208 'LON 
mittee it appeared, that a very great number of cadetfliips 
-and writerlhips had been difpofed of in an illegal man¬ 
ner ; and, though nothing had come out that could form 
any reafonable ground for fufpicion that fuch bargains 
had been made or carried into execution with the ccnfent 
or knowledge of the proprietors, j'et not only particular 
fads, but the general tenor of the whole hweftigation, 
clearly proved, that, if all the directors had exercifed, in 
the difpofal of their patronage, the fame vigilance and 
caution as are ufually applied in the management of in¬ 
dividual concerns, fitch a regular and continued traffic 
could not have been carried on for fuch a length of 
time. 
The committee, having dated a great number of cafes 
in which a traffic in the patronage of the Eafl-India Com¬ 
pany had been mod glaring, propofed a check againd 
thofe who were inclined to purchafe appointments in the 
fervice of the company; and gave it as their opinion, that 
the immediate confequence of the information contained 
in this report mud be, that a certain number of perfons 
in the fervice of th* company will be indantly deprived 
of their employments, and recalled from India. The com¬ 
mittee concluded their report with the following para¬ 
graph: “The praffices which are developed in the pre¬ 
sent report, and other tranfajSHons which this houfe has 
recently had under its cognizance, diffidently demondrate 
that the patronage of various defcriptions has, in feveral 
indances, become an article of traffic; that an opinion of 
the generality of fuch practices has been prevalent to a 
•dill greater extent, and that fraudulent agents have availed 
ithemfelves of this belief to the injury of the credulous 
p.nd unwary, and the difcredic of thofe in whofe hands the 
difpofition of offices is lodged. It will depend on the 
Iteps which may be taken in confequence of thefe in¬ 
quiries, whether fuch abufes (hall receive a permanent 
check, or a virtual encouragement.” 
The whole of the writerfliips in the difpofal of which 
abufes were detected, were found to have been given by 
one man, Mr. Thellufon. And fo drong and general 
was the perfuadon that he was culpable, at lead in not 
inquiring bow the perfon, at whole difpofal he placed the 
•nomination of the offices to which he was entitled to no¬ 
minate, had bedowed them, on what account, and for what 
•purpofe of perfonal interelt he was fo anxious to procure 
them ; that, on offering himfelf to be re-chofen a director, 
he was rejected by a great majority. It was determined 
by the court of direitors, after long debates, that thofe 
-young men who had been named by the committee of the 
houfe of commons as having obtained their appointments 
by means of corrupt practices, Ihould be recalled. The 
hardlhip of thismeafure towards the young men who were 
the objects of it, was felt and acknowledged •. but it feemed 
indifpenfably neceffary ; unlefs the court of directors had 
been willing, by their own aid, to render a lblemn law of 
the Eaft-India Company a dead letter. 
In the courfe of the examination of witneffes by the 
.committee appointed to inquire into the abufe of India 
patronage, it was difcovered, that lord Caltlereagh had 
endeavoured to procure a feat in parliament for his friend 
lord Clancarty, in exchange for a writerfhip, which had 
been given to him, when prelident of the board of controul, 
by fome of the directors. Of the board of controul lord 
Clancarty alfo was a member. This negociation, doubly 
•illegal, as it had for its objedt both the difpofal of Eatt- 
India patronage and the purchafe of a feat in the houfe 
of commons, was brought under the cognizance of that 
houfe on the 25th of April, by lord Archibald Hamilton. 
His lordlhip, after reminding the houfe, that he had ever 
been in the habit of handing as forward as any other mem¬ 
ber in purfuing practices of corruption, obferved, that 
not long fmee they had fent two individuals to prifon. 
If they wiffied this judgment to have the influence of ex¬ 
ample, they muft take care of their individual and collec¬ 
tive rcfpedlability. And what, he afked, could be more 
conducive to this -end;, than the enforcement of thofe 
D O N. 
laws and regulations which they had fo repeatedly enacted 
for-guarding again ft any improper interference in the elec¬ 
tion of their members ? Againft the noble lord, to whom 
his motion referred, he did not mean to affert one word 
beyond what the evidence before the committee contained, 
or to make any charge againft him that he had not made 
againft himfelf. It was in evidence that, in 1805, lord 
Caftlereagh received a letter from a Mr. Reding, (an _ad- 
vertifing place-broker ,) who was a perfect ftranger to him, 
dating, that he thought he had the means of affifting him 
in coming into parliament; in confequence of which, he 
had a meeting with him; at which meeting the propofition 
refpefling a feat in parliament was renewed. Lord Caltle¬ 
reagh, as appeared from his evidence on the table of the 
houfe, told Mr. Reding, that he did not want a feat him¬ 
felf, but that a friend of his did ; and that he lent Mr. 
Reding’s letter to lord Clancarty, the friend he had al¬ 
luded to. And he admitted that he had been induced 
to place a writerfhip at lord Clancarty’s difpofal, in order 
that his coming into parliament might thereby be facili¬ 
tated. It appears that different meetings took place between 
lord Caltlereagh and Mr. Reding. At one of thefe, lord 
Caftlereagh alked Mr. Reding the name of the gentleman 
who propofed to vacate. But this he declined till the 
terms Ihould be fettled; and the negociation was broken 
off. But, faid lord A. Hamilton, the noble lord has 
ltated in his evidence, “ that the writerfhip was to be dif¬ 
pofed of fiibjefft to certain qualifications; that the cafe be¬ 
fore them had no reference to any pecuniary tranfaflion ; 
and, finally, that the nomination to the writerfhip did not 
take place.” This plea, faid lord A. Hamilton, cannot 
avail him upon this occafion ; for his intention is obvious , and 
of that intention we are to judge. 
Lord A. Hamilton having reviewed the whole cafe, 
moved, that the minutes of the evidence he had referred 
to be read. Upon this, lord Caftlereagh role to defend 
himfelf, which he did in a modeft and fomewhat humble 
manner. The appointment of a writerfhip, he faid, wa* 
not within his official province as prefident of the board 
of controul. He had no doubt a degree of influence, but 
not of an official nature. Having tried, as he faid in con- 
clufion, to ftrip the charge againft him of all the aggra¬ 
vations, he left it for the houfe to confider whether, 
without any motive, he could be wilfully corrupt, or fo 
fenfelefs as to commit a crime, which, from the very cir- 
curnftances that attended it, he knew mult be public. 
He bad now only to regret, that the motives of private 
friendfhip or of public zeal (alluding to the benefit 
he had faid the introduction of lord Clancarty into the 
houfe of commons would be to the public) could have in¬ 
duced him to do any thing requiring the cognizance of 
that houfe. He certainly had not erred intentionally, and 
would fubtnit with patience to any cenfure which he 
might be thought to have incurred.—Making an obei- 
fance to the Speaker, he then withdrew. 
The evidence of the minutes being entered as read, lord 
A. Hamilton propofed the following refolutions. ift. That 
it appears to this houfe, from the evidence on the table, 
that lord vifeount Caftlereagh, in the year 1805, he hav¬ 
ing juft quitted the office of prefident of the board of con- 
troul, and being then a privy counfellcr and feeretary of 
ftate, did place at the difpofal of lord Clancarty a writer- 
ffiip in the Ealt-India Company’s fervice, to facilitate his 
obtaining a feat in this honourable houfe. 2d. That lord 
vifeount Caftlereagh has been, by the faid conduct, guilty 
of a violation of his duty, of an abufe of his influence 
and authority as prefident of the board of controul, and 
alfo of an attack upon the purity and conltitution of this 
hobfe. 
The debate that enfued was long, but not very keen o.r 
animated. There was a wonderful air of candour and 
moderation. Lord Binning faid, that, though it was impof- 
lible to defend lord Caftlereagh upon principle, the refo- 
lution propofed by the noble lord involved a greater pu- 
oilluusiit than the offence ckferved, There were degrees 
