The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-01 00:00:00

Lord BROUGHAM did not wish to prolong this dis-
cussien, hut he thought that the Noble Marquis bad
taken a judicious course in abstitining from all expres-
sion of opinion pending the contemplated inquiry. The
explanation of the Noble Lord behind him appeared fair
and satisfactory to him.
PROGRESS OF BILLS—VOTING BY PROXY.
The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then called the
attention of the House to the necessity of adopting
some step for the purpose of providing that pub
lic Bills carried through Parliament should be ac-
curately and properly prepared. He suggested that
there should be some board for preparing Bills and for
exercising vigilance over the changes made in them
during their passage through Parliament. Unless the
author of a Bill happened to see what was done with it
during its passage through Parliament some mischief
might be effected which would not be discovered until
after the Bill became law. Their Lordships had a
Committee to examine private Bills, and to
maintain a supervision over them during all their
stages; and, it that was a good practice in respect to pri
vote Bills, it was by no means unnecessary in reference
to public Bills. The Noble aed Learned Lord then
moved for a return of the number of cases in which
proxies had been called during the last 10 years, and
also of the number of the cases in which the votes by
proxy had reversed the decision of the Peers present, ob-
serving, at the same time, that he was not in favour of
the abolition of the privilege of the peerage to vote by
proxy.
Lord REDESDALE felt that it would be very de-
sirable if something could be done to make Bills more
perfect than on some occasions they were, but doubted
whether any practicable plan could be devised. With
regard to the other subject, he must say that the right of
calling for proxies had been used very hard this session.
He had been 20 years in the House, and during that
period, until within the last two years, there had been
only two cases in which the decision of the House was
set-aside by calling fur proxies; and on both of these oc-
casions the m jority in the House was only one; this
year it had been done three times, and once when the
majority to be got rid of was 14.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that any
attempt to limit the right—to point out the class of ques-
tions which might be judged of by persons at a distance,
and upon which proxies should be admitted, would in-
volve inextricable difficulty.
Lord BROUGHAM remarked that judicial questions
had been already specified as matters in which proxies
must not be used.
Some conversation across the table followed, and
Lord REDESDALE was understood to say that if his
party had carried measures by proxies against such ma-
jorities as the Government tied thus defeated in this
session, he did not believe the right of voting by proxy
would have been allowed to continue.

The motion was agreed to.
Further correspondence relating to the affAirs of Italy,
and other papers, were laid on the table by the Marquis
of Lansdowne.
The House adjourned, shortly after Seven o'clock, to
the next (this) day, at half- past two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July3l.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
J OIN I'-STOCK COMPANIES' ACT (1848)
AMENDMENT BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered
and agreed to.
ROYAL PAVILION (BRIGHTON) BILL.
Atter a brief discussion as to the propriety of the in•
troduction of the word "shall" instead of" may," by

..----__
the Lords, which made it compulsory to pull down the
chapel in connexion with the Pavilion, the amendments

were agreed to.
CHAPELS OF EASE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered
and agreed to.
JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were also agreed to
PETTY BAG, &c., OFFICES AMENDMENT BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were also agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question that the Lords' amendments be con-
sidered and agreed to,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took occasion to
deny an assertion made in another place, that clauses
had been introduced into this Bill to enable the Lord

Chancellor ot Ireland to find lucrative offices for a por-
tion of his family.
Mr. ROEBUCK called attention to the blunders that
had resulted from hurrying over Bills, and passing
clauses, without discussion. He suggested that this
evil could be got rid of by appointing some responsible
officer to compare and correct the technical errors of all
Bills prior to their being finally passed.
The amendments were then considered and agreed to.
POOR.LAW UNION CHARGES BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were considered

and agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Atter a short discussion as to the observations of Lord
Brougham in reterence to the mode in which this Bill
had passed through the House of COMMIODS, in which the
Attorney-thneral, 11r. l!dullirgs, and other Members took

part, the- Lord.' tuleatlin,mits to this Bill were agreed to.

SUSPENSION OF THE DEFECTS IN LEASES
BILL.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR GENERAL for

,he considt ration of the Lords' amendments on this Bill,

or suspending its operation from the end of the present

Session to theist ofJune next,
Mr. TEN NEN objected to the motion, on the ground
of the apprehensio❑ which the suspension would occasion
to the tenants of land in the district of country with
which he was connected that it would dis!urb their title.
Mr. HUME asked what would be the effect of the

suspension?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was just as if
a clause had been introduced into the Bill for suspending
its operation from the end of the present session until
the Ist of June next.
Atter some further discussion, in ehich Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. Stuart, the Solicitor• General, and Mr. Tennent,
took pal t, the amendment of Mr. Tennent was negatived
without a division, and the Lords' amendments agreed to.
ANNEXATION OF THE S ATTA RA Tii,RRITORY.
Mr. HUME rose and said—l have to present a peti-
tion from proprietors of East India stock, stating that
they have an interest in the welfare of the British Em-
pire in India; that orders have been issued by the East
India Company, and have received the sanction of the
Board of Control, to deprive the heirs of the Raja of
Sutlers of the territory which belonged to him; and that
these orders have been sent out for the purpose of being
carried into effect; that this proceeding is opposed to
every principle of justice and honour, and is calculated
to destroy the confidence of the native princes in India
in the treaties which have been- solemnly granted to
them by the East India Company; and they, therefore,
instituteßbteouin, eggoutac catßhtr
ear
tpi:odij
inquiry
itvr.
ytt
klreehefavot
pray that this House will interfere to prevent these orders
f
relative to
another petition from
teo tlatehe Rseaijzau,rerealantdinagntnoexthae.
rriinjustice,territory,
y and
dd prayinggive
ysu eh thatredr
redress
set Houseo
th e h
iwillr
e
and successors of the Raja as it might in honour and jus-
tice think best.

The petitions were received and ordered to lie upon
the table.
Mr. HUM E moved " That it appears from the papers
laid before this House, that, by the law and usage of
India, as recognised by the British Government, and
distinctly expressed in a minute of Sir Charles Metcalfe,
Lieutenaut-Governor of the North Western Provinces
of India, and dated the 28th day of October, 1837, that
Hindoo Princes, in failure of heirs male of their body,
have a right to adopt, to the exclusion of collateral heirs,
and of any supposed reversionary right of the paramount
power; and that the British Government is bound to ac-
knowledge the adoption, provided that it be regular and
not in violation of Hindoo law. That the East India
Company, by a: treaty concluded on the the 25th day
of September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara
to the It ija of Sattara, his heirs and successors, in per-
petual sovereignty, which treaty was confirmed on the
4th day of September, 1839, when his brother and suc-
cessor was raised to the throne. That both the Rajas
died, leaving heirs by adoption, heirs by
blood, and collateral heirs. That the East India Com-
pany nevertheless (without giving an opportunity to
any claimants of stating their claims) have set aside the
Hindoo law of succession, and have ordered the Sattara
territory to be annexed to the British dominions, on
the plea that it has lapsed by failure of heirs. That
such a proceeding being in violation of national faith,
and against the recognised rights of all the sovereign
princes of India, it is the opinion of this House that the
orders for annexing the Sattara territory should be
suspended until those members of the family who have
the right to claim to be heirs to the throne
have been heard, and their rights determined."
He said—The question, Sir, of which I have given notice
is more connected with religious liberty than perhaps
any question which has lately been brought under the
attention of Parliament. The country and the House
will see how difficult it is for any Member,
under the rules of the House, to bring any subject with
reference to this country under consideration. On the
Ist of March last I moved that certain papers, which
might have been printed in twenty-four hours, should
be laid before the House, detailing the robbery which I
am now about to show is opposed to the principle of re-
ligious liberty. These papers were ordered, but up to
this hour, Sir, you are aware we have not succeeded in
getting them, although all due diligence has been used
by us for this purpose. I feel myself, Sir, under this
disadvantage in addressing the House—l shall neither
have an audience to hear what I am going to say,
nor an opportunity, which I might have under
ordinary circumstances, of explaining properly
the grounds on which I make this appeal. I
therefore, Sir, on the present occasion will content
myself by stating the broad, general grounds, upon
which I enter my protest against that downright robbery
—for such I do not hesitate to term it—which has been
perpetrated by the East India Company, in the face of
the claimants to this territory. The President of the
Board of Control has again and again declared that
whatever was done with regard to the principality due
attention should be paid to the claims of the heirs to
the property of the late Raja.—(Hear, hear.) That
forms, Sir, another reason for my bringing this matter
again before the House; and knowing of how much use
and value the East India Company has been, and may
be still, I am anxious to protect them from being
denominated spoliators and robbers—a character to
which they will be entitled if the orders that
originated;with the directors, and were sanctioned by the
Board of Control, are allowed to be carried out. It is a
matter of great regret to me, Sir, that I should be
obliged to say that the Ent Indh‘ceaspany, instead of