perous a state as they had been left by the late Governor-General. The Chairman said, the hon. proprietor had asked several questions which there was no difficulty in answering. He first demanded from what source the dividend was derived? the answer to which must: be well known to the proprietors as an intelligent body of men. The dividend was derived from the home commercial profits of the Company. The hon. proprietor himself must know that, and he must also be able himself to answer the other. questions, because a statement of the Company's accounts was laid before Parliament once a year. Mr. Hume said, that the statement which had been made before Parliament was the statement of the former year: a year had gone by relative to which they had no information. He was desirous of learning what accounts had been brought by the last arrivals, and whether the Company had not been at the expense of several millions in carrying on a war, of the origin or progress of which they knew little? The Chairman answered, that there was a good deal to be done between the receiving of despatches, and so digesting them as to enable him to state accurately in that court the matters which they contained. Mr. Hume said, he really thought that the observation of the hon. Chairman was no answer at all to what he had asked. He wished to know whether the usual balance sheet, which ought to be made up by the Indian government, had been received. He knew that, in other years, other governments had sent it home before this. When they saw what mischief want of confidence had of late created in London, and when they knew the great want of confidence in India-when they found that want of confidence pervaded the highest and the lowest in every class, civil and military, it was proper that they should be acquainted with the state of things in that country. It was fit that they should know whether their financial concerns were going on well. The Court of Directors might, of course, give an answer or not as they pleased; but he was sure that the means of giving that answer were in their power. He again demanded, had the accounts been sent home or not? If they had been sent home, it was easy to state their result; and if they had not, then the Indian government was guilty of a culpable neglect. The Chairman said, he held in his hand the account which had been made up, and presented to this court in due course; but if the hon. proprietor required him in this manner to go into an investigation of every item of it, it was a task which he could not be expected to perform; and it appeared to him that the hon. proprietor demanded that which was very unreasonable. Mr. R. Jackson said, he thought the hon. Chairman had rather misunderstood the object of his hon. friend. His hon. friend merely asked, whether or not the usual papers had been sent home. The hon. Chairman much misapprehended him, if he supposed that his hon. friend called on the hon. Chairman, who must of necessity have ten thousand weighty matters continually pressing on his mind, to enter into the minutia of these accounts. His hon. friend merely wished to learn, aye or no, whether the usual papers had been transmitted. Mr. Hume said, it was customary to make up an account of the total disbursements and receipts for each year up to the 30th of April, together with a probable estimate of expenses and revenue of the ensuing year, which ought to be immediately sent home; and he desired to know whether the usual papers had been so sent home. The Deputy Chairman (Sir G. A. Robinson) said, so far as he was competent to answer the hon. proprietor, he should state, that the Court of Directors were in possession of the latest accounts of the Indian finances which the Bengal government could have transmitted to them except, indeed, there should be any farther accounts in the ship Larkins. They knew that she had a great part of the despatches of the season on board; but she had been obliged to put back, from stress of weather, in May or June last. So far, however, as the Bengal government could put the Court of Directors in possession of the state of the revenue, he believed they had done so. Mr. Hume.-To what date? The Deputy Chairman answered, that the account now presented was made up to the 1st May 1824; and it must be pretty clear to all gentlemen, that it was not practicable to bring them down to the 1st of May 1825. The formation of accounts, and other matters connected with them, necessarily occupied a good deal of time. Probably there might be additional papers in the Larkins; but there was no ground whatever to blame the Bengal government for the non-transmission of the accounts. Such was his firm belief. The Chairman then moved, that the court do agree upon a dividend of 54 per cent., as recommended in the resolution of the Court of Directors, which being seconded by the Deputy Chairman, was carried unanimously. GRANT TO MR. S. ARNOTT. The Chairman acquainted the court, that it had been made special, for the purpose of submitting for confirmation the resolution of the General Court of the 28th September September last, approving the resolution of the Court of Directors of the 14th of the same month, granting to Mr. Sandford Arnott the sum of £1,500, upon the grounds therein stated. He then moved, that the court do confirm the resolution of the Court of Proprietors of the 28th of September last. Mr. R. Jackson said, that when this subject was before the last General Court. there happened to be a great pressure of business, and therefore the motion passed sub silentio. He did not now rise to oppose this grant, but to state his cordial approbation of it; and he viewed with great pleasure the terms in which the re. solution was drawn up. It was so worded as not to commit either the Court of Directors or the Court of Proprietors in any given proposition as to the freedom of the press, or the conduct of the Bengal government. The grant was founded on the unlooked-for misfortunes which had befallen the individual; who had been banished, shipwrecked, and ruined. The Court of Directors, very wisely, in his opinion, had been pleased to forego all discussion on the merits of the case; but, listening to the misfortunes of the individual, they had granted this aid from sympathy to his case, and on that ground alone founded their resolution. No man could estimate more highly than he did the liberty of the press: not to estimate the benefits which it conferred on the world, and on this country in particular, would be to say that he was no Englishman. (Hear!) Every blessing was derived from that source; by it, education was extended and moral feelings improved. But in proportion as he prized the liberty of the press he would endea vour to preserve it: he would preserve it to its fullest extent here, and he would allow it in the colonies so far as was compatible with their situation and government. To them he would grant it so far as it comported with the safety of those to whom the blessing was meant to be conveyed. This course he ever had and ever would support. With respect to the grant immediately before them, he should always feel sympathy for those who might have suffered beyond what had been wished or intended; and therefore he was glad that compassion had been extended to the case of Mr. Arnott, by granting the relief which was contained in the resolution. The hon. D. Kinnaird said, it had never been his fate to hear a studied, elaborate, and finished eulogium pronounced on the liberty of the press, without finding it coupled in the end with some particular instance in which that liberty was pointed out as being of no use. (Hear, hear!) When his learned friend commenced his panegyric, he understood what was to fol If low as well as if he (Mr. D. Kinnaird) had himself composed the passage. his hon. friend had not thought fit to state the grounds on which this grant― he would say this becoming grant-had been recommended by the Court of Directors to the proprietors at large, he (Mr. D. Kinnaird) would not have felt it necessary to make those observations which he should now offer to the court. He would briefly state the grounds on which he felt himself called on partly to object to this resolution, and partly to agree to it. It might be proper to observe, that the liberty of the press was a question entirely distinct from the case of Mr. Arnott; because, situated as Mr. Arnott was, the Bengal government might have sent him away, whether for an offence perpetrated through the medium of the press, or otherwise. Mr. Arnott's connection with the press ceased when he was desired, as an unlicensed person, to quit the country. The reason, therefore, that this grant should be conferred on him was, because he had been cruelly, unnecessarily cruelly treated. If any one gentleman behind the bar could say, that there was a necessity for thus treating Mr. Arnott, in order more perfectly to enslave the press in India-in that country, where they were told a despotism prevailed, and must always exist if it could be shewn, that the unnecessary cruelty practised towards Mr. Arnott, was instrumental in enchaining the press of that country (an object which many persons seemed to have at heart), then he would admit that there was some ground for the Court of Directors to say, that the grant was given from motives of compassion, and not from a feeling that oppression had been committed. The latter, however, struck him as being the fact. They could not refuse the reparation, because they could not deny the oppression. Now, when an act of injustice was committed by the agent or servant of an individual, or by an individual himself, and it was determined to make reparation for that injustice, he thought that that reparation was not complete, unless it was accompanied with a true representation of the matter. This had not been done in the present instance; and though he would vote for the money being granted to Mr. Arnott, yet he would not vote for it on the mere grounds contained in the resolution. He repeated, that this individual case was unconnected with the press in India; because, if Mr. Arnott had committed any offence whatever, Lord Amherst's government had the power of transmitting him to this country. He admitted that Lord Amherst did possess that power, and he contended that he had used it wantonly, outrageously, and, he would say, illegally. It had been assumed by the hon. Chairman's predecessor, that be cause the government of Bengal could do acts which appeared to him to be illegal, that therefore it was a legalized despotism. But they were told that there was a remedy. A man, if aggrieved, had, forsooth, an appeal to the Privy Council. The law allowed this: but they knew that it was a mere farce, because the individual complaining must prove malicious motives as well as injustice. If he could not prove malice, the want of judgment, or the error in judgment of those by whom he might have been oppressed, went for nothing. The persons thus erring were shielded from all responsibility. Mr. Arnott was sent home from India in an unnecessary way. He was in a roundabout manner transmitted to this country; and he thought it would not he contended that the law allowed any such thing. This gentleman had been a very severe sufferer, and very narrowly escaped destruction, and those who had thus treated him, had he been so destroyed, would morally have been guilty of murder. Had Mr. Arnott perished in the ship Fame, he having been wantonly and unnecessarily forced to proceed round by Bencoolen instead of coming directly home, it would have been a case of moral murder. It was therefore extremely wrong to blink the conduct of the Bengal government on this occasion. The moment the Court of Directors gave notice that the sufferings of Mr. Arnott had been taken into consideration, and that reparation was to be made to that individual, he (Mr. D. Kinnaird) determined to abstain from making any observations on the Bengal govern ment. This And why? Because he thought that there would be an indirect, but severe censure on the conduct of that government. He thought the Directors would at least have said, "we will not again appeal to the pockets of the proprietors at home, in consequence of any misconduct of our governors abroad." they had not done. And as they had thought proper to bring in the proprietors at large, as concurring in the ground on which they had voted this grant to Mr. Arnott, he must oppose it-and call upon the public for a direct dissent from that grant, so far as it proceeded on the reasons stated by the Directors, who had shielded the Bengal government from that censure with which they ought to be visited. But, while he disapproved of the grounds laid down by the Directors, he certainly approved of the grant itself; and God forbid that any comment which he had made should lead any individual to oppose it. He undoubtedly would vote for the proposition; begging, however, distinctly to be understood as not agreeing, in any manner whatever, to the grounds to which the Court of Directors had, as he thought improperly, confined this grant. Dr. Gilchrist said, he had not, he believed, at present a right to vote in that court, although he had the privilege to speak in it. Tardy justice being better than none at all, he felt a certain degree of respect for what the Court of Directors had done in the case of Mr. Arnott; but he thought, if that individual had been fortunate enough to have had a Scotch cousin in the court, the grant might have been doubled, and he would have got at least £3,000 instead of £1,500, He trusted he would now be permitted to quote a few words from a Persian author, named Sadi, and for the benefit of his occidental hearers, he would subjoin a free literal English translation. The original lines were these: Ugur khwahee uz nek bukhtee nishan He would now, for the occidental gentlemen, read the passage in English. It was, it should be observed, an address from a poet boru under a despotic government, but nevertheless imbued with the strongest principles of justice; and thus he spoke "Should'st thou desire a monument, my son, Of fortune's smile on earth, injustice shun! With patience hear the poorest who complain, Lest those oppress'd invoke thy name in vain. Proud tyrants here man's judge supreme will try And spurn them, too, when suppliants, from the sky!" Mr. Hume was extremely sorry to dissent from what had fallen from his learned friend. His intention originally was, to have suffered this vote to pass in silence, as on a former occasion; not because he thought the grant was sufficient, but because he felt that even partial justice to an injured individual was better than no justice at all. His learned friend had introduced the subject of the liberty of the press, a subject which was never out of his (Mr. Hume's) recollection: he had always, and ever would, so long as he had life, until that great object was ob tained, hold up his hand and raise his voice in favour of the liberty of the press (Hear!) He would confidently maintain, that if any act would be more decidedly mischievous to India than another, it was the keeping down and enslaving the press. By that means their governments abroad might, in safety and secrecy, inflict injuries on millions of miserable and unoffending individuals who were placed under the Company's sway(Hear!) He was sure, even in England, if an opportunity was not given by which the misdeeds of power might be detected and exposed, that the worst consequences would follow-that the strong would inflict improper and unjust sufferings on the weak. If it were not for the press, press, we should be slaves in this country -Hear!) When that was the fact, could he believe they were acting as became them when they refused to others that which they themselves prized as the greatest benefit and blessing? Was it fit or fair to take from their subjects abroad, that which they themselves loved as a benefit of the first importance? He would now shew that Mr. Arnott was the victim of oppression-of ruthless and relentless oppression: he had been persecuted, almost to death, but certainly to ruin. In the first place, he had been arrested in an illegal manner; and he hoped and trusted the day was not far distant, when the proceedings of the Court of Directors on this subject would be laid before the public, to enable them to judge whether the executive body, the representative of the Company, and the virtual governors of their East-India possessions, had sanctioned, or could sanction, the military despotism of Lord Amherst (Hear!) The memorial of Mr. Arnott, which was before the Court of Directors, stated this important fact, that when he was seized and ordered to England, on account of the press, he said, "I am not the editor of the paper; I am not responsible; but I will give it under my hand to renounce all connection with that paper, not to write a line in it, if I am suffered to remain. There will be still sufficient means of subsistence for me in this country. I came here, as many hundreds of my countrymen have done, to push my fortune; I thought my talents would not only be useful to myself but to my country, in the line which I selected: I am sorry that, as deputy-editor, I have happened to give offence." And what was the offence? why a few jocose remarks on improper acts which had been done by persons in authority. Because Mr. Arnott published Colonel Sinet's pamphlet, which had run the round of England and of Europe, he was ordered home. It was published, paragraph by paragraph, in continuation; and in the end, the government pounced on him and sent him away. Lord Amherst said peremptorily, "You shall not remain." Pray," entreated Mr. Arnott, "suffer me to stay. I owe 3,000 rupees; and if I am driven out of India I shall be ruined, and my creditors must be deeply injured." Lord Amherst was however inexorable; but if the feelings of humanity could have touched any man, they ought to have influenced Lord Amherst on that occasion. But no; this civil government marched Mr. Arnott under a military guard, and lodged him securely in the fort; and there he remained, until he was brought up by habeas corpus, when Mr. Justice Macnaghten and 'Mr. Justice Buller declared that his arrest was illegal, and he 66 was liberated. Lord Amherst was here greatly to blame, and he ought to be punished for his misconduct. Why did not the Court of Directors act as the Government had done some time ago, when they passed a heavy censure on the government of Ceylon for seizing the person of Mr. Rossier? By and by, when the appeal was made to the proprietors of East-India stock, he hoped that Lord Amherst would be visited by their severest censure. Was it proper that millions should be placed under a sway which allowed injustice and oppression to run riot? Mr. Arnott, on his liberation, repaired to a foreign settlement. He had renounced the press-he had renounced his country: but that was not sufficient-Lord Amherst still persecuted, still oppressed him. He sent to the military governor of the settlement where Mr. Arnott sought refuge, caused him to be seized, and had him sent down to the ship Fame. Surely such an act as this-an act which was as disgraceful to the military governor as to Lord Amherst-could not be recognized by law. It was, he repeated, a most disgraceful act on the part of the military governor who gave him up. Never was a clearer case of persecution made out; and the court was bound in justice and in honour to repair the injury. (Hear!) What followed? The law expressly said, that the Governor-General may send home any person, under the circumstances therein mentioned, in any of the Company's ships proceeding to Europe. Now Mr. Arnott stated that there were, at the time, twentyfive ships lying in Calcutta river, nine of which were proceeding direct to England, and ready to sail. The captains of all those vessels were willing to give Mr. Arnott a free passage. "Allow me, then," said he, "to proceed in one of those ships direct to England. Do not send me to Bencoolen-a place to which convicts are transmitted, and where, as the vessel is to wait for Sir Stamford Raffles, she must remain for some time on the coast." They all knew the unwhole-. someness of that climate, and they could easily conceive how injurious it must be to an European constitution, to be confined on ship-board for three or four, months before sailing. Sending Mr. Arnott unnecessarily to this place, shewed' that Lord Amherst wished him never to proceed beyond it. Here were nine captains ready to take Mr. Arnott direct to England, and that, too, without pay, but it would not be allowed. He should like to know whether the Directors had inquired of Lord Amherst why he preferred paying 800 rupees à month, instead of allowing Mr. Arnott to proceed direct to England for nothing? Why did he insist on Mr. Arnott's proceeding by Ben coolen coolen (which was a circuitous route) at so great an expense, when he might have gone direct to England without any charge on the government? Since the period of the administration of Warren Hastings, no act he had ever heard of was equal to this for cruelty and despotism. And this was not the only act of Lord Amherst's which called for reprehension; it was only one out of many, at which every proprietor ought to express his indignation, and against which the unanimous voice of the court ought to be raised. He wondered that so many honest men, collectively-being, in their individual capacities, excellent and feeling men-could approve of such a system. On the grounds he had stated, namely, the sufferings of Mr. Arnott, he thought the vote a proper one; and he felt it necessary to state his reasons for supporting it, as they were entirely unconnected with the question of the press. Mr. Lowndes thought that the circumstance of sending Mr. Arnott home by Bencoolen ought to be sifted into; they ought to know why and wherefore this had been done, or, as the lawyers said, a rule to shew cause ought to be moved for on that point. He should like to know who was the captain of the vessel which was hired at Bencoolen, and who received the 800 rupees. He would beg leave to ask what his name was, and whether he was a relation to any of the Directors, or to any of the persons in power abroad? because it really appeared as if he had been employed for the purpose of putting money into his pocket. This part of the transaction seemed to him to stink of corruption. (Hear!) He admired liberty, but it could not be enjoyed every where in its full extent. It was with liberty as with plants: in some soils it would flourish, but it was totally unfit for others. Now if they extended the same degree of liberty to India which was enjoyed here, it would come to this that the Company would be kicked out of India very soon: he therefore would only allow a moderate degree of liberty in that hot and inflammable climate. He had this day heard a great many philippics against the Directors; but they passed over his head "like the idle wind which he regarded not;" and indeed he felt so warm in the court, that he wished a little wind would pass over his head. (Hear!) As part of this transaction looked very like corruption, he thought it ought not to be discussed in a corrupt, but in a pure atmosphere. Gentlemen talked of freedom, and yet they were unwilling to open the windows, and let a little free air into the court; although they were now consuming many gallons of air every minute. (Order!) What had happened in this country within the last twelve months, clearly shewed the corruption of the press. Within that period we had become a nation of Jews-a nation of money scriveners. If he might believe Mr. Cobbett— a man whose abilities he admired, though he detested his principles-the persons who wrote for the press were chiefly to blame for the various speculations which lately inundated the country. Nay, he accused almost all of them of receiving shares for puffing off those ruinous speculations. He must say, that, if Mr. Cobbett would keep within bounds, he would be a very useful man, because he exposed villany. (Order, order!) He contended that he was in order; but chaos, that was disorder, had come amongst us, through the evil influence of those companies. When he saw a humbug Quaker come forward with what he called an equitable loan company, he could not repress his indignation. What right had he to interfere with a number of men, who were content with eighteen or twenty per cent. for their money, while he, by his scheme, meant to pocket one hundred per cent.? (Order!) Surely he had a right to shew what the liberty of the press had effected in this country, and thus to put gentlemen on their guard against extending the principle to India. It was the press that raised the delusion which ended so calamitously; and the press attempted to increase the embarrassments of the country at the present moment, instead of endeavouring to lessen them. If the free press, in this cool climate, and under our most excellent constitution, could be made an engine of oppression, cruelty, and ruin, was it not ten times more likely to produce calamitous effects in India? The press required a much stricter limit there than in England; and he was sure that the wise men who spoke this day, would not, in their calm and dispassionate moments, allow that the liberty of the press was calculated for India. A hundred years ago, a delusion of a similar nature with that which recently prevailed, existed. There was then, however, but one bubble, the South Sea bubble; but the delusion of the present day was a hydra, a manyheaded monster-and illustrated too well the classic story; for, as soon as one head was cut off, another sprung up in its room: it appeared, therefore, that those city people had received, what their forefathers had not, a classic education. With regard to the sum of money voted to Mr. Arnott, he hoped the Directors had been actuated by a sense of justice. He thought the grant was sufficient, and he conceived that they would not have acted fairly if they had not given it. As to Mr. Arnott's residing in India, and not writing, he thought it was out of the question. How could a man like him make his bread there |