« PreviousContinue »
Hon. Director (Mr. Elphinstone); but I say that I am no party to his silence on think the questions which he has answered this occasion.” (Loud cries of hear !) were not those which were asked.”
The Deputy Chairman (Wm. Astell, Esq.). Sir John Doyle.--" If by accident the " What has occurred in the course of this Hon. Chairman has misconceived me, I day requires a few words from me. It is quite hope he will allow me to set him right. evident, from the circumstances which have So far from putting those questions to him taken place, that departure from ordinary as Chairman er officio, I did not allude to, and usual practice is extremely inconvemuch less employ that or any similar term. nient. Not only has a question been irreIt was in his individual capacity as a Di- gularly put, but an answer has been given rector, and not as Chairman of the Court to it; and the consequence of the whole of Directors, that I asked him for an an proceeding has been, a debate, carried on swer to my questions. I explicitly gave amidst confusion and disorder, and nothing my reason for putting those questions to else. (No, no !) Mr. Pattison says, " I him as a Director ; that reason was, be am no party to the silence of the Chaircause he must, from his official character, man." That Hon. Director inay have his have cognizance of every subject which own view of the case, which doubtless came under the consideration of the Court he will disclose at a proper opportunity: of Directors, and was, therefore, the 'per. but I must contend that the Hon. Chairson above all others most likely to be man could take no other course than that possessed of the necessary information. which he has adopted, for he was called on I would not be so unreasonable as to ask as Chairman to answer those questions. him to answer questions in his capacity of (No, no!) The Hon. Baronet (Sir John Chairman. He will be good enough, Doyle) says 'no; I addressed him as an also, to recollect that I did not call for individual Director.' If so, with all res an opinion; I requested information on a pect to that Hon. Baronet, I must beg inere matter of fact. The question was to ask what right he has to call on my simple as if I had asked a man, Were Hon. Friend, or any other Director, for you in Hyde Park yesterday?' and was an individual opinion ; and certainly these just as easily answered. In asking the questions relate to matter of opinion, not question, and in enforcing the propriety of fact. The most convenient practice is of an answer, I hope I did nothing un that which the Hon. Chairman has adoptworthy of my character, or inconsistent ed. He remained silent, as the Court of with the respect which is due to the Court." Directors could not have authorized hin (Hear, hear!)
to answer questions, which it was only now The Chairman. “ The Hon. Baronet for the first time known to bim and to the says that, he put those questions to me as Court that it was intended by the Hon. an individual Director. Now, I beg leave Baronet to put. What my Hon. Friend to say, that he has no right to put ques on the right (Mr. Elphinstone) has said, tions to me individually. I sit here as is no answer to them. (Hear, hear !) Chairman, and whatever I state while I One question is such, as to render it imposhold the situation, is in my capacity of sible for any man, or set of men, to anChairman of the Court of Directors, and The Hon. Baronet had spoken of not as an individual Director.”
matter of fact; but when it was asked Mr. Lowndes rose amidst cries of “ or. “ Is an impeachment contemplated ?” der.” The Hon. Proprietor, exclaim who could auswer so vague an interrogaed, “ Mr. Chairman, I insist on my right tory? Who could speak to the intention of to address the Court. Has a fraud been any person or persons, or to what may committed ? (Order.) I attended this have influenced their conduct in past transmeeting in consequence of seeing in the actions? In this state of difficulty, it is papers that there had been an embezzle our business to adhere to the usual pracment of £300,000. I am a great Pro. tice of the Court, and to pursue that prietor, a very great Proprietor of East- particular purpose for which we are sumIndia Stock, and I have a right to ask moned.” (Hear, hear!) whether a fraud has been committed ? Mr.Pattison again rose. -" I mean (said (Order.) If it has not been committedl, the Hon. Director) to state, as an honest, I wish to have the statement contradicted.” straight-forward man, my opinion on this (Order.)
subject. I consider the question put to Mr. Trant rose ; but gave way to
the Chairman to be as direct, as simple, Mr. Pattison, who said, “I was going and as easy as any of these - does the sun to speak to order, to prevent the time of shine ? is this a man? is that a stool ? is the Proprietors being unnecessarily taken this a desk? (Hear!) These are posiup. From what has fallen from the Hon. tive questions, capable of being answered, Baronet, and from what has been stated “Yes' or “ No,'— the opinion of the Court by the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Kingaird), was not asked. Now, let us examine it
appears that the whole Court of Direc a little those questions, the answer to lors might be implicated in the conduct of which by the Hon. Director near him the Chairman; I beg leave, for one, to the Hon. Deputy Chairman has endea
voured to invalidate. The questions are the grant; but when you insert in consethese :- First, . Whether any embezzle- quence of this discovery,' the mind natument or deficit by the Marquess of Has- rally reverts to the reason on which the tings, of £300,000, or any other sum, has negative is said to have been founded and been discovered by the Court of Direc. what is it? why because the Marquess of tors ?' On this question I shall take the Hastings has robbed you to so large an exliberty of commenting a little. The ques- tent, that he deserves nothing at the hands tion is, whether any embezzlement or de- of the Company but reprobation. This is, ficit has been discovered ?' Observe, gentlemen, the fair inference to be drawn gentlemen, the strength of this word from these two paragraphs. Then I would embezzlement.' It means, the taking of distinctly say, in the same decisive tone that money dishonestly from the public purse, I used before, if asked, have the Court of and putting it into your own pocket. If Directors, in consequence of such discovery, there has been no embezzlement, the querist already negatived a grant to the Marquess next asks, whether there has been dis of Hastings of £5,000 per annum ?'covered by the Court of Directors a deficit No! they have not !-(Hear, hear !) The to the amount of £300,000, or of any other third question is, · Whether the Court of sum, even down to a rupee, if you please, Directors in consequence of such diswhich the Marquess of Hastings has ap covety- here comes the in consequence propriated to his own use ? I as a Director, again-it is the burden of the song, the taking the responsibility of the answer on tol-de-rol-lol of the chorus-(a laugh) myself, say, “No' to the whole of this whether the Court of Directors, in consequestion.-(Cheers.) And here I must quence of such discovery, had any purpose of say, that if I were in the situation of the procuring the impeachment of the MarHon. Baronet who brought forward these guess of Hastings? Now, if I had the questions, I should desire to have the honour of sitting in the chair of this Court, answer, not individually, but collectively. and this question was put to me, I should (Hear, hear !) If I could not get it col- immediately say that such a proceeding lectively, I should not be satisfied. I was never mentioned-that such a thing would bave the collective sense of the
in contemplation-(Hear, Court of Directors on this point-whether hear !)--that an impeachinent was just as the Marquess of Hastings had, or bad not, much thought of by the Court of Direcrobbed us? Such is the plain question, tors, as a visit from the comet which is stripped of all ambiguity, and to that ques. now wandering about-(Cheers)—the subtion I answer distinctly and explicity ject was never hintedat was never glanced • No'-(Cheers).
Would to God the at-was never inuendoed at-(Hear, hear!) Hon. Chairman had overcome his deep The last, said Mr. Pattison, is a new sense of the value and importance of form, verb--I believe it was never used before; and had in the same distinct manner an but I am glad to have coined an apt, swered • No.'-(Hear, hear!) It is not though extraordinary word, to meet such the question whether the Marquess of an extraordinary occasion_(Hear! and Hastings has or bas not committed mis- laughter.)— I repeat, that an impeachment takes, or innocently fallen into errors. It never was inuendoed-at-I would there. is not the question whether he has or has fore, to this question also distinctly say, not added millions to our revenues-or • No!'-(Cheers). Such is the answer whether his career entitles him to be placed which, as an honest man, I am bound in on an equality with the most distinguished honour and in justice to give to those of our Governors-General? The simple questions—(Hear, hear!). From long question resolves itself into this—is the and intimate knowledge I am perfectly Marquess of Hastings a thief and a pick- convinced of the high character, of the pocket?-(Hear, hear :) Shall we, gen. entire honour and integrity of the gentletlemen, after having witnessed, and being man who fills the chair ;-(Hear, hear!) so largely benefited by the achievements but I must be permitted to say, that I of the noble Marquess, go away from this think he labours on this occasion under a Court with a doubt on our minds whether mistaken sense of his duty."-(Cheers.) he is or is not a thief--a pilferer ? Mr. Lowndes~" Whether there is or is (Hear, hear!) Shall we depart from this not a defalcation ?” (Order, order.) place with the most remote idea of the Mr. Trant—" As several gentlemen on dishonesty of such a character ? (Hear, this side of the bar have been allowed to hear !)—No: let the calumny be boldly give their opinion on this subject, I will met, and promptly refuted.-(Hear, hear!) take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, of stating The second question is, * whether the mine. The gentlemen who have spoken Court of Directors in consequence of such came to this decision, that the Chairman discovery, had already negatived a grant to ought to have answered the questions that the Marquess of Hastings of £5,000 per had been put to him. Now I think, annum.' Leaving the words in conse most conscientiously, that he did right, quence' out of the question, it is the truth under all the circumstances, in declining that the Court of Directors have negatived to answer. (Hear !) I trust I shall be
allowed to say a very few words in defence have no doubt of the many cordial shakes of my opinion. My Hon. Friend who pro. of the hand which the Hon. Proprietor pounded those questions says that he put will receive, and which he will cheerfully them to the gentleman sitting in the chair return, amongst those who participate in merely as an individual, and not as Chair. his pure feelings and gentle sympathies ;man: I, however, cannot allow the cor (A laugh)-feelings and sympathiese which rectness of this distinction. I think that, will, I suppose, be considered in some sitting at the head of those by whoin he is quarters as a very high recommendation, surrounded, clothed as he is with particu- But, let me turn froin the Hon. Prolar authority, he can only be addressed as prietor's speech to matter more important. Chairman, he cannot be appealed to in bis I wish to ask of the Proprietors, whether individual capacity. I know it may be any doubt can remain on their minds as said that it is the practice of the House of to the questions having been answered, Commons to permit questions to be asked, after the specific monosyllabic replies of which questions are generally answered ; the Hon. Director (Mr. Pattison), who but there is a wide distinction between had answered distinctly and emphatically the situation of individuals here and there. to the three questions, · No! No! No!' The Secretary of State is completely mas I ask this, because I understood the Hon. ter of his own particular business; it is a Chairman to have made this extraordinary matter of discretion with him whether he remark, namely, that the Hon. Director will give or withhold an answer : he is near him (Mr. Elphinstone) had not reaccountable to no one. But this is not plied to the questions which were put to the case with the Chairman of the Court of him by Sir John Doyle. I now take it Directors; and I must say, that if the as granted, that those questions have been Chairman were obliged to answer all ques- positively answered ; and I should wish to tions put to him on a sudden, without the ask of the Hon. Chairman, whether he possibility of consulting with his col must not now completely coincide in the leagues, very great inconvenience would fact, that plain and distinct answers have arise from the practice. I admit that the been given by the Hon. Director (Mr. propounder of these questions, or any other Pattison)?” member of this Court, has a right to make Mr. Trant rose to explain. inquiries tending to maintain the honour Mr. Lowndes insisted on his right to of those who have served us, anı! who have address the Court “ With respect to the served us well; but, when I reflect on the efforts of the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Trant) questions now before the Court, as they to get into the direction, I can safely say have been asked, and as they have been that he has been no sycophant to me. I discussed, I would, if sitting in the chair, have three votes, and he has not asked me bave demanded time to consider them. It for my interest. --(Order, order!) As would undoubtedly be well, if those alle other gentlemen have spoken, I hope I gations were unfounded, that they should also will be allowed to speak. -(Order !) be met with a denial ; and it would cer So much opposition is manifested towards tainly have been inconvenient to have me, that I am almost afraid you intend to waited for that denial until the next Ge. impeachme-(Laughter)—that there is neral Court. But the Hon. Proprietor some great charge hanging over my head. might have avoided that difficulty by cal. -(Laughter.) I am sometimes accused ling a Special General Court at an early of wandering from the question--but I day.
will stick to it on this occasion. For the The Hon. D. Kinnaird." I beg to con honour of the Proprietors, it is fit that the gratulate the Hon. Proprietor who has just dark cloud which hangs over the Comsat down on the opinion which he has been pany should disappear. An attack bas pleased to express; and I hope that he will been made on this noble Marquess, whose not abate the active canvass for a seat in high-minded and honourable character is the direction in which he is at present totally inconsistent with the commission engaged. How much must he conciliate of that pitiful fraud of which he is ac. the favourable feelings of his constituents, cused.-(Hear, hear!) You never knew when he tells then, that, should some a high-minded man to be guilty of fraud. future Governor-General - some great pub I saw this attack to-day ; but, as it did not lic officer who had served the Company contain any name, I was ignorant of the effectually-be publicly accused on his re person to whom it referred. This case apturn from India of fraud and robbery, he, pears to me to be like that of Lord Mel. as future Chairman, if called on to state ville. If any fraud has been committed, whether there was any truth in the charge, it must be by one of the Company's clerks, whether any proceedings bad been insti or inferior officers; I am certain that the tuted against that officer, would wrap hiin. Marquess himself is guiltless of it. The self up in all the dignity of forın, in all noble Marquess comes from a country, the mystery of silence, and refuse to give where, I must say, though they are ready his important testimony to the innocence of enough to meet their friends with a case of the accused party.-(Hear, hear !) I pistols, yet their high-minded notions of Asiatic Journ.-No. 99.
Vol. XVII. 2 S
character are wholly inconsistent with feel it unnecessary to ask from the Chair. paltry fraud. (Hear !) Fraud is only to man any explanation of what he meant, be found amongst those grovelling cha. when, as I thought, he stated that the racters that dare not look a man boldly in first-mentioned Hon. Director had not anthe face. I hope this charge, which seems swered the questions. I shall now, Sir, to be svithout foundation, will pass away allude to the speech of the Hon. Deputy like a light cloud on a summer's day, Chairinan. That Hon. Gent. said the never to be seen again. I ask, has there Chairman had acted most properly in withbeen-I don't say fraud--but any error holding an answer to the questions put to discovered? Because, in mercantile mat him; and he had farther observed, that it
errors crcepted' was a very common was very hard the Chairman should be phrase. It is highly necessary to know asked to answer questions which were sudthat fact; and I think silence might have denly propounded to him. Now I ask, been preserved on the subject, until it was whether the communication between the ascertained whether any fraud had been Hon. Chairman and Depuiy Chairman is actually committed.”
of so extraordinary a kind, that, when the Mr. Trant again rose to explain.
Chairman receives a letter, and returns an Mr. Lowndes interrupted him: “ Gen answer to it by the Secretary of the Comtlemen, this is the third time the Hon.
pany, that answer being that it is not Proprietor bas addressed the Court. This expedient to investigate a given subject, is the third time of asking. (Laughter.) the Deputy Chairman is so much unacIf any of you know any just cause or quainted with the fact, that when the matimpediment why the Hon. Proprietor ter is brought before this Court, he feels should not make a speech, let him state bimself justified in saying that it is hastily it.” (Laughter.)
and suddenly introduced ? Now the fact Mr. Trant.---- As the Hon. Gent. op is, that, so far back as the soih of January, posite (Mr. Kinnaird) has chosen to be a letter was written to the Chairman by a so personal as to allulle to me, in a cha respected friend of the Marquess, and a racter never, I believe, before heard of in relative of the gallant General (Sir John this Court, I wish to say a very few words Doyle), in which these questions were in answer. The Hon. Proprietor las cen stated in almost the same terms that they sured me for delivering my sentiments ; were couched in to-day. The letter was but I must say that I do not, in the as follows: slightest degree, regret any expression that
“ Montague Square, Jan. 30th. has fallen from me. There is not a man “ Sir: I beg leave to call your attention in this Court, not even the Hon. Proprie to a paragraph which appeared in the tor himself, who is more anxious than I Sunday Timos of the 25th inst., a copy am to give a fair, honest, and conscien of which I enclose. You will perceive tious opinion; and such an opinion I gave that it contains, in substance, a direct on this occasion.
When I stated that I charge against Lord Hastings, of having meant to become a candidate for the direc embezzled £300,000 of the monies of the tion, some of my friends told me -(loud
Honourable Company, or of having been cries of order) I will conclude by say party to an embezzlement by which a deing, that I thought it my duty, inconsi ficit to that ainount has been incurred. It derable as my powers are, to state my further states that, in consequence of such view of the conduct of the Chairman on malversation, which had been recently disthis occasion.”
covered, the Court of Directors had negaMr. Loundes again started up and said, tived a proposed grant to him of a pension “ Bless me, what is the necessity for all of £5,000 per annum; and, finally, that this? We have nothing to do with these it is in the contemplation of that body to two gentlemen's differences !
effect his impeachment. Strange that such difference should be
“ The general slanders of an anony'Twixt I'weedile.dum and Tweedle-dee.'"
mous libeller it may be well to treat with (Loud laughing.)
contempt; but a particular charge, deeply The Hon. D.Kinnaird.--"Certainly the affecting the public character of an individifference between the speech of the lion. dual, however distinguished, must be speProprietor (Mr. Trant) and his explana- citically repelled. Under this impression, tion is very much like that between Twee. I have the honour of addressing myself to dle-dum and Tweedle-dee. I know not
you, as Chairman of the Court of Direcwhich of the Tweedles the Hon. Proprie- tors, in the full confidence that you will tor (Mr. Lowndes) assigns to me; but I enable me at once to give that distinct and shall be quite content to take the dee, if the authoritative contradiction to these falseHon. Proprietor will be good enough to heods, which the form they have assumed act the dum for a short time. (Laughter.) demands, and which it is so important to Having stated that the Hon. Director the honour of the Noble Lord should no (Mr. Elphinstone) coincides completely in longer be delayed. With this view, as the negative given to those questions by every question that arises in the Court another Hon. Director (Mr. Pattison), I of Directors must be officially known to
you in your capacity of Chairman, I have before them your letter of the 30th January, to request that you would be good enough addressed to him upon the subject of a para- . to give me answers to the following graph, of which
enclose a copy, which queries :
is stated to have appeared on the 25th of “ 1st. Whether the Court of Directors that month, in a newspaper called the Sunhave made any discovery, or have received day Times, assailing the character of the any information, or have reason to suspect Marquess of Hastings, and with reference that the Marques; of Hastings has em to which you have framed certain interrobezzled, or been party or privy to the em gatories, which you request the Chairman, bezzlement of any monies, or to the crea as the organ of the Court of Directors, to tion of any deficit, to the amount of £300,000, or of any other sum?
There is (observed Mr. Kinnaird) a 56 2d. Whether the Court of Directors minuteness in this part of the answer have threatened, or intend to impeach the that is quite admirable! Every word Marquess of Hastings for embezzlement, is weighed with the most scrupulous cauor for any supposed deficit of money or tion! The whole is arranged in the most otherwise ?
business-like manner! The letter proceed“ 3d. Whether the Court of Directors ed thus:have, in consequence of any such supposed “ The Court deeply regret the attack embezzlement or deficit, already negatived which has been thus made upon the chaa motion to grant a pension of £5,000 per racter of that distinguished nobleman ; they annum to the Marquess of Hastings? cannot, however, but feel that it would be
“ I am persuaded that your own high highly inexpedient for them to engage in sense of what is due to the honour and any correspondence arising out of the character of a public man, will sufficiently vague charges of anonymous writers; and account to you for the anxiety of the they are persuaded that you will yourself Noble Lord's friends to lose no time in perceive, on a review of your letter, the invindicating him from these foul charges, convenience of putting to a collective body, which have already obtained extraordinary and the impossibility of their answering, circulation, and be my apology, at the questions of the nature proposed by you. same time, for pressing the subject upon
“ I have the honour to be, &c. you as a matter of immediate importance ;
“ J. Dart, Sec." and as it is by you alove, from your offi. Col. Francis Hastings Doyle, &c." cial situation, that, without injurious de The public (continued Mr. Kinlay, the means of effective contradiction naird) will scarcely believe that such an can be furnished. . In preferring, there answer was returned to such a letter, fore, the above request, I feel assured that I I pity the man from my heart, who, in shall be only meeting your desire of doing liis official situation, was obliged to sign a the earliest justice to the character of the document like this; and who would be exMarquess of Hastings, which, in the para- posed to the belief that he was the writer graph in question, has been so wantonly of it. But I am really astonished when I assailed; and that I shall be favoured with hear the Hon. Deputy Chairman state, in an answer to the queries at your earliest the face of this correspondence, that these convenience. I have the honour to be, questions came, for the first time, unaSir, your obedient humble servant, wares on the Hon. Chairman. (Hear,
" Francis Hastings Doyle.” hear!) I will state to the Court the diffe“ William Wigram, Esq., &c. &c. &c.” rence between a question put in the form
To this very temperate letter, written by of a letter and a question put here viva voce. the nearest friend of the Marquess of I admit that you might, in the exercise of Hastings; by a gentleman who was fre your public functions, refuse a proper anquently in communication with his Ma swer to the letter of Colonel H. Doylejesty on the subject of the Noble Mar you might deny his friend justice when quess's affairs, who was known to be the requested in that form—you might disgrace Marquess of Hastings's other self in this yourselves by treating his application with country, an answer was, in the course indifference-(Hear, heur !)--but you can of a few days, returned. A more re have no excuse for evading a question put spectful, a more quiet letter, or one in openly in this Court in the name of the which the expression of the agonizing Proprietors; and I call upon you here to feelings of a man convinced of his friend's do justice to one of your servants, who has innocence, and endeavouring to do his been most deeply injured ; if you do not, character justice, was more compressed your servants must conclude that there is could not be penned, could not be iinagin no protection for them-(Hear, hear 1) ed. The following answer was returned and the public must look upon you as the to this letter' on the 5th of February : instruments of calumniating a most honour
“East-India House, 5th Feb. 1824. able character.(Hcar, hoar!)-Infamy rests " Sir :-I am commanded by the Court on the Noble Marquess, or elsewhereof Directors of the East-India Company there is no way of getting rid of the dilemto acquaint you, that the Chairman has laid ma; and the man who hears another calum