The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-19 00:00:00

GREECE.

Lord JOHN MANNERS postponed his motion on the
subject of Greece till after Easter.

RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME then rose to move for copies of a dispatch
from the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors of the
East India Company to the Right Hon. the Governor-Genet al
of India, respecting the Ex-Raja of Sattara, dated the 24th
day of March, 1646; and a copy of the reply of the Right
Hon. the Governor-General of India to that dispatch; toge-
ther with copies of the several documents referred to in that
reply, or connected with it; and of any other letters which
have been addressed by the present Governor-General of India
to the Court of Directors of the East India Company, relating
to the case of the Ex-Raja of Satara, from the period of his
Lordship's arrival to the present time ; also copies of the
minutes of dissent of members of the Court of Directors
which have been recorded by any member of that Court, and
not hitherto published, relating to the case of the Ex-Raja
of Sattara, from the 30th of April, 1840, to the present time.
Sir J. C. HOBPIOUSE wished, as a favour, that his Hon.
Friend would postpone his motion till a future day.
Mr. HUME said he could not accede to the request of the
Hon. Member. The Right Hon. Gentleman had had two
weeks to consider the motion, and he could not consent to
postpone it any longer. The Raja of Sattara's conduct had
h,.en impugned in connexion with the East India Company,
and a i equest had been sent out to Lord Hardinge, the Gover-
nor-General, requesting him to make a report upon the sub.
ject. The Noble Lord accordingly made a report, and that
report had now been in the hands of the Government seven or
eight months. If the document had been discreditable to the
Raja it would have been published, and he thought it nothing
but right that it should be laid before the public if it contained
any thing to his credit.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said it was an unending task at
any time for any Member of the Government to refuse the
production of papers. At the same time, he thought the
House would agree with him that those papers ought not to be
produced. His Hon. Friend was wrong in his description of
these papers ; but, nevertheless, as a general proposition, he
did not think it was proper that the private correspondence be-
tween the Governor-General of India and his subordinates
should be produced to the House. But, independently of
these considerations, there was a fact in connexion with these
papers, which ought to negative their production. Copies of
these confidential dispatches and correspondence had, some
way or other, found their way to England. His Honour-
able Friend had shown him an envelope, which con-
vinced him of this, and ho thought was a sufficient reason
why the papers should net be hastily produced.
He would ask the House whether they would sanction that
which was evidently a fraud or breach of trust, and a perjury on
the part of the persons employed. If such proceedings were
to be sanctioned, the Government if India, and not only that,
but all the other branches of the Government would be unable
to carry on their proceedings. It was a most shameful tran-
saction, and that was the reason the parties had not cared to
make the matter public; they knew that they would be liable
to be asked how they obtained possession of the papers, and
that was a question :Chia they knew they could not well
answer. He would only say, that had not such
a course of nefarious conduct been pursued, lie would have had
no ebiection to produce the papers. As it was, however, he
would most positively refuse to produce them, and called upon
the House to support him in the resolution to which he bad
arrived.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the papers ought to be pro-
duced, in jtv,tice to the Raja of Sattara.
Mr. BRIGHT was well aware that there were many mean,
existing in India by which copies of the correspondence. of the
officials of the Government could be obtained ; and he thought
it rather hard that because some dishonesty or irregularity
had taken place in obtaining copies of the correspondence, that
therefore, the official returns should be refused; especially as
they might tend to justify the character of the dethroned
Raja.
Sir EDWARD COLEBROOK was of opinion that they
should have full information on this subject, unless the Right
Hun. Gentleman thought that injury would result to the Govern-
ment, by the production of the paper. He had not given any
sufficient reason for their refusal.

Mr. AGLIONBY thought they were losing timo in that
discussion, and as the Right Honourable Gentleman had not
objected to the production of the papers, and had only refused
them on account of the precedent this would establish; he
hoped the Hon. 11Iember for Montrose would rest satisfied at
present, and had no doubt they would be produced on a future
oc, asion. _

Mr. B. ESCOTT' thought that the papers should not be
refused, even if fraud }lad been committed in procuring the
papers, as it was necessary that the House should ha►e the
fullest information on the subject—that it might have an op-
portunity of pronouncing a correct judgment on the case of the
unfortunate Prince to whom they referred.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
was quite right in refusing the papers. If the House would
assent to this motion it would give its sanction to what was a
must object htnable and dishonourable proceeding with regard
to procuring these documents. He thought, therefore, that he
was quite right in refusing them, and he should not have inti-
mated that he would produce them on a future occasion, as this
would be holding out an encouragement to such practices.
Dr. BOWRING said the Raja had nothing to do with the
surreptitious way in which the papers had been obtained, and
therefore he trusted his cause would not suffer from it. lie
had known instances in which the House had printed papers
obtained in such a way.
After a few words from Lord PALMERSTON,
Mr. II UNIE said be considered that the papers might have
been abstracted from a sense of justice of the claim of the Raja.
( Oh, oh.) He had endeavoured to bring the subject before the
House for some time past; but he had not had an opportunity
of doing so until that evening, and he hoped now the produc-
tion of the papers would not be delayed on the ground of eti-
quette. He, however, had no objection to withdraw that part
of the motion to which the Hon. Baronet objected.
The motion so amended was then agreed to.
CORPORAL PUNISEIMENI IN THE NAVY.

Mr. HUNIE moved for a return of the number of persons
flogged in the British navy in each of the years 1845 and 1846,
speiitying the name of the ship, the offence, the sentence, and
the number of lashes inflicted; and also for an abstract of the
total number of corporal punishments in the navy, and the total
number of lashes inflicted, in each year, up to the 31st day of
December, 1846. . . . .

Admiral BOWLES had no objection to the production of
papers which had reference to the infliction of cor-
poral punishmeut in the navy, and the circumstances
under which the different punishments were inflicted.
lie should rejoice when the hour would arrive that would
enable them to abolish corporal punishment altogether. All
that he objected to was, the giving the names of tho vessels, as
in many instances the commanders were compelled to resort to
corporal punishment to preserve subordination. Neither had
they any opportunities to inflict secondary punishments such as
the army had, by prisons and drills, for they had seldom room to
imprison more than three men. There always existed some kind of
organisation in the army, but a ship might be in commission but
one year, and the officer in command had to bring his men into
discipline, which could not be done without some little severity.
Moreover, every three years the whole task had to begin again,
as they generally had an entirely new crew to govern.
Mr. WARD admitted the difference between the two ser-
vices, but he hoped to be able to introduce a Bill that night
which would enable them to introduce secondary punishments,
by the establishment of home stations. He dirt not think that
corporal punishment could be entirely done away with, but he
wished to have the wholesome check of public opinion over its
exertion, and no officer, where it was required, would hesitate
to resort. to it.

Mr. FOX MAULE tl.ought the clause was one of those
vrlich ought to be confined to very narrow limits, although it
could not be entirely done away with.
Mr. WILLIAMS heard with admiration the wish and hope
of the Gallant Admiral. Since the last returns had been
granted the punishment in the army had been lessened.
The returns were then agreed to.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in a Bill for the regulation of lunatic asylums.
BILL FOR LIGHTING AND IMPROVING TOWNS.

Lord MORPETH moved for leave to bring In a Bill for
consolidating in one Act certain provisions contained in Acts
for lighting, watchina g, paving, draining, and improving
towns.
sSpeirnsßeOwßitEh theRT nPeEccEssLitywoisfhedtor applyingk
Majesty's je
know of w o
sri
t s
f private
apatesee intended
onsana-
tory
nßt l nlsd
?e d
to
di If
they were only to have this Bill, he did not think that it would
fulfil the expectations raised by h e
improvement.
Lord MORPETH intimated that a more general measure
on sanatory reform was under consideration, and would be in-
troduced on a future day. The present measure was only to
facilitate the progress of private Bills.
Lord LINCOLN did not think the Bill so extensive as it
ought to be.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
The motion was agreed to.
On the motion that the House go into Committee upon the
Mr. P. SCROPE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
exempt from poor-rate (in England) the occupiers of tenements
under the value of 5/. in rural, and 81. in town parishes, if cer
tifi.,d by the medical officer of the union to be properly drained
and maintained in a condition not to be prejudicial to the health
of the inmates of the neighbourhood.
Mr. WARD obtained leave to bring in a Bill for extending
the period of service of boys in her Majesty's navy ; also a Bill
for the establishment of naval prisons, and for the prevention of
desertions from her Majesty's navy.
The Annual Indemnity Bill was brought in by Mr.
PARK. ER.
HARI3OURS, DOCKS, AND PIERS CLAUSES
BILL.
Mr. WARD moved the postponement of the Committee on
the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Bill till Monday:
Mr, C. BERKELEY moved that it be committed that day