ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

time he pleased to bring it before the proprietors, who would doubtless take it into their most serious consideration; but he conceived they were losing a great deal of time by introducing that question at the present moment.

Mr. Hume knew perfectly well that ten proprietors could bring the question before the court at any time; but if, when they were met to discuss the propriety, amongst other things, of a new by-law, he was to be put down by the hon. chairman, or any other gentleman, whilst making observations on a case, which equity, justice and humanity, alike called on them to examine, he should confine himself merely to this declaration, that should Mr. Graham or his friends bring the subject forward, he would be present in his place, and would do all he could to promote investigation, and to assist the individual who had suffered from so extraordinary an error.

The by-law was then agreed to.

The old law, chap. 10, sec. 4, relative to bullion, was repealed-the bullion office having been abolished by the court.

THE HOUSE LIST.

Mr. R. Jackson said, that in the report which was laid before the proprietors, for their consideration, there was, nearly at the end, what was called a new law, which was professedly withdrawn, at the last court, by the chairman of the committee, on suggestions from several quarters. That law ordained, "that, at every annual election of directors, balloting-lists shall be printed for the use of the proprietors, containing the names of all such proprietors, who may have notified to the court of directors, seven days previous to the annual election, their intention of becoming candidates; that the names of the ex-directors be placed at the head of the said list, and that the several names be printed at such a distance from each other as may leave sufficient room to insert the name or names of any other proprietor or proprietors duly qualified; that such lists shall contain on the face of them, the names of the candidates only; the said lists to be ready for delivery six days previous to the said annual election, and that all printed lists, other than those printed as this by-law directs be rejected at the scrutiny." Now it was evident from this by-law, that the committee were proposing a power, beyond what the act of parliament authorised; for, however bad the lists intended to be given in might be, it was not within the scope of the authority of any committee, or of any set of scrutineers whatever, to refuse them. was now two or three years since he drew the attention of the court to the proceeding at elections; which, he understood, were now carried on with more

It

propriety than was observable before the subject was mentioned. He complained, on that occasion, that when an election for directors took place, their halls and passages were filled with livery servants and other improper persons, who were employed to thrust papers into the hands of the proprietors. Those who opposed this system, suggested the propriety of having but one list of candidates for the directorship printed, a plan that would give simplicity, and, consequently, expedition, to their election proceedings. He certainly should submit to the consideration of the court, at some convenient opportunity, whether it would not be more conducive to decorum and good order, to substitute one authentic list, in the place of an indefinite number.

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone-" I wish the learned gentleman had stated this at the last court, when those individuals were present who agreed to withdraw the bylaw in questiou, with an understanding that another by-law, then proposed, should be suffered to pass. The learned gentleman did not now adhere to that understanding."

Mr. R. Jackson-" It was almost the last proceeding, at the close of a long day -and I know it was, and is, the feeling of many proprietors, that there should be only one list."

The Deputy Chairman inquired, whether the learned gentleman was in the court at the last meeting, when the old by-law, chap. VII. sec. 7, was repealed, and the amended law was agreed to? If he were, he must have heard the chairman of the committee of by-laws distinctly declare, that it was the general sense of the committee, that the proposed by-law, to which the learned gentleman alluded, and a part of which he wished to be carried into effect, should be withdrawn. Nor was it until that declaration was made, that the court felt inclined to agree to the repeal of the old law, chap. VII. scc. 7, and the adoption of the new. A candid and manly statement was made by Mr. Howorth which occasioned many gentlemen to withdraw their opposition to the law proposed by the committee-and he thought it would have been much better if the learned gentleman had stated his intention at that time, when those who were inimical to the new law, chap. VII. sec. 7, agreed to it, conditionally, on the understanding, that the proposed new law, on the subject of election lists, to which the learned gentleman referred, would not be pressed farther.

Mr. H. Twiss recollected perfectly well, that the chairman of the committee, at the last court, stated most distinctly, in withdrawing the law in question, that he spoke not only his own sentiments, but those of the committee; and it appeared

that the gentlemen in the opposite quarter of the room coincided in that opinion. He was sure that no revival of the question was expected on this occasion,

Mr. R. Jackson said, if this were the case, it would be unfair in him to bring forward the question on the moment, but he only gave notice that the subject was not entirely dropped, and that per haps he would, at some future period, bring forward the transcript of the motion which he had introduced two or three years since a motion that was now supported by the authority of the first lawyers. However, he begged leave to observe, that the chairman of the committee could not bind the proprietors by withdrawing what was called the long list. The proposed by-law, doubtless, contained exceptionable matter, but it also comprized matter of an unexceptionable nature--and, at the time it was withdrawn, he had not an opportunity of distinguishing the exceptionable from the unexceptionable. He would put it to the directors themselves, whether it would not be more conducive to their dignity, and to the general decorum of their proceedings, to have only one list.

Mr. D. Kinnaird said, most unquestionably, Mr. Howorth distinctly stated, that the withdrawing of the by-law in question had the assent of all the members of the committee of by-laws whom he had seen. As it was feared, that the enacting a by-law, declaring that there should be but one list, would go to shackle elections, he agreed to withdraw it. But, if it were again brought forward, he should feel himself completely at liberty to vote for or against it, as his better judgment should determine. He thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Howorth) did not mean to state the opinion of the whole committee of by-laws, since he had not spoken to him (Mr. K.); that hon. gentleman seemed to speak of them rather as proprietors than as members of that committee.

Mr. R. Jackson-" All I have stated is by way of notice, that, at a future time, the subject will be taken up."

Mr. H. Twiss, who had been interrupt. ed when about to address the court, now rose, avowing his desire to speak to the question.

[ocr errors]

Mr. R. Jackson-" I beg leave to state to the learned gentleman that there is no question before the court."

Mr. H. Twiss- I am aware of that, but I request to be permitted to advert to the course of proceeding."

The Chairman-"The hon. and learned proprietor (Mr. Jackson) prefaced his notice with a long speech; and, I think, in courtesy, that, if any hon. proprietor has any remarks to offer, he, also, should be heard. If the court will not hear the learned gentleman, he must sit down.

The gentlemen behind the bar attended carefully to what fell from the learned proprietor (Mr. Jackson) and his hon.' friend (Mr. Kinnaird), and, in courtesy, I think, the same attention is due to any other proprietor who wishes to state his opinion."

Mr. H. Twiss said, it having been understood that there was a close connection between the amended law, sect. VII. and chap. VII., and the new law, now alluded to, all opposition to the former was waved, in the hope and expectation, after what had been stated by the chairman of the committee of by-laws, that the latter would not be pressed. But, let the proprietors mark the situation in which they were placed this day. The learned gentleman had waited until they had got over section 7, chap. VII.-until they had confirmed it, having thus precluded them from re-stating their opinion on it, or from altering that opinion, if circumstances called for it, he came forward and said, that he was not prevented by any thing that had previously passed, from introducing on a future day the proposition that was withdrawn at the last court. If he thought proper to make use of the privilege which he professed he would have recourse to, he would be clearly flying in the teeth of the understauding which prevailed at the last court, and, in consequence of which, gentlemen withdrew their opposition from the amended law, chap. VII. sec. 7. With this recollection in their minds, he hoped the proprietors would know how to deal with the proposition whenever it was made.

Mr. D. Kinnaird observed, that the hon, and learned gentleman who had just addressed the court, had got his friends into a very unpleasant scrape. At the last court he said, that the proposition contained in the amended law, chap. VII. sec. 7, was so absurd, that it could not possibly stand; but absurd as it was, the moment the directors acquiesced in it, for a particular purpose, the hon. and learned gentleman's scruples vanished, and he immediately agreed to it.-(Hear! hear!)

Now, though he might think this a very proper proceeding, he believed there was not another proprietor in the court, who would not say, that, to insinuate a bargain of this kind between the directors and proprietors, in which it was stipulated, "if you do so, we will do so,' was a direct insult to both parties.

Mr. H. Twiss explained.

[ocr errors]

Mr. D. Kinnaird said, it struck him, that the court of directors, and those who acted with them, were willing to make any sacrifice, to agree to any compromise, in order to get rid of the new law. The proposition was never read to the court of proprietors-it was withdrawn before it was regularly come to how then was it

possible for gentlemen in that corner of the court, as it was called, to give up a proposition, of which, as they had not heard it read, they must be presumed to be ignorant?

Mr. Rigby protested, in the name of the proprietors, of the directors, and of the committee of by-laws, against any bargain of the kind adverted to. It was insulting all the parties to suppose, that there was a connection between the passing of chap. VII. sect 7, and the withdrawing of the proposed new law.

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone." I hope the hon proprietor will not make a speech, unless he means to conclude by submitting a motion to the court."

Mr. Rigby." I do not understand this system of partiality. Is courtesy to be granted to one gentleman, and denied to another? Was that courtesy to be especially extended to one gentleman, for the purpose of making the most of that monstrous proposition, namely, that they were to be precluded from proceeding in a certain course, because the committee of by-laws had agreed to withdraw a parti. cular proposition? The committee of by-laws had done much, they deserved the thanks of the Company, but he never would admit of their binding him and two thousand proprietors, by any bargain they might think proper to make. But, he was sure, it never was their intention to make a bargain with the directors; and, if it were, it ought never to be allowed.

After a few words from Mr. Hume, the conversation ended.

PURCHASE OF CLARET.

Mr. Hume said, after the challenge which had been so manfully given by the hon. Deputy-Chairman, and other directors, he begged leave, without offering many prefatory observations, to call for documents necessary to an explanation of the wine transaction, which he had before mentioned, and which had been so openly and absolutely defended by gentlemen behind the bar. It was necessary that a full statement of it should be sent forth, in order to do away every thing like mistake or misrepresentation.

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone rose to order. The hon. proprietor, he observed, might give notice of a motion, but he had no right to make a speech,

Mr. Hume." I am going to make a motion, and I have a right to explain my, reasons for submitting that motion. However, I shall now simply confine myself to moving.

"That there be laid before this court, a copy of the minutes of proceedings of the committee of buying and selling, relative to the purchase and sale of claret, from the year 1810, up to the present time, together with the dates of the orAsiatic Journ.-No. 27.

ders given for the said wine, and the times of its shipment. And also, copies of the evidence given before the committee of by-laws on this subject, a copy of. the correspondence between the court of directors and the government in India respecting the sale of the said wines and the proceeds thereof. And that the said papers be printed."

Mr. D. Robinson seconded the motion, The Chairman." I beg leave to point out one error in this motion. It asks for copies of the evidence given before the committee of by-laws, which it is not it the power of the directors to grant, for the documents alluded to belong not to them but to the committee."

Mr. Hume." If it be necessary, I can strike that part out. But, I should be glad to know, whether the papers in question were not documents belonging to the East India Company?

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone had no objection whatever to the production of the documents. But, with reference to that part of the motion which called for an account of "the sale of the claret, and the proceeds of the same," he should demand of those who were anxious to investigate this transaction, whether the propriety of the commencement of this, or any other purchase, was to be regulated or affected by the manner in which it terminated?(Hear! hear!) The speculation, it was true, did not turn out well, but that circumstance did not prove that the transaction was not a good and promising one, at the time it was set on foot. Calling for the proceeds appeared to him to be going too far. It was putting more into one motion than it ought to contain,

Mr. K. Jackson agreed with the hon. director, that it would be unfair, unjust, and unwise, to measure the propriety of an incipient transaction, by the failure or success of its conclusion. But, if all the proceedings were laid before the proprietors, it would be perfectly in their power to judge whether the speculation was wisely or unwisely commenced, and certainly he should differ decidedly from those, if any such there were, who would abuse a transaction, wisely and properly begun, because it happened to end unpleasantly. There was no way, however, of judging correctly of the whole transaction, except by having the whole of the documents laid before them.

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone." I did not mean to oppose the motion. I merely made an observation; but the learned gentleman has a curious way of turning every thing as he pleases."

The Deputy-Chairman." I hope the hon. proprietor will withdraw the last words of his motion, "That these papers be printed. The accumulation of printed VOL, V,

20

papers is already very extensive, and the expense is much greater than gentlemen seem to imagine. We have printed such a number of documents, that they fill several rooms of this house, and I believe they have not been much read. If these papers be printed, it is to be hoped a very short edition will be deemed sufficient. For my own part, I think a few manuscript copies, left at the India House, would answer every purpose."

Mr. Hume said, he had no wish, as far as he was himself concerned, to have the papers printed. But many gentlemen said they could not, consistently with the avocations which occupied their time, look over the documents at the house. He conceived, however, that there could be no objection to printing two or three hundred copies.

The Deputy Chairman. "I can have no individual objection to printing these documents. They will make pretty summer reading at the different watering places."

Mr. Rigby. "As to persons taking them to watering places, I shall only say, that the observation might be spared. I am one of those who reside near thirty miles from the metropolis, and it will be a convenience to me to have the documents printed, that I may read them at my leisure."

The Chairman. "I understand we have no control over the proceedings of the committee of by laws, which the motion requires."

Mr. Hume. "You can direct a letter to the chairman of the committee, and he will grant a copy."

The Chairman. "Then let the words calling for the evidence be struck out, and a proper motion be submitted to the court."

Mr. Jackson. "Are not the proceediugs of the committee, proceedings of the court by whom they are appointed? And if, instead of acting meritoriously, they had conducted themselves in a different way, had we not a right to move that there should be laid before us a report of the proceedings of those whom we delegated ?"

"The

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone. court of proprietors can demand the documents; they belong to the court of proprietors." (Hear! hear !)

The Chairman. "This was a committee of the court of proprietors, not of the court of directors; and the latter could not call on the former for these

papers. If, therefore, the hon. proprietor wishes for information from the committee of by-laws, his motion ought to be directed to that committee. I can apply for information to the committee, who may grant it or refuse it." The hon. D. Kinnaird.

"The hon.

chairman seems to think that he is in a court of directors; but this is a court of proprietors; and, by our proper organ, we ask of the committee of by-laws for those documents."

Mr. Rigby. "If the chairman of the committee were to refuse your request, a mandamus night issue."-(A laugh!)

measure.

The hon. D. Kinnaird suggested to his hon. friend the propriety of withdrawing his motion. It must tend, if carried farther, to a distinct inquiry; and the committee of by-laws had declared, that there was no ground or reason for such a The hon. proprietor had stood forward and said, he was ready to meet an investigation of his statement; and the gentlemen behind the bar expressed themselves no less eager for inquiry. Now the honor of both being satisfied, he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion.

Mr. Hume observed, it had been insinuated, that if this motion were not brought forward, those who had provoked inquiry would stand in a curious light; he therefore had met the challenge openly, and called for all the documents. In doing this, he did not wish to create or to keep up ill-blood between the directors and the proprietors; and, if such should be the result, it certainly was not one which he intended to produce. After the challenge which had heen given, he submitted whether he could, consistently with what he owed to his own character, withdraw the motion. The court might, if they thought proper, over-rule the motion; but, although he was the last person that would unnecessarily persist in a proposition, he did not think, after what had passed, that he could with propriety abandon that which he had now submitted to the proprietors.

Mr. R. Jackson said, he hoped it would be remembered, in justice to himself, that at the last court he scarcely uttered half-a-dozen of words on this subject. He was extremely sorry that the committee mentioned it at all, it being but a speck, a mere matter of secondary consideration, when compared with the importance of the by-law, which he looked upon as a most wise and wholesome one. The principle of the law was, to make the general rule the proceeding by public contract, and rendering private contract the exception to it, instead of continuing the old system. He regretted that the wine transaction was at all alluded to; but when a challenge was made, impugning the statements of his hon. friend, -statements for the truth of which he pledged himself, it was almost impossible for a motion, submitted under such circumstances, to be withdrawn. Certainly no man could say, that he ever countenanced a proposition for withdrawing

a motion which was meant to meet a challenge, unless a proper explanation、 was given on each side.

[ocr errors]

The Deputy Chairman. "Is the hon. proprietor ready to listen to the friends of peace, or does he still hold out the sword of war? While attending to the mild suggestions of the hon. proprietor, he seemed disposed to withdraw the proposition, and I am anxious to know what temper he is now in. "We have," to use the expression of the poet, measured swords, and may be parted," without dishonor to either side. The word "if," as Touchstone says, "is a great peacemaker;" therefore, if no personality were intended, 1 can agree to a pacification; but, on an occasion of this kind, gentlemen should weigh their words a little before they uttered them. By this means much misapprehension would be avoided."

Mr. R. Jackson said, if the hon. Deputy Chairman, who had delivered himself so mildly and moderately, conceived that the mere withdrawing of the motion would answer the purpose of establishing a general peace, he, for one, would agree to it. But there was a great deal of difference between merely withdrawing a motion, on the suggestion of even the highest authority, and restoring "universal peace and good understanding." If the gentlemen behind the bar wished it to be withdrawn, with the motive to which he had adverted, namely, that of establishing complete harmony, there could be no disgrace in avowing it, and as little in withdrawing the proposition; but otherwise it might possibly be said, that gentlemen before the bar had made the motion in their own defence, but finding their cause desperate, they had thrown it aside, without bringing the disputed point to issue.

The Deputy Chairman. "I think the learned gentleman is forgetting his character of peace-maker."

The hon. W. F. Elphinstone. "The word challenge has frequently been used, and I am bound to say, improperly used, by gentlemen before the bar. We, the directors, are not the challengers, we are the defendants. The hon. proprietor (Mr. Hume) has charged us with improper conduct. The answer was, "We are ready to meet the accusation, and to refute it." And, for my own part, I am most ready, in common with my colleagues, to defend our conduct."

The hon. D. Kinnaird said, the quarter from which this proposition came, and his own general conduct, must shield him from any imputation of acting from any undue bias on this occasion. He begged of the parties on each side to put their personal feelings out of the question, and to come to an amicable arrangement. He

was quite ready to acquit the gentlemen behind the bar of any thing like corrupt motives; at the same time he could not refuse, when personal feelings and character appeared to be brought into question, to give his assistance to the investigation. He was sure, however, that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) cherished no personal feeling; and he was equally convinced that the venerable director (Mr. Elphinstone), for whom he entertained the highest respect, had no other object in view but to place his character in its proper light. He would, having made these prefatory remarks, ask his hon. friend (Mr. Robinson), who had seconded the proposition, whether he was not the last man in that court who ought to object to the amicable termination of the business, by the withdrawal of the motion? He suggested the propriety of letting the subject drop.

The Chairman said, the gentlemen behind the bar could not with propriety express any wish on the subject of withdrawing the motion; they would much rather, in fact, that the papers should be laid before the proprietors, than that they should be withheld. The only objection he made, was, that part of the motion called on the directors to ask for the proceedings of the committee of bylaws, which he conceived was incorrect. If the motion were withdrawn, it must be by the spontaneous act of the mover and seconder; for no intimation, wish, or suggestion, would be expressed on the part of any gentleman behind the bar, for that purpose.

Mr. Hume said, that though there did appear to be a very strong wish before the bar to suppress this motion, yet, as there was none at all, it seemed, amongst the gentlemen behind it, of the same kind, he was inclined to let it stand. An hon. director (Mr. Elphinstone) declared, that the attack was made by him (Mr. Hume) and his friends, and that the directors had only acted on the defensive. All the attack he had made, consisted in a statement of facts, which he considered of such importance as to demand an answer. A sort of answer was given-but he still rested on his facts. The hon. DeputyChairman then challenged him, and those who supported him, to bring forward a specific motion, or else to lie under the imputation of having advanced what they could not prove. He had, in consequence, called for all the documents connected with the question-and, if there were no wish in the gentlemen behind the bar to meet the feelings of those before it, he conceived that his motion ought not to be withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman-" It would, I think, be very unbecoming in the court of directors, if they did not declare, that

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »