HL Deb 16 March 1832 vol 11 cc299-301
Lord Ellenborough

asked the noble Lord at the head of the Administration, whether he had made up his mind as to the giving the consent of the Crown to the Bill before the House, relative to the claims of the Zemindar of Nozeed on the East-India Company?

Earl Grey

replied, that he did not think that there was any occasion for the consent of the Crown in this case. The Bill had passed the Commons without any such consent having been given or called for there, and there was no occasion for it here. If there had been occasion for it, he should have been rather disposed to recommend its being given, on the principle that an opportunity should be afforded for a full and fair statement of the case. He had no objection to the noble Lord's Motion, that the Company should be heard by Counsel against it.

Lord Ellenborough

was still of opinion, that the King's consent was needful. He thought that matters of such importance as were contained in this Bill should not be introduced in the shape of a private Bill. He begged leave to refer to "Hatsel's Precedents," to show that, according to a standing Order of the Commons, the consent of the Crown was required in cases of this kind. He hoped, however, the House would have no objection to hear the Counsel of the East-India-Company against the Bill, on its second reading; and he therefore moved, that they be heard on Wednesday next.

Earl Grey

said, there would be no objection to hearing Counsel at the Bar against the second reading of the Bill: but, with regard to the other point, he believed that Hatsell referred to petitions from individuals praying for public money; and if the noble Lord thought that they should have a similar Standing Order in this House, he might move for it on another occasion.

Lord Ellenborough

thought it highly expedient that there should be such an Order, but felt some hesitation in moving for it, without being, pretty sure of a majority of their Lordships in its favour, lest there should be a decision against it. He had sat for some time at the Board of Control, and knew that there was a great deal of jobbing speculations of this kind, in order to get an undue advantage of the Company.

Lord Teynham

objected to any undue protection being given to a rich Company against the claims of individuals.

Lord Wharncliffe

suggested, that every case of this kind should rest on its own merits; and, as his noble friend had mentioned a system of jobbing, he wished to enter a caveat against that statement, operating as a prejudice against this particular claim.

Lord Ellenhorough

agreed in what his noble friend had said, and thanked him for the caution.

East India Company to be heard by Counsel against the Bill.

Forward to