The act was one which had not received the sanction and concur rence of the Ministers of the Crown. Still, without that sanction and concurrence, the act was perfectly legal and valid. With reference to the honourable and learned gentleman's last question, he must under the present circumstances of the case decline entering into a discussion of it just now; and could only say, that without reference to the question whether Her Majesty's Government coincided or not in the act of the Court of Directors, their sense of public duty would induce them to take the course which they deemed best in order to di minish the risk of embarrassment and danger which they foresaw might ensue from that act.

In answer to a question put by Lord Jocelyn, Mr. J. W. Hogg (one of the Directors of the East India Company) took occasion to express his hope that the House and the country would suspend their judgments.

The discussion on the same subject was renewed in the House of Lords on the 8th of May, upon a question put by the Marquess of Normanby:-He said he was aware that he should have been

more formally in order if he had moved for papers; but as it was natural to suppose that, after the opinion expressed by the Duke of Wellington, papers would be produced-and as, if refused, it could only be on the one ground of detriment to the public service, which would prevent his pressing for them he thought it would prove more convenient only to ask a question. His regret that occasion had been taken to pronounce a decided censure on the East India Directors, would be increased

if the papers were not produced; and it would be great precisely in proportion to his inviolable respect for the Duke of Wellington, and the weight with which his opinion would fall upon those who had no opportunity of stating their own case. In the absence of facts, what were the probabilities of the case? The majority of the Directors had a leaning to the present Government! they were perfectly well informed-for the alleged "secrecy" of the Secret Committee only related to certain questions of peace, war, and diplo macy; and they now came into collision with the Government for the first time. If, however, Lord Ripon desired to postpone the discussion upon the conduct of the Governor-General until Lord Ellenborough's return, or until some period when a more perfect judgment could be formed, Lord Normanby himself knew too well how liable to misconstruction were persons exercising distant government to oppose such a plea. Some hint had been thrown out that Government ought to take this opportunity of reducing the power of the Court of Directors; a course the impolicy of which had formerly been pointed out with great perspicuity by Lord Ellenborough; at least the discussion on that point ought to be reserved until the most able advocate of the East India Company should be restored to the walls of the House.

The Earl of Ripon approved of the course taken by Lord Normanby; and was quite ready to answer his question, put in a manner perfectly fair, just, and reasonable; but he must refuse the production of papers, as unjust to Lord Ellenborough, embarrassing to his successor, and injurious

to the administration of affairs in India :-"I pledge my honour to the House," continued Lord Ripon, "that it would be an act on the part of Her Majesty's Government most injurious and most inconvenient to the general administration of affairs in India, if the whole of that correspondence were to be produced. And to produce a part would be obviously unsatisfactory; although it is impossible for me to explain why it would be so, because in so doing I might be indirectly and unintentionally doing that which it is my duty to avoid. The same principle induces me not to enter into the other matters to which my noble friend alluded. But I will take the liberty of say ing, that however I may regret the step taken by the Court of Directors-however inconsistent I may have thought that step with the course which would have been advisable-I am nevertheless bound to say, and I do say, that I am en tirely convinced the Court of Directors, in taking the course they did, were influenced by no other motives than an honest and sincere conviction that they were doing that which they were called upon by their public duty to do. In saying this, I do justice to their motives; and if I do justice to their motives, I trust I may also ask your Lordships to do justice to me and to Her Majesty's Go vernment, and give us credit for being influenced by no other considerations than those of public duty in the course we have taken." Lord Brougham concurred with Lord Ripon, and defended the Duke of Wellington, the Government, and Lord Ellenborough :"His noble friend the noble Duke opposite, the least indiscreet of human kind, was now charged, for

the first time in his long and illustrious life, with indiscretion-with having pronounced an opinion upon a question, the means of forming an opinion upon which were not before the House. The position of the Government ought, in justice, to be remembered. They were called upon by an act of the Directors to pronounce their opinion, because, if they did not, it would be inferred that they adopted the act of the Court of Direc tors. What could they do but say that they differed from the Directors, that they disapproved their conduct, that they thought the Directors had been guilty of an act of great indiscretion? No impeachment of the purity of their motives, no imputation of dishonesty, of corruption; but a charge of great, or, if you will, of gross, or if you will, of unpre cedented indiscretion, which is quite compatible with incorrupt motives. It is said that the Secret Committee was only required to keep secret questions of peace or war or negotiation; why, Gwalior and Scinde are questions of peace or war.

It was said in

some parts of the city, We will trust the twenty-four Directors, and suppose that they will be right.' He had great confidence in the decision of twelve men sitting in judgment under the direction of a judge, but he had not yet learned that confidence in twenty-four Directors sitting in Leadenhall-street. If they were right, it must be on the ground stated by their advocate, his noble friend behind him, that they knew all the facts, inasmuch as all the facts were known to the public at large. But if the facts which justified the Directors were known to the public at large without the

production of more papers, what harm was there in bringing on a discussion as to their conduct?"

He expressed his full approbation of the destined appointment of Sir H. Hardinge, as successor to Lord Ellenborough, but he could not understand on what principle the Directors who had recalled Lord Ellenborough on account of the policy pursued by him in India, had chosen to succeed him the person of all others the most likely to carry the same policy into execution, the brother-in-law, and bosom friend of Lord Ellenborough, and a member of the same Government. Did it not, from this very circumstance, seem absolutely certain that some most trifling, insignificant, personal motive, had produced the act which had been styled one of perfect indiscretion, but which was admitted by his noble friend who spoke last to have been one of perfect honesty of purpose and purity of motive? That was the conclusion which he drew, as a spectator of what had passed, and which every friend of the Governor-General must feel extremely gratified at having an opportunity of drawing; especially as it would be the most complete preventive that could possibly be administered in India to the otherwise mischievous consequences which the recall of the Governor-General might have had, if that had been presumed to have been made as an absolute disapproval of the policy he had hitherto pursued towards the Native Powers.

The Duke of Wellington wished to say a few words, though reluctant to continue a discussion which had begun by the asking of a question:-"I beg to state in answer to one part of what the

noble Marquess stated, that certainly there is no intention of proceeding to any alterations in the constitution of the East India Company. I had no such intention on my mind at the time I addressed your Lordships a few nights ago. If the noble Mar quess had condescended to recollect any thing so insignificant as the course I have taken in Parlia ment, not only in this but in the other House, on all questions which have concerned the East India Company, he must have entirely acquitted me of being the originator of any measures of that description, to deteriorate the power of the East India Company or the Court of Directors." The subject was not first mentioned in the House on the night on which he had spoken, but there had been a discussion on the previous Friday, in which several Peers joined: he did not think it necessary to speak; but he afterwards understood that his silence was taken as a proof that he had not a favourable opinion of Lord Ellenborough's policy. "When I found, what I did not know till the Monday, that I was to be called upon to answer a question put to me on that day, I considered it my duty to state my opinion on that transaction itself; and I thought the opinion I stated as moderate as possible. As there had been a question as to the power of recall on the preceding Friday, I stated that there was no doubt whatever respecting the power: I showed what the power was, and where it was to be found; and I believe I quoted the very Act of Parliament in which it was to be found. I stated, at the same time, that it was a power which ought to be exercised with dis

cretion on this occasion; and I stated my reasons for so thinking. That was the full amount of what I stated; and I guarded myself over and over again in stating that it was a power which I thought had not been exercised with discretion. I stated my reasons for thinking so, with no desire to give offence at all. I had no intention to offend any body. I certainly thought, as my silence on the former day had been considered as reflecting a censure on the Governor-General, which was far from expressing what I felt-and moreover, as, when there is any doubt of that description, it is incumbent on the person who addresses the House for Her Majesty's Government to protect the absent public servant who is engaged in the performance of his duties-in my opinion, I say, it was my duty to protect him from the great authority who had so far censured him as to recall him from the perform ance of the duties of his office." The Duke also said, that if Parliament thought proper to call for the reasons stated by the Court of Directors for adopting this measure of recalling the noble Lord, Parliament ought to have those reasons, as far as they could be communicated without injury to the public interest.

The Marquess of Normanby said he had not charged the Duke of Wellington with intending to bring forward any measure detrimental to the interests of the East India Company.

The Marquess of Clanricarde approved of Sir Henry Hardinge's appointment, but he could not at all jump to the conclusion to which Lord Brougham had come in his usual rapid manner, and he firmly relied on the new Governor taking

a course materially different from that of his predecessor.

In answer to a further question from Lord Normanby, the Earl of Ripon stated that some papers relating to Scinde had been communicated to the Court of Direc tors, but not those that went through the Secret Committee; all the papers relating to Gwalior had been communicated.

Lord Colchester and the Earl of Winchelsea regretted that the papers had not been produced in vindication of Lord Ellenborough.

66

Lord Campbell observed, that the course taken by Government had given universal dissatisfaction; if they thought it necessary to repudiate the recall of Lord Ellenborough they might simply have said, "It is not our act," without denouncing it as the greatest indiscretion." What would have been said if the Government had recalled him, and the Directors had charged the Government with gross indiscretion? He did not believe that Sir H. Hardinge would be guilty of any Somnauth proclamation; and he thought that in making that appointment the Directors had been guilty of rather a felicitous indiscretion; he might say with Hamlet,

"Indiscretion sometimes serves us well When our deep plots do fail." The discussion here dropped. An attempt to discover the specific grounds on which the removal of the Governor-General had taken place was afterwards made by Mr. Hume, who on the 7th of May moved for copies of the corre spondence between the Court of Directors and Her Majesty's Government respecting the recall of Lord Ellenborough from India :— He alluded to the anomalous method of governing India partly

by the Court of Directors, who may appoint and recall Governors. In 1833, Mr. Charles Grant, then President of the Board of Control, had hinted at taking away that power of recall; but the step was strongly opposed by the Directors, and by Mr. Tucker, who feared that the Directors would then "only be come a screen between the British Government and the British people;" and Mr. Charles Grant gave up the point. Out of the twen ty-four existing Directors, eighteen were supporters of Government: it could therefore have been no ordinary reasons which made them unanimous in recalling Lord Ellenborough; and judging by what had fallen from Mr. Hogg and Mr. Astell, he believed that the Directors wished the information to be produced to the House. He asked for information, because an important Minister of the Crown, in another place, had pronounced this to be "the indiscreetest exercise of power he had ever known." The cause of that accusation should be explained and cleared up.

Lord Ellenborough's conduct that made it wise or just towards him for him to be recalled. Lord Ellenborough's conduct met with their approbation. If they contrasted the present state of India with that in which he found it-seeing the devotion with which he had performed every duty, and looking at his conduct throughout his administration, and at the results of his policy, the Ministers of the Crown thought that nothing had passed which, in their opinion, should diminish the confidence which they had placed in him originally. But, however, the Court of Directors, having full power, took a different view of this subject, and exercised their power of recall. The question then arose, what was to be done with respect to the appointment of a new Governor-General? Ministers might have thrown the responsibility on the Court of Directors; but they thought it best to continue to act in friendly concert. "I had interviews with the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Court of Directors, and I gave it as my opinion that all considerations connected with past differences should be merged in the deliberation of this question, What is best to be done in the present crisis?' I said, 'You have appealed to Her Majesty's Government to assist you in the appointment of a successor; on the part of the Government, I am willing to concert with you for that purpose; but I can suggest no one on the part of the Government unless I can have the assurance that he will have the confidence of the Court of Directors, and that it is probable that the line of policy which he will pursue will be approved. I named to the

Sir R. Peel gave the motion his most decided opposition. The same considerations of justice which had induced Mr. Macaulay to postpone his motion on the subject of Gwalior would operate with the House to postpone its judgment on Lord Ellenborough in his absence: and therefore, even if Mr. Hume got the papers he required, he could not make much advance towards an inquiry. But he resisted the motion on the ground of the interest of India and the maintenance of British power. No doubt, the East India Company had recalled Lord Ellenborough, and Government had dissented from that recall. They thought that there was nothing in