last meeting, but he did not mean to detain the proprietors for many minutes. Every person who knew him must admit, that he always founded his statements on dates and facts. He was now called on, either to substantiate what he advanced at the last court, or candidly to acknowledge that he was wrong. An hon. director, not now present, had decisively contradicted the statement. He, however, having again examined the subject, must re-assert the correctness and propriety of what he had said on that occasion. He stated to the court, that the committee of buying ordered, on the 17th of May 1814, two thousand half-chests of claret, without at the time having any documents in their possession by which they could judge of the price at which the wine was to be furnished. He stated farther, that a second order for an additional two thousand half-chests, for the second season, was given on the 2d of December 1814; and he also informed the court, that the quantity was not only ordered, but the wine was shipped, before the price was officially notified and agreed to by the committee. To prove that he was correct, he begged the hon. directors to refer to their own book, produced by themselves at the last court, and they would find that both the first and second order were given, before the price of the article was specified. On the 7th of December 1814 the price of the first order was known, and the price of the second was not notified until December 1815. He felt particularly unwilling to press the subject, because for one of the gentlemen who defended this objectionable proceeding he entertained a very high degree of respect, and he could not help thinking that what he was called on by circumstances to offer to the court applied peculiarly to him. The thing was, however, past; and, in whatever way it might be interpreted, it must remain. He asserted confidently. that the amount of the orders, and their dates, were correctly stated by him; and, if the court doubted this, he hoped they would think fit to agree to a motion which he would propose, for the production of those dates, &c. by the court of directors, in order to clear up the circumstance. He could not avoid noticing the manner in which the observations directed against his statement were made; and, if he were to be designated as "the gentleman in the corner," to distinguish him from others, as had been done by one individual, it was a species of personality which he would not bear. The gentleman to whom he alluded (Mr. Pattison), had declared that he would receive no advice from any one. Now he thought it most extraordinary, that any man, holding the situation he did, should

Mr. P. Moore begged leave to say one word to order. He considered his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) to have great knowledge in the state of the Company's affairs; and he believed he rose, on this occasion, to offer some explanation on what had occurred at a former court, with respect to a particular transaction. By the rules of the court, he thought he was allowed to enter into such an explanation, but it was irregular to proceed farther. He (Mr. Moore) decidedly objected to the long prefatory preamble by which the new by-law was introduced, in which mention was made of the purchase of two thousand chests of claret a few seasons before. All the court had to consider was, whether the principle of the proposed by-law were good or bad; and, for that purpose, they might enter into such elucidatory arguments, as might be deemed proper to enforce or to reject the by-law. He conceived it was the duty of the court to reject this preface, and look merely to the principle. Was it then a principle, the justice of which they all acknowledged? He believed it was laid down, on a much larger scale, for the purpose of effecting other objects; and, he conceived, they ought to be obliged to the committee for applying it to matters of minor importance. The question now merely was, whether the principle of the new law was good? thought it was, and should therefore support it. But, as to entering into elucidatory matter, unnecessarily-where all appeared to be agreed-he thought it expedient that the time of the court should not be taken up with it.

He

Mr. R. Jackson said, every other extraneous matter was sunk in this one consideration, whether this be a good or a bad by-law. But his hon. friend had taken the present opportunity to repel certain statements of figures (pure matters of fact), which were opposed to what he had formerly advanced, for the purpose of enabling the court to judge which party was correct; and he certainly conceived that his hon. friend had a strict right so to do. When, however, he adverted to expressions made use of on a former day, he went beyond the rules of order-one of which was, not to refer to particular words used in a former debate. He was convinced that no man, who knew anything of his hon. friend's conduct and principles, could think, for a moment, that he would as

sert any thing which he did not conscientiously believe to be the fact, and which he had not laboured, in the first instance, to investigate.

Mr. Hume said, he was glad the hon. proprietor had called him to order, for he wished to say nothing more than what tended to his justification. All he advanced on a former occasion was forced from him, in consequence of an opposition having been raised against what he knew to be true. Not a word, in the way of comment, would have been said by him, if observations had not been made, that went to impugn his veracity. Under these circumstances, it was imperatively necessary for him to enter into a statement, to prove the truth of what he had asserted. All he should now recommend was, that when, on future occasions, gentlemen, with official books in their hands, rose to contradict others, who had not that advantage (it being well known, that persons exhibiting do cuments, supposed to be official, would be believed before the man who had nothing of the kind, although his statement might be most veritable)-they would give themselves the trouble to weigh the circumstances nicely, before they stated their opinion.

Mr. Cumming said, that the commit'tee, in noticing the purchase of claret, which had caused so much discussion, never had the slightest intention to attribute any thing improper to those who were concerned in it.

The Deputy Chairman begged leave to state the plain and simple truth, with respect to this transaction. What he had found out came to nothing, after all; because the price of the claret was known at the India House, so long before the second purchase as the 27th of July. On that day a communication was received from Messrs. Barnes and Majoribanks, in which they stated, that the charge for the first hundred half chests would be only sixty shillings per dozenand they declared, beyond thls, that if they found the expense less than they had calculated on, they would be happy to make a farther reduction. Consequently, the committee of buying could not have been ignorant, in the month of December, of the price of the wine they were about to purchase. By referring to the official document, he found, that, on the 2d of December, the committee intimated to Messrs. Barnes and Majoribanks, that they were desirous of receiving another thousand chests, and the price was concluded for, at fifty-eight shillings per dozen. This was the true state of the matter. The hon. proprietor had taken up dates with extreme attention to minutia, but, unfortunately, he had miss`ed the main fact. He (the Deputy Chair

man) had been charged by the hon. proprietor with stating, that he would not receive advice from any one." This accusation it was his duty to repel. He never said, or insinuated, that he was above receiving advice from the members of the court; but he told the hon. proprietor," that such advice as he had thought proper to give, on that occasion, he would not receive." What had the hon. proprietor said? He advised the directors to pay the same attention to the business of the East-India Company as they did to their own private affairs. This he looked upon as an undisguised insult to the court of directors, and he used the language which he had just repeated. He had certainly become in some degree heated, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. proprietor; and if any thing he had said could fairly be construed as giving offence to the members of that court, he was extremely sorry for it. (Hear! hear!)

The Hon. W. F. Elphinstone requested liberty to make a very few observations with respect to this purchase of claret. He happened to be in the chair when the order was given, and was, therefore, very competent to speak to the facts. If the hon. proprietor would bring forward his question on any specific day, he (Mr. Elphinstone) pledged himself to meet it fully and fairly. Let him select any day he pleased for his motion, and he and many other gentlemen would be found ready to answer him, and to justify the transaction before a court of proprietors. After this statement, he wished to proceed regularly with the business of the day. But let the claret transaction he brought formally under consideration, and he would be the last to flinch from an investigation of it. He desired, he courted inquiry.—(Hear ! hear !) Let the hon. proprietor act fairly and openly. He liked an open attack, but was not friendly to sudden and covert approaches.

Mr. D. Kinnaird said, the interpretation that was generally put on what fell from his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) at the last court, was very different from that which the hon. Deputy Chairman had stated. He (Mr. K.) believed, the general impression was, that no insult was intended to be offered to the court of directors; and, if the interpretation of the hon. Deputy Chairman went forth without comment, it would cast an imputation on his hon. friend, which, he was quite sure, he did not deserve. All his hon. friend meant to state was, that the business of the East-India Company was not carried on in the same way that the transactions of private merchants were conducted. He really did not think that the proprietors understood any attack to

have been made on the court of directors

and he begged to state, that no man, paying due attention to what passed, could, in his opinion, suppose that an attack was meditated.

Mr. Inglis hoped he might be indulged in making a few observations on this matter. When he last addressed the court on the subject, he neglected to explain a circumstance which ought to be noticed. His wish was, that the whole proceed ings of the committee should be read to the general court. If that had been done, they would not have had another word offered on the subject. The point which he wished to state was this, and it was a very important one; namely, that it was impossible, at the moment of giving the order, to fix the price. It was a matter of honour between the wine-merchants and the directors. The former bad to import the claret from France-they had not in their possession a single cask of the wine which the directors wanted; and they were, therefore, to import it, as cheap in price and as good in quality as they possibly could. The wine merchants could not tell at what price they would be able to buy the claret; and, of course, they could not form a judgment of the rate at which they would be obliged to sell it. He had nothing farther to observe on the transaction. He hoped this was the last time he should ever address them on it; and he was very sorry that it had taken up so much of their attention.

Mr. R. Jackson regretted that the whole proceedings of the committee were not read, for, inside of the bar, some misunderstanding seemed to prevail on the subject. One thing was evident, that a transaction of so indiscreet a nature had taken place, as to call for this by-law. What had the chairs admitted on this and the former day? It stood broadly admitted by the directors themselves, that two thousand half-chests of claret were ordered in May, and, even on the improved statement of the present day, the price was not settled till the month of July following." These two thousand chests of claret, it seemed, were ordered only on the honour and credit of cer. tain persons. After this declaration, he trusted, when his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) said, that the directors acted on principles entirely different from those adopted by other merchants, his remark would not be received with warmth and reprobation; for no intelligent merchant would think of giving such an order as that which had been avowed. It was an indiscreet and questionable business; and those who wished to clear it up, would, he hoped, lose no time in so doing.

The Hon. W. F. Elphinstone said,

the learned gentleman could not have made a more insidious speech than he had delivered on that day. No man was more capable of bringing forward a motion than the learned gentleman, and, after what he had uttered, he (Mr. Elphinstone) desired that he would submit a proposition to the court on this subject, instead of taking it up in the way he had done. The learned gentleman appeared as a mediator on this occasion, at least he wished to be thought one; but, for his owu part, he hoped he should never witness such a mediation again. The learned gentleman might be a very good lawyer, but, judging from what he had said this day, he was evidently a very bad merchant. (Hear! hear!) These were true words. They might make use of what expressions they pleased from that corner (the place where Mr. Jackson, Mr. Hume, Mr. Kinnaird, and other gentlemen sat)-for he must call it that corner; but the directors were not placed in that court to be deterred from, or shamed out of, a plain statement of their opinion. He again repeated his challenge. Let gentlemen fix their day, and he would meet them manfully on this subject.

The Deputy Chairman observed, that the court had strayed very much from the question which was really before them, namely, to confirm the introduction of a new by-law; but, after what had passed

after what had been said by gentlemen near the wall, he would not say in the corner, for fear of giving offence; he conceived that he was justified in think. ing that they ought to bring the question forward in the face of day, instead of shooting arrows from behind the bush.

Mr. R. Jackson expressed his surprise. at the course of proceeding recommended. by the directors. They said, "Let the gentlemen before the bar bring forward this question; we are anxious they should: when the papers are read they will immediately acquit us." If such really were their feelings, let such also be their practice, and let them order the papers to be read. It was for one of the gentlemen behind the bar to make the motion. If it were made, and the papers: were produced, he would peruse them attentively; and if he found that he had been mistaken, no man could come down to the court with more joy and pleasure than he would, to state his conviction. But it. was too much to expect, that those who took statements from the documents possessed by the directors, and quoted by them, should, after arguing on those very statements, be obliged to move for the originals.

Mr. Impey contended, that the line adopted by gentlemen before the bar ons this occasion, was most unjust and ir

regular. In a court called for a specific purpose, certain facts were stated, and were positively denied. A second court was now held for the transaction of the same business, and the facts were again stated, and again denied. The gentlemen making the charge were called on to submit a motion on the subject; and what did the learned gentleman say to this? He told the parties concerned to come forward with their evidence and exculpation; but, before that was done, he thought those who made the charge ought to call for the documents which it was insinuated would support it. The learned gentleman seemed to mistake the characters of the two parties. His argument did not support the position of his friends; but taken on the other side, it was irresistible.

Mr. R. Jackson. "We are the persons accused, and are on our defence."

Mr. Inglis had no objection to the production of the documents. When laid before the proprietors, it would be found that he had truly stated the grounds of the transaction.

The Deputy-Chairman said, he, for one, should consider the grounds stated by his hon. friend as very strong ones. If the hon. gentlemen before the bar thought proper to move for those papers, they might have them. It would turn out that their contents would be favourable to this transaction, which the learned gentleman, before he knew the cir cumstances of the case, had described as indiscreet and uncommercial, in opposition to the judgment of one of the first merchants in the metropolis, a gentleman whose mercantile career was at least equal to that of the learned gentleman's at the bar. This he would say, that every individual in the direction had been exceedingly ill-treated on this occasion, by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume) and his supporters.

The new law was then agreed to. ERROR IN A BALLOT-MR. GRA

HAM'S CASE.

It was then proposed to confirm the new law, chap. VII. sec. 10, which ordains, that, "when two or more ballots are to be taken on distinct questions on the same day, they shall be taken in several rooms," &c.

The hon. D. Kinnaird said, the origin of the proposition which had now been made to the court, was to be found in a letter addressed to the committee of bylaws (and stated in their report) by a most respectable gentleman (Mr. Graham). He had brought forward a ballot on the same day, when another question was also to be ballotted, and a very serious mistake had occurred. He was inclined to think, that, giving Mr. Graham

the benefit of the discrepancy between the numbers taken by the clerks, and those given in by the scrutineers, which the directors subsequently discovered, would not be doing him complete justice; and he should presently state his reason for thinking so. A difference of a hundred votes was found to exist between the numbers taken by the clerks and those given in by the scrutineers. It was fair to presume that this mistake took place in consequence of two ballots being held in the same room. The committee had drawn up a law, by which, if the holding two ballots in the same room had occasioned the error, it could not take place hereafter in consequence of that cause. Here, however, was a case in which a gentleman was exceedingly injured by the error; for though the directors discovered that an error of a hundred was made, non constat that there was not an error of two hundred. It was well worthy the consideration of the court, whether a fresh ballot ought not to be allowed to this gentleman ; it was, however, for their law-officers to say what redress he was entitled to. He should be glad to know, whether they were precluded, by the transaction of the ballot itself, from taking any other step. If they were, he did not know any legal subterfuge by which a new ballot could be obtained. Perhaps the best course would be, for Mr. Graham to lay his case before the whole body of proprietors.

Mr. H. Twiss said, it appeared to him that they could not go into this question` just now. He could not give any opinion on the transaction mentioned by the hon. proprietor (Mr. Kinnaird) over the way, but it was clear that they could not now enter into a discussion on it. It was exceedingly probable, if the case were minutely looked into, that some motion, the nature of which he was not prepared to state, might be founded on it; but he doubted very much whether they could enter into the consideration of it at the present time. After the report had been gone through, the hon. proprietor (Mr. Kinnaird), or any other gentleman, would be at liberty to make a specific motion on the subject, in order to meet the justice of the case.

Mr. P. Moore said, he would not go into the question at all; for if he had harboured such an intention, it would be at variance with what he observed on the preamble of the preceding law; still, however, it was necessary that he should say something in consequence of what had recently fallen from an hon. proprietor (Mr. Kinnaird). This subject had been left in his (Mr. Moore's) hands, under extraordinary circumstances; and it was proper that he should state why he had not brought it under discussion. He

endeavoured, knowing the importance of the question, and the high authority on which Mr. Graham's claims were propounded to this court, to bring his case before the proprietors; but counsel learned in the law, one of them now a judge of the Court of King's-Bench, had declared that his case was concluded, and he had therefore abandoned his first intention. He had, however, selected a middle way, to bring forward, in a moderate shape, the circumstances of Mr. Graham's situation; for, in his opinion, that door of redress, by which he meant to proceed, was by no means shut against this gentleman, and if it were, he certainly should come forward on the broad scale again. It was very true that Mr. Graham did write a letter to the committee, but it was a letter of mere information ; on the subject of investigation he had not said a word.

Mr. Hume was of opinion that the hon. gentlemen who thought those proprietors were out of order, in touching on the circumstances of Mr. Graham's case, had taken a false view of the subject. The letter was part of the report, or it was not; and, if it were a part of the report, as he conceived it to be, they were justified in observing on its contents. They were assembled to discuss the report of the committee of by-laws, and no person could say, you shall consider such parts of it as I think proper, and no more. This he conceived was the proper time to animadvert on the most extraordinary transaction that ever occurred at the India-House; for, to that moment, no investigation had ever taken place to discover how this mistake of a hundred and five votes had been occasioned; and nothing appeared to prove that the error did not amount to a hundred and forty-five, which would have given Mr. Graham a majority, and the sum of money proposed to be granted to him.

Mr. Twiss said, the proprietors had undoubtedly a right to consider the new by law. He did not mean to argue on the propriety of any course that might be taken, because he thought it was quite clear that they had nothing to say at present, except what might weigh as an argument either for or against the bylaw. If any argument, drawn from the letter, were in favor of the by-law, it was unnecessary, as the court had in the first instance agreed to it. If, however, it operated against the law, he did not understand that an argument drawn from such a source could be received, since the propriety of the law must be supported on a general principle; they ought to argue nothing now, except what went, without any reference to â particular case, to influence their minds to pass or not to

pass the law now submitted to them. If there were something else connected with the subject, but not immediately forming part of the by-law, which gentlemen might feel anxious to introduce, it ought to be made a matter of consideration on a future day.

Mr. Hume said, if the learned gentleman spoke to order he was quite at a loss to understand him, for he told the proprietors that they would act irregularly if they discussed the circumstances which gave rise to the new by-law. The statement which he had made to the proprietors was most absurd. "If a motion," said the learned gentleman, in effect, "be submitted to us, and the proprietors intend to agree to it, they must not say any thing, for it is unnecessary; but if you choose to oppose the motion, then indeed you may speak, but still under certain restrictions." What he (Mr. Hume) would maintain was this:-that the circumstance which occasioned this by-law, being one by which an individual conceived himself to have been seriously aggrieved, in consequence of which he begged leave to lay his case before the proprietors again, coupled with which was the admission, that, according to the charter of the Company, the proceeding on his ballot was manifestly wrong; he would maintain, under these peculiar circumstances, that the facts called for immediate animadversion. No man could hope for justice, if their ballots were not perfectly correct; errors to the amount of two or three hundred votes might creep in,-and what would be the consequence? Their ballots would become a mere farce; therefore, he thought they should have said to this gentleman, " you shall have redress," instead of telling him, when such an error was known to exist, that the door was closed against him. The ballot took place on the 9th of June 1815; whether the error was discovered on the 10th he could not say; but the letter of the Chairman, of the 14th, stated that the court of directors had found out the error; yet, on that same day, the 14th of June, when the issue of the ballot was stated in that court, no notice was taken of it.

Mr. Impey thought it was extremely irregular to discuss a question at the present time, in which the interest of an individual was concerned.

The Chairman said, the hon. proprietor mistook the course of proceeding. The ballot was declared on the evening of the day on which it was held; a future court had nothing to do with it. The question now before the court was, to confirm the by-law, chap. VII. sec. 10. If the transaction which gave rise to that by-law called for investigation, the bon. proprietor was fully at liberty at any