He, therefore, hoped that whenever they voted a pension, it should be with this proviso, that it should continue only while the individual on whom it was bestowed remained out of employment. He did not know, on this occasion, how far a well-founded hope might be entertained that Major Cunninghame would be employed again; but if there were any chance that he would be so employed, he thought those saving words ought to be added. He could wish that it should be a general rule, for then they would know what they were about; at present they did not know, but that when a person was pensioned, he might immediately afterwards be beneficially employed; and in that case he conceived it to be a waste of money to continue the pension. He therefore asked, whether there was a chance that Major Cunninghame would be employed? because if so, he would move that the words, so long as he shall remain out of employment," should be added to the resolution, as had been done in Captain Buchanan's case.

The Chairman said, that on the general merits of the question there was no necessity for him to give any opinion, for all seemed to be unanimous, as to the claims of Major Cunninghame to the Court's favourable consideration: he should, therefore, briefly explain the money part of the question. On being placed on the retired list in 1823, Major Cunninghame was entitled to £173. 7s. 6d. per annum as half-pay; the Court of Directors subsequently granted him a pension of £100 a-year, to which, in 1826, an addition of £30 per annum was made, forming a total of £303. 7s. 6d. yearly; since that time his health had been in some degree established, and he requested permission to resume his duties in India; but as it did not not appear to the Court of Directors that his health was sufficiently re-established to afford a reasonable ground of his being an efficient officer, and as Major Cunninghame had been more than five years absent from India, the Court did not feel that they should be justified in complying with his request. They regarded, however, their refusal to permit him to return to the service, while he was desirous of returning, as giving him a claim to indulgent consideration; and it thought right to recommend an additional pension of £200, making a total of £503. 7s. 6d., which in his (the Chairman's) opinion was not more than Major Cunninghame was entitled to.

was

Now,

as to what the gallant general had said with respect to adding to the resolution the words, "while he shall remain out of employment," in order that the pension might lapse, if Major Cunninghame happened hereafter to be employed, he

had only to observe that the groundwork of the resolution was, that gentleman's bodily incapacity. The bad state of his health was the bar to his being employed, and that bar, he thought, was likely to continue to the end of Major Cunninghame's life. There was no situation which he would be able to fill, there was no chance therefore of saving this £200 a-year. An hon. proprietor (Capt. Maxfield) had observed, that their officers in India ought to be made acquainted with the rules, regulations, and usages of the service into which they entered. Now, he believed, they understood those rules and regulations perfectly well. In the case now before the proprietors, the Court of Directors had established no new rule; they had not assumed any new powers. Major Cunninghame's absence from India had exceeded the period of five years contemplated by the act of Parliament, and, in the opinion of medical gentlemen, his health was not such as would warrant the Court's permitting him to return to India. Under these circumstances, the Court exercised the discretion so wisely reposed in them, and declined to restore this officer to active employment. In such cases only did the Court exercise this power; he believed this information was pretty generally known, and most probably what had passed on this day, would be the means of giving it greater publicity in the service.

The question was then put, and carried unanimously.

Mr. Rigby." I wish to mention one circumstance with respect to the motion which has just been agreed to. The application, as I have heard and believe, was made by this gallant officer, on account, in a great measure, of the failure of a house in which he had vested his funds.

EAST-INDIA DOCKS.-CAPT. PRESCOTT'S

CASE.

The Chairman." I have to state that this Court is made further special, for the purpose of laying before the proprietors the draft of a bill now before Parliament, entitled A Bill to consolidate and amend several Acts for the further Improvement of the Port of London, by making Docks and other Works at Blackwall, for the Accommodation of EastIndia Shipping.'

The title of the bill was then read.

The Chairman." I have now to acquaint the proprietors, that the Court of Directors have felt it to be their duty, in reference to recent proceedings which have taken place in the Court of King's Bench, where a prosecution was instituted against certain parties on account of the sale of a cadetship, to lay before the Court the whole of the papers relat

ing to the case of Mr. Edward Drake Back, for whom the appointment in question was intended, and also to the case of Cadet Bale, whom the Court of Directors have résolved to recall from Madras, in consequence of its having been proved that his appointment was obtained by corrupt means.

Capt. Prescott." I have only to request that the proprietors will carefully examine these papers; and if they find any thing to blame in my conduct, let it be pointed out, and I will retire. I do not wish to cloak myself from inquiry because I hold a situation behind this bar.- (Hear!)-I want no favour or affection; all I seek is an honest, fair, and candid investigation. I have, in the first place, been tried by a jury of my country, and honourably acquitted; but, unless I am also acquitted by you, who have placed me in my present situation, I do not desire to retain it."

Mr. Gahagan." May I ask in what stage the bill is, which the hon. Chairman has just laid before us?"

The Chairman." The bill has been reported to the House of Commons; but notice has not been given as to when the third reading shall take place."

Mr. Gahagan said it was ordained by one of the by-laws, at least he believed so, that every paper relating to the Company which was laid before Parliament should be submitted to the next General Court, after it had been so presented to Parliament. He mentioned this on account of certain documents which had been ordered by the House of Commons, but which had not been laid before the proprietors; and, if his view of the case were not correct; if the by-law did not direct papers presented to Parliament respecting the Company to be laid before the proprietors, he should feel it necessary to move for certain documents on a most interesting subject. A very important proceeding had recently taken place in Parliament, in which the honour and interests of the Company were deeply concerned. He alluded to what had occurred with respect to the insolvency of Mr. Ricketts, and the liability of the Company or of the Government to make good his defalcations. It was time that they should know whether somebody or nobody was accountable for the losses sustained by many individuals, through the conduct of Mr. Ricketts. He wished to learn whether the papers relative to this subject, which had been moved for by Sir James Mackintosh, would be laid on their table by the next General Court: He should say nothing on the general question at present, because he did not wish to take the Court by surprise.

The Chairman." The by-law to which the hon. proprietor has referred

directs that such accounts and papers as may from time to time be laid before either House of Parliament by the Court of Directors, shall be laid before the next General Court, and that all proceedings of Parliament which, in the opinion of the Court of Directors, may affect the rights, interests, or privileges of the EastIndia Company, shall be submitted by them to the consideration of a General Court, to be specially summoned for that purpose, before the same shall be passed into a law.' That by-law has been complied with, by my laying before the proprietors the bill now produced. As to the observation of the hon. proprietor relative to other papers, I have only to say that Parliament has ordered certain papers to be laid before them, and that the moment such order is fulfilled, those papers shall be submitted to the proprietors.'

Mr. Gahagan thanked the hon. Chairman for his explicit answer. As a bill then its progress through Parliament was now laid before them, he would take that opportunity of suggesting to the Court of Directors, particularly to such of them as were members of Parliament, and many of them were in that situation, to pay a strict attention to every thing connected with the Company that came under the observation of the Legislature. He was not about to find fault with them on account of any apparent supineness; indeed, quasi members of Parliament, he had no right to address them in that Court; but as one-third of the executive body were members of Parliament, it was to him matter of surprise to observe that, when subjects of great importance to India were debated in the House of Commons, they never attempted to say a word about them. He was not speaking of minor questions-of questions concerning an opium contract, or a monopoly of salt, or of the loss of £3,000 or £4,000 by laches-but of questions which were of great importance to the whole Indian community, on which those gentlemen remained silent. There was

one subject of immense importance, the situation of insolvent debtors in India, on which Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Ferguson, and other members, had delivered their sentiments, but on which none of the directors who were members of Parliament had offered a single remark. With respect to Mr. Ricketts, he knew that some observations had been made; but, with reference to great questions of legislation, which were brought under the consideration of the House, and which were intimately connected with the interests of the population of India, not a single word was said by any of the directors. He called particular attention to this remarkable fact, that in the last session of Parliament an hon. member

member (Mr. Whitmore) made a motion for a committee to inquire into the state of the trade of India: on which not a director said a syllable; the answer to the proposition was left wholly to, and was given by, other individuals. He would take the liberty of suggesting, without meaning to give offence to any one, that the proprietors should strongly recommend to those directors who have seats in Parliament, that they should be strictly attentive to subjects such as those to which he had referred, which were of the utmost importance. He should be glad to see them paying attention to subjects of that description, rather than to the settlement of a salt or an opium monopoly.

Capt. Maxfield." I perceive that the papers laid before the proprietors have reference to the disposal, or the attempted disposal of certain cadetships. Now, I have no doubt that it would be satisfactory to the Court of Proprietors, and would save a great deal of trouble, if the directors, who have studied these papers, and who understand the subject perfectly, would state their sentiments with respect to these cadetship transactions. course will enable us to come more easily to a just decision."

Such a

The Chairman said, he felt no wish to go back to the question which the hon. proprietor had just noticed. The Court of Directors had given the proprietors the fullest information which they themselves possessed, and having done so they had performed their duty. He had no motion to make, but the proprietors might take any course they thought proper; as to the Court of Directors taking any further proceedings, he did not think it was desirable. He would now take the liberty of observing on what had fallen from the hon. proprietor who had spoken last but one. They were assembled to discuss matters relative to the interests of the East-India Company, and that hon. proprietor had chosen to couple his observation with remarks on the conduct of the directors as members of Parliament; this, he contended, the hon. proprietor had no right to do; and, in his opinion, the hon. proprietor had travelled a little out of the record, when he said that the directors did not attend properly to their parliamentary duties. He begged leave, however, to say, in reply to that hon. gentleman, that they did attend both to the interests of the public, and of the EastIndia Company. The hon. proprietor seemed to be offended because they did not rise and make speeches on every subject that was at all connected with India; but he believed that study and silence were better in many instances than a display of oratory.(Hear!)—Many important and knotty points were connected

with the subject to which the hon. proprietor had referred; points of a legal character, and which therefore ought to be discussed and settled by lawyers, rather than by persons moving in other walks of life. He could assure the proprietors, that the directors were as sensibly alive to the interests of the Company in the House of Commons as they were in that Court, and he trusted that he had not sat in Parliament for twenty years, without doing his duty to the Company as well as to the country at large. (Hear, hear!)

Capt. Maxfield said, the observation he had made arose from the circumstance of the Court of Directors frequently bringing subjects to the knowledge of the proprietors by submitting a motion to them; therefore he had proposed that the directors at large should favour the Court with their opinions. As he had full confidence in the discretion of the Court of Directors, he felt no wish to make any motion on the subject. If the Court of Directors had disposed of the question there was an end to it. He had, however, understood that it was not finally disposed of, but was in abey

ance.

The Chairman.-The Court of Directors have done all that they are called on to do. It was proved to their satisfaction that the cadetship, to which he had before referred, was procured by corrupt means, and therefore they recalled the individual; having stated this, he had nothing more to say.

Capt. Prescott said, he had written to the Court of Directors early on the 23d of May, stating that he would not receive any patronage whatever until, this business was settled. He challenged the Court to examine how he had disposed of his civil and military patronage. They had an opportunity to do so, and he challenged them one and all to proceed with the examination. He never hoarded his patronage-he never made an improper use of it. He gave his patronage to his friends-that was the fact. He had bestowed his appointments on individuals whose names he was ready to state, and they might be called and examined. Again, he challenged the Court, one and all, to inquire into the way in which he had disposed of his patronage. He was anxious that they should do so, but he would not be made the scape-goat of any

one.

The hon. H. Lindsay.-" I hoped that I should have been spared the necessity of saying any thing on this occasion, but as late chairman of the Court of Directors, and feeling that, together with the other members of the Court, I am placed at the bar of public opinion, I deem it right to make a few remarks. When the transactions to which allusion has been

made

made first came under my observation, I felt that we were obliged to go into a most delicate, I may say a most disagree able examination. I was compelled to bring the subject forward. The charge was, that persons were improperly palmed on the Court of Directors to fill the situation of cadet by a corrupt use of the Company's patronage. When my friend, Sir George Robinson, was in the chair, and I filled the situation of deputy chairman, we had this most disagreeable subject in a course of investigation for several months, and we were most anxious to bring forward all the evidence possible with respect to this nefarious practice. We were desirous to bring it before the Court of Directors as soon as possible; and it was with the most painful anxiety that I watched over the investigation till it became my duty to submit the subject to the consideration of my colleagues. The Court of Directors, actuated by that just feeling of jealousy which they have always preserved with reference to the disposal of patronage, appointed a Select Committee, consisting of the two chairs and the senior member of three committees, to inquire into the business. We proceeded with this delicate investigation calmly and deliberately, and having examined all those who could give us any information on the subject of our inquiry, including two of the Directors, it became our painful and disagreeable duty to recommend, that all the parties concerned in this nefarious transaction should be brought before a public tribunal. I am sure it was with great pain that we felt ourselves compelled to bring the subject forward in that way. We did not, however, act merely on our own views or opinions; we had the opinion of his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, and the no less able opinion of our own highly respestable legal adviser, Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet. Armed with these opinions, and having the united opinion of the Select Committee pointing to the same course, we went before the Court of Directors, and stated the facts which we had elicited. They immediately said, there are a certain number of persons concerned in this transaction, and they must be brought to trial for their conduct. Until the moment when the discovery was made, I do not believe that any gentleman ever suspected that a director was implicated in the transaction; but, I ask, could we, if we pretended to the least shadow of justice, do otherwise than we did, when we found that a director appeared to be concerned? It was my duty to lay before the proprietors the detail of the trial in the Court of King's Bench, as it was taken by the short-hand writer, and I think I should be acting wrong if I did not express the satisfac

tion which I felt, and which I believe the directors and the proprietors in general felt, at the result of that trial. I sincerely congratulate you, gentlemen, and the hon. director himself, on his acquittal by a jury of his country from the charge preferred against him (Hear!)-I must say, that it is but just to the late Court of Directors-but just to me-but just to the Select Committee who examined into this matter, that the Court of Proprietors should investigate these papers, and decide whether we did not act rightly in using the discretion which we exercised on this occasion, in taking so painful a step as that of bringing one of our colleagues before a jury of the country.— (Hear!)-It is with these feelings that I call on the proprietors to look attentively at the papers now laid before them, and to say whether the Court of Direc tors, and I, as chairman of that Court, have exercised a due discretion in this business. I sincerely trust that you will narrowly examine these documents, and declare whether they do not clear the Court of Directors from every unfair imputation connected with this proceeding. I feel regret at the duty which was cast upon me, but the ground upon which I proceeded was, I conceive, a correct one. I know very well that there is a great deal of delicacy in disposing of patronage; a director might give his patronage to an ineligible person without being aware of it. If he presented it to those in whom he felt that he could place confidence, he would scarcely accompany the gift with a caution. If a director said to a friend, "I give you this appointment, but I caution you not to dispose of it," such a proceeding would imply mistrust, and the individual would on that account spurn the gift, and say, "keep your patronage to yourself, I will have nothing to do with it." I again entreat the proprietors to examine these papers. (Hear!)

Capt. Prescott." I have no reason whatever to complain of the conduct of the hon. ex-director, or the manner in which he brought forward this subject. Indeed he would not have been discharging his duty if he had not so brought it forward. I ask you, the proprietors, to examine these papers. I have gone through the fiery ordeal of a court of justice, I have been tried by a jury of my country, and I have been acquitted. That, however, is not sufficient; you have placed me here, and I desire also to be acquitted by you. I have served the Company, man and boy, for one-and-forty years, I have served them since the year 1787; but I do not wish to retain my situation, if you tell me that I have lost your confidence. -(Hear!)-I have a character at stake, and I will defend it. I do not blame the hon. ex-director for bringing forward the subject

subject; as I said before, his duty obliged him to bring it forward: but there was a delicacy observed in the army and navy, there was a delicacy ordinarily observed between one gentleman and another, which was not extended to me. I received no notice of the charge, but was at once dragged before the committee. I do not complain of what the hon. ex-director did in his public capacity; he would not have discharged his duty if he had not so acted; but I complain of being called on to answer for my conduct without any previous notice being given me. The individual on whom I bestowed this favour was one to whose friendly offices I was much indebted. He had, in the way of canvass, done more for me than almost any other man; and was I, because that individual happened to be getting down in the world, to refuse him what I considered to be a fair request? I did not take such a course, and I must declare that I am not sorry for it."

The Hon. H. Lindsay.-"The hon, director complains that a want of delicacy was manifested towards him in this affair. 1 beg leave to protest that, until within a few hours of the discovery being reported to the Court, I had not the smallest idea that any director was implicated in this transaction. I therefore had no time to make any communication; and perhaps even if an opportunity had been afforded to me for that purpose, I should not have been justified in making such a communication; indeed, I think I should have failed in my duty if I had made any observation on the subject to the hon. director."

Mr. Carruthers." I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and this honourable Court, that I mean to occupy your attention only for a few minutes; but, if I stand alone, I must express my deep regret, as a proprietor, at the conversation which has taken place. Enough has been said, I think, to shew that a schism, that a degree of uncomfortable feeling, prevails amongst the gentlemen behind the bar. I am sorry to see it; because, looking to your honourable Court for the wise and beneficent rule of that great empire over which the East-India Company presides, I have ever been anxious to see unanimity prevail amongst you. I have ever wished to view that Court as the untainted fountain of honour. I beg leave to observe, that as many evils may arise in the government of that country, by the introduction of ineligible persons, through inadvertence, though no moral turpitude may be attached to the transaction, as could spring from the_wilful appointment of those who were known to be ineligible. This being the case, the hon. ex-director has, I think, fully

justified himself with respect to the course which he felt it necessary to take because no transaction of this kind should be suffered to pass away in silence. The hon. ex-director was bound to act as he had done. The hon. director has been tried by a jury of his country, he has been acquitted, and I think there is not one party in the Court who does not rejoice in his acquittal.

to

Mr. Rigby said, he had not read through the voluminous papers which the hon. Chairman had laid before the Court relative to this subject. It appeared, however, that it was deemed necessary to take the opinion of a jury on this case. That course was, he conceived, very properly adopted, and a verdict of acquittal was the consequence. With that verdict he was satisfied, and therefore he should say nothing more on the subject; but there was one part of the business of this day to which he wished to call the attention of the Court. They were convened, amongst other things, for the purpose of having laid before them the draft of a bill relative to the East-India docks. On this subject he certainly had expected to receive some information: the bill, however, was read short, and nothing was said respecting it, so that he had no opportunity to put a question to the hon. Chairman. He, however, wished know, what connexion the East-India Company had with the East-India Dock Company. The twenty-one years having expired during which, by the late act of Parliament, it was imperative on the East-India Company to send their vessels to these docks, it was not clear to him what connection the Company had with this bill. He knew not whether it was introduced to the Court as a measure connected in some shape with their interests, or was read merely as a matter of form; and he should be glad to know, whether the Company took an active or a passive part on this occasion. By the old bill it was enacted, that four of the East-India Directors should also be directors of the East-India Dock Company. He begged leave to inquire what were the provisions of the new bill? whether the Company were obliged by it to send their vessels to the East-India Dock, or whether there was no longer any necessity for such a proceeding? He also wished to know who were the four directors of the EastIndia Company who were also directors of the East-India Dock Company?

The Chairman said the bill alluded to had been introduced by the East-India Dock Company, but it did in some degree affect the East-India Company. The former bill, in which was contained the compulsory clause making it imperative on the Company to send their ships to the East-India Docks, having expired,

they