The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-11 00:00:00

A n
f tt Zj
4,7
14;t1 r

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

ASCOT RACES—(This Day.)

t-B Y EXPRESS A.VD ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
SWEEPSTAKES of 15 Soy:a.

Spindle ....
Alastor
Eardrop

Six ran.
FERN HILL STAKES.
Colt by Sir Ilercules—Lurley's dam 1
Perfume 2
Lord Melbourne

Five ran.
HANDICAP PLATE.

Remedy
Olympus
Flyaway

Fourteen ran.
ROYAL HUNT CUP
Forbidden Fruit
Saraband
S:y Fellow
Furioso

Twenty-eight ran. Won easily.
QUEEN'S PLATE.

Middleton
Saucebox
Mayboy .

Five ran.
CORONATION STAKES.

Victoria
Spindle
Sister to Hesse Homberg
Four ran.
ALBANY STAKES.

Mirage..

w. 0.

BETTING ON THE COURSE.
GOLD CUP.
6to 4 on Manganese (offered)
4to 1 agst Saucebox
10 to 1 agst Winkfield
4 to 1 agst Simony and Winkfield coupled (taken)
DERBY.

1000 to 30 against Schiedam (taken)
Rogerthorpe has arrived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(This Day.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Maybole and Girvan Railway, Metropolitan Railway,
and the Morayshire Railway.
The following bills were ordered to be read a third
time :—Bagenalstown and Wexford Railway, Dorset
Central Railway, Glastonbury and Bruton Railway,
Severn Valley Railway, and the Wimbledon and Croy-
don Railway.
NAWAII AND SURAT TREATY BILL.
Mr. V. SMITH moved the postponement of the con-
sideration of the report on this bill for a -week, on the
ground that there was not at present sufficient evidence
before the house on which to proceed further with the
bill.

Sir F. KELLY said that the honour and good faith
of this country were involved in this question. The
measure referred to an annuity which the East India
Company solemnly engaged to pay this Indian prince
and his descendants, in consideration of his having sur-
rendered to them his territory and revenues of Surat.
The annuity amounted to 15,0001. sterling per annum,
and was regularly paid to the Nawab and his son during
their lives, but the East India Company re;fueed to pay
it to the present next of kin, on the ground that the
office of Nawab was extinct, but who was made so by
virtue of this agreement. The learned gentleman ridi-
culed the absurdity of such an objection to the fulfil-
ment of the treaty, and said it was necessary to in-
troduce this measure to compel the East India Com-
pany to fulfil their part of the agre einent. The
President of the Board of Control having refused
to affirm the principle of the bill, he (Sir F. Kelly)
pressed the house to take the report into consideration
this day. The committee appointed to investigate this
measure had reported unanimously in its favour.
Sir J. W. HOGG said the grossest delu.non prevailed
with regard to this case, and he denied thitt the Nawab
of Surat had transferred his territories and revenues to
the East India Company. The company ha.d commercial
relations with Surat by a finnan of the Emperor
so early as 1667, and political relatio.as in 1759,
after which a treaty was entered into personally
with the Nawabs, and it was tandem that the
East India Company exercised their authority in that
province, and the question was, whether by that
treaty the Nawabship was a hereditary office, and
whether the agreement bad reference to his heirs, de-
scendants, or his successors to the office,- He con-
tended it was the latter, and reminded the house that
the office was nut hereditary till 1300, .tad that the
Nawah, with whom the treaty was made, died in 1769,
and he rested his opposition to the quest ion now put
forth mainly on the fact that in 1800 the) Nawabship
was not hereditary but norninational, and that it was
under the treaty of 1659 at the disposal of the East
India Company. The money was paid for the support
of the title of Nawab, and not to the representatives or
dei6endants of the persons fulfilling the office ; and the
revenues and territories of the place were given up to
the East lietia Company upon the understan.ding that a
sum of 15,0001. per annum was to be paid :in a conside-
ration. At the same time an arrang e ment was
made that 5,0001. should be added to that sum in the
event of the revenues of the territory reachie ig a certain
amount. The resistance to this demand w tie therefore
that, by the treaty of 1543, the Nawabship. was extinct
and the stipend lapsed; this was stated to the: memorialist
when he made his application to the Court oic. Directors.
At the death of the last Nawab directions. were given
that, in order that the family should not be left in com-
parative poverty, a sum of 11,0001. out of the 15,0001.
was to be divided amongst them, and at tEis time the
sum was still being paid to his family as a matter of
generosity, not of right, and he therefore _further dis-
tinctly stated that the present claimant for fal 3 stipend of
the Nawabship was not entitled to a sing:Le farthing.
He maintained that a treaty entered into I )3, the East
India Company was as binding on the Go vi unment of
this country as the treaty entered into in _Ps .ris, and if
this house was to encourage persons who t' ttc.ught they
had rights under a treaty coining to this b Ise with a
so-called private bill to enable those persoi is to realise
those rights they would ba establishing a precedent
which they would speedily have reason t o lament.
He thought it was a system fraught with t lee greatest
danger to the Government of India, if this .h ouse were
for a single moment to enoourage the nat;vest of India
to come to this house with their claims inst, sad of sub-
mitting them to the tribunals of that coup try. Such
a proceeding would lead them to entertain an opinion
that the law of India was inefficieut, and the result
would eventually be the total destruction of all govern-
ment in that country. A 8 far as he (Sir J. W. Hogg)
was concerned he should have wished that t' le claimant
should on his arrival in this country have g: nee direc.ly
to the Queen in Counoil, as such a course was d. toidediythe
proper one to pursue with respect to the rig tit to a pri-
vate estate ; but he contended the present qu testion was
the construction of a treaty, and he therefore hoped that
the matter would be delayed until its merits should be
thoroughly known to hon. members general!: r.
Mr. CARDWELL thought it would be e xeleedingly
inconvenient to go into the merits of the cab e on a mo-
tion for delay. The committee on which he had served
regarded the matter as if it had been exclusive'ly a private
bill, dealing with the treaty as if it bad bee n a private
document, and therefore the private bill com m ittee had
reported on the matter ; but the public a-p eot of the
case arising from the interpretation of a treaty
the committee had retrainee from looking at, as
the committee considered that a subje et to be
decided by the house. The subject wes one of
great importance, as it involved the honour a nel dignity '
of the Crown. He suggested that as the ame a dment of
the Government would not be supposed to be i a- delay,
the amendment should be prepared and pia( a Id in the
hands of members, and that on Wednesday ne)e ; the Go-
vernment should state the course they intended to pursue
on the subject. It was important that no ti cue should
be lost, as the Bth of July was the latest day on which
any bill from that house would be received by the Peers.
Mr. Y. SMITH said he had no intention of 'defeating
this bill by delay. The evidence taken in cit memittee
should be printed and placed in the hands of lit m. mem-
bers with the smallest possible delay. He ad tould on
that day be ready to state the intention of Goi rernment
on that point. There would be ample time fof ' the dis-
cussion before the expiration of the date fixes d by the
House of Lords as the latest for the reception k of bills
intended to be proceeded with during the present
session. _ .

Sir E. PERRY defended the character of Meer
DjatLrr Ali, and contended that the succesai on to the
Nawabship was hereditary.
Sir F. KELLY said as he did not at iderstand
the President of the Board of Control to say th at he was
not at the present time in a position to state: the views
of the Government as to the construction of ti re treaty,
or that he had pledged himself positivel y to pro-
ceed with the bill at a future day, he had no other
course open to him but to persevere in pressi o g the bill
through its present stage.
Mr. WIGRAM stated that as that was the •_course in-
tended to be pursued he should vote with Go V eminent.
The present bill was not a private one, and bis : saw no-
thing unreasonable in the delay asked for.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that a very importre it consti-
tutional question was involved in this questiot :, and he
thought that it would amount to denial of justice if the de-
cision on this questionwere to be delayed beyond Wednes-
day next. He trusted that the President of the Board of
Control would definitely state whether he i o tended to
go on with the bill on Wednesday, as he tl 1, aught the
present discussion had been carried far enougb:.
Mr. V. SMITH said his reason for delay re s ted solely
on the absence of the evidence. The questi: )u he sup-
posed the right hon. baronet should answer w L 3 whether
supposing the evidence was not before the hot ti ie on that
day he would go on with the bill. He) thought