The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-12 00:00:00

VourtifilSbittou SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. IMPERIAL PAR,LIA3IENT. (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL. Mr. B. WALL then rose to move, as an amendment, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee that day six months. He complained of the conduct of Mr. Hindley, which, he said, was unprecedented, in moving the second reading of the Bill at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning se'nnight, when there were not more than twenty Members in the House, and, moreover, when he knew that he (Mr. Wall) in tended to resist the Bill by a substantive motion. Although he was in the House at the time, and within twenty paces of the Hon. Member (Mr. Hindley), he never heard the motion for the second reading being put to the House. The Act which now regulated Sun• day trading was that of Charles 11., the chief clause of which enacted that no person should purchase, or show forth or expose for sale, any goods, ware, or mer chandise, and that every person so offending should forfeit the goods so purchased or exposed for sale. He confessed he should have been glad to have had the opinion of the Attorney or Solicitor-General, neither of whom were present, with respect to the exact state of the law ; he also regretted that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) was not in his place, as the Committee on this subject, of which that Honourable Gentleman was a member, derived great advantage from his attendance. It was indeed a matter for extreme regret that, owing to his duties elsewhere, he was not able to • give that attention to the matter which his col leagues could have wished. Since the time of James the First the necessities of the times had rendered many departures from the law passed at that period absolutely necessary; for instance, water and hackney coaches followed the hawking about of mackerel on the Sabbath; yet very nice distinctions were drawn as to es hat was and what was not Sunday trading. In 1838 a confectioner was fined for selling a penny bun because it was made of " dough," and not a cooked article like a " puff" or " tart," in which case he would have been ex empt from the penalty that was inflicted upon him. Pub licans - obtained their licenses on the understanding that they intended to retail beer at 4d. a pot; but if this Bill were passed, the small shops, not "Tom and Jerry" shops, but small general dealers and others who sold a poorer description of beer at 2d. a pot, would be prevented from supplying the,poor man with an article which accorded more with his purse than the higher priced article, for they must-be closed if Sunday trailing was sought to be suppressed altogether. He was prepared to support a Bill which would put an end to unnecessary Sunday trading, but he could not support a Bill of so stringent a character as that before the House. He wished to treat a subject of this kind without the slightest levity, but yet he could not for bear from stating some matters which might perhaps lead to the inference that he was not inclined to treat the subject with that gravity which it demanded. Since the examination of witnesses before the Committee with respect to the condition of Lambeth on Sundays, in consequence of Sunday trading, he had devoted some little time to inspecting its most crowded thoroughfares on the Sabbath, and conversing with some of the inha bitants on the subject.—(Hear.) One of the church wardens of Lambeth stated before the Committee that two thirds of the shops were opened on the Sabbath, that persons of disreputable character were thereby induced to congregate in the streets, and that trading on that day was found so profitable, that the shopkeepers lost all sense of religion or morality, and the whole "Cut," (the New-cut) was paralysed—(Laugla ter)—and that an Act of Parliament was imperatively required to put the evil down. This person thought thee no public inconvenience would arise if the shops that retailed ginger -beer, oranges, cigars, and fruit were closed until one. 'l'he principle, he said, might be car ried ,at with respect to a number of other occupations. He did not object to Sunday trading altogether, but to the extent to which it was carried in the early part of the day; he had some doubts whether the clothing establishment of Mr. Groves, in the New-cut, should be one of those closed in the early part of the day. Now he (Mr. Wall) could not understand these nice distinctions, fur if one shop was closed, all ought to be closed likewise, and what was done ought to be by pelleesegulations. It was also stated in the evidence by,ei Mroclaslea +James, - that cheesemungers exposed bad, geodei at li4igh .priees the Sunday ; that no h BP penny eggs were sold on that day, theugh-plenty were to be had in the course of the week, and that those sold at sixteen a shilling were sold for one penny each on the Sunday. It was said that many tradesmen sold at losing prices in the week, and that they made up for it for by what they sold on a Sunday.—(Hear, hear.) The conscientious tradesman who did this came to the House and asked for a Bill to suppress Sunday trading. Then, Mr. Butt, the superintendent of the police, con firmed him (Mr. Wall) is his opinion, that no further powei4.were required, as he stated that the Lambeth Improvement Bill gave a sufficient power to the inspec tors of police to deal with the matter; he said he should not like to see any further power given, and he was one of the witnesses brought by the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Hindley), in support of the necessity for his Bill. The tailor he had mentioned had several shops, and he said though he should be a loser by closing on a Sunday, that he was quite ready to do so provided it became general. 'Tole certainly was a high-minded and generous prin ciple ; but he came before the Committee in a far dil -1 'went aspect. It appeared, from the evidence of Mr. ilienies, that this tailor made a profit of 1/. out of a 50g. coat, sold on Sundays, and that if he' were convicted in the usual fine of ss. for every coat he sold, he could well afford to do so.—(Laughter.) It was acid by the same witness that he took 1501. on one • ,Sunday morning ; that he should lose 5601. a yeas if •he closed on Sundays ; that he had pur chased a country house ; but if this Bill were passed, as ho wished, he would give up all the profits he had made by Sunday trading. He objected to this Bill, because he believed it unnecessary, and totally impossible for any practical measure to be carried out upon the subject. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the House should resolve itself into Com mittee on the Bill on that day six months. Mr. SLANEY seconded the amendment, believing the measure to be nothing more than an im proper attempt to interfere and meddle with the enjoyment and recreations of the lower classes of the country, while the amusements and recreations of the rich were not touched by the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) It was unfair when the lower classes had but one day to enjoy themselves, to throw every obstacle in their way un that day. If a Bill was to be brought in on this subject he thought it should be brought forward by her Majesty's Government, and some confidence might then be placed in it; but of this he was sure, that no Govern ment would ever countenance such a measure as the present. He admitted that some legislative interference • was necessary, but not a measure like the present. He believed there was no country in Europe in which the Sabbath was observed so well as in England.—(Hear.) ;Mr. ALCOCK supported the motion for the com inKetal of the Bill. Sir DE LACY EVANS also supported the motion for. going into Committee on the Bill. Colonel THOMPSON would support the Bill if the in. Member who had introduced it would pledge himself to sio all in his power to prevent oppression under its. provisions. He could not see how any objection could be raised to reading-rooms being kept open on Sundays, or the sale of periodical publications on that e i ,y; nor did he see how objections could be taken to al low bakers to carry on their trade on Sundays. Sir B. HALL thought the House ought to have some st , t ,, teen t from the Hon. Member who had introduced the Bill as to what he intended should be its provisions. If the Bill was to operate upon the poor and not the rich, he objected to it altogether, and if he intended it abeuld interfere with the rich as well as the poor, he should advise him to withdraw it, as he telt convinced he w eteld never be able to carry out its provisions as they then stood. Mr. HINDLEY said it was not his intention in the Bill to make any exceptions in favour of any class i n the community. He thought that in bringing forward the Bill he had done no more than his duty, and that it would be admitted that the provisions were neces sary to protect the regular trader.— (Hear, hear.) He was convinced that the feeling in the metropolis against Sunday trading was so great that an election of a metropolitan Member would in a great degree depend upon the support which he ga ve to such a Bill as the present. The flenouri!.ble Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) bad said that the Bill was in favour of the rich and against the poor, but leach he contended was not the case, because the Hon. ?eqeerater fur Salford (Mr. Brotherton), who was a great advocate for the poor, had given his support to the Bill. He was willing to admit that the Bill was capable of great improvement, and if any practical improve ment could be suggested, he would be happy to aid in inserting it in the Bill.—(Bear, hear.) He could not sufficiently impress upon the House the .anxiety of tradesmen in the metropolis, who now, for the sake of a living, were slaves to the custom of opening their shops on a Sunday, as to the result of the debate in this House ; and happy would they be if the Bill should pass, and ultimately re ceive the royal assent. Business was now carried on to such an extent in the metropolis on Sundays, that the Act of Charles 11. was not at all sufficient. Very great good had resultid from the passing of the Police Act, which prohibited the sale of liq uors i n L on d on ' . before the hour of one on a Sunday after noon. In consequence of a vast number of P eti -then% having been presented to the H ouse of Lords, a Bill had been brought into that House, and would s hortly b© brought before the ;louse of Commons, fur the p urpose of extending the provisions of the Act to all parts of the country. The licensed vicSuallers of the town he represented (Ashton-undei-Lyne) had requested him to s ve his support to that Bill. His object in bringing in ts to present Bill was to endeavour to put down a great griei emoe, which pressed heavily upon st great number of her Majesty's subjects, and he trusted, therefore, that his motion fur going into Committee would be acceded to. Mr. HUME said he thought the Hon. Member, on his own showing, ought to have made the Bill a general Bill---(Heare hear.) He said that all classes called for the Bill, but if that were so, it was the duty of the Go vornrrient to provide a remedy for the evil comillai neirof, toed r ,ot the Hon. Member tor Ashton-under-Lyne. He must . say that he did not like to see a gentleman from A Jab .ton-under-Lyne coming there to legislate for the pi to ple of London.—(A laugh, and hear, hear.) The H u a. Member had assumed to himself the position of monitor to the people of London, whose morals, he said, were very lax, and whom he was desirous to keep in order. If a Bill was brought in at all on the subject .of Sunday trading, it ought to be left to the charge of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was as desirous as any one to advance the morality and religion of the people, but he did not think such an object could be attained by troublesome, partial, and interfering Acts of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) It was absurd and unfair to pass Acts for certain communities, as if they were worse than other commu nities, and the House ought not to legislate upon such a system. The majority of the working classes did not leave their employment until too late on Saturday evening to purchase the necessa ries they required for themselves and their families, and they were compelled, therefore, to make their purchases on Sunday morning. The higher classes were placed in a different position, and it would be unjust, therefore, to the labouring classes to pass such a measure. More good might be done by example in doing away with Sunday trading, than by an Act of Parliament which visited pains and penalties upon the people. He opposed the Bill, be lieving that, instead of doing any good, it would be very mischievous in its operation. - - Sir G. GREY said he was very much disinclined to oppose going into Committee on this Bill, but after a careful perusal of the provisions it contained, and after the discussion which had taken place his mind' was strongly impressed with the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of legislating upon this subject.— ( Hear, hear.) He thought that the object sought to be obtained by the Bill would be better effected through the moral and religious feeling of the country than by any legislation of the House.—(Hear, hear.) If there were really any necessity to suppress Sunday trading they could go back to the Act of Charles He entirely agreed with the opinion that:Sunday was one of the greatest blessings which a community could enjoy, and he would be happy to concur in any practical measure which was likely to promote the observance of Sunday as a day of rest ; but, looking at the repeated failures which had attended previous attempts of the House to legislate on this subject, he considered that the present Bill would be altogether inoperative.—(Hear, hear.) The observance of the Sabbath, ho was happy to say, had been of late years much more at tended to than it had previously. Taking into account therefore, the difficulty of legislating on the subject, the previous failures, and the late period of the session, he earnestly advised the Hon. Member not to press the fur ther progress of the Bill during the present session.— (Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") Sir E. N. BUXTON would not dittoes the matter as a question of religion; but simply as one of public neces- sit3'. As the majority of the traders of London ought to be protected against the minority of their class who persisted in trading on Sunday, and by competition caused their neighbours to do so, he considered this Bill ought to pass.—(Hear.) Last Sunday 246 shops were open out of a total of 386 in the New Cut ; in Lambeth •walk 130 were opened and thirty eight closed, exclusive of public houses; and Spitalfields, with which he was connected, presented a similar result. He regretted that he had received a number of peti tions from these neighbourhoods in favour of the Bill too late to present them at an early period of the day.—(Hear.) The majority of the traders of London wished to see Sunday trading in general put an end to, in order that they, and the per sons in their employment, might have one day of rest during the week.—(Hear, hear.) He considered that his Honourable Friend had done well in confining the Bill to the metropolis, because its effect would be so salutary teat it would be soon found essential to apply it to all parts of the country.—("Divide.") Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY said much might be done in the way of example by the higher class of trades men. The lion. Gentleman then read an extract from the evidence of a person named Boggy before the Com mittee, to the effect that a poor boy without shoes was threatened to be taken into custody for selling figs if he continued to do so, while the brewhouse of .Messrs. Millbury, Buxton, and Co., in Brick-lane, close by, was in full operation, as evidenced by the clank ing of chains and the steam from the chimney.—(clear, hear.) Other breweries, it appeared on inquiry, did the same.—(Hear, hear.) This showed that this Bill was another instance of class legislation—the fram ing of one law for the poor and another for the rich — (Hear, hear)—and whilst he was of this opinion he should strenuously oppose the Bill. Sir E. N. BUXTON wished to explain. No work was done in the establishment referred to on Sundays, except what was absolutely necessary.—(Laughter.) The clanking of chains referred to by the Hon. Gentleman no doubt arose from the movements of the horses—(Cheers)—and the steam no doubt arose from the necessity of keeping hot water in the coppers to prevent them from tracking.—(Hear.) He would not say that no work was carried on on the Sabbath.— (Hear, hear.) Men were required to attend to the horses; but they were enabled to spend as quiet a Sunday in the brewery as elsewhere.—(Laughter.) Everything that could he done to render the work of the 300 men em ployed in the brewery as little oppressive as possible was done. If the lion. Gentleman would visit the brewery on a week day, he would find that the clanking of the chains referred to arose from the movement of the horses as he had stated.—(hear.) Mr.BROTHERTON said, though his name was on the back of the Bill, he had not taken an active part in bringing it forward—(Hear, hear)—but believing that it would tend to a better observance of the Sabbath, he had felt it right to lend the humble weight of his name in its introduction. (Hear, hear.) Whilst he possessed a mill ho never allowed uny work to be done on the Sabbath, believing that no gain accrued from working on that day. He should not be deterred by the sneers of those Mem bers who felt pleasure in teaching the people that there was no difference between right and wrong from sup porting the Bill, believing as he did that it would not interfere in the slightest degree with the liberties of the people.—(Hear.) Mr. SPOONER heartily concurred in the observations of his Hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He thought much good would accrue to the country if the House possessed the moral courage to take up such subjects as these in the proper spirit, and to discuss them on reli gious grounds.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gen tleman deserved great credit, and ought to be supported, even though he had brought it forward on the comparatively lower ground of public necessity ; but, looking at the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), at the great blow which would be given to the Bill, if negatived by a British House of Commons, he advised his Hon. Friend to withdraw it, to mature its principles during the recess, and re-introduce it during ' the next session. —(Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend determined to divide, of course he should vote with him; but he thought the end his Hon. Friend had in view would be more advanced by his withdrawing it fur the present. Lord D. STUART suggested that they had better go into Committee pro forma, and take the discussion on a luture day. Mr. HINDLEY said he had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the Noble Lord. Mr. MUNTZ said the Sabbath was as much broken by the rich as the poor, and before he consented to legislate upon this subject, the Bill must aim at a higher class of the community than it did at present. The Hon. Baronet below him told them that nothing was done in his brewery on a Sunday but that which was absolutely necessary. Now, had the Hon. Baronet asked the boy who sold the figs why he vended them on Sun day, no doubt he would have told the Hon. Baronet that it was absolutely necessary that he should do so. The House then divided, when there appeared— For going into Committee 75 Against it . . _ Majority in favour of going into Committee... —2B Mr. HINDLEY proposed to go into Committee pro forma. Mr. SMITH said it was a waste of time to go on dis cussing this Bill now, seeing that there was no prospect of carrying it this session. It would have been much better bad the Hon. Gentleman withdrawn it altogether, but if they were to go into Committee let them do so with the view of going into the clauses at once. Mr. ELLIS did not think the Hon. Gentleman would be justified in proceeding with the Bill at this period of the session. Sir G. GREY said he understood that after they had gone into Committee pro forma the Hon. Gentleman in tended to withdraw it with the view of introducing a new Bill nest session, and he hoped the House would go into Committee at once, and waste no further time upon the measure. Mr. SLANEY hoped the Hon. Gentleman opposite would state positively what course he intended to pur sure in respect of the Bill. Fur one, he confessed, he thought the llon. Member would exercise a sound dis cretion in surrendering the Bill intu the hands of the Government, Mr. HINDLEY said he wished to go into Committee pro.prma now, and on Monday he would state whether he The e en H de o d u to go on with the Bill this session or not. resumed,went intothCeocmhmaiitrtmeeanprro the House hseavtihnegnßnefpoormrtead ac cordingly. Mr. C. BERKELEY moved that the report be con sidered this day six months.' The motion having been seconded, Mr. V. SMITH supported the moat) in •n, and doing so called upon the Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill to state what he intended to do with i t this session. Mr. GLADSTONE also appealed to the Hon. Gen tleman to state now what he proposed to do with the Bill. Mr. HINDLEY said he would state on Friday what he intended is do. The motion was then withdrawn, and the Committee re-appointed for Friday. QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL. Mr. MOFFATT, in moving the second reading of this Bill, told the House that it involved no principle. Th e rule of the House was, no Member should have an in come of less than 300/. a-year, and of course this Bill would not be applicable to tl.ose Hon. Members who had conformed with that regulation. It was notorious that many gentlemen had endeavoured to secure seats in the House to protect them from arrest—(Hear, hear)—and the simple object of this Bill was to give the creditors of such Hon. Gentlemen a remedy against the protection which the rules of the House threw around every Gentleman who had the honour of a seat in it._ NEWDEGATE thought the measure was ex ceedingly imperfect, and calculated to lead to a good deal of andoyance and injustice.— (Hear.) lie trusted that at this late period of the session the House would not accede to the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) If it went into Committee, like the Bill last before the Iloase, it must be withdrawn for great amendments. Sir GEORGE GREY said as soon as the Bill was printed, he placed it i n t h e h ands of the gentlemen ap pointed for that purpose, and he considered the Bill was one which required great amendments. Considering the necessity of those amendments, and the late period of the session, he thought the Hon. Gentleman would do well to postpone it. He should not like to see this Bill rejected on a division, and therefore he advised him to accede to his advice. Mr. HUME said all his Hon. Friend wanted to know was whether insolvents should be allowed to sit in the House or not. It was a question of principle, and one of much importance. Sir W. HEATHCOTE said the question was one of so much importance that he trusted his Hon. Friend would not heed an adverse decision.—(Hear, hear.) It was incumbent that the House should clear itself from the just reproach pronounced upon it, in consequence of persons in insolvent circumstances seeking the protection of the House against their creditors. He did not think any public right would be violated by removing persons of this class from the House. This would not punish those who had been compelled to become bankrupts. After a few words from Mr. MACKENZIE and Mr. FORBES, Mr. MOFFATT said he wished simply to get the House to affirm the principle of the Bill; if so, he should not press it into Committee. Mr. BERNAL advised the House not to be in such a hurry to vindicate its purity.—(Hear.) Were there not persons out of the House who resorted to dishonest ex pedients to thwart their creditors from their due. He challenged his Hon. Friend to name five Members out of the whole number of which the House consisted who had: rendered themselves amenable to such a Bill as this. Let them not be in too great a hurry to become jurists. The Bill was full of matters which he might turn to ridicule; but he should forbear from doing so; for instance, no power of appeal was given. Mr. EWART advised his Hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill till next session. He had attained his wish, namely, an expression of opinion in favour of his Bill. He was in favour of its principle ; but the objections to this Bill were insuperable.—(Cries of "Divide," and " Withdraw.") Mr. MOFFATT withdrew the measure ; but inti mated that he should renew it early in the next session, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1848. TITHE RENT CHARGE BILL. The order for the second reading of this Bill was dis charged on the motion of Mr. HAMILTON. PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The report was brought up and received after a short discussion. The further discussion stands deferred until Friday. JUVENILE OFFENDERS (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill passed through Conimittee, after the intro duction of some verbal amendments by Mr. BAINES and Mr. NAPIER. ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, leave was given to bring in a Bill to continue certain temporary provisions concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. The Right Hon. Baronet subsequently brought in the Bill, and it was read a first time. The House then adjourned. RAILWAY COAIMITTEES. (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF LORDS. GROUP No. 3. CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD (Power to purchase Steam-boats.)—Preamble proved, clauses agreed to, and Bill ordered to be reported. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST (Power to Purchase, &c., and Amendment of Acts).—The chief object of this Bill is to enable the Brighton Company to become the proprietors of steam-boats to ply between Brighton and Dieppe and Havre. It was opposed by some of the shareholders and one or two steam-shipping companies. The case was opened to-day, and evidence taken in its favour. GROUP No. 4.— MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE (Humber Ferries Improvement at Hull and New Holland).—Preamble proved, clauses agreed to, and Bill ordered to be reported. LEEDS AND THIRSE. AND CLARENCE AND HARTLE• POOL AMALGAMATION.—The Committee threw out the Bill for amalgamating these tw•o lines. GROUP No. 5 2 :—GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMAR. NOCK, AND AYR. (Amendment of Acts, &c.)--Pre unable proved and clauses considered. LONDON AND BLACKWA.LL (Branches to East and West India Docks).—Preamble proved, clauses agreed to, and Bill ordered to be repwrted. ELECTION COMMITTEE. (THIS DAY.) DUBLIN. The scrutiny :into the ♦alidity of Mr. Reynolds' ma jority was resumed. Upon entering the list of voters, who are defaulters in payment of the grand cess, a lengthened argument arose as to whether it was necessary before a notice could be struck off on that ground to prove that payment had been demanded before the election, and the Committee decided that it was. The petitioners attacked the votes of two electors, whom they alleged to be de faulters in payment of the cess; but as they did not succeed in either case in establishing the demand, the votes were ordered to be retained. LATEST FROM PARIS. M. MARRAST, the Mayor of Paris, has addressed the following letter, dated yesterday, to the Illessager : " Mr. Editor,—You are strangely mistaken, in an nouncing in your journal, that I have sent in my resig nation, because there have been placed in the municipal commission a certain number of former councillors, who had shown themselves most hostile to my administration. If I had quitted the post of the Hotel de Vile, while there was attached to it less honour than danger, I should have failed in all my duties. Were Ito abandon it now, before I had rendered an exact account of the funds of the city, I should commit a dishonest action. This is the reason why I have not sent in my resignation; and be as sur, d that in not doing so, I have not considered either my repose or my inclination. As to the mo tive you have attributed to me, you will appreciate it, when you come to know, that the list published in the Moniteur was drawn up by me, and presented on the 25th May last to the Executive Committee, and was submitted again to the present Governmentand approved without any additional modification whatever by the Minister of the In terior and the President of the Council. If then, there are in this list any men hostile to my administration, it is I who have presented them. I did not consider what might be their sentiments with regard to myself; it was enough for me to know their independence, their services and devotedness to the interests of the city. Your article attests, at least, that for this new municipal council the Mayor of Paris has recommended only upright men and not complaisant friends. Health and Fraternity!" The Echo du Nord has the following, under the head of Saint Quentin :—" Two thousands insur gents from Paris, who had taken refuge in this de partment, have by means of the combined efforts of the National Guards and the troops of the line, been arrested. They will be sent to Paris, unless a special prison in the department be assigned to them." PRUSSIA. In the Berlin Constituent Assembly on the 7th inst., the Presidentof the Coun c il d ec li ne d to answer a question, having in view the ascertaining what mea sures were taken to protect the Prussian frontiers against Russia. The Minister of Finance declared that the funds in the national treasury, instead of diminishing during the last six or seven years, had increased. FRANKFORT. SERIOUS RIOTS-COLLISION WITH THE - • MILITIt AY —BARRICADES. Serious riots occurred in one of the suburbs of Frankfort on Tuesday night. The suburb is named Sachsenhausen, and is situated on the opposite bank of the river Maine to Frankfort, the communication with which is kept up by a bridge. It appears that the populace of this suburb had thought proper to charivari a baker and to destroy his house.' On the authorities sending the gendarmerie to arrest the rioters, so powerful an opposition was pre sented to them, that they had to fall back, and even when assisted by a party of military, were unable to quell the riot. Some firing now took place, by which one of the soldiers was killed and several wounded. The rioters then drove the military out of the suburb, and erected a barricade on the bridge which connects Sachsenhausen with Frankfort. _ _ . This was of so formidable a character and so strongly defended, that on the Burgher Guard coming up they did not judge it expedient to attempt to force it, but were content to protect the other end of the bridge, and prevent the rioters from invading Frank fort. Both parties maintained their posts all night, but withdrew in the grey of the morning, and as many of the " Sachsenhauseners" are market-gardeners, they thought fit, for the passage of their own carts into Frankfort, to remove the barricade. Several persons were arrested the next day in Frankfort, amongst others the President of the Mechanics' Union. According to the latest accounts tranquillity had been restored. The riot was totally devoid of political character. DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. The armies remain in their positions on the Schles • wig and Jutland frontier, and no movement of the slightest importance has taken place since the Danes retired from Hadersleben. TURKEY. Intelligence has been received by the Levant mail from Constantinopl e to the 27th ult On the 25th most important changes took place in the Turkish Ministry, RESCRID PACISA being ap pointed a minister without portfolio; ALI PACUA, President of the Council of Justice (superseding HA LIL PACIIA) ; and ARIF PACIIA Keeper of Public Properties. Further alterations are spoken of. Sir STRATFORD CANNING arrived at Constantinople on the 14th. He was complimented on his arrival by the dragoman of the Porte. GREECE. We have received Athens journals to the 29th ult. The rebellion on the Turkish frontiers still con tinued. Sir STRATFORD CANNING had had frequent interviews with the KING during his stay at Athens. Sir STRATIORD sailed from the ?irons on the 20th ult. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 11. SEDUCTION BILL. The Bishop of OXFORD moved the third reading 01 the Seduction of Females Bill. Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill as going much further than was intended—much further than Like Bill which had been sent up from the House of Commons two ses,ions since. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL supported the mea. surf. Lord DENMAN thought that the measure was not calculated to carry out the object intended, but would become merely a means of enabling persons to extort money. The law at present was sufficient to punish persons guilty of those crimes which this Bill sought to punish. Lord CAMPBELL despaired of their Lordships be ing able to frame any Bill which would remedy the evil. To legislate against simple fornication, without any ag gravating circumstances, would not be attended with a good effect. There were cases which it was most de sirable to punish, which their Lordships could not in clude in any Bill. His Noble and Learned Friend had referred to Berlin as a pla'ee where they would not suffer bawdy-houses to exist; but of all capitals for licentiou,- ness, it was the worst. It was worse than Paris, worse than Vienna. Ho feared the law could not do more than it had done. Lord NELSON thought the Bill was at least worth a trial. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was with very sincere regret that he was compelled to express his assent to the opinion of his Noble and Learned Friends. He thought that the object of the Bill was impracticable. If there were any means of meeting the real grievance without touching that which it was impracticable to prevent, he would cordially support the measure. The Earl of HARROWBY thought that juries, being fathers and husbands, might safely be trusted with the trial of these cases. If the Bill failed it could only be for the want of a definition of the word seduction, which could easily be remedied. Lord CAMPBELL and other Noble Lords speaking two and three times over in explanation, Earl GREY complained of the irregularity of the de bate, as their Lordships were not in Committee. The Bishop of OXFORD said he was anxious to have a decision of this House upon it, and he would press for that division. A Bill passed for Birmingham, in 1845, had proved eminently successful, as well as in many places on the Continent, particularly in Coblentz, where it tsnded to lessen the number of illegitimate children — of patients in the hospitals—and, in point of fact, im proved the general condition of morality. He thought, therefore, that the objections thrown out against the measure—that it was utterly impossible to carry it into effect, and would promote the evil it was intended to suppress—were utterly without foundation. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared— For the th►rd reading Against it Majority Their Lordships then adjourned. . -7 HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 11. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Hall-pa“ Five. Lord 11. STUART presented a petition in favour of Parliamentary reform. Mr.; DUNCAN presented a petition from Aberdeen to the same effect, and also praying for a reduction in the national expenditure. Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition from Middlesex in favour of vote by ballot. THE RAJA OF SATTARA. Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON then rose to bring forward ,the motion of which he had given notice with respect to the case of the late Raja of Sat tara, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Ovens (of the Bombay Army), while British Political Resident at the Court of Sattara; and into the pro ceedings of the Bombay Government, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in re lation • to certain charges preferred against that officer. The Honourable Member observed, that he was anxious to merit the indulgence which he ventured earnestly and respectfully to solicit at the hands of the House, by proceeding at once, as briefly as possible, to state the reasons which induced him to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. He (Mr. Thompson) wished, at the outset, to disclaim any personal ill-feeling towards the Gallant Officer whose conduct was the subject of the proposed inquiry. His private character was, as far as he (Mr. Thompson) knew, unreproached and free from suspicion. He had received nu injury at his hands, nor did he (Mr. Thompson) believe that that gentleman had ever meditated any towards him. He had no one cause for individual resentment against that officer, nor was he conscious of cherishing any sentiment ap proaching to personal animosity. It was as a public man, and a servant of the State, that he had then to do with Colonel Ovens. It was on public grounds, and on public grounds solely, that he referred to him in the Parliament of Great Britain, and deemed it his duty to impeach certain of the acts done by that officer in his official and responsible cha racter. But it was not simply the conduct of Colonel Ovens that he (Mr. Thompson) was there to arraign; still less was it upon Colonel Ovens exclusively, or even as the principal offender, that he thought the censure of that House and of the country ought to fall, and would fall if the inquiry sought was granted. Through Colonel Ovans a nigher and more important duty was then endeavoured to be discharged, namely, that of arraigning the conduct of those to whom that officer was, and still is, immediately amenable—whose commission he had long held, by whose orders he was placed at Sattara, and by whom his conduct had been repeatedly sanctioned, approved, and rewarded. Nor was it merely to obtain an inquiry into the acts of those under whom Colonel Ovans had served, that the present motion was brought forward, although the conduct of the East India Company, and her Majesty's Government, in the administration of the affairs of a vast empire like that of India, was, of necessity, a subject of the highest importance ; but it was because that conduct was inse parably linked in the present case with the melancholy tate of a distinguished Indian sovereign, with the observ ance or breach of a solemn treaty, and with the disposal at the present time of a throne without an occupant, a principality without a ruler, and a numerous people with out a prince; and, further, because that conduct was con nected with whatever is valuable to the British name and character in India, with the principles of national honour and good faith, and with the mainte• of thpartincePsini°orfl the st a t e , w hi c h cou ld in the minds of the p n e a o n p ce le alone constitute a lasting foundation for British dominion in that distant part of the world. It was due, however, to his (Mr. Tnompson's) own feelings that he should state that he had long cherished the hope of being wasit then endeavouring to dis o trusted would have been charge. ad That hw t c e ec sh n s c t hy e e s h s e y f undertaking so painful a fondly removed, by a reconsideration, on the part of the Indian Government in this country, of the decision now fully admitted to have been prematurely arrived at, in the case of the late deposed Raja of Sattara. In common were far more judgments e w n i t t i h tle m d an tO ge r n e t s l p e e m c e t n'thwoseahnhis own, he had always felt convinced that a reconsideration of the case of the Raja of Sattara—due weight being given to all the facts which had been disclosed subsequently to that Prince's deposal—would not fail to issue in the reversal of the heavy sentence carried into execution wsainst the accused. The hand of death having recently re moved both the Prince deposed in 1839 and the one subsequently exalted in his place, the hope to which he (Mr. Thompson) had referred, obtained fresh vigour, from the belief that as the Raja had left an adopted son who, besides the circumstance of his adop tion, stood next in succession to the vacant throne, as the nearest in lineal descent, and as no politi cal or other impediment existed to render it diffi cult or inexpedient to declare that person the Raja of Sattara, that therefore justice would be done, as far as the present state of the case admitted, ny the acknowledgment of the rightful heir, the re storation of the deposed Raja's family to their native country, and the preservation of the territory of Sattara to the family of Sevajee, in accordance with the express terms of the treaty of 1819. That hope had, however, been considerably weakened by the in ability of the friends of the Raja's cause to obtain, either from the Court of Directors, during two meetings at the India House, or from her Majesty's Minister at the head of the Board of Control, any assurance of an intention to recognise the claim of the individual who, according to Hindoo law, stood towards the deposed Raja in a relationship as near and as sacred as that of a child born of his own body ; and they had even failed to obtain so much as an intimation of the intention of those authorities to consider favourably the claims to which reference had been made. The treatment, too, which that Prince lead received from the agent of the Governor-General at Benares, had, so far from furnishing any grounds of en couragement, been of a nature to induce his friends to believe that the supreme authority in India was not favourable to the recognition of the rights of the adopted son. And there it would be necessary that he (Mr. Thompson) should distinctly connect the inquiry which was sought by the present motion with the future fate of the surviving members of the de ceased's Raja's family, and the disposal of the titles and territory which that Prince for so many years pos sessed. Within the last few days it had been asserted, that the Raja being still held to be guilty of the acts charged against him, was, there fore, inco m p e t en t t o b eque ath any political right to his heir, and that consequently the adoption he had made was null and void, so far as constituting any ground for recognizing his heir. It became, therefore, necessary t o r e vive th e question of the guilt or inno cence of P er t au b Sh ee n, so that by plac in g t h at Prince in the position, as respects his character, which he occupied prior to the charges brought against him they mi g ht g i ve va lidity to the act by which he nominated as hi s succe ssor on the throne the youth whom they were anxious to see taken into alliance with the British Government. The inquiry which he (;qr. Thompson) asked for would, he believed, fully answer that end, and by resulting in the entire vin dication of the late Raja's character, remove every doubt respecting the right and title of his livin g son to succeed to the state and dominion of which h is father w as , as he (Mr. Thompson) firmly believed, unjustly deprived. Even at that, the eleventh hour, he (Mr. Thomp son) was willing to forego the right which he and of reading various extracts from the blue book s possessed of making certain state ments to the H ouse , whose own conduct and motives we re necessarily then upon the table, if her Majesty's Governm e nt, in volved in the case, would consent that the whole matter should be referred, either to a Committee of that House, or if such a tribunal should be unable to pursue its inves tigation at sufficient length during the residue of the present session, then to a Commission, whose duty it should be to inquire, not only into the conduct of the particular individual named in the motion, but into the acts generally of all parties concerned in the deposal of the late Raja of Sattara, and into the claims of his sur viving relations up, n the property, territory, and Go vernment, which had lapsed by the death of the late niece Appa Sahib. From the beginning it had been his (Mr. Thompson's) constant desire, that instead of that question having to be determined by the vote of a General Court of Proprietors in one place, or a large assembly, by a debate in the House of Commons in an other, it should be submitted to the cake, patient, and im partial examination of persons wholly disinterested, free from improper influence, and capable of judging between conflicting evidence, and of duly estimating the opinions of parties more or less biassed in their feelings and judgments. Still cherishing that desire, he would say no more on that occasion than should appear to him to be necessary to establish the necessity for such a tribu nal, and to prove that there was a bona fide case for such an investigation. Finally, ere he went into the details of the evidence, he would state, that punishment was not the end he had in view. Free from all vindictive feeling, he sought the redress of the wrongs of those whom he believed to have been injured, the restitution of rights, as he conceived unjustly forfeited, and the correction of errors and abuses in the administration of the Government in India which not only inflicted grie vous injury upon the natives of that country, but im paired the influence, by lowering the character of Bri tish authority amongst the countless millions there sub jected to its sway. Colonel Ovens as an officer in the Indian army, after holding various posts, was appointed, in June, 1837, to the situation of political resident at the Court of his late Highness the Raja, of Sattara. For the sake of brevity, he (Mr. Thompson) should pass over the circumstances attending the removal of Colonel Lodwick, the predecessor of Colonel Ovens, and merely state, in passing, that it was obvious, upon the face of the printed papers, that the former officer was removed from his residency in consequence of his known disin clination to take an active part in those secret and dis honourable proceedings whl2h had been already com menced with a view of criminating the Raja of Sattara. The duties of a political resident at the Court of Sat tara were those of a friendly adviser of the ruling Princes, and he (Mr. Thompson) was bound to say, that few better selections could have been made than those which had placed near the person of the late Raja suchi gentlemen as Captain Grant Duff, Major-General Briggs,! the late lamented General Robertson, and his immediate successor General Lod wick. During the whole period of their administration of political affairs at Sattara—an administration commencing in 1818, and extending to the middle of 1836—50 straightforward and confiding had been the conduct of the Raja, that not a single se cret communication had ever been recorded amongst the proceedings of the residency; a fact which he (Mr. Thompson) believed was without a parallel in the his tory of British rule in India. It was of importance that he should state to the House, that General Lod wick was removed from his post at Sattara, on the plea that he had lost, to some extent, the confidence of the Prince, and that it was necessary that some gentleman should succeed him, who had the power to wits back that confidence, and cause the communications between the resident and the ruler to be as free and unreserved as they had always been before the misunderstanding which had occurred on a question relating to the Raja's power over certain feudal chiefs. This fact it was of importance should be borne in mind by the House, while he (Mr. Thompson) proceeded to notice the manner in which Colonel Ovans commenced his official duties at Sattara, which he did on the 16th of June, 1837. The first act which he (Mr. Thompson) had to allege against that officer—an act contrary alike to the letter and the spirit of the existing treaty—was committed on the day be fore specified. The charge which he (Mr. Thomp son) had preferred against Colonel Ovens was, that being hound by treaty to give his advice to the Raja fur the good of Sattara his state, and for the maintenance of the general tranquillity, did, on the very day of his arrival at Sattara, on the 16th of June, 1837, and of his assuming office as resident and commanding officer of the British troops, authorise his staff officer, Captain F. Durack, to pay to one Bhow Leley, a man Col. Ovens had never seen, and of the " worst character," the sum of two hundred rupees for the production of certain do cuments purporting to criminate the Raja, and also to give to the said Bhow Leley a written assurance that he should be further rewarded, in preportion to the services he might render; and that when Bhow Leley failed to produce such documents at the time appointed, Colonel ,)vans authorised Captain Durack to give him another trial; which acts of Colonel Ovens were a subornation of evidence against the Raja, a gross violation of his duty as resident, and such as proved him to have come to Sattara as the unscrupulous enemy of the Raja; fur ther, that these acts were concealed by Colonel Ovens from the knowledge of his Government. Sir J. HOBHOUSE—Whose statement is that? Mr. G. THOMPSON—It is my charge against Col. Ovens. In the first place, he would prove the commission of the act itself; and here he would refer to a letter from that officer, addressed to his Government, on the 24th of June, detailing most minutely his proceedings since his arrival at Sattara, but containing no allusion whatever to the important event which had taken place on the 16th of the same month. Charged by his instructions to give the Government the fullest information relating to the alleged intrigues of the Raja, he nevertheless omitted to inform his Government of the important fact that he had authorised the employment of an individual, who had stated his ability to obtain certain treasonable docu ments, which would establish the guilt of his Highness. He (Mr. Thompson) would retiu,at the g.tttatttinn of the House to a most important document, addressed by the Raja of Sattara to the Government of Bombay, on the 17th of July following. Cognizant as he (Mr. Thomp son) believed the Raja was at that time of the existence of secret machinations to effect his ruin, he, nevertheless, offered, in a document which then lay before him (Mr. Thompson), to resign his power and kingdom into the hands of the Government, in order that the friendship sub sisting between himself and that Guvernment might not be interrupted, and expressing, moreover, his willingness to retire into obscurity, if he might be thereby spared the disgrace which secret accusations were calculated to bring upon him. That conduct was in perfect keep ing with a similar request, preferred in 1836, when first accused, and again in 1839, when offered the restoration of the friendship of the Government, on condition of admitting his guilt. That most important letter was sent to Bombay; and there was a minute, recorded by Sir Robert Grant, the Governor, dated July 21st, in the same year, in which he stated that " he did not think any notice should for the present be taken of that com munication, which he thought betrayed the Raja's un easiness, arising from a consciousness of guilt. The acting resident should be requested to follow up the in quiry he had so ably commenced." The Raja never received so much as an acknowledgment of the receipt of that letter, still less any expression of' the opinions of Government respecting it. But to return to the means taken by Colonel Ovens to obtain evidence against the Raja. In a voluminous defence, which Colonel Ovens had deemed it necessary to furnish to the Right Ilonourable the Presi dent of the Board. of Control, in anticipation of the motion then under consideration, there was found an admission of the fact that that officer did employ the person referred to, and in the manner described, but Colonel Ovens denied altogether the accuracy of his (Mr. Thompson's) charge of' having concealed such act from the knowledge of his Government. It had been proved that his letter of the 24th of June contained no reference to that act. He (Mr. Thompson) would show the House that the first information furnished by Colonel Ovans to his Government of having taken so extraordi nary a step as that of employing a servant and subject of the Raja to obtain evid e n ce t o c riminate his own Sove reign, was extorted by th e fortuitous discovery of his having done so, through the confession of the guilty man himself of the compact into which he had entered with the resident. He M , hompson) had before him a letter, addressed s s, ghly respectable European, r. Milne, late Medica , ; p •rintendent of Bo mba y , to the Governor-General of. . eta, calling his attention to cer tain tranastetions connected with the secret proceedings against the Raja, and, amongst them, to That the letter was dated the affair of Bhow Leley and Colonel . ;Ovans. 18th of September,being more than three months su bse q uent to the 16th of w a ytogether . June. Having to pass through the hands of the Bombay . to Calcutta,. it was copied in with its enclosure, and el Ovens for his remarks thereupon. the Bombay Government had re ceivedllable of intelligence . respecting the it)lloeforwardedw sneetroet Departm ent, Government, to that o ( Inoli Colonel sn date, affair. From nForsoimngtlheatsyletter, and its enclosures, it appeared that the man Bhow Leley made certain confessions to his Highness the Raja of Sattara, of the ma nner i n w hi c h h e had been tampered with by . . Colonel Ov ens an d hi s sta ff officers; and that his depositions, with other documents, were forwarded to D. r. Milne, to b e use d b y him as he might think fit in his communicati on to the Supreme G o vernment. In his letter of th e 1 8t h of September, 1)r. Milne called the especial att ent i on of the Governor- G e neral to the circumstances referred to. On the receipt by Colonel Ovens of a letter from his own Govern ment, dated the 21st of September, he thought D c u o r n a fi e r k m , confirming giving t the e a tdreuttahileodf account c h o o u w n t Lesley's I ehyi'ss nego tiations state ments, i it necessary . to furnish the information he had previously withheld, and accordingly they found enclosing ß ho Bhow L a e 5, 1 e . t t a e n r d f from m his his finallyow n havings staff-officer, -offi p c a e i r d , a letter from . him, dated the 27th of De cember, a nthd withe order of Colonel Ovens, 150 rupees, as an by the ye c Colonel charactere o d l o n w e i 1 hovo Ovens; n instalment, and given him a certain promise of future secret c ao r c e ts t at hy p u r s o w s hp e ecrtuohtveieordn to (h : i e f h ' ca t hv h ae e r gb ß ee a e j on a t .. do I ni eereward, according to the services he might render, con (Mr. Thompson) would leave the House to determine the t s h ; con cealment was not made out, by the fact that it was not till after the lapse of more than three months, and then only in consequence of the accidental discovery of the secret steps he had taken, that he acknowledged his connexion with a man whom he had never seen, for the purpose of obtaining evidence wherewith to accuse the Raja of treason to the British Government. He (Mr. Thompson) left the House, too, to say whether or not such conduct did not prove that Colonel Ovens was the enemy of the Prince towards whom he was bound by treaty to act the part of a friendly adviser, and whether the means which, in that instance, he adopted did not deserve to be designated by the term with which he (Mr. Thompson) had designated them, ." unscrupulous." It was for the House, too, to say whether , in their judg ment, British officers were legitimately employed, when . they were thus entering into secret combination and fel lowship with persons like the traitor Bhow Leley, and whether the publication of such facts as those which had been detailed throughout India, was likely to beget in the minds of the princes of that country the confidence and respect with which they would be inspired towards those who represent the British power at their respective courts. The second charge was, " That Colonel Covens 11 'did, from the time of his assuming office as resident, down to the period of the Raja's dethronement in the month of September, 1839, systematically intercept, and cause to be intercepted, the whole of the correspondence of the Raja, his servants and his friends ; and that Col. Ovens did convert such systematic intercepting, opening, and perusing of the said correspondence, into a means of counteracting and defeating every endeavour which the Raja muscle to obtain a hearing, and to make known his case to the British Government ; and into a means of se cretly calumniating the friends of the Raja to the Bri tish authorities." The admission of Colonel Ovens, in his own defence, which had been referred to, of the practice alluded to in the second charge against that officer, rendered it unnecessary to adduce any evidence in its support. He (Mr. Thompson) was anxious, however, that a Committee of that House, or some equally competent tribunal, should pronounce its judgment upon the morality, as well as governmental policy, of such acts as those resorted to by the Bombay Government and their servants, in the prosecution of au inquiry into the conduct of a person standing in the re lation of the Raja of Sattara ; and to say whether such proceedings were fair and just towards those who were thoroughly ignorant of the means adopted by a Govern ment, whose governmental machinery was co-extensive with India itself, and who, by resorting to such means, offered a premium to disaffected and malicious indivi duals to bring about the ruin of innocent. unsophisti cated, and confiding persons. Colonel Ovens did not deny that, in the course of his own secret correspond ence, he had expressed freely his opinions upon the character and conduct of those who, from the purest motives, attempted, although unsuccessfully, to render service to the Raja during the long period of his relentless persecution by the Bombay Government. He (Mr. Thompson) was happy to say, that not one line could be quoted from amongst the ac cumulated papers which had been laid upon the table of that House, showing that any British officer, or other European, was ever connected with the case of the Raja of Setters, except in the most virtuous, loyal, and ho nourable manner, or that they ever tendered to him any counsel, but such as was in strict accordance:with the ob servance of the treaty he had entered into with the Bri tish Government; or, in fact, did anything on his behalf that was inconsistent with their duty to their own Sove reign, or the safety and honour of the British Govern ment. He would also as confidently affirm, that during the years that the practice of intercepting letters pre vailed, no line ever came into the possession of the Bri tish Government, furnishing the least evidence of the Raja himself, or any of his friends, entertaining feelings of hostility to British rule in India. On the contrary, every such intercepted document demonstrated the earnest anxiety of the Raja himself, and of his agents and friends, for a strict, but open and fair, inquiry into the whole conduct of his Highness, during the period of his connexion with the British Goveanment, and of the de sire, above all things, of the accused Prince himself, to maintain undisturbed and untarnished the friendship he had for eighteen years avowed and exhibited towards his European allies and protectors. Should the inquiry asked for be granted, it would be made abundantly ap parent that the system of intercepting letters alluded to did lead, in a multitude of instances, to the prevention, on the part of the Raja and his friends, of the success of his efforts, which would, had not such illicit inter ception not taken place, have issued in the revelation of a conspiracy existing to bring about the ruin of the Raja. The House would be at no loss to judge of the helplessness of the unfortunate Raja of Sattara, who by such a practice was unable to effect any of the just ends which himself and his friends had in view in their correspondence with each other. At every step it would be found that secret artifices had been resorted to for the purpose of frustrating such ends, and of mis representing the objects and designs of such communi cations. The next matter to which he was desirous of calling the attention of a Committee of that House was the manner in which Colonel Ovens obtained certain evidence against the Raja, to which evidence great im portance had been attached. He (Mr. Thompson) re ferred to a confession, so called, said to have been made by a person of the name of Govind Row, occupying the situation of Dewan, or Minister, to the Raja of Sattara. This individual was implicated in the first charge brought against the Raja, of attempting to seduce two native officers in the British service from their allegiance. When accused of that charge by the Resident, the Dewan was instantly delivered up by the Raja. When the in quiry into the charge ceased that person was continued a prisoner, in a state of mild restraint, at Poonah, a British station. Whilst there, Colonel ()vans commenced his duties at Sattara, and prosecuted his in quiries into the authenticity of a certain document to which reference would presently be made. He (Mr. Thompson) would show that the information Colonel Ovens sent to his Government relative to that document was wholly false. He appeared to have thought, how ever, that a confirmation from Govind Row of the truth of the charge which that document contained, was im portant; and he took the following means of getting it. He made such a representation to Government as led to permission being granted by Government to send the prisoner from Poonah to Ahmednugger, seventy-four miles distant, there to be kept in solitary confine ment. He next obtained permission to dispatch a secret emissary—a man who had already given a false account of the origin of the document, the truth of which Govind Row was to confirm. That agent remained a considerable time with the prisoner, until at last he made him willing to sign a previously prepared paper crimi nating his prince; and the judge at Poonah, Mr. Hutt, was then called in to attest and forward it to Govern tnent. I will prove that this paper was extorted by in timidation. I will demonstrate that it was wholly false. I will show that Govind Row was detained in prison for two years after he gave it, notwithstanding the opinion of the Supreme Government that be was entitled to his liberty. The depositions, declarations, and petitions of this prisoner, made since his liberation, shall be pro duced and my charge fully sustained. There were many other charges into which he might enter, if not fearful of multiplying his accusations beyond the ability of the friends of Colonel Ovens to reply. There was one other charge, however, to which he must allude—the fabrica tion of the document ascribed to the mother of Govind Row, and the concealment for eleven months of the evidence showing the true history of that paper. In a few sentences he (Mr. Thompson) could put the House in possession of all the material points of the case. A forged petition was received by the Government of Bombay, in March, 1837, and confided to Col. Ovens in the following June, with strict orders to discover the writer: -.Colonel Ovens, from time to time, sent letters and documents to his Government, professing to give a minute history of the origin of the petition, and all the circumstances con nected with it, save the discovery of the person of the actual writer, whose name, however, he supplied. When he had succeeded in bringing his Government to believe in the genuineness of the petition, there elapsed not more than a fortnight before the real fabricator of the papers appeared, who not only fur nished from his own lips an account of every fact connected with it, but laid before Colonel Ovens documents which proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that everything previously said of it to the Bombay Government was entirely false. Mr. REPTON here rose and moved that the House be counted. Strangers were ordered to withdraw. Upon counting the Members, it was ascertained that there were suffi cient to form a House; and, upon our return, we found Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON proceeding to state that, to avoid a motion similar to that which had just been made, he would draw his remarks to a conclusion. He (Mr. Thompson) had made some of his charges so long ago as 1843, anxious that Colonel Ovens, if he could purge himself from them, might afford him (Mr. Thompson) the opportunity of admitting his error, and if not, that the late Raja might have the benefit of the discoveries which had been made into the means taken to effect his ruin. The inquiry now sought for was de manded, in justice to Colonel Ovens, who could only be effectually cleared by an investigation before a patient and impartial tribunal— in justice to himself (Mr. Thompson), who desired the opportunity of proving all he had said—in justice to the profession to which the accused belonged by the Government under whose orders the acts alleged had been done, and for the sake of the reputation of the British name in India and throughout the world. Should the inquiry be refused by her Majesty's Government, the House would, he (Mr. Thompson) trusted, acquiesce in the mo tion. Eulogiums on Colonel Ovens would be no answer to allegations such as those which had been laid upon the table, with a tender of ample proof in support of every one of them. Justice required that these allegations should be sifted, and the evidence to sustain them be fully heard. That evidence would be exclusively official and Parliamentary, and open to the most rigorous scrutiny. He (Mr. Thompson) sincerely thanked the House for their protracted attention to his address while discharging a painful duty, and he ventured to antici pate a vote in favour of a full and fair inquiry. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. The question having been put, Mr. ELLIOT said that having spent the greater part of his life in the East Indies, he might be allowed to offer a few observations on the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. He begged to direct the attention of the House to the course which the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Thompson) had pursued with reference to this question. That Hon. Gentleman had brought forward a motion relating to this subject on the 6th of April ; the debate was adjourned ; and the Hon. Gentleman, after having deferred the resumption of the debate from one night to another, had now dropped his original motion, and had proposed a new resolution, in order that he might have an opportunity of making another speech, before the accusations contained in his former speech had been replied to. The Hon. Gentleman asked the House to enter upon an investigation which, according to his own showing, was utterly impossible; for the Hon. Gentleman l proved by his own statement that it was impossible to obtain evidence of the circumstances to which he had referred. The Hon. Gentleman accused Colonel Ovans, an officer of the highest possible charac ter, who had received the marked approbation of two Governors of Bombay, of two Governors-General of India, of the Court of East India Directors, and of three Presidents of the Board of Control, with having been guilty of subornation of perjury and forgery. He (Mr. Elliot) considered that an Hon. Gentleman who pre ferred charges of this nature was bound to show that he was free from any personal feeling in the matter, that he had no pecuniary interest in bringing it forward— (Hear, hear)—and that he was not actuated by any per sonal animosity. The Honourable Gentleman had told them he could prove the charges he had made against Colonel Ovans, but he had not referred to the defence of that Gallant Officer which was contained in the papers laid upon the table. It was impossible for him (Mr. Elliot), in consequence of the length of that defence, to attempt to go into it ; but he would endeavour to test the accuracy of the statements made by the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and upon which he had charged the most base and disgrace ful crimes against a gentleman of high position and repute. He (Mr. Elliot) would, in the first place, ask the House to consider what was the character and position of Colonel Ovans. The Hun. Member for the Tower larnlets had iiiinsclf admitted that that ;.;allant officer's character stood very high ; arid, in the papers laid upon the table, there were documents from ever% department of the Government of Bombay with which Colonel Ovans had been connected, bearing the strongest testimony to his high and honourable character. But the Hon. Mem ber for the Tower Hamlets was not content with attack ing Col. ()vans. He had also charged Sir R. Grant, the late Governor of Bombay, a man of tried honour and integrity, and the Council and Government of that Pre sidency, with being suborners of perjury and forgery. Now he (Mr. Elliot) would ask the House if they could for a moment believe that persons of such high character and position in India could be guilty of these crimes ? This was a most monstrous accusation, and the person who made it was bound to show that, in preferring such a charge, he was not actuated by motives of pecuniary interest or of personal animosity. Now he (Mr. Elliot) had been anxious to ascertain what had been the avoca tions of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in India. The Hon. Member had been, he believed, the paid agent of the Raja of Sattara, and he thought that circumstance was sufficient to excite some suspicien with regard to the charges he had made. He (Mr. Elliot) held in his hand a statement which he had received from a gentleman who had met the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in India, and who seemed to have been well acquainted with his movements. That statement referreo to another agency in which the Hon. Member had been engaged; and he (Mr. Elliot) thought, if he could show that the Hon. Gentleman, in conducting that agency, had not been quite so accurate in his statements as he ought to have been, he might inter that the Hon. Gentleman might have been somewhat inaccurate in the statement he had made on this occasion. His informant stated, that on the return of the late Baboo Dwarka nauth Tagore to India from his first visit to England he was accompanied by Mr. G. Thompson, as a sort of itinerant philanthropist; that Mr. Thompson happening to see an advertisement circulated by the King of Delhi, calling for tenders of services from parties desirous to proceed to England to advocate his claims before the Home authorities, offered his services; that Mr. Thomp: sun undertook to proceed to England as his Majesty's vakeel, his Majesty undertaking to advance 5,000 rupees, or 5001., for the expenses of his journey to Delhi. Mr. THOMPSON begged to ask who was &ha author of the document ? Mr. ELLIOT would give the Honorable Gentleman the name of the writer afterwards. His informant proceeded to state that the King of Delhi agreed to give Mr. Thompson a salary of 12,000 rupees a year, and that a written agreement to that effect was drawn up ; but on Mr. Thompson's arrival at Allahabad he intimated his wish that a house might be prepared for his arrival at Delhi. The palace of the late Begum Sumroo was with some difficulty pro vided for Mr. Thompson, who also required the King to provide both table and servants, besides making a sub sequent demand of 200 rupees a month for table ex penses during his journey from Calcutta. Mr. Thomp son subsequently demanded and obtained a further ad vance of 1,000 rupees a month for the period of his sojourn at Delhi, which was most reluctantly paid by the King. On Mr. Thompson's arrival in England he submitted his Majesty's claims before a duly assembled meeting of the proprietors, at which it appeared, from the outlines of the debate received by the mails, that Mr. Thompson made use of such intemperate and in discreet language as to call down upon him the severest rebuke of the chairman • but by the same m a il M r . Thompson forwarded the King of Delhi a newspaper called the Indian Advocate, supposed to be edited by himself, containing a full report of a totally different version of the debate. The statement added, that he accompanied it with a letter from himself, claiming great credit for complete success, and reminding the King of the promised remuneration; that the King sent to Delhi directing a royal salute to be fired in commemoration of Mr. Thompson's victory, but that the commandant of the ;palace guards pointed out that all the reports of the debate that he had seen gave quite a different view of the case from this very peculiar report; that fur ther explanation followed, and the salute was never fired, nor did Mr. Thompson pocket another stiver of his Majesty's money—(A laugh)—that the King's reply was, that he waited the official confirmation of Mr. Thompson's success—(A laugh)—that other copies of the report of Mr. Thompson's version of the debate were sent to several natives of rank, probably with an eye to their becoming profitable customers. That the King having conferred the title of ambassador upon Mr. Thompson, and thereby enlisted him, as he imagined, in his sole employ, was much annoyed on find ing that he also became the paid agent of the late Raja of Sattara, as well as by Mr. Thompson forwarding from England repeated demands for large sums of money, said to be required for copyists, though the 1001. per mensem was, under Mr. Thompson's own handwriting, to cover all demands except the reward for ultimate success. The gentleman who had put this statement into his (Mr. Elliot's) hand was Major Angelo, who was commandant of the palace guard at the time ; and he would be ready to confirm the statement if the Honourable Member should get the Committee.—(Hear, bear.) The Honourable Member on a former occasion gave the Hope to understand that the Raja of Sattara was placed on the throne as his right, and that the Govern ment in India was not authorised to remove him for a breach of treaty. The fact, however, was that the country had been conquered by the - British, and it was entirely at their option to place over it anybody or no one, and, if anybody, whom. They chose Yertaub Shean, who, on having the territory ceded to him, en gaged, "to hold it in subordinate co-operation with the British Government, and to be guided in all matters by the advice of the British agent at his court;" also "to forbear from all intercourse with foreign Powers, and with all persons not rendered by these articles subject to his authority; to have with them no connexion or corre spondence; any affairs that might arise with them relating to his Highness to be exclusively con ducted by the British Government;" and it was added, that " this article was a fundamental condi tion of the agreement, and any departure from it, on the Raja's part, was to subject him to the loss of all the advantages he might gain by the agreement." Now, he was charged with having opened communication with the Portuguese settlement of Goa and with the ex-Raja of Nagpere, with having endeavoured to corrupt native officers in one of the Bombay regiments, and with refus ing to be guided by the advice of the British agent. The Hon. Member, unable to deny that there was ample evi dence to prove these charges, had resorted to the old Indian expedient of charging perjury against every wit ness, and forgery against every document--(Hear)—and charging honourable men in high office with being su borners of perjury. It was monstrous that any one should stand up in that House and make such charges against such men.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had appealed to two persons as being of opinion that the Raja was not guilty. One of them was Mr. Shakspeare, formerly a member of th e B engal Government, and a judge of the highest court of appeal; but the Hon. Member ought to have stated that Mr. Shakespeare died three years before the inquiry was completed.—(Hear.) The other was General Lodwick, the resident at Setters, and who was a member of the commission to inquire into the charges. But General Lodwick, being examined before that commission, proved that the Raja had appointed an agent to proceed to England to represent his claims to the home authorities, and that his Highness would not consult him (the resident) according to the treaty; that the Raja considered himself an injured man--(Hear)— and was misled by a few interested and bad advisers. He was evidently a man of weak mind, not likely to bear up against intrigue; a witness, in whose veracity General Lodwick said he had as full confidence as in any native of India he ever knew, gave an account of the Raja being promised an intro duction to the ghost of his deceased relation—(A laugh)—and being led to believe that he did see and con verse with the ghost. The charge of intrigue with other powers was thoroughly sifted by competent men—such as Mr. Robertson, a member of the Supreme Govern ment, Mr. Bird, and General Morison, who was now a Member of that House, and who assured him (Mr. Elliot) that he carefully went through the whole case, and never was more convinced of the guilt of any one. As to the Raja having no trial, it would have been a gross indig nity to place him at the bar of a criminal court. His offence was a political offence, and the inquiry was made as it always was in such cases ; it was the description of inquiry to which the Company's servants were subject.—(Mr. Thompson dissented.) There was positive regulation to that effect. A commission was appointed to institute an inquiry oa the spot, the only difference made in this case being that the Raja was allowed to remain there while the investigation went on.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member spoke of the destitution of the Raja's family; why the Ranee was in possession this moment of 1,000/. a year, and her daughter of 5001. a year, and it was said that he left 43,000/. in cash and jewels.—(Hear.) He chose to have European agents at Bombay, and that agency establish ment caused his ruin. —(Hear.) The fact was, as he had before stated, th at t h e Raja became involved ' in difficulties in consequence of placing himself under the guidance of designing men—European agents. The evils resulting from the practice of native princes having recourse to European agents was forcibly depicted in dispatches written by Sir John Malcolm, Mr. Elphin stone, Sir J. Carnac, and Colonel Ovens. The last named gentleman stated that up to 1839 the Raja of Sat tara had paid 36,0001. to his European agents at Bombay alone. It was unnecessary for him to occupy the attention of the House for fa longer period. His object had been to show the House that if they wished to inflict the greatest curse possible on the people of India, it was only necessary to give en couragement to complaints of this description. Any dis contented person in India might find an agent to act for him in this country. If the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had a pecuniary object in view he might well apply for this Committee. The Hon. Member had shown in a letter which he wrote what he expected if he succeeded in the case of the King of Delhi. Mr. G. THOMPSON denied that he had written a letter of the description alluded to. Mr. ELLIOT said that the fact had been communi cated to him on authority in which he placed confi dence. The Hon. Member might not remember the circumstance, he had no doubt, that he wrote a letter to the King of Delhi, asking for the remuneration which the Hon. Member deemed himself entitled to for his services. Mr. G. THOMPSON—I deny it. Mr. ELLIOT.—The lion. Member had perhaps for gotten the circumstances; it was some time since it occurred. If the Hon. Member should succeed in ob taining the Committee he might go b ack to India morrow, and r9turn in a year with 100,0001. in his pocket.—(A laugh.) Only let it be known that the Hon. Member had succeeded i n appo i nting a Com mittee to inquire into and set aside the decisions of all the constituted authorities in India, and the Honourable Member might not only enrich himself if he chose, but do more towards ruining the British power in India than could be effected by any other means, Only fur' ''s •:4A:t