Star. — London, England, 1814-03-19 00:00:00

NI adduce ? No further evidence wiz ealled tor, and th 4 Court adjourned over the holidays, until the 11th 'of January, with an understanding that they should, 'oft that day, apply the 'information received to the cbjectintended. They met on that day ; and he, 'taking an expanded and liberal view of the subject, proposed, for the purpose of procuring a fuller at teadance of the Committee, and a more serious con. sideration of the subject, that the Committee should a.ijourn for a fortnight, which motion was agreed to. A circular letter was then sent round to every mem ber of the Committee, dated January 12th, which stated, that on the 25th of the same month they Lould meet, for the purpose of finally concluding ' t he business which was entrusted to their considera tion. That letter was not amongst the general list of papers, and therefore he would read an extract of Howarth here read a part of the circular fitter, irons which it appeared that notice was given, Oat at the next meeting (which was appointed for the 25th of January) it was intended to close the C o mmittee.] —If this, he observed, was not a con clusive answer to the charge of - having abruptly or un expectedly put an end to their meetings, he knew no terms in the English language by which it could be expressed. On the 25th of January they met, for the last time. A letter'was read from Mr. Golding, k Member of the Committee, stating that the severity of the weather, or an accident of some kind, had prevented him from attending ; and adding, that he bad transmitted his opinions to the Chairman, " H. Haworth, Esq. at the India House ;" but, owing to the arrangement of the Post-office with respect to the delivery of tenets thus directed (except toDirectors), !.e did not receive it till he arrived at his own house. --(Hear, hear.) —This must at once account for the apparent lateness of Mr. Golding's Paper. Mr. Ho worth next proceeded to animadvert on the proceed itg of Mr. Plummer, whO, he contended, by his con duct, in charging the Committee with precipitancy in their breaking up, had fixed himself in a complete dilemma—when, Mr. S. DIXON rose to order. The present assembly Was convened, in his opinion, to consider documents before them, and not to enter into the disputes of the Gentlemen composing the Committee, which would necessarily produce recrimination, and thus their time would be uselessly wasted. The CHAIRMAN stated, that as Mr. Howorth had been alluded to, in a former Court, when, from ill ness, he was not present, it was but just that he should be now permitted to explain his conduct. Mr. P. MOORE coincided in this sentiment, and observed, that if any person had a right to complain, it was he, who, having given notice of a motion, was in possession of the Court ; but as his Hon. Friend had entered on an explanation, in common courtesy he thought he was bound to give up his prior claim. Mr. HOWORTH proceeded.—He defended the Com mittee, proceeding through a series of dates, from having, in any degree, prevented Gentlemen from sending in their productions ; and observed, that Mr. Hume's letter, of the 24th of November, calling for he inspection of documents, was entirely dissimilar 'se same Gentleman on the 31st last day of meeting, when any Gentleman had a Minute )mmittee, Mr. Plumther came tich was read • and he (Mr. ,urprised that Mr. Hume, who not introduce that Minute, (d before the Court of Proprie sen proceeded to animadvert :hose Gentlemen who had been opposition to the determination who, after agreeing to the stated, opinion of this Committee, that an indis 'tional increase of salary to the Directors, Court of Proprietors ; _ion by another, to which an posed—and thus were themselves ipposed abuse of the functions of which they complained. The 'lowever, exceeded their instruc :mined evidence—they had in tts—they had, in consequence, agreed ttions--and, then they came to the - before them they laid the re and they called upon that ;mselves. He objected to the upon him, in the Protest of Arnett, to state the conditions in which a graduated scale should be mated, when hey knew very well, that no proposition on the sub ect of conditions, was made in the Committee. Mr. oworth nett proceeded to animulvert on those .oints in the Constitution of the Court of Directors, 'hich, he was of opinion, ought to be altered. Ile rincipally confined himself to the mode of atten ancei which, he argued, was not sufficiently strict. e admitted, that Directors, who were absent from seir post, were . fined—but this absence, he observed, id not prevent them from receiving their full share patronage. He then, at some length, entered to a statement of the ease with which a Director, he ware so inclined, migtit, without any appear -Ice of neglect, omit doing his duty at the India .ouse, by patting down his name at stated boors ; We, at the same time, he would be, to all benefi al purpoon, as useless as the man who was fined ,r his absence. It was needless for him to observe, ost t h is was entirely a supposed case. He was sure at every Director had conducted himself with pro ity and honour : but he had thrown it out, to shew e necessity for altering a system which exposed them ) soca evil consequences—still, having drawn this Tposed case, he thought it was but due to those oo at present conducted their affairs, vast and com 'toted as they were, to speak ot them in terms, if ;t:',".l such terms could be devised, contmensurate oh their abilities. The'r system displayed an exact so extraordinary ; their details were so methodi -41; their arrangement was so perfect i that through the immense extent of theircivil, military, finan li and commercial airangersents, both at home abroad—any paper which was wanted, could, at ninute's notice, be referred to.—Vicar, hear). 4.! Directors, however, wanted nut the eulogium so humble an individual as he was- 'he Legisla i Of the country had already, in Zang cage ais for ''.as could be devised, spoken their opinion of the ices which bad been achieved by them, for the l int benefit of the empire.--(Hear, hear). —Mr. o orth then proceeded to read a series ot Condi. which he had drawn up, observing, that he ~_ V. Arm not SePplikritty proptilttion for an bitteihe 'of salary, unlein those conditions were annexed to it.— These conditions were principally, that the (panics tion for a Director ithouid be raised from agoo . to . £4OOO capital stock—that any person hereafte4 who accepted of a public office, should not be dcemed. eligible to be a Director. That a book of atten- . dince should be kept open, to be published for the' use of the Proprietors, on the first dAy of every. March, stating the number of Directors who attend ed on each day—their hours of adjourning, &c. &c.' Also a List of the number of Writers, &c. sent to India and China annually, to be likewise published for the use of the Proprietors. Documents like these would enable every person connected with the Com pany to judge of the proceedings of their Executive at a glance ; and, without such conditions were in troduced, he would not vote for any increase of salary whatever. Mr. PLUMMER and Mr. HUME severally explained, stating, that they had not cast any reflections upon the Gentleman who had filled the office of Chair- man of the Committee. The latter complained that he had not been allowed the inspection of some pa. pens that had been communicates to others. Mr. P. MOORE, at some length, spoke in support of his motion for raising the salaries of the Chairman, Deputy-Chairman, and Directors of the Company, contending that it was the fair result of the inquiries made by the Committee, and of the documents laid be fore it. He went through an examination of the various papers to skew the importance of the duties of the Di rectors who had not to manage petty matters of retail and detail, but the mighty concerns of an empire, of incalculable magnitude. A farmer knew how many acres he tilled, a Peer knew how many ma nors he owned, but the Company did not know how many empires it governed. The profits of the con cern were not less than £1,300,000 every year, and having the disposal of their own funds it was not fitting that those who underwent such fatigue, and were compelled to give up so much of their time for the general good, should be so ill rewarded.— On this ground he had introduced the motion, and on the same ground he should now support it. He wished, conformably to the recommendation of seve ral gentlemen, to augment the qualification of a Di rector from two thousand to four thousand pounds stock, but he understood, as there was a bye law upon the subject, that he could not move to alter it without a notice of 14. days. Mr. S. altos observed, that the qualification of two thousand pounds was not only required by the bye-laws, but that it was an express enactment of the Parliament, that no bye-law could alter. Mr. RANDLE JACKSON observed, that the Honour able Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had fallen into a de served dilemma, in not coming down with his con ditions, which he either had not had time or will to prepare. Mr. BOSANQUET said, it was impossible for a Ge neral Court, by a bye-law, to alter the 14w of the land. If s❑ch an alteration were wanted, it would be necessary to go to Parliament. Mr. LusitiNorbN said, if the conditions involved an alteration of an existing bye-law, notice must be given ; but if no such alteration was proposed, then no notice was requisite. They ought to know first what the conditions were. • After a few words from Mr. Lowndes, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Plummer, and anode r Hon. Proprietor, Mr: P. Mootte concluded with loosing, "That so much of the Bye-laws of the Company, as allowed 1500 per annum to the Chairman 'and Deputy Chair man, and .€3OO to every other Director, should be repealed, and that in lieu thereof, from and after the 10th Aptil, 1813, there should be allowed 11200 per annum to the Chairman; .11(X)0 to the Deputy- Chairman ; to those of the other Directors composing the Secret Committee, £7OO ; the Committee of Correspondence 1100 ; and to all the other Direc tors £3OO each ; to every Director who had already served four years and was again serving, an addi tional £lOO per annum ; and another additional one hundred pounds after eight years sery ice." - Mr. PLUsissEa hoped the Court would look to the merits of the case, and overlook any want of forma lity in the notice, and any inaccuracy in the mode of bringing forward the motion. Much had been said about the patronige of the Directors, but the most exaggerated notions had been entertained on that sub ject. For instance, there was not above one writer ship to every individual Director in the course of 20 years. The conduct of the Directors of the Com pany, hitherto had been most exemplary. By their fruits ye shall know them." Their accounts had been correctly and punctually made out, and sObmiued to Parliament. On an average of forty years it would be found that nineteen out of the twenty-four had at tended every Court of Directors. Mr. KEENE and Mr. RANDLE JACK3ON both rose at the same time, but Mr. Keene first caught the Chair man's eye. He spoke for some time, but we could net hear him distinctly enough to comprehend his meaning. Mr. RANDLE JACKSON hoped that some conclusion would have been come to by way of amendment, to shield the honour of the Directors, and that of the Proprietors, which in this motion were grossly at tacked, such an amendment as would have restored union and harmony throughout the whole body of the East-India Company. He had nor often in his life felt a greater degree of curiosity than he then had to know whence the nerve and the courage were derived' which had been that day displayed by the two gentlemen who supported the motion, in direct opposition to two Resolutions of the Committee in which these Gentlemen had sat. In these Resolutions a graduated increase of salary to the different Mem berg of the Court of Directors was recommended, pro vided such increase should be accompanied with con ditions and provisions calculated to ensure a due dis charge of the Directorial duties. In that Report, which was hardly dry, the Directors deplored the ne cessity to which they would shortly be reduced, of lowering the establishments both at home and abroad. When that Report was first laid before the Court, he had moved a Resolution, by way of amendment, that the Proprietors would support the Directors in every measure of reform. On that occasion all the trick of debate was used to get rid of his amendment, because ii was perceived that if it passed, the motion of this day could not with any degree of propriety be brought forward. He bad taken care, however, that the amendment should stand on the record. It stood there in broad characters, that they were called on for three hundred thousand pounds, and that they withheld - no • ri t itheir support to the Raiolntions which had been pro posed. How could the establishments of the Com pany in India and Enl2nd be cut down, while fhe very fint ect of the Court went w an augmentation of the salaries of the Directors themselves ? He had declined to sit in the Commit because he con- sit .in Imittee, ceived it would he.sanetioning a proceeding, the first principle of which wakimmoral- 7 *(Hear, hear.) With what propriety could the Court of Directors propose the promised reduction when it ‘might , be urgel3, you, the Directors, for whom this increase is claimed, are the only persons who have not been touched ; the pa trouage of the whole Indian Empire is secured to you in clearer and stronger terms than ever ? (Hear, hear.) There was another reason why he had declined to be of the Committee. There was not one of the Gentle men composing it with whom he would not have been proud to sit down in private; but as public men he really did not wish to associate with them. Three of them were known to be candidates for the Director ship. Two of them were unqualified Proprietors, and there were no fewer than four or five out of the eight or nine, who had already advocated the measure. H. knew that he would be over-ruled in every proposition. —There was another reason why he refused, and it, was, that he did not like the manner in which the' measure had been introduced. The Members were told in the private canvass, that they would be re lieved from the Property Tax ; they were told so by men who knew well that applications had three or four times already been made to the Ministry for re liefh and that they had always been told that it was not to be got rid of. The near prospect of peace had been alluded to by an Hon. Member. It was true that in the present state of Europe peace might with safety be concluded, and was reasonably to be looked for. But what in his opinion was yet mere cheering, it had pleased ALNIICHTY GOD to infuse such vigour into our Councils and the Councils of our Allies, that they would not make peace with a Monster whose whole life, for the last 20 years, bad been one continued series of fraud and bloodshed, and who might well b stated the Master Butcher of Mankind.— ( Hear, her r) As to the proposition before the Court, he could coil-. sider it as nothing but a premium for old age ; and it was necessary that the conditions should be well understood before they were agreed to. The propo sitions for taking so much money out of the pockets of the Proprietors, could not fail to generate ill-will ; and he would rather have seen some proposition for verifying and recognising the arduous labours of the :Oirectors, in proof of their deserving such a large re muneration. Mr. Jackson then made some severe, remarks on the conduct of those who h id spoken in defence of the Resolutions, but whose faces were not seen in the Court till the whole of the contest was over, and then they came to vote away the money. As to the salaries of the Directors, they were of little import when put in competition with their vast pa tronage; and that man could have no heart who could say that the patronage was of no value. It was the noblest advantage to the noblest mind, because it could be disposed of by such a mind in the noblest manner. Mr. I:Gbert Grant had stated it, in his vo: time, to amount to £351),000, so that the advantage of it to each individual Director was from I€6ooo to £3OOO per annum. (Here Mr. Paterson, a Director, interrupted Mr. Jackson, by wishing to know how he could tell what the patronage was worth ?) Mr. Jack son replied, that he had it from a printed sheet of paper, which could be referred to ; but it the Honour. able Director hinl , elf wished to know its value, let him (said Mr. .1.) enquile amongst his friends and connections for wo: thy objects ; lut him seek out mo• dest, poor, and unassuming men of merit, slow to ask, but anxious for employment ; let him bestow upon them his share of the patronage, and his heart would tell him the value of it !—(Loud and repeated cheering.) Mr. JACKSON Went on-to. explain that the patronage for the last twenty years was valued at £3,000,000, which was £6OOO a-year to each Director ; but that this arose only from Writers, Cadets, and Assistant- Surgeons ; there were many other sources of emolu ment under the description of Patronage. Besides this, there were the loan speculations, each of which put £16,000 into the pocket of the Chairman, and WS00(1 into that of the private Director. After this, who need ask what the situations were worth ? And he would put it ad verccundiarn, to those who had charged the Proprietors with being illiberal to those they employed, to say whether they had any ground for such complaint ? So far from this, it was not long since a Director had publicly said, that the weight and dignity of a Director of that Company, was far beyond that attached to any subordinate Mi nister of State ; and in his opinion, there was no situa tion that ccuid be compared with it except that of the First Lord of the Treasury ! Mr. Jackson con cluded with•moving as an amendment, that all of the original Resolutions, after the word ig That," be omitted, and that there be substituted the following words, to wit : " This Court having examined the proceedings of the Select Committee, and considered the documents and evidence therein contained, and having particularly noticed the two following Resolutions, viz.— " ist. That it is not the opinion of this Committee that an in discriminate and unconditioal increase of salary to the D.rectors be recommended to the Court of l'roprietors. " 2dly. That it is the opinion of this Committee that it is ex pedient to recommend a graduated increase of salary, provided such increase be accompanied by certain conditions for the more efficient discharge of the Directorial duties. " Revolved, That until the conditions herein alluded to have been Fubmitted to tl is Court, considered, approved of, and passed into laws of the East India Company, it would be pre. mature and unwise to make any alteration in the allowances to the Directors, for their attendance upon the business of the Company." • Mr. LowNnEs seconded the amendment. Mr. BOSANQUE r said that he had come prepared to speak on the subject ; but as his speech must neces sarily be long, he would rather decline delivering his sentiments. He wished, however, that the debate could be concluded, and the unpleasant subject con demned to oblivion. Mr. KINNAIRD considered the speech of Mr. Jack son to be an attack upon the Members of the Com mittee, and altogether an appeal tcr . the passions of the Court. He moved an adjournment for 16 days. • Mr. GRANT, sen. was of the same opinion. After much farther controversy, the Chairman in timated that the sixteenth day would fall on a Sub -1 day, and suggested the extent to be eighteen days. The question was then put by skew of hands, and declared to be carried in the affirmative : Mr. Home, however, insisted on a division, when the gallery was cleared, and the motion for Adjournment till Tues day the sth of April was carried by a ktrge majority. .• tb • t: LAW lIVTELLICENCk . COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH It • OALLINI v. GALLINI. In consequence of the peculiar nature of this case, in which charges of a kind not the most delicate art mutually made, on the one side and on the other, the husband charging the wife, and the. wife charging the husband, with the comni;ssion of the crime of adultery under very aggravated circumstances, and in consequence of which each contends, that the other is not a fit person to be entrusted with the care of their children, a girl;of about 15, and a boy of about four years of age. The LORD CIIANCELLnR thought it more becoming to hear the arguments and the state ments in the affidavits in his private room. Sir SAMUEL Rostrut was heard on the part of Mr. Gallini, and Messrs. HART and WAKEFIELD on the part of Mrs. Gallini. The LORD CHANCELLOR then said, he would read all the affidaviti, and requested copies of that made in the King's Bench to be laid before him, and he should probably give his judgimmt on Monday or Tuesday. PALACE COURT, MARCH le. WILLIAMS V. MORLEY. • This was an action to iez.Over J6'26 2s. for rent due to the plaintiff by the dtfendarr, under the following circumstances :—The defendant occupied furnished lodgings at the honse of the plaintiff at seloo a-year. The defendant pleaded a coverture, she having mar ried, it was asserted, a Mr. Morley, in 1800, at St. Martin's in the Fields. In support of this a certifi' : - cate was produced from the church, which specified 3 marriage betwixt Mr. Morley and a Miss Duff, but there was nv proof that the defendant was the person so married, although witnesses had seen Mr. Morley, who was represented :is the husband ; and another proved the defendant going nut one morning, as she said, to be married. It was also stated, that the de; fendant had been separated from her husband, bnt there was no satisfactery proof of any cohabitation tween chem.—Damages 4326. MAIDSTONE ASSIZES, MARCH 17. COLLIER V. ALDER AND WHITE. This was an action against the defendants, for - slander uttered by the wife of the defendanr. The plaintiff was a publican, whose house was near the Lower Water-gate, Deptford, and Mrs. Alder having quarrelled with him, proclaimed aloud, that he was a thief, a highwayman, and a robb,r ; that she had saved him from the gallows, adding, " you. know this, you, Bill Collier.' For these hasty words the plaintiff brought the present action. Mr. MARRYATT, for the defendant, said, it was hard if the husband should pay more than six-pence for the unruly tongue of - his wife, especially as G , Bill Collie!" had provoked her by calling her an ugly name, as he was told. The summing up of the LORD CHIEF BARON was very laconic— , 6 \Veil, G.:ntlernen, what damages i" The Jury - found for the plaintiff—Damages 6.1. GALLARTNI V. HOWLAND. This was a qui tans actin against the defendant, farmer at Tenterden, to t ecover a penalty against him for running a horse for a less stake than £5O. The farmers at Tenterdvn had, last autumn, made matches to run their horses for stakes, under the sum AHowed by the Act of Parliament. A London at.; torney hearing of it, had brought several actions.for the penalties, but in this, the first tried, he failed tto prove the parish in which the race was run, and was therefore non-suited. The other cases were withdrawn. BUCKS ASSIZES. Mary Hughes was found guilty of inintlaughter, Tn. killing and slaying William Meates, of the tiar h of Eton, and sentenced to one year's imprisonm...n.: The circumstances of this case were as f, Una The lad, in whose death Mary Hughes was impli cated, was a son of Mr. Meates, cue of Ole Ki;,g's Messengers. Being very deficient in inteltec!, he wls placed under the care of this woman (a rela!invi) with a weekly salary of thirteen shillings. She had king been in the habit of treating him with much cruelty, and during the present severe winter the boy was known by the neighbours to have skirt upon straw, and was thoui;ht to have been nearly starved. On Saturday, Feb. 26, she was seen to beat him severely with a large stick. On Friday, the 4th of March, the boy died, and in consequence of the suspicion at tached to Mary Hughes, the High Constable was applied to, who sent for a surgeon, by whom the body was examined : he pronounced that the boy had died of the bruises which he had received; his eyes were black, not from the effect of actual blows on them, but from injuries in other parts of the head. The Coroner was therefore applied to, and the Jury sum moned on the occasion brought in a verdict of man• slaughter against Mrs. Hughes, who was in conse quence taken into custody, and conveyed to Ayles bury. The po?ular rage was so great on her re- . moval, that she was pelted with every thing that could be procured.—The Grand Jury found a bill wilful murder, but she was convicted of man. slaughter. from that o it writtenn the l by fa vas inquired, whether a b lay befoie the Com forward with one, whi4 Boworth) was much sus as the present, did hich he had since laid ors. Mr. Howorth the n the consistency of thi st strenuous in their o f the Committee ; but rst resoliltion, which si " That it is not the opinior mate and unconditional e recommended to the Cour dllawed that resolutiot ratedment was propose cause of that solves Committee of wh mittee had not, hoi 'Om They had exam petted documents—the. .0 certain resolutions— ourt of Proprietors ; 1 t of their exertions, y to decide for then 11 which was made u ssrs. Hume and Bar CAMBRIDGE ASSIZES. A cause which has excited considerable interest in this county, nod of great importance to all uninclosed parishes, was expected to have come on at our pre sent Assizes, but an afEda%it having been made by Mr. WEDD Nnsn, an attorney at Royston, one of the defendants, that they could not with safety at pre sent proceed to trial, owing to the illness of an aged man who would be a material witness for them, Mr. Justice HEATH allowed, as a matter of course, the trial to be put off till the next Assizes. The cause above alluded to was one in which the commoners of Hinxton were plaintiffs, and Mr. Wum NASH, an attorpey at Royston, and Mr. JOHN QUAY, farmer of Hinxton (tenants of the mancr farm in the said pa rish, under Mr. WILLIAId HOLUM, of Cambridge, and claiming under him the right of ploughing up the walks, or pieces of grass land in the open fields, hitherto accustomed to be fed by the cows of the cot tage commoners) were defendants. A melancholy accident occurred on Thursday evening to two fine children, belonging to Mrs. Wil son, in Whitcomb-court, Whitcomb-street, Hay market, who, during the temporary absence of Mrs.. W. began playing with some lighted paper, which immediately set fire to thew clothes, and, dreadful t 3 relate, they were nearly burnt to ashes. Their bodies presented a scene too shocking for description.