The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

way
The Lords Commissioners were—the Lord Chancellor,
the Earl of Harrowby, and Lord Stanley.
REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS.
Lord LYNDHURST said that three years ago a bill
was introduced for the registration of title deeds. That
bill was referred to a select committee. It came back
again to their lordships, and was passed by a large ma-
jority. It then went down to the other house, but what
afterwards became of it he did not know, except that it
never passed into a law. A commission was subse-
quently appointed to inquire into the subject. He wished
to know whether that commission had made a report,
and, if not, what was the cause of the delay Before
he sat down he wished to express his regret that so
many important measures had been this session lost.
He believed that so great an amount of bills lost or
abandoned in the present session was unprecedented in
the history of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the commis-
sion referred to had not made its report. The Registra-
tion bill alluded to had gone down to the Commons,
after receiving the general concurrence of their lordships
house. It, however, did not meet with as favourable a
reception in the :Lower House, when it was refer-
red to a select committee, who reported against the
bill. They recommended the adoption of a different
plan of registration, and a royal commission was
issued with a view of considering how far the
scheme recommended by the select committee
was practicable. That commission commenced its sit-
tings in 1854, but they had not as yet made their re-
port. He had frequently cemmanicated with the mem-
bers of the committee, two of whom were the Solicitor-
General and Mr. Walpole, and be wag informed that
there were a great many difficulties in the subject, and
that they were considering the whole of the matter very
attentively. They had drawn up a draft of a report,
which they hoped would be soon ready for presentation.
He had prepared a bill in the early part of the session
on the subject, but was induced to withhold its pre-
sentation under the expectation of the report
alluded to being presented. Unles he received the re-
port during the recess he would certainly introduce his
measure next session.
THE RAJAH OF COORG.
The Marquis of CLA.NRICARDE called attention to
the case of the Rajah of Coorg, who was at present in
England. This unfortunate gentleman had been a state
prisoner in Benare", and applied to the East India Com-
pany for leave to visit England for the purpose of bene-
fiting his health and the education of his daughter. The
Rajah having been compelled to remain some time
longer in this country, he received a note from
the East India Company, requiring him to return
to India forthwith. He wished to ask the Go-
vernment whether they had received any information
as to the treatment experienced by the Rajah at the
hands of the East India Company, against whom he
was prosecuting a suit at law. The latter fact might
account for the anxiety of the Company for the return
of the Rajah to India.
The Duke of ARGYLL said the noble marquis evi
dently knew more of the subject than he did. He, how.
ever, thought that the East India Company having
given this gentleman a certain leave of absence might
reasonably refu-e to extend that leave without being
subjected to any charge of cruelty.
The subject then dropped.

THE IRISH MILITIA)
Viscount DUNGANNON asked the Secretary of
S r,tA for War whether he had received any official com-
munication of the dismissal of 57 men of the City of
Limerick Artillery Militia from Youghal on the sth
inst., who were suffered to depart, many of them, with
scarcely any clothing, and who had to proceed all the
way to Limerick with only 6d. allotted to each indivi-
dual ; and also whether it was correct that 240 men
were discharged on the 10th inst. from the Curragh,
belonging to the Mayo Rifles, to find their
way home with only one day's pay allotted to them
The noble lord took occasion to complain very strongly
of the conduct of the Government towards the Irish
Militia.
Lord PANMURE said in reply to the first question
of the noble lord be had to say that he had received no
comm.mication, either publicly or privately of the nature
to which the noble lord's question referred. He had re-
ceived several communications recently from the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, but nothing of the kind alluded
to was contained therein, and he was sure
if there was any truth in the statement the
Lord Lieutenant, who was lately at Limerick,
must have known everything about the matter, and
would have mentioned it if it bad occurred. In respect
to the second question, he had to state that the men
were not discharged, but permitted to go at their own
request to their homes, having received the bounty and
balance of pay due to them.
[LEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This Evening.)
The SPHAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
The Lords' Amendments to the following bills were
agreed to :—Dorset Central Railway, Improved Debtors'
Discharge Society, Perth, Almond Valley, and Methven
Railway ; and Shrewsbury and Welchpool Railway.
STANDING ORDERS—REVISION COMMITTEE.
CoL W. PATTEN, in moving that the report of this
committee be agreed to, detailed the proposed alteration.
The first proposition of importance was that no amend-
ment except of a merely verbal nature should be made at the
third reading of a bill, in reference to which he thought
it right to say that it was only carried by the casting
vote of the chairman. He, however, thought it of great
importance, and proposed that it should come into ope-
ration next session. They next recommended that the
same process should be gone through with regard to the
revenues of India, and with regard to the revenues of this
country. The other propositions were unimportant, and
amongst them he need only mention one, which was
that the committees should have leave to sit on Wed-
nesday without a special order. They did not recom-
mend that these alterations should come into operation
till next session.
Lord lIOTHAM suggested that that there should be
a limitation as to the period of session at which bills
should be allowed to pass a second reading.
Mr. WILKINSON suggested the abolition of exist-
ing privileges of private members to bring in miscella-
neous subjects under discussion on Friday on the mo-
tion for adjournment till Monday.
The motion was ultimately agreed to.
Upon the motion that the recommendation relative to
the revenues of India being agreed to,
Sir E. PERRY objected to the proposed alteration,
as it was one that would abrogate the functions of Par-
liament.
[Mr. Pal-lean, deputy-usher: of the Black Rod, ap-
peared at the table of etiree house and summoned the
Speaker and members of the house to hear the Royal
assent given by commission to certain bills.—See
Lords' report.]
Sir E. PERRY, in a lengthened address, pro-
needed to show the effect of this order, and that it
noght to be rejected by the house. He moved
leave out the following proposed new order :—Tbat
this house will no receive any petition or proceed upon