The Sun. — London, England, 1849-08-01 00:00:00

TESTIMONIAL TO THE HUNGARIAN REFUGEESI " THE HUNGARIAN NATION COUNTS ON THE SYMPATHY OF EVERY NATION WHICH LOVES RIGHT AND Ll- DERTY."—Kosauth ' s Protest against Russian Intel yen lion. Subscriptions may be sent to the following bankers: — Messrs. Coutts and Co. Messrs. Drummond. Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smith ; or to any one of the members of the committee recently formed to carry out the Testimonial. * * *All further Post-office orders to be made payable to Murdo Young, Esq., at the Money Order Office, Strand. Subscriptions already received ... ...621 19 From Two Friends of Liberty and Haters of Des potism ... 010 0 Subscriptions raised at Mr. Haxman's for Hun garians, per C. D. J. .. 0 6 6 James Duncan and Brother 0 2 0 From a Few Admirers of the illustrious Ludwig Kossuth "... ... 0 13 6 A Few Journeymen Bookbinders .. 0 4 0 From Forty Workmen in the Music Trade, per A. 0. E. 1 10 0 0 5 0 1 16 0 A Few Hartlepool Sympathisers Mr. L. Grinson, of Loughborough, per the Lei cester Mercury ... ••• ••• '•• An Englishwoman's Mite, Alnwick ••• Friends to the cause of Hungarian Independence, who met at the Angel Inn, South-street, Shef field ... ... ... ... ... 1 15 0 From a Few Friends at Glasgow, per Peter Gordon 0 13 0 Amici Donum, Hartlepool ... ... 0 2 6 A Few Friends in the cause of Universal Liberty, ... 0 5 0 ... 1 0 0 Totnes A Few Sadlers A. Haviland, Bridgewater T. B. Marie Cannington, per ditto Joseph Sale ••• ... • John Francis Sale, per J. S. . C. Bowness ••• ..• • Workmen in Coachmakers' Factory,Great Queen street, Lincoln's Inn-fields 0 11 6 A Friend, per Lord Dudley, Stuaxt, M.P. ... 5 0 0 Julian Harney-, Editor of the Deinocratie Review. 1 0 0 Surplus of a Collection for defrayiing the expenses of a Working Men's Meeting to Petition the Crown and Parliament to recognise the inde pendence of Hungary, held at John-street In stitution, July the 24th ... 1 1 4 Acknowledged by the Chairman of the Meeting held Monday evening at Maryiebone (but not received by ourselves) — Sir Benjamin Hall, M.P.... .• .. 10 0 0 A Detester of Tyranny .• ... 5 0 0 An English Lady ... •.• ... 5 0 0 rtr. Jonas Murray .. 10 0 0 A Gentleman, anonymously ... ...100 0 E.M.••• ••• • • •.• ••• ••• 010 0 P. J. •00 •• • 0.0 •• • •00 010 0 A Few Friends of the Hungarian Cause, Bir- 2 1 6 O 6 0 0 2 6 O 2 6 O 5 0 O 1 0 O 5 0 ... 0 6 8 ... 0 1 0 .. 0 5 0 mingham, per D. Macarthur For Humanity ••• "' A. H. ••• ••• -•• Friends of Hungary, Leicester, per Mr. George Smallfield, Leicester Mercury office Mr. W. N. Reeve • Dr. Noble ••• ••• Mr. Biggs ••• Mr. W. H. Walker Mr. Harvey ... Rev. C. Berry ... Mr. J. F. Hollings ... -.• ••• For the Hungarian Patriots, per W. Reddan J. Reddan 0 2 6 Mr. Cottan ... 0 2 6 Mr. Okey Mr. Cooke Mr. Sharp 0 1 0 ••• ••• ••• • Mr. M au d es l ey 0 1 0 Mr. Wil son 0 1 0 Anti-Nicholas 0 1 0 Mr. Hullahan 1 0 Mr. Malcolm, 0 1 0 Mr. Price ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 0 1 0 Mr. Barrow ••• ... 0 1 0 Mr. Dulling ' 0 1 0 Mr. Warwick 0 1 0 Mr. O'S u lli van 0 1 0 Mr.:Tyler ••• ••• 0 1 0 Mr. Gardner ... ... • 0 1 0 Mr. Smith 0 1 0 ••• ••• ••• ••• . Subscriptions for the Hungarians, per Lord Dudley Stuart, M.P.— Mr. Casement ... 10 0 f From a Friend ••• ••• ••• 2 10 Mr. Kayzer ••• ••• ••• -• 010 W. T. M'Cullagh, Esq., M.P. ••• •• • 1 0 Joseph Rogers, Esq. ... 0 5 Stephen Bird,Esq.,;Thornton Villa, Kennington 1 0 4 Welchman from Aberdare, Glamerganshire, Capt a i n Townsend, R.N., M.P. ... 1 0 From a few Compositors, St. John's-square, Clerkenwell ••• -* From Eleven Friends of Liberty, • per Mr. Litton, Albion Coffee House, 51, Chiswell-street, Finsbury ••• .• •• ••• 11- , 14 Fry) Esq., Ina; Temple ••• 15 ., 7 7, Shoe-l ane , Fl ee t- s t ree t .. ••• ••• From Eighteen Persons employed at the Gresham Club •. ••• •• Question, L on d on Tavern ••• .. 0 10 0 ~. 1 1 0 ... 1 1 0 ... 1 1 0 ... 0 5 0 ~. 0 10 0 ~. 0 10 0 ... 0 5 0 11 1 0 0 2 1 4 1 6 Total £650 8 TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. ~,§,,1R,--Your noble and persevering efforts in the cause a 4 "-ongary, and those unfortunate exiles whom you are now endeavouring to give the means of reaching the land of their birth, does honour to your heart, and the kind s entiments expressed by your remarks I hope and trust !!111 find an echo in the sympathies of all true lovers of liberty. May you continue to espouse the cause of op pressed nations, and let your morning contemporaries know that if they attack the rights and liberties of a noble people struggling for their birthright, y ou w ill de fend them as yeu did the Liberals of Spain and Portugal. Trusting the aspersions attempted to be cast upon the Hungarian cause by your morning contemporaries will meet with its due reward by the defeat of the Austro- Russian armies, is the sincere wish of ONE WHO HOPES THAT POLAND WILL RISE AGAIN. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,--I beg to inclose a small subscription to the funds for enabling the Hungarian HusFars to reach their na tive country. I also wish to add my sincere thanks to the many marks of approbation which you received for thus manly advocating the cause of freedom, and for the eloquent language which roused throughout England the sYmpathy for this noble cause. It has inspired already here and abroad many a droop. ing heart with new hope in the ultimate success of this unequal but righteous struggle. I remain, with sincere regard, Sir, Your obedient servant, A. H. Manchester, July 30, 1849. SALE OF CURIOUS AND RARE BooKs.-The ex tensive library of the Rev. H. F. Lyte, deceased, form ing 17 evenings' sale, has just been concluded by Messrs. Southgate and Barrett, the well-known book auctioneers Of Pleat street. The sale consisted of above 4,300 lots, Ind excited great att en ti on am o ngst book collectors. The following are the prices of some of the articles most deserving of notice :-Chester's (Robert) Annals of Great Brittaine, a rare poem, sold for 401 . A Catholic 'version of the New Testament, printed at Bordeaux in 1686, brought 261. The Prytn er of Sarisbury, 1555 (im perfect), sold f or 151 . 153. A beautiful Manuscript, (im perfect), on vellum, sold for 26/. 10s. The Works of the Fathers, including St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Gre gory, Ste., in all 73 vols., sold for 1161. Robert Greene's Works, 10 vols., sold for 62/. Les Prophecies de Merlin, 'very rare, in 3 vols., sold fo r 3 0 / . 10s. C ur i ous collec tion of works, relating to the Martin Mar Prelate Con troversy, 11 vols.,_ sold for 16/. 13s. Gallandii Biblio tja.eca Veterum Patrum, 14 vols , sold for 34/. 105. Nichol as F r ench's Unkind Deserter, sold for 11/. A Pr otestation made by Henry VIII., &c., four black letter tracts, sold for ill. ss. Some scarce Sermons and Commentaries on the Epistles and G ospe l s , by John C al vin, 15 vols., mostly black letter, sold for 18/. Six teen rare volumes and tracts relating to the Brownists, Co ntroversy, sold for 10/. 18s. John Cotton's Works, 11 ooh., sold for 11/. Dugdale's Monastican, old edition, and the Baronage, 7 vols., brought 131. 4s. Henry Bul ling er's Sermons, &c., 9 vols., sold for 9/. 15s. Thomas Fuller' s Works, 14 vols., sold for 9/. 14s. Griffin's Col lection of Amatory Sonnets, 1596, sold for 8/. 15s. Sir Thomas More's Works, black-letter, sold for 91. 9s. Philonis Judali Opera, 2 vols., sold for 71. ss. Five earlyBs Spanish works, relating to America, sold for 61. . Catalogue of the Bodlean Library, 5 els., sold for 5/. Benjamin Re ac h' s Horal Sarisburienses, sold f rs, ls i v o o s l . s., r s a o r l r d o t ,s for spB4: Springs for Woodcocks, scarce, sold for that many of the works will public unrbr libraries. THE a British s supposed Museum, Bodlean Library, and other THE LATE M. JORN WILSON. --Mr ki[ers.Wil a native of Edinburgh, and spent a considerathbles°;rwtioans of his life, where he was or bred to business. He also for some time officiated ase printing r in one of the city churches. Ilis sudden dPearleietoook place at Quebec, not at Montreal, as formerly stated; and the only additional particulars of the melancholy event which have reached us are that he had imprudently exposed himself, in the course of a fishing excursion in the neighbourhood of Quebec, was seized with cholera on the following day, and died after a few hours' illness. A striking illustration of the suddenness of the sad event is afforded by the circumstance that several of hisfriends here received newspapers addressed, and even letters written, by his own hand, by the same mail which brought the melancholy announcement of his unexpected deee ase.--Scotsman. Many have felt the lash upon their backs for the Want of a bridle on their tongues-Eliza Cook's Journal. old The study of li terature nour i shes yout h , en t er t a i ns 11. ago, ad orns prosperity, solaces adversity, is delight olwantaihome, and un o bt rus i ve abroad.-Eliza Cook's THE SUN, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. no us P OF !,01? DS. July 31. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yeitcrtiv.) Mr. BERNAL appeared at the bar of the House, and brought up the 13ankrupt?:y Bill, Poor-law Bill, and several other public and private Bills. The House then adjourned the public business till Five o'clock. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY resumed the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from cer tain of the inhabitants of Westminster, praying for the adoption of sanitary measures ; also a petition from Rochester praying for the en forcement of the treaties for the abolition of slavery entered into with Spain and the Brazils, and for the exclusion of slave•grown produce; also a peti tion from Dublin against the abolition of the Law of Attachment; and a petition from Mary Walker, of Bristol, complaining of gross misconduct on the part of the officers of the County Court i❑ that city. EDUCATION—MANAGEMENT CLAUSES. Lord LYTTELTON asked whether any particular system of management is required in schools connected with the British and Foreign S,:hool Society, the Wes leyan Methodists, and the Free Kirk of Scotland, on the part of the Committee of Privy Council as an indispc n sable condition of their receiving aid from the publio grant? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the manage ment clauses were enforced with regard to all sects as well as with regard to the members of the Church of England. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY, the subject dropped. ORANGE PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.—THE DOLLY'S BRAE AFFAIR. The Earl of RODEN rose for the purpose of offering explanations with regard to the tragic occurrences at Dolly's Brae on the 12th of July.—(Hear, hear.) There was no individual who more sincerely regretted the collision which then took place or the melancholy results of the condition. In another place his conduct had been greatly misrepresented in relation to this melancholy occurrence. It had been said that he (the Earl of Roden) was answerable for the murders which then took place. It had been stated that he had assembled and feasted the Orangemen in his park, and supplied them with beer, porter, and whisky, and had there addressed them in a rambling and inflammatory speech. There was no foundation whatever for the change, and he would state to their Lordships the circumstances of the case as they really occurred. In 1846 the Processions Act expired, and their Lordships knew how attached the lower classes of the Irish were to processions. In 1848 their existed in Ireland a spirit of rebellion ; there was then a great exertion made by the Noble Earl who so admirably governed Ireland to put down that rebellion, and he succeeded. There was not a loyal man in Ireland who did not feel grateful to Lord Clarendon. There were many among the lower orders, as well as among the upper orders, who were opposed to the repeal of the Union, and when the 12th of July came it was thought right that there should be a demonstration, in order to show to the kingdom that there were large numbers of loyal Orangemen of all classes who were opposed to the repeal. About a fortnight before the 12th of July he was informed that the Orangemen were desirous of visiting him on that day. He endeavoured to dissuade them from assembling, or calling on him. The gentlemen said they would be much disappointed, and that if they did not call upon him they would meet elsewhere. He took two days to consider, and considering that they wished to manifest their at tachment to him, he told the gentlemen that he thought if they were determined to assemble, they would be safer in his park than elsewhere, and he would not shut his gates against them. On the 12th of July 2,000 Orangemen, accompanied by their wives and chil dren, arrived at his park and defiled before him in the most orderly and quiet manner; no doubt some of them were armed, but he knew not that one of them was armed until he saw them there. He did not think that it was any wrong for them to be armed On the 17th of March the Ribandmen appeared armed, and bad fired a volley as they passed his gate, and no attempt had been made to stop them, and had he entertained the idea that the fact of some of the persons being armed made it an illegal proces sion he would not have suffered it. The number armed only amounted to about 200 out of 2,000. The procession went to the end of his park ; and he felt it his duty to go with them, in order to prevent the commission of indiscretion, and to show them that the gentry were willing to stand by them. It was said that he feasted them with beer, porter, and whisky ; the only refreshment supplied to them was bread and cheese and small beer. It was also said that he harangued them; he had addressed them, and he would read to their Lordships what he had said; it had been taken down at the time. " My dear Brethren,—l am anxious to express how grateful I feel for the spontaneous and unsolieited visit to me this day, on the occasion of our glorious anniver sary. I feel that this is the most gratifying mark of your affection and attachment which you could have bestowed upon me and my family. The thousands of loyal men that I see around me—the waving banners of 50 lodges—the dense multitude, too great for any voice to reach—the magnificent scenery by which we are surrounded—the mountains of Morne echoing to your shouts—Slieve Donard, the mistress of them all, looking down upon our proceedings—the waters of the Shimna flowing beneath us, carrying the testimony of your loyalty to the ocean before us, make it a glorious sight— one in which I wish every loyal man could have joined us to-day—one which I should delight in thinking that even those opposed to us were here to witness. But, much as I thank you for this visit, I feel the honour was not so much intended to me personally as to those Pro testant principles which I hold, and which I have endeavoured to maintain for a period of thirty years' residence amongst you. I have learned, and am con vinced, that it is true Protestant principles, held up and maintained in this land, that can alone prove a guarantee for the liberties of all classes and denomina tions of the people; it is the right of private judg ment in the study of God's holy word which is the chief blessing of any nation which avails itself of it. It is for this principle Orangemen contend, and which, I trust, they will never cease to assert, acting under the teachings of God's word, which enjoins forbearance and love to all. I trust you will even show to those who dis approve of your organization that you are not a faction, driven by party violence to commit unlawful acts ; that you do not desire to infringe on the liberties and happi ness of others ; but that you wish to see all denomina tions of your fellow-subjects enjoying the blessings which you seek for yourselves. It is a great pleasure to communicate to you on the present occasion the probable arrival of our Gracious Queen and her Royal thatppro beacha hng that ho wthese Consort a in this country. Oh, that we could see her fairy lbandkinngowonashore—that wotic: d w a e w c o oi l l d d r s e e s e o u h n e d r with the shouts of your thousand, ten —how her eyes would sparkle at such sight now before me, in the assembling of that multitude of loyal ll° men, ready to lay down their lives in the defence of her Crown and her rights!—(Great cheering and shouting.) We have had much to complain of from the various par ties who have ruled the country for the last 20 years. The rowers have brought us into deep water'—we have seen heavy blows and great discouragement given to Protestantism; but still maintain your loyalty—you will never forget, I trust, that your motto is unchanged— ' Semper eadem,' involving the preservation of your rights, the promotion of peace, and the welfare of all denominations of our fellow-subjects. I trust you will rather take evil than provoke it; that nothing will in duce you, in returning to your homes to-day, to resent even any in9ult you may receive. May God bless you and uphold you, keeping you firm in your principles, determined to support the laws of the country, and enabling you by g well.doing to put to silence the igno rance of foolish men.' I shall now conclude, asking you, before you go, to join me in three hearty cheers for her Gracious Majesty and her Royal Consort, and may they have a speedy voyage and happy arrival on our shores." Was there ono word in it that the Orangemen should return through Dolly's Brae, or molest any one, or, if opposed, to meet force by force?—(Hear, hear.) He could go further, but he wished on this occasion to con fine himself to his own personal connexion with the affair, especially as it was now under investigation. He returned thanks to their Lordships for having listened to him so patiently, and he trusted that he had satisfied the mind of every reasonable man that he was not amenable to the charges made against him.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped that the Noble Lord, after the statement he had thought it his duty to make in reference to a matter affecting his character, would consider it a wise forbearance if he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) did not state anything himself with reference to the Noble Lord's statement, and if he desired to be understood as neither assenting to nor dissenting from any part of that statement which re ferred to a transaction which all must deplore, and which he was glad to hear, the Noble Lord, in common with every one else, lamented. The transaction had led to an amount of irritation not easy to describe, to a loss of property and life, and to a deep injury to the feelings of a large portion of the population. It had therefore been made the subject of inquiry, and it was not for him to anticipate what would be the result of that inquiry; but, whatever it might be, it would be made known, and their Lordships and the public would have the opportunity of judging in what circumstances a transaction, which had led to so unfortunate a result, had originated. All he would now observe was, that it must be a matter of deep re gret to see a state of society in which, from no other motive and with no other provocation than the recur rence of certain days, proceedings could take place calculated to irritate the feelings of the population and to lead to a loss of life, and that unexcused by an y preceding acts of a nature to excite the passions.-- (Hear, hear.) If there was no prospect of the cessation of such transactions there could be no doubt that it would be the duty of the Legislature to interpose for the pur pose of preventing them; but , in the absence of any Act of Parliament for that object , i t was quite clear, by the common law of the land, and according to the most emi nent authorities in the law who had been consulted on the subject, that the bringing into movement multitudes, armed as it appeared in this instance, but, even when un armed, in a mode calculated to excite the p ublic disturb ance, was iu itself illegal, and might be, and ought to ha, prosecuted by the Government, by the magistrates, and by all well-wishers to the peace of the community, so that the offenders, for offenders they were, might be brought to justice for endangering that peace, which (far from their being anything in the peculiar circum stances of Ireland justifying any disturbance of it) there were, on the contrary, circumstances in the state of Ire land inculcating peculiar caution on every rational, loyal, and well-disposed subject of her Majesty to preserve.— (Hear, ,hear.) Therefore the Government trusted, that, through the co n t emp l a t e d i nqu i ry, j ust i ce wou ld inter fere to put an end to such proceedings as those which had been alluded to. Lord BROUGHAM did not wish to prolong this dis cussion, but he thought that the Noble Marquis had taken a j e dicinns cniirse in alwaining from a r il exprpg bion oi opinioa pei,iiiiig the Con:emi-ie;ed 'l., explanation of the Nuble Lord behind him appeared fair and sati6factury to him. PROGRESS OF BILLS—VOTING BY PROXY. The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then called the attention of the House to the necessity of adopting some step for the purpose of providing that pub lie Bills carried through Parliament should be ac curately and properly prepared. Ile suggested that there should be some board for preparing Bills and for exercising vigilance over the changes made in them during their passage through Parliament. Unless the author of a Bill happened to see what was done with it during its passage through Parliament some mischief might be effected which would uot be discovered until after the Bill became law. Their Lordships had a Committee to examine private Bills, and to maintain a supervision over them during all their stages; and, if that was a good practice in respect to pri vate Bills, it was by no means unnecessary in reference to public Bills. The Noble and Learned Lord then moved for a return of the number of cases in which proxies had been called during the last 10 years, and also of the number of the cases in which the votes by proxy had reversed the decision of the Peers present, ob serving, at the same time, that he was not in favour of the abolition of the privilege of the peerage to vote by proxy. Lord REDESDALE felt that it would be very de sirable if something could be done to make Bills more perfect than on some occasions they were, but doubted whether any practicable plan could be devised. With regard to the other subject, he must say that the right of calling for proxies had been used very hard this session. He had been 20 years in the House, and during that period, until within the last two years, there hail been only two cases in which the decision of the House was set aside by calling for proxies; and on both of these oc casions the majority in the House was only one; this year it had been done three times, and once when the majority to be got rid of was 14. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that any attempt to limit the right—to point out the class of ques tions which might be judged of by persons at a distance, and upon which proxies should be admitted, would in volve inextricable difficulty. Lord BROUGHAM remarked that judicial questions had been already specified as matters in which proxies must not be used. Some conversation across the table followed, and Lord REDESDALE was understood to say that if his party had carried measures by proxies against such ma jorities as the Government bad thus defeated in this session, he did not believe the right of voting by proxy would have been allowed to continue. The motion was agreed to. Further correspondence relating to the affairs of Italy, and other papers, were laid on the table by the Marquis of Lansdowne. The House adjourned, shortly after Seven o'clock, to the next (this) day, at half. past two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 31. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) JOINT-STUCK COMPANIES' ACT (1848) LONDON, AMENDMENT BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered and agreed te. ROYAL PAVILION (BRIGHTON) BILL. After a brief discussion as to the propriety of the in• troduction of the word "shall" instead of "may," by the Lords, which made it compulsory to pull down the chapel in connexion with the Pavilion, the amendments were agreed to. CHAPELS OF EASE (IRELAND) BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered and agreed to. JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were also agreed to PETTY BAG, &c., OFFICES AMENDMENT BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were also agreed to. BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL. On the question that the Lords' amendments be con sidered and agreed to, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took occasion to deny an assertion made in another place, that clauses had been introduced into this Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to find lucrative offices for a por tion of his family. Mr. ROEBUCK called attention to the blunders that had resulted from hurrying over Bills, and passing clauses, without discussion. He suggested that this evil could be got rid of by appointing some responsible officer to compare and correct the technical errors of all Bills prior to their being finally passed.. The amendments were then considered and agreed to. POOR•LAW UNION CHARGES BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered and agreed to. BANKRUPTCY LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL. After a short discussion as to the observations of Lord Brougham in reference to the mode in which this Bill had passed through the House of Commons, in which the Attorney-General, Mr. Mullings, and other Members took part, the Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to. SUSPENSION OF THE DEFECTS IN LEASES BILL On the motion of the SOLICITOR GENERAL for the consideration of the Lords' amendments on this Bill, for suspending its operation from the end of the present session to the Ist of June next, Mr. TENNENT objected to the motion, on the ground of the apprehension which the suspension would occasion to the tenants of land in the district of country with which he was connected that it would disturb their title. Mr. HUME asked what would be the effect of the suspension? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was just as if a clause had been introduced into the Bill for suspending its operation from the end of the present session until the Ist of June next. After some further discussion, in which Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Stuart, the Solicitor •General, and Mr. Teunent, took part, the amendment of Mr. Tennent was negatived without a division, and the Lords' amendments agreed to. ANNEXATION OF THE SATTARA TERRITORY. Mr. HUMS rose and said—l have to present a peti tion from proprietors of East India stock, stating that they have an interest in the welfare of the British Em pire in India; that orders have been issued by the East India Company, and have received the sanction of the Board of Control, to deprive the heirs of the Raja of Sattara of the territory which belonged to him; and that these orders have been sent out for the purpose of being carried into effect; that this proceeding is opposed to every principle of justice and honour, and is calculated to destroy the confidence of the native princes in India in the treaties which have been solemnly granted to them by the East India Company; and they, therefore, pray that this House will interfere to prevent these order a being carried out. I have, Sir, another petition from Rungo Bapojee, Vakeel of the late Raja, relating to the same act of injustice, and praying that the House will r ni i t o s n t so li ut t e th an e territory, inquiry give to su th ch e re seizure dres e s to d t h a e n a- Heirs d ecessora of the Raja as it might in honour and jus tice think best. . -- The pet i t ions were received and ordered to lie upon the table. Mr. HUME moved " That it appears from the papers laid before this House, that, by the law and usage of India, as recognised by the British Government, and distinctly expressed in a minute of Sir Charles Metcalfe, Lieutenant-Governor of the North Western Provinces of India, and dated the 28th day of October, 1887, that Hindoo Princes, in failure of heirs male of their body, have a right to adopt, to the exclusion of collateral heirs, and of any supposed reversionary right of the paramount power; and that the British Government is bound to ac- knowledge the adoption, provided that it be regular and not in violation of Hindoo law. That the East India Company, by a: treaty concluded on the the 24th day of September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs and successors, in per petual sovereignty, which treaty was confirmed on the 4th day of September, 1839, when his brother and suc cessor was raised to the throne. That both the Rajas died, leaving heirs by adoption, heirs by blood, and collateral heirs. That the East India Com pany nevertheless (without giving an opportunity to any claimants of stating their claims) have set aside the Hindoo law of succession, and have ordered the Sattara territory to be annexed to the British dominions, on the plea that it has lapsed by failure of heirs. That such a proceeding being in violation of national faith, and against the recognised rights of all the sovereign princes of India, it is the opinion of this House that the orders for annexing the Sattara territory should be suspended until those members of the family who have the right to claim to be heirs to the throne have been heard, and their rights determined." He said—The question, Sir, of which I have given notice is more connected with religious liberty than perhaps any question which has lately been brought under the attention of Parliament. The country and the House will see how difficult it is for any Member, under the rules of the House, to bring any subject with reference to this country under consideration. On the Ist of March last I moved that certain papers, which might have been printed in twenty-four hours, should be laid before the House, detailing the robbery which I am now about to show is opposed to the principle of re ligious liberty. These papers were ordered, but up to this hour, Sir, you are aware wo have not succeeded in getting them, although all duo diligence has been used by us for this purpose. I feel Myself, Sir, under this disadvantage in addressing the House—l shall neither have an audience to hear what I am going to say, nor an opportunity, which I might have under ordinary circumstances, of explaining properly the grounds on which I make this appeal. I therefore, Sir, on the present occasion will content myself by stating the broad, general grounds, upon which I enter my protest against that downright robbery —for such I do not hesitate to term it—which has bean perpetrated by the East India Company, in the face of the claimants to this territory. The President of the Board of Control has again and again declared that whatever was done with regard to the principality due attention should be paid to the claims of the heirs to the property of the late Raja.—(Hear, hear.) That forms, Sir, another reason for ray bringing this matter again before the House; and knowing of how much use and value the East India Company has been, and may be still, I am anxious to protect them from being denominated spoliators and robbers—a character to which they will be eh titled if tho orders that originatedjwith the directors, and were sanctioned by the Board of Control, are allowed to be carried out. It is a matter of great regret to me, r, that I should be 4 obliged to say that the E ost II Company, instead of Isetting an example and supporting the honour and di g - nity of the British name, have committed this act of spoliation tr , m noth;nrs hie doe-eri f shs greed to their ' te,rtiioi ii s. Ili) itig..i 1; oi.. I ..eii,t (Sir o. ilobhotis,-) will allow me to say that I consider it one of the most extraordizlary parts of this proceeding, that in England, which claims to act nobly and manfully on all occasions, the Government, in depriving the Reja and his heirs of those rights which he enjoyed by solemn treaty, should never have dared to mention their opinion with reference to the statements of Mr. Elphinstone, the officer who, under the direction of Lord Hastings, completed and concluded the treaty. I have in my hand, Si r , a copy o f t h e corres ponden ce which has passed between me and Mr. Elphinstone. I thought it right, when I first heard of this attempt at spoliation—this dispossessing the heirs of the Raja of the territory that belonged to them, and this setting aside the treaty--to write to him to know whether he had been consulted upon the subject. I asked him two questions, first, whether his opinion and interpretation of the treaty of September, 1819, had been asked; and, secondly, whether he had given an opinion that the treaty and state had lapsed, and that the lineal and the adopted heir had no just claim ? lie answers me in the following terms : "I have just had the pleasure of receiving your letter of yesterday, and have no difficulty in answering your two questions. No question has been put to me by the Board of Direc tors on the interpretation of the treaty of 1819 with Sat tare, and I have never given my opinion that the treaty has lapsed, and that the lineal or adopted heirs have no just claim." This, Sir, was the first letter. I afterwards ad. dressed him to know whether he considered that the treaty which was negotiated in 1819 settled the territory upon the Raja and his heirs and successors in perpetuity? His answer to that is, " The terms employed, ' perpetual sove reignty' and ' heirs and successors,' are of constant use in our Indian treaties, and were meant to bear the same sense in this treaty that they do in all others." He gives no opinion as to the adoption, but he says I am at perfect liberty to make use of this correspondence if I think fit. He gives no opinion upon the a doption, because he says that the wor d s use d are so c l e ar and dis tinct that the same words are used in all treaties, and are also now applied to the heirs and successors of indepen dent men. I wish, Sir, havin g thus disposed of the Raja of Setters, to state in what view I look upon the violation which has taken place. I do consider it a matter of the deepest importance that the East India Company should not commence any interfei ence with the religious ceremonies of the Hindoos, or with those things which these people consider essential to their religion.—(Hear.) We have an instance in point in the case of Ceylon. It will come out by-and-bye, that by our interfering with the reli gious ceremonies of the Buddhists in that island, la mentable results have followed—loss of life and loss of character to this country, and all the other consequences which follow from these. I therefore, Sir, deprecate the course a hich has begun in India, because if there is one thing more than another of which I approve of in the East India Company it is this—that they have until now maintained, from first to last, the pledge they gave I that they would not interfere with the re- 1 ligious ceremonies of the natives.—(Hear, hear.) Why, what were the instructions to Captain Grant on 1 the very point? Why, in Mr. Elphinstone's instructions 1 to Captain Grant, the Political Resident at Sattara, ' dated the Bth April, 1818, there are these words :—" For 1 the second object it is necessary to show the utmost con sideration for the customs and prejudices of the people. I No innovations ought to be attempted unless to remedy great abuse, or to meet the wishes of the people. Capital punishment of Brahmi ns must b e avo id e d, an d every thing likely to render the Raja's government odious to those of his own religion carefully abstained from. Cattle on no account to be killed at Sattara. All lands allotted to charitable and religious purposes must be continued, and the titles olght not for the present to b e s t r i ct l y examined. Justice is to be administered according to the forms established in the country, with such modifi cations as you may think essential to the attainment of the end in view. Where they are not clearly repugnant to . 1 reason and justice the laws and customs of the country must be implicitly conformed to. I Further, Mr. Elphinstone adds in a letter to the Governor-General, dated the 18th of June, 1818.— Next to maintaining such a force as shall pre vent all thoughts of rebellion, the best means of secur ing the tranquility of the conquered country is to con ciliate the people—the Mahrattas by setting up the Raja of Sattara, and by liberality to the Jagoerdars; the Brahmins by keeping up their pensions and religious institutions; both castes by finding employment for the civil and military servants of the former princes; and all by just and good government. It is, however, to be remembered, that even just government will not be a blessing, if at variance with the habits and character of the nation." So far, then, I say, we are bound to maintain and respect what are considered the religious ceremonies. One of them is noticed in a most important particular, and alluded to in the pro clamation issued on the sth September, 1839, in these words :—"All wuttum and enam (hereditary lauds), wursha shuns (annual stipends), and all religions charit able establishments will be protected, and all religious sects will be tolerated, and their customs maintained. The British Government, however, having no views of ad vantage and aggrandizement;" thus continuing to the Raja, his heirs .and successors, all the rights which were by treaty or by custom conceded to him. Now, it is to me a matter of some satisfaction that I am not advo cating this question singlehanded—that I am not bring ing this forward as a question taken up by me alone, for I find amongst the dissents names of the highest respectability; and I mention this merely in order to put in a claim for an early- discussion of the matter in the ensuing session of Parliamant, and I am merely now putting Government in possession of some of the grounds which I shall then state in the face of the world against the gross injustice which has been perpetrated by the East India Company. I wish only to state now that in bringing forward this motion, and in thus appealing to the public, that I do it in accordance with the wish and according to the dis sents entered by some of the ablest and most honour able directors. To my surprise there has been laid on the table a certificate in a minute signed by an Hon. Member of this House and 80 other of the directors, stating that there are no collateral heirs to this property and consequently it had lapsed to the Company, the Court of Directors had assumed the property. Sir, to me it is most surprising that these directors should say this in the face of the papers which I have before me, and in which Mr. Freere points out in the clearest manner that there were heirs to the extent of 30 families. This is asserted by the local resident, who was at Setters at the time the late Raja died. He declares there is at present, as I am aware, no claimant to the heirship of the late Raja. But why ? Simply because the principle of adoption, which has been in practice for the last 200 years, has been acted upon, and therefore, so far as re gards heirs, the adopted son succeeds to the dying man, and all the collateral heirs are set aside by the adoption, and the adopted child comes in just as if be had been the Raja's own son, setting aside all other heirs; but, says Mr. Freere, there were many who might have asserted their claim had .an adoption taken place, and who may possibly assert it now, should the adoption be proved invalid at any time in a court of law. If, there fore, the adoption should be set aside, any of them will be able to establish a good claim in a court of justice to the property of the Raja against the British Government in their character of heirs by escheat. It was only in the character of escheators that the British Government could claim the property, while the reason the higher c l a i ms h ave not b een put f orwar d is simply that the question of adoption has not yet been settled. It has not yet been proved, as far as I am aware, but, failing that proof, this gentleman urges in the strongest manner that the practice and right of adoption has existed for upwards of 200 years, and all he says upon that is this, that you refuse the principle or right of adoption. He happens to know that there are those in existence who are heirs at law ready to establish their claims in a court of justice. It is upon that ground, and that ground alone that I have taken up this question. It was my intention to have submitted it to the House in the fullest possible manner. Indeed I am ready with all the papers to do so now, but in the present state of the House, I think I shall best consult the interests of religious liberty—and I think any interference of this sort with the religion of the Hindoes is an interference with religious freedom—by postponing the details of the case till next session. —(Hear, hear.) There are some men so regardless of the truth that they will assert anything. Hero is what one of the directors says upon the subject. Mr. Tucker, one of the most experienced of all the directors in the affairs of India—l will repeat it in the face of any of them—and what does he say of the treaty made by Mr. Elphinstone? Why, ho says—" These terms convey distinctly the right of hereditary succession to a sovereignty;" and he goes on to say, observing upon the words of other treaties, that "even those who are most forward in advocating the policy of resumption, are compelled to admit, that if the late Appa Sahib had left lineal issue, there could have been no doubt or ques tion with respect to the right of succession. I find the same terms, ' heirs and s uccessors,' introduced into other treaties with native states, and I cannot imagine any terms more precise or comprehensive." Therefore, the resolution of the Court for the resumption of the territory is a violation of all law and justice.—(Hear, hear.) And Mr. Sheppard, another director, who is certainly not second in point of knowledge to any man upon Indian affairs, takes the same view of the matter. He says—" First, I consider the resumption of the State of Sattara at variance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of the 25th of September, 1819, which was ratified by the East India Company." Again, he says the perpetual sovereignty has not been forfeited. The first Raja, I admit, may have forfeited the sovereignty—l will give the Court that advantage—but if the treaty was intended to be perpetual the sovereignty is not forfeited. " If," says Mr. Sheppard, " Mr. Elphbastone's letter to Lord Hastings of the 18th June, ]BlB, were most effectually accomplished by the treaty in question. That it was a sovereignty in reality, and not merely in name. .It then the tr e aty was intended to be perpetual, and I.f . the :sovereignty has not been forfeited by the last Baja through any breach of the said treaty, can w© with justice resume the territory on the ground of the failure of lineal heirs? " The word heirs, Mr. Sheppard contends, and I contend, means heirs generally, and yet, on the face of all this, the Court have passed a resolution annexing the terri tory, and I believe the papers of this day, and which have come by the last mail, an nounce that the proclamation has been made—a proclamation which will ever stand against the character of the East India Company for honesty, which formerly I was ready to concede to them. They have, how ever, departed from an honourable course of proceeding, and now they act like the barbarians of the north, upon the principle of might against right, and take posses sion of that which is not their own, but which has been transferred and guaranteed to others.—(Hear.) I find Major Oliphant, General Caulfield, and Sir H. Willock, all protest against the act as a gross robbery and spolia tion; and they all join together, i n hoping, as I do, that success will not attend it, and with me they think that those who have taken this gross end extraordinary proceeding, are setins nysst imn-F•ie2.llv.—(Hear, hoar.) S;r, t. ouai t (-wind the 01 whit is recorded in the Statute Book upon this very sulject. One Act of Par liament prohibits, in the strongest manner, the acts and preaeedings which lam now protesting against. In the 21st Geo. 111., cap. 70, sec. 18, for instarce, which grants a charter from the Crown to the East India Company, it is provided that, "in order that regard should be had to the civil and religious usages of the said natives, be it enacted, that the rights and authorities of fathers of families, and mothers of families, according as the same might have been Exercised by the Gentu (1. e. Hindoo), or Mahommedan law, shall be preserved to them respectively within their said fa milies;irtfahaunmelrule families sde n Tol o mnah r wlet ,o, h ,fn a abocg l e l atasib a htnee n :, y lhbd ey a l datc and sci respecting adjudged e t h i e n m c e o am n s cb e re q irm u s cofael thetho f o su t ag h i hd e e us 3 ti 3 fi d ab G le eo b . y l t l h L e , l c a a w p s . o s f 2— En 4 g 2; it is provided, " And, forasmuch as to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish the honour, and policy of this nation," &c., &c. A greater violation of an Act of Parliament, or a greater act of injustice, I say, there could not have been committed than that which is now being perpetrated by my Lord Dalhousie. I extremely regret that this policy has been adopted, because it will make every native prince in India feel himself in a situation that he will some day see his p ftuaon r m o ibv p iele e yrs r .se_ t a y i (e a l ued n s r d a ge t anes e d r o r oef i fo t l o nn ri fi,d, s e i cHa s a et v hen i ad o rs l al conferredti h e k d ee a, the h. and h , e,)c n t lufitp a so t eininas thimoiwhichoovnn moving those the toibchsl which grounds, r a o s actually und s, Sr taken tb at apctrheoitisne myselftsitthe wec, againstati s hn e tohfteh simplytehpa r i e s e unfortunateepresent proceedings; stat e of the House, to enter int o d eta il s to prove the case I have o b p u e t n a e s d lI am n c a o b n l e t e a n t t resolution which I have placed upon the paper; the House will of course dispose of it as it may please, but I must at the same time be allowed to state that at an early period next session, if I am alive and well, I shall bring this matter forward, if I cannot in the mean time shame the spoliators into a sense of pro priety.—(Loud laughter.) I see cne of them before me. He is a spoliator—he is a robber.—(A laugh.) He and his brother directors have sacrificed religious freedom, which they ought to have held sacred, for what ? Why, for the sake of a paltry annexation of property, amounting to 120,0001. a year. Here is the great East India Company, possessing a revenue amount ing to 20,000,0001. per annum. What has lapsed to them sinoe the war I cannot tell; but previous to it the income arising from their dominions amounted to 20,000,0001. a year, and yet, Sir, like the large rich man, they envy the poor indivi dual possessing a mere trifle of territory compared with their own, and they sieze upon his lands while they are revelling in the affluence of their own immense territo ries. —(Hear, hear.) With these observations I feel that I have done my duty for the present with this unfortunate Sattara family, and in now tak ing leave of the subject for a brief while, give me leave to say that the only ground upon which I have made this appeal to empty benches is to secure for them an opportunity of having their case fully considered at the earliest possible period next ses sion, and in now resuming my seat I have only to move the resolutions I have already brought forward.—(Cheers.) Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE—Mr. Speaker, I think, Sir, and have a right to say, that those who entertain an opposite opinion to that entertained by my Honourable Friend, and those who think with him, have some right to complain of the way in which he has spoken of the conduct which the Government have felt it its duty to assume upon this matter—(Hear, hear)—for the act of annexation, of which my Honourable Friend complains, was ordered by the Court of Directors, confirmed by the proprietors of East India Stock, and approved of by the Board of Control. I have not the least doubt that it was within the knowledge of my Honourable Friend, and those who with him take an interest in this matter, that such an order as the one to which he refers had gone out ; and if anything effectual is to be dome—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. W. Hogg)—by proceedings of this kind, if the annexation was to be prevented by any intermediate act at home, surely it was the duty of my Hon. Friend, on the day Parlia ment met, on the Ist of February, in accordance with the notice he had given, that be should call the atten tion of the House to this deed on the part of the East India Company; surely it was his duty to have brought on this motion in order that no time might have been lost in counteracting this act on the part of the East India Company. The Hon. Gentleman did not, how ever, do so, and on one occasion I was here in my place ready to listen to the statements he might feel disposed to make—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. W. Hogg)—to give any explanation of this question ; and on another occasion I thought the matter was coming on, and though it did not, it was neither my fault nor the fault of the House. Sir, as my Hon. Friend has not, on this occasion, entered into a consideration of the whole of the questions that have been raised in this matter, I shall not think it necessary to occupy so much of the time of the House as I otherwise should have been com pelled to do, but I cannot avoid noticing one or two of the observations of my Hon. Friend, which are so little founded in fact, and have so little of justice in them, that I am surprised a gentleman, so well acquainted with Indian affairs, and who has paid such great attention to this affair, could have fallen into the errors he has. My Hon. Friend, to my great surprise, stated that what has been done is an interference with religious liberty.—(Hear, hear.) I thought at the time that he was alluding to some debate in the former part of the session—something about the Test Act—but my Honourable Friend went on to explain thut the violation of religious liberty of which he complained was, preventing a Hindoo from adopting a son and creating him heir to his sove reignty.—(Hear, hear.) This was the religious liberty which he says we have infringed. Now, since the dis cussion of this matter has taken place in Parliament, one of the strangest notions has got abroad, and one which I never heard advanced with respect to any other case— namely, that there is no such thing as a permanent state, that the British Crown has not succeeded to that ter ritory, which it is said has been crushed, and that even if the British Crown had been a paramount power in respect to these Indian territories, that the persons placed at the head of them may create heirs to succeed them in the sovereignty in the same way, and with the same legality as persons are created heirs to property. Now, I never heard that argument ,used until this matter was discussed ; and I perfectly well recollect my Hon. Friend, attended by a great number of gentlemen, coming as a deputation to the Board of Control last year upon this matter, but not one of them advanced that point, not a single man of them. My Hon. Friend did not do so; neither did any of the gentlemen present. A gentle man was there who, it appears, had taken up that view. That argument is now advanced in this House by my Hon. Friend, indeed it was the main thing upon which the whole of his argument hinged. Why, Sir, I have here quotation after quotation, from some of the best authorities whom we can consult ; but as my Hon. Friend has abstained from reading those authorities, and considering, also the late period of the session, and the condition of the House—(Hear, hear)—it would be unpardonable if I did not follow so worthy au example; but when my Honourable Friend appealed to Mr. Elphinstone, he had, I must say, the candour to state what deprived him of that gentleman's au thority, namely, that he gave no opinion with respect to the right of adoption, but that he wishes his hon. correspondent to infer from the former part of his letter what his opinion is. My Hon. Friend evidently wishes the House to infer from the part of the letter which ho read that the adoption was as good and valid with respect to a sovereignty as to personal property. Now, Mr. Elphinstone was not a man to shrink from expressing such an opinion if he had en tertained it. Would he; not have said, "this is a question I have well considered, and I consider that the act of adoption is just as good with respect to a sovereignty as with respect to personal property ?" But he did not give any such opinion. He, in tact, declined to do so, saying that the treaty was made with the Raja for the benefit of his " heirs and successors," in the well known meaning of the term. If there were heirs the property would have gone to them. My Hon Friend says there were. I boldly say, without tear of contra diction, that there were not. What, Sir, was the case the e g w r i e t h e : t r u p e e s o s pwt question n r t i t n h o en th lndia,arose r 0 t reaty s a e nd w h h eao whether I n e B g r 1 e 9 O o r ? m n p W o l e t e t w e hl we should dsdhecofreuualsdthed a e t d ak i t e , this: small territory, or put up a sovereign subject to us. The latter course was the one adopted. That was the real case. The petition of the late Raja of Benares makes a distinction between independent princes and a person of his condition, and says honestly that it is the creation of British power. My Hon. Friend has alluded to the opinion of certain gentlemen composing the Court of Directors, whom I should be the last man to dispa rage. Their opinion has its weight, but the Court came to an adverse decision after a perusal of the whole of the documents, and the Board of Control, to whom they were submitted, confirmed that view after weighing all the opinions that had been given ; and I find that the late Governor-General, Lord Auckland, was decided with respect to the propriety of the annexation. Indeed be was in favour of it at the time Pertaub Singh was:de posed. I also find that Lord Dalhousie and his Council were in favour of annexation. The Government of Bombay was in favour of annexation with one exception— namely, Mr. Clarke. I find also that of the Court of Di rectors, composed of twenty-four persons, but five voted against annexation. And when the question came to be put before the constituent body, the Court of Proprietors, what:, was the result? I find for the decision of the Court of Directors, confirmed as it was by the Government, confirmed also by a large majority of the Proprietors-297 iu favour of annexation, and but 96 against it. Now, Sir, we have all the authority for this act that we can require, yet my Hon. Friend comes to Parliament and says, " Though the Government of India and of Bombay—although the Court of Directors and a Court of Proprietors have resolved upon this act, yet it shall not be confirmed by this House, and we shall send out an order to suspend the annexation." Now, we cannot suspend what is done; the thing is done. The order was sent out on the 24th of last January. But does my Hon. Friend seriously think, that if by any accident his motion was carried, it would have the least effect on the proceedings of the East India Company or upon the Governor General of India? It certainly would not. As long as the Court of Directors, who were the constituted h Bu this responsibility. The e e au thorities, had the governmentfof India vested in t m rc a a n t n c e a x r a e ti a o n n d . s k l i I t :; s views I have heard. No interference of P eshes. I have apa produce what my Hon. Friend wi . in my hand w it is a masterly performance, and is a complete answer H of on th . oGseen a tl c e t i s u y a o n u t in ak u e s s t a li a v ms e ter o an i nt t g li c e e e as i n r : written by Mr. Mangles. It completely shows that there is not a shadow of pretence to b i ce b en is s d a r id aw a n ga u i p ns % t vi t th hi g s to all that has ~T: WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST I, 1849. say that the law has been violated by this act, and he has, with equul good sense, dis posed of the qu f Ttion of pclicr. Thar, horiev, r : qu , ,stion of differcnce 01 cputiou. There are many it, fientie.l men who think the policy of annexation not good—not wise ; hut what must we do ? Inuit go by the majority. We go by the majorities of this and the other House of Parliament. and at every public meeting that takes p!aco the majority decide. What could we do ? When we had so many authorities on one side, and so small a minority on the other, what could we do ? Mr. HUME—You could have done justice. Sir J. HOBHOUSE—The Hon. Member says we could have done justice. What would he have called doing justice ? I suppose it would have been the con firmation of the adoption of the Benares boy. But would that have satisfied Mr. Tucker and those gentle men who wrote the dissents? I can assure my Hun. Friend that I have carefully read over those dissents, and I do not find one word said in them urging the claims of the Benares boy. The whole of that case is completely put aside by them as one of which there is no need to say a word. What does Mr. Clarke say, speaking with reference to the policy and not the justice of this act? He, too, completely sets aside this claim, and says not a word about it. It c,rtainly would not have done to take him. Supposing then we had taken the other claimant, and recognised the adopted son of Appa Sahib. Would that have satisfied the others? Would it hare sotisfied the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. With reference to this claimant, what had the Rajab Pertaub Singh said when he heard of his adoption? Why, he said " How can that be an adop tion? How can it be valid when the paramount autho rity has never recognised it?—it can only be good as regards the property of the Raja"—thus showing that he considered the recognition of the British Government essentially necessary to make good the adoption. But then my lion. Friend turns round, and says, besides these two boys there were other collateral claimants sprung from the race of Sevajee, who were ready to put forward their claims if we had only given them time. lam snrprised to hear my Hon. Friend, a gentleman who knows so much of Indian affairs, say so. Why the whole claim to the territory springs from the first nomination, in 1819, of the Raja by the British Government through Mr. Elphinstone, and had no more to do with the house of Sevajee than it had with the Hon. Gentleman's house. The British Government alone was the source of all claim to the territory, and not any descent from any family. Even when Appa Sahib w as se l ected, after the deposition of his brother, there was entirely a new ap. pointment, and it was then considered as an entirely new gift to him, not because he was the heir of Pertaub Singh, or of the race of Sevajee, but because he being on the spot, and there being no objection to him in any w ay, the British Government bed thought it expedient that he should be put upon the throne. If then, though it was inexpedient, we had appointed the adopted son of Pertaub Singh, we should have satisfied no one, neither the people at Benares nor the five dissentient Directors. If we had appointed the other boy, we should have dis appointed my Hon. Friend ; and if we had taken one of the other claimants, we should have displeased both parties. What could we do then ? There was nothing left for us but to confirm the decision of the Court of Directors ; and I may be permitted to state that this is just one of those points on which her Majesty's Govern ment consider that the Court of Directors is most com petent to decide. If there had been any great difference of cpinion, her Majesty's Government would have said the same, but how much more so when there was such a slight difference? By the Court of Directors' decision, then, the matter was ordered, as being the most com petent tribunal. I do not think it very necessary to comment at any great length upon the hard terms which have been used by my Hon. Friend in the course of his speech. They do not prove any thing, and, in fact, they only serve to show how very much in earnest he is in the question, and how very difficult he has found it in consequence properly and fairly to weigh the merits of the question. But I must say that throughout the whole affair the East India Company have shown none of that feeling which my lion. Friend wishes to impute to them.—(Hear, hear.) Even according to Mr. Elphinstone's opinion, a gentle man whose high abilities and great experience in Indian affairs gave him great weight in these matters, Sattara was one of those principalities to the sovereignty of which the British Government had a right to nominate. The heirs of the Raja could haven° claim on the territory, their claims could only apply to the personal property. After the subversion of the ,Peishwe his dominions be came part of the British territory. The course which had been pursued on this occasion was what common sense itself dictated, to say nothing of its being in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Court of Directors. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) says that was unjust. That is only his opinion. And how are the opinions of large bodies to be expressed, except by the majority? The opinion of the majority must be followed. How absurd it is, then, for the Honourable Gentleman to get up and use such terms as he has used here.: Why, according to him, Lord Dalhousie is a rob ber and a spoliator—[" Good," from Mr. Huare.]—Lord Auckland is a robber and a spoliator—E.' Good")—the majority of 19 of the Directors of the East India Mouse, and 296 of the Proprietors, are robbers and spoliators. Now, Sir, I said before I was prepared to argue this question a great deal more than I think it my duty to do now, and I shall say no more except that it requires an Act of Parliament to change the order of succession to the sovereignty of Sattara. Mr. HUME—But you did it without an Act of Parlia• ment.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. HOBHOUSE (taking no notice of the obser vation of the Hon. Member for Montrose) continued—l have repeatedly said that the Government were willing to pay a sum of money to the Ranee, the widow of the Raja, and the adopted heir of Pertaub Singh. This money would have been paid long ago had it not been for the Rance refusing to give a receipt fur the principal sum. She said she would not do it herself unless her son was acknowledged and adopted as the heir of the sove reignty. The Governor-General would not agree to that There is no doubt that the money will be given. The last mail that came brought a letter from the Governor- General, stating the offer of the Government to pay the Ranee a sum of 50,000 rupees; that letter stated, moreover, it was the conviction of the Governor-General that the late Raja, instead of dying as his friends in this country have said, has left a considerable sum of money behind him. The Governor-General had not the least doubt of that fact. In conclusion, I can only say that I shall be very much concerned it these debates relating to the Raja of Sattara shall be repeated again in this House. Sir E. COLEBROOICE was perfectly aware it was quite impossible to discuss this question as it deserved to be discussed at this late period of the session. His only object in rising was to notice two observations which had fallen from the Right Hon. Gen tleman who had preceded him. If he (Sir E. Cole brooke) had had any doubt before that there were in volved in this question great commercial principles, those doubts would have been entirely removed by the speech made by the Right Honourable Gentleman. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) understood the Bight, Hon. Baronet to say that he considered it a new doctrine that the princes of India had a right to adopt their successors. Now, the question that was raised in the East India House, in reference to this particular case, and the main question on which the decision went, was, whether this Sattara state could be regarded in that completely independent state that it was proper that its sovereigns should exercise that right. In the course of that discussion there were observations and opinions tendered which certainly seemed to him to strike at the root of the rights of the whole native Princes of India. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hob house) to say that the Hindoo Princes had no right to adopt, except with the consent of the British Govern ment, as the paramount power of India.—(Hear, hear.) That was a question which it was quite impossible for him (Sir E. Colebrooke) to go into at that moment; but lie had to express his complete and unqualified dissent from the position which the Eight Hon. Baronet had taken on that point. The British Government had no right, with regard to the native princes of India, except what they derived from those princes themselves— (Hear, hear)—or with reference to territory which had been derived by actual cession from them (Hear, hear)—or to which the British Government were entitled by the very words and letters of the tree• ties between themselves and those princes.—(Hear, hear.) He could not allow such a doctrine to be pro pounded by the Right Hon. Baronet without entering his protest against it. We treated with those princes on equal terms, and in whatever cession they made to us our rights were limited to such as they themselves en joyed and exercised, and those rights of cession were fully established at the present day.—(Hear, hear.) He considered this question was of such importance to British India that he would take the liberty of reading Sir Charles Metcalfe's opinion on that point. If he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had had the slightest idea that the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J. C. Hob house) would have made such a statement he would have produced proof to the House that this question was no new one with regard to British India, and that seve ral decisions had been come to with regard to the rights of the native princes of India, and that they agreed to the full extent with what he was about to read from the minute of Sir Charles Metcalfe.—(llear, hear.) Sir Charles Metcalfe said, " Those who are sovereign princes in their own right, and of the Hindoo religion, have by Hindoo law a right to adopt to the exclusion of collateral heirs, or of the supposed reversionary right of the paramount powere—(Hear, hear)—the latter, in fact, in such cases having no real exist e nce, e xcept in the ease of absolute want of heirs ; and even then the right is on l y assumed in virtue of power, f o r it would probtahel s tate so y b ein consistent with right that the people o e - f m Ll selves ." He situated should elect a sovereign foarte p h princes be ut would ask, could the rights ofthen tiv in stronger language? lie wouldthan the merits of this questi on t u. o state ßa h r i o s ne p t rot l e i s e t Hon. against the doctrine o f tho Eight not go further into considered this a question of such wide and great im portance with regar d to the native princes of India, that whateve r cou rs o might be taken by the Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Montrose, heKSir E. Colebrooke) shoul d s ubmit, atthe earliest opportu n i t y next session to the consideration of the House what the rights of th ' ose n ative princes were, quite independent of the Sattara s t a te.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question of such import ance that the opinion of Parliament should be fully taken upon it. lie would not sit down without stating his opinion on the real point at issue on the Sattara question. That question turned entirely upon the words of the treaty. By that treaty the British Government, in consideration of the antiquity of the house of Sattara, agreed to cede the territory, "in perpetual sove reignty, to the Raja of Sattara, his heirs, and succes sors." Those words were the fullest and largest that had been employed, either in Europe or in India, to express a full cession of territory from one power to another, Ho Icould quote to the House i ns t ance upon instance to show that those were the words, recognised by the public law 17i lit 1 c LLpie.. C site.' of territory from one government to another ; arld yet, in the teeth of those words, and of rep ea t e d dec i sions upon them, confirming the view which he (Sir E. Colebroolce) took of their meaning, the Right Hon. Baronet said those words only meant " the heirs of his body." The question turned upon the plain meaning of words. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) could show, by reference both to the law of Europe and of India, that whenever a limitation was intended, such limitation bad bean so expressed. The case of Lahore was an example, where there was a limitation of the territory to the so vereign, " and the heirs of his body," With regard to the rights of adoption, he considered the rights of adop. tion were merely part of the general collateral rights. If a treaty was limited to a mau and the heirs of his body, there could be no right of adoption or of colla teral heirs ; but if a cession of territory was veered then, he contended, that the native princes had that sight which belonged to arbitrary governments with regard to the nomination of their successors. The question with regard to adoption turned entirely upon that general question. He rested his opposition to the doctrine of the Right Hon. Baronet entirely on the words of the treaty, words which they could not gainsay without putting a construction upon that treaty which was utterly at variance with the law of practice both of Europe and India.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing a wish that when he brought this ques tion again before the House Hon. Members would give a fair and impartial hearing to its merits. Sir J. HOBHOUSE said what he stated was this, that the British authority in India was tot the parmount power for political purposes, such as this question, which involved perfectly novel doctrines. Sir Charles Metcalfe in his minute did not at all interfere with this question. Sir Charles Metcalfe said—" There was a wide differ ence between sovereign princes and jageerdars, between those in possession of hereditary sovereignties in their own right, and those who hold grants of land or public revenue by gift from a sovereign or paramount power. Ile said the position of the Sattara case was exactly similar. Mr. ELLIOT rose to address the House, when An HON. MEMIER intimated to the Speaker that there were not forty Members present, and that being► so, the House immediately adjourned, at Four o'clock. COURT CIRCULAR. OSBORNE, TUESDAY. The Queen and Prince walked this morning in Osborne -park. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Princess Roval and the younger branches of the Royal Family, walked and rode as usual. Lord John Russell, after att e ndi ng the Privy Council ht Id b y her Majesty yesterday afternoon, re mained at Osborne until this morning. Sir James Stephens, K.C.8., arrived at Osborne yesterday afternoon, having been honoured by an in vitation. Sir James returned to town this forenoon. There was no other addition to the Royal dinner party yesterday. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, attended by Lady Anna Maria Dawson, and Sir George Couper, honoured the performances at the Royal Italian Opera House with her presence yesterday evening. Their Royal highnesses the Duchess of Cambridge and the Hereditary Grand Duchess of Mecklen bourg Strelitz, honoured Count Kielmansegge, the Hanoverian Minister, with their company at dinner, on Monday evening, at his Excellency's residence in Grosvenor- place. Lord Ashley and Lord Robert Grosvenor had an interview with Sir George Grey, yesterday, at the Home-office. The Bishop of 'Victoria had an interview with Earl Grey, yesterday, at the Colonial- office. Lord John Russell arrived in town yesterday from a visit to the Queen, at her - Majesty's marine resi dence, Osborne, Isle of Wight. The Duke and Duchess of Bedford left town on Monday for Goodwood. The Officers and Corps of Yeomen of the Guard assembled yesterday in the garden in front of St. James's Palace, in full uniform, under arms, and were inspected by the Marquis of Donegan, G.C.H., Cap tain of the Corps. The Earl of Carlisle left town yesterday for Kirk stall Grange, Leeds. Lady Mary Wood left the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's residence in Downing-street, on Monday, for Mickleton Hall, near Doncaster. CRICKET. lIIITEEN GENTLEMEN OF SURREY V. ELEVEN OF ENGLAND. This grand match was concluded yesterday, the Gentlemen winning by 30 runs. The following is the score:— GENTLEMEN-FIRST INNINGS. H. Gardner, Esq.—c Brockwell, b Dean ... T. Craven, Esq.—c Adams, b Dean ••• W. Baker, Esq.—b Dean, b Adams C. Coltson, Esq —1 b w, b Shearman C. Harenc, Esq.—c Brown, b Adams C. H. Hoare, Esq.—run out C. Reeves, Esq.—c Hammond, b Adams ... G. R. Burnett, Esq.--st Brown, b Dean . . S. Whitehead, Esq.—b Adams ... H. J. Hoare, Esq.—ru❑ out J. Watney, Esq.—b Adams ... H. Aite, Esq.-1 b w, b Dean ••• ... F. P. Miller, Esq.—c Brockwell, b Dean ... 11. Mortimer, Esq.-1 b w, b Adams Captain White—not out •• ~, ••• W. Denison, Esq.—c Dean, b Shearman • . B 0, w 1 Total ... PLAYERS —FIRST INNINGS. Adams—b Harenc W. Pilch—b Craven ••• Hammond—c Burnett, b Craven ... C. Brown—run out ... •. • Chester—b Craven ... Dean—c Baker, b Craven ... Julius Cfesar—b Aite „ Brockwell—b Aite Shearman—b Miller ... Lockyer—c Coltson, b Craven Lillywbite—not out ... B 10, w 11 Total ... GENTLEMEN-SECOND INNINGS. H. Gardner, Esq.— b Chester ••• ••• T. Craven, Esq.—b Chester ... W. Baker, Esq.—c Bro wn , b Chester ... C. Coltson, Esq.—c Chester, b Dean... ... C. Harenc, Esq.—c Adams, b Chester ... C. H. Hoare, Esq.—b Shearman C. Reeves, Esq.—c Hammond, b Lillywhite... G. R. Burnett, Esq.—run out . . S. Whitehead, Esq.—st Brown, b Chester ... H. J. Hoare, Esq.—st Brown, b Shearman J. Watney, Esq.—b Shearman H. Aite, Esq.—not out F. P. Miller, Esq.—b Lillywhito H. Mortimer, Esq.—c Chester, b Lillywhite... Captain White—run out ... W. Denison, Esq.—b Shearman B 2, w 2... Total ..• .•• PLAYERS—SECOND INNINGS. Adams—c Mortimer, b Craven • W. Pilch—b Harenc .•• ••• Hammond—c and b Craven ... C. Brown—b Craven ... ••• ••• Cheater—c Whitehead, b Ilarenc ••• Dean—b Craven ••• ••• Julius Cesar—b Craven ••• , • Brockwull—c Watney, b Craven Shearman—b Craven Lockyer—b Harene ••• ••• Lill) white—not out ... B 2, w 1, n b 1 Total . 19 ... 20 ... 15 ... 12 ...141 ... 14 ... 20 ... 16 ... 43 ... 10 ... 138 ... 10 ... 16 ... 71 .. 2 .... 4 ... 12 ... 4 ... 1 ... 3 ... 3 ... 0 ... 8 ... 3 ... 0 ... 4 ... 44 ELEVEN OF ENGLAND 7". TWENTY OF LEICESTERSHIRE. This match was commenced on Monday at Barker's Ground, Leicester, and resumed yesterday morning, but owing to the rain, the game has not proceeded far. The following is the score at the close of the second day's play:— ENGLAND—FIRST INNINGS. Chatterton—b Marshall Martingell—b Marshall Parr—c Elmhirst, b Marshall Box—c King, b Marshall ••• •• N. Felix, Esq.—b King ..• ••• Guy—b Warrington ... ••• •'• Captain Lautour—b King ••• ••• A. Mynn, Esq.—st Elmhirst, b 3farshall ••• ••• Hillyer—c Goodrich, b Marshall ... Clarke—run out ••• S. Clissold, Esq.--not out . B 0, w 7, n b 2 ••• ,„ 14 ... 56 ... 55 Total ... ••• ••• LEICESTER:IIIRE- FIRST INNINGS. Antill—run out •• J. S. Nedhana, Esq.—b Clatke Dickens—not out Marshall —not out ... 27 ... 4 ... 9 ...188 Total ... 6 ... 0 ... 3 ... 5 ... 14 ALARMING FIRE.—The family of Mr. C. Sayer, of the Horseshoe and Wheataheaf Tavern, Melina street, Weston -street, Southwark, had a narrow escape from being destroyed by fire yesterday morning. Shortly before two o'clock smoke was seen issuing from the lower part of the tavern. An alarm was then given, but on the inmates attempting to descend the stairs, they found them on fire, and the smoke rolling upwards iu such bodies as to drive them back again. having made their appearance at an upper window lad ders were procured, and, with assistance, the whole of the parties were rescued. The engines of the parish and London brigade were early in arriving, when the firemen found the flames raging most furiously, threaten ing destruction to the whole of the property. werey.'l'he There being an abundant supply of water, the ex tinguished, but not until considerable damage was done to the premises. Mr. Sayer was insured in the Sun fire office. We are sorry to announce the death of Mr. James Bandinci, who was one of the c hi e f c l erks in the Fo reign-office, with which establishment he was connected upwards of fifty yew. z fe, if ?re ihe ler 611) ?Ti! j 6 %to 0 ter