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 should certainly support it.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said, if the hon. gentleman were '
to press his motion, he, for one, would vote in favour of it. 1
As to the question of economy, something might be said
on both sides ; but one thing was certain, that if the pro-
posed change were made a great reduction of clerks would
follow.
The house, after a few words from Sir R. INGLIS and
Mr. NEWDEGATE, divided—
For the clause 72
100
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, tre yearly
sums following (that is to say) :—To the chairman 1,500/.
a year, to the deputy-chairman 1 ,5001. a year, and to
every other director 1,000/. a year. "
The clause was read a first and second time, and being a
money clause the house went into committee on it, Mr.
BotreERIE in the chair.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the clause, thinking the sala-
ries originally proposed sufficiently high. He moved that
the sum of 1,0001. 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.

Sir R..H. INGLIS opposed the amendment.
Mr. MALINS supported the clause. He 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 remunerated 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 he 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 SirJ. W. Hogg had
various other appointments, such as directors of the Pro-
vincial Bank of Ireland, of the Bank r'f British North
America, of the Alliance Assurance Company, the New
Zealand Company, and others without number. (Hear,
hear.) Now, it was quite clear that unl,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 woahl 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 givin,
back to the Indians anything better than they had had.'
For 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 ; fur 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 bad 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 ha I been addressed.to him, stating expli-
citly that 5)0/. 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 ambitious 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 J. 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, ft*. some such
step to enable servants of the company coming borne from
India to obtain seats in the direction. Therefeie, if they
proposed to fix the salary at 3001. or at 5001. for an official
who had come home, be 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 me 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
Very 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 smal.
He owned he 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 B3
Against it 99
Majority against —l6
Sir C. WOOD then moved to fill up the clause so as to
make the Deputy Chairman's salary 1,0001. and the Direc-
tors' 5001.

The clause then passed through committee, and the re-
port was ordered to be brought up.
The house havir g 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 of a member elected to a seat at the new
India Board vacant by virtue of such election ?

Sir C. WOOL) 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
Eurojean 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 or 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 deprechted the discipline of the
soldier. He should be told, perhaps, that Lord Dalhousie
had
recommended this measure on account of the war in
better
ram ; but if that were so, he thought it would be
if the Royal troops were engaged in those operations
than the native troops.He trusted right hon. gentle-
man would be able to explain the clause, and why he
thought it was preferable to allow the East India Company
to 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,
to it, and he thought it because no one had objected
was most unusual course for the
hon. gentleman now to move that it be struck out. With
regard to the question raised the hon. gentleman's mo-
tion, he begged to statem att tls East India Company's
troops amounted to no ore
the present moment than
they did 70 years ago, whilst the Queen's troops had been
very greatly increased in that
period.
of Lord Dal-
rectors had given no opinion upon g;
subject. The clause
The Court of Di-
to
had been framed upon the recommendation
bowie, and its effect would be simplyadd one regiment
in each presidency to the forces of the com and the
entire number of men would be under s,ooNanY'
After a few words from Sir DE LACY Ev th
A Ns
motion for expunging the clause was negatived, thew
bill was passed amidst the general cheering of the
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. II".
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 2 being read, which contains the form of test
to be taken under the bill,
Mr. LOCKHART moved an amendment extending the
test to the chairs of moral philosophy and natural phile.
soph.
They LORD ADVOCATE opposed the amendment, which
was negatived without a division. insertion
Mr. F. SCOTT then moved the in the text of
the words " upon the true faith of a Christian," with the
view of securing for the youth who were to be educated
in these institutions, the instructions of those who were
attached to the Christian religion. Ile should certainly
take a division on the amendment, but he hoped the
learned Lord Advocate would consent to it.

The question having been put,
Mr. NEWDEGATE would have liked to have heard
why the Lord Advocate objected to the insertion of the
words proposed. The question was, did they intend to
give to the people of Scotland a valid test to exclude per-
sons who were not Christians from being placed in the
chairs of the universities.
The LORD ADVOCATE said he had made the modifi-
cations in the declaration which it had undertaken to
make. He thought it most undesirable in the present
state of society to establish a test of religious belief for
persons appointed to those chairs in the universities of
Scotland.
Mr. E. LOCKHART said, after what had taken place,
he felt bound to support the declaration as it stood.
Mr. S. WORTLEY would support the proposed amend-
ment., not that he wished to exclude by such a test any
particular sect of Christians, but because he thought it
would be repugnant to the feelings of the people of Scot-
land if the words were not inserted.
Mr. LOCKHARE said that those universities had suf-
fered more from a belief that infidelity had not been auf-
He hoped that the committee
fieiently discouraged.