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

HLWCHINSON'S CLAIM BILL.

On the return of the Speaker,
Mr. OLI VEIRA moved the second reading of this bill,
which, he explained, was to provide for the payment of a
debt due from theEastlndiaCompanyto the representatives
of Mr. Hutchinson. That gentleman was for many years
the resident for the East India Company at the Court of
the Rajah of Travancore, and while acting in that capa-
city a debt became due to Mr. Hutchinson by the Rajah
of somewhere near 500,000 rupees. In 1797 both Mr.
Hutchinson and the Rajah died ; but various instalments
were paid by the successor of the Rajah to Mr. Hutchin-
son's representatives, amounting to 280,000 rupees. In
the year 1808 the East India Company assumed to
themselves the management of the revenues of Travan-
core, and immediately stopped the payment of any fur-
ther instalments. Up to the present time not a single
farthing had been paid, notwithstanding that a commit-
tee of that house, appointed in 1831, had recommended
that a bill should be introduced to compel the payment
of the whole claim. His object was to send this bill to
a committee up stairs, in order that its justice should be
fairly inquired into.
Mr. LOWE, on behalf of the Government, op-
posed the bill, on the ground that the trans-
actions for which the debt was contracted were
of the most questionable nature. When the com-
pany took to themselves the management of the revenue
of Travancore, they appointed Mr. Munroe to draw up an
account of the Rajah's just debts, but Mr. Hutchinson's
representatives did not make their appearance before Mr.
Munroe, which was of itself a sufficient test of the cha-
racter of the claim. The House of Commons had thrown
out a bill of the same nature 21 years ago, and that he
thought was a very good reason why they should throw
out the present bill.
Mr. BRIGHT said that this case was one of many in
which great injustice might be done in consequence of
there being no tribunal before which claims of this nature
might be brought. He should support the second read-
ing of this bill in order that it might be sent before a
select committee.

Mr. COLLIER also supported the bill on the same
grounds.

- Sir C. WOOD moved that this bill be read a second
time this day six months. He believed that the Rajah
was not fairly indebted to Mr. Hutchinson, but even if
it were, no reason had been shown why the East India
Company should be charged with it. All that they had
done was to advise the Rajah not to pay it until its jus-
tice was established. He believed this claim was a fraudu-
lent and collusive claim.

Mr. HUME supported the bill on the ground that
inquiry was necessary. _ _

Air J. W. HOGG Opposed the bill on the ground that
this claim had been inquired into and had been found to
be untenable.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he sat upon the committee
in 1842, which reported that Mr. Hutchinson's claim
was a just one, and he thought it somewhat strange
that the President of the Board of Control should now
oppose it. He began to think there was something more
in this claim than was originally supposed. It was re-
sisted not only by the Government, but by the East
India Company, and under these circumstances, the least
the house could do was to refer the bill to a committee.
Mr. MARSHALL said he also was a member of
the former committee, and from the monstrous state
of the accounts that were then produced, he had little
difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the claim
was not made out. He had heard nothing since to alter
that opinion, and he must therefore resist the further
progress of this bill.
The house then divided, when there appeared—.
For the second reading 4B
Against it lB6

Majority l3B
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
IIA.RWICH ELECTION. _ _

Sir J. TYRELL moved that Mr. Speaker do issue
his writ to the Clerk of the Crown for the election of a
burgess for the borough of Harwich, in the room of Mr.
Peacock, unseated on petition.
Sir DE L. EVANS objected to the motion, which he
declared could not be made according to the rules of the
house without seven days previous notice.
Sir G. GREY also thought it was important to deter-
mine whether they were strictly in order before the house
ordered the issue of the writ.

The report of the election committee having been
read,
Mr. HEADLAM said Mr. Peacock was unseated
on the ground that he had promised an elector to
assist him in getting a situation ; but though that
might, strictly speaking, not be an act of bribery, yet
as the house had established a rule that these should not
issue without seven days' notice, he thought the house
would do well to refuse the writ for the present.
After a few words from Sir J. TYRELL,
Sir F. KELLY insisted that this case did not come
within the terms of the rule which had been referred to
by the hon. member opposite.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the case certainly did not
come within the rule, but still, under the circumstances
reported by the committee, they ought to refuse the writ
without previous notice.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said all these difficulties were
the result of the committee not having complied with
the Controverted Elections Act, and reported whether
or not a writ ought to issue. For his own part he was
disposed to refuse a writ to this old offender, Harwich.
(A laugh.)
Mr. AGLIONBY said there was no statute obliging
a committee to report whether or not a writ should
issue. Now this case was neither bribery nor treating,
but inasmuch as it was worse than either, he did not
think it would be wise to issue the writ for the present.
He should, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned
until this day fortnight.
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that the debate should be
adjourned until Friday.
Mr. GOULBURN thought it would be bettor to post-
pone this motion until the evidence in the case was
printed.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE read a clause from the Contro-
verted Elections Act, to show that he was correct in
what he had previously stated.
Sir J. PAKINGTON contended that no sufficient
case had been made out to justify the withholding of the
writ.

Sir G. GREY, on the other hand, insisted that a very
strong case had been made out against the sittin mem-
ber, who had been guilty of a " corrupt practice" in its
worst form. _ _

After a few words from Sir J. TYRELL, tha house
divided, when there appeared—

For the the adjourment
Against it

Majority

The debate was accordingly adjourned for a fortnight.
GOVERNMENT LIFE ASSURANCES.

Mr. A. PELLATT begged to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether it is the intention of Government to
insure lives, whether the tables of rates is completed, and
when it is probable that such an arrangement will be car-
ried out.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that a clause would be inserted in the Income Tax Bill to
give effect to the intention of Government, as explained by
him when he made his financial statement, viz., that per-
sons having assured their lives, or the lives of their wives,
or purchased deferred annuities for themselves or their
wives, would be allowed, under certain restrictions, to
deduct from their taxable income the amount paid by them
for the annual premiums. Of course when the arrange-
ment would come into effect would depend upon whether
the clause was adopted by the committee ; but should it bo
adopted, he should then be prepared to show the details by
which he proposed the arrangement should be carried out.
(Hear, hear.)