then proceeded to state his reasons for supporting the claims of the petitioners. The facts, he said, had already been repeatedly before the public. The case of the petitioners was one of considerable hardship, and to their misfortune they had been no parties. Government itself had adopted a regulation, under the 39th and 40th Geo. 3rd, for vesting the property of intestates in the Registrar of Madras, which, though meant for the benefit of heirs, had, in this instance, turned out most unfortunately for the claimant, in consequence of the defalcation and insolvency of Mr. Gilbert Ricketts, the Registrar at Madras, who, it appeared, died in twenty months after the decease of Colonel O'Reilly, absorbing the whole of his property in his bankruptcy. Had the case been one of which the parties could have any redress at common law, he would not have come there to advocate the claim. But this was not a case of common-law jurisdiction; it was a case of good government, and it became the Government to reimburse those who had reposed their faith in the Government adopting the best means for protecting their interests. The Government, at the appointment of Mr. Ricketts to the office of Registrar, had neglected to take proper securities, and the Government must, therefore, be answerable for the neglect. He then proceeded to quote a number of instances to prove that an appropriation of public funds had been made, to remunerate individuals for losses sustained by compliance with Acts of Parliament. About the general question there could be no doubt; the only question was, had the Legislature the power to compel the East India Company to make good the loss? In his opinion the Legislature had that power. The territorial revenue of India was under the control of Government; and, as a proof of this, it had, within a few years, appointed Judges and Bishops, and provided for them out of the revenue of the country. For these reasons he thought there could be no doubt that the claimants ought to be compensated, and that the compensation should come from the East India Company.

admitted the claimants right to compensation, and stated he felt for them; but, while he expressed; himself in favour of their claims, he must, at the same time, deny that they had any right to look to the East India Company: for redress. The territorial revenue of India ought not to be charged with making good losses which had been occasioned by Acts of Parliament. If the Legislature passed Acts which injured the private property of individuals, it was contrary to all reason, to say that the particular district where the loss was sustained ought alone to be answerable. It was out of the revenue of the whole empire, not out of that of India, that the compensation should come. He did not think the precedents quoted by the right hon. Gentleman applicable to the present case; and, though he should have no objection that the claims should be made good from the funds set apart for the administration of justice in India, he should certainly resist any proposition which went to defraud the creditors of the East India Company, who had lent their money to the Company on the faith that the territorial revenue should not be infringed.

observed, that there appeared to him to bea consideration preliminary to the question of merits in this case, which was that of "who were to be the judges of it?" He saw, with some surprise, that he was surrounded by East India Directors, there being no fewer than seven of these gentlemen present, who, it was understood, were to sit in judgment upon this Bill. Now, as this was a question between the Company and individuals, it occurred to him that it would be just as becoming if the Directors absented themselves from the discussion, or at all events from the division, if any such thing should occur. The Company had been already neard by two of their Counsel at the bar, and if there was before any doubt of their being interested parties, such an appearance would entirely remove it. The presence of so many of his colleagues seemed, indeed, to have made the hon. and learned Member behind him fancy that he was addressing the Court of Directors, for it would be observed that his hon. and learned friend used the term "Court" as applying to this audience. He (Mr. B.)remembered a parallel case to this, in which a late distinguished individual set an example which it was to be hoped would be imitated at this moment. Upon the occasion of an appeal, some years ago, to the Privy Council, respecting the clashing rights of patents, connected with Drury-lane Theatre, Mr. Sheridan took his place amongst the Councillors then present. He (Mr. Brougham) and Mr. Warren were of counsel against the Theatre, and they immediately took an exception to the right hon. Gentleman sitting as judge in his own cause. Mr. Sheridan replied, as no doubt the East-India Directors would now reply, that he was not a party to the cause, being only a trustee for others. Being pressed, however, as to whether he had or had not an interest in the result of the proceeding, Mr. Sheridan frankly confessed that he had. It was decided that he could not sit as a Privy Councillor upon that occasion, and he very modestly and decorously withdrew from the table. The principle was clear, that a party having any interest, however remote, ought not to sit as judge in his own cause; and he (Mr. B.) believed his hon. and learned friend behind him admitted that it would be as well if the Directors did not vote upon this question.

denied that he had made any such concession. He saw nothing improper in the Directors voting upon this occasion, and he asked what I would have been said, if the Directors had I entirely absented themselves? He again denounced the mode of remuneration as I not founded in justice.

defended the right of East-India Directors to discuss and vote upon all questions with the same freedom as other Members of that House. He saw no reason why the latter most important right should be merged in the former accidental character. The interest which the Court of Directors had in this question was too remote to influence their votes. For himself, he disclaimed any bias. He protested against the claim as a hardship and injustice upon the natives of India, who had never received any benefit from the labours of this officer. If Parliament were bent upon compensating these individuals, it would be a fairer mode, to lay a tax upon the law proceedings in the superior Courts of India, than to impose a burthen upon the territorial possessions of the Company in that country.

said, that from the circumstance of his being President of the Board of Control when the matters to which this proceeding referred took place, he felt a strong interest in the question. He was afraid that he was not quite free from blame himself for not having brought the case forward before; but he thought then, as he still thought, that if redress could be had through the medium of a court of law, it would be better, in every point of view, to refer the matter to an ordinary tribunal than to Parliament. He was persuaded, however, that this was now the only course in which justice could be done. Not knowing any thing of the individual in question, he could not be supposed to be biassed one way or the other in this case. From all that he had been able to learn, it was a case of great hardship on those who had suffered by the bankruptcy of the Registrar, and he (Mr. Wynn) was deeply impressed with the justice of their claims for compensation. Indeed, the contest was not so much upon the nature of the claim as the fund out of which it ought to be satisfied. His (Mr. Wynn's) notion was, that it was not intended to satisfy these claims out of any particular fund; but that Parliament was understood to be pledged to allow any equitable claims which might be proved. The principle he thought undeniable, unless the House wished to stultify its own proceedings in other cases; for to give compensation to the Masters in Chancery and refuse it in this case, would be not only gross inconsistency, but manifest injustice. The present claim arose out of the proceedings of the House, and was therefore worthy of consideration.

saw no reason why he should surrender his privileges, as a Member of the House, to vote upon all questions connected with the public welfare, because of any imputed interest which he might have of another kind. He disclaimed any particular interest in this case, and if the House should think that he ought not to vote upon this occasion, he must require every holder of East-India Stock to go out with him. He opposed this Bill because it was not bottomed on justice; for he saw no reason why the natives of India, who were already heavily taxed, should be also called upon to make good defalcations arising out of proceedings instituted solely for the benefit of British subjects. It was not a question of generosity, but of justice, for the Company were not in a situation to be liberal, though they were disposed to be just. For those reasons he did not consider the petitioners entitled to compensation; but if, contrary to his wish, the Bill should be committed, he hoped it would undergo material alteration in its progress, as there were many points in the enactments which he considered highly objectionable.

said, that there were two questions to be considered; first, whether the loss ought to be made good? and, secondly, who was the party by whom it ought to be made good? The only parties to whom responsibility could attach were the general Government, the Indian Government, and the party through whose misconduct the defalcation had taken place. He was decidedly of opinion that compensation ought to be given, for no Government could duly maintain its character if it did not satisfy every fair and even doubtful demand upon its justice. He was also of opinion that in this case the compensation ought to come from the Indian government, because, even as a matter of account, it should be charged to the territorial revenue. He attached no blame to the Indian government in this transaction, and thought the Directors had a right to vote upon the question. For himself, he should vote in favour of the Bill.

supported the Bill, and put it to the hon. Director whether, as the sense of the House was against him, it would not be advisable to withdraw his opposition.

agreed in thinking that the Indian government ought to be liable, but thought the Bill might undergo much, improvement in the committee.

contended, that the Bill was founded on an erroneous principle, and cautioned the House against adopting a measure which might be injurious as a precedent.

said, that though his opinion was not altered by what had passed, he would not divide the House upon the question.

The Bill read a second time.