The Sun.
London, England, 1840-09-24 00:00:00

for the Directors to go to Parliament, as he was sure
that if any application of the nature proposed by the
Honourable Proprietor were made, that it would be to
the disadvantage of the East India Company. An
Honourable Proprietor had called the expenditure by
the Secret Comnatt e wasteful and unwarrantable. How
could that Honourable Proprietor state that it was
wasteful and unwarrantable, when he did not k: ow in
what manner and for what objects the money bad been
expended ?
Sir CHARLES FORBES—Judging the present by the
past I think so.
The CHAIRMAN observed, th,t there might be a
wasteful expenditure as respected a farthing as well ,as a
million. The amount formed no criterion unless the
objects in view were considered. In some years the ex-
penditure under the hi ad " secret service" was smelt,
in others larger, but in all cases the Sec-et Committee
acted conscientiously. The Honourable Mover of the
resolution appeared to think that the money was
paid over to Sir J. Hobhouse, as President of the
Beard of Control, but the fact /vas that the money was
expended by the Secret Committee, and the Court of
Directors had full information of the manner in which
it was expended. The money was expended in pro-
viding for the defence of India, in the building of
steam-boats for internal protection, for political i ur-
poses, and for the public service.
Mr. WEEDING had hoped that the Chairman wcti!tl
have stated the law on the subject under considerati n.
He (Mr. Weeding) could not concur in the rema I:,
that the expenditure of the Secret Committee w“s
wasteful. With respect to the 60,0001. spent in raisit g
seamen, he (Mr. Weeding) considered it as a most
proper outlay. It was at the time when the French
had possession of Egypt, and if the Hon. Baronet
would only consider the expenditure on board a sixty-
four-gun ship, the outlay he complained of was insig-
nificant, as compared with the great advan-
tage that had been obtained. It was true that
the India Board exercised control over the acts of
the Government of India, but the President of that Board
had declared, in his (Mr. Weeding's) hearing, that it had
not the power of initiation.---( Hear.) The Honourable
Proprietor defended the expenditure of the 60,0001. for
raising seamen, and contrasted that small outlay with
that of the Burmese war, which cost 10,000,0001. or
11,000,000/. He thought a case ought to be made out
for the legal adviser of the East India Company, in
order that the state of the law upon the subject under
consideration might be ascertained.

Mr. ASTELL Considered the money expended for the
rasing of seamen bad been explaiaed. It would be in-
expedient and mischievous to appeal to Parliament on
the subj,et that had been brought forward.

Mr. HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER (a Director) dif-
fered in opinion from his colleagues on the subject. The
question before the Court was simple and plain, and he
would support the motion. If such power did exist,
Parliament ought to be petitioned to place the subject
in a legal and more satisfactory position. He could not,
however, agree in the expression that had been made
use of, that the 'expenditure had been wasteful. He
should support the motion.

Mr.WIGRAM (a Director) was perfectly satisfied that
the Board of Control had the power of ordering. the
Secret Committee to transmit despatches to India, but
he denied that that power was exercised without any
responsibility. The Directors had a statement of the
expenditure now before them ; therefore it could not
be said that there was any secrecy about it, and furtha.,
part of the money had been expended in steam-boats.
No government could possibly be carried on without the
power of giving money secretly.—( Hear, hear.) He
trusted that the motion would be withdrawn.

Mr. D. SALOMONS said the question was one of im-
portance ; but he thought, under all circumstances, the
Proprietors ought not to proceed further in the matter
until they had a copy of the protest, admitted to have
been signed by many of the Directors. He thought
the control of the secret-service fund should be placed
in the hands of two or three persons only, but that as
soon as it could properly be done, an account should
be rendered to the Proprietors of the manner of its ex-
penditure.

The CHAIRMAN said the production of the pipers in
question would be very inconvenient, and he thought in-
jurious. His statement respecting the President of the
Board of Control appeared to have been misunder-
stood. The Board of Control had the power of com-
pelling the Secret Committee to send dispatches to
dia ; but, at the same time, the Secret Committee had
the power of discussing the question mooted in those
dispatches, and of expressing their opinions thereon.
Sir ROBERT CAMPBELL (a Director) thought the Le.
gislature never intended one individual to have the con-
trol of the funds of the Company, but that would be
much better to leave the whole matter in the hands of
the Directors.

The motion was then put and negatived by a very
considerable majority.
The CHAIRMAN said the next motion before the
Court was one of which Mr. Poynder had given notice,
viz.:—

4' T.:at this Court do take into consideration the
coraniunications of two missionaries recently arrived
from India, which were made at the public meetings
of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, held in London,
on the days of the 4th and 18th of May last, together
with the two letters which were addressed to the
Court of Directors in consequence by Mr. John
Poynder, one of the Proprietors of this Company,
dated the 11th and 28th May last ; and also the official
answer of the Secretary to such letters, dated the 2d
June last.

" That there be laid before this Court a copy of the
Order in Council, or other Act of the Indian Govern-
ment, awarding (on the abolition of the Pilgrim Tax)
to the Rajah of Khoordah or other authority, connected
with the temple of Juggernaut, the sum of 50,000 ru-
pees, or 5,000/ per annum for the future."
He had received a letter from that gentleman stating
his inability to attend on account of severe indispo-
sition, and requesting the motion might be postponed
till the next Court day.
Mr. HANKEY, after regretting the absence of Mr.
Poynder, gave notice of a motion for the next Court
day, relative to European officers in India taking a part
in the religious ceremonies of the natives.