The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-15 00:00:00

THE NAWAB OF THE CARNATIC.

Mr. FOSTER said it had come to his knowledge as
chairman of the committee on public petitions, that certain
fictitious names had been affixed to petitions on the subject
which amounted to a breach of the privileges of Parlia-
ment. The subject was under the consideration of the
committee, and the matter would be reported to the house
on Thursday next.

Sir FITZROY KELLY then moved for the appointment
of a select committee to inquire into the claim of his High-
ness Prince Azeem Jah to the title and dignity of Nawab of
the Carnatic, and the claims of his Highness under a treaty
entered into in 1801 between the Honourable East India
Company and his Highness Prince Azeem n 1 Dowlah.
Looking at the nature of the questions involved in this
case, he only asked, he said, that, in order that there
should be a full and fair inquiry into all the circumstances,
it should be referred to a select committee, so that the
house and the Government might be able to do justice to
this unfortunate Prince. The real question, which arose
out of a certain alleged treasonable correspondence disco-
vered in 1799, was whether it was of such a character as to
justify the East India Company in at once deposing the
Nawab in 1855. Sir Fitzroy entered into a long and mi-
nute history of transactions connected with the Carnatic,
commencing more than a century ago, up to the treaty of
1801, with the then Nawab Azeem-ul-Dowlah. Supposing,
he said, that the Cympany would have been justified in
deposing the Nawab Wallajah, upon the discovery of the
correspondence, or Omdut-ul-Omrah, his successor, the
question was whether, under the treaty of 1801, the Nawab
Azeem-ul-Dowlah was recognised as hereditary successor
to a transmission title and dignity, or only as possessor of
the rank for his life. This was a question—the legal con-
struction of the treaty—which that house, he observed,
was not a proper tribunal to decide. He cited documents
to show that the treaty was understood to convey a recog-
nition of the hereditary dignity in the Nawab, a construc-
tion which seemed to be confirmed by the succession to the
Musnud of the eldest son of Azeem-ul-Dowlah, on the
death of the latter in 1819. '

The motion was seconded by Mr. SMOLLETT in a long
speech, in which he denounced the 6° Carnatic transaction"
as an act of grave injustice, reflecting discredit upon the
authors.

Sir E. DERING defended Lord Harris against charges
made by Mr. Smollett, complaining, with some warmth, of
the unmeasured terms in which he had impugned the con-
duct of that nobleman when Governor of Madras with re-
ference to the treaty of 1810; and he appealed to evidence
which showed that the treaty was considered to confer no
right of hereditary succession, but was a purely personal
engagement. He thought Sir F. Kelly had not made out
any substantial ground for the appointment of a committee.
After a few observations by Mr. VANSITTART and Mr.
NEATE,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that the main-
tenance in India of a number of nominal Sovereigns was
an admitted evil, and their abolition was beneficial to the
people of India, and did harm or injury to no human being.
Then were we, notwithstanning, bound to perpetuate the
evrl ? It was said that we were bound by the treaty of
1801. He contended that the terms of the treaty bore no
such construction ; that it was not the intention of the
treaty ; on the contrary, that it was framed expressly for
the purpose of excluding the possibility of such an inter-
pretation. He proceeded to show that there had been a
clear case of treachery on the part of the Nawabs of the Car-
natic ; that a correspondence of a treasonable character be-
tween Wallajah and Omdut-ul-Omrah and Tippoo Sultan
had been discovered which gave us the right and the power
to depose the Nawab. He explained the grounds of the treaty
of 1801, which was a personal treaty, under which it was in-
tended that the then Nawab, Azeem-ul-Dowlah, should
hold the title by permission of the East India Company,
and not by hereditary right, which could be claimed
neither by the letter or spirit of the treaty, nor by the in-
tention of its framers.. He insisted that the house could
decide upon the case, and that nothing but evil could result
from the appointment of a committee.
Mr. HENNESSY observed that only inquiry was asked
for, and he was surprised that the Government resisted it.
Mr. DUNLOP thought it was a case for inquiry.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR opposed the motion. Ho thought
that neither on legal grounds nor upon the ground of ex-
pediency could the motion for an inquiry by a committee
be maintained. At the same time, the East India-office
should, in his opinion, take the case of this unfortunate
family into consideration.
After a few words from Mr. INGHAM,
Sir C. WOOD justified the policy and justice of the
course which had been taken in the case of the Carnatic
family upon public as well as special grounds, and insisted
that it had been attended with nobreach of faith. He gave
a short history of the transactions which resulted in the
treaty of 1801, and an explanation of its object, which was,
after the Carnatic had been forfeited by the family, to give
to the then Nawab Azeem-ul-Dowlah the title for life only,
the words "him and his heirs," and all terms implying
perpetuity, being intentionally omitted. He cited the
opinions of Indian statesmen and other authorities adverse
to any claim of hereditary right in his descendants.
The discussion was continued by Colonel DICKSON and
Colonel SYKE S.

Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 53 to 38.
The house then adjourned.

The State of the Thames.

The following is a copy of the report of Mr. S.
W.Leach, engineer to the Conservators of the River
Thames, upon the present condition of the works
in the upper districts of that river :
"TO It HON. THE CONSERVATORS OF THE RIVER THAMES.

" My Lord Mayor and Gentlemen,—lncOni;;;:it;with
y:ur directions that I should report upon the present con-
dition of the works in the upper districts of the River
Thames, I have the honour to state that, in order to enable
me to do so, I visited on the 20th and 21st inst. that part of
the river which lies between Oxford and Maidenhead. The
remainder of the distance to Staines I have so recently had
an opportunity of examining that I did not deem it needful
to go over it again. The portion of the river beyond the
jurisdiction of the Conservators of the River Thames ex-
tends from Cricklade, in the county of Wilts, to Staines,
being about 152 miles in length. It becomes navigable at
Lechlade, where it unites with the Thames and Severn
Canal, thus communicating with the River Severn. I did
not visit this district, extending down as far as Oxford, and
being in length about 36 miles. I understood on inquiry
that it was scarcely used for large traffic, and the appliances
for the purposes of rendering it navigable are of so rude
027xfloeredkeanadndSltvaeinimes.,
anlesdsantniqeutated a character as to be practically almost use-
miles, therweeaerne a I lengthe
that ofdi a
taabeoe
eu t
are
0e
several wide and deep reaches not less remarkable for the
beauty
of their scenery than admirably
adapted for navi-
gation. Indeed, had the 'locks been constructed
sufficiently low level to allow deeply-laden barges to use
a
ges e
them during summer low water, and had some few shal-
lows been removed by dredging, there is every re"
believe that, instead of its being what it now is, a
nearly
on
to
abandoned navigation, an active trade would have been
maintained. As a result of the loss of the traffic, and the
consequent failure of the needful funds for repairs, the
locks are falling into a most dilapidated condition, not one
of the whole number being in a satisfactory state ; many of
them, indeed, are dangerously out of order. I have found
by experience that it is hazardous to predict the failure of
dilapidated structures, for they often endure long after their
destruction seems inevitable ; but there are some of these
locks apparently so completely out of order that it is diffi-
cult to conceive that they can by possibility last much
longer. It is clear that the giving way of one single lock
would put an end to the traffic on the part of the river
where it might happen, and that such an occurrence is
imminent in several instances I do not hesitate to assert.
If I might single out one lock more than another where this
danger threatens, I should name Bell Weir Lock, the first
ahove Staines, and through which the largest amount of barge
traffic passes. There are several of the others which might
fairly be described as equally insecure and equally likely to
produce the same disastrous result to the navigation. A
cardinal defect in nearly all these locks is the inadequate
depth on the lower sills. Several were pointed out to me
where that depth was less than three feet. A profitable
cargo cannot be carried in a vessel whose draught is suffi-
ciently light to enable it to pass such an obstacle, and it is
this defect which has tended very greatly to the destruction
of the trade on the river. So far has this destruction gone
that
Reading, at many of the locks, especially between Abingdon and
l I was told that sometimes for a week together not
a single barge passed through. At almost each of the locks
betwgeeen Orford and Maidenhead there is a water-mill, the
power for driving which is derived from the head of water
held up by the weir attached to each lock. If the lock were
to fail, which in many cases
seems imminent, the water
power of the mill would be gone,
unless the miller were to
remedy the defect by damming up the lock. This process.

would be, however, the stoppage of a public highway. It
is one among, perhaps, many of the difficulties which
would arise out of the failuze of these works. It is not
unworthy also of remark that those beautiful reaches for
which this part of the Thames is noted owo not a little of
their attractiveness to the fulness of their stream being
maintained by the weirs, to which the locks are an essential
adjunct. Newnham, Basildon, Cliefdon, and other spots
would have their beauty sadly marred by the river being
reduced as it would be to a streamlet. I have already men-
tioned that at each lock is a weir, constructed for the pur-
pose of holding up a head of water, and so giving an artifi-.
cial depth to enable barges to pass over the shallows, which
would otherwise obstruct their progress. My attention was
particularly attracted to the insufficiency of the provision
made at almost all of these weirs for the escape of the land
floods. I regard this as a most important defect. Generally
speaking, the capacity of the riverappears ample to carry off
all ordinary land floods, but the weirs have been, most of
them, so constructed as to offer great impediments to the
escape of flood waters, and they have been and are the
means of inflicting very much injury on the low-lying dis-
tricts within their influence. When it is considered how
great is the length of the river (152 miles) subject to the
action of these weirs, it will be perceived how important is
the defect I have pointed out. Among other evils which are
now attracting attention in the part of the river under con-
sideration is the extraordinary and luxuriant growth of
weeds which has occurred on the decline of the barge
traffic. The passage of the barges and the dragging along
of the towing lines kept the weeds effectually in check.
This influence being no longer in existence, in some pecu -
liar localities the weeds have attained so rank a growth as
to cover the whole bed and surface of the river. It is by
no means impossible that if this growth is allowed to con-
tinue unchecked it may lead to the silting up of channels
which it is important should be kept open for the drainage
of the country. A grievance which has been and still is
the cause of much complaint from bargemen is the charge
made for what is known as the " old lock tolls." This
charge is made for locks which have ceased to exist for
very many years, and the barge owners not unreason-
ably complain of having to pay a toll from which they
derive no benefit. If means could be adopted to arrest
the destruction which seems to impend over this
navigation, and to restore the works to a state of efficiency,
it might be well worth consideration whether in some cases
one lock might not be substituted for two, and thus future
expense of maintenance be saved as well as existing im-
pediments removed. There are instances in which this plan
might very probably be adopted with advantage, but further
information on the point would be needed before it could
be recommended with absolute certainty. This idea leads
me to point out the want which exists of a proper map of
the part of the river under consideration, accompanied by
longitudinal and cross sections, which would give the infor-
mation which is much needed in dealing with the question.
Registers of the daily height of the water and the rise of
floods ought also to be kept, in order to supply the data to
determine on any alterationwhich may hereafter be deemed
desirable. I have confined my remarks to defects in the
works which have presented themselves to my notice, and
have not entered upon the questions of the policy or the
means of maintaining the navigation. They are matters
which would require more comprehensive investigation than
I have considered it within my province to pursue.—l
have, &c., " S. W. LEACH, Engineer to the

"July 23, 1864." Conservators of the River Thames.

City Sewers Commission.

Yesterday, at 12 o'clock, a meeting of the Commissioners
of Sewers of the City was held at Guildhall, under the
presidency of H. De Jersey, Esq., Deputy and Under-Sheriff.
Among the commissioners present we noticed—Alderman
and Sheriff Bosley, Alderman Stone, Deputy Bone, Deputy
Bower, Deputy Reed, Deputy White, Deputy Farrer, Deputy
Lott, Messrs. George Walter, J. Thomas, Cox, Ellis, Gower,
Chaplin, Straker, Banning, Israel, J. T. Young, &c.

THE SUPPLY OF GAS TO THE CITY.
. A very lengthy report from the special committee on gas,
appointed in June last, was to-day laid before the court for
consideration. The committee set forth the several references
made to them from time to time ; but before entering into the
subject they drew attention to the former conditions of the gas
supply to the City, so far as they related to the formation of
the Great Central Gas Consumers' Company, and the cir-
cumstances which subsequently ledto the passing of the Me-
tropolis Gas Act of 1860. Adverting to the charges for public
lamp lighting they stated that the present price per lamp
per annum was about 4+, per cent. dearer than it was in 1823,
when gas was at 15s. per 1,000 cubic feet, and 84 per cent.
above the lowest price charged in 1853, when gas was at
4s. per 1,000 cubic feet. In 1853 the cost of the public light-
ing of the City was about £8,700, whilst in the present year
it would be about .C 15,700 ; after making allowance for the
increase in the number of lamps since 1853, the excess of
cost owing to increased charges was about £6,500 per annum,
or equal to the rate of more than ld. in the pound uponthe
assessed value of the City property. The officers of the
commission had reported to them that they estimated the
private consumption of gas in the City at about 1,000,000,000
cubic feet annually, which at 6d per 1,000 feet gave £25,080
as the excess of that which would have been paid had gas
remained at 45., and to that had to be added the increased
cost of public lighting. It would be seen therefore how
large a sum of money was now paid by the citizens owing
to the abrogation of the compact made by the Great Central
Gas Company with the commission in 1850, while it was
clear that the advantages which were intended to be given
by the Metropolis Gas Act had not b3en realised in return
for the increased price.
The committee then proceeded to deal with the several
references to them, and divided the subject matters referred
to into the following classes :-
1. Complaints as to defective street-lighting.

2. As to deficiency in the supply of gas to private con-

sumers.
3. As to the inferior illuminating power of the gas.
4. As to impurities in the gas.
5. As to the high price of the gas.
6. Consideration as to the propriety of the commission
seeking powers to take upon itself the manufacture, supply,
and sale of gas in the City.
7. As to the commission purchasing the mains of the
gas companies, and establishing a manufactory for the sup-
ply of gas, or laying down their own mains,!and obtaining
the supply of gas in bulk by tender.
8. As to the best means of obtaining a reduction in the
price of gas, an increase in the quantity, and an improve-
ment in its quality.
Upon the question raised relative to the commission
taking into its own hands the gas supply, the committee
stated that, looking at all the circumstances attending the
passing of the Metropolis Gas Act of 1860, and at the short
period which had elapsed since it became law, and also at
certain provisions in the act not yet exercised, there seemed
to them to be little probability of bringing either of the
projects suggested, if undertaken, to a successful termination
at the present time. They wished it, however, to be clearly
understood that that opinion was formed with reference to
existing circumstances only, and they did not say that occa-
sion might not arise at a future day when those subjects
might again be raised with advantage. The question as to
whether such projects generally should be undertaken by
the Corporation of London or by the commissioners acting
on its behalf, was an important one, but need not be further
alluded to in that part of the report. The committee stated
that they now approached the question of applying to Parlia-
ment for an alteration in the Metropolis Gas Act, so far as it
affected the City. In their opinion, whilst the companies had
since 1861 obtained a higher price for gas, and derived a
largely increased revenue thereby, as well as from other
causes which that act brought into operation, neither in the
illuminating power nor in the chemical purity had the citizens
had an equivalent for it; that upon the whole the citizens
would have been better off at the present time had the con-
ditions of gas supply, as existing up to 1859, been unaltered.
They moreover believed that in many towns where the stand-
ard of illuminating power and chemical purity were higher,
the price of the gas was lower than it was in the City ; and
yet that the City had all those conditions which should
make it profitable to supply gas to. it at a cheaper rate
than in any part of the metropolis, or perhaps any other
part of England. The city of London was, therefore, sup-
plied with gas less brilliant, less pure, and at a higher
price than many other places in the United Kingdom, and
they considered that the City, as well as the metropolis
generally, instead of being placed in an inferior position in
those respects, should be the standard for the example of
other towns ; and they believed, if these facts were set be-
fore the Legislature, that an amendment in the Metropolis
Gas Act, 1860, as far as it affected the City,wouldno doubt
be obtained.
The committee submitted the following recommendations
for the approval of the Court : - -
" 1. That an offer should again be made to the companies
from the commission to undertake the lighting, extinguish-
iaadngo,pctlieaning, and the entire charge of the public lamps,
in
c o s2u mng
That
ts on such other
ih
metersooteor perveezon2tiOls as willampso insurerthe a fair averagereafbaouts,and
expense,3.
T That
ao
tv
te
hr governors of rusr
further
ocompanies
regulatorsa s assistance
tarn e
et
requested
tfs
ht ee
thedw tohpoo
whole of
be,
fxt, ate
publictheir
lamps.
pos-
sible, obtained in the supervision of the public lighting.
" 4. That the application of Mr. Greenfield in• respect of
his curbetting process, be not complied with.
" 5. That all legal measures to secure to th© citizens gas
equal to the Act of Parliament standard of illuminating
power and chemical purity ti;hould be resorted to.
"6. That an application be made to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department to institute an inquiry as to the
capitals of the several companies, and for the purpose of
securing to the consumers all the advantages contemplated
by the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860.
" 7. That after mature consideration of the subjects re-
ferred to us, we are of opinion that it is inexpedient at the pre-
sent time to take measures with the view to the commission,
manufacturing, and selling gas, but that applicationbemade
to Parliament for a modification of the Metropolis Gas Act,
1860, so far at it affects the City of London, and especially
with the view of obtaining for the City gas of a higher
illuminating power, of greater chemical purity, and at a
cheaper price than that now supplied, and such otherpowers
AS may be beneficial to the ratepayers and gas consumers in
the Oity. The committee, in conclusion, stinted that if these