CLAIMS OF THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S MARITIME OFFICERS. (Hansard, 13 May 1835)

§ Mr. Praed
observed that he had no intention of opposing the Motion, but, while saying so, he thought it incumbent on him to state that the late Government would not, had they been in power, have taken the course which he understood the present were about to sanction, namely, that of acceding to the Motion of the hon. Member. As far as he had been able to investigate the subject, his opinion was that the Motion could not, consistently with the interpretation of the Act, be acceded to; and he confessed he should be very glad to hear from the hon. 1060 Baronet, who represented in the present Government the Board of Control, what were the grounds on which that Board proposed doing so. Under the provisions of the Act, the Company were allowed to make compensation to their discharged servants, and the only control the Government or the House had over their arrangements was contained in a stipulation that every resolution embodying a grant of money should lie on the Table of the House of Commons for two months before it became law. This prudent arrangement was framed to prevent the Company from squandering the money of the people of India; and the House, he was sure, would see the great advantage of abiding by it. The Company, then, having this power to make compensation, proposed a certain scale, which, having been considered by the proprietors as too small, they at a general meeting proposed and carried a resolution suggesting a much larger one. Upon this latter coming before the late Board of Control, it appeared to its members far more lavish than was justifiable, and they accordingly rejected it, and adopted that of the Court of Directors. That regulation had, according to the provisions of the Act, been laid before the House, and, having remained the stipulated period on the Table, it was to be considered as part of the Act, and not cognizable by a Committee of the House. He had not the remotest intention to disparage the claims of the East-India Company's officers; far from it. He regarded them as a very meritorious set of servants, but he was bound to express his conviction that had these Gentlemen, some short time before it was determined to discontinue the Company's trading powers, been asked individually what amount of retiring compensation, would satisfy them, they would have expressed themselves satisfied with one-tenth part of that determined upon by the Directors. But he contended that if the case was at all open for further consideration, either as regarded the officers included in the Company's arrangement, or the present petitioners, it was for the Court of Directors and not the House of Commons to consider it. Of what use could a Committee of the House of Commons be? There was no doubt as to the facts connected with these officers claims. They had been already considered and decided upon by the Court of Directors, and 1061 consequently the only thing a Committee could do, would be to recommend that which, if competent for any tribunal to do, rested entirely with the Board of Directors. The proper course of proceeding, in his opinion, would be to bring before the House a resolution, declaring that the regulation of the Directors was an improper one. As he before stated, he would not oppose the Motion; but he must guard himself against being supposed as giving his assent to having the whole case reconsidered before a Committee. If the money were to come from the pockets of the English people, he was confident there were scarcely ten Members in the House who would accede to the Motion; and he entreated hon. Members to recollect that the people of India, whose money transactions they were then interfering with, had no representatives in that assembly, and on that account it behoved them to be the more watchful how they interfered.

§ Sir John Hobhouse
did not hesitate to say that he as yet had not made up his mind as to whether any compensation whatever ought to have been granted to the Company's maritime officers. But that question having been determined upon by the tribunal to whose decision it was left by the Act of Parliament, the question was, whether or not the limitation laid down by the Court of Directors did not require some revision? The hon. and learned Member who spoke last seemed to say, that the two months allowed by the Act having expired, the case was taken out of the jurisdiction of the House. But, surely, it would be acting unfairly towards the petitioners to say that an adjournment, rendered unavoidable by political events, should place the petitioners in a worse situation than they otherwise would have been in. He would give his vote for the Motion, not as the head of the Board of Control, but as an individual Member of the House. He should be glad to see the whole question as to whether any compensation whatever should be given, opened by the Committee. But, considering that question already decided, he feared they could do no more than consider whether the scale of the Directors might be enlarged. He thought it would have been a great deal better had the Court of Proprietors included all who had served the Company in one graduated scale, so that each, according 1062 to the period of his service, might have had his share in the compensation.

§ Mr. G. F. Young
in allusion to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth, begged to observe that the House was not now legislating for the Indian people alone, inasmuch as if the territorial revenues of India failed in producing adequate funds to meet these compensation claims, the proprietors of East-India Stock would be liable to them.

§ Mr. Carruthers
protested against the case of those officers whose claims had been decided upon by the Court of Directors being interfered with by the Committee.

§ Mr. Stewart Mackenzie
declared his intention of opposing the appointment of any Committee which should have power to enter into the question as to whether compensation should or should not be granted to the Company's maritime officers. That was settled by the resolution of the Directors, and could not with any justice be re-opened by the Committee. If a Committee were at all appointed, it ought to be on the understanding that their deliberations should be directed to the cases of those officers whose names were contained in the petition.

§ Mr. Clay
would support the Motion, on the ground that great injustice had been done by the rule laid down by the Court of Directors.

§ Mr. Robinson,
in reply, observed that all he sought from the appointment of a Committee was, to prove that the rule laid down by the Court of Directors had an arbitrary and partial effect, and that many officers who under it would be excluded from any compensation had equal, and in many instances more, claim than those for whose advantage it was framed. Neither the people in England nor in India had any interest in an unfair distribution of the money. It was desirable that the money should be distributed only according to the extent and nature of the different claims. He did not wish, in the event of the Committee being appointed, and from the feeling displayed in the House he was pleased to see that it looked favourably upon such appointment, that any case should be decided upon unless the claims were made evident. Many of those officers who were afloat on the 28th of August, 1828, were by the lapse of a few weeks accidentally thrown out. If the Committee should determine that 1063 justice had not been done to those individuals, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended, in dealing with the subject. One slight amendment in the resolution he should propose for adoption, suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Clay), namely, that instead of the words "certain maritime officers," the words "some officers" should be inserted.