The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-19 00:00:00

INDIAN LICENcss.

The Hon. D. KINNAIRD wished to ask a question
with reference to an order, which it appeared had
emanated from the Court of Directors, and which
had occasioned a very strong sensation in India.—
That order, signed " Hugh Molony," had appeared
in the Calcutta Government Gazette, and was dated
27th of November, 1827. It purported to be an
extract from a public letter of the Court of Directors
of the 4th of July preceding, and it set forth, that
individnals, leaving India, with an intention to return
to that country, would not receive a licence from
the Court of Directors for that purpose, unless they
produced a certificate from the authorities abroad
to !move that they had conducted themselves in a
manner satisfactory to the Indian Government. He
wished to have some explanation on. this point. He
should like to know why persons who were not
charged with any crime should be prevented from
returning to India, unless they brought home with
them a certificate of not guilty.
The CHAIRMAN admitted that such an instruction
as had been alluded to was sent out last July to
India. He could see no hardship in the regula-
tion. In doing as they had done, the Court of
Directors had only exercised the power which the
Act of Parliament gave them, and which the safety
of India required.
Sir C. FORBES thought the regulation was not an
unjust one.
Mr. R. JACKSON objected to the vague way in
which the order was drawn up. By it an individual
was called on to produce a certificate, showing that
he had conducted himself to the " satisfaction" of
the Government. Now one government might be
satisfied with conduct which another government
would deprecate and punish.
After a few words from Mr. WIGRAM, who de-
fended the order, and the Hon. D. KINNAIRD, who
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation, the
subject was dropped.
BURNING OF HINDOO WIDOWS.
Mr. R. JACKSON, who, with Mr.Pdynder, had
formally notified his intention to the Court of Di-
rectors to submit to the general Court a motion on
the subject of suttees, called the attention of the
Proprietors to it in a very brief speech. Having
alluded to the cruel. waste of human life consequent
on these barbarous sacrifices, he concluded by
moving, "That the Court of Directors be requested
to lay before the Proprietors all proceedings which
have taken place, and rill the information they may
have obtained, with respect to the burning of
Hindoo widows; since the resolution of the general
Court of the 27th of March, 1827, calling on them
to adopt such means as appeared best calculated to
put an end to that horrible practice."
The CHAIRMAN said, that in consequence of the
resolution of the General Court, in March, 1827,
the Court of Directors had sent out instructions on
the 28th of July, to Bengal. In
.consequence, they
had received two 'communications, one from i3eu7
gal, and one fribm Bombay, on this subject, vt;hich
should be read.
The letters—that from Bengal of the, date of the
31st of January last, that from Bombay of the date
of the 12th of December last— .were read. They
both stated the anxious desire of the Government
to put an end, by temperate means, to the system
of suttees.
After a protracted conversation, the motion was
agreed to.

CAPTAIN PRESCOTT'S CASE.
Sir C. FORBES wished to draw the attention o
.;he Court to the case of Captain Prescott, which
he considered one of vary great hardship. He did
not mean to find fault with any of the procch dings
which had been taken by the Court of Directors
with reference to Captain Prescott : on the con-
trary, he conceived that they were bound to adopt
the measures which they had resorted to; and they
would hare failed in their duty to themselves and to
the public if they had not instituted an inquiry into
the facts of the case. But Captain Prescott having
been aerritted by a special jury of his country, after
a most hull and patient ihvestigation, he conceived
that he ought to be considered, at this moment, as
free from all imputation. He understood that Cap-
tain Prescott, not by an agreement of the Court of
Directors generally, but by a resolution of the Com-
mittee of Correspondence, had been deprived of the
privilege, at least for a time, of participating in
the Company's patronage. Now, for his own part,
he thought the Court of Directors would have
been justified, after Captain Prescott's acquittal
on the charge of having used this patronage cor-
ruptly, if they had gone no farther. The lion.
' Baronet concluded by moving, " That the 6)iirt of
Proprietors fully approve of the measures adopted by
the Court of Directors in bringing the recent case
of the abuse of patronage before a legal tribunal;
and although Captain Prescott appears !o have acted
incautiously and imprudently, yet, having been ac-
quitted by the verdict of a jury of the charge of
delinquency preferred against him, and the Proprie-
tors being satisfied that he acttd from no corrupt
motives, they are not disposed to withdraw their con-
fidence from him as a member of the executive body."
Captain MAXFIELD felt perfectly justified in
seconding the motion.
The Hon. D. KINNAIRD inquired whether Capt.
Prescott's patronage was still withheld from him.
The CHAIRMAN said, that the conduct pursued
with respect to the patronage was not founded on a
resolution of the Committee of Correspondence, but
arose from the circumstance that a certain number
of Directors hid declared, pending the trial, that if
a question as to the disposal of patronage by Capt.
Prescott came before them, they would oppose it.
This was communicated in the most kind and friendly

manner.
The Hon. D. KINNAIRD was of opinion that
Captain Prescott had been acquitted of every thing
but weakness. He called on the Proprietors, by
agreeing to this motion to rescue the Directors from
the unpleasant situation in which they were placed.
Mr. POYNDER had not read the papers, and there-
fore lie could not vote for a propesition which went
positively to acquit Captain Prescott.
Mr. B. JACKSON said he would blame Captain
Prescott AS gently as he could; but he would not
suffer himself to be betrayed into this wholesale kind
of acquittal.
The CHAIRMAN observed, that as this was a
Quarterly General Court, it was competent for any
gentleman to bring forward a motion at it,-without
' giving previous notice.
Mr. STEWART supported the resolution•
Mr. GAIIAGAN thought the Hon.
Baronet would
best consult the object he had in view by postponing
I his motion to a future day.
FRESIIFIELD was also desirous that the mo-
tion should be postponed.
Mr. PATTERSON moved, " That this debat, be ad-
journed until Wednesday fortnight."
I After a few words from Sir C. FortnEs Nod the
Hon. D. KINNAIRD, the motion for adjonts..n, the
debate was agreed to, and the Court broke