The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-10 00:00:00

EAST IN'DIA 9:

• • (Concluded from The Sun of -Yesterday.) •
The Chairman (li. St. GEORGE TucKr.tr, Esq.,) denied
that the Court of Directors had fallen into any error. They
had been called on to give effect to the provisions of a new
Act of Parliament, anti, as advised by their counsel, they had
done so. He contended that they had acted legally and cor-
rectly. The hon. proprietor seemed to doubt the law of their
learned counsel, and he wished to substitute his own ; but he
must say, that with respect to the 7th clause of the act, not a
single doubt had occurred to the minds of any of his fellow
elirectors as to the perfect legality of their proceedings ; and
lie must add, that in any question involving a point of law they
were bound to act on the opinion of their professional adviser ;
if they did not, they subjected themselves to great and heavy
responsibility. He would say that if, in this instance, they had
acted incorrectly, it was the law that was incorrect, for they
had proceeded upon a sound exposition of it. He did not
mean to go into the merits of the case. If it were the pleasure
of the proprietors to call for papers, and to revise that which
the Court of Directors had done, they must so proceed on their
own responsibility. The wish of the Court of Directors had
been to do justice to all parties interested. They were willing
to receive any suggestion from the proprietors, but they could
not allow their opinions, as directors, acting under the obliga-
tion of an oath, to be lightly overruled.
Mr. FIELDER expressed his conviction that if the plan which
had been laid before the Board of Control by the directors was
confirmed by the former body, it would then be too late for
the proprietors to take any measures.
The CHAIRMAN said the plan had not been yet sanctioned
by the Board of Control, and therefore the case was yet open.
If the proprietors passed any resolutions, they must go to the
Board.

Mr. FIELDER then contended that, in point of law, as well
as of common sense, no scale of compensation could be agreed
on without the intervention of the Court of Proprietors.
They had no right, he admitted, to interfere with the directors
in mere matters of business, such as selling teas ; but he de-
nied that there was any restraining clause in the Act of Par-
liament to prevent them from calling the directors to account
for any important step they might take under that Act, which
was not strictly in conformity with it. He should support
the motion.
Mr. LOWNDES spoke loudly in praise of the Company's
maritime officers.
Mr. SWEET, after a few observations, proposed, as an amend-
ment, " That the Directors be requested to apply to the Board
of Control to suspend their answer to the plan of compensa-
tion proposed by them for their maritime officers ; that the
Directors, in reconsidering the subject, shall do so with a view
to the length of service of the said officers, and also with refer-
ence to the retiring allowances granted to officei s of the navy;
and that they shall lay the result before the proprietors previ-
ously to submitting the plan to the Board of Control."
Mr. TWINING was anxious that on this occasion a proposition
should be made that would insure unanimity instead of excit-
ing opposition. He wished the power and influence of that
Court to be properly acknowledged, because he had often
known it to be exercised with great public benefit. No man
was more sincerely attached to their marine officers than he
was—no man was more anxious to serve them ; but with re-
ference to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Proprietor
(Mr. Sweet), he doubted whether it would not be better not
to point out to the Directors the mode in which they should
shape their consideration of the assistance that ought to be
given to the gentlemen connected with the naval service. After
eulogizing very highly the talent, skill, energy, and enterprise,
which had been so often displayed by the Company's naval
force, the Hon. Proprietor proposed, as an amendment,
" That although the Court is of opinion that the Court of Di-
rectors were fully justified in acting in accordance with the
law as stated by the Company's standing counsel, and is sa-
tisfied that their executive body entertained no desire to de-
prive the constituent body of the right of expressing their opi-
nion on the subject of the compensation to be granted to the
Company's late maritime servants, this Court, nevertheless,
thinks it expedient that the plan of compensation submitted to
the Board of Control by the Court of Directors should be laid
before this Court, and its decision had thereon, prior to its
being laid before Parliament."
Mr. SWEET expressed his willingness to leave out of his
amendment the points to which the Hon. Proprietor objected,
those which called on the Directors to come to a decision with
reference to length of service, and to the retiring allowance
granted in the navy.
Sir C. FORBES said, and he used the word with all respect,
that the directors had erred. He was no lawyer, but no man
of common sense could deny, looking to the 33d, the 53d, and
the 55th of Geo. 111., that all grants of money above the sum
of 6001. should in the first instance be submitted by the Court
of Directors to the Court of Proprietors. What was.the reason
that Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, a director, and a great legal au-
thority, was not in his place to-day to give his opinion ?
The CIIAIRMAN.-Nlr. Fergusson is sorry that he could not
attend to-day, because he was obliged to attend at Court.
Sir C. FORBES.-Oh ! he attends at Court to kiss his Ma-
jesty's hand, I suppose, on being made Advocate-General. I
should not wonder, however, if he speedily kissed his Majesty's
hand on resigning.--( Laughter.) He meant to say nothing
disrespectful, but he must contend that the directors were
bound to attend that Court, especially on such an important
question as this. The Hon. Directors had procured an opinion
on the law, and lie, in consequence, had felt it likewise neces-
sary to obtain an opinion. He had therefore laid before an
eminent counsel precisely the same case, and put to him
precisely the same question which had been referred to the
Learned Sergeant, and his answer was as follows :—" Con-
sidering the former Acts of Parliament, the by laws of the
Company, and the 7th section of the 3d and 4th of Wil-
liam IV., cap. 85, sent herewith as the only ground on
which this question is to be resolved, I am of opinion that
the Court of Directors cannot make a grant of compensation or
gratuity exceeding the sum of 6001. without the previous
sanction of the Court of Proprietors.—( Hear, hear.) The
word in the second section of the said act of the 2d and 3d of
William IV. is " Company," and in the former acts a dis-
tinction appears to be taken between the Court of Directors
and the Company--( Hear, hear)—from which I conclude that
the powers given by that section were not intended to be
given exclusively to the Court of Directors.—( Hear, hear.) If
the Company at large is intended by that word, I apprehend
that the Court of Proprietors must be consulted, and the by-
laws appear to confirm that view of the question I confine
my answer to the precise grounds laid before :me in this
case, as the intimation which I received that my opinion
Would be wanted to-morrow prevented me from giving
the question longer consideration." This opinion (continued
Sir Charles Forbes) was signed, by whom ? Not by the
Attorney or Solicitor-General, but by that acknowledged and
most able lawyer who had been, and he hoped soon would be
again, His Majesty's Attorney-General—Sir James Scarlett.
—( Loud cheers.) The Hon. Baronet concluded with an ani-
mated appeal to the proprietors not to suffer their rights to
be extinguished. If they suffered such a proceeding as that
which was now under discussion to succeed, they would be-
come mere ciphers.
Sir R. CAMPBELL defended the course pursued by the direc-
tors as being perfectly legal.
Captain GowAN called on the proprietors to decide the
question, guided by their own good common sense, and
warned them not to be led away by the quibbles, and the
tortuous twistings of mere words, to which lawyers often re-
sorted.

Mr. WARDEN was of opinion that neither the directors nor
the law officers of the Company were to blame in this matter.
The difficulty had been created by the proprietors themselves,
who did not take care that the pro% ision adverted to in Mr.
Grant's correspondence, and which would have rendered their
proceedings in cases of this kind perfectly clear, should be in-
4..ted in the bill.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. B. HUTCHIN-
SON, Mr. ROUTH, and other proprietors took part,
Mr. WEEDING said he would withdraw his motion if the
Court of Directors would agree to the following, which he
would substitute in its place :—" That the Court of Direc-
tors be requested to reconsider the plan proposed for compen-
sating their late maritime commanders and officers, so as to
adopt the twofold scale of remuneration,that of rank and length
of service which had been acted on with reference to the home
service."

After Mr. WEEDING'S original motion had been withdrawn,
The CHAIRMAN observed that the new motion proceeded on
some " understanding," or some " pledge." Now he would
not enter into the consideration of this or any other question
upon any pledge, except that of conscientiously performing
his duty under the obligation of an oath.
After a protracted discussion, Mr. Weeding being deter-
mined to persist in pressing his second motion, and Mr. Sweet
being equally determined to press his amendment (the part
to which objection had been taken having been withdrawn),
the question was put on Mr. Weeding's motion, which was
negatived. The amendment of Mr. Sweet, in its altered
form, " That the Court of Directors do request the Board of
Control to suspend their answer to the plan of compensation
proposed to them for the maritime officers of the Company,
and that the Court of Directors do re-consider the plan, and
lay the result before this Court, before they submit the same
to the Board of Control," was then agreed to.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

NATURAL ACTING.—The sweet-featured Mrs.
Boutell was a highly popular actress in the period from 1663
to 1696. Her forte was simplicity and tenderness. She was
the original Statira of Lee's Alexander, and acted the rival
Queen successively with Mrs. Marshall and Mrs. Barry.
Once, when playing with the latter of these ladies, she was in
danger of dying on the stage in earnest. Before the curtain
drew up the two Queens—Statira (Boutell) and Roxana
(Barry)—had a real rivalship about a lace veil, which was at
last awarded to the former by the property man. This deci-
sion so enraged Roxana that she acted her part rather too
naturally, and in stabbing Statira, sent her dagger, though it
was a blunted one, through Mrs. Bouttell's stays about a
quarter of an inch into the flesh.—Canybell's Life
Mrs.
Siddons. of

ITALY.—" This work is from the pen of Mr. Beck-
ford, the author of the celebrated story Vatliek,' and the
recent possessor of the magnificent abbey at Fonthill. It will
be found unlike any book of travels in prose that exists in
any European language. Some immortal passages in Gray's
Letters' and Byron's Diaries,' are the only things in our
tongue that come near the profound melancholy, blended with
the picturesque of description, at once true, and startling,. of
these extraordinary pages. We risk nothing in predicting
that this work will henceforth be classed among the most ele-
gant productions of modern literature. It will forthwith be
translated into every language of the Continent, and will keep
Mr. Beckford's name alive centuries after all the brass and
marble he ever piled together have ceased to vibrate with the
echoes of Modenhas."—Quarterly Review, June, 1834.