The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-07-15 00:00:00

'p


brought more than 3001. New, this proved most
clearly that It was well known by Mr. Thellus.
son, if nut by thu wbole Court of Directors,
that there Wa4 a certain market price for that
which was obtained by their patronage. If the
Directors themselves knew that their resolution of
Me was not enforced, it was too much to call

it great immorality and corruption in those pa-
rents who purchased the patruoage which they had
not interest enough to procure in any other -way.
Blackstone had laid it down, that co constitute that
guilt which should draw down punishment, there
must be s vicious will expressed. Now ho did not
perceive any such vicious will in the parents of the
young men whose fate was then under discussion.
From one of them he had received a latter, of which
the following is an extract :--46 Permit me, Sir,
to declare ynu most soletnnlyi that I never
heard of the Resolution of the Court of Directors,
in 1806, until it was stated, at the last meeting
of the Court of Proprietors." A parent of ano.
ther of the young Gentlemen appointed to a wri.
tership ( Mr. Magniac), ho was himself acquainted
with, and knew to bu a most respectable and ho-
nourable man, lie was acquainted with his son
also, who was very amiable and pleasing in his
manners, accomplished, and in every way a person
that would appear eligible for such an appoint.
meet. He afterwards understood, that he was a

eimiplete master of the Persian language, and that
he was employed in India in very important mat-
ters. The history of the purchase of this young II
van's appointment was this : His fatherAtad been
romioed the appointment by a Director, who was
s lee dead, aid in consequence of this promise, gave
• •un the completed education to qualify him fur
India. When his friend, however, died, he was not
able to procure the necessary patronage from any
other Director,aad therefore did purchase what be
had no longer interest to get without purchase. Now
be should ask any one, whether there was any
vicious will or immorality in the father's per.
chasing for a ion under these circumstances ? He
would appeal to the common sense of the Proprie-
tors, whether the measure of punishment was not
enormously too severe for the offence? Inds.
pendent of the severity of the punishment, he
would say, that it was absolutely unjust, that the
young men should be punished fur the steps their
fathers h id taken to procure their appointments.
There was a bond between the East India Com-
pany and their servants, which the Company had
no right to break when the servant had committed
no offence. It was onoe said of the charter to the
Company itself, " 6 that Charters were nothing
but pieces of parchment with a great seal dangling
to them." He hoped tbat the Company would not
now say that their written contracts were merely
pieces of paper, with their seal dangling to
them. The sanctity of even verbal contracts,
when well understood, was such, that he would
never have any confidence in a Merchant, who
would go back from his verbal agreement, if
there were no witnesses to it. That part of
justice which consisted in keeping contracts,
was respected in all countries civilised and
barbarous: and, as Locke had observed, was re.
spected even in the robber's den. Ile thought,
therefore, it would be sufficient to convince that
Court, to shew them that the meal of these young
men was contrary to the contract with them. This
contract, he hoped, would be considered at least
as binding u a common indenture of apprentice.
ship. Having mentioned the situation of the pa.
reab of the two young gentlemen who actually
had gone to India as writers, and whom it was
now proposed to recal, he mast also mention the
circumstances of the parent of one of them who
had been appointed, but had not gone out. Mrs.
Gardner, his mother, was a widow, resident at
Bath ; and in consenting to her son's departure
to Inia, she had made a great sacrifice of her
maternal feelings, in order to proctlie the ad-
vancement of her son. Could it be supposed
she would also have upended such a large sum
of money to procure the appointment, if her
friends had not represented to her that it was a
valid one ? Was it to be supposed, that a lady
living in Bath, or any remote part of the king.
durst, should be a constant reader of The Lon.
don Gazelle, which ho himself, though a mer-
chant residing in London, but seldom saw ? Ho
would appeal iu this case, not to the ladies who
had votes in the Court of Proprietors, not even
to those who were parents, but to those who
were single men ; and he would ask them whether
they conscienticenly believed that this Lady's
conduct, in purchasing the appointment for her
son, did arise from any vicious will, or itnatora.
lily, that called fur severity of punishment, or
whether they did not think that bar motives were
highly praise.worthy. [applause:.) He there-
fore was convinced, that not only the young men
themselves were completely innocent, but that the
etioduct of their parrots *rose from the
tion of the Company oot having been sufficiently
promulgated. He concluded by moving a long
Resolution, expressive of disapprobation of the
Resolution of the Court of Directors, and that
the ages ought nut to be carried into effect.
Mr. BARTIS could nut agree to the Resolution
which was proposed. He thought the parents
must have known that it was a wrong thing to
purchase these appointments. He thought that
the Court would give a handle to their many ene-
mies, if they protected persons who had obtained
their appointments by corrupt means. Ile thought
there had been too many appeals to humanity and
private feeling on this occasion, and that the ho.'
nour aid interests of the Company were more ins.
portant considerations.
A Gentleman, whose name we could not learn,
spoke for a considerable length of time, and re.
commended some conciliatory proposition between
the Proprietors and Directors.
Mr. MARRTATT conceived that this case had
been put upon wrong grounds when it was argued
as an entire case. It was only a branch of a ge-
neral system which the Legislature expected, and
the honour of the Company required, to have
cut up by the routs. The abuses which had
taken place in the disposal of East India patro-
nage had been so very notorious, that when other
Owes of a similar description were antler the coo-
- lideration of Parliament, their attention was

unavoidably draws to those abases also; and two
of the Directors thought the honour of their
Hoard required that there should be an bivisetigts-,
ties. The result of the Investigation was honour-
able to the characters of the Directors ; but at the
same time the Committee of the House of Commons
hinted very strongly that they expected that
the Company would prevent the mammies of
such abuses in retire. The general muse ♦f the
Proprietors was thee for a reform of abuses ; and
one of the Directors ( Mr. Thelloison) en punished
severely fur an offence, not of intention, but of
carelessness and remissness in the manner that he
suffered his patronage to be sold. There appeared
now a sort of revolution in their sentiments ; and
although they had removed a Director, merely for
not being watchful in preventing this corrupt
traffic, it was now argued that those were not to be
punished who did directly deal in it. Why should
there be one role for the highest servants of the
Company, and another for the inferior servants ? As
to wounded feelings, it most be supposed that Mr.T.
felt as acutely as any person the punishment of being
removed from an honourable situation, for nut
preventing corrupt practices, in which he was
never charged with any direct or personal partici-
pation. If the measure of punishment was so dif.
ferent, the world might well suppose, that it was
because they felt no common interest with the Di.
rectors ; but that many of them felt a personal lA-
terest about the Writers and Cadets. It appeared
in evidence, before the Committee of the Noose
of Commons, that many proprietors had been ac.
tively employed in corrupt transactions. If there
was to be any reform, some time must be chosen
to commence it, and he thought no time was so fit
as the present. It was the custom with many to
put off the work of reform, like repentance, so
lung, that they died in their sins. He really feared
that such might be the fate of the Company, if
they did not seriously oppose themselves to cop.
rupt practices. He could not agree in the resole.
dun which was proposed, and concluded by mov-
ing the previous question.
Mr. S►sssow seconded the last motion. He said
that he felt as much as any body else for the suf-
ferings of the young men, and would cheerfully put
his name down to any subscription that might be
put forward in their favour, although he conceived
the purity of the Conspatty required that they
should be recalled.

Mr. STEPHIEV began by complimenting highly
the Court of Directors, who were as attentive to
the interests of their constituents as any other
body of men in the world. He, however, con.
tended, that in the present instance their Resolu-
tion was contrary to all justice, and to every law
both human and divine. He said, that as "to
visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children,"
that was the Jewish dispensation ; but that the
Christian law was, " the soul that sinneth shall
be cut of." Now in this instance, the young
men could not be said to have committed any of.
fence; the crime,if any, being that of their father,.
He then cut, e"cled with considerable ingenuity, that
the, words of tn,. Resolution, " obtaining or. pro.
•
curing, through themselves, their agents, or any
r other persons, directly," did not, according to
legal construction, import such an obtaining as
that by which those young men obtained their ap.
pointments, as their fathers could not be called
their agents, and it was they who obtained the
appointments for their sons, and not the sons who
obtained them by corrupt means. He therefore
contended, that punishment would be unjust, as
there was no guilt. lie then expatiated with great
warmth upon the agonized feelings of the parents,
which would be torn up and harrowed by this
cruel punishment of their children. He said
this would be inflicting severer punishment than
the studied torments which savages invent for
those they mean to torture, and called upon
the Court not to lay sacrilegious hands upon the
hearts of fathers. He trusted the .;citirt would
excuse his stating strongly, what he felt strongly.
If he, and those who thought with hint on this 11
question, were to be actuated by a desire to
screen the guilty, they could not more effectnally
accomplish that object, than by supporting the
Resolution of the Court of Directors, which
would draw down punishment upon the innocent.
He should appeal to the Members of that Court,
as fathers, whether they could say, that it was
nothing that the young ambition of these innocent
persons should be nipped in the bud. As well
might they expect that the blossoms blighted in
April should produce new fruit in May, as that
the prospects and ambition of these innocent
young men should be re.prch. iced, if once blasted
by the baneful influence of a fecal, under such cir-
carostances.

Mr. BARTIS explained.
Mr. JACKSON said, he had known but few
questions which had been so changed In form and
meaning—which had been so transmuted and
transmogrified, as that then udder' de consider.'
ation of the Court. When the Members of
that Court had at first given way to their
feelings of humanity, they went no further than
to recommend to the Court of Directors to re.
consider their Resolution ; and undoubtedly he
was prepared to admit, that in legislative lan.
guage, and in course of public business, a recom-
mendation from the constituents to the constituted
amounted by implication to a command. When
asked, however, whether the recommendation
was to be considered as mandatory, the Gentle.
men with whom it originated answered iu the nee-
dye. The Court of Directors, therefore, had re-
considered their Resolution ; and after all the pa-
negyrics that had been passed upon their conduct,
it would not be said that they had done so care.
lessly or negligently. Upon that reconsideration,
they bad respectfully come back to that Court
and told them, that they saw no reason for alter.
log their former Resolution : and iu this decisioss
the Court of Directors had not been actuated by a
wish to gratify the multitude, but to preserve the
power of the Company in the Peninsula of India;
not by any regard for their own character, so much
as a solicitude for the interests of the East India
Company. So stood the question, before the present
discussion. The case was now however altered,
and the issue was so longer a question between the
General Court of Proprietors and the Court of

Diegtom, but between the poems whio=
foftirard the present motion and their
oetioactions, and the interests of the whole SOW
India Company. The mask was now thrown eif,
ad these Gentlemen proposed a Res* that
the decision of the Court of Directors sot
brearried into execution, bat that their
and sober determination should be rescin,ded by a
precipitate vote of that Court. He could have
wished that before this Resolution bad been brought
forward, the Gentlemen had looked into the law of
the Company, to see how it would boar them out
in such a proposition ; because, if the law were,
against them, all the eloquence of the Honour.
able Mover, and of his Learned Friend, would
fall to the ground. If the Resolution then under
consideration should meet with success, all the
servants of the Company in India would hereafter
have to do would be to treat the orders of the
Court of Directors with neglect and contumely,
and then to come before that Court, aided by such
eloquence as they had beard that day, to procure
indemnity for their misconduct. If that Court, by
any tumultuary proceedings, should rescind the de.
liberate Resolutioo of the Court of Directors, it
would afford a ground for the abridgment of privi.
!cps so abused. Until lately the Court of Proprie-
tors had possessed an uncontrouled power, with re-
spect to the affairs of the Company, and he was ready
to admit that the same power still existed, except
where it was taken away by the statute. As to
what had been said by to Hon. Mover, respect-
ing the promulgation of the Resolution of the Di-
rectors, by posting it up in the India House, that
was required by Lord North's Regulating Bill, and
applied only to such regulations as may have been
adopted respecting the Supreme Court in India,
first established by that Bill. The Act of 1793
provided that no resolutions of the Court of
Directors could be rescinded by the Court of Pro.
prietors. The same clause, however, went on to
state, provided such resolution met with the ap-
probation of the Board of Conttoul. If the
Gentlemen meant to pitch upon this proviso, he
bad only to say, that the same reasoning would
apply to the recal of the Governor-General, or
to any other resolution respecting the reform of
abuses or the improvement of the administration
of affairs in India. The exercise of .such an in.
terference in the case of Warren Hastings, led to
the abridgement of the privileges of the Company;
and if the same power were now to be acted upon
It would lead to the same result. His Learned
Friend had asked, whether they would wish to
punish the innocent youths ? but that bad never
been the question. Their object was to punish
the guilty parents • and the exposee of bring.
ing home their Children would operate as a
punishment neon such persons, who by coming
before the Court of Directors with a lie in
their mouths, had been guilty of such impropriety,
as, it pursued with rigour, would disqualify them
for sitting with gentlemen. Notwithstanding the
statement of his Learned Friend, that the Resolu.
tion of the Court of Directors was contrary to
justice, and to the practice of all but barbarous
nations, the forfeitures for felonies, tremens, and
other crimes, by the law of his own nation, were
governed by the same principle. When the Ho.
nourable Mover quoted the authority of Marquis
Beccaria, as to the scale of crimes and punish.
manta, he forgot the assertion of the same learned
writer, that the certainty of punishment was the
most obligatory duty upon States. Cadets came
before the Court of Directors with a paper in
their hands, which shewed that they could not be
ignorant of the terms on which they entered into
the service. Whether Writers came equally ad-
monished, he had his doubts; but he would ask
their fathers, guardians, or relations, whether,
when conducting the negociatious fur the pur.
chase of their appointments, they were not
sensible they were doing wrong ? If nut, what
was the use of X. Y. and Y. Z. of Mr. Shee and
Lady Lum, and the whole pack of those who
were the agents in this corrupt traffic ? When
his Learned Friend so boldly challenged them to
produce any maxims of law to support the Reso.
lotion of the Court of Directors, he forgot that
maxim so interwoven with the statute and coo-
nion law of this country, that no man shall take
advantage of his own wrong. With respect to
the Resolution then under consideration, it would
involve them in this logical dilemma " either it
was supported by law, and then it would subvert
the authority of the Court of Directors • or it
was not founded is law, and then it would be a
disgrace to that Court to have entertained it."
The previous question was the only means of
saving them from that dilemma.
Mr. Lowevas contended, that as the sword of
justice had been resorted to, the balance ought also
to have been introduced. He could not see where
the distinction had arisen between those who had
;one out between 1799 and 1806, and those who
bidlobe got ender-MUM circumstances since
1806.

Mr. P. Mooas rose, only to justify the motives
by which he was actuated. He denied that the
Resolution was an imperative dictum to the Di.
rectors. it proceeded only em the principle, that
the parties should not be recalled till further in.
quiry was made ; and the question then was, whe.
ther this Inquiry should be made hero or in India.
In this view, he contended that the Resolution
moved was not mandatory. [The Resolution was
hens read again at the desire of Mr. Jackson.]
Mr. Moore still adhered to his original impression,
that the Resolution was not mandatory, and only
required time to wait for further inquiry, before
the Resolution of the Court of Directors should
be carried into execution. The reason why Sir
Thomas Turton's motion had not been carried in
the House of Commons was, that this was a ques.
tion considered as exclusively belonging to the
jurisdiction of the Company. If the motion had
been, that the Report of the Committee of the
House of Commons was net imperative upon the
Court of Directors, he was convinced it would
have been agreed to unanimously.
Mr. GRANT (the Chairman), conceiving that
the question had received an ample discussion,
should not detain the Court long at that late hour,
but wished to submit one or two consideration• to
I their attention before they came to the question

That the Bodeen before the Court was stands.
log epee 'the Cm* et Directors is the highest
awes, sheet of a y command, oo Gen-
tleman would, he , venture to deny. If
such a Resolution ellield hopened, what would
be the situation of rte Court of Directors ?
Would it not lead to a coollict of the most un.
happy kind between the Executive and the great
body of the Compaby ? Re had foreseen from the
first, that the qoatien had a tendency to lead to
ibis result. But when private interests were suf.
fend to interfere, as it was shunt impossible
they should mot, with public duty, in such a case
the coesequeoce must be to embroil the Directors
and the Proprietors in a dispute to be deprecated.
If the Directors saw that soy ltaseletioa prepoard
would operate against the interests of the Com-
pany, it was their duty to persevere in resisting
it. When the recommendation bad been made in
the first reference to them, they considered that
it left them the power of free deliberation. They had
deliberated freely upon the refereuce, and report, d
the result to the Court. The question was now
brought forward in a mandatory form, and they
had only to add, that, whilst suffered to acts they
had but one alternative, and that was to act like:
honest men—[applattres] They had never wish-
ed the question u to the point of law to be moved ;
but foreseeing that the case would at length corn:-
to this, they bad resorted to the highest law au-
thorities, in order to be able to meet it. The
opinion he was then about to read had been kept
in the possession of the Secretary, and not been
communicated to any person out of She Court of
Directors. Indeed he bad refused to communi.
cate it to some particular friends who bad desired
to see it. lie should only read the end of the
opinion which was signed by the Attorney and So-
licitor General, and by Mr. Adam, Counsel to
the East India Company. They bad been consulted
as to the two points in a very full and clear state.
ment of the case; first, as to the legality of the ap.
pointinents; and, secondly, as to the authority
and power of the Court of Proprietors. Upon
lithe latter question, it was their opinion, that the
Omni of Proprietors had not purer to rescind the
Resolution of the Court of Directors, or to re.
store the parties recalled. Ile wished again to
state, that it had octet been the wish of the Dim.
tors to govern their conduct according to the dry
point of law, but from a regard to the true into.
rests of all parties both at home and abroad. If
ever a question ought to have been left to the
Court of Directors, it was that to which thi,- Re.
solution referred, and which, he should add, ought
not to have been handled as it had. A Learned
Gent. (Mr. Stephen) had to his surprise con.
tended, that the Resolution of the Court of Di.
rectors was oppressive and unjust. Whatever
induciee that Geotleman's eloquence might hare,
it cool I not take from him the opinion he enter.
tained in his conscience. The Company, he should
always contend, had • right to prescribe the
terms upon which persons were to enter its ler.
vice ; and unless they should conform to such
terms, the Company had a right to dismiss them.
If this Resolution should be carried, then parents
11 would have only to say, " Let us never trust the
transaction to our chihiree," to secure inditine
nity. But if parents would do these things with
their eves open, and procure the appointment of
their children by surreptitious means, the Com.
pany bad a right to remove them. If the Resolu-
tion of the Court of Directors should be reerio.
ml, all their other Resolutions, and the Act of tlii:
Legislature which had reference to this Resolution
as their foundation, would be ineffectual. Be.
sides it would be attended with bad consequences
in India, if it should be known that persous who
had thus procured their appointments were conti.
nued in them. Oa the whole, therefore, he thought
that the best mode of disposing of a Resolution,
which would be attended with such bad conse.
quences both at home nod abroad, was by the pr..
'ions question.
Mr. SANSON disclaimed baring come forward as
the vindicator of any parent, guardian, or friend
of the youths in question, who bad violated the
laws of the Company. Re bad merely stood fur.
ward as the humble advocate of the youths them.
selves, whose case, notwithstauding all he bad
heard, he thought extremely bard; and that the
measure of their real was one that extended to
the innocent the punishment due only to the
guilty.
The'Conrt was then cleared of strangers, and
the previous question being put from the Chair, it
was carried by a chew of hands its the affirmative,
after which the Court adjourned.