IT39 
 
 ' 3h . 
 
 quar 
 terly court- >
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 DEBATE 
 
 AT THE 
 
 GENERAL QUARTERLY COURT 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE, 
 
 ON 
 
 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1799, 
 
 TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PAPERS RESPECTING 
 
 ILLICIT TRADE, 
 
 Which were printed in confequence of a Refolution of the GENERAL COURT on the 
 20th of March laft; and other purpoles, for which the Court was made Special. 
 
 At which Court a Motion was made, and after Debate carried unanimoujly as follows : 
 
 RESOLVED, That it does not appear to the fatisfa&ion of this Court, from the Papers printed for their comi- 
 deration, that it was neceffary to include the name of David Scott, fenior, in any Bill of Difcovery ; but as the 
 Court of Directors have thought proper, at the requeft of Mr. Scott himfelf (although not confiftent with the Re- 
 folution of the laft General Court), to prepare a Bill including his name, and to fubmit the fame to his Majefty' 
 Attorney General, this Court do acquiefce therein : but they think it incumbent upon them at the fame time 
 to declare, that they do not fee from thefe papers the fmalleft reafon to fulpect Mr. Scott of having betrayed any 
 confidential knowledge which he poflefled as a Member of the Secret Committee, or any part of his duty as a Di- 
 reftor of this Company, or of having any perfonal knowledge of the Ship Helfingoer, or of tranfaftions relative to 
 the Trade of the Houfe of David Scott and Company, and that they entirely concur with the Court of Directors 
 in acquitting him of all perfonal imputation. 
 
 REPORTED 
 
 BY WILLIAM WOODFALL. 
 
 1790- 
 
 LONDON 1 : 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE REPORTER, 
 (BY T. GILLET, CROV/N-COURT, FLEET- STREET,) 
 
 AND SOLD BY J. DEBRETT, PICCADILLY; BYFIELD AND H AWKESWORTH, CHARING- 
 
 CROSS ; T. WOODFALL, NO. 101, DRURY-LANE ; AND MURRAY AND 
 
 HIGHLEY, FLEET-STREET; 
 
 Of iv horn may be had, 
 Mr. Woodfall's Reports of Eaft India Houfe Debates within the laft five years, 
 
 [Price Two Shillings.]
 
 : 
 
 EAST INDIA HOUSE. 
 
 QUARTERLY GENERAL COURT. 
 
 JUNE ig, 1799. 
 
 P"TP\HE proceedings of the laft General Court, recommending the confidera- 
 I tion of Lord Nelfon's fervices to the Court of Directors, and alfo, re- 
 commending the not including Mr. David Scott, fenior's name in a Bill of 
 Difcovery, were read by the Clerk. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN informed the Court, that this being a Quarterly General 
 Court, it was neceflary to declare the dividend on the Company's (lock, from the 
 5th of January laft to the 5th of July next, he therefore moved, that the refo- 
 lution of the Court of Directors that the fame {hould be five and a quarter per 
 cent, be confirmed ; which was unanimoufly agreed to. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then ftated, that by the third Chapter of the feventh Sec- 
 tion of the By Laws, a Committee of By Laws was to be annually chofen at this 
 time, he fhould therefore defire that the names of thofe Gentlemen who had 
 ferved laft year (hould be read, and it would be neceflary that they fhould be put 
 in nomination feparately. He was forry to inform them, that one of the com- 
 mittee (Mr. Blackburn) was dead, and it would be neceflary to fill up the 
 vacancy. 
 
 The fix following Gentlemen, being the former members of the Committee, 
 were then feparately named and re-elecled, viz : 
 
 B John 
 
 3549111
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 John Cornwall, Efq. Henry Stracbey, Efq. 
 
 Robert Hunter, Efq. Samuel Wegg, Efq. and 
 
 , . Robert Holford, Efq. George WiUon, Efq. 
 
 And in the room of Mr. Blackburn, William Drew, Efq. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN alfo informed the Court, that by the llth Sea. of the third 
 Chapter of the By- Laws, it was neceffary that the whole of the By-Lavvs fhould 
 be read at the prefent Quarterly Court. He fhould therefore move, pro forma, that 
 they fhould be read in the abflract ; which being done, the Chairman faid, 
 he had now to communicate to the Court the unanimous refolution of the Court 
 of Directors conveying the thanks of the Company to Lord Nelfon, and that in 
 confequence of the Court of Proprietors having referred it to their Executive 
 Body to confider of a fuitable reward for thofe (ervices, they had taken the fame 
 into their confideration and had come to an unanimous refolution which he beg- 
 ged might be read. The Clerk then read the following refolution : ^ 
 
 At a COURT of DIRECTORS, held 14th April, 1799. 
 
 Refolded Unanimoujly, That the thanks of this Court be given to the Right 
 Honourable Rear Admiral Lord NELSON, for the very great and im- 
 portant fervices he has rendered to the Eafl India Company, by the 
 ever-memorable victory obtained over the French fleet, near the 
 Mouth of the Nile, on the 1ft, 2cl, and 3d of Auguft, 1798. 
 
 Refolded Unanimoujly , That in further teftimony of the high fenfe this 
 Court entertain of the very great and important benefits arifing to the 
 Eafl India Company from his Lordfhip's magnanimous conduct on 
 that glorious occafion, this Court requefl his Lordfhip's acceptance of 
 the fum of Ten Thoufand Pounds. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN faid, he had the fatisfaction to acquaint the Court, that this 
 refolution had been fubmitted to the Board of Commiflioners who had agreed to 
 it, and he would beg that the intimation of their concurrence might be read, in 
 order to fhew the opinion the Board entertained on this occafion. The fame 
 was read as follows : 
 
 Whitehall, 7th May, 1799. 
 
 The Board moft highly approve, and with the greateft pleafure confirm, the 
 refolution of the Court of Directors, requefting the Right Honourable 
 
 Rear
 
 Rear Admiral Lord NELSON'S acceptance of the Turn of in.oool as a 
 token of the juft lenfc they entertain of the very important fervicts ien- 
 dered the Eaft India Company, by his Lordflnp's glorious victory over 
 the rench fleet off the Mou^h of the Nile, on the firft, lecond and third 
 of Auguft laft ; and the Board do not conceive how the Court could 
 have done lefs than they have propofed. 
 
 HENRY DUNDAS. 
 
 W. PITT. 
 
 W. DUNDAS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN informed the Court, that thefe refolutions had been for- 
 \varded to Lord Nellbn, through the medium of the Admiralty, the Court having 
 conceived that to be the beft way of communicating to liis Lordfhip the fentt- 
 ments of the Eaft India Company. 
 
 Sir John Cox Hippi/ley rofe and faid, that as the Court was exprefsly and origi- 
 nally called for the confideration of Lord Nelfon's fervices, thofe fervices had been 
 fully recognized_, and there was but one opinion of their magnitude and impor- 
 tance to the interefts of the Company, he Ihould therefore confine himfelf, on the 
 prefent occafion, to fimply moving, that this Court do agree with the refolution 
 of the Court of Directors, in favour of Lord Nelfon, as reported by the Chair- 
 man. 
 
 I 
 
 This motion being feconded by Mr. W. Lufhington, 
 
 The CHAIRMAN obferved, that the motion was not necefiary, as the General 
 Court had referred thebufinefs of remunerating Lord Nellbn to the Court of Di- 
 rectors. He then proceeded to ftate to the Court, that the Directors had come to 
 a refolution of placing the Company's marine forces at Bombay on the fame foot- 
 ing as their army in India, for which purpofe it would be neccflary to bring a 
 bill into Parliament, fubjecting that branch of their fervice to marine law. He 
 believed alfo, it had never been formally announced to the Court, that in the pre 
 fent exigency of affairs the Company had thought it right to add a third regi- 
 ment of their labourers for the protection of their warehoufes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then (tated, th;;t the Court of Directors having taken into their 
 confideration the fervices rendered to the Company by the late Mr. Edward Hay, 
 
 who
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 who had for many years acted as Secretary to the Government General of Bengal, 
 and had died in diilrefled circumftances, they had been induced, in confideration 
 of his long and eminent fervices, to grant-an annuity of three hundred pounds per 
 annum to his widow, who was left with a family unprovided for, the refolution to 
 which effect would now be fubmitted to the Court for their confideration. 
 
 The Clerk then read the proceedings of the Committee of Correfpondence 
 upon the petition of Elizabeth Hay, and their refolution confirmed by the Court 
 of Directors, to recommend it to the General Court, to concur in the grant of 
 an annuity of 3001. per annum to Mrs. Hay, during her widowhood, to com- 
 mence from May laft. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN fpoke in the higheft terms of the long and faithful fervices of 
 Mr. Hay, whofe very extraordinary merits had been confirmed to the Directors 
 by the teftimony of four different Governors General, under whom he had ferved, 
 namely, Mr. Haftings, Marquis Cornwallis, Sir John Macpherfon, and Lord 
 Teinmouth, it having alfo appeared to them that he died in very indigent cir- 
 cumftances, they had from the peculiar nature of the cafe been induced to agree 
 to the application of Mrs. Hay, for a penfion, the refolution to which effect was 
 now fubmitted to the General Court, according to the By-laws, for their fanction. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then moved, that the Court do agree to this refolution, 
 which panned unanimoufly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN communicated to the Court an application which had been 
 made to the Directors by Mr. George Patterfon to return to India, with his rank 
 in the fervice, with which they had, from the particular hardfhipsof Mr. Patterfon 's 
 eafe, been induced to comply. As this gentleman had been at home more than five 
 years, it was neceflary that hisjeave to return fhould be confirmed by the Proprie- 
 tors. He believed Mr. Patterfon's cafe Was well known to mod gentlemen in that 
 Court, he had been reduced to a (late of indigence by circumftances which it would 
 not be proper to ftate in fo public an aflembly. The objections to Gcntlcmens 
 returning to fituations in the fcrvicc after a long abfence was, that it was injurious 
 to the intereft of thofc fervants who were at prcfent difcharging their duty to the 
 Company in India, but in this cafe, fuch was the peculiar good character of the 
 
 gentleman,
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 gentleman, that his re-appointment would give fatisfaction to rvery Tnember of the 
 iettlcmenttowhich he belonged, and his return would be welcomed with open arms. 
 Without ante- .ng into the particular circumftartces which had occafioned this 
 application, he could aflure the Court that Mr. Patterfon was no party to the 
 occurrences which had occafioned the misfortune of the houfe he was con- 
 nected with. 
 
 The Clerk then read the refolution of the Directors for reftoring Mr. Patter- 
 fon to the Company's fervice. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN faid, he would not m;ke any motion upon it, as by the act of 
 Parliament,, the confirmation required, which was that of two thirds of the Pro- 
 prietors, muft be by ballot. 
 
 Mr. Chi/Iiolme begged leave to make one obfervation on the fubject. He did 
 not know Mr. Patterfon, nor did he rife to oppofe his being reftored to the fervice. 
 He thought it howeycr a matter of juftice to the Company's fervants abroad to 
 take fome notice of this mafurc. If it had been a new cafe, he (hould make no 
 obfervation upon it, but of late thefe fort of applications had come fo much into 
 practice that they pafled almoft as a matter of courfe. He fhould wave any 
 difcuflion of the fubjecl in the prefent inftance, but he gave notice that on the 
 next occafion that occured, he fhould rife in his place, and (late his objections to 
 the principle upon which thefe fort of applications were founded. 
 
 i 
 
 The CHAIRMAN obferved, that It did not frequently happen that the Directors 
 brought forward any fuch recommendation ; there were only three inftances of 
 Company's fervants being reftored fince the palling of the act which gave a dif- 
 cretionary power to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Chi/iolme faid, the inftances had followed each other very clofely, and he 
 thought the practice highly injurious to the fervice. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN propofed Tuefday the 2d of July for the ballot on Mr. Pat* 
 terfon's appointment, which was agreed to. 
 
 ' C ILLICIT
 
 ILLICIT TRADE, 
 MR. DAVID SCOTT. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then ft'atcd'.to the Court, that a part of the bufihefs for which 
 they had been convened, was for confidcring a recommendation of the Court of 
 Directors to difpenfe with the prefent By-laws refpecti-ng (hipping, and to per- 
 mit two (hips to be built upon the bottoms of the Ocean and Henry Addington ^ 
 and alfp for confidcring a Bill propofed to be brought into Parliament for regulat- 
 ing in future the manner in which the Company (hall hire and take up (hips for 
 their fervice ; but as the fourteen days notice required by the By-laws had not 
 been. given, he would propofe to fix a general Court fur the confidcration of thofe 
 fubjects, on the 28th June next, which was the earlieft day pofftble, and in- 
 cluded the time which had elapfed (I nee the advertifement. 
 
 Mr. Henchman faid, he did not rife to make any objection to what the Chair- 
 man had propofed, but to offer an obfervation, which he hoped he would be ad- 
 mitted to do> refpecting a fubject of great eonfequence, which he thought ought 
 to make a part of that Bill he meant the General Trade of India, which, by the 
 Papers that would be before the Court this day,. it was evident, was in a date that 
 required immediate and very ferious attention. The Bill went to> provide for the 
 carrying of that trade, but it did not go into any other regulations, which were 
 mod imperiously called for. A very wife principle- was laid down by the regu- 
 lating India Act of 1793 ; but there was the cleared proof at hand, that mer- 
 chants had not the ncceflary facilities given them under that act, fo as to enable 
 them or the public to benefit to the extent which was intended : the Minifter 
 for India was well aware of this, and would he trufled interpofe ; all, Mr. Hench- 
 man faid, that he meant to do at prefent, was to give notice, that he or fome of 
 the friends near him would, whenever this Bill came forward, bring the fubject of 
 the General Trade of India into difcuflion, and offer fuch a motion to the Court 
 as mould tend to adiire the Court of Directors and his Majefiy's Minifter for 
 India, that they felt the neceffity of fome more effectual regulations being adopted 
 than what at prefent exifted, and that they would moft readily and cordially con- 
 cur in fuch further encouragement as (hould, after due deliberaticn, be thought 
 requifite in the prefent (late of affairs. 
 
 The
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 The CHAIRMAN ftatcd that in what he had juft before mentioned, " that the 
 " fpecific approbation of the Court of Proprietors was not eftential to the validity 
 " of the grant to Lord Nelfon,* as it now flood, he by no means wiflied to be un- 
 derftood as having confidered their approbation and previous recommendation 
 of the meafure of no importance. He was perfuaded that Lord Nelfon would 
 feel himfelf highly obliged to the Proprietors for the part they had taken in the 
 bufincfs ; all he meant was, that after the Refolution of the Directors had been 
 confirmed by the Board of Controul, it was not regular or neceflary to renew the 
 difcuflion-. 
 
 Sir John Cox HippiJIey expreffcd himfelf perfectly fatisfied'by this explanation, 
 and withdrew his motion; 
 
 The CHAIRMAN informed the Court that the notice for taking into their con-- 
 fideration the printed papers on the Illicit Trade of the Company, .had been made 
 fpecial at the requeft of an honourable Director, whole name was alluded to iri 
 thole papers. 
 
 Mr. Scott faid, that as the honourable Chairman had juft acquainted them, 
 this Court had been made fpecial at Mr. Scott's particular deiire, for the difcuf* 
 fion of a fubject in which he was fo deeply interefted, he would ftate his reafons 
 for having made this requeft, but would not detain them more than a few mi- 
 nutes. The Proprietors had long been in poffeffion of the charges made againft 
 him, and were well acquainted with the enormity of the crimes- of which he 
 had been accufed. They had alfo read the Papers on which thefe charges were 
 faid to have been grounded.. The whole of thefe Papers had been feveral weeks 
 before them ; it was therefore unnecefTary for him to comment upon them at all. 
 The Proprietors had likewife been furnifhed with the minutes of his defence ; 
 thefe minutes he had only delivered in to the Court of Directors a few days ago, 
 having been prevented from fending them fooner by bad health : he ftooped not 
 to recrimination, for he ftood on higher ground. Neither the meafures, nor the 
 motives of his accufer were at prefent in his view. The Papers had no fooner 
 been read in the Court of Directors, on which the charges were founded, than 
 he, Mr. Scott, was exculpated to the complete fatisfaction of the Court, who 
 had acquitted him by an aimed unanimous decifion of every (hadow of impu- 
 tation,
 
 tation. But, Mr. Scott added, he felt fomething further due to the Proprietors, 
 to the publie, and to himlcif : this had occalioned the minutes of defence, and 
 led him this d'lv before them, to requeft their 'dccifion on the fubject. He 
 fought no favour, he only claimed their juftice, and confcious rectitude gave him 
 no anxiety for the refult. He flattered himfeif, that after the heavy imputations 
 caft upon him from fuch a quarter, Gentlemen would think with him, that his 
 calling upon liia Conftituents to determine upon his conduct, was a.s natural as it 
 was right. 
 
 Mr. Chljholme (aid, it was cuftomary on queftions of this kind, to preface any 
 rolblution that was brought forward by a long introductory fpeech. He fhould 
 not obfcrve this method, for it was not his practice to take up for any length of 
 time the attention of the Court. The papers had been printed, and he prefumed, 
 pern fed by the Proprietors ; he hoped they would think them voluminous 
 enough ; he had read them with the utmoft attention, and after he had fo done, 
 he was thoroughly convinced that there was not the lean: foundation for the 
 charges brought forward againft Mr. Scott ; he thoroughly acquitted him of 
 every imputation. In faying this, he fpoke from the conviction of his own mind, 
 uninfluenced by any folicitation whatever. When he was thus fully convinced 
 of the innocence of the character of the honourable Director, he felt, it to be his 
 duty to bring forward a declaration to that effect; he thought his acquittal 
 ought to be as public and as general as the charge againft him had been made. 
 He felt the time of the Court to be of too much importance to prolong his ob- 
 fervations, he fhould, therefore, conclude with a fhort refolution, in framing 
 which, he had endeavoured to avoid every thing that might lead to any perfon- 
 ality ; but fiiould the debate take any turn which might make it neceffsry for 
 him fo to do, he begged leave to claim the privilege of being heard in reply. 
 
 Mr. Gil/holme then moved the following Refolution : 
 
 JfcfofoeJ, That it does not appear to the fatisfaction of this Court from the 
 papers printed for their conflderation, that it was neceflary to include 
 the name of David Scott, fenior, in any Bill of Difcovery ; but as the 
 Court of Directors have thought proper, at the requeft of Mr. Scott 
 himfeif, (although not confident with the refolution of the kft Ge- 
 neral
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 neral Court) to prepare a bill including his name, and to fubmit the. 
 fame to his Majefty's Attorney General, this Court do acquiefce therein ; 
 but they think it incumbent upon them at the fame time to declare, that 
 they do not fee from thefe papers the fmallefl reafbn to fufpect Mr. Scott 
 of having betrayed any confidential knowledge, which he poflMed, as a 
 Member of the Secret Committee, or any part of his duty as a Director 
 of this Company, or of having any perfonal knowledge of the fhip 
 Helfingoer, or of tran dictions relative to the trade of the houfe of Da- 
 vid Scott and Co. and that they entirely concur with the Court of 
 Directors, in acquitting him of all perfonal imputation. 
 
 Mr. William Lujhmgton rofe to fecond the motion ; he wifhed, in common, 
 with every other Proprietor, to contribute to retrieve an highly honourable and 
 refpectable character from the unjuft imputations to which it had been fubjected. 
 He did not mean to arraign the fenfe of duty which had brought forward the 
 charges, but highly as he refpected the author of them, and much as he ap- 
 proved of his general conduct, he could not help expreffing, on this occafion, 
 his aftonifhment that he fhould have entertained and brought forward fufpicions 
 fo unwarranted and unjuft. His only objection to the motion which had been 
 made by his honourable Friend was, that it did not go far enough ; he had rifen 
 to fecond it, becaufe fo far as it did proceed, he entirely approved of it, but he 
 regretted that it had not gone farther, for in his opinion, there was not only no 
 grounds of fufpicion againft Mr. Scott, but that there was no foundation for a 
 Bill of Difcovery againft any of the parties implicated in the accufation. The 
 charges, fo far as the honourable Director was concerned in them, prefentcd three 
 principal and ftriking points, and he had attentively gone through the mafs of 
 papers on which they were founded, without having been able to difcover any 
 folid grounds by which any one of them could be fupported. The firft charge 
 was of a moft ferious nature, that of making public the fecretsof the Company 
 and the State. Mr. Scott and his friends muft necefTarily be anxious to have fo 
 ferious an imputation done away. 
 
 The fecond pretends to include Mr. Scott as a partner in the houfe of David 
 Scott, junior, and Co. 
 
 The third is an attack upon the houfe of David Scott and Co. dilconnected 
 from the name of David Scott, fenior. 
 
 Jn looking over the papers, Mr. Lufhington faid, it was perfectly clear to 
 
 D hi*
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 his mind, that there was not a (ingle act imputed to the noufe of David Scott 
 and Co. which was not fimply and fairly an act of agency. If in the tranfactions 
 alluded to, the houfe of David Scott and Co. acted on commiflion, it was per- 
 fectly fair fo to do, even though the articles purchafed by them for the houfe at 
 Copenhagen might be intended to fupply the enemies of this country. While 
 Government allow imports and exports, it is firictly juflifiable in any houfe of 
 agency to act in behalf of foreign neutral nations, on commiflion. The (hip Hel- 
 fingoer proceeds from hence to Copenhagen; what did her cargo coniiil of? Ar- 
 ticles of Britifh manufacture; fuch articles as it is the bufmcfs of Government to 
 protect and encourage the difpofal of; -flic afterwards failed to Manilla, and be- 
 caufethe Captain is charged with having faid that he expected to find the place 
 in the hands of the Englifh, it is-imputed to Mr. Scott to have given him infor- 
 mation of the intention of this country to attack it ! And this, though it appears 
 upon the face of the proceedings from whence the charge is made, that the Cap- 
 tain collected his information from a newfpaper put on board his fhip as he patted 
 through the channel. Mr. Lufhington faid it was unncceffiiry to dwell on this 
 frivolous charge, which was abandoned by thofe who had brought it forward ; he 
 would only add that the fufpicion was moft raftily adopted. He meant to impute 
 no improper motive to the late Chairman, but he could not help thinking that he 
 had fuffered this groundlefs fufpicion to lay fuch fall hold of his mind that it had 
 perverted his judgment throughout the whole of his inveftigation of the tranfac- 
 tion. This it was which afterwards led him to convert an act of agency into an 
 act of trading as principal, his mind having once gone the length of fufpect- 
 ing Mr. Scott of a greater x>ffence, it became eafy to believe him guilty of a 
 lefler ; but Mr. Lufhington faid, if, as he had contended, that the tranfactions 
 rcfpecling the Helfingoer were mere acts of agency, what grounds of impu- 
 tation were there either againft Mr. Scott, or the Houfe of David Scott, 
 junior, and Co? That the fhip and cargo belonged to the houfe of David 
 Scott and Co. reftcd folely upon one teftimony, and that one, the evidence 
 of a man, one of the national guards under Roberfpierre ; he did not mean to 
 reject his teftimony on this account, but he mentioned it to (hew of what dc- 
 fcription he was, and thence to account for his fubfequent conduct. What had 
 been the conduct of this man, (Rahling) ? Firft, he charges his Captain with 
 having been- guilty of grofs violence during the voyage, which occafioned the 
 death of two of the feamen. What declaration does he make at this time re- 
 fpccting the fhip and cargo ? He deliberately declares them to be Danifh pro- 
 perty ;
 
 ( J* ) 
 
 perty; had they not been fo, his avowed hoftility to the Captain would then have led 
 him to have denounced the fhip and cargo Britifh property, and at once to have 
 gratified his revenge and promoted his intereft. But on the contrary, with the 
 fame breath that he complains of the Captain, he declares the fhip and cargo to 
 be Danifli. Afterwards finding he had failed in the ferious charge he had brought 
 forward, of murder, he endeavours by the threat of getting the (hip and cargo con- 
 demned as Britifh property, to extort money from the Captain: he fays, in 'plain 
 terms, give me money and I will abandon the charge. Mr. Lufhington faid, he 
 fhould be glad to know if the oath, the fingle, uncorroborated oath of fuch a man 
 was deferving of any credit ? A man, who when difappointed of his object, and 
 after his mind had infenfibly attained a higher pitch of moral guilt, fcruples not 
 to fwear in oppofition to his own previous and deliberate declaration, that the 
 property of the fhip and cargo was in the houfc of David Scott and Co. 
 
 Mr. Lufhington faid, he would now proceed to consider, lit. whether it could 
 be imputed to Mr. Scott that he had violated his oath of fecrecy to the Company ? 
 
 2. Whether he could be confidered as a partner in the hoiife of David Scott 
 and Co. ? 
 
 3. Whether any ac\ was made out againft the houfe of David Scott, and Co. 
 (fetting afide the perjured evidence of Rahling) except acts of agency ? He 
 mud repeat that he did not think the motion went far enough ; it ought entirely 
 to have annihilated the proceedings for filing a Bill of Difcovery ; if they are 
 pern"iled in, they will difgrace the Proprietors and the Company in another quar- 
 ter. Is it probable that the Attorney General (who in this cafe mult be the public 
 pro fecu tor) will act upon refolutions ill unclerftood and haitily adopted ? It can- 
 not cfcape him that to difcourage foreign agency is to acl: againft the true interefts 
 of the country. As long as Government permits the exportation of ftores, it is al- 
 lowable forBritifh merchants to purchafe them for foreigners.on commifTion ; if 
 they ultimately go to Bred, the Agent in this country is not anfvverable ; he fends 
 them to his Principal at Copenhagen. Me fubmitted to the Court of Directors 
 whether, in order-to avoid the difgrace that would attach, if the Attorney General 
 refufed to act upon the grounds haftily adopted by them, it would not be better 
 and wifcr to proceed no farther; it was for this rcafon he intended to have rifcn 
 to make a motion, if his honourable Friend had not. He was latisfied too, that 
 in juftiee to the parties, the profecution ought not to be proceeded on. The 
 Papers which had been printed plainly fhcwed, that there was no rational foun- 
 dation for any imputation either againft Mr. David Scott, fenior, or the Houfe of 
 
 David
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 David Scott and Co. Mr. Lufhington faid, he had recently had occaiiqn as 
 one of a Committee of Weft India merchants, to apply to Mmifters for a licence 
 to lend (lores to the Spanifh Weft India Hlands, and his application had been 
 readily granted on the ground of its giving additional vent to the manufactures 
 of Great Britain. He did not \vi(h to defend any man vvhofe conduct was cul- 
 pable, but he could not but confider Mr. Scott to be wholly unimpeachable, and 
 that the houfe of David Scott and Co. had acted as any other merchant's houfe 
 would, and might have done under the fame circumftances. If there was any 
 doubt as to the right of trading directly with the Spaniih fettlements in the Eaft 
 Indies, he hoped that doubt would fpecdily be removed, and the right eftablifhed. 
 He would fay of this trade as Lord Mansfield had laid ofenfuiing enemy's fhips, 
 that if it was not law it ought to be ; fo, if during the war the Dutch and Spa- 
 nifh fettlements in India will trade with us, and their government will permit the 
 intercourfe, he thought it ought to be fanctioncd ; it was. better fuch a trade 
 ihould centre in Great Britain than with neutral powers. He fhoukl fay more 
 on this fubject when his hon. Friend (Mr. Henchman) brought forward the dif- 
 cuffion he had given notice of, and he trufted fome public application would be 
 the refult of it. It (hould never be forgotten that we were not engaged in a 
 common war, on the common motives of hoftility, and that there is a. ibpeiior 
 ,and imperious policy by which we muft be guided, till the enemy we have to con- 
 tend with is fubverted and crufhed. 
 
 Mr. Elplimftone declared, that he rofe under circumftances of great difcou- 
 ragement. If fuch dodrines as had been laid down by the laft fpeaker were to 
 be adopted, 'it were better to lock the' doors of the India-houfe, and to (hut 
 up their warehouses, for not a (hadow of their exclulive trade would be left. 
 The honourable Proprietor has told them, that every merchant may act as an 
 agent for fending out goods to the Eaft Indies: he was forry to hear fuch a 
 doctrine admitted in that court to be law. No man in this country could act as 
 an agent in fending out goods intended for India, nor could he legally fend 
 goods to a neutral country, knowing they were afterwards to be font to 
 India. This 1 was the opinion of the firft lawyers in the kingdom ; and if it was 
 uot the law, there did not remain a fhadow of the Company's exclufive trade. 
 lie wilhed gentlemen would look at the American treaty. He wiflied the Pro- 
 prietors would go to the Admiralty Court, as he had done, and hear the dcci- 
 fions of the learned and able Judge, who, happily for the country, fat at the head 
 
 of
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 of that court. There they would find refpectable merchants covering their fhips 
 with direct and pofitive perjury. They had only to write to neutral powers, and 
 for a little money they were inflantly furnifhed with proper papers. A dozen 
 fuch cafes had been proved in the Court of Admiralty in the courfe of the laft 
 month. He did not fay this lightly ; but if trade with India was to be carried on 
 under this mafked battery, there would foon be an end of the Company's exclu- 
 five privileges. Neutral captains and fupercargoes were always ready at hand, and 
 merchants, to fwear. It was very likely, that daring the war the Company might 
 not be fo able to bring home all the produce of India ;* but we ought not, for 
 that reafon alone, to be in hafte to connive at a trade which went to exclude 
 the fair and honed merchant, and to encourage perfons of a contrary defcription ; 
 perfons who carry on a clandestine trade, by the medium of foreign flags. Attend 
 to the benefits which are held out to you, as an inducement for fupporting this 
 trade. Who fupported and protected the enemies trade in India ? Thefe re- 
 fpectable traders, you are told. Who helped to fit out the enemy's fleets there ? 
 Thefe refpeclable traders. W T ho had drained our fettlements of fpecie? The 
 honourable Gentleman's honourable agents. It was not poffible to conceive a 
 trade more injurious to the interefts of the Company. He begged the Proprietors 
 would paufe, and confider a little the nature and tendency of this trade, and not 
 be led away by finefpeeches, to do that in an hour which they may repent of for 
 years. The profperity of the Company folely depended on its trade : was that to 
 be parted with for fine fpeeches ? If you part with your trade, there is an end to 
 the profperity of the Company. 
 
 Mr. IVilliam Lujhington rofe to explain. He faid the honourable Director had 
 miftated his argument. He had fuppofed him to have contended for the rightof 
 Britifli fubjects to trade to India as principals. If they purchafe papers of neutral 
 powers, it mult be with a view of covering fuch a trade. There could be no 
 doubt of the illegality of fuch a tranfaclion ; and of this complexion he believed 
 the cafes had been, of which the honourable Director alluded to in the Admiralty 
 Courts. As to naval (lores being fent from Great Britain to neutral ports, which 
 ultimately reached the enemy and fupplied their fleets, if Government thought 
 fuch a trade injurious to the country, why did not they ftop it? The truth is, 
 \vc cannot monopolize all the military and naval ftores of Europe; and that be- 
 ing the cafe, if the enemy do not obtain them from us, they will get them elfc- 
 
 E where.
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 where. He agreed indeed with the honourable Director, that if they were not 
 attainable but through us, it would be found policy to forbid their exportation ; 
 but as foreign nations would be fupplied at all events, he faw no reafon why w 
 fhould not preferably fupply them. 
 
 Mr. 1m fey exprefTcd his regret, that the queftion of general policy had been 
 introduced into the difcuffion, and fo largely gone into. He thought it would 
 have been more advifeable, not to have fettered the particular tranfaction before 
 the Court with any confederation of that general queftion, which was independent 
 of its merits. In the accufation that had been made, the reputation of a great 
 commercial houfe in the City, and the character and fortune of an honourable 
 Director, had been deeply implicated ; and every Gentleman who thought the 
 charge unjufl and unfupported, muft neceffarily feel that fome remuneration was 
 due to thofe who had fuffered under it. In delivering his opinion, he fhould 
 confidcr himfelf as entering upon a regular judicial enquiry, and as if acting un- 
 der the fanction of an oath. He meant to make no reflection on the honourable 
 Gentleman with whom the charge had originated. He was perfuaded that the 
 honourable Gentleman himfelf would not now be inclined to fupport the charges 
 he had made, after the light which had, lince he brought them forward, been 
 thrown upon the fubject. He fhould proceed to.ftate the evidence as it appeared 
 from the printed papers, fo far as it was connected with, the honourable Director 
 (Mr. Scott); from the confideration of which he had been induced to conclude, 
 as the Directors had already done, that there was not the fmalleft reafon to be- 
 lieve the honourable Director implicated in any degree. 
 
 The Papers which had been printed were indeed voluminous; but all that re- 
 lated to the fubject now before the Court was contained in a very fmall compa<fs 
 The whole charge, as had been well obferved by an honourable Proprietor (Mr. 
 Lufhington), refolves itfelf into the unfupported evidence of Rahling, not only 
 unfupported, but contradicted, by as refpcctable men as could be collected to 
 concur in their teftiinony of any tranfaction, and contradicted by the only cir- 
 cuinftance adduced in its fupport. The charge is this: That the property of 
 the whole fhip and cargo of the Helfingoer is in David Scott and Co. ; not of a 
 fart only, but the fhip and the whole cargo. If, then, there is not a pretence for 
 faying, that the houfe of David Scott and Co. was concerned in the JJiip ; if Rah- 
 ling is perjured in this part of his evidence, we cannot believe him as to the reft, 
 la opposition to. the oath of Rahling, you have, in the firft place, the fhip's Papers, 
 
 admitted
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 admitted on all hands to be regular and authentic., and comprifing the deposition 
 on oath of Mr. Duntzfelclt, (as refpectable a merchant as any in Copenhagen,) 
 who fwears pofitivcly, that both the (hip and cargo are his property. You have 
 the oath of Mr. Lennox, a gentleman of unimpeached character, to the fame 
 effe6t. You have alfo the bill of falc of the fhip, regularly attefted by a Notary 
 Public in London, as executed in his prefence. It appears that this fhip was ori- 
 ginally a French prize; that it belonged to an American houfe ; was purchafed 
 at Liverpool, by a Mr. Thompfon of Hanjburgh, for the houfe of Duntzfeldt, 
 and difpatched from thence to Copenhagen in ballad. Unlefs thefe papers are 
 forged from the beginning to the end, there can be no doubt of the reality of this 
 tranfaclion, and that the houfe of David Scott, junior, and Co. never had any 
 thing to do with the (hip, either as principals or agents. You have alfo the 
 corroboration of the Captain's oath ; and with whatever allowance you may ac- 
 cept it, from his intereft in the queftion, it is at leaft equal to Rahling's. But 
 you have alfo Rahling himfelf, who, when folemnly examined before the Gover- 
 nor of Manilla, declares the property of the (hip and cargo to be in Duntzfeldt 
 and Co. The tranfaclion refting upon the evidence of Rahling alone, the houfe 
 of David Scott and Co. would ftand acquitted by that declaration in any court in 
 Europe. 
 
 There is another circumflance in the evidence of Rahling, of fuch a nature as 
 would of itfelf be completely decifive to invalidate his teftimony. When at laft 
 he declares upon oath the property of the fhip 'and cargo to be in David Scott 
 and Co. he is afkcd why he did not make this declaration before ? his anfwer is, 
 he did not think of it, an anfwer too much in the ufual ftyle of falfe witnefies to 
 need any comment. But putting the evidence on the other fide, and the preva- 
 rications of Rahling entirely out of the queftion, the only circumftance intro- 
 duced by him into the caufe in fnpport of his teftirnony is fufficient to deftroy it 
 all. He is afked, how he knew the property of the fhip and cargo to be in David 
 Scott and Co. his anfwer is, he knows it, becaufe he was employed to make out 
 the Danifh invoice from feveral fmall Engliih bills of parcels containing the prices 
 of the articles, the title to which was, " David Scott and Co. Dr."' But is it not 
 moft clear from this very circumftance, that the houfe of David Scott and Co. 
 were agents, and not principals. Mr. Impcy faid, he fpoke in the prefence of mer- 
 chants who would correct him, if he drew a wrong conclufion from this facl ; but 
 it appeared to him that there would be no end anfwered by fending thefe bills of 
 
 parcels
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 parcels to Copenhagen, but to convince the Houfe there that they had executed 
 the commiffion they were employed upon faithfully. 
 
 When the hiftory of the voyage is added to the hiftory of the tranfactions at 
 Manilla, it makes one of the cleareft cafes that ever occurred in a court of juf- 
 tice. The Captain and Rahling were on terms of hoftility during the whole 
 voyage. During the courfe of it the Captain accufes Rahling of mutiny ; on 
 its conclufion Rahling accufes the Captain of murder. Thus the fafety of Rah- 
 ling and the Captain had become incompatible, and the former tries what he can 
 do to get rid of the latter. Firft he tries to do this by accufing him of cruelty 
 and even murder ; when this would not do, he endeavours to ruin him and his 
 own employers by the confifcation of the fhip and cargo. Had he contented 
 himfelf with bringing forward a probable accufation, had he merely faid, that a 
 'part of the cargo was Britifh property, for which there might have been fome co- 
 lour, as part of the cargo is admitted to have been purchafed in London, by the 
 Houfe of David Scott and Co. as agents for Duntzfeldt, he might poilibly have fuc- 
 ceeded ; but a part only would not fatisfy his appetite for plunder, and by grafp- 
 ing at the whole, he has luckily for the houfe of David Scott and Co. furnilhed 
 the means of confuting himfelf. But in no way whatever, Mr. Impey faid, was the 
 guilt or innocence of the honourable Director connected with that of the Houfe of 
 David Scott, junior, and Co. except in this, that if they were innocent, it was im- 
 poflible for him to be guilty ; for admitting Rahling's evidence to be true, for the 
 fake of argument, in its fulleft extent, he would defy any gentleman not ac- 
 quainted with the charge itfelf, from the Papers which had been printed, as the 
 ground- work of it, to connect Mr. David Scott, the Director, in any manner 
 whatever, with the fhip Helfingoer, the cargo, or the Captain. As to the manner 
 in which Mr. Scott's name had been introduced into the tranfaction, by con- 
 necting him with the expectations exprefled by the Captain, he fhould find 
 Manilla in pofTeffion of the Englifh, he never heard of fo extraordinary and 
 groundlefs a fufpicion. He could not imagine how fuch an idea could enter into 
 the mind of any man, as to bring forward an accufation on fo flight and frivolous 
 a ground. He meant to impute no improper motive to the late Chairman, but 
 his conduct on this occafion was moft extraordinary. The expedition againfl 
 Manilla had been projected here, and orders fent out to India in the Summer of 
 1796- In the Summer of 1797, the preparations that had been made for it, were 
 known in this country, and all over the world. It was the fubject of daily dif- 
 cuffion in the newfpapers at that time, and it appears upon the proceedings at 
 the trial, that this very fhip had a newfpaper on board which mentioned the cir- 
 
 cunaftance.
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 cumftance. In June 1797? a month before the Helfingoer left Europe, the Go- 
 vernor of Manilla had direct advice from China of the expedition, and was pre- 
 pared to repel it. Mr. Impey afked whether any fact was brought forward to 
 prove that the communication had been made to the Captain by Mr. Scott. Is 
 there any evidence of his having ever correfponded with, or been perfonally 
 known to Murray the Captain ? At the time the Captain left England, Mr. 
 Scott was then in a diftant part of the kingdom, five hundred miles from 
 the capital. There is not the fmalleft ground for this moft extraordinary charge 
 of Mr. Scott's having betrayed the Company and his country; and yet, unlefsyou 
 do believe this fufpicion, you cannot implicate him in the trade, for it is the only 
 fact charged again ft him. As to the proceedings on the Bill of Difcovery, he 
 could not go fo far as the worthy Alderman, and agree to put a ftop to that mea- 
 fure, as matters now flood. If indeed, the Houfe of David Scott and Co. were 
 to apply to the Court of Proprietors, as he perfectly concurred in opinion, that 
 there was not the fmalleft ground for entertaining fufpicion, he (hould, when fo 
 applied to, think it right to ftop the proceedings. It fometimes happened, that 
 there was a balance of imputation againft the acquitted, but in this cafe, after 
 having attentively gone through all the proceedings relative to the (hip Hel- 
 lingocr, he was clearly and decidedly of opinion that there was not the fmallell 
 realbn to impute blame cither to the honourable Director or to the Houfe of Da- 
 vid Scott and Co. upon the face of thofe proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Twining faid, that having called for the printing of the Papers, it would 
 naturally be expected that he fhould deliver an opinion upon them. He had de- 
 clared at the Jail General Court, that his only motive for printing the papers had 
 been to enable the Proprietors to poflefs them/elves of the fulleft information on 
 the fubject. They were now produced, and voluminous as they were, he had gone 
 through the whole of them with the utmoft attention. Before he delivered the opi- 
 nion he had formed, he could not help taking notice of the conduct of the laft Ge- 
 neral Court, in interpofing a hafty Refolution to prevent Mr. Scott's name being 
 included in the Bill of Difcovery. It was both injudicious and indecorous ; in- 
 judicious as to the honourable Director himfelf, indecorous as to the Couit of 
 Directors. The honourable Director was well acquainted with the hiftory^f 
 mankind, and he would alk him, what conduct an innocent man would have 
 purfued, who was unjuftly accufed ? Such a man, fo far from ihrinking from en- 
 
 F quiry,
 
 qu'ry, courts it ; fo far.from flying from profecution, he. fecks it. But on tfte 
 contrary that perfon, who fears that invcftigation may lead to fomething of which 
 he dreads the difcovery, what conduct does fuch a man purfue ? He avoids en- 
 quiry, he recedes from profecution. If he cannot do it by his own means, he 
 calls in the aid of friends. Such had been the conduct of the honourable Gen- 
 tleman's friends at the laft General Court, who had been difpofed to think 
 favourably of him, had difapproved fo entirely of the proceeding, as to withdraw 
 their fupport. . A learned Gentleman had complained of the Bill of Enquiry as 
 retraining the honourable Director in the exercifc of his duty ; but by the very; 
 fame breath in which he enlarges on the hardship of reftraining a fingle Director, 
 he makes a motion reftrictive upon the whole Court. The very fame Directors, 
 on the fame day that, they cleared the character of Mr. Scott from perfonal impu- 
 tation, decided on the propriety of including his name in the Bill of Difcovery. 
 If one of thefe Refolutrons was to be made invalid, the other ought to have been 
 fo likewife. Mr. Twining alked what the conduct of the Court of Directors would 
 have been, if a Gentleman not concerned with the Direction had been fuppofed to- 
 be connected with Illicit Trade ? Whether, inftead of its occupying, days, weeks, 
 and months in difcuffing what was proper to be done, meafures would 'net at once 
 have been taken to difcover the truth and the whole truth ? If fo, it furely was 
 more necefTary, when the character of an Eaft India Director and Merchant was 
 implicated. Of a ftranger we could only complain, that he had injured our com- 
 merce. He was not bound to protect it, but a Director is bound, not only not 
 to injure the Company, but to protect and advance its interefts. He irruft.con- 
 iider the Refolution of the laft General Court as. injurious to the Court of Direc-* 
 tors, becaufe it reflrained them from doing what by the tenor of their duty they . 
 were bound to do. 
 
 Mr. Twining laid, before he obfervcd upon the printed Papers, he mud-no*- 
 tice an expreilion made ufe of by the honourable Director (Mr. Scott), at, the laft 
 General Court. He had faid that now there mull be an end either of his own 
 honour or of that of his accufer. He hoped he fhould have the. concurrence of 
 the Court of Proprietors when he faid, that he faw no- reafon for fo harfh and 
 uncharitable a conclufion. For his part he was perfectly convinced of the pure 
 motives of the late Chairman, though he fhould be reduced to the neceffity of 
 blaming forne part of his conduct, and if he heard it atferted that the^honourable 
 Director (Mr. Scott) had no honour, he fhould be as ready to contradict it as any 
 
 man.
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 man. When he thought that hon. Director acted in a manner injurious to the 
 interefts of the Company, he was free to fay fo ; but never without giving the 
 grounds of his opinion. As far as he thought his conduct wrong, he would 
 condemn him ; but he would not go one jot further. When the Papers upon 
 Illicit Commerce had been referred by his Majefty's Miniflers to the late Chair- 
 man, he could not do lefs than promote the enquiry. The alarm given by the 
 Illicit Commerce, which they noticed, had fpread itfclf not only through Europe, 
 but to Afia, Africa, and America. If fo called upon he had rcfufed to inftitute 
 the enquiry, he would juitly have deferved to have been reprehended. Having 
 faid this he was frank to con fefs, .that in his opinion the late Chairman did not ; 
 conduct the enquiry in the way that was the moft proper. He wifhcd he had ' 
 not kept it to himfelf, but had called in the aid of thofe Directors mod calculated 
 from their experience and intelligence to have given him affiftance. If indeed* 
 the honourable Gentleman had fufficient ground to apprehend that by fo doing 
 he fhould have been over-ruled, and the enquiry fuppreffed, which he could not 
 fuppofe would have been the cafe, he might be juftified. If for this or any other 
 motive he had thought proper to conduct the enquiry in his own name, he wifh- 
 ed he had made it without bringing forward, in the firft inftance, fuch ferio'us 
 and heavy charges, for which there did not appear to be fufficient evidence. He 
 thought he would have acted better, if he had contented himfelf with merely 
 fetting on foot the enquiry. Having..faid thus much, we ought to recollect, that . 
 our fituation at this time is different from that in which the late Chairman was 
 placed. We have the refult of the enquiries of the Directors, and he dared fay, 
 of their well-founded opinion. When the late Chairman firft read the Papers, 
 he could not but be extremely ftruck by the magnitude of the mifchief they clif- 
 pla'yed.' He felt, perhaps, a little too much, but we fhould recollect it w;js for 
 our interefts that he felt, and fhould not judge him fcvercly. The firft branch 
 of the charge accufes the houfe of David Scott and Co. (which he ihoukl always 
 confidcr the fame as David Scott, for a father's intereft and his fon's was the. 
 fame) with trading to different parts of Europe and Afia, under the character of. 
 Agents, though in fact they were Principals. Before this charge had been made 
 he wifhed the honourable Gentleman had availed himfelf of the information of the 
 Members of the Committee to whom the information was referred. Nothing 
 gave him greater fatisfaxtion than being able to fay, that fo far as it refpected the 
 honourable Director's houfe of commerce, the cbarge had not in his opinion been 
 
 made .
 
 made out. On the contrary it appeared from the Papers, that the houfe of 
 David Scott and Co. did really act as Agents and not as Principals. He alfo 
 thought it was mod clearly Shewn, that the honourable Diredlor had made no 
 fuch communication refpecting the intended expedition againft Manilla, as had 
 been imputed to him. He expreSTed this opinion with the more fatisfaction, as 
 he feared the honourable Director or his friends conceived he had fome perfonal 
 ill-will towards him. He folemnly declared, that from the year 17Q3, when he 
 had firft brought forward a motion affecting the honourable Director, he had never 
 entertained the flighted ill- will againft him. This he muSl add, that he could not 
 but difapprove of the trade, which it was evident had been carrying on for Some 
 time part. There was nothing more clear than that the property of the enemy 
 had been brought home to Europe by neutral flags, nor than that the houfe of 
 David Scott and Co. (which he considered the fame as David Scott) did act as 
 Agents to a houfe in Copenhagen, engaged in bringing home that property, nor 
 than that another houfe in Bengal, connected, if not with the houfe of David Scott 
 and Co. was materially concerned in promoting that trade. It was impoffible for 
 him to approve of the honourable Director's interference in that trade ; he even 
 thought lending the influence of his name to fuch transactions highly improper ; 
 he had been told that in judging of the conduct of others, we fliould place our- 
 felves in the fame fituation,with thofe whom we arraign. He hoped he fliould be 
 excufcd the momentary prefumption of imagining himfelf to be placed behind 
 that Bar, entrufted with the management of the Company's trade, and carrying 
 on at the fame time a fcparate commerce of his own of the fame nature ; that 
 after having pretty Siren uoufly endeavoured to prefcrve both his Situation as a 
 Director, and his commerce as a merchant, he had been compelled to relinquish 
 either the one or the other, and in fo doing and abiding by his feat in the Direc- 
 tion, he had placed his infant fon at the head of his houfe of Commerce. He 
 then aSked himfelf if he had done fo, what he fliould have thought of his own 
 conduct, and what he fliould have expected the world to -think of it ? What 
 could he have thought, or what could the world have thought, but that his with- 
 drawing his name and fubSlituting that of his infant fon, was a mere fubterfuge. 
 Multum inter eft qnl a quo fiat. He may have thought right. The time would 
 come when he himfelf and the honourable Director would be no more. If there 
 was enmity on either Side, that enmity would be at an end 4 if the influence of 
 friendship or power had operated upon the enquiry, that friendship would have 
 
 ceafed '
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 tseafeil, that power would be annihilated. Whenever this period fhbuld arrive hr 
 \vould venture to fay that there would be but one opinion upon the fubject, and 
 it would become a matter of aftonifhment to future .Proprietors, that there ever 
 had been a General Court, who would countenance a Director carrying on at 
 once the concerns of the Company, and engaged either in his own perfon, or his 
 fon's, it mattered not which, in a houfc of extenlive Eaft India agency. Mr. 
 Twining faid, with refpect to that part of the refolution which had been moved, 
 and which went to confirm the refolution of the Directors, acquitting Mr. Scott of 
 perfonal imputation, he had not the flighteft objection to it. As to that part which 
 alluded to withdrawing the hon. Director's name from the Bill of Difcovery, he muft 
 object to that, and he begged leave to fupport his objection by alluding to the opi- 
 nion of the Attorney and Solicitor General on the papers referred to them. They 
 had ftated, that though they did not contain precife grounds for a profecution, 
 they excited ftrong fufpicions, which due diligence might bring to light. With this 
 opinion before us, faid Mr. Twining, fhall we ftop enquiry ? It would be moil 
 impolitic to do fo. Nor is it neceflary; for the honourable Director himfelf has. 
 fince the lad General Court, defired that his name may be included in the Bill 
 of Difcovery. The motion therefore goes unneceffarily far. If however it is to 
 be fuffered to pafs in its prefent form, he fhould think it right immediately after 
 to move another, fimilur to that which had paflccl the Court of Directors, ex- 
 preffing the fenfe of the Court of the integrity of their late Chairman, and thank- 
 ing him for his conduct, 
 
 Mr. Impey afked, whether the opinion to which the honourable Proprietor had 
 alluded was not given upon the Papers generally, and not upon Mr. Scott's cafe, 
 which was the matter now before the Court ? 
 
 Mr. Twining faid, it was enough for his argument if it was given on the Papers 
 generally, which included Mr. Scott's -cafe. 
 
 Mr. Wutfon faid, the candour and liberality with which the honourable Pro- 
 prietor, who had juft fat down, had conducted himfelf that day mull meet with 
 the concurrence and approbation of every body. As an individual wholly un- 
 connected with any party, he could not give a lilent vote on this occafion.' He 
 <iid not entirely agree with the motion as it now ftood. The honourable Gen- 
 
 G tleman
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 tleman who brought it forward had properly obferved that the acquittal ought 
 tobe as public and as general as the accuiation. After his learned Friend had 
 gone fo completely and ably through the evidence, there could not be a doubt as 
 to the innocence of David Scott, fenior. That being the cafe, he could not 
 agree to the fuggeltion which fell from the learned Alderman. He thought it riot 
 right to go through the whole of the Papers, and that part of his obfervations 
 was irrelevant to the queftiorr. He had laid that he thought forne difgrace would 
 attach on tho Court of Proprietors if the King's Attorney General did not agree 
 with them in opinion, and had urged this as a reafon for coming to an immedi- 
 ate deciflon againft the Bill of Difcovery. He felt the greatcft refpect for the 
 Proprietors of India Stock,: but he fubmitted whether, after the Attorney Gene- 
 ral had been furnifhed with the documents, after the honourable Director had 
 requefted that he might be made a party to the Bill, when an appeal was about 
 to be made to one of the higheft tribunals in the country, would it be decorous 
 in the Court to decide judicially upon the queflion ? He was perfuaded the late 
 Chairman, in the conduct he had purfued, had beeen actuated by zeal for the 
 credit of the Company. There might have been prima facie evidence to ground 
 his charge upon. Thinking there was, he had manfully flepped forward. He 
 would not now enquire whether the mode he had purfued was fuch as he ap- 
 proved. The honourable Proprietor, who had called for the printing of the 
 Papers, had candidly admitted, . after lifting, the matter to the bran, that there 
 was no ground of imputation againft the honourable Director, except for hav- 
 ing placed his infant Son in his houfe of agency. From this act Mr. Watfon 
 drew a different conclufion from the honourable Proprietor, and thought it 
 proved to demon Oration that it was an actual change of property, and not a co- 
 lourable relinquifhment privately fabricated in the clofet for finifler purpofes ; 
 that the honourable Director in the face of the world had diverted himfelf, and 
 vefted in truftees all his property in the houfe, beyond the power of redemption, 
 intending fairly and honourably to have done with the houfe altogether. Hav- 
 ing anfvvered that part of the argument he fhould only obferve as to the words 
 of the motion, that h thought it would be better to confine it to what went 
 to approve of the Refolution of the Directors acquitting Mr. Scott. 
 
 Mr. W. Lujhmgton faid, that the learned Gentleman had mifundcrftood the 
 firft part of the motion, and begged it might be read, which being done, 
 
 Mr,
 
 ( 27 ) 
 Mr. Waffon faid, his only objection was removed, and he perfectly concurred. 
 
 Mr. RA-ndk Jackfon faid, he could not concur in the thanks that had been lavifii- 
 ed by his learned Friend on the hon. Proprietor, who had originally moved for the 
 printing of the Papers, for his extraordinary candour and liberal line of conduct. 
 Feeling himfelf compelled, by the force of truth, to acquit the honourable Director of 
 the heavy and unfounded charges brought againft him x he had thought fit to accom- 
 pany his acquittal with much dark and dangerous infmuation. He had fo interwo- 
 ven it with heavy imputations on the character of the honourable Director, that he 
 flood almoft as much affected by thofe infmuations as by the imputations which he 
 profefled to exonerate him from. If the honourable Director was innocent, let 
 him be declared fo unequivocally. If he thought him guilty, it was the honour- 
 able Gentleman's duty, who had called for the Papers, to move for his difmiffion ; 
 but furely it was not candid to accompany his acquittal by fuch infmuations. 
 Would this fort of acquittal fatisfy Mr. Scott's mind ? Would it fatisfy his 
 friends ? Every newfpaper contained paragraphs goading him to a ftep, which 
 Mr. Jackfon regretted that he had taken, that of defiring to have his name in- 
 cluded in the Bill of Difcovery. This he had endeavoured at the laft General 
 Court to prevent, becaufe he thought it vexatious and oppreffive. He was aftonifh- 
 ed that the hon. Proprietor had treated the conduct of the laft General Court as un- 
 juft and indecorous ; as if a motion, which had been founded in truth and juftice, 
 had been carried by the mere influence of private friendfhip. It was not the ob- 
 ject of that motion, nor the terms of it, to prevent profecution, where profecuiion 
 could be made the medium of difcovery. All that had been faid to the Directors, 
 by that motion, was, " While you confefs, on your own records, that Mr. Scott 
 is innocent, do not treat him as if he was guilty. So long as you declare that 
 Mr. Scott knows nothing, why file a Bill againft him for difcovery ?" The words 
 of the motion gave a latitude to the Directors, if they faw reafon to revoke the r 
 opinion, to proceed accordingly ; but the honourable Proprietor had uncandidly 
 argued as if avoiding a Bill in Chancery was of itfelf a decifive proof of guilt. 
 Any man, who knew the delay and vexations of a court of law, nvght dread a 
 fuit impending over him, and yet be perfectly innocent of the fubject of that fuit. 
 There were other modes of proving innocence befides that of voluntarily becom- 
 ing a defendant to a Chancery fuit. How had Mr. Scott conducted himfelf? 
 Had he flirunk from enquiry ? No. He had always promoted it j it was he who 
 
 had
 
 had fuppoitcd a general inveftigation of the Illicit Trade faid to be carried on, be- 
 fore it was known whom it might implicate. He had repeatedly challenged and 
 intreated publicity, as foon as it was hinted that himfelf was a party ; he had met 
 the charge by a moft folemn and inftant denial upon oath before God and the 
 magiftracy ; he had fince refuted it article by article ; he had profefTed his readi- 
 nefs to anfwer any queftion which courts or committees might propound to him ; 
 to produce to them any papers which they might require, or to reveal to them 
 every particular of his arrangement with his late houfe, of however private or de- 
 licate a nature ; but both himfelf and his friends had feen the drift of the propofed 
 Bill ofDifcovery. They faw it was to reftrain, if not fufpend, his directorial func- 
 tions, and prevent him from being a Candidate for the Chair. The laft Gene- 
 ral Court had feen it in the fame light ; they had detected the fecret purpofe of 
 Mr. Scott's adverfaries, and, having detected it, were determined to prevent it. 
 But how had they prevented it ? Not by corning down to Court as the honour- 
 able Proprietor had infmuated, like a mob of hirelings, to fcreen Mr. Scott from 
 enquiry ; but a large majority of a moft refpectable General Court had, after eight 
 hours difcuffion, faid to the Directors, in terms confonant to truth and juftice : 
 " We are averfe to making a profecution the medium of perfecution. You de- 
 <c clare, by a great majority, that Mr. Scott is innocent j and yet feveral of you 
 " propofe to profecute him as if he were guilty. You declare your conviction 
 " that he is totally ignorant of the tranfactions in queftion; and yet you propofe 
 44 to file a Bill againft him to compel a difcovery of thofe very tranfactions. We 
 " defire you not to harafs Mr. Scott in courts of law, till you mail fee reafon to 
 " revoke your refolutions of acquittal, or at leaft till we have perufed the Papers 
 cc propofed to be printed, and enabled ourfelves to judge of the premifes." Thofe 
 Papers were now before the Court ; the honourable Proprietor had been allowed 
 time fufficient to make himfelf mafter of their contents, and he was now called 
 upon for his verdict of guilt or acquittal ; but it fho'uld be unequivocally one or the 
 other ; it fhould be no cold acquittal ; it mould be a verdict that the world couid un- 
 derftand, and that as publicly delivered as the charges had been made. If the Direc- 
 tors had changed their opinions fince their refolution of acquittal, let them de- 
 clare it. If caufe of fufpicion had fubfequently arifen, let them mow it ; and he 
 would now confent to a Bill being filed, but he would not without caufe being 
 fhewn. It was true that Mr. Scott had, fince their laft meeting, of himfelf defired 
 , to be included in the Bill j and now this very conceffion was argued as a proof 
 
 of
 
 of guilt, and a mere anticipation of what he would otherwife have been forced 
 to fubmit to ! He thought Mr. Scott ought not to have made this conceflion ; 
 he honoured, however, his fenfibility, while he took the liberty to condemn 
 what appeared to him a want of prudence ; it was notorious that the honourable 
 Director had been goaded into this meafure ; when other artifices had failed, he 
 had been goaded by paragraphs in newfpapers, which imputed Mr. Scott's ac- 
 ceptation of the protection of the General Court to his fear of inveftigation ; he 
 had been goaded by fuch arguments as the honourable Proprietor had that day 
 ufed ; fuch as, that guilt flies from enquiry, and innocence courts it ! Could 
 the honourable Proprietor conceive no other criterion of innocence than its 
 courting a Bill in Chancery, which Mr. Scott (whofe life he hoped, for the fake 
 of the Public, would be a long one) might not live to fee an end to ? Was it no 
 proof of innocence to challenge publicity, and tender himfelf to perfonal interro- 
 gatory, as the honourable Director had done ? Some fymptoms of what he had 
 to expect from a Bill in Chancery had already difcovered themfelves ; for only 
 fince Mr. Scott had exprefled his confent to be included in one, it had been 
 fought to add other fubjects of difcovery, and fo it might go on to the end of the 
 longed life. Since, however, Mr. Scott (unable to exift under the calumnies 
 that had been heaped upon him) had requeded to have a Bill of Difcovery filed 
 againft him, in order to remove them ; Mr. Jackfon faid he faw no alternative for 
 the Court but to agree to it. But he could not help calling upon the Directors, in- 
 dividually and generally, as men of honour, to take care that no unnecefTary delay 
 fhould be fufFered to interpofe itfelf ; and fince they had not thought proper to 
 interpofe between Mr. Scott and his fenfibility, (as he thought they fhould have 
 done) he hoped they would be mindful how eflential it was to Mr. Scott's peace, 
 that the bufinefs fhould be brought to a fpeedy hTue. He repeated his regret 
 at the dep which Mr. Scott had taken, he thought the General Court had fur- 
 nifhed him with an anfwer, that ought to fatisfy every liberal mind, namely, that 
 the Directors were only enjoined to be confident, but were at liberty to file a 
 Bill againd him the moment they would declare there was^ground for fufpicion. 
 Accufation was of itielf a ferious thing, and it might have occurred to the ho- 
 nourable Proprietor, that it was poflible for a man to be repeatedly accufcd, and 
 yet be innocent that a Director might be charged with perjury and mutilation 
 of oaths, and yet be declared innocent by his very accufer. The honourable 
 Proprietor furely could not have forgotten the very ferious charges which he 
 
 H himfelf
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 himfelf had brought, at different times, again ft Mr. Scott. In the year 1794, the 
 honourable Gentleman had charged him, in terms impoffible to mifundcrfland, 
 not only with having traded contrary to his oath as a Director, but with having 
 chndellinely altered the terms of an oath, in its way from the General Court to 
 Parliament, in order to accommodate it to the trade, which he fuppofcd the ho- 
 nourable Director to carry on. The honourable Gentleman had printed the 
 fpecch which contained this charge, and circulated it from one end of the land 
 to the other, while the honourable Director was in a diftant part of Britain, and 
 before he could have time to explain the circumflance. When the honourable 
 Director returned to town, and enquiry was made as to the fact, it turned out, 
 that Mr. Scott did not even know that the oath had been altered, but that the 
 Directors themfelves had defired the Solicitor to the Company and his honour- 
 able Friend, Mr. Henchman, to lhape the words of the oath to meet what was 
 believed to be the fenfe of a previous refolution of a General Court. He had 
 the pleafure afterwards to hear the honourable Proprietor, in his place, admit 
 his miftake, and regret that he had wounded the honourable Director's feelings. 
 -Wounded them, indeed, faid Mr. Jackfon ! A charge fo generally publifh- 
 cd, and fanctiotied by a name fo refpeclable, as was that of the honourable Pro- 
 prietor, muft have funk and deftroyed any man, the worth of whofe character 
 was lefs known than. Mr. Scott's. 
 
 The ill fuccefs of this charge had not, however, difcouraged the honourable 
 Proprietor, who, fome time after, brought another charge againft Mr. Scott, as 
 continuing to be indirectly concerned in a houfe of Indian agency, contrary to 
 a recent By-Law.. It was known that in 17Q5, a By- Law had pafled, prohibit- 
 ing Directors from trading to India, as principals or agents. This, though a 
 wife and falutary law, and one that had his warm fupport, was., as to the then. 
 Directors, an ex poft fa3o law. 
 
 Mr. Scott was, at that time, as were feveral other Directors, concerned (as 
 lawfully they then might be) in houfes of Eaft India agency ; and they had to 
 choofe between relinquilhing their feats iathe direction, or their agency concerns. 
 Mr. Scott's, as being the largeft concern, was of courfe the moft lucrative; but he 
 chofe rather to relinquifh it, than to relinquifh a feat, of which he was fb juflly 
 proud, from its having been repeatedly, and in the moft flattering way, con- 
 ferred
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 ferred upon him by the Proprietors. It was tf ue that Mr. Scott had not given 
 away his valuable concern to a flranger, but to the Ton for whom he had always 
 intended it, and, who being a minor, Mr. Scott had vefted it in truftees for his 
 benefit ; and the only qucftion that could arife was, whether or no this \vasa/w;tf 
 fde relinquifhment ? The honourable Proprietor had charged that it was not, 
 arid had (as he had a perfect right to do) brought it before the General Court, 
 upon the eve of Mr. Scott's laft election ; the qucftion was then folemnly dif- 
 cuiTed in a crowded Court, when it appeared that Mr. Scott had irrevocably 
 alienated all right, title, intereft, and control, in and over his late concern ; 
 that he had clone fo under the guidance of the Attorney and Solicitor General, 
 and other eminent Lawyers ; and that Mr. Rons, the Company's Counfel, had 
 declared his conviction that it was a bona fde relinquifhment ; and that he knew 
 nothing more which Mr. Scott could do to fatisfy the law. The Court were of 
 the fame opinion, and declared their entire fatisfaction by a great majority ; 
 and their opinion that Mr. Scott had no commercial intereft whatever, which 
 affected his eligibility to a feat in the Direction. 
 
 One would have expected that a fubject fo fully and repeatedly canvafled, 
 might at laft have found reft ; but the honourable Proprietor had again ftirred its 
 embers, and broadly hinted that Mr. Scott dill retained an intereft in his late 
 commercial houfe, contrary to law. If the honourable Proprietor ftill entertained 
 doubts upon that fubject, or if he had arrived at fuithcr information, would he 
 propofe a day for its difeuffion, and, Mr. Jackfon laid, he would fecond the 
 motion ; but, he would never fuffer the honourable Proprietor, or any other per- 
 fon in that place, to fcattcr insinuations againft the characters of their Directors, 
 without calling on them to make fpecific charges. 
 
 The honourable Gentleman had, indeed, on that day, gone ftill further, and 
 almoft charged Mr. Scott with being cognilant of certain tranfactions in the 
 houie of Fairlie and Co., of Bengal, alledged t be illicit, and this with, the 
 fame breath that he coinpulfively pronounced his acquittal upon the prefent oc- 
 cafion. Either the honourable Gentleman ought to fupport his accufations, 
 or to forbear his insinuations. If either of them were true, Mr. Scott ought, 
 wifh ail their affection for him, to be driven from his feat. As for the honourable 
 Gentleman's vote of acquittal, Mr. Scott thanked him not for it. Mr. Scott 
 
 owed
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 his acquittal to his cafe ; it was to be found in the documents which had 
 been publifhed ; and, Mr. Jackfon faid, he defired the whole Court, and the 
 whole Public to underftand, that Mr. Scott's friends would enter into no com- 
 promife ; but that they dared and defied accufation, as to any part of his con- 
 duel. 
 
 This, Mr. Jackfon faid, naturally brought him to confider the charges imme- 
 diately before them, which, as Mr. Scott had obferved in his Minute of Defence, 
 refolved themfelves into three diftinct heads, viz. High Treafon Traitorous 
 Correfpondence and Illicit Trade. 
 
 The firft and third charge had been fo fully difcufled by his honourable 
 Friends, that he fhouW fay but little upon them. To the fecond charge he fhould 
 ftill lefs fay, as Mr. Scott's name did not even appear in fact, or by allufion, 
 throughout the voluminous Papers to which that charge could alone be referred. 
 Mr. Jackfon faid, he delired it to be recollected, that they were diftinct and ab- 
 folute charges. He had feen a Paper lately put in by Mr. Bofanquet, which 
 foftened the term down to opinkns, and which made all the difference. Had the 
 late Chairman, when he laid the Papers before the Court, accompanied them in 
 the ufual way r by his verbal opinions, and left his colleagues to deliberate and act 
 upon them, he for one, fhould have thanked and applauded his vigilance ; but 
 when he found, that inftead of fo doing he had, in the firft inftance, placed upon 
 the Records of the Company charges of fo heavy a nature againft one of their 
 Executive Body, he could not help cenfuring his conduct, in this inftance, as 
 moft rafti, intemperate, and unjuft. He wifhed to advert as little 'as poffible to 
 the conduct of the late Chairman in this bufinefs, for whom he entertained 
 great perfonal refpect. He believed fuch to be the difpofition of his friends, 
 nor would they be induced to depart from that line of conduct, unlefs an ho- 
 nourable Proprietor (Mr. Twining) fhould think it difcreet to perfevere in a 
 motion, which he had intimated his intention to bring forward when that before 
 the Court ftiould be difpofed of. 
 
 i 
 
 The charge of high-trealbn, Mr. Jackfon faid, it would have bee,n impoffi- 
 ble tq treat with gravity, but for the quarter from which it had originat- 
 od the whole of it was founded upon the polluted teftimony of a fet of in- 
 famous
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 famous vagabonds vagabonds upon their own {hewing, vagabonds according 
 to the adjudication of the Spanifh Courts, vagabonds according to the opinion 
 of their own (landing Counfel, who, with the candour which belonged to his 
 character, had fpoken of them as witnefles defer ving of reprobation and re- 
 proach ; and even the evidence of thcfe mifcreants was but hearfay Evidence, 
 viz. that they had heard Capt. Murray fay, that he expected to find Manilla 
 in the hands of the Englifh. Could one read, without fmiling, this fpeech of 
 Murray's imputed to Mr. Scott's having violated his oath of fecrefy, by im- 
 parting the intention of the Britifh Government to Captain Murray, in order 
 that he might impart it to the Spanifh Governor of Manilla ? The charge was 
 extravagant enough in itfelf, but that had come out in evidence which ren- 
 dered it perfectly ludicrous ; the fource of Murray's prognoftics had been trac- 
 ed, a common Englifh newfpaper found on board, and delivered up among 
 other papers to the Spanifh Court of Admiralty, which fpoke of the certainty 
 of the capture of Manilla ; indeed it was notorious that both Manilla and Ba- 
 tavia had been taken by anticipation from a very early part of the war ; fo no- 
 torious, that the report of the premeditated attempt had reached Manilla, and 
 become ftale even there, forne months before the arrival of Murray with the 
 fhip Helflngoer. The Hclfingoer failed from Copenhagen for India in July, 
 1797. In a letter from the Philippine Company at Manilla, dated October, 
 1797, they fpeak of a former letter which they had written to Europe, dated 
 Augu ft, 1797, in which they fpoke of accounts which they had received from 
 Canton in the preceding June, of an intended expedition againft their fettle- 
 ment, but which they fay is now out of the queftion, fmce the monfoons arc 
 fet in. And yet it was with thcfe papers lying before him, that Mr. Bofan- 
 quct had charged the intelligence to have proceeded from Mr. Scott, though 
 it might have occurred to him, that if true, Mr. Scott muft be a fool as well 
 as a traitor, if he were interefted in the cargo, as he was alledged to be, fince 
 he would be fending that and himfelf into the jaws of feizure and difcovery ! 
 To enlarge further upon the defence on this head, would be as abfurd as the 
 charge. 
 
 The fccond charge of traiterous correspondence, by fupplying the enemy 
 with military as well as other {lores, was, if poffible, ftill more extravagant and 
 unfounded. This charge could only apply to what was called the Batavia 
 
 T tranfactions.
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 fl-an factions, refpecting which a lift of very eminent houfes had been inferted 
 in the charge, and amongft the reft that of David Scott and Co. How would 
 thofe who had not read the Papers be aftonifhed to hear, that from one end of 
 thofe Papers to the other, the name of David Scott, fingly, nor even the firm 
 of David Scott, jun. and Co. did' not once appear ! This fact rendered fuperflu- 
 ous all further comment. A charge was made, certain Papers were referred 
 to in fupport of it, and in thofe Papers, the party charged was not even allud- 
 ed to ! To fay more upon this part of the fubject would be abufing the indul- 
 gence of the Court. He muff admit indeed that at the prefent moment Mr. 
 Scott's name did ftand connected with the Batavian Papers, and by means, .ia 
 his humble judgment, not the moft ingenuous. A paper (as if to cover the fla- 
 grant abfurdity of bringing forward papers in fupport of a charge which bore 
 no allufion to the accufed) had been fince hitched into, the cafe laid before 
 their Counfel' under the grave denomination of " the fublequent examination 
 of Mr. Swinton fince his arrival in England," an examination tnken the Lord 
 knows where, and by the Lord knows who ! And of courfe an examination al- 
 together ex parte, and under no legal obligation as to its truth ; this paper had. 
 been faftened upon the Batavia papers, though it was no document from In^ 
 dia or St. Helena, though it was no document even of the Eaft-India Compa- 
 ny's, it had no place upon their records. If the Court of Directors had autho- 
 rifed fuch an examination, it fhould feem as if they declined .its acknowledge 
 ment, for he could find nothing in their minutes which indicated its pcrmiffion 
 or its acceptation. Mr. Jackfon faid he reprobated more the manner of obtain-f 
 ing this paper, and the evident intention with which it was obtained, than the. 
 matter it contained ; for it did not weigh a feather in the fcale. Who, this Mr., 
 Swinton was, he would not at that moment enquire, but his character as it ap- 
 peared upon the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty could not altogether, 
 have efcaped an honourable Director (Mr. ELphinftone), whofe,bufincfs led him. 
 to a pretty frequent attendance upon that Court. - 
 
 The third and laft charge, namely, that of Illicit Trade, ho admitted, as it. 
 had been well defcribed by the Directors in the courfe of the proceedings to be 
 a charge of a very popular nature cry out Contraband Trade ! and an>inftant 
 eonfufion of ideas feemed to take place in the minds of many perfons ; it was a. 
 key that artful men feldom had or would fail to touch with advantage. To talk. 
 
 with
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 with people out of doors upon this fubject, one would fuppofe that no European 
 Power but the British had a foot of land in India : they fcemed to confound and 
 huddle together ^the principles of national and municipal law, and to forget that 
 Englilh merchants might not only lawfully but laudably export Britifh manufac- 
 tures, and imports, either as principals or agents, to Copenhagen, Lifbon, or to 
 the European territories of any other Power with whom we are at peace and 
 that the foreign merchant might again as lawfully export thofe fame commodi- 
 ties to their own Indian fettlcments, or to thofe of their friends and allies; and 
 yet this propofition comprized the whole of .the cafe even againit the houfc of: 
 David Scott, jfl* and Co., 
 
 Mr. Jackfon faid he had given the Papers moft ferious attention, and he pro- 
 tefled he could not fee the grounds which juftified the Directors proceeding even 
 againft the houfe, and he was happy to find himfelf fupported in that opinion not 
 only by his honourable Friends (Mr. Lufhington and Mr. Impey) but- by the ho- 
 nourable Proprietor himfelf, to whom he had had occafion to allude. He fhould ' 
 not enlarge on this topic, as it was not the houfe of David Scott,' jun. and Co. 
 but David Scott, fen. who flood accufed before them. He could not however 
 help af luring himfelf, that the Directors would paufe and ferioufly eonlider be- 
 fore they added ta the difcreclit which had been -prematurely brought upon that 
 eminent and highly refpectable houfe, without they indeed fawmoil unequivocal 
 grounds for fufpicion.' But even -admitting, for argument's fake, that David 
 Scott, jun. and Co. had been guilty of contraband trade, the (ingle queftion be- 
 fore the Court under this head of charge was, whether or no David Scott, fen. 
 was interefted in, or cognifant 'of, thofe tranfactions ? The General Court had 
 upon a former occafion, folemnly decl-ared their convixSHon that he did not re- 
 tain the fmallefi connection with, or intereft in, his former concern; The Court 4 " 
 of Directors had recently, repeatedly, and alrnoft unanimoufiy, declared that he 
 had no knowledge of,, or intereft in, the tranfactions of that houfc, and that ' 
 therefore they .acquitted Mr. Scott from all perfonal imputation. The anfwer 
 which the motion before the Court required from the Proprietors, was, did they 
 or not agree with their Directors ? In other- words, was Mr. Scott innocent or 
 guilty? If, after having pern fed and attended 'to the difcuffion of the Papers, 
 the Court thought him guilty, fet there be no blinking of the queftion, let them 
 boldly declare fo, and act upon that declaration ! But if, on the contrary, they 
 
 thought <
 
 thought him innocent, he conjured them as men of honour, he called upon them 
 by all the fympathies which men of character (hould feel for each other, men that 
 knew the high value of unfullied reputation to themfelves and to their pofterity, 
 and who could feel for the poignant fufferings, and meafure the calamity which 
 attended its impeachment, to pronounce Mr. Scott's acquittal publicly, decid- 
 < edly, and unanimouily ! 
 
 Mr. Twining faid, the learned Gentleman, who "had laft fpoken, had addrefled 
 his obfervations fo pointedly to him, that he hoped he {hould be indulged with a 
 few words in reply. He believed, after what the Court had witnefci, they would 
 be inclined to think that it required no common mare of patience, confcious as he 
 was of his own innocence, to fit ftirl under fuch heavy imputations. The learned 
 Gentleman began by dating tharhe (Mr. Twining) had been compelled to deny 
 an affertion which he had made in that Court. To this he would only anfwer, 
 that he really underilood him not. He was fure that he had never retracted any 
 thing that he had either faid or publifhed as a fact. Though the learned Gentle- 
 man always fpoke with great force and energy, he hoped the Proprietors would 
 not fufter themfelves to- be mifled by profeffional eloquence, and that he mould be 
 protected by them from profeffional language fo exceedingly flrong. Speaking of 
 the Refolution of the laft General Court, he ftates it to have been formed after a 
 debate vf eight hours. It fhould be recollected that the Proprietors on that day 
 were convened upon bufinefs of a very different nature. Four hours of the eight 
 were occupied on the grant to Lord Nelfon, and four hours on the debate enfu- 
 'ing, of which no previous notice had been given. The learned Gentleman ac- 
 cufes the by-law, to prevent Directors trading, with being an ex -pojl fatto law. 
 He could not conceive how it was fo. By-laws are made when the neceffity for 
 them arifes. 'It furely was not ex p oft fa Ho. with reference to Mr. Scott, for Mr. 
 Twining faid he had himfelf, when he brought forward the by-law, propofed that 
 the honourable Director mould be allowed till December 1797 to wind up every 
 transaction with the Houfe. There furely was nothing fevere in this mode of pro- 
 cedure The by^aw itfelf had been fanctioned under circumftances fo ftrong as 
 had, Mr. Twining faid, be-en highly flattering to him, and fuch as he fhould always 
 reflect upon with fatisfaction. But it feemed the learned Gentleman was offended 
 becaufe he had alluded to the connection which Mr. Scott held in the Houfe of 
 David Scott and Co. by having his infant Son at the head of it, after it had been 
 
 decided
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 decided by Proprietors that he had no inlereft. He certainly continued of the 
 fame opinion he had expreffed before that decifion, that the intereft of" the Son 
 was the fame with that of the Father. Does the honourable and learned Gentle- 
 man recoiled how often he has combated againft repeated decifions in that Court, 
 reflecting the (hipping concerns of the Company ? Yet he thought, and thought 
 rightly, that he might, notwithilanding fuch decifions, bring the fubject forward 
 again in any way he might thmk fit. Decifions may be obtained in fuch a man- 
 ner as to render the n in no way either impofing or convincing. 
 
 Mr. Duraxt faid, he was of the defcription of perfons appealed to by the honour- 
 able Proprietor for their opinion ; a plain fpoken, independent man, not poffeffing 
 any profeffional talents. On fuch an occafion as the prefent, he felt it incum- 
 bent on him not to give a filent vote, more efpecially as he had taken part in the 
 difcufiion, at the laft General Court, the refult of which had been fo much com- 
 plained of by the honourable Proprietor. He had fupported the Refolution of 
 fufpending all proceedings at law againfl Mr. Scott, till the Directors themfelves 
 flioulcl be of opinion tha: there were fome grounds for fuch a meafure. He had 
 done fo becaufe he had experienced the injury which the character of the honour- 
 able Director had undefervedly fuffered from the hafty and unfupported charges 
 that had been made againft him. When the terms of thofe charges were known 
 on the Royal Exchang.% and by what high authority they had been brought for- 
 ward, he declared; that nineteen out of twenty of thofe he had fpoken to were 
 flrongly prejudiced againft Mr. Scott ; and fo deep-rooted was the impreflion, that 
 he found great difficulty, even now, that his innocence was as clear as the fun, to 
 beat it out of their heads. He thought, though he was no lawyer, that if he 
 heard a cafe fully ftated, by both parties, he was capable of deciding viho was 
 right and who was wrong. He had liftened to both parties, and had heard and 
 read all that had been faid and written on the fubject ; and he did, in his confcience, 
 believe, that there was no ground for the accufation. He had had the fatisfaction 
 of hearing the two Gentlemen, the accufer and the accufed, plead their own caufe. 
 It was a very different thing from the fpeech of a man who was hired to ftate a 
 cafe. He fhould not deferve the name of an Englimman, if, after fuch informa- 
 tion, he was not able to form an opinion: He had a moft decided one, and it 
 was, that David Scott was an injured man, and was in the right. He differed 
 widely from the honourable Proprietor who had fpoken laft, who had argued as if 
 
 K a Bill 
 
 :49H
 
 ( 38 > 
 
 a Bill in Chancery was a mere wind whittling through a key-hole, a thing of 
 courfe, not in the Jeafl vexatious or worth avoiding. He knew to the contrary. 
 He had himfelf had a Bill in Chancery hanging over his head for feven years, 
 and had fuffered thoufands of painful hours through the fubtleties of lawyers,, 
 though their dexterity had not been able ultimately either to dimmifh his purfe 
 or affect his character. He hoped, on this occafion, there would be but one opi- 
 nion. He had not heard one man ftand up in the Court to juftify the late Chair- 
 man, or to condemn Mr. David Scott, except the honourable Proprietor who had 
 laft fpoken. He mould not exprefs all he thought of the accufation itfelf, or the 
 mode of conducting it, becaufe it was a rule with him, on all occafions, to avoid 
 perfonality. If any Gentleman would force him to a perfonal altercation, he muft 
 get out of the fcrape as well as he could. He was furprized to hear the honour- 
 able Proprietor who fpoke laft, whom he had always confidered to be a candid man, 
 poffeffing a great deal of the milk of human kindnefs, fo pointed and perfonal as he 
 had been in his obfervations on the proceedings of the laft General Court. He had 
 afked a learned friend, who fat near him, whether he wasftrictly in order in. doing 
 fo, for he conceived to the contrary. The honourable Gentleman had began his 
 fpeech by condemning the conduct of the laft General Court, where the attendance 
 had been very numerous and refpectable, in terms the moft indecorous. He 
 bad fpoken of them as if they had been packed together to carry Mr. Scott through 
 thick and thin, right or wrong. Mr. Durant declared, for his part, his vote was 
 not to be bought or biafled, and he gave other Gentlemen credit for acting with 
 equal independence. In the fecond division of his fpeech, the honourable Propri- 
 etor had faid, there were two characters before the Court ; one of them, that of 
 the late Chairman, he had pronounced to be pure and immaculate. He had 
 liftened a great while in hopes that he would have paid a fimilar compliment to 
 the integrity of the other Gentleman, but not a word had fallen from him to [pro- 
 nounce Mr. Scott's character to>be pure and immaculate. In his opinion, Mr. 
 Durant faid, the motives of Mr. Scott were as pure as thofe of any other man. 
 He gave the late Chairman credit for good intention, but he was not clear that 
 purity of motive was all that was necefiary to entitle a man to fill high fiations, 
 or to juftify the errors he might commit in the difcharge of his functions. High 
 ftations called for fuperior abilities to fill them, and any man who undertook a 
 refponfible office, affecting the interefts of others, without adequate talents or 
 judgment, ought to be prapared with fbme better plea in his vindication than 
 
 purity
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 purity of motive. If, for inftance, his Majcfly, which, by the by, was not very 
 likely, chofe to difmifs Mr. Pitt, and make him Prime Minifter, though he 
 would not yield even to Mr. Pitt in purity of motive, yet, for want of equal 
 abilities, he might by his blunders ruin the country in lefs than a twelvemonth. 
 Would the country be fatisfied, after he had brought it into fuch a dilemma, 
 with his pleading his well-meaning ignorance in juftification of his abfurd poli- 
 tics ? He believed not. Mr. Durant faid it was very evident that he {hould 
 not be completely exonerated even by the honourable Proprietor himfelf ; for, 
 while he had applauded the motives of the late Chairman, he had pretty ftrongly 
 cenfured his conduct. That honourable Proprietor had flated the inveftigatiori 
 to rcfolve itfclf into three proportions ; of the two heavieft, affecting the pro- 
 perty and' life of the honourable Director, he had completely acquitted him. 
 What was the only charge that remained in that honourable Gentleman's opi- 
 nion ? That he was the father of David Scott, junior, a minor, from whence he 
 chofe to infer that Mr. David Scott, the Director, flill carried on, or was interefted 
 in thebufinefs of the Houfe, and he perfifted in thinking either that the one 
 {hould never be a merchant, or the other never a Director. He thinks it ut- 
 terly inconfiftent that a Director, who is the father of a merchant, fhoulddifcharge 
 his duty to the Company with fidelity, as if a man could not at once be faithful 
 to his conflituents, and affectionate to his child, but muft neceflarily make a facri- 
 fice of his public duty to his domeftic attachments. If fo, why not exclude thofe 
 from the direction whofe daughters were married to merchants ? The private 
 tie was nearly as forcible. But this is a doctrine in which he will never be fup- 
 ported in the City or elfewhere. Upon the whole, Mr. Durant faid, that the 
 fpeech of the honourable Proprietor was one of the moft extraordinary, and un- 
 candid he had ever heard. It was- replete with insinuation that contained no 
 charge but one, unnaturally Hnked to acquittal, and while it endeavoured to con- 
 vey a great deal of ccnfure to the mind of the Proprietors, it contained no fpe- 
 eific charge but one, which was, that Mr. David Scott, the Director, was the 
 father of a merchant. Under thefe circumflances he could not but confider the 
 honourable Proprietor as a very feeble opponent of the motion before the Court, 
 and he believed, from the obfervations he had made of the fentiments of the Court 
 in general, he would be the only opponent. 
 
 Mr. Peter
 
 Mr. Peter Moore faid, he thought they were convened for the fpecial purpofe 
 of con fidering certain Papers which had been printed, in purfuancc of a Refo- 
 lution of a General Court of Proprietors,, on the fubject of Illicit Trade. But, 
 the Court was very unexpectedly involved in the difcuffion and confideration of a 
 perfonal queftion. It was not poffible, Mr. Moore faid, that any Proprietor 
 could deprecate the difcuffion of perfonal queftions more than he did : their 
 meetings there were for very different objects and intercfts : but his erabarrafl- 
 ment was confiderably and painfully encreafed when the pofition, in which they 
 were placed, threatened to leave no alternative between the condemnation of one 
 party or the other ; both of whom urged honed conduct and difmterefted mo- 
 tives, and confequently laid ftrong claim to their attention and protection. Hence 
 Mr. Moore hoped and trailed, and ftrongly urged, that fome middle way might 
 be hit off, honorable to both parties, that might carry unanimity on the one 
 fide the Bar, and remove the prefent agitated caufes of divifion on the other. 
 In times like thefe, when Union was the parole of the day, he molt cordially 
 wifhed to fee it in that Court, their thoughts turned to the improvement of 
 their affairs, and their whole undivided ftrength referved for combating the 
 common enemy by " a long pull, a ftrong pull, and a pull altogether," and 
 not exhaufted in the difeuffion of perfonal queftions amongft themfelves. 
 Here then, for the .prefent, he would leave -the perfonal qneflion, in hope 
 that fome honourable friends near him would endeavour to adopt fome mo- 
 dification that (hall embrace the meaning of the whole Court, while he fhould 
 endeavour to fhew, as a means of ftrongly influencing -fuch a difpofition, that 
 as there had been no crime there could be no criminal ; and that, inftead of 
 contending whether any particular name fhould or fhould not be included in a 
 Bill of Difcovery, that all fuch Bills, and profecutions of every defcription, ought 
 to ceafe inftanter. And the ground he took for this was, that this trade, called 
 illicit^ is not illicit, becaufe, though irregular, it has been. connived at and tole- 
 rated almoft ever fince the birth of the Eaft-India Company ; and, confequently, 
 whatever is fo tolerated and fanctioned, by long practice, cannot be illegal. 
 Mr. Moore then went into a long difeuffion of the trade called neutral, contra- 
 band, and illicit, and proved, by a great variety of inftances and authorities, 
 that this trade, however irregular, was neither contraband or illicit, and that the 
 terms themfelves were very little underftood ; that the whole of this trade ought, 
 and he hoped loon would, be brought into the River Thames under regular 
 
 licence,
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 licence, and a Grand Entrcpoft formed which would render the whole Conti- 
 nent of Europe dependent on us ; and, as the Minifter, Mr. Dundas, had very 
 properly faid in the Houfe of Commons (part of vvhofc fpeech Mr. Moore here 
 read and argued in fupport of), mud fecure to this country thofc advantages 
 which our undifputed pre-eminence in India gave us, and that tribute which, on 
 being exported, it mud draw from the other nations of Europe 
 
 Mr. HencJiman called Mr. Peter Moore to order. He faid, he afked the 
 honourable Gentleman's pardon for interrupting him, but he believed he was 
 not upon a topic immediately before the Court. The prefent quedion was, 
 whether Mr. Scott was guilty or not guilty of the charges laid again ft him, 
 whereas the honourable gentleman was entering very largely into the general 
 trade of India. Mr. Henchman faid, he was fenfible of the value of what fell 
 from the honourable Proprietor, and at a proper time he would folicit the in- 
 formation he was able to give, but he fubmitted, whether at prefent it was not 
 rather irrelevant to the quedion, and therefore he hoped the honourable Pro- 
 prietor would defer what he had to fay until the bill relative to the (hipping 
 came forward, when the trade of India at large mud alfo be difcufled. Mr. 
 Henchman faid, he begged to appeal to the Chair, he might be niidaken in 
 his opinion, and a point of order was of courfe matter to be decided on by 
 the honourable Baronet to whom he had the honour to addrefs himfelf. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN exprefled himfelf to be averfe to interrupt any Gentleman, 
 and by calling to order preventing him from giving his opinion in his own way, 
 but he faid, being appealed to for his opinion, he muft declare it to be that the 
 honourable Proprietor (Mr. Moore) was out of order, and more efpccially fo, 
 after the notice that had been given of an intention to bring forward, on an 
 early day, the very quedion which the honourable Proprietor now endeavoured 
 irrelevantly to difcufs. 
 
 Mr. Moore replied, he certainly was in the difpofal of the Court, and pro- 
 fefled himfelf one of the lad in it who would intentionally trefpafs on its 
 time : but, he did conceive and contend, that he was perfectly in order under 
 the fpecial call of the Court to confider further the papers printed on the fub- 
 jec~lof Illicit Trade, of which the motion before the Court was only apart, and 
 
 L that
 
 that if fuch a difcuflion was to be precluded by the notice of any Proprietor 
 to enter on it at a future day, after the Court was fpecially afiembled for its 
 inflant confideration, it was tantamount to a motion of adjournment carrie ! y 
 an individual voice only, and as this was a doctrine to which he could not fub- 
 fcribe, he muft contend for the right of proceed ing to the general difcuflion of 
 the papers before them. [Several Proprietors here applying to Mr. Moore and 
 reqnefting him to give way, he faid, fince it feemed to be the wifh of the 
 Court he moil certainly would, but the right he maintained.] 
 
 Mr. Huddleftone faid, he had not read the Papers, but the hon. Proprietor's mo- 
 tion comprehended two things not neceflarily connected with each other ; if he 
 would leave out the former part of the motion he would readily agree tothelat 
 ter. The hon. Director had already confented to have his name included in the 
 Bill of Difcovery, therefore he faw no neceffity for the former part of the mo- 
 tion. He was ready to acknowledge, that the late Chairman had adopted a 
 hafty refolution, which he had no doubt was at this moment a fubject of regret 
 to him. He appears to have formed conclufions upon circumftances which 
 were too flight to warrant them. He wiihed he had purfued a more moderate 
 line of conduct. He recommended it to the Court to endeavour to conciliate 
 the parties. He felt himfelf placed in an aukward lituation which made it 
 difficult to acquit one without condemning the other. 
 
 Mr. William Lujhington faid, that the honourable Proprietor had not under- 
 flood the firft part of the motion. After the Court of Proprietors had declared 
 that there was no neceflity for including the name of the Honourable Director 
 in a Bill of Difcovery, and the Court of Directors had, merely in compliance 
 with the wifh of the honourable Director, departed from the refolution of the 
 General Court, the firft part of the refolution became neceffary in order to ex 
 plain the ground of the deviation. 
 
 Mr. Auriol faid, it appeared to him that the whole Court were unanimous in 
 their opinion that Mr. Scott was perfectly innocent of the charges brought 
 againft him, he fhould therefore recommend that his name might be left out 
 of the Bill. 
 
 Mr.
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 Mr. HctirJiman fii!^. be apprehended it wa? not the intention of the Direc- 
 tor- to file a bill agamit Mr. Scott unlefs they fhcmid fee grounds of iufpicion. 
 The honourable Director had allowed his name to be inferted in the draft of the 
 bill which had been tranfmitted to the Attorney General in order for him to de- 
 cide whether the profecution fhould be carried on 1 In doing this the Directors 
 1; id gone a ftep beyond what they fhould have done. It now refted upon the 
 judgment of the Attorney General to acquiefce in the ftep which the Directors 
 had taken. It was gone beyond their power to recall. 
 
 Mr. Aurwl exprefled himfelf perfectly fatisfied with the explanation given, 
 an'd hoped that the fentiments of the Court that day upon the conduct of Mr. 
 Scott, would induce the Attorney General not to agree to the relblution of the 
 Directors. 
 
 Mr. CHJhohns faid, that the honourable Proprietor over the way who had 
 objected to his motion, had prefaced it by faying, that he had not read the pa- 
 pers ; however he might refpect him individually, after fuch a declaration he 
 could not pay much deference to his opinion on this fubject. In wording his 
 motion Mr. Chifholme faid, he had been purpofely concife, and faid no more 
 than was efTential to the acquittal of Mr. Scott. 
 
 Mr. Impey faid, he could not refrain from making an obfervation on a cir- 
 cumftance of fimilarity between this and another celebrated accufation, which 
 he thought highly honourable to the parties accufcd ; he was prefent in Weft- 
 minfter Hall with great fatisfaction at the acquittal of a late Governor General 
 of Bengal ; at that period the charges were divided into two parts fuch as were 
 fupported by evidence, and fuch as were entirely unfupported. The queftion 
 being firfl put upon the former, we all know the defendant was honourably 
 acquitted, when the Court proceeded to put the queftion on the latter ; one 
 Peer and one only pronounced him guilty of thofe charges which were un- 
 fupported by any evidence at all. In this laft circumftance, the cafe of the 
 honourable Director exactly rcfembles it ; we unanimoufl) acquit him of hav- 
 ing betrayed the fecret of the Manilla expedition, and of being concerned in 
 the Hellingoer, charges on which there is evidence brought forward, fuch as 
 
 it
 
 ( 44 ) 
 
 it is ; but as to his being concerned in the illicit commerce to Batavia, of which 
 there is no evidence at all, one Proprietor and one only has thought fit to im- 
 pute it to him. 
 
 Mr. Robert Thornton fai-d, he felt the delicate fituation in which the Court 
 was placed, and he never felt himfelf in a more delicate predicament than at 
 this moment. He had but one obfervation to make, but he found the irnpulfe 
 to flate it irrefutable. He fhouicl only fpeak to one point, he would allude to 
 no other part of the debate. Having lately been in the direction and knowing 
 how extremely unpleafant it was to witncfs the altercations which the fubject 
 now before the Court had given rile to, he could not help expreffing a hope 
 that the vote of that day would put an extinguifhcron all the anirnofities which 
 had grown out of the fubjecl, and that the embers of animofify after being 
 fmothered in that Court would not be rekindled in the other room. He hoped 
 here the altercation would t>e finally fettled, and that if it mould be determined 
 that the profecution was to go on, that no flrong language would be ufed on 
 theoccafion. He confidered the characters of both the honourable Gentlemen 
 to 'be immaculate, and he hoped the friends of both would enjoy the fatisfac- 
 tion offeeing them --reconciled to each other. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then put the queflion which was carried unanimouJJy. 
 
 Mr. David Scott rofe to fay, that notwith {landing the feelings of innocence 
 with which he had entered the Court, he could not avoid expreffing the heartfelt 
 fatisfaclion which their very honourable acquittal had given him, and on which 
 he mould reflect with the higheft gratification to the laft hour of his life. 
 
 Mr. Baler moved the queflion of adjournment, which being feconded, 
 
 Mr. Twining faid, he was not a little furprized at a motion for adjournment 
 immediately following the difcuflion which had taken place, after he had, in 
 the courfe of delivering his opinion on the printed Papers, exprefsly given no- 
 tice of his intention, when the motion before the Court had been difpofed of, to 
 move a Refolution, fimilar to that which had palled the Court of Directors, of 
 
 thanks
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 thanks to the late Chairman, and conveying the fentiments of the Court of the 
 purity of the motives upon which he had proceeded. He could not help think- 
 ing, that there was great want of candour in thus interpofing the queftion of 
 adjournment, and thereby precluding him from going into the grounds upon 
 which he meant to fupport the refolution he had alluded to. He hoped, after 
 what he dated, that the honourable Proprietor, who had brought forward the 
 motion, would be induced to withdraw it. If, however, it was the fenfe of the 
 Court to perlift in it, he muft fubmit to their dccifion. 
 
 Mr. Henchman faid, he hoped his honourable friend would not withdraw his 
 motion, but perfevere in it. He did not fee how he could be accufed of 
 want of candour in fuch a proportion. The honourable Proprietor, who wifhed 
 to confirm the vote of thanks to Mr. Bofanquet, could if he thought it expe- 
 dient fet forth all he had to offer on that fubjecl: as reafons againft the motion of 
 adjournment, therefore he was not precluded from faying all he wifhed to fay. 
 But, Mr. Henchman faid, he really thought it the moft conciliating and there- 
 fore the beft plan to end the debate by a fhort queftion, inflead of going into 
 arguments that could not be kept clear of perfonality, and would only tend to 
 diflurb the peace of the Court. He therefore fhould fupport the motion of ad- 
 journment, and he hoped Gentlemen on the other fide would fee that it was 
 difcrcet to allow the bufinefs of the day to come to a conclufion by the means 
 propofed, which could give offence to no man. 
 
 Mr. Durant faid, he wifhed the queftion for adjournment had not been fo 
 haftily put, for he meant to have alked feveral queftions which were very im- 
 portant. He did not like that the Court ihould be taken by furprize in that 
 manner. 
 
 Mr. HencJiman obferved to the honourable Proprietor, that he was not pre- 
 cluded by the motion that had been made from afking any queftions he might 
 think propef, which, when propofed, would be in order, as he would ftate 
 the afking them as reafons operating with him either to induce him to vote for 
 or againft the motion of adjournment. 
 
 M The
 
 The CHAIRMAN faid, that a motion for adjournment having been moved 
 and fcconded, it was irregular to alk any queftions of the Chair until the mo- 
 tion was difpofed of. 
 
 Mr. Kemlh faid, it was illiberal to take the opportunity of moving for an 
 adjournment inflantly after the firft motion was difpofed of, when an honoura- 
 ble Proprietor had previoufly given notice of his intention to follow it up by 
 another. It was but fair, and he hoped the Court would think fo, to hear what 
 the honourable Proprietor had to fay in liipport of his motion of thanks, and if 
 it was not withdrawn by the honourable mover of it for that purpofe, to put a 
 negative upon it. 
 
 Mr. William Lujhington faid, that if the motion for an adjournment Hd not 
 been made, and the honourable Proprietor had prefled upon the Court his Re- 
 folution of Thanks 'to the late Chairman, he fhould have endeavoured to have 
 got rid of it by moving the previous queftion. He would fairly u?"t to the 
 Court his motive for doing fo. It was that notwithftandi;ig the general im- 
 preflion he had in favour of the late Chairman as a man of ability and integ .-, 
 he could not approve of his conducl, nor help thinking that he had. by bring- 
 ing forward the charges in the manner he had done, acled in temperately and 
 rafhly. But though with this impreffion he could not approve, neither could 
 he by any exprefs refolution pointedly condemn, his conducl:. He could not 
 concur in any motion for thanks, nor would he join in any vote of cenfure. He 
 hoped his honourable Friend, whofe prudence he was well acquainted with, 
 would fee, after this hint, in what a difagreeable predicament the Court would 
 be placed if he perfifted in his intention, and truftcd that he would fuffer the 
 matter to remain as it now flood. 
 
 The queftion of adjournment was then put and carried.
 
 27
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 - A- 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 2 2 1991 
 
 JAN 07 '91 -11 ^ 
 MGM'T LIE 
 
 M 
 
 "8NIA 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 UBRARY
 
 000017765 9