The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1853,

opponents of the measure would, by their so-called amend-
ments, make it, if possible, worse. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Mangles,
1 and Mr. Hildyard,
The committee then divided. The numbers were,—
For the original motion ... ... 193
For the amendment 111-82
On our return to the gallery we found Mr. BRIGHT ad-
dressing the house, but, amid the noise following a division,
we could not collect any of the hon. gentleman's remarks.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the right hon. baronet the
President of the Board of Control whether it would not be
better at once to:ally and entirely to abolish the Court of
Directors than nominally to retain it, but by the power of
appointment on the part of the Crown virtually to destroy
its independence and its efficacy. If anything had ever
been more distinctly pronounced than another, it was the
declaration of the right hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood) in
favour of the system of double government. But the right
hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had told
them quite a different thing. The house ought, therefore,
to know what was really intended to be done, the speeches
of the two right hon. gentlemen being in direct opposition
to each other.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not apprehend that what he had
said, having been supported by a majority of the commit-
tee, deserved to be marked with such strong marks of re-
probation as were implied in the speech of the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose. His (Sir J. Graham's) earnest desire
was to maintain a double government ; at the same time
he could not shut his eyes to the fact on which the right
hon. gentlemen the member for Stamford dwelt—that the
time must come, and that probably at the expiration of 20
years, when the system of a double government must
cease. It was wise, therefore, to make preparation in time
for that inevitable alternative.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY moved the insertion of the fol-
lowing words in the same clause :—" That on or before the
first Wednesday in the month of April, 1854, the 15 direc-
tors hereafter appointed to meet and act as the Court of
Directors shall prepare a list of 12 persons whom they shall
deem best qualified to act as directors, and who shall have
been 20 years at the least in the service of the Crown in
India, or in the service of the said company in India ; and
it shall be lawful for her Majesty, out of the said list of
12 persons," &c.
Sir C. WOOD objected to the amendment, because it
restricted the eligibility to 20 years' service, when the per-
son to be elected would certainly be disqualified by age,
and because there was no provision for the removal of di-
rectors. He was opposed also to any interference with the
nomination of the Crown.
After a few words from Mr. HuME,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he had no objection to
adopting a period of 10 instead of 20 years' service.
Mr. T. BARING considered that Parliament had de-
cided to leave the nomination to the Crown, and recom-
mended the hon. baronet to withdraw his amendment.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
In line 38 of the same clause,
Mr. RICH proposed to amend it by substituting for the
" one" director, who is to be appointed for the first period
of four years, the word " two," and also generally to amend
the periods of service to three, six, and nine, years.
Sir C. WOOD objected to the amendment on the ground
that it would render it necessary that the elective directors
should be elected for no shorter period than nine years,
which was more than double the time for which they were
elected at present.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that the clause before the com-
mittee ought to be considered in connection with a subse-
quent clause, which made directors eligible to seats in the
House of Commons. Tho clauses in conjunction would
destroy the independence of directors. What he wanted
was, that directors should be elected for a fixed period—
say eight to ten years—and be not eligible to re-election.
If the clause should pass as it now stood, he would pro-
pose the omission of the clause allowing directors to be
members of the house ; for if there should be three or four
elected directors, and five or six nominees of the Crown in
that house, an independent member, on bringing forward
any question connected with the Indian Government,
would have to encounter not only the hon. baronet the
member for Honiton and the President of the Board of
Control, as at present, but the fresh auxiliaries by whom
they would then be supported, and would thus be borne
down by the accumulated evidence of persons interested
in giving a colour to transactions, or even in suppressing
the truth. (Hear.) The clause ought to be postponed to
afford the President of the Board of Control an opportu-
nity of altering it to meet the wishes of the house.
Sir J. HOGG—The hon. member for Manchester never
rises to discuss any question whatever before the house
without introducing matter of a personal nature. I never
knew any occasion on which the hon. member rose in
this house in which he did not take the opportunity of
saying something personal and offensive. (A laugh, and
Hear.) I call on the hon. member to state what he
means by his allusion to the member for Honiton and his
vicinity to the Treasuryconbdeunetchi.n
Parliament has
been,tell the
memberhon. t
least, as honourable and independent as his—(hear, hear)a
—and I further tell him that have had an opportunity
that
my
afforded me which he, perhaps, has not had, of evincing
that independence in conjunction with attachment to
India and the desire to render that country any humble
services in my power. I mrst refer to a matter which I
have never mentioned before, either public or private, but,
taunted as I have been, I am compelled, however re-
luctantly, to take this course. Some nights ago the hon.
member made an observation to which I, not being of a
suspicious nature, did not attach the meaninc, which it was
probably intended to convoy. My attention, however, was
subsequently called to the observation, and I believe that
something was meant by it which the hon. member had
not the manliness to state openly. The remark in question
compels me to state—and I do so in my own justification
—what I have hitherto abstained from making publicly
known. Ido not pretend to be devoid of that honour-
able ambition which makes every man desirous of aspir-
ing to the dignity or honour of office, nor am I, per-
haps, in a position to pretend to be insensible to the emo-
luments attendant on the possession of office. This being
the case, it happened that nearly nine years ago I had the
honour of being sent for by Sir R. Peel, who offered me
a high office—high in station and in respect to emolu-
ment, and involving the honour of being enrolled of her
Majesty's Privy Council. I, or any other person, might be
proud of such an offer from such a man. (Hear.) The
offer was made not only without solicitation, but without
the slightest intimation of a wish on my part. Why did
I declire it? I had recently been elected deputy-chair-
man of the East India Company. I hope my colleagues
have a sufficiently good opinion of me not to doubt my in-
dependence, but I resolved not only to be independent, but
to be above the possibility of imputation. It was a mo-
ment when India was the subject of deep and anxious con-
sideration—it was the period of the Sutlej campaign in
1845. If I had been merely a simple director I wouldhave
gladly availed myself of Sir R. Peel's offer, but having
been selected by my colleagues to fill an office of import-
ance, I could not reconcile it to my feelings to abandon
'
them and my duty to India • and, although there were in
the direction men as able to discharge the duties of that
office as I was, yet I intimated to Sir R. Peel that I could
not, consistently with what I felt due to my colleagues,
abandon the position in which they had placed me. I think
my conduct iu this matter proves that I am not influenced
by the low considerations which the hon. member would
seem to impute to me, and I pledge my honour I never
mentioned to my colleagues the offer which had been made
to me, and in the years which have elapsed I believe that
to not more than three or four living men have I men-
tioned an offer of which not only a humble individual
like myself, but almost' any man might be proud,
looking to the man who made it and the high
character of the office tendered. (Cheers.) I beg pardon
for introducing a matter of a personal nature, but after the
allusions which have been made to me I could not refrain
from doing so.

Mr. BRIGHT—The hon. baronet has alluded to some-
thing which passed in a former debate, when he says I had
not the manliness to say what I thought. lam of opinion
that I generally say pretty much what I think. (A laugh,)
I did, on the occasion referred to, allude to the hon. baro-
net's ambition, but not in an offensive sense. I do not
blame the hon. baronet for being ambitious, and I think
that men generally would perform much less if they were
not ambitious. I think the house will agree with me in
thinking that I did not to-night utter a syllable which any
man had a right to deem offensive. Perhaps I have not
been sufficiently regardful of the delicate position in which
directors of the Hon. East India Company are placed, and
of the state of feeling which may exist under such circum-
stances. I 'will try to be more careful in future, and avoid
wounding them on the tender point. (Laughter.)
After some conversation, in the course of which Sir T.
Maddock and Mr. Cayley recommended the postponement
of the clause, and Mr. Bright advised Mr. Rich not to press
his amendment to a division,
The amendment was withdrawn.
On the question that the clause, as amended, stand part
of the bill,
Mr. T. BARING moved a proviso to the effect that the
persons nominated should not have quitted the Indian ser-
vice for more than five years.
Sir C. WOOD thought it was undesirable to place such
a limit on the power of nomination, as the object was to
introduce fresh blood into the Court of Directors. Cases
might well occur in which it would be desirable to solicit
persons who had left the Indian service for a longer period
than five years.
Lord JOCELYN said that some of the men most distin-
guished in India would be excluded if this proviso were
adopted. He thought it would be better to postpone the
clause for further consideration.
Mr. T. BARING said that after the opinion expressed
by the noble lord he should not insist on pressing his
amendment.

Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the qualification required,
for the nominees of the Crown—in the possession of a cer-
tain quantity of stock- was unreasonable, and would
prove inconvenient. They would have no connection with
the proprietors, and the restriction might prevent the no-
mination of eminent individuals. He, therefore, moved
the omission of the latter part of the clause.
Sir H. MADDOCK agreed that the requisition was im-
material.

Sir C. WOOD said the reasons for it were these—that
the nominated might be assimilated with the elective mem-
bers, and that the court existed independently of the go-
vernment of India, and its members must be directors for
all purposes.
Mr. BOWYER supported the amendment, thinking the
possession of stock would be inconsiderable and immaterial
in respect to the giving the nominated directors any com-
munity of interest with the company, while it would ex-
clude many excellent men.
Mr. BRIGHT said one of the most distinguished indi-
viduals just returned from India had told him that he could
not obtain the qualification required by the clause. The
best Indian servants were, however, poor—with nothing
but their pension ; and the clause required 2,0001. stock,
which would cost 5,0001. _ _

Lord J. ItUSSELL said there was weight in what had
been urged against the clause. (Hear, hear.) It appeared
to be felt that the absence of the qualification would be no
derogation from the position of the nominated directors.
He, therefore, was prepared to agree to the omission of
the words. (Rear, hear.) _ _

Mr. DISRAELI said he was glad that the noble lord had
taken that course. He thought nothing was more pernici-
ous than factitious pecuniary qualifications. (Hear, hear.)
The arguments against this part of the clause were strong,
and ho trusted that it would be struck out. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was amended, and then agreed to.
On the next clause,
Mr. BRIGHT moved (it being half-past twelve) that the
house resume. (Hear, and no.)
Sir C. WOOD pressed that two or three more clauses be
taken.
Sir J. W. HOGG suggested that the 15 directors best
competent to be put out of the present board should be se-
lected by the Government, so as to spare the board the
painful duty of doing so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DIS RAELI differed from this suggestion, as it would
increase the nominees of the Crown. The members of that
house, of course. would not be selected. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said, the only alternative was, that the
proprietors should select them. The right hon. President
of the Board of Control had himself suggested it. It was ,

a most disgusting process to be performed by the court on
its own members. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. OTWAY believed that if the directors had the
selection they would choose the worse for retention. They
had recently chosen a man of no experience at all for the
office of director.
Sir J. HOGG said the law gave the choice to the pro-
prietors, and there was no stipulation that only men who
had lived in India should be chosen. On the contrary, it
was the opinion of all the best authorities that it was not
well to have only men who had been residents in India.
After a few observations from Mr. OTWAY and Mr. RICH,
The clause as amended was agreed to.
The house then resumed, and the CHAIRMAN reported
progress and asked leave to sit again.
Mr. BRIGHT asked when the committee would be re-
sumed?
Sir C. WOOD replied, that it would be resumed on
Thursday, after the report on the Succession Duty Bill.
STAMP DUTIES (No. 1) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
BRECON COLLEGIATE CHURCH BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
LAND REVENUES BILL.
This bill was likewise read a third time and passed.
COINAGE OFFENCES (COLONIES) BILL.
This bill passed through committee without amendment.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATIONS REPEAL BILL.
This bill went through committee pro formd.
GENERAL BOARD OF HE A TiTH (No. 3) BILL.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved the committal of this
bill, the object of which was to carry out the provisional
orders of the Board of Health in such towns as desired to
have the provisions of the Health of Towns Act applied to
them.

Colonel HARCOURT trusted that next year the
General Board of Health would be placed upon a different
footing.
In reply to Mr. EVELYN,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said, the General Board of
Health did not hold themselves responsible for the defects
in the drainage works which were said to have caused the
fevers at Croydon.
Mr. EVELYN—The works at Croydon were done under
the orders of the General Board of Health, and they were
held responsible for these works by the inhabitants of
Croydon and other places in Surrey, who regarded with
dismay the probability of similar works being executed
against their desire. (Hear, hear.)
After a short conversation,
The bill passed through committee.
DUBLIN PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION.—
PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS.
This bill passed through committee.
NEWPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed until
Thursday next. _

WORKS OF DRAINAGE.
Colonel DUNNE moved for a copy of the certificates
appended by the Commisioners of the Board of Works to
the first plans and estimates of the 12 works of drainage
which have been lately submitted to a commission ap-
pointed by the Treasury minute of the 13th day of July,
1853.

The motion was agreed to.
CANTERBURY WRIT.

Mr. SEYMER moved the further suspension of the
Canterbury writ till the 29th inst. The Canterbury Com-
missioners had concluded their inquiry, and their report
would be forwarded to her Majesty in a day or two. It
was his intention, on the 29th of this month, to put a
question to the noble lord the member for the city of Lon-
don, whether it was his intention to bring forward and
carry through Parliament any measure affecting the city
of Canterbury. Should the noble lord answer in the affirm-
ative, he should move the further suspension of the writ.
Should he reply in the negative, he should then move the
issue of a writ for CanterbUry. At this period of the ses-
sion, private legislation was out of the question, and,
therefore, unless the Government were prepared, on seeing
the report of the commission, to bring forward any mea-
sure, he should feel it his duty on that occasion to move
the issue of the writ.
The motion for the further suspension of the writ was
then agreed to.
SUPPRESSION OF BETTING-HOUSES.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in a bill for the suppression of betting-houses. The evils
which had arisen from the introduction of these establish-
ments had been perfectly notorious for a long period, but a
difficulty in legislating on the subject arose from the disin-
clination which existed to interfere with that amount of
betting which had long existed legitimately at Tattersall's
and elsewhere in connection with the national sport of horse-
racing. At these houses, however, a new form of betting
was transacted which had been productive of the greatest
evils, and the object of the bill was to suppress them,
without interfering with the betting as carried on under
the old established method. The bill prohibited the opening
of houses for the purposes of betting, inflicting penalties
upon the persons concerned in such establishments ; and in-
asmuch as mischief appeared to arise from the advance of
money in the first instance, in the expectation of receiving
larger sums upon a given contingency, that was forbiden
by the proposed bill. There was not a prison in London,
or an establishment for the reform of offenders from which
abundant and conclusive testimony might not be gathered
of the vast number of persons, especially youthful persons,
who had been led into crime by the dreadful temptations
held out by betting-houses. (Hear, hear.) From 100 to
150 of these houses existed in the metropolis, and in all
the large towns they existed in considerable numbers. It
had been said that they ought to be licensed by the Go-
vernment, but he thought it would be discreditable to Par-
liament and to the country to do anything of the kind, for
this would only increase the mischief instead of preventing
it. (Hear, hear.) The bill which he now moved for leave
to introduce would, he hoped, have the effect of remedy-
ing the evils so loudly complained of; but, at all events,
it was the duty of the Legislature to attempt to put an end
to the existing state of things. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was agreed to, and leave was given to intro-
duce the bill.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-JULY 11.

( Prom the Votes and Proceedings of the House of
Commons. )
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Clause 3 (Her Majesty to appoint of the first directors
for and years). Amendment proposed to leave
out, at the beginning of the clause, the words, " it shall
be lawful for her Majesty, by covenant under the Royal
sign manual," in order to insert the words, " the Court
of Directors of the said Company shall, subject to the
approbation of her Majesty, to be signified in writing by
her Royal sign manual, countersigned by the President
of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India,"
(Mr. Vernon Smith,) instead thereof. Question put,
" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of
the clause." The committee divided—Ayes 193, Noes
111.

Ha,Laing,.;:iiiiGower,.a(axa:
sasgnntceaggsjyentll,,ot,MAJOßlTY—AYESoens Langston,
:F. L.
.0 nHaG.
..E
c l Jas..
H.
. II
,m
,911
.vpssTT3spri
iNittoehoig.atudrh i
illimoreoongi
ttetampr,r roey
mih.rits,ionppeetHiem,pydjysen.
oFfiee:oss.
Stephenson,
~r,
G.OO.
je,Ljnsi.,a.
.i,,o.mrß.
Sir IL
.ol.sib. .
J.
es,
J.
. t
Adderley, C. Graham. Lord M.W. O'Brien, P.
A'cock,;Thomas Greene, J. Osborne, Ralph
Anderson, Sir James Greene, T. Otway, A. J.
Bailey, Sir J.
A .A Fcl ao ?I LI.
ti , , Sir
c. TH...avim.
W.
Gresson, Samuel Owen, Sir John
Baines, M. T. ()revile, Colonel F. Palmer, R.
Barnes, Thomas Grosvenor, Earl Palmerston, Viscount
Bass, M. T. Hadfield, George Patten, J.
Benbow, John Hamilton, Geo. A. Pechell, Sir G.
Bentinck, Lord H. Hanmer, Sir John Peel Frederick
Berkeley Grenville Harcourt, G. G. Peel, Colonel
Bethel, Sir Richard Harcourt, Col. Pellatt, Apsley
Bidduiph, R. M. Haile, Alexander Philllmore, J. G.
Biggs. William Headlam, T. E.
Bonham-Carter, J. Heard, J,
Bowyer, George Herbert, 11. A. Pilkington, J.
Boyle, Hon. Colonel Herbert, Sidney Ponsonby, Hon. A.
Brand, H. Hervey, Lord Alfred Portman, lin. W.
Bright, John. Heywood, James price, W.P.
Brocklehurat, John Hindley, Charles Prime. R.
Brockman, E. D. Horsfall, T. B. Pritchard, J.
Brown, William Howard, Lord E. Ricardo, 0.
Buller, Sir J. Hughes, W. B. Rich, 11.
Butler, Charles S. Hutchins, E. Robartes, Thos. J. A.
Byrr, Hn. G. Charles Hutt, William Russell, Lord J.
RsSaauswndsieeall,r'sc,F.aiW..
G.
.
Cardwell, Edward Ingham, R.
Caulfield, Col.
Cayley, E. S.
Scobell, Captain
Scully, F.
Scully, V.
Seymour, H. D.
Seymour, W. D
Shar,o, R. D.
Coffin, W. Smith, John B.
Smyth, R.
Craufurd, E. Stafford, A.
Crossley, Frank
cCCCC Clay
ohohh
Currie,,bd,, Child, Smith
eShsnrSa:,
u,mr Alderman
mRWWai 'itt Richard hea rs Johnd
l
Stanley, Lord
Cockburn,
Johnstone,nirarig Keating,
at I a l'inaPrgdßW'' , I t.
Earljil
lAmi'.la James
I.
a.
FSa mi :le se
s
Dalketh, Earl Lee, W. Stirling, W.
Dashwood, Sir G. Lemon, Sir C. Strutt, E.
Denison, J. E. Lennox, Lord A. Sutton, J. H. Y.
Dering, Sir E. Lennox, Lord H. G. Tancred, Henry Wm.
Disraeli, Benjamin Lowe, Robert Train, G.
Dlvett, E. Lytton, Sir E. B. Trollope, Sir J.
Drumlanrig, 'Meant Mackie, John Vernon, L.
Duncan, G. Macgregor, James Villiers, C. Pelham
Dundas, F. M'Taggart, Sir J. Wall, C. B.
Elcho, Lard Maguire, J. Walmsley, Sir J.
Esmonde, John Massey, W. Whitbread, Samuel
Feil den, M. Matheson, Alex. Wickham, H. W
Fergus, John Maule, Colonel Wilkinson, W. A.
Ferguson, Col. Mall, E. Wilcox, B.
Eitzwilliam, G. Mills, T. Williams, William
Foley, J. H. Moffatt, G. Wilson, James
Forster, J. • Moleswortb, Sir W. Winnington, Sir T.
Fox, R. Monck, Lord I I Wise,
l. Wrightson,A.
W.
FFruileeesrt,unA,.CEo.lonel
mikikiffwoonoodaileyli,lry,C.WH.
aoi.in.xli.amoCE. % Wood, Sir C.
Gardner, Richard Morris, D. Young, Sir John
Gaskell, James M. Mostyn, E. M.
Geach, Charles Mure, Colonel
Gladstone, William Murrough, J. ri,
Goderich, Viscount Napier, Joseph Hayter, W. G.
Goodman, Sir George Neeld, Joseph Mulgrave, Earl
Asp inall, J. Grey, Sir G.
North, Colonel
Baird, James
Pakington, rir J.
Ball, John. Gwyn, Rowel Parker, R. Townley
Beckett, W.
h.
co hmi ba Sa
l P.d
BBBB)
3Buurieeaarcrurci
nketok,si
if::
oogtcer
dthkn,we,
,Jsi
Lewis
G. .
TN
1...
.inP.
WI
Philips, John HearY
Blair, Colonel Herbert, Henley,
sir
Thomas'lV. Rs ;Jr
ns b oouu
rt ~ Captain
L_ord
*th Sir W.
Smii '
illi a m
Willoughby,.l,llN,vvranal Taylor,
nitolittiWhitmore,
: ,arjoACEer
r.:odddElr
Adm.
SI
inAarn.
henry
H.
rls:
. Tucker
Brooke, L'ord Hildyard, Robert C. Smith'
t A
Brooke, Sir A. E. Hill, Lord Arthur E.
i.v. Sni°llet 'Richard
Spooner,
Bruce, Cumming Hogg, Sir James '
Hotham, Lord
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hume, J.
Henryl N Hume.
Ald.
Clive, Robert
Coles, Henry B.
ji.Kinelltlilglyfri:e,te'SireiS,Yri/Fal till.al n Warner,I'iy
Corbally, M. E.
Cotton, W. H. King. J. K.
Knight, F. W.
Crook, Joseph
Vernon, G. Denison, E.
Duckworth, Sir J.
Duke, Sir James
Walsh, Sir J. B.
Dunlop, A.
East, Sir J. 11. Kendall, Nicholas Varce, J.
Wellesley, Lord C.
Ellice, E.
* Mangles, K. D.
Elliot, J. E.
Fiintey, Viscount Marjorlbanks, D.
'Lisa Michell, William —i' B.
Masterman, J ohn Wcdehouse, E.
Ewart, William Milne R. M.
3 4mlLri'f' oolin(ccidciradshioc:aaa,nlß:tt. j
~'Ci
csaAwohiml
ra.o.
renßidsieil
Weodd B
Farnham,
Egerton.n Egerton.
iyh nam 1
K,Sv l
E.
r .
E.
in.'
vv y i ha m , General
(lallwey, Sir W. P. Montgomery, Sir 0
Gladstone, Captain Nowbray, J. • Wynne. Wm. W. E.
Yorke, Eliot T.
Goer, W. Mullings J. Randolph Granby, Marquis of Mundy William TELLERS.
Greenall, G. Newdegate, C. Baring, T.
Smith, R. V
.............
nilGaernrrabi
ehusarmArTJE,,,.
vs,
tzwi ,

TELLEItS.

THE BATTLE OF CHOBITAAL—The firing of the great
guns at Chobham has this week been actually heard at
Aylesbury. The distance to Chobham is nearly forty
miles by road, but the direction is round about. A
straight line drawn between Aylesbury and Chobham
cannot be much more than 25 or 30 miles, and exploding
artillery can very easily be heard at that distance.—
Bucks Advertiser.