PETITION OF THE CALCUTTA BANKERS. (Hansard, 4 July 1822)

§ Mr. Brougham
said, that the claim of the petitioners arose out of a loan made by them to the Nabob of Oude, on the security of his territories. The money so advanced was borrowed to pay certain subsidies to the East India Company, and, being so paid, came into its coffers. The territory upon which the money was advanced had since been partitioned, and half of it had come into the hands of the company. Though the revenue of the territory thus acquired by the company amounted to 3,000,000l. they refused to pay the debt claimed by the petitioners. As the petitioners were thus defrauded of all means a redress and repayment, and as they could obtain no relief from the courts in India or in this country, owing to the sovereignty of the company, they were obliged to seek for justice in the power and wisdom of parliament. To show the justice of the claim made by the petitioners, Mr. B. read extracts from the dispatches of several of the governors-general of India, and concluded by moving, "That the said Petition be referred to a committee, to examine the matter thereof."

Mr. Robertson
said, that the money had been lent at a most extravagant and usurious rate. He therefore must deprecate the interference of parliament to compel the payment of it.

§ Mr. Wetherell
regretted to hear language which was calculated to excite a suspicion that this money had been advanced in the most questionable manner. The money was borrowed to pay a subsidy due to the company. The company was therefore bound to repay that part of the debt for which the territory was mortgaged, as a security, to the Calcutta bankers. Convinced of the integrity of the parties lending this money, and the liability of the company to pay this debt, he should support the motion.

§ Mr. Hume
, instead of looking upon this as a matter fit for public inquiry, thought it a private subject. Lord Cornwallis had declared that the government ought not to interfere with matters of private debt in India; and if the marquis Wellesley considered the present subject fit for public interference, he had had abundant opportunities of promoting inquiry into the transaction. If the House tolerated an inquiry into this case, they would next session have 5,000 applications of a similar nature.

§ Mr. Prendergast
said, that in the pecuniary transactions in which he was engaged in India, instead of being remunerated for his losses, he had been obliged, on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, to accept one half of his claim in lieu of the whole. He was compelled to abandon the other moiety, to which he was equally well entitled on every principle of equity and right, to the vizier. He would afterwards move, that the papers connected with his own case be laid before the House.

§ Mr. Astell
defended the conduct of the company, and said, that if the House consented to entertain this petition, there would be no end to petitions of a similar nature.

Mr. Plunkett
thought the petition was a fit subject for a committee. A primâ facie case was established by the fact of the interest having been made for some years subsequent to 1787. If the House refused the prayer of the petitioners for inquiry, they could have no remedy elsewhere.

Mr. Wigram
said, that the company ought not to be called on in this matter. It was nothing more than an account between the vizier and the parties who had been thus concerned with him. The vizier alone, or his representative, could be answerable for it.

§ Mr. P. Moore
was astonished that the hon. gentleman who was the professed agent for the petitioners could have been induced so far to sanction their petition as to bring it forward. It would not be fair to make the company answerable for debts of which they knew nothing.

§ Lord A. Hamilton
did not mean to say that the company were liable for the whole debt; but it appeared to him that they were liable to pay a part of it.

Mr. Wynn
thought there was such a primâ facie case made out as justified the 1504 House in going into a committee. The claim, it should be recollected, was not for services performed, but for money actually lent.

§ Mr. Money
was most anxious that justice should be done, but on looking at the papers, he thought the main allegations of the petition were disproved.

§ Dr. Phillimore
said, that after looking attentively at the documents he did not feel himself competent to determine whether the claim was or was not established, and therefore he should vote for farther inquiry.

§ Mr. Ricardo
thought it would be most impolitic to grant a committee.

§ Mr. T. Courtenay
said, this was a claim, not of liberality, but of right, and there was no judicial tribunal either in this country or in India by which it could be decided. The application was therefore properly made to the House of Commons. If the House refused to refer it to a committee, they would be in fact, trying this difficult question themselves, and deciding it against the petitioners, without hearing evidence. The board of control might, undoubtedly, if satisfied of the justice of the claim, have sent their mandate to the court of directors, ordering them to send a dispatch to India, commanding the payment of the debt claimed. But what would have been said, if the board had thus compelled the payment of 150,000l. to a member of parliament, against the unanimous opinion of the 24 directors. It therefore appeared to them far more eligible that it should be investigated before a committtee of that House, by whom evidence might be heard, and the whole of the facts thoroughly inquired into.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, the hon. secretary to the board of control had put the question on its true footing. This was not a question of liberality, but a strict claim of right, and could not be decided by any judicial tribunal.