§ Mr. Hobhousemoved the order of the day for the 3d reading of the Nabobs of Arcot's bill.
§ Mr. Ryderrose to move, by way of amendment, that the words " appointing the commissioners to report to the house the grounds of their decision on every claim that was brought before them," be erased. He contended, that this clause made the house a court of appeal, and would prevent the decisions of the commissioners from being final. Besides, they might, sometimes, find themselves obliged to decide in opposition to the evidence that was laid before them; and when this evidence was submitted to the house, it would not furnish them with the grounds of the commissioners' decision. He conceived the commissioners to be the ultimate resort in this case, since they were a sort of arbitrators between the East-India Co. and the creditors of the nabob.
§ Lord R. Pettystated the origin of the clause now objected to; which had been proposed as an addition to another which he had introduced, for the purpose of obliging commissioners to report their decisions to the. house from time to time. However, he saw no material objection to the amendment now proposed; but he should wish to hear the opinions of his legal friends on the subject.
§ Mr. Windhamsupported the clause as it now stood; and observed, that it did not bind the house to investigate the grounds on which the commissioners decided in any instance; but merely went to enable parliament to review their proceedings whenever it might judge proper,
§ Mr. Percevalconsidered. the motion to be liable to many objections. The commissioners stood exactly in the light of arbitrators between the creditors and the East-India Co., under a decree of parliament. That house might disagree with the judgment of the commissioners, whether the motives for their decision should be right or wrong. The claims for such a sum 1096 as 5 or 6 millions must be very numerous; and it would be extremely inconvenient for that house to examine the whole of the evidence in all the cases. It might, indeed, be right for them to make such a report as would shew, that they did not sleep upon their duty; but, by calling for the grounds of their decisions, he was afraid the house would make itself a party to them.
§ Mr. Francissaid, that a bill which was to dispose of 5,600,000l., so far from being a private one, was of the greatest public interest. For himself, he would take no part in it at all; as he did not think the parliament should be a party to any such agreements. He would oppose it in toto; and would not consent, that the house of commons should give its sanction to claims of which a highly respectable gent., late chairman of the Court of Directors (Mr. Grant), had declared, in his seat, three-fourths to be false demands; and, that it would be extra- ordinary, if even the other fourth should be established.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the clause alluded to did not proceed from any distrust of the commissioners; but was thought to be one which must be desirable even to themselves. Though the parties were the creditors, and the East-India Co. the debtors; yet it was a public measure; for, if it was of a private nature, why come to parliament at all? He thought, also, that the different debts might be classed, and the grounds of the decision laid before the house, without repeating the whole of the evidence.
Mr. Rosethought, that if the commissioners were, as he believed them to be, fit and competent persons to enquire, the decision must he safer in their hands, than in those of that assembly. He disapproved of the whole of the clause, as the house could not possibly examine, itself, and decide up, on all of the cases; and should not, there fore, give its sanction to the validity of any of the debts.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, that every word he had heard, convinced him that this was an unfit commission. It was, in reality, the public money by which the debts were to be liquidated; for how was the public to be paid by the East-India Co., if their revenues were swallowed up by the payment of these debts? Who were the fit persons for deciding on these debts? Were they not commissioners so constituted, as that their decision should be final? Was it not monstrous, that commissioners should be 1097 appointed, whose decisions should be subject to appeal? This house was the must unlit place for reviewing them; and why not, at once, appoint parliamentary commissioners, whose decisions should be final? "What was known already, with regard to India. debts, in 1784, justified him in making a supposition, that some collusion Might take place between the creditors and the company; by which the public might be defrauded.
Lord Castlereaghwas, also, for leaving the whole in the hands of the commissioners. The house should not give any additional validity to the claims, nor make itself a court of appeal. If it did, the consequence would be, to have the table of the house covered with a mass of useless papers.
§ Mr. Sheridanagain observed, that if the house directed the commissioners to report the grounds on which they decided, it must be either fur the purpose of revising them, or to gratify an idle curiosity.
Mr. Grantsaid, there could be no uncertainty in the business of the commissioners; who were all men of high character and honour, and were bound to decide upon oath. This agreement was not of a novel nature, as it was conformable to the practice observed in the whole of the East-India government.—After a few more observations, Mr. Ryder consented to withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. Johnstonemoved, as an amendment, that none of the commissioners, hereafter to be appointed for investigating these claims, should be members of that house; but, that tins exemption should not extend to those who had been already appointed; which, after some observations, was withdrawn, and the bill read a third time and passed.