CHAP. VIII. Inquiries arising out of that into the Conduct of the Duke of York.-A Bill to prevent the Sale and Brokerage of Offices.-Abuses of the Patronage of the East India Company.-Charges of the Abuse of ministerial Influence and Power against Lord Castlereagh. Lord Folkstone did not object TOF inquiry into the cony the to the motion, but he thought it House of Commons, gave rise to many other inquiries. On the 27th of March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the sale and brokerage of offices. The practices, he observed, lately disclosed, consisted not in the sale of offices by those who had the power to give them away, but in the arts of those who pretended to have influence over such persons, and issued public advertisements, giving occasion to the notion that these abuses prevailed to a much greater extent than they actually did. Some persons in a certain office, Kylock and Co. who had carried on this trade, were under prosecution. As there were several persons in that concern, they were prosecuted for a conspiracy. But if there had been only one individual, he did not see how the law as it at present stood, could have reached him, though perhaps he might have been indicted for obtaining money under false pretences. The material point then would be, to make it highly penal to solicit money for procuring offices, or to circulate any advertisement with that view. As a vast at present premature. In the course of the investigation of the conduct of the duke of York, it was ascertained beyond all doubt, that there was a regular, systematic, and almost an avowed traffic in East India appointments, as well as in subordinate places under government; wherefore a select committee was appointed by the House of Commons, to "inquire into the existence of any corrupt practices,* in regard to the appointment and nomination of writers or cadets in the service of the East India Company: or any agreement, negociation, or bargain, direct or indiL 3 It appeared from the report of this committee, that when the charter of the East India Company was renewed in 1793, it was made a bye law, that each diret. rect, rect, for the sale thereof; and to report the same as it should appear to them, to the house, together with their observations thereon; and who were empowered to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, and their proceedings from time to time to the house." From the report of the committee it appeared, that a very great number of cadetships and writerships had been disposed of in an illegal manner; and though nothing had come out that could form any reasonable ground for suspicion that such bargains had been made or carried into execution with the consent or knowledge of the proprietors: yet, not only particular facts, but the general tenor of the whole investigation clearly proved, that if all the directors had exercised, in the disposal of their patronage, the same vigilance and caution which are usually applied in the management of individual concerns, such a regular and continued traffic could not have been carried on for such a length of time. The committee having stated a great number of cases in which a traffic in the patronage of the East India Company had been most glaring, proposed a check against those who were inclined to purchase appointments in the service of the company, and gave it as their opinion, that the imme diate 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 and recalled from India. The committee concluded their report with the following paragraph: "The practices which are developed in the present report, and other transactions which this house tor, within ten days after his election, should take an oath, that he would not receive any perquisite, emolument, or favour, for the appointment of any person to any office in the gift of the company, or on account of fixing the voyage of any ships in the company's employ. A heavy penalty was imposed on the abuse of patronage. And the director who should recommend a person to a cadetship, as well as the nearest of kin to the newly appointed cadet, was obliged to sign a certificate: the former, that neither he, nor any other for him, or any person to whom he had given the appointment, had received, or was to receive, any thing for it; the latter, that it had been given to his relation gratuitously. Within a very few years, however, after these enactments, suspicions of abuses in the nomination of writers were so strong and prevalent, that the court of directors thought it necessary, in 1798, to set on foot an inquiry into this subject. A committee was accerangly appointed who came to some resolutions, which, if they had been adopted and acted upon, might certainly have had a very considerable effect in checking the abuses complamed of. The court did indeed approve of the resolu tions of the committee; tut before any step could be taken, the direction was chan -ed, and of couse it became necessary to appoint a new committee. So many obstacles and difficulties were thrown in the way of this new committee, teat fiei proceedings were very slow and unpromising. In 1800, a motion ma 2 before the general court of Directors, that the declaration respecting patronage required from each member should be on oath, was rejected. The committee of patron ige ceased in Amid that year, and it was never re-appomted. No farther pre + dings op the part of the diactars, respecting the abuse of their patronage, til the subject was forced on th attention of the House of Commons by the inquiry to the conduct of the duke of York. *See Report from the Committee of the House of Commons on the Patronage of the East India Company, Appendix to Chromcle, p. 477. has has recently had under its cognizance, sufficiently demonstrate that the 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 the discredit of those in whose hands the disposition of offices is lodged. It will depend on the steps which may be taken in consequence of these inquiries, whether such abuses shall receive a permanent check, or a virtual encouragement." The whole of the writerships in the disposal of which abuses were detected, were found to have been given by one man, Mr. Thelluson. And so strong and general was the persuasion that he was culpaple, at least in not inquiring how the person, at whose disposal he placed the nomination of the offices to which he was entitled to nominate, had bestowed them, on what account, and for what purpose of personal interest he was so anxious to procure them; that on offering himself to be re-chosen a director, he was rejected by a great majority. It was determined by the court of directors, after long debates, that those young men who had been named by the committee of the House of Commons as having obtained their appointments by means of corrupt practices, should be recalled. The hardship of this measure towards the young men who were the objects of it, was felt and acknowledged. But it seemed indispensibly necessary; unless the court of directors had been willing, by their own act, to render a solemn law of the East India Company a dead letter. No law, without the enforcement of this regulation, could ever be carried into regular and impartial execution. In the course of the examination of witnesses by the committee appointed to inquire into the abuse of India patronage, it was discovered, that lord Castlereagh had endeavoured to procure a seat in parliament for his friend lord Clancarty, in exchange for a writership, which had been given to him when president of the board of controul, by some of the directors. Of the board of controul lord Clancarty also was a member. This negociation, doubly illegal, as it had for its object both the disposal of East India patronage, and the purchase of a seat in the House of Commons, was brought under the cognizance of that house on the 25th of April, by lord Archibald Hamilton. His lordship, after reminding the house, that he had ever been in the habit of standing as forward as any other member in pursuing practices of corruption, observed, that not long since they had sent two individuals to prison. If they wished this judgment to have the influence of example, they must take care of their individual and collective respectability. And what, he asked, could be more conducive to this end, than the enforcement of those laws and regulations which they had so repeatedly enacted for guarding against any improper interference in the election of their members. Against the noble lord, to whom his motion referred, he did not mean to assert one word beyond hat the evidence before L4 the the committee contained, or to make any charge against hinthat he had not made against himself. It was in evidence that, in 1805, lord Castlereagh received a letter from a Mr. Reding, (an advertising place-broker) who was a perfect stranger to him, stating, that he thought he had the means of assisting him in coming into parliament; in consequence of which, he had a meeting with him: at which meeting the proposition respecting a seat in parliament was renewed. Lord Castlereagh, as appeared from his evidence on the table of the house, told Mr. Reding, that he did not want a seat himself, but that a friend of his did, and that he sent Mr. Reding's letter to lord Clancarty, the friend he had alluded to. And he admitted that he had been induced to place a writership at lord Clancarty's disposal, in order that his coming into parliament might thereby be facilitated. It appears that different meetings took place between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Reding. At one of these, Lord Castlereagh asked Mr. Reding the name of the gentleman who proposed to vacate. But this he declined til the terms should be settled, and the negotiation was broken off. But, said Lord A. Hamilton, the noble lord has stated in his evidence," that the writership was to be disposed of subject to certain qualifications; that the case before them had no reference to any pecuniary transaction; and finally, that the nomination to the writership did not take place." This plea, said lord A. Hamilton, cannot avail him upon this occasion, for his intention is obvious, and of that intention we are to judge. Lord A. Hamilton having reviewed the whole case, moved, that the minutes of the evidence he had referred to be read.-Upon this, lord Castlereagh rose to defend himself, which he did in a modest and somewhat humble manner. The appointment of a writership, he said, was not within his official province as president of the board of controul. He had no doubt a degree of influence, but not of an official nature. Having tried, he said in conclusion, to strip the charge against him of all the aggravations, he left it for the house to consider whether, without any motive, he could be wilfully corrupt or so senseless as to commit a crime, which, from the very circumstances that attended it, he knew must be public. He had now only to regret, that the motives of private friendship or of public zeal (alluding to the benefit he had said the introduction of lord Clancarty into the House of Commons, would be to the public.) could have induced him to do any thing requiring the cognizance of that house. He certainly had not erred intentionally, and would submit with patience to any censure which he might be thought to have incurred. Making an obeisance to the Speaker, he then withdrew. The evidence of the minutes being entered as read, lord A. Hamilton proposed the following resolutions. 1st. "That it appears to this house, from the evidence on the table, that lord viscount Castlereagh, in the year 1805, he having just quitted the office of president of the board of controul, and being then a privy counsellor and secretary of state, did place at at the disposal of lord Clancarty a seat in this honourable house. 2d. That it was owing to a disagreement among other and subordinate parties to the transaction that it did not take effect. 3d. That lord viscount Castlereagh has been, by the said conduct, guilty of a violation of his duty, of an abuse of his influence and authority as president of the board of controul, and also of an attack upon the purity and constitution of this house." The debate that ensued was long, but not very keen or animated. There was in the long debate of this night a wonderful air of candour and moderation.Lord Binning said, that though it was impossible to defend lord Castlereagh upon principle, the resolution proposed by the noble lord involved a greater punishment than the offence deserved. There were degrees of offences. A man was not to be punished for a bare intention with the same severity as for an actual commission. What was necessary to constitute an offence was here wanting. There was no malus animus: no corrupt design appeared in the whole transaction. The noble lord acted not in his official capacity, but as an individual wishing to oblige his friend. Officially he had committed no offence, and the degree of punishment ought to be proportioned to the degree of guilt. On these grounds lord Binning moved, that the other orders of the day be now read. On much the same grounds as those stated by lord Binning, lord Castlereagh was defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Manners Sutton, and Mr. Canning. Mr. Perceval observed, that Lord Castlereagh had stipulated that the person to be appointed to the writership must be a proper person; who was sufficiently qualified for the situation. The affair could one not have been completed without giving his lordship full time to review the whole, and to make every proper inquiry. There were shades of offence. Were the resolutions proposed agreed to, the noble lord must in the end be removed from his official situation. Thus the punishment would be made as severe as if the imputed offence had been actually committed.-Mr. C. W. Wynn thought that the intention manifested and acknowledged by Lord Castlereagh was sufficient to establish his cri minality. It had been said, that the patronage in question did not fall to the noble viscount by virtue of his own office, but was attached to some other department distinct from his. This circumstance did not indeed appear to him to be any aggravation of the noble viscount's fault, but as little was it an extenuation of it. If this were admitted, a door would be opened to numberless other abuses. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, was through corrupt means to procure for any one an appointment in a public department, he might say, "I have nothing to do with that. It does not come immediately under my office. It was in the department of my friend, the Secretary of State." This exchange, this borrowing of patronage for the purpose of influencing the return of members to parliament ought to be prevented. If the negociation failed, it was not from want of inclination on the part of the noble lord. |