The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-23 00:00:00

EAST' IN MA HOUSE.--
(YE STERDAY.)
A. Quarteray General Court 01 the Proprietors of East
India Stock, was held at their House in Leadenhall
street; which was also in ade special, for the purpose of
coniideriag the by-law, ; tnd other purposes.
G.' Lyiea, Esq., M.P., took the Chair at twelve o'clock,
accompanied by the great er part of the Directors.
The proceedings of the last Court having been read,
theioapers which had beet I laid on the table of the Houses
of P. ayliam lit since the 1 Ist Court, were presented to
the'Court of Proprietors ; also an account of the super-
aninlations granted by the Court of Directors since the
last Court.
Mr.G. THOMPSON, befoi 'e proceeding to the special
business of 'the day, begged' to ask the Chairman whe-
ther he had received a node 3 which he had thought it
his duty to send to him, of his intention of calling the
attention of the Court to the • case of the late Raja of
Sattara ?
The CHAIRMAN said he h ad received the notice, but
that was not the proper timed 0 mention it.
M. THOMPSON had naked the question, because he
had seen no mention made of his notice, in the adver-
tisement calling the Court.
',The CHAIRMAN—OnIy thos a notices given in Court
al jpear in the advertisement.
Mr. M. MARTIN (who had a notice of mation on the
paper) objected to the Court amnsiderinaa any business
made special, upon the authority of tha Directors, be-
fofe,Oat of which notice had been gaven by a Proprie-
„to 'lee,' previous to any intinrat'am of the special
t:,
o 91eSs.
4,
loraiv. conversation, in wiatch the Chairman, Mr.
_Arian- Director, and' 3ilta Weeding, contended for
the pg. hi to bring on all 'ausiness made special by .he
a-Factors, and Mr. Lenis suaported Mr. Montgousery's
`llaWa, 'which were not pressed;
The Cu AIRMAN said, the by-law, which tie Direc-
tors reifoinlnended that' Court to give authority to the
Conail,iik on lay-laws to 'repeal, prohibiting any Direc-
tor, officer, ^or servant of. the Company from trading
within the limits of the Charter, was one that was passed
in 1795, when. the Court were planed in circumstances
°f a yery different character from those in which they
'were eaav placed. (Hear, hear, hear,) At that
time they were deeply engageed in trade, and were
the on ay individuals who were permitted to
do ea U.) India. Since ther, they had not only thrown
open th e trade of . every ether description,
but the ~y had vendg up uthe right of trading at all ;
thereto ere the object propcsed to be obtained by the by-
v uo, longer existed. fhat object was to prevent any
Direr tor, officer, or se/a-ant of the Company from in-
terfa clan g with the trade which was carried on for the
bent lit af all. The Company Were now, in fact, the
only parties who 'were prohibited from trading within
the limits of the Charter. He and the Court Direc-
tors', saw no reason for the maintenance of the restriction.
They thought it now worked prejudicially to the in-
Ita rests of ;,he Company, for it narrowed the choice of
tat e Prop rietors of commercial men to seats as Direc-
tors. A s it now stood, hardly any general mer-
chant would be able to offer himself for the direc-
tioi i, a Lich all would acknowledge to be a very serious
evil- ' The Directors did not propose that any of the pro-
hibite it classes should have the power of trading with
India', , properly so called, or with any of the nations on
the cs rntinent of India sulject to us, but under the by-
law,' as it now stood, they were prohibited from
tra'i ng with any of our Australian colonies, or with
Sot t'th America, for the charter embraced all parts, from
tfl€ i. Cape of Good :dope to the Straits of Magellan,
wt, Lich constituted a circle embracing nearly the whole
sat erld. Under present circumstances there was no reason
fol c such, a large disqualification,- and, therefore, he would
pr °posts a resolution is obtain an alteration of the by-
Jai v, tc, which he could not anticipate any objection.
7.•C0/ e Sir L. LUSHINGTON (the Deputy Chairman), se-
aeond• ed the motion.
Mir. WEEDING deeply regretted such an alteration
a move recommended to that Court by the Court of Direc-
tors.—(Hear.) The, reasons which formerly supported
I ii' : by-laws applied 'with more force at the present
I a aie than before. In his opinion it was inexpedient to
t 0 comply with the recommendation, because our commer-
( i II intercourse with the Straits of Malacca was large, and
tat •er all the nations resident there the Government of
Is dia had too much power to allow the Directors, their
of deers, or servants, to trade without suspicion. In his
el; inion it would be a violation of the Charter, and he
va - amid propose an amendment in accordance with those
of ', anions; If the by-laws were altered in accordance
w ith the recommendation- of the Directors, any member
of ' the Board might become a proprietor in some joint-
s(, . ck .concern trading with the countries under their Go-
v( rinnent ; or they might become sugar planters, and
ex agage largely in the importation of Hill Coolies.—
(I fear, hear.) The Directors would be placed in a false
la 'sition, and it. would be impossible for them to come to
a a safe conclusion, or one that would be respected on
a any questions that must come before them, and he
would much fear' such trading by the Directors would
!bring the Court into disrepute, and the Government of
India into collision with the Government of this country.
Ile honoured the character of a merchant, because lie
believed that 'to commercial intercourse, more than any
r )ther cause, was to be attributed the enlightenment and
c ivilisation of mankind ; and he would not abridge any
o f the advantages to which they were fairly entitled ;
fa ut he must say, that, in his opinion, the proposed alter-
at ion was fraught with mischievous consequences ; that
ti le effect would be to bring their duty as commercial
n' len into collision with their interests. There was an-
other reason which led him to oppose the motion, namely,
tl le oath imposed by the Act of Parliament. The Act
o.,..mtained that oath not only in 1794, but again in 1813,
ti hen the whole eastern world was thrown open. Still
tl le Legislat ore imposed the same oath. Formerly it had
la aen proposed, by gentlemen behind the bar that they
sl mould be atermitted to trade to Australia. If such opi-
ni ons prev 'ailed, they could have establishments not only
in the Archipelago, in Java, and at the Philippine Isles,
bra also w Candia and Columbo. The proposition was
contrarie to the law of the land, and to the obligations
ifillaase upon the Company. He called upon the Court
to. rot/% !ct the Proprietors from themselves, by refusing
to aces ale to the motion.
MI . LEWIS, in rising to second the motion, said it ap-
I:amr ed to him that the alteration could not legally be
atle cted in the manner proposed. It was perfectly well
lknown that the power of making and consequently of
:altering by-laws, was vested by the statute of William,
iin the Proprietors assembled in a general Court. On
:this occasion the Proprietors were called upon to request
i the Committee upon by-laws to amend a certain by-
law, valling upon the Committee upon by-laws to do
-.that which the Legislature said should be done only by
the assembled Court of Proprietors. If it had been pre-
viously determined by a distinct valuation that such an
alteration should be made in the by-laws, and had
tb en called upon the Committee of by-laws to frame
the 'alteration accordingly, such a course could have been
per iactly regular.
'The CHAIRMAN said the amendment was to be sub-
la itted to the Court.
Mr. LEWIS said no limit had been specified. The
. Committee were to alter the section, so as to confine its
operations to the East Indian Continent, and to other
places on the Continent of India ; leaving it, in fact, to
the Committee to say what places on that Continent
should or should not be included in the prohibitory
enactment ; whereas it ought to be done with the sanc-
tion. and consent of two General Courts. The Hon. Pro-
pri:etor then referred to a motion made by Mr. Randall
Jackson in 1814, proposing an alteration in a by-law, in
v ehich the mover called upon the Court at once to make
the alteration, and contended that that precedent ought
to guide the Court on this occasion. Having said thus
much on the manner in which it was proposed to make
the alteration, he would say one or two words on the al-
teration itself. The reason stated for the proposition
was, that the constitution of the East India Company
had been changed since the law was passed.
The CHAIRMAN said the cause originally assigned for
enacting the by-law had then entirely ceased. A num-
ber of commercial men had entered into extensive trans-
actions with India, and in consequence of that it was
end ted that no Directer should be allowed to trade with
India.
Mr. LEWIi3 said he believed it had originated in a
much more satisfactory reason. It was not merely to
avoid the inconsistency and incongruity which must
arise fron, any one member of a Joint-Stock Company,
. carrying ,an trade with India, and at the same time car-
rying on trade individually ; but to prevent a Director
from uslng that knowledge and influence which he might
possess in a sovereign capacity, tar the purpose of pro-
noting his own interests.—(Hear, hear.) It was to show
• to the public that they deserved to exercise the Sove-
reign power. That was one reason, if not the sole and
predominant one, which led the Court to pass that law.
al He asked the Court of Proprietors, then, to prevent the
f~Court of Directors from injuring their characters as
~ St:a/thins of- India ; 'And by rejecting the resolution,
,-.' they would secure them against those suspicious copse-
. quenees, which he was sure would result from the al-
aeration.
Mr. HOGG said it appeared to him that the main ques-
tion for consideration was whether or no the alteration
was, in. fact, dasirable.• If the Court came to the cenclu-
Sion that it w. as desirable, of course the Directors would
see that it -was made in legal form. He protested against
the line of argument which had been adopted by his friend
Mr. W'
eeding. The question had been argued as if the
,Caouria of Proprietors and the public were on one side, and
the 'Court of Directors on the other. He protested against
sue.ll a line of argument. The suggestion from the Chair
w as, whilst the East India Company was a trading body,
*the Directors were prohibited from trading within the
limits of the Company's Charter, because their private
interests must come in collision with their duty as far as
interests of the. Company were concerned. The words of
the by-law itself explained its meaning and the rea-
taus which led to its adoption. His friend last
Wednesday said that their functions of sovereignty
'caught not to be mixed up with their functions as
',faders. Now he (Mr. Hong) thought that that
ire att hoped alwaysae.tement ought to be qualified somewhat,r because
to see among the Court of Di-
actors., members of the principal banking and ruercan-
'4 141 e firms of this great city. Those gentlemen brought
t° the deliberations of the Court of Directors most use-
ful knowledge and information. With respect to the
a alteration of the law, he begged the attention of the Pro-
iillie,tooF to the manlier in which' their choice was at pre-
sentted. There was scarcely a commercial firm
with th:
u.O that Was not directly or indirectly connected
if the ta • trade 'ne the east of the Cape of Good Hope.
- why lei, itotiperniletra thought proper to reject those persons,
wotildthereb
.„..,,,,
merely
rel;i:anr(ileaoercial.firuas of
' ') "0, taal if they would reject them they
her, „f th,i
cY exclude Alr.Weedinq himself, and the meme
a
_. sphere oa• this city. The question
their i their interest in the extent of the
tend that Amara choice,. If they thought proper to ex-
tie!' of Di reetaa's
'n 7Y then let them concur in the selec-
t tlaar,:
, don. It' tile trading eonul,:aii ties ut Lena
the law remain usat.hat course injudicious, then let
Hogg's) knowledge or ands.itthest As far as his (Mr.
Went, he knew ofsecs of the prison-house"
nothing
which any gentleman con-