Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he was aware of the little interest felt in that House upon any subject connected with the affairs of India, and he knew, therefore, that it would be irksome both to him and to them to address them at any length on such a subject. Whatever he should feel it his duty to state, he should, on that account, feel bound to state with as much clearness and brevity as were consistent with its being intelligible to their Lordships. Their Lordships had learned from the correspondence between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors of the East-India Company, which had been upon the Table of the House for several weeks, that on the 31st of January last, the Attorney-General, under the direction of the Board of Control, moved for a mandamus in the Court of King's Bench, to compel the Court of Directors to transmit to India a certain letter written by the Board of Control, to the effect that the British Government should use their utmost endeavours to cause the king of Oude to pay money upon a bond given forty years ago to certain natives, on whose account Mr. Prendergast made his claim. A few days ago the rule for this mandamus obtained by the Attorney-General was discharged by that officer. Under these circumstances, he should have abstained from bringing the matter before their Lordships, if he had understood that all the objects of the letter had been abandoned by the Commissioners of the Board of Control. He had no desire to inflict censure where there was an admission of error, and knowing the complicated nature of the Government of India, he should have been unwilling to aggravate the difference between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, by unnecessarily calling their Lordships' attention to this subject. But, understanding by what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the other night, taken in conjunction with the papers on the Table, that another measure was under consideration, by which the objects of the letter which was the subject of the mandamus would be equally attained, and thinking those objects dangerous to the interests and likely to prove injurious to the character of the British Government in India, he felt himself compelled to draw the attention of that House to the matter. Among the papers on the Table in the 477 Appendix to a Report upon the affairs of India, was a most important minute by Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General of India. In that minute he stated the distressed condition of the kingdom of Oude, and in strong terms set forth the misgovernment of which it had been the victim for a long series of years. Lord Bentinck went on to say, that so long as we confined ourselves to recommending the reforms we desired to see effected only by persuasive measures, so long would all our efforts to procure a reform of the administration be utterly useless. The letter expressed a strong opinion that the British Government should take possession of the kingdom of Oude by force, and effect those reforms in its internal Government which were deemed so essential. That minute was founded on the report of Mr. Maddock. It appeared by the Report that not more than two-thirds of the revenue was collected, and that it was insufficient to meet the public expenditure. The President of the Board of Control must have had before him this letter and report when he commenced his correspondence with the Court of Directors. He must, therefore, have known how inconvenient it would be, to press a pecuniary claim at such a moment, and how greatly it must embarrass the negotiations that were at that moment pending. The difficulties of the negotiation with the king of Oude were infinitely greater now, than they were in the time of Lord Wellesley, who had made a very statesmanlike representation upon the subject, giving it as his reason for not pressing on the king of Oude, his distressed condition. The President of the Board of Control knew, that it was hopeless to expect payment unless by the employment of force. He knew, that it was utterly hopeless in the present state of affairs in Oude, to expect immediate payment of the money merely on demand. The President of the Board of Control was prepared then to use force for that purpose, and he stated in his letter, that the utmost assistance on the part of the Government would be given to carry the arrangement into effect. But the right hon. Gentleman knew more; he must have known, that the king of Oude would as peremptorily refuse the payment as his predecessor had refused in 1816, notwithstanding the strong language used by Mr. Strachey. The Directors, in their letter in reply to Mr. Grant, of the 1st of March, 1833, observed, that the expres- 478 sion used in the despatch which they were called on to send out, namely—that the "utmost efforts" should be made by the British Government in India, to procure the payment of this demand, could only refer to "compulsion" either by "intimidation or force." Such was the interpretation put on it by the Court of Directors, and it had not been denied to this day. Fourteen months had elapsed since the Directors had thus characterized this part of the despatch, and it had hitherto received no denial. It was evident, therefore, that force was contemplated. It, however, no official sanction had been given by the authorities at home—that was, by the Directors of the East-India Company—for the adoption of such a course, in what situation would the Governor-General have been placed? He could not have acted upon any such order, without the positive sanction of the authorities at home. He could not execute such instructions, without incurring the penalties of a misdemeanour. There was an Act of Parliament, which was most wisely framed by their predecessors, by which it was made unlawful for the Governor-General to make war upon any native state, unless that state had commenced hostilities, or was preparing to commence hostilities, against the British power, or against any native power which was under British protection. Had Lord William Bentinck acted on the letter of Mr. Grant, and proceeded to use force, he would have come within the statute. He would challenge the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to deny, that the Governor-General would not have come within the meaning of the statute. It would not have been lawful for the Governor-General to execute that, notwithstanding any instructions he might have received from the Home Government, which in itself was unlawful to be executed. Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible, if the question had come before the Court of King's Bench, for the Judges of that Court to direct the Court of Directors to sanction the letter of the Board of Control, and to send out instructions to India conformable thereto. It mattered not, in his opinion, when he looked at the provisions of that Act, whether the claim of Mr. Prendergast were a good claim or a bad one. He contended, that they were not at liberty, under existing arrangements and treaties, to press au- 479 thoritatively any private claim on the king of Oude. It had long ago been determined, that no British subject, that no servant of the Company, should have anything to do with loans granted to native princes. For half a century, the Court of Directors had acted upon that principle, which, however, seemed to have been departed from in this peculiar case. In 1786 the Marquess Cornwallis directed the Resident at Oude not to interfere in the monied transactions, or in the details of the administration of the Court of Oude; and it was perfectly clear and distinct from the minutes of Lord Cornwallis and of others, that no such interference in the internal affairs of Oude, and especially with the claim of a private individual, had been suffered in his time. In 1797 a most just and proper regulation was adopted by Parliament, for the purpose of checking the prevalent practice which privately existed, of British subjects making loans, and mixing themselves up with money transactions connected with the native princes. It seemed, that the "wholesome orders" given by the Court of Directors on this subject had not been effectual; and it was enacted, "that any person so offending, after the 1st of December, 1797, should be considered guilty of a misdemeanour," and that all "bonds, notes, assignments, or securities, held directly or indirectly for the use and benefit of any British subject, contrary to the pure intent and meaning of the Act, should be declared null and void. In 1798, when a new king ascended the throne of Oude, they had it in their power to alter their system, if they pleased, and they had not done so. There was in the treaty then assigned, a preliminary article, for the payment of his predecessor's debt, by the new monarch; but, on sound consideration, and with a just view of the importance of the Act of Parliament of the preceding year, that article was left out in the definitive treaty. In 1801, when the treaty with Lord Wellesley was entered into, no provision was made for the payment of those claims. The Nabob Vizier was left free to deal with them as he pleased. In 1802, when what was called the final treaty or arrangement, entered into at Lucknow, at which place Lord Wellesley was at the time, it was distinctly declared, that there was no question of importance or interest to create any differences between the King of 480 Oude and the East-India Company. It was perfectly clear to his (Lord Ellenborough's) mind, from this treaty, that Lord Wellesley had no intention to press on the Vizier for the payment of those debts. That noble Lord (Wellesley) must have known, that to endeavour to enforce payment of the debts would be something more than a question of common difficulty—that it must be both vexatious and dangerous. If reference were made to the letter in the voluminous correspondence of Lord Wellesley, to which so much allusion had been made, with respect to the debts of the Vizier of Oude, it would be seen that he directed, that the payment of the debts of his creditors should be pressed with all the force, not of arms, as at present intended, but with all the force that the delicacy of the claims would admit. Again, Lord Hastings, who, undoubtedly, thought the claims just, said, that nothing would justify direct interference in the internal government of the country. He contended, therefore, that under no circumstances could private claims be enforced by threats or arms. If private claims, then, could not be enforced, and, he thought, there was nothing in this particular claim to make it different from others, it would be an act of partiality and injustice to press this debt. In 1795 the Vizier of Oude made propositions to the Company with a view to enter into arrangements for placing the Government of the country on a better footing, and for the payment of his debts. The resident at Lucknow was told, that he might interfere on his own responsibility; but, after a few days, it was found, that the Nabob Vizier and his creditors had compounded their affairs without any interference of the British resident. There were two classes of debtors, namely, European and native. The European creditors were able to make much better terms than the native creditors. The native creditors, for one of whom Mr. Prendergast appeared, would not accept the sums offered to them; but all the European creditors, who were, as he (Lord Ellenborough) had just observed, offered better terms, accepted the offer of the Nabob Vizier, with the exception of one (Mr. Bruce) who was dissatisfied with it. This European creditor got nothing, as was also the case with the native creditors who refused. By the engagement with his European creditors, the 481 Vizier undertook to liquidate their claims within six years. The Vizier, however, died at the end of the first year; and, in consequence, his European creditors only got one instalment of their debts. The native creditors, however, the Dosses, one of whose claim had since been urged by Mr. Prendergast, and Mr. Bruce, the European creditor, who refused to accept the terms offered him by the Vizier, got nothing. If, then, we were pledged to enforce payment in one case, we were pledged to do so for all the creditors. Was the Government, he would ask, prepared to support the particular claim advanced by Mr. Prendergast, without reference to the other creditors? It was generally believed—indeed it was notorious—that Mr. Prendergast purchased the claim he had so long urged, in whole or in part, from the original claimants. This he (Lord Ellenborough) would venture to assert, was notorious, and admitted by every one. He then had to consider, whether the claim urged by Mr. Prendergast was lawful or not. He said, that it was not a legal claim. By the 37th George 3rd, it was declared, that no European should make loans or enter into bonds with the native princes; and, also, that no European should purchase any bond or debt of any native prince; and it was enacted, that any such bond or debt, purchased within a certain time after the passing of the Act, should become at once null and void. The purchase made by Mr. Prendergast, was of this description; it was an unlawful transaction, and the debt at once became liable to the penalty of the Act, which was forfeiture. He was sure, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, would not deny the proposition. It was so strong, it was so clear, that he challenged contradiction. By the 37th George 3rd, it was enacted, that if any European purchased the assignment of any loan, bond, or debt, bearing interest, of any native sovereign, that he should be equally subject to the penalty of the Act as if he were a party to the original loan or bond. This Act passed in 1797, and any person purchasing such assignments after December, 1797, became liable to the provisions of the Act. On these grounds, then, as well as on others, he contended, that it was an illegal claim—a claim null and void by the English law, and could not be enforced. The claim on the Vizier 482 had been purchased by Mr. Prendergast, and it was that circumstance which brought him within the provisions of the Act. He was sure, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, would not attempt to controvert that position he had laid down. Under these circumstances, he was not surprised, that the application to the Court of King's Bench had not been persisted in, and that Mr. Attorney-General had moved, that the order of the Court be discharged. He was not surprised, he repeated, because he was sure, that the Court of King's Bench would not have granted the mandamus when it was made acquainted with the circumstances of the case. He was convinced, that when all the points of the case should be made known to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he would be of opinion, that to send that letter to India was wrong, and was most unjust to the Governor-General. He had no wish, however, to use harsh language, yet he must say, that the letter which had been sent to the Directors from the Board of Control was contrary to law—and contrary to equity: it was in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of an Act of Parliament, and it recommended a course of proceeding opposed to the honour, the interests, and the welfare of the country. He gave no credit to the Board of Control for not pressing for the mandamus, because they could not have procured it; and, if the letter had been sent out, it could not have been acted on, because it was contrary to law. He had, however, learnt from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that ulterior measures were to be resorted to, in order to enforce these claims on the king of Oude. He had understood from the noble and learned Lord, that Lord William Bentinck would be instructed on the subject, and that the measures to be adopted were under the consideration of the Board of Control, and of his Majesty's Government. It was intended to adopt some measures of interference with the government of the king of Oude, in order that a provision for the payment of the debts of the former Vizier should be made out of the revenues of that country; and in which debts, that of Mr. Prendergast, illegal as it was, should be included. It appeared, that instructions were to be sent to Lord William Bentinck with respect to those debts, and he (Lord Ellenborough) could not help 483 feeling considerable alarm at the state of things which might arise from such unnecessary and unjust interference with a native and friendly power in India. But if his Majesty's Ministers were determined to adopt regulations for the purpose of interfering in the concerns of an allied and friendly power, let them, at least, take care, that the stain of cupidity and extortion was not thrown on the country. It was possible, that they were justified in interfering to procure the payment of those claims, but that could never be by resorting to measures of harshness or to actual hostility. If the course that was urged by the Board of Control was intended as the introduction of a measure of reform in the government of Oude, he would only observe, that nothing could be more absurd. If they went back to 1794, and intended to include the debts contracted since that time in the demand to be made on the king of Oude, they would have such an amount of claims, that the attempt to enforce payment would reduce Oude to a state of universal bankruptcy. If the name of Englishmen was to be associated with enforcing such measures as had been suggested on account of these claims on the people of that distressed country, he did not hesitate to say, that it would for ever disgrace that name. They would be going back to a system of government which had not prevailed for the last fifty years in India; and they would imitate transactions, the recollection of which were regarded with shame, and which had been stigmatized by the law as criminal. Such principles of government in India, as he had alluded to, were, on the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, condemned by the noble Earl opposite, by Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox and other great men of the day. No question of greater importance than the present to the character and honour of this country could be conceived, for it was, in point of fact, whether or not we were to assume the government of Oude? The character of the British Government in India for moderation and justice depended on keeping the strictest faith with the princes of that country, as had been particularly dwelt on in Mr. Maddock's Report on the State of Oude. He would urge, therefore, on his Majesty's Government the essential importance of not interfering in the internal affairs of allied or friendly States. If, however, his Majesty's Minis- 484 ters persisted in doing so, it was of essential importance that it should be evident to the people of India that they did so for the protection of the public interest—that they did so purely for the purpose of relieving the people from oppression, and that no suspicion could exist that they were influenced in their conduct by sordid and selfish motives. There was nothing in Lord William Bentinck's letter to justify the opinion that he approved of an interference in the internal government of Oude. The noble Lord said, that the government of Oude had been greatly improved within the last few years, and that the condition of the people was much better than formerly. He said, that the minister lately chosen to conduct the administration in Oude was one of the most able and excellent men in India; that he was regarded with affection by the people of the country; that his character was revered in all India; that he entertained no feelings of hostility to the British Government, although such an imputation had been cast upon him by the resident; and that he was engaged in measures which would tend to the improvement of the country under his control. There could be no doubt of his integrity. The matter, therefore, should be left to the honour of this able minister. He must object to anything like an interference with the government of a friendly power backed by the whole influence of British power. He thought, that it was of essential importance, that all the papers and correspondence relative to this subject should be laid on their Lordships' Table. There was a most important paper drawn up by Lord William Bentinck, and another by Lord Hastings, in which both these noble Lords admitted, that, by the Treaty of Oude, we were not justified in interfering in the internal government of a native power. Nothing but the circumstance of the king of Oude being placed in the situation of an enemy could justify such interference. That principle had been acted upon by all the governor-generals of India for the last fifty years. It was directed by the Act of Parliament to which he had referred, that wars should not be commenced with the native powers. This Act was passed with a view to prevent further conquests in India. He did not deny, considering the situation in which they stood, that circumstances might render it necessary to deprive a 485 Prince of India of his power; but, in such a case, it was essential that the natives of India should see, that the conduct of the British Government did not arise from any other motive than a desire to promote the welfare and happiness of the people. He repeated, that there might be cases to justify interference, but it would be most dangerous to interfere in such cases as that of the king of Ourle. Such a course of proceeding as had been referred to in the letter from the Board of Control was the last mode to which they should have recourse; for, by acting upon the principle of interference there laid down, any species of outrage might be justified. He doubted whether, in the circumstances of Oude, any interference, however pure might be the motives for it, was desirable, or could be looked upon without alarm. That country was peculiarly circumstanced. The state of the people was similar to that of the inhabitants of the north-western provinces of British India. It should be recollected that, for fifty years, notwithstanding the exertions of many of the most able men in India, they had been unable to give a good government to those provinces. The people of Oude were of a warlike character. They possessed an army of 60,000 men, which, if they took possession of the country, they would find it alike difficult to maintain or disband. They would find it a matter of the greatest difficulty to retain possession of the country without the authority of the Sovereign; the feelings of all the men of influence and power, as well as the mass of the people, would render any such attempt extremely dangerous. It ought also to be recollected, that the great bulk of the people were Mahomedans, and extremely jealous of any interference. If, then, the improvement of the state of Oude, by violent interposition, was doubtful, why should recourse be had to such a course, and especially where it was pregnant with dangers in respect to other provinces in India? Hitherto interference had been used under peculiar circumstances, which separated the case of one particular state from the rest; but when once the principle was established that, for misgovernment, a sovereign might be dethroned, and of that misgovernment the Legislature of this country erected themselves as the sole judges, an alarm would be excited in all the provinces in India, for the case was that of all who, accord- 486 ing to the British interpretation of good government, might, at some period, be placed in a similar predicament. This was a consideration deserving of the most serious attention. In his opinion there was not a single circumstance that did not show the inexpediency of interfering in the present case. Before he sat down, he begged to direct their Lordships' attention to one circumstance which required particular attention. It was stated, that the British Government was anxious to make provision for the payment of debts contracted since 1794, and he would ask, whether it was not possible that such a pretext might not be regarded with something more than suspicion? Might not the motive of cupidity be directly imputed to them—might it not be said, that they desired to extend their power and influence without regard to the means—that, in short, reform was their pretence, but spoliation was their object? He trusted, that a good system of government might be established, in order that it might lead to improvements, and confer benefits on the people which they did not at present enjoy. If it were attempted to resort to the old system of Government in India, and endeavour to extort every farthing from an impoverished destitute people—if any were influenced by private, not by public, objects—he wished it to be known, that he was no party to such proceedings, and he trusted, that the British Government might be vindicated from the ignominious suspicion of such a charge. They had been told last year that a new era was about to dawn on the people of India—that a new and more liberal system was to be established; but he feared, that the new era was a return to the old system of Indian government which had been abandoned for fifty years. Sooner than return to the ancient system of extorting every farthing from the resources of an unfortunate people, for the purpose of rewarding individual favourites, or for private objects, he should not desire the maintenance of our Indian possessions for one day; and rather than the ignominy of such a course should be attached to the British nation, he would see its power in India fall for ever. An unreformed Parliament, had declared its intention to prevent the extension of our empire, and put a stop to the perpetration of crime for that purpose. He trusted that the same virtue would exist in the present Parliament, 487 and that it would not sanction the course of proceeding set forth in the instructions sent from the Board of Control to the Directors. He had told them of a great wrong, of a great injustice, and a great crime that might have been committed, at least so he should have considered it, had the orders of the Board of Control been acted upon; but he feared, if he understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack correctly, that the matter was still under the favourable consideration of the Government. In conclusion, he trusted their Lordships would prevent any such conduct from being pursued, and that the Government would preserve good faith with native sovereigns in India, the allies of this country; and that that high character for integrity and honour which we had hitherto maintained would be sedulously and strictly preserved. He believed, that there would be no objection to the Motion which he was about to make, and he would, therefore, move for, "Copies of all minutes of the Governor-General and members of Council in Bengal, and of all proceedings of the Governor-General in Council, and of all communications from the Governor-General in Council to the Court of Directors of the East-India Company, relative to the affairs of Oude, from 30th July, 1831, to the present time; together with a specification of the dates at which the several documents have been received by the Court of Directors. Also, copies of all communications relative to the affairs of Oude from the Court of Directors of the East-India Company to the Governor-General in Council, from the receipt of the minute of the Governor-General, dated 30th July, 1831, to the present time; and also, copy of a despatch from the Secretary to the supreme Government, to the Resident at Lucknow, dated the 11th July, 1811; and of a letter from the Governor-General to the Resident at Lucknow, dated 25th March, 1814, referred to in the minute of the Governor-General, dated 30th July, 1831—so far as the same can be granted without detriment to the public service."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that whatever opinion he might entertain, whatever course he might feel it his duty to pursue, with respect to some parts of the noble Lord's speech, he felt satisfied that he could not do better than follow the noble Lord in one course which he had pursued, and he (the Lord Chancellor) felt assured 488 that their Lordships would feel obliged to him for so doing—namely, confining his observations to the question before the House, and stating them as shortly as possible. With respect to the papers which had been moved for by the noble Baron, he (the Lord Chancellor) had no objection to their production, unless on one ground—namely, that they went over a considerable space of time, and, as he was informed, for he did not know directly what was the case, they were somewhat voluminous. That was, however, a consideration for their Lordships. He said, that there was no objection to the production of these papers, but he ought to have said, that, perhaps, every single document required by the noble Lord could not be produced, but he (the Lord Chancellor) would promise that, with the exception of one or two papers which his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Control stated, that at present it would be inconsistent with the public service to produce, the remainder should be laid on the Table. Their Lordships must be aware that he (the Lord Chancellor) had no access to those papers, but his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, assured him that there was no disposition to withhold any information on that question which could be given consistently with the public service. He could not, however, proceed to notice the direct observations of the noble Lord without observing, that the line of conduct adopted by the noble Lord was somewhat out of the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceedings. What was the course pursued by the noble Baron? The noble Baron had risen to complain of a motion which had been made in the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus to compel the Directors of the East-India Company to pursue a certain course; that, in point of fact, despatches were sent from the Board of Control to the India House to be sent according to the usual practice to India, and which despatches directed that a certain line of conduct should be pursued. The noble Baron, it appeared, disapproved of these despatches, and said, that they directed an illegal course of proceeding, because they directed the Governor-General to do certain things contrary to the Act of Parliament, and which might lead to the impeachment of such Governor-General; that, in short, these despatches would lead 489 his noble friend, the Governor-General, to involve himself with all the inhabitants of India, natives as well as Europeans, and make him violate his duty to his country and his Sovereign, trampling upon the usages of India, and setting at nought Acts of Parliament by pressing these claims by force upon the King of Oude. To all these reasons, the least of which he (the Lord Chancellor) admitted would justify more severe censures than the noble Lord had directly passed upon the Board of Control and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of it, he would return a very short answer,—namely, the act which the noble Baron so severely blamed was not to be done. In the reasoning of the noble Baron he concurred; but never was a Motion more unnecessary than his; for the course which the noble Baron so highly disapproved, was not to be followed. The noble Lord brought forward a Motion for the purpose of blaming his right hon. friend for having taken a certain course, which course his right hon. friend had thought it expedient to abandon, as his right hon. friend no longer thought it expedient to forward the despatches in question to India. According to the noble Lord's statement, his right hon. friend was correct in abandoning his intention of sending out the despatches in question; but the statement of the noble Baron, whose Motion would have been most irregular if his statement were correct, became the most irregular of all irregular proceedings, when it was shown, that the statement itself was grossly incorrect. He would show that by and by. For the present, he was assuming that the statement of the noble Baron was a correct picture of the case, but he should presently show how distorted and destroyed the picture was,—how false in its colouring,—what a marvellous sample it was of the great graphic school for producing an "unlikeness" of the original,—a picture more unlike than he had ever seen an animal, man, or tree, represented in the worst painted country sign that had ever put his credulity to the test. He pledged himself to show this; but still, supposing the picture exhibited by the noble Baron to be in strict keeping, colouring, and drawing true to the original and to the life, and that the Motion of the Attorney-General, in the Court of King's Bench, had been all that the noble Baron had described it, and that 490 it was, as such, deserving all the censure which the noble Baron had bestowed upon it, still he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask, was every Minister of the Crown, or indeed any private individual, ever so hardly dealt with as, in this instance, had been his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control? His right hon. friend had conceived an intention, which, it appeared, had proved displeasing to some one; that intention he abandoned, and his very abandonment was the signal for an attack against him. No human being, much less a Minister of the Crown, should have been thus treated. He freely confessed, that his standard of political morality was strict, and that he was as exigent as most men in what he expected from the governors of the people; but he must say, the noble Baron, in this respect, went beyond the most rigid of stoics, for he would not excuse the man who, having once entertained the notion of doing that which, if done, would be unworthy of approbation; and when the course of events took away the necessity of the contemplated mode of proceeding, the censure of the noble Baron still remained, though the act was not committed. Such was certainly not the course consistent with the ordinary proceedings in cases in which a censure was contemplated upon ministerial conduct. He had all along, however, assumed the statement of the noble Baron to have been correct, but he was now about to show, that never was a statement of the conduct of a Minister more unlike the real state of things,—never was portrait so opposite in every feature to the original. In the first place, however, he must remark, that he knew, from long and painful experience, the truth of the proposition which the noble Baron stated in his speech, that the subject under consideration was one than which none was more important, and few which more concerned the interests and character of this country, than Indian politics, yet no subject obtained less favour in this and the other House of Parliament than any question the locality of which was the banks of the Ganges or the vicinity of the Indus. He trusted that, on this occasion, their Lordships would do him the justice to feel, that, when an esteemed friend and colleague, in whose administration of the difficult office he filled, he (the Lord Chancellor) had the most implicit confidence, was attacked, or 491 rather a statement made, perhaps not intended as all attack, it was fit that he should be allowed to state his right hon. friend's defence. The noble Lord commenced his observations on the subject before their Lordships by alluding to the different classes of claimants on the Vizier Nabob of Oude. The noble Baron proceeded to state, that Mr. Prendergast had not himself advanced money to the Vizier; that he had purchased the debt from the Dosses; that this was notorious; and was denied by nobody. The noble Baron also said, that by purchasing this debt, Mr. Prendergast acted in contravention of an Act of Parliament, by which contracting a loan with a native prince in India was declared to be a misdemeanour; that no attempt should be made to get payment of the debt to Mr. Prendergast; and that any attempt to do so could only be imputed to the rapacity of the individual who had violated the law. The noble Lord had brought a very grave charge against a gentleman now no more, and also a still graver charge against the Government, who admitted his claims, and sought to obtain payment of his debt. Happily, however, the venom that had been spread abroad was accompanied by its antidote, for the noble Lord had said, that the Act of Parliament which the noble Lord contended that Mr. Prendergast had violated had passed in the course of the year 1797; but the noble Lord candidly added, that it did not come into operation until January 1st, 1798. Admitting, therefore, for a moment that Mr. Prendergast had purchased the debt in the way he described, it would have been no misdemeanour if he had not made the purchase after the 31st of December, 1797. The noble Lord even did not say, that Mr. Prendergast did not purchase the claim on the Vizier until after December, 1797. If all that the noble Lord had stated were true,—if it were true that the purchase of the claim was notorious,—that nobody denied the purchase,—if all the minutiæ was correct, he must still assert, that it were of no avail, because, as was said by the noble Lord, in the same breath as his charge, there was no misdemeanour if the purchase did not take place after December, 1797. He was prepared, however, to show, that there had been no purchase whatever. The noble Lord said, that it was notorious that there was a purchase, and challenged contradiction. With equal 492 confidence he denied the correctness of the noble Lord's statement. He denied it on the authority of those who were well acquainted with the whole proceeditigs,—he denied it on the authority of the relations, the friends, the acquaintances, and the Counsel, of Mr. Prendergast. The noble Lord assumed, that that which nobody had ever heard denied must be true. But no one, whose admission was worth anything, was ever heard to admit, that the facts of the case were such as were stated by the noble Lord. Nobody who had even the shadow of a shade of a right to speak on the subject said, that the case was such as had been described by the noble Baron. He said this, not only on the authority of the relatives, friends, and the Counsel of Mr. Prendergast, now in England, but on the authority of those who were, in 1797; in Lucknow, Benares, and Calcutta, and who were prepared to give the most satisfactory and unanswerable evidence on the subject. The bonds were signed in the year 1785; and to prove, that the charge against Mr. Prendergast was never made without calling down the most peremptory and indignant denial, he would mention, that, when in the House of Commons, he had denied it. He denied it there in the years 1812 and 1816. He denied it in the House of Commons in 1822 also. His noble friend, the Chancellor of Ireland, supported him at that time: they divided the House when this charge was made, and rebutted this notorious charge—this Charge that nobody could deny. The House of Commons, having listened to this notorious, this undeniable charge, divided, and the result of the division was a majority of 80 to 30 in favour of the claims of Mr. Prendergast, and they even granted a Committee. To whom did the House of Commons grant that Committee? Not, be it remembered, to a Minister of the Crown, or to the President of the Board of Control, but to a Member of the Opposition, who, perhaps with that exception, hardly ever carried a question against the Government. So much, then, for the notoriety of the purchase of the bonds by Mr. Prendergast. Mr. Prendergast was the mere commission-agent of the Dosses, acting for them under a power of attorney, and was richly entitled to all he earned in that capacity. He became acquainted with Mr. Prendergast in the year 1811, when consulted by him, to- 493 gether with Sir Samuel Romilly and the present Master of the Rolls; and he had never seen an individual who so completely identified himself with the interests of his employers, indeed to a degree which might well justify the conjecture in the public mind, that he was a principal. His anxious labours, in the opinion of his friends, eventually cost him his life. With respect to the origin of the claim, he must state, that, of all the great bankers of India, the Dosses at Calcutta, Benares, Oude, and Lucknow, were unquestionably the most extensive. The claim in question bore not the least resemblance to a private debt,—had no connexion with any private transaction, and had not in any degree analogy to what might strictly be called a private debt. The course of business was this:—The Nabob Vizier Asoph-ud-Dowlah had at the time a great pressure upon him, by reason of a rebellion in one district, and while that rebellion raged, under the difficulty, nay, impossibility of obtaining proper stores, baggage-carts, cattle, and other necessaries of an Indian commissariat, for want of the sinews of war—a money supply—application for assistance was made by the Nabob Vizier to the Dosses, not the bankers themselves, but their agent, acting for and on the behalf of their great banking-houses at Lucknow. They at first objected, on the ground that the Nabob's Vizier's security, not the best at any period, was insufficient still more in consequence of the warfare in which he was engaged. The English resident at Lucknow, Mr. Cherry, was then applied to by the Nabob Vizier, who gave to the Dosses his personal guarantee, so far as his communication with the Governor-General on the subject would go. Mr. Cherry did not conceal the application from head-quarters, but communicated it to Lord Teignmouth, then Sir John Shore, Governor-General, and obtained his entire approval of the course Mr. Cherry had taken. On this supplies were granted, and more being subsequently required, Mr. Cherry was again appealed to and he again applied for and obtained the approval of Sir John Shore for guaranteeing a further advance. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) begged to ask if this transaction could be put on the footing of a private debt, or whether the honour of this country, of which so much had been justly said, might not be considered in 494 some degree to be somewhat involved in it, when twice over a personal guarantee had been given by a resident agent, and approved of by a resident Governor-General; and when on that guarantee, so made and so approved of, the money was actually paid and advanced. By its means the war was prosecuted, the rebellion put down, the most perfect success obtained, and owing to this transaction, thus guaranteed, the Nabob Vizier was saved. He, it was true, was the debtor, but by the representations made by English governors and English agents he was enabled to obtain the loan, and under such circumstances it was the duty of the Government to see that the lenders were not losers. He could not avoid referring to another important feature in the consideration of the present question. The act of 1793 had been alluded to, and especially one clause referring to future conquests in India. He must also remind their Lordships of a resolution previously passed by the House of Commons, with which he was satisfied the illustrious Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) was acquainted, inasmuch as he had taken a most distinguished part in its strict maintenance and most religious observance. That resolution was to the effect that it was inconsistent with the policy, honour, and character of this country to attempt to extend British possessions in India by conquest. Nothing could be more just, virtuous, or politic, than the framing of this resolution—nothing could be more entire, complete, and undeniable, than, that from the passing of this resolution and of this Act of Parliament, the flagrant daily and hourly violation of them had been perpetual. At the time it was passed we possessed in India only a small peninsula in one place, a small piece of land in another, and a factory in a third, and all held by sufferance; whereas at this moment we, who had passed this self-denying ordinance—we who had declared that our dominions in India should not be extended by conquest—had become actually possessed of two-thirds of India, and were really possessed of the remaining one-third, and all obtained by the very means which this resolution, and this Act of Parliament, so strongly and so justly condemned. The noble Baron had here ample room for censure, instead of emptying the vials of his indignation upon the right hon. 495 the President of the Board of Control for his unfulfilled bad intentions, for the noble Baron had imputed nothing more to the right hon. Gentleman. Here was a solemn resolution of the Legislature, a specific Act of Parliament violated, and violated ever since it had been passed;—here was not evil intended, but bad acts, and a long and uninterrupted series of bad acts committed, and surely, according at least to the code of modern morals and the practice of modern legislation, it was much more incumbent on the noble Baron to apply censure where wrong had been committed, than where wrong, if there were anything wrong in the matter, had only been intended. The noble Baron seemed to have perverted the old saying, that "hell was paved with good intentions," for he would, it appeared, have it, that a portion of it was reserved for bad intentions that had never been perfected. He knew of no right whereby the noble Baron was authorised to assume that any portion of that fiery and tessellated pavement, that even a single die of it, consisted of bad intentions and bad designs which had not been carried into effect—that a single bit of it was appropriated to evil thoughts, which, evil as they might be, and, as in this case, the noble Baron might represent them to be, had not, at all events, ripened into evil actions. If the noble Baron had arraigned the British Government and the East-India Company for those acts by which our dominion had been gained and extended in India, he would have acted with greater edification and more practical effect, than by attacking his right hon. friend. If the noble Baron ever ruminated on once more taking office, and, if in the course of those ruminations, he ever thought of taking the Secretary ship of the Home Department in place of the Presidency of the Board of Control, perhaps he might think that a Proclamation to the following effect, might not be without its use:—"Whereas, certain evil disposed persons have been guilty of forming several bad resolutions and intentions, and whereas it is expedient that such resolutions and intentions should be punished, any person giving information at the office of the Secretary of State will be rewarded, and no questions asked as to whether any overt act was committed or not." Now if this were applied to India it would not be more contrary to the course adopted by practical moralists 496 than that recommended by the noble Baron. At most the charge was but of something intended. Nothing was done. It was only, that something might have been done. Why, the severest Judges of ancient or modern times, even Minos and Rhadamanthus themselves, judged only by the past tense. But the noble Baron a greater Judge than all of them put together, judged according to the preterpluperfect subjunctive tense. It was no matter what Mr. Grant did—it was no matter what he had done, but the whole accusation of the noble Baron regarded what Mr. Grant might, could, should, or would have done, but for something else that happened to prevent him from doing it. It was not for what he did in the past tense that the noble Baron attacked his right hon. friend, it was for what in the preterpluperfect subjunctive tense he might have done, that he encountered the noble Baron's tremendous censure. Our good intentions did not prevent us from extending our dominions in India, first, by war and conquest, and then by a system of subsidizing the native powers, or, in other words, of converting them into our subject states. In such cases the native prince gave up three-fourths of his territory as security, reserving to himself the entire control of his seraglio, of his family, and his palace. During the splendid period that the Marquis Wellesley presided over the destinies of India, so greatly to the benefit of his country, and so much in accordance with the views of those who had sent him thither—during that period of time, which was one uninterrupted course of successes, full of military and political glory, among other things that fell before that power which then went stalking through India, trampling under foot the resolution and the Act of Parliament—amongst other powers that fell prostrate before that mighty force, was the Nabob of Oude, whose predecessor, Nabob Vizir Asoph-ud-Dowlah, had contracted this debt, and who had been reigning Prince of Oude from 1775 to 1797. During that period he had not time nor means to pay the debt due to those bankers, and during that time we guaranteed its payment, and Lord Teignmouth twice over ratified that guarantee. Asoph-ud Dowlah borrowed the money to maintain his sovereignty, and preserve his territory. By its means he succeeded in doing so, and eventually the British Government reaped the benefit 497 of that success. We became by the force of events, as regarded the benefit derived from that loan, converted from sureties into principals—from seconds into firsts. Would any man say, that in honour the British Government was not bound to see such a claim justly settled? In 1811 he had brought forward a petition on this subject in the House of Commons from Mr. Prendergast. But the same opinion with regard to this claim, that opinion which his right hon. friend was blamed by the noble Baron for adopting, had been adopted and acted upon by former Governors of India, as well as by former Presidents of the Board of Control. Everybody who had heard the clear statement of the noble Baron must have supposed, that this opinion had originated with his right hon. friend himself.—that it was, in fact, a crotchet of Mr. Grant, and of Mr. Grant exclusively. Now for Lord Wellesley, in the first instance, as an authority. His Lordship knew something of India—not so much perhaps as the noble Baron, who of course knew more than any one else upon that subject; but, at all events, Lord Wellesley had been in India, and he knew a little even of the pecuniary transactions of this Mr. Prendergast in that country. While Lord Wellesley was Governor-General of India, a claim on the part of Mr. Prendergast against this same Nabob for a sum amounting to about 60,000l. or 70,000l., which had been outstanding for seven years, had been put in train, by the aid of Government, for settlement, and that money was finally paid. In that case Mr. Prendergast was principal. He would now show, that Lord Wellesley knew him as an agent. [The noble and learned Lord here read an extract from a letter from Lord Wellesley to Lord Moira, then Governor-General of India, referring to this claim of Mr. Prendergast's clients, stating that matters of higher importance had necessarily, while he (Lord Wellesley) was in India, prevented him from doing justice to this affair, and repeating his (Lord Wellesley's) entire conviction of the strength of the claim and the propriety of having it arranged.] He would now read to their Lordships an extract from the despatch of Mr. Thornton, chairman of the East-India Company in 1814. [Lord Ellenborough: That is a private letter.] The noble Baron might regard it as a private letter, he regarded 498 it in the light of a despatch—at all events, it proved what was the opinion of Mr. Thornton on the subject. [The noble Lord here read an extract from it in which the writer stated that Lord Cornwallis's secretary, Mr. Robinson, was amply satisfied of the justice of the claim. The noble Lord also quoted the authority, of Lord Teignmouth in favour of the justice of the claim.] There were three classes of claimants upon the king of Oude. The one consisted of Europeans who had lent money to the Nabob, the other of natives who were not British subjects, and the third was composed of natives who were also British subjects. The Europeans relinquishing their interest were paid their principal. The natives, as no one interposed in their behalf, were obliged to take what they could get. They were glad to take a composition of, he believed 18 per cent.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that they insisted upon having the whole of the debt with 18 per cent. compound interest on it.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that the noble Lord had said that they had compounded for 18 per cent. on the principal due. It now appeared that they were offered the principal with 18 per cent. compound interest for six years. The same offer was made to the Dosses, but they indignantly rejected it. They said that they were British subjects, and they insisted upon having the same terms given to them that had been awarded to the Europeans. He would now proceed to the last point on which he had to observe. He entirely agreed with the noble Baron as to the impolicy and injustice of adopting force in cases of this kind as against Nabobs of India. The noble Baron had charged his right hon. friend with commanding that, in the despatch for the sending out of which the mandamus had been applied for, the execution of which command the noble Baron had said would have been a crime on the part of Lord William Bentinck. Now, he knew something of Lord William Bentinck, and of this he was sure, that his noble friend would be the last man in such a case to do that which was wrong. The whole charge, therefore, resolved itself into what was intended by his right hon. friend. He held in his hand the despatch of his right hon. friend to the East-India Directors, and also the orders enclosed in it for Lord William Bentinck; and their 499 Lordships would expect, that, if there was not mention made of guns and bayonets, and to the use to be made of such weapons—if the plan of a campaign was not laid down with the proper maps and plans annexed, that there would at least be some display of power; but what was actually said? and he would maintain that there was nothing in either. In the despatch for Lord William Bentinck his right hon. friend, after stating the various grounds upon which the justice of the claim was founded, added, that our interposition with the King of Oude to settle this claim, Should be "direct and formal." Was there anything of force contemplated in such direction as that? His right hon. friend proceeded to state, that he could not better convey his meaning than by stating What was formerly expressed in Mr. Stracey's letter to the Vizier of Oude, dated in October, 1816. [The noble and learned Lord here read an extract from the letter in question, recommending the Vizier of Oude to take measures to place this claim in a train of adjustment.] Such was the nature of the despatch for the sending out of which a mandamus had been applied for. Was there anything like threat or menace contained in it? He only appealed, in defence of his right hon. friend, to the plain meaning and sense of the document. With regard to the intention with which it was written, his right hon. friend, of course, could alone speak with authority on that point. His right hon. friend was a member of the other House. He did not believe, that the noble Baron was so destitute of friends in that House, that he was so utterly inops concilii there, that he could not find a friend who could do justice to this mightily great subject, and who could interrogate his right hon. friend as to those intentions of which he had been accused, and which had not been carried into effect. That was the obvious way for obtaining a satisfactory explanation from the best authority on the subject: but then their Lordships would, in that case, have been deprived of the eloquent speech of the noble Lord himself. He did not deny the right which members of the Legislature had to call Ministers to account in either House; but the more convenient course was, where the conduct of a member of the Government belonging to the other House was to be brought forward to notice, that it should be made the subject of notice where the 500 individual in question would be able to defend himself. He knew little himself of this subject, and he had, therefore, no doubt, made but a feeble defence where his right hon. friend could make a most triumphant one. It was long since he had first called the attention Of Parliament to the settlement of this claim. The first occasion was in 1811, when he presented a petition to the House of Commons on the subject; he afterwards brought it under the consideration of the House in 1812 and 1822. In the latter year the prorogation of Parliament prevented the inquiry from being proceeded with. All that the Government proposed at present was, to renew that investigation, and to interpose with the King of Oude to have an inquiry instituted. The total amount of the principal of the debt was 110,000l.; and his right hon. friend had merely directed that the Claim should be submitted to further consideration, in order to see if its justice could be substantiated and its settlement provided. Such was the present posture of affairs. It was but common justice to those unfortunate bankers, who had been kept out of their money for forty years, and from the loan of which money this country had eventually reaped Such benefit, that an inquiry should be instituted, and that justice should be done.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he concurred with his noble friend, Lord Ellenborough, in expressing his surprise at the letters contained in the papers on their Lordships' table, and his astonishment, that any such letters should have been written by the President of the Board of Control. He was still more surprised, that it should have been attempted to force such a despatch upon the Court of Directors. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) in that despatch, had assumed powers which had never before been exercised by the Board of Control. He had never before known such a measure taken by the State to enforce the payment of the claim of a private individual, except in one instance. The instance in which an analogous interference was made by the State in favour of the claims of private individuals was to be found in the treaty of Paris of 1814, which was only done in consequence of a similar stipulation in the treaty of Amiens, arising out of the state of things produced by the French Revolution. He would defy the 501 noble and learned Lord to produce any other instance in which the State had interfered in favour of the debts owing to private individuals. Their Lordships would see, that the words used in the Government despatch were exceedingly strong. They were as follow:—"We feel it incumbent on us to use our utmost efforts to retrieve the present claimants from the unfortunate situation in which they are placed." What was the impression which the use of those terms made upon the Court of Directors? They said in their reply, that "'the utmost efforts' of the British Government mean compulsion, either by intimidation or force." Such was the meaning attached to it by the Court of Directors. How did it happen that Mr. Grant did not reply to that charge, and disclaim such a meaning? The noble and learned Lord had said this subject should have been brought forward in the other House; and that as the mandamus had been Withdrawn, there was no use whatever in bringing forward such a motion as that of his noble friend. Now, the noble and learned Lord had himself stated, that though the mandamus had been withdrawn, the measure could be attained in another way. He conceived, that, under such circumstances, his noble friend was perfectly justified in bringing the matter under the notice of that House. He was as ready as the noble Lord to admit, that Mr. Prendergast was a very amiable and a very honourable man, but that circumstance did not alter the fact stated by his noble friend; for if he had purchased this claim after the Act of 1797, it was an infraction of that act of Parliament. He did not think it possible that a person filling such an office as that filled by Mr. Cherry, and who, in such a situation, should have nothing to do with such matters, could have acted as the noble and learned Lord had represented, or that he would have pledged himself as security for the loan. The noble and learned Lord would find nothing in the papers laid before the House to countenance such a supposition. It was said, that a part of this money was lent for the support of an army; but a portion of it was lent for the purpose of supplying food for the Nabob's wild beasts. The money, it was said, was expended in saving the province—a province which, not a few months after, but several years after, was ceded to the British Government, and it was on that con- 502 sideration, that the noble and learned Lord contended that we should be security for the payment of this claim. With respect to the opinion which the noble and learned Lord had quoted of Lord Wellesley in favour of this claim, and which was contained in a private letter, he would oppose to that opinion the conduct of Lord Wellesley on the subject while he occupied the situation of Governor-General of India. Lord Wellesley, during that time, negotiated a treaty with the Nabob of Oude, which treaty contained certain provisions with respect to the settlement or the Nabob's debts, and in it there was not a syllable with regard to those debts. Now, if Lord Wellesley thought that they should be paid, why did he not introduce a provision in that treaty, as security for their payment? The noble Duke read a short passage from the despatch of the present Governor-General of India, Lord William Bentinck, stating, that Oude had been much misgoverned, but that he now hoped for better things from the advice of a judicious resident, and concluded by saying, that he was glad his noble friend's Motion was to be successful; for the papers he asked for would throw much light on this important subject.
Lord Plunkettwould not, after what had been said by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, detain their Lordships with many observations. The subject now under discussion was one on which, when agitated in the other House of Parliament so long ago as in 1822, he had formed a very strong and a very decided opinion; and he must say, that every new inquiry he had made, every new document he had the opportunity of examining, had completely confirmed him in the opinion he then formed in favour of the justice of the present claims, and the duty imposed on the British Government to use every proper means in their power to enforce the liquidation of those claims on the Sovereign of Oude. He complained of the course which had been pursued upon the present occasion. Originally, the Motion was for an inquiry into the claims of the Calcutta bankers; but now it was for the production generally of papers relative to the state of Oude. The two things were totally distinct. The present position of affairs relative to the state of Oude might make it impertinent or improper for him to enter into the discussion of them: and therefore he should confine himself to that 503 part of the case which affected his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, and also his noble friend who had been the Governor of India at a period when some of the transactions occurred, and whose conduct had been particularly alluded to in the course of the present debate. The charge now made, although he was at a loss definitely to ascertain it, was to call down a censure on his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, for the intention he had formerly entertained, and which he had subsequently abandoned, in insisting that the despatch should be sent. The noble Duke (Wellington) had charged his right hon. friend, not with exercising the influence of the British Government in obtaining redress from the Sovereign of Oude, but with threatening to do so with force and violence. He could not, however, find any passage in the document itself which could be made, by any torture of criticism, to bear such a construction. The noble Duke had not carefully read the answer sent by the Court of Directors, and the complaint now made was in no way founded on it. That answer, from the beginning to the end, proceeded on a denial of the justice of the claim and the right of the creditors to call on the Board of Directors for any assistance. The Court of Directors found fault with the Board of Control for exercising any interference whatever upon the subject. That ground, however, was now abandoned, and the charge was made of interfering by threats of force and violence. If a heavy debt was contracted with the knowledge and sanction of the British Government, surely it would be very hard should protection not be extended to the claimants. The point set up by the Directors was, that there was no right on the part of the Board of Control to interfere in any way; but the complaint of the noble Lord was, that threats were used to enforce the claim; but the whole ended in verbal criticism. In what consisted the threats? Was it the single phrase, that the Board adopted the expressions used by Mr. Stacey? It appeared to him, that the object of the Motion was to fasten odium on his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, because he had made use of an expression which, separate from the context, might, by great ingenuity, be forced to bear something like the interpretation affixed to it. The noble 504 and learned Lord went into the history of the transaction in question, for the purpose of showing, that if not by formal guarantee, yet in honour and good faith the British Government had been parties to it. Under the composition for paying the debts of the king of Oude, the European creditors got the full amount of their demands; but what was the situation of the native creditors? They got no such composition. The terms proposed to them were nothing like so beneficial as those accepted by the European creditors. The Calcutta bankers, however, said that they were British subjects, and therefore ought to be treated as European creditors; and on that ground declined to accept those inferior terms; conceiving, that they would thereby degrade themselves below the character which they ought to sustain as British subjects. He relied on this transaction in two points of view,—in the first place, those natives were insisting on their absolute rights; it afforded, at the same time, the most perfect conviction of the justice and honesty of their claims. But the princes of India, it seemed, had a mode peculiar to themselves of settling accounts. They took it for granted, in the first place, that the money paid by the creditors had never been fairly advanced; they audited the account by striking off so much as they thought unjust and exorbitant; and those who did not choose to submit to such a settlement, were declared not entitled to the liquidation of their claims at all. Such was the settlement of accounts which had been represented as congenial to the habits of the people of India. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the Court of Directors; but he thought, in the course they adopted, they had not acted in the honourable and just spirit of British merchants, and still less in accordance with that great and awful responsibility which attached to them as swaying the destinies of that important empire which had been placed under their charge. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought that there was a just claim on the British Government in India, and that the subject ought to be renewed. Sir Samuel Romilly, Sir James Mackintosh, Lord Lyndhurst, and several of the best and wisest men in the country, had solemnly and deliberately declared their opinions that these claims ought to be admitted.
Lord Ellenborough, in reply, defended 505 the conduct of the Court of Directors. Mr. Prendergast, he again asserted, had purchased part of his claim, and he was not exclusively the agent of the Dosses. Indeed, he was surprised, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made that assertion, because he had understood the noble and learned Lord to state, in conversation, that Mr. Prendergast was a principal, and not an agent. But whether he were a principal or an agent, as he was not to have any remuneration unless he succeeded, he was equally concerned in the bond, and came equally within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. If the noble Lords opposite would only consult all the papers which were accessible to them, they would find, that the claims of Mr. Prendergast were untenable.
§ The Motion was agreed to.