Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ever might be interesting, either to this house, or to the East India Company.

WRITERS.

Mr. Edward James Smith was nominated a writer to Bengal in the season 1806-7, by Mr. G. W. Thellusson; the appointment was given to his first cousin, Mr. Emperor J. A. Woodford, who sold the appointment for 3,5001. through the agency of Mr. Tahourdin, Solicitor, who received 1001. out of that sum. The tion were Mr. Wimbourn and Mr. Laing; other persons, concerned in this negociaMr. Fry Magniac was nominated writer to Bengal, in the year 1807-8, by Mr. G. W. Thellusson; this appoint ment was also given to the same Mr. Woodford, and sold through the agency of Mr. Tahourdin. Mr. Beale was the purchaser, and the sum paid by him was 3,500 guineas, of which Mr. Woodford received 3000l. Mr. Tabourdin 1501. the remainder was divided between Mr. Donovan and Mr. Garrat.

Mr. Henry Gardner was nominated a writer to Madras by Mr. G. W. Thellusson in the season of 1807-8.--This

appointment was likewise given to Mr. Woodford, and 3,000l. was received for it from Mrs. Gardiner by Mr. Tahourdin, for his own use; but upon an undertaking that he is to procure the next presentation of a living of the value of 3001. per annum for a friend of Mr. Woodford's. Mr. Boase, a partner in the house of Messrs Ransom and Co. was privy to the bargain between Mr. Tahourdin and Mrs. Gardiner. Mr. Greenslade received an appointment for Ceylon, in the way of exchange for his writership, which is the occasion of his name appearing in the transaction.

CADETS.

Mr. Henry Stoughton was appointed a cadet to Madras, January, 1808, by George Abercrombie Robinson, Esq. by the recommendation of Mr. Morland, who gave the appointment to Mr. Jones for a relation of his. Mr. Jones, through the agency of John Annesley Shee, sold it to Mr. Stoughton, father to the person appointed, from whom Shee received 500 guineas; he paid 1801. to Mr. Jones, and received of him an undertaking to pay 3201. upon his procuring for Mr. Jones a Woolwich cadetship. This appointment has been vacated by the court of directors, in consequence of their having discovered the means through which it was obtained,

Mr. Thomas Kelly was appointed a cadet to Bombay, in April, 1803, by Sır Theophilus Metcalf, Bart. at the recommendation of Mrs. Scott. It was afterwards exchanged with Mr. Cotton, at his request for a Madras cadetship.William Scott, tailor, the husband of Mrs. Scott, sold this appointment to Mr. Kelly, through the agency of David Brown, who received for it 1501. Brown was paid 301. or 401. and Mr. Southcomb, who introduced some of the parcadet for the Bengal infantry, in Deties to each other, received 10 guineas. Mr. George Barker was appointed cember, 1808, by Robert Thornton, Esq. at the recommendation of Mr. Mee. Mr. Mee sold this appointment for 200 guineas, through the agency of John Annesley Shee, who received 601.

Mr. George Teulon was appointed to an infantry cadetship to Bengal, in 1808, by Edward Parry, Esq. in exchange for a Madras appointment, given to Captain Sealy, by Jacob Bosanquet, Esq.Captain Matthew sold this appointment for 1201. to Captain Holmes, for a friend of his. Annesley M'Kercher Shee was employed as agent for Capt. Matthew, who paid him 301. and Capt. Holmes paid him 101.

Mr. John Samuel Williams was appointed to a Bengal cadetship by Mr. Cotton, in 1808, in exchange for a Madras cadetship of Mr. Manships'.-This appointment was procured by Mr. Abercrombie, who was assisted with the loan of a sum of money by Capt. Williams, the cadet's father. Mrs. Eliza beth Morrison, and Annesley M'Kercher Shee, were the agents employed.

Mr. Benjamin Pratt was appointed à cadet to Madras, Feb. 7, 1806, by Sweney Toone, Esq. at the recommendation of Captain Kennard Smith, who exchanged it with R. C. Plowden, Esq. for a nomination of the next season. Mr. B. Pratt was recommended to Mr. Plowden by Sir Nicholas Nugent. This appointment was purchased by Mr. Henry Foster, through Sir Nicholas Nugent, for the sum of 1401. A. M'K. Shee acted as agent for Mr. Foster, and received 301. or 401. The original appointment was to Bengal, and it was exchanged for Madras.

Mr. John Power was appointed a cadet to Madras, in 1804 or 1805, by Lord Viscount Castlereagh, at the recommendation of Lord Longueville, through the Earl of Westmoreland.

Mr. Power paid 2001. for his appointment, to Mathew Spillman Salt; A. M'K. Shee was the agent for both parties, and received 501. from Mr. Power. Mr.Braithwaite Christie was appointed a cadet to Madras, 15th July, 1807, by James Reid, Esq. at the recommendation of his royal highness the Duke of Clarence.

Mr. Page, navy agent, in Great Russell-street, paid the sum of 2001. for this appointment to A. M'K. Shee, who paid 150l. to the Rev. Mr. Lloyd, chaplain to his royal highness the Duke of Clarence, for procuring the same.

Mr. Thomas Maw was appointed a cadet to Bengal, in July, 1807, by Robert Thornton, Esq. at the recommendation of the Rev. Nicholas Corsellis, for Miss Elizabeth Spinluff. Miss Spinluff sold this appointment to Mr. Hewitt, a relation of Mr. Maw, through the agency of Mrs. Morrison and A. M'K. Shee, and received. 701. for it. Mrs. Morrison thinks the sum paid was 1501. or 1801, A. M'K, Shee received 301.

Mr Arthur Denny was appointed a 'cadet to Madras, on the 18th of February, 1806, by George Woodford Thellusson, Esq. at the recommendation of the Countess Dowager of Westmoreland and Mr. George. This appointment was sold by Mr. George. Mr. Anthony Stoughton, uncle to the person appointed, paid to John Anuesley Shee, whom he employed to procure it, the sum of 250 guineas. David Browne was agent for Mr. George.

Mr. Henry Keating was appointed a cadet to Madras, on the 5th of June, 1805, by John Manship, Esq. at the recommendation of George Woodford Thellusson, Esq. in return for a Bombay nomination, of the season of 1804, given to Mr. Manship. The uncle of Mr. Henry Keating purchased this appointment of Mr. John Henderson, ship-broker, for 2001. or guineas. Mr. John Annesley Shee received of Mr. Hender son about 451. for his agency.

Mr. George Boys was appointed a cadet to Madras, on the 25th March, 1806, (of the season 1805) by Charles Mills, Esq. at the recommendation of Mr. now Sir William) Fraser. This appointment was given by Sir William Fraser to Mr. Thomas Cusac, who sold it to Messrs. Barber and Sons, Cowper'scourt, Cornhill, and received of them the sum of 1501. They were employed as agents to Mr. Boys's father, who paid

for it the sum of 300 guineas. One hundred pounds was divided between Mr. Barber and Mr. John Henderson. J. A. Shee was agent for Mr. Cusac.

Mr. William Collett was appointed a cadet for the Bombay infantry, by the India Board, on the 3d of July, 1805. This appointment was in the nomination of Lord Castlereagh, who, at the recommendation of the Right Hon. John Sullivan, gave it to Richard Cadman Etches, for a relation of his, on account of services performed by Mr. Etches for the government. Mr. Etches sold it to Mr. Chaplin, an attorney, for the sum of 2501. J. A. Shee was agent for Mr. Patmore, an attorney, who received the money for Mr. Etches.

Mr. John Manson was appointed cadet for Bengal, on the 26th February, 1808, by the India Board, at the recommendation of E. Cooke, Esq. Mı. Cadman Etches procured this appointment, through Mr. Cooke, for a relation of his, on account of services performed by Mr. Etches for the government. Thomas Watson was employed as agent to sell the same, as mentioned in the next appointment.

Mr. Robert Manson was appointed cadet for Bengal, February, 1808, by G. W. Thullusson, Esq. at the recommendation of Mr. Herbert. Thomas Watson sold this appointment, and received the sum of 500 guineas of Messrs. Anderson, of Philpot-lane, 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 351. of Watson; and Lady Leigh received from Watson about 2001. for the latter appointment.

Mr, Thomas Casey was appointed a cadet by William Devaynes, Esq. on the 9th July, 1806, at the recommendation of Mr. Herbert, now abroad as Purter of the Euphrates extra ship.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Herbert sold this appointment to Messrs. Hendry, Houghton and 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 February, 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 Keo. Dr. Locks

of Farnham, for his nephew, of Thomas Watson, who sold it for Lady Lumm, and paid her 2001.

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. Annesley M'Kercher Shee seems to have procured it of Mr. Wright, and received 300 guineas from the cadet's father. Mr. Samuel Lewis being a mulatto, and thereby disqualified, procured a young man of the name of Phillips to personate himself and pass the previous examinations, for which he paid him 20 guineas.

A cadetship for Madras appears to have been purchased for a person of the name of Browne, 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 sum.

A cadetship of 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 unable 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 Lionel Darell in 1801, and the following year.

It appears in evidence, that some other nomination of this description had 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 of these transactions; particularly Sir Nicholas Nugent, Mr. William Lewen, Tugwell Robins, Mr. Joseph Home, Captain Matthew, and Captain Holmes.-A further examination into some other bargains is precluded by the death of Lady Lumm, Lady Leigh, and Captain Sealy.

[The report then details the measures pursued by the company to guard against abuses of this nature, but which appear to have been ineffectual; counsel were of opinion that neither the court of di

rectors, or committee or court of proprie tors have authority to examine persons on oath. The Report concludes in the following terms.]

If this house should, in its wisdom, adopt any legislative measures for the purpose of preven ting all traffic in the disposal of offices under government, it will, in the opinion of your committee, be proper to extend the same protection to patronage held under the East India Company; but they see no reason to recommend any special or separate provisions as applicable to their case, judging that the East India 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 official form by which an appointment is confer red; and the human mind, fertile in self-deception, accommodates itself with wonderful facility to overcome 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, where transactions are in their nature private and confidential; and the appellation of honour, most improperly applied to negocia tions of this clandestine kind, attaches, by a singular perverseness, a stronger degree of obligation to the performance of such engagements, upon the very ground that they are illegal.

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 resolution, of the 28th of February, 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 procuring 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 first years of their lives to an employment, which the original defect, and corrupt practices through which it was obtained, must disqualify them from prosecuting.

Hard as some of these cases must be, and innocent and ignorant 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 the year 1799, when, in the course of the investigation already mentioned, indemnity was offered to all those who would make a fair and candid disclosure of all the circumstances through which their situa tions had been procured, though information was gained with regard to facts, no example could be made, in consequence of such disclosure, of those who were found offending; and it may be doubted whether such practices have been less prevalent since that enquiry, than before. The deficiency 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.

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 im mediately concerned; and your com mittee 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 passing through several hands, which happens very frequently with regard to the more numerous and less valuable appointment of cadets, that opportunities for this sort of negociation are presented, which, without a greater degree of vigilance and strictness on the part of each di rector, at the time of making such nomination, it will be impractible to prevent in future.

The 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 spe cial legislative enactment, their view of the proper remedy for these abuses may be incomplete, unless they pro

ceed to suggest some other observa- the steps which may be taken in con.

tions,

The unpleasant duty of increased vigilance is not likely to be performed without some incitement of benefit or disadvantages attendant upon the exercise or neglect of it; and it is equally conformable to experience to presume, that patronage will be abused, so long as no inconvenience is felt by the person primarily giving, or by the person ultimately 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 sufficiently watchful in the disposal of it, or whose diligence has been unsuccessful in preventing the abuses which are complained of. As an additional check against those who are inclined to purchase such appointments, it may be expedient that a bond should be given by the parent, guardian, or friend of every person receiving a nomination, containing a penalty to be paid to the East India Company, upon proof being made, at any subsequent period, that any valuable consideration was given for such appointment; that species of proof being deemed sufficient to levy the penalty, upon which the court of directors may think themselves authorised to vacate the appointment.

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 prevalent to a still greater extent; and that fraudulent agents have availed themselves of this belief to the injury of the credulous and unwary, and to the discredit of those in whose hands the disposition. of offices is lodged. It will depend upon

sequence of these enquiries, whether such abuses shall receive a permanent check or a virtual encouragement!

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

A quarterly general court of the proprietors of East India stock was held at the India house, to take into consideration the above report.

The Chairman informed the court of proprietors, that he had obtained a copy of the report of the select committee, which he now moved should be read. The report being read,

Mr. Jackson rose. He could not, he said, refrain from saying a few words after the report which had been just read; although, he confessed, he had scarcely recovered from the horror and surprise which the enumeration of such a catalogue of crimes and enormities occasioned. The idea of such a scene of iniquity was new to him. He had understood from the public papers, that abuses and corruptions did exist, but he could not have conceived that the report could have exhibited so foul a list. If the court itself did not rise up in arms against so infamous a system of corruption, let them not be surprised that the public lifted up its hand against the renewal of the company's charter. This was one of the effects of the extraordinary majority of one hundred proprietors, some years ago: He was no stranger to the arts then resorted to, to accomplish that end. He had at the time been aware of, and had endeavoured to point out the consequences which might be expected to follow; but he could never have supposed they would have gone to such an extent. He had stated that the proceedings of that day would rise up in judgment against the company; but he had greatly under-rated the nature and extent of the evils to be expected. He believed that some of the gentle men who supported that system of

« ZurückWeiter »