of

very unprofitably, if he were to attempt to follow him in descanting on those merits and services, which he had so plainly and so emphatically pointed out: if he were even so inclined, he felt himself incompetent to the task; but, in truth, such an exertion was entirely unnecessary; however, in seconding the resolution which had been just read from the chair, he should beg leave to offer a very few observations. It was his lot to be opposed to Mr. Grant on a very important question, which had been already alluded to by his Hon. Friend near him. But, he certainly never rose to oppose that venerable Director on the question adverted to, without feeling most sensibly his own inferiority, and acknowledging the great power and ability of his opponent: such were his sentiments, and he must frankly state them. Mr. Grant was a man of whom it might justly be said, that the more one knew of him the more he admired him. During his (Mr. Grant's) residence in India, he did not see so much Mr. Grant as he afterwards did; but he had always, both in and out of Parliament, expressed his high admiration of his talents and eloquence, on every occasion when he offered himself to the notice of the House of Commons, or of that Court. It might be observed, that he had an op portunity, subsequently, of forming a more clear idea of him and of his conduct than he originally had. He had had opportunities of conversing with him within the very walls of that Court; and he must say that, on all occasions, he was most accessible, and most ready to pay attention to every observation he (Sir Charles) had to offer, on questions either of a public or of a private nature. Though his expectations might be disappointed, he certainly never left Mr. Grant with a dissatisfied feeling; he was, without exception, the most sincere, candid, downright man he ever met with. He would not utter expressions of favourable intentions on any subject if he did not really mean them. If his opinion were favourable to a case, he would frankly avow it; and he would, at the same time, state those objections that might arise to it in the course of discussion on such occasions, he always did more than he promised. No man, he believed, could say, that Mr. Grant had disappointed him in any thing which he had ever promised; he was, it was said, most rigidly severe in enforcing the due performance of all duties; it was, however, a just degree of severity he exercised; he wished to reward every man according to his merits, and therefore he encouraged the zealous and active; but those of a contrary disposition found no favour with him. That was the principle on which he acted; and, though it called down on him, on some occasions, the im

putation of severity, yet no man had in reality a more feeling heart than he possessed, and no man felt more acutely than he did when he was obliged to have recourse to severity. He (Sir Charles) had opportunities of witnessing Mr. Grant's most feeling and benevolent disposition; not in regard to ordinary charitable contributions, but with reference to the distribution of his patronage: that circumstance was, he believed, well known and understood the knowledge of the fact was not confined to him; he could appeal to the widows and orphans, who had benefited by Mr. Grant's benevolent disposition. He was afraid there were many whe

chat moment most severely felt his loss; some he was sure there were to whom Mr. Grant's promise had been pledged. Upon the whole he would say, that in every point of view, Mr. Grant was a most excellent man. To repeat the sentiment, though not the words of his Hon. Friend, he firmly believed him to have been

"An honest man-the noblest work of God."

Mr. Elphinstone said he felt himself called on to say, that he could not but consider this as a very invidious and injudicious motion. Let them look to the inconvenience which would unavoidably be created if this proposition were carried. If it were adopted, he would ask, how many more motions of the same nature were they likely to have brought before them?-( Hear!) If their predecessors, who appeared to be wiser in this respect than those who were favourable to the motion, had acted upon the principle now contended for, they should, at the present day, have every church within twenty miles of London filled with mural monuments, erected to the memory of deceased Directors.(Hear!) This Company had existed above a hundred years, and during that period it was only natural to suppose that there had been a series of able, intelligent, and upright servants; yet there were no statues-no monuments erected to perpetuate the talents and virtues of any of those gentlemen. Their predecessors, he was afraid, were wiser on this point than they seemed to be, for their predecessors saw clearly the inconvenience they would bring on themselves if they once began raising monuments; and, like prudent men, they abstained from such an unnecessary proceeding. He had sat in the Court of Directors, by the favour of the Proprietors, for thirty-six years; he had in that time seen many able and honourable servants, as well as his deceased friend, and he could not consent that such a distinction should be made in his case alone. Let the Court consider whether it was not casting a reflection on

themselves;-whether it was not leaving them open to the imputation of having neglected the merits of many excellent servants? It had always been considered a very great honour to receive a vote of thanks from that Court; and that honour was never bestowed except for some special service: but the Hon. mover founded his proposition on a series of general service, not on any one substantive act. First, he adverted to the favourable opinion which Marquess Cornwallis entertained of Mr. Grant. He was, doubtless, a most honourable nobleman; but was his favourable opinion any reason for coming to such a vote as was now called for? They were told, that he always spoke of "honest Charles Grant." Was honesty, then, so very uncommon a thing, that it was to be made the foundation of a motion like the present? (Hear!) He believed the designation of "honest" was most justly due to every member of the Court of Directors (Hear!) Indeed, they had a right to believe that all men were honest until they were convinced of the contrary: No ground whatever had been advanced in this instance, which should induce them to erect a monument. Special services, and those of the highest order, ought alone to command such a mark of distinction. Let the Court reflect on the principle by which they had been heretofore guided in decreeing this extraordinary honour. By whose statues were they surrounded in that Court? They saw the statues of Lord Clive, of General Lawrence, of Admiral Pococke: they were appropriately placed in that room. And why? because those whom they represented were the very men who had acquired, defended, and consolidated their Indian territories. There was also the statue of Lord Cornwallis, whose well-known merits, whose long and honourable services, warranted the proud distinction. And last, though not least, was the statue of Warren Hastings, which had been recently placed in that room. None could deny that the Company owed this tribute to the memory of Mr. Hastings. He had been placed in a situation the most arduous, the most difficult. He had been entrusted with power when the Company's best interests, nay, when their very existence was at stake. He had performed services, which, no more than his unmerited sufferings, could ever be forgot ten. He richly deserved the honour which had been conferred on his memory. Now where, he would ask, was the comparison between the labours of an East-India Director and the exertions of any of these great men? Where was the comparison to be found? Where could it be drawn? He, for his own part, knew not. In the instances he had quoted, the claim to this high honour rested invariably on some

special service. But where were they to seek for the special service of his honourable friend deceased? He hoped the Hon. Proprietor who brought forward the motion would again turn the subject in his mind; he would then perceive that an East-India Director never could, in that capacity, perform special service; he was but one of a co-equal and coordinate body, all directing their efforts to the same end. It was true that some might put their shoulder to the wheel with greater force than others: but still it was a joint exertion—all were aiding in giving motion to the machine.-(Hear!) Now no man, not even the Hon. Proprietor who had brought forward the motion, could possibly entertain a greater regard or esteem for Mr. Grant than he did. It was true their opinions differed on some questions: but that was no reason for withholding from him that honest respeet, which the whole tenor of his life deserved. He could not, however, support this motion merely because he esteemed Mr. Grant: private feeling was not a fit basis for such a proceeding as this. He should oppose the proposition to the utmost of his power; because he viewed it as most unwise, inconsiderate, invidious, and injudicious. It would, if carried, give rise to a great deal of trouble and inconvenience, and would be the means of creating much unpleasant discussion in that Court. Gentlemen might hereafter, if the motion were successful, be placed in a most painful and invidious situation. He knew that he ran the risk of being blamed for expressing those sentiments; but he could look censure boldly in the face, when he felt that he was discharging a conscientious duty. He would not yield to any man in regard for Mr. Grant-but he could not bring himself to vote for this motion, when he knew that the services of others, in no wise inferior to those performed by that gentleman, had been suffered to pass unnoticed. At that very moment he saw sitting in the Court an older Director than Mr. Grant was; and he also observed another, who might almost be said to have done special service. Now, if they voted this statue or monument to Mr. Grant, they could not, in conscience, refuse the same honour to those individuals.

Mr. S. Dixon." Some time hence, I hope."-(Order! Order!)

Mr. Elphinstone continued.-He did not wish to part with any of his friendsfor very good reasons. Perhaps he himself might be the first to quit the scene. However, so long as he remained, he would perform his duty in the best manner he could. For the Hon. Gentleman, who brought forward the motion he had a very great respect, but he felt the utmost repugnance to his proposition, and he

earnestly requested him to drop it. Let him consider the inconvenience which might flow from it hereafter. If he did, perhaps he would be inclined to give it up; if not, the Court ought to reject it, and he for one would meet it with his nega tive. The object which the Hon. Mover had in view, might be effected just as well without at all committing the Company. In the same newspaper which contained the requisition, he saw an advertisement from the first lawyers in the country, calling a meeting to consider of a measure very similar to that which now engaged their attention. He wished that the friends of Mr. Grant had been called together in the same manner.(Hear!) The meeting to which he alluded had been convened to consider of the propriety of erecting a monument to the memory of the late Lord Erskine-a name which would be dear to Englishmen so long as the love of national liberty existed in this country. At that meeting all the friends and admirers of Lord Erskine were invited to attend, and it was in their power to propose any motion they might deem proper. The country might have been called upon to raise a monument in honour of that Noble Lord, but his friends voluntarily imposed that duty on themselves. Why did not the gentlemen with whom the present proposition originated, call together the friends of Mr. Grant?-(Hear!) Had such a meeting been convened, as good a monument would have been raised as any that could be voted by the Court. By taking that course, they would have done more in honour of Mr. Grant, than by calling on that Court for an application of the Company's funds: because, although he admitted that the Court was numerously and respectably attended, yet he must observe that the Proprietors present, who were called on to decide for the whole body, did not constitute a tenth, nay, he might more correctly say, not a hundredth part of this great Company. Would gentlemen, then, without bringing for ward some special service, without stating some strong ground that would satisfy the absent Proprietors, call on the present Court to bind the entire Company by a comparatively small number of votes? Those who introduced, and who supported the motion, ought to state some special service, that would satisfy all parties; it was incumbent on them to do so. He would not detain the Court longer. He was not, he never had been, a public speaker; if he were, he would have said a great deal more against the motion than the Hon. Mover had advanced in favour of it-much as he had said, and well as he had said it. He now called upon the Court to weigh this proposition well-to view it in all its bearings-and then to decide whether it was not calculated to

produce very great inconvenience (to use the mildest term) at a future period?(Hear!) If it were, they ought certainly to reject it.

Mr. Hume said he was glad the Hon. Director had preceded him in the debate, since he had rendered it unnecessary for him to make some of the observations which he had intended to offer to the Court. He could assure his Hon. Friends that, in the course of the remarks which might fall from him, he was exceedingly anxious not to use a single expression derogating from that respect which they wished to pay to the character of the late Mr. Grant, or which could, in the smallest degree, hurt the feelings of any individual; but as a member of that Court, he had a much wider range of circumstances to consider, than the gentlemen who brought forward the motion seemed to be aware of. In the discharge of his duty, he could not overlook matters of general importance, for the mere purpose of voting a mark of respect to any individual, however highly he might regard him; if, in doing so, he deviated from established practice. And here he must say, that his Hon. Friends had not given sufficient weight to that particular point, namely, what the usual practice had been; a circumstance which ought never to be overlooked in great public bodies. It was incumbent on that Court, as the Hon. Director had stated, to examine what the practice was during the last century, on similar occasions. When they turned to their records, and found not a single instance where an honour of this kind was conferred on a Director, it was the duty of those who supported the present motion, to lay before the Court, in a clear and intelligible form, the specific grounds that ought to induce the proprietors to trench upon long-established practice. It was a well-known maxim of great bodies of this kind, and had been enforced over and over again by gentlemen in that Court, that they ought not hastily or unadvisedly to innovate when things were going on well. They ought to consider maturely, not only what the immediate effect of the innovation now proposed might be, but they ought also to consider it with reference to all subsequent motions of a similar nature, for which it might furnish a precedent. It was equally beneficial to the interests of the public and to those of the Company (for he considered their interests to be united), that the duties of every Director should be properly performed. It was to be presumed, that they were so performed by all those who were honoured with a seat in the direction; when, therefore, an unusual mark of respect was claimed on behalf of one of that body, it was fitting that some special reason should be assigned for it. In bringing forward a motion of this kind, in

asserting aught about the character of any person such as the late Mr. Grant, for the purpose of inducing the Court to accede to the proposition, care ought to be taken not to state more than what the conduct of the individual would fully verify. He thought it was as improper, in a public point of view, to exaggerate a man's praise, as it was to endeavour by unjust censure to detract from his merits. The gentlemen who brought this motion before the Court, attempted to innovate and to break through a rule which had been long observed; and he would shew that the Hon. Mover, who wished to establish this precedent, had altogether mistaken the nature of the claims which the late Director had on that Court. Whenever posthumous honours were bestowed on any member of a corporate body or community, if those honours were granted at the expense of others; if the individual selected were lifted above his proper level, it became an act of injustice. It was not merely an act of injustice to the deceased, it was unjust also to the living. Now, if he proved to the Court, that they were about to bestow on the late Mr. Grant honours which none of his predecessors, though equal to him in talent and integrity, had ever received; if he shewed that no sufficient grounds were substantiated for so novel a proceeding; then, he thought, he had a right to demand of the Court, if not the total rejection of the motion, at least, that they would take a little time to consider the subject before they established a precedent of this nature. The Hon. Director had most properly confined himself to certain general remarks, and he trusted they would have all the weight which their importance deserved. He was sure, that those who reflected on the situation in which that Court would be placed, if the resolution were passed this day; who considered the inconvenience which would arise from the efforts of persons attempting to secure similar honours for their friends, according as their influence prevailed amongst the Directors; would at once perceive that it was impolitic and injudicious. The Hon. Director had, if any thing, under-rated the danger which might be apprehended from the success of this motion, which he (Mr. Hume) earnestly entreated them not to sanction. If a meeting of proprietors had been previously called, to consider the expediency and propriety of having such a proposition brought forward formally in that Court,

as

was often done, they should have escaped those unpleasant feelings, which must be experienced, on the one hand, by individuals whose object might be thwarted; and, on the other, by those who were obliged, in the discharge of a public duty, to make remarks and observations which they would willingly have avoided. Asiatic Journ.-No. 97.

It

was now for the Court to consider, since, unfortunately, the subject was introduced to their notice, whether any and what distinct grounds could be laid in support of this claim; it being always borne in mind, that an entire century had passed, and no such honour had been granted during that time to any Director. He must contend, however, great as the merits of Mr. Grant might be (and he believed that gentleman had performed his duty to the best of his ability, zealously and faithfully; he would give his friends the utmost benefit of that declaration, and they could ask no more), still he must contend, that there was nothing in his case which called for a peculiar distinction. If they conceded this honour to one, would it not stamp all those to whom the like honour was denied, as inferior, and not worthy of such a mark of respect? That was the principle he, in the first instance, wished to impress on the Court; and he would now proceed to show, that the grounds for this motion were wholly untenable. If they must object to the proposition, unless strong grounds were advanced in its favour, and if he proved that no such grounds existed, then he thought the Court ought to reject a motion, which, if carried, would form a most dangerous precedent. He had noted very par.. ticularly the various grounds on which his Hon. Friend supported his motion, and he would examine them in detail.The first was, the personal esteem which Lord Cornwallis manifested towards Mr. Grant; surely his Hon. Friend could not expect, because Mr. Grant was well considered and highly valued by Lord Cornwallis, that they should admit that circumstance as any ground for erecting a monument. If that were to be allowed, he had only to turn over the pages containing the names of those who had served them in India, and he could point out, not one, but fifty gentlemen, who had received more high commendation than Mr. Grant ever received there, for the services which they had rendered both to the Company and the country, whose interests he conceived to be inseparable. Not one of those numerous commendations had, however, been brought forward, on any occasion, as a reason for erecting a monument to the individual on whom it had been bestowed. The next point related to the shipping question:now, his Hon. Friend had altogether misrepresented (not, he was sure, intentionally) the proceedings which took place with respect to the shipping affairs of the Company; and he proves that the Court of Directors never thought Mr. Grant was entitled to any special notice for his conduct on that occasion. The persons who chiefly exerted themselves, were particularly pointed out by the votes VOL. XVII. K

of thanks in that Court; they were specially named, while Mr. Grant was not mentioned; his exertions did not appear to the general body to call for even a vote of thanks, much less to deserve a monument. (Hear!) His Hon. Friend appeared to have forgotten the history of the reform in the shipping department; he seemed to think that Mr. Grant was the

person who, in 1794, brought about that important and beneficial change, for important and beneficial he admitted that it was; but his Hon. Friend would see, by papers on their table, that, had the alteration taken place when it was first propcsed, a saving of 10,200,000l. would have been effected in freight alone, between that period and the year 1790. Now, if those proceedings took place without the late Mr. Grant's having any thing to do with them, his friends certainly had no right to come forward, and refer to them as a ground for agreeing to the proposed honour on that head he had no claim what

ever.

The shipping concerns of the Company first excited attention in 1773; an inquiry took place before a secret com mittee, at the instance of Mr. Dundas, and great abuses were found to exist. In 1781, such was the combination and co-operation amongst the ship-owners, that the Company were compelled to give whatever freight they were pleased to demand, and the attention of Parliament was again called to the subject. In 1786, an Hon. Proprietor, Mr. Anthony Brough, who, he believed, was still living, demonstrated that an immense saving might be made in their freightage if the combination were resisted, and he offered to supply all the shipping they might require, at one-half or one-third of the rate they were then paying. They might deem the alteration to have commenced from that period. In 1790, the calculation of what might have been saved in freight, to which he had alluded, was laid on their table; it was the work of an Hon. Member, now no more, the late Sir David Scott; he had directed Iris attention particularly to the subject, and he obtained a very poor return for his labours. In 1791, his learned friend, Mr. Randle Jackson, submitted a motion to that Court, which was the first effectual attempt to keep down the demands of the shipping interest; his learned friend moved for the printing of all the shipping transactions of the Company. He succeeded in his object, and the papers which were printed disclosed to the public a scene of unparalleled extravagance. did not mean to cast any blame on the ship-owners; they had a right to retain their monopoly as long as they could and to make as much of it as possible; but he could not avoid censuring the Directors for submitting to it so long. Mr. Randle Jackson having had the papers printed, the

He

attention of the Company was necessarily directed to a thorough reform of the shipping system; and he contended, that the success of his learned friend's motion was the commencement of that reform, on account of which they were called on to erect a monument to the memory of the deceased Director. In 1792, Mr. Fyatt moved, and Mr. R. Jackson seconded a resolution, condemnatory of the mode in which the shipping affairs of the Company were conducted; and it was surprising, considering the then state of the Court, that it was carried. In 1793, Mr. Dundas, then President of the Board of Controul, sent down a report to the Court of Directors, recommending to their consideration a reform in the shipping system of the Company. A resolution was subsequently moved in that Court, setting forth" that "it is expedient for the Court of Direc"tors to engage, in future, as well for the "building as for the hiring of ships by "public contract." This was lost at that time; but in a few months afterwards the same motion was made and carried; so that, long before Mr. Grant entered the Court of Directors, the reformed system had been fairly established. On the fourth of May 1793, that resolution was passed, and Mr. Grant did not become a Director until 1794. He was willing to admit, that Mr. Grant's progress, in obtaining the direction, was much quicker than was usually the case; but then it should be observed that there was not then so much intrigue, so much party work, as there was at present. (Hear! hear!) Parties did not then unite to keep one man in the direction and another man out of it. (Hear! hear!) Still, however, he believed that individuals had since come in with as little trouble as Mr. Grant, therefore this formed no ground for any particular mark of distinction. To return, however, to the shipping question: it was clear that, at the time when it was recently discussed, and of course best understood, Mr. Grant was not considered as entitled to the merit of the reform it would be found, on reference to their records, that on the 10th of March 1796, Lord Kinnaird, the father of his Hon. Friend (the Hon. D. Kinnaird), who took a warmer interest in their proceedings than his Hon. Friend (who, be hoped, would be more active in future) was accustomed to do, moved the thanks of that Court to Mr. John Fyatt, Mr. Randle Jackson, and Mr. Thomas Henchman, "for their anxious zeal and perseverance, in "promoting a plan, which was of so much "benefit to the interests of the Company." He had already stated what was done before Mr. Grant entered the direction; and, two years after that event, this resolution of thanks was passed, and yet Mr. Grant was not mentioned in it; two names only, those of Mr. Fyatt and Mr. Jackson, were