Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

foundation without it for the claim of his Majesty. It was quite clear that certain lands were to be assigned to the King of Delhi, in order to enable him to keep up a proper dignity, and that it was the intention of the GovernorGeneral that he should have an ample allowance for that purpose. The amount of thirty lacs of rupees, which was proposed by the Marquess Wellesley, was not the maximum of the proposed grant; on the contrary, it was evident, from his lordship's despatches, that he intended to go further, if, on subsequent inquiries, the exigencies of the case rendered it necessary. Part of the lands then proposed to be assigned to the King of Delhi was now yielding an excess of thirty-five lacs a year. On the 16th of November, 1804, in a document entitled, "Notes of Proposed Instructions to Sir D. OchterIony," the deep solicitude which the Marquess Wellesley felt with respect to the king was strongly expressed; and he then again spoke of the provision that was to be assigned to him for his support. He said: "It is not, however, the intention of the Governor-General to fix the amount without further information which may enable his Excellency to judge of the exigencies of the royal household, and of the extent of the additional resources which the British Government has acquired in the Doab and in Hindostan, by the cessions of the peace with Dowlut Rao Scindiah." In the fourteenth paragraph the Governor-General expressly says, that the income arising both from the assigned territories and the money payments from the British treasury is to be "exclusively at the disposal of his Majesty." In a subsequent part on the despatch it was stated, that the Governor-General did not deem it advisable to enter into any written agreement with the King of Delhi. (Hear!)

The Chairman.-What then became of the ikrar-namah of which you spoke? Mr. Thompson.-There was no actual treaty entered into by both parties. All he had said was, that it was signed by one party, and submitted to the other for approbation. The party so submitting it of course being willing to abide by it, provided the other party consented, and which, therefore, gave it, as far as the party proposing it was concerned, all the effect of an agreement. There was a promise binding on the part of the British Government; for on the 23rd of May, 1805, Sir D. Ochterlony received the final determination of the Council on the subject of the King of Delhi, and in consequence of it a certain treaty was delivered by him to the king on the 23rd day of June, 1805. The hon. proprietor then entered into a lengthened statement to shew that that treaty had not been faithfully adhered to on the part of the British Government. He adverted to the degradation to which the King of Delhi was subjected by the directions given by Lord Ellenborough, that the custom of presenting “nuzzers" to his Majesty should be discontinued. The king was consequently deprived of those privileges which his family had ever enjoyed. He also wished to know whether there was any foundation for the rumour which had reached the King of Delhi, that after his decease no accession to the throne would take place without the sanction of the Supreme Government. The hon. proprietor, in conclusion, said, that, after looking to the many favours which the King of Delhi had bestowed upon the East-India Company-the assurances that had been given by Lord Lake-the present condition of the royal family of Delhi-a family that had shewn as little hostility to British power as any royal family with which the East-India Company had ever had any thing to do-and, looking at the professions which had been made by the Court of Directors of their desire at all times to promote the welfare of the

native princes of India, as far as was consistent with the safety of their own government, he trusted that the Court of Proprietors would come to the conclusion, that the whole question ought to be taken into consideration by the Court of Directors. He moved for the production of certain despatches and papers with reference to the case of the King of Delhi.

The Chairman said, the hon. proprietor had gone into this subject at great length, and he was sorry to be compelled to state that, in doing so, he had so highly coloured his narrative as to compel him (the Chairman) to reply to his statement at much greater length than he would otherwise have done, and, in be doing so, to make some statements which he feared would, by some persons, considered as ungenerous towards a fallen family; but he hoped it would go forth to the world that those statements had not been voluntarily made by him, but had been extorted from him by the speech of the hon. proprietor, whom the King of Delhi had thought proper to select as his agent. (Hear! hear!) That gentleman had stated that the East-India Company owed a debt of gratitude to the former Kings of Delhi. He would not deny that the Company had been deeply indebted to them, but he would say that the disgraceful conduct of Shah Allum was such as to cancel, in a great degree, those obligations. He had joined the Mahrattas in a conspiracy against the British Government in India, and abetted the designs of the French and other enemies of Great Britain, a It was true that fact which the hon. proprietor had attempted to gloss over. such conduct on his part had reduced him and his family to that degree of privation and distress which was described in the despatches of the Marquess Wellesley; and when he was so reduced, he expressed his anxiety to place himself and his family under the protection of the British Government, and he was, in fact, as anxious to obtain that protection as the Government were ready and willing to afford it. (Hear! hear!) In fact, the advantages were mutual. With reference to the settlement which the Marquess Wellesley proposed to make for the future provision of the King of Delhi and his family, the whole question hinged upon the construction of the letter of the noble marquess in reference to that subject. But the Court would be surprised to hear, that the document, which the hon. proprietor had called an ikrah-namah, was nowhere to be found on the records of the Court, or in those of the Supreme Government of India; and there could be no doubt that no such document had ever been finally recognized, for the Marquess Wellesley had especially directed, in his despatch of the 23rd May, 1805, that no written agreement should be entered into with the King of Delhi, and notwithstanding that declaration the hon. proprietor (Mr. Thompson) persisted in stating that the British Government had entered into a treaty with him. (the Chairman) would admit that some memorandum on the subject might have been made by one party, but he denied that it could be considered as a treaty, or ought to be so considered. With regard to the alleged assignment of land, it was quite clear that that assignment was merely nominal; He would assure but the greater part of such land had already been alienated. the proprietors that the Court of Directors were most anxious at all times to make all available provision for the native princes of India (Hear! hear!); and as a proof that they had done so in the case of Shah Allum, he would state that when that monarch died, he had accumulated between five and six lacs of rupees, which shewed that the Government had not acted niggardly in the allowance they had made to him. But his son had not trod in the footsteps of his

Не

father. He had been proved to have been engaged in intrigues against the East-India Company, and they consequently refused to continue the payment of his stipend. The hon. Chairman next referred to the letter of Lord Minto, who had on all occasions shewn an extreme anxiety to do justice to the King of Delhi and his family, and read a passage from it in proof that the assignment of lands that had been alluded to was a nominal assignment only. It was the desire of the Directors to do every thing that was just and proper, for the purpose of insuring the comfort and becoming support of every native prince of India, and that if ever the Court of Directors had come into collision with the authorities in this country, it was in defending the rights and privileges of the natives of India. (Hear! hear!) With reference to a rumour as to the intended proceedings of the British Government, with reference to nuzzers, in respect to the present King of Delhi, he had to state that the Court of Directors did not approve of the conduct of Lord Ellenborough, which had given rise to that rumour, and that they had long since written to his lordship to that effect. The Chairman contended that there had been no breach of faith with the King of Delhi on the part of the British Government in India; and he therefore hoped the proprietors would leave the whole subject in their hands, more particularly as they had recently forwarded a despatch to India, which they confidently expected would give satisfaction to the King of Delhi and bis family.

Mr. Sullivan said, he could hardly find words to express the astonishment which he felt at what had just fallen from his hon. friend, the Chairman; for a more ingenious piece of casuistry was never devised. The garb of special pleading sat with an ill grace upon his shoulders. This Delbi case was a perfect novelty to him; he had never thought of it, or considered it, or heard it, but from the lips of the hon. proprietor. A more able, and temperate, and lucid statement of a case, he (Mr. Sullivan) never heard, or one that was more completely supported by authority; and having listened with attention to the answer (the best defence he supposed that could be made), he declared, that if he was upon his oath at this moment, as a juryman, as an arbitrator, or as a judge in equity, he would cast the Company in full damages; that is, he would sentence them to pay the whole proceeds of the assigned lands, with the arrears: nay, he would go further; he would insist upon their making compensation for the lands which had been-he must not say, fraudulently, but-improperly alienated from the Moghul. What was the Chairman's answer to the hon. proprietor's case? He says, that the ikrah namah, or agreement, given by Lord Lake to Shah Allum is not upon the Company's records; that they have no knowledge of it. What is that to the purpose? the question was, is such a document in existence? did Lord Lake, the representative of the GovernorGeneral, and armed with plenary power from him, give such a document to the Emperor? If the present Emperor can produce this agreement, and prove that it was so given to his grandfather, what will the Chairman say? Was it the fault of Shah Allum that this document was not upon record? But his hon. friend laid great stress upon the declaration of Lord Wellesley-that he did not intend to enter into a written agreement with Shali Allum, and says, how preposterous it is, in the face of this declaration, to rest the Emperor's case upon written agreements! His hon. friend had, however, overlooked the fact, that the letter, to which this declaration was made, is dated November, 1801, and that there is upon record an agreement signed by Colonel Ochterlony,

the then Resident, and Mr. Colebrooke, and dated in July, 1805. This agreement, or pledge, was founded upon the instructions contained in the noble Lord's letter of November, 1804. Did his hon. friend deny the authenticity of this letter? If he did, he (Mr. Sullivan) would then ask him upon what authority he is now paying a stipend to the Emperor? Has the Emperor a right to that stipend, or is it a spontaneous act of beneficence on the part of the Company? "If he tells me," continued Mr. Sullivan, “as he must, that it is of right, then my answer is, that the right is founded upon this very agreement, and that if he is bound to pay him the small sum, he is bound also to pay him the larger one. The merits of this case are to be looked for in the mind of Lord Wellesley, and his mind is fully developed in his despatches. He tells us distinctly, that he contemplated an expenditure of at least thirty lacs of rupees for the support of the Imperial family, and he assigned lands, the value of which was not exactly known, as a fund for this purpose, giving him, in the interim, a stipend limited then by the exigencies of the Company's finances, but with a promise that it should increase, as the revenue from the assigned lands increased. How is it possible to set aside this pledge? If solemn engagements are to be brushed away after this fashion, who in India can be secure of any thing that he has? The Court will remember that, upon a former occasion, I quoted the very words from the Duke of Wellington's despatches, with which the hon. proprietor commenced his speech. I believe, with the illustrious Duke, that our empire in India rests mainly upon our observance of strict good faith; and that every breach of faith tends to shake that empire. In my judgment, a gross breach of faith has been committed in this case of the Moghul, which I cannot sanction with my vote."

Mr. Thompson having replied,

The Chairman put the question, which was negatived by a very considerable majority, only four hands being held up in favour of it.

The Court then adjourned.

College Examinations.

EAST-INDIA COLLEGE, HAILEYBURY.

On Friday, the 13th December, being the day appointed for closing the Term, a deputation from the Court of Directors of the East-India Company made their visitation, for the purpose of distributing the usual medals and prizes to those students who had been successful competitors in the various branches of Oriental, classical, and European literature. The deputation consisted of the following gentlemen:-John Shepherd, Esq., Chairman; Sir H. Willock, Bart., Deputy-Chairman; II. St. George Tucker, Esq.; H. Shank, Esq.; Major Oliphant; and John C. Whiteman, Esq.

There were also present,--Maj.-Gen. Sir J. L. Lushington, G.C.B.; Right Hon. Sir Henry Pottinger, Bart., G. C. B.; T. N. Waterfield, Esq.; A. Easton, Esq.; Rev. C. W. Le Bas; Rev. J. Howlett; Rev. S. Burnell; Rev. Dr. Hessey; Capt. Berford; Maj. Willock; Richard Strachan, Esq.; Capt. Probyn; John Abercrombie, Esq.; Maj. Chase; Maj. Wilkinson; W. Dent, Esq.; Capt. Eastwick; J. M. Daniell, Esq.; C. J. Abbott, Esq.; Robert Low, Esq; Rev. W. Collett; J. H. Glover, Esq.; Simson, Esq.; Hulse, Esq.; J. H. Smith, Esq.

The following civilians at home were also present:-W. W. Bird, Esq.,

late Deputy-Governor of Bengal; H. Borradaile, Esq.; J. R. Colvin, Esq.; R. K. Dick, Esq.; G. Gough, Esq.; Charles Gubbins, Esq.; Charles Horne, Esq.; and Mosley Smith, Esq.

The deputation, on arriving, proceeded to the Principal's lodge, and from thence to the Council-room, where the Report of the Principal was presented to them. The report, which was more than usually gratifying, stated, that the conduct of the students during the term had been excellent, and that the majority had obtained great proficiency in their various studies. The deputation and the professors then proceeded to the hall, where the students had already assembled, and, on the chair having been taken by J. Shepherd, Esq., Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mr. Hooper read the following statement of the prizes and distinctions obtained by the students during the term:Medals, Prizes, and other honourable distinctions of Students leaving College, December, 1844.

Highly distinguished.

Mr. Collett, with medal in mathematics, medal in law, prize in Sanscrit, and medal in Teloogoo. Mr. Glover, with essay prize, prize in classics, prize in Persian, and prize in Hindustani. Mr. Ballard, with medal in political economy. Mr. Belli, with essay prize, and medal in classics. Messrs. Heywood, Master, Campbell, Cunliffe, Grant, Hudleston, and Madocks.

Passed with great credit.-Mr. Toogood.

Prizes and other honourable distinctions of Students remaining in College, December, 1814,

THIRD TERM.

Highly distinguished,

Mr. Ainslie, with prize in mathematics, prize in Persian, prize in Sanscrit, and prize in Hindustani. Mr. Harrison, with prize in Teloogoo. Mr. Tucker,

with prize in law. Mr. Shaw, with prize in political economy. Mr. Denison, with prize in classics. Messrs. Rogers, L. Reid, Sandeman, Nesbitt, Foster,

and Hammond.

Passed with great credit.

Mr. Russell, Lord W. Hay, Messrs. Lushington, Best, Henderson, and Ogilvie.

SECOND TERM.

Highly distinguished.

Mr. Simson, with prize in mathematics, and prize in law. Mr. H. S. Reid, with prize in classics. Mr. P. S. Melvill, with prize in Sanscrit and prize in Persian. Mr. Couper, with prize in political economy. Messrs. Pepper, Inverarity, and Paxton.

Passed with great credit.

Messrs. Pauncefote, Mayne, M. Ricketts, Jackson, and Thompson.

FIRST TERM.

Highly distinguished.

Mr. Temple, with prize in classics, and prize in English composition. Mr. Pratt, with prize in English composition. Mr. Gibbs, with prize in Sanscrit.

Mr. Thornhill.

[blocks in formation]

Rank of Students finally quitting College, December, 1844.

Bengal.

First Class.-Mr. Glover, Mr. Belli, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Heywood.

« ZurückWeiter »