The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-30 00:00:00

hear.) He repeated that no reason had been assigned for ,
resisting the motion, and he sho,dd certainly support it.
Mr. VERNON SMITH. said, if the hon. gen4l3man were
to press his motion, he, for one, woul,l vote in f :your of it.
As to the question of economy, something might be said
on both sides ; but one thing was certain, that if the pro-
pos3 I change were nude a great reduction of clerks would
fellow.
The house, after a few words from Sir R. INGLIS and
Mr. NEWDEGITZ, divided—
For the clause 72
Against it
Majority ............... .
Sir C. WOOD then moved the following clause :—" In-
stead of the yearly sums allowed under the bye-laws of the
said company to the chairman, deputy-chairman, and other
directors, for their attendance upon the business of the
said company, there shall be allowed to the chairman,
deputy-chairman, and directors, under this act, tie yearly
sums following (that is to say) :—To the chairman 1,5001.
a year, to the deputy-chairman 1,500/. a year, and to
every other director 1,0001. a year."
The clause was read a first and second time, and being a
money clause the house went into committee on it, Mr.
BOITVERIE in the chair.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the clause, thinking the sala-
ries originally. proposed sufficiently high. He moved that
the sum of 1,000/. be the salary of the chairman, instead
of 1,5001.
Mr. HUME seconded the amendment.
Mr. VANSITTART supported the amendment, on the
ground that the Parliament was bound to deal tenderly
with the money, not of the people of England, but of
India._ _ _

H. INGLIS opposed the amendment.
Mr. MALINS supported the clause. lie considered
that if they were to have gentlemen perfectly qualified
to perform the office of directors of a great company, they
ought to be properly remunerated ; and that it was, there-
fore, beneath the dignity of the House of Commons to
cavil at the salary proposed by the Government.
Mr. A. PELLATT was inclined to regard the position
of a director as one not to be remunerate 1 by pecuniary
advantages, but rather through its dignities and honours.
These gentlemen were not to be treated as mere officials,
who had no other sources of emolument, for it had never
for a moment been concealed that they were not otherwise
most actively engaged.
Mr. BLACKETT objected altogether to the payment
of the directors by patronage, and could not help protest-
ing against the system of paying them first by direct pecu-
niary remuneration, and afterwards by patronage.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that the alteration proposed by the
right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Con-
trol, went to show that the time and energies of the direc-
tors were to be entirely given up to Indian affairs. But
that was a fallacy, for the business got into the hands of
those in authority, namely, the chairman and deputy-
chairman. He (Mr. Bright) had recently read in a work
entitled " City Men, and City Measures," a description of
the advantages enjoyed by directors of the Bank of Eng-
land, and the East India House, -which were sure to be
followed by their being directors of various joint stock
banking companies, and railway companies to no end. Mr.
Russell Ellice, the chairman of the East India Company ;
Major Oliphant, Henry Alexander, and Sir J. W. Hogg had
various other appointments, such as directors
.of the Pro-
vincial Bank of Ireland; of tieBank of British North
America, of the Alliance Assurance Company, the New
Zealand Company, and others without number. (Hear,
hear.) Now, it was quite clear that unk.ss all those com-
panies were shams, the directors were shams likewise, be-
cause it was utterly impossible they could do their duty to
all these establishments. Independently of all this, as
members of the House of Commons, it was well known
that the task of sitting there from four o'clock to one or
two the next morning, was no common one, independently
of private correspondence with constituents, committees,
&c., &c. If the right hon. gentleman with the President
of the Board of Control had about him six or seven gentle-
men well acquainted with India, it would form as good
and as sensible a government of India as it was possible to
have in this country ; and in that case he should not object
to their having 1,0001. or 1.5001. a year. They would be
worth any money indeed. At present, however, they were
proposing a largely increased salary to these officers, which
was to come out of the revenue of India, without giving
back to the Indians anything better than they had had.
or that reason he should vote against the clause, if it
came to a division.
Lord J. MANNERS said he conceived the right hon.
gentleman had not stated any sufficient reason for pro-
posing an increased salary ; for it was not enough to say
in support of his proposition, that it had been framed to
meet the views of the majority of those who had had com-
munications with him on the subject.
Sir CHARLES WOOD wished to explain that on this
subject he had not held any communication with the East
India Company, but he had taken this step in consequence
of its having been observed by more than one member that
the Government scale of salary was too low, and several
communications had been addressed to him, stating expli-
citly that 5001. was an insufficient sum to secure the ser-
vices of the best men for India.

Mr. V. SMITH said, that when the salary first proposed
by the Government was named, he thought it quite con-
temptible, when compared with the scale of salaries of
which they had experienced in this country, and he could
have wished that there had been proposed a different scale
of salaries for the directors. However, it was a mistake to
say that patronage was no advantage, that a director was
paid in power, just as the noble lord below him was paid
in power (as he presumed he had no salary for his services)
and as every ambitions man was paid by power. Theyhad
a certain distribution of patronage, which they might turn
to their own advantage by exercising it in favour of their
family or relatives. These were not matters for the house
to be hankering about. He believed that the expression
of the house was adverse to the increase of salary, and
therefore he should advise his right hon. friend to abide by
his former proposition.
Lord .T. RUSSELL said, no reason could be given for
fixing on these peculiar sums, and when the hon. member
for Manchester said that the salary should be 2,0001., in
certain circumstances there was as little reason for that
proposition as there was for fixing it at 1,0001. In fact
these sums depended very much on hon. gentlemen's esti-
mates of the expenses which a person was liable to who
undertook these offices. It had been very truly said that
the difficulty of the matter had been complicated by the
introduction of the nominees of the Crown, but there was
the authority of many persons well acquainted with Indian
affairs, and particularly of Lord Hardinge, for some such
step to enable sorvants of the company coming home from
India to obtain seats in the direction. Therefore, if they
proposed to fix the salary at 3007. or at 500/. for an official
who had come home, he might say, " I have had a
great deal of work in India—l am fatigued. I have only
accumulated a small fortune. I prefer living quietly, and,
in justice to my family, I do not know that I can take upon
myself the expenses of the office now offered to roe at that
salary." It would be no answer to make to him or say to
him, " Well, but you will have patronage." Patronage, in
such a case, would be no great consideration. It was not
ery satisfactory to those who had to make propositions, to
find their propositions disapproved of as being too large,
whereas it had just before been denounced as too small.
He owned ho felt rather indifferent as to the fate of this
proposal, but he would express the opinion that he was in-
clined to think it the best.

The committee divided on the question that the salary
be 1,5001. a year, and the numbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority against

99
-16

Sir C. WOOD then moved to fill up the clause so as to
make the Deputy Chairman's. salary 1,000/. and the Direc-
tors' 500 t.

The clause then passed through committee, and the re-
port was ordered to be brodght up.
The house having resumed, the report was received, and
the clause ordered to stand part of the bill.
Mr. BRIGHT asked was he at liberty to move a clause
making the seat ()tit member elected to a seat at the new
India Board vacant by virtue of such election ?
Sir C. WOOD said there could not be the slightest doubt
that such would be the operation of the bill. Persons ap-
pointed to seats at the India Board would vacate their
seats in Parliament, but they would be re-eligible. The
clause was therefore unnecessary, and it was consequently
undesirable to introduce it.
Mr. BRIGHT, under these circumstances, should not
press it.
Mr. WISE then moved that clause 29, limiting the
European troops in the company's service, should be
omitted from the bill. He thought it was highly objection-
able, in a constitutional point of view, to have English
troops in India., which were not under the control of the
House of Commons. The clause would impair the effi-
ciency of the English army also. The question was whe-
ther the troops in India should be. Imperial forces br forces
under the control of the India Company. He saw a great
disadvantage in the double military system that now pre-
vailed, especially when it was known that the effect of a
permanent stay in India depreciated the discipline of the
soldier. He should be told, perhaps, that Lord Dalhousie
had recommended this measure on account of the war in
Burmah ; but if that were so, he thought it would be
better if the Royal troops were engaged in those operations
than the native troops. He trusted the right hon. gentle-
man would be able to explain the clause, and why he
thought it was preferable to allow the East India Company
t° increase the number of their troops than to employ the
royal troops in India. He begged to move that clause 29
be expunged from the bill.
Sir C. WOOD stated he had said nothing upon the sub-
ject of this clause previously, because no one had objected
to it, and he tlaouglit it was a most unusual course for the
hon. gentleman now to move that it be struck out. With
regard to the question raised by the hon. gentleman's mo-
tion, he begged to state that the East India Company's
troops amounted to no more at the present moment than
Years ago, whilst the Queen's troops had been
very greatly increased in that
they did 70
period. The Court of Di-
rectors had given no opinion
upon the subject. The clause
had been framed upon the recommendation of Lord Dal-
inhoueasiceh, apnredsiidtsenecyffecttn wtohueldf,,rbeeessiomfptlyhetocoandadpaonnye, a idm
the e n t
entire number of men would be under 5,000.
After a few words from Sir Dg LACY EVANS, the
motion for expunging the clause was negatived, and the
bill was passed amidst the general cheering of the house.