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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1853,

had violated by lending money to the Nizam. If we I
were called upon to interfere on behalf of such claims, ho
said, the independence of all native States would disap-
pear, and we should have no alternative but to annex their
territories ; but it had always been the policy of our Indian
Government, in all cases, to refrain from enforcing any
debt due from native princes to British subjects.
Mr. H. G. LIDDELL supported the motion, laying
stress upon the acts of the British Resident as fixing an
equitable responsibility upon the Company's Government.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR likewise advocated an inquiry
into this case, there being no other tribunal to which these
parties could appeal, and he thought Sir C. Wood, instead
of devising ingenious objections, would have acted more
consistently if he had admitted that the question was
fairly open to inquiry.
Sir J. HOGG, in opposing the motion, acknowledged
that these Parsees were gentlemen of high character and
respectability. But they had entered into transactions
with the Nizam with their eyes open, having been warned
of their danger. Their case was undoubtedly ono of great
hardship ; but the question was not one of compassion, but
of public justice and public policy. Could we compel the
Nizam to pay these gentlemen in preference to thousands,
perhaps, in the same predicament? He added some parti-
culars of the transaction to those furnished by Sir C. Wood,
whose conclusions from the law of the case he sustained,
and he entreated the house to weigh well the danger ine-
volved in this proposition, which was repug,nantot the
policy of the Indian Government for the last 60or yheoaursse.
Mr. BRIGHT thought it was impossible for the
to
not come
decide to
whatany sh otheroul
dc thbaendotuhea,tt,
hi ifs the
eelesye
octlotigihldtl
to be referred to some judicial tribunal.
these Parsees
ultimatelyclusion
possession of the
were N
facts were
admitted,h ar hardly
d disputedthe;
Company e wrongsu of h
for the debt. Considering lands which had been assigned
the relations breylatthioeus iozfamthaesc securityompany
wuapsonpaitdh.e Npirzianzina'sfaccoine,-
twhiethltnhdaitaupuopopveetrummonenatrcth,adtheitreincolul.
its power,
pboewnero, doubt that
aat
tillttouilatuizonthoefseitcsuriptoylic
then, there was a ground for asking, not the payment of
Y
the money, but for an impartial inquiry before a compe-
tent tribunal.
ho
Mr. WIGR.A.3I hoped the house would not take the
course of referring this case to the Judicial Committee,
tribunal not constituted efficiently to take
of a complicated case of disputed accounts. If
etvihgeinchihsoauwnsesees a
was satisfied that there existed a just demand
against the Indian Government, it would be better to fol-
low precedents, and interfere by bill. His opinion was,
that no foundation had been shown for such a demand, or
for the interference of the house.
Sir R. INGLIS concurred with Mr. Bright in the opi-
nion that there ought to be a tribunal in existence whose
duty it would be to inquire into grievances of this sort.
But with regard to the motion under discussion, even if
it were agreed to, he doubted if the petitioners could
obtain a hearing. The Committee of Privy Council was a
committee of appeal, and not of original jurisdiction. And
even if her Majesty received the address of the house, she
could not authorise the Judicial Committee to. take upon
themselves such an inquiry as could alone be satisfactory.
Mr. INGHAM contended that, as a matter of law and
conscience, the East India Company, who had taken pos-
session of the property upon which the petitioners had a
lien, were bound to discharge this claim. Anything might
be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil that her Majesty chose to refer to them. They would
not be required to take evidence, but merely to adjudicate
upon documents already laid before the house. He should
vote for the motion.
Mr. HUME said it was certainly true that the debt was
not the debt of the company, but a debt of the Nizam.
Still it was one secufed upon property of which the com-
pany were in possession. The wrongs the petitioners had
experienced were admitted, and a remedy had been refused
to them. He should, therefore, support the motion.
Mr. E. BALL contended that the house ought to recog-
nise the claims of the petitioners, and said that he also
should vote for the motion.
Mr. MANGLES entreated the house to ask itself, in
case it decided upon reference to the Privy Council, whom
it would make the defendant? The petitioners did not
pretend to say that the East India Company owed them
a farthing. And if they said the Nizam did, let it be re-
membered that that Prince was not subject to the council,
and that any decree which they might make would in no
wise affect him. If the property of British merchants had
been violently seized by a foreign Government, it would,
no doubt, be the duty of the English authorities to obtain
a redress of their grievance. But he denied that the house
was bound to interfere for the purpose of recovering for
British subjects the sums they might have voluntarily
lent to a foreign Government.
The house then divided—
For Mr. Phillimore's motion
Against it
Majority against the motion
The motion for the house resolving itself into a com-
mittee of supply was then postponed, in consequence, no
doubt, of the lateness of the hour, as it was then half-past
twelve o'clock,
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order of the clay for the third reading of this bill
having been read, and the bill having been read a third
time,
Mr. CRA UFURD proposed to strike out the second and
third clauses, and to modify the remaining clauses, his
object being to omit the declaration which had been sub-
stituted in the bill for the test.
Lord J. RUSSELL was sorry the hon. gentleman had
adopted a course which was beginning to creep into the
practice of the house, and which was very inconvenient—
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 deci.'ed that instead of 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 from Mr. DUNLOP and Mr. NEWDE-
GATE,
Mr. CRA.UFURD withdrew his motion, and. the bill
passed.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES

BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
COLONIAL CHURCH RE( LILA 'PION BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to postpone the second
reading until Monday, with a view of having certain
clauses printed which were proposed by the Solicitor-
General, with a view of removing the objections that had
been raised against the measure.
Mr. KINNAIRD protested against the postponement of
the measure only until Monday, at this late period of the
session. He had the strongest objections to the measure,
and would move that the second reading be postponed to
this day three months.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment. He thought
it was a most impolitic thing to introduce a bill of this
character, the only effect of which would be to increase
religious controversies. The colonies would never assent
to this measure.

Sir R. H. INGLIS thought that one o'clock in the morn-
ing of the 3d of August was not the time for discussing a
measure of this importance.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL asked the house to sus-
pend their opinion of the merits of the bill until they saw
the new clauses printed. The object of one of them was to
give perfect religious equality to all sects and denomina-
tions in the colonies, and that of another to leave uncon-
trolled to the colonies the management of their affairs, both
ecclesiastical and civil.
Mr. V. SMITH wished to know who was now the father
of the bill ? He condemned the course of the Government
in respect to this measure. It was now sought to make
this bill a new measure altogether by the Government,
who adopted it as their own. He would vote for the
amendment.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not think the Government
could have acted otherwise than as they had done. The
object of the measure was not to make the Church of Eng-
land the Established Church of the colonies, but simply to
give that church the same rights and privileges as were
enjoyed by other religious sects in the colonies. No matter
at what period of the session they had arrived, he thought
that this was a proper subject for legislation.
Mr. HENLEY said that they were all in darkness as to
who were the real fathers of the bill. The noble lord had
at first intimated to the house that the Government would
have nothing to do with the measure. He (Mr. Henley)
did not think that there was any reasonable prospect of
legislating with effect upon the question at this advanced
period of the session. If this course were persevered in of
continuing to send up new bills to the House of Lords,
they would be legislating there until Christmas. He would
support the amendment.
Mr. R. PALMER complained that several hon. members
had created prejudice against the bill out of doors by mis-
representing its character. This bill was the result of
mature and deliberate consultation on the part of the
bishops of this country ; and was not at all open to the
charge of seeking to confer special privileges on the Church
of England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
being responsible for having in two previous sessions drawn
the attention of the house to this subject, and being of
opinion that the measure had not been justly treated in
the discussion of that evening, he should say a few words.
On a former occasion, when he brought in a bill, his ob-
ject was to liberate the Church in the colonies from the dis-
abling effects of certain statutes, and to place the Church
in the colonies in the position occupied by dissenting
bodies. Objection, notwithstanding, was taken to his
bill by a colleague of the right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Henley) opposite, that the result would be to leave
too wide a field open to the colonial bishops to do as they
pleased, and that as a consequence the colonial church
might be severed from all connection with the Church
or the mother country. He (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) endeavoured to give the colonial church liberty ; and
the objection taken was that if they got freedom, diversity
and dissension would result. With the framing of the
present bill he had nothing whatever to do ; but as to its
paternity i.ty it must be well known that the bill was intro-
the church of the ulleed the House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, ari
mother church, York,
third reading of it moved by the Arch-
of New Zealand They were not prepared to state that
eirlonies should be independent of the
surrounded by
for
how did the case stand? The Bishop
r instance, found himself in his diocese
duct it was necessary t
tants converted Pt.° neutimanbietry, offorthwehaobseorirgielnigialouinshabi-
iiltake some regulations. These
con-
regulations were entered°
a legal opinion, when, unfelt, and sent to this country for
these regulations were invalid 94'1'
laten t t e
period
ihoadt
ot the e objectionhe
session raantet the opinion was that
unlawful. However,
at present to the bill
strong
oneti on to postponeconsequentes bi 1 lshortness
t
—theethade
soafytitmhaet----twhearseawvaesrynostorob
hould, therefore,
session. (Cries of hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, that whilst fully recognising
the necessity for smile legislation ou the subject, he w
not prepared sanction a bill in which itas
-was proposed t
make such important alterations as in the present. (Hear())
The amendment that the bill be read a second time that
"
day three months was then agreed to without a division.
SHERIFFS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill went through committee.
DUBLIN CARRIAGES BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS ACTS AMENDMENT (IRELAND)

BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,
Mr. I. BUTT moved that the further consideration of
the bill be postponed—the hour (two o'clock) being then
too late to enter upon it.
After a brief conversation,
Sir J. YOUNG consented to postpone the measure.
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS)

BILL.
The house having gone into committee on this bill,
Mr. A. PELLATT moved an amendment to confine the
oreretion of the bill to steam-6 gins furnaces.