The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-30 00:00:00

_

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 30, 1858.

EA S F INDIA HO USE.

l;a►llwaj7. I Paid.

Closing Price lldnel I
Done.

SPECIAL MEETING-(TIIIS DAY).

A special general Court of the Company was held this
day, for the purpose of laying before the proprietors the
opininn cf counsel upon certain legal points submitted for
consideration by the last meeting, and for the confirmatio❑
of a resolution granting an annuity of ,E 2,000 per annum to
Sir J. M. Lawrance, Bart., K.C.B.
Sir F. CURRIE took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The minutes of the last meeting having been read,
The CHAIRMAN submitted the resolution, granting the
annuity to Sir J. Lawrance, for confirmation.
Mr. ARBUTIINOTT expressed his approval of the vote,
and said he thought the directors were entitled to an ac-
knowledgment from the proprietors, for the manner in
which the business of the Company had been conducted.
The constitution of the new Council for the Government of
India, augured well for its future prosperity. It was a
source of pleasure to recognise the names of seven of the
gentlemen of the directory in that body, but it was to be
regretted that a gentleman, possessed of such great know-
ledge as Colonel Sykes, was not to take his seeat in the
Council.

Mr. JONES said he disapproved of the policy pursued by
Sir J. Lowrance, and he should move a resolution to that
effect. The hon. proprietor then, at some length, entered
into the subject of the annexation of Oude, and concluded
with a motion to the effect that the words " long and distin-
guished services," which expressed an approval of the an-
nexation of the Punjaub, be omitted.
The CHAIRMAN said such a resolution could not be put
at that stage of the proceedings. The meeting had been
called for the confirmation or rejection of the resolution,
and the hon. proprietor was therefore precluded from moving
any modification.
Mr. LEWIN much regretted the absence of Col. Sykes
from the ❑ew Council for the government of India. He
should very much like to know what more the members of
that body would do for their salary of £1,200 a-year, and a
pension of £BOO, than they did at present for their £5OO.
Col. Sykes, it was well known, held strong opinions with
respect to Indian subjects, and always expressed his views
boldly, and to this circumstance he attributed the gallant
gentleman's non-election.
Col. SYKES much regretted that the deeds of Frere and
Chamberlayne had been passed over in silence.
The CHAIRMAN said no slight was intended to any, but
it was impossible to acknowledge the services of all.
The motion of Mr. Jones fell to the ground, and the reso-
lution confirming the granting a pension to Sir H. Lowrance
was agreed to.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

The Court was then made special for the consideration of
he opinion of council upon certain points in the Bill for
he Government of India.
The CHAIRMAN said the opinions of the Attorney and
Solicitor-General, Sir R. Bethell, and Mr. Wigram, Q.C.,
had been received that morning. They were as follows :
Question I.—Supposing that the company, under the
13th section of the Act of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV, cap. 85,
should give notice for the redemption of its dividend, is
Parliament bound to redeem the dividend at the rate there-
in mentioned out of the Imperial revenues without any re-
ference to the sufficiency of the Indian revenues?
Answer I.—We are of opinion that the 13th sec. of the 3d
and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, constitutes a Parliamentary con-
tract with the East India Company, and that should the East
India Company demand the redemption of its dividend under
that section, Parliament would be bound to make provision
for its redemption without reference to the sufficiency of the
Indian revenues.
Q. 2.—Assuming that the company does not give the
notice provided for in sec. 13 within one year from its being
deprived of the possession and government of the British
territories in India, does the company lose all such claim to
compel redemption of its dividend by Parliament out of the
Imperial revenues without any reference to the sufficiency
of the Indian revenues?
Q. 3.—Assuming further, that the company does not give
the required notice within the year, will the company en-
tirely forfeit its right to demand redemption, whether out of
the Imperial revenues or out of the revenues of India alone?
A. 2 and 3.—We are of opinion that if the company does not
under sec. 13 of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, demand
redemption of its dividend within one year from its being
deprived of the possession and government of the territories
of India, it will forfeit its right to demand redemption of
the dividend; and the dividend willibecome irredeemable
until 1874, and then will be redeemable only at the option
of Parliament.
Q. 4.—Can the security fund be applied to the payment
of dividend or to any other purpose, without the requisition
of the Court of Directors of the company,according to 3d and
4th Wm. I V., cap 85, sect. 15?
A. 4.—We are of opinion that under the conjoint effect of
the 3d and 4th Wm. IV. cap. 85, sec. 15, and the 21st and
22d Vic., cap. 106, sec. 73," the "security fund" can, upon
requisition by the Court of Directors, be applied to make
good any deficiency in remittances for the payment of divi-
dendebut that it cannot be applied to thepaymeut of dividend
without such requisition. We also think that upon "redemp-
tion" of tho dividend, the "security fund" will be available, and
may be applied to the purposes of such redemption. But
while the " security fund" is under twelve millions, there is
nit, in our opinion, any purpose other than the foregoing to
which any part of the fund can be applied.
Q. 5. Does the section 42 of 21 and 22 Vic. cap. 106, which
enacts that all payments under that Act shall be made out
of the revenue) of India (alone) affect in any manner the
question of redemption?
A. s.—The 42d section of the 21st and 22d Vic., cap. 106,
which enacts that all payments under that Act shall be made
out of the revenues of India alone, does not, in our opinion,
affect in any manner the question of redemption.
Q. 6.—ln case of defalcation or loss of any description
arising from the misconduct or mismanagement of the
company's agents in the payment of dividend or otherwise,
out of what funds must such defalcaton or loss be
made good ; and in case of lawsuits or other pro-
ceedings against the company arising out of such occur-
rences, or from any other cause relating to the payment of
the dividend on, or transfer of, the capital stock, would the
expenses thereby incurred fall within the meaning of the
words contained in the 72d section of the Act of the 21st and
22d Vic., cap. 106, viz., " expenses of and incident to the
payment to the proprietors of the capital stock of the
said company of their respective shares of the dividend on
such stock, and of keeping the books of the said company
for transfers and otherwise in relation to such stock ?"
A. 6.—lf the defalcation or loss referred to in this ques-
tion be a defalcation or loss as to the monies provided out of
the revenues of the Indian territories for the payment of the
dividend mentioned in sec. 11 of 3d and 4th Wm. IV.,cap. 85,
and handed over to the company for that purpeee, we are of
opinion that such loss must fall upon, and bo borne by the
company. The sum which, by that section, is charged upon
the Indian revenues, is discharged by payment to the com-
pany or its authorised agent. If, on the other hand the quo--
tion supposes a loss to arise by a servant of the company per-
mitting or making an irregular or unauthorised transfer of
stock, we thiak that a lossof this kind also must fall upon the
company. The company are charged with the duty of keeping
books and of permitting no tran•fer except in the manner
required by the charter of William 111. In the event of
liability attaching itself to the company for the
improper
act of its servant, as for example, for a transfer of stock
under a forged power of attorney, a further question would
arise, how is such liability to be made good? The At-
torney-General and Sir Richard Bethel are of opinion that
the dividend and redemption money being appropriated by
statute there would be no general property of the company
to answer any such liability, which would therefore be only
nominal. The Solicitor-General and Mr. Wigram
consider that the £lO 10s. per ceet. on six
millions, and also the redemption money of twelve
millions, would, when paid over to the company out of the
revenues of India, and before division among the members
of the company, be assets of the company, and be liable to
sati-fy any demands to which the company may remain
subject. With regard to costs of law proceedings
in which the company may be involved, p.,3 men-
tioned in this sixth question, we are of opinion
that if the proceedings arise out of acts of misfeazance or
neglect on the part of servants of the company, the costs
must be borne by the company. On the other hand, if pro-
ceedings are taken against the company as stakeholders
merely, in order to determine the devolution of the title to
suck, or questions of a similar nature, we think that costs
of such proceedings, not otherwise made good to the com-
pany, would he " expenses in relation to the stock" within
the meanintr of sect. 72 of the new Act.
Q. 7. With reference to the language of the 17th sect. of
the Act 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, will the East India
Company be entitled to its dividend out of all remittances
made by the Government of India to the Secretary of State
in Council in preference to all other charges, including gua-
ranteed interest on railway shares, pensions, salaries, pur-
chase of stores, and the expenses of all establishments in
this country maintained for the government of India ?
A. 7. We are of opinion that the East India Company
will, under the 17th sect. of 3d and 4th Win. IV., cap. 85,
continue to be entitled to its dividend out of all revenues of
the East Indian territories remitted to Great Britain, in
preference to all other charges payable thereout in Great
Britain, including the particular charges specified in ques-
tion 7, assuming that all of those charges arc charges pay-
able in Great Britain.
Q. B.—Supposing the company to be repaid its capital
stock, either on its own demand or by act of the Govern-
ment, such
would it be competent to the company to use
capital for the purpose of establishing commercial enterprise
of any sort ; and if so,would such enterprise be limited to
trade within the limits of the company's charter, or might
it include other undertakings ?
sharer suchtt t o
Q. 9. Assuming the capital to be repaid, could an indi-
vidual proprietor demand payment of his
capital, without a resolution of the Company gatit r oft
him?

THIS DAYS MARKETS.

A. 8 and 9. Looking to the provisions of the 3d and 4tb
Wm. IV. cap. 8:5, taken in connection with the former
acts on the same subject, and particularly the 33+1 Geo.
111., cap. 52, sec. 74, and the 53d Geo. 111., cap 155, sec.
4, we are of opiniou that the right of the East India Com-
pany to trade was suspended only while the territorial go-
vernment was confided to them, and that Upon the termi-
nation of their territorial government the right of the com-
pany to trade revives. This right to trade would,
however, be confined to enterprises of the nature
specified in the charters and statutes of the com-
pany; and, moreover, we are of opinion that, flow
the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, it would
not be found that practically trade could be carried on with
advantage under the present constitution of the com-
pany. With regard to the application of the sum of 12
millions to be provided by Parliament for the redemp-
tion of the dividend, the Attorney-General and Sir Richard
Bethel are of opinion that this sum, when paid, could not
be dealt with in any other manner by the company than
by the payment to each proprietor of the amount of his
share of the capital stock, and that the question—
whether, under the circumstances supposed, the com-
pany should come to any formal resolution as to the
appropriation of the money—is immaterial, inasmuch as no
resolution of the company can affect the right of the pro-
prietors of stock to-their:respective shares of the 12 millions.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Wigrarn consider that this
sum of 12 millions Is to be paid by Parliament to the
company, and not to the Individual proprietors of the com-
pany, and that when so paid it would represent and
would be the capital stock of the company, and accordingly
be subject to all liabilities of the company. They also think
that under these circumstances the utmost right of a pro-
ptieter would be to insist that if the trade of the company
was not revived these liabilities (if any) should be ascer-
tained and discharged and the surplus capital divided among
the proprietors according to their respective interests. With
regard to the ototHe of the convoy we conceive nothiug

more can be usefully said than that it continues to exist as
a body corporate, governed by the charter of Wm. 111., and
the statutes by which that charter has been modified. The
most important alteration made in that charter is the re-
duction, by the recent statute, of the number of directors to
six.
August 24, 1858.

The CHAIRMAN announced that although the docu-
ment had not formally received the assent of the
counsel who were engaged, it had been s!gncd in its
present form by the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, Sir Richard Bethell, and Mr. Wigram. The case and
01)111i011 were ordered to be printed.

Mr. CRAWSIIAT moved the reappointment of the
committee for the purpose of consulting with the
directors with regard to the future management of the
company. He thought that much useful advice might be
given by the company in reference to the Government of
India. (Cheers.)
The motion was agreed to, and a conversation followed
upon the question whether the directors who bad been
elected members of the India Council should retain their
seats in the direction.

After a short discussion the meeting broke up.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY).

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Mary Jones, a prosti-
tute, was charged with stealing from the person of Baptiste
Mortier, described as a cuisinier, of 24, Charles-street, Ber-
keley-square, a purse containing 783 francs and some Eng-
lish money.

The prosecutor not understanding English, M. Alber
acted as interpreter.

Baptiste Mortier, the prosecutor, said that on Saturday
Hight, about 11, when at the corner of Berkeley-square, the
prisoner followed him, saying something which lie did not
understand, with the exception of one word, namely
"penny." Ile walked on, the prisoner still following him,
till he reached the corner of the square, near Piccadilly,
when two men came up and pushed him violently
against the wall, and at that moment he felt something
like a hand in his pocket, and putting down his hand felt
that his purse, containing five pieces of 2.0 f. each, and one
hank-note for 100 f., and several English coins, was gone.
The little seal now produced was also in the purse at the
time. The female prisoner, then, accompanied by the men,
started off, and he pursued the female and succeeded in de-
taining her till a constable came, when the purse was found
in one of her hands and the bank-note in the other. Four
pieces of the money were still missing, and he supposed they
were handed to the men at the time.

In answer to Mr. Beadon, the prisoner said she would
plead guilty.
Mr. Beadon said, with the two men assisting her, be did
not know whether he was right in asking her the question
whether she was guilty or not. She must, however, have
the longst term of imprisonment he could award her. Ile
should, therefore, commit her for six months, with hard
labour.

THAMES.-BENEVOLENCE-THE POOR BLIND BOY,

—Mr. Selfe, on taking his seat Ibis morning, stated that be
had great pleasure in saying that the appeal made to the
public in favour of a poor blind boy, named Daniel Regan,
by Mr. Charles Dyke, of Eaton-square, bad already met
with considerable success. The boy was seriawly assaulted
and his skull fractured by a ruffian, who was convicted and
sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Mr. Dyke bad
put the boy into an institution for the relief of the blind, with
the intention of teaching the boy a trade, but there were no
funds to maintain him, and the earnings of the lad, at
present, and for some time, would be but very trifling.
Mr. Selfe then handed to our reporter a list of donations
which he had received for the benefit of the poor blind boy,
as follows :—Hon. E. E., LI ; J. IG. 8., £1; R., £2 (and
£3 for the poor-box fund); H. L. S. S. P., 55.; W. H.,
ss. ; R. M. H., Cheltenham, 55.; H. B. L., 2s. 6d. ; J.
Graham, 6d. ; J. M. Oppenheim, £1 ; and J. F., £2. Mr.
Selfe also stated that Mrs. Charles Dyke had given £5 for
the poor blind boy, and a gentleman £l, and that it was to
be hoped the benevolence of the public would enable Mr.
Dyke to make a provision of a permanent nature for the
boy, who was really a deserving object of relief.