at first comprized in that resolution; the name of Mr. I'yatt was added in that Court. Now, if Mr. Grant had stood, with respect to this question, in the situation which had been described as entitling him to claim a special mark of respect and approbation, would not some person have moved, when a vote of thanks was proposed to other gentlemen," that the name of Mr. Grant, who had taken such an active part in bringing about the reform, should be added?" A name was added in that Court, the name of Mr. Fyatt: this circumstance was conclusive as to any claim of Mr. Grant with respect to the reform of the shipping department. He had shown that, prior to 1794, Mr. Grant had nothing to do with it; and when this resolution was passed, long after 1794, his name was not mentioned; there was here then no ground on which to found the present motion. He was at the same time willing to admit, that in the after proceedings and discussions which took place-for the ship-owners did not die easily-(a laugh) they fought to the very last (a laugh) — the late Mr. Grant was an able associate and ally of Sir David Scott. He undoubtedly deserved credit for his exertions, but he only deserved it in common with others; and, he would ask, whether so peculiar and destinctive a mark of respect, as that which was now called for, should be founded on exertions which were made by others as well as by Mr. Grant? The next point was the statement of his Hon. Friend, that when the Marquess Wellesley went out to India, Mr Grant was offered the situation of Member of Council, which he declined. Now he did not at all doubt the good opinion which Lord Melville entertained of Mr. Grant, and which led him to select that gentleman for the office; but, as they did not know the reasons which induced Mr. Grant to refuse the appointment, the mere circumstance of his refusal could not be received as a ground for acceding to this motion. Let his Hon. Friend state the motives by which he was actuated, and then they could judge what weight ought to be attached to the fact. The fourth ground on which the motion rested was the part Mr. Grant had taken in the discussions relative to the abuse of patronage; he believed he acted, on that occasion, as a sincere man; he certainly did his duty, but he did no more than his duty, in checking those corrupt abuses; but, he would ask, was Mr. Grant the first to move the business in that Court? No: an Hon. Director, who was now present, brought the matter forward; he persevered in his endeavours so long as it was necessary and no longer; he felt, that when the business was exposed, and the system was at an end, there was no necessity for carrying on a persecution against individuals, whose errors had

been sufficiently visited. Again, he would inquire whether Mr. Grant had set himself firmly against all those whose characters were implicated in this business? The answer was, that he had not. He (Mr. Hume) could name a Director at that period, who, when called on to answer, refused, on the ground that he was not obliged to criminate himself; and yet, at the next ballot, that individual was supported by Mr. Grant, who signed the House-list which contained his name; this was a most extraordinary fact, particularly when it was recollected that Mr. Grant had, in the House of Commons, inveighed, in the strongest terms, against those corrupt practices: he therefore contended, that, with respect to the question of patronage, no claim had been established. The next ground of approbation, he confessed, surprised him extremely; it was, that Mr. Grant had supported to the utmost of his power the formation of the College at Haileybury. He knew Mr. Grant had done so; but were there no persons in that Court acquainted with the motives which influenced his conduct? Who was the originator of a system of education in India? By whom was education first promoted and fostered there? Unquestionably by the Marquess Wellesley. And with what view was Haileybury College established? It was set up in opposition to the College at Fort William. (Hear! hear!) The fact was well known-it was set up decidedly and notoriously to put down the establishment in India, in consequence, it was alleged, of its expensiveness. He agreed with his Hon. Friend on the great benefits which flowed from education; he believed that the world received more good from education than from any other source; but here the question was, whether a necessity existed for this extensive establishment? Were they so por, so destitute of places for general education in this country, that it was necessary to institute a seminary for every species of learning? What did they want, more than a seminary in which their young servants could study Oriental literature? That College, the formation of which had been cited as giving Mr. Grant a claim on their gratitude, had long been a subject of discord: the opinions respecting it were balanced; and he believed and hoped that those against the College had greatly the preponderance. he admitted, as he had ever done, that a moral, pious, and virtuous education was necessary "to make the man;" he would ask his Hon. Friend whether he could place his hand upon his heart and say that, during the last years, morality, piety, and virtue had flourished at 1leybury College? (Hear! hear!) Fer his own part, he thought, that there was not, either

While

in the motive which gave rise to the establishment, or in the success which had attended it, any reason for agreeing to pay to Mr. Grant this singular tribute of respect. He would say nothing of that election, which had created so much evil, which had marred the prospects of that College, and in which Mr. Grant took a principal part; but he would maintain generally, that the formation of the College, allowing Mr. Grant to have exerted himself ever so much in the completion of that project, afforded no ground of support to this motion. The sixth ground which his Hon. Friend had adduced, scarcely deserved notice: it seemed, when application was made to Parliament on the part of the Company for relief, that Mr. Grant sustained the application with great energy and ability, and that Government ultimately complied with the requisition. He begged leave to ask, whether they meant to give the sole credit of this transaction to Mr. Grant? Whether it was intended to assert, that his influence with Government had insured the success of the Company, when the Legislature was pleased to concede this assistance? He must say, that the aid which they then received, ought not to have been entreated as a favour, but demanded as a right. (Hear! hear!) Had he been one of the persons to whom the application was confided, he would have shewn to the Government that the Company had a right to claim relief; he would have said, "We have exerted ourselves to raise the glory and extend the prosperity of Great Britain; the greatness of our efforts has impaired the finances of the Company, and therefore we demand assistance.' Was this a case in which the language of humility and of intreaty was to he used? He thought not. Mr. Grant was, he believed, at that time in the Deputy Chair; for it should be observed, that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman transacted all the business; if he had been a simple Director, he would, perhaps, have had no more to do with the matter than he (Mr. Hume) had. (A laugh.)__If not Chairman, Deputy Chairman, or Member of the Select Committee, his services would not have been called into requisition; if he were acting in any of these capacities, he merely did his duty; and, if he did not hold one of those official situations, he had nothing to do with the proceeding. The Company had a right to ask for relief, and Government granted no favour when they agreed to advance the assistance required. But, it was said, that Mr. Grant had ably supported the application in the House of Commons: was there any thing extraordinary in that? Would not any other Director, who happened to have a seat in Parliament, have pursued the same course? If it chanced,

that there were one or more Directors in the House of Commons, they would naturally take part in supporting or improving any measure which might be brought forward for the good of the Company. Mr. Grant had done so; but, in doing so, he had merely fulfilled his duty. Were there not many others who acted precisely in the same way? and were they, by awarding an honour to Mr. Grant alone, to declare to the world, that no one deserved it but him-that his colleagues were unworthy of such a mark of respect for such, virtually, though not in words, was the meaning of this resolution? The next ground which his Hon. Friend had put forward was the part which Mr. Grant had taken during the negociations for the renewal of the Company's Charter. He wished he could forget the time which was wasted in this Court on that occasion; he wished he could be persuaded to feel, that Mr. Grant was not the person who endeavoured to perpetuate a system which was actually prejudicial to the Company; he should be glad if he could hide from himself the fact, that Mr. Grant's opposition created much of the contention which took place between the Government and the Company. The Government was prepared to concede the China trade to the Company-and the only question was, "Are you, the Company, to retain a monopoly of the trade to the Presidencies of India-that trade which the Americans are taking from you-that trade which the voice of the people of England demands to have thrown open-and which the merchants of England can carry on to the benefit of themselves and of their country?" Mr. Grant was hostile to the proposed emancipation of the India trade and that was the only point of contention. It was his lot, on that occasion, to stand singly in that Court, opposed to the whole body of Directors and Proprietors. ( laugh.) He moved an amendment to the resolutions which were then proposed; and, full as the Court was, he felt himself extremely fortunate in getting a gentleman, who happened to be sitting by him, to second that amendment

such was the prejudice which then prevailed. He now called on the Proprietors to say whether what he had then prognosticated, or what Mr. Grant had then foretold, had taken place? He asked them whether India had been ruined by the opening of the trade, or whether the Company had suffered by that measure?consequences, which Mr. Grant had averred must inevitably follow, if the British merchant were allowed to proceed to India? No such thing: our trade had, on the contrary, greatly increased; whilst, on the other hand, one-half of the American trade was thrown out of the market.

and the whole benefit of this extended commerce was reaped by England alone. He could shew, beyond all manner of doubt, that it was Mr. Grant who raised that opposition to the opening of the trade, which produced so much unpleasant feeling between the Government and the Company. His Hon. Friend said, "Will you not award this mark of respect to one who took so prominent a part in these negociations?" He would ask, in reply, "What honour have you awarded to the late Sir Francis Baring? What monument hate you erected to the late Sir Hugh Inglis?" Was not the former thanked by that Court, for his exertions during the negociations for the Charter of 1793? and was not the latter also thanked for his conduct while the renewal of the last Charter was in progress? No monuments were erected to these gentlemen; and yet, he could tell his Hon. Friend, that the Court of Proprietors had so high an opinion of Sir Francis Baring, that they called on him to give his assistance in completing the arrangements connected with the Charter of 1793, although he was going out by rotation, and that assistance he cheerfully contributed. His Hon. Friend did not, perhaps, recollect a motion, nearly to the same effect, which be (Mr. Hume) had made in that Court; namely, that as Sir Hugh Inglis was intimately acquainted with all the proceedings which had taken place pending the renewal of the last Charter, the Company should avail themselves of his assistance and service until the arrangements were completed; that motion was carried, and the Company received the benefit of Sir Hugh Inglis's exertions. The conduct of these gentlemen, on those two occasions, was specially approved of; but no monument was required for them. Why should they then award a monument to Mr. Grant, when no specific ground or reason was adduced-when he had, in fact, done nothing more than these gentlemen? He did not mean to say that Mr. Grant was not a very honest man; but, if he agreed to his Hou. Friend's proposition, it would be declaring that he was the only honest man in the Court. (Hear!) That was the fair interpretation of his Hon. Friend's resolution. Why should he, sometimes agreeing with, and sometimes disagreeing from Mr. Grant, vote to him a monument for his whole series of services? He should not be an honest man if he refused monuments to the memories of all other Directors, could he be prevailed upon to vote in favour of the present motion. If this proposition were agreed to, on such grounds as his Hon. Friend had stated, he should call for a monument in honour of Sir Francis Baring and Sir H. Inglis. A proposition of that kind would, however,

be distinguished by this extraordinary difference, from the present: namely, that they had recorded votes of approbation of the conduct of those two gentlemen, whereas in the case of Mr. Grant they had no such recorded vote of approbation, he having been passed over. His Hon. Friend had described Mr. Grant as having faithfully, zealously, and ably performed his duty; he readily concurred in the truth of that statement: he believed Mr. Grant always pursued that course which, according to his judgment, appeared to be the best; but was that a ground for erecting a monument to him? Others might, with perfect propriety, put in the same claim, and if he awarded to him that which he refused to persons of equal merit, he should be guilty of injustice. He might say of many others Directors, as had been said of Mr. Grant, that they had faithfully, zealously, and ably dis charged their duty; but no person had ever thought of erecting monuments to them, because they had done that which they were bound in honour and conscience to do. Therefore he called

on

the Court, if not to reject the present motion, at least to take time for its due and serious consideration. Another point on which his Hon. Friend had dilated, was of the honesty of Mr. Grant's intentions, and the purity of motive which governed all his actions. He did not wish to deny to Mr. Grant the praise of a pure and honest mind; but there were persons in that Court, individuals in the direction, who, for honesty of heart, and purity of mind, had no superior; and in what a situation would they be placed, by and by, with respect to those persons, if this distinguished honour were conferred on Mr. Grant! It was a most serious question, fraught with endless difficulties and perplexities. Should the motion be carried, it would be throwing a fire-brand into the Court. (Hear! hear ) There would be a continual struggle for monumental honours. (Hear! hear!) Much as he had himself been considered a firebrand in public places, still he was not one of those who were for exciting unnecessary irritation amongst public men. While, however, he could interfere to prevent public abuses, he would endeavour to do so; and, with the full conviction on his mind that the present motion, if successful, would lead to very unpleasant results, he called on the Court not to proceed farther without fully considering all the circumstances. With regard to the papers drawn up by Mr. Grant, he should be sorry to found his merits upon them, and he was surprised that his Hon. Friend had done so; he could point out many of them which, however well meant, were certainly injudicious. On the occasion of the debate in that General Court,

where, as he had before observed, he stood alone, he said, I know you will read what comes from the pen of Mr. Grant as an official statement, which with you, will be conclusive against any thing that I can say: I, therefore, can only refer to time, the great touchstone of truth and error,' He now called on those who were present at that debate to say how far those writings of Mr. Grant turned out to be true and correct? He was satisfied that those state.. ments were not yet borne out by the event; and he was sure that they never would. His Hon. Friend had told them, that public opinion was great and powerful; fortunately for this country, it was powerful; and he sincerely hoped that as the intelligence of the empire increased, that check to the abuses of power would become still more strong, (hear!) and that men, who wandered from the path of public virtue and principle, would be branded by the severe censure of public opinion. (Hear!) But it was a double-edged weapon which his Hon. Friend had made use of; when he referred to public opinion, how did he apply his argument? He said, it would be an act of severity, when public opinion punished crime, to refuse a fair and just reward to those whose conduct was worthy of public approbation; to withhold such a reward he declared to be unjust, ungenerous, and impolitic. Now, he (Mr. Hume) would say, on the other hand, that the proceedings of that Court should be impartial; and he would ask whether he could not bring forward many individuals who had acted most meritoriously in the Company's service, and who had been treated with the severity of which his Hon. Friend had spoken; a fair reward not having been extended to them? (Hear!) Did they act upon the doctrine of his Hon. Friend in the case of a noble Marquess (Hastings), who had served them, ably and zealously, for many years in India? Did he get that meed of reward from them which even the public voice called for? (Hear!) Was that just meed of reward granted to the Marquess Wellesley? He could shew in the history of the Company, from 1794 to the present time, that, according to his Hon. Friend's argument, a great deal of unjust, ungenerous, and impolitic conduct had been manifested towards different individuals. As that was the case, he did not think they were bound to make a special exception in the case of Mr. Grant; there was no ground for it; they had no right to confer this honour, this particular meed of reward on Mr. Grant, while they refused it to others; such a proceeding could only provoke invidious comparisons. He was sorry to be obliged to make these remarks, but, he repeated, his Hon. Friend's reference to

public opinion was not a happy one, for it would be found to be a two-edged weapon; if any gentleman founded his approbation on that point, he must perceive, if he examined it, that it was untenable. He might cite instances where monuments had been erected in honour of great talents; but if he adduced those instances, the circumstances attending them would be found to afford the best arguments against the present motion. It was not, however, necessary that he should advert to those cases, his argument being, he thought, sufficiently strong without them. With regard to this mo tion, viewed in the light of a precedent, what, he demanded, would be its consequences and effects? The claim, it appeared, was founded on honourable and proper conduct; if that were the ground, he hoped there would be no Director, henceforward, who would not deserve a similar token of respect, by his upright, honourable, and praiseworthy exertions in the discharge of his duties. But this universal approbation must defeat its own end; when the honour was so generally conferred, it would be looked upon as a matter of little value; the frequency of the act would do away with the value of the approbation bestowed by that Court; every case should stand exclusively on its own intrinsic merits, and extraordinary reasons should be advanced for granting an extraordinary honour; in this case, no special grounds had been stated as merit. ing this, the highest mark of respect, nay, of admiration, which it was in their power to confer. The Court ought, therefore, to postpone the consideration of the question altogether, or to meet it with a direct negative. Where thanks and honours were really due, they certainly ought not to be refused; but on no occasion should they permit themselves to vote special thanks to any man, unless for some special and well-defined cause. If they deviated from that course, then they must, in common justice, allow the new principle to apply to every Director, who, up to the period of his decease, bad acted zealously and honourably. He thought he had taken from the Hon. Mover even the smallest ground for the approbation of his resolution; and as he had shewn that it was destitute of any real and efficient support, in point of fact and reason, it certainly would surprise him very much if it were carried. They were called upon to vote their thanks to Mr. Grant, and to erect a monument to his memory, "for the many important benefits he had rendered to the Company by his counsels and experience, and by his constant and strenuous exertions, in Parliament and elsewhere" but not a word was specifically stated relative to his conduct in that Court and in the Court of Directors. Mention

was made in the resolution of "seventeen years of distinguished service in India;" the meaning of which, as he knew nothing of this distinguished service, he really did not understand. It was also alleged, that those strenuous exertions were made "to preserve unimpaired their rights and orivileges, and to improve the condition of he vast population under the Company's ule." Now, he would ask, was there any man amongst the whole body of Proprie tors ready to point out any instance in which the acts of Mr. Grant, in all or any of the cases referred to in the resolution, were worthy of the proposed honour? They had no documents before them, which was a very great deviation from a wise and long-established rule; if the proposition were to be founded on his public conduct, that conduct ought to be described by his colleagues, who best knew, and could most satisfactorily explain his service, or else documents should have been laid before them, on which they could one and all decide. So far as he knew, no documents were forthcoming on this occasion; they were, in fact, called upon to take a jump in the dark. He had, therefore, prepared an amendment for the postponement of the motion, which he considered the safest, the most delicate, and the most respectful way of getting rid of the subject. He did not think the feelings of Mr. Grant's family were sufficiently consulted in this proceeding; and

he had heard that considerable doubts existed as to the mode of bringing it forward. He knew it was the intention of some gentlemen to give the direct negative to the motion but he would not like to dismiss it in that summary manner; therefore, as a more delicate course of proceeding, he would move for the postponement of the question, if those who brought it forward did not choose to withdraw it. The Hon. Gentleman then moved, "that all the words of the original motion after the word 'that,' should be omitted, for the

purpose of introducing the following: "Whilst this Court willingly recognize and record the zeal and assiduity with which the late Mr. Charles Grant performed, during twenty-nine years, the duties of a Director of this Company, they consider it a question requiring more mature consideration, whether there are sufficient grounds for distinguishing him from his honourable coadjutors, and whether it be expedient to establish a precedent of granting posthumous honours to all who shall faithfully fulfil the duties of that important station.

"That, therefore, this Court deem it expedient to postpone to a future day the consideration of the proposition now submitted to them."

Mr. Gahagan seconded the amendment.
Mr. R. Twining said, that if he had at

first, and still continued to have some hesitation in offering himself to the attention of the Court, he begged to assure them that it was not from any wavering in opinion upon the justice or propriety of the motion before them; but he felt diffident in his ability to do justice to such a subject, and he was afraid he could not command arguments worthy of the view which he took of the motion, and of the attention of those whom he had the honour of addressing. He could assure those who differed from him, in the necessity of paying a tribute to the departed worth of the Hon. and deceased Director, that he believed it was not in the contemplation of any gentleman who had signed the requisition, most certainly it was not within his own, that, in proposing this.mark of respect to the late Mr. Grant, there should be forced into view any invidious comparison between the merits and services o that gentleman, and of others who had preceded or been co-equal with him in the direction; their impression being without any such invidious comparison, there would be found sufficient on the face of the proceeding itself to justify the step which they proposed. (Hear! hear!) It has been often said, that the best memorial a man can carry with him is the approbation of his fellow citizens, and also that the best recollection of a man's own acts is written upon the heart; but that recollection, however deeply engraven, was but short-lived; whilst the monument which they now proposed to commemorate departed service was one which would survive their own times, and convey down to future ages the flattering record of their testimony towards a man, who bad for half a century discharged high, important, and valuable services to their body. (Hear! hear!) It was that feeling, and the preservation of that incitement, by which alone they were actuated; and he would still hope, notwithstanding the opposition this motion encountered, that, without the presentation of special grounds, there was enough in the general notoriety of the services of the deceased Director to secure the support of that Court to a motion like the present.- (Hear! hear!) It was in vain for any high man, however eminently useful were his life, to look for a perfect unanimity of sentiment respecting the whole of his career; and the higher he was removed, by the nature of his occupations, from the common eye of the world, the less likely was be to secure a universal concurrence; they must hope to attain a unanimity of interest before they could expect a unanimity of feeling. (Hear, hear!) But in calling their at tention generally to the leading character of the late Mr. Grant's services, ample grounds would, he thought, be found, by any person conversant with the nature of the