The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-08 00:00:00

RESOLUTIONS.

" That by the treaty concluded between the East Is da Company
nd his late Highness Pertaub Singh, Raja of Sattara, on the 25th
..'t'S-eptcrnber, 1819, the territories of Sattara were secured to him and
o his heirs in perpetual sovereignty. That by the supplemental
'treaty of September, 1839, 'the said territories were confirmed to his
tother A.ppa Sahib, as the next collateral heir and successor, and to
heirs, on the sama terms as specified in the treaty of September,
'8 19. .

That this Court has heard with feelings of the deepest surprise

d alarm of the contemplated seizure, confiscation, and annexation,
thb East India Company, of the Sattara territories, in violation of

•the rights of the lawful heir believing, as this Court does, that such
eizttre, confiscation, and annexation would be a most flagrant breach
of the said treaties so solemnly entered into and confirmed, would
be. a disgrace and stain upon the British character, and would se-
,..lously weaken the confidence hitherto reposed by the princes and
• people of India in the justice and good faith of the East India Com-

ally.aud of the British Government.
" That under such circumstances this Court deems it to be their
jmperatlye duty to declare their solemn conviction of the impollcy
and danger, no less.than of the injustice of such a proceeding, and to
e.xpress their earnest hope that the Court of Directors and the Board
f Control will withhold their sanction from such a measure.
" JAMES C. MELVILL, Secretary."
The attendance of proprietors was very large.
I gir S. Lnshington took the chair at the appointed
hour.

The requisition having been read,
Mr. HUMS, M.P., rose and said—Mr. Chairman, as

one of those who have been instrumental in calling

• a
.together this Court, and as the proprietors will
no doubt expect some explanations as to the grounds on
which they have been called together, and the object
which the'requisitionists have in view, I will proceed
at once bfiefly to state them. It will be remembered,
that in December a Court was summoned. I was
one .of those who signed the requisition; but,
being absent from town, I was unable .to attend.
The object of that meeting was to ascertain
whether the Court of Directors contemplatc-d the
suspension of the treaty made with the late Raja of
Sattara, and thus to deprive his heirs of the property
which appeared legitimately to belong to them by right.
I confess I was among those who believed that no such
proceedings could take place without some further infor-
mation which the Directors were not then, however

much they may be now, possessed of. Had I been
present at that meeting I should have moved
the adjournment of the Court, on the an-
nouncement of the Chairman that the whole
matter was under the consideration of the Court, toge-
ther with the papers which had just then arrived from
India.—(Hear, hear.) Such was my impression, and I
subsequently took an opportunity of stating that was my
:impression to some of the Directors whom I now see
within the bar. I regretted much that any discussion
should have taken place at that meeting, as I am
. convinced that any discussion, without the documents
necessary to form a sound opinion, must inevitably lead
to arriving at a conclusion opposite to that which we
should arrive at if we had had an opportunity of pe-
•rusing the requisite documents.• The possession of
such means of judging are necessary before we can
come to a sound conclusion upon all the questions which
engage the attention of the Court, but more especially
is such a course necessary when we have to decide upon
public questions of great importance; and this question
is one in which are involved the most momentous condi-
tions. If, Sir, I am correctly informed, after Mr.
Lewis, in the absence of Mr. Sullivan, had made his
statement and submitted his motion, upon which

the Deputy Chairman rose up and proposed
the, adjournment of the Court, you said that
the motion for the adjournment was submitted
on the ground that the question was receiving the con-
sideration of the directors, that is was sub judice before
the directors, who would bring to it the best considera-
tion they were enabled to do. You went on to state,
that as the papers which had recently arrived from India
were under the consideration of the directors, it would
be far batter to adjourn the Court, in order to afford
time for their production and perusal by the proprietors.
That statement would have induced me to advise my
Honourable and Learned Friend to postpone any fur-
ther remarks until the directors and the proprietors had
had an opportunity of considerin,g the papers. Now,
Sir, I apprehend that what was stated then led the pro-
prietors to imagine that the papers contained something
new--something which had not up to that time been
hrought before us in this Court. It is quite possible that
these papers may be of a very important nature, and
may tend in a great measure to alter the opinion which
have,formed. I do not know that this is likely, but
what I have stated with respect to myself may be
true with regard to others. The production of all
papers is absolutely necessary before the proprietors can
give an honest opinion, and come to an equitable decision
upon the matters brought before them; and it would be
most unfair, I think, to the whole of the proprietors for
,the directors to come to a decisiod with respect to a
question which has been so long before the public, until
the fullest information has been afforded them. Now,
Sir, the Court ajourned to give the directors an opportu-
nity of producing these papers. I am sorry to see the
chairman shake his head.—(Laughter.) I would
merely observe that a conventional feeling guides the
conduct of gentlemen is every station, and in every
court, by which a fair opportunity is afforded to every
one of candidly expressing his opinion before a deter-
mination is arrived at.—(Hear, hear.) I am sure every
man in the. Court as well as myself, had I been present,
would have concurred in the adjournment, and concurred '
in it in the belief that the Court of Directors wished for
a short time to consider as to the course which they
should adopt.—(Hear, hear.) I understood, in fact,
that the 3d day of January had been fixed as
the day on which they were to meet the
Proprietors, and to explain what they intended to do,
and would take their opinion as to its policy and justice.
—( Hear, hear.) I say every man present, and every one
who has read the remarks made on that occasion, must
be fully impressed with the belief that the documents
were to be produced, and that the adjournment was pro-
posed in order that they might be printed and cir-
culated among the Proprietors, and that they
likewise might be enabled to have an opportunity
of coming to a decision before any orders were
sent out to India with respect to the territory of Sattara.
—(Cheers.) Now it is quite possible that men in
high stations may resort to expedients to deceive, they
miy adopt a course inconsistent with fair dealing, but
in the end'such conduct will not answer with the public.
Y say again, therefore, that the fair interpretation of the
statement of the Chairman at the last meeting was what
I have stated—that the Proprietors were to have the
papers before them; and having had these papers before
them, that they were then to take the whole question—
which is one of the greatest" importance—intoconsider-
atiOn. I am sorry to find, from the intimation of the
Chairman, that he denies that any such in-
timation was given. . Your intention, then, m
have been to gain time. It was stated by an soene.Gen-
tleman at the last meeting who objected to the question
of adjournment, that they might again meet without the
papers having been produced, and that they might be
told, " You are too late—the question has been decided
=and you have no longer any right to interfere."
Sir, that the directors would so act was repudiated—
tlytt they would take such an advantage of the proprie-
tors was distinctly denied. Now, Sir, I complain on be-
half of the Baja,
that we' have been deceived—
that the promise held, and the pledge giVen,
that the Court was to adjourn, in order that
the documents from India should be published, have
beph broken.—(Hear.) I complain that the Directors
have not produced these papers, and they have come
to a decision, in conjunction with the Go-
vernment, to seize the Setters territory, and
orders have been sent out for the appropriation
of the whole of the territory of Sattara to the Company
without reference to- any provision for the heirs
of the deceased Raja. Now, Sir, if that is
the case, I have only. to say that a trans-
action more discreditable, more dishonourable, and
one more likely to have a deep effect upon the
public mind, it has never in my long life been my lot to
experience. The charge I thus make against the Direc-
tors is a serious one, and must be investigated, I com-
plain, Sir, that you have stolen a march
' upon the proprietors, to use a common phrase.
Yes! I complain that you have stolen a march
upon us most unfairly, most improperly, and I ask you,
Sir, if it was right that you should have acted thus, and
why you refused to afford the Proprietors an opportu-
nity of discussing the question after the production of the
papers? On what ground have you denied to us the right
which we possess of discussing all matters such as this,
more especially one in which the honour of the company
is concerned, the faith of treaties, and the cha-
racter of the English nation is involved?—(Cries of
"-Hear, hear.") For, Sir, if there is anything more
discreditable than another, it is that the faith of sacred
treaties entered into between state and state should be
wantonly violated. And, Sir, I feel this the more be-
ealisO during the long period I have been a Proprietor,
and on all occasions in which I have attended
this Court,7,ll have repeatedly stated that the
success of the East India Company was not owing more
to the power of its arms than to the good faith which it
had maintained with native chiefs; and I have always
held, Sir, that the combinations of native chiefs for no
good purpose were broken asunder
eal and
with thisd rendered pow
com-
pany, because they powerless.
and each strengthened in his
had no confidence in each other, as
they could not be trusted, and that they put the most
implicit faith in this company on account of the strict
honour with which it bad kept, before the worlil, the
faith of all the engagements into which it had entered;
but if, Sir, yowl e% pout to break agreements which
have been entered into with you in good taitlif you are

aberrit tci. set aside treaties solemnly entered into without
tee sanction of the Proprietors, who by the tenor of the
Net of Parliament under which we are incorporated
are themselves G,,v,roors, and you are only appointed
by them to carry on the government, that confidence
which has been heretofore reposed in you will be irre-
parably shaken.—(Hear.) I say you have acted most
unfairly, because you led us to expect that our
decision would be sought upon the matter before
you came to a final decision. Under these cir-
cumstances I will not enter into the general ques-
tion whether treaties have been violated or not,
whether a young man who had been named as
the successor of the deceased Raja, both by adoption
and lineal descent, is entitled to the territory; and I be-
lieve the person who chains to be the heir to
the territory has been indicated by the late
Governor-General, Sir Robert Grant, as the real
heir—indicated, too, as such in all your documents.
The question of his right, therefore, is quite inde-
dendent of the question whether Pertaub Singh has
betrayed or violated the treaty. The question is, is his
family to be punished for any acts of which he may or
may not have been guilty?
Mr. CLARKE said the Hon. Proprietor was out of
order, unless he intended to conclude with a motion.
Mr. Humn replied that the Hon. Proprietor must
know little of his practice if he thought that he intended
to conclude without a motion.—(Laughter.) He was
not, however, about to enter into the general question.
He merely wished to state that the successor of the
deceased Raja must not be held, in common parlance,
implicated in any of the guilt which was laid to the
charge of his grand uncle. Having been informed by
the First Minister of the Crown that it
was a fact that orders had gone out, with
the approbation of the Board of Control, to
confiscate the Sattara territory, he expressed his sincere
regret that the Directors had adopted so precipitate and
uncalled-for a step, he begged to move that the Court
do adjourn for a fortnight or three weeks,
in order that the papers might be in the hands
of the Proprietors. By law, he believed that the Pro-
prietors were entitled to copies of all documents which
were laid before the House of Commons. He had
spoken thus strongly 'because he felt strongly the dis-
grace—he would call it the infamy, which attached
to every one connected with the East India Company,
in consequence of the course it had adopted. If disgrace
attached to persons in private life who committed a
glaring breach of faith, how much more so must they
condemn a great Company who committed such an act as
this? It was not so much with respect to the stain of the
deceased Raja's family that he spoke thus, but of the
faith of the treaties which were about to be violated,
and the disgrace which would thereby be brought upon
his name. The Honourable Gentleman subsequently
amended his motion, and moved for copies of the
papers which he had moved for in the House of Com-
mons, in order that they might be circulated among the
Proprietors.—(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN said he had no hesitation nor objec-
tion on the part of the Directors to have the papers re-
ferred to published and circulated among the Pro-
prietors.—(Hear, hear.) The proposition for the ad-
journment of the Court could not receive the assent of
the Directors. It would take some time to prepare the
papers, and when the Proprietors had perused them, the
Directors would be happy to attend to any requisition
that might be presented to them for the
purpose of calling another meting.—(Hear.) He could
not, however, resume his seat without calling the atten-
tion of the Court to the very hard terms in which the
Hon. Proprietor had spoken of the Directors.—(Hear,
hear.) At the last meeting he did not make use of the
observation which the Hon. Gentleman had imputed
to him. Indeed it would have been most unconstitutional
in him to place executive powers in the hands of the
Proprietors.
A PROPRIETOR rose to order. The motion had not
been seconded.

Mr. HUME then proposed his motion in express terms—
" That the papers connected with tho appropriation of
the Sattara territory, and the decision of the Court, and
any minutes connected with that decision, should be laid
before-the Proprietors as speedily as possible." He had
consulted the President of the Board of Control on the
subject, and he was of opinion that that was the best
form in which to frame his motion.

Mr. LEWIS seconded the proposition.
Mr. CLARKE said no pledge was given by the Chairman
at the last meeting that he should produce any of the
papers.—(Hear.) No such inference or deduction could
be made from the observations which the Chairman sub-
mitted to the meeting.
The CHAIRMAN was glad the Honourable Pro-
prietor had made the statements he had, as it
prevented him from replying to the hard terms
used towards himself and the Directors by the Hon.
Proprietor (Mr. Hume). He could only truly and
distinctly state that no pledge of the kind was given to
the Court of Proprietors. He only said that the papers
had arrived, and that they were sub judice under the
consideration of the Directors. It never, he assured the
Proprietors, entered his mind that first of all they were to
be submitted to the Court of Proprietors. They were not
the executive government ; the time had not arrived
when the directors were to surrender that power to the
Proprietors. The Honourable Member had been
correctly informed by the First Minister of
the Crown, that the question of the right to
the territory of Sattara had been settled in con-
junction with the Board of Control, and that the confis-
cation of the territory had been determined upon. It
was not improper for the Proprietors to discuss the mat-
ter then, but it appeared to him that they would not be
in a position to give a fair opinion until they had had
an opportunity of perusing those papers which, as he
had said, would be circulated among them with the least
possible delay. He was unwilling sto name any parti-
cular day for the adjournment of the Court. When the
Proprietors had made themselves acquainted with their
contents another meeting might be called by requisition.
Mr. DONALDSON said he was present at the last meet-
ing, and certainly his impression of what the Chairman
stated with regard to the production of the papers was
exactly as that stated by the Hon. Gentlethan who had
just sat down.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEWIS, as the mover of the resolution:at the last
meeting, might, perhaps, be allowed to state what his
impression was upon the subject. When he had con-
cluded by moving his resolution, and after he
had stated his arguments in support of it, and
it had been duly seconded, the Chairman rose and stated
that he felt it to be his duty to adjourn the Court
on the ground that the time had not arrived for the
consideration of the subject, as it formed a matter then
under the deliberation of the Court of Directors.—
(Hear, hear.) Now he put it to any person who heard
that statement whether the plain and only intelligible
inference to be drawn from that declaration was not
that before an actual decision was come to on the Sat-
tara question, and before a final dispatch was sent
out to India confirming the decision, that Court
would have an opportunity of stating their views
and opinions on the matter?—(Hear, hear.) That was
the plain and common sense inference to be drawn from
the Chairman's statement. True, he did not actually
say that the papers should be laid before them, but the
only inference to be drawn from the tone and manner of
the Chairman was, that the papers would be forthcoming,
and the Court would have another opportunity of fully and
impartially discussing the question before the Executive
came to a final decision upon it. That was the natural
inference which the statement of the Chairman led to;
although he did not mean to say that the Chairman
made any pledge, but he represented that it was dis-
tinctly understood that they should have an opportunity
of discussing this question before the dispatch was sent
out.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HEWSON really could not understand what
ground of complaint the gentlemen who had been
instrumental in calling the meeting could urge
against the Directors. The Honourable Gentleman
who had just addressed them said they were
to have another opportunity of discussing the question.
For his part, however, he thought they had already had
the fullest opportunity for discussion and placing their
opinions before the Court of Directors, who, no doubt,
had given them all the consideration that they were worth.
—(Hear, hear.) The Court of Directors was the only
tribunal to decide the question. The Court of Pro-
prietors might give its opinion upon it, and the Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down and his friends en
tered at large into their views at the last Court, and he
was quite surprised that the Honourable Gentleman who
had introduced the question to-day had not well consi-
dered the proceedings of the last Court before he ven-
tured to make such sweeping charges against the Court
of Directors.—(tlear, hear.) It was an odd thing that
he should now be called upon to defend the con-
sistency of the gentlemen who took part in the
discussion at the last Court, who had certainly put a
construction upon the statement of the chairman which
that his
of co-directors
or
by no means justified his being told that his conduct and
wasfairrepdueganhanngt, toanedvery
principle
a
vioonla
s, tioad n
n
ofcalcguolaotded fatioth
castan danthinedellaibwle
slurof annad-
tistain upon the character of the Company.—(Hear,
hear.) How could that be? The Hon. Gentle man
stig-
matised their conduct in those
terms because they
had not allowed the question to be discussed before they
came to a decision upon it. why the Honourable Gen-
tleman who introduced the resolution at the last Court
entered into long arguments to prove the truth of his
position, and he was followed, true, not at great length,
' by a seconder, who insisted that, according to the laws
and usages of India, the heir of the late Rsja ought to
be adopted and acknowledged by the Court.—(Hear,
hear.) Well, then, these gentlemen, and every man
who attended the Court, had had an ample opportunity
of giving
their opinion upon the subject. At the last
Court, the fullest latitude was given to them for doing
so, while the directors in no way attempted to stop the
investigation. No doubt the directors were dis-
posed to be influenced by that discussion as
far as its merits deserved, and be was
quite convinced they considered and duly weigh edthe
arguments adduced, on the last occasion of their meeting,
before they came to the resolution to send out the_
dispatch ; and he was satisfied they were undeserving of
the vituperation which had been heaped upon them.
Major OLIPHANT said, it appeared to him that there
was very little difference of opinion amongst them on
the point in dispute; but he could assure the proprietors
that the majority of the gentlemen behind the bar would
be ready and willing to give their reasons for the course
they had pursued when the Court reet again. In the
mean time he might perhaps be allowed to state that
there was no difference of opinion in the Court of
Directors upon the question, and as Ithe Chairman had
already consented to the production of the papers, he
could see no reason for any further discussion.—(Hear,)
Sir J. W. ROGO agreed with bis honourable col-
league that there was no difference of opinion in
the Direction as to the propriety of producing the
papers for every gentleman' no matter whether a
Proprietor or a Director, was
equally interested
the settlement of this question. It was
therefore highly 'desirable that the- papers
rs- should be
laid before the public, and the matter disposed of as

peedily as possible.—(Hear, heir.) He thought no
person who had read the discussion which took
place at the last Court could sympathise with
the sentiments of the Honourable Gentleman
who had opened the debate.—(Hear, hear.) He Cdr.
Hume) made charges against his Hon. Friend the Chair-
roan of this Court, in language which he was sure the
Hon. Gentleman would regret when he read it over:in
his cooler moments. The Hon. Gentleman made use
of the words " dishonourable," " disgraceful," and
" ill-advised," and the only comment he should
make upon them might be compressed into
one sentence. They fell harmless upon his Hon.
Friend the Chairman, and only proved injurious to the
person who had used them. But he was more
astonished at the doctrine the Honourable Gentleman
had laid down with regard to the constitution of the
Court of Directors and the formation of the Company,
and he was the more surprised at this doctrine, because
it came from the lips of a gentleman who
was suppos4d to be an authority on matters
connected with India. They were told by the
Hon. Gentleman that the Court of Proprietors
formed the Executive Government.—(No, no.) Some
gentlemen cried " No, no," but that was the meaning
of what the Hon. Gentleman said ; but if that was not
the meaning of what he said, his words and observations
were altogether devoid of meaning. He said it was the
province of the Court of Proprietors to determine the
powers of their executive, but he very much doubted
whether the Hon. Gentleman would be; able to sustain
that doctrine. Now, how stood this matter? When the
discussion took place at the last meeting, his Hon.
Friend the Chairman said the question was sub judice.
Then said the Hon. Proprietor who introduced this mo-
tion, it was the duty of the Directors, according to
the Constitutional Government of India, before they
decided upoirjhe question—before they communicated
their decision to the department who co-operated with
them in the affairs of India—to call the Proprietors
together and consult them upon it.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
that was the statement of the Honourable Gentleman,
but he (Sir J. Hogg) denied that that was the
constitutional Government of India. Everybody
could see the peril and the error at once of allow-
ing a controlling body to form part of the Exe-
cutive Government. It would be an endless
source of danger for the Executive Government
to be continually consulting the proprietary body upon
matters like these. They had example of this every
day—every session they had example of this, more par-
ticularly in the Foreign Department of the Executive
Government. A question was asked respect-
ing some matters pending, in the course of
negotiation, and the Foreign Secretary rose and stated
that the matter was sub judice. It was under considera-
tion, and 'he could not answer the question for rea-
sons which the Executive Government and the
Minister representing her Majesty did not feel
disposed to state. Perhaps a week or a fortnight
afterwards the same question was repeated, and the
Member was informed that the thing was done—accom-
plished; but the Minister was willing and ready to lay the
papers before the House, that parties might pass their
judgment upon the conduct of the Executive Government.
' Then some one jumped up and said "We are always too
late or always too soon," upon which the Minister replied
that he had acted strictly in accordance with the constitu-
tion. If the constitution was wrong, alter it, but while
it existed adhere to it. It was at least the duty of their
Executive Government, to adhere to it, and there was,
therefore, no cause of complaint. That was exactly the
same in this Court. It was not competent for the Court
of Directors to wait for the decision of the Proprie-
tors before they determined any question ; but it
would be physically and morally impossible to placeithe
government of this Company in= a proprietary body
numbering upwards of 2,000 persons. They were,
therefore, bound to select some body to form an Execu-
tive. If, however, that system was wrong, it was com-
petent for the Proprietors to change it, or at
least make an endeavour to do so, but do not
F let Hon. Proprietors get up in the manner they had
just witnessed, and apply allorts of ill names to the
Chairman and Directors, because they had done their
duty in acting according to the constitution and laws
of the Company. (Hear, hear.) But when
a man used harsh or hard language, it induced him to
arrive at one of two conclusions, either the party using
such language had a bad temper or a bad cause.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now his Hon. Friend had
not a bad temper. He was known in the House
of Commons to be of an excellent temperament.
He had been tried beyond all men in the House,
and had been proved to be the man least open
to give offence, and the least open to offence. It
was admitted by common consent that, .amidst
the heat and strife of parties,. he was one of
the best tempered men in the House. He never
said a hard thing of any body, and seldom or never took
offence at any one, although he frequently had good
cause to do so. The conclusion he had come to at all
events was, that he never lost his temper, and
he could not for the life of him help think-
ing that he must have a bad cause.—(Hear, hear.)
It often struck him that whenever the Hon. Gentleman
got up to speak upon this unfortunate Sattara question
he felt a little uneasy in his temper. He could not
help thinking that the Honourable Gentleman felt
within himself as though he would rather say,
" Alack-a-day, what a miserable hour it was when
I first took up this unfortunate Sattara question. lam
perfectly ashamed of it myself, and of the part I have
taken in it."—(Hear, and laughter.) He could not for
the life of him, with all his constitutional good humour,
preserve his usual equanimity of manner and feeling
when he got up to speak upon this topic, and
he (Sir J. W. Hogg) could not help thinking that
the Hon. Gentleman heartily regretted that he was ever
drawn into becoming the advocate of such a cause as
this.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HuseE must really be allowed to say a word or
two in explanation. Often as he had occasion to
complain of the Honourable Baronet being in
the wrong he had never known him so far wrong as
he was now.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But, not-
withstanding the observations of the Hun. Baronet, he
did not regret one word, or one argument he had made
use of; but he must complain that the Honourable
Baronet had taken his words without the previous
remarks. What he said was this, the Court separated,
as far as he knew, with the understanding that they
were to be informed of the decision of the Court, and to
have the papers before them before a final
settlement was come to of the questions An
adjournment took place upon that understanding, and it
was in that belief that he made use of the words re-
ferred to.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the ex-
planation of his Honourable Friend, in reference to the
constitution of the :Company, the instance he had
Mentioned was exactly in point, for upon one
occasion he called for papers which were not produced.
The Hon. Gentleman said, in that case, he (Mr. Hume)
had no right to pass an opinion upon .what followed, but
what was the case? Why, when these papers were
produced he himself moved in the House of Com-
mons a vote of censure upon the Minister for what
he had done. It was, therefore, not inconsistent with
the constitution to discuss the decision of the Directors,
and his Honourable Friend, in future, when he got
upon the high horse, would do well to take care that he
did not ride him into the mud.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He would not do more now than simply
say that in applying the epithets he had done he did
so sincerely, believing that the conduct of the Directors
merited them, while he could assure the Hon. Baronet,
and he would give him credit for truth, when he said the
Hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing that he (Mr.
Hume) fancied his cause was a bad one.—(Hear, hear.)
Sergeant GAZELLE gave it as his opinion that those
repeated adjournments of the Courts called for special
purposes were illegal and unconstitutional, and begged
to give notice to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
was then standing counsel of the Company, and who
who was considered the highest authority in the kingdom
upon such points, that at the next Court he should put
a question to him upon that matter, and he hoped the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman would come prepared to
give him an answer.—(Hear, hear.)
A PROPRIETOR begged to asked if the notice of motion
had any relation whatever to the question before them?
The CHAIRMAN—It has nothing whatever to do
with it. • _ _

Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE said, however that might
be, he was quite sure that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman would make a note of his notice
and be prepared to answer his question at the next meet-
ing. He would now proceed to the matter in discus-
sion. He had alwa) s expressed himself in that Court
in courteous terms, and he had never failed to treat
every one with courtesy and respect. He
could not, however, help regretting that the Chairman
had ben placed in a most unfortunate position, because,
assuming for a moment that the epithets applied to the
Ron. Gentleman were not applicable to him, it would, at
all events, be admitted that he had been unfortunate in
his words and expressions, if they had led to a misunder-
standing. It was a most extraordinary fact that in this
Court when words were misunderstood, they were
always misunderstood against the Proprietors and their
rights, and in favour of the Directors.—(Laughter.) One
would almost think that the words addressed from the
chair were intended to be misunderstood, but he ven-
tured at the last meeting to warn the Proprietors that
they ought to discuss the matter fully thorn, for he was
quite certain that when they came again they would be
told it was too late; but the words of the Chairman
no doubt intentionally induced the meeting to think
otherwise.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon.
Friend that the impression he and others went away
with was, that the question was to be submitted to them
again before any fresh decision was come to upon it,
and it was a breach of good faith on the part of the i
Di-
rectors not to have kept that promise.—(Hear, hear.)
The
Cwa
Azi 5 i
—111 ft
etrprursettw
theh
atHon.
daindds
a 5 Learnedbut I will
Gen-
tleman
presently read to the Court what I said. I deny most posi-
tively that I intended such a construction to be put upon
my words as to lead to a belief that the question of the
andr
not whether the
Proprietors
fact
Raja of Sattara would be submitted to their
future consideration. Now this is what I did
Iwilhlayseee. stlatesdhoulids
correct or o
be ashamed of myself if I ever said a single
word holding out a deceptive belief. The whole'
conduct of my life will gainsay anything of the
sort. I will read now to the Court what
r did say, and after that, I will not answer
any further complaint that may be made.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE—It is exceedingly disagree-
able to be interrupted in this way.
The CHAIRMAN—I call you to order, because yoa
make a most unwarrantable attack upon me. This is
what was taken by the short-hand writer:—
" It is not my intention to reply to the statements and
arguments advanced as regards this case; when the pro.
per time arrives I shall be ready to express my opinion
h Sattara territory • but
in regard to the appropriation of t
in fact
I am not prepared for it now, and therefore shall
not say a word in answer to the Hon. Proprietor. I
may state that the general question is sub jqdice. _ 411

the doeuments are before the Directors, who will duly
consider them, I am sure, with every attention to
what is right and proper. I know they will act in
consistency with the expressed opinion of this Court,
that it is better to leave the matter at present in the
hands of the Executive whom the Proprietors have no-
minated. All, therefore, I have to say is, that it will
be in the recollection of the Court of Proprietors that,
no longer ago than two or three months, a motion was
made in substance precisely the same as this now
before the Court of Proprietors. Under these circum-
stances, I am quite sure that I shall have the support
of the Court in adopting the same course which was
then taken—moving the adjournment of the Court.
That is the course which was pursued on that occasion,
and certainly should again be followed, now the matter
is under the consideration of the Court of Directors. I
therefore move that this Court do now adjourn."
Now, if any Proprietor can put a construction upon that
to the effect that before the Court of Directors
came to any decision on the subject, it would be
submitted to the Proprietors, I cannot agree
with him. I had; no intention whatever to hold
out such an impression, for, as I said before, it would
have been unconstitutional for me to do so, as the Pro-
prietors have nothing to do with the decision; and I must
confess that I am rather surprised that the Hon. and
Learned Proprietor should have attacked me in the
manner he has done.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then rose to address the
Court, but was called to order by
The CHAIRMAN, who reminded him that Mr. Sergeant
Gazelee was in possession of the chair.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE, after complaining of the
unwarrantable interruption of the Deputy-Chairman,
and complimenting the Chairman for his impartial
conduct in putting his colleague down, proceeded to in-
sist, that with regard to the question of integrity and
hohour he stood upon an equal footing with the Chair-
man or any other member of the Court. The Chairman
had read them his speech from the short-hand writer's
notes, and he should be glad to know who it was that
paid for those notes, or whether the short-hand
writer was paid only for reporting the Directors,
or fur reporting everything that occurred. If the latter,
he must say that some very garbled reports had been
made of his speeches, indeed in many instances his
speeches had been so altered that he did not know them
when he saw them again.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Now, with regard to the subject-matter in dispute,
he did not impute any improper motives to
the Chair, but he did maintain that the Chairman
had been placed in an unfortunate position by
his language at the last Court having been
misunderstood ; for, intentional or not, the words ad-
dressed from the chair induced belief that another occa
sion would be afforded them for discussing the question.
But he must be allowed to enter his protest against the
system which prevailed that Court, whenever a
troublesome question came on, of the Chairman
moving an adjournment. He appreciated the value of
the entertainmeats and good :dinners given at
the East India House as much as any man,
but neither good dinners nor any ether in-
ducement ought to lead to the shirking of this
question of the Raja of Sattara. It seemed to be
always arranged that whenever it came on the
Chairman should move an adjournment, and now they
were to be put down by being told that their cause was
a bad one because they did not keep their temper.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Did they see him out of
temper? On the contrary, he was never more cheerful
and inclined to be good humoured in his life.— (Hear.)
Now came the question. Up rose Sir James Hogg, and
turned all this into fun;
but what was fun to him was
death to the Raja of Sattara and his friends. Sir J.Hogg,
had very great tact in turning things into fun and ridi-
cule, and that was the way in which the poor Raja of
Sattara and his affairs were treated. He (Mr.
Sergeant Gazelee) agreed with Sir J. Hogg, it
the constitution of the Court of Directors
was bad, that it should be altered, and if any of
the Directors were bad that they should be turned out.
It was all very well for those men in power to say.
" Turn us out." The fact was, that the Act of Parlia-
ment constituting the Court made their seats annual.
The Directors never gave him (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee)
any invitation to any of their grand dinners.—(Laugh
ter)—and he said from the bottom of his soul, turn
them out.—(Renewed laughter.) The more people sae
of the mockery of their proceedings the more would it be
seen to be necessary that honest and upright mer
should be sent into the Court of Directors. When Sir
J. Hogg likened the Court of Directors to the Foreign-
office of the House of Commons, it was a very bad pre-
cedent. With great respect to him, he Mr. Sergeant
Gazelee) would suppose that Sir J. Hogg was a member
of a large constituency. Suppose a question of great
importance came on for discussion, would Sir J. Hogg
condescend to ask his constituents not to give up the re
presentative character, for that would be treating it as a
matter of delegation, but to ask their advice ? He was
sure in such a case Sir J. Hogg would not say that the
way iu which he would act would depend whether the
election was near at hand or not.—(Laughter.) Sup-
pose the question was one of education, would
he consider it as infra dig. to consult the Dissenters
upon it, or would he treat them, as be did
the Proprietors, as men of straw ? He (Sergeant
Gazelee) did not mean to say that the electors were to
control the votes of the representative, but he said every
man would not consult his constituents, and say " Mr.
So-and-so, you are the mover, and you, tMr. So-and-so,
are the seconder of my nomination, what are the wishes
of the constituency on such and such a question, I don't
mean to say it shall influence me; but just, if
you can, say , what Mr. So-and so thinks.
an-I I don't think, it will affect my dignity
to attend to it." That was the whole question. It one
of the Directors held up his hand, fifty others of the Di-
rectors held up their bands immediately ; if one of them
cachinated, there were fifty others who cachinated im-
mediately. But if Sir J. Hogg could divert their atten-
tion from a matter by his fun, if he could make them
laugh and turn them from the subject under consideration,
why his purpose was gained. Let the meeting contrast their
demeanour when in office with their deportment when,
as candidates, they came bowing and scraping to ask
the opinions and the suffrages of the Proprietors. When
those gentlemen got into the direction, was it to be
tolerated that they were to treat the roprietors with
contumely. He cautioned the Proprietors not to be mis-
led ; the Directors were endeavouring to put this matter
on a false point ; they were misinterpreting Mr.
Hume's words, and were endeavouring to make
the Proprietors believe that they, the Proprietors,
wanted to take upon them the settlement of this ques-
tion. Even if the Proprietors were willing to do this,
why they would be swamped by the influence of the
body of Directors, and there would be an end of the
matter. He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) ;claimed it as a
right, not to dictate to the Directors, but to give his
opinion. They might treat his opinion with contempt.
but all he asked and prayed for was, that they should
do him the favour of listening to that opinion, which
was fearlessly expressed. But let not the Proprietors
be misled; the attempt was not to alter the constitution
of the Court of Directors, but it was to advise in tht
matter. He thought if the places were given away
Attie more according to merit, and Jess according
to nepotism, the Directors would come out of
these matters with a great .deal more credit.
and the Proprietors would not be laughed at. He be-
lieved the Chairman to be a most honourable man.
He (Mr. Sergeant Gazelee) believed he had no sinister
intention; but he said it was a little unfortunate that
he led the Proprietors to believe that before the matte)
was settled they should be called together, not to dictate.
but to advise in the matter.
All Hesse PROPRIETOR said it might he in the
recollection of the Chairman of the Court of Directors
that he was present at the last meeting, and that le
then made a suggestion after the Chairman's amend-
ment, was pleased to approve of, and
stated whichthemseltvhee meeting
yto adopt; and therefore he was
now anxious, particularly if Mr. Hume should be present,
to state his views of what really took place, which
he was bound to state as an independent proprietor
fully confirmed the report which the Secretary
had been pleased to read. lie should be very brief in
the observations he had to make, because really it could
be stated in a minute. There was a motion made by
Mr. Lewis, and seconded by some other gentleman, after
which the Chairman immediately moved the adjourn-
ment of the Court, in the words reported, as neerly as
possible, by the Chairman himself. There was then some
discussion as to a matter of form only, and on that
he (the Hon. Proprietor) suggested to Mr. Lewis and
the seconder of the then motion to withdraw it.—(Hear,
hear.) He made that suggestion, because the Chair-
man's amendment would then, as a matter of course, fall
to the ground. What then took place? If, as Mr.
Hume supposed, the Chairman bad made his
amendment with the intention that the Di-
was it credible that the mover
ribercetortshewpourilidprpierteopras7 the papers and lay them be-
and seconder would have immediately withdrawn their
motion? They continued the discussion for some
time aferwards. Therefore he (the I-ion. Proprietor)
hoped, at least, after what he had stated, his Learned
Friend, Mr. Sergeant Gazelee, would see he must have
been altogether mistaken about the matter. Surely,
after the statement now made, his Learned
Friend would retract anything he had said
harshly of the Chairman. 'He (the Hon. Proprietor) heel
no interest in the matter further than to see that dis-
cussions of this kind among the Court of Directors and
the bodylof Proprietors were conducted with decency and
propriety.—(Hear.) It might be Mr. Sergeant Gazelee was
a candidate for the directorship.—(Laughter.) He
could not say wether that was so or not, but at present
he (the Hon. Proprietor) thought he, Mr. Sergeant
Gazelee, had rather confounded the two characters of
proprietor and director.
Mr. LEWIS thought the sooner the discussion was
dropped the better; but there was one question which
he wished to put to the Chairman. Mr. Clarke had
asked the Chairman at the last meeting whether or
not he had referred the question to Mr. Elphinstone?
The meeting all knew that Mr. Elphinstone was a per-
son competent to decide that question, and therefore it
was necessary to see what his opinion was, both as to
the construction of the treaty, and as to the position of
the parties. He (Mr. Lewis) wished to know whether
the Chairman had done so?

A PROPR;;;;;;IIIiiat it WBS a MOEt extraordinary
thing that those who propounded the laws should have
the power to explain them. It was for the judges to
explain the laws, and not the Directors.
The CHAIRMAN said when the Proprietors saw the
papers they would see whether Mr. Elphinstone's name
was mentioned or not. He could not answer the ques.
tion further.
Mr. LEWIS thought the Chairman would find that
to be the opinion of the meeting. The public would be
startled to think that this question had been argued
without reference to Mr. Elphinstone, and that the thing
had been concluded without his being consulted.

Mr. flume's motion, that the papers be printed and
circulated amongst the Proprietors, was then put to the
meeting and carried.
The Court then adjourned.-

IMPERLAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Feb. 7.
RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND).

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
. _ _

Mr. CHRISTOPHER said, as an English representative,
he was not prepared to concur in the vote. When he consi-
dered the very short period that had elapsed since this coun-
try granted eight millions of money for the relief of the Irish
people, a very small part of which had been repaid,
and of which he predicted a very small portion would return
to:the Treasury—and when he saw that our:workhouses were
being rapidly filled with able-bodied paupers, he protested
against the House being annually called upon to sanction
votes of this character. In the south of England the condi-
tion of the poor was as miserable as it was in any part of
Ireland, and he would ask, was it right or fair
that the over-taxed people of England should have
to make a further grant, more especially when it was taken
into consideration that in Ireland there was no income-tax
and no assessed taxes ? He would rather support the
amendment than the orignal motion ; but he protested
against the vote altogether, and he trusted the House would
now lay down the principle that the Irish people ought to
maintain their own poor.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH said, notwithstanding the strong lan-
guage used by the Hon. Member who had just sat down, he
felt convinced that the House would not shrink from its duty
in granting relief to the poor of Ireland. But, although he
felt grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the
solicitude he had expressed on their behalf, and for the ready
manner in which he had come forward, he believed that the
proposition was in itself wrong, and was calculated to take
away the energy and self-denial of the people. The re-
sources of the country were amply sufficient, if developed, to
enable the people of Ireland to maintain their own poor,
and what he contended ought to be done was, to pass some
measure to bring about such a result. By making advances
for the cultivation and improvement of the land the ener-
gies of the people might be stimulated, and the resources of
the country fully brought out.
Sir J. WAILSH said the House had been called upon to
vote upon no question which involved considerations of
greater pain and difficulty than did that on the pre-
sent occasion.—(Hear.) When they had a deficient revenue,
and when many classes were involved in deep distress, and
were struggling under great privations, it was the bounden
duty of representatives to exercise the strictest vigilance
before they acceded to this vote. What assurance had they
after their repeated sacrifices on behalf of Ireland that the
condition of the country would be improved, and that they
would not be called upon again to pursue the same
line of conduct and vote further sums of money?
He was convinced that no good could ever be done unless
there should be a revision of the principle of the poor-law,
and that that principle should be approached in a spirit of
conviction that great mistakes bad been made in the
constitution of the Irish poor-law. The Irish law had,
he felt assured, been productive of only one decided
effect, and that effect was the pauperization of the
whole of the country. He could not understand how
the Hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Ecrope) had arrived
at his conclusions. It seemed, indeed, most strange to him
that the charging the arrears of the poor-laws upon the land
could have any other effect than that of continually depre-
ciating the property which was the most stable in its cha-
racter and most permanent in its value.—(Hear, hear.) To
him it appeared perfectly clear that the more they imposed
burdens upon land already allowed to be wrought out
of all profit, and on which there was now evidently
no stock to distrain, the more difficulties they would
have to encounter. What, then, was this grant? Why,
nothing more than a vain attempt to bolster up this
system which contained within itself, without any further
admixture, the seeds of its own destruction. (The Hon.
Baronet then read from the evidence of the late Committee
a number of instances to show that he was borne out in his
assertion that the system had only been hitherto productive
of evil.) They were doling out little insignificant sums
which were fitted to postpone a conclusion, but which were
in fact only instrumental in aggravating the mischief of the
end at which they were sure to arrive if they continued this
poor-law in Ireland.—(Hear.) Heavily as the resources
of England were taxed, and necessary as it was to economise
the means at their command to the utmost, he did believe
that it would be not only a wise policy but the truest
economy to advance such a sum as would at once rescue that
unhappy land from the distress in which it was immersed.
But convinced that such a paltry pittance, sufficient to con-
tinue what he belived to be a great evil, but totally inade-
quate to permanently deliver a fine country from any of those
miseries to which they had been so long subjected—thinking
this to be the case, he felt compelled to throw upon the Go-
vernment the whole of the responsibility of this unwise and
impolitic attempt, and should give the measure all the oppo-
sition in his power.— (Hear, hear.)
Lord EDWARD HOWARD said that as the representa-
tive of a borough in a district which was not only purely
agricultural as to its character, but also singularly poor in
its circumstances, he felt compelled to say a few words upon
the subject before the House. He did not intend
to enter upon the details which had already been
so largely dealt in from all sides of the
Rouse, and especially from those gentlemen who
came from Ireland— such a contrariety of state-
ment, that no reliance could possibly be placed upon merely
barren assertions. But, taking the broad principle of the
necessity of relief where urgent and immovable distress ex-
isted, when he saw Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of
the House deprecating that relief, he was obliged to contra-
dict the declaration, that Ireland was continually coming as
a beggar to that House to help it out of its distress.
During the last winter, in his district, the ut-
most want had been endured, but it had been
endured with a tranquillity and calmness which was equally
honourable to the peasantry and those who were above them.
He wished to be no advocate for rebellion—he was no apo-
logist for insurrection ; but of this he must warn the House,
that this tranquillity might be tried too long. The Irish
might be idle—and he was, with all regret, compelled to say
so, that they were idle in their own country—but was it not
notorious that they were proportionably industrious and able
elsewhere? He was always convinced that in order to get out
of any man a fair day's work they must give him something to
work upon.—(Cheers.) Let them remember that patience
might be tried too long, and that if driven by distress there
was a possibility that more money would be required to pay
the troops and support the police, than was now asked for to
save the people from starvation.—(hear, hear.) He be-
lieved that a new era had arisen upon Ireland, and that the
landlords had commenced upon a new plan of proceeding,
and that the money now sought for would be well and judi-
ciously expended.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME (who had previously risen), said that he did
not regret that he had given way to the Noble Lord, but he
must remind the Noble Lord that the money which had
formerly been advanced for the relief of the distress in Ire-
land had notoriously been applied to the very purpose
which he now so much deprecated—for the purpose of re-
bellion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not blame the
landlords of Ireland. There was no class of men whose posi-
tion he more deeply * sincerely commiserated, and whose
position he verily believed had been occasioned in a great
measure, if not entirely, by the false legislation of this country.
Some of the landlords might not have done their duty, but,
upon the whole, lie believed they were not so culpable as
they had been represented.—(Hear, hear.) No man had
lifted his voice more frequently or more strenuously
against this bad legislation than he had, and he would
not on that account have opposed this grant. But he
opposed it on principle, and he was firmly convinced that
the advance of money from this country had no other effect
than that of dislocating all the bonds of society. He opposed this
grant on principle, because whenever relief was proposed it
had always been declared that remedial measures should
accompany every such grant. Those remedial measures had
not been introduced, and therefore he opposed, and always
should oppose, any such grant.—(Hear, hear.) He opposed
it on principle, for the first step was the great mischief.
Evil only had followed from these grants. What he wanted
was that Ireland should support her own poor. What was
the case? Why he found that the average rating of
Ireland was only, during the last year, 2s. 9d. in the
pound, while he himself lived in a parish (Whittlebury, in
Sorfolk, we un:lerstood) in which the rating for the poor was
treble that amount. To Ireland the amount granted last
year in aid of the poor-rates was 231,431/. In Ulster the
assessment had been is. 10d., while the money collected had
only been ls. Bd. ' • in Munster the assessment had been
3e. 10 d., and the money collected 3s. 2d. ; in Leinster
the assessment was 2s. 4d., the amount collected 3s. 2d.;
and in Connaught the assessment was ss. 7d., while the
money collected was barely two shillings. Granting first
one sum after another was plainly not of the slightest
benefit to the people of Ireland, but was, on the contrary, far
more injurious than beneficial, tending only to demoralise
the people, and impoverish the whole country. They must
remember that they were but stewards of the public money,
and that it was their positive duty to resist the motion of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. A. STAFFORD, after paying a handsome compliment
to Lord Edward Howard for his speech, said that
before that Noble Lord complained of the conduct of
the Gentlemen on his side of the House he should re-
collect
what their conduct had been. Since he came
into the House he had taken the trouble to cast up the
statements, and he found that thirty-one unions in Ireland
were in great difficulty, and twenty in a state of absolute
bankruptcy. These twenty unions contained not less
a population than a million and a half.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had amalgamated the rates
in the provinces of Ulster and Connaught, and had produced
a result which gave no idea of the average amount of rating
in Ireland. It reminded him of an anecdote told of an old
gentleman, 70 years old, who made an offer of marriage
to a young lady of 20. She objected on the
score of age, " but," said the old gentleman, " when
we are united, our average age will be 45."—(Laughter.)
He had no hesitation in stating that every grant of this kind
would propitiate instead of alleviating the miseries of Ire-
land. —(Hear. hear.) The area of taxation was at the root
f all evils in Ireland, and until they considered that subject,
And with the view to an alteration in the poor-law, they
might grant loans to double the amount of the national debt
without producing any good effect.—(Cheers.)
Sir W. SOMERYILLE alluded to the opinions expressed
by Hon. Members, and said they might turn and twist the
question as they chose, but they could not prevent them-
selves coming to the conclusion that the grant was neces-
sary if they wished to preserve the lives of the people.
lie believed that not one of the remedies propounded to-day,
if it had been adopted at an earlier period, would have pre-
vented the Government from coming down to the House and
making the proposition now under discussion.—(Hear.)
Ireland was, at this moment, suffering under the greatest
calamity which could befal any country—the article of
food upon which the chief part of the population
subsisted had been destroyed for three consecutive years.—
(Hear, hear.) Then, under these circumstances, what were
they to do? The evils of Ireland could not be remedied all
of a sudden; the process, whatever it might be, must neces-
sarily be of long duration, and if temporary aid
was not given in the meantime the destruc-
tion of a vast amount of human life would
be the consequence. If loans were given upon the repro-
ductive system, as recommended by the Hon. Member for
Stroud, he believed that a much greater amount of money
would be required than was anticipated by the House. He
would state one fact, and lesve the House to draw its own
conclusion from it—viz that under the Labour Relief Act
as many as 700,000 able-, bodied persons were under the em-
ploy and pay of the Government, and if the reproductive
plans proposed were carried out, it might with great reason
be expected that the persons seeking relief would be treble
that number.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever result might be ar-
rived at, he trusted that, at all events, the amendment would
not be assented to. He believed, if the generosity of the House
did not step in, a loss of life would ensue which would be
dreadful to contemplate. But he felt, however, perfectly
convinced that the Members of that House, and the British
people out of doors, would not offer any opposition to the
resolution proposed by his Right Hon. Friend.—( Hear. )
Mr. HERBERT said if the House rejected the motion It
would, in fact, amount to a sentence of death upon a great
number of people. Ho had spent ten days upon a relief
Committee in Ireland in endeavouring to bring about some
unity of action among the landlords of that country,
but he found that it was utterly impossible to accomplish
that object while the area of taxation remained as it was.
In fact, that was at the root of most of the evils in that
country, and whilp that reMainsd 411 plans of relief would
end in no permanent benefit.—(Hear.)
Mr. Z. 13. AQUI= aupp9rted the paytiort of tlzo Chancellor

of the Exchequer, not because it was the best remedy for
.-Ireland, but because- it was -the only immediate remedy
proposed for the relief of the existing distress. The simple
question was whether a large body of people in a bankrupt
district of Ireland, without food and without any means of
support, were to have any assistance afforded to them,
and if the proposition of her Majesty's Government were
not passed the responsibility would be on the shoulders
of those who rejected it.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said that if the Hon. Member for North-
amptonshire (Mr. Stafford) had come down to the House
with any sufficient data respecting the area of taxation, they
might, with some probability of being effective, have
brought in a Bill for regulating the areas of the
townlands ; but he might state what he had
said the other night, that this was not the subject before the
House at all. The report which had been received related
only to a small part of the country, and there was, in fact,
a power under the poor-law as at present constituted to re-
gulate these areas. He, therefore, thought that the
Honourable Member had not acted with his usual fairness.
With regard to the vote proposed for the purpose of assist-
ing bankrupt unions in Ireland, he felt bound to say that,
looking to the sums of money collected as rates last year in
that country--namely, 1,600,000/. the property of Ireland
was doing its duty in supporting the poverty of that country.
The present grant was asked for the purpose of assisting
those unions where the utmost amount of rate was levied,
and where vast numbers must perish, except assistance was
given.

Mr. HERBERT explained that he only alluded to his
own union.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that looking at the circumstances
which had been proclaimed on the official responsibility of
the Government, he felt convinced that the grant which
had been proposed was inevitable.—(Hear, hear.) To
the propositions of the Hon. Member for Stroud ( Mr. P.
Scrope) he decidedly objected. He objected, in the first
place, to the grant being made in the shape of a loan,
because he firmly believed that it would be alto-
gether impossible to reclaim the money, and would be only
loading Ireland with additional burdens to those which
she was now found quite incompetent to bear. He
objected to the second proposition, that the money
should be applied to works of reproductive labour, be-
cause he found it on the records of the gentle-
men who had supplied the reports on which the
Government were acting that the destitution was great and
irremediable, and that the potato crop had failed this season
to a greater extent than even during the last two years.
He gave her Majesty's Ministers credit for the sin-
cerity of their assertions, he believed that they were
soundly informed, and the attempt to apply such a prin-
ciple would be neither more nor less than a sentence of death
against multitudes. Then, again, they had the experience
of a place not very far rom that' of the disadvantage of
nltional workships.—(Hear, hear.) For these reasons he
should decidedly oppose the amendment then before the
House. Yet, while voting for the proposition of the Govern-
ment, he must decidedly say that it was the last time he would
vote for any such grant.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear,
hear.") The very last time; for, as remedy was to
be their rule, he thought the time was fully come
when it was their imperative duty to review the
whole system of the local taxation of Ireland. The last
time he should say, because he believed that Ireland,
with her resources, was fully capable of supporting her own
poor. When he 'recollected the different circumstances
in which that country was placed, when he re-
membered that Ireland was free from any tax on
property, that Ireland was free from any of the assessed
taxes, that with a, perhaps, too improvident readiness,
duties to the amount of 120,0001. a year had
been remitted on spirits manufactured in Ire-
land, he did feel that if the poor-rate was
insufficient a rate in aid was inevitable, and that that
rate must be collected in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, and cheers. )
For these reasons he should oppose the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Stroud, and vote for the grant proposed by
her Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. -FAT;AN supported the motion. He was surprised
that any Member of the House of Commons should ob-
ject to the vote, which was so imperiously called for ;
and he was especially surprised at the course that
had been pursued" by the Hon. Member for Montrose.
He felt convinced that the vote proposed would not be ade-
quate for the purposes intended, but he was glad to see that
Ministers were taking steps in the right direction.
Mr. DISRAELI trusted that Ministers would not call upon
the House this evening to give a vote upon this subject.
He trusted that the Noble Lord would rise in his place and
appoint another day for the further discussion of this
question, as sufficient time had not been given to consider it
properly. He could not agree with the statement that
had be made by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Dorsetshire, that this would be the last vote they would be
called upon to give with reference to this subject.—(Hear,
hear.) If the Government would state that this was the last
vote that would be taken on the subject, he had no doubt that
they would come to a satisfactory conclusion. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had made his statements
from manuscript, and that was a reason why further
time should be given to consider the subject. Whatever
others might consider of this grant, it was his opinion that
the question involved in it was, not only whether the people
of England should pay their own poor-rates but those of the
people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government would appoint an early
day for the further consideration of this important subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the consideration that
had been stated by the Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Buckingham that the papers connected with this
proposition had been only till very lately in the hands
of Members, was a reason why the further consideration
of this vote should be postponed.—(Hear, hear.)
On the othor hand, he begged to state that, it had
been considered by her Majesty's Government to be
their duty to state to the House, as early as
possible, what it was their intention to do on
the important subject.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
the subject itself he thought the Honourable Gentle-
man had hardly stated the question fairly to Ireland,
when he stated that it was a question whether
the people of England were to pay the poor-rates of
Ireland as well as those of their own country. When
the matter came on again, he should be prepared
to state more in detail his opinions on the subject, but he
could not say that this would be the last vote the
House would be called upon to give on this snb-
ject.—(Hear, hear.) As a Minister of the Crown, he
would not bind himself to any such assertion.—(Hear,
hear.) Nor would he say that a comprehensive measure
had been prepared to obviate the necessity for applying
to Parliament for any further grant being asked for.—(Hear,
hear.) He would keep himself free upon that subject
—(Hear, hear) because circumstances might occur
that would render it imperative upon him to ask
for further aid.—( Hear, hear.) This, however, he would
say, that her Majesty's Government had considered what
amendments should be made to the poor-law, and when the
Committee met on the poor-law he should be prepared to
state his views and opinions to that Committee.—(Hear.)
He would not say that those opinions might not be
modified by the suggestions of Hon. Members for Ireland,
but when he knew the determination of the Committee, he
would propose to*the House what he thought necessary on the
subject.—(Hear, hear.) He considered this vote necessary,
and he felt no doubt the House would sanction it.—(Hear.)
He had no objection to postpone the consideration of this
question to Friday next, as he could appoint no other day at
present to consider it. ( Hear, hear.)
The debate was then adjourned.
The House then resumed, and the further consideration was
postponed until Friday.
INCUMBRANCES ON LANDED PROPERTY IN

IRELAND.
On the motion of Mr. SADLEIR, it was ordered that the
return of the final decrees for the sale of landed property in
Ireland, pronounced within the last five years by the Irish
Court of Chancery or Equity Exchequer, and of the amount
of incumbrances reported due in each cause, and for the pay •
ment of which a sale of the lands decreed, or a portion thereof,
has been effected, and the amount for which same were sold,
and of the amo,int of the purchase money paid out of court
to parties in discharge of incumbrances reported due (ordered
on the 3d day of July, 1848), be made out forthwith.