§ On the Motion of Mr. Tulk, the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Mr. Buckingham's Claim was read.
§ Mr. Tulkdetailed the circumstances of Mr. Buckingham's banishment from India 863 for writing a newspaper article offensive to the Government of that country, the loss of his newspaper property that ensued upon that event, the proceedings of two Parliamentary Committees in reference to Mr. Buckingham's claim to compensation from the East-India Company, and the other circumstances of the case. The hon. Member moved, in conclusion, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment by the East-India Company of compensation to Mr. Buckingham for certain losses of property in India, founded on the evidence taken before a Select Committee, and their Report upon the same, presented to the House of Commons on the 4th of August, 1834.
§ Sir John Hobhousesaid, it was disagreeable to him to appear connected with anything that might be thought, however mistakenly, to savour of oppression or an attempt to put down the liberty of the press, and it was doubly disagreeable to be obliged to speak of the case of an hon. Member of the House—the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to him at the time and advocating his own claim, which, be it remembered, was for compensation in money for certain alleged losses. Since he had been in Parliament, he never before knew a Member of the House to come forward in support of a pecuniary claim of his own. He did not say that this was Mr. Buckingham's fault, perhaps it might be called the hon. Gentleman's misfortune; but then it was also his misfortune to be obliged to argue against Mr. Buckingham's demand in that Gentleman's presence, especially if he should be thought to say anything severe. He as well as other Members had received a paper containing a statement of Mr. Buckingham's case, and he must say this was the first time he had observed any thing like such a mode of application with respect to pecuniary claims of a Member of that House. He would state why it was, that he totally objected to this motion. In the first place, he disliked the delay that had taken place in prosecuting the claim. He asked how came it, after the Committee of 1828 had broken up without making any report on the subject, that Mr. Buckingham allowed his just claims (if just they were) to e dormant from that time till 1834? Those claims had been brought before the Court of Directors and Proprietors of the East-India Company by Mr. Buckingham's personal friends and ad- 864 mirers, and the proprietors having no imaginable reason for dealing unjustly with the matter (whatever might be thought of the Directors), twice rejected the application. Neither the Court of Proprietors nor the Directors would lose a single farthing if the compensation demanded (40,000l.) were paid to-morrow, for their dividends were secured to them; but he could not consent that the territorial revenues of India should be mulcted on insufficient grounds. The banishment of Mr. Buckingham from India, and the subsequent proceedings against his newspaper, might be right or wrong, but, be that as it might, the hon. Gentleman entered upon his literary career as a speculation, of tne casualties attendant on which he must have been aware at the time, and he had no right to say that whatever he might have lost in the undertaking was a fair measure of the fine to be imposed on the natives of India. The Committee did not deny that the Government of India had power to act as it did, nor was if pretended that any law had been infringed in resorting to the extreme measure that was adopted in this case. What pretence existed for the interposition of Parliament under such circumstances, or why should it impose a fine on people who had nothing to do with the guilt (if guilt there were) of suppressing Mr. Buckingham's journal? If a fair claim to compensation existed, he would be the last man to oppose it; but he could see no grounds for the present demand, and was therefore obliged to resist it. Who was to fix the amount of the fine to be levied on the territorial revenues of India, and how was the extent of Mr. Buckingham's loss to be ascertained? He very much doubted whether he ought not to have objected to the introduction of a measure which partook of the nature of a Money-bill (claiming compensation as it did from the territorial revenue of India) without the consent of the Crown. He earnestly recommended the hon. Member not to press the Motion. As the loss was not proved, and it was not possible to make it out, he should give his strenuous opposition to it.
§ The Speaker asked whether the consent of the Crown had been given?
§ Sir John Hobhousewould wave that question.
§ Mr. Humewas surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. Mr. 865 Buckingham had suffered great injustice by the arbitrary conduct of the Governor-general of India. He was in India on a licence, and his newspaper was realizing him a profit of nearly 8,000l. a year, when he was banished, and his paper was suppressed. This was for publishing an article objecting to an official appointment which the East-India Company and the Government themselves sent out an order to cancel. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, where some compromise might be effected. Peihaps they could not ascertain the value within 100l. or even 1,000l., but the Select Committee desired to make some approach to justice. Let them grant 30,000l. or 20,000l., or whatever was thought reasonable. In the Committee some compromise might be effected.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, the obvious and only course for the hon. Gentleman to pursue, if he had been wronged, was that of suing the Governor-general for India. With reference to the account of the injury which had been suffered, he would observe that while the hon. Member for Middlesex had stated it to be the loss of 8,000l. a year, the income derived from his newspaper, Mr. Buckingham himself had variously stated it at 4,000l., 6,000l., and 8,000l. a year. The law under which that Gentleman had been removed was in full force at the time; and how could they entertain the question, whether they ought to compel the Company who had acted in the di cretion vested in them by that law, and thus, under the sanction of the Legislature, to make compensation for its effects?
Mr. O'Connellthought the Bill should be brought in, leaving the details of it to the Committee. prima facie case had been established in the Report of the Select Committee upon the subject.
§ The House divided on the Motion:— Ayes 48; Noes 13:—Majority 35.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Callaghan, D. |
| Attwood, T. | Cavendish, H. G. H. |
| Baldwin, Dr. | Clements, Lord |
| Bish, T. | Crawford, S. |
| Blake, J. M. | D'Eynecourt, C. T. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Fielden, J. |
| Brabazon, Sir W. | Hector, C. J. |
| Bridgeman,H. | Hindley C. |
| Brotherton, J. | Howard, P. H. |
| Brudenell, Lord | Hume, J. |
| Bulwer, H. L. | Jephson, C. D. O. |
| Morpetn, Lord | Smith, Benjamin |
| Macleod, R. | Stuart, Lord Dudley |
| Nagle, Sir R. | Thompson, Alderman |
| O'Connell, D. | Wakley, T. |
| Parker, J. | Walker, C. A. |
| Pease, J. | Wallace, R. |
| Pendarves, W. | Warburton, H. |
| Philips, Mark | Williams, W. |
| Potter, R. | Williams, W. A. |
| Pryme, G. | Young, G. |
| Ruthven, E. S. | TELLERS. |
| Ruthven, E. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Scholefield, J. | Baines, E. |
| Sheil, R. L. |
| Paired off in favour of the Motion. | |
| Russell, Lord John | Ewart, W. |
| Bernal, Ralph | Harvey, D. W. |
| Cave, Otway | Wilde, Serjeant |
| Codrington, Sir E. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Baring, T. E. | Lygon, Colonel |
| Cooper, E. J. | O'Farrell, M. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | O'Loghlen, M. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Forster, C. S. | Wison, H. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. | TELLERS. |
| Labouchere, H. | Smith, Vernon |
| Lennox, Lord G. | Stuart, Robert |