The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY, 11Av 9.
The Luau Cnamezza.on took his seat at 5 o'sleek.
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
Buttons (Scou.ann) Blu..—lty the Sul of EGLI\•
TON, from places is Sootland ; against.
PAULL./ M . PAPEILS.—tIy the Earl of CARLISLE,
from Warwick and places is Cumberland, praying for the
tree distribution of parliamentary papers.
Jto w isit Ut t MIL! rIES.—By the Ent of CARLISLE,
from a place not heard, in favour of the Tecate." of Jewish

INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY having presented several
petitions praying for the inspection of nunneries,
'the Archbishop of DUBLIN rose to present a peti-
tion on the same subject, and in doing so, claimed the
privilege of saying • few weeds. lie wished to eeeress
its hearty concurrence is the general prayer of the
petition. it was his deliberate conviction, that
some allitionsl pr dection for individuals was
neeelsert. However be might have been. charged with
much ultra-liberalism, he had never been charged with
wishing unduly to abridge the liberty of his fellow subjeats.
lie wished not to east any stigma on Christians of any de-
nomination, Out the poise/110y and probability of great
oppreween !icing emeriti on in a secret
thoueht, some legislative interference—(heer, hear)
—and he was convinced that a law ought to be pasted which
would rot so much abridge as secure the liberty of indivi-
duals. Ile would not set forth the details of such • mea-
sure ; hut the 'subject wee well worth the attention of that
house, teed so ear from each a measure as was suggested
being any er eroschusent o• domestic liberty, civil or yeti-
pious, he was convinced that it was necessary for the better
security of pereenal liberty. (Hear, hear.)
The 'Bishop of NORWICH thought such a measure
Wee' d hem tit the institutions themselves, and was most ka-
rt? =rely called for. (Hear, hear.)
BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
tee d LYNDHURS T wished to refer to an important
reateect. Their lordships bad jest passed tee Registration
Aseurances Ili.l.which must occupy a considerable time in
eiimussesu in the other house. The Charitable Trusts Bill
'would also take some time in passing there, and bills on
'these subjects bad before been sent down and thrown over
from the multiplication of business. There was at present a
dosncial measure before the other house which had =en-
peed a month, and would probably take two months more.
Theo there was a questien as to the East India Company's
charter and the subject of education to be disposed of by
parliement. There was also a bill for the reform of the
eecleeiustacel courts, the outline of which the Solicitor-
Decimal Lad stated in great detail. Under these circum-
stances, be should be prepared to bring in a bill to enable
any meesure to be taken up in the nest session of parlie-
sent at the rage where it had bees left in the present
session. The noble earl (Derby) bed introduced a bill on
the same subject four years ago; and if he received any
esienormtemcnt from the government he would propose to
send both bills to a select committee. It would be vain for
his, however, to adopt such a course without the support
of the government.
The Kiel of ABERDEEN said it was the desire of the
government to expedite by all proper means the measures
to which the noble and learned lord referred. As he had
not given him notice of his question, he was net prepared
to s.y how far tbero might be an objection to his pro-
posed =cutlet ; but he was afraid that it was open to
serious objections. He did not, however, wish to give any
opinion upon the subject then.
Lord CAMPBELL suggested that the sail might be
elf eted by an adjournment fur two months, instead of •
prorogation.
Lord BROUGHAM said there was always great incon-
venience attending an early session, and it did not in the
least expedite the business, so •as to make the session
shorn, than if it had begun at the usual time. (Hear.)
E sr' GREY asked the noble sad learned lord to consider
the suggestion of Lord Truro as to whether the object might
not he accomplished by a resolution rather than by a bill. It
did nut rest on an set of parliament but on resolutions of the
house that bills should go through a certain number of
stages. The first step towards any arrangement would be
• communication between the two houses on the subject, to
see whether they could net effect the desired object by re-
solutions.
THE PICTURES OF THE LATE KING OF THE
FRENCH.
The Earl of SIALMESBURY said that the noble:earl op,
posit. had no doubt heard that an important sale was pole,
on of tho pictures of the late King of the French. Part ef
them had been already sold, and in the nest three weeks
four or five hundred more would be brought to the hammer.
There were amongst them some works of art of great
value ; and he wished to ask whether the government had
taken any steps to ascertain whether any of the pictures
were worthy of this country ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN was understood to say that
sufficient notice of the sale had not been given. He be-
lieved, however, that one picture had been bought which
would be placed in the National Gallery, but he was not
then prepared to say whether any others would be put-
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to say
that only two days' notice had been given of the sale.
THE POOR LAW.
The Earl of SIALMESBURY gave notice that he would
on Thursday, on presenting a petition, call attention to the
present state of the poor law.
DWELLINGS OF THE LABOURING CLASSES.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved that their lord.
ships should take into consideration the report of the select
committee on this subject, and should agree to the following
resolution That before the first reading of any bill fee
making any works in the construction of which compulsoey
power is sought to take 30 houses or more inhabited by the
labouring classes, in any one parish or place, the promoters
be required to deposit in the office of the clerk of the parties
meats a statement of the number, description, and sineaties
of the said houses, the number (so far as they can he mad'
mated) of pers.= to be displaced, and whether say mad
what provision is made in the bill for remedying the intim-
venienee likely to arise from such displacement." The
noble lord stated that he had received letters from Mr.
Beasley, Mr. Cubitt, and others approving of this proposal.
Ile thought it was one of the best resolutions which they
cou'd come to.
Tee resolution was agreed to.
The Barg= (Scotland) Bill and the Sheriff and Commis-
sary Courts (Berwickshire) Bill severally passed through
committee.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
The Earl of AIRLIE rose, in pursuance of nodes, to esk
a question of her Majesty's government with reference to the
mea tire which it wastheir intention to propose for the future
government of India. A question he said had been pat in
the other house on this subject, but it had nut yet been an-
swered. lie did not seek to be informed as to the details of
the government measure. Ile wished to ascertain whether
that measure was to be the first of a series of measures, or
was to stand alone. Was it to be understood that, in adopt-
ing the government measure, parliament virtually pledged
itself to abstain (rem all interference with the affairs of the
Indian government, during the period, whatever it might
be, fur which the provisions of that bill were to continue in
force ? Was the question to be considered clotted for that
period 1 It was very desirable that there should be a clew
understanding on that point. The committee of the other
house, at the close of the last session, reported on the first ef
the eight heads into which they had divided their =quiz
and were consequently very far from having ezhamield
subject. They earnestly recommended that the
should be renewed is the next session; and this It
alone. lie did not think that the generality at thiek bide
ships, with the exception of the members of thegweemement
and those who were conversant with India, could be map
competent to turns an opinion on this subject. Ministers
had access to sources of information which private =elk
viduals had not; but if they called upon the house to legis-
late on matters with which they were imperfectly ie.
queioted, and matters of grave importance, they called at
their lordships to incur a very grave responsibility. It
might be said that as the committees had reported en the
first head of inquiry—the administration of Indies asks
in this country—the house might proceed to legislate ea
that subject. It was no doubt competent for them to de"
but the other beads of inquiry embraced meet isnp=taat
suleicte, including the means of education and the means
of religious instruction ; and how could they provide for
the future government of Indio, end leave all diem ques-
tions onentehed ? If they proceeded to legislate this
session is the dark for the government of India, they
would place theme, lees in this dilemma : either they would
take the responsibility of legislating on matters with which
they were very imperfectly acquainted, or they would omit'
these /flatten, and thus leave out the greater part of the
question, and that which was of the most importance. They
moult be dealing with the shadow instead of the substance.
The effect of this would be to cut short the labours of the
committees of both houses, and to postpone the inquiry.
Be wished to ask whether the measure which it was pro-
p nee to introduce for the future government of India was
to be based upon the evidence and report of the select
eonseeettees of both Mines of Parliernent, or whether the
house was to be calk, i upon t 3 legislate in this session upon
those matters on which the committees had not yet es-
pressed as opinion.
The lad of ABERDEEN said their le/debit). must feel
that it wereld be somewhat premature were he to attempt
=answer tire question of his noble friend. Notice had
bean given that • meesure for the future government of
India would be introduced into the other house of parlia-
ment before the end of this moeth . the noble earl would
then see what eras the nature of that measure, and how
far it answered the question he had put. If it were to be
founded upon the report of a committee which hail not ma
been made, it would certainly be premature is him to giro
any description of the measure. It would be ia the discre-
tion of parliament to decide as to any future legislation.
Their lordships would he able to judge in a very short time
what the nature of the measure was; and he hoped the
noble earl would find his question answered by that mess
sere.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Oa the motion for the bout* to go into committee on
this hill,
•
Lord MONTEAGLE compii:ined thst no ezplanation
hart been liven of the provisions of the bill. To some of
Atm he entertained very serious Pbj.tetionv. It might be
es;,i that 66 the bill authorised the inwrovement of land in
Ireticsd be means of loans, arid contained no borrowing
power', it would be inoperative ; but fhb. WU a very poor
r,,conunendari'in of the hall Units+ it could he shns n that
the bill ve,old work. their loriShipi would i.artily he in-
duced to pa•v if. flit hic great objection to it was !hi.—
it contained a iiistinet enactment whereby an occupying
tenant, however small ~is occupancy or beneficial interest,
alight, din pommies of soy loots fog which two Myra

were unexpired, put the powers of the bil3 motion, and
create a debt, binding not only himself, ,tit the rever-
sioner, who might be in utter qorum.,
of the trivet-
hoe, or disapproveof it. As the lois'thus contracted be-
came a first charge on the land, it yr 4 most unjust towards
the landlord. Ile would put'_, their lordships if they
would sanction such a inta-,are for owlet England or Scot-
land ? (Hear, hear.) "a ha tendency of the bill was that
of too many measures relatiug to Ireland, to create a class
of quasi owners of 1"-nff or,t of the tenants and occupiers.
,It was an indi'ient **seek on the rights of property.
! (Hear, beg.) 11ed it merely provided that
all the consentir,g parties should have the power
of binding thole respective interests it would have been
unobkctionable. It was true the commissioners of works
might require t:ne consent of the landlords, but this was
not made cerr,pulsory. This bill was only one of Lour; the
proper course would be to postpone it till the others were
before the house, and then refer the whole to a select com-
mittee. Ile should prefer this course to negativing the bill
in its present stage, and would therefore move that the
hove should resolve itself into committee on the bill on that
day month, when the other bills would probably bo before
them.
Lord DONOCOHNIORE laid the other bills to which
reference had been made were before a committee of the
other house, and it was unlikely that they would become
law this 'session. He thought the objections of the noble
lord to the present bill were unfounded. It was founded
on an act 0(1817, which provided fur the issue of a loan of
1% million, at 3! per cent. interest, payable in 22 years.
This act had worked admirably well in Ireland ; it had
given satisfaction to all parties and had been the
source of the greatest improvement. The present
bill was a copy of that ace ; the system had worked so well
that there was a general desire for its continuance; but as
the principle of issuing these loans from the Treasury was
objectionable, this bill gave power to borrow in the same
way from private parties. The 7th clause, describing the
persons who might qualify as owners was precisely the
same as the 7th clause In the act of 1847. In seeking the
improvement of the soil, which was the great object of the
act of 1847, it must strike their lordships that the proprie-
tors by themselves were pswerlys, and that the great im-
provements which had taken place both in Ireland and
Scotland had been effected either by the tenant farmers
themselves, or with their ecpoperation. Their lordships had
passed many acts for the benefit of the landed proprietors..
and he appealed to them whether it would not naturally
lead to great jealousy and heart-burning if they refused to
entertain a bill that was intended to be of service to the
tenants. (deer, hear.) He would not attempt to deny
that there might be men by whom the measure would be
abused, but there was a large and daily increasing class to
whom its powers might be safely entrusted, and for their
sakes he mould support the motion for the recommitment
of the bill. (Hear.):
The Earl of LUCAS was opposed to the measure, be-
cause it involved the most mischievous and communistic
principle of tenant right.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought the amendment most

The Earl of EGLINTON bad been privy to the former
bill, which had been prepared with the approval of the
noble earl then at the head of her Majesty's government
(Lord Derby). He (Lord Eglinton) had never considered
this bill as one of those which were called tenant right bills,
for the only oonnezion it had with them was, they had all
been iatroduced in the other house by the late Attorney-
General for Ireland. He (Lord Eglinton) should give the
bill his most cordial support.
Lord BEAUMONT felt some apology was necessary for
making any observations upon • bill that was not likely
ever to be extended to England, and which must therefore
be regarded somewhat as a private arrangement. (Mar,
hear.) Still he must express the strong objection he felt
against its principles--fiat, because they invaded the
rights of property ; and secondly, because in the present
transition state of Ireland they must prove seriously inju-
rious. If he went into its details be thought he should be
able to show that for • " well digested measure," it was as
full of faults as any bill that had ever come up to their
lordships' house; but for the present he would only protest
against it altogether. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of GLENGALL looked upon the establish-
ment of • board to arbitrate between landlord and tenant
as most objectionable ; and the proposal was not one which
their lordships would sanction if it referred to their own
estates, especially alter they had seen money so recklessly
and scandalously wasted by just such • board under the
Drainage Act. (Hear, hear.) He considered the present
measure to be intimately connected with the other bills, and
he should support their being referred to s select committee.
Viscount CANNING said the principle of this bill had
been stated by the noble earl opposite as one that had been
asserted by parliament in 1847, but it was said that 1817
was ao exceptional year. So fier as the working details
were concerned, that might be • good ground of opposition,
but he apprehended that a principle which was good '
in 1847 was equally good in 18.53. But there
was one mistake which almost every noble lord who had
spoken had fallen into, in speaking of the act of 1847 as an
ant which was expired. So far from that being the fact, it
was still in operation. Two millions of the public money
was authorised to be advanced for the purpose of improving
land, partly in 1847 and partly in 18.51. Of that there re-
mained about 500,0001. unappropriated. A noble earl had
stated that that sat had been confined in its operation to
money borrowed by landlords, and that in no respect had it
been taken advantage of by tenants. He was surprised to
hear the noble lord quote the authority of Mr. Griffith for
that statement, as he had himself received a letter from Mr.
Griffith, in which he said, " There have been • considerable
number of sums advanced to farmers with leases for
lives under this act, but in every ease the loan has
been approved of by the landlords." (Hear, hear.)
That passage was cheered. lie expected that under this
bill also the loans would be approved by the landlords.
With reference to this bill being postponed in order that it
and other bills which had originated in the same hands
should be referred to a select committee, that was not the
course followed in the House of Commons. This bill was
brought in with • thorough knowledge on the part of the
house that it was originally the work of the Attorney-
General for Ireland under Lord Derby's government, and
except that the other bills had the same name on the back,
be saw no reason for putting them together. And instead
of the bill passing unnoticed in the House of Commons, it
was fully discussed in committee. The noble earl who
spoke last but one made great objection to the power given
to haute. if he had read the clause he would have seen
that the person who was to derive the immediate benefit
was to pay the it per cent.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that, throughout
the whole of this discussion, they had heard excuses for this
bill, t ut no reasons for it whatever.
The Earl of DERBY said if he thought thatby adopting
this bill tenants would acquire a permanent vested interest
in the land, he should he one of the last parsons to sanction
such an unwarrantable principle. (Hear.) He appre-
headed the simple object of the measure was to give either
the landlord or the tenant having a long duration of inte-
rest in the land power to raise money for its improvement
mime there was an absence of ready capital, or of power to
twelves the estate ; and believing this object to be one of
pest namankt to Ireland—believing that the principle has
Mar illund to work well already—and moreover believing
sea W{, whether right or wrong, to have been framed
enzlise dss authority of the learned and excellent man in
, w ass min he could not speak too highly, and who did
hint the favour of accepting 'he seals of the Irish Chancel-
, beiliip when he had the honourof holding office as well as
! under the authority of his right hon. friend, the late Attor-
ney-General for Ireland, and believing also that the bill
was supported by the representatives of almost every
county and borough in Ireland, he thought it would be a
matter of serious regret if their lordships should refuge
now to go into a consideration of the bill, in consequence
of some connexion it was supposed to have with a moosisre
which might or might not come before their lordships
within the nest four or five weeks. (Hear, hear.) lie
trusted their lordships would at once consent to go into
committee, and proceed with the details of the bill.
Lord MONTEAGLE said he did not want to
delay the bill for the purpose that had been
stated by the noble lord. (Hear.) All he wanted to
do was so to alter and amend the bill that tne tenant should
not burrow without the consent of his landlord. He made
no objection whatever to the principle of the law already in
force, but he wished this bill to be made to conform
to that law, in order that both parties interested
should join in the undertaking before the money was bor-
rowed. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of Decay, who still
deprecated delay, their lordships divided, when there ap-
peared for the amendment—
Contents' 8
Non-Cohtents
The house then went into committee on the bill.
On clause 1,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE again took an objec-
tion to the bill ou the ground that a teuaiat might borrow
money under its provisions and apply it to his own use
unless some alterations were made in its provisions to guard
ageing such a contingency.
The Earl of WICKLOW pointed out to the noble mar-
quis that he was in error, inasmuch as the money would
have to be advanced under the authority of the Board of
Works, who would be reaponsiblo for the proper outlay of
the eapital.
After some further discussion, clauses I and 2 were
agreed to.
Oa clause 3,
Lord ST. LEONARD'S, suggested that the wording of
the clause should bo made more stringent. It provided
that a man should ho entitled to borrow who held a life
*state in the land or possessed it for • term of years. Now
this latter expression might mean two or three years, and
be would propose that the term should be specified, city, fur
• term not less than 2.5 years. The claem also related
to the power of a reversioner to borrow in the event of the
tenant in possession declining to do so. Now he would
suggest that the law of Ireland in that respect should he
made to assimilate with the law of En 'land, for he could
see no reason for keeping up a different law in both
eoua tries applicable to the same subject.
Viscount CANNING said this point hail already been
ander the cosaideration of the law advisers of the crown is
Ireland and the right hon. §:endemic' who had had charge
of the bill in the other house, but no determination had yet
been e'me to upon it. Ile would, the:ol3)ra, suggest that
this matter should be left open for future deliberation.
Un clause 4 being read, providing who shall be deemed
owners
Lerd BEAVMONT moved the 0171141(011 of the words,
mortgagee in possession, or in receipt edemas."
After a short di,eumion, the house divided, when the
numbers were—
Coot, :An (for the omission of the war 1.),, ii
NoneCentents l4

Najurity in frvouof tin claim 5

Lord BEAUMONT then moved the emission of the
whole of the promo, ;tom the 33rd lialt to the end. of the
clause.
Algter k few wends from the earl of DEREY and Lsrd
MoNtessotv, it was agreed that the proviso should be
omitted Fu the present, and the further consideration of
the sutojetet postponed to a subsequent stage of the bill.
On Cause 5 being read, providing who shall be untitled
to be treated as owner, where several persons have an inte-
rest in the land, &c.,
Lord MONTEAGLE moved u an amendment to insert
after the words " two lives." "which Islay be in the judgment
of the Commissioners of Works equivalent to • term of

25 years."
After a convention in which the Lard Chancellor, the
Earl of Derby, Viscount Canning, the Earl of Wicklow,
the Earl of Donoughmore, and Lord St. Leonard's took
part, the amendment was withdrawn.
Another amendment, moved by the same noble lord,
having for its object to prevent the subdivision of farms,
gave rise to considerable discussion.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed his conviction
that the clause, as it stood, would not afford any. gretter
facilities for the subdivision of farms than had existed for
several years. All that this bill aid was to enable private
individuals to grant loans on the same terms as had been
heretofore done by the Treasury.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Lord MONTEAGLE then moved the omission of the
words "whenever the said commissioners shall think fit so
to require it," i. e. to require the tenant to produce the con-
sent of the landlord.
The Earl of WICKLOW opposed this amendment, on
the ground that it would make the measure a mere land-
lord's bill. Its real object, however, was to enable the te-
nant, if the landlord would not make an improvement, to
make it without him.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE was of the same opinion.
Omitting the words would be a great piece of favouritism to
the landlords.
Viscount CANNING said that practically the commis-
sioners would have the same powers that they already pos-
sessed. By the letter of the present bill, mere notice to the
landlord was sufficient ; but the board bad succeeded in
every instance (though in some cases only after considerable
trouble) in procuring the assent of the landlord.
Their lordships then divided—
For the amendment
Against it l3--G
The amendment was therefore lost, and the clause was
then agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 23 were agreed to.
On clause 24,
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said that this clause
entrusted the commissioners with a very dangerous power,
for it gave them the power of making alterations involving
additional cost to the extent of 1-sth of the estimates.
Viscount CANNING said the Cl4lllO was necessary.
Cases might occur where the whole expenditure might be
made useless for the want of a small additional outlay.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE did not object to the
commissioners having power to make alterations, but he
thought they ought not to be excused from going through
the forms. lie begged to propose as an amendment to sub-
stitute the words "one-tenth" for "one-fifth."
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against l3-3
The other clauses were then agreed to ; and the house

■rsumed.
Viscount CANNING said he should postpone any fur-
ther proceeding with the bill till after the Whitsuntide
holidays.
COPIES OF SPECIFICATION REPEAL BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that this bill be read
a second time. He had introduced s one amendments into
it, and he proposed to hare it committed pro forma, in order
that it might be printed with the amendments.
After a few words from Lord EGLINTON, the bill was
read a second time.
CLITHEROE ELECTION.
On the order of the day for Lord Beaumont to call atten-
tion to the address from the House of Commons respecting
this election remaining unanswered,
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the matter was under
consideration, and he hoped the noble lord would postpone
it till Thursday.
Lord BEAUMONT said of course he should comply with
the request.
Their lordship. then adjourned at ten minutes put
eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY, MAY 9.

The firsaxsa took the chair at 4 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The fallowing bills ware read a third time and passed
Mel Beck Reservoirs; Madras Railway; and Belfast and
Ballymena Itsilway ; Bills.
The following bills were considered : Australian Agri-
cultural Company; Dundee Waterworks; Great Northern
Railway (No. 1) ; Londonderry, Enniskillen, and Sligo
Railway,; Laugh Foyle and Lough Swilly Drainage and
Reclamation; and Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly Rail-
way ; Bills.
The following bills were read a second time: Burton-
upon-Trent Improvement (No. 2); and Rochdale Improve-
ment (No. 2) ; Bills.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
Sir A. CLIFFOII.I3 appeared at the table and summoned
the house to the House of Peers to hear the royal assent
given to several bills.
HUTCHINSON'S CLAIM BILL.
Mr. OLIVEIRA in moving the second reading of this
bill, stated that this was a claim amounting to something
like 48,0001., which originated in a debt alleged to have
been due from the late Rajah of Travancore to Mr. Hutch-
inson, who had been • resident at his court. Both Mr.
Ilutchinaon and the raj tit were dead, and the East India
Company having succeeded to the property of the rajah
they were looked to for the payment of the debt by the re•
presentatives of Mr. Hutchinson. The government of
Travancore so far admittedthe justice of the claim,that after
the rajah's death, they paid a portion of what:was due. In
1808 the East India Company sent eut instructions that the
claim should not be satisfied till Mr. Hutchinson established
its justice. • committee of the House of Commons how-
ever was appointed to investigate the claim in 1831, and
their report was in favour of Mr. tlutchinson's claim. The
House of Commons however rejected the second reading of
the bill, and nothing was done in the matter till the pre-
sent time. The reason that the claim was not followed up
was that litigation had been going on between the repre-
sentatives of Mr. Hutchinson. That litigation was now at
an end, sad he therefore brought the matter before the
!louse of Commons, as the only tribunal that was capable
of doing justice in the case. (Rear, bear.) He hoped the
house would allow the matter to go before a select ern.
mittee.
Mr. LOWE, on the part of the government, opposed the
ilereend reading.
Mr. BRIGHT said he would support the second reading
eitho rest that he was perfectly acquainted with the
fntMINI brought forward by the hon. member for
, but on the general ground that there was no
Ohm tribunal for the investigation of such cases than the
House of Commune. The subject might be investigated by
a committee of the house, and when they had made their
report the house could determine on the third reading.
Mr. COLLIER also supported the second reading.
Sir C. WOOD moved that the bill be read • second time
that day six months. No one could read the evidence taken
before the select committee in 1631, without coming to the
conclusion that the circumstances out of which the claim
originated were of a colourable and fraudulent character.
It would be absurd at this distance of time to tar the people
of India for a debt which it did not appear had ever been
acknowledged by the Rajah of Travancore himself.
Mr. HUME said tnat though he was not acquainted with
the particulars of the claim, he would support the second
reading on the general grounds alleged by the hon. member
for Manchester.
Sir J. W. HOGG said that the hon. member for Man-
chester and the hon. member for Montrose had both de-
clared they knew nothing about this matter, and yet they
were going to support the second reading of the bill.
That there was some equitable ground for this
claim was the truth, but it was not the whole truth. Hon.
gentlemen wanted inquiry; but there had been an inquiry
already before the house, and the house rejected the claim.
(Hear.) That claim was brought forward in 1831, when
the renewal of the ludia Charter was under discussion, and
nothing had bees heard of it ever since till the charter was
about to expire, when all kinds of birds of prey were hover-
ing over the carcass of the East India Company. (Hear.)
The report of the committee had been carried by the casting
vote of the chairman only, 'and yet with that re-
port there were only six members of the House of Com-
mons who supported the second reading of the bill in 1832.
Ile held in his hams a report of Mr. Hutchinson to the go-
vernment, statir g that the Rajah was fraudulently cheating
the government, by not giving up the pepper, whereas, at
that very time Is• was preventing him from dying so.
Mr. T. DUNCOMDE said the hen. barouet hail alluded
to the fact, that his name was on the back of the bill ; he
begged to say that the reason was, that he was a member of
the committee which in 1832 reportedthat the claim wasjust.
Ile still considered it just ; sod he was surprised that in
the face of the report the hon. baronet the President of the
Board of Control should have denounced it as fraudulent
and collusive. lie really began to think there was some-
thing more in :his claim than he had supposed now that he
saw the East India Company so energetic. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MARSHALL sold he had made inquiries of Sir
Amy Willoughby as to the nature of the accounts, and
they appeared t t be oo minstrous to be brougit before that
douse or any other tribunal. Ile recollected that pepper
, was bought for 81 and resold to the same man for 170 with•
is four month". (Hear.)

The house then rtit
For the bil! 4B
Against it

TILE NEW WRIT FOR HARWICH.
Sir J. TYRELL moved that Mr. Speaker do issue a new
writ for this borough, in the room of Mr. Peseick, un-
seated,_
. .

Sir D. L. EVANS objected to the motion on the ground
that there had not been seven days' notice, and on the
ground that he had a notice on the paper for inquiry.
Sir CF. GREY thought it desirable that the house should
be informed ',bother the rule anplitd to the CASE., and pro-
•cl that the clerk should read both the rule and the re-
,
rap t* of the liarwich e•minit.ce.
- The Clerk then read the rale and the report.
Mt IIEADLAM, as chairman of the committee, wished
to COileft that Mr. Peacock was unseated under a vccial
st a ate, iloc,,:rinir. that if the eindidate W.Ol proved to have
entered into a ontraet with any person winitever to 112CUTO
hi, return the ele.-tion should be void. It might, therefore,
he a question whether he was unseated for bribery lle
hall no intention of op Losing the issuing of the writ, bat it