The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-07-05 00:00:00

Committee of the Court of Directors load reported against
the claims, as they could not find the t i n any instance" the
Court had *suctioned any deviation front the sweet of
" non-interference.'" As the Committee could find no
sorb instance, the Court of Directors ought to he obliged
to him if he seggeeted to them the propriety of appoint-
tog a Committee of the House of Commons to look into
the subject. He doubted not they would be able to find
mime deviations from this system. The toilet on the
r. 2.1 of April, 1796, had determined that " every pos.
Bible countenance and protection should be given." To
whom? To the Minister of a Nabob. To what? "To
his opposition to the will of his master." How far this
was. in conformity with the system of " non-inter-
ference," without those lights by which the Committee
of the Court of Directors regulated their enquiries, be
could not decide. In another inseance they had blamed
" non-interference," sod they had written to their Cm-
vernor.6eneral—" We deem it to he your indispensable
duty to interfere whenever this may be necessary, not
only with advice, but with remonstrance, to bring about
that reform, without which his (the Nabob's) add the
Company's affairs mast suffer." When they could thus
devists from their system of " non-interference" in some
caw, thee ought to do so in favour of their lawful cre-
ditors. His motion would go to refer the Petition, to
which he had called the attention of the House, to a
Committee. The parties could not obtain redress in a
COWL of j
ustice; they had therefore no course left open
to them bet to tome to Parliament. He moved that the
Petition presented from the bankers of Calcutta be re-
ferred to a Comnsittee.
Mr. ROBERTSON spoke against the motion. With
the opinions which he entertained upon the Petition, lie
felt bound to oppose it.
Mr. WETHERELL said, that if the Committee were
appointed it would be proved that the loan was nego-
tiated upon fair and equitable terms. The Marquess
Wellesley had written a letter to Ms successor, Lord
Moira, stating that the claim was a just one; and no
one who knew the character of that Noble Lord would
believe that lie had given a decided opinion upon such
a case without due &nil ample consideration. Ile con-
tended that the East India Company stood in the si-
tuation of a Private individual, who had purchased an
estate, with an encumbrance upon it, sod they were
bowed to observe the conditions of that puachase.
Mr. HUMP, contended that Lis Hon. and Learned
Friend had :sot made out a case which would warrant
the interference of the House. He considered the con-
duct of the Marquess 'Wellesley to be censurable in re-
gsrd.to this question. If the claim was a just one, as
he stated in his private letter, he ought not to have al-
lowed it to sleep during the nine years of his Oovern-
n.ent. He was satisfied of the respectability of the
Bankers, end knew that what they did in lending the
money was quite conformable to the practice of the,
country at the time. lie contended that they had no
right to interfere, for if they did so it would be against
all precedents and practice. He knew the going into a
Csminlittee would not pledge the house to any particular
course; hut he was averse from entertaining the ques-
tion at all. If they slid so, there would be no end to
snrls applications. Let them once admit the claims of
natives against, native chiefs, and long as the present
Seeds, was, neither one of such a length, nor one of
to months duration, would suffice to dispatch such
business alone.
Mr. BROTIGIIA AI explained.
Mr. PRENDERGAST said, that his case was distin-
'misled from the present, by being a claim, not upon
the Vizier, but upon a subject of the Vizier's; a person
who was an eunuch and a slave. The Honourable
Member had stated that he received full compensation ;
but this was a mis-statement, for he only received one
half of his just claim. The Hon. Member for Lincoln
could speak to the justness of his claim. After what
had passed, he should more for papers connected with
Ms case.
Mr. K. SMITH said, that as belied been appealed to,
hr felt it necessary to say, that when he was in office,
the Hon. Member submitted his case to him, and upon
its merits lie had no difficulty in coming to the opinion
that the claim was founded in justice.
Mr. ASTELL thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man bad made out no case that warranted the interfer-
ence of the house. The Hon. Member declared bis in-
tention to oppose the motion.
Mr. PLUNKETT thought the subject a fit one for ex-
amination in a Committee.
Mr. WIGRAIII contended that no casein's] been made
zut to justify the motion for a Committee.
Mr. P. MOORE opposed the motion.
Lord A. HAMILTON said he shauld vote in favour
of the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. WYNN declined goint into the details of the
question. He should vote for going into a Committee,
but in doing so he did not mean to pledge himself to
any opinion one way or the other on the justice of the
claim.
Captain MABERLEY and Mr. MONEY opposed the
motion.
Dr. PHI LLIMORE supported the motion, as lie wish-
ed for inquiry to enable him to decide upon the conflict-
ing assertions which had been made in the course of the
transaction.
Mr. C. SMITH and Mr. RICARDO opposed the mo-
tion.
Mr. T. COURTENAY spoke in favour of the ap-
pointment of a Committee.
Mr. BROBGHAM briefly replied. A very uneandid
and inaccurate attempt had been made by his Hon.
Friends the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume), and the
Member for Coventry (Mr. Moore), to make it appear
that the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Prendergast) was
a party interested in this case. This was done with a
view to gain certain votes; but lie begged to state that
it was totally unfounded. He was merely the Attorney
—.he person that arranged the case in this country for
the benefit of the real parties interested. These parties
were noder British dominion, and therefore when they-
appealed to the British Parliament were entitled to a
fall measure of justice.
Mr. Hums and Mr. BROUGHAM mutually explained.
The House divided—
For the Motion, 82—Against it, 39—Majority in fa-
vour, 4:3.
The Committee was accordingly nominated.
Mr. HUME complained that there were no Members
of the East India Company to be found in the nomina-
tion of this Committee.
Mr. WYNN observed that in a ease of a claim upon
the East India Company, it was a question whether the
votes of the Members of that company would be al-
lowed.
After a few words freml'lr. B. SMITH, Mr. PRINDRR-
GAST, and Mr. Ilattuanam, it was agreed to include Co-
lonel BAILLIZ, who bad been a British resident io
India, Mr. ASTRLI, Mr. Wiettam, and Mr. Hume in
the Committee, which was empowered to meet to-nor
tow.

INDIA TRADING TESAISI.B..

Mr. ROBERTSON moved that there be hid before
the House copies of the correspondence that had passed
betwixt the Board of Control and the hoard of Director.
of the East Indio Company, relative to the tonnage of
vessels trading to India.