The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

CORPORATIONS SOLE.

Mr. MULLINGS said it would be is the recollection of
the house that in the course of the discussions on the Suc-
cession Duty Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
that it was the intention of the government to bring in a
separate bill with regard to corporations sole.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the government would not be
able to introduce the bill until next session.

MR. SERJEANT ADAMS AND THE PIG STORY.
Lord D. STUART wished to put a question to the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department, in consequence of
what he had said with regard to the int:erne:seas of pollee
report, in newspapers. He understood the noble lord now
to say that there was no truth in the story of a wooers
having received an additional sentence is consequence of
milling a policeman a pig. (Hear, hear.) He wished to
know why, when the noble lord wee requested, at an early
period of the session, to give an explanation of the silvan-
stances, and when he did give an explanation, one of the
110 it material features of *he can being the story of the
(►augbter)—he wished to know why the noble lord
dld not at that time contradict the truth of the story ?
Lord PALMERSTON said the question of his noble

friend reminded his of ass put W Chutes 11. to owe
learned men of his time. It was why, whoa a vassal mg
full, if you pat a Ash into it it did not overflow. (Laughter)
In the cue in question he distinctly stated that tie grayed
on which the learned serjeant passed the additional Si..
tuna was, that the prisoner behaved in the dock with
great violence, and struck some of the persons who MINI
guarding het, and that the judge apprehended a rewash
(Hear, hear.) The learned wrjeant said he heard nothiwa
like the words which wen stated to have been the canes a
the additional sentence. Therefore the question of hie
noble friend, why he did not do so and so, resolved itself
into the question regarding the lA. (Laughter.) The
question was, whether his noble friend's account of the
matter was correct.

THE CITY OF
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from 20 electors of the
borough of Peterborough, praying for immediate inquiry
with regard to the exercise of the fzeachise. The hoa.

rou.

mamba then moved :—" That it be an **strudels
to the General Committee of Elections to select a chair-
man and six other members to be the select oorainuteo
on t►e petitions from the city of Peterborough, and that
the members po selected do constitute the said committee,
sad have power to send for persons, papers, and records,
and that five be the quorum of the said committee."
After some discussion,
The motion was put and agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The house then resumed the consideration of the Manses
of this bill in committee.

Clause 23 was put and agreed to.
Oa clause 24, which provides that the council may make
laws,
Sir H. MADDOCK moved, as an amendment, to insert
words at the end of the clause to preside that in making
such laws and regulations regard should be had to the re-
ligion sad manners and opinions of the different races of
people inhabiting the said territories.
Mr. lIUME oonaidered that they were bound to respect
the religious prejudices of the natives, and although the
government had refused to allow • Hindoo or a Ilsbometan
to sit in the council, it was only just that they should de-
clare that the legislation of the government of India under
this new charter was not to be contrary to their religious
prejudices end national habits.
Mr. LOWE said the hon. member for Montrose had
given the but reason for the rejection of the amendment,
when he said it carried out the principle of one which the
house had already rejected. With respect to leslalating so
u to meet the prejudices of the natives, it might be re-
membered that there was a Hindoo law, which involved •
forfeiture of lends in any one who embraced the Christain
religion, and the legislative council had passed a law, not in
a spirit of proselytism, annulling that Hindoo law ; and
he believed that this amendment vu aimed at that law
which was rightly passed to prevent any cue who became a
Christian being subject to the forfeiture of his lands. He
did not think that all the religious feelings of the natives
should be considered in making laws, irrespective of reason
or morality; for if that were so they would not have abo-
lished human sacrifices, infanticide, and suttee. He thought
it would be better to go on doing away with bad native
laws, and so legislate u rather to Europeanise than Hine
dooise the laws of India.

After a few words from Mr. Hume, Sir H. Maddock, and
Sir H. Willoughby, the amendment wu negatived without
• division.
The clause u amended was then agreed to. .
Clause 25 was agreed to.
On clause 2G, which recites the Act of the 3rd and 4th
Will. IV., appointing the Indian Law Commission, and
provides that commissioners may be appointed in Eng-
land to consider and report on the reforms proposed by the
Indian Law Commission.

Mr. BLACKETT said he objected to the preamble at
the clause, which stated " that whereas the Indian Law
Commission, from time to time appointed under the said
act, bad recommended extensive alterations in judicial es-
tablishments, judicial procedure, and laws established and
in force in India, and such reports have been from time to
time sent to the directors ; but on the greater part of such
reports and recommendations no final decision has been
had."

After a conversation,
Clause 26 was also agreed to.
On the 27th clause, which provides that the appointment I
of the Advocate-General shall have the sanction of her
Majesty,
Mr. lIUME moved to negative the clause. Be thought
the Court of Directors ought to have the nomination of
their own officers.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMOItE hoped the right hon. gentle-
man would not be induced to abandon the clause, which
seemed to him most important. If any one would look
back to the appointments, he would find abundant reasons
for the clause.

Sir J. W. 11000 defended the appointments which had
been made. There was only one in the last century with
which he had to find fault, and the' sou the appointment
of Mr. Lyall. Mr. Lyall sou a distinguished and talented
man, but be opposed the appointment, because Mr. Lyall
was only a barrister of six years' standing, and the ap-
pointment was the more objectionable, because Mr. Lyall
was closely connected with a director. With that single
exception he challenges the bon. gentleman to state one
single name of any Advocate• General who was not emi.
neatly qualified for the office. He hoped it was not the in-
tention of government, but it did appear that a stigma was
intended to be cast on the company.
Mr. F. SCULLY remarked that no Irishman had been
appointed to the office of judge in India. He hoped that in
future the appointments would be fairly distributed. They
ought to be given to the three kingdoms in the fair pro-
portion to which they were entitled.
Sir C. WOOD assured the hon. member for Honiton that
there was not the least wish to pass a stigma on the Court of
Directors. They did not wish to take the power of appoint.
sent from the Court of Directors ; but, on the contrary,
they left it with the court, subject to the sanction of the
government. The object in this as in all other cases was to
insure the Court of Duectors making proper appointmeats.
He did not mean to pass the slightest imputation on the per-
sons they had appointed, because be believed the parsons
they had appointed were eminent men in their way.

The sont;ittee then divided. The numbers were :
For the claw

Against it

The clause therefore stands part of the bill.
Upon our readmission we found
Sir C. WOOD explaining that the 28th claim, which
enacts that the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's
Forces, shall also be Cemmander-in-Chief of the Ocamany's
Forces, was not levelled against the officers of the company,
or intended to exclude or cut any kind of stigma upoa
them. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 29.
Upon clause 30,

Mr. HUME asked the President of the Board of Con-
trol whether the government were about to make altera-
tions in the present regulations with regard to furlough,
'which prevented men from obtaining that benefit to which
they were entitled after serving their country abroad.
' Sir C. WOOD said that the only object of the clause
was to enable the Court of Directors to make the altera-
tions to which the hon. gentleman referred.
After a few words from Sir J. W. 11000, explaining
that the Court of Directors were in no way to blame for
the present restrictions upon furlough, the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 31, which has reference to salaries,
Mr. V. SMITH suggested that the salaries of the diner
ton should be more than 6001. • year. A salary of 6001. a
year would be quite inadequate to support the dignity of
the office.

Mr. ELLIOT said that if this 'filmy was not at least
they would not get the beet men to become direc-
tors. Ile hoped, therefore, that his right hon. friend would
consider the matter.

Mr. RICH hoped that they would have a future oppor-
tunity of discussing the question of the salaries of the direc-
tors, because if they were to have patronage and salaries at
the same time, 600/. a year might be sufficient.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the question of patronage must
be taken into consideration in dealing with the question of
salaries. He lately heard of a case from a member of the
house with respect to a relation of his, which would show
how the matter stood. This gentleman applied for an ap-
pointment in India, and he got a promise from Mr. So
and-so. When the promise was made, it was said, "
friend is not rich, and you are a man of business,"
which was understood to mean anything that it was not
desirable to ask openly and distinctly, (Laughter.)
The gentlensan said, "I am a man of business; what of
that t' The answer was, " My friend is not a rich man,
and you are a man of business. (Laughter.) 1-need not
say any more about it." (Laughter.) ' Well, I !suppose
you mean an oiler of money, butieven if I were disposed to do
that, is there not a law by which I am obliged to swear or
declare that I have not given directly or indirectly, and
shall not give any one any fee or reward." " Oh," he
said, " these are mere matters of form, and you are a man
of business." (Laughter.) This was the constant argument.
At last the gentleman said, " I am a man of business, but
not a manor that sort of business, forit is Impossible flu me to
maks the declaration required at the India House. Nothing
would induce me to do so." Well, he did not get the ap-
pointment, but somebody else did who was a better man of
business. (Laughter, and cries of "Name, name.") He
would not name, but he had given the conversation as it
occurred, and there was a member of that house who could
give it even more minutel The directors, therefore,
found a personal advantage In the distribution of their pa-
r tronage. (Hear, hear.) He recollected the case of a ode-
! boated artist who, knowing that the directors were forbidden
to receive any gift directly, asked a director if he would not
like to have a portrait taken of binned, his wife and child-
ren. (Laughter.) He thought that portraits of this kind
made by • celebrated artist, to be hung up in the direc-
tor's room would be compensation sufficient for the favour
asked at his hands. (Hear, hear.) When he said that the
situations of director was worth from 10,0001. to 12,0001. it
was because they all knew that they obtained advantages
one way or other for services done, and that was the reason
why the salaries were so low heretofore—(hear, hear)—for
be did not believe that their patriotism was so great that
they would give the whole amount of their time for the 12
months—attending every week and day at the India-house—
with all the vast anxiety of mind under which they laboured
for the good of India—(iaughter)—be did not believe
that they would undergo all this for 3001. a year. (Hear,
hear.) If they had no other object in that house than 30W.
• year—and they did not even get that—he did not believe
many of them would he there, and he thought many of
them were much deluded in being there. (Laughter.)
There they sat by night, and in the day they attended com-
mittees, for which the public generally believed they were
paid, but it was not so. (Cheers.) He voted against the
' oath which this bin required the directors to take—
! namely, that they would not, directly or indirectly,
i accept of any fee or reward on the ground that none
of them could take the oath in its literal meaning. (Hear,
hear.) If the directors were to continue to have patronage,
or that portion of their emolumeata which patronage gave,
he did not think the salary should be fixed at a higher sum
than was proposed. (Hear, hear.) If it was proposed to
raise the salaries of the nominated directors only to 1,0001.,
he did not see how it was possible to keep up the distinction
of salaries. There were to be 18 directors, and if they re-
ceived 1,0001. a year each, that would be 18,0001., and as
the chairman and deputy chairman would probably have
double salaries, it would make altogether a sum of 20,000/.
This bill increased tho expenses of the Indian government.
He did not mean to say that this was not necessary; but
when the legislature of this country was taxing ladle to •
degree more than any civilised or uncivilized government
ever taxed a people before, for he maintained that in pro-
portion to their means no people were so enormously taxed
—it was their duty to see that the expenses of tho home
government were not increased, unless they saw that the peo-
ple of India would gain real and solid advantages in return.

He proposed on a future occasion to go into the question of
the expenses of the home government for India, which were
frightfully scandalous. (Hear, hear.) The hunt and
Board Of Control cost twice and quadruple as lanai as the
best home government could be established for. If the
ndmber of directors were reduced to seven, so that they
had plenty. to do, and had full responsibility, he would not
object to giving them 1,5001. or even 2,0001. a year. (Hear,
hear.) But when he found East India directors able to
attend that house night and day—that they had business
concerns in the city, and that some of them had business
of half a doyen other kinds on their bands, besides tho en-
joyment of their salaries and patronage, he thought the
house would be acting regardlessly of the people of India
if they allowed the taxes, which were raised extortionately
from them, to be lavished by those who did not contribute
any part of them. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. T. BARING said the hon. gentleman was a "man
of business," and as a man of business he ought not to make
statements which he was not ready to substantiate. (Hear,
hear.) He ought not to make imputations which
he was not prepared to substantiate. (Hear, hear.)
Ile (Mr. T. Baring) was also a man of business, and in his
experience he did not find that those who were the most
suspicious of others were the most trustworthy themselves.
(Cheers) He was sure the hon. gentleman did not do
justice to his own character or feelings, because while dis-
posed to judge of others, he spread imputations on all
around him. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman ought not to
treat this question as a personal or factious one. (Hear.)
Justice was not done to the question, when it was merely
made the groundwork for vague attacks upon bon.
indivi-
duals who were intrusted with the responsibility of govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) More than that; it showed the dis-
position of some gentlemen in that house, and some out of
doors, to make every constituted body, whether board,
public company, or cabinet, the pointed aim of personal
attacks. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman would act far
more consistently with his own character, and with the im-
i Portance et the question, if he retrained as much as he could
from showing the animus of opposition towards individuals
who were intrusted with powers of (government, and con-
fined hin.self to charges against the mode of government,
and to substantiating the evidence he brought in favour of
I hie amendments. He hoped the government would sake the
question of salaries into their own hands, as they bad the
responsibility of the appointments. Every division had
shown that the government was all-powerful on
this question. (Hear, hear.) They ought not to
be chary of amendments which they thought ne-
cessary, but to take the straightforward course
of stating what tkey thought was right or proper, and if
they thought that greater salaries were proper they ought
not to shrink from proposing them. (Hear, hear.) The
necessity of making the directors' salaries more than 3001. a
year was the act of the government, it was the reduction of
the nominees and the patronage which made it necessary.
(" No, no," from Mr. Bright.) Let the government there-
fore, take their own course. They knew very well how to
play off one party against another in that house, and they
could do what they liked with this hill. (Hear, hear.)
At one moment they were supported by gentlemen who
opposed the present government of India, at another by
those who wished to make that government respected and
powerful. They had full power ; let them make what
amendments they thought necessary, and he ventured to
say they would be supported by the house. (Cheers.)

. _
Mr. ilitiour rose and wished to say a few words in ex-
planation ; but, Sir J. Moo° having risen at the same time,
he was called upon by the chairman.

Sir .1. HOOD—It is very true that the hon. member for
Manchester has, throughout the whole of this discussion,
indulged in personal and ungenerous observations. Let
that pass. I do not complain of the course which he has
adopted now. Whenever a gentleman rises in his place in
parliament, and makes a statement as from his own per-
sonal knowledge, and when the statement so made casts
an imputation of the gravest character upon any public
man—that imputation, made by • member of this house,
in his place, and from his own personal knowledge, must,
prima facie, be taken to be true. (Hear, bear.) That is
the constitution and the rule of parliament. (Hear, hear.)
It always has been so ; I hope it always will be so. I hope
the day will never arrive when this house will be so die-
grated that any member will rise in his place and make a
charge of the gravest character against any gentleman, or
any body of men entrusted with great public power and au-
thority, and shrink from substantiating that charge.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has stated
the charge in detail. Ile has not indulged, as
is his wont, in g 1 imputations. He his not
spoken of the Court:of Directors g Ily, or of the general
distribution of patronage. He has selected one case. He
has adverted to some agent—some personal friend of his
own,—l wish him joy of his personal friends—that seems
to deal in the basest of all base traffics. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman talks of his own personal friend; he
says that he appealed to the party as " a man of business,"
which the hon. gentleman says everybody knows the mean-
ing of, and that that which was thrown out was well under-
stood. " You are a man of business." There can be no
doubt as: to the meaning of this. (" Hear, hear," from
Mr. Bright). For the hon. gentleman tells you that the
very person to whom the proposal was made said that he
could not take the declaration required by the rules of the
India House. He goes further, and says that the conse-
quence of the gentleman's hesitation to accede to this base
and disgraceful proposal—base to the man who made it
and to whoever :entertained such a proposition,—was that
the appointment did not take place, that it went elsewhere,
and that somebody else got it. And who got it ? Somebody
says the hon. gentleman ,who was.' a better man of business."
(Hear, hear.) Now I call upon the hon. gentleman, as he
hopes is future that his statements in this house will com-
mand belief and credit—u he hopes in future to rise in his
place in parliament and state from his own personal know-
ledge that which he believes to be true—l call upon him to
state the name. (Cheers.) I call upon him to state the
appointment that was offered ; I call upon him to state the
name of the director (cheers) ; and if his imputations are
tine,: I call upon him to hold up that director to the public
alma and to that disgrace which he so well merits.
(Cheers.) And I tell that hon. member, that if he shrinks
from this set of public justice all that which he has insinu-
ated against the director will fall upon himself. (Hear,
hear.) Have inquiries ever been made with respect to the
distribution of patronage? There were rumours abroad
six or seven years ago ; and those rumours were so rife, that
when I war Chairman of the Court of Directors, in 1846, I
could not help thinking they might have some foundation.
At last I got some little clue to the matter; and I asked
my colleagues if they would allow me to preside at a secret
commission to be appointed. They did so. I sat in that
committee et inquiry five or six months. It was known
throughout the city that such a committee was sitting. I
believe that every individual who could give any distinct
evidence before that committee, who could cast the slightest
imputation upon any director—came before that commit-
tee. What was the result ? I convicted two or three
knaves who lived upon the sale, or the pretended sale, of
patronage. The mart of directors indicted them, and I
think convicted every one of them in the Court of Queen's
Bench; and they were subjected to severe fines and heavy
imprisonment ? What was the way in which they pro-
ceeded? In one case a gentleman wished to obtain an
appointment, and having been introduced to one of this
gang, a large sum of money was mentioned-500 guineas.
The money was paid, and this "friend," this " man of
business," said—" These directors are very odd fellows;
they pretend to confer a great favour on persons by giving
I them these appointments, but still they will have the value,
therefore you must pay the 600 guineas." (Hear, hear.)
The demand was increased, till ultimately it reached 1,200
guineas, and that sum was paid. The person who
had paid the money afterwards went to this infamous
wretch and said—" My son does not get his appointment till
November; it would be a great convenience for him to go
out now, u a relative is going, under whose care he could
be placed." The fellow said, "I will try what can be done,
but I fear I cannot succeed." The gentleman having paid
his 1,200 guineas, thought it odd that he could not select
his own time to have the appointment made, and determined
to go to the fountain-head. He went to the India House,
and asked for the director, whom he bad been led to believe
was selling him the appointment. He opened the matter
in a round-about way—thanked him for the appointment—
and said he hoped his son might be allowed to go out a
little earlier. The director said—" I fear you have mistaken
me ; 1 have not given you any promise." To be certain,
he sent for his book, and after referring to it, said, " No ; '
I have not promised any appointment to you." Well;
human patience could not stand this. (Hear, hear.) The
idea of the director having pocketed the 1,200 guineas, and
then denying that he had made the appointment, was too
much; and the gentleman pulled Cut tee note relating to
the transaction, and showed it to him. The director at once
declared it to be a forgery. (Hear, hear.) And I am
afraid to mention to the house the sum that had
been raised upon that note. The houses of this gang were
searched. They had upon their chimney-pieces visiting
cards of the:then President of the Board of Control, of the
chairman of the directors ; and we actually found in the ,
possession of one of them • tariff of their charges for pro-
curing different offices—so much for a cadetship, so much
for an Indian appointment, so much for a commission in
the Horse Guards, and so much even for a peerage.
(Cheers and laughter.) They had a regular scale for all
these. There was a case where the President of the Board
of Control of that day gave an appointment out of gene-
rosity. The person who got it sold it ; and having sold
that he was able to sell other appointments which he had
any chance of getting. The committee over which I
was presiding heard of it. It was known throughout the
city that such • committee was sitting ; and I believe that
every individual who could bring forward anything that
could cast an imputation upon a director did appear
before that committee. And when the court are
thus assailed, I am compelled to mention that in
the discharge of their duty—it was a painful duty—
they found that one of their own body was implicated;
and that individual was convicted. The hon. gentleman
ought to have known that. The case was tried before the
Court of Queen's Bench ; and no one ought to speak of a
matter with which he is not acquainted. (Hear, hear.) I
invite—l do more than invite—l appeal to the house to co-
operate with me in calling upon the hon. gentleman to
state the names of the parties to whom he has referred, to
state the appointment, and to hold up all who were en-
gaged
in that infamous transaction to the public indigna-
tion to which they ought to be exposed. (Cheers.) The
hon. gentleman says he believes it is admitted that the pa-
tronage is thus disposed of. I was astonished to hear him
say that. I tell him that the statement is totally void of
truth and foundation. (Hear, hear.) And I tell him more,
that any director who gives any appointment, with any ex-
pectation, direct or indirect, proximate or remote, of any
reward, emolument, favour, or interchange of appointments
of any kind, or for money or any other consideration, after
the declaration he has made on taking office—barely per-
jures himself, and barters the patronage that has been
committed to him. (Cheers.) That is my idea. (Hear,
hear.) Again, I tell the honourable gentleman, 11
I think he discharged • duty—nay, I honour

him for it—he discharges a duty ill
only perform it thoroughly. Let him discharge it fully'
and I will join with him, and I pledge myself that the
court of directors will co-operate with him in exposing the
infamous persons that appear to have been engaged in this
transaction. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT—It is quite cheering, sir, to see such an
amount of virtuous indignation displayed on this matter.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Huntingdon has read
me a lecture—not the first—on this subject. But he seems
to admit the whole case. Ile said the posseuion of the
patronage was one reason why the salary had been 10 low r.s
3001. a year ; and that is the pith of what I said to the
house. (Hear, hear.) I suppose there is no man living who
ever had patronage to bestow, who did not find it a most
irksome and unpleasant business. lam quite sure no one
on the Treasury bench will deny this. The late Slr R.
Peel and Lord J. Russell have b,th expressed the difficulty
they had in selecting persons, and stated that when:they
made one appointment, they disappointed about twenty
persons, and that the difficulty in selecting was matt
enormous. Now, if duties of that kind are given
to persons as a compensation for a small sa-
lary, and if 300/. a year is considered enough
because of the large amount of patronage, I take it for
granted that there is a solid advantage in the possession of
that patronage. And that is the general and natural belief
in this house. The hon. member for Honiton has appealed
to me to tell the house in detail the case to which I re-
ferred. I told it in considerable detail. I said that it was
communicated to me by a member of this house. It is
not necessary that I should give the name of that member.
I tell the house, that in this house, and by a member of
this house, and referring to a relative of his, the eircurn•
stances were related tome ; and I believe them to be true
(Hear, hear.) Sir J. Hogg says that my friend was this
base individual. (Hear.) No; my friend was the man
who was not sufficienily "a man of business" to t nter into
the transaction. (Hear, hear.) Ido not soy that the per-
son who nffiired to procure the appointment was a (fiend of
the hon. gentleman's, or of any of the directors ; but ho
was no friend of mine. (Cheers.) I do rot know him;
but I know the gentleman who refused to have anything to
do with the transaction ; and therefore, as fir
as any baseness is concerned in a transaction
of that nature, it cannot apply to me at ell.
(Hear, bear.) I hope it does not apply to any
person connected with the Court of Directors. He
may have been, for aught I know, one of those traffickers
of whom the hon. gentleman has spoken. (Hear, hear.)
But that such things are believed to be done, and are done,
is indisputable. To doubt it would be to belie one's own
judgment as to the natural and necessary effect of an ar-
rangement by which gentlemen are paid only 300/. a year
as salary, the rest of their compensation being made up of
patronage. And, I think I gathered from the speech of Sir
Charles Wood, when he introduced this measure to the
house, that by reason of the proposed diminution in the
value of the patronage, through the changes he was making,
he should raise the salary of the directors from 3001. to
500/. a year. (Hear, hear.) If any members of this house
were in the position of having 10,000. a year of patronage
to distribute, I doubt whether we should be able to avoid
the temptation—not of receiving direct payment—but of
dispensing it so as to be advantageous to our families in
some way or other. I believe there is no office in this
country open to so much temptation as that of au East India
director. To remedy this I would take away the patronage
altogether, and give them salaries befitting the office they
hold; and I am sure that Sir J. Hogg will not say that I
want to do injustice to him or his colleagues. I would
withdraw that which I believe to be based on a false
principle and liable to great temptation and corruption,
and pay them es men ought to be paid who perform great
and responsible duties. (Hear, hear.) As to attacks upen
the East India Company, I have taken the same course as
I have done for the last seven years. My mind is made up.
I am connected with a district that has suffered enor-
mously from their mismanagement; and no taunts from
the hon. member for Huntingdon, or the hon. member for
Honiton, shall deter me from doing what I can to expose
this system. (Hear, hear.) I make no charges against Sir
James Hogg or his colleagues; because I 110 not know the
individual director who was concerned in this matter. It
is quite possible that the director who was to furnish this
appointment might be as innocent as Sir James Hogg;
but that such an offer was made, I have no hesitation in
asserting ; and I say this is a sample of what the country
believes to take place generally, and it is a conclusive argu-
ment against the continuance of this system of patronage.
(Cheers.)

The CITAIRMAN reminded the committee that there
was nothing relating to the salary of directors in the clause
before them ; it only related to the salary of commanders of
the forces.

Mr. ELLICE put a question to Mr. Bright which was not
distinctly heard in the gallery.
Mr. BRIGHT—I hope the hon. gentleman does not
mean to say that lam a party to the fraud any more
than he is. Had this fact been related to me by the hon.
member for Oxfordshire with regard to his brother, or
nephew, or some near relative, and I had stated it to the
house in the shape I have stated it now—if he chose to give
the name he might give it. I know the name of the gen-
tleman to whom the appointment was offered. Ido not
know the name of the party offiring it. Ido not know
the name of the director, bat I state it on the authority of a
member of this house. (Cries of " Name, name.") No ;
I will not name : his will be a sufficient authority for what
I have stated. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MANGLES would 'put it to the house whether it
was fair that such charges should be made, and no autho-
rity given. The hon. member said he had objected to the
oath partly out of compassion to the directors,—thereby in-
sinu►ting that they were all more or less in the habit of
receiving some compensation for what they had solemnly
sworn not to receive anything for. The charge amounted
to a misdemeanour, and any director guilty of it would be
liable to fine and imprisonment. He called upon the hon.
member, by his sense of propriety, to substantiate the
Charge he bad made. (Hear, hear.)
No other member rising, the chairman put the clause,
and it was agreed to.
On clause 32,

Mr. M. MILNES moved to leave out the words " tho
provisions hereinafter mentioned respecting the admission
into the college of the said company at Haileybury, (that is
to say) seen( ns 103, 104, 105, and 107 of the said act of the
3rd and 4th years of King William the Fourth shall be re-
pealed." Ile should divide the committee on the principle
of applying the principle of competition, both to Miley-
bury and to Addiscombe ; sail wi.h that view he begged to
move the amendment.

Sir C. WOOD did not think it necessary to add mach to the
eloquent speech of his right bon. friend the member for
Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), to which the hon. gentleman
had given no answer. Taking the very lowest view of the
case, the men that would be admitted to the company's
colleges by competition would at lent be equal to those
who had been put in by the directors; with this addition,
that they would have proved their superiority in point of
intellect. He could not understand why in the case or per-
sons who were to have control over millions of their fellow-
subjects, they should not adopt every possible means of se-
curing efficiency ; and he thought that the throwing open
Haileybury to competition was the most likely mode of
attaining that object.
Mr. M. MILNES would withdraw his amendment, on
condition that the discussion on the clause would be re-
sumed on this day.
The amendment was then withdrawn, the house resumed.
and the Chairman reported progre.s.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the second reading of this
bill,
Mr. BOWYER hoped the noble lord would not persist
in his motion, as there were many points in the bill which
would require considerable discussion.
Lord J. RUSSELL promised full opportunity for discus-
Sion on going into committee on Friday next.
The bill was then read a second time.

CUSTOMS, &0., ADM.—THE ADVERTISEMENT

DtTY.

On the order for bringing up the report on the Customs,
&c., Acts,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
be had postponed the Stamp Duties Bill until the end of
the evening, in order that a clause might be inserted in
obedience to what be believed to be the wish of a real ma-
jority of that house respecting the advertisement duty.
(Loud cheers.) It was not necessary then to go into details,
the more especially as he had glanced at them on the pre-
vious day, and as, in his opinion, the man who made an un-
necessary speech at that season of the year was an enemy to
his country. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. BRIGHT asked when the advertisement duty would
cease ? He had been requested by newspaper proprietors
to ask the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saw no
reason why the repeal should not become law at the end of
next week, or the beginning of the following week. Per-
' sons interested had been led into error by the practice of
the house with regard to the customs duties, when reduction
of duties dated from the vote of the house, but the two eases
were not at all similar.

Mr. NEWDEGATE asked whether the proposed clause
would apply to the supplement.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the supplement, or rather the extrusion of the area of news-
papers, was provided for in the Stamp Act, No. 2.
The report was then brought up and agreed to.

- -
'VBLIC WORKS ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND)
BILL.

Sir J. YOUNG moved the second reading of this bill, the
object of which wee threefold. First, it would enable grand
juin to borrow money from private parties for the con-
struction of roads and other public works under the same
ustrietioes and provisions es were at present imposed by
the Board of Works. The second part of the bill would
truster to the counties, and make the property of counties
liable fir, the maintenance of certain piers and harbours
which bad been constructed by private parties. The
tolls of these harbours sad bridges would amply
pay the expense of watching and taking can of them. The
last part of the bill would transfer to the counties shoat
1,000 miles of roads which bad been constructed by mew
ries upon public guarantees. Hitherto the Board of Public
Works had kept them in repair, and made presentments
for the espence to the different grand juries.
Lord NAAS said it was quite a new power that war pro-
posed to be given to grand juries, and it was advisable that
some additional security should be taken against its abuse.
He would suggest that some public notice should be given,
whenever it was intended to borrow under the provisions of
the bill, and then every man in the county would have a
full knowledge of what was going on.
The bill was read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Thursday next.
The Consolidated Annuities Hill was paned through
committee.
The Dublin Tenementary Registration Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Burials (oeyond the Metropolis) Bill was read a se-
cond time.

DRAINAGE OF LANDS (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bin,
Col. DUNNE obj..cted to proceeding with it at that
time of night. Ile bad marl amendments to propose.
After some discussion, in the course of which Mr. Wu,
tioN said the object of the h.ll was to enable the Trea-
sury to carry out the object of the hon. and gallant gentle-
moo,
Mr. SULLIVAN moved the adjournment of the debits.
Col. DUSNE then withdrew his opposition, saying he
trusted the right hon. gentleman would make a full state-
ment on going into committee.