The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-28 00:00:00

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE doubted very much whether
the House had a right to proceed with this Bill, as in his
opinion, it very much interfered with the prerogatives of the
Crown.—( Hear, hear.) It was a question of very grave im-
portance, and he thought it would be his duty to move
an address to the King, praying that his Majesty would be
pleased to instruct and authorize the Attorney- General to
bring in a Bill to give legality to the Commission, upon
whose Report the Bill was founded.
Lord BROUGHAM never heard of such a proposition.
He was perfectly prepared to show that the Commission was
strictly legal, and he assured the House it was appointed in
strict conformity to precedents of more than a century. There
was one appointed no later than 1830, when the Noble Duke
(Wellington) was at the head of affairs, when his Noble and
Learned Friend (Lyndhurst) was Chancellor, and which Com-
mission was countersigned by the now Lord Chief Baron,
who was then Attorney-General ; and that commission was
almost word for word to the one in question—that Com-
mission was upon the Irish Church.—(Hear, hear.) The
remedy now proposed was one of the most singular kind
he had heard of in the course of his experience—it was one
part of the Legislature calling upon the King to desire
the representative of Edinburgh to bring in a Bill upon a par-
ticular subject. Such a course, he would say, had never be-
fore been dreamed of. It was preposterous, and he was cer-
tain the House would not countenance it.

Tho Duke of NEWCASTLE said a few words in reply;
which were inaudible.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.

In answer to an observation from the Earl of CARBERRY,

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that he should
postpone the second reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages
Bill till Thursday next.

The Duke of I.'ENATC A STLE begged to know if his Ma-
jesty's Government had sanctioned the establishment of a
monastery of the Jesuits' order near Loughborough ? He
begged also to know if any information had reached the
Government relative to the riots that had taken place in
Liverpool and other places on the 12th July last.
Viscount MELBOURNE knew just as much about the
riots to which the Noble Duke alluded as he did. He had
seen a statement relative to them in the newspapers, and he
was satisfied the authorities would take the steps necessary
for their suppression and the punishment of the parties im-
plicated. With respect to the other subject, if the Noble
Duke supposed that he (Lord Melbourne) sanctioned the es-
tablishment of any colleges or universitiesbut those recognized
by law, he very much misunderstood him. If the establishment
to which the Noble Duke alluded was an evil, he (Lord Mel-
bourne) knew nothing of it, and could not prevent it.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF comm-azys, JULY 27.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
Papers were presented from the Treasury and the India,
House.
On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL the Ballochneg
Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. OSWALD brought up the Report of the Glasgow
Poor-rate Committee.
Mr. SPIE RS presented a petition against any further grant
to the Scotch Church. Petitions on the same subject were
presented by Mr. SINCLAIR and Sir M. J. STEWART.
Mr. TE NNE NT presented a petition from the Chamber of
Commerce of Belfast, praying that no alteration might be
made in the duties on timber. He warmly supported the prayer
of the petition.
Mr. BO LDE R 0 supported the petition, and presented one
to the same effect.
Mr. JACK SON also supported the prayer of the petition.
EAST INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. ROBIN SON presented a petition from certain of the
Honourable East India Company's Maritime Officers excluded
from compensation under the late Act of Parliament.
Shortly after the House met this Session he had presented
two petitions on this subject, and in consequence of
them a Committee was appointed. That Committee
was most fairly constituted—it had the advantage of
the assistance of persons who were competent to decide upon
the subject. They went into a long examination of the evi-
dence upon this very singular case, and the Report of that
Committee, to which he begged the particular attention of
the House, was as follows :—the Report was founded upon
three Resolutions come to by the Committee, the first of
which was to the effect that it appeared, that under the
provisions of the Act of the 3d and 4th of William IV.,
c. 85, the East India Company were empowered to grant
compensation to those officers whose interests were affected
by the discontinuance of the trade ; that this
,grant was re-
stricted to officers who had been five years in the service ; and,
thirdly, and this was the important part of the Report to which
he called attention, and which justified him in asking why
the Board of Control, had, notwithstanding the Report,
continued to refuse to accede to the claims of those offi-
cers, and to do them that justice to which they were en-
titled. The third resolution stated that a strict adherence to
this rule would appear to exclude from compensation the case
of officers who were fairly entitled, and they therefore recom-
mended to the Court of Directors to consider the case of those
officers who had been hitherto excluded, and whose interests
were nevertheless affected by the discontinuance of the trade.
He had never contended that the Company were not the proper
persons to consider the case of these officers, and he should be
sorry to see any necessity for taking the case out of their
hands. But an arrangement had been made to which that
House had been a party, and which provided for those officers
whose interests were affected. He, therefore, thought that the
House had a right to complain of the East India Company,
after making an arrangement, giving ten and a half
per cent. for forty years, and the repayment of
the capital. This was a most advantageous arrangement, and
the Company ought to adhere to the letter and the spirit
of it. ( Hear, hear, hear.) What had the Company
done ? In order to save the trouble of investigating
the great body of the cases they made a general rule, by which
they drew a line, by which no officer who had got his official
appointment on the 28th of August, 1828, or subse-
quently, could become entitled to compensation.—( Hear.)
Ho would ask what had the Act of Parliament to do with the
year 1828 ? The Company had drawn an arbitrary line, by
which an officer who had been appointed on the 29th of Au-
gust would be deprived of compensation to which the officer
who had been appointed two days before would be entitled.
It was because the special case had been in all instan-
ces excluded that he had brought forward the claim of
these officers. When they applied for compensation, the
invariable answer was, You don't come within the rule, and
therefore we exclude you. He put the claim of these gen-
tlemen on the broad principle of justice; either they had a
claim under the provisions of the Act, or they had not.
If they had no claim, he would abandon their case,
but if they had he would not consent to-their being put upon a
charitable fund, subject to the contingency of other officers
dying off. He contended, that when the Act relative to the
East India Colonies passed, it was always contemplated that
these officers should have compensation. Every other
officer connected with the Company had received full and
ample remuneration, and it was unaccountable to him that
these officers in particular had been excluded.—( Hear, hear.)
They had the Act of Parliament before them, which would
convince the House that the Company considered these officers
entitled to compensation. Next, they found these officers ex-
cluded by the rigid application of the rule drawn by
the Company.—(Hear, hear.) The Report of the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and the evidence of Lord
Glenelg was in their favour, and with this having gone to the
Company, the petitioners received the same answer. It was
nothing that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite said that he
did not agree with the East India Company in the policy of
this exclusion. He (Mr. R.) asked the House, in the name
of justice, whether these petitioners were not justified in
coming again before the House ? He would, for the pre-
sent, merely lay the petition on the table ; but if the answer
of the Right Honourable Gentleman was not satisfactory, he
should certainly feel it his duty, on some future occa-
sion, to bring forward a specific motion, and he would not
abandon the case until he saw justice done them.—( Hear,
hear.) He should certainly rather hear from the Right
Hon. Gentleman that justice had not been done them, and
that their cases would be reconsidered. It was too hard that