Star.
London, England, 1830-06-21 00:00:00

IIIPERL4t. PARLLIMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SATURDAY, JUNE 19.

The house met, pursuant to adjournment, at 12 o'clock this day,
when counsel were heard on the second reading of the Registrar at
3ladras Bill.

Mr. AnnAm and Mr. Sergeant SPANIIE were heard in behalf of
the claimants of Mr. Miles O'Reilly, brother to the intestate, and
ethers. Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH then addressed the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and said if, in his opinion, this was a suitable oppor-
tunity for the purpose, he would enter into a statement of the rea-
sons which he entertained why the claims of the petitioners should
be admitted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was per.
fectly at liberty to introduce the subject then, as he believed this
would be as convenient an opportunity as any afforded by the forms
of the house.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH then proceeded to state his reasons for
eupportlag the claims of the petitioners. The facts, he said, had
already been repeatedly before the public. The case of the peti-
tioners was one of considerable hardship, and to their misfortune
they had been no parties. Government itself had adopted a regula.
tion under the 39th and 40th Geo. 111. far vesting the property of
intestates in the registrar of Madras, which, though meant for the
benefit of heirs, had, in this instance, turned out most un-
fortunately for the claimant, in consequence of the defalca-
tion, and insolvency of Mr. Gilbert Ricketts, the Registrar at
Madras, who, it appeared, died in 20 months after the de-
cease of Col. O'Reilly, absorbing the whole of his property in his
bankruptcy. Had the case been one of which the parties could have
any redress at common law, he would not have been there to advo.
cate the claim. But this was not a case of common law jurisdic-
tion; it was a case of good Government, and it became the Govern.
ment to reimburse those who had on the faith of Government adopt-
ing the best means for protecting their interests. The Government,
at the appointment of Mr. Ricketts to the office of Registrar, had
neglected to take the proper securities, and they must therefore be
answerable for the neglect. He then proceeded to state a number
of instances to prove that an appropriation of public funds had been
made to remunerate individuals for losses sustained by compliance
with Acts of Parliament. About the general question there could
be no doubt ; the only question was, had the Legislature the power
to compel the East India Company to make good the loss ? In his
opinion the Legislature had that power. The territorial revenue of
India was under the control of Government; and, as a proof of
this, it had, within a few years, appointed Judges and Bishops, and
provided for them out of the revenue of the country. For these
reasons he thought there could be no doubt that the claimants ought
to be compensated, and that the compensation should come from the
East India Company. He concluded, by moving the second read.
ing of the BilL
Mr. FERGUSSON admitted that the claimants had a right
to compensation, and he felt much for them ; but, while he
expressed himself in favour of their claims, he must, at the
same time, deny that they had any right to look to the East
India Company for redress. The territorial revenue of India ought
not to be charged with making good losses which had been occa.
stoned by Acts of Parliament. If the Legislature parsed Acts which
injured the private property of Individuals, it was contrary to all
reason to say that the particular district where the loss was sustained
ought alone to be answerable. It was the revenue of the whole cm.
pire, such as that of India, out of which the compensation should
come. He did not think the precedents quoted by the right lion.
gent. applicable to the present case ; and, though he should have no
objection that the claims should be made good from the funds set
apart for the administration of justice in India, he should certainly
resist any proposition which went to defraud the creditors of the East
India Company, who had lent their money to the Company on the
faith that the territorial revenue should not he infringed.
Mr. 3ROUGHAM observed that there appeared to him to be a
consideration preliminary to the questions of merit in this case,
which was, that of " who were to be the judges of it?" He saw,
with rime surprise, himself surrounded by East India Directors,
there being no fewer than seven of these gentlemen present, who, it
was understood, were to sit in judgment upon this bill. Now, as
this was a question between the Company and individuals, it oc-
curred to him that it would be just as becoming if the directors ab-
sented themselves from the discussion, or, at all events, from the
division, if any thing should occur. The Company had been al.
ready heard by two of their counsel at the bar, and, if there was
before any doubt of their being interested parties, such an appear.
ante would entirely remove it. The presence of so many of his col.
!news seemed, indeed, to have made an hon. and learned member
behind him (Mr. C. Fcrgusson) fancy that lie was addressing the
court of directors, for it would be observed that his hon. and learned
friend used the term " court" as applying to this audience (a laugh.)
Ile (Mr. B.) remembered a parallel case to this, in which a late dis.
tinguished individual set an example which it was to be hoped would
be imitated at this moment. Upon the occasion of an appeal some
years ago to the privy council, respecting the clashing rights of pa.
tent, as connected with Drury-lane Theatre, Mr. Sheridan took his
place among the councillors then present. He (Mr. Brougham)
and Mr. Marren were of Counsel against the Theatre, and they im-
mediately took an exception to the. Right lion. Gentleman sitting
as Judge in his own cause. Mr. Sheridan replied, as no doubt the
East India Directors would now reply, that he MPS not a party to
the cause, being only a trustee for others. Being pressed, however,l
as to whether he had or had not an interest in the result of the pro-;
cectling, Mr. Sheridan frankly confessed that he had. It was de-
cided that he could not sit as a Privy Councillor upon that occasion,
and he very modestly and decorously withdrew from the table—
(a laugh). The principle was clear, that a party having any Inte.
rest, however remote, ought not to sit as Judge in his own cause;
and he (Mr. B.) believed his Hon. and Learned Friend behind him
admitted that it would be as well if the Directors did not vote upon
this question.
Mr. FERGUSSON denied that he had made any such concession.
Ile saw nothing improper in the Directors voting upon this occa-
sion, and he asked what would be said, if upon a question of this
nature, the Directors had entirely absented themselves ? He again
denounced the claim as not founded on justice.

Colonel LUSHINGTON defended the rights of the East India
Ditectors to discuss and vote upon all questions with the same free-
dom as other members of that house. He saw no reason why the
latter most important rights should be merged in the former acct.
dental character. The interest which the Court of Directors had in
this question was too remote to influence their votes. For himself,
he disclaimed any bias. He protested against the claim as a hard-
ship and injustice upon the natives of India, who had never re.
ceived any benefit from the labours of this officer. It' Parliament
were bent upon compensating these individuals, a fairer mode would
be to lay a tax upon the law proceedings in the superior Courts of
India, than to impose a burden upon the territorial possessions of the
company in that country.
Mr. W.WYNN said that from the circumstance of his being
President of the Board of Control when the matters to which this
proceeding referred took place, he felt a strong interest in the ques-
tion. He felt that he was not quite free from blame himself for not
having brought the case forward before ; but he thought then, as lie
still thought, that if redress could be had through the medium of a
court of law, it would be better, in every point of view, to refer the
matter to such a tribunal than to Parliament. He was persuaded,
however, that this was now the only course in which justice could be
done. Not knowing any thing of the individual question, he
could not be supposed to be biassed one way or the other in this case.
From all that he had been able to learn, it was a ease of great hard.
ship on the registrar, and he (Mr. Wynn) was deeply impressed with
the justice of his claim for compensation. Indeed, the contest was
not so much upon the nature of the claim as the fund out of which
it ought to be satisfied. His (Mr. Wynn's) notian was, that it was
not intended to satisfy these claims out of any particular fund ; but
that Parliament was understood to be pledged to allow any equitable
claims which might be proved. The principle, he thought, unde-
niable, unless we were to stultify our own proceedings in other cases,
for, to give compensation to the Masters in Chancery, and refuse it
in this case, would be not only gross inconsistency, but manifest in-
justice. The present claim arose out of the expense of our own pro.
ceedings, and was therefore worthy of consideration.
Mr. ASTELL saw no reason why he should surrender his privi.
leges, as a member of the house, to vote upon all questions con.
nected with the public welfare, because of any imputed interest
which he might have of another kind. He disclaimed any particu.
lei interest in this case, and, If the house should think that he
ought not to vote upon this occasion, he must require every holder
of East India Stock to go out with him. He opposed this bill, be-
cause it was not bottomed on justice; for he saw no reason why the
natives of India, who were already heavily taxed, should be also
called upon to make good defalcations arising out of proceedings in.
stituted solely for the benefit of British subjects. It was not a
question of generosity, but of justice, for the Company were not in
a situation to be liberal, though they were disposed to be just. For
those reasons he did not consider the petitioners entitled to compen.
sation ; but if, contrary to his wish, the bill should be committed, he'
hoped it would undergo material alteration in its progress as there
were many points in the enactments which he considered highly ob.
jectionable.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that there
were two questions to be considered—first, whether the loss ought
to be made good ? and, secondly, who was the party to whom it
ought to be made good ? The only parties to whom responsibility
could attach were the General Government, the Indian Government,
and the party through whose misconduct the defalcation had taken
place. tie was decidedly of opinion that compensation ought to be
given, for no government could duly maintain its character if it did
not satisfy every fair and even doubtfill demand upon its justice. He
was also of opinion that in this case the compensation ought to come
from the Indian Government, because, even as a matter of account,
it shculd be charged to the territorial revenue. lie attached no
blame to the Indian Oovernment in this transaction, and thought