been read, must be gratifying to every proprietor, as it assured them that he would be scon able to resume his duties. They had all heard of the ferocious attack that had been made upon the deputychairman, and had since learned some particulars with which they were before unacquainted, of the habits and previous conduct of the person by whom that attack had been made. After hearing that statement he could not come to the conclusion, that some persons perhaps might, that the man Kearney was mad. Although such persons might be actuated by benevolent feelings, yet he could not help condemning that morbid humanity which could induce them to come to such a conclusion. He did not understand that species of humanity which was exercised, not towards those who were wronged, but towards those who had perpetrated wrong. With reference to the statement published in the newspapers, of which some complaint had properly been made by the friends of the deputy-chairman, who were naturally anxious that the public mind should be disabused on the subject, he would only remark, that the statement so published was that of the assassin himself; of course a garbled one, and not entitled to any credence. He concluded by moving

"Resolved-That this court take the earliest opportunity of congratulating John Loch, Esq., deputy chairman, on his providential escape from assassination, and expressing their earnest hope for his complete and speedy recovery."

Mr. Marriott stated, with reference to a point of order, whether this, being a motion of which no notice had been given, could be regularly put? No one could object to it; on the contrary, all must rejoice that such a motion had been made. At the same time, one conviction was fixed in his mind from the statements contained in the paper which had been read-namely, that flogging had not the effect of changing men's hearts. (Hear.)

Mr. Twining said, it was not unusual at a quarterly general court to bring forward a motion without notice, especially where it applied to a matter of immediate and unexpected occurrence; and this certainly was one of those cases, with reference to which it was most gratifying that the proposition was made spontaneously, and without any previous notice. He had supposed that his worthy friend, who had introduced the subject in so able a manner, would have ended with some proposition of that nature. As it was quite congenial with his worthy friend's feelings, he would leave it to him to second the motion. He also could bear witness to the truth of every observation that had been uttered in the praise of Mr. Loch. A man of greater kindness, in listening to personal applications made to him, could not be found. (Hear, hear!)

His devotion to the interests of the EastIndia Company could not be exceeded. (Hear, hear!) And he was sure that the concern manifested on this occasion, on this awful occasion (for Mr. Loch's escape might be considered one of the most extraordinary and providential on record) — he was sure that the anxiety evinced for Mr. Loch's safety was not greater within those walls than it was out of doors. (Hear, hear!)

Mr. Burnie said, the only object he had in view was to elicit information. If the motion was in accordance with the feelings of the Court, nothing could be more gratifying to him than to second it; and he returned his sincere thanks to the Court for the attention which they had paid to him. (Hear, hear !)

Sir P. Laurie was delighted that the Court had determined to express its feelings so soon. He sincerely thanked the Hon. Chairman for having laid before them the able statement which had been read, which clearly proved that Mr. Loch had done that which was right. It would have the effect of disabusing the public mind with respect to the statement made. by Kearney, that he had been ill-used. He did not know how the minds of individuals were constituted, who seemed to think, that because the father had committed a great crime, the son was, therefore, worthy of their especial protection. Yet he had, that morning, seen a letter, signed A Spinster," in a public paper, calling on that Court to come forward, and provide for Kearney's boy. Now, whatever might be done for the boy, he hoped it would be simply on account of his destitute state. But if persons came forward and said, because the father was an assassin, you must, therefore, provide for the child, he never would listen to such a perversion of sense and reason. If a man, tired of his life, and having perpetrated an atrocity like this, was to meet with sympathy and commiseration, beCause he was fond of his child-(and even the tiger was attached to its young)-if such a notion were to lay hold of the public mind, why, then, no person would be safe. He had heard from the prisoner himself, an exposition of his feelings, for he had claimed the bed in which he had rested, when in prison twelve months before, and he was used to it. He seemed to think, because he was violent in his representations, that he ought to have been rewarded. A more determined, and, therefore, a more dangerous man than Kearney never existed. He trusted that this motion would be carried by acclamation. (Hear, hear !); and that the proprietors would not let it go forth to the world, that it was only necessary to become an assassin to have your family provided for.

The Chairman felt it to be his duty to say, that this motion, coming spontaneously from the other side of the bar, would be most grateful to his hon. friend's feelings. The expression of sentiment which had been displayed in the Court with reference to his hon. friend's character would not only be most satisfactory to him, but was extremely acceptable to his colleagues (Hear, hear!)-not merely because they acted with him as public men-but also because it was liberal and just. (Hear, hear!) There was not, he could assure the Court, one word in the statement relative to the unhappy creature whose conduct had given rise to this motion, that was not founded on fact. He should submit this motion, when carried, to his hon. friend, whom he should see in the evening; and he should merely say, further, that such a motion, for such a man, was alike honourable to the Court and to the individual. (Hear, hear !)

The motion was then carried unanimously.

Sir P. Laurie moved, that the motion should be published in the morning and evening papers, which was agreed to.

Col. Sykes suggested, that the detailed statement, which nad been read, relative to Kearney, should also be published.

Mr. Lush was also of opinion, that a statement so gratifying, because it clearly exonerated the Company from having acted unjustly to Kearney, should be published. It was not enough to satisfy that Court only-it was necessary to disabuse the public mind on this subject; and the statement which the hon. Chairman had caused to be read, would shew to the world at large that Kearney had no just cause of complaint.

NAWAUB OF FEROZEPORE.

Sir C. Forbes said, he now rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice," for information relative to the trial, conviction, and execution of Shumsoodeen Khan, Nawaub of Ferozepore, and the confiscation of his territory." In taking this step, he could assure the court that he did not stand there to justify or to palliate the conduct of any person who had been guilty of, or who had abetted the commission of so foul a crime as murder; but he did stand there, for the purpose of maintaining the right of our native fellow subjects in India, to that measure of justice which was due to any person placed in such circumstances as the Nawaub had been. It was for the purpose of placing the public, both here and in India, right on this subject, that he now brought it under the notice of the court; because it was a question that had excited a great and general sensation in India, and also, to a certain degree, in this country. It

was for the purpose of satisfying himself, and those who felt as he did, as to the proceedings taken against the Nawaub, that he wished the matter to be inquired into. The hon. Chairman had taken upon himself to state, that there could not be a doubt of the guilt of the Nawaub. He, however, might take the liberty of entertaining such a doubt, although that was not the question. The question was,“ had the Nawaub a fair trial?" and he must say. from all he had heard, that be could not come to that conclusion. It had been stated by an hon. proprietor (Mr. Fielder) that he was perfectly satis fied of the guilt of the Nawaub; and, on a former occasion, that hon. proprietor was disposed to enter into details, to shew how he came to that conclusion. The hon. proprietor was called to order, on the ground that he was introducing a defence of the authorities abroad, when no attack had been made on them. He found, however, that the hon, proprietor was represented to have made a speech on the occasion alluded to, which, though he was present during the whole discussion, he had not heard. (A laugh.) If the hon. proprietor did make that speech, he must have been asleep, and he would leave it to the court to say, whether he was or was not asleep on that occasion. It was impossible that he could have allowed the hon. proprietor to make such a speech, without replying to it. He would, however, this day, give the hon. proprietor an opportunity of substantiating what was stated in his printed speech. If the hon. proprietor could substantiate it, then he would only say, that he should give no further trouble to the court on the subject. But, trusting to the recollection of those who were present at the last court, he would ask them, whether the hon. proprietor had made use of any such words as these:-"From allae"counts, it appeared that the proceedings, "trial, and verdict, at Delhi, were regular

was also the jury-and one man, not twelve, pronounced the decision, which led to the fiat of the Governor-general for the execution of the Nawaub. He again asked, what would the British public say to this? What would the natives of India say to it? For, let us not attempt to conceal from ourselves, that this event has created a great sensation throughout the native society of India; and that it is calculated to excite feelings which cannot but be most dangerous in that country. He maintained, that there ought to be no eoncealment. If the affair were attempted to be concealed, it would have the worst possible effect. It ought to be probed to

It

the bottom. If that which had been done was right, let it go forth to India that this country-that the British public-were satisfied with the proceedings against the Nawaub-that they were convinced of the justice of the course that had been adopted. That would strengthen their influence, and support their power in India. But, if there were any doubts on this subject (as he maintained there were), then it was the bounden and imperative duty of that court to sift the matter to the bottom; and, if any parties were to blame, let them bear that blame. might, perhaps, be said that any investigation now could do no good; but be, in reply to that observation, would say that it would do this good at least-it would make the government of India more cautious in future, and prevent similar proceedings. He had felt it necessary to say thus much in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Chairman, and also with reference to what was supposed to have been said by the hon. proprietor on the last court day-which had gone forth to the public, He must now again observe, that he questioned the legality of the proceedings against the Nawaub; he questioned the legality of the court by which the Nawaub was tried; and he questioned the right of the Government of India to confiscate his territory and property. Not but he believed that they assumed a right to do just what they pleased. He questioned also the means by which evidence was procured against the Nawaub, which, if he was not misinformed, were of the most extraordinary and un-' justifiable nature.

Mr. Fielder said, that if the hon. proprietor was allowed to detail one side of the question, he should insist upon his right to be heard on the other. He hoped the same degree of privilege would be granted to him as was extended to the hon. baronet.

The Chairman." As the hon. proprietor has interrupted the hon. baronet, I would take the opportunity of submitting to the hon. baronet whether, under the circumstances which I have already

stated to the court (namely, that I can give no information on the subject of this trial, as the papers are not before the Court of Directors, though they are in my own hands), whether it is necessary or proper for the hon. baronet or any other individual to go into the details of this question, and pronounce an opinion on it, when we have no papers before us? (Hear, hear!) In consequence of the course taken by the hon. baronet, my hon. friend, Mr. Fielder, wishes also to go into the merits of the case."

Mr. Fielder. -"No! I merely wish to have the same liberty that is extended to the hon. baronet."

The Chairman." It will be a total loss of time. (Hear, hear!) I state candidly, that if I had any information, I would willingly lay it before the court; and, therefore, I again ask the hon. baronet to postpone the motion to a future day, when the papers are produced.”

Sir C. Forbes.-With all possible respect for the hon. chairman, he must say, that he was not a little astonished at an observation which had fallen from him. It was not he (Sir C. Forbes) who set the example of pronouncing an opinion; but it was the hon. Chairman himself, who confessed he was in possession of the papers, that had declared an opinion. He wished also to be put in possession of those documents. It ought not to be suffered to go forth, as the hon. Chairman had stated, that there was not a doubt of the guilt of the nawaub, without our knowing on what foundation that opinion rested. So far from that statement satisfying him, he would say, that he was of a different opinion; and to enable him to arrive at a just conclusion, he desired to have those papers. He was replying simply to the alleged speech of the hon. proprietor. He was merely expressing his own opinion; and if he were mistaken, he should be glad to be proved so when the papers were before the court. As to the unfortunate occurrence, although it took place so long ago as two years, it appeared that it was only now about to be brought under the consideration of the court. Yet it struck him as being a matter of great importance to the welfare of India, and which ought to have been immediately taken up. He asked the hon. Chairman, therefore, when the time was likely to arrive when he would be enabled to state the result of the inquiry? When it was probable he would be in a condition to lay before the court the information which he (Sir C. Forbes) called for; or, was that information to be denied? If it were to be denied, he should like to know on what grounds? There right be circumstances, for aught he knew. that rendered it desirable, in the opi

Sir C. Forbes could assure the hon. chairman that he would not abandon it, unless the hon. chairman could satisfy him of that of which the hon. chairman appeared to be himself satisfied, namely, of the guilt of the nawaub, and of the legality and propriety of all the proceedings in his case, as well as of the right which the government assumed to confiscate his territory. When he was satisfied on these points, he would abandon the subject, but not before. If he were not fully satisfied, he would adhere to his determination to have this matter sifted to the bottom. He should feel it his duty to the natives of India to do so; and he trusted that the Court of Proprietors would support him. Having said thus much, in consequence of the interruption, he was just coming to a point, to which he would briefly refer. He would tell the hon. proprietor who so highly approved of these proceedings, that it was not prudent to attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the natives of India on this subject. They were as competent as the hon. proprietor or as the hon. chairman to judge of these proceedings; and if concealment were attempted, still the facts would be whispered from one end of India to the other. Let them not think, that by blinking the question in this way, they would secure the affections of the Indian population. He would again say, "If there be any doubt, let it be brought to the test; if there be any thing wrong, let it be condemned." He saw, however, there was an indisposition, at present, to enter into the details of the subject, and he should, therefore, postpone his motion to the next general court, unless it were attempted to prolong the discussion. In that case, he certainly should resume his

argument.

Mr. Fielder hoped that the court would permit him to make a few observations, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. baronet.

The Chairman.-" There is no motion before the Court of Proprietors, and therefore there can be no discussion. The motion is put off till the next general court, when the whole question will be debated. There can be no use in entering into debate now, since we can come to no conclusion."

Mr. Fielder said, he did not mean to force a debate; but as an attack was made upon him before the court, he appealed to them, whether it was not necessary, whether it was not fair, that he

should be allowed to make a few observations in reply. If the hon. chairman thought that it was not necessary, he would sit down without saying another word. He thought, however, that in justice to his own feelings, he ought to be allowed to say something in his defence. He certainly did come forward at the last General Court, and when he was going into some of the merits of this case, he was told that he was out of order. Now, he conceived that the hon. baronet himself was out of order in alluding to that Occurrence. But was it surprising that he should express his opinion on that occasion, when the tribunals of justice were openly rebuked? When it was sent forth to the world, that the court before which the nawaub was tried was not legally constituted? Were they to be told after seven months had been occupied in inquiring into the circumstances— after fifty-one witnesses had been examined-after a long and careful trial — after a recorded verdict-after a farther consideration of the case by the superior court at Allahabad

Sir C. Forbes." I see I must go on. I was perfectly right. I knew the hon. proprietor would proceed."

The Chairman." My hon. friend is now going into the merits of the case. In my opinion he was not attacked by the hon. baronet, who, however, after what I addressed to him, certainly made a longer speech than I expected I wish, however, that my hon. friend would reserve his observations for the next court-day." Mr. Fielder.-"I shall take up no farther time. I shall only say, that no person can doubt the honour and purity of the motives which actuate the hon. baronet in bringing this subject forward. There is not in the court a more humane or benevolent man, or one more anxious for the welfare of the people of India."

Sir C. Forbes thanked the hon. proprietor for his good opinion, and should be happy if he deserved it.

An Hon. Proprietor here proceeded to make a remark on what had fallen from Sir C. Forbes, when

He put it

Mr. Wigram rose to order. to the hon. proprietor, whether it would not be extremely inconvenient to renew a discussion which the hon. baronet had postponed. If he went on, so would the hon baronet; and thus they would have a premature and partial discussion, that could produce no useful result.

ST. HELENA CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. Weeding rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the Court to the situation of the civil servants lately employed by the Company on the island of St. Helena; and requested, before he proceeded with.

his motion, that the memorial of these gentlemen should be read.

The memorial was then read. The memorialists complained of the great injury they had sustained, in consequence of the cession of the Island of St. Helena to the Crown. The retiring allowances granted to them by his Majesty's Government they considered to be disproportionately small; and they prayed that compensation might be awarded to them on the same principle, and to the same extent, as the Company had granted compensation to the officers of the homeestablishment.

Mr. Weeding said, he had thought it necessary to cause the memorial to be read, because, otherwise, gentlemen would not be in possession of the facts of the case, as set forth at length by the memoralists. It was, in his opinion, a case of very great hardship, and well deserved the attention of the Court. The Island of St. Helena was in the possession of the Company for a century and a half. By them it had been used for commercial purposes; and there, those gentlemen, whose memorial was now before the Court, and who were thirteen in number, served the Company faithfully from periods, varying from thirteen years to upwards of forty. They consisted of senior merchants, junior merchants, factors, &c., and they enjoyed salaries from £320 a-year up to £1,600. In 1833, the Company thought it necessary to enter into a compromise with the Government, and wholly to change the system on which they had so long acted. Instead of continuing to be a commercial body, the Company became rulers of India only. In the course of these proceedings it was thought fit that the I-land of St. Helena, with all its forts, factories, stores, and property, should be given up to the Crown. The first intimation they received of this, was, when the bill for effecting an alteration in the management of the affairs of India was introduced to Parliament, by Mr. C. Grant, in June 1833. By that bill, St. Helena, its forts, factories, &c. were not vested in the Company as all the other assets were, but were vested in his Majesty, his heirs and successors for ever. In the July following, a clause was introduced by Mr. C. Grant, by which the Company were obliged to provide, not only for the reduced civil servants of China, but for the reduced civil servants of St. Helena also. That clause, which was afterwards altered, so as to exclude the civil servants of St. Helena, whose retiring allowances were to be provided for by the Government, was, in his opinion, highly honourable to the just and benevolent feeling of the then President of the Board of Control. The clause, which enabled the Company to

avail itself in India of the services of those who had been its servants in St. Helena, was highly creditable to the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, by whom it had been introduced; and what he (Mr. Weeding) now claimed of the Company, was, that as it had not availed itself of the services of those servants who were employed at St. Helena, by transferring them to situations in India, it should now make them some compensation for the losses they had sustained, by the transfer of St. Helena to the Government. It was admitted by Mr. Grant, that as the island had been transferred to the Government, the Government should provide for, or give some retiring allowance to the servants of the Company who had been employed there; but the Company had permission to employ them elsewhere, and as it had not availed itself of that permission, he repeated, that it now ought to make them that full compensation which the Government had neglected to do. What, let him ask, was one of the grounds on which the Company had claimed to retain possession of the whole of the commercial assets?Was it not that it might be enabled to make provision for all outstanding commercial obligations? And was not another main ground of that claim-that the Company should be enabled to make a suitable provision for its servants, who would otherwise be great losers, to the ruin of many, by the change which was about to take place? Both those grounds were urged on the part of the Company in the correspondence with the Board of Control, on the 27th February, 1833. He contended, then, that as the Company's servants in St. Helena had been transferred to the Government, which did not require their services, and which had not made an adequate provision for them, the Company itself was bound to make the provision for them, equal to that which it had awarded to its other civil and military servants, whose services it no longer required. This was the view taken of the question by the Directors, in their communications with Mr. C. Grant, in March 1833, when it was proposed, that the Company should make over to the Government its commercial assets, and with them the claims for compensation of its servants, who were to be displaced by the pending arrangements; the Directors replied, that the proprietors would have very great objections to transfer to others the rewarding of those who had been in their employment, and of whose services they had been the witnesses, and were the most competent judges. On that occasion the Court of Directors fully recognised the principle for which he now contended-namely, that they did not think it right to leave to others the re