Page images
PDF
EPUB

Hon. Director (Mr. Elphinstone); but I think the questions which he has answered were not those which were asked."

Sir John Doyle." If by accident the Hon. Chairman has misconceived me, I hope he will allow me to set him right. So far from putting those questions to him as Chairman er officio, I did not allude to, much less employ that or any similar term. It was in his individual capacity as a Director, and not as Chairman of the Court of Directors, that I asked him for an answer to my questions. I explicitly gave my reason for putting those questions to him as a Director; that reason was, because he must, from his official character, have cognizance of every subject which came under the consideration of the Court of Directors, and was, therefore, the 'person above all others most likely to be possessed of the necessary information. I would not be so unreasonable as to ask him to answer questions in his capacity of Chairman. He will be good enough, also, to recollect that I did not call for an opinion; I requested information on a mere matter of fact. The question was simple as if I had asked a man, Were you in Hyde Park yesterday?' and was just as easily answered. In asking the question, and in enforcing the propriety of an answer, I hope I did nothing unworthy of my character, or inconsistent with the respect which is due to the Court." (Hear, hear!)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Chairman. "The Hon. Baronet says that, he put those questions to me as an individual Director. Now, I beg leave to say, that he has no right to put questions to me individually. I sit here as Chairman, and whatever I state while I hold the situation, is in my capacity of Chairman of the Court of Directors, and not as an individual Director."

Mr. Lowndes rose amidst cries of "order." The Hon. Proprietor, exclaimed," Mr. Chairman, I insist on my right to address the Court. Has a fraud been committed? (Order.) I attended this meeting in consequence of seeing in the papers that there had been an embezzlement of £300,000. I am a great Proprietor, a very great Proprietor of EastIndia Stock, and I have a right to ask whether a fraud has been committed? (Order.) If it has not been committed, I wish to have the statement contradicted." (Order.)

Mr. Trant rose; but gave way to Mr. Pattison, who said, "I was going to speak to order, to prevent the time of the Proprietors being unnecessarily taken up. From what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet, and from what has been stated by the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Kinnaird), it appears that the whole Court of Directors might be implicated in the conduct of the Chairman; I beg leave, for one, to

say that I am no party to his silence on this occasion." (Loud cries of hear!) The Deputy Chairman (Wm. Astell, Esq.). "What has occurred in the course of this day requires a few words from me. It is quite evident, from the circumstances which have taken place, that departure from ordinary and usual practice is extremely inconvenient. Not only has a question been irregularly put, but an answer has been given to it; and the consequence of the whole proceeding has been, a debate, carried on amidst confusion and disorder, and nothing else. (No, no!) Mr. Pattison says, "I am no party to the silence of the Chairinan." That Hon. Director may have his own view of the case, which doubtless he will disclose at a proper opportunity: but I must contend that the Hon. Chairman could take no other course than that which he has adopted, for he was called on as Chairman to answer those questions. (No, no!) The Hon. Baronet (Sir John Doyle) says 'no; I addressed him as an individual Director.' If so, with all respect to that Hon. Baronet, I must beg to ask what right he has to call on my Hon. Friend, or any other Director, for an individual opinion; and certainly these questions relate to matter of opinion, not of fact. The most convenient practice is that which the Hon. Chairman has adopted. He remained silent, as the Court of Directors could not have authorized him to answer questions, which it was only now for the first time known to him and to the Court that it was intended by the Hon. Baronet to put. What my Hon. Friend

on the right (Mr. Elphinstone) has said, is no answer to them. (Hear, hear!) One question is such, as to render it impossible for any man, or set of men, to an

swer.

The Hon. Baronet had spoken of matter of fact; but when it was asked "Is an impeachment contemplated ?" who could answer so vague an interrogatory? Who could speak to the intention of any person or persons, or to what may have influenced their conduct in past transactions? In this state of difficulty, it is our business to adhere to the usual practice of the Court, and to pursue that particular purpose for which we are summoned." (Hear, hear!)

Mr.Pattison again rose." I mean (said the Hon. Director) to state, as an honest, straight-forward man, my opinion on this subject. I consider the question put to the Chairman to be as direct, as simple, and as easy as any of these-does the sun shine? is this a man? is that a stool? is this a desk? (Hear!) These are positive questions, capable of being answered,

[ocr errors]

Yes' or No,'-the opinion of the Court was not asked. Now, let us examine a little those questions, the answer to which by the Hon. Director near him the Hon. Deputy Chairman has endea

voured to invalidate. The questions are these:-First, Whether any embezzlement or deficit by the Marquess of Hastings, of £300,000, or any other sum, has been discovered by the Court of Directors?' On this question I shall take the liberty of commenting a little. The question is, whether any embezzlement or deficit has been discovered?' Observe, gentlemen, the strength of this word embezzlement.' It means, the taking of money dishonestly from the public purse, and putting it into your own pocket. If there has been no embezzlement, the querist next asks, whether there has been discovered by the Court of Directors a deficit to the amount of £300,000, or of any other sum, even down to a rupee, if you please, which the Marquess of Hastings has appropriated to his own use? I as a Director, taking the responsibility of the answer on myself, say, No' to the whole of this question.-(Cheers.)

I

And here I must say, that if I were in the situation of the Hon. Baronet who brought forward these questions, I should desire to have the answer, not individually, but collectively. (Hear, hear!) If I could not get it collectively, I should not be satisfied. would have the collective sense of the Court of Directors on this point-whether the Marquess of Hastings had, or had not, robbed us? Such is the plain question, stripped of all ambiguity, and to that question I answer distinctly and explicity 'No'-(Cheers). Would to God the Hon. Chairman had overcome his deep sense of the value and importance of form, and had in the same distinct manner answered No.'-(Hear, hear!) It is not the question whether the Marquess of Hastings has or has not committed mistakes, or innocently fallen into errors. It is not the question whether he has or has not added millions to our revenues-or whether his career entitles him to be placed on an equality with the most distinguished of our Governors-General? The simple question resolves itself into this-is the Marquess of Hastings a thief and a pickpocket?(Hear, hear!) Shall we, gentlemen, after having witnessed, and being so largely benefited by the achievements of the noble Marquess, go away from this Court with a doubt on our minds whether he is or is not-a thief-a pilferer?(Hear, hear!) Shall we depart from this place with the most remote idea of the dishonesty of such a character ?—(Hear, hear!)-No: let the calumny be boldly met, and promptly refuted.—(Hear, hear!) The second question is, 'whether the Court of Directors in consequence of such discovery, had already negatived a grant to the Marquess of Hastings of £5,000 per annum.' Leaving the words 'in consequence' out of the question, it is the truth that the Court of Directors have negatived

the grant; but when you insert in consequence of this discovery,' the mind naturally reverts to the reason on which the negative is said to have been founded-and what is it? why because the Marquess of Hastings has robbed you to so large an extent, that he deserves nothing at the hands of the Company but reprobation. This is, gentlemen, the fair inference to be drawn from these two paragraphs. Then I would distinctly say, in the same decisive tone that I used before, if asked, 'have the Court of Directors, in consequence of such discovery, already negatived a grant to the Marquess of Hastings of £5,000 per annum ?'— No! they have not!-( Hear, hear!) The third question is, Whether the Court of Directors in consequence of such discovery-here comes the in consequence again-it is the burden of the song, the tol-de-rol-lol of the chorus-(a laugh)— whether the Court of Directors, in consequence of such discovery, had any purpose of procuring the impeachment of the Marquess of Hastings?' Now, if I had the honour of sitting in the chair of this Court, and this question was put to me, I should immediately say that such a proceeding was never mentioned-that such a thing never was in contemplation—(Hear, hear!)-that an impeachment was just as much thought of by the Court of Directors, as a visit from the comet which is now wandering about—(Cheers)—the subject was never hinted at-was never glanced at-was never inuendoed at—(Hear, hear!) The last, said Mr. Pattison, is a new verb--I believe it was never used before; but I am glad to have coined an apt, though extraordinary word, to meet such an extraordinary occasion-(Hear! and laughter.)-I repeat, that an impeachment never was inuendoed-at-I would therefore, to this question also distinctly say, • No!'-(Cheers). Such is the answer which, as an honest man, I am bound in honour and in justice to give to those. questions (Hear, hear!) From long and intimate knowledge I am perfectly convinced of the high character, of the entire honour and integrity of the gentleman who fills the chair;-(Hear, hear!) but I must be permitted to say, that I think he labours on this occasion under a mistaken sense of his duty."-(Cheers.)

Mr. Lowndes-" Whether there is or is not a defalcation?" (Order, order.)

Mr. Trant-" As several gentlemen on this side of the bar have been allowed to give their opinion on this subject, I will take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, of stating mine. The gentlemen who have spoken came to this decision, that the Chairman ought to have answered the questions that had been put to him. Now I think, most conscientiously, that he did right, under all the circumstances, in declining to answer. (Hear!) I trust I shall be

allowed to say a very few words in defence of my opinion. My Hon. Friend who propounded those questions says that he put them to the gentleman sitting in the chair merely as an individual, and not as Chair. man: I, however, cannot allow the correctness of this distinction. I think that, sitting at the head of those by whom he is surrounded, clothed as he is with particular authority, he can only be addressed as Chairman, he cannot be appealed to in his individual capacity. I know it may be said that it is the practice of the House of Commons to permit questions to be asked, which questions are generally answered; but there is a wide distinction between the situation of individuals here and there. The Secretary of State is completely master of his own particular business; it is a matter of discretion with him whether he will give or withhold an answer: he is accountable to no one. But this is not the case with the Chairman of the Court of Directors; and I must say, that if the Chairman were obliged to answer all questions put to him on a sudden, without the possibility of consulting with his colleagues, very great inconvenience would arise from the practice. I admit that the propounder of these questions, or any other member of this Court, has a right to make inquiries tending to maintain the honour of those who have served us, and who have served us well; but, when I reflect on the questions now before the Court, as they have been asked, and as they have been discussed, I would, if sitting in the chair, have demanded time to consider them. It would undoubtedly be well, if those allegations were unfounded, that they should be met with a denial; and it would cer tainly have been inconvenient to have waited for that denial until the next Ge. neral Court. But the Hon. Proprietor might have avoided that difficulty by cal ling a Special General Court at an early day.

The Hon. D. Kinnaird." I beg to congratulate the Hon. Proprietor who has just sat down on the opinion which he has been pleased to express; and I hope that he will not abate the active canvass for a seat in the direction in which he is at present engaged. How much must he conciliate the favourable feelings of his constituents, when he tells them, that, should some future Governor-General-some great public officer who had served the Company effectually-be publicly accused on his return from India of fraud and robbery, he, as future Chairman, if called on to state whether there was any truth in the charge, whether any proceedings had been instituted against that officer, would wrap hiin. self up in all the dignity of form, in all the mystery of silence, and refuse to give his important testimony to the innocence of the accused party.(Hear, hear !) I Asiatic Journ.-No. 99.

have no doubt of the many cordial shakes of the hand which the Hon. Proprietor will receive, and which he will cheerfully return, amongst those who participate in his pure feelings and gentle sympathies ; (A laugh)-feelings and sympathies which will, I suppose, be considered in some quarters as a very high recommendation. But, let me turn from the Hon. Proprietor's speech to matter more important. I wish to ask of the Proprietors, whether any doubt can remain on their minds as to the questions having been answered, after the specific monosyllabic replies of the Hon. Director (Mr. Pattison), who had answered distinctly and emphatically to the three questions, No! No! No!' I ask this, because I understood the Hon. Chairman to have made this extraordinary remark, namely, that the Hon. Director near him (Mr. Elphinstone) had not replied to the questions which were put to him by Sir John Doyle. I now take it as granted, that those questions have been positively answered; and I should wish to ask of the Hon. Chairman, whether he must not now completely coincide in the fact, that plain and distinct answers have been given by the Hon. Director (Mr. Pattison)?"

[ocr errors]

Mr. Trant rose to explain.

As

Mr. Lowndes insisted on his right to address the Court "With respect to the efforts of the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Trant) to get into the direction, I can safely say that he has been no sycophant to me. I have three votes, and he has not asked me for my interest.--(Order, order !) other gentlemen have spoken, I hope I also will be allowed to speak,-(Order !) So much opposition is manifested towards me, that I am almost afraid you intend to impeach me-(Laughter)—that there is some great charge hanging over my head. -(Laughter.) I am sometimes accused of wandering from the question-but I will stick to it on this occasion. For the honour of the Proprietors, it is fit that the dark cloud which hangs over the Company should disappear. An attack has been made on this noble Marquess, whose high-minded and honourable character is totally inconsistent with the commission of that pitiful fraud of which he is accused.—(Hear, hear !) You never knew a high-minded man to be guilty of fraud. I saw this attack to-day; but, as it did not contain any name, I was ignorant of the person to whom it referred. This case appears to me to be like that of Lord Melville. If any fraud has been committed, it must be by one of the Company's clerks, or inferior officers; I am certain that the Marquess himself is guiltless of it. The noble Marquess comes from a country, where, I must say, though they are ready enough to meet their friends with a case of pistols, yet their high-minded notions of VOL. XVII. 2 S

character are wholly inconsistent with paltry fraud. (Hear!) Fraud is only to be found amongst those grovelling characters that dare not look a man boldly in the face. I hope this charge, which seems to be without foundation, will pass away like a light cloud on a summer's day, never to be seen again. I ask, has there been-I don't say fraud-but any error discovered? Because, in mercantile matters errors excepted' was a very common phrase. It is highly necessary to know that fact; and I think silence might have been preserved on the subject, until it was ascertained whether any fraud had been actually committed."

Mr. Trant again rose to explain.

Mr. Lowndes interrupted him: "Gentlemen, this is the third time the Hon. Proprietor has addressed the Court. This is the third time of asking. (Laughter.) If any of you know any just cause or impediment why the Hon. Proprietor should not make a speech, let him state it." (Laughter.)

Mr. Trant. As the Hon. Gent. opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) has chosen to be so personal as to allude to me, in a character never, I believe, before heard of in this Court, I wish to say a very few words in answer. The Hon. Proprietor has censured me for delivering my sentiments; but I must say that I do not, in the slightest degree, regret any expression that has fallen from me. There is not a man in this Court, not even the Hon. Proprietor himself, who is more anxious than I am to give a fair, honest, and conscientious opinion; and such an opinion I gave on this occasion. When I stated that I meant to become a candidate for the direction, some of my friends told me- -(Loud cries of order) I will conclude by saying, that I thought it my duty, inconsiderable as my powers are, to state my view of the conduct of the Chairman on this occasion."

Mr. Loundes again started up and said, "Bless me, what is the necessity for all this? We have nothing to do with these two gentlemen's differences!

Strange that such difference should be 'Twist Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.'"

(Loud laughing.)

The Hon. D.Kinnaird.-"Certainly the difference between the speech of the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Trant) and his explanation is very much like that between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. I know not which of the Tweedles the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Lowndes) assigns to me; but I shall be quite content to take the dee, if the Hon. Proprietor will be good enough to act the dum for a short time. (Laughter.) Having stated that the Hon. Director (Mr. Elphinstone) coincides completely in the negative given to those questions by another Hon. Director (Mr.. Pattison), I

feel it unnecessary to ask from the Chairman any explanation of what he meant, when, as I thought, he stated that the first-mentioned Hon. Director had not answered the questions. I shall now, Sir, allude to the speech of the Hon. Deputy Chairman. That Hon. Gent. said the Chairman had acted most properly in withholding an answer to the questions put to him; and he had farther observed, that it was very hard the Chairman should be asked to answer questions which were suddenly propounded to him. Now I ask, whether the communication between the Hon. Chairman and Deputy Chairman is of so extraordinary a kind, that, when the Chairman receives a letter, and returns an answer to it by the Secretary of the Company, that answer being that it is not expedient to investigate a given subject, the Deputy Chairman is so much unaequainted with the fact, that when the matter is brought before this Court, he feels himself justified in saying that it is hastily and suddenly introduced? Now the fact is, that, so far back as the S0th of January, a letter was written to the Chairman by a respected friend of the Marquess, and a relative of the gallant General (Sir John Doyle), in which these questions were stated in almost the same terms that they were couched in to-day. The letter was as follows:

"Montague Square, Jan. 30th.

"Sir: I beg leave to call your attention to a paragraph which appeared in the Sunday Times of the 25th inst., a copy of which I enclose. You will perceive that it contains, in substance, a direct charge against Lord Hastings, of having embezzled £300,000 of the monies of the Honourable Company, or of having been party to an embezzlement by which a deficit to that amount has been incurred. It further states that, in consequence of such malversation, which had been recently discovered, the Court of Directors had negatived a proposed grant to him of a pension of £5,000 per annum; and, finally, that it is in the contemplation of that body to effect his impeachment.

"The general slanders of an anonymous libeller it may be well to treat with contempt; but a particular charge, deeply affecting the public character of an individual, however distinguished, must be specifically repelled. Under this impression, I have the honour of addressing myself to you, as Chairman of the Court of Directors, in the full confidence that you will enable me at once to give that distinct and authoritative contradiction to these falsehoods, which the form they have assumed demands, and which it is so important to the honour of the Noble Lord should no longer be delayed. With this view, as every question that arises in the Court of Directors must be officially known to

you in your capacity of Chairman, I have to request that you would be good enough to give me answers to the following queries:

"1st. Whether the Court of Directors have made any discovery, or have received any information, or have reason to suspect that the Marquess of Hastings has embezzled, or been party or privy to the embezzlement of any monies, or to the creation of any deficit, to the amount of £300,000, or of any other sum?

"2d. Whether the Court of Directors have threatened, or intend to impeach the Marquess of Hastings for embezzlement, or for any supposed deficit of money or otherwise?

"3d. Whether the Court of Directors have, in consequence of any such supposed embezzlement or deficit, already negatived a motion to grant a pension of £5,000 per annum to the Marquess of Hastings?

"I am persuaded that your own high sense of what is due to the honour and character of a public man, will sufficiently account to you for the anxiety of the Noble Lord's friends to lose no time in vindicating him from these foul charges, which have already obtained extraordinary circulation, and be my apology, at the same time, for pressing the subject upon you as a matter of immediate importance; and as it is by you alone, from your offi. cial situation, that, without injurious delay, the means of effective contradiction can be furnished. In preferring, therefore, the above request, I feel assured that I shall be only meeting your desire of doing the earliest justice to the character of the Marquess of Hastings, which, in the paragraph in question, has been so wantonly assailed; and that I shall be favoured with an answer to the queries at your earliest convenience.I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant,

"FRANCIS HASTINGS DOYLE." "William Wigram, Esq., &c. &c. &c.”

To this very temperate letter, written by the nearest friend of the Marquess of Hastings; by a gentleman who was frequently in communication with his Majesty on the subject of the Noble Marquess's affairs, who was known to be the Marquess of Hastings's other self in this country, an answer was, in the course of a few days, returned. A more respectful, a more quiet letter, or one in which the expression of the agonizing feelings of a man convinced of his friend's innocence, and endeavouring to do his character justice, was more compressed could not be penned, could not be imagined. The following answer was returned to this letter on the 5th of February :

"East-India House, 5th Feb. 1824. "Sir:-I am commanded by the Court of Directors of the East-India Company to acquaint you, that the Chairman has laid

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

There is (observed Mr. Kinnaird) a minuteness in this part of the answer that is quite admirable! Every word is weighed with the most scrupulous caution! The whole is arranged in the most business-like manner! The letter proceeded thus:

"The Court deeply regret the attack which has been thus made upon the character of that distinguished nobleman; they cannot, however, but feel that it would be highly inexpedient for them to engage in any correspondence arising out of the vague charges of anonymous writers; and they are persuaded that you will yourself perceive, on a review of your letter, the inconvenience of putting to a collective body, and the impossibility of their answering, questions of the nature proposed by you. "I have the honour to be, &c.

"J. DART, Sec." "Col. Francis Hastings Doyle, &c."

The public (continued Mr. Kinnaird) will scarcely believe that such an answer was returned to such a letter. I pity the man from my heart, who, in his official situation, was obliged to sign a document like this; and who would be exposed to the belief that he was the writer of it. But I am really astonished when I hear the Hon. Deputy Chairman state, in the face of this correspondence, that these questions came, for the first time, unawares on the Hon. Chairman. (Hear, hear!) I will state to the Court the difference between a question put in the form of a letter and a question put here vivâ voce. I admit that you might, in the exercise of your public functions, refuse a proper answer to the letter of Colonel H. Doyleyou might deny his friend justice when requested in that form-you might disgrace yourselves by treating his application with indifference (Hear, hear !)—but you can have no excuse for evading a question put openly in this Court in the name of the Proprietors; and I call upon you here to do justice to one of your servants, who has been most deeply injured; if you do not, your servants must conclude that there is no protection for them-(Hear, hear !) and the public must look upon you as the instruments of calumniating a most honourable character. (Hear, hear!)—Infamy rests on the Noble Marquess, or elsewherethere is no way of getting rid of the dilemma; and the man who hears another calum

« PreviousContinue »