HC Deb 04 April 1837 vol 37 cc749-63
Mr. George F. Young

presented a petition from Captains Newall, Barrow, and Glass-pole, of the East-India Company's late maritime service, complaining that the compensation to which they were entitled was withheld by the Board of Control. The brief and simple facts of the case would not render it necessary for him to detain the House at any length; and he was sure that the House, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet opposite, the President of the Board of Control, would agree with him, that this was a case which demanded inquiry. In the year 1833, the public were allowed, by an Act of the Legislature, to participate in the trade with China, which had formerly been exclusively confined to the East- India Company. The Act, also, of 1833, prohibited the East-India Company from trading for a term of forty years. To meet the case of those parties who would be likely to suffer by this arrangement, a clause was introduced into the Bill to provide compensation for them. Some difficulty was subsequently found in awarding compensation to the maritime officers, whether, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) stated on a former occasion—each individual case should be considered on its own merits, or some general rule should be established. It was ultimately decided, that a general rule should be adopted;—though in his opinion it would have been much better to have considered each case on its own merits. The rule was, that all persons who gave notice before the expiration of August, 1833, that they did not intend to leave the maritime service of the East-India Company, were entitled to compensation. That this plan had acted unequally, by excluding some gentlemen justly entitled, and compensating others who had, in justice, no claim, was quite evident. He would refer to the case of the petitioners, on the one hand, and that of a personal friend of his own (the son of the hon. Member for Guildford) on the other. This gentleman had actually left the service, and, in fact, had embarked in trade, but he sent in the declaration according to the rule, and was ultimately allowed compensation. But the petitioners, who had sent in their declaration according to this rule, and had actually proved that they had made arrangements for again entering the service, were told, that as they had served five years, which, according to a regulation of the East-India Company, was the time allotted to officers commanding the Company's ships, they would not have been eligible to serve again, and, therefore, were not entitled to compensation. But though they were not eligible to command the Company's ships, they were eligible to command chartered ships; and as a great number of the ships freighted by the Company were chartered for the voyage, these officers would have been eligible to have served in any of those ships, and were, therefore, clearly entitled to be compensated. He could mention an instance in which a captain, who had served, four years, received 2,000l. as compensation. The petitioners were equally eligible to serve as any other officers in the service. And as a stronger and unanswerable proof, that they were entitled to the compensation they claim, he would state to the House, that the justice of their claims had been admitted by the Court of Directors and the Court of Proprietors of the East-India Company; and those parties (who had to pay the money) had recommended the Board of Control to allow the compensation. How, then, could they account for the refusal of the Board to comply with this recommendation? He had shown that these gentlemen, whose interests he was now advocating, had conformed to the regulation: they had done more;—they had proved their actual intention to serve. They had also proved an actual loss, by showing that they had been offered employment in the merchant service, which they refused, in order to remain eligible for the service of the East-India Company. He therefore hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) would offer no objection to the appointment of a Committee. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that "The petition be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee."

Sir John Hobhouse

said, that the hon. Gentleman did him no more than justice in supposing that if he had seen any reason to alter the course he had adopted, he should have done so—but, in opposing the hon. Gentleman's motion for a Committee, he was doing no more than right. He would take the liberty to state his objections to the motion; but he must be excused if he were not so brief as he could wish to be. It was due to the claimants that he should repeat the arguments which had influenced him in opposing their claims. He did not deny that those Gentlemen considered themselves aggrieved; but when principles were laid down, it was essential to abide by them. According to those principles, in this case the petitioners were in that class which were not to be compensated; they had, in fact, completed five voyages, and were consequently precluded from receiving compensation. The case of the officer to which the hon. Member for Tynemouth had referred was not applicable to the present case; for having conformed to the regulation, and coming within the required limit, the Board of Control was not in a condition to refuse his claim. But what had these gentlemen done, that their cases should be specially considered? They had, as he had said before, derived all the advantages of five voyages; and if they had not been so fortunate in making money as some other gentlemen similarly situated—it surely would not be contended that they had a right to come to Parliament to interfere in order to make good the deficiency. When he first entered into the office he held he found that a similar case had been refused by Lord Ellenborough;—the question was, therefore, decided before he came into office, and he could not see any ground to reverse that decision. Certain persons had said they would have employed these gentlemen, and it was sought to establish what might be called a prospective loss. These gentlemen came down to the House, and said that they would certainly have been employed, but they reserved their services for the East India Company. If that were really the case, it ought to have been stated originally, although it would not have altered the state of the claims. [Mr. G. F. Young; It was in the original statement.]—It was not stated in the original certificate of these gentlemen, nor till after it was found that the omission might be prejudicial to their claims. It was true, as had been stated, that some parties who had not performed the five voyages might have received some allowance; but he should like to know whether that allowance was anything like the profits which would have been derived from the voyages? It appeared to him that the simple question was,—were these gentlemen entitled to have their cases considered specially, or were they to come under the general rule? The Board of Control had decided the latter, and he was at a less to know what the hon. Member expected to get by the appointment of a Committee. Without an alteration in the law, the decision of a Committee, even if it were favourable to the claims of these gentlemen, would not be compulsory upon the Board of Control. The law, as it stood, gave a certain discretion to the President of that Board; and if that discretion were not properly exercised, let him be removed; but it was not proper that he should be brought before a Committee of this House, for the purpose of being called upon to reverse any decision which, in the discharge of his duty, he might have adopted. He admitted all the facts, so that a Committee to inquire into them would be perfectly useless; and as the Committee would have no power to reverse the decision of the Board of Control, he trusted the hon. Member would see the propriety of not pressing his motion. If the hon. Gentleman persisted, though his interest would say "yes," his duty said "no,' and he must oppose the appointment of a Committee.

Mr. Robinson

; The question was, whe- ther the right hon. Baronet and the Board of Control were to defeat the intentions of the Act of Parliament? If the right hon. Baronet admitted that the prospective interests of these officers might have suffered, he contended that they had suffered; and that, consequently, they were entitled to compensation. The Courts of Directors and of Proprietors had decided that they should have compensation; but the hon. Baronet said to the proprietors,—"you have no right to reward your own servants." Under the Act, they had a claim for compensation; and, if it were contended that Parliament had no power to interfere, of what use was this discussion? If the House should decide in their favour, the hon. Baronet would reconsider his decision.

Mr. Bagshaw

had paid some attention to this subject, and fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse). It was a fallacy to talk of the proprietors paying the money required in compensations. Every sixpence came out of the pockets, not of the proprietors, but of the people of India. Let the House consider what was due to them: they had no representatives in that House; and the Board of Control was bound to protect them.

Mr. Praed

said, the simple question was, whether an Act of Parliament, passed four years ago, granting compensation to these officers, was to be carried into effect? Was a certain rule of service, not referred to in that Act, to supersede it? As to whether certain statements were or were not omitted in the certificate to which the right hon. Baronet had referred—this, in his opinion, had nothing at all to do with the case. It was evident that the interests of these officers had been affected by the alteration in the East-India Company's trade; and that the Legislature intended they should be compensated. The right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, appeared to expect him to support the view of the case which the right hon. Baronet had taken, but he was at a loss to know on what ground that expectation was based. When he was attached to the Board of Control, and these same claims were brought before him, he treated them in a very different light from that in which they were viewed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and he would tell the hon. Member for Teignmouth, that his opinion on the real merits of the question was not changed. The Board of Control, under Mr. Grant, had determined that compensation should not be given to those maritime officers who had served five years under the East-India Company. This he had ever considered unjust. On coming into office, however, he discovered that whenever an officer served five years in the Company's own vessels, he, after that period, had invariably left the service. But the state of the case was somewhat altered by the appointment of the Committee of that House. The Committee had said that, as it appeared that the East-India Company had laid down as a rule that five years should be the period of service for its maritime officers, they would recommend the Court of Directors to consider the case of those officers who, not having completed that service, were still excluded from compensation. It could not have been the intention of Lord Glenelg that the rule so laid down should have excluded such officers from compensation. Whatever might be said of his entertaining—from the different aspect the case had now assumed—an opinion opposite to that he acted upon when Secretary to the Board of Control, he must say, that he would rather be thought inconsistent than that the House should be unjust.

Mr. Vernon Smith

said, that the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was of some consequence. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten the case which, when Secretary to the Board of Control, he decided. His opinion on this subject was formed from the hon. Gentleman's opinion. He had a letter, written by the hon. Gentleman, when he held the office of Secretary to the Board of Control, by which it would appear, that the rule the hon. Gentleman acted upon was not one laid down by Mr. Grant, but by Mr. Praed. The letter stated, "that after serious attention had been given to the claims of these officers, the Board had decided they were inadmissible." He could not consider these gentlemen's interests were in any way affected by the alteration in the East-India-Company's trade; for though, as they stated, they were eligible to command the chartered ships of the Company, yet there was not a single instance in which a captain, having performed five voyages, was afterwards called upon to command a chartered vessel. It had been generally considered, that in five voyages the commanders had an opportunity of making a handsome fortune; and if those gentlemen had not done so, it was not the fault of the Proprietors, and they had no right to call upon the Proprietors to make up the deficiency. It must not be forgotten, that the money out of which these compensations would be paid was not that of the Court of Proprietors, but of the people of India. The Board of Control, then, was at a loss to discover what claims these officers had on the funds under their control; and he trusted the House would mark its sense of the justice of the decision of the Board of Control by refusing to grant the Committee. Whether the compensation would ever have been obtained or not, after the case had been considered by Mr. Macauley and others, or under any other constitution of the Board, he could not state, but he thought the compensation excessive. Never had he known any thing of the kind granted. If the hon. Member for Middlesex bad been as active and vigilant as usual, this would never have happened. He must protest against the principle, that because other men happened to have received a great deal more than what was reasonable or just, therefore the same measure of excessive compensation was to be extended to all other applicants. As to the case of Captain Mangles, he surely received more than he, by possibility, could have any right to. He had not accomplished his fourth voyage, but the Company gave him 2,000l. That was a monstrous "compensation." It might as well be contended, that these captains, because they had not been allowed to embark in freight trade, were entitled to compensation to the extent of what they might allege they had lost, by being limited to the Company's maritime service. The hon. Gentleman said, that since the period at which these grants were made, an exception to the rule of compensation as to captains had been made, limiting this scale to the cases of persons who had performed the five voyages, but had not entered the freight service. When the hon. Member was one of the Board, they had not time to go through the whole details of every case; but he was now ready to vote away the money which, when in. office, be was disposed to refuse. The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee and divided against his friend's opinions. The petitioners not having been admitted into the freight service, must rest their claims on no higher ground than mere contingent eligibility. He did not say they were ineligible, but they had not been elected. The Court of Directors, acting on that report, considered these cases special, and threw them on the Poplar Fund. If he understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman, it would appear that Government behaved most generously. His right hon. Friend might, had he so pleased, have adopted some other course, but he had thought it the fairer and more manly course to reject these claims at once. The House, he was sure, would give full credit to the Board for being actuated by no other motive than the desire to perform their duty. The claim of these parties was for compensation for that which had been no loss to them. If the House should now sanction the claim, it must recollect that the principle on which it was made would be extensive in its operation. He should oppose it.

Mr. Hume

said, if his vote would re-open the question he would not oppose the prayer of the petitioners. It was evident, that Lord Glenelg, and those who were associated with him in his official department, had very ill discharged their duty to the public. After this case had been argued, instead of going to a division upon it that night, they ought to have time allowed to review the whole question. In the speech delivered by an hon. Gentleman formerly connected with the Board of Control, there was a great mistake in the assumption, that these gentlemen did not come within the meaning and scope of the Act of Parliament. If the rule of compensation were a bad one—as, perhaps, it was—it was a very hard case on these three individuals, alter it had been adopted and acted upon in the cases of others, that they should not have the benefit of it. They had been efficient and able officers, and, so far as merits went, his mind was made up in their favour. These individuals, after performing five voyages, must have had as good opportunities of making their fortunes as any men could meet with. If the question had been put to them, before entering into the service, in this manner, "will you, after performing these voyages, enjoy your pension, or enter into the freight service?" they doubtless would have said, "we will enjoy our pension." For they would, perhaps, have considered it derogatory to the po- sition they had occupied, to pass into the latter. The rule which had been laid down in respect to the discharged officers of the East-India Company's service, was this:—that all those who would suffer loss from the abolition of the Company's trade, should receive compensation. He wished that rule had been adhered to; but he regretted to say, it was not: and many persons who had retired from the service for years, and had engaged in other business, from which they could not withdraw, had signed the required declaration, and had received compensation. Men who were offered a handsome retirement, preferred such a compensation to continuing in active employment, whatever might have been their gains in the Company's service. It was to put a price on inactivity or indolence to make such offers. The public had great reason to complain of the extraordinary conduct which had been pursued by the Board of Control. Captain Mangles seemed to have retired from the freight service, and to have taken up a service which he never originally meant to adopt, and yet he got compensation for losses by the extinction of a service he had voluntarily thrown up. Because injustice had been done in one case, was a similar species of injustice to be done in every other? He was satisfied that two-thirds of the pensions were paid to those who ought to have acquired sufficient, by prudence and industry while in the service of the Company, to have abstained from coming on the pension list. The Court of Directors had acted most properly, while the Court of Proprietors came to an inconsistent vote, which completely damnified the vote of the Court of Directors. The directors, by the constitution of the Company, were, in a great measure, bound by the opinions of the Board of Control; and that Board should have regulated and determined the proper scale of compensation. Notwithstanding, he thought these petitioners might have expected better terms than they had received. He could not support their petition.

Lord Granville Somerset

hoped, that the concluding observations of the hon. Member for Middlesex would not have much effect on the House. The hon. Member said, that to open the case of these individuals, would risk the opening the cases of all the other officers under similar circumstances. If that were the case, be should say with the hon. Member for Middlesex,—that they sat there for the benefit of all, of those included within the rule alluded to by the right hon. the President of the Board of Control, and of those who were not. He had no knowledge of, and was not bound to inquire what might be, the consequences of their proceeding in this case with respect to other cases. One thing said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse), rather alarmed him. He said, that, whatever should be the vote which the House of Commons might come to on this question, the Board of Control would not alter the decision they had arrived at. If, after a vote of that House, the Board of Control was to reply: "we will have nothing to do with your determinations," it was very useless for the Commons to think of legislating independently on such questions. He believed that the right hon. Baronet was actuated by the purest motives, but he could not carry his respect for that purity so far as to concur with him in resisting all claim, on the part of these individuals, for compensation. They alleged that they had sustained an injury through the passing of the last Act for the renewal and regulation of the Company's charter: which Act contained a clause, providing a remedy for such injuries. The doctrine of the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith), that because certain other individuals had received, in the shape of compensation from the East-India Company, too much, therefore the right hon. Baronet had done well in rejecting the prayer of these petitioners altogether—did not meet the justice of the case. Because those other individuals had received too much, were these parties to receive too little? Because they had exceeded in former cases all proper amount of compensation, they were now, therefore, to give an absolute denial of justice to those who had well founded claims? Because, in the cases referred to, some officers had been overpaid, the right hon. Gentleman, by anticipation, repudiated any decision to which they might come with respect to the cases of others? He considered these parties entitled to the favourable consideration of the House. From what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Board of Control, it was impossible to look forward with much encouragement to the result of this application to the House; but it was idle to insert a clause in that Act which the right hon. Baronet himself carried through the House—providing a certain remedial course in cases of grievance, if, with the right hon. Baronet, they rejected the application of those who thought themselves injured. If the treatment of these parties had been as they represent—and he was bound to assume the facts of their case—he must give his vote in favour of referring the petition to a Select Committee.

Mr. G. Palmer

had been much struck with the difference between the different views of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. One hon. Gentleman grounded his objection to granting a Select Committee on the objection formerly taken by the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, to entertaining such appeals from the decision of that Board. Was it not possible that the right hon. Gentleman might have been deceived by a statement, that officers in the East-India Company's service must have supposed that after making five voyages they would have no further occasion to concern themselves about pensions or compensation? Within the last few years there had been very few instances of gentlemen who had left the Company's service, after performing five voyages. Their rank in the service, thus acquired, was very valuable, no doubt; but it was a mistake to suppose, that in other respects they were thereby placed in such a condition, that a pension was not of very great importance to them. It would be very hard on any individual or class of men to whom a pension had been assigned by the Court of Directors, and confirmed by the Court of Proprietors, to have it afterwards taken away by the Board of Control. He was not of opinion, as it had been very unfairly insinuated, that the Court of Proprietors would be disposed to vote this money recklessly away, merely because they had not to pay it themselves. Such an imputation it was hardly justifiable to throw out upon a great body like the East-India Company. If those gentlemen had a claim founded on justice, what did it signify whether the East-India Company on the one hand, or the parties referred to in the former case on the other, had or had not granted or received an improper amount of compensation? He was sure that the hon. Member for Middlesex would allow, that an officer who had performed five voyages prior to his commanding a freight vessel, derived no advantage as an officer in the East-India Company's own service from that freight service, even after the term was over. If the House should be inclined to do justice in this case, either by agreeing to refer this petition to a Select Committee, or adopting any other course of examination which might seem expedient, he should be satisfied. And then he was sure they would vote for the compensation claimed by the petitioners.

Mr. Cressett Pelham

would remunerate these parties upon principle,—and would give them every thing which the means that were at his disposal would allow, with justice to other parties. He had no doubt but those individuals were most meritorious officers, who had established a legitimate claim upon the Company, or rather, upon the bounty of the House. But he must own, that no rule had been laid down by the Company or the Government, which would enable the House to give it. They did not come within the purview of that Act of Parliament to which he, unfortunately, was no party. They were called upon to express their judgment as a public body, on the expediency of compensating these officers out of funds which were not within their own disposal. If he were to hold out his hands, as a Member of Parliament, to give the public money away, he did not know how he should resist the endless applications of other gentlemen, who, on grounds of similar services, would prefer similar applications. Such a precedent might lead to most serious misapplications of the public money. It was to be remembered, moreover, that if these petitioners had applied to remain in the Company's service at the expiration of their voyages, they might have had this compensation without question; and he should have been disposed to give it the more readily, remembering that in former times they had had a very difficult, though a very profitable, employment.

Mr. Alderman

Thompson had no personal connexion with any of these petitioners, and was not influenced by any personal considerations whatsoever. He was at a loss, however, to comprehend the force of the argument upon which the right hon. the President of the Board of Control resisted the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth. The right hon. Baronet contended, that those gentlemen having served five voyages in, the command of the East-India Com- pany's ships, it would be derogatory to them, after holding such high situations in that service, to command freighted ships. The right hon. Baronet said, there was no precedent for a man, who had commanded a Company's ship, afterwards accepting the command of a freighted ship. But even if that were the case, those parties might have secured to themselves a competency; still, justice would not be done under the Act of Parliament, unless compensation be granted, or these parties fail to make out their case of having been, for this number of voyages, in the employment of the East-India Company. It was essential, therefore, to justice, that the petitioners should have an opportunity of proving that they come within the terms of the rule laid down by Lord Glenelg, and ought not to be excluded from its application.

Mr. G. F. Young

was convinced that he should best consult the interests of the individuals whose cause he advocated by detaining the House only a very few minutes in reply. One or two circumstances, however, had been alluded to in the course of the debate, which, if he did not explain them, might prejudice their interests. In the first place, he thought the right hon. Baronet laid rather too much stress on the power which these Gentlemen had, he says, of so conforming themselves to the arrangements which were established in regard to the grant o compensations, as to have qualified themselves to make out their present claims beyond doubt or dispute. He knew not whether there was the disposition or not to communicate the necessary information to the parties concerned, at an earlier period after the arrangement upon that head was settled; but he did know that it was not till after the House of Commons had given its sanction to that arrangement, that the parties whose petition he wished to have referred to a Committee, had the remotest chance of knowing what the particulars connected with it were. The right hon. Baronet was aware that, by the custom of the East-India Company, it was usual to make such terms with their officers, that those looked forward, from their first entry into the Company's service, to the period of their becoming captains, with the prospect of obtaining pensions in virtue of their service, and the rank obtained—and that it had become the practice for the merchants of this country employing shipping of a certain tonnage to retain their services as captains of the merchantmen. He had the express authority of these officers for saying, that their views embraced the whole of the advantages from which they conceived themselves to have been unjustly shut out. With regard to the allusion to the case of one captain, he was not interested to show that it might not have been a case of excessive compensation; but even if it were, it was not pretended that his service had been as long continued as those of these gentlemen; and therefore the petitioners were not to be prejudiced by anything which was done in that instance. Could the House refuse to satisfy the just demands of these gentlemen, who had performed their five voyages—after having behaved in the most handsome and generous manner to others who had performed but one, or two, or three voyages each; some of whom, however, received 5,000l. gratuity or compensation, and a pension besides? Others, who had performed but four voyages, received an equivalent compensation for five. As to what has been said by the right hon. Secretary for the Board of Control, with regard to the danger of the precedent which would be fixed by the concession of the prayer of these Gentlemen, one word would set all apprehension on this score at rest. These three gentlemen were the only captains in the East-India Company's maritime service who could, by possibility, claim this rate of compensation; and, in order to obviate all doubt upon the matter, e was authorised to say, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, who had shown much anxiety for the success of the petitioners, had offered to bring in a Bill for the specific purpose of barring out the possibility of establishing such a precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman would only withdraw his own wayward objections, how could granting the Committee establish a precedent? Beyond those three individuals there was not a single servant of the Company who could set up a claim such as theirs. He must add, that until the facts of their cases were brought under his notice, he had never possessed even the slightest personal acquaintance with, or knowledge of, any of the petitioners. He never had had any communication with them until he took up their case; and, in doing so, he had acted entirely upon the strong conviction he entertained of the justice upon which their claims were founded. In the same manner he could vouch, that no influence, direct or indirect, had been exercised over him, to induce him to become their advocate; and he could only regret, that he had too feebly discharged his duty in that capacity. It was not until they found their applications rejected by the Board of Control, under a very arbitrary exercise of the restraining powers vested in that body, that they came before the House on the plea that the law of the land entitled them to this remuneration. If they were to be told, however, that the law of the land did not entitle them to what they asked, then it became a very fitting subject for the consideration of the House,—whether that law should not be so modified as to meet the merits of such cases as this.

The House divided: Ayes 45; Noes 30: Majority 15.

List of the AYES.
Balfour, T. Lennox, Lord G.
Baring, T. Lowther, J. H.
Barnard, E. G. Lynch, A. H.
Boldero, H. G. Maxwell, J.
Bonham, R. F. O'Conor Don
Bowes, J. Palmer, R.
Chandos, Marquess Palmer, G.
Codrington, Sir E. Polhill, F.
Cole, Viscount Price, S. G.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Richards, R.
Duffield, T. Robinson, G. R.
Elley, Sir J. Ross, C
Farrand, R. Scarlett, hon. R.
Fielden, W. Sinclair, Sir G.
Gaskell, Jas. Milnes Somerset, Lord G.
Gordon, hon. Captain Thompson, Alderman
Hardy, J. Tooke, W.
Harvey, D. W. Trevor, hon. A.
Hastie, A. Tulk, C. A.
Hindley, C. Twiss, H.
Houstoun, G. Walter, J.
Homphery, J. TELLERS.
Jones, W Praed, W. M.
Law, bon. C. E. Young, G. F.
List of the NOES.
Agllonby, H. A. Gillon, W.
Baring, F. T. Gordon, R.
Brotherton, J Hay, Sir A. L.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hobhouse, rt. hn. sir J.
Bulwer, E. L. Hume, J.
Collins, W. Maule, hon. F.
Dalmeny, Lord Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Dundas, J. D. Parker, J.
Etwall, R. Patten, J. W.
Ewart, W. Pelham, J. C.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Poulter, J. S.
Forster, C. S. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Rolfe, Sir. R. M. Wilde, Sergeant
Russell, Lord J.
Thompson, Colonel TELLERS.
Thornley, T. Smith, V.
Wallace R. Bagshaw, J.

Committee nominated.