The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-08 00:00:00

EAST INDIA NAVAL FORCE BILL.

A special General Conn of Proprietors of East. India Stock
was held on Friday, for the purpose of laying before the proprie-
tors, the drought of a Bill now in progress through Parliament,
by which the Company are called on todefray.the expellee of any
additional naval force that may be sent out to the East Indies, for
the better protection of the Company's possessions.
The Bill having been read—
The CrialastriN (Sir G. A. Robinson, Batt) moved, "That
the Court do concur in its provisions."

Dr. GILCHRIST complained that no papers. relative to this mea-
sure had been laid before the proprietors: He, therefore, being
ignorant of the nature of the Bill, or the circumstances which gave
r►se to it, did not think himself competent to vote on the measure.
He thought that the Bombay marine, if it were in an efficient
state (and if it were not, it ought to be made efficient), was
powerful enough to cope with such an enemy as the Burmese, who
had not a vessel that mounted 10 guns.
The CHAIRMAN, in answer to the Hon. Proprietor, wished to
observe, that whenever papers were called for, and were directed
to he produt2(l by a vote of that. Court, they. were laid on the
table in the proprietors' room, for the inspection of every pro-
prietor who might wish to examine them ; but it was not cus-
tomary to produce documents when they were not regularly called
for.

General THORNTON agreed with the Hon. Proprietor (Dr.
Gilchrist) in thinking that there was much impropriety in call-
ing on the Court to agree to this motion, when they !mew little or
nothing about the bill. He knew that, on more trifling occa-
sions, papers had been produced, and he knew not why, when
the question was of so much importance, they should now he re-
fused. The motion might be very proper, but he could not agree
to it until he was sure that it was proper. If his Majesty's Mini-
sters thought fit to send a naval force to India, he conceived it
was rather extraordinary that they should call on the Proprietors
to bear the expence--an orpence which the Company could but
ill afford, when it was considered what immense sums the prose-
cution of the unfortunate Burmese war cost them.

Sir C. FORBES expressed his entire approbation of the measure,
before the Court. He eulogized the Bombay marine ; and hoped
that the. bill would not interfere with that ' meritorious body of
men. In his opinion, the Company's marine ought; 0 .be placed
on a more respectable footing thau, it stood on at present. He
thought it was discreditable to the nation to have allowed the naval
force in India to be reduced to so low a state as that in which it.
was placed 18 months ago.
Mr. Twuuxo said, he would give the measure his decided sup-
port, persuaded as he was, that it bad received all the attention.
which its imporlanCe deserved froM the executive body.
The motion was then agreed to.
FLOGGING IN INDIA.

The lion. Colonel L. STANUOIT gave notice that he would
move at the next General Court--.

1. That by the bth article of the Ilan. Company's regulations,
(the first of 1814) it is declared lawful for one magistrate of po-
lice, upon complaint made by any master Al mistress against any
servant or itavnel, and on such complaint being established by the
oath of one credible witness, to puoish the offender, by causing
any number of lashes, not exceeding 12, for each offence, to be
inflicted on him or her so offending.
Q. That this regulation is'utterly illegal, for any power of the
petty sessions at Bombay to indict whipping must be derived from
regulations made under the statute 39 and 40 :Geo. 111., c. 79,
sec. 18, by which corporal Tiuitislinieut can only be inflicted on
conviction before two magistrates.
3. That in, defiance 'of this statute and the admonitions of two
high-minded .Britisiv Judgestainely, Sir J. Mackintosh, and
Sir E. West, many hundreds ,of men have been fined and flogged
Without limita,and havii been banished and'eondetnned to, the con-
dition of galley-slaves, and that this monstrous and unlawful prac-
tice is still persevered in by the Magistrates of 'Bombay, and ob-
stinately sanctioned by the Grand Jury of that settlement.
4. That the Courtiituhly. entreat Directors to repeal the
fifth article of the regulations (first of 1814) that is opposed to
the above-mentioned , statute, and to , support the King's Chief
Justices in India, and to check the lArbarous practice of flogging
in that country. •