The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-03 00:00:00

ELECTION PETITION COMPROMISES.

Mr. 17151.i&imbi 7:8;,T;:p;;;;;;;;oF his notice, to
call the attention of the house to the present defective state
of the law (or the trial of controverted election petitions
founded upon the report of the e ,mmittee appointed to
inquire into the withdrawal of the Norwich election peti-
tion. The only effectual cure for this system was,
he thought, to provide that no election petition, when once
presented, should be withdrawn, at all events unless an-
other petition were presented, explaining the reasons of
such withdrawal, and signed by the parties who were the
parties to the original petition, and in that cam the peti-
tion to be allowed to withdraw should be referred to the
officer of the house to examine into the motives sad grounds
of the withdrawal, who should report to the house. He
also suggested that the money for the recognisance, to the
amount of 1,0001. should be lodged in the Bank of Eng-
land, which would afford some security that the petition
was bona fide, and would avoid the tedious legal examina-
tions which now took place before the examiner of recogni-
sance,. lie trusted that the whole subject would receive the
serious attention of the government, in order that they might
not have this scandalous system acted all over again by
their election agents, in the event of another general elec-
tion.

Lord J. RUSSELL would not enter into the subject of
the Norwich petition ; but with regard to the subject the
hos. gentleman had brought under discussion he agreed
with him that there was great abuse in the withdrawal of
election petitions under the existing law. (Hear, hear.)
And he bud to Mite further that the matter would be
maturely consi lend by the government, and that a bill for
the amendment of the present law (or regulating the trial
of controverted elections had been already drawn, and after
consideration (end there were some important details which
required to be considered carefully) would be introduced in
the next session of parliament. (Cheers.)

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Lora D. SI DART called attention to a motion he had
on the paper fir a select committee to inquire into the cost,
maintenance, and general administration of the metropoli-
tan police. He complained that the cost of the police had
ituressed by 100,0001. within the last five years.
The number of police had been increased by nearly 2,000,
there being now 5.500 men in the force. The inhabitants
of the metropolis did not think it necessaty to have so large
a force, and the metropolis was not a bit better watched
■aw than it u.ed to be when there were fewer men and the
expense was It es. Fur these and other reasons which be
could bring I rward he thought there was very good ground
for a select committee, but of course he should not move fur
it on the 2nd August. The government had prevented
him from bringing forward his motion at an earlier period,
and all be could say was, that ho would try it agent, neat
session, and bring on his motion eta still earlier period.
THE CASE OF TILE PARSEE MERCHANTS.
Mr. J. 0. PIIILLIMORE rue to move—" That an
humble address be presented to her Maje.ty, preying that
the will be:graciosisly pleased to cause the case and memeto'
of the Parsee merchants Jevanjee Metjee and Pestonj. e
Merjee to be referred to the examination and direction of
the Judicial Committee of her Majesty's Privy Council."
He described the case of these ntereb ints, who were native
subjects of the British government, and bad had the ma-
nagement of certain cotton districts in Berar, in the tern•
tunes of the Nisam, u the met cruel, short of injury to life
er limb, that had ever come before Parliament. They
complained, he said, that in spite of solemn decla-
rations and instruments deliberately signed, they
had been gr 'ssly wronged by the Nii,lll, and the
East India Company ban: not only not interfered for

their protection, but were at this moment in possession
of the very lands upon the mortgage of which they had
advanced money to the Nizam, and that money had beta
expended almost exclusive', for the en ppart of the contingent,
composed of troops of the Company themsel vet. In support
of hit motion, Mr. Phillimore entered at much length,
and with great minuteness, into the particulars of the
pecuniary transaction' betwi en the merchants and the
Nizam, and their correspondence with his mininer, Chun-
doo Lall, and the British resident at Ilydenbid had stated
that the balance due to the merchants was 20,0001. In
considering the law of the case, be argued that, by every code,
hypothecation carried its burthen with it ; that even
bad these persons been subjects of the Nizam, instead of
being British subjects, the Bast India Company, baring
come into posussion of the districts in question subject to
all the Nisam's obligations, were legally liable to this un-
disputed debt.
—...—.. . . . .

lifr. J. A. SMITH said he had devoted some little time
and pains to the subject, and done his best to ascertain the
truth of the facts alleged, and be should be deficient in fair-
ness and honour to these unfootunate petitioners if he shrunk
from stating his conviction on the subject. He implored
the house to recollect that these petitioners had no live ex-
cept from the jnstice of that house, and no chance of redress
except from that indignation against cruelty and wrong
which had ever so nobly distinguished the British House of
Commons.

Sir C. WOOD said nothing could be further from his in-
tention than to impeach the character of the petitioners, or
to say that they were not well worthy of every considera-
tion, but he was under the necessity of discharging a painful
duty to show, as be thought he should show before he sat
down, that there were grounds why the house should resist
this appeal to their feelings. lie had no wish to dispute
the main facts which had been stated, but he disputed the
colouring with which the two hon. gentlemen bad given to
them. Allow him to remark, in the first place, that
the claim of these parties was against the Nisam,
it was the Nisam who had wronged them. The
British government—he included the government of
India—owed these Bargees nothing, and had done them no
wrong; and the question was, were we to interfere to coin
pel the Niaatu to jay them ? He had no doubt the Nisam
owed the money, though he denied it himself, and said they
htd received more from his territory than he owed them.
The first ground for interference was that there was a gua-
rantee by the British government. Now,
_ M their own
memorial, they said their request to the Bombagovern-
ruent, before lending the money, was in these word: "We
request you will be pleased to extend such attention to the
petitioners as you may think proper." These words
surely did not bear out the assertion of the
honourable gentleman, that the British resident at
Ilyderabad was requested to interfere and settle all disputes
between the Nisam and the petitioners. lie (Sir 11. Wood)
having gone into the circumstances of the case, felt bound to
say that both the Board of Directors and himself, to whom
it had been referred, had come to the unanimous
decision that the view taken both by Lord Hardinge and
Lnrd Dalhousie, namely, that the government ought not
to interfere, was the just and correct one.
Mr. 11. G. LIDDELL contended that the petitioners had
acted as allies to the British government, and were en-
titled to their support.
Mr. D. SIiYaIOUR said the arguments of Sir C. Wood
were ingenious, but unsound.
Sir J. HOOO admitted the high character of the
claimants, who had been engaged in trailing in Bombay.
They went to the states of the Nisam and col-
lected his revenue on commission. It was quite
understood in India that persons so situated should be
ready to make large advances. They did a), and to enable
tin in to make such advances borrowed money at a high
rate of interest. 'their creditors became importunate, and
the claimants got an assignment of some lands. This was
the old story of the Niacin. Ile borrowed money from
everybody and paid nobody. His habit was when the cre-
ditors became importunate to assign to them a portion of
his lands, and when be thought they had had them long
enough to repay themselves he seat his ltohillas or Arab
bay.ds, to tura them cut. This bad been the case with
these gentlemen, who went into the Nium's territory with
their eyes open to his system, and prepared to take the risk
for the sake of the advantagre. He trusted that the house
would not sanction a doctrine which was opposfd to the
policy that had been pursued for the last sixty or seventy
years, which was condemned by the recital of every act of
parliament, and which Lori. Hardiuge, Lord Daihousie,
and the home government had all rejected
Mr. BRIGHT hoped that the result of this discussion
wouli be that the matter would be referred to a competent
tribunal.

Sir R. INGLIS concurred with the hon. member for
Manchester, namely, that there ought to be a tribunal for
the investigation of matters of this kind. (Hear, hear.)
lie did not think that a reference of the question to the
Judicial Committee could lead to any practical result.
Mr. WIGRAM said that there could be no doubt as to
the efficiency or competency of the tribunal in this instance,
because the Judicial Committee were appointed to consider
not only cases of appeal, but also such other matters as her
Majesty might think fit to refer to them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought no one could have listened to this
debate from the commencement, as he had done, without
being satisfied of the absolute necessity for inquiry in this
ease.

Mr. 0. BALL had listened attentively to this de'Ate, and
with an anxious desire to arrive at a just conclusion upon
the case, and he must say, that upon the whole he saw no
reason why the claim of these gentlemen ought not to be
satisfied.

Mr. MANGLES thought the hon. member for Cam-
bridgeshire had entirely mistaken the condact and functions
of the home government. The reason these gentlemen were
not told that their claim would not be entertained by the
government of India, was not for the purpose of getting
rid of them, as the hon. member for Cambridgeshire
seemed to suppose, but it was because the home govern-
ment made it a practice not to intetfere principally is these
matters.

The house thee divided—
For toe motion
Fur the ameucloscut 69 .

Majority against Mr.Phillimore'e amendment 42

The of supply was postponed to Thursday.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order of the day for the third reading of this bill
having been read, and the bill haring been read a third
time,

Mr. CRAUFURD proposed to strike out the second and
third clauses, and to modify the remaining clauses, his ob-
ject being to omit the declaration which had been substi-
tuted in the bill for the test.

Lord J. RUSSEL'''. wu sorry the hon. gentleman bad
adopted a course which was beginning to creep into the
practice of the house, and which was very ieconvenient—
that was, after a bill had passed through committee and
been reported, to make the third reading a third committee,
and endeavour at that stage to alter the wording of clauses.
But, in the present case, it was proposed to alter the whole
framework of the bill, and, out of 7 clauses, to omit two.
The house had decided that instead 0! a test of opinion there
should be a declaration of conscience ; and the effect of the
hon. gentleman's amendment would be to alter the whole
character of the bill in this respect.
After a few words frotn Mr. DUNLOP and Mr. NEWDIC-
OATS, . .

Mr. CRAUFURD withdrew his motion, end the bill
passed.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES

This bill was read a thin) time and paned.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and paned.