The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

HAYLEYBURY COLLEGE.

This i<•'leetiug took place yesterday, in conse-
quence of a requisition signed by several Pro-
prietors for holding a General Court on Wanes-
(ley th© 11th inst. to take into consideration—

" That application be made to Parliament in the ensuing
Seesion for the Repeal of the 46th clause of the Act of the e3d
of George 111. cap. 15b, by which the Court of Directors is pro-
hibited from sending to India, in the capacity of a Writer, any
Person who shall not have resided during lour terms at the
I layeeybury College ; and for introducing into the said Act a
ekohes, appointing a Public Examination at such times and
lattice elven regulations as the Court of Directors, with the ap-
erebetiosisof the Board of Controul, may direct, to which exami-
nation all persons shall submit their acquirements and qualifi_
(-mesh"+ for approval, previous to their being permitted to pro-
ceed in the cepacity of Writers to either of the Presidencies of
Fort William, Fort St. George, or Bombay."
Immediately on J. WIGRAM, Esq. the President, taking
the Chair, at twelve o'clock, he acquainted the Court that this
was a Special Court.
THE MARQUIS OF HASTINGS.
General Sir JOHN DOYLE begged permission of the Court,
previonely to entering on the business of the day, to put a
question to the Chairman of the Court of Directors.
The ()Haut MAN rose to order, and acquainted him this was a
Meeting for a special purpose.
Mr. DOUGLAS KINNAIIID observed, that it had been
customary in courtesy to put a question with the permission of
the Court, and receive an answer to it if the party was so dis-
poked, when such a question was put prior to the commence-
ment of the special business, as in the present case.
The Chou new; again repeated that such a proceeding was
irregular.
JOSEPH Muss, Esq. M.P. espresesed his surprise that what
had beeen customary on other occations should be objected to,
en this occasion. He would now for instance state a case where
e great public officer might have been charged in a public paper.
with having embezzled a sum of three or four hundred thou-
seed pounds ; that such officer had been threatened with im-
peachment ; and he would ask, would it not be extraordinary if
the pereons best acquainted with the truth or falsehood of such
an accusation were not asked to say whether it was, as stated
in such a publication, aye or no. The public, in such a case,
had a right to have a direct denial or affirmation from a compe-
tent person ; and any proprietor had a right to put it.
Mr. S. DIXON agreed that it was customary to put such in-
terrogatories, and receive an answer by the courtesy et* their
proceedings.
Sir J. DOYLE said, that had he been allowed to go on, he
would have appealed to the feelings of the lion. Chairman and
to the justice of the Court, which would have possibly pre-
vented that interruption. The fact was so stated hypo-
thetically by Mr. Hume, that the Court of Directors had
been said, by a newspaper called The Sunday Tinier, to
have discovered a deficiency -in the accounts of the !east
India Company, since the administration of 'the Noble Mar-
quis, to the amount stated. He came now for the pur-
pose of putting these questions to the Chairman of the Court
of Directors, and challenging investigation or disclosure for and
on behalf of the Noble Marquis. The first question was, to
ask whether the Court of Directors had discovered any such
embezzlement to have taken place during the Noble Marquis's
government ? Tile second, to ask if there had been, in conse-
quence of such a discoveryoa Resolution of the Court of Di-
rectors to refuge the Noble Marquis the usual allowance on re-
tirement of 5,000/. a year? The third, to ascertain whether it
had been resolved or threatened to bring any impeachment
teunded on that discovery ? In the face of the Court and of the
country, so much interested in the subject, he now called on
the Court, as a duty in justice to the Noble Individual concern-
ed to answer these plain questions.
Mr. Lowernhs—l have also to canvass the whole of that
question, although I know nothing about it.
The CHAIRMAN rose to state, that with the fulleet disposi-
tion to answer such a question and generally to afford any in-
lormation for the guidance of" the Court, he must be allowed
uaier the present circumstances to state that he had no instnic-
tions from the Court of Directors to give any answer to the
qaextions now proposed.
General Sir JOIIN DOYLE said, that had he called on the
non. Chairman to give the Court any opinion, personally, he
could have understood why he should have perhaps declined to
give an answer. But here was a question of fact to which he
thought it impossible to object, and he therefore called on the
Chairman, as a man of integrity, of feeling, and of honour, to
give him an answer to each question—aye or no.—(Hear,!)—if
:;*.tch an embezzlement or eeficieney. had been discovered, it
ought openly to be avowed, and not insinuated by the panders
.of the day ; who, whilst they calumniated the character of ho-
nourable and distinguishethpublie men, and sought to ruin
them in public opinion, pretended they merely were disclosing
facts. A corollary would he.dra.vin from the silcice. of the
Chairman, which he was anxious should be shewn to be ground-
lees. That corollary would necessarily be, that the refusal was
an evident proof of the truth of the anonymous statement al-
lusled
to ; and this corollary could only be destroyed by a direct
answer. As the answer of the Chairman would
.at once, he
hoped, refute the calumny, he again called on him as an ho.
nourabie man, to shake on' the possibility of that injurious in-
ference to the character of their highly meritorious late Chief
Governor in India.
Mr. D. IthiNAIRD could not be silent when such a libel had
been uttered against so distinguished a personae, and a refusal
haft been given to set the matter right one way or other in the
public estimation, by answers to the questions propounded by
the Hon. Baronet. The Chair had not been asked for its
opinion, but for its confirmation of a statement of fact or -its
denial. If not answered, it would have the effect of laying the
basest calumny at the door. of their late Chief Governor—an
officer whom, though not rewarded by the Court of Directors
see he ought to have been, proportioned to his merits, the pub-
lic voice would yet compel them to recognize by something more
than their silence when calumniated. Good God ! were they
in England, or would it be possible to suppose that the English,
who were so accustomed to fair dealings, would tolerate or,
sanetion such a line of conduct with respect to so distinguished
and unimpeached a character? Were the Court of Directors to
be allowed to sit silent under such circumstances, when a single
word from the Chairman might repel the charge in the most
effectual manner? He would tell them the result ,would be, if
no answer were given, that he,would support a motion for ad-
journment over and over again, to prove to-the Court of Di-
rectors that no tricks should succeed in defeating public opinion.
--(Cheering.)—They dared not hold their tongues. After this,
lie would again ask diem in the face of the country, if they
dare refuse to answer, and, what was more, he would fortel
that the Court of Directors would not—dare not, answer those
questions by saying Yes.—( Loud cheers.)—Were they then of
opinion that the character of so high an officer as the Marquis
was no part of the property of the country ? • If it were possible
this should be slurred over, he would ask, what future (lover-
ner.General would be found, if he were obliged to, trust his
character in the hands of the Court of Directors?
ELPHINSTONE (Director) rose to order. He would
take upon him if the Chairman continued to refuse to answer
the queenon, to answer it himself.
.After a pause he proceeded
to assure the Court and the Gallant Baronet, that the Court
had heard of no such imputation, thought of .no such imputa-
tion against the Noble Marquis, nor had ever indulged for a
moment any disposition to make hint the aubject of impesteh-
ment. It had never been suspected for a moment that the
Noble Marquis could have been aspartaker in .any embezzle.
meat of the company's- resources or property. le felt that it
was not possible he could sit still and he silent to !leer such a
charge alluded to without as far as lay in his power repelling
it.—(Loud cheers.)
Sir Joust Doyor said, that having now olytaieed a plain
answer to the calumny which had been circulated, he was per-
fectly satisfied with the explanation given by that most respect-
able individual in so ,handsome and gallant a manner who had
just sat down. Why, he would ask, had not the organ of the
Court of Directors, the Chairman, done that which Others had
found it their duty to do ?-- He had ever thought the character
of a British merchant stood confessedly and pre-eminently high
in the estimation of the world; but if such were the maxims
generally of official persons in high situations connected with
the trade of the country, he would hereafter, when he found
them sheltering their acquiescence in calumny by studied
silence, and defending that silence by a reference to technica-
lities of proceeding, agree with a great judge of human cha-
racter, Buonaparte, and say that we had descended from our
high standing, and dwindled into a nation of shopkeepers.
The CHAIRMAN begged to remind-the Gallant 'General that
he had not been appeaed to merely personally, which might
have placed him at liberty to give an answer, but he bad been
appealed to ea the organ of the Court of Directors, in which
case he could only give a collective opinion, which he had not
any right to do, never having been authorised by the Court.
Sir J. Pot-i,E said be must have been misunderstood. as he
put the questions to the Hon. Chairman to him merely in his
individual capacity.
Mr. LOWNDES.—Can any one say any thing about the de-
ficiency of 300,000/. ?—(A laugh.)
The DEPUTY CliAtit MAN stated, that he certainly felt the
Chairman had strictly performed his duty by the line of con-
duct which he felt it incumbent on him to pursue.
Mr. PAT.!' ISON said, that as an honest man he would not
have withheld the answer required had the question been put
to hint. He was no party to the silence of the Chair. He
could assert safely that the several questions might be answered
by a directs No to each. He could not sit silently under the

circumstances of the attack which had been thus made anony.
mously on the Noble Marquis.
Mr. TRANT agreed, that the questions ought not to have
answers from the Chairman, who was placed there as the organ
of the Court of Directors collectively. In fact, he felt the ques-
tiont ought never. to have been asked ; although he was as
anxious to preserve from calumny the character of the late Go-
vernor-General as any man.
Mr:I). KT NNAIRD congratulated the lion. Gentleman on
the sentiments he had avowed, just at the-time he was engaged
in an active canvass for a seat in the Court of Directors. No
doubt those whose interests he was to represent and the country
would sympathise with the success of the canvass of a Gentle-
man who had already admitted, that if he sat in that Chair, and
a public officer of high responsibility had been accused of rob-
bing the. Company, he would wrap himself up in the forms of
proceeding, and maintain silence in case of any proprietor ap-
plying to him to state whether the charge was well founded
or calumnious.—(Hear, hear!)—The more important part of
their consideration was the charge, which had been met with
the monosyllable and concise answer, No.
Here the Speaker was interrupted by Mr. Low.spEs, who
pronounced an high eulogy on the Noble Marquis. He was
glad the momentary cloud had passed over. It was not likely
to rest on a man for forty years of public life, remarkable as
his countrymen generally were for that open, noble, and gene-
rous conduct which was ever the strongest testimonia of
honourable dispositions.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. TRANT,
Mr. litsx SART) resumed : it bad been said that those ques-
tions were only now put for the first time ; now it would appear
that they had been put in a letter addressed to the Chairman of
the Court of Directors on the 31st of January. These qUestions
were then put—First, whother the Court of Directors had rea-
son to suspect that the Marquis of Hastings was privy to or
partaker in a deficiency said to have been discovered in the
accounts of the Company, to. the amount of 300,0001. or any
other deficiency—Secondly, v;hether the Court of Directors was
disposed or had signified its intention to impeach for such rea-
sons the Marquis of Hastings ?—Thirdly, whether the Court
,had already refused the application for the annuity of 5,0001. a
year, usual under the circumstances of the Noble Marquis's
retirement from office? Now it would appear that this letter
was written by a gentleman, who, having the greatest Tegard
for that distinguished Nobleman, had expressed a correspondent
anxiety for an opportunity of clearing up tl!is extraordinary
charge against his character. The letter was as follows :

" Montague-square, Jan. 30.

" Sts—l beg leave to call your attention to a paragraph
which appeared in The Sunday Times of the 25th instant, a
copy of which I enclose: You will perceive that it contains
in substance a direct charge against` Led Hastings, of having
embezzled 300,0001.? of jlie moneys of the Honourable
e.
Com-
pany, or of having been party to an embezzlement, by which a
deficit to this amount has been incurred.
" It further states, that in consequence of such malversation,
which had been recently discovered, the Court of Directors had
negatived a proposal to grant to him a pension of 5,0001. per
annum ; and finally, that it is in the contemplation of that
Body to effect his impeachment. The general slanders of an
anonymous libeller it may be well to treat with contempt ; but
a particular charge, deeply affecting the public character of an
individual, however distinguished, must be specifically repelled.
Under this impression I have the honour of addressing myself
to you as Chairman of the Court of Directors, in the full con-
fidence that you will enable.me at once to give that distinct and
authoritative contradiction to these falsehoods which the form
they have assumed demands, and which it is so important to
the honour of the Noble Lord should no longer be delayed. 1
With this view, as every question
.that arises in the Court of
Directors must be officially known to you. in your capacity of
Chairman, 1 have to request that you would be good enough
to give me answers to the following queries :--
" Ist. I'Vhether the Court 'of Directors have made any dis-
covery, or have received any information, or have reason to
suspect, that the Marquis of Hastings has embezzled, or been
party or privy to the embezzlement of any moneys, or to the
creation of any deficit, to the amount of 300,0001. or any other
sum ?
" 2d. Whether the Court of Directors have threatened, or in.
tended to impeach, the Marquis of Hastings for embezzlement,
eafivcei,t,m already consequencen
eg a
or for any supposed deficit of money, or otherwise ?
" 3d. Whether thedCoeurnrbt
embezzlement ncTor3r deficit, of any such suppose
tived a motion to grant a pension of VOW. per annum to the
M arquis of Hastings ?
" I am persuaded that your own high sense of what is due
to the honour and character of a public man will sufficiently
account to you for the anxiety of the Noble Lord's friends to
lose no time in vindicating him from these foul charges, which
have already attained extraordinary circulation, and be my
apology. at the same time, for pressing the subject upon you
as a rn.e.er of immediate importance, as it is by you alone,
from your official. situation, that, without injurious delay, the
means of effective contradiction can be furnished. In preferring,
therefore, the above request, -I feel assured that I shall be only
meeting your desire of clOing the earliest justice to the char.ic-
ter of the Marquis of Hastings, which,
in the paragraph in
.question' has been so wantonly assailed; and that I shall be
favoured with an answer to the queries at your earliest con-
venience.
'5" I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble Servant,
" W. Wigram, Esq." " F. HASTINGS DOYLF."
On the sth of Feb. this letter was, with the subject to which
it related, brought before the Court of Directors, in conse
nuance of which the following answer was addressed to Colone
Doyle :

" East India House, Feb. 5, 1824.
" SIR—I am commanded by the Court of Directors of the
East India Company to acquaint you, that the Chairman has
laid before them your letter of the WI of January, address-
ed to him upon the subject of a paragraph of which you en-
closes. copy, which is stated to have appeared on the 25th of
that month in a •Newspaper called The Sunday Times, assail-
ing the character of the Marquis of Hastings, and with refer-
ence to which you have framed certain interrogations which you
request the Chairman, as the organ of the Court of Directors,
to answer.
" The Court deeply regret the attack which has been thus
made upon the character of that distinguished Nobleman ; they
cannot, however, but feel that it would be highly inexpedient
for them to engage in any correspondence arising out of the
vague charges of anonymous writers ; and they are persuaded
that you will yourself perceive, on a review of your letter, the
inconvenience of putting to a collective Body, and the impos-
sibility of their answering, questioni of the nature proposed
by you.

" I have the honour to be, Sir,
" Your most obedient humble servant,
" J. DART, Secretary.
" Colonel Francis Hastings Doyle, Cite."
However, under the circumstances the Court of Directors
were content to disgrace itself by passing by or holding its tongue
on such a subject, he and the Court of Proprietors called for
justice on their servant. The Court of Directors too were but
their servants, and if even there were a shameful specimen I
of • that description of crimination of a man by preserving
silence, or, as the French term it, reticence, it was exempli-
fied
in the conduct of the Court of Directors on this occasion,
After this he should not value their opinion at a fig's end. The
Proprietors,
of the Noble Marquis was in the hands of the Court of
Proprietors, and they would see that the challenge the Noble
Marquis had given them should be attended to, and tardy justice
:should at length be done him. They were now by their conduct
in the situation of accused calumniators. He had felt it neces-
sary on, this occasion to speak his mind freely, and threw him-
' self into the breach boldly • but he was most anxious to be un-
derstood that he had generally the highest respect for the Court
of Directors, and the arduous responsibilities imposed on them
by their office.
Mr. HOME said that after the feelings which he perceived
had been excited by the short discussion on a topic of great in-.
terest, and which had created a high state of feeling in the
Court, it would not be proper to proceed with the motion, for
which they had been convened. He had the greatest respect for
the several Professors of the College, and others connected with
it, and he wished the discussion on that Seminary should be
commenced and conducted with the best possible temper. He
should therefore propose that the business should be adjourned
to this day fortnight.
After a few words from General Taortr4 TON, who supported
the adjournment, and Mr. CARRUTHERS, the adjournment was
agreed to.
The Order of the day was postponed to that day fortnight.

The case of Ssirrit, the Missionary, has been
laid before the Privy Council by the Ministers,
who wish to relieso themselves from individual
responsibility, and to give the decision taken on
it (whatever it may be) a judicial and solemn
character.--(Morning Paper.)
Yesterday about one o'clock in the afternoon,
a bricklayer, who was at work on the top of a
house in St. John-street, Smithfield, missed his
footing, and was precipitated into the street, and
was instantly killed. He has left a wife and
large family to lament his untimely end.