Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page


-----_-----INDIA. AND CHINA…

[No title]




EAST INDIA HOUSE. A special meeting of the Court of Proprietors took place Monday, to take into consideration further papers respecting the East India Company's Charter. By direc- tion of the Chairman, the coirespondenee, as well as the minutes of some previous Courts and Secret Committees, were rend. Mr. HANDLE JACKSOK then rose and addressed the Court. He thought the proprietors were in a situation to come to a final conclusion, and which he hoped would be a wise and lIseful one. The consideration of what had passed was brought into a narrow compass. The two leading points which had been submitted for their consideration was the mode in which the Company should be indemnified for giving up what it was admitted ihey could no longer hold; or whether they should give up their privileges uncondiiionally. The hon. proprietor paid a high eulogium to the zeal, ability, and patience with which the Directors had conducted the negotiations with Government. He concluded by moving a resolution, that the Court of Proprietors fully appreciated the mo- tives of the Court of Directors, and approved of their uegociations with the Government, and adopted their recommendation. The Court of Proprietors, however, had to request that the Court of Directors would lay before them a copy of the bill about to be laid before Parliament as soon as the same could be obtained, and call a special meeting to consider its provisions. Mr. RIG By seconded tiie resolution. Mr. FIELDING said, in the course of a few years it would be found that the plan proposed by Ministers, if carried, would be the total ruin of the trade of this country with India and China. Nothing could silve them from ruin, unless indeed they possessed the philosopher's stone. The Hun. Proprietor opposed the Ministerial plan. The question for the Proprietors to consider was, whether they would give up their property without a good and valid security tor it. If Ministers considered it necessary for the good of the country, they were in justice and duty bound to give compensation for any loss the Company might be subjected to. The Company, he would contend, had a right to retain thair property until fully satisfied with a guarantee against loss. He hoped the meeting, therefore, would not pass both the resolutions proposed to them. He hoped the Diiectors would see that, in the Bill, there would be a security that the proprietors should receive their dividends in London. Mr. ALERS HANKEY said the first point was the gua- rantee' fund. He was of opinion three millions was a more proper sum than two millions, and in justice, they were entitled to ask for a larger sum than even three millions. The company ceded a territory ten times larger than this country, and a population five times larger. Sir CHARLES 110RRES was not at all satisfied with the question as it then stood. He saw nothing in the amended plan of government to alter his objection to it. The guarantee fund ought to be at least three millions. The chartered rights of the Company ought not to be taken away without their being made the subject of arbi- tration. The Directors had abandoned the monopoly of the China trade, without making sufficient stand against it, and without sufficient compensation. Why should the East India Company give up their assets without receiving security for their full value? Was the Chinese trade within their grasp or not ? If it was, he would do every thing in his power to preserve it. He did not care what was said about monopoly, for he was sure in this case it would be for the benefit of China and the British public, that the trade with China should remain in the hands of the Company. Until the bill passed the legis'ature. the question was still open to dis- cussion, and he hoped the different trading interests in the metropolis and the country would take up the subject, and call public meetings. The hon. baronet addressed the Court for more than an hfJur ana a nan, and concluded by stating, that he could not support the resolution that had been proposed. He should not propose an amend- men!, but content himself with strongly entering his dissent to the government plan, as unjast to India, the East India Company, and the public at large. Dr. GILCHRIST said, as the Company had fought for this country, they ought to have their property protected by the government, and he trusted that when the bill was brought into parliament they would use every exertion to secure their rights. Mr. CARRUTHERS thought the sum proposed by mi. nisters very ample and very liberal, and that the terms offered ought at once, without deliberation, to be accept- ed by the Court of Proprietors. Mr. TWINING thought, when the vast sacrifices the East India Company were called upon to make was con- sidered, that it was only reasonable that they should have a guarantee fund of at least three millions. Ovt he whole, however, he though' it most desirable to agree t». the terms proposed by government. Mr. LOWNDES made some observations amidst loud cries of question. A resolution to the effect that the Directors be autho- rised to accept the terms proposed by government was then put from the chair, and carried without a division. The Court adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock. During the last two hours the attendance of Proprietors was very thio, thete not being more than from 40 to 50 present. POST OFFICE REGULATIONS. I Law Society's Hall, 6th June, 1833. Sir,—I am directed by the Committee of Management of the Incorporated Law Society to request the favour of your informing me, for the use of the members of this Society, whether the Post Master General considers the transmission of one letter in each parcel as illegal, under the provisions of the Act passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth. I shall be much obliged by all early answer, and am Sir, your obedient servant, M. B. Peacock, Esq. R. MAUGHAM. Solicitor to General Post Office. General Post Office, 8th June, 1833, Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, and to inform you in reply, that under the 5th, Geo. 4, c. 20, his Grace the Post Master General considers the transmission of any letter with a parcel illegal, unless the letter concern goods sent by a common known carrier of goods, with and for the purpose of being delivered with the goods that such letter may concern, without hire or reward, profit or advantage. I am Sir, your very obedient servant. 1\1. B. PEACOCK, Solicitor. R. Maugham, Esq., &_c. & •. &c., Law Institution.



[No title]




[No title]




[No title]

[No title]


[No title]