« PreviousContinue »
Cooke, esq. Mr. C. Etches procured this appointment through Mr. Cooke, for a relation of his, on account of services performed by Mr. Etches for the governinent. Thomas Watson was employed as agent to sell the same, as mentioned in the next appointment.
Mr. Robert Manson was appointed Cadet for Bengal, Feb. 1808, by G. W. Thellusson, esq. at the recommendation of Mr. Herbert. Tho. Watson sold this appointment, and received the sum of 500 guineas of Messrs. Anderson, of Philpotlane, for this and Mr. John Manson's appointment, who purchased the two for a friend of theirs for his two nephews. A. M'K. Shee received 357. of Watson; and lady Leigh received from Watson about 2001. for the latter appointment.
Mr. Thomas Casey was appointed a Cadet by W. Devaynes, esq. on the 9th July 1806, at the recommendation of Mr. Herbert, now abroad as purser of the Euphrates extra ship. Mr. Herbert sold this appointment to Messrs. Henry Houghton & Co. of King's Arms Yard, correspondents of Mr. Casey's relations, who lived in Ireland, for the sum of 250 guineas; Mr. John Henderson was agent for Mr. Herbert, and received 50 guineas.
Mr. Thomas Locke was appointed a Cadet for Madras on the 3d Feb. 1807, by John Bebb, esq. at the recommendation of James Pattison, esq. in exchange for one of Mr. Pattison's Bombay nominations. This appointment was purchased by the rev. Dr. Locke of Farnham, for his nephew, of Thomas Watson, who sold it for lady Lumm, and paid her 2001.
A Cadetship in the nomination of J. Manship, esq. given by him to Mrs. Welch, appears to have been sold; but the parties to that transaction, who have been examined, state, that they are una ble to recollect the name of the person appointed. The name of Mrs. Welch does not appear as recommending to any of Mr. Manship's Cadetships in 1805 or 6.
Another, in the nomination of sir Lionel Darell, appears to have been given to and sold by the rev. Thomas Lloyd; but Mr. Lloyd's name does not appear as recommending any of the Cadets nominated by sir L. Darell in 1801 and the following year.
It appears in evidence, that some other nominations of this description have been purchased but your Committee have not been able to discover and bring before them some of the persons who appear to have been parties to these transactions; particularly sir Nich. Nugent, Mr. W. Lewen Tugwell Robins, Mr. Jos. Home, cap. Matthew and cap. Holmes. A further examination into some other bargains, is precluded by the death of lady Lumm, lady Leigh, and cap. Sealy.
The attention both of the Legislature and of the East India Company has been attracted at various periods to Abuses, which were supposed to exist in the disposal of their Patronage; in consequence of which, at the time when their charter was renewed, an oath was framed, to be taken by each Director within ten days after his election, containing, among other engagements, the following: "I do swear, That I will not directly nor indirectly accept or take any perquisite, emolument, fee, present or reward, upon any account whatsoever, or any promise or engagement for any perquisite, emolument, fee, present or reward whatsoever, for or in respect of the appointment or nomination of any person or persons to any place or office in the gift or appointment of the said Company, or of me as a Director thereof, or for or on account of stationing or appointing the
Mr. Samuel Lewis was appointed a Cadet in 1800, by Sweney Toone, esq. at the recommendation of Mr. Evans. This appointment was passed from Mr. Evans to Mr. Sanderson: A. MK. Shee seems to have procured it of Mr. Wright, and received 300 guineas from the Cadet's father. Mr. Sam. Lewis being a Mulatto, and thereby disqualified, procured a young man of the name of Phillips to personate himself and pass the prevsous examina-voyage or voyages of any ship or ships in tions, for which he paid him 20 guineas.
A Cadetship for Madras appears to have been purchased for a person of the name of Brown, in 1804 or 1805, which was sold by Mr. Herbert for 250 guineas; but your Committee could receive no satisfactory information by whom the party was nominated, nor his Christian name. Henderson and Shee were employed as agents, and received part of the above
the said Company's employ, or for or on account of or any ways relating to any other business or affairs of the said Company." 33 Geo. 3. c. 52. s. 160.-In the By-laws of the East India Company, c. 6. sect. 5. a penalty is imposed upon every Director taking any reward on account of any appointment, in double the amount of such reward, two-thirds of which to the Company and one-third to the Informer; and such Director is rendered ipso
and that I neither have received myself, nor am to receive, nor has any other person, to the best of my knowledge or belief, received, nor is to receive, any pecuniary consideration, nor any thing convertible in any mode into a pecuniary benefit on this account." The form of Certificate required to be signed by the nearest of kin to each Cadet, contains the following declaration: "I do further declare, that I received the said appointment for my son
gratuitously, and that no money or other valuable consideration has been or is to be paid, either directly or indirectly, for the same; and that I will not pay or cause to be paid, either by myself, by my son, or by the hands of any other person, any pecuniary or valuable consideration whatsoever, to any person or persons who have interested themselves in procuring the said nomination for my son from the Director above-mentioned."-The printed preparatory Instructions, which are circulated by the East India Company for the use of those who may be nominated Cadets, begin with the following Resolution: "That any person who shall in future be nominated to a situation, either civil or military, in the service of this Company, and who shall have obtained such nomination either directly or indirectly by purchase, or agreement to purchase through the medium of an agent or other person, shall be rejected; and the person so nominated shall be rendered incapable of holding any situation whatsoever in the Company's service and in the event of any person having obtained an appointment in the manner before stated, and proceeded to India previous to its being discovered, such person shall be dismissed the Company's service and ordered back to England, and shall also be rendered incapable of holding any situation whatsoever in the Company's service." It is to be observed, that abuses in the disposal of Cadetships are better guarded against than in that of Writerships, since the present form of Certificate has been applied to them; for in the Writerships the Director himself only declares, that to the best of his knowledge or belief no pecuniary consideration has been or is to be received; but with regard to every Cadet, parent or next of kin makes a similar
declaration for himself. The cases which are exhibited in this report demonstrate that such declarations are not of sufficient force to prevent a very extensive traffic in those nominations, which are apparently the best secured by a positive denial of all undue practices. An enquiry was set on foot by the Court of Directors in 1798 upon the allegation and suspicion of abuses in the nominations of Writers; the origin,' progress and failure of which it may be proper to give in some detail.-25 April 1798: A Committee of the Directors was appointed to investigate into the truth of the alleged practice of the sale of Patronage, and to consider of such means as may appear likely to prevent the same in future, if such practices have occurred. 9th July: Each Director's nomination of Writers was laid before the Committee, who resolved that each Member of the Committee should state in writing the names of the parties to whom he has given the nomination, together with the reasons which induced him to give the same: and that the several parties who have received such nominations for their sons, &c. be required to produce satisfactory information to the Committee upon oath, or in such manner as the Committee shall deem most expedient, that neither they nor any person on their account, or with their privity or knowledge, have given or promised to give any consideration on account of such nomination, either to the Director from whom they obtained the same, or to any person on his behalf and it was agreed to recommend to the Court to direct each individual Member of the Court to do the same. 1st August 1798: The Court approved this Report; and (15th August) each Director in office, as well as those out of by rotation (except Mr. Devaynes) gave explanations in writing. 28th Feb. 1799: It was resolved, That every appointment made in consequence of corrupt practices be null and void, unless the parties to whom the appointment is given shall, upon examination before the Committee, make a fair and candid disclosure of all the circumstances attending the same. It was likewise resolved, that each Director should in future, on the Petition of the Writer whom he nominates, “de"clare upon his honour to whom he has
given the appointment, and that he nei"ther has received himself, nor is he to "receive, nor has any other person to the "best of his knowledge or belief received, "nor is to receive, any pecuniary consi"deration, nor any thing convertible in
any mode into a pecuniary benefit on this account." The Direction being changed in April; on the 14th of August 1799, a new Committee to investigate the truth of the sale of Patronage, &c. was appointed. 17 Jan. 1800: The draft of a Letter proposed. to be addressed to the parents, &c. of persons appointed Writers since 1793, requesting them to declare whether the appointments were given without any pecuniary or other consideration, was considered by the committee; when a discussion arose, whether it should be on oath; when it was adjourned till the 21st of Jan. and it being then suggested whether it would be proper for the Committee to proceed in their inquiry, it was decided in the affirmative.
The Committee then proceeded to consider the drafts of the letter to the parents, &c. a draft of a Report to the Court stating their reasons for recommending this mode of investigation, as also the form of a declaration for the persons who have received such appointments. The consideration was adjourned to the 24th of Jan.; when a discussion ensuing thereon, and on the necessity and expediency of the mode of public investigation therein proposed; it was agreed to postpone the said Report, and to proceed to act agreeably to the authority and instructions already received from the Court. The Committee resolved, that in their opinion the parties to whom cach Director had given nominations, should be called upon to state on what grounds they have received the same, in every case that the Committee may deem it expedient so to do.
The Committee then examined, viva voce, its different members, as a preliminary to the proposed measure; each member declared upon his honour that what he had stated in regard to his appointments was strictly true, and expressed his readiness to confirm the same by his oath. -28th Jan. 1800: The Committee met to consider a draft of a Report to the Court, communicating their proceedings, and proposing further measures for the Court's adoption, as also a draft of a letter referred to in the said Report.-31st Jan.: The Report of this day's date, with the letters to the parents, &c. and the declaration to be made by them, was approved. -5th Feb.: The Court, after considerable discussion of the above, confirm the same; but resolve that the consideration of what is further to be done on the said Report be adjourned to the 11th of Feb.: when it is resolved, that the Committee of
Patronage be instructed to proceed in the examination of the other members of the Court, as they did with themselves. It was then moved, that the declaration proposed in the Report be upon oath: on this, the motion of adjournment was carried.-25th Feb.: A Report signed by 15 Directors, approves the Declaration, and recommends that the several persons to whom the same is sent be requested to confirm such declaration upon oath.Another Report on the same day, signed by 12 Directors, recommends that no further proceedings be had in this business till the 1st of May. Both the above Reports are approved by the Court.—26th Feb. 1800. The right hon. Henry Dundas addressed the Court, acknowledging the receipt of their minute; and stating, that he feels it a duty that he owes both to himself and the Court, to omit no means in his power for ascertaining whether any person whom he has obliged through the favour of the Court, has presumed to abuse his kindness in so sordid and unwarrantable a manner.
Sir Francis Baring dissents from the Resolutions to call for the declaration on oath.
The Committee of Patronage ceasing with the Direction in April; on 18th June 1800, the Court took into consideration the propriety of re-appointing the said Committee.-It being moved, "That a "Committee of Patronage be re-appointed;" an amendment was moved, to leave out all the words after the word "that," and to insert in their room the following, "it does not appear to this "Court, that any circumstance has been "stated to the Court, by which the Com"mittee lately appointed for an inquiry "into the disposal of Patronage, that can "induce or would justify the Court in
adopting the illegal and novel adminis"stration of extra-judicial oaths to a va"riety of persons, not directly connected "with the East India Company or the management of its affairs, and which,
equal; when the lot decided for the Amendment.
held under the East India Company; but they see no reason to recommend any 25th June: The Chairman, Deputy special or separate provisions as applicaChairman and eight other Directors dis-ble to their case, judging that the East India
sent from the Resolution not to re-appoint the Committee of Patronage. 24th Sept. A motion was made in the Court of Proprietors, that the above Proceedings be read; they were read accordingly, and notice given by the mover, of his intention of bringing the subject forward at a future Court. 20th Jan.: 1801, It was moved, That it is the opinion of this Court, "that the Inquiry into the alleged abuse of Patronage, ought to be continued."It was moved to amend the said motion, by adding thereto the following words, "to investigate any charge that may be "made of corrupt practices against any one or more of the Court of Directors." The above Amendment passed in the ne-in self-deception, accommodates itself with gative; When a ballot was demanded on the original question; it was, 3d Feb.: 1801, lost by a majority of 130; 411 voting for the question, against it 550. The following opinion of Counsel was given to the Court of Directors, previous to the ballot being taken; viz.
Company has within its own power the most effectual means. for accomplishing that end. It can never be advisable, without absolute necessity, to add new offences to the long catalogue already enumerated in the penal statutes; nor is it wise to diminish the sanctity of oaths by resorting to them upon all occasions. Where solemn declarations have been habitually disregarded, little reliance can be placed upon the sanction of any other species of asseveration. Instances occur but too frequently, where an oath comes to be considered merely as part of the of ficial form by which an appointment is conferred; and the human mind, fertile
wonderful facility to overcoming all scruples, or applies a perverse ingenuity to evading all restrictions which stand in the way of present interest. Little fear of detection is entertained, when transactions are in their nature private and confidential; and the appellation of honour, most "Case for the East India Company: improperly applied to negotiations of "Whether the Court of Directors, or this clandestine kind, attaches, by a sinany Committee of the said Court, whether gular perverseness, a stronger degree of considered as a Committee of that Court, obligation to the performance of such enor as a Committee of Proprietors, be legal-gagements, upon the very ground that ly authorized to call for the examination they are illegal. of such persons upon oath, as recommended by the Court of Directors in their Resolution of the 25th Feb. 1800; or whether in their opinion any magistrate would be justified in administering the oath so recommended; and generally to advise concerning the legality and effect of such proceedings.-We are of opinion, that neither the Court of Directors, nor any Committee of the said Court, or Committee of Proprietors, have any legal authority to require or receive examinations of persons upon oath, as recommended by the Resolution of the Court of Di- | rectors of the 25th Feb. 1800; and that no magistrate will be justified in administering such oaths.-"We therefore think the proposed proceedings would be contrary to law."(Signed) J. Mitford, W. Grant, J. Mansfield, T. Erskine, George Rous."
With a view to prevent all dealings in Patronage, the obvious and natural mode will be to take away all inducement to traffic in it; and this can only be attained by making the hazard of such speculations greater than the temptation.---The regulations of the Company are founded upon this true and efficacious principle. But examples have hitherto been wanting to demonstrate the determination of the Court of Directors to enforce their orders; no instance of purchasing or procuring by undue means an appointment in the civil or military service of the East India Company, after such appointment had actually taken place, and since the Court's Resolu tion of 28th Feb. 1799, having been so far established, as to enable the Court to dismiss the party appointed. The immediate consequence of the information contained in this Report, must be, that a certain number of persons in the service of the Company will be instantly deprived of their employments, recalled from India, and declared incapable of again receiving any appointment under the Company. The money improperly given for procur
Your Committee may perhaps be-exceeding the limits of their province, in the further considerations to which this subject leads; but as they decline recommending any special legislative enactment, their view of the proper remedy for these abuses may be incomplete, unless they proceed to suggest some other observations.-The unpleasant duty of increased vigilance is not likely to be performed without some incitement of benefit or disadvantage, attendant upon the exercise, or neglect of it; and it is equally conformable to excontinue to be abused, so long as no inconvenience is felt by the person primarily giving, or by the person altimately receiving it.Where strict examination is a duty, any species of negligence cannot be wholly blameless; and it appears not unreasonable to curtail in some degree, the patronage of those, who have either not been sufliciently watchful in the dis
ing these situations, will be absolutely lost, without any possibility of recovery; and those who have either imprudently or corruptly been concerned in obtaining what they conceived to be benefits for their relatives or friends, will find that they have done the greatest injury to those whom they desired to serve, by inducing them to dedicate some of the best years of their lives to an employment, which the original defects, and corrupt practices through which it was obtained, must disqualify them from prosecuting.-Hard as some of these cases must be, and innocent and ig-perience to presume, that patronage will norant as many of the young men nominated under these circumstances probably are, of the undue means by which their Appointments were acquired, your Committee are of opinion, that nothing but a strict adherence to the rule laid down by the Court of Directors, can put a stop to the continuance of these abuses, and prevent the chance of their recurring.In 1779, when, in the course of the in-posal of it, or whose diligence has been vestigation already mentioned, indemnity unsuccessful in preventing the abuses was offered to all those who would make which are complained of. As an addia fair and candid disclosure of all the cir- tional check against those who are inclincumstances through which their situations ed to purchase such appointments, it may had been procured, though information be expedient that a bond should be given was gained with regard to facts, no ex- by the parent, guardian, or friend of every ample could be made, in consequence of person receiving a nomination, containsuch disclosure, of those who were founding a penalty to be paid to the East India offending; and it may be doubted whether Company, upon proof being made at any such practices have been less prevalent subsequent period, that any valuable consince that inquiry, than before. The de-sideration was given for such appointficiency of their power to compel persons to answer, precluded the Court of Directors from discovering, if they punished, or from punishing if they discovered, the traffic which was the subject of complaint.
ment; that species of proof being deemed sufficient to levy the penalty, upon which the Court of Directors may think themselves authorized to vacate the appoint
The practices which are developed in the present Report, and other transactions which this house has recently had under its cognizance, are sufficient to demonstrate, that patronage of various descriptions has, in several instances, become an article of traffic; that an opinion of the generality of such practices has been pre
The oath taken by the Directors seems as effectual as any thing which can be devised for the purpose of guarding against corruption, so far as the Directors themselves are immediately concerned; and your Committee have already remarked, that no one case of corruption or abuse, which has been before them, affects any member of that Court. It is, in the pass-valent to a still greater extent; and that ing through several hands, which happens frequently with regard to the more numerous and less valuable Appointments of Cadets, that opportunities for this sort of negotiation are presented, which, without a greater degree of vigilance and strictness on the part of each Director, at the time of making such nomination, it will be impracticable to prevent in fature.
fraudulent agents have availed themselves of this belief, to the injury of the credu lous and unwary, and to the discredit of those in whose hands the disposition of offices is lodged. It will depend upon the steps which may be taken in consequence of these Inquiries, whether such abuses shall receive a permanent check, or a virtual encouragement.
LONDON: Printed by T. C. HANSARD, Peterborough Court, Fleet Street; Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent-Gardeu: Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall Mall.