liberally agreed to, would be as liberally carried into execution. (Hear, hear, hear 1) Mr. Lowndes said, that since the last meeting of the court on this subject he had not been idle. Having seen a paragraph in a Sunday paper, on the subject of remuneration to the clerks, which he looked upon to have been thrown out as a "feeler," he lost no time in taking notice of the subject, and putting his thoughts together on it, which he had done in the shape of a letter addressed to the Hon. the Chairman and Directors

of the Company. [The hon. proprietor here proceeded to read the letter, interspersing it with occasional remarks as he proceeded-but from the very indistinct tone in which he spoke, we could not collect more than the general import of his remarks.] We understood him to complain of the preference shown to the clerks in the Company's service at home, over those brave and indefatigable servants-the Company's maritime officers. As an illustration of this preference, he mentioned the case of a near relation of his own, who having distinguished himself in the naval service of the Company at Masulipatam, was told by some of his friends, that no doubt his services would be rewarded by the command of the next Company's ship which should become vacant. When one did become vacant, he applied for it-but without success-on a second occasion he contested the situation. The votes were equal between him and his rival candidate, but the Chairman decided it by giving the casting vote to the other party, who had never done any thing for the Government or the Company. After proceeding a good way in the letter, which condemned in strong terms the partiality shewn to clerks-who had an easy life of it, and were half their time reading the newspaper-and contrasted it with the neglect of those brave maritime officers whose lives were constantly hazarded in the service of the Company; the hon. proprietor said he would stop, to ask whether a sum of £30,000 which he saw thus marked off as a compensation, was to come out of the Company's "vails," or out of the general commercial assets.

The Chairman said, that pensions and annuities were to go out of the commercial assets of the Company, which had been ceded to the government, but which were again handed over to the territory for certain specified purposes; and (in answer to another question of the hon. proprietor) the hon. Chairman added, that these compensations which were given to gentlemen still living, had nothing to do with, and could be no charge upon, the fund for the widows and orphans of Company's servants.

Mr. Lowndes then proceeded to read

his letter, which referred to a variety of subjects; amongst others it went on to account for the "humanity" shewn to the clerks, by the fact that all of them were voters for members of parliament, and of course would, in gratitude for the liberality with which they were treated, always vote for the Whigs. It next adverted to the remarks made by the editor of a morning paper

Mr. S. Dixon here rose to order, and submitted that it was the bounden duty of every proprietor who addressed that court, to confine himself to the question before it; but the hon. proprietor bad, by the enduring kindness of the hon. Chairman, been permitted to go into a variety of topics, which had nothing whatever to do with the subject under consideration.

The Chairman hoped the hon. proprietor would confine himself to the question.

Mr. Lowndes supposed he must have been out of order, but he had thought. that even the hon. proprietor (Mr. S.. Dixon) would, as an independent man, have listened to him. The hon. proprietor then went on with the reading of his letter, and was discussing the question of allowances, when he was called to order by

Sir P. Laurie, who contended that the question of allowances was not before the court.

The Chairman said that the question was, as to the regularity of the course the Court of Directors had adopted, or as to the course which this court should adopt, but it had nothing to do with the amount of allowances. The question was, whether according to the seventh clause they were regular in the course they had adopted, and whether according to that they had acted lawfully.

Mr. Lowndes said, he would speak to that question, and was proceeding as before, when he was again called to order by

Sir P. Laurie, who contended that the hon. proprietor ought not to be permitted to occupy the time of the court on a question which was not before it.

After some conversation on the question of "" order," in which Mr. Fielder, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. S. Dixon, and another hon. proprietor, took a part,

The Chairman decided that Mr. Lowndes was not in order in the course he was pursuing, and that he ought to allow some other proprietor to address the court.

Mr. Sweet said, that the act involved a new principle, and they ought to give it due consideration. It was clear that by late acts it was out of the power of the Directors to grant compensation without the leave of the Court of Proprietors. Finding this so, he would propose an

amendment, which he thought would answer the object of all parties. It con tained a suggestion to the Court of Directors to apply to the Board of Control to suspend their answer to the plan of compensation proposed by them; that the directors should reconsider the subject, and in so doing should take the length of service into consideration. He certainly thought it was but just to that meritorious class to reconsider the question relating to the scale of compensation for them. He could not think that there existed any fixed disposition in any quarter to disregard their claims. The hon. proprietor then read his amendment, which was to this effect:

"That the directors be required to apply to the Board of Control to suspend their answer to the plan of compensation proposed by them for their maritime officers; that the directors, in reconsidering the subject, shali do so with a view to the length of service of the said officers, and also with reference to the retiring allowances granted to officers of the navy; and that they shall lay the result before the proprietors previously to submitting the plan to the Board of Control."

He understood that an hon. proprietor (Mr. Twining) had also an amendment to propose, and if that amendment should be found to meet the case more fully, he should feel disposed to give way by withdrawing the whole or part of his. He did not object to compensation to the clerks of the Company, but he thought that men having such strong claims as the maritime officers of the Company ought not to be neglected. It was in this feeling that he brought forward his amendment: for it should be recollected, that these officers had no other means of support to depend on but what they might thus derive from the compensation or allowance.

Mr. Lowndes suggested that the plan of superannuation for the Company's clerks should be similar to that adopted in the Government offices. The scale which had been adopted was, in his opinion, most partial and unjust.. Was it fair that the mate of an Indiaman should get no higher compensation than one of the Company's messengers? [The hon. proprietor was here interrupted by cries of order" and "spoke," and

The Chairman reminded him, that he had had an opportunity of delivering his opinion, and he ought not to prevent others from doing so.

Mr. Twining thanked the hon. proprietor (Mr. Sweet) for his courtesy, in the offer to withdraw his amendment should that which he (Mr. Twining) intended to move be more agreeable to the court. He agreed with the hon. mover of the resolution (Mr. Weeding), that the present was the first meeting for discus. sion which had taken place under the recent act, and that consideration ought, he thought, rather to lead them to act with

unanimity than to excite opposition ; on this ground, he was anxious to move an amendment, which he thought might obs tain the desired object, though in a way somewhat different from that proposed by the hon. proprietor (Mr. Weeding). He was as anxious as any man that the power and influence of the Court of Pro prietors should be acknowledged, for he had often known it exercised with very great advantage to the interests of the Company; and he hoped the day was very distant when it could be said, of the proprietors that they had vox et præterea nihil. He wished that they should all come to a fair and liberal understand ing on this subject; and that it should be admitted that if the directors had erred, they had done so, not from any design or wish to infringe on the rights of the proprietors, which it was their common duty to maintain. To him it appeared clear, that by the late act it was not intended that the court should give up the power which it had so long possessed. No doubt that, in follow ing the opinion of their standing counsel on this question, the directors had a good and safe guide, and on that ground the proprietors should acquit them of any intention of interfering with the powers of that court. If they all concurred in this opinion, they would be in a fair way of arriving with greater facility at what they all desired. They should remember, that by the old bylaws the power of the court was limited to grants of £600; but looking at what seemed to him the fair construction of the late act, he did not think it was in tended to preclude the court from an expression of its opinion on the question of compensation before its transmission to the Board of Control: From his long experience of the Court of Directors, he was disposed to place the utmost reliance on their liberal mode of dealing with the servants of the Company, naval, military, and civil, satisfied that they had every disposition to mark their sense of those services by more than words; but, if it were not too late, he should like that that court should have an opportunity of exercising its vote on the question. On one part they were told by the hon. Chairman, that they were not too late, for that there was one branch of the subject still open for consideration, and that the court would have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on it. No man was more sincerely attached to the maritime officers of the Company than he was no man was more sincerely desirous to serve them ; but with respect to the amendment of the hon. proprietor (Mr. Sweet), he doubted whether it would not be better not to point out to the directors the mode in which they should shape their consideration of the as

sistance that might be given to their mari time officers. Highly as he estimated the services of those officers, (and no man could estimate them more highly, for he had often seen and admired the zeal, talent, skill, intrepidity, and enterprize which distinguished them in in the service of the Company), but he repeated that, highly as he estimated them, and gladly as he bore his testimony to their skill and valour in the care of the valuable fleets committed to their charge, he thought he should better consult their interests by leaving the question as to the proposed amount of compensation altogether in the hands of the directors, who had much better opportunities of knowing their merits and services than the other members of that court. He would repeat, that he consideredit of no slight importance that the directors and proprietors should be unanimous on this, the first occasion of a discussion under the new act. Under these circumstances, he would offer an amendment, which he hoped might meet the object of all parties. It was, he thought, quite clear that the late act had never contemplated any reduction of the power of the Court of Proprietors. In Mr. Grant's letter, in April 1833, he looked upon the proprietors as the Company. His words were, "the proprietors being in fact the Company;" and in another passage he said, "the plan allots to the proprietary body important powers and functions in the administration of India:" This passage would shew by analogy, that the Company should also possess important powers in the administration at home; for nobody in the fair construction of the term, could doubt that "proprietary body meant "the Company." In this view of the question he would now move as an amendment,

"That although this court is of opinion that the Court of Directors were fully justified in acting in accordance with the law as stated by the Company's standing counsel, and is satisfied that their executive body entertained no desire to deprive the constituent body of the right of expressing their opinion on the subject of the compensation to be granted to the Company's late maritime servants, this court nevertheless thinks it expedient that the plan of compensation submitted to the Board of Control by the Court of Directors should be laid before this court, and its decision had thereon, prior to its being laid before Parliament."

His object was to combine, if possible, such points as might make the vote of the court unanimous.

The Chairman asked Mr. Sweet whether be would consent to withdraw his amendment??

Mr. Sweet said, that though he concurred in much of what had fallen from the hon. proprietor (Mr. Twining), and in parts of his amendment, yet he could not consent to withdraw his own; but he expressed his willingness to omit from his, those points to which the hon. pro

prietor objected; as, for instance, those which called on the directors to come to a decision with reference to length of service; and also with reference to the retiring allowance of officers in the navy. But if he were to withdraw his amendment altogether, it would leave out the question of reconsideration by the directors; and as to the opinion of the law officer of the Company, the amendment of the hon.” proprietor would give it the go-by altogether. (Hear, hear!) He had no objection to alter his amendment, and to let it stand in this way:

"That the Court of Directors be requested to reconsider the plan proposed for compensating their late maritime commanders and officers, so as to adopt the twofold scale of remuneration, that of rank and length of service, which had been acted on with reference to the home service."

Mr. Twining said, he did not mean to omit these points from consideration.

Mr. P. Davey expressed a hope, that length of service would not be omitted in the consideration of the claims of these officers.

Mr. Carruthers was about to address the court, when

Mr. Weeding spoke to order. He had no objection to any proprietor taking his own free course; but it struck him that they were irregular in referring to papers which were not before the court. The hon. Chairman had said that these papers were not before the court; and it appeared to him that they could not admit these motions, unless they were also to admit that these documents were before them in some way.

The Chairman had stated, that the papers alluded to were in a state of preparation as far as they went, for they were not yet concluded. He had also said that, as far as they went, there could be no objection to their production; but, in fact, they had not been moved for by any proprietor. As to the amendment, which had some reference to the case, he thought it would be better that the documents should be before the court.

Mr. Carruthers said, there were two questions to be considered: first, as to the merits of the officers, and next as to the scale by which those merits were to be rewarded. He was glad that the hon. proprietor (Mr. Twining) spoke before him, for the suggestion of conciliation which he had made was consonant to the wishes of the friends of the maritime offi. cers, as well as the officers themselves, for they could have no desire whatever to dictate any particular course to the directors as to the mode of remuneration. the question whether the subject should be brought under the consideration of the Court of Proprietors, he thought there could not be a second opinion on it. That court was the legislative-the directors were the executive-of the Company;

As to

and if the proprietors submitted to have a matter of this kind sent to the Board of Control before it was brought under their notice, they had no power afterwards to interfere. Questions of this kind should come first from the directors to that court, and from thence to the Board of Control; but if the directors adopted the plan of sending a question of this nature for confirmation by the Board of Control before it came to that court, they would retain the shadow of a controlling power and not the reality. What he would suggest, then, was that the veto of the Board of Control in this affair should immediately be stopped by the Court of Directors, and that the question of remuneration be revised by them, and then laid before the Court of Proprietors for approval before being sent again to the Board of Control, and whatever decision the Court of Proprietors should come to, the same should be binding on all parties; and in this state of the business he (Mr. Carruthers) would decline offering any opinion on the question of remuneration. That would be for discussion at some future court.

Sir C. Forbes did not wish to take up the time of the court, but he could not avoid offering a few words. It appeared from what had fallen from the Chairman, that the papers relating to the allowances to the maritime officers of the Company had not yet been confirmed. He would beg to ask why had not these been confirmed by the Board of Control as well as the others?

The Chairman.-" The whole of the papers relating to the maritime officers had been laid before the President of the Board of Control on the 18th of May last, but no answer relating to them had yet been returned; but the President had expressed the approbation of the Board as to the compensation which had been proposed to the home servants of the Company.'

Sir C. Forbes said, and he used the word with all deference, that the directors had erred in the cause they had adopted, as he thought had been clearly shewn by the hon. proprietor who opened this discussion. But he would admit that they had been led into that error-he would not say intentionally; on the contrary, he gave them credit for their good intentions,but they were led into error by the opinion given by their standing counsel. He (Sir C. Forbes) was no lawyer; but as a person of common sense, he should say it was quite clear, that according to former acts and the ancient usage of the country, all money grants must be submitted to and receive the sanction of the Court of Proprietors before they became final. (Hear, hear!) This argument had been very ably urged by his hon. friend (Mr. Weeding), and he owned that he had heard nothing

in the course of the discussion to upset those arguments of his hon. friend on that head. He concurred in much of what had fallen from the hon. proprietor (Mr. Lowndes), who though he sometimes mixed up in his remarks much of what was irrelevant, yet had good strong soundness in many of his observations. In looking at "the list" which was before the court, he found it was headed "A list, specifying the compensation proposed to be granted to the Company's servants with the sanction of the Board of Control, and which was laid before the House of Commons." In looking over this list, he found that several of the names had very considerable sums by way of compensation attached to them, but nearly all were over £200. Now he would contend, that to send these from the Court of Directors to the Board of Control without the concurrence or consent, in any way, of the Court of Proprietors, was a direct breach of the 33d and 53d of Geo. III. and of their own by-laws, these grants all coming under the head of "Compensations and allowances for the Company's servants.", Stress had been been laid on the resolutions of Sir John Malcolm; but it was well known that that gallant officer had had nothing to do with the framing of those resolutions. They were drawn up by some of the officers of the house, to whom he gave full credit for the ability with which they did these things, whether to carry a point for the Company, or to get the Directors out of a scrape. (Sir C. Forbes) knew that they were drawn up three weeks before Sir J. Malcolm knew any thing about them, though they were at length fathered on him. He had it under Sir John Malcolm's own hand, that the fact was as he had just stated. When the resolutions were drawn up, they were submitted to the Directors, who all voted for them, with one exception, that of his (Sir C. Forbes's) hon. relative; and he honoured him for it, though he was ignorant of his intention to do so until he had voted. But, admitting that these were to be considered as the resolutions of that Court, why should they not adhere to their own resolutions? the proprietors were to be considered as precluded by the 7th section of the 3d and 4th of William IV. from exercising those privileges which they hitherto enjoyed, on whom must the blame rest for allowing such a clause to be introduced, defrauding the Court of Proprietors of almost the only right and authority that could be exercised by them? Was it the fault of the Court of Directors, or of their standing counsel, or of the Company's solicitors? The act must have passed through their hands, and they ought to have been satisfied that all its enactments were in conformity with the resolutions of the 3d of

He

If

May. What did the second clause say? It was to the following effects that all the privileges, franchises, abilities, capaci ties, powers, &c. granted to the Company by the 53d of Geo. III. and not repealed by the existing act, should be preserved to the Company. Let the learned counsel point out any part of the act which could be considered as revoking the privileges confirmed to the proprietors by that clause. He could himself find nothing in the act to restrain the powers formerly exercised by the proprietors. The question then arose, what were the powers usually enjoyed by the proprietors with respect to grants of pensions, gratuities, &c.? He need not tell the Court that these powers were clearly defined, in the 338, 53d, and 55th of Geo. III., the last act having been passed to amend a clause in the preceding one, which gave to the proprietors a right of originating propositions with respect to pensions, without the sanction of the Court of Directors or the Board of Control. Looking at the provisions of those acts, he must say, with all due respect to the Court of Directors and the learned counsel, whose advice had led them into error, that the Directors had, unintentionally he was sure, acted illegally in this matter. (Hear, hear !)-He felt deeply for the situation in which the Company's maritime officers would be placed, from the captains and commanders down to the midshipmen. God forbid that he should say that the cause of every one of their servants should not be fairly and duly considered; but he did think that the claims of the officers belonging to their own ships were entitled to a more liberal consideration than those of the officers belonging to chartered ships. All he desired was, that the Company's maritime officers should be treated with the same liberality as the officers of the home establishment. (Hear, hear!) did not object to the amount of compensation it was proposed to give to the officers of the home establishment; but he contended that the maritime officers ought to receive compensation on the same scale. If this could not be done, then he should say, that the Company's servants in that house would be most improvidently remunerated. (Hear, hear!) Without entering into particulars, he must be permitted to say, that the compensation which it was proposed to give to the lowest officers in that house, the messengers and porters for instance, when compared with the mere bagatelle which was to be. offered to those maritime officers, men of birth, education, and ability, who had served the Company faithfully and meriotoriously, for periods of ten, twelve, and fourteen years, could not but excite the astonishment of every person. One of those officers, who had served the Com

He

pany for fourteen years, had presented a memorial to the Court of Directors, the language of which went home to the heart. And what was the remuneration which it was proposed to give to him ?-£200. Did that form any fair comparison with the pensions of £75 a year, which even the messengers of that house were to receive? (Hear, hear!)-The proprietors had been told by the Chairman, that if no steps should be taken to make these measures more palatable to the court, the proprie tors might then proceed to deal with them on their own responsibility. He (Sir C. Forbes) trusted that the proprietors would do so. He, for one, never would submit tamely and quietly to surrender the proprietors, by acceding to those milk-andwater amendments which had been proposed. He had a duty to perform, which he could not allow to yield to any feeling of complaisance for the Directors, or of tenderness for the parties remunerated or remaining to be remunerated-a duty towards the whole body of the proprietors of the East-India Company. This consi deration took precedence of every other in his mind, and he therefore would not consent to abandon the motion so ably and creditably brought forward by Mr. Weeding. He believed there was no doubt that that motion would be carried, but he trusted that the hon. proprietor would not be satisfied with a single vote, but that he would bring the question forward on another occasion. He was aware that they might subject themselves to the imputation of acting presumptuously, if as lay-men, they should give an opinion in this matter contrary to that which had been pronounced by a lawyer; but he trusted that they did not come there to be guided entirely by the strict legal construction of words, but to exercise their own judgment and common sense on every question submitted to them. He was very much struck by a suggestion which had fallen from the hon. proprietor Mr. Hutchinson, to the effect that the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-generals should be taken. really could not see the advantage of consulting the law officers of the crown, on a question between the Company and the Government. Foreseeing, however, that some difference of opinion was likely to arise on this point, and foreseeing also that which had happened, that the proprietors would not have the benefit of the attendance that day of a gentleman, who was the best able among the directors to give an opinion on the subject under consideration,-he alluded to Mr. C. Fergusson

He

The Chairman begged to state that the hon, director alluded to regretted that he was unable to be present to-day, in consé. quence of his being obliged to attend at

court.