ZEMINDAR OF NOZEED—BILL. (Hansard, 6 July 1832)

§ Lord Wharncliffe
moved the third reading of the Zemindar of Nozeed Bill.

The Lord Chancellor
took an elaborate view of the claims of Mr. Hodges, and the whole of the case, and opposed the Bill on the ground that the claim was not just, and that allowing it, would open the door to numerous similar claims on the East-India Company. The claim had been suffered to lie over so long, when the petitioner had had numerous opportunities of bringing it forward, that, however reluctant he was to oppose such a demand, he most object to the Bill being read a third time.

§ Lord Wynford
supported the Bill. He viewed the claim in a very different point of view from that which the noble and learned Lord had adopted. If the claim were a good one thirty years ago, he thought that it must be equally admissible now. In his opinion, the demand of the petitioner was founded in justice, and he rejoiced that, by the Constitution of this country, justice might be done to the petitioner by the Legislature, although he might not, on account of some technical objection, be able to obtain it in a Court of Common Law.

Lord Ellenborough
opposed the Bill. The noble Lord on the Woolsack, and the noble Baron near him (Lord Wynford), had both admitted that the claim advanced by 139 Mr. Hodges could not be supported in a Court of Justice. That very admission on their part, who took such opposite views of the question, was sufficient to guide their Lordships in throwing out the Bill. The original transaction upon which the claim was founded was illegal, for the Act of Parliament regulating loans to natives, distinctly prohibited the servants of the Company from lending money at an interest of more than ten per cent. The interest on the principal in this claim far exceeded this, and this very circumstance rendered the whole transaction illegal. For the reasons which he had stated, he begged to move that the Bill be read "a third time this day six months."

§ Lord Wharncliffe
supported the third reading of the Bill, and contended, that the Company had sanctioned the claim of Mr. Hodges, by the approval it gave to the arrangement made by Lord Macartney and his council, with respect to it. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the rejection of the Bill would be a great hardship and injustice to Mr. Hodges.

The Lord Chancellor
entreated their Lordships not to come to an immediate decision on a matter of such high importance, and involving as it would such serious consequences. After the decision to which the House had just come, he would not again divide it on the question that the Bill be then read a third time, but he begged to express his earnest hope that they would postpone the third reading to a future day.

Lord Kenyon
said, that the noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough) had asked their Lordships to look at the question judicially. They had done so, and he certainly saw no reason why, on this occasion, they should depart from the usual course. The decision to which the House had come was, no doubt, very different from that which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had expected. He put it to him whether, if the result had been other than it was, he would have asked them to take the course he now advised.

Lord Ellenborough
admitted, that what was asked by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was unusual, but he must say, that so were the circumstances under which he asked it. For his own part, he must say, that in his opinion, the individual 140 making this claim had not a shadow of justice or equity to support it. He, for one would be extremely unwilling to take the responsibility of the government of India, if claims such as this were admitted. He did trust, therefore, that looking to the justice of the case, and not to what might be their feelings towards the individual, their Lordships would give the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack an opportunity of stating his case in a fuller House.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
confessed, that there did not appear to him to be any reasonable ground urged for the further delay of this question. The Committee to which it had been referred had, after mature deliberation, reported, that the preamble was proved, and then the supporters of the Bill had consented that it should be decided as it were judicially. After the consideration which it had received, and the vote to which their Lordships had just come, he felt fully justified in moving, that the Bill be now read a third time.

The Lord Chancellor
said, he had no right, in a case of this kind, to ask their Lordships to receive his opinion, as he should in a case where he was giving it judicially. He would, however, ask their Lordships to postpone the third reading, on the ground that many noble Lords went away before the division, not expecting that any would take place. On the Bill itself, he had no personal feelings of any kind. He had acted in the discharge of what he considered his public duty. He bad never canvassed in any way, or asked a single individual for a vote on it. He would not say, that there had been any canvassing on the other side, but he felt, that in all oases of individual claims, it was difficult to prevent it. The thing had been carried so far in the other, and to some extent in this House of Parliament, as to make canvassing not without a precedent; but he hoped it would not be without a remedy. He did not, however, ask for any delay on that ground. He asked it on those grounds he had already stated, for the sake of the character of their Lordships' proceedings, and on the ground of the absence of many noble Lords who would be disposed to take a part in the debate.

Lord Napier
said, that with regard to the noble Lords who had left the House, he had personally communicated with several of them, and knew that their reason for leaving was, because they could not vote against the Bill. It was a question between a powerful body—the East-India Company—and a private individual, and if the Bill 141 were now delayed, to wait for a stronger opposition to it, it might be well said, that the weaker was allowed to go to the wall. He had given the subject all the attention in his power, and felt hound to support the Bill.

§ Viscount Goderich
hoped that more time would be taken for consideration, and that the Bill would be discussed when there was a greater attendance of their Lordships.

§ The Earl of Harewood
denied any canvassing for the Bill. He had been applied to by an individual, till then an utter stranger to him. He had heard the statement of his wrongs, had read all the documents, had attended the meetings of the Committee: and he voted for the; Bill from a firm conviction that the individual had fully established the justice of his claim. If the delay now sought for, was given, it could only be to defeat the Bill.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
declared, upon his honour, that he had never asked a single soul in that House to give a vote on the subject—that he felt the justice of the case himself, and must persist in moving that the Bill do pass.

§ Lord Wynford
said, his opinion was wholly uninfluenced except by the evidence, and upon that he should support the Bill.

Lord Ellenborough
said, that the opposition of the East-India Company was given to the Bill officially, just as the Government might feel itself disposed to oppose any claim on the public purse, for which no valid grounds had been shown.

Lord Holland
, thought, it would be much for the dignity and character of their Lordships' House that the question should be postponed. He, therefore, moved that the debate he adjourned.