The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

not been an Indian subject, he believed every Member of
the House would have read the papers that had been so
long on the table. The papers had not been read, and
therefore he had to ask the House to bear with him
until he stated them.—( Hear.) He deprecated the inter-
ference of Government with the private affairs of any indi-
viduals under such circumstances, and he had understood that
treaties had been entered into to prevent any interference on
the part of the British Government with the affairs of the
King of Oude. At a meeting of the Court of Directors held
on the 15th of January, 1834, the Chairman, adverting to the
Bengal draft relative to the affairs of the King of Oude,
called their special attention to the subject; and the Court
resolved that the interference on the part of the Directors re-
quired by the Board of Control was unjust in principle, and
unconstitutional under the relations existing between this
country and India. At a subsequent meeting of the sth of
February a letter was received by the Chairman, signed by six
Directors, to the effect that they could not affix their signa-
tures to the order required by the Board of Control', as they
conceived it unjust and prejudicial to our interests in India.
Now, when six Directors entered their solemn protest against
the conduct of the Board, it was strong evidence that they
conceived 'that conduct arbitrary, unjust, and injurious. On
the 3lst of January a rule was moved for and granted in the
Court of King's Bench, making it compulsory on the Direc-
tors to execute the orders of the Board of Control. The
Act of Parliament gave the Board a power to issue their
orders to their servants, and the Directors were forced to do
as the Board ordered. But so strong was the feeling of the
injustice and impolicy of the order on the minds of a number
of the Board, that the original recusants, together with two
others, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, who joined
them, declared they would endure anything before they
signed such an order. On the 19th of February a letter was
read from the Chairman, Mr. J. Loch, in which he ex-
pressed his dissent from the Hon. Gentlemen referred to, not
on the merits of the question, but because, as he said, though
regretting and disapproving of the course pursued by the
Board, yet he felt obliged to submit to it for the present, at the
same time he felt that the Court should resort to all legal and
constitutional means to maintain its own privileges, and prove
that the Board was not justified in issuing such an order. In
case the Court failed then he thought it their duty to submit.
In this declaration five others joined him ; all these were of
opinion that the order was unjust, and that they should resort
to legal redress. The motion was made in the Court of King's
Bench, and the rule for a mandamus granted, though all the
justice of the case and all the arguments were against it. Well,
then, without sound of drum or bl-ast of trumpet, the proceed-
ings were withdrawn, and the Attorney-General retired with-
out alleging any the slightest reason. There the transaction
rested. Soon after the decision he (Mr. Herries) asked in
that House two questions—first, whether Government aban-
doned the proceedings, and, if they abandoned them, whether
they intended to resort to other means to enforce the claim
through the Government of India? He was answered that
the proceedings in the King's Bench were utterly abandoned,
and to the other question any answer was refused. This was
the reason for his bringing forward the present motion. It
would be to sacrifice our domestic affairs to suffer so important
a branch of our political existence to be thus abandoned. The
interference of Government was not to uphold an inland po-
licy, or insure a better administration of our Indian affairs,but
to secure the settlement of an old usurious job of forty years'
standing. The House should recollect that in India the prac-
tice to which the interference of the Board of Control had
reference—that of borrowing money on the credit of the reve-
nues of the native Princes, was one that met with general
reprobation, and was prohibited by law. The present occur-
rence took place, after the sgriit of Reform was applied to our
India affairs and the prohibition issued by Parliament. Before
this transaction two Treaties were entered into with the King
of Oude. By one a part of his territories was transferred to
the British power, and by the other the payment of all his
debts was secured ; but that Treaty was afterwards abandoned,
and another was made respecting the protection of his State,
and binding the Government not to interfere in his private
affairs. That was in 1798. Several other Treaties were sub-
sequently entered into, making the King of Oude independent
of the British Government in his private affairs. After the
Treaty of 1798 the Nabob or King of Oude became involved
in embarrassments, and asked for the interference of the British
Resident in India. Now the House should bear in mind that
the application came from the King himself, and that neither
the Government nor the Company originally volunteered.
The act then was not of that character as would justify the
Board of Controul. The debt which he incurred to the' pre-
sent claimants was at thirty-six per cent. interest ; the rest of
the debts referred to, as incurred by other Princes, were at
eighteen per cent. Now the other parties took this money ;
but the creditors of the Nabob of Oude stood out for the thirty.
six per cent. The consequence was that those claims were
still standing out, though on repeated application to the East
India Company and to the Government, they were invariably
refused. But in the year 1814 the Noble Lord lately at the
head of affairs in India wrote a letter, not in his capacity of
Governor of India, but as a private individual, stating it as
his opinion that there was some foundation for those claims ; but
he (Mr. Herries) was persuaded that if the Noble Lord thought
of the matter deeply while he was in India, and could have
access to the facts of the case, he would think differently.'
There was something so irregular in that part of the pro-
ceeding altogether, that the conduct of the Government was
seriously to be lamented. The Marquis of Hastings had de-
clared in the most emphatic manner that that which the Board
of Control had done could not possibly be done without injus-
tice or without occasioning resistance. The Marquis of Hast-
ings had declared that the agent of the claimants should urge
as strongly as might be their pretensions, but he most ex-
pressly laid it down that there could be no direct interference
by the British Government. Such was the fact, and yet, cu-
rious enough, a paragraph in that very letter was alluded to in
the order of the Board of Control. Allusion too was made
in the despatch to a letter from Mr. Thornton. It was true
that Mr. Thornton was at the time, in 1822, Chairman of the
Court of Directors ; but it was also true that the majority of
that Court decided against the claims, and that in the record
of the minutes of the Court no such letter as that attributed
to Mr. Thornton appeared. The subject had been again and
again discussed and most minutely examined by the Board of
Control, by the Court of Directors, and by the Government
in India, all of which authorities had uniformly decided against
any interference until the present extraordinary proceedings.
Mr. Canning, in 1822, had strongly expressed his opinion
against any interference, and condemned even the ccmmence-
ment of any proceedings like those since instituted, and
which had then been partially begun.—( In support of that
representation the Right Honourable Gentleman quoted
from the despatches in 1822 by Mr. Canning.) Even
the Board of Control at present laid it down in strong
terms, that interference in the domestic affairs of the
native Princes of India was to be avoided ; but the Board
might and ought to have said that not only was it to
be avoided as a matter of policy, but that it was strictly
forbidden by solemn treaty. (The Right Hon. Gentleman
then adverted to the despatch of the present Board of Control
which had caused him to bring the subject before the House,
but he did so in a tone of voice which rendered it impossible
to follow him.) That despatch, if followed out, must lead to
compulsion or intimidation to enforce the claims. Now, the
Court of Directors put the question as to the precise meaning
of the despatch, and the only answer was, " Execute our
orders." And what was the sum claimed ? The original
sum was 158,0001., upon which compound interest of 30 or
36 per cent. was to be paid for forty years. Such was the
way in which the amount must be computed under the letter
of the Marquis of Wellesley. One ingenious arithmetician had
calculated the sum at 1,300,000,000/. He was aware that the
Board of Controul did not countenance that calculation ; but
its orders were exceedingly obscure, and the levy by its au-
thority would perhaps be some 2,000,000/. or 3,000,000/. , and
from whom was such a sum to be drawn in violation of solemn
treaties? Why, from the already overpressed, misgoverned,
plundered Rayots of Oude. —( Hear, hear.) From their
sweat and blood it must be forced.—('Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman then adverted to the deplorable con-
dition of Oude, and pointed out that the Government of
Great Britain had already pressed hard upon that territory.
After adverting to a dispatch from Lord W. Bentinck, in
which the lamentable condition of Oude was strongly pic-
tured, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended that the conduct
of the Board of Controul was in defiance of everything but
despotic power. It was opposed to general policy and to
special policy, to general law and to particular law ; it was
in defiance of reason, of policy, and of justice. If the Board
of Controul, if his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. C. Grant), had
any arguments to offer in opposition to the views of
the Court of Directors, why were they not offered?
Why was the naked reply given of " Execute our orders ?"
Mr. C. GRANT said there was one, and but one, material
principle involved in the case which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had just introduced to the House. That principle was,
whether the subjects of his Majesty residing in India, without
reference to any distinction of rank, colour, birth, or place of
birth, were entitled to and had a right to expect equal pro-
tection from the Government of Great Britain. Before pro-
ceeding to explain how the principle to which he referred was
involved in the question, he wished to exculpate himself from
a charge which his Right Hon. Friend had insinuated rather
than urged against him. He had accused him (Mr. Grant) of
bringing the case before the Board of Controul upon partial
and interested motives; but he put it to the House whether
his Right Hon. Friend had not himself exempted him from his
own charge when he subsequently stated the case to be an old
usurious job. The case certainly was an ancient case, having
now lasted for forty years ; but he did not know whether the
House was prepared to say that a claim of justice was barred
by lapse of time. It was not, however, through his efforts
that the matter had been interfered with by the Board of
Controul ; indeed, so far from such being the fact, he felt sure
that, had he wished to have suppressed the case, it would have
been out of his power to do so. It had been handed down to
the present Board of Controul by its predecessors, and,
such being the case, it was wholly impossible for them
to evade the consideration of it. It had been said that
the Duke of Wellington's Government decided the case,
but he was ignorant of any such decision having taken
place ; and, if it had occurred, he thought it improbable
that he should not have been made aware of it. The
history of the transaction it was not necessary for him to
state in detail to the House. The claim rested on a bond
given by the native Prince of Oude to a firm of bankers and
merchants, being native subjects of the King of England,
residing at Benares, in order to secure the payment of a sum
of eleven lacs of rupees, being about 111,000/. of English
currency. Some difficulty having occurred in the affairs of' the
King of Oude, that Prince determined some time in the year
1796 upon entering into a compromise with his creditors.
These creditors consisted of three different classes of indi-
viduals : the first was composed of Europeans, the second of
natives subjects of the King of England, and the third of
natives subjects of the King of Oude. To the Euro-
pean creditors and to the native creditors different terms