The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

the maritime service had as high a claim as the civil and
military officers of the Company—that they were at all times
subject to command and punishment both afloat and ashore,
and that they did their duty both zealously and faithfully_
that. they had contributed largely to the prosperity of the
country both in fighting the battles of the Company and
preseeving, their treasures.--( Cries of" Hear, hear.")
Such were the grounds upon which these gentlemen called
upon the Company to interfere, before the compensation should
become the law of the land by the lapse of two months. They
called upon the Company to interpose in some way or other, in
order that Parliament should decide whether justice had been
done to them on the subject of the Act of last year. He contended
that many of the Officers who had been excluded had merits
greaterthan those who had been admitted. He put it to the House
whether it was its object to exclude 1 sth of the Officers of the
Company from all compensation, especially ashen it was con-
sidered that. many of those persons were some of the oldest
officers of the Company. .11e could not believe that the House
would sanction ,the conduct that had been pursued.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The reason why the petitioners came
to the House was, that they had exhausted all other means of
obtaining redress.- Under the Acts of last year they had
waited calmly and patiently, in the hope that some arrange-
ment would be come to by the East India Company, embracing
them and it was not till they found that the rule laid down
excluded them, that they came forward. The only course then
left them was to apply to the House. Even Lord Ellenborough,
in a letter he had written, admitted that the petitioners
had a right to come to Parliament for compensation.
The petitioners had no objection to the rate laid
down, if it could be proved it was founded on jus-
tice. He believed that it would not require more than a
sum of 100,0001. or 120,000/. to compensate those offices, and
he was sure that the East India Company would consider the
expenditure of such a sum for the remuneration of their meri-
torious servants as well applied. Unless he received from the
Board of Control, or some other body, an intimation that they
were disposed to take the subject into consideration, it would
become his duty to bring it forward in a more specific shape.
He-would conclude by reading the prayer of the petition. The
petition was signed by fifty-seven officers of great respectabi-
lity, on behalf of themselves and several other officers, who
had not been able to sign it. It prayed that the House
would afford them protection, and direct such means of redress
as in their judgment they might deem just, and that in the
humane exercise of their prerogative it would be deemed ex-
pedient to extend the scale proposed, or that at least the
amount Might be distributed equally among the Ivhole
service. The Hon. Member considered that there were
ample means for compensating them, without disturbing the
scale of compensation that had already been granted. With
these observations, and recommending the petition to the
attention of Hon. Members, he would not trouble them any
longer.
Mr. CA YL E Y supported the prayer of the petition.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, rose to
support the petition, and entered into a detail of several cases
of great hardship, occasioned by the regulations of which the
petition complained. Under those regulations the most me.
ritorious officers, and who had served for a long period of
years, were left without compensation, and had only the re-
source of seeking employment in other services.—( Hear.)
He implored those Gentlemen who had it in their power
to remedy the evil complained of, to take the case into their
serious consideration, and to grant the prayer of the petition.
Mr. BERNAI, considered that the claims made in the pe-
tition were founded in justice, and he would ask the President
of the Board of Control what was intended to be done in the
matter ?
Mr. PRAED rose, but spoke in so low a tone that his ob-
servations could not he heard in the Gallery.--( Cries of
" Speak out.") . He was understood to say, that he could con-
firm the statement of the length of service of the petitioners,
and he thought it probable that cases of hardship might
have arisen under those regulations ; but the Board of
Control had had nothing to do with establishing them.
The present was an attempt to try compensation for future
benefits, not for past services. He was aware that those ser-
vices were most useful, but he felt satisfied that they had been
fully compensated by the pay they had received from
the Company, and that had been as liberal as the finances
of' the Company could afford. The House must consider the
position in which those officers were placed as claiming com-
pensation for future services. The Company had nothing to
do with their appointment, as they were selected- by the
owners -of the vessels, and had no contract whatever with
the Company to give them employment or subsistence.
They complained that they might have been employed during
the last five years, and if they had not, it was the fault of the
Company, but that, he (Mr. Pracd) contended, was an argu-
ment in his favour. With respect to the Civil Officers, the
compensation was easily arranged, but a good deal of diffi-
culty attended the case of the Maritime Officers.—( Hear. )
He had only one further remark to make ; he could not see any
good reason why an officer who could make out a clear case,
should not be removed from one excluded list, and put into
the other. He was certain that the Noble Lord at the head of
Board of Control would give such cases his most anxious con-
sideration. He must, however, assure the House, that the
finances of the Company were not by any means in a flourishing
condition, and were as little able to bear charges upon the
ground of liberality as those of this country.
Mr. CLAY, after a few observations which were lost in the
noise, instanced the case of a very deserving officer, with
whom he was perfectly acquainted, who had served
in the Company's service for 19 years--he entered in
his youth, and served for a long period; but, from entirely
accidental circumstances, he had not been employed for
more than six years before the period appointed for the
operation of this scale ; so that, with a • large family,
he was now, after nineteen years hard service, thrown upon
the world without any provision. The Act gave Parliament
the power to enforce the allowance.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said he should not detain the House
many minutes, nor would he have troubled them but for some
observations which had fallen from the Right Honourable
Secretary to the Board of Controul, which, if uncontra.
dieted, might convey to many Members of this House and the
public an erroneous impression. The Honourable Mem-
ber said that the officers of ships chartered by the East
India Company were not included in the Act. That ques-
tion had been already very elaborately discussed, and the Hon.
Member's argument refuted ; but the real question was
whether the Legislature, having caused a compulsory ces-
sation of the East India Trade for forty years, which
was an extraordinary stretch of 'ewer, should not
have some consideration for the Proprietors of East India
Stock, who, it was said, would be injured by that measure.
He did not stand up there to say they had a claim, but feeling
that the House ought to recognise the principle of compensa-
tion, he called upon them to make out their case before they
came forward with their claim.—( Hear.)
Mr. PRAED explained.
Sir G. STRICKLAND did not conceive that the Act of
Parliament referred to by Hon. Members opposite applied at
all to the present case. It was an extreme hardship to deprive
of,their just compensation, such meritorious officers as suffered
from the continuance of such an exclusion and unjust rule, as
that now complained of.
Mr. M'KENZIE supported the petition, but in so low a
tone, that it was impossible to hear a word of what he said.
Colonel EVANS said he ngreed with the Hon. Member
behind him there was much inconvenience in discusssing these
subjects in the absence of the President of the Board of Control.
Compensation had been sanctioned by Parliament, and the only
question was whether the time had been drawn arbitrarily, and
unjustly or not. He thought it right that the matter should
be brought under the consideration of the House.
Mr. H UME said, it appeared to him that the only question
for the House to consider, was whether the list of compensa-
tions having been laid on the table, it was in their power to
reconsider the compensations that had been given. If
so, it was competent to any Hon. Member to move that
these compensations be reconsidered. He thought it would
turn out upon inquiry that compensations had been granted to
many who had retired from the service of the Company with
an ample fortune, never expecting to receive any further bene-
fit, whilst there were on the present list many whose sole subsis-
tence depended upon the continuance of the Company's trade.
He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet would see the House
had a very important duty to perform. He trusted, there-
fore, that the subject would be adjourned for a fortnight,
in order that an opportunity might be afforded to take
up the whole question, that justice really might be done,
and his Majesty's Ministers might have an opportunity of ex-
plaining the grounds on which they meant to ate.
Sir R. PEEL regretted that the discussion had been
protracted so long, in the absence of the President of the
Board of Controul and the Member for Kirkcudbright, for had
the matter been brought forward when the President of the
Board of Controul was present, he would have stated the
grounds on which lie had thought proper to confirm the
order.—( Hear, hear.) After Parliament had entrusted
to the Board of Controul and the Directors of the East India
Company the subject of the arrangement, in his opinion a very
strong case ought to be brought forward to induce Parliament
to interfere.—( Hear, hear.) In the course that had been
pursued, he believed the steps of the late Government
had been.followed, and for his own part he would say that he
had invariably refused in every case to open a claim for com-
pensation that had been settled by the late Board of Treasury.
Upon the same grounds, having given authority to the Board
of Controul to settle this matter, he would advise the House to
confirm their decision, and not to discourage any of the
public authorities when they endeavoured to enfore economy.
Mr. ROBINSON said that the Right Hon. Baronet was
mistaken. He had on a former occasion shown that the
Directors were permitted to carry their plans into effect
two months after they had been determined on, which
proved that their decision was intended to be subject to the
controul of the Honse. He did not seek to abolish the de-
cision of the Board of Controul, but to extend it. He con-
sidered that it was the duty of the House to interfere in cases
of similar hardship. He would, however, wait till the papers
were printed which had been ordered on that subject, and
he would then answer the observations which had been made.
Sir R. PEEL said that the House ought to support the
authorities to whom the case had been referred, and as the
money had to be paid out of the pockets of the people of
India, it was an additional reason for enforcing economy.
Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the interpretation which
had been put upon the act relative to the subject before the
House. He considered that a most capricious difference had been
made in compensating officers. The Act stipulated that all
officers employed then or heretofore should be compensated,
whereas they only compensated the officers then employed,
and not those employed formerly. What reason could there be
for limiting compensation to any particular past period?
Nobody could give any reason why that day had been selected,
er why such a distinction had been made. The Petition was
then laid on the Table.
NEW WRIT FOR THE COUNTY OF NOTTINGHAM.
Mr. VERNON rose for the purpose of moving that a
New Writ be issued for the Northern Division of the county of

Nottingham, in the room of the late Lord Viscount Lumley,
now Earl Scarborough. Before doing so, however, he wished
to state that the writ of summons had
not been issued calling'
the Noble Lord to the Upper House.—( Hear, hear.) Ile:
was bound to state, however, that Lord Lumley had autho,.
rised him to arply for this writ, he having applied
for his own writ of summons to the Upper House ten days
ago. It appeared that in consequence of the late Earl not
having taken his scat in the House of Lords, there was some
difficulty relative to the issuing of it ; but he should like to
know from the Speaker whether the new writ could not now be
issued ? He thought, however, that though Lord Scarborough
had never taken his seat in the House of Peers, and that for that
reason some doubt might arise as to the legality of a new
writ being issued on the consequent promotion of Lord
Lumley to the House of Lords, that Nottingham ought not
on that account to be deprived of its Representative at this
important period.
The SPEAK E R, as we understood him, observed that it was
nat the usual practice of this House to issue writs for the purposes
of elections, occasioned by the promotion of representatives to
the Upper House, before the writ of summons itself was issued,
calling upon the Peer to take his seat. • But as to the parti-
cular point to which the Hen. Gentleman alluded, in the case
of Lord Scarborough', he did not think this House was the
most competent to give a decision on the course which was to
be pursued.
Sir ROBERT PEEL conceived that the writ for the
election should not issue until the House had ascer-
tained that the writ of summons, calling the sitting
Member to the Upper House, had been issued. They
ought not, without having clearly ascertained that fact,
admit a principle which might deprive' an individual of the
privileges which he at present exercised of sitting in that House.
Suppose for instance there was a contested claim to the title
by such a motion they might prejudice the claim, as the issuing
of the writ would be tantamount to an expression of their
opinion upon the case; and then, if the claim was not esta-
blished, they might by their act deprive him of his
seat in that House. —(Hear.) He conceived that they
ouglit to refuse to issue their writ until the writ summons had
been issued, and he would beg leave to make a motion to that
effect, if the Hon. Member should render such a proceeding
necessary.—( Cries of withdraw the motion.)
Mr. VERNON said he was entirely in the hands of
the House, but he considered that the conduct of the late
Lord Scarborough ought not to prejudice the right of the
present Peer. He should not, however, press his motion,
as it appeared to be the opinion of the Speaker and the
House that it would be against precedent.—( Hear, hear.)
He did not know what time ought to elapse before moving for
a new writ---it was now a fortnight since the death of Lord
Scarborough. He would not press his motion—he would
only protest against its being laid down as an indisputable doc-
trine that no writ should issue from that House, until a writ
of Summons had been issued from the other House.
Sir R. PEEL said he had never wished to lay down
an indisputable rule all that he did was to lay
down one for his own guidance. Perhaps the parish register
might never be found, and what right had they to deprive
not only the Noble Lord of his seat in that House, but to de-
rive the county of Nottingham of its Member, and that with-
out anything before them which they could call good grounds
for so doing.
After a few words from Mr. Wynne, Dr. Lushington, Mr.
Rolfe, and Lord John Russell, the motion was withdrawn.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
In answer to a question from Colonel BE AUCLERK,
An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches, whose name
we could not learn, said that he. intended to bring forward a
motion connected with this subject on Monday next.
CORN LAWS.
Mr. HEATHCOTE rose to put questions to the Hon.
Members for Middlesex and the Tower Hamlets. Both those
Hon. Members had put notices en the books for motions on
the subject of the corn laws ; he was anxious to know whether
both these motions were to be persisted in, or if not, which of
them was to be discussed ?
Mr. HUME, when he put his motion on the books, was
not aware that his Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets had a few days previously given a notice to a similar
effect. Finding such had been the case, however, he was
willing to leave the matter in his hands, and he believed on
the 7th of May his Hon. Friend would be prepared to bring
it forward.
Mr. CLAY, in answer to another question from Mr. Heath-
cote, was understood to say that he should bring on the dis-
cussion of which he had given notice on the 7th of May.
MR. HUME'S AMENDMENT ON THE NAVY
ESTIMATES.

Sir R. PEEL wished to put a question to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Middlesex. The Hon. Member had given notice of a
motion respecting a subject of considerable importance, which
was to be brought before the House on Friday next, viz., the
Navy Estimates. He wished to know what course the Hon.
Member intended to pursue in consequence of that motion ?
Mr. HUME was not sure whether the motion of which he
had given notice would be brought on by himself or by an Hon.
Friend. At present, however, he could state that it was in..
tended on the day named to move that the Navy estimate be
only granted for three months.
Sir R. PEEL said his object in inquiring was to know the
form in which this motion would be brought on—whether it
would be moved before the Speaker left the chair, or after the
House had gone into Committee. He asked for this informa-
tion in order that they might be able to arrange the course of
the debate.
Mr. HUME said, that according to his own notion of the
case the motion would be proposed on going into Committee.
It was not their intention to refuse the supplies, but to limit
the grant provisionally to three months.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Order of the Day was then read for the adjourned de-
bate on the business of the House. The proposition that to
petition be received after five o'clock having been moved,
Mr. E WART rose, for the purpose of moving that no new
subjects be brought on for discussion on any evening later that►.
eleven o'clock. The subject was one of so much importance
that he was determed to take the sense of the House on hie
proposition.
Sir R. PEEL put it to the Hon. Member whether it would
not be better to reserve to the House on each evening a dis-
cretionary power of determining as to the importance of at-
tending to the business which they had before them, rather
than fetter themselves and tie down their bands by a general
resolution like that now proposed. There were some matters
for instance which he (Sir R. Peel) thought should not be
brought on later than ten o'clock. On the other hand, and
especially towards the close of the Session, there were very
necessary forms to be gone through, upon which there could be
no doubt of the sentiments of the House ; such as the third
readings of bills to which the House had already consented,
which he thought it would be very unnecessary, and indeed
very inconvenient to postpone. If the House was fit to legislate
at all, they surely should be allowed to determine at what
hours it would be proper to do so. If this resolution were
agreed to by the House it would realty seem to imply such a
diffidence of their own good sense as he did not think was at
all called for.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. P. YOUNG would ask whether it was decent that
after midnight a score of important Acts should be passed
through different stages, as ha during his own experience had
seen take place. It was this course of proceeding which
brought discredit upon the Legislature and created much mis-
chief and confusion in the administration of the law. Much
of the business of the House consisted in repairing the errors
into which they had fallen in this way. As a man of business
be knew that when gentlemen had unlimited time to do any
business in, much of that time was occupied very unprofitably ;
and he was inclined to think that if the House of Commons
were in some measure limited in their sittings, they would get
through more business than they did at present, and that some
Hon. Gentlemen, in sonsideration of the important business
that was to be done, would occupy less time in long speeches
and useless discussions.
Mr. C. FERGUSON said he had seen most important
questions brought on in that House after twelve o'clock at
night, ay, after one er two o'clock in the morning. He bad
seen bills going through the second readings on such occa-
sions, especially bills relating to Scotland. He did not think
that such a general rule as that proposed by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Tynemouth would be practicable, but he questioned
whether a regulation might not be adopted by which it should
be laid down as a rule that in the more important stages of
bills they should not be brought on after a certain hour.
Lord J. RUSSELL feared that if they were to lay down a
general rule of the kind proposed, it would not conduce to the
convenience of the House, nor to the furtherance of public
business. Nevertheless, he thought some course might be
adopted to remedy the evil which undoubtedly existed at pre-
sent. For, instance, if before going into the first Order of
the Day, all the Orders of the Day should be read over, and
their respective advocates called upon to declare whether they
intended to proceed with them or not, Members who had pro-
posed to themselves to take part in them, would know whether
and when they would be likely to be wanted.
Mr. 'WARBURTON said that he conceived it to be abso-
lutely impracticable to limit the time in which the House
would find
,it possible to get through the business of the ses-
sion.—( Hear.) The business ought to be done, however,
and they must have sufficient time to do it in, either by begin-
ning at an earlier hour in the day, or by encroaching upon
the hours of the night.
Mr. HUME thought the House ought to come to some con-
clusion on the subject; it was improper to do important busi-
ness at such unseasonable hours as one and two o'clock in the
morning. It frequently happened that Ministers, exhausted
by the business of the day, were obliged to leave the House,
and, in their absence, measures in which they were deeply in-
terested, were carried. He admitted that every plan of ar-
rangement was full of great difficulties, but any plan was bet-
ter than the plan now acted on. He would rather meet at ten
in the morning than continue after twelve at night. If the
present system were persevered in, there would be an accumu-
lation of bills which must be disposed of at a late hour in a thin
home.

•
Colonel SIBTHORPE agreed with the lion. Member, op-
posite that business should be well done ; but when the time of
the House was wasted by long and often idle discussion they
should not get over important bills on the ground that the time
for their consideration was too late.
The SPEAKER made some observations, which were quite
inaudible to us.
Sir R. PEEL said the Speaker was of opinion that no new
motion should be suffered to interpose so as to take place of
a motion once introduced. If the new motion was on a point
of form there would certainly be less inconvenience. He
thought the better course to pursue would be to proceed with
the papers in their regular order, and allow no new motions to
interpose.

Mr. HUM thought the motions and orders should be re-
gularly set down; that the motions should come first, and the
orders follow.

Mr. E WART explained. It would be better that motions
on mere matters of form should be swept away at once, and