The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-22 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

ADJOURNED COURT OF PROPRIETORS.

A court of proprietors of the East India Company,
adjourned from the previous. day, was held yesterday at
the hobs-house, RCanaLL ELLICE, presiding. The
ai•ClaliOn wes opened by
Colonel Scars, who said that up to that time all the dis-
cussions which had taken place on Indian affairs had been
mercy a tsetse of assertions on the one side, ant, a tissue of
denials on the other. lie applied himself to the ex-
tant nti.n of those assertions end denials, with a view of, if
pianhle, priteenting the truth to the public. Ile eondemned
tba biU generally, as foreshadowing the total destruction
of the company ; and although be felt the necessity of
rocedy legislation, he would rather see it put off to the
Greek Kalends thin that the bill should pass in its present
form.
Mr. Cttaatt said there was no doubt but that govern-
ment bad a legal right to remove the India Company,
but there wise also a moral right universally recognised
which they had not estehliehi el. They should have I
per. d that the company had misused their trust,
whereas the shots of Sir Charles Wood's speech was a'
Panegyrie on their past conduct.
Mr. C. Mitts trusted that the bill would be carefully
re•tord, and teat when it came before that court they wonid
Sat be parties t. injuring the independence of that court Of
dr•t:4.viod th..ir share in the future government of India.
De..SA r nu examined Mr. Bright's speech at some leogth,
and coat...trill the soundness of its arguments.
Mr. All men SALOMONS admitted the great difficulty
of .owing to a c,r,t, decision as to the best mode of attanft•
laz a government b r India. Ile knew that the present
swede etas not toffee, het was there any suggested that was
sot timidly open to ohjte-iiis ? The double government
worked sluggiehly,and the twenty years experience showed
many defects: the chief of these were delay. absence of
pa: lie works, end defective courts of law.. lie admittid
these def. etc, hat shot !Knotty bud they that if the gnus Ni
mist hail been single—more under the reepotritnii.y of
tie minister, of the ealiinet. of parliament—the fiesta
would hate Men bettet 1 (Mar. hear.)
After some further oheervatione Mr. Salomon& concluded'
by supporting toe resolution.
Meson. TWININU and Lewis severally addressed the
Court, after which

Mr. SULLI% replieu, awl the mntinn Iraq acme I to,
the amendment of Mr. Ayrton having been first et gatired.
The Court thee broke ap.

"That these payments were not of an amount beyond the
average daily earnings of the voters who received them ;
but from the disposition of the polling-places in the several
wards of the borough, every voter might have polled with-
out any such interruption of his ordinary employment so as
tooeession the loss of wages, and.without say necessity for

" That so far as the conduct of the election on the part
of the other candidates came incidentally before the com-
mittee, there was no evidence; and the committee had no
reason to believe that any illegal practices took place with
regard to the voters in the interest of such candidates ; and
' in the majority of the eases where bribery hu been 're-
ported, it did not appear to the committee that the illegal
payments received by the voters had bens the primary
motive in deciding their votes.
t. The committee, therefore, do not think it right to re-
commend that the issue of a new writ for the said borough
should be suspended, or that any further inquiry should
take place into the proceedings of the late election."

. The proceedings of this committee, it may be mentioned,
have been the must protracted of the SEMIOO. The com-
mittee examined 102 witnesses. and the expense to the
parties on both sides is estimated at upwards of 16,0001.
The fees of the petitioners counsel amounted to 2,0001.
The promoters of the petiti.m are said to be disappointed
with the result of the inquiry, extending, as it do s, only to
the unseating of the members, their object bring the still
further one of disfranchising the borough. It is also stated
that owing to the hostility of the witnesses, and other cir-
cumstances, the petitioners have only succeeded in proving
a fiftieth of their case.