correspondence from India to which they referred, and the general notoriety of the circumstances to which that correspondence alluded. He did not mean to say that it was wholly without foundation, but he would contend, that, in the form in which they appeared in that correspondence, none of the statements it contained could be properly made the subject of a criminal charge. From the manner in which the correspondence referred to several circumstances, it was evidently written by some enemy of the Governor-General's. The story of his ordering a feu-de-joie for every trifling circumstance connected with the advance of our troops, and of his being seen abroad only in fair weather, like the little woman in the barometer, might be very good evidence of the feeling and disposition towards the noble Lord, of the person who related them; but they were not such matters as a Court of East-India Proprietors could act upon in any serious manner, much less in making them the foundation of a proceeding deeply affecting the character of their first executive officer. The gentlemen who had preceded him, dwelt at considerable length upon the great talents and merits of Lord Hastings; he would not follow them into that topic; Lord Hastings was not then before the Court, and his talents or merits had really nothing to do with the question in discussion. The hon. mover and seconder had touched upon several other topics upon which it was his intention to have remarked, and for that purpose he had takeh notes of some of them, but really, when he came to look at and examine what he had noted, he found them so slight and unsubstantial, that he thought it would only be unnecessarily taking up the time of the court (which he was very unwilling to do at that late hour of the evening), to offer any comment on them. Looking at the whole of the charges introduced by the hon. gentlemen, he thought they were brought forward in such a manner, and rested upon grounds so slight, that the court ought not to make them the foundation of any vote, but, on the contrary, they were bound to throw the shield of their protection over their Governor-General so accused. (Hear, hear, hear!) He therefore would support the amendment,

Dr. Gilchrist thought that the objects of the hon. mover and seconder of the original motion were very much misunderstood. All they had contended for was, that if the Court of Directors had that confidence in the talents and skill of Lord Amherst, which some gentlemen seemed to wish they should have, they were bound, in justice to that nobleman and to themselves, to come forward and declare it, and to give a contradiction to the rumours so generally circulated to the noble Lord's prejudice; and from which there was but

one conclusion drawn, namely, that he was wholly unfit for the high station he occupied in the Company's service. Could the Directors contradict the rumours which were daily arriving in this country from India, of Lord Amherst's incapacity to fill the important trust of Governor-Gene-ral? If they could, why not have the justice to do so? If they could not, why not have the manliness to avow their want of confidence in their Governor-General, and let the odium of retaining an untit man in the office rest where it ought? The charges alluded to by the mover and seconder were not accusations of theirs against Lord Amherst; and in calling the attention of the court to them, they only wished to know whether the Court of Directors could give them a contradiction? If they could be contradicted, nothing was more easy; if they could not, then. the original motion was not only called for, but it was the duty of the proprietors to pass it.

Sir C. Forbes, observed that he had already expressed himself so fully on several occasions in that court, and elsewhere, on the subject of Lord Amherst's government, that little farther remained for him to say he would therefore have to occupy the attention of the court but for a very short time. He had looked forward with anxiety for any circumstances which might lead him to alter the opinion he had long ago formed of that Lord's government, but he found nothing which would warrant him in coming to a different conclusion. Had any thing occurred since the subject was last under discussion calculated to produce a different impression on his mind, he would most gladly have noticed it but he found no reason to change his opinion, which unfortunately was the more and more confirmed (if indeed it ever required confirmation on this question) the more he considered the circumstancos that produced it. As to the conduct of Lord Hastings, he did not think it properly belonged to the present question. fully concurred, however, in most of what was said of that nobleman's administration. Still he did not approve of all Lord Hastings did. There were some points of his government in which he could not coneur, but who, he would ask, could so govern India, or any country, as to make himself liked and approved by all parties? (Hear, hear !) There were, as he had just observed, some things which happened in the administration of that noble lord that he could not approve; but still it was only justice to say, that the more information he received upon some of those subjects, the less he was inclined to look on them in the same light in which they were first viewed by himself and others. There were, he knew, many who had not at first approved of certain acts of Lord Hastings' administration,

$ 2

He

Sir C. Forbes said, that of course it was satisfactory as far as the hon. Chairman was concerned, but it remained to be seen whether it would not be proposed to them by and by. (Hear, hear!) He did not mean for an instant to doubt what their hon. Chairman had said, but it could not be denied, for thousands had heard of the fact, that the nomination of a successor to Lord Amherst was in agitation in some quarters. The answer of the hon. Chairman was such as to make him glad and sorry at the same time. (Hear, and a laugh!) He was sorry to learn that no official communication had been made to the Court on the subject of a successor to Lord Amherst; and he was glad to learn, that the Duke of Buckingham had not been proposed to the Directors as such successor. He had every respect for the high rank and great worth of that nobleman; but much as he respected him, he must own he did not think him just the man who ought to be sent out to govern India, in the present state of her affairs. That task was at all times an arduous and difficult one; but it had been rendered peculiarly so, by the course of management pursued since the commencement of Lord Amherst's administration. In conclusion, he would give his assent to the amendment, in the hope that the information sought for would be supplied, and that such other documents might be added, as would give the Court of Proprietors full information on the whole of Lord Amherst's government. He hoped the learned gentleman (Mr. R. Jackson) would so shape his amendment as to reach those other papers to which he alluded.

Mr. R. Jackson said, that the information he asked for was confined to the origin and management of the Burmese war, and to the mutiny at Barrackpore. These he considered to be at present within the power of the Directors to grant; but he did not wish to wait for information on other matters, which would require the lapse of a considerable time before they could reach them.

A Proprietor wished to have it understood, before the motion was put, what were the particular documents sought for, that there might hereafter be no debate as to whether the request of the Court had been properly complied with.

The Chairman said, that before he offered any remark as to the questions more immediately before the Court, he wished to make one or two observations as to a part of an hon. Proprietor's (the Hon. D. Kinnaird's) speech. He did not know whether he had rightly understood that gentleman, but if he had not he might set him right. The hon. gentleman (as he understood him) had said, that Lord Hastings had been the most successful Governor that had ever been at

the head of Indian affairs, and that his achievements there were the more meritorious, as he had acted without the confidence of the Court of Directors at home. Now he would assert that the Marquess of Hastings always had the confidence of the Court, nor had he now lost it and it was only lately that that confidence was endangered, by the indiscretion of some of his friends, who had brought forward a motion which he (the Chairman) and others in the Direction could not support. He was anxious to give this explanation, lest it should go abroad that Lord Hastings had acted without the confidence of the Court, and that this should have been stated in the hearing of himself and the Deputy-Chairman, who had, in the year 1820 brought forward a motion for a grant of £60,000 to that nobleman. Did that look as if he had not possessed the confidence of the Court? Such a charge as this ought not to be lightly hazarded. It was not his intention to have introduced the subject of Lord Hastings, but he was obliged to do so by the observation of the hon. gentleman: he had now done with it, and he hoped he should not have to advert to it any more. With respect to the motions before the Court, he very much regretted that either of them should have been brought forward. As to the second motion, or rather the amendment, it was not in the power of the Directors to comply with it. Both the motions, he must say, had been brought forward on very light grounds for subjects of such great importance. Every man who had connexions or friends in India, or who had some correspondence with that country, heard opinions as to what was passing there, but these were only the opinions of the individuals who wrote. Every man might have his own opinion on the subject, but he would ask, were the reports contained in private letters the grounds on which they should, not merely try, but absolutely dismiss, without trial, their Governor-General? (Hear, hear!) He. was not much of an orator, but he thought that no oratory was required to point out the absurdity and gross injustice of such a mode of proceeding. (Hear, hear!) His advice to the Court would be, to have confidence in their Governor-General, while he continued at the head of their affairs. was their duty to support him, and to leave such matters as were the subject of the present motions to the discretion of their Directors. If they had not confidence enough in their Directors to do this, then he would say, let them remove them at once. He had been thirty-five years in the service of the Company, and it had been the great object of his life to acquire and preserve the confidence of the Proprietors; if they now said they had not confidence in him, he was

It

prepared

prepared to surrender up his trust. (Hear, hear!) On the subject of the original motion, he would say that it was a matter which should be left entirely to the discretion of the Court of Directors, if the Proprietors continued to repose confidence in them: as to the amendment, calling for particular documents, it was not in the power of the Directors to grant them. The contents of these documents were known only to a few of the Directors, who were constituted by the legislature a Secret Committee, to whom such matters relating to the carrying on of war in India were referred. He might, as a member of that Committee, be acquainted with the documents in question, but he could not disclose them. He looked upon himself, as the depository of such matters, rather as the servant of the Legislature than of the Company; and in that character it was not in his power to disclose the matters that came before him. The amendment, therefore, if carried, would not be productive of the desired effect, as the Court of Directors, to which it would be addressed, had it not in its power to comply with such a request. He would therefore earnestly recommend, that both the original motion and the amendment should. be withdrawn. Neither the one or the other could be productive of any good, and the assent to them might be a cause of no inconsiderable injury to the service of the Company.

Mr. Hume said, that the object in bringing forward the motion, was not to cause any embarrassment to the public service of the Company, but, on the contrary, to rescue the Company from the danger of projects which threatened to involve the ruin of their army in India. It would be recollected, that before he submitted this motion, he had over and over again asked for information on the subjects to which it referred. That information had been constantly refused; and now, when he was driven to the use of information derived from private correspondence, he was charged with going on light and trivial grounds. If the private communications to which he referred were ill-founded as to their facts or conclusions, nothing was more easy than to set the public right on the matter by saying so from authority. If the Directors could contradict them, why did they not? but if they could not, then he contended that (in the absence of official information, which might be given but was withheld) they were a sufficient ground for the Court of Proprietors to go upon in assenting to such a motion as he had submitted to them. He had no objection, if that should be deemed more advisable, to withdraw his motion, and let the Court of Directors lay before them some information on which they could rely on this important subject. He found, however,

that even to this course there was an objection. They were now told from the chair, that the information sought for could not be given; that it was relating to a war, and that it was in the keeping of a secret committee. Well, then, if that were so, they should proceed without it. He contended that they had sufficient of uncontradicted statement to go upon. The motion for the recall of Lord Wellesley, had been submitted upon much : slighter information than they now pos-. sessed. However, he would say again, that he was now willing to withdraw his. motion, provided the Directors would give an assurance that all the information in their possession and in their power to give on the subject of the Burmese war, would be laid before the Court, otherwise he would persist in pressing the motion.

The original motion was now putthere were only eight hands held up for the affirmative, whilst the greater part of' the Court voted on the negative.

The Chairman then declared it to be negatived.

On the amendment being put,

Sir C. Forbes observed, that none of the candidates for the Direction had voted either way on the last question.

A Proprietor near the hon. Bart. declared that this was a mistake on the hon. Bart's. part, as he (the Proprietor) had. held up his hand against the motion.

Sir C. Forbes then addressed the chair, and begged to put another question on the subject of the Duke of Buckingham.(Hear, hear!)—-After what had already been answered by the hon. Chairman on this subject, he could not doubt that the noble Duke had not been proposed to the Court officially or otherwise, as the successor of Lord Amherst; but he would beg to ask the Directors whether they had not one and all been canvassed by the friends of that nobleman to give their support to his nomination?

The Chairman." I have no hesitation in answering the question in the negative."

Other Directors were now about to address the Court on the same subject, but the Chairman interfered and said, that it was not consistent with the dignity of the Court that the Directors should be thus catechised.

The amendment was now again put from the Chair, when

Mr. Astell rose and said, he should give it his most decided opposition. The Court of Directors were the proper persons to decide what papers should be laid before the Proprietors. This matter, he thought, would have been best left to their discretion, particularly as the subject was of so much delicacy. He, for one, was always disposed to treat the demand of a Court of Proprietors with all possible respect; but their demand, in the present instance,

stance, must be viewed as a matter of expediency, or as a matter of right. As a right, he thought the Court of Proprietors could not demand the papers now sought for--as to the expediency of granting them, he saw none. The Directors would, in their discretion, lay all necessary information before them, without being urged by the speeches of honourable gentlemen, as on this occasion. But he did not think that, in the exercise of that discretion, they could or ought to grant the papers sought

for.

As to the rumour respecting the appointment of the Duke of Buckingham as successor to Lord Amherst, it had been so fully answered by the honourable Chairman he did not think it necessary to say a word upon the subject.

Mr. Hume said, that he also had heard the report of an appointment of a successor to Lord Amherst; and that the only reason why it did not take place before, now was, that ministers could not agree amongst themselves as to who the successor should be. After this refusal of information, he thought it a hopeless case, and he was only sorry that India should be left to such a governor.

The question was now put from the chair, and six hands were held up in its support. A much greater number were held up against it. The Chairman declared it to be carried in the negative.

Mr. R. Jackson gave notice, that if the question of the Suttees, or the assassina tion of Hindoo widows, were not in a short time taken up by high authority, he would at no distant day submit a motion to the Court on the subject.

On the question of adjournment being put,

Sir John Doyle said, he would post pone to a more distant day, in consequence of the illness of an honourable Director who was personally concerned, the motion of which he had given notice, for taking into consideration the Oude papers.

It was now proposed that the Court should adjourn to the 18th of January. Some proprietors wished to know, whether an earlier day could not be named?

The Chairman said he did not think an earlier day after the holidays could be named. They might, if they pleased, command the services of the Directors for Thursday and Friday, and have the adjournment fixed to one or other of those days; but he did not think that an earlier day after the holidays, than that which he had already mentioned, would be convenient.

Mr. Hume wished to ask, whether the two subjects which had been already advertised for discussion on this day, but unavoidably postponed, would be noticed in the advertisements for the next Court ? The Chairman said, certainly they would.

The hon. D. Kinnaird wished it to be understood, whether in future the advertisements of particular subjects should be left to the discretion of the Court of Directors, and omitted at that discretion, as in the case of the subject which they had just decided, or whether there was to be any fixed rule on the subject.

The Chairman replied, that he thought it better that these things should be left to the discretion of the Directors.

Mr. Hume observed that that was the very thing which he wished to avoid; after what he had seen of the exercise of that discretion to-day, in the omission to advertise the notice of motion for Lord Amherst's recall he was disposed to leave as little as possible to their discretion in future. He understood that a requisition signed by nine proprietors, calling on the Directors to make a Court special for any particular motion, must be advertised by them in the usual way. requisitions they had already received, were signed by only two proprietors; but to put it out of the discretion of the Directórs, he now tendered to them a requition to the same effect signed by nine proprietors. The requisition was then handed in.

on.

The

Sir John Doyle wished it to be understood with certainty as to the day when the particular motion noticed would come He feared the motion of which he had given notice could not come on, uuless gentlemen consented to make much shorter speeches.

The Chairman observed, that undoubtedly it was in the powor of nine proprietors to have any court made special for the discussion of a particular question, and then it would be advertised in the usual way; but he thought that the Directors had the discretionary power of refraining from advertising questions of a dangerous tendency, such as that which they had decided about Lord Amherst.

Mr. Hume repeated that it was in order to take that discretion out of their hands that he tendered them that requisition.

The Deputy Chairman intimated that the honourable proprietor might defeat his own object, in the course he was about to pursue; and suggested that it would be bettor that the meeting on the 18th of January, should stand as an adjournment of the general quarterly court, in which case the two notices already advertised would be in the order in which they now stood, and come on before other matters.

Mr. Hume upon this suggestion consented to withdraw the requisition.

Mr. R. Jackson concurred in the view taken by the honourable Deputy Chairman, and thought it would be better to allow the subjects to stand in the adjourn ment in the usual manner.

The Court then adjourned to the 18th of January.