« PreviousContinue »
at first comprized in that resolution; the been sufficiently visited. Again, le would name of Mr. Hyatt was added in that Court. inquire whether Mr. Grant had set Now, if Mr. Grant had stood, with respect himself firmly against all those whose to this question, in the situation which had characters were implicated in this busibeen described as entitling him to claim a ness? The answer was, that he had special mark of respect and approbation, not. He (Mr. Hume) could name a would not some person have moved, when Director at that period, who, when called a vote of thanks was proposed to other on to answer, refused, on the ground gentlemen, “ that the name of Mr. Grant, that he was not obliged to criminate bimwho had taken such an active part in self; and yet, at the next ballot, that bringing about the reform, should be individual was supported by Mr. Grant, added ?” A name was added in that Court, who signed the House-list which conthe name of Mr. Fyatt: this circum tained his name ; this was a most exstance was conclusive as to any claim of traordinary fact, particularly when it was Mr. Grant with respect to the reform of recollected that Mr. Grani had, in the the shipping department. He had shown House of Commons, invcighed, in the that, prior to 1794, Mr. Grant had nothing strongest terms, against those corrupt to do with it; and when this resolution was practices : he therefore contended, that, passed, long after 1794, his name was with respect to the question of patronage, not mentioned ; there was here then no no claim had been established.
The next ground on which to found the present ground of approbation, he confessed, surmotion. He was at the same time willing prised himn extremely; it was, that Mr. to admit, that in the after proceedings Grant had supported to the utmost of liis and discussions which took place for the power the formation of the College at ship-owners did not die easily—(a lmugh) Haileybury. He knew Mr. Grant had they fought to the very last (a langh) - done so; but were there no persons in the late Mr. Grant was an able associate that Court acquainted with the motives and ally of Sir David Scott.
which influenced his conduct? Who was doubeedly deserved credit for his exertions, the originator of a system of education but he only deserved it in common with in India? By whom was education first others; and, he would ask, whether so promoted and fostered there? Unquestionpeculiar and destinctive a mark of respect, ably by the Marquess Wellesley. And as that which was now called for, should with what view was Haileybury College be founded on exertions which were made established ? It was set up in opposition by others as well as by Mr. Grant? The to the College at Fort William. (Hear! next point was the statement of his Hon. hear!) The fact was well known-it Friend, that when the Marquess Wellesley was set up decidedly and notoriously to went out to India, Mr. Grant was offered put down the establishment in India, in the situation of Member of Council, which consequence, it was alleged, of its exhe declined. Now he did not at all doubt pensiveness. He agreed with his Hon. the good opinion which Lord Melville en Friend on the great benefits which flowed tertained of Mr. Grant, and which led him from education; he believed that the world to select that gentleman for the office; but, received more good from education than as they did not know the reasons which froin any other source; but here the induced Mr. Grant to refuse the appoint- question was, whether a necessity existed ment, the mere circumstance of his refusal for this extensive establishment? Were could not be received as a ground for they so por, so destitute of places for acceding to this motion. Let his Hon. general education in this country, that it Friend state the motives by which he was was necessary to institute a seminary for actuated, and then they could judge what every species of learning ? What did they weight ought to be attached to the fact. want, more than a seminary in which their The fourth ground on which the motion young servants could study Oriental literested was the part Mr. Grant had taken rature? That College, the formation of in the discussions relative to the abuse of wiich had been cited as giving Mr. Grant patronage ; he believed he acted, on that a claim on their gratitude, had long been occasion, as a sincere man; he certainly a subject of discord: the opinions respectdid his duty, but he did no more than his ing it were balanced; and he believed duty, in checking those corrupt abuses ; and hoped that those against the College but, he would ask, was Mr. Grant the had greatly the preponderance. While first to move the business in that Court? he adınitted, as he had ever done, that a No: an Hon. Director, who was now pre- moral, pious, and virtuous education was sent, brought the matter forward; he necessary “ to make the man;" he would persevered in his endeavours so long as ask his Hon. Friend whether he could it was necessary and no longer; he felt, place his hand upon his hear; and say that when the business was exposed, and the that, during the last years, moriity, piety, system was at an end, there was no ne and virtue bad flourished at lleybury cessity for carrying on a persecution College ? (Hvar ! hear!) Fer his own against individuals, whose errors had part, he thouglit, that there was not, citlier
in the motive which gave rise to the es. that there were one or more Directors in tablishment, or in the success which had the House of Commons, they would attended it, any reason for agreeing to naturally take part in supporting or impay to Mr. Grant this singular tribute of proving any measure which might be respect. He would say nothing of that brought forward for the good of the Comelection, which had created so much evil, pany. Mr. Grant had done so; but, in which had marred the prospects of that doing so, he had merely fulfilled his College, and in which Mr. Grant took a duty. Were there not many others who principal part; but he would maintain acted precisely in the same way? and generally, that the formation of the Col
were they, by awarding an honour to Mr. lege, allowing Mr. Grant to have exerted Grant alone, to declare to the world, that bimself ever so much in the completion no one deserved it but bim-that his colof that project, afforded no ground of leagues were unworthy of such a mark support to this motion. The sixth ground of respect for such, virtually, though not which his Hon. Friend had adduced, in words, was the meaning of this resoluscarcely deserved notice: it seemed, when tion? The next ground which his Hon. application was made to Parliament on Friend 'had put forward was the part the part of the Company for relief, that which Mr. Grant had taken during the Mr. Grant sustained the application with negociations for the renewal of the Comgreat energy and ability, and that Govern- pany's Charter. He wished he could ment ultimately complied with the requi- forget the time which was wasted in this sition. He begged leave to ask, whether Court on that occasion; he wished he they meant to give the sole credit of this could be persuaded to feel, that Mr. Grant transaction to Mr. Grant? Whether it
was not the person who endeavoured to was intenderl to assert, that his influence
perpetuate å system which was actually with Government had insured the success prejudicial to the Company; he should of the Company, when the Legislature was be glad if he could hide from himself pleased to concede this assistance ? He the fact, that Mr. Grant's opposition must say, that the aid which they then created much of the contention which took received, ought not to have been entreated place between the Government and the as a favour, but demanded as a right. Company. The Government was pre (Hear! hear!) Had he been one of the pared to concede the China trade to the persons to whom the application was con Company—and the only question was, fided, he would have shewn to the Go
“ Are you, the Company, to retain a vernment that the Company had a right monopoly of the trade to the Presidencies to claim relief; he would have said, of India--that trade which the Americans " We have exerted ourselves to raise the are taking from you that trade which glory and extend the prosperity of Great the voice of the people of England deBritain ; the greatness of our efforts has mands to have thrown open-and which impaired the finances of the Company, the merchants of England can carry on and therefore we derr.and assistance. to the benefit of themselves and of their Was this a case in which the language of country ?" Mr. Grant was hostile to the humility and of intreaty was to he used ?
proposed emancipation of the India trade He thought not. Mr. Grant was, he and that was the only point of conbelieved, at that time in the Deputy tention. It was his lot, on that occasion, Chair; for it should be observed, that the to stand singly in that Court, opposed to Chairman and Deputy Chairman trans the whole body of Directors and Proprie. acted all the business; if he had been tors. (d laugh.) He moved an amenda simple Director, he would, perhaps, have ment to the resolutions which were then had no more to do with the matter than proposed; and, full as the Court was, he he (Mr. Hume) had. (A laugh.) If not felt himself extremely fortunate in getChairman, Deputy Chairman, or Member ting a gentleman, who happened to be of the Select Committee, his services sitting by him, to second that amendment would not have been called into requi. —such was the prejudice which then presition ; if he were acting in any of these vailed. He now called on the Proprietors capacities, he merely did his duty; and, to say whether what he had then prog. if he did not hold one of those official nosticated, or what Mr. Grant had then situations, he had nothing to do with the foretold, had taken place ? He asked proceeding. The Company had a right them whether India had been ruined by to ask for relief, and Government granted the opening of the trade, or whether the no favour when they agreed to advance Company had suffered by that measure?the assistance required. But, it was said, consequences, which Mr. Grant had averthat Mr. Grant had ably supported the red must inevitably follow, if the British application in the House of Commons: merchant were allowed to proceed to Inwas there any thing extraordinary in that? dia? No such thing : our trade hai, Would not any other Director, who hap- the contrary, greatly increased ; whilst, pened to have a seat in Parliament, have on the other hand, one-half of the Ameripursued the same course ? If it chanced, can trade was thrown out of the markcto •
and the whole benefit of this extended be distinguished by this extraordinary difcommerce was reaped by England alone. ference, from the present: namely, that He could shew, beyond all manner of they had recorded votes of approbation of doubt, that it was Mr. Grant who raised the conduct of those two gentlemen, that opposition to the opening of the trade, whereas in the case of Mr. Grant they which produced so much unpleasant feel had no such recorded vote of approbation, ing between the Government and the he having been passed over. His Hon. Company. His Hon. Friend said, “Will Friend had described Mr. Grant as having you not award this mark of respect to faithfully, zealously, and ably performed one who took so prominent a part in these his duty; he readily concurred in the negociations ?” He would ask, in reply, truth of that statement: he believed Mr. “ What honour have you awarded to the Grant always pursued that course which, late Sir Francis Baring? What monu according to his judgment, appeared to ment ha re you erected to the late Sir be the best ; but was that a ground for Hugh Inglis?” Was not the former erecting a monument to him? Others thanked by that Court, for his exertions might, with perfect propriety, put in the during the negociations for the Charter same claim, and if he awarded to him of 1793? and was not the latter also that which he refused to persons of equal thankeil for his conduct while the renewal merit, he should be guilty of injustice. of the last Charter was in progress ? No He might say of many others Directors, monuments were erected to these gentle. as had been said of Mr. Grant, that they men; and yet, he could tell his Hon. had faithfully, zealously, and ably dis Friend, that the Court of Proprietors had charged their duty; but no person had so high an opinion of Sir Francis Baring, ever thouglrt of erecting monuments 10 that they called on him to give his assis- them, because they had done that which tance in completing the arrangements con they were bound in honour and connected with the Charter of 1793, although science to do. Therefore he called be was going out by rotation, and that the Court, if not to reject the assistance he cheerfully contributed. His present motion, at least to take time for Hon. Friend did not, perhaps, recollect its duc and serious consideration. Anoa motion, nearly to the same effect, which ther point on which his Hon. Friend had be (Mr. Hume) had made in that Court; dilated, was of the honesty of Mr. Grant's namely, that as Sir Hugh Inglis was intentions, and the purity of motive which intimately acquainted with all the pro- governed all his actions. He did not wish ceedings which had taken place pending to deny to Mr. Grant the praise of a pure the renewal of the last Charter, the Com and honest mind; but there were persons pany should avail themselves of his assis in that Court, individuals in the direction, tance and service until the arrangements who, for honesty of heart, and purity of were completed; that motion was carried, mind, had no superior; and in what a and the Company received the benefit of situation would they be placed, by and Sir Ilugh Inglis's exertions. The con by, with respect to those persons, if this duct of these gentlemen, on those two distinguished honour were conferred on occasions, was specially approved of; but Mr. Grant! It was a most serious quesno monument was required for them. tion, fraught with endless difficulties and Why should they then award a monument perplexities. Should the motion be carto Mr. Grant, when no specific ground ried, it would be throwing a fire-brand or reason was adduced--when he had, in into the Court. (Hoar ! hear 1) There fact, done nothing more than these gen
would be a continual struggle for monutlemen? He did not mean to say that mental honours. (Hear ! kear!) Much Mr. Grant was not a very honest man; as he had himself been considered a firebut, if he agreed to his Ilov. Friend's brand in public places, still he was not proposition, it would be declaring that he one of those who were for exciting unnewas the only honest man in the Court. cessary irritation amongst public men. ( Hear!) That was the fair interpreta While, however, he could interfere to pretion of his Hon. Friend's resolution. vent public abuses, he would endeavour Why should be, sometimes agreeing with, to do so; and, with the full conviction and sometimes disagreeing from Mr. on his mind that the present motion, if Grant, vote to him a monument for his successful, would lead to very unpleasant whole series of services ? He should not results, he called on the Court not to probe an honest man if he refused monu ceed farther without fully considering all ments to the memories of all other Direc. the circumstances. With regard to the tors, could he be prevailed upon to vote papers drawn up by Mr. Grant, he should in favour of the present motion. If this be sorry to found his merits upon them, proposition were agreed to, on such and he was surprised that his Hon. grounds as his Hon. Friend had stated, Friend had done so; he could point out he should call for a monument in honour many of them which, however well meant, of Sir Francis Baring and Sir H. Inglis. were certainly injudicious. On the occaA proposition of that kind would, however, sion of the debate in that General Court,
where, as he had before observed, tie stood public opinion was not a happy one, for alone, he said, “ I know you will read it would be found to be a two-edged what comes from the pen of Mr. Grant as weapon; if any gentleman founded his an official statement, which with you, will approbation on that point, he must perbe conclusive against any thing that I can ceive, if he examined it, that it was unsay : I, therefore, can only refer to time, tenable. He might cite instances where the great touchstone of truth and error. monuments had been erected in honour of He now called on those who were present great talents; but if he adduced those at that debate to say how far those writings instances, the circumstances attending of Mr. Grant turned out to be true and them would be found to afford the best correct? He was satisfied that those state.. arguments against the present motion. ments were not yet borne out by the It was not, however, necessary that he event; and he was sure that they never should advert to those cases, his argument would. His Hon. Friend had told them, being, he thought, sutficiently strong that public opinion was great and power without them. With regard to this mo ful; fortunately for this country, it tion, viewed in the light of a precedent, was powerful; aud he sincerely hoped what, he demanded, would be its consethat as the intelligence of the empire in quences and effects? The claim, it apcreased, that check to the abuses of power peared, was founded on honourable and would become still more strong, (hear !) proper conduct ; if that were the ground, and that men, who wandered from the he hoped there would be no Director, path of public virtue and principle, would henceforward, who would not deserve a be branded by the severe censure of pub. similar token of respect, by his upright, lic opinion. (Hear!) But it was a honourable, and praiseworthy exertions double-edged weapon which his Hon. in the discharge of his duties. But this Friend had made use of; when he re universal approbation must defeat its own ferred to public opinion, low did he end; when the bonour was so generally apply his argument? lle said, it would conferred, it would be looked upon as a he an act of severity, when public opinion matter of little value; the frequency of the punished crime, to refuse a fair and just act would do away with the value of the apreward to those whose conduct probatiou bestowed by that Court ; every worthy of public approbation; to with. case should stand exclusively on its own hold such a reward he declared to be un inirinsic merits, and extraordinary reajust, uugenerous, and impolitic. Now, sons should be advanced for granting an le (Mr. Hume) would say, on the other extraordinary honour; in this case, no hand, that the proceedings of that Court pecial inds had been stated as merit. should be impartial ; and he would ask ing this, the highest mark of respect, nay, whether he could not bring forward many
of admiration, which it was in their power individuals who had acted most meri. to confer. The Court ought, therefore, toriously in the Company's service, and to postpone the consideration of the ques. who had been treated with the severity of tion altogether, or to meet it with a drect which his Hon. Friend had spoken ; a negative. Where thanks and honours fair reward not having been extended to were really due, they certainly ought not then ?-(llear!) Did they act upon the to be retused; but en 110 occasion doctrine of his Hon. Friend in the case of should they permit themselves to vote a noble Marquess (Ilastings), who had special thanks to any man, unless for served them, ably and Zealously, for some special and well-defined cause. If inany years in India ? Did he get that they deviated from that course, then they meed of reward from them which even must, in commun justice, allow the new the public voice called for?-(Hear!) principle to apply to every Director, who, Was that just meed of reward granted to up to the period of his decease, hari acted the Ma quess Wellesley? He could shew zealously and honourabiy. lle thought in the history of the Company, froin he had taken from the Ilon. Mover even 1794 to the present time, that, according the sinallest ground for the approbation of to his Hon. Friend's argument, a great his resolution; and as be had siewn that deal of unjust, ungenerous, and impolitic it was destitute of any real and efficient conduct had been manifested towards dif support, in point of fact and reason, it ferent individuals. As that was the case, certainly would surprise him very much he did not think they were bound to make if it were carried. They were called upon a special exception in the case of Mr. to vote their thanks to Mr. Grant, and to Grant; there was no ground for it; erect a monument to his memory,
“ for they had no right to confer this honour, the many important benefits he had ren. this particular meed of reward on Mr. dered to the Company by his counsels and Grant, while they refused it to others; experience, and by his constant and stresuch a proceeding could only provoke in nuous exertions, in Parliament and elsevidious comparisons. He was sorry to
where :" but not a word was specifically lie obliged to make these remarks, but, he stated relative to his conduct in that Court repeated, his Hon. l'riend's reference to and in the Court of Directors, Mention
was made in the resolution of " seventeen first, and still continued to have some heyears of distinguished service in India ;" sitation in offering himself to the attention the meaning of which, as he knew nothing of the Court, he begged to assure them of this distinguished service, he really did that it was not from any wavering in not understand. It was also alleged, that opinion upon the justice or propriety of those strenuous exertions were made “ to the motion before them ; but he felt difpreserve unimpaired their rights and fident in his ability to do justice to such a privileges, and to improve the condition of subject, and he was afraid he could not the vast population under the Company's command arguments worthy of the view ule.” Now, he would ask, was there any which he took of the motion, and of the nan amongst the whole body of Proprie- attention of those whom he had the honour tors ready to point out any instance in of addressing. He could assure those which the acts of Mr. Grant, in all or any who differed from him, in the necessity of of the cases referred to in the resolution, paying a tribute to the departed worth of were worthy of the proposed honour ? the Hon, and deceased Director, that he They had no documents before them, believed it was not in the contemplation which was a very great deviation from a of any gentleman who had signed the rewise and long-established rule ; if the quisition, most certainly it was not within proposition were to be founded on bis his own, that, in proposing this, mark of public conduct, that conduct ought to be respect to the late Mr. Grant, there should described by his colleagues, who best knew, be forced into view any invidious compaand could most satisfactorily explain his rison between the merits and services o service, or else documents should have that gentleman, and of others who had been laid before them, on which they preceded or been co-equal with him in the could one and all decide. So far as he direction ; their impression being without knew, no documents were forthcoming on any such invidious comparison, there this occasion; they were, in fact, called would be found sufficient on the face of upon to take a jump in the dark. He had the proceeding itself to justify the step therefore, prepared an amendment for the which they proposed. (Hear ! hear!) It postponement of the motion, which he has been often said, that the best memorial considered the safest, the most delicate, a man can carry with him is the approbation and the most respectful way of getting of his fellow citizens, and also that the rid of the subject. He did not think the best recollection of a man's own acts is feelings of Mr. Grant's family were suffi written upon the heart; but that recol. ciently consulted in this proceeding; and lection, however deeply engraven, was but he had heard that considerable doubts ex short-lived; whilst the monument which isted as to the mode of bringing it for they now proposed to commemorate deward. He knew it was the intention of parted service was one which would sursome gentlemen to give the direct negative vive their own times, and convey down to to the motion. but he would 10: like to future ages the flattering record of their dismiss it in that summary manner ; testimony towards a man, who bad for therefore, as a more delicate course of pro half a century discharged high, important, ceeding, he would move for the postpone
and valuable services to their body, ment of the question, if those who brought (Hear ! hear :) It was that feeling, and it forward did not choose to withdraw it. the preservation of that incitement, by The Hon. Gentleman then moved, “ that which alone they were actuated'; and he all the words of the original motion after would still hope, notwithstanding the opthe word 'that,' should be omitteil, for position this motion encountered, that, the purpose of introducing the following: without the presentation of special grounds,
" Whilst this Court willingly recognize there was enough in the general notoriety and record the zeal and assiduity with of the services of the deceased Director which the late Mr. Charles Grant per to secure the support of that Court to a formed, during twenty-nine years, the motion like the present.— (Hear ! hear !) duties of a Director of this Company, It was in vain for any high man, however they consider it a question requiring more eminently useful were his life, to look for mature consideration, whether there are a perfect unanimity of sentiment respectsufficient grounds for distinguishing him ing the whole of his career; and the higher from bis honourable coadjutors, and whe he was removed, by the nature of his octher it be expedient to establish a precedent cupations, from the common eye of the of granting posthumous honours to all world, the less likely was be to secure a who shall faithfully fulfil the duties of universal concurrence; they must hope to that important station.
attain a unanimity of interest before they “ That, therefore, this Court deem it could expect a unanimity of feeling. expedient to postpone to a future day the (Hear, hear !) But in' calling their at. consideration of the proposition now sub tention generally to the leading character mitted to them.
of the late Mr. Grant's services, ample Mr. Galu gan seconded the amendment. grounds would, he thought, be found, by any Mr. R. Tirining said, that if he had at person conversant with the nature of the