The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-27 00:00:00

EVENING, MAY 27, 1851.

arms at the time against the authority of her Majesty,
and that the whole country way in a perfect state of
trtriquility when the twasures he was about to refer
t) were carried into effect. Upon that point there was
no dispute. Before, however, he related what these
measures were, ho would deferibe to the House what the
nature of of martial-law was.—(Hear, hear.)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

COURSE OF RAW-1J
Amiterua. ..........11 17
Ditto, three mouths.. 11 184
Rotterdam •..... 11 Is%
Antwerp— • • .......... 25 25
BrusseLs • • •• 25 25
Hamburgh ......M.B. 13 8%
Altona.••
Paris, 3 days'sight ...• 25 5
Ditto, 3 months .... 25 25
Marseilles .... ••.•.. • . 2.5 25
Bourdeaux— •
!hal/Morton Mains.... 119%
Vienna, efrec. fie •••• •• 12 50
Trieste, ditto.... • • .... 12 30
Petersburgh, Bil. Rble•• 37
Madrid •• •• •• •• 50
Cadiz •• .• ....•....... 601
Barcelona • • •• ........

►NGE.-('THIS DAY.
Gibraltar.. • •
Leghorn .. ...... • .
dilan,4enoa •• •• •• •• • •
. • • • • • • • • • • •
Venice.-- • . •• • •
Naples .•••• • • • • •
PAlermo, peroz
31e$sina .
Lebon .... • • .

Oporto.• .. • • .. • . • • .. ••
Rio Janeiro .......• • •
Buenos Ayres .. ••• • ••
New York, 60 days'aight
Philadelphia .... • • ....

41%
123
123%
153 N.
63%

PRICES OF BILLION, PER 01,
Foreign Gold in bars.. £3 17 9
Portteral Goltl Coin .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0
New Dollars •• 0 4 11 14
Silver In bars 0 0

SMITHFIELD MARKET.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
shall feel obliged by your correcting an error
in your report or my evidence given yesterday before
the commi tee respecting the removal of Smithfield-
market. You report as my having stated that my
salesman's charges for selling cattle is 4d., and sheep 6.1.
I beg to say that it i. 4s. per bead f cattle, and Sd. per
head for sheep, or a net commission of 6 per head tor
sheep.—l beg to remain, Sir, yours most obediently,
W. 11. BOND.

Bell and Crown Holborn, Itay 27.

FRANCE.
M. E. DUCLERC, the defeated candidate for the
Landes, has addressed a letter to several of the
journals in which he expresses his astonishment at
the remark made by the Minister of the Interior in
the Chamber, that if be (M. DUCLERC) had been
elected, he would have supported the policy of the
Government. The Minister, he says, had opposed
bim in the Landes because he knew him to be an ad-
vocate fa. universal buffiage, and had supported
General Duman as the partizin of the contrary
principle, and WAS sure of his plitical sympathies,
while he could not rely on the support of one who
had never been subservient to any party, but had al-
ways followed the dictires of his own conscience.

GERM A N Y.
A letter of the 21st, from Vienna, says....-
" Immediately alt,-r his
.return from Dresden, Prince
de Sehwartzenherg had.a private audience of the Em-
peror, which lasted for two hours. The Prince, it is
said, feels convinced that Austria will obtain the en.
trance into the Germanic Diet Rich all her possessions,
and the Customs' union with all the other states. As
to a new Central Federal Government, he confines him-
self to the formation of a military commission of Pras•
sia, Austria, and Bavaria. It is said that M. de Man-
teuffel showed himst If less hostile to the vote by a sim-
ple mujorit) than the Prussian Gazette would lead one
to believe, and that the terms on which the Ministers at
Dresden separated were so cordial that no doubt re-
, mains of the Holy Alliance being renewed and esta-
blished either at Warsaw or at Olmutz From the pre-
parations now making at the Palace, it would appear
that the coronation of the Emperor was intended to take
place very shortly."
A letter from Berlin, 24'h, says :—" In an article
in the Prussian Gazette this morning, the re-esta-
blishment of the traditional alliance between Prussia
and Russia is mentioned as being the principal ob-
ject of the Congress of Warsaw in a conservative
interest."

In the Chamber of Deputies of Bavaria on the 19th,
a Bill for the Palatinate was presented, having for
object to protect the KING and all the members of the
royal family from insult, there being no such pro-
vision in the existing laws. The Prince DE %VAL-
LERSTEIN and M. SCHMIDT spoke against the Bill.
M. SCHMIDT declared that the KING was not more
entitled to protection than any citizen. Ile was in-
terrupted by the President of the Cnumber, who de-
clared that, as the KING was the possessor of ma-
jesty, such theories as that of M. SCHMIDT could not
be tolerated. The Bill was carried by a majority of
95 to 85.

RUSSIA AND POLAND.
The Russian Government has resolved to form
railway between the important manufacturing towns
of Sgierz and Lody, and to put them in communica-
tion with Warsaw by ernbranchmen,s on the Warsaw
and Cracow line. It is also intended to unite War-
saw by railway with St. Petertburgh and Moscow.
Warsaw will shortly be put in communication with
Berlin by the railway from Lowiez to the Prussian
!mintier. The Russian Government is at present ne-
gotiating with the Prussian Cabinet on the prolonga-
tioa of that line.

ITALY.
In its sitting of the 20th the Senate of Turin
paused a Bill for the establishment of an electric tele-
-1 graph between Turin and Genoa. It also passed
the Bill on a tax to be laid on mortmain property
and corporate bodies, by a majority of 53 to 39.
The Croce di Savoia of Turin quotes a corropon-
&nes from Nice of the lith, which, besides confirm•
log the particulars we gave two days ago, adds that
the excitement in that town continuili unabated, and
that the Municipal Council, in its sitting of the 16 h,
unanimously adopted the tollowing protest :
" The Council, in C ,nformil with the deliberation of
the delegated Council, declines that it protests against
the abolition of the tree port; it charges the deputation
named in yesterdafs sitting to assert our rights before
the Government Lied the Chambers, and sends as a docu-
ment the protest presented in the name of the popu-
lation."

THE FATAL COLLISION ON THE MID.
LAND RAIL WAY.
CHESTERFIELD, MONDAY.— We are happy to state
that kit the mon.' ash whit) wera injured by the colli-
sion on tha Midland listiway at Claycross, last Monday
night, are in a slate approaching to convalescence, ex-
cept Mr. John Todhunt, r, ol Dublin, the gentleman who
had the misfortune to sustain a fracture of both legs.
lie does not improve, and his case is critical.
It will be remembered that the conclusions, esta-
blished by the evidence taken last we..k, were these:—
l'he evidence of the conductors connected with the two
clashing trains clearly established that the express train
was 15 minutes behind tinio at starting from Derby, and
that between Derby and Clay-cross there was a further
toss of 10 minutes,hy stoppages at small stations, at which,
according to the official time•tab!e, it ought not to have
called. The goods train, on the contrary, starting from
Derby five naiautt a after the express, and 15 minutes
behind its proper time, had traveled 60 rapidly as to
reach Clay-cross 10 minutes before the time it was due,
having in a distance of 24 miles gained 25 minutes over
its proper spec-d.
At the resumed inquest on Monday, evidence of a Si-
milar character to that already adduced was given.
After some discussion,
Mr. Preston said he wanted to call the passongers to
give evidence as to the time which elapsed between the
stoppage of the train and the collision, respecting which
the evidence was at present conflicting.
The inquest was then adjourned to Friday, at eleven
o'clock.

On Friday last Dr. E. D. Allison concluded his
lectures on the " Causes and Cure of Drunkenness," in the
Temperance-hall, Royal Mint-street, Whitechapel. The large
hall was, as formerly, filled to overflowing, and many per-
sons could not obtain access. The lecturer forcibly and elo-
que❑ ly pointed out the evils of drunkenness, and urged in-
creased attention to education of an improved character, to
cold and warm bathing, to better ven►ilated residences, in-
creased supply of water, &c., as powerful means of improving
loose habits. Dr. Allison was loudly cheered several times,
and his excellent suggestions appeared to make an impres-
sion on his numerous audience. A vote of thanks was pro-
posed, seconded, and unanimously carried to the Doctor for
his discourses, and the Chairman, in conveying them, con-
gratulated him on the manner in which he had conducted
the business of the evening, and added that he would soon
favour his friends by giving lectures on other important
subjects.

FATHER I3NATIII3.—We are assured that Mr.
Spencer has altogether discarded shoes and stockings, and
attired in this manner, called a few days since upon the Rev
Dr. Cumming, and challenged the Rev. Gentleman to a dis-
cus,ion of the truth of the Romish faith. Dr. Cumming,
with that zeal for the Reformed Church for which he is so
remarkable, at once accepted the invitation of the Romish
father, and we believe that but for tho interference of Car-
dinal Wiseman, who has expressly forbidden it, the discussion
would have taken place next week. Sunday Times.

IMPERIAL PARLIAM ENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS. May 26.
PIJNJAUB PRIZE MONEY.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUG El then rose to move,
aceording to notice, that ,here be laid before the House
a copy of a letter from the directors of the East India
Company to the Governor-General of India in
Council, directing the payment of a donation, equal to
six months' full baits, to the Commander-in-Chief,
the generals, and the other officers, non-commissioned
officers, and privatee, who served during the last
campaign in the Put jaub; also, account showing the
total sum paid as so &reeled to the army, and the por-
tion thereof paid to efficers end corps stationed on the
left bank of the Sutlej, cn the 17th of September, 1843;
also, showing the sum so paid to the Commander ia-
Chief, and to each general and other officer, note com-
missioned c fficer, and private. according to their respective
ranks; also accounts showing the total sum realised by
the sale of the state jewels and other property taken pos-
session of by Brigadier Campbell, C. 8., and her Ma-
jesty's 53d Regiment, under the direction of the resi-
dent at Lahore on the 17th September, 1848, and by
the sale of other state property and booty which came
into the possession of her Majesty's forces, and of the
troops of the East India Company, during the
last cempsign in the Punjaub ; also account
e showin the estimated value of such of the state jewels
and other' property and booty as may remain unsold, and
the present disposition thereof; and also account showing
the manner in which the sums realized by the sale of such
state jewels and other property and booty have been ap-
plied, and the authority under which such application has
been made; also to move, that an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be
tcraciouslypleased to give directions that there be laid be-
&IV 110104 fiDY 444444 gl'a which

her Majesty may have been advised to take for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the rights of the Crown over the
state jewels and other property taken possession of at
Lahore on the 17th of September, 1848, and over all other
state property, and the booty which came into the pos-
session of her Majesty's forces and the troops of the East
India Company during the late campaign in the Punjaub.
The Noble Earl contended that the East India Company
had been in this instance dealing with property with
which they had no right to deal, inasmuch as the whole of
the property with which the company proposed to deal
belonged to the Crown. He contended that the batta
was a grant of the East India Company, and that
the booty money belonged to the Crown ; and
that, therefore, the East India Company had
no right to deal with it. The opinions of the
law officers of the Crown was, like the oracles of
old, most dubious, but he contended that injustice had
been done to the Indian armies, and he trusted that the
representatives of that army would have an opportu-
nity of being heard before the Judicial Committee of
Privy Council; and to their decision he would bow.
Lord MMHG HTON observed, that the first part of
the Noble Earl's speech related to that part of this
transaction of which the Noble Earl and himself bad
particular cognizance. In reply to the speech which
the Noble Earl had made on the 3d of July, 1849, he
had thought it his duty to lose no time in inquiring into
the ehjectiona which had been made to the course taken
by the East India Company, and in performing that
shish seemed to him to be dictated by duty. The
Noble Earl then appeared to him to say, that if the
tie ops engaged in the campaign in the ruejaub were
given six months' batta they would have no grounds of
complaint. He now appeared to regret having said so,
and to think that though they had received that amount
of batta full justice had not been done them. He (T,ord
Broughton) regretted very much that the Noble Earl
had brought this discussion forward a second time; for,
with his high talents and great knowledge of India, he
must know the perilous consequences of what he was
doing—he must know that throwing out these doubts as
to the justice done to the army was placing the Go-
vernor-General as well as the Commander-in• Chief in
India in a position of great peril.—(" Hear, hear," from
a Noble Lord on the back Ministerial bench.) He denied
in tote that any injustice had resulted to the army of India
from, the course which had been pursued towards it.
The sum of money granted to the army in batta was at
least as great as that which it would have received sup-
posing the booty of war had been granted to it; and
since the year 18411, when the papers relative to the war
in the Punjaub were laid upon the table, no complaint had
reached the ears of the authorities in India, either at
home or abroad, from soldier or from civilian, save the
Noble Lord opposite. Knowing, as he did, how dear the
interests of India and those of the soldiers of India were
to the Noble Earl, he could not understand what earthly
reason had induced him to bring this motion forward.
The Noble Earl had told them that he wanted the rights
of the Crown to be preserved, both as to the past and
the future operations of war. Now, it seemed to him
(Lord Broughton) that if her Majesty had not considered
the rights of the Crown to have been duly protected in
the treaty with the Maharaja she would not have
granted a higher honour in the peerage to the
high functionary who sanctioned it. The Noble
Earl had not only accused, in his speech of
that night, the authors of that arrangement and
those who approved it, but had also declared
that they had not done justice to the officers and sol-
diers who achieved those great victories. After re-
butting those observations with great force, the Noble
Baron proceeded to comment on the remark of the
Noble Earl, that the army, if it had got its share of the
booty, eould have got a larger sum of money than it
received in baits. Now, he did not know on what
authority the Noble Earl put forth that assertion ;
hut this he did know, that the Commander-in-Chief,
Lord Gough, had made no complaint of that kind, nor
any other officer. He must correct a mistake into
which the Noble Earl had fallen, when ho said that
the siege of Moultan had no reference to the campaign
of Lahora. He must rcarnd the Noble Barl that
Moultan and its citadel belonged to the State of La
hore.— [Lord ELLENBOROUGEI " I know that."]
Why, then, had the Noble Earl endeavoured to draw a
distinction between the army in Lahore and that before
Moultan ?

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH observed, that all
he meant to say was that the property in Moultan did
not belong to the Maharaja as Sultan of Lahore.
Lord BROUGHTON observed that, instead of troub-
ling their Lordships with any quotation of authorities,
he would now proceed to inform them what was the
question which he had submitted to the law officers of
the Crown, and to three other legal gentlemen of high
standing in the profession. That question referred en-
tirely to the arrangement made at Lahore. He might as
well inform them, in the first instance, that the case
drawn out for the Queen's Advocate, the Attorney-
General and the Solieitor-General, was drawn out in
such a manner as to contain the whole of the Noble Earl's
speech two years op, as also a private letter which the
Noble Earl bad aduressed to him on the subject. It was
perfectly true that the other three gentlemen did not see
the case with the private letter in it. But he happened
to know that that letter was read to them by one of the
law officers of the Crown. The question asked at the
concltvion of the case was—
" Whether the arrangement of the 29th of March,
1349, concluded by Lord Dalhousie with Maharaja
Duleep Singh, and ratified by the home authorities, could
be impugned on any legal grounds? " and the reply' was,
We aro of opinion that tne arrangement of March 29,
1849, concluded and ratified as stated in this case, cannot
be impugned,

JOIIN DODSON.
" A. E. Coceenum
W. I'. WOOD.
" FREDBRICS THESIGER.
" FIYZRoY KELLY.
"April 30, 18.51." " LOFTUS WIGRAM."
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, interrupting, ob
served that be did not like to rk f-r to what had passed
between the Noble Baron end himself in private. But
be understood the Noble Baron to say that his letter and
his speech were originally in the case; but that, in curs-
sequence of the interference of the solicitor to tho Court
of Directors, his letter and his speech had been subse-
quently withdrawn from it.
Lord BROUGHTON ((ts far as we could hear him is
the gallery) replied that the Noble Earl must have mis-
understood him, and repeated his former severnent.
Though these documents were not in the case submitted
to the three other Learned Counsel, those gentlemen had
had before them all the information sucmitted to the law
officers of the Crewe.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGLI hoped that, as the
Noble Baron had produced the whole ot the first case, he
would have no objection to produce the whole of the se-
cond case alse.
Lord BROT.IGHTON then proceeded to comment on
the main point of the speech made by the Noble Earl
that evening. The Noble Lord had said that the Go-
vernor-General in Council had no right to appropriate
this booty to the Treaeury of India, as it was the pro-
pery of the Crown. Now, ho should like to know
what difference t xisted between this case and two others,
to which ho would briefly refer. The first was the
Noble Earl's own trantacdon with respect to Sindia
and Gwalior, in which his practice did not seem to have
been esetaltially different from that of Lord Dalhousie.
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH—There was no pro-
perty in that C 4,0 r xc,-pt the guns taken in the field.
Lord BROUGHToN—But it was property won at
the point ot the bayonet as much as that won at Lahore.
By the sth article of the treaty with Sindia, of the 13th
of Jewelry, 1844, it was stipulated thus:—
" Whereas there is nory due to the British Govern-
ment the sum of 10 lees of rupees on the score of charges
of the contingent force, and a further sum of one lac on
account t,f advances, and the charges of the pre,ent ar-
mernent of the British Government may be estimeted at
10 Lacs, and a further expenditure of 5 lacs will be in-
curred by the British Government in affording compen-
sation, it is further agreed that his Highness shall pay
to the British Government the sum of 26 lacs of rupees
within 14 days from the date of the treaty."
Here was a specific sum of money extorted from a minor
prince at the point of the bayonet, and almost on the
field of battle, yet there was no hesitation in applying
that sum in discharge of cl, fete due to the British Go-
vernment and of the expenses of the war. The destina-
tion of the sums extorted from Gwalior and from Lahore
was precisely the same, and the Gwahor money was as
much, or more, the produce of the battle of Mabarajpoor
as the Lahore jewels were the produce of the battles in
the Puejeub. Lord Hardinge also, in his treaty with
Lahore, of March 9, 1846, demanded, " as indemnifica-
tion for the expenses of the war," payment of one and a
half crores of rupees. It is true that he commuted two-
thirds of this sum for a cession of territory; but such
commutation would seem to make no difference if
there were an inherent right in some other body than
the Government of India to have all money ac-
quired by the force of arms. It would be unfair to
defeat such a right by such a commutation, But, at
any rate, Lord Harding() demanded in cash one-third of
the abovementioned sum, or 50 lees of rupees, towards
the expenses of the war, and why should a distinction
be drawn between that case and that then before the
House? Lord Dalhousie then followed these examples;
and ho should like to know who had a better right to
this money than the people of India, for it was they who
received it, when it was paid into the Indian Treaeury,
and the East India Company had no interest in it what-
soever. With respect to the returns for which the
Noble Earl had moved, he did not know whether the
Noble Earl really wanted them, or had only moved for
them to raise a discussion; but, if the Noble Earl really
wanted them, he must tell him that there was some por-
tion of them he must withhold, as they could not be given
without previous communication with India. He was
precluded from producing communications which were
confidential, and which could not indeed be legally
granted, for the 34,h section of the East India Company's
Act contained a special reservation, which rendered in-
violate all communications between the East India Com-
pany and their officers at home. He was ready to pro-
ducehe all that he could with propriety produce; but
hoped that the Noble Lord veiuid not press the motion.h
e
The Eat' of ELLENBOROUGH replied that
should feel much more satisfied if the Noble Lord, in ad-
dition to stating the substance of the first casee
goodnessprepared
for the law officers of the Crown, had had the
to inform him whether the
question with which it con-
cluthd was the same as that with which the second case
concluded. The Gwalior case was entirely different
from the Lahore case; the arrangement
e states, and not
tly made in
be-
tween the
Gwalior case was made between
a state and a conquering enemy. He had said
nothing which could be thought to cast reflection on the
Governor- General of India. He adhered to the expres-
sion he used in 1849, that the Governor-General had
acted inadvertently, that he had acted under the error of
supposing that he was the representative of the Crown,
whereas, in fact, he was the representative of the East
India Company only•
The Duke of WELLINGTON--Having had the
bon- of terYin in t.lia EAlt Ir4est briin 1419

knowledge of transactions of this deser;ption, I must
say, my Lords, that from experience of the station of
Governor-General in Council, I had conceived a very
different opinion from that which has now been given
by my Noble Friend behind me, who, I think, has
a more practical knowledge of the subject than I
can possibly have. But I talk only of nay own expe-
rience. The Governor-General in Council is the re-
presentative of all British authority in the East Indies,
and exercises all British authority in the East Indies.
I have served in an army to which the Governor-
General has granted booty on the part of the Crowe;
he has taken upon himself- to assume, or, if the Noble
Lord pleases, to usurp the authority of the Crown in
granting booty, Bat I say I have myself partaken of
booty thus granted by a Governor-General.—(Eleer,
hear.) It is true, my Lords, that he is appointed by the
Court of Directors of the E %tit India Company, but by
the law of England he exercises every British authority
in the East Indies, and he assumes to himself the power
of the Crown to grant hotly in the possession of the
Crown. That assumption of authority must be con-
firmed, and I have no doubt it was confirmed, at least I
have never heard otherwise than that it was confirmed,
aed would be I conclude in every instance; but this is
what I insist upon, that the Governor-G•meral in C nee-
cil in India does exercise every power of every descrip-
tion on the part of this country, and that by law he may
usurp authority with which he is not strictly invested at
the moment; but that is a matter to be settled between
the Crown and the authorities that appoint him, namely,
the East India Company. The Crown sublcquently con-
firms that authority, and the matter there remains as
between the Crown and the East India Company. lam
speaking of that which I know (rein experience is
the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked, that what-
ever observations tell from this Noble Earl who had
brought forward the motion would be received with the
most profound respect, and if tbe Noble Lord propounded
the opinion that injustice had been done to the military
in the case to whiclehe had adverted, the opinion was one
which could not fail to excite' the deepest attention. The
Neble Lord at the bead of 'the Board of Control had
handed the notice to him (the Lord Chancellor), and,
believing the facts of the case and the state of the law
were not properly understood. he should tender some ex-
planations on the subject. The Noble Earl had con-
sidered the question as being whether the property be.
longed to the Crowu; yet the object was not to consider
the question as lying between the East India Company
and the Crown simply; but, if the property belonged to
the Crown, it was a question whether the army might
expect to derive benefit from it, to which they could not
properly be entitled if the property belonged to the
East India Company. Reverting to the historical
events with which the subject of the motion was cot:-
nected, the Noble and Learned Lord reminded their
Lordships that in 1848 no war arose between
the Maharaja of Lahore and the British Government
in India, but certain subjects of the Maharaja rebelled
against their Sovereign; and the British Government
interfered to protect him; it interfered as au ally and
friend, not as an enemy of the Maharaja. The jewels
and other property in question were placed in the cita-
del, under the guard of a force of the East India Com-
pany's troops. Did that property thereby become the
property of the Crown? Certainly not. If property
were seized in anticipation of hostilities and by way of
precaution, and the hostilities which had been anticipated
followed, the principle stated by the Noble Lord was
applicable; but property not seized hostilely, not seized
in anticipation of hostilities, a subsequent declaration of
hostilities did not affect. The general principles had
been discussed in a case which had occurred at the
Cape of Good Hope. The property seized on the 17th
September, 1848, was seized for the purpose of protec-
tion, when the person of the Maharaja was also taken
under protection by the Indian Government. He
believed that at that time the Qacen's troops had not
entered Lahore at all; and it was not till the 20th of
October following that there was say statement
made with reference to general hostilities in the docu-
ments he had seen—doom:re nts which went to show that
the steps which were taken were taken for the protection
of the Maharaja. If possession had been taken of the
property, not in anticipation of hostilities but in the
way now described, and if hostilities had subsequently
arisen, would that property belong to the Crown, and
could any army be entitled to have it awarded as boot) ?
Certainly not. Therefore the material question was to
ascertain whether the property was taken possession of
hostilely or not with reference to the Maharaja. if
not, there was an end to the question altogether, because
no subsequent declaration of hostility or subsequent hos-
tility would affect that property. Thu Maharaja with his
council then entered into a treaty of thig nature. He
found he had not strength enough to maintain his sove-
reignty against his rebellious subjects; he therefore pro•
posed to resign his sovereignty and all the rights belong-
ing to him (not that the surrender was a matter of choice,
but that was the form); the treaty into which het entered
was one in which he assumed to be what in every view of the
case he (the Lord Chancellor) conceived the Maharaja to
be, the owner of 'het property taken for protection on
September 17, 1848; and the Maharaja resigned the
sovereignty, together with the property, in consideration
of the East India Company engaging to allow him so
many hies of rupees a year and making certain arrange-
ments with respect to his future condition. It seemed to
him (the Lord Chancellor) that there was no ground
whatever for supposing that injustice had been due to
the army, for that property never belonged to the Crown,
nor had the Crown any right which could give the army
any right to booty. Unless it could be shown that the
Maharaja had lost his right to the property, there could
be no ground for the view allocated by the Noble Earl.
In a former speech the Noble Earl had suggested that
the Maharaja was incapable of entering into a treaty
in as far he was not a free agent. It would be a new
doctrine if persons were not to be bound by treaties who
were not at the time of making them free agents; such
an idi a was founded on the total mistake of applying
the municipal law to political transactions.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained, that as far as
possible he had put the army in the background, and had
stood by tee rights of the Crown. Ile objected now, us
in 1849, that the property in question bad been taken
from the Crown unlawfully. He desired only that it
should go lawfully into the hands of those for whom it
was destined. There was none for whose opinion he
had a greater respect in a case where ample opportu-
nity had been afforded for investigation ; but the Noble
and Learned Lord had been instructed as to halt' the
case only.
Lord BROUGHTON asked the Noble Earl whether
the East India Company were not trustees for the
Crown, rod if they were not so declared by Act of Par-
liament P If they were trustees for the Crown, whose
servant was the (I mernor-General. He was the servant
of trustees of the Crown, and therefore represented the
Crown.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH replied, that the
Noble Lord represstited the Crown in Indian affeirs. He
would advise the Noble Lord not to touch the dangerous
ground that the East India Company represented the
Crown

After a few words from the Marquis of LONDON-
DERRY,
There was a short conversation across the table, the
result of which we understood to be that a part of the
motion should be agreed to, so far as the papers osked
for could be given; the rest of the motion to be nega-
tived. And.it was ordered arc. tdiu~ly.
On the motio❑ of the Earl of CAI{LISLE. the Select
Committee on the Episcopal and Capitutar Estates Ma-
nr.gement Bill vv,ss num,d.
SALMON' FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL moved the second reading of
a Bill for the further regulation of the salmon fisheries
iu Scotland. The object of the Bill was to close the
fishing on the Ist instead of the 14th of September, so
that no fish of the salmon kind should be taken alter the
3&st of August, excoot that the proptieturs of the fish-
jugs and persons euthorized by them in writing might
angle with the rod tor 21 days more. The Bill also
contained a clause relative to the " Saturday's slap,"
providing tbat the mitres and engines should be
opened or removed from six o'clock on Saturday night to
six o'clock o❑ Monday morning,.
The Duke of RICH HOND was not going to divide
the House, but hoped the Noble Duke would allow suffi
cient time befoie going into Conatnittee for the parties
interested to become aware of there being such a Bill in
progress. The Bill, it appeared, would allow gentle.
men to fish with rods for their amusement when those
who supplied the market were stopped.
The Duke of ARGYLE, observed, that the upper pro-
prietors had valuable fisheries befoie traps were set be
law, and that the number of salmon that could be caught
by the fly was a mere drop in the bucket compared with
the take by net or trap. He had thought it advisable its
this Bill to introduce a " Siturda)'s slap" clause; but.
did not wish to press the clause if it was seriously ub
jeoted to.
The Earl of MINTO believed the Bill, as far as it
went, was calculated to do some good; but it would not
meet the most esrious evil.
After a few words from the Earl of YARBOROUGH,
The Bill was read a second time.
The House adjourned at a Quarter before Eigh
o'clock,

110(7SE OF CoMMONS. May 26.
ECCLE:SIA6FICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL
Tho Home then again wont into Committee on thi;
i

Bill.
amendment:
Mr. M'CULLAGsHomteroved the following
the words " by law," to insert
—ln page 2. line 1 'ho shall have been recognised as
theme words; " or
„i; warchbishop of any province Roman
Human Catholic
diocese, or Rua C ' •
Catholic bishop of any
of any dean*ry, by any of her Majesty's superior courts
of law or equity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment.
Mr. GRATTAN dencunved their whole system
of hagi,,lation in this nutter as a species of tread
and hypocrisy far below the dignity of the House
to hare entered upon. Did the supporters
of the Bill mean to put down the Roman Catholic reli-
gion in Irel,nd, and to allow no church to be in exi,t-
coca these in whit the Pipe could intilfere in the
slightest decree, directly or iodkeetly ? He would
remind them that Irelaud bad a charter to preserve as
well "8 England, and on the principle of that charter
Irishmen would oppose, and he hoped defeat, the present
Bill. They ought to have learned long ago from tho
wisdom of their ancestors that it was impossible
to govern on a system of penal laws. The greatest
men who had adorned that Houuo
had
legislation
re-
nounced the idea. The system of
~ad
which had been pur,ued towards Irelan
deprived the people of the nobility gentry,andadd leftthem and
n
beggared the middle classes, and b
nothing but their priests; and if
this
continued,
country. itwould make
as the present Bill proposcrl,
the country altogether into a rborri,llCatholic
For his part, he thought there was no length
that House to which
permate • dby the law or the rules of
_i_.
and . a
to oppose the .ti. if,. h
Meuabets ought not to go
I. lerar to 913414
4 QC "4 : -
491114 be the lot, either 011,40 e

them or to shriek from doing his parr. The Bill ws
an atrocity, and fell) justified any 'earth of opposition.
Mr. CONOLLY begged the indulgence of the thane
while ho stated nis reasons for supporting the Bill of
the Government. The Bill did not prevent Roman Ca-
tholic subjects enjoying the rights of their religion, nor
did it interfere with the spiritual functions of the
Roman Catholic bishops. He considered that the Noble
Lord had done wisely in prohibiting the assumption of
territorial titles by the Roman Catholic clergy, for though
they were of th• mselves mere bugbetir titles, and of no
importance, they showed an attempt on the part of
the Pope to acquire temporal and political power.
Papal influence, was not confierd to religion, but,
on the contrary, was exercised, over worldly affairs in a
way irreconcileble with the law of the land.—(Hear.)
All history testified as to the grasping nature of the
Roman Catholic Church, and showed beyond a doubt
that the power she aimsd at was not alone spit itusl, but
also temp-rel. That, therefore, being the nature of the
power sought to be eesumed by the Pope of laome,• he
was decidedly opposed to any extension of it. Not that
he was in the least friehtened that such is power could
ever undermine th it own glorious constitution, but, at
the same time. were it allowed unbounded sway he was •
afraid that it might do much, as it had already- done in
Ireland, to impede tied embarrass the freedom of that
constitution. tie thought, therefore, that in resisting -
Vats act of aggression ou the part of the Pope, the Noble
Lord at tile head of the Gosernment had taken the
course that he ought to have dune. It was no doubt '
said by those who opposed that course, that in adopting
it the Noble Lord was infringing upon the religious
berty of the subj,ct, but how teat argument could be
used by those who professed to belong to a church
which permitted of no religious liberty whatever, was
mystery which he could nt t, and had never yet heard
any one attempt to solve.—(gear.)
Mr. F. PEEL confessed that bid mind was in such a
state of uncettainty with respect to the probable range
of the. clause, that he fit disposed to support any
amendment which would have the e fleet of weakening it.
The Comittee, be felt, would be guilty of some•incon-
eistency. 'of conduct, if, after having deliberately con-
sented to reject the two clauses which stood originally
in the Bill as it was first introduced by her Majesty's
Government, and that, too, upon the recommendation of
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home
Department, it now consented to the adoption, unmo-
dified in any respect, of the present clause, which had
been culled from amongst the amendments of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst. Let the House re-
member
the circumstances under which it consented
to waive those two important clauses. The Right
Hen. Gentleman the Home S, cretary had informed she
House that subsequently to the introduction of the Bill
he had discovered that under certain circumstances in the
operation of the Bequests Act, for example, if a Roman
Catholic priest was required to produce as evidence in
court of law in Ireland, with a view to establishing his
title to the donation bequeathed to him, under that Act,
his lettere of ordivation, or the instrument of his institu-
tion, or collation to his benefice, which letters or instru•
meats were invariably mid of necessity signed by the
dtgnitarirs of the Raman Catholic Church under the
style and title of the sees to which they had been nomi-
nated or appointed by the Pope, the courts of law in Ire-
land had not considered those documents inadmissible
as evidence, expressly upon the ground that, although
the open assumption of those titles might be prohibited
under a penalty, yet that there was no express declara-
tion in the Roman Catholic Relief Act to theeffect that
those titles themselves were illegal and void. If that -
were so, how would it be consistent in them to adopt
the present clause without any modification whatever -
when it declared that a brief, and any title conferred
under it, was illegal and void? Was it not clear that
where they made an express declaration that any title
conterrea by the Pope should be illegal and void—that
was, should be of no effect, and treated as non-existent
—there was no court of law in the world that would re-
cognize us a valid designation of the party such a title
subscribing any document, whether it were a letter of
otdination or au institution to a benefice. That was the
inconsistency which they should remove if they could, or
if not, at least introduce some modification into the
clause to remedy it. It might •be said that the
clause referred only to a particular brief, and that that -.
brief cunc. rued England only, and that Ireland, in
which country alone the Bequests Act bad force, could
nut be prejuinceei by it. But the obtuse was a declara-
tory one, and re-enacted the existing law. In terms it
might only strike at one particular brief, but in effect it
declared teat every brief and every title derived from the
Pope should, by reason of its.source and origin, be treated
as illegal and void. It might be said that-the clause was
iut.oxious, as it only re-enacted the existing law; but the
fact of its being necessary to re enact a law already in
force show. d that already the law bad been allowed to fall
into desueiude. It was be cause he tot k these views of
the matter that he was anxious that some modification
should be introduced in the clause as it now stood.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
..„ 179
Majority
The amendment was accordingly lost.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. REYNOLDS, belore they proceeded further with
the clause, begged to ask the Noble Lord a question.
Bearingan mind. the differences of opinion between the
!Liners with respect to its effect, m-, re particularly the,
ditfi renoe of, opinion between the Solicitor-General and
the Attorney-Geueral, and between these two Hon.; and Learned Gentlemen and the Hon. and Learned Mecober
for Midhurst, and coupling both instances with the able
arguments which bad appeared on the subject that day
in tee orgau of the Government—the Times uewspaper--,
be wished to ask the Noble Lord whether, remembering
those facts, he was still determined to persevere in
urging the adoption of the clause on the Committee?
Lord J. RUSSELL 'had not himself perceived Any
differences of opinion between the Solicitor and Attor-
ney• General and between these Lion. and Learned Gen-
men and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to
by the Hon. Member, and it certainly was his deterroi-'
nation to co on with the clause.
Mr. KEOGH observed that the Solicitor-General had
raid it was impossible that this clause should be aban-
doned; and one would imagine, therefore, that it was
the Government's own clause. But if there was such an
impossibility the Government would have originally in-
troduced the clause. He, now asked the Noble Lord
where was the impossibility of striking the clause out of
the Bill? The Government had not first introduced it,
and there was no declaration or vote of the House in its
tavour. The Noble Lord had taken the clause at the '•
auggeation of the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
burst. When the Hen. and Learned Gentleman gave
notice of his amendments, the Dublin Evening Poet,
wbich was the organ of the Government in Dublin, and
every organ and retainer of the Government in Ireland, ,
drew what they cubed the marked contrast between the
Noble Lord's Bill and the amendments of the Hon. and
Learned G- ntleman; and Roman Catholics were asked
how they could oppose the Government when they did '
not go the length in their Bill which the Hon. and
Learned Member did in his amendments. But the
Noble Lord did not perceive any difference. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst had stated from the
beginning that he did not consider the clause applied
to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable and
Learned Member for Midburst, he perceived, as-
sewed to that proposition. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman went further. and stated that it was quite
mint cussary for lion. Members for Ireland to be
struggling against the clause, for that the clause did
not touch their country. That was a clear proposition;
o?
ex;
and would but the Solicitor-General had distinctly stated, in reply
to the Right Hon. Member for the
clause,
e creation of
fo rd (Mu
irda
.Gladstone),cesurily d tnhcal
include
iet stheas a declaratorycase
of the
the bishopric of Ross in Ireland. Did he (Mr. lliao-h)
a a e the case accurately ?—(A nod of assentfrom
the
81(titleitt,P.G, nettil ) The Ilea. and Learned Gentleman
assented. that, then, were the case, the Han. and
Learned
Member for Midhurst assented to the propo-
sition that te e.clause did not extend to Ireland. Did
the Noble Lord perceive the
inconsistency and contra-
diction between between those two expressions of opinion? But
the Noble Lord also was unable to perceive the con-
tradiction between the Solicitor-General and the At-
torney-
General on the clause. The Solicitor-General
acid that it was a declaraiun of the law that a brief, re-
script, or document of the kind mentioned should be
deemed unlawful and void. Was there One there, then,
who would deny that any act done under the brief, and.
therefore, in contravention of that. clause, would be as
lawful as the brief, rescript, or do m
cuent itself under
which the act wits done, and
aw
would be criminal in
that respect and a breach of the l? He ap pealed to the Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst-
e, a distingushed Chancery barrister, on the point, to the
Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin
(Mr. Napier), a distinguished common law lawyer, or
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr. Ser-
geant Murphy), whether the exercise 'of authority under
a brief in contravention of ibis section would not be a
misdemeanour, and punishable as such. But what said
the Learned Attorney-General? Why, the Learned
AttorneyaGenerel said that the clause would not affect
Ireland us regarded its criminal consequences. What
was the moral which he drew from. those diverse and
various statements? The moral was this-a-that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst wattleVaOt touch
the case of Ireland, while the Noble Lerchfeltthat the
clause was of so sweeping a naturein its operation that.
he was afraid to make the clause -applicable-to that
country. The Noble Lord, therefore, in order to gain
the support of the opposite side of the House, sroposed
to take the clause as it stood, with the version put
upon it
to
a third party
by the Solicitor-General. But there was.
be dealt with, namely, the supporters of the -
Government
in Ireland; and it, therefore, became a question how best
to bamboozle them. The Noble Lord said that the Bill
was declaratory—that it left the law as it stood—that it
did not alter it in a sins'. particular. Then came the
question was it unlawful? Was it not, after the legis-
lation of the past fifty years, incumbent on the law ad-
visers of her Maje srg to prove that the Act to which the
clause applied was f tygtal before they asked the House
for its assent to its provisions?—(Hear,) The Attorney-
General said the House would not expect him to go into-
a law argument, even though the question of the
religious belief of 8,000,000 of her Majesty's subjects;
unit yet he called upon the House to pass the law. On
what was the clause founded? On the 13th Elizabeth
or the 16th Richard IL, or on both? The solicitor.
General said on 13th Elizebeth as regarded England.
But the words of that statute were, that any person
acting under any bull, brief, or rescript of the Pope,
was guilty of high treason, and should suffer the pe-
nalty of that mime. If this was the case, what then
became of Lord Lyndhurst's Act (1846), which re-
pealed that penalty ?—(Hear.) If not, then the offence
tieing at common law, removing the penalty was tan-
tamount to abolishing the offence. The Solicitor-Ge-
neral quoted Lalor's case. lie (Mr. Keogh), however,
denied that the Statute of Provisors applied to that ease
was applicable to this. That statute applOrA only to
411 gst4tblithed Church' with inheloes 4n4 Itorerof