Star.
London, England, 1814-03-19 00:00:00

HARWICH, MARCH is.

Arrived the Lord Duncan packet front liclrce:.
sluys, with a Mail and Passengers.

YARMOUTH, MARCH is.

Sailed on the 12th inst. the PORTIA sloop, and
PruNcEp or WALLS cutter, in quest of a French lug-
ger privateer, who had captured five vessels off
Souqiwold, one of which, a brig laden with ship tim-
ber, belonging to Arundel, is retaken by a Lowestoft
boat, and brought into this port ; and another, a light
collier, is retaken by a boat from Suuthwold, 4nd
carried into that port.
GRAVESEND, MARCH tor-ft.—
This day the DORStTSHIRR, THA3II9I sad *Lento
'CCM), East Incliament sailed tar the Downs ind
Portsmouth.

A singular circumstance occnrced last week at tote
Huntingdon Assizes; two women appeared
nesse!, to charge a poor girl with a grand latoty,
who was no sooner acquitted, than a discovery % was
made that the perjured wretches were themsetets the
perpetrators °Eche robbery, on which they ivet`toirn-
mediately secured, tried the next day before Mr. Jus-
tice Heim", capitally convicted, and now remain
under sentence of death.

NI

adduce ? No further evidence wiz ealled tor, and
th 4 Court adjourned over the holidays, until the 11th

'of January, with an understanding that they should,
'oft that day, apply the 'information received to the
cbjectintended. They met on that day ; and he,
'taking an expanded and liberal view of the subject,
proposed, for the purpose of procuring a fuller at-
teadance of the Committee, and a more serious con.

sideration of the subject, that the Committee should

a.ijourn for a fortnight, which motion was agreed to.
A circular letter was then sent round to every mem-
ber of the Committee, dated January 12th, which
stated, that on the 25th of the same month they
Lould meet, for the purpose of finally concluding
'the business which was entrusted to their considera-
tion. That letter was not amongst the general list
of papers, and therefore he would read an extract of
Howarth here read a part of the circular
fitter, irons which it appeared that notice was given,
Oat at the next meeting (which was appointed for
the 25th of January) it was intended to close the
Committee.]—If this, he observed, was not a con-
clusive answer to the charge of-having abruptly or
unexpectedly put an end to their meetings, he knew
no terms in the English language by which it could
be expressed. On the 25th of January they met, for
the last time. A letter'was read from Mr. Golding,
k Member of the Committee, stating that the severity
of the weather, or an accident of some kind, had

prevented him from attending ; and adding, that he
bad transmitted his opinions to the Chairman, " H.
Haworth, Esq. at the India House ;" but, owing to
the arrangement of the Post-office with respect to the
delivery of tenets thus directed (except toDirectors),
!.e did not receive it till he arrived at his own house.
--(Hear, hear.) —This must at once account for the
apparent lateness of Mr. Golding's Paper. Mr. Ho-
worth next proceeded to animadvert on the proceed-
itg of Mr. Plummer, whO, he contended, by his con-
duct, in charging the Committee with precipitancy in
their breaking up, had fixed himself in a complete
dilemma—when,

Mr. S. DIXON rose to order. The present assembly
Was convened, in his opinion, to consider documents
before them, and not to enter into the disputes of the
Gentlemen composing the Committee, which would
necessarily produce recrimination, and thus their
time would be uselessly wasted.
The CHAIRMAN stated, that as Mr. Howorth had
been alluded to, in a former Court, when, from ill-
ness, he was not present, it was but just that he should
be now permitted to explain his conduct.
Mr. P. MOORE coincided in this sentiment, and
observed, that if any person had a right to complain,
it was he, who, having given notice of a motion,
was in possession of the Court ; but as his Hon.
Friend had entered on an explanation, in common
courtesy he thought he was bound to give up his
prior claim.
Mr. HOWORTH proceeded.—He defended the Com-
mittee, proceeding through a series of dates, from
having, in any degree, prevented Gentlemen from
sending in their productions ; and observed, that Mr.
Hume's letter, of the 24th of November, calling for
he inspection of documents, was entirely dissimilar
'se same Gentleman on the 31st
last day of meeting, when
any Gentleman had a Minute
)mmittee, Mr. Plumther came
tich was read • and he (Mr.
,urprised that Mr. Hume, who
not introduce that Minute,
(d before the Court of Proprie-
sen proceeded to animadvert
:hose Gentlemen who had been
opposition to the determination
who, after agreeing to the
stated,
opinion of this Committee, that an indis-
'tional increase of salary to the Directors,
Court of Proprietors ;
_ion by another, to which an
posed—and thus were themselves
ipposed abuse of the functions of
which they complained. The
'lowever, exceeded their instruc-
:mined evidence—they had in-
tts—they had, in consequence, agreed
ttions--and, then they came to the
- before them they laid the re-
and they called upon that
;mselves. He objected to the
upon him, in the Protest of
Arnett, to state the conditions
in which a graduated scale should be mated, when
hey knew very well, that no proposition on the sub-
ect of conditions, was made in the Committee. Mr.
oworth nett proceeded to animulvert on those
.oints in the Constitution of the Court of Directors,
'hich, he was of opinion, ought to be altered. Ile
rincipally confined himself to the mode of atten-
ancei which, he argued, was not sufficiently strict.
e admitted, that Directors, who were absent from
seir post, were
.fined—but this absence, he observed,
id not prevent them from receiving their full share
patronage. He then, at some length, entered
to a statement of the ease with which a Director,
he ware so inclined, migtit, without any appear-
-Ice of neglect, omit doing his duty at the India
.ouse, by patting down his name at stated boors ;
We, at the same time, he would be, to all benefi-
al purpoon, as useless as the man who was fined
,r his absence. It was needless for him to observe,
ost this was entirely a supposed case. He was sure
at every Director had conducted himself with pro-
ity and honour : but he had thrown it out, to shew
e necessity for altering a system which exposed them
) soca evil consequences—still, having drawn this
Tposed case, he thought it was but due to those
oo at present conducted their affairs, vast and com-
'toted as they were, to speak ot them in terms, if
;t:',".l such terms could be devised, contmensurate
oh their abilities. The'r system displayed an exact-
so extraordinary ; their details were so methodi-
-41; their arrangement was so perfect i that through
the immense extent of theircivil, military, finan-
li and commercial airangersents, both at home
abroad—any paper which was wanted, could, at
ninute's notice, be referred to.—Vicar, hear).
4.! Directors, however, wanted nut the eulogium
so humble an individual as he was- 'he Legisla-
i Of the country had already, in Zang cage ais for-
''.as could be devised, spoken their opinion of the
ices which bad been achieved by them, for the
lint benefit of the empire.--(Hear, hear).—Mr.
o orth then proceeded to read a series ot Condi.
which he had drawn up, observing, that he

~_

V.

Arm not SePplikritty proptilttion for an bitteihe 'of
salary, unlein those conditions were annexed to it.—
These conditions were principally, that the (panics-
tion for a Director ithouid be raised from agoo . to.
£4OOO capital stock—that any person hereafte4 who-
accepted of a public office, should not be dcemed.
eligible to be a Director. That a book of atten-.
dince should be kept open, to be published for the'
use of the Proprietors, on the first dAy of every.
March, stating the number of Directors who attend-
ed on each day—their hours of adjourning, &c. &c.'
Also a List of the number of Writers, &c. sent to
India and China annually, to be likewise published
for the use of the Proprietors. Documents like these
would enable every person connected with the Com-
pany to judge of the proceedings of their Executive
at a glance; and, without such conditions were in-
troduced, he would not vote for any increase of salary
whatever.

Mr. PLUMMER and Mr. HUME severally explained,
stating, that they had not cast any reflections upon
the Gentleman who had filled the office of Chair-

man of the Committee. The latter complained that
he had not been allowed the inspection of some pa.
pens that had been communicates to others.

Mr. P. MOORE, at some length, spoke in support
of his motion for raising the salaries of the Chairman,
Deputy-Chairman, and Directors of the Company,
contending that it was the fair result of the inquiries
made by the Committee, and of the documents laid be-
fore it. He went through an examination of the various
papers to skew the importance of the duties of the Di-
rectors who had not to manage petty matters of retail
and detail, but the mighty concerns of an empire,
of incalculable magnitude. A farmer knew how
many acres he tilled, a Peer knew how many ma-
nors he owned, but the Company did not know how
many empires it governed. The profits of the con-
cern were not less than £1,300,000 every year, and
having the disposal of their own funds it was not
fitting that those who underwent such fatigue, and
were compelled to give up so much of their time
for the general good, should be so ill rewarded.—
On this ground he had introduced the motion, and
on the same ground he should now support it. He
wished, conformably to the recommendation of seve-
ral gentlemen, to augment the qualification of a Di-
rector from two thousand to four thousand pounds
stock, but he understood, as there was a bye law
upon the subject, that he could not move to alter it
without a notice of 14. days.
Mr. S. altos observed, that the qualification of
two thousand pounds was not only required by the
bye-laws, but that it was an express enactment of the
Parliament, that no bye-law could alter.
Mr. RANDLE JACKSON observed, that the Honour-
able Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had fallen into a de-
served dilemma, in not coming down with his con-
ditions, which he either had not had time or will to
prepare.
Mr. BOSANQUET said, it was impossible for a Ge-
neral Court, by a bye-law, to alter the 14w of the
land. If s❑ch an alteration were wanted, it would
be necessary to go to Parliament.
Mr. LusitiNorbN said, if the conditions involved
an alteration of an existing bye-law, notice must be
given ; but if no such alteration was proposed, then
no notice was requisite. They ought to know first
what the conditions were. •
After a few words from Mr. Lowndes, Mr. Dixon,
Mr. Plummer, and anode r Hon. Proprietor,
Mr: P. Mootte concluded with loosing, "That so
much of the Bye-laws of the Company, as allowed
1500 per annum to the Chairman 'and Deputy Chair-
man, and .€3OO to every other Director, should be
repealed, and that in lieu thereof, from and after the
10th Aptil, 1813, there should be allowed 11200 per
annum to the Chairman; .11(X)0 to the Deputy-
Chairman ; to those of the other Directors composing
the Secret Committee, £7OO ; the Committee of
Correspondence 1100 ; and to all the other Direc-
tors £3OO each ; to every Director who had already
served four years and was again serving, an addi-
tional £lOO per annum ; and another additional one
hundred pounds after eight years sery ice."
- Mr. PLUsissEa hoped the Court would look to the
merits of the case, and overlook any want of forma-
lity in the notice, and any inaccuracy in the mode of
bringing forward the motion. Much had been said
about the patronige of the Directors, but the most
exaggerated notions had been entertained on that sub-
ject. For instance, there was not above one writer-
ship to every individual Director in the course of 20
years. The conduct of the Directors of the Com-
pany, hitherto had been most exemplary. By their
fruits ye shall know them." Their accounts had been
correctly and punctually made out, and sObmiued to
Parliament. On an average of forty years it would
be found that nineteen out of the twenty-four had at-
tended every Court of Directors.
Mr. KEENE and Mr. RANDLE JACK3ON both rose at
the same time, but Mr. Keene first caught the Chair-
man's eye. He spoke for some time, but we could
net hear him distinctly enough to comprehend his
meaning.
Mr. RANDLE JACKSON hoped that some conclusion
would have been come to by way of amendment, to
shield the honour of the Directors, and that of the
Proprietors, which in this motion were grossly at-
tacked, such an amendment as would have restored
union and harmony throughout the whole body of
the East-India Company. He had nor often in his
life felt a greater degree of curiosity than he then had
to know whence the nerve and the courage were
derived' which had been that day displayed by the
two gentlemen who supported the motion, in direct
opposition to two Resolutions of the Committee in
which these Gentlemen had sat. In these Resolutions
a graduated increase of salary to the different Mem-
berg of the Court of Directors was recommended, pro-
vided such increase should be accompanied with con-
ditions and provisions calculated to ensure a due dis-
charge of the Directorial duties. In that Report,
which was hardly dry, the Directors deplored the ne-
cessity to which they would shortly be reduced, of
lowering the establishments both at home and abroad.
When that Report was first laid before the Court, he
had moved a Resolution, by way of amendment, that
the Proprietors would support the Directors in every
measure of reform. On that occasion all the trick of
debate was used to get rid of his amendment, because
ii was perceived that if it passed, the motion of this
day could not with any degree of propriety be brought
forward. He bad taken care, however, that the
amendment should stand on the record. It stood there
in broad characters, that they were called on for three
hundred thousand pounds, and that they withheld

-no

• ri

t
itheir support to the Raiolntions which had been pro-
posed. How could the establishments of the Com-
pany in India and Enl2nd be cut down, while fhe
very fint ect of the Court went w an augmentation
of the salaries of the Directors themselves ? He had
declined to sit in the Commit because he con-

sit .in Imittee,
ceived it would he.sanetioning a proceeding, the first
principle of which wakimmoral-7*(Hear, hear.) With
what propriety could the Court of Directors propose
the promised reduction when it ‘might,be urgel3, you,
the Directors, for whom this increase is claimed, are
the only persons who have not been touched ; the pa-
trouage of the whole Indian Empire is secured to you
in clearer and stronger terms than ever ? (Hear, hear.)
There was another reason why he had declined to be
of the Committee. There was not one of the Gentle-
men composing it with whom he would not have been
proud to sit down in private; but as public men he
really did not wish to associate with them. Three of
them were known to be candidates for the Director-
ship. Two of them were unqualified Proprietors, and
there were no fewer than four or five out of the eight or
nine, who had already advocated the measure. H.
knew that he would be over-ruled in every proposition.
—There was another reason why he refused, and it,
was, that he did not like the manner in which the'
measure had been introduced. The Members were
told in the private canvass, that they would be re-
lieved from the Property Tax ; they were told so by
men who knew well that applications had three or
four times already been made to the Ministry for re-
liefh and that they had always been told that it was
not to be got rid of. The near prospect of peace had
been alluded to by an Hon. Member. It was true
that in the present state of Europe peace might with
safety be concluded, and was reasonably to be looked
for. But what in his opinion was yet mere cheering,
it had pleased ALNIICHTY GOD to infuse such vigour
into our Councils and the Councils of our Allies, that
they would not make peace with a Monster whose
whole life, for the last 20 years, bad been one continued
series of fraud and bloodshed, and who might well b
stated the Master Butcher of Mankind.— ( Hear, her r)
As to the proposition before the Court, he could coil-.
sider it as nothing but a premium for old age ; and
it was necessary that the conditions should be well
understood before they were agreed to. The propo-
sitions for taking so much money out of the pockets
of the Proprietors, could not fail to generate ill-will ;
and he would rather have seen some proposition for
verifying and recognising the arduous labours of the
:Oirectors, in proof of their deserving such a large re-
muneration. Mr. Jackson then made some severe,
remarks on the conduct of those who h id spoken in
defence of the Resolutions, but whose faces were not
seen in the Court till the whole of the contest was
over, and then they came to vote away the money.
As to the salaries of the Directors, they were of little
import when put in competition with their vast pa-
tronage; and that man could have no heart who could
say that the patronage was of no value. It was the
noblest advantage to the noblest mind, because it
could be disposed of by such a mind in the noblest
manner. Mr. I:Gbert Grant had stated it, in his vo:
time, to amount to £351),000, so that the advantage
of it to each individual Director was from I€6ooo to
£3OOO per annum. (Here Mr. Paterson, a Director,
interrupted Mr. Jackson, by wishing to know how he
could tell what the patronage was worth ?) Mr. Jack-
son replied, that he had it from a printed sheet of
paper, which could be referred to ; but it the Honour.
able Director hinl,elf wished to know its value, let
him (said Mr. .1.) enquile amongst his friends and
connections for wo: thy objects ; lut him seek out mo•
dest, poor, and unassuming men of merit, slow to ask,
but anxious for employment ; let him bestow upon
them his share of the patronage, and his heart would
tell him the value of it !—(Loud and repeated cheering.)
Mr. JACKSON Went on-to. explain that the patronage
for the last twenty years was valued at £3,000,000,
which was £6OOO a-year to each Director ; but that
this arose only from Writers, Cadets, and Assistant-
Surgeons ; there were many other sources of emolu-
ment under the description of Patronage. Besides
this, there were the loan speculations, each of which
put £16,000 into the pocket of the Chairman, and
WS00(1 into that of the private Director. After this,
who need ask what the situations were worth ? And
he would put it ad verccundiarn, to those who had
charged the Proprietors with being illiberal to those
they employed, to say whether they had any ground
for such complaint ? So far from this, it was not
long since a Director had publicly said, that the
weight and dignity of a Director of that Company,
was far beyond that attached to any subordinate Mi-
nister of State ; and in his opinion, there was no situa-
tion that ccuid be compared with it except that of
the First Lord of the Treasury ! Mr. Jackson con-
cluded with•moving as an amendment, that all of the
original Resolutions, after the word ig That," be
omitted, and that there be substituted the following
words, to wit :
" This Court having examined the proceedings of the Select
Committee, and considered the documents and evidence therein
contained, and having particularly noticed the two following
Resolutions, viz.—
" ist. That it is not the opinion of this Committee that an in-
discriminate and unconditioal increase of salary to the D.rectors
be recommended to the Court of l'roprietors.
" 2dly. That it is the opinion of this Committee that it is ex-
pedient to recommend a graduated increase of salary, provided
such increase be accompanied by certain conditions for the more
efficient discharge of the Directorial duties.
" Revolved, That until the conditions herein alluded to have
been Fubmitted to tl is Court, considered, approved of, and
passed into laws of the East India Company, it would be pre.
mature and unwise to make any alteration in the allowances
to the Directors, for their attendance upon the business of the
Company." •

Mr. LowNnEs seconded the amendment.
Mr. BOSANQUE r said that he had come prepared to
speak on the subject ; but as his speech must neces-
sarily be long, he would rather decline delivering his
sentiments. He wished, however, that the debate
could be concluded, and the unpleasant subject con-
demned to oblivion.
Mr. KINNAIRD considered the speech of Mr. Jack-
son to be an attack upon the Members of the Com-
mittee, and altogether an appeal tcr. the passions of
the Court. He moved an adjournment for 16 days.
• Mr. GRANT, sen. was of the same opinion.
After much farther controversy, the Chairman in-
timated that the sixteenth day would fall on a Sub-
-1 day, and suggested the extent to be eighteen days.
The question was then put by skew of hands, and
declared to be carried in the affirmative : Mr. Home,
however, insisted on a division, when the gallery was
cleared, and the motion for Adjournment till Tues-
day the sth of April was carried by a ktrge majority.

.•
tb

•
t:

LAW lIVTELLICENCk
.
COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH It
• OALLINI v. GALLINI.
In consequence of the peculiar nature of this case,
in which charges of a kind not the most delicate art
mutually made, on the one side and on the other, the
husband charging the wife, and the. wife charging
the husband, with the comni;ssion of the crime of
adultery under very aggravated circumstances, and
in consequence of which each contends, that the other
is not a fit person to be entrusted with the care of
their children, a girl;of about 15, and a boy of about
four years of age. The LORD CIIANCELLnR thought
it more becoming to hear the arguments and the state-
ments in the affidavits in his private room.
Sir SAMUEL Rostrut was heard on the part of
Mr. Gallini, and Messrs. HART and WAKEFIELD on
the part of Mrs. Gallini.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then said, he would read
all the affidaviti, and requested copies of that made
in the King's Bench to be laid before him, and he
should probably give his judgimmt on Monday or
Tuesday.
PALACE COURT, MARCH le.
WILLIAMS V. MORLEY. •
This was an action to iez.Over J6'26 2s. for rent due to
the plaintiff by the dtfendarr, under the following
circumstances :—The defendant occupied furnished
lodgings at the honse of the plaintiff at seloo a-year.
The defendant pleaded a coverture, she having mar-
ried, it was asserted, a Mr. Morley, in 1800, at St.
Martin's in the Fields. In support of this a certifi':-
cate was produced from the church, which specified 3
marriage betwixt Mr. Morley and a Miss Duff, but
there was nv proof that the defendant was the person
so married, although witnesses had seen Mr. Morley,
who was represented :is the husband ; and another
proved the defendant going nut one morning, as she
said, to be married. It was also stated, that the de;
fendant had been separated from her husband, bnt
there was no satisfactery proof of any cohabitation
tween chem.—Damages 4326.
MAIDSTONE ASSIZES, MARCH 17.
COLLIER V. ALDER AND WHITE.
This was an action against the defendants, for -
slander uttered by the wife of the defendanr.
The plaintiff was a publican, whose house was near
the Lower Water-gate, Deptford, and Mrs. Alder
having quarrelled with him, proclaimed aloud, that
he was a thief, a highwayman, and a robb,r ; that
she had saved him from the gallows, adding, " you.
know this, you, Bill Collier.' For these hasty words
the plaintiff brought the present action.
Mr. MARRYATT, for the defendant, said, it was hard
if the husband should pay more than six-pence for

the unruly tongue of -his wife, especially as G, Bill
Collie!" had provoked her by calling her an ugly
name, as he was told.

The summing up of the LORD CHIEF BARON was
very laconic—,6 \Veil, G.:ntlernen, what damages i"
The Jury-found for the plaintiff—Damages 6.1.
GALLARTNI V. HOWLAND.
This was a qui tans actin against the defendant,
farmer at Tenterden, to t ecover a penalty against him
for running a horse for a less stake than £5O.
The farmers at Tenterdvn had, last autumn, made
matches to run their horses for stakes, under the sum
AHowed by the Act of Parliament. A London at.;
torney hearing of it, had brought several actions.for
the penalties, but in this, the first tried, he failed tto
prove the parish in which the race was run, and was
therefore non-suited.
The other cases were withdrawn.
BUCKS ASSIZES.
Mary Hughes was found guilty of inintlaughter, Tn.
killing and slaying William Meates, of the tiar h of
Eton, and sentenced to one year's imprisonm...n.:
The circumstances of this case were as f, Una
The lad, in whose death Mary Hughes was impli-
cated, was a son of Mr. Meates, cue of Ole Ki;,g's
Messengers. Being very deficient in inteltec!, he wls
placed under the care of this woman (a rela!invi) with
a weekly salary of thirteen shillings. She had king
been in the habit of treating him with much cruelty,
and during the present severe winter the boy was
known by the neighbours to have skirt upon straw,
and was thoui;ht to have been nearly starved. On
Saturday, Feb. 26, she was seen to beat him severely
with a large stick. On Friday, the 4th of March, the
boy died, and in consequence of the suspicion at-
tached to Mary Hughes, the High Constable was
applied to, who sent for a surgeon, by whom the body
was examined : he pronounced that the boy had died
of the bruises which he had received; his eyes were
black, not from the effect of actual blows on them,
but from injuries in other parts of the head. The
Coroner was therefore applied to, and the Jury sum-
moned on the occasion brought in a verdict of man•
slaughter against Mrs. Hughes, who was in conse-
quence taken into custody, and conveyed to Ayles-
bury. The po?ular rage was so great on her re- .
moval, that she was pelted with every thing that
could be procured.—The Grand Jury found a bill
wilful murder, but she was convicted of man.
slaughter.

from that o
it writtenn the l
by
fa
vas inquired, whether a
b lay befoie the Com
forward with one, whi4
Boworth) was much sus
as the present, did
hich he had since laid
ors. Mr. Howorth the
n the consistency of thi
st strenuous in their o
f the Committee ; but
rst resoliltion, which si
" That it is not the opinior
mate and unconditional
e recommended to the Cour
dllawed that resolutiot
ratedment was propose
cause of that solves
Committee of wh
mittee had not, hoi
'Om They had exam
petted documents—the.
.0 certain resolutions—
ourt of Proprietors ; 1
t of their exertions,
y to decide for then
11 which was made u
ssrs. Hume and Bar