The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-05-25 00:00:00

~s~

lode to any of the Right Hon. Rsronet's acts parti-
cularly; I only said, that a similar false colouring
snay have here thrown over sintihr acts of his when
in office, which were no doubt done conscientiously."
Sir J. NEwroit.r—" I never advised giving ;
money to my colleagues."
Mr. HOWARTH observed, that the letter was
considered not as originating a grant of motley, but ;
as merely recommendatory, and that on a sery parti-
col:ll-reason, the debts of the late Lord Melville hav- •
ing fallen on the present. But how did the Noble
Lord who wrote that letter know of the private af.
fairs of Lord Melville ? Was he left executor of the
will—was he a.t rustee ender It, that he should thus
stigmatise the dead, and pauperize the living ? He
remarked on the depressed state of the India Com-
putty's grimmer, of which he don a very gloomy
picture. At the time of their coming to the House
for assistance, their paper was in a very depreciated
state is Bengal, and they were obliged to have re,
course to i very extraordinary mode of raising the
loan. holding the Treasury open for PI months, to
receive money from every quarter. Surely, . when
the pecuniary situation of the Company was so em-
barressed, the President of the Board of Controal had
not paid a due regard to their interests, when Ise re-
commended such a grant. It was true, a majority of
the Proprietor's expressed themselves in favour of
this grant—but it %inmost extraordinary, that none
of the Wortley Aldermen (three of whom had voted
for it) 'etiolated. themselves conspicuous on that °c-
ession, wer+itow present to state their reasons for
the course rhvy had adopted. '
fir. WALLACE sluiced into a short statement,
to prove that the pecuniary affairs of the Company
were not so deplorable as the last speaker had de-
scribed them to be.

Mr. MAItRYAT observed, it was highly ho-
nourable to the late Lord Melville, that the subject
had been taken up by the Proprietors, over whom ii
was oat likely that any tufluence could be exerted,
instead of the Court of Directors, which might have
been open to the auspicloo of an improper inter.
fevenes. He conceived the Proprietors, in coming to
the vote they had done, at once spoke the high sense
they entertained of the services of the late Lord
Melville,, and paid a proper tribute to the virtues
of his son, who had undertaken voluntarily to dis.
charge his father's debts. lie should oppose the
motion.

Mr. PONiONBY said, as-the present question
related to the conduct of a Noble Lord (Bucking-
hamshire), in the discharge of his public duty, he
felt himself bound to express an opinion .on it. lle
cot.ld not think that the course adopted by the Pre-
sident of the, Board of Controul, on this occasion,
WPC. correct or justifiable. if the merits of the late
Lord aletville were so peat, ns they had been repre-
sented, it was very strange, that neither the Court
of Directors, nor the Court of Proprietors, had no.
tired them—and, by a spontaneous and voluntary
act, granted that remuneration, for past benefits,
which had since originated with the Board of Con-
trout. It was said, that, in recommending this
vote, the Board of Controul had committed no cio-
laden either of the letter or spirit of the Act. The
leiter of the Act was lint invaded; but, he was by
no means satisfied, that its spirit was not violated.—
One of the provisions of that Act went to prevent
the Board of Contront from orginating giants of mo-
ney: aentber rendered necessary for the company,
when toev Md. P grant of more than 200 i. a-year,
to assbadt it to The Board of Controul for their ap-
probation. Fr‘m this it appeared, that one of the
principal duties of that Board was, to superintend,
and if necessary, to corr..ct, the expenditure of mo-
ney by the Court of Directors. it did appear to
him, that the grant now in question was not given
for the services of the late Lord Melville, bu• that it
was made for the cot, seas -tee of the present Lord,
If the merits of the late Lord Melville were so great,
by was not a grant agreed to, iu his life-time? It
was rather extraordinary to wait so long for the dis-
covery of those circumstances, be: ire the Company
felt his merits to be such as to call for this large buts.
Here he begged to observe, that the circumstances of
the late Lord ',Melville ought not to operate iu a
case of this kind. For had he beau the richest team
in the community, he might have performed those
services which called for remuneration—and it would

have been equally proper W have offered the reward,
thus earned, although probably it would not have
been accepted. It was said, that the letter of the ,
Nobly Lord in this • case, did not influence the Bast
India COrflpgily. He knew the letter (lid not contain
any thing that could strictly be called matter of in.'
faience, as it respected the Directors or Proprietors.
But could any man, candidly speaking, thiek that
the suggestion or recommendation of the ['resident of
tire Board of Controul, urging, as be did, the Court
of Directors to do something for the late Lord Mel-
ville's family, would have no effect ? Could such a
document be received, without producing some de-
gree of influence? It was, however, observed, that
this letter had not induced the Directors to do the
act recommended, since that act originated in the
Coort of Proprietors. This was perfectly true—the
papers proved the fact. But why did not the Pro-
prietors perform this act, before the letter was sent
to the Chairman of the Court of Directors? It was
competent for them to have proceeded before, as well
as after the receipt of that letter. Indeed, had they
voted this sum of money, in•the first instance, the
grant would have come with a much better grace. It
would then appear to have orginated with them-
selves, and not to have arisen from obedience to the
directions of a higher power. He felt a very great
personal respect for the Noble Lord at the head of
the Board of Controul, but, in Otis instance, his
interference war by no means correct. He was al-
most the last man who ought to have made such a
suggestion to the Court of Directors. The Noble
Lord (Castlereagh) argued, that there was no more
impropriety in a mutual communication between the
Board of Controul and the Court of Directors, titan
there was in a communication between the two
Houses of Parliament, This was a very unfortunate
iilustration of the Noble Lord's proposition. The
different parts of the Constitution were independent
of each other--and, when a communication took
place between the two Houses of Parliament, it was
lween parties who wjwo, equal, whit were perfectly
tperedent. But, in the present instance, the
monication was between two parties, one. of
lm ass appointed to check and controul the

~-

other, and who emit consequently possess a MICE "F STOCKS TIIIS
very considerable influence. The course width
_ 381114 2r.16i: Red. 570
had been adopted, reminded Vas of a story. 14er1.A. Oms. b 8
he had somewhere reed. ---A man, traltellior 4 per Ceots.Navyl2l
4 per Cent. Sedpi
q9latly along a road, suddenly heard a cry
of' 44 (Acuity ! for the lobe of God !" and
he sees lying before him, in the path-way, a hat.
booking about him, to discover from whom this cry

of " Charity" comes, be observes a musket pointed
towards him, out at a de4ghbouring hedge. On

DAY AT (INK O'CLOCK.
I..ne. Ann. 144 7-16
litdin Beads 19'11 p
Exchequer Bills 3 6 p
()Junior°
Consols for &cc. sii 9

the alliance of the other Sovereigns e:;ainPt
LEON.

From Petersburgh we are informed, that 44 %I it
Foreign Papers say regarding the guards hiring re_
ceived orders to join the array is not true. o.tiv
the Generals and his Majesty's Aid-de-Camp. a:.
Ordered to repair to head-quarters, for %%Lich they
have already set out."