EAST INDIA COMPANY. (Hansard, 17 May 1814)

§ Mr. Creevey
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the production of a copy of a letter from the earl of Buckinghamshire, president of the Board of Controul, to Robert Thornton, esq. chairman of the East India Company, dated the 12th January last, on the subject of continuing the pensions which had been granted during the existence of the late Act; particularly one of 5,000l. per annum to lord Wellesley, and another to Warren Hastings, esq. which were now expired. In consequence of this expiration, the president of the Board of Controul had thought proper to write this letter; not merely recommending the continuance of the persons, but even suggesting the propriety of an increase. His reason for moving for the letter was this—he conceived that lord Buckinghamshire had acted in violation both of the spirit and letter of the Act for continuing the charter of the East India Company. There was a clause both in the present and last Act, which expressly stated that no increase of pensions should be granted by the East India Company to their servants, without the ratification of such increase by the Board of Controul. The function of the Board of Controul was thus limited to the approval or disapproval of the increase; 925 but it possessed no power to propose any measure of the kind. In this he conceived lord Buckinghamshire had been guilty of a violation of the act of parliament. It would, in his opinion, be highly improper if the president of the Board of Controul were to possess not only the power of controuling the directors of the Company, and the preventing any misapplication of their funds, but also that of dictating the course which the East India Company ought to follow. But if it was improper that the president of the Board of Controul should dictate to the Company in the case of an increase of pension to their servants, how much more so was it in the case of servants of the crown, who had been in the situation which he then filled? In this letter lord Buckinghamshire stated, that the late lord Melville died much in debt; and that his son, from the most honourable principles, had taken upon himself the payment of those debts, and he recommended that they should grant him 20,000l. to assist him in that object—that is, he begged the Company to give to another minister of the crown, at the head of the Admiralty, a sum to pay his father's debts. In consequence of this letter, notice had been given of a motion for the grant of the sums so recommended. Now he conceived this to be a gross violation of duty on the part of lord Buckinghamshire. If, however, he was mistaken in this opinion, he thought that the evil was of such a nature as to require some alteration of the Act. It was indeed astonishing to see how the Board of Controul had gradually grown up to its present consequence. When first proposed by Mr. Pitt in 1784, it was stated as a recommendation by him, that the members of the board would do their duty without salary, and that they should have no patronage. The salary of the president, however, had been first issued at 2,000l. a year, and afterwards raised to 5,000l. Instead of having no patronage, it turned out on the late enquiry, that the president of the Board of Controul possessed a patronage equal in value to that of the chairman of the East India Company; and at last the president had ventured on sending a message to the Company, recommending them to grant 20,000l. towards paying the debts of another minister's father. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, That there be laid before this House, copy of a letter from the earl of Buckinghamshire, first commissioner for the affairs of 926 India, to Robert Thornton, esq. chairman of the East India Company, dated the 12th of January 1814, upon the subject of expired pensions under the East India Company.

§ Mr. Wallace
was of opinion, that no fair parliamentary ground had been stated for the publication of the paper in question, and that any discussion at present would be as premature as it was unprecedented. The letter was of a private nature, merely suggesting the propriety of taking certain matters into consideration. The president could only act officially with the Board of Control, and not with the court of directors; and the letter could impose no duty either upon the directors or upon the proprietors. The hon. gentleman, however, seemed to regard the letter somewhat in the light of a message from the throne, upon which it was incumbent to come to some resolution. That the court of proprietors should be anxious to testify their sense of the merits of the late lord Melville, could be matter of surprise to none who were acquainted with the important services he had rendered to the East India Company.

§ Sir Mark Wood
fully concurred with the last speaker. Though he himself had never received any personal favour from the late lord Melville; yet so highly did he estimate his services to the East India Company, that, if no other gentleman should bring forward a proposition upon the subject, he himself should, in the court of proprietors, move for a further remuneration to the late lord Melville.

§ Mr. Howorth
contended, that the letter could only be understood to be a public recommendation by the president of the Board of Controul, and that it was meant unduly to influence the court of proprietors. He was informed, he feared too credibly, that the meetings of the Board of Controul had been long suspended; and that all power, patronage, and influence was absorbed by the president. The letter in question was in direct violation of the act of parliament.

§ Mr. T. Courtenay
said, the hon. member, in proving that the letter did not bear the sanction of the board, proved that it was actually private. He denied, that the convening of the board was dispensed with; and said, he never signet any paper without the requisite number of signatures by members of the Board of Controul. The letter, he contended, was strictly private. A doubt had arisen relative to 927 the expiration of the Act regarding pensions; and upon this a conversation took place between his noble friend and the chairman of the court of directors. His noble friend, with the frankness which distinguished his character, communicated the same opinion in his letter, which he had expressed in the conversation that had taken place. He denied, that the hon. gent. (Mr. Creevey) had at all entered into the merits of the letter itself, and therefore he had laid no sufficient grounds for its production.

§ Lord A. Hamilton
insisted that the letter ought to be produced, whether the House considered the person by whom it was sent, him to whom it was addressed, or the subject comprised in it. If it were indeed a private letter, there was still stronger ground in his view for laying it before parliament; because it must be taken to be a clandestine communication, intended, to produce the effect of a public and official interference.

§ Mr. Creevey
, in reply, observed, that he believed, he had laid an ample parliamentary ground for his motion, when he had shewn that the letter was in contravention of a statute passed by the House. As for the Board of Controul, the places of most of the commissioners were mere sinecures: while he was secretary to it for fourteen months, not one meeting had been held for purposes of deliberation, and he had understood and believed that for 22 year previous the same neglect had been exhibited. The hon. gentleman opposite had been long, longer than any man in parliament, in the enjoyment of one of these sinecures; and Mr. Creevey wished to know whether he had ever voted at any board when any subject for deliberation had been discussed?

§ Mr. Wallace
replied, without hesitation, that he had.

§ Mr. Creevey
expressed his astonishment: he would venture to say, that he had never voted more than once on such an occasion.

§ Mr. Wallace
observed that, upon recollection, he could not say that he had voted even once in his life at a board (a laugh); but he had given in his opinion. He remembered one board, however, when there was a vast deal of discussion, but nothing was done. The established practice was, to circulate the papers which they had to consider (and which were very volummous), and take the opinion of each member in writing.

Mr. Sullivan
said, that the letter was 928 surely meant to operate in some way or other. At present, however, he did not conceive it to be tangible, nor did he know in what quarter an application could be made for its production. It would be better to wait to see what would follow.

§ Mr. Creevey
. The letter is in the India-house, and has been printed.

§ Mr. Whitbread
. if we were to wait for what might follow from the letter, gentlemen who opposed, the publication might easily prevent any thing from following. The letter could with no face be said to be private. It had been read at a public meeting; and it appeared from the speech of an hon. baronet (sir M. Wood) that upon him at least it had produced some effect. It would seem, from the language of some hon. gentlemen, that lord Buckinghamshire could at one time resolve himself into a private individual, and at another into president of the Board of Controul. One thing, it appeared pretty plainly, he could not do; and that was, to put the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) upon the India Company proprietary. It would seem, that no boards were assembled, but that all the business was done either by the president or by the secretary. The practice had been to convert letters, to the publication of which there were objections, into private communications; the House of Commons, however, had sometimes decided that those letters were public; and your authority, Sir, (said Mr. Whitbread, addressing the Speaker.) I make no doubt, will quickly cause the letter in question to be produced. He had heard, though he did not pretend vouch for the fact, that a sheet of blank paper had been put over documents that were to be signed, and that the signature had been affixed at the end of the blank.

Mr. Sullivan
again expressed a wish, that the hon. mover, would wait till something should be done in consequence of the letter.

§ Mr. Creevey
. It is my object that nothing may be done in consequence of it.

List of the Minority.
Barnard, lord	Gordon, R.
Brand, hon. T.	Grenfell, P.
Bennet, hon. H.	Horner, F.
Combe, H.	Howorth, H.
Grant, J.P.	Hammersley, H.

Lemon, sir W.	Ridley, sir M.
Milton, lord	Russell, lord J.
Macdonald, J.	Smith, W.
Martin, J.	Western, C.
Newport, sir J.	Whitbread, S.
O'Hara, C.	TELLERS.
Phillips, G.	Creevey, T.
Parnell, sir H.	Hamilton, lord A.