The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-11 00:00:00

REMARKABLE APPLICATION.

NEGOTIATING AN OFFICE IN THE GIFT OF
THE EAST INDIA HOUSE.
After the ordinary business had been disposed of at
the .Mansion-house on Tuesday, at a late period of the
' day, Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, accompanied by Mr.
Lawford, solicitor to the East India Company, entered
the justice-room. Mr. Wilkinson, M.P. for Lambeth,
was present, and occupied a seat on the bench.
Mr. Clarkson, addressing: the Lord Mayor, said—l
have the honour to wa3.t, upon your lordship on the part
of the Directors of the East India Company, who re-
quest that yollt lordship 'will be pleased to grant a sum-
mons, calling on Mr. Norman Wilkinson' a gentleman
of great respectability, carrying on the business of a
stockbroker, and residing at Nutfield, in Surrey, to an-
swer to a charge of misdemeanour upon two sections of
an act of Parliament well known to myself and a great
many others, for having been concerned in a negocia-
tion for an office in the gift of the East India Company.
The application is made upon the 3d and 4th sections of
the 49th of George 111., cap. 126, which provide that
any person selling or bargaining after the sale or pur-
chase of any office in the gift of this company shall be
guilty of a misdemeanour. Words cannot be larger than
those are for the purpose of preventing not only the sale
or purchasa of any office under the appointment of the
East ladia Company, but for every negotiation that can
be conceived towards the procuring, by means of money,
any such appointment or office of any kind whatsoever.
I am here, on the part of the Court of Directors, to
represent in effect what has been by them, not only
upon modern occasions, but for many years before,
their declared determination to bring to justice, if in
their power, any person or persons whomsoever, be
their position what it may, who shall be found in any
degree entering into such negotiation as is prohibited by
this act of Parliament, and without regard to the party,
by whomsoever they may be set in motion for the ob-
ject of procuring place or appointment under the East
India Company. This application has arisen out of
some suggestion well known to your lordship. It fell
from an hon. member of the House of Commons, upon a
subject that has occasionally been referred to, and to
which reference has been so general in its quality and
application that although there has been every desire on
the part of the Court of Directors to cause this matter
to be further inquired into in a court of justice, up to
this time they have never felt themselves in a condition
. to do so with effect. It seems that on the 21st of last
month an hon. member of the House of Common made
some observations to the effect that he was acquainted
with a source whence there had been a declaration that
the office of a cadetship, or at all events some important
office under the East India Company, was to be obtained
by money; that the matter was so managed as that it
was not very easy to discover it or to bring it to justice,
but that it was popular—that it was quite notorious
and that it was little to be disputed as the fact that they
were then sitting in the House of Commons and speak-
ing about it. Ido not know that lam at liberty to go
into the communications that have taken place between
the Court of Directors and persons who hold high
situations for the purpose of bringing the case home to
the parties, one of whom is now before you, but I know
that in consequence of what transpired next day in the
House of Commons, the hon. member who had made
this communication was by more than one hon. member
of the House appealed to, and at length he felt him-
self at liberty—having ascertained that the person from
whom he derived his information, and who is likewise
himself a member of the House of Commons, had,
since the time of his making the statement, which it
appeared was made without his knowledge, changed
his position—to give such information as he was
enabled to give upon the subject. He mentioned the
name of the hon. member for Lambeth as being the
gentleman who had a communication with a person
who professed to be able to dispose of an office of this
description, and with whom it could not be denied there
had been a negotiation upon the subject. The result of
this negotiation I feel happy to state, as establishing the
respectability undoubtedly of Mr. Norman Wilkinson.
When he found that that negotiation had for its object
the payment of a sum of money, when the oath or decla-
ration, or both, came to be laid before him, which it
became necessary for him to make upon the subject-
matter of that office, he at once hesitated—and, indeed,
I think I ought to say, refused any further to parti-
cipate in that negotiation. But the question here is
not whether or not he completed the transaction which
he contemplated, but whether he contemplated doing it
—whether he dealt or negotiated for it, and whether he
agreed for it, subject to the discovery that he made with
regard to the declaration and oath which he was called
upon to make before that negotiation could be com-
pleted. That being so, the directors of the East India
Company have thought it right to take the best advice
that this country affords as to the means within their
reach of bringing the matter home to the party to whom
this negotiation is principally attributed. I cannot say
but there appears reason to believe that Mr. Wilkinson
participated in this transaction so as to bring himself
within the reach of these clauses, but undoubtedly the
principal delinquent is the party against whom the di-
rectors object is to be levelled, and if it be within the
power of the law to bring that party and any other party
concerned to justice, they feel themselves called upon
thus publicly to declare their determination to do
so. Under these circumstances, having consulted,
as I say, and as we shall all agree, the highest
authorities in the country, this is the course sug-
gested to be taken before your lordship, to give us
the opportunity of commencing this prosecution. We
have therefore applied here for a summons against Mr.
Norman Wilkinson, that he may be called upon to an-
swer that which will resolve itself into a charge against
oim as to his participation and share in the transaction,
and which although not resulting in its completion at
the time when he made this discovery, and felt himself
at liberty to withdraw from it, will, as it appears to
me, abundantly bring the charge home to him within
the meaning of the act of Parliament. I propose to
ask your lordship for a summons, charging him with
unlawfully bargaining with a certain person, whose
name is unknown, for the purchase of a certain
office, the nature of which is perfectly immaterial, be-
cause that will be the result of further inquiry, if your
lordship thinks I have made out a case for granting the
summons, and also to endeavour, by such means as are
in our power, to connect the remaining person with the
transaction who had made these offers to Mr. Wilkinson
for which he has been negotiating, I propose, therefore,
to call the respectable brother of Mr. Norman Wilkin-
,on, Mr. William Arthur Wilkinson, who is member
for Lambeth, and to put a few questions to him upon
this subject, with a view to enable me to ascertain whe-
ther there can be any doubt as to the share in the trans-
action which he attributes to his brother.
Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, M.P. for Lambeth, was then
called, and, in answer to questions put to him by Mr.
Clarkson, said,—l have a brother of the name of Nor-
man Wilkinson, a stock dealer in London, and living at
Nutfiel,d, in Surrey. I remember the subject matter of
a discussion in the House of Commons on the night of
the 21st ult., and also of another discussion at the same
place, and in which I participated, on the 22d. In con-
sequence of a conversation that I had with my brother,
I made a communication to the hon. member for Man-
chester (Mr. Bright) a week or two ago. My brother
had a son whom he wished to send out to India, and I
believe he wished to procure some appointment for him.
I think he told me a year and a half or two years ago
that he had had an offer of such an appointment—l so
understood him—in the service of the East India Com
parry.

:fr. Clarkson—Did you learn from your brother from
whom he had had that offer ?
Mr. Wilkinson—Yes, I did.
Mr. Clarkson—Will you have the goodness to tell as
his name ?
Mr. Wilkinson—l have first of all to say that I am
exceedingly unwilling to do anything in the world in
any way to obstruct the course of justice, but I con-
sider this to have been a confidential communication
from my brother to me ; I know that he feels himself
conscientiously bound not to disclose the name of that
party ; and as I also feel bound in the same way not to
do so, I must decline the answer to that question.
Mr. Clarkson—Does your hesitation to give me an
answer arise out of a belief from your part in that con-
versation with your brother that the transaction was an
unlawful transaction ?
Mr. Wilkinson—My objection arises from the fact
my brother considers himself bound not to divulge the
name of the party, from having, I believe, said that he
would not do so ; and I feel equally bound, as my
brother made a communication of that sort to me,
which I consider confidential, not to disclose the name
of the party.
Mr. Clarkson—Then, if I understand you, at all
events, whatever may be the motive which influences
you (and I am only now referring to you) you decline to
answer the question ?
Mr. Wilkinson—l do.
Mr. Clarkson—And you refuse to answer the ques-
tion who it is
Mr. Wilkinson--Yes, I do. I do not do this contu-
maciously. I wish to explain to the Court distinctly
takenijLraziti ti 413
uhaut_lido it from a conscientious motive from a feeling
1 I.)lgation on the part of my brother and myself not
ige the name of the party, which he has under-
sort of confidentialdo ; and I feel myself' bound by the same
[ M Wilkinsaonwi
lir.
elm:: to divulge it.
on--Are you aware that this is not the
tconemssmfuronmicagtiiovninsgaasntoanwshwicehr
?the law
would protect
am sure.
wrong, you decline to
—I do not know how that may be, I
nswer the question
Mr. Clarkson—ile
wever, whether I am right or
Mr. Wilkinson-___-yeas
you be
think I must take the conse-
quences.
name. I
It hdion kn
oltatrnhin boundo in honour not to divulge
tisiegood as to relate to the
Mr. Clarkson —Will
Lord Mayor the substance of
yourself and your brother as to thcioanservation between
if he had any, fr any situation
Company's servoice ? under the East India
Mr. Wilkinson—Well, it was not in an'.i.,, particular
conversation, but in several conversations; ani
not charge myself with a distinct recollection of allett
particulars. I can only give the Court a very general
impression of what I understood to take place at the
time. I do not know exactly when the time was • it
may have
been a year and a half or two years ago ; I do
not know ; but my impression is that my brother com-
municated to me that he had had an offer mades
service. My to him of
an appointment in the East India Cornpa,n
impression is that my brother communicated me that
tohe had had an offer from some friend of his of such an
appointment. After that I understood that he had been
gi to understand by this party that ven he expected
something in return for that appointment. After that
he communicated to me that he had ascertained still fur-
ther that he should be obliged, he found, to sign some
declaration that h.e Lad not given any donsideration for
this appointment, 4nd that, in, consequence of that, he

had declined to have anything more to do with it ; and
that is in substance all that I know about it.
Mr. Clarkson—l should have thought that Mr. Wil-
kinson would have given us some account of what took
place as to this matter in the House of Commons.
Mr. Wilkinson—l decline to give you Any account of
what took place in the House of Commons. I shall
stand upon my privilege there. lam very willing to
relate the transaction as far as .1 know.
Mr. Clarkson—You say that your brother mentioned
his friend. Was it a friend whom he had known for
some time ?
Mr. Wilkinson—Yes.
Mr. Clarkson— For several years ?
Mr. Wilkinson—Several years, I should think.
Mr. Clarkson—Was it a member of the direction of
the East India Company ?

- Mr. Wilkinson—l do not think lam called upon to
answer that. Ido not want you to get from me indi-
rectly that which directly I refuse to give you. Ido not
feel myself called on to give you any information which
may lead you to the name of this person. Any other
information I can give you, lam willing to do so. We
feel ourselves bound by a moral obligation not to dis-
close the name of this person.
Mr. Clarkson—But you may be bound by a legal obli-
gation to do so.
_ _

- Mr. Wilkinson—Of that I must take the consequences.
The person was not a director of the East India Coin
pany.

- Air. Bodkin (who appeared on the part of Mr. Nor-
man Wilkinson to watch the proceedings) at this stage
of the investigation requested the witness, in detailing
any conversations with his brother, not to state conclu-
sions of his own, but to confine himself to specific words,
as far as he could remember them.

Mr. Clarkson—l do not understand in what capacity
my friend appears here.
Mr. Bodkin—l am here very legitimately. We have
had notice that there was to be an application made for
a summons, and through the courtesy of Mr. Lawford
we have been positively invited to attend.
Mr. Wilkinson further stated that his brother, Mr.
Norman Wilkinson, having communicated to another
friend of his the circumstance of his being in treaty for
the appointment in question, that other friend informed
him that he was doing an illegal act ; that he would
have to sign a declaration at the India house that he bad
given no consideration whatever for such an appoint-
ment, upon which he had withdrawn from the negotia-
tion, and declined to have anything further to do in the
matter. 6.
Mr. Clarkson—Where was this conversation that you
had with your brother ?
Mr. Wilkinson—ln the city.
Mr. Clarkson then submitted that the alleged offence
having been committed in the city, the jurisdiction of
the Lord Mayor was indisputable.
A summons was then granted.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN.

The half-yearly meeting of this company was held
yesterday, at the Assembly-rooms, York-road—Mr. J.
Hibbert, deputy-chairman, in the chair.
Mr. Crombie, the secretary, read the minutes of the
last meeting, which were confirmed, and afterwards he
read the report, an abstract of which appeared in The
Sun of Saturday.
The CHAIRMAN said he was called on suddenly to take
the chair, in consequence of Mr. Scott, the chairman of
the company, being compelled to attend a Parlia-
mentary committee. He (the deputy-chairman) was
sorry that Mr. Scott was not then present, as he was
sure that the proprietors would sympathise with him for
what he had suffered for the company in having a ver-
dict of " Manslaughter " returned by a coroner's inquest
against him and others in consequence of one of the
servants being killed on the line. The judges of assize,
however, took a very different view of the case, and
stated that they could not see what Mr. Scott could
have to do with the death of the man, more than any other
passenger in the train. He was exceedingly sorry Mr. Scott
was not present, and he could assure them that there was
not a director at the board who devoted himself more to
the promotion of their interests than Mr. Scott, and it
was very usual for that gentleman to devote five or six
hours a-day to the arduous duties of his office. He then
adverted to items in the accounts, and stated that they
would perceive that a considerable reduction had been
made in the rate of interest on borrowed money ; the
reduction amounted to 6,0001. for the half-year. They
would perceive that there was now but a comparatively
small sum at 5 per cent, interest (292,0001.), and he had
no doubt they would go on reducing the rate of interest,
until probably 4 per cent. or 31 per cent. would be the
highest interest they would have to pay on their bor-
rowed money ; for these results they were very greatly
indebted to Mr. Uztelli, their finance minister, and he
had no doubt that those operations would be continued
and would be productive of permanent advantages to the
shareholders. There was an item of 98,0001. for rails and
chairs which had been transferred from one account to

another. This sum for rails was charged to the account of
branch lines, but as some of them were afterwards con-
structed as single lines, and others did not require so large
a quantity of rails as originally charged, the respective ac-
counts were credited with the surplus, and the amount
was debited to another account. These arrangements
were progressing with a view to enable them to close,
as far as possible, the capital account. Re would be
happy to explain anything in the accounts which might
be required. With regard to the policy of the company,
he wished to say a few words. They would perceive
that the company had but one bill before Parliament
this session, and that they had to oppose several bills.
The principal bill they had to oppose was for the Devon
and Dorset Railway, promoted by the broad-gauge in-
terests, and the directors had succeeded in their oppo-
sition, but in so doing they were obliged to give a pledge,
on the part of the company, to make the line of rail-
way from Dorchester to Exeter in lieu of the one pro-
posed. Evidence was given before the committee on
the bill by men of high rank as to the decided advan-
tages of a continuous line of railway on the national
gauge, and as to the evils of a break of gauge which the
proposed broad gauge line would have interposed in car-
rying out the defences of the country from Portsmouth,
Chatham, and other places to the West of England.
The South-Western Company had succeeded in obtain-
ing the rejection of the bill by giving their pledge to
make the line, as neither Parliament nor the country
would be satisfied with the mere rejection of the broad
gauge line without making a narrow gauge line in lieu
of it. He then showed that the directors had acted up
to the instructions given them, and in accordance with
resolutions passed at a general meeting of the company
in May last. The Parliamentary committee had insisted
that the line should be a double one instead of a single
line, as proposed ; that was the only alteration from the
resolution of the proprietors ; and that a second line
should be laid down on the Southampton and Dorchester
line, so that there would be a double line of railway from
Southampton to Bridport and Exeter. He would not
trouble them with the money question then, as they
proposed to call a meeting of the proprietors in October
next to consider and decide on the ways and means, and
other matters connected with the undertaking of the ex-
tension line. There was a clause in the Southampton
and Dorchester Railway Act, by which the company
might 134 required by the Board of Trade to lay down a se-
cond line of rails when the gross traffic on the line should
amount to 65,0001. a-year. It at present amounted to
62,0001. a-year ;so that it would be only making the
second line a year or six months sooner than they would
be compelled to make it. The committee would not
have thrown out the Dorset and Devon Bill unless the
South-Western Company bad promised to make the
double line. On the last occasion the weakness of the
company had been shown in a divided board, and di-
vided shareholders, and he did hope, if they wished to
carry out the line successfully, that they would be
united, for they could not expect success in carrying out
any measure unless they were united. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the bills for new lines that had passed
this session, there was the Staines and Wokingham and
Woking Junction, and the Portsmouth railway. The
directors would do what they could to promote the
traffic on those lines, although the company held no
shares in them. There were several other new lines
which would affect them more or less. The bill for ex-
tending the time for making the Salisbury and Basing-
stoke line had passed, and they expected that the portion
of it between Basingstoke and Andover would be open
for traffic in March next. The directors had been doing
everything in their power to develope the traffic on
the main line and branches. The traffic of Southamp-
ton was increasing, it was a rising port, and no increase
could take place in Southampton without serving the
interests of the railway. He wished to mention that
the board may have to call on the shareholders, on a
future occasion, to subscribe capital towards improve-
ments and works at Southampton. There were two
notices of motion which had been given at the last
meeting to be brought forward at the present meeting,
and he wished to know whether the movers would pro
ceed with them. One was by Mr. Kay, for reducing
the allowance to the directors from 2,0001. to 1,6001. a-
year. There were 13 directors, and all he could say
was, that the remuneration was very inadequate.
(Hear.) Mr. Kay not only proposed to reduce the
amount of the allowance, but specified how it was to be
divided among the directors. According to the notice
of motion, it was proposed to give 500/. to the chair-
man, 300/. to the deputy-chairman, and to divide the re-
mainder among the other 11 directors. He (the chair-
man) thought that if the shareholders specified the sum
the board was to receive, they might leave the division
of it to the directors. He did not see Mr. Kay in the
room, and he did not know whether any one appeared
for him. The other notice of motion was given by Mr.
Herapath ; it related to the steam-boats.
Mr. ITEREPATII said he had no wish to press his mo-
tion, unless it were the wish of the meeting. The object
of it was to have a statement laid before the proprietors
of matters relating to the steam-boats, including their
cost, the number of boats, their tonnage, the length of
the lease, and other information as to what they pro-
duced, and as to what the loss might be to the company
ultimately at the end of the lease.
The CHAIRMAN said the steam-packet company was an
independent company, and there was no wish to with-
ed.ptri
iinenifooewrr
stionhuiaenitnditohbnee.
rhaeill The capital of the company was
115,000/., the directors held 14,0001. in the company,
me
and there were 315 proprietors, many of whom were
prod
he
Mr. TITE seconded
Mr. PUNCHER moved a
ahaadeyt
mtchooer
closepo motion.
company. y .
of The
present steam-packet
m eet.
resolutionesnhddeadrto kn ow w tohe
whether
effectthe
company
that p
atnhye
report be receivmeA)
could not abandon the line from Dorchester to Exeter,
and go for a line from Salisbury to Exeter ?
The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative, and expressed
a hope that the shareholders would fulfil faithfully the
solemn pledge
ito Peotoarliament that had been given for
t, ray that the report ap-
itnir. b y
Eic thel 1p dArm warrs