East India-House.
The Times, 1824-06-24T00:00:00

A Quarterly General Court of thie Proprietors of East India Stock was; beld yesterday at tbe East India House. The mmnutes of the last imeeting lhaving been read, the CiAjtn. stAx moved that the Couirt do agree to the resolution of the CDurt of Directors, recommending that a dividend of 5i per cent. on the Company's stock be declared, for the half year commencing an the .5th of JanuLry last, and ending qn the 5th of July next, which was agreed to. Upon tije mnotion "1thjat a salary of 3001. per annum be allowed to eaich of thai comimissioners for adjusting the claims on the N~abob of the Carnatic, so long as they shall continue to discharge the clutiesof the Tanjore Commhission," a discussion took place, in whichthe Hon, DouiGLAS KawNXAIstD, Alr. HusxE, and Mr. R. JACKsO0t op- posed thle resolution. Mlr. HuaXE then moved as an amneindment, that the question be for the present postponed, in order to afFord an oppdrtunhty for con- sidering the propriety of- appointing a separate conusflitsion. The amendmeint being put and negatived, a ballot was ilermafided by nine of the proprietors preseat, and Friday se'nnight fliled toe the ballot oil the resolution. IND)IA DO0NDS. General THORNToxr rose, pursuanitroasnotice wbichrhe had pre. viotisly given, to moye for the reduction of the interest on the Core- pany's Bonds. The amount of that interest at present was Si per ceat. Thif, he was convinced was too high, anid the heat proof that it was too high might be founidin the fact that'tbose hands atpresent bore apremiu~mof 80s. each per cent. The consequence ofthis eX- travagant price of the bonds was a loss to the proprietors of stock. If the intereat shiould be reduced to 24 per cent. the consequence wolbe avnof`59,0001. per annunm, and ifreAuced to2 percent. the saving would be 5g,0001. per annura. He thought thatIn caling the attention ofthe Directors to this sibjeet he discharged his duty; and he concluded by moving, that it be recommenided to the Court of Directors to give notice of tneir intention to reduce the interest on East India Boxids from 114 percent. to such amaount as they should think fit. tie was satisfied that this measure -wonld be equally ad- vantageouis to the public, end beneficial to the pyoprietors. AlIr AIIDIyItLL seconded the motion. After a few wiords from Air. LOWNDES, The Cir.Arst5%rA-t said, that without considerin the saving which mtigbt be naide, he begged to call the attention of the meeting to the I expediency of the measure. He thotight that this, as vreln as all other financial operaLtions, oughbt to be left to the executive direction. Theu asexeeneho ed tatehe Directors wer-e entitled to this confidern]ce on th e part of the prpretors. During the last two yeara they had effwrced a reduction Of th et ote mut ofbtwe three and four millons; and the gallant General midght rest satisfied that whenever the meaure which he proposed should be adlvisable and practicable, it would engage the imamedilate attention of the Directors. Mr. R. JACKSON protested, upon principle, against the breaking down any suecdes of the Compauy's securities, or any other secuan- ties, bec-augethe consequence maustbe to encourage absenteeship. Sir. If u sE thought there was no danger of any such consequence as tbe hon. gntleman seemed to apprehend fromnthe reductiono,f the interest on In"diae Bonds. He wa aifedta h credit ot the I Company stood as high as that of the nation it could not be wish. ed, if the exigencies of the Comnpany happened to require an ad- I vance, that they should be able to borrow it at a less rate of interestI than the Government, and he-hoped the gallant General would, forI the present, be induced to withdraw his motion.I Mr. Twi2NiYG concurred in the recommendation of thie honour- 4 able memnber for Aberdeen. He was satisfied, that when any reduc- 4 tion should be advisable, it wo'.sld not escape the notice' of the Di- rectors le was a-ure that, adided to the inconveniences of Enig- lish subjects residing abroad in conseque-nce of the reduction of I their incomes, was that-of their being induced to enter into hazard- i ous seuain,i h oeo rcrn greater rate of interest. Hiereetdhsisthttemtnmit be withdrawn. Mr D.KNAR huh htteglant General was entitled to tetakofteCutfrtemner in which he had brough thssujc forward, and which would at least have the good efeto recommeding it in a striking muanner to the notice of the Directors. General THtOsRNTON theCn withdrew his motion, leaving the sub. ject, he said, with great willngness in the batnds of the Directorsm MiARQUIS 0F UIASTIN'GS. Mfr. D. KesiNAIRaD rose fur the purposte of putting a question to the Chairimaii relative to a subject which he had mentioned at the las geera metig. e ad,upo te occasion to which he al- lude exresed hs itenion fmoingfor certaiti papers connected cumets hic cold b cosidredas matters of record ahouid be furnished to the 4ouirtof Proprietors. With that assuxrance, he (Mlr. D. Knnaird) had been perfectly satis,fied at that time. A list had now.been furnished of the papers intendled to be laidabefore the Court of Proprietors. This list seemed to contain a selection of pa- pers by whom made he could not say, hut they were such as were whohy fins Ie to meet the objecthehadin view-that was, to en- able te Court of Proprietors to form an opinion upon the merits of I the M'arquis of Hastings's administration in India. There was, how- 4 ever, one paper in particular the absence of which he had most to compainof.There were, 6,esdes, none of the IMinutes in Coun- cilwhih h exectd t hae:but upon this he shoild speak here- after.This ne paer towhichhe now particularly alludedl, was a lette writen bythe Mrquisof Hastings to the Chairman of the Dirctrs,couriin asummary of the principal topics connected wit hi gvermet o India. It had now beenpublished-.nanother shae, nd oul nolonger be lGoked upon in any way as a secret. The intmaton f te Cairman on the former occasion had led him to expect that it would have been laid before the Proprietors, together with thepapers which compo-sed the cDrrespondence withi Sir Win. Rumbold. He thought that atleast the Court were entitled tosom3e explaniation of the reawon for which this document ha been with. held, and which he waLs wholly unable to conjecture. He begged, theefore, to request thiat the Chairman would have the goodness to found among those whit)ch- v D irirec"tors had thought fit to furnish the Proprietors; with. TheCHsaAssurr.tirsaid, that he knew verywell the document to which the honourable Proprietor's speech alluded, saidin reply, he had only to say, that the single reason which had infiuenced the Court of Directors to withhold it, was their decided opinion that it was not such a documenit as couild be said to beincluded in therequisition of the Court of Proprietors, He then read the resolutiorn of the latter court, by which the Directors were requested to lay before the Court copies, otf all soch correspondenceanddo-cumecntsasmnightbefoundon thepbli reordsof heCmpanreltivto the administration ofthe. Marquis f Hastins in Inda, andw ichnight in any way affect the ueston o thepropietyof gantig himn any further r emu- nertio. Wen hisreqisiionreahedtheDirctos,they in- it. he rsul of heirdelberaion wasthe istnow n te table. In that list the paper alluded to by the hon. proprietor was not in- cluded, becaase they thought that it did not -il under the descrip- tioni of papers requ red by the Court of Proprietors. That pape consisted of a letter addressed to the ChaLirmatn, aod it was left to i discretioni either to lav it before the Court of Directors, or to keep its contents confined to the secret committee. The letter was written by the 11arquis of Hastings at Gibraltar, and after he had ceaed to liold the Government of India. It was, therefore, obvious that this was not such a letter as the Couirt of Directors could answer, be- cause the Governor in CounciLl was the only nroper authority they' could recognite, and with whom they, could correspond. The late Chairman to whom. thre letter was addressed, exercising the discretion which was reposed in him, tbonAht fit to lay the letter before the Court of Directors, who, induc lby the respect which they enter- taned for the chmarater of the Mfarquis of Hastings, caused 'his let-. ter to be answered, expressing in the first plwce that respect, and in the ncxtt seating thazt his Lordship wasi too well acquainted with the constitution of the East India Company to expect that they could htake any other notice of liia letter, or to form a judgment upon the topc itihit etmbraced, 'The Court afterwards, iin consequsenceof' th rqiiinof rhe Court of Proprietors, directed a comilaint he maeoftepapers which they thought utigbhbe necessary for the information and use of the Proprietors. In their opinion the letter of the Marquis of'Hastings was not one which ought to have been included in that compilation -that was to say, it ought not to have beeni published under the autiority and with the countenance (which it might, if so published, have been suppsed to possess) of the Pso- pritors. The letter, however, had been prrinted, and was, in point of face, not only before the Coart of Proprietors, hut before the public in general. No harm could therefore, in any event result from the Directors bavin~ teclined to. insert it in the compilation which they laid before ITile proprietors WVhatever bene&i the AMarquis of Hastngs or his friends thought might be derived from the publication of this documnent, they had the faul enjoymient of, and he trustedl that the explanation which he had felt his duity to give, would be thoughit sufficient to justify the determinationi of the Directors. Sir Jolese DoYx.s thougirt the explanation given of the reasonts which had influenced the Court of Directors was, quxite sufficient;4 but he thought that this explanatiou having been given, there was no reason now' why the documnent referred to should not be laidbefre he ropietrs.Theampestinfrmaionon the sub. jecof ireadmnisraton f te Mrqus o Hatins oghtto be Pro1, rietori. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t r. . KNi~(LtD ecnde th mtio ;but complained that the answer of the Chairmaen 'dnot epanthe motives for which this paper' had been withheld, If h reason alleged (thatI of its not being a formal record) was the only one whlich had really catrsed its be-ing withheld, he was satisfied ; but if there were any other reasot5r and particularly if there were any reason affect- log the Mlarquis of Hastngs, he complained of its being unfair andI ungjst not now to ekpre53 themn. Thre CIIAIRaiAN Saidi he felt hdimself called upon by the honi. ~be~nlain alittle further what he had sai. Thie Marquis of I ~Iasttrgshd.in is letter embraced a ait f toics, and in it would fer aps b dial o ist xrs noiino certain subet-erasende,Intile mosb e frthimnt omit tlie fhc heDrcosh orao oenterthain In this -on fviwi a, htte ietr flKlS while they listened to the representations of toe alrquis uo Hastings, they were not caUed upon to concur in any Cen- I sures upon those who had preceded bim in the government of India. It was the duty of the Directors to se that usticeiwas done to those ersons no less than to the noble lord, pod they could not send forth with their sanction, and without comment, the assertions of the noble Marquis, which did in fact contain an implied censure upon his predecesSors. He could not for his own prt but deprecate the publication of this document by the Directors because it wouldt immediately provoke counter-statements& It could do nogood, be- sides, to give it the character of an official document, ania thus to sanction the censures which it contained, and to allow the mnemory of others to be blamed, not tosay traduced. If its aubltcation were aU that was sought, that was at least sufiiciently obtained ilready. Mr. D. KINNAIZXD was happy that he had at length elicited from the Chairman the reasons for which this cxposkbytheMar.- quis of Hastings had been withheld. He had heard of.such rrnioues brfore - he had-heard that the CourtofDirectors chosetokeep the facts contained in tbe Marquisof Hastngs' letter locked upin their own breasts5lest by siF.ring then to pass through ther they should seemn to give countenance to his accusations. .nMi thiw resolution he believed, was adopted within a short period of that tirne when they had remained silent, while they heard it said that the MIarquis of Hlastig had been accused of and detected in asrofraud in the course of his Vdmintstration. This,- then, was their motive-this was their anxiety to-preserve the reputation of former Governors; and so great was that anxiety, that.it induced them to hesrthemost unfounded calumnies heaped upon the Mlar1ui of Hastings. lMr.PArTISOi roseito order. Heidebthe hairmanadpressed }his owvn sentiment sin the latterpart of his gpeech. The ofinioos of ~ the Directors coa d osly be gv.tieft from the rsoda of tme ort It was quiteTirrekular, and not less 'Unfair,'for tihe -ho. -prprktor ti impute, as be did, moves totheCourt of Dirertora up bwhih that Court lid not actedi - lilt. KINNAIRtn resumed. He denied that tI h1fuqii of -Has tingS' leter was written with iDVyintentidn to -st an lmautation upon the eonduct of preceding 6iovemoers.(GeneraL Tlre Mtrquig was the hat man in the wvorld who would seek to build up hai own famne uponl the ruin of another's. It w o-s nomore his intentioD to ay that the conductof Lord Mlinthad been improper,than that his own was. He described the state in whicli be fiound the avais of India upon his arrival there. 'Was there any. niistatenientin tbat description ? If there was, could any thing be moTO fair on the Marquis's part than to sePd ito the Directors, wh had the means of contradicting the statement in their-own handsP It did not follow froni any thiig that Lord Hastings said,tbatlord blintobranv -Oter of his predecessors could have acted .difierently from what he had done; or that he woutld not have pursued the same onduct a Lord Hastings if he had been in the game situation. The crisis bad been long coming on, and was foretold by the Mlarquis Weltesley. If the Chairman thought that any other inference could be tlran rbtimtke Alarquias of aitinpsi letteribe(Mr. ID Kinnaird) thought he *is mn?ta&ke6, He thught ihtt *hoaler to read the letter, read It at leaiit i nantIy,riot to any rnalsioul yt.e protestedsib the name if everi fair man, in the namne o? thei 2l1s a bf Hastings, uid isn the face, hebl ieyeml of somne of L;ord -Mirttt' f.tily, t4it n nch inference. Tleletter E becn public now for flla innDnthis; mnd no comphaint had bteen injide.of it. - , Alr. TRA-KT supported thgiibinOit.. Mlr. If JAiCKsoNunderttoo tht. the..answer of the Chairman rn a former day, had bcen thet there *6hd be no objection to laY before the proprieors the paper alluded t. lb poke on- tbe faith 3f a newspaper report, which he had every rtX50rt iii' eliefe wa suite correct. Itruight betrue thatthepaper had Ir flicial :haracter, but nothing could be more ea than to give itli dh* acter. He thought bat j ce to the Marquis of Hastisigej tl those who had preceded him, and to the Directors themselves, fca Wuired that the document should be published. f it were in any aespect untrue or incorrect, let it be refuted; bit m,his judgnent its :ublication could not be withheld without a depature from all that he Directors were pledged to, anid bad promised. llMr. ImPEr justified the conduct of the Conrt of Directors, in rot adding this paper to those laid bcfore the Proprietor, on the round of its not being a recorded document. Mr. MILLS said the paper was now in fact a recorded document. This was denied, and a warm altercation ensued, in which Mr. Mill-s required that the opinion of the Company's law advisern should ,e taken whether it was or was not on record. The CMIfA1XmAi read a resolution, by which it was stated, that ,he letter, not bcingan official document, could not be laid before the Proprietors. Mfr. IXMist resumepL HIe said, that although he wwsof opinion he paper was not of fecord, yet he pasted that consideration for the nore important one ofwliether its production was necesaury for the haracter of the ilarquis of Hastings; and still more.wbetherit was or hix interest that such laugtisgeas had been uttered by his friends hould have been uttered in that-court. A difference f opinion night exist; but was it, therefore, necksnry tlhat the gentemen who ook one view of the question should exprqM themsdeves as they had lone, and that the Court of Directors antd the Chairmrnn sbould oe )carded as they had now been ? No man there could believe that he opinion wlhich the Chairnman had given could be other tban Imost honest one; but because it might differ frord 6Tirrs, was le therefore to be called ignorant, not to say inalicioua.%or hi-s iwn part, he appyoved highly of some of the service of - Iar: uhs of Hastings but bewasfiee to confess there-WercothefRttf6f iis conduct which he could not praise so warmly. His opini6d night be erroneous, but it was at least aehonest as that of An geon leman who heard him. He wags,however, 'willing to yotc.ror the wroduction of any paper which would tend to throw a lvht upon I onduct ard character of the Marquis of Hastings; and fox that pur. ose lhe was willing to support the present motiomr Mr. Mitbs and dlr. L,OWiDxS also supported the motion. The Hon. HUG1E LINDSAY thought the noble Marquis had a ight to call for esery recordedpaper wvhich le'raight .think neces. aryto hischaracter. Thiswasa recorded per .and be should warmly support the motion for it. He took this opportunity of hanking M5r. Elphinstone arid otherhonoarxrblegentlemen fot their ronourable conduct on a formner occasion, in defending the DSarquis f Hastings from the charge wrhich bad been madeagainsthim, and n which he had been treated in a maner unworthyof the meanest loorkeeperin theCom any'sservice. .MIr. .ATTISON aiT,it was as clear as the suni, that the paper ras on the records of the Company. Air. R. JAC1SON read the resolutien of the Court of Proprietors, .y which it appeared to be required, that all documents on record, it allo, documents, should be furnished. 3Ir. HiuME contended, that in pursuance of the requisition of the roprietors, the document in question ouhbt.to have been laid before hat Court. The mere circumstance of its having benead in the iourt of Directors, Proved that it was one which theproprietors had tright tocall for, Itwasof the utmost importance, notless to the WIarqtuis of Hastings thau to the interests of. the puhhie, that the D)irectors should not be permitted to wvithhold papers whenever they ileased, by saying that they were not offici- Hewisbed that if ay lifficulty existed (he could see none), the opinion of tho law officers hould be taken. The CHAIRNAN repeated the reasons for which the Court of Di. ectors had thought fit to refuse the production of the document re- 'erred to. With respect to the expressions which had been used by in hon. proprietor towards hinself, he should make no other obser- ration upon them, but that he trusted his conduct for four and wenty years had placed his character in such a light, that it could rot be assailed by any intemperate eXpressions into which the heat f d'ebate or the warmth of friendship rniglitbetraYan hon. gent. MIr. D. K11rNAIID begged-most distinctly to.dseaim any inten. 'jOn of saying anyting personally disrespectf^l to the honourable C hairman. Sir C. RoarIxsoN had no object!on to the production of the paper; but he could not agree to it without this observation-that hose who were so unfortunate as to differ with some hon. gentlemen wives comnpelled to move for uther papers on the sam;e-subject. lMtr. ) DMONl)S, OXE said g few words to the same effect. Sir 301}N DOYLJE said that proverbiallyr odiobus romparison were, he could not bu't ca'theaetentioa of the Court w the-compa ison between the state of affaurs in Indiatthe period when the Mar iuis of Hasgtings aasumed- the Govenment and when he lift it. COlonel BMLEY rwas quite ready to concur in tbei'prodtiefion ofa he paper which wa-s caled for by thbe ritenhi. ofthranoleiMarquis. e was, howver, obliged to say, that there wereaqme statements hat document, in the correctness of wtich he culd.not acquiesce, and which he bad alreadyr hiad occasioh to give a different-view of in a Committteof the House of Commons. Hisopiniorr'on the topics, which it was not now necesary to referto, weuilR41borneout by Facbts and he believed that the .Marquis of astin 'would, upona .e4ision of his own statements be convinced of their errore- The CHrAIniAx thought tie Court was not quite aware of whal :t wax abotit to adopt. Some of the hon. gentlemen had agred td roducdion of thus paper, upon conditionuthat other papert whi6h asight rfterwirds seem requisite should alslo be granteS.- It arust, bowrever, oe remnembered that sfome of thae latter paperS,i being sin he custodty of the Secret Committee, coulil ao' be produced with nit the snction of the Board of Control. For -his own part, be nust rejea. his individual opinion that the preduction-of the Mar. luis of Hasting'sletter would behighly inconvenit, bngcotbedt is ii then must be, with an official character. , After a few words from hlr. D. Kinnaird and Mr. P. Jackson, Sir C. FotBts expressed his intention of proposingas Im amend. ment, that the paper should be produceo tether with such obser. rations as the Court of Directors might thn fit. ltlr. HuxE objected to the proposed amendment. Sir C. RoDaI5So said, there was s grat a diversity of. opinion umong the Directors Oi this subject, that it would beImposuble tc procure their Pohected sentiments Mr. TwixI,.G saw no objection to the production of the paper. but he thought as- it was only the opinion of an individual, too muc- if imeportance h~ad been attached to it, anid that tnr.ortnce wold increased by the witiholdiag it. Hle, however, hoped thatit would be produced without the opinion of the Court of Directors. 2'he question was then put, and carried in the affirtmative. -Mlr. .DMfONfS O:nE then moved that the secret committee be re. qtaeted to apply to the Board of Control fot ail minutes of council and other ptapers lhid before the secret commnittee'-betwreen Novem. ber, 1813, and NSovember, 1817 wshich rdlate to the government ol the Marquis of Hastings; and also adl such documetts asmay servt to exhibit tire state of lndiaat the priod. to wlhich.the summal onrsined in the M1arquis of Hastings's letter refers. Afrer a fewr wVords from M r. WVEraurIr, thisl resolution wai %greed to. Sir C., ItOINXsox then msoved for copiesof a comrespondence be tween the Governor-General in Council and the President at Luck iow, resrecting the refonn in the admsinistraion of the Governmen' if that district, and the employment of British troops in the servict if the Vizir, from the 31st of January, i8s8, to the 31st of Decem rer, 1815: as also, copies of all papers relating to loans contractee with the Vizir, from October, 1814, to May, 1815.-This resolutlo was carried. Sir C. FoRBxs moved that the Court of Directors be. reueitedt a before this 'outt, togedter with tke letter of- the sMarquis a Vfsting!S sucl observations as theymay think necessry. Mr. WVEEDING seconded the motion. Sir J. DOYLE opposed it. mr. D. KrinxAutr had no objectiot; on the contrary, nothini ould give him andall the friendsof the Marquisof Ritingsgreatc Ileaure than to have theopinions of the Directors seriati n or coleC ively, provided that they also stated thegroundsof theiropruions. After a few words from Sir C. FORBES and Mr. TIU2cT, The CHAIRMAN said, for his own part he objected to giving th )pinion required, because to do sa woluld be unUsual, arnd in tl iresent-cmse unnecessary. IIe therefore hoped the lon. bart. woul ne induced to withdraw his motion. Sir C. FORBES was sorry that he felt it his duty to press th notion. After some further discussion, the questionwasput -and at v Mlr. D. E.,IzAID noved for certaun despatches ot the kqu: f H&astings, relative to the retrenchment in the Indian ar, an lso for s copyof the report of the financul committeethe*tupon. MIr. IMPEY moved, as an amendment, that the Court' do no udjourn. Alogaauddesultorydiscussioneensued, in which lMr. D. Xxi t; AIRD complained that the adjournment of the Court .itne4ie, witi mt having entered upon many subjects of which notice bad bee tiven (among others, that of the free press in India), rould I !tighly inconvenient. - ' At length the question was put on-the amendment, and the Cou hivided. The numbers appeared_ .- - Fortheanrendment- . . 20 JAgainstit .... 20 Whereupon the CHsAMUXsT gave the casting vote in Ifavour of tl amendment, and the Court adjourned at 20 minutes pst 7 Alock. EAST INDIA.HOUgE.