The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-19 00:00:00

EMPLOYMENT OF NATIVE INDIANS.

On the motion of Mr. SULLIVAN. the clerk read the peti-
tition of native inhabitants of Calcutta, dated April 18,
1843, and presented at the General Court of the 20th of
March last.

The Hox. PROPRIETOR then proceeded to call attention
to- the subject of the petition. He said the matter had been
so fully discussed on former occasions, that it was not neces-
sary that he should go into it at any great length. Sir John
Monroe had given it jis his opinion that justice and sound
policy alike required that the natives of India should be en-
trusted with a larger share of power than they at present pos
sessed. It was not necessary for him to prove that the
natives were qualified to exercise the functions of civil admi-
nistration, for it was well known that they had already exer-
cised them in the most beneficial manner. The whole
original civil jurisdiction of India was at that moment
in the hands of the natives ; and all causes, whatever the
amount at stake, or whoever might be the parties concerned,
were in the first instance decided by them. Natives had
been recently appointed deputy magistrates in Bengal, but
that had been done by the creation. of new places.
It was impossible, under the present system, to
maintain the European establishment, and employ, at
the same time a sufficient number of natives. Either the
situations of the natives must be suppressed, or the salaries
of the Europeans must be reduced. A further reduction of
the salaries of Europeans, was fraught with the most mis-
chievous consequences. The finances exhibited increasing
charges, and a stationary revenue. The Hon. Proprietor
then went into a statement of the finances, from 1838
down to the latest returns. The increase of expense had not
been attended with increased efficiency in the civil adminis-
tration. ,It was the declared opinion of Lord William
Bentinck that notwithstanding the immense expendi-
ture which had taken place, every part of the Indian
administration was a failure, and in this opinion he believed
Sir Charles Metcalfe and many other eminent men entirely
concurred. The remedy for this state of things was an in-
creased employment of the native population. There were
many reasons which should induce them to give their serious
consideration to that subject. They should recollect
the impoverishment of many of the great fami-
lies of India, and the large drain, amounting now
to about three millions annually, of! Indian resources.
The native states would now soon be absorbed in
the English empire and there would then be ex.
hibited a state of things wholly unprecedented in the
history of the world. In all conquests, the conquerors had
studiously identified themselves with the country of which
they had obtained possession; but the very first act of
those who had resided and made a fortune in India, was
to free themselves from all connexion with it as soon as pos-
sible. The Hon. Proprietor concluded by moving for certain
correspondence in reference to the employment of the native
population of India.
Mr. G. THOMPSON seconded the motion.

The CHAIRMAN said the object of the Hon. Proprietor was
to impress on the Court the importance of extending the
employment of the natives as far as it could be done with
propriety and prudence. The Court of Directors were as
anxious to promote that object as the Hon. Proprietor himself.
The only difficulty arose out of the want of qualification for
civil offices, and even that difficulty the Court had endea-
voured to remove by sending out schoolmasters to India, and
encouraging the natives to receive instruction, which would
remove this objection. It was not necessary, however, that
they should turn out Europeans in order to show their con-
currence in the principle. He concluded by reading some dis-
patches, for the purp•se of showing the concurrence of the
Directors in the object of the mover of the resolution.
After a short discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

In reply to a question from Mr. SULLIVAN,
The CHAIRMAN said it was true that, in consequence of the
repeal of the transit duties, the duty on salt had been in-
creased ; but the Directors did not intend to confirm that
proceeding.
Mr. G. THOMPSON complained of the over-crowding of ves-
sels returning to India from the Mauritius.
The CHAIRMAN said that was a matter over which the
Directors had no control ; it came under the operation of
the Passengers' Act.
Mr. G. THOMPSON then gave notice, that at the next
quarterly meeting he should call the attention of the Pro-
prietors to the treatment of his Majesty the Bing of Delhi
by the Governor-General; and also to the state of the police
in Bengal and Agra, and to the state of the gaols in all parts
of India.

Mr. MAnnYorr said he thought the Court should not
separate without expressing their approbation of the course
pursued by the Directors in recalling Lord Ellenborough.
Mr. Cr ARKE said, the difficulty which occurred to his mind
was, that they had not the facts before them.—(Hear.) He
thought, however, they might safely go so far as to say,
that they had such confidence in the Directors, that
they were convinced that they would not have exercised
their prerogative as they had done had they not felt
such a step to be absolutely necessary. They should
not altogether pass by the observation of one of the
greatest men in this country, that the Directors had been
guilty of the greatest indiscretion.—(Hear.) Such a declaration
coining from so high a quarter, could not but have the
effect of impairing the authority of those by whom
the Governor-General had been recalled; and though
he felt the greatest pain in thus alluding to the
subject, he could not but think that in the language he
had used, the Gallant Officer himself had been guilty of
great indiscretion.—(Hear, bear.)
The subject then dropped, and the Court adjourned.

QVEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a ➢Ziddlesex
Common Jury.)
M`CARTRY V. VARTY. •

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged false
imprisonment. The plaintiff had been employed by Mr. Dun-
can to cut some trees on Buckingham-terrace, in front of his
residence. The defendant, one of the trustees of the terrace,
claimed to have a right in that capacity to prevent any person
meddling with the trees, and he gave the defendant into
custody, who was taken to • Bow-street, and subsequently
discharged. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, st.
Mr. Platt conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Knowles appeared for the defendant.

THE QUEEN V. ANN HAMMOND.

This was an indictment for perjury. The case, however,
went off, in consequence of a technical error in the indict-
ment, and the defendant was acquitted, without going into
the merits of the case.

Mr. Platt was for the prosecution, and Mr. Whately and
Mr. Huggins for the defence.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
(THIS DAY.)
A person of very gentlemanly appearance, whose name
was entered on .the police charge-sheet as William
Wilmot, of No: Southampton-row, Russell-square, sur-
veyor, and a good-looking, showily-dressed female, who gave
her name, ••Eliza Elliott, living at No. 16, Warren-street,
Tottenham-court-road, were placed at the bar on the follow-
ing charge
Police-constable 161 C, stated that about two o'clock this
morning, as he was proceeding on duty along Argyle-street,
Oxford-street, he found the defendants standing together
under the portico of the house No. 9. He desired them to
go away, which they did, but in about ten minutes after-
wards he discovered them in the court-yard of the Earl of
Aberdeen's mansion, under such circumstances as induced him
to take them to the station-house:"

➢lr MALTBY asked the male defendant what he had to say
in answer to the charge ?—He replied that he:had been taking
too much wine. and had not the slightest recollection of what
had passed. He was extremely sorry for what had taken
place.

Inspector Frowd of the C division said he certainly was in-
toxicated when brought to the station-house.
Mr. MALTBY said he was liable to be indicted.
The female pleaded having been persuaded to drink more
than she was accustomed to. •
The. Inspector said she certainly was not in liquor.
Mr. MALTBY said he should fine the defendant, Wilmot,
405., or one mouth's imprisonment to hard labour. Elliott
he should commit for seven days to Westminster Bridewell,
without imposing any fine.
The female, in a paroxysm of grief, begged that she might
not be sent to prison.
She was, however, consigned to the lock-up cells; and the
defendant, Wilmot, not having the required sum about him,
was obliged to submit to farther incarceration until he could
procure it.
Mr. MALTBY afterwards imposea a fine of 20s. on the female.

QUEEN-SQUARE.-(THIS DAY.)
Samuel Griffiths, a painter, and Nary Watson, a young
woman fashionably attired, were placed before the Magistrate
on the following charge :
Policeman 153 B said, that shortly after 12 o'clock last
night, he heard a noise which proceeded from Rochester-row.
He hastened to the spot, and found his sergeant ordering the
defendants, who were disorderly, to go away, and, as they
would not comply with his request, he (the sergeant) told
him to take them to the Station-house, which he did. The
female defendant was drunk, and the male defendant, who
was sober, appeared to be endeavouring to get the young
woman home.

Mr. BOND inquired if the. sergeant was in attendance?
inspector Pearce said he was at the Home-office.
The policeman, in answer to questions from the Magis-
trate, said he should have taken the women into custody
without the intervention of any other person, had he himself
found her in the condition she was in when taken into cua-