The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

THE INDIAN ARMY.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved for copies
of the oath taken by the directors of the East India
Company—of the bye-law of the company prohibiting
the directors from deriving pecuniary advantage from
their patronage—of the bye-law preventing them from
using their patronage as a remuneration for votes—of
the establishment of a regiment of infantry in the service
of the company, and the annual charge thereof—of the
rules by which officers are appointed to the several ranks
on the formation of a new regiment in the service of the
company, and other returns relating to the charges for
the Indian army. His object -in' moving for these re-
turns was to render the Government of India Bill as
perfect as possible. He took the opportunity of stating
the objections he had to the bill, which resolved them-
selves chiefly into a feeling against the powers given to
the Crown, and into a strong objection to the contem-
plated increase in the Indian army.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the increase of the In-
dian army was a measure approved of by Lord Dal-
housie, and other competent authorities. He would not,
however, object to the production of the papers, which
were ordered accordingly.
POLLING AT ELECTIONS BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the second
reading of the Polling at Elections Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN suggested that as her Ma-
jesty's Government was pledged to bring forward a
general plan of Parliamentary Reform next session, the
bill should be withdrawn, on the understanding that its
principle should receive careful, and, as he was then
advised, favourable consideration from the Cabinet.

Lord GREY, Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and the Marqdis
of LANSDOWNE, having spoken in favour of the principle
of the Bill, and Lord DONOUGHMORE having protested
against its extension to Ireland,
Lord SHAFTESBURY acted on Lord ABERDEEN'S sug-
gestion, and withdrew the measure.
The Summary Jurisdiction Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed,

The Pimlico Improvement Bill went through a com-
mittee.

The Land Revenues (Ireland) Bill, and the Taxing
Officers' Common Law Business (Ireland) Bill were seve-
rally read a second time.
The Juvenile Mendicancy Bill was read a third time
and passed.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from ministers of the Gospel at Calcutta, of various de-
nominations, expressing their gratitude that so much
had been done to dissociate the East India Company
from all connection with idolatrous practices : but much
remained to be done, as they had heard that another
custom prevailed, by which, when the Governor-General
or other officers of distinction Ns ere travelling through
the country, offerings which were paid for out of the
public purse were made to such shrines as they ap-
proached. These things were not stated in the Parlia-
mentary returns, and they prayed that a searching in-
quiry might be made into the allegations contained in
the petition.

On the motion of the noble earl the petition was re-
ferred to the select committee on Indian affairs, and
their lordships then ajourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
MERCANTILE SHIPPING BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill,
commencing at clause 38.

Mr. INGHAM moved an amendment to release ship-
owners from any claim for salvage in regard to services
rendered by her Majesty's ships. There was a great
distinction between the claim of a private merchant ship
to be recompensed for such services, and that of a
Queen's ship, the one went out of his way, lost
his time—which to him was money—and exposed
his vessel and his property to danger ; the other
was in no way damaged by the loss of his time, for he
was stationed there for that amongst other purposes, and
the vessel and property risked were not his property but
that of the country. England was the only country
where such a claim could be supported by the officers
and men of the national navy ; and even in England the
case was quite different with regard to the army, for
soldiers were frequently employed at fires, but no such
claim for salvage in respect of property rescued was ever
allowed to them. He wished it to be distinctly under-
stood that he spoke in no feeling of disparagement of
the British navy, nor with any desire to take away
from them the just reward of their gallantry and their
services, but from a conviction that their recom-
pense should come, not from the damaged fortunes
of shipowners, but from the Admiralty.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that this question was one of
great importance, as involving a fundamental principle
of our national policy. It should be remembered that
this right of salvage was a common law right of the
British sailor, not emanating from any statutory enact-
ment, but immemorably, and, as it were, inhe-
rently, vested in him. The alterations now asked
for amounted to a restriction of this common
law right as against the seamen in her Ma-
jesty's navy, and in his opinion would cause
great dissatisfaction both in the navy and throughout the
country. He had himself given notice of a clause
which would bar the claim of the crown, in respect of
any loss or damage to her Majesty's vessels or property ;
but the claim of the sailor for some compensation
for the risk incurred by him was a right which he
believed it would be as unjust as impolitic to in-
terfere with. In time of war there were two kinds
of officers, the "come along" and the "go along;"
the first always ready and zealous in the execution of
their duty, and popular among their men ; the
other classes excelled rather in what we might call
piltdexce. He did not think shipowners would have
anv hesitation in choosing Which of these two sorts
of Y officers they would like to be at band, when
a vessel of theirs was in distress. He firmly believed
that such an alteration as was now proposed would
oTeativ increase the "go along" (lass, and that both
lipoivners and insurers would greatly suffer in conse-
quence. By the regulations laid down by his predeces-
sor at the Admiralty, no officer was allowed to prefer a
claim for salvage until be had reported the case to the
admiral on the station, the case then came before
the Board of Admiralty, and no claim was to be allowed
without their permission. The question then resolved
itself into this, whether the house would deny the sea-
men, who risked their lives for the public good, and for
the salvation of life and property, the reward which was
due to them. Whatever might be the feelings of the men
on the subject, he was quite certain that .the officers, if
their claims were barred, would be slow to risk the lives
of their men in such enterprises.
Mr. HORSFALL expressed his entire concurrence in
what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman opposite.
On the part of the shipping interest, he repudiated any
desire to take advantage of the assistance of her Ma-
jesty's ships and officers, without allowing a claim for
remuneration for such services.

Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR also repudiated, on the
part of shipowners, any opinion-that the gallant dar-
ing of the seamen of her. Majesty's navy should not
properly be rewarded.
.Mr. MITCHELL cordially supported the amend-
ment of the hon. member for South Shields.
Admiral WALCOT thought that the proper duty of
the British Navy was to defend the mercantile marine
from danger of attack by foreign enemies, but they were
not bound to risk their lives to save merchandise and
ships from destruction by storms._
Captain SCOBELL opposed the amendment.
Mr. LIDDELL said the Shipowners' Association of
Liverpool, was unanimously in favour of the salvage
clauses of this bill without alteration.
After a few words from Mr. JOIN MACGREGOR and
Mr. THOMPSON,
Mr. HENLEY expressed his opinion that whatever