The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-30 00:00:00

evidence, and having compared it with the evidence of othe
witnesses, were unable to arrive at any other conclusion
than that he was guilty of wilful prevarication, with the
intention of misleading the committee. The hon. member
then proceeded to move that Towler be committed to New-
gate, and that the Speaker do issue his Warrant to that
effect.
Mr. FRENCH asked why it was proposed to depart
from the ordinary rule of having the man prosecuted for
perjury?
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON replied, that the crime of which
the witness was guilty was not perjury, but prevarication.
Till the house had an opportunity of seeing the evidence it
would be rather premature to sanction proceedings against
him for perjury.
The motion was agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, copies were ordered of the
financial letter from Madras to the Government of India
dated January 3, 1848, and of other papers referring chiefly
to public works in India ; also returns relating to the sit-
tings in the churches and chapels of the Church of Scotland
within the Parliamentary borough of Edinburgh.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Mr. BRIGHT objected to the re-introduction, without
notice, of the clauses requiring ownership of East India
Stock as a qualification for all the directors.
Sir C. WOOD repeated the reasons he had assigned for
the insertion of that clause ; and
Mr. HUME stated that he, perhaps, was as much to
blame as anybody, for he had objected to the exclusion of
the clause.
The bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. HEY WORTH moved the following clause—" That,
whereas the East India Company are the territorial land-
lords of India, it be an instruction given by this act to the
Government now established in India that it shall forth-
with institute a survey of all the jungle, unenclosed and
unoccupied lands, and shall cause the same to be mapped
out, for the purpose of selling the said lands as freeholds,
at prices not exceeding ss. per acre, and thereby, without
interfering with the present tenure of the lands already
occupied and brought into cultivation, a system of free-
holds in land may be introduced, which is a main stimulus
to productive agricultural industry."
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause, the principle
of which did not seem to him expedient in itself, or appli-
cable to the circumstances of India.
Mr. HUME said it would be futile to extend cultivation
in the interior of India, until means were thoroughly ac-
complished for the conveyance of produce to the ports and
markets. The object of his hon. friend was a very bene-
volent one, but he did not see that it could be effected by
a resolution of the House of Commons.
Sir J. HOGG pointed out that, the revenue of India
being mainly derived from land, to adopt the clause of
the hon. member would be to cut off one great future
source of income. At the present time the company af-
forded great facilities to all persons who desired to rent
land in India.
Sir R. FITZGERALD supported the motion, on the
ground that any change would be for the better to the na-
tives of India.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE then moved the following
clause :—" Whereas it is essential for the good govern-
ment of British India, and highly conducive to the con-
tentment of the people, that no case of real misgovern-
ment or of well-grounded grievance should be without real
means !of redress ; be it enacted, that persons suffering
under alleged wrong may lay their case before the Lords
Justices, and that if they shall allow the further prosecu-
tion of the case it shall be referred to the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, and the decision of the Judi-
cial Committee upon such case shall be final."
Mr. LOWE opposed the motion, observing that the
question it raised had already been decided by the house.
After observations by Mr. Blackett, Mr. Murrough, Sir
R. Inglis, and Mr. Hume,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the whole question before
the house was this—Eid the clause proposed give a re-
medy for the evil complained of ? It was said that the
present mode of dealing with the cases of persons having
claims on the Indian Government was dilatory and ex-
pensive. Well, he admitted this, but it was impossible
that it could be otherwise from the very nature of the
cases themsAves. But lie did not see the necessity of
a special tribunal to try those cases. The case of the
Rajah was one of disputed succession, which could not be
decided by the tribunal proposed.. (Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that the present mode of dealing with cases of al-
leged Indian injustice could, be properly disposed of through
tue medium of the Governor-General, the Court of Di-
rectors, and Parliament, and he denied that cases that
had been decided by these tribunals had. been flagrantly
dealt with. Unless they provided a perfect remedy for
the evils complained of, the better course would be to
leave matters as they were. He hoped never to see the
day when that house would be called upon to impeach a
Governor-General of India ; but the house was the ulti-
mate appeal in all cases of the kind, and ought to be so.
Ho did not think the Lords Justices were persons who
could deal properly with such cases as those under consi-
deration, and it would be impossible for a committee of
the Privy Council to decide upon such cases unless power
were given to it, that would override the powers of the
Court of Directors, and would equal those of Parliament
itself.
Mr. BRIGHT supported the clause, because he thought
the tribunal would be equal to the decision of cases between
British subjects and the Government of India. The hon.
gentleman referred to the case of Colonel Frith in support
of this view of the case. He could say that Colonel Frith
would submit his case to the Committee of Privy Council
with great willingness, and he would rest satisfied even if
the decision were against him. He hoped. the noble lord
would give some assurance that some tribunal would be
establised to deal with cases arising between British sub-
jects and the Court of Directors.

Sir H. MADDOCK referred to the case of the Rajah of
Sattara, and contended that it proved the necessity of an.
independent tribunal being established to investigate such
cases.

Sir JAMES HOGG said that Sir James Carnac was the
governor selected for Bombay, and it was well known that
when in England, on the Court of Directors, he was an
advocate of the Rajah of Sattara ; but when Sir James
Carnac went to Bombay, and inquired into the circum-
stances of the Rajah's case, he decided against him. With
regard to the particular motion before the house, he was
decidedly opposed to the constitution of a tribunal which
would be paramount to all authority. There was already
a court of appeal in India, and a similar tribunal in Eng-
land, namely, the Committee of Privy Council.
Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the clause.
Mr. PHILLIMORE said he was ready to withdraw that
part of the clause which gave the power of appeal to the
Lords Justices ; and if Lord John Russell would give a
promise that he intended to carry out the scheme approved
by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Althorp, he would withdraw
the clause altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed that Sir Robert Peel had
never proposed any measure on the subject at all. He
merely asked the Government to consider the question,
and Lord Althorp, without pledging himself to any details,
said that he would.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority —sl
The clause wag consequently lost.

- -
Mr. WISE then moved the following amendment and
clause :—" That clause 29 be disagreed to. And be it
enacted with regard to admissions into the Military Col-
lege at Addiscombe, that the nominations shall be made
by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President
of the. Board of Control, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
and the Governor-General of India respectively, for the
time being, in equal proportions of one-fourth of such
nominations."