tous each, would require twenty-four men blished ship-owners to meet in competition any individual who should offer to enter the Company's service. If he was misunderstood by the hon. proprietor (Mr. Freshfield) who supposed him to have said that there was no other evidence examined before the committee than that of the ship-owners themselves, he was most willing to correct that misapprehension. He meant to state no such thing.. His observations were confined merely to matters of account upon which the owners had given evidence; it was certainly not his wish to conceal from the court that other evidence had been adduced.' Mr. Morice and Capt. Boulderson, of this house, had given evidence very much to their credit and abilities. He had no de-sire to excite an unfavorable impression beyond what the real merits of the case justified, and therefore he had no objection to make any alteration in the wording of his motion which would meet with the wishes of the hou. proprietor. There was another point which had been noticed in the debate that required correction. His hon. friend (Mr. Lowndes) had stated what he would have much difficulty to prove. He had stated, in a manner the most unaccountable, unless his memory had totally failed him, that when the discussion took place upon the renewal of the charter, be (Mr. H.) had contended that the Company's trade would not suffer by being laid open to the nation. Never was his hon. friend more mistaken than when he advanced such a statemeut as correct. Unfortunately it was his (Mr. H.'s) lot, on that occasion, in this court, to have five hundred to one against, him. It must be in the recollection of every body else, that he (Mr. H.) then stated his conviction, that if the trade to India was opened the East-India Company would find themselves met by the competition of innumerable private traders, and he further added, that before four or five years had elapsed, and a fair trial given to the experiment, they would find the competition of the private traders so great that the Company, in their own defence, would be obliged to give up the contest altogether. In answer, however, to that statement, he was told by an honorable director (Mr. Grant) that after a trial of two or three years the private merchants would be ruined. That prophecy, however, had not yet been rea lized; and, from present appearances, probably never would. That answer, however, was thrown out in reply to his argument, and his hon. friend was one of those who joined in that prophecy. He (Mr. H.) had foretold at that time the great increase of the trade that would take place between India and England, if the trade were laid open, and that a hundred private ships a year would not be suffiVOL. V. I cient to bring home the cargoes; but the hon. director (Mr. Grant) had stated his belief (and the court had agreed with him), that a few trials would ruin the speculators. It was satisfactory to him to inform the court, that, since that period, about three years and a half, there had been three hundred and seventy or three hundred and eighty private ships licensed to trade to India, and that he had not heard of one failure. The merchants had derived a fair profit, and India had been enriched. A glut of ships in India might be expected soon to take place, encouraged by the great success already experienced; but like all commercial affairs, they would soon find a level. How his hon. friend could fall into such a mistake in ascribing to him the assertion that the Company's trade would not suffer, he was at a loss to imagine. He (Mr. H.) now utterly disclaimed that idea, and trusted that gentlemen would not go away with a notion that he had been at any time inconsistent in the course of conduct which he had pursued in that court. He now further prophesied that, before four years more had elapsed, the Company, under the increas ing difficulties with which they were surrounded, would be obliged to give up the whole or greater part of the trade to India, as being productive of loss instead of profit, and affording no prospect of success. Although he did not expect that his motion would be carried, yet he could not consent to withdraw it, because he conIceived the facts, therein set forth were strictly correct in every particular. had not heard any argument to alter his opinion upon this question, and was only solicitous that that opinion should stand upon the records of the court. The question was put and negatived. HERTFORD COLLEGE. He The hon. D. Kinnaird gave notice of a motion for repealing a clause in the college act, which made it compulsory in carents to send their sons to that institupion.-Adjourned. East-India House, July 3, 1817. COMMITTEE OF BY-LAWS. A general court of proprietors was this day held, pursuant to adjournment, for the purpose of taking into consideration the report of the committee of by-laws, and the alterations proposed by them. The Chairman (John Bebb, Esq.) having stated the business on which the court were assembled, and the clerk having read the report of the committee of by laws. Mr. Hume rose and said, he apprehended, that observations connected with the by-laws committee might then be made with propriety. He wished to ask, wheher any communication had been made by Mr. Alexander Baring, one of the mem bers of the committee of by-laws, to whose nomination he had strongly objected, and who, he thought, could not legally act on the committee. By the statute of Queen Anne, while a gentleman was a director of the Bank of England, he could not officiate as a director of the East-India Company, and their learned counsel (Mr. Adam) had, on a former occasion, laid it down as an invariable rule-omne majus continet in se minus. Now, if the act of Anne prevented a director of the Bank of England from performing the functions of a director of the East-India Company, was it not against the law of the land, the reason of the thing, and the spirit of their constitution, that he should be suffered to sit on any committee? He stated this, because, if his objection were a good one, he would endeavour to nominate an efficient person in the room of Mr. Baring. The Chairman." The court is assembled to take into consideration the report of the committee of by-laws, which was laid on the table on the 18th ult. and printed for the use of the proprietors. That is the only business now before us." Mr. Lowndes." Should Mr. Baring be excluded, I shall propose my worthy friend Mr. Hume." The Chairman then proposed that the court should approve of the alteration made in section 4. chap. iii. [The original law ordained that any director or officer of the Company, who should be guilty of a wilful breach of any of the Company's by-laws, to which any other special penalty was not annexed, should be rendered incapable of holding any office under the Company. But, as the qualification of directors was fixed by charter and statute, counsel were of opinion, that any by-law containing a disqualification of directors, on a ground not provided for by the charter or statute, was void; and the alteration proposed by the nion, instead of declaring the offending committee, in conformity with this opidirector positively incapable of holding any office under the Company, merely ordained, "that he shall be liable to be removed from his office of director, and shall be incapable thereafter of holding any office under the Company.] Mr. Hume said, there was a preceding part of the report, on which he wished to deliver his sentiments. It was there stated by the committee, "that, in the course of the examinations made by them, no instance of neglect, or violation of any of those wholesome rules formed for the control of the conduct of the Company's affairs, had fallen within their observation." Now, he was extremely sorry to say, that two points had fallen under his notice, which he would bring before the court at no distant period, where it was most apparent that those wholesome rules had been vio lated. The directors had taken upon themselves the right of purchasingThe Chairman." The hon. proprietor is not speaking to the question." Mr. Hume." I submit that I am. There are observations contained in this report, the correctness of which I deny. What use is there in making these preliminary observations, if they are not to be commented on?" Mr. Howorth." I wish the court would order that which the hon. proprietor objects to, to be read, in order that the proprietors may be fully aware of the weight of his observations." Mr. Hume." I will not take up a moment of your time. I must put it to the candour of this court, whether a discussion is to take place on every part of the report; or whether you think proper, contrary to all rule and precedent, to put a stop to such free discussion ?" Mr. Parry." The hon. proprietor is, I think, quite in order, in observing, generally, on the report of the committee of by-laws. It is to consider that report we are assembled. I do not think it is a matter of courtesy. He has a right to offer such observations as he may think proper." Mr. Lowndes.-" Will the Chairman be good enough to state, what we are allowed to discuss, and what is forbidden? Here a gentleman is proceeding to make an observation on the report of the committee, which is a fair subject of discussion, but he is told, that it is improper.' The clerk then read the first paragraph in the report, to which Mr. Hume had alluded. Mr. Hume.-"I beg to know when it will be competent for any individual to observe on what has now been read?" Mr. Bosanquet said, that, in point of order, he thought the hon. proprietor was competent to speak to any introductory part of the report, when he came to make observations on any positive motion before the proprietors. But, whatever he might say, it could not alter the reason for the committee having done what, in the execution of their functions, they had thought it necessary to do. He could not see how that could, practically, be made the subject of a motion before this court. After certain preliminary observations had been made by the committee, something positive was then proposed, which was to be brought before the court of proprietors, as a motion on which it would be their province to decide. The Chairman moved. "That this court do approve of the by-law, section 4, chap. III. as now altered and amended, subject to the confirmation of another general court." Mr. Hume I put it, in point of form, whether the regular course of pro Mr. Hume then moved, "That section 4. chap. III. of the old by laws be rescinded;" which motion was seconded by Mr. Howorth. The Deputy-Chuirman (Mr. Pattison) suggested whether they would not, by proceeding in this latter course, get into difficulties. For, if the court rescinded the old by-law, and the new one was not carried, they would be without any bylaw on that specific point. It was, therefore, better that the amendment should be submitted to the court. The Chairman." As a guide, I will refer to what was done before, in the general court, on the 19th of April, 1815, when the alterations in the by-laws were submitted to the proprietors.' Mr. Hume said, that two discussions had taken place as to the mode of altering the laws, and, he thought, that which he now proposed was then agreed to. The Chairman wished to submit a slight amendment to the new law. Mr. Hume said, before any amendment was agreed to, it was absolutely necessary to rescind the old law, otherwise it would remain in effect. Having got rid of that, then they were to decide, whe ther the new law should be inserted in its place. He submitted, that the regular way was to strike the old law from their books before they enacted a new one. Mr. K. Jackson did not think the opinion of his hon. friend (Mr. Pattison) was correct. Here were four or five laws, declared to be bad in themselves. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt others that came within legal ideas and recommendation of the committee. But to say, that, if you removed the old laws, without first agreeing to new, you might be deprived altogether of regulations on particular points was an overstrained argument. What would the Company be deprived of? What would they be left without? They would be deprived of certain bad laws; they would be left without a number of nullities. loss, he would ask, would be experienced from the rescinding of laws which were declared illegal? The opinion relative to these laws was drawn up with much care and ability by some of the most eminent counsel in this country; and that opinion imposed the necessity of immediately adopting others; but the idea of maintaining a bad law, professed and What avowed to be bad, seemed to him as illogical as it was unwise. Mr. Impey said, the learned gentleman had not stated the fact as it really was. By the former law, part was good, and part bad. If it were altogether bad, then the argument of the learned gentleman would have been correct. But it should be recollected, that what related to their own officers was good; but that which had reference to the directors, was declared to be illegal. He, under these circumstances, conceived the mode proposed by the hon. Chairman to be the best. Another thing struck him very forcibly, namely, that a part of the new law was bad also.-(Hear hear !) With respect to their own servants and officers, they might disqualify them as they pleased; but the directors were the servants of the public also, and the proprietors could not touch them except where the act of parliament granted the necessary power. Therefore, he thought, if the mention of the directors were left out altogether, it would be more consonant with a legal view of the subject. Mr. Howorth said, before they proceeded farther in this discussion, he felt himself called on to deprecate the tone and temper which marked the observations of the hon. director. Let the court consider for what purpose the committee were elected from the great body of proprietors. It was to examine, and if necessary to suggest alterations in the by-laws. They were not lawyers; but, as unprofessional men, they were endeavouring to do what they could to amend the Company's code. For his own part, he did not insist on a single alteration that was proposed. He left it to the court to decide on them. The committee had a most unpleasant duty to perform; for when men were called on to investigate abuses and correct evils, they must feel their situation awkward and embarrassing. They had, to the best of their ability, executed the task imposed on them; and he deprecated the tone and temper in which the hon. director had taken up the subject. He (Mr. Howorth) called on the court to believe, that the committee had acted solely for the public good, and that they did not adhere tenaciously to any alteration they had proposed. If it could be shewn that it was improper, they were ready to abandon it; and he hoped the court would do them the credit to believe that in doing what they had done, they were swayed by a desire to effect a general good, and were not actuated by any personal motive.— (Hear!) Mr. Hume said, the argument offered by the learned gentleman within the bar, (Mr. Impey) embraced the very reason which ought to induce the proprietors to do what he (Mr. H.) recommended. He Mr. Impey had no particular objection to the amended law. He had only stated, what appeared to him to be objectionable in the mode of proceeding, which might deprive them of the valid part of the old law, before they were provided with a substitute. Mr. Lowndes could easily feel the unpleasant situation in which the committee were placed, who had been appointed to examine the by-laws of the Company. On this subject, he begged to read an extract from the speech delivered by Mr. Burke, on the 11th of February, 1788. "Private enemies," said he, "will be made in the course of reformations of every kind. They are innumerable; and they are the more implacable, because they will hide the reason of their hatred." The Chairman." I submit to the court, whether the observations of the hon. proprietor have any thing to do with the question now before us." Mr. Lowndes." I beg your pardon. The chairman of the committee of bylaws has stated the delicate situation in which he and his colleagues were placed, and it is a fair subject of observation. But you come with a resolution to prevent all discussion; for, when I mentioned a gentleman who was every way eligible to be placed on the committee, you immediately declared, that that was not the time for such a proposition. I should like to know, what is the proper time for me to express my sentiments; for I really do not understand why I am to be cut short on almost all occasions." Mr. Howorth, had often been amused, and sometimes instructed by the hon. proprietor, he was, therefore, very happy to hear him in general. But, on this occasion, he hoped the court would get through the business without many speeches. He trusted gentlemen would be as concise as possible. Mr. Lowndes said, he would cut the matter short; for he would put reformation in his pocket. He believed the directors wished it, and he would not bore them upon such a subject. With respect to the delicate situation in which the committee were placed, he might be allowed to observe, that they ought to be treated with every degree of kindness and consideration. They were not composed of directors, but were selected from the proprietors, that independent body of men; and he thought it was curious that they should be told every now and then, that they were not lawyers; as if no men, except they were bred to the legal profession could investigate the Company's laws. In his opinion, those persons were best calculated to invesigate them who did not come with a professional feeling to the consideration of the question; for such individuals were most likely to do justice between the directors and the proprietors; and he thought they should own no motive but an anxious desire to forward the interests of both parties. Mr. Hume. "I think what the hon. chairman of the committee wishes my hon. friend to do, is this, to say whether he considers the proposed law good or bad. If we proceed to a variety of desultory remarks, the summer's day will close, and the ensuing morning be consumed before the discussion is concluded." Mr. Lowndes. "Then I say, that the new law is better than the old one; but I am not competent to express an opinion whether it be a good law or not." The Chairman. "I move that the by-law, sec. 4, chap. III., be repealed. I beg now to mention, that, supposing the present motion for repealing the by-law to be carried, and that the motion for substituting the new law were afterwards negatived, still there would not be any want of a law, because the repeal must be sanctioned by two courts; and until the second court confirm the proceeding of the first, the old law must stand good." Mr. Hume said, the motion just put by the hon. Chairman had been made by him (Mr. H.) originally, and seconded by a gentleman near him; he therefore conceived that it ought to have been left with him: but a practice had crept into that court which was unknown in any other assembly in Europe. He alluded to the right which the Chairman assumed of making motions ; he objected to this system before, and he was equally hostile to it now. It was the duty of the Chair. man to put motions when they were made, but not to originate them; and a different course was not pursued in any assembly he had ever attended, except that which he now addressed. tend," said Mr. Hume, "that you, the Chairman, have no right to move any motion in this court." "I con Mr. R. Jackson. "No doubt my hon. friend's proposition is sound. It has been mentioned more than once in this place; but I am sure, on a moment's reflection, he will give up the objection this day. It will facilitate business very much, if you, Sir, will condescend to put the motion." Mr. Hume." I say it is hostile to the quick transaction of business, and contrary to practice. Having offered a motion, I contend that it ought to have been left with me." The Chairman. "I did not know that the hon. proprietor had made a motion. Neither the Deputy-Chairman nor the secretary heard it." Mr. Hume. "I rose and stated, that, to put the business in a proper course, I would move that the old law be rescined; and the proposition was seconded by Mr. Howorth." Mr. R. Jackson. "It is of no consequence to entertain the subject in so thin a court. Something of the same kind occurred on a former day; and at another time the question may be taken up. Perhaps it would not be right for me to speak of what had happened before I came into court; but I am anxious to get through the business as soon as possible, and I hope I shall be excused when I state, that I understand the motion was made by my hon. friend, and I doubt whether it can now come through any other quarter. It is a general proposition of right, which I would not have discussed on such a day as this." The old law was then rescinded, and the amended law, on the motion of Mr. Howorth, seconded by Mr. Kinnaird, was agreed to. On the motion of Mr. Howorth, the old law, chap. 6, sec. V., which disqualified any director who took any fee, present, or reward, upon any account redirected that he should forfeit double the lating to the affairs of the Company, and amount received, two-thirds to be paid to the Company, aud one-third to the informer, was repealed; counsel being qualification of directors being provided of opinion that it was illegal, the disfor by act of parliament, and the penalties to be enforced by the by-laws being, by the statute of William III. appropriated solely to the use of the Company. The amended law,-providing, that a director, so misconducting himself, should be liable to be removed from his situation, and that he should "forfeit to the use of the Company, double the amount received," was agreed to. The old by-law, section VI., which provided, that any member of the corporation offering a fee, present, or reward to any director, should forfeit double the amount, two-thirds to the Company, and one-third to the informer, |