The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-18 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

yesterday a Special General Meet:stet of the Proprietors
eras neiti at the East India House far the purpose of laving
before the Meeting three which are now before Par-
liament, with a ‘iew of ta'aing their opinion thereon. The
their was taken by. Sir J. R. CARNAC, Bart., and the nu-
Lutes of the last Court having, been read,
The CriareataN said that the Court had. been specially
summoned to submit to the consideration of the proprietors
" A Bill to authorise the Commissioners for the Affairs of
India to suspend the subsisting enactments concerning the
fourfold system of nomination of candidates for the Eat
India Company's College at Ilaileybury, and for providing
during such suspension for the exammation of candidates
for the said College."
The SECRETARY read the Act which authorised the
Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India to appoint
examiners during the suspension of the enactments referred
to. A clause has been added to the Bill in Committee,
annulling the regulation that writers sent out to India
should not be under 22 years of age.
The CHAIRMAN said the Court of Directors hail ob-
jected to the clause which had been added to the Bill, leav-
ing it orsn for persons of all ages to become eligible to be
sent out as writers, as destructive to the best interests of
Ine.ia, and they had addressed the Board of Controul in
objection thereto, trusting that it would he abstracted. It
was the unanimous feeling of the Court of Directors that
the clause should not be adopted, and he had the most san-
guine expectations that Sir John Hobhouse would not in-
sist upon its insertion in the Bill.
Sir C. Forums objected to the course, and said he might
be el.igible to go out to India under it.
Mr. WEEDING considered the age of 22 an incorrect
limit for writers to be sent out to India, as in the Govern-
ment of that great extent of empire young men might be
called upon to act as Judges andPlagistrates —(" No, no,'.
from the Chair.) He thought that the limit ought not to
be under 25 years of age. He concurred in the Bill, set-
ting aside the fourfold system of nomination.
• Mr. FIELDER said the Court ought to act consistently
and procure the abolition of Haileybury College altoge-
ther, as the system had not worked well, and occasioned
great expense. In 1833 that. Court had adopted a peti-
tion to Parliament for the abolition of the College, in which
it was stated that the charge on India was 10,0001. a year
for the education of less than 30 students. A sum of
about 9,600/. had been laid out on the foundation of
the establishment, which was contained in a domain not
exceeding fifteen acres. • In 1832 there were 31 students
in the College, with 43 officers and servants, at the cost
of 8,025/. In 1833 there were 33 students, at an expense
of 7,898/. In 1834 there were 40 students, and the ex-
pense, was 7,172/. In 1836 there were 32 students, and
the cost 7,172/., independently of certain College expenses,
and from 4,000/. to 5,000/. expense to the parents of the
youths. The question was, whether the natives could bear
this expense ? It appeared by the published returns that,
in 1834-5, there was a deficiency in the revenue of India of
.578,3361., and was that a time for the Company to incur
an annual expense of 8,000/. for the education of 32 boys ?
He hoped the Court of Proprietors would act consistently
by following up the petition of 1832, calling for the aboli-
tion of the College.
Mr. GOLDSMID expressed himself in favour of the College.
Sir C. FORBES hoped that, if there were any additional
expenses in the examination under the Bill, it would not be
placed on the revenue of India.
Mr. Lawnre asked if the Bill had been brought forward
with the sanction of the Court of Directors i With re-
spect to the College of Hailey bury, he felt confident it had
been of the greatest possible utility to India, and he, there-
fore, hoped no step would be taken to alter the system.
Mr. HODSON (late of the Civil Service in India) could
state from experience that the Colege had been of the
greatest possible service CO India.
The CHarttsraet, in reply, said it was not correct, as
represented by an Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Weeding), that
the youths sot out were soon raised to Judges and Ma-
gistrates. They were well trained before any important
duties were assigned to them. With respect to the clauses
introduced into the Bill, giving latitude to persons of any
age being sent out to India, there were a thousand objec-
tions to it. With respect to the age of twenty-five years
being fixed upon as the limit, he (as we understood the
Hon. Chairman) had agreed with the proposition of the
Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Weeding). The Court of Direc-
tors would protest against the expediency of the clause in
question. The discussion of the maintenance of the Col-
lege, though not strictly in order, had been productive of
one beneficial result—the expression of one of the
civil servants of the Company who had not long been in
India, that it had been of the greatest benefit to India.
He (the Chairman) must join in the encomiums passed
upon it. The Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Fielder) had, in
speaking of the number of students, taken the years which
best suited his purpose. From 1823 to 1830 there were
at greater number of students in the College than those
referred to ; and under the operation of the Bill he hoped
they should again see the establishment filled with students.
With respect to the statement of a deficiency in the reve-
nue in India in 1834 and 1835, he was happy to inform the
Court that, from the latest official information, there would
be a considerable surplus. The Court of Directors, in
obedience to the wishes of that Court, had remonstrated
against the continuance of the College ; but Government
were not disposed to grant the request.
Mr. FULLER asked if a portion of the commercial assets
of the Company had not been brought into the revenue ac-
counts to make up the surplus alluded to ?
Mr. HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER (a Director) replied
that such was not the fact. The deficiency in the revenue
of India in 1834 and 1835 had been overrated. It had not
beert more than 310,000/.
Mr. TWINING said—ln his opinion the College at Hai-
leybery had been productive of incalculable benefit to India.
Here the matter dropped, and
The CHAIRMAN called the attention of the Court to the
second Bill, to-consider which the Court had also been
specially convened.
The SECRETARY read the title of the Bill. It was " a
Bill to repeal the prohibition of the salaries and allowances
of the Last India Company's officers during their absence
from their respective stations in India."
Sir C. FrmBES had listened with great satisfaction to the
reading ex the Bill. which bad his entire approbation.
THE EXCLUDED MARITIME OFFICERS.
The Secretary tnen read, by direction of the Chairman,
the title of the third Bill laid before the Proprietors. It
was a Bill for amending the Act passed for the better Go-
vernment of India, " so far as the same relates to the
granting of tempensations,superatinuations, and allowances to
otheers ,sno may be affected by the discontinuance of the
said Company's trade."
air. FIELDER inquired whether the Bill was to extend to
the St. Helena officers?
The C'H AIRMAN replied in the negative.
Mr. ]'IELoER asked whether it extended to the excluded
offiesrs and servants ?
The CHAIR MAN said it did extend_ to all of them.
The CHAIR MAN felt it his duty to call the attention of
the Court of Proprietors to the very serious effect on the
Corepany's affairs which would be produced by the passing
or the Bill. The Bill made it compulsory on the part of
the Court of Directors to take into consideration the claims
of certain excluded rfficers of the Company. He felt the
deepest sympathy for many ei those officers ; and, co far
as they were concerned, the Court of Directors had a plan
for relieving such of them as were in distressed or embar-
rassed circumstances. With respect to the object of the
fresent Bill, the question had already undergone a full and
l'air discussion, a ballot had been subsequently demanded
anti taken, and it had been decided that the claims-of the
persons excluded ought not to be taken into further consi-
deration. Since then those individuals had appealed to the
House of Commons, and the House of Commons had taken
upon itself the passing of a Bill rendering it compulsory,
on the part nf t.he Court of Directors, to appropriate the
revenue of India to the payment of a compensation to
those persons. Such a proceeding, he contended, was a
viol it ion of the compact made between the Government and
the East lodia Company. Almost all his colleagues con-
cur:et', y. tali him ; and, therefore, he should propose a reso-
lut.on, that the Court do present a petition against the Bill,
:mil praying to be heard by their Counsel at the bar of the
House of Commons.
The petition having been read by the clerk,
The CHAIRMAN moved that it be adopted by the Court.
he motion having bean seconded by a Director,
Sir C. FounEs hoped the Court would not entertain the
motion. He concluded by moving as an amendment the
following resolution :—" That the Court of Proprietors
will not offer any opposition to the East India Company's
:Maritime (Ayers Bill in its progress through Parliament,
and do earnestly recommend the Court of Directors not to
offer any opposition thereto."
Mr. WF.EDI NG seconded the motion.
Mr. LINDSAY, a Director, agreed that those who were
afloat at the time of the alteration in the Company's affairs
ha'a a right to compensation, hut when gentlemen came for-
ward and made claims on the Company who had been for
23 years out of its service, and who had no more intention
of returning to it than if they had never been in it, he did
nat see how the Directors could acknowledge the justice of
their claims.
Mr. MIDDLETON objected to the Bill.
Mr. TWEEL said that all the arguments urged against
the Bill were equally applicable to the cases of those officers
to whom compensation had already been awarded.
Mr. MANCOTT said if once the prerogative of the Court
__ate • d with, the House of Commons, and not that
Wessestraly,:';4ll have the management of the COmpany's affairs.
Ix.' • -G said, should the question be pressed to
.slisf;:f—A
ajw4ool'etantl4‘ll(l feel it his duty to support the Directors.
f- Ti svosds of the Act are, " That the
a • ' t)at a
-'-
sre77-1-es:
aatki 0 S.

,