Counselhaving been heard against the East India Maritime Officers Bill. The question was put that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into Committee.
§ Sir J. Hobhouse moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.
§ Mr. Robinsonthought the House should resolve itself into Committee. A Clause had been purposely introduced into the East India Bill to meet the claims made upon the East India Company.
§ The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the arguments of counsel had convinced him that it would be a gross act of injustice to interfere with the East India Company, in the manner proposed by the Bill of the hon. Member. The East India Company had considered those claims fully, and had determined that compensation could not be given consistently with the rules laid down for carrying into execution the act of Parliament. The company had the power of giving compensation in such cases as they conceived it was merited, subject to certain limitations, but he did not think they should be compelled to do so in every instance, as proposed by the present Bill.
Mr. Praedobserved that the company had refused to take cognizance of cases of which there was primá facie evidence. Counsel had stated, that notwithstanding the existence of the rules laid down by the company, the company had the power of examining into cases of alleged injustice. Now, officers of the company had stated to the East India Company, that although they had not served within the time specified as necessary, five years, yet that they could show they had had a certainty of future employment, and on that ground claimed compensation for the discontinuance of the East India trade. The company, however, had refused to recognize such claims unless the parties signed a consideration tending to prove that they were beggars—circumstances which had been entirely omitted by counsel. He did think that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had distinctly disagreed with the Report of the Committee, which had stated that that House was bound to consider 1453 those claims, he Would stand in a much better position. All that was demanded on the part of the officers of the East India Company was, that their claims should be considered, without those galling and unfair restrictions.
§ Sir J. Hobhousesaid, that it was impossible he could be influenced by any feeling beyond that Of public duty in opposing the present Bill. He looked at the question in exactly the same light as the learned counsel, who had told them that the House of Commons should not interfere with property with which they had no business whatever. The House of Commons had given to the East India Company a right to exercise their own discretion and control as to what officers they would compensate, and the Court of Directors and Board of Control had agreed upon certain limits beyond Which no compensation could be granted. The Act of Parliament had given to the East-India Company the right and power to make these rules, and having been made, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) came forward and said, that the limit made by the company was unwise and unfair, and in order to make the East-India Company relax their rules, called for the interference of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman's proposition succeeded, he had no hesitation in saying, that the money to meet those claims which the hon. Member advocated should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The company had already suffered sufficient by having been deprived of their trade; and surely that House ought not, under pretence of doing justice to one party, to inflict injustice upon another. Conceiving therefore, that the present Bill was not only one of the most strange, but also one of the most unjust and iniquitous, that had ever been presented to Parliament, he would give it his most strenuous opposition throughout all its stages.
§ The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 32; Noes 68. Majority 36.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Angerstein, John | Codrington, Sir E. |
| Attwood, T. | Fector, J. M. |
| Bailey, J. | Forbes, Wm. |
| Balfour, T. | Forster, C. S. |
| Barnard, Edward G. | Gaskell, Jas. Milnes |
| Beauclerk, Major | Hardy, J. |
| Bolling, Wm. | Henniker, Lord |
| Clay, W. | Humphery, John |
| Jones, T. | Trevor, Hon. A. |
| Lowther, J. H. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Palmer, General | Wallace, Robert |
| Parry, Sir L. P. J. | Whalley, Sir S. |
| Pechell, Captain | Wood, Alderman |
| Plumptre, John P. | Young, G. F. |
| Richards, Richard | |
| Sibthorp, Col. | TELLERS |
| Stuart, Lord D. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Strickland, Sir Geo. | Praed, James R. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Adam, Sir C. | Lennard, T. B. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Lynch, A. H. |
| Astley, Sir Jacob, bt. | Marsland, Henry |
| Baring, F. T. | Morgan, Chas. M. R. |
| Benett, J. | Mostyn, Hon. E. L. |
| Bewes, T. | Murray, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Biddulph, Robert | Musgrave, Sir R. |
| Brotherton, J. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Brownrigg, S. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Buller, Charles | Parker, J. |
| Chaplin, Col. | Potter, R. |
| Collier, John | Pusey, P. |
| Collins, W. | Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. |
| Corbett, T. | Rolfe, Sir R. M. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Rundle, John |
| Denistoun, John | Sandon, Viscount |
| Dick, Q. | Seale, Colonel |
| Dowdeswell, Wm. | Seymour, Lord |
| Duncombe, Hon. A. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Stanley, W. O. |
| Fellowes, N. | Steuart, R. |
| Fitzroy, Lord C. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Gordon, R. | Thornley, Thomas |
| Goring, H. D. | Troubridge, Sir T. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Tyrrell, Sir J. |
| Hale, R. B. | Vernon, Grenville H. |
| Handley, H. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Hastie, A. | Warburton, H. |
| Heathcote, G. J. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Heneage, E. | Wood, C. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. | Wyse, Thomas |
| Horsman, E. | Young, J. |
| Howick, Viscount | |
| Johnstone, J. J. H. | TELLERS. |
| Labouchere, H. | Maule, hon. F. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Smith, R. V. |
§ Committee put off for six months.