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

►tement of the right hon. gentleman, inasmuch as it was
tt iongbt by the officers of the company that this clause ;ast
b stigma upon them. He need not remind the committee
that in the war of Affghanistan the company's officers did
themselves immense credit. (Hear, hear.) If the Govrn-
latent made more use of those officers they would find
greater advantages derivable from their services. He
thought that the company's officers had a right to complain
of not being placed in more situations of 'importance, in
which they could exhibit their talents.
Mr. J. D. PHILLIMORE wished to know whether any
arrangement had been made in respect to the Commander-
in-Chief being an ex officio member of the Government ?
Mr. V. SMITH suggested that the clause should be made
more intelligible, so as to remove all those doubts which
had arisen respecting its meaning.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 29.

On clause 30,
Mr. HUME said that there was a question of great im-
portance to the whole of India, which he would wish to
have answered. He wished to know whether the Govern-
ment intended to make any alteration in the regulations
which regarded furlough ? Many able officers had fallen
victims in consequence of not being allowed to come direct
to England when in bad health. They were compelled to
go to other parts of India which were often less healthy
than the places they had left.
Sir C. WOOD said that that was the very object of the
clause. It proposed to remove those restrictions which at
present prevented officers on leave of absence from ill-
health returning to England.
Sir J. W. HOGG said that those restrictions did not
arise from any regulations of the directors, but from the
state of the existing law.
Mr. T. BARING said all the witnesses asked was that
the officers of the East India Company should be put on
the same footing in this respect as the officers of her Ma-
jesty's troops.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought it was advisable to
alter the system of paying in sicca rupees instead of com-
pany's rupees.
Sir C. WOOD said the salaries were all paid in com-
pany's rupees.
Mr. V. SMITH wished to know what salary was to be
given to directors ; whether it was to be limited to the
inadequate sum, 511. a-year, now proposed to be given?
Sir C. WOOD said unless some hon. member proposed
an increase of salary he could not do so of himself. But if
an increase were propesed he would take it into considera-
tion. He was willing to make the salary 1,000/. a-year if
the house should be of opinion it was advisable.
After a few words from Mr. ELLIS,
Lord STANLEY would suggest, as this was the only
clause in the bill which dealt with salaries, and as reduc-
tions were to be made, he was surprised that no proposal
to reduce the Governor-General's had been made.
Mr. OTWAY was no friend to large reductions. He
thought, however, it would be advisable to fix a sum for
the Commander-in-Chief, which should include his trips to
the hills and his salary.
Sir C. WOOD thought it would not be advisable to
adopt the suggestion.
Mr. HUME said the Governor-General had all his
expenses paid by the company if he moved about the
country.

vV
Sir C. WOOD said this was not the case. The Governor-
General gained nothing by his movements.
Mr. HUME replied that the complaints from India on
that head were unfounded if the right hon. gentleman was
correct in his statement. The returns of expenses would
show the fact, and those returns he should take an oppor-
tunity of moving for.
Mr. OT WAY could assure the right hon. gentleman that
the country did pay the expenses of the Governor-General's
moving about. Ho knew that Governors-General profited
considerably by these trips. The Commander-in-Chief was
in the same condition. . . .

—sTrC. WOOD did not state that uo expense was incur-
red by the Governor-General and
—ommander-in-Chief
moviu,, about. -What he meant to say was that, personally
and individually, those functionaries gained nothing.
Mr. RICH hoped an opportunity would be afforded of
'baying a diswission on the salaries to be paid to the di-
rectors.

Sir C. WOOD said an opportunity would be afforded
when the salary clause was brought up.
Mr. BRIGHT should not like to let the directors have
the fixing of their own salar:es. He might give the house
an instance, which he had from a friend of his, of the
value of patronage to the directors. A gentleman had
applied, through another, to a director for an appoint-
ment, which the director seemed willing to give, but his
friend, in announcing it to him, said, " is not a rich
man ; you are a men of business." " But," said the one
to he appointed, " what do you mean by telling me I am
a man of business?" "Oh ! you are a man of business,"
was the reply. The gentleman to be appointed then urged
that he should have to go to the India-house, and make
oath that he had not given, and should not give, anything
in consideration for his appointment. He was met by
the other saying, " These things are mere matter of form ;
and you are a man of business." He, however, assured
him that, though he might be a man of business, he was
not a man of that sort of business ; and so he did not get
the appointment. Somebody else did, who was more a
man of business, and less scrupulous upon these points.
(Hear, hear.) He also recollected a case of au artist
of some celebrity, who, wishing to get a relative
ofhis out to India, made a suggestson that some di-
rector might probably want a portrait of himself, of his
wife, and his children, however ninny there might- be ;
and he evidently thought that portraits of this kind might
be compensation sufficient, and would be outside the law,
to enable him to obtain an appointment to India. There
was, in fact, no doubt that when we talked of patronage
worth 10,0001. or 12,0001. a-year, though we do not mean
that the directors actually pocketed so much, we did mean
that by interchanging, and arrangements, and so on, there
was a very large personal and family advantage to these
directors from this patronage. Indeed. it could only be
on that ground that they had a salary so small as 3001.
a-year. He did not believe so much in the patriotism of
the gentlemen who sat there as to suppose that they
gave the amount of time they said, and suffered the
amount of anxiety under which they complained they
laboured, for 3001. a year. Were they to continue this pa-
tronage, and was this patronage to be understood as a por-
tion the directors' claim? If so, he did not think the
salary sheuld be higher than prupo,ied. And if the no-
minee director's salary was 1,0001. a year, an advance must,
he supposed, be made on all. That would be 18,0001. a
year, or, as the chairman and deputy-chairman had twice
as much as their colleagues, 20,0001. ; and, considering
that this bill increased the expenses altogether, and that
the country was taxed most enormously, he thought that
we ought not to add anything to the home expenses, unless
we saw that we were giving India a solid advantage in re-
turn. He recommended the right hon. gentleman to de-
crease the number of directors, and then to consider the
question of increasing the salaries of the remainder.
Mr. BARING said that the honourable gentleman who
had just sat down was a man of business, and, as a
man of business, should not make statements which he
could not substantiate. He himself was a man of busi-
ness, and he had not found, in his experience, that those
who were most suspicious of others were most trustworthy
themselves. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman did not there-
fore do himself, justice in indulging in these suspicions.
The hon. member should not have treated this as a personal
question, but should have confined himself to charges upon
the mode of government, instead of making accusations
against individuals. As to the question of salary, that was
a question for the Government, and as every division had
shown that they were all-powerful, they ought not to be
chary in accepting or suggesting amendments which they
thought really needed.
Mr. Bright and Sir J. W. Hogg then rose together, and
for some tines neither would give way ; until at length the
manifestation of feeling on the part of the house becoming
decidedly in favour of the latter gentleman, Mr. Bright
gave way.
Sir J. HOGG said it was very true that the honourable
member had thqughout the whole of this discussion in-
dulged in personal observations, for which, however, he
did not wish now to blame him. But when an honourable
member made a statement casting imputations on any man,
and made it of his own knowledge, that statement must,
prima facie, be taken to be true and to be provable. He
hoped the day never would come when any member might
-rise in his place and make a charge against any gentleman,
or any body of men, entrusted with power, and yet shrink
from substantiating that charge. The hon. member had
spoken, not generally, but in detail. He had spoken of
some personal friend of his own—a friend who seemed
to deal in the basest of all traffics. lie had spoken of a
proposal base to the man who made it, base to the man to
whom it was made. He had told them that somebody else
had got that appointment—somebody who was a better man
of business. He (Sir J. Hogg) called upon him now, as he
hoped that in future his statements in that house would
command belief, and credit, to state the name, the appoint.
ment, and the director, whom, if these imputations against
him were true, he ought to hold up to public scorn and
disgrace- If the hon. member shrank from this, all that he
had said of the directors would fall back upon himself.
(Hear, hear.) He would state to the house some of the
foundations on which these kinds of stories rested. When lie
was chairman, some few years since, there were rumours
respecting the distribution of patronage so generally circu-
lated, that he thought there must be some foundation for
them. A secret committee sat, and over it he presided.
Before that committee came every' body who had the slight-
est imputation to cast on any director. The result was
that they found gangs of swindlers had personated direc-
tors, and promised patronage. The different gangs were
indicted, and, he thought, convicted, without exception.
In one case there was a son seemingly appointed by the
agency of his father who paid 1,2001. for the appointment.
Owing to some unexpected circumstanceer he went on one
occasion straight to the real
way introduced his subject. The dir, and in a
roundabout
ector denied any know-
ledge of the transaction, and the gentleman out a
note purporting to be from the pulledderectoei-n,rh
of course a forgery. In one of these
gangs theeynfootindwaas
tariff of appointments under Government, as as under
the company—a tariff which went even to titles, and fixed
the price of a peerage. On that occasion e able
to cast any imputation against the directors did soy, and
there was certainly one of their own body who a
be implicated. He was indicted and convicted.l"ed to
Raving
stated these particulars, he again appealed to the hon rum
her. He asked the house to co-operate with him inhis appeal
to that hon. member to state the details, to state the i,er
sons, .
to state the names, and to expose all engaged in that in-
famous transaction to the public scorn which they deserved.
The hon. geatleru. an said that he believed it was admitted
that although there was no money given, yet that the Court
of Directors, by the exchange of appointments, or by some
other arrangement,
received something for their patronage.
Janice
He (Sir Hogg) told the hon. gentleman that that
statement was totally void of truth and foundation, and
that, according to his standard of morality, any director
who gave an appointment with any expectation, direct or
indirect, proximate or remote, of any reward, emolument,
favour, or interchange, anything in return- -either
money, appointment, anything ee,e—a th
lion he had made, basely perjured him.self, and basely be-
trayed the patronage which was coinhienhitted to him for the
on. gentleman give
public advantage. (Cheers.) Let t
se the moues of those to whoiim lie alluded, and he (Sir J.
W. Hogg) pledged himself that the Court of Directors
would co-operate with him in exposing those who had been
engaged in these infamous transactions. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT said it was quite plain that his statement
had given rise to a display of much virtuous indignation.
For instance, the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. T.
Baring) had read him a lecture, though he had admitted the
whole of his case, in saying that he considered that all
their patronage was a reason why the salaries should be
as low as 500/. a year.
of what he (Mr. Bright)
hart beenWhy,that was the very pith
saying
(Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) Now to the house.
, the hon. member for
Honiton had applied to him for all the details of the case
to which he had referred. He had, however, told that hon.
baronet already that the narratve whiehhe'laidbbeifore
the
house had been communicated to him by a
member
House of Commons. (Name, name, and Oh
oh.)eof
He
would tell the hunee that such, nevertheless, wasth
and he believed the circumstances to be tinge, (Oh, "h, oh
and Hear, hear.) The hon. member for eleeie,,V,
have the house believe that it was he (Mr. Bright) elZwillads
the hest " man of business." No ; his friend was not the
man snfUoiantky a man of business to enter into such

transaction. He would not say that the person who had
named the transaction was a friend of the hon. baronet,
or any of the directors ; but he, at all events, knew the
gentleman who refused to have anything to do with the
transaction. (Oh, oh.) And still, notwithstanding all
that had been said by the hon. baronet and others, he be-
lieved that such trafficking did take place, and he held the
fact to be indisputable. (Oh, oh.) Indeed, he knew of no
office open to such temptation as that of an East India
director. He was not one of those who approved of all the
patronage which devolved upon the Court of Directors ;
on the contrary, he would deprive them of it, and give
them salaries befitting their position. That was all he had
to say on the matter. (Oh, oh.) It was all very well to
cry "oh ;" but hon. gentlemen ought to remember that
he was concerned with a district of this country which had
suffered enormously from the misgovernment of India,
and nothing, therefore, would ever deter him from de-
nouncing what he believed to be a corrupt and vicious
system. (Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN here reminded the committee that
the discussion going on had nothing whatever to do with
the clause before it, which had reference entirely to the
payment of general officers.
On the question that clause 31, as amended, stand part
of the bill,
Mr. ELLIOT wished to know from the hon. member
for Manchester whether he would have hon. gentlemen
consider him as a party to the fraud referred to by refusing
to give up the names of the parties implicated?
Mr. BRIGHT—What I stated I stated upon the autho-
rity of a member of this house—(name, name)—and I will
not name him. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. MANGLES would put it to the house whether it
was fair for any hon. gentleman to bring forward charges
which he was unwilling to substantiate? (Hear, hear.)
Cries of " Name, name," were then reiterated, but Mr.
Bright sat unmoved.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
On dance 32 being proposed,
Mr. M. MILNES moved to leave out tke words, " the
provisions hereinafter-mentioned respecting the admission
of students into the college of the said company at Hailey-
bury (that is to say), sections 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 of
the said Act of the 3d and 4th years of King William the
Fourth, shall be repealed."
The question having been put,
Sir C. WOOD said that the amendment applied only to
although the observations of the hon. member
HileYhadahabdumntre reference to Addiscombe. If, however, the
hon. member chose to raise the question as regarded Hai-
leybury, he should not object to his doing so. It was not
necessary for him to detain the committee on this point, as
the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Edinburgh left nothing to be said with regard to it. All
experience went to show that the persons who had distin-
guished themselves in early life were the persons who were
afterwards found filling high and important situations in
after years. He could not understand why they should
not take all the means in their power for securing the best
men for the service of India, and the hon. member had not
shown that the throwing open of Haileybury was not the
best mode.
Mr. HUME said that the question was an important one.
All were agreed that the present system had produced the
best civil servants fur India, and yet it was proposed all at
once to destroy it. He suggested that one-half of the can-
didates should be admitted on nomination and one-half on
competition. The most ample testimony had been borne to
the efficiency of the East India Company's officers, and he
saw no reason why the educational estahlishments should
be broken up. .

Mr. M. MILNES said that what the committee required
to know was, whether the natives of India were to be in-
cluded in the competition.
Lord STANLEY observed that this question would
come under consideration in the next and following clauses.
This clause simply affirmed the principle of competition
as against nomination, and, such being the case, he should
vote for it. There were objections to the clause on the
score of detail, to which he should hereafter draw
attention.

Sir C. WOOD would be willing to take the division on
the amendment of the hon. member for Pontefract, and
then report progress.
Mr. V. SMITH, whilst indisposed to affirm the whole-
sale system of cowpetition supported by the right hou.
member for Edinburgh, nevertheless recommended the hon.
member for Pontefract to withdraw his motion. He
wished to know whether, if the committee passed this
clause, they could re-open the question with regard to
Addiscombe, a question which he considered to be the
most important part of the bill?
Sir C. WOOD said he wished to keep Haileybury dis-
tinct from the other appointments. As the question was
an important one he should be happy now to report
progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the chairman re-
port progress. He thought the hon. member for Ponte-
fract had quite misunderstood the intentions of the Govern-
ment with regard to the military appointments, and it
would be better' to restate them at another sitting of the
committee.
Mr. OT WAY asked what restrictions it was intended to
impose on admissions to Addiscombe ? In case of the Ben-
galees it would be necessary to impose efficient restrictions;
for although they were an emasculate and effeminate race,
they could, by a process of cramming in India, come over
and render themselves eligible to pass the examination.

Lcrd J. RUSSELL said it would bo better that the
Government should state their intentions on this and other
points on the following day.
The committee was then adjourned until six o'clock to-
morrow (this day), and the house resumed.