be subjoined to the original
motion.

Sir G. ROBINSON" said there was such a diversity of opinion
on the subject amongst the Court of Directors, that it wag im-
possible to obtain their collective sentiments.
Mr. Tit-mixt; saw no objection to the production of the
paper, but thought too much importance was attached to it.
the question was then put, .1..,1d carried unanimously in the
affirmative.

Mr. EMIONSTONE the:: moved, that the Secret'Committee
be instructed to apply to the Board of Controul for permission
that there be laid before the Committee copies of all such
minutes in Council, and other papers, that might have been
passed between the month of Nov. 18P and 1817, as had re-
ference to the Government of the Marquis of Hastings in India;
also for copies of such documentS as might serve to exhibit the
state of India at the period when the Marquis of Hastings en-
tered upon its Goverment.
Mr. PATTISON objected to the motiori, as not sufficiently
comprehensive.
Mr. WEEDING supported the motion, which being put was
carried in the, affirmative.
Sir G. A. ROBINSON moved •that there be laid before the
Court copies of all correspondence which had passed be-
tween the Governor General in Council and the Resident at
Lucknow, respecting the .reform in the administration of the
Vizier, and on the employment of British troops in his domi-
nions from the Ist of .January 130 a to the 31st of December
1815. Also copies of all such documents as related to the ne-
gociation of a loan to the Vizier between the months of October
1814 and May 1815.
These Resolutions were carried in the affirmatiie.

- •
Sir C. FORBES moved that there be laid before the Court of
Proprietors a copy of the expose of the Marquis of Hastings,
and that the Court of Directors be requested to favour the Court
with their observations and opinions thereon.
Mr. WEEDING seconded the motion. •

Sir Joux DOYLE said this was a new question, and of such
a nature that respect for the Hon. Proprietor who proposed it
could alone prevent his applying. to it the epithet which it
merited ; and contended that to call for the opinion of the Di-
rectors would be most unjust to the Marquis of Hastings.
Mr. D. KINNAIRD had no objection whatever that the
" reasons" of the Court of Directors should be put upon record.
Sir C. FORBES disclaimed any intention whatever of pro-
posing any thing the object of which was to injure the feelings
or the interests of the Marquis of Hastings.
Mr. TRAM T opposed the motion.
The CHAIRMAN begged leave to express his dissent from the
motion. It was impossible that the Court of Directors could
express their opinion as proposed by the Hon. Baronet. He
trusted, therefore, that the motion would not be pressed.

Sir C. Fo REES declared his intention to persevere.
After a few words from Sir J. Doyle, Mr. Pattison, the Chair.
man, Mr. D. Kinnaird, Mr. Impey, Sir G. A. Robinson, Mr.
Weeding, and Mr. R. Jackson, the motion was negatived.

Mr. D. KINNAIRD moved that there, be Laid before the Court
of Proprietors, in a printed form, certain documents relating to
the Organisation of the Indian Army, and the Financial Ar-
rangements connected therewith.
Mr. R. JACKSON contended that his Hon. Friend ought not
to propose such a resolution without notice.
Mr. D. KINNAIRD consented to withdraw his motion, if
permitted by the Court. •
Mr. IMPEY moved that- the Court do now adjourn.
Mr. D. lirsNAlnD moved as an amendment, that the Court
do adjourn to Wednesday next.
The CHAIRMAN said, it was not competent to the- Honour-
able Proprietor to move an amendment to a motion for ad-
journment.
After a desultory conversation of great length, the Court di-
vided on the general question for adjournment, when there
were—
For the adjournment - 20—Against it • - 20
The numbers being equal, the Chairman said he would exer-
cise his privilege, and give his-casting vote for the adjournment.
The Court was accordingly dissolved at a few minutes past
seven o'clock, having sat upwards of seven hours.