Sitting of 31 July 1849

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—The Right Hon. Sir James Duke, for London.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. James Marshall, from Leeds, for Universal Suffrage, &c.; also for Redress of Grievances affecting Poor Law Medical Officers.—By Mr. Ker Seymer, from Wincanton, against the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. Scott, from Glasgow, against the Transportation of Criminals to the Australian Colonies.—By Mr. Hume, from Proprietors of East India Stock, respecting the Seizure and Annexation of Sattara.—From the Newspaper Stamp Abolition Committee, for the Abolition of the Duty on Newspapers.—From several Places in Lincoln, for Agricultural Relief,—By Lord Dudley Stuart, from Marylebone, for Recognition of the Hungarian Republic.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, from Bristol, for Prohibition of Interment In Towns,—By Mr. Tufnell, from Devonport, respecting Assistant Surgeons in the Navy.—By Mr. C. Anstey, from London, for a General Amnesty for Political Offences.—By Mr. Baillie, from Cheltenham, for an Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Mr. Tennent, from Belfast, for the Protection of Women Bill.—By Mr. Roebuck, from Sheffield, respecting the Opening of Railway Parcels.—By Mr. Fuller, from Ticehurst, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act—By Lord Robert Grosvenor, from Stoke Newington, for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Message from The Lords—That they
1142
do agree to the Amendments made by this House to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts for more effectual Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland," and that their Lordships do not insist upon the Amendments made to the said Bill to which this House have disagreed.

THE NEWCASTLE RAILWAYS—LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Motion made, that the Lords' Amendments be considered to the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway, and Maryport and Carlisle Railway (Lease and Amalgamation) Bill; and to the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway (Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle Railway Lease and Amalgamation) Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now read a Second Time."
MR. FOX MAULE, after tracing the history of the progress of these Bills through both Houses of Parliament, moved that the Amendments of the Lords be taken into consideration that day three months. He reminded the House that at the' time when Railway Bills were introduced in considerable number, a Committee appointed to consider the subject of amalgamation had reported that, while the amalgamation of continuous lines might be of public advantage, the House should look with great jealousy upon any proposal to amalgamate lines running at right angles. These Bills were for that purpose; and they had passed through their stages without any opportunity being given for the introduction of clauses protective of the public interest; or for the proprietors of parallel lines to state their objections to the measure. Upon this principle the Commissioners of Railways had recommended the House of Lords to reject the Bills rather than pass them without protective clauses; but the clauses inserted for that purpose by the House of Lords were insufficient for the purpose, and now the commissioners were precluded by the Standing Orders from amending the Bill in any way so as to protect the public interests. It was the duty of the House to protect the public; and he thought that the circumstances warranted the rejection of the measure.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. HEADLAMcontended, that after the Bill had run the gauntlet of Committees of both Houses, it ought not, except upon the very clearest grounds, to be rejected at this stage. To do so would be a great hardship upon the parties whose interests were concerned. At the last moment the Lords had introduced a compulsory audit clause in both Bills; but although that was very objectionable to the parties, they preferred having them with that clause to having no Bill at all. The measure had been fully considered by all the parties concerned, and he hoped that the House would not now concur in a proposal for its rejection on the application of its opponents.
SIR J. GRAHAMhoped that the House would permit him to make one observation personal to himself, before speaking on the question before the House. He had hardly ever thought it his duty to take any part in the conflicts of the adverse interests of competing railways in that House. He had never held, and did not now hold, a single share in any railway. He had therefore no personal interest whatever in the matter, and in the opinion he was about to give be was actuated solely by a sense of what was due to the public interests, particularly in that district in Cumberland with which he was more immediately connected. This was simply a matter of competition between two great parallel lines of communication between the metropolis and Edinburgh and Glasgow, one going eastward through Derby and Berwick, and the other westward by the Trent Valley to Glasgow. It was obviously for the public interest and for the promotion of competition, that the traffic on the line communicating between the two seas should be left to flow perfectly free, east or west, as public convenience might dictate, and that there should be no interruption by high rates and fares as regarded either passengers or goods between Newcastle and Carlisle, and the coal and the manufacturing districts. But if this power were placed in the hands of the directors of the eastern line, they could fix what rates and fares they chose on the Newcastle and Carlisle line, and thereby the traffic would be thrown into a circuitous route. It was highly important, therefore, that the Newcastle and Carlisle should be kept a perfectly independent line. Mr. Hudson had evidently thought that it would be highly advantageous to the line with which he was connected to get pos-
1144
session of the line which crossed it at right angles, for he had made a communication to the shareholders of the eastern line, when he proposed the amalgamation, which sufficiently disclosed the real object of this Bill, and showed the effect it was to have. The right hon. Baronet here read a passage from the document he referred to, and which was to the effect that "the directors were precluded by obvious considerations from giving publicity to all the details, and the various circumstances from which the conclusion must be drawn, that the control of these lines from Newcastle to Carlisle, and from Carlisle to Maryport, would be of vital importance to the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Company. The inclosed map showed how protective to the eastern route would be the possession of the line from Newcastle to Carlisle." Nothing could be more expressive and intelligible than this. It would enable the directors of the eastern line to obtain a complete monopoly, and debar the western line from all communication with Newcastle and the east. He found that the Railway Board had been desirous of inserting the necessary protective clauses, but that the railroad speed with which the promoters of the Bill proceeded, had deprived them of the opportunity, and before they could effect that object the Bill had passed. Under these circumstances, those who thought that the public interests on the western coast were at stake, were driven to a course which he admitted was unusual, that of rejecting the Lords' Amendments at the last moment. He would not now go into the question of the audit clause, as it would be a waste of time if the Amendments were rejected. He had formed the most distinct opinion that the public interest would be best consulted by the rejection of this Bill, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the opinions he was about to express were those of himself alone, and were not to be received as those of other Members of the Government. The inconvenience of transferring questions of this kind from Committees to the House at large, had been frequently urged, and his decided opinion was, that the precedent of that House taking upon itself to reverse the decision of its Committees, would be most dangerous. It must be a very clear and strong case indeed which could induce him to vote as a private Member of Parliament in a manner adverse to a previous opinion of

1145
a Committee of the House; and he could not give a better proof of his sincerity than by the vote he was about to give against his right hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Perth. He had no doubt that had he been a Member of the Committee he should have voted against the Bill; but to set the Board of Railways as an authority above that House, was not placing that board in the position in which it ought to stand. It was the duty of the Railway Board to furnish the Committees of the House with details and information, and the decision of the Committees should be final. Therefore, although as a Commissioner of Railways he was against this Bill, much on the same grounds as those stated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, yet, upon the principle laid down as to the practice of the House not to reverse the decisions of its Committees, and also thinking that injustice would be done to the parties by the rejection of this Bill in its present stage, he should vote for agreeing to these Amendments.
SIR J. GRAHAMasked whether it was not the intention of Earl Granville, on the part of the Railway Commissioners, to move two clauses—the equal rate and running clauses—and whether he was not prevented by the rapidity with which the measure was passed from moving those clauses, which, it seemed, could not now be added?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was quite true that it was the intention of the Railway Commissioners to suggest some clauses—he did not say these two—which they thought would have been desirable, though not absolutely necessary.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he had been, almost from the commencement of that undertaking, interested in the London and North-Western Railway, and he had also the honour of representing the interests of the town of Liverpool. In referring to the manner in which the Bill had been carried through the other House, he considered that after the powerful manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth had stated the merits of the case, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any further details; but having the honour to represent there no inconsiderable portion of those interests on the western side of the island, he had a right to protest against their—under shelter of a mere technical error—interfering to consign the link between the eastern and western sides of the island to one
1146
party without the benefit of equal running clauses, and thereby, for the mere sake of a technical objection, building up a wall stronger than a wall of brass between the free communication between the port of Newcastle and the port of Liverpool.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, there was a considerable degree of principle involved in the course the House was about to adopt; and although he felt he should incur some unpopularity by his vote, he felt bound to resist the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments would be good upon the second or the third reading; but after the promoters had gone to enormous expense, he objected to advantage being taken, at the close of the Session, of a ground of opposition which had failed before. Let the Amendments be considered one by one; but to throw out the Bill upon its merits at this stage, was a step he should be sorry to see the House take.
MR. FOX MAULEexplained that if it had been practicable for him to have taken the Amendments in detail, he would have done so; but there were technical objections which compelled him to adopt the course he had.
MR. ROEBUCKinquired if the two clauses referred to were necessary in consequence of the Amendments made in the Bill by the Lords; if so, the House ought to support the view of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon; but, if not, he did not think they would be justified in reversing the decision of the Committees of both Houses.
MR. LABOUCHEREreplied in the negative, adding that the running clauses could have been advantageously introduced if the Bill had been unaltered.
MR. SPOONER, as an ordinary rule, thought the decisions of Committees ought to be supported by the House; but where an amalgamation had taken place, by which a monopoly might, as had been shown, be created without running clauses and equal rate clauses being inserted, the case was otherwise. The best course would be to throw out the Bill, for the House had no right to inflict injury upon third parties.
MR. LABOUCHEREexplained, in reference to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that equal running clauses had frequently, but not universally, been introduced into Railway Bills.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 61: Majority 19.
Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Further consideration of Amendments put off for three months.

BANKRUPT LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the Question for considering the Lords' Amendments to this Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that these Amendments amounted virtually to only two. The first was in the eighth section, where power was given to the commissioners to meet together and to make rules with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor; and the Lords had added the words in the part of the clause where the meeting of the commissioners was mentioned, "Of which the senior commissioner shall be one." There could be objection to that Amendment. The other was the insertion of the word "not," which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield had complained of, as having been accidentally omitted. With regard to that omission, it was right, however, to say that it was perfectly immaterial, as the context of the clause would show the object with sufficient distinctness. A complaint had been made elsewhere that the Committee by whom this Bill had been considered, had not a just proportion of equity lawyers upon it, and that it consisted principally of eminent merchants belonging to the House. As, however, the interference with the Bill complained of related not to technical points on which the assistance of legal Members might be necessary, but to clauses affecting matters of trade, it was clear that mercantile men were those best qualified to give an opinion upon such matters. It was also alleged that the Committee had not examined legal witnesses; but they had the benefit of the evidence of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce; and as the other learned personages had been examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, and as the printed evidence had been laid before the Commons' Committee, it was unnecessary to examine them over again. He begged leave to add that he considered great credit was due to the noble Lord who had charge originally of this Bill, and he was sure they all felt most grateful to his Lordship for his labours in this matter.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he had on a previous occasion complained of the blunder committed in the Irish Bankruptcy Bill;
1148
but he attributed no blame to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on the matter, as he had far too much to do to be expected to read through these Bills.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, it had been stated by a noble and learned Lord in another place, that the only lawyers on the Committee had been the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. But his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Leominster, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and himself, who were also Members of the Committee, had all been bred up to the law. The noble and learned Lord had also been represented to have complained that the Bill contained 367 clauses when sent down to this House, and that it came back with only 278 clauses—no less than 89 clauses having been struck out. But it was right the public should know that the clauses struck out had reference to salaries, and, he would add, increased salaries in some cases, and to retiring allowances and pensions, and other matters that they thought ought not to be included in the Bill. There were only two matters of importance with regard to which the clauses had been struck out. These were the "secret transfer "clauses, and the" execution" clauses. He considered that the secret transfer clauses, if they had passed into a law, would have been a greater blow to credit than had ever before been inflicted. The 106th Clause provided that every secret transfer should be in itself an act of bankruptcy; while the 107th Clause provided that all transfers and dealings with property by the bankrupt for two months prior to his bankruptcy, should be deemed a secret transfer and an act of bankruptcy. He had himself put the question to the noble and learned Lord, "Supposing a bankrupt had property mortgaged for 2,000 l., and that he should pay off that mortgage, and redeem the property for the benefit of his assignees, would not the effect of these clauses be that the unfortunate mortgagee would be liable to have his money taken from him?" And the answer of the noble and learned Lord was, "Upon my word I believe that would be the effect of them." Another clause, known as the clergyman's clause, had been introduced from the Insolvent Debtors Act by a blunder. With regard to the execution clauses, he had an interview with the noble and learned Lord the night before the Bill passed, and the

1149
noble and learned Lord then gave his most unqualified assent to these clauses being struck out. He begged to add on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, that he was extremely grieved to think that he had inadvertently prevented the Attorney General from looking into the Irish Bankruptcy Bill, to which allusion had been made, by having assured him, on the faith of the parties who had forwarded it from Dublin, that the clauses were all correct, which was afterwards found not to be the case.
MR. FORSTERsaid, as one of the mercantile Members of the Committee, he begged to state that he thought that body had been badly treated by a noble and learned Lord in another place. The great offence of the Committee was, that they had not passed the secret transfer clause; but he, for one, was as anxious as any man to prevent secret and fraudulent transfers, but the difficulty which the Committee could not surmount was, how that object could be carried safely into practical effect.
Lords' Amendments agreed to.

THE SATTARA TERRITORY.
MR. HUMEsaid, the Motion which he had to bring forward on this occasion with regard to the conduct of the East India Company, in connexion with Sattara and the family of the late Rajah, was one more intimately connected with the principle of religious liberty than perhaps any which the House had had to deal with during the present Session, and in bringing it forward he had very great difficulties to deal with. On the 1st of March last he had moved for papers connected with the subject of this robbery and violation of religious liberty; but though they might easily have been furnished in twenty-four hours, they had not yet been laid on the table of the House. He also felt the disadvantage of not having much chance of an audience on this occasion. He wished to protest against the downright robbery inflicted by the East India Company in this case, without entering at all into the injustice with which they had treated the late Rajah. Her Majesty's President of the Board of Control had again and again declared that due attention should be paid to the rights of the heirs of the late Rajah; and it was because he thought that justice required this to be done, and because he had a strong feeling with regard to the injury which the character of the East India Company would receive by joining with robbers
1150
and plunderers, that he now asked the House to agree to the resolutions of which he had given notice. It was a source of deep regret to him to see the East India Company influenced by such a downright greed for the acquisition of now territory. The hon. Member read an extract from a letter of Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, stating that he had never given it as his opinion that the treaty with the late Rajah had lapsed, or that his heir had no just claim, and that he attached the ordinary meaning to the word "perpetuity" in the treaty that was held in all Indian treaties. But there had been also a violation of the religious rights of the natives in this case. They had such another interference with the Budhist worship in Ceylon lately which had led to the destruction of human life, of which the House would hear more next Session; and this interference was the more to be regretted, as in past times the East India Company had always carefully abstained from interfering with the religious worship of the natives. He was now merely putting the question in a train for the next Session. He was putting the Government in possession of the ground upon which he meant, at an early period of the next Session of Parliament, to move for an inquiry. He should, therefore, not go into the question at any length, nor lay before the House the proofs that he had prepared. He should merely say briefly that he had then a copy of a minute signed by an hon. director who was a Member of that House, and by nine other directors, which stated that there was no collateral heir to the property of the late Rajah, and that, therefore, the Company was entitled to assume the property. But the fact was that there were family heirs to the number of thirty in existence. And what did Mr. Frere, who was the Resident at Sattara when the late Rajah died, say? Why that he knew of no heirs but by adoption. And he added, that the Hindoo law was, that an heir by adoption, an heir adopted by a dying Rajah, caused all collateral heirs to be set aside. That was a religious custom of the Hindoos, and to set it aside was an infringement upon their religious liberty.[Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE: NO, no!] Yes; he repeated it was. But there were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House who would say anything, or deny anything, to serve their ends. There was the evidence of Mr. Tucker, the most experienced of any of the officers. He said that the words of the treaty made by Mr. Mountstuart

1151
Elphinstone confirmed the property and sovereignty of Sattara to the regent and his offspring or heirs, so that to assume the sovereignty and property whilst there were living heirs, was a breach of the treaty, and a violation of the law. Mr. Shepherd took the same view. Yet the very last mail brought, he believed, papers that announced the proclamation, declaring the sovereignty annexed to the East India government—a proclamation which damned for ever the Court of East India Directors. It was an act worthy only of the barbarians of the north. It was the triumph of might over right to seize that which they had themselves secured by treaty to the possession of those from whom they now took it. Major Oliphant, Colonel Caulfield, and Sir Henry Willoughby were all against such a spoliation, and he was confident that success could not attend such acts. He would remind the House that there were Acts of Parliament on the Statute-book which strictly prohibited in the strongest manner such acts of spoliation. The 21st George III. provided for the observance of the Hindoo law in all matters, whereby the property of families was secured to the heirs who were heirs according to the custom of the country. The 33rd George III., was still more explicit upon the subject. Yet a greater violation of Acts of Parliament, or a greater act of injustice was never perpetrated, than this seizure of property of the Rajah of Sattara. Upon these grounds he protested against the proceeding. He should move the resolutions of which he had given notice, leaving the House to deal with them as they thought fit, and early next Session he would bring the whole question forward, in the hope of being able to shame those robbers, spoliators, and violators of the rights of property.[Sir J. W. HOGG: Hear, hear!] Yes, he saw one of the robbers before him—a robber of the property and a violator of the religion of the Indian people. And what was the great object of thus seizing upon a little revenue of some 120,000 l. or 130,000 l. a year to a Company possessing a revenue of above 20,000,000 l. annually? He did not know how much more had lapsed to them lately by war, but they had 20,000,000 l. a year before. They were like the rich man in the Scripture, who, not content with all his vast possessions, should seize upon the one little lamb which was all that his poor neighbour had.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
1152
"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 Metcalf, Lieutenant 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 acknowledge 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 25th day of September, 1819, ceded the territory of Sattara to the Rajah of Sattara, his heirs and successors, in perpetual sovereignty, which treaty was confirmed on the 4th day of September, 1839, when his brother and successor was raised to the Throne:
"That both the Rajahs died, leaving heirs by adoption, heirs by blood, and collateral heirs:
"That the East India Company 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."
SIR JOHN HOBHOUSEsaid, that if his hon. Friend had had a right to make any complaint of the manner in which he had been treated, he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) had also some right to complain. The act to which his hon. Friend had alluded, and of which he complained, which declared that the sovereignty of Sattara should be assumed by the East India Company, was an order of the Court of Directors, dated so far back as the 24th day of January last. His hon. Friend, and those who acted with him, had full knowledge of the fact; and if anything effectual was to have been done, it should have been done at or immediately after the meeting of Parliament, which took place on the 1st of February. There were, however, several occasions afterwards on which he might have brought it forward, when he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) was in his place ready to answer any question, or to disprove the statements of his hon. Friend, so that it was no fault of his if the question—of which he was surprised his hon. Friend was not completely tired, as for his part he certainly was—had not been brought forward before. As his hon. Friend had not entered at large into the question, he would not do so upon the present occasion; but he could

1153
not avoid replying to one or two observations of his hon. Friend—assertions for which there was so little foundation, in truth or fact that he was surprised how any hon. Gentleman could, by any possibility, have fallen into such errors. His hon. Friend had said, that the assumption of the property of the Rajah of Sattara was an interference with the religious liberty of India. Now, he was perfectly aware that the custom of India was, that an adopted son and heir took the property of the deceased, but certainly not the sovereignty where there was a paramount State. His hon. Friend and those who acted with him in this matter, seemed entirely to forget that the British power in India was paramount; that it had succeeded to the power which it had crushed; and that those parties could not by adoption make heirs to their sovereignties, as well as to their personal property, without the sanction and permission of the paramount State. He had never heard the doctrine that they could do so broached until that discussion. He well recollected that when the hon. Gentleman, with several others, came to him as a deputation upon the subject, neither his hon. Friend nor any one of the deputation adverted to the point, although it was just the very point on which the whole question turned. He had there quotation upon quotation from the best authorities which entirely disproved such an assertion. Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone gave no opinion upon the point. He expressly reserved it. He admitted the right of adopting an heir so far as the personal property was concerned; but he expressly reserved the question so far as the sovereignty was involved. Next, as regarded the treaty by which the Rajah received the sovereignty from the British. They had crushed the real master of the Mahratta empire, the Peishwah; and the question they had next to consider was, whether or not they would put up a smaller sovereign subordinate to themselves, and they did set up such a sovereign. The deposed Rajah at Benares himself said, that he was only the creation of the British power. When the question came before him (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) as President of the Board of Control, he had to consider the law and the opinions sent to him. He found the Earl of Auckland, the Earl of Dalhousie, the Government of Bombay, with the single exception of Mr. Clarke, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, with the exception of only five out of twenty-
1154
four, all in favour of annexing the principality to the British Government of India. Next came the Court of Proprietors, and they affirmed the decision of the Court of Directors by a majority of 297 to 96. What was he to do? In this country everything was done by majorities, from the Houses of Parliament to the humblest meeting. What did his hon. Friend want to have done? He talked about having the order of the Directors suspended. Why, it was too late—the thing was done. It was done on the 24th January last. And supposing that by any accident the House of Commons were to pass a resolution to suspend or rescind that act of the East India Company, did his hon. Friend think that it would have the least effect? It certainly would not have the least effect upon the proceedings of the East India Company, or upon the Government of India. So long as the Court of Directors and those parties to whom the Government of India was entrusted existed, and held their power, those under consideration were the very acts which should be left to their discretion and responsibility. As to the paper at which his hon. Friend had expressed his surprise, which was drawn up by the hon. Member for Guildford, he could only say, that if he had not known the powers of that Gentleman, he would have been surprised at such a masterly performance. It was a most complete answer to his hon. Friend's case. It showed that there was not the least shadow of a pretence to say that the British had violated any treaty or law by their act of annexation. Having all the authorities and all the majorities upon one side, what was he to do? [Mr. HUME: Do justice.] Yes; it was very easy to say, "do justice." But what was justice? Were they to acknowledge the collateral heirs, or the adopted heirs? If they acknowledged the adopted Benares boy, they would disgust and dissatisfy every one of the five dissentient directors, for there was not one of them who supported his case. Appa Sahib, the late Rajah, when he heard of the adoption of the Benares boy, asked how it could be done without the consent of the British Government; thereby showing that he did not consider that the sovereignty could be given away without the consent of the paramount Power. But if they gave the sovereignty to the adopted son of Appa Sahib, they would dissatisfy the adherents of the deposed Rajah, both in India and England; whilst if they favoured any one of the thirty collateral families,

1155
they must dissatisfy the friends of the two deceased Rajahs. But the whole claim originated in the treaty made with Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, in 1819, and no family claims could be admitted that were traced farther hack, it being then that the principality itself was created. Under all the circumstances the Court of Directors were bound to act according to the opinion of the majority, and they had done so. He would not go into a refutation of the very hard language and the strong terms applied by his hon. Friend. There was one hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Honiton, whom his hon. Friend had designated as one of the robbers and spoliators. The Earl of Dalhousie and the Earl of Auckland, the nineteen directors, and the 297 proprietors of East India Stock, were others of the robbers and spoliators. Such strong language only showed that his hon. Friend was very much in earnest; so much so, indeed, as to be hardly prepared to weigh the merits of the case fairly.
MR. G. THOMPSONasked whether the promised money had as yet been paid to the Ranee?
SIR JOHN HOBHOUSEsaid, that the money had not as yet been paid to the Ranee, or widow, because she refused to give a receipt for it. It had been repeatedly offered, but she would not give a receipt. In reference to this part of the subject, he must say that Purtaub Sing was reputed to have left a considerable sum behind him.
SIR E. T. COLEBROOKEcould have no doubt, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, that important principles affecting the government of India were involved in the present question. The right hon. Gentleman held it to be a new doctrine that Hindoo princes had a right to adopt heirs, and identified himself with opinions expressed in India, especially by the Earl of Dalhousie, which seemed to strike at the root of the rights of Hindoo princes, namely, that Hindoo princes had no power to adopt heirs, without the consent of the British Government, as the successor of the sovereigns who were lords paramount of India. But the British Government had no right with reference to those princes except what they obtained by actual cession, or could spell out from treaties. What was the opinion of Sir C. Metcalfe?—
"Those who are sovereign princes in their own right, and of the Hindoo religion, have by Hindoo
1156
law a right to adopt to the exclusion of collateral heirs or of the supposed reversionary right of the paramount Power."
Independently of the present question altogether, he would, in the next Session of Parliament, submit to the House a Motion on the rights of Indian princes; but with respect to the terms in which the Indian Government "ceded the perpetual sovereignty" of Sattara to the Rajah and his successors, he must be permitted to remark that the construction attempted to be put upon the treaty by the Government was at variance with the public law both of Europe and of India.
SIR JOHN HOBHOUSEsaid, the assertion that the British authority in India was not the paramount power there, was to him a perfectly novel doctrine. Sir C. Metcalfe's opinion did not interfere with that question. What Sir C. Metcalfe said was, that—
"There is a wide distinction between sovereign princes and jagheerdars, between those who are in the position of hereditary sovereigns in their own right, and those who hold grants of land or public revenue by the gift of the sovereign or the paramount authority."
The Rajah of Sattara stood exactly in the position of the latter class.
MR. ELLIOTwished it to be understood, with reference to a statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose, that the whole of the religious rites had been performed in this case, and that under these the boy inherited the personal property.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Monteagle, from Marylebone, that Measures may be taken to Recognise the Independence of Hungary.—By Lord Brougham, from Rochester and Chatham, that a Demand may be made on the Brazilian and Spanish Governments for the Liberation of all Slaves.—From the Dublin Traders Protective Society, against the Attachments, Courts of Record (Ireland) Bill.

THE THANKS OF THE HOUSE TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.
The LORD SPEAKER The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Lord Chancellor had received the following Letter from the Earl of Dalhousie, in return to the Thanks of this House communicated to him by the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to an Order of this House of the 24th of April last:—
"Simla, 14th June, 1849.
"My Lord—I have had the Honour of receiving Your Lordship's Letter of 25th April, inclosing the Resolutions which on the preceding Day had been adopted by the House of Lords.
"In obedience to their Lordships' Request, I have communicated those Resolutions to General Lord Gough, G.C.B., and to the several Officers referred to therein.
"On my own Part, I beg Permission to express the Gratitude and Pride with which I have received this distinguished Mark of their Lordships' Approbation.—I have the Honour to be. My Lord, Your Lordship's Obedient and faithful Servant, "DALHOUSIE.
"The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor, &c."
The same being read, was Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
LORD LYTTELTONinquired whether in the case of schools connected with the British and Foreign School Society, the Wesleyan Methodists, and the Free Kirk of Scotland, the conditions which had been agreed on between the Committee of the Privy Council and certain bodies representing those religious communities, would be equally compulsory with those which had been imposed on the Church of England schools?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that what were called the "Management Clauses" adopted and enforced by the Committee of Education, were enforced alike with respect to schools in connexion with all classes of Dissenters equally with those in connexion with the Church of England. He was glad to say that a perfect understanding existed between the Committee of Education and the Church of England and the various dissenting bodies on this subject.

THE COLLISION AT DOLLY'S BRAE (IRELAND).
The EARL of RODENrose for the purpose of making some explanation with respect to certain charges which had been made against him, in respect of his conduct in connexion with the recent collision in the north of Ireland. The noble Earl stated that nothing could be more irksome
1130
to him than trespassing for any time upon there Lordships' attention, more especially upon a subject personal to himself. Circumstances, however, might arise which, would make it incumbent upon any Member of their Lordships' House to take the opportunity afforded by his privilege in the House to remove any wrong impressions which might have arisen in the public mind from circumstances which had occurred elsewhere. He had been most anxious, after the events which had recently taken place in the north of Ireland, to appear among their Lordships, and should have done so before, had he not been detained in Ireland until Friday last by severe indisposition, which prevented his leaving home. The circumstances to which he would briefly refer, and which were no doubt present to the minds of their Lordships, took place in the north of Ireland, on the 12th of July of the present year. Upon that day there occurred an unhappy collision between two parties in that country, and in his own immediate neighbourhood, and which, in spite of any contradiction, he would maintain that he had endeavoured to do all he could to prevent; and he would further maintain that there was no individual in that country, or in any part of the kingdom, who more sincerely lamented the occurrence than himself. Observations had, however, been made elsewhere, of which he thought he had just reason to complain, inasmuch as they had referred personally to himself, and had tended to place him in a light in which he should be exceedingly sorry to remain, especially in the minds of their Lordships, whose opinions he so highly esteemed. With reference to these circumstances he found in one of the public papers (the Morning Chronicle), that it was reported to have been stated within the walls of Parliament, that with respect to those unhappy deaths which had taken place in the county of Down, that he "Lord Roden was the author of them." The report further stated:—
"What were the facts of the case? That Lord Roden, the late Grand Master of the Orangemen of that province, invited 1,500 men to enter his domain on the 12th July, armed to the teeth, dressed in all the gaudy colours which Orangemen were upon their bloody anniversary; that he prepared a banquet for them; that he appeared among them in the dress of an Orangeman; that he read extracts from the Holy Bible to them; that he regaled them with beer, porter, and whisky; and, after all that had occurred, that they were to go to a place called Dolly's-brae, choosing a circuitous route, and a bad road, because the immediate

1131
district about Dolly's-brae was notoriously inhabited by Roman Catholics; that, not satisfied with spending the day in triumph, with shouts and songs and toasts of Boyne Water, when they became inebriated they determined to go to the very houses of their neighbours to insult them,"
It was also reported to have been said that he attended and presided over the arrangements, that he purchased thirty barrels of ale for the occasion, and that at the conclusion of a rambling speech, he recommended them to retire peaceably, but if insulted to oppose force by force. He was anxious, in order to remove these charges, to state as briefly as he could what were the real facts of the ease from the beginning to the end of the transaction, leaving their Lordships and the country to determine whether such charges were fairly made or not. He would not retort by any severe remarks upon those individuals who had brought forward such charges against him; he felt convinced that if there existed in their minds a spark of generosity, they must feel, now that they knew the real facts of the case, much to regret. During the year 1845 the Processions Act expired in Ireland. The people of Ireland were extremely attached to these processions, and the great mass of the humbler classes in Ireland had been with difficulty restrained from them even when the Act was in existence. He would also remind their Lordships, that in 1848 the spirit of rebellion was very widely spread through the southern and western portions of the kingdom, and great exertions were made on the part of the Government, and the noble Lord the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which were happily successful, to put down that rebellion. The great cry of those who were engaged in this rebellion was—" The Repeal of the Union"—this was the great "Shibboleth" of the party. It was strongly felt by the loyal people of Ireland, that there was a very large mass, not only of the higher but of the humbler classes of society, who were opposed to this cry, and who were anxious to put down the rebellion. In order to allow that feeling to be made known, arrangements were made for these parties meeting together upon the 12th of July, 1848. He confessed that he did not discourage that meeting, as he felt it was important that they should show to the country that there were large masses of loyal men who were opposed to "Repeal," and who were anxious to stand by the Government in the support of the Queen, and in defence of the liberties of the country. The
1132
tenor of the speeches made in Conciliation-hall was to the effect that no exertions should be spared to gain over the Orangemen to their ranks, and that if they could only succeed in their efforts, they would be able to carry repeal in spite of the 40,000 troops which the Government might send over to the country. The great numbers of men who assembled last year showed very clearly that any such attempt to win over the Orangemen would be vain and fruitless. About a fortnight before the 12th of July of the present year, he was waited upon by a gentleman who was the great leader of the Orangemen in that part of the country in which he (the Earl of Roden) resided, who informed him the Orangemen were desirous of paying him a visit upon the 12th of July, in order to testify their affection and attachment to him personally. He (the Earl of Roden) informed him that the visit would be unsatisfactory to him at his then advanced period of life and his infirm state of health; that those things which he once entered into, and which he once enjoyed, he did not then enjoy; and that he thought it would be much better if they would not carry their design of visiting him into execution: he also stated, that in consequence of one of the members of his family being in a very delicate state of health, the noise of such an assembly congregated together would, in all probability, be attended with injurious effects. The answer which he received to those observations was, that if the Orangemen were disappointed in their expectations of visiting him at his house, they would go to a field near it. Upon this he (the Earl of Roden) stated that he would take a couple of days to consider his decision. At the expiration of that period, he stated that he felt a pride in thinking that so many of his fellow-countrymen in the humbler class of life were anxious, at great inconvenience to themselves, to manifest such a feeling of attachment towards him; that he would not invite them; that he thought they would be much safer within the gates of his park than in Castlewellan; and that all he could say upon the subject was, that upon the 12th of July he would not shut his gates to any loyal men who might wish to enter. Upon their arrival at his gates, to the number of about 2,000, exclusive of women and children, he went out to meet them, and when opposite his own door, he had the opportunity of acknowledging their kindness for the proof they had given him

1133
of their attachment; and the whole assembly, at his request, passed by his house in so orderly and quiet a manner that no disturbance arose to the member of his family then confined in the sick chamber. Among the number of persons who were present, he could not but confess that he saw some of them armed; he sincerely regretted it, but until they came up to his door he did not know that any one of them was armed; but he certainly was not aware that the fact of their carrying arms made them an illegal assemblage. He thought that it could not be an illegal assemblage, because upon the 12th of July in the last year to which he had referred, when so many persons assembled together to support and uphold the legislative Union, and upon the 17th of March, when the procession of the Ribbonmen took place, upon both of which occasions great numbers of the parties were armed, and when, in fact, they fired a volley over his gate, no interference whatever took place on the part of the Government. With respect to the statement of the people being "armed to the teeth," all he could say was, that out of the two thousand and upwards who were present, he did not see more than three hundred or four hundred with arms in their hands. Those persons who had arms came from that part of the country where they expected to be attacked; but he believed that amongst all the assemblages of Orangemen in Ireland on that day, there was no instance of arms being carried, so far as he could collect from the information he had received. The procession passed by his door, and went to a field at the end of the park. Whatever difficulties they might encounter—whatever dangers they might incur—he felt it was the duty of the gentry of the country, holding the same opinions, to go with them, in order to preserve them from committing any acts of indiscretion. There was a platform erected, from which some gentlemen were anxious to address the people, and he was most anxious to have an opportunity of speaking with the people, whose principles he held out as his own, on that occasion. It was said they were feasted and furnished by Lord Roden with beer and porter, and made inebriate, in order to render them more fit for the work of fury. Now the circumstances with respect to that were as follow:—On the day but one before, he had his annual dinner for the school children, which they had every year, and 450 children sat down to table.
1134
He had always been in the habit of purchasing for that dinner a certain quantity of small beer; and knowing those persons came from a great distance, he ordered six barrels more of small beer for any of those who might have brought their families. That was the exact state of the case. It was said that he had made a rambling speech, recommending them to return by Dolly's-brae, and if they were opposed, to oppose force to force. And now he would read what he really said, and which was taken down by a person at the time:—
"My dear Brethren—I am anxious to express how grateful I feel for the spontaneous and unsolicited visit this day, on the occasion of our glorious anniversary. I feel that this is the most gratifying mark of your affection and attachment which you could have bestowed upon me and my family. The thousands of loyal men that I see around me—the waving banners of fifty lodges—the dense multitude, too great for any voice to reach—the magnificent scenery by which we are surrounded—the mountains of Morne echoing to your shouts—Slieve Donard, the mistress of them all, looking down upon our proceedings—the waters of the Shimna flowing beneath us, carrying the testimony of your loyalty to the ocean before us, makes it a glorious sight—one in which I wish every loyal man could have joined us to-day—one which I would delight in thinking that even those opposed to us were here to witness. But, much as I thank you for this visit, I feel the honour was not so much intended to me personally as to those Protestant principles which I hold, and which I have endeavoured to maintain for a period of thirty years' residence amongst you. I have learnt, and am convinced, that it is true Protestant principles, held up and maintained in this land, that can alone prove a guarantee for the liberties of all classes and denominations of the people; it is the right of private judgment in the study of God's holy word which is the chief blessing of any nation which avails itself of it. It is for this principle Orangemen contend, and which, I trust, they will never cease to assert, acting under the teachings of God's word, which enjoins forbearance and love to all. I trust you will ever show to those who disapprove of your organisation that you are not a faction driven by party violence to commit unlawful acts; that you do not desire to infringe on the liberties and happiness of others; but that you wish to see all denominations of your fellow-subjects enjoying the blessings which you seek for yourselves. It is a great pleasure to communicate to you on the present occasion the probable arrival of our Gracious Queen and Her Royal Consort in this country. Oh, that we could see her fairy bark now approaching that shore—that we could see her landing on that beach—how these woods would resound with the shouts of your thousand, ten thousand welcomes—how her eyes would sparkle at such a sight now before me, in the assembling of that multitude of loyal men, ready to lay down their lives in the defence of her Crown and her rights! [great cheering and shouting.] We have had much to complain of from the various parties who have ruled the country for the last twenty years. 'The rowers have brought

1135
us into deep water'—we have seen heavy blows and great discouragement given to Protestantism; but still maintain your loyalty—you will never forget, I trust, that your motto is unchanged—'Semper Eadem;' involving the preservation of our rights, the promotion of peace, and the welfare of all denominations of our fellow-subjects. I trust you will rather take evil than provoke it; that nothing will induce you, in returning to your homes to-day, to resent even any insult you may receive. May God bless you and uphold you, keeping you firm in your principles, determined to support the laws of the country, and enabling you by 'well-doing to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.' I shall now conclude, asking you, before you go, to join me in three hearty cheers for her Most Gracious Majesty and her Royal Consort, and may they have a speedy voyage and happy arrival on our shores."
Those were the words he had made use of on the occasion, so far as he could remember; and was there a word in that to the effect that they were to return through Dolly's-brae, and not molest any one; but if they were opposed, to oppose force to force? He believed he had now trespassed on their Lordships' attention much longer than he would desire. He would go further, but he merely wished to confine himself on the present occasion to his own personal connexion with the affair. That was his advice to the people he loved, and with whom he had lived for so many years; an advice which they followed up to the period of the unfortunate attack that had caused such a melancholy result. He now trusted that he had satisfied every fair and reasonable man, that he was not liable to the charges that had been made against him.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhoped that the noble Earl, after the statement he had thought it his duty to make in reference to a matter affecting his character, would consider it a wise forbearance if he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not state anything himself with reference to the noble Earl's statement, and if he desired to be understood as neither assenting to nor dissenting from any part of that statement, which referred to a transaction which all must deplore, and which he was glad to hear the noble Earl, in common with every one else, lamented. That transaction had led to an amount of irritation not easy to describe, to a loss of property and life, and to a deep injury to the feelings of a large portion of the population. It had therefore been made the subject of inquiry, and it was not for him to anticipate what would be the result of that inquiry; but, whatever it might be, it would be made known, and their Lordships and the public would have the opportunity of judging in what circum-
1136
stances a transaction, which had led to so unfortunate a result, had originated. All he would now observe was, that it must be a matter of deep regret to see a state of society in which, from no other motive and with no other provocation than the recurrence of certain days, proceedings should take place calculated to irritate the feelings of the population, and to lead to a loss of life, and that unexcused by any preceding acts of a nature to excite the passions. If there were no prospect of the cessation of such transactions, there could be no doubt that it would be the duty of the Legislature to interpose for the purpose of preventing them; but in the absence of any Act of Parliament for that object, it was quite clear, by the common law of the land, and according to the most eminent authorities in the law who had been consulted on the subject, that the bringing into movement multitudes, armed as it appeared in this instance—but, even when unarmed, in a mode calculated to excite public disturbance—was in itself illegal, and might be, and ought to be, prosecuted by the Government, by the magistrates, and by all well-wishers to the peace of the community, so that the offenders, for offenders they were, might be brought to justice for endangering that peace, which (far from there being anything in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland justifying any disturbances of it) there were, on the contrary, circumstances in the state of Ireland inculcating peculiar caution on every rational, loyal, and well-disposed subject of Her Majesty to preserve. Therefore the Government trusted, that, through the contemplated inquiry, justice would be done; and that, if necessary, the Legislature would interfere to put an end to such proceedings as those which had been alluded to; bearing in mind at the same time that they were contrary to law.

PROGRESS OF BILLS THROUGH PARLIAMENT.
LORD BROUGHAMconsidered that the noble Marquess had acted in a fair and judicious manner in abstaining from all comment on the subject which had been brought under their consideration by the noble Earl behind him, who, he thought, was most forward in performing what he conceived to be his duty, and in a manner very satisfactory indeed. He (Lord Brougham) having made that observation, begged to call their Lordships' attention to the subject of which he had given notice

1137
on the previous evening, with respect to the passage of Bills through Parliament. He did not then mean to propose any plan to their Lordships' attention to what he had so often urged upon them, namely, the absolute necessity of taking some course for duly providing somebody by whom Bills shall be prepared, and shall be watched during their progress through Parliament. It was part of his plan that there should be a Board appointed for the purpose of preparing Bills, and that that Board should have a final inspection of them. There was no intention on his part of controlling the Legislature. Unless the author of a Bill saw what was done to it during its progress, he could not be sure or certain that some mischief had not been done to it, which might not be discovered until after the Bill had become law. If he wanted an instance to illustrate the course which should be adopted, he could take it from the manner in which private Bills are prepared. There is a Chairman of Committees to examine all private Bills, and during all their stages in that and the other House of Parliament the same salutary revision was continued; and were it not for that revision no man could comprehend the extent of abuse that would be committed, or the embarrassment that would be created. This would arise from the passing of Acts deviating from the general law; but, above all, from clauses in the Acts themselves put in by contending parties, each one sacrificing a little to the other, and the other sacrificing a little to that party in order to obtain his consent, neither caring a farthing for other parties, nor one rush for the public, by which a vast mass of confusion in the law might be created, causing embarrassment to the court, and difficulty to practitioners, and, above all, injury to the public; and it was frightful to contemplate the evil that might be done were it not for the careful superintendence that was practised. If that were a good system with regard to private Bills, it would also prove useful with respect to public Bills. The existing law was very much to be considered in all the cases that arose; and the object of each particular Act was also to be considered, because the Bills themselves, from the want of superintendence, might do much mischief that the authors never intended, and might also render them totally inoperative. If he wanted an instance to support his statement, he might refer to what had recently taken place with respect to the Bankruptcy
1138
Bill. He mentioned the case to show what grievous consequences might arise from not attending to details, and from the originator of the measure not being consulted during the progress of the measure through Parliament. There was also another and recent case where they had to suspend the operation of an Act for six months, because it was not properly passed. Then there was another measure that came to them from the other House without a division, having reference to the Irish Chancellor's Secretary of Bankrupts, to which he might also refer in support of his argument. Having made these observations on this subject, he would refer to the course that had been taken during that Session with respect to voting by proxy, and he would move for—
"Account of the Instances, for the Ten Years ending the 31st July, 1849, in which. Proxies having been called, the Result of the Division was such that the Majority of the Peers present was different from the Majority of the whole Votes, present and Proxy; distinguishing the Date of each Instance: and also—
"An Account, for the like Years, of the Number of Times in each Year in which Proxies have been called."
He (Lord Brougham), however, begged it to be understood that he was not in favour of abolishing the system of voting by proxy.
LORD REDESDALEhad listened with very great attention to the statement which the noble and learned Lord had just made, of the inconveniences arising from the want of a better system for the management and preparation of Bills, and for correcting any errors which may have been introduced into them during their course through both Houses of Parliament. No doubt if any practical measure could be devised for obviating all such errors and oversights, or getting such important business into a well-digested and consistent shape, it would be highly desirable, and a very beneficial thing for all parties. But he (Lord Redesdale) feared that this was precisely one of those cases where a measure, about the expediency of which there could be no second opinion in point of principle, would be found absolutely impracticable in execution. With regard to the constitution of any commission for the revision of Bills such as the noble and learned Lord seemed to glance at, that was a consideration of very grave importance, and suggested doubts in his (Lord Redesdale's) mind, as to how far the plan could be carried out

1139
without involving the most serious questions touching the privileges of Parliament. Of whom must such a commission consist, if not of persons "learned in the law," according to the technical phraseology applied to such bodies? and to what, in effect, would their revision of public and private Bills amount to, if not to a delegation by both Houses of their faculties of legislation? When an enactment is doubtfully expressed, or when it is contradictory to some other part of a Bill, it can frequently be construed in different ways with almost equal propriety; and the manner consequently in which palpable errors might be corrected, and in which in some cases two or more clauses of a Bill could alone be made consistent and intelligible, might make a total alteration of the law as intended to be enacted by Parliament. However valuable, therefore, such an Amendment in the mode of preparing Bills and other business might be, as the noble Lord had suggested, with a view to obviate in future those evils of which he had with so much reason complained, he (Lord Redesdale) must be permitted to repeat that he considered the object sought to be attained by his noble and learned Friend was wholly impracticable. He must, therefore, vote against it as a measure that would inevitably lead to more perplexity and confusion than any which it was designed to remedy. With respect to the calling of proxies, that, also, was a question of great delicacy and importance. He himself had been a Member of their Lordships' House now for about twenty years, and in all that period until the present Session he had never known more than two instances in which the proxies had struck a majority on the vote against a majority of "presents." The one of these was on the Earl of Wicklow's Motion in 1832 on Irish Education; the other was in 1846, on a Motion of the Duke of Richmond to hear the silk weavers at the bar against the proposed alteration in the silk duties. In both these instances a majority of one only among the "presents" was reversed by proxies. In the course of the present Session, however, this manner of using proxies had been pushed to a much greater extent. There had been no less than three very remarkable cases of this sort. In one of them, although on counting "presents" there appeared for a given Motion a majority of fourteen, it had actually been set aside by the proxies called. Still he
1140
was favourable, like the noble and learned Lord beside him, to the system of proxies; but he thought the calling for them should be governed by some sort of discretion.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwas curious to know how any such discretion could be practically reserved if proxies were to be called at all; and again, how the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken meant to obviate the contingency of a majority of the "presents" being occasionally set aside on calling proxies. Suppose at a certain period of the Session, one-third of all the Peers had already left town, and deposited their proxies, such of them as wished to do so, with those Peers who remained. It was obvious that, on any contested question, there would always be a great probability, on proxies being called, of any majority of presents being outvoted.
LORD CAMPBELLinferred that the noble Lord's (Lord Redesdale's) notion of the discreet exercise of the power of giving in a proxy for an absent Peer, amounted to this, that when the resulting majority on any question in which he gave it happened to be on the side for which it was so given by him, he, the noble Baron, conceived he had exercised the privilege under due discretion; but when the majority was against the side supported by the proxy so contributed, then the noble Baron felt he had used his proxy indiscreetly.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas glad to find that the noble and learned Lord was in favour of retaining the use of proxies. At the same time, he thought it appeared, on the showing of the noble and learned Lord himself, that the difficulties likely to be experienced in regulating the sort of discretion with which he seemed to contend that the privilege should be always exercised, would be found in practice endless and impracticable. There were difficulties—there would be difficulties—as to the nature of the questions on which proxies should, and as to those on which they should not, be called. As to the commission for revising the Bills, and other business, from time to time coming before the House of Peers from another place, he was quite at a loss to see how the noble and learned Lord could hope to make provision for all conditions of the principles he desired to apply, without taking from this branch of the Legislature some of its chiefest and most peculiar functions. He found himself, therefore, unable to accede to any

1141
such proposal as that suggested by the noble and learned Lord. And it occurred to him to add, for the consideration of that noble and learned Lord, another element of difficulty in connexion with the possibility of regulating the discretion of using proxies, or indeed of calling them. What additional weight ought to be attached to the opinions of the Peer in whose hands other Peers, out of deference probably to the general soundness of these opinions, had confided their proxies? In short, he could see no way out of the many considerations that surrounded the suggestions which had been submitted to the House, and which, therefore, he trusted that the House would decline to adopt.
LORD BROUGHAMfelt that no course remained to him but to withdraw his proposition, after what had fallen from the noble Marquess who had just sat down. But the noble Marquess would give him leave to say, when he talked of the impossibility of putting any control on the exercise of the privilege of calling proxies, that they had already established precedents for that control in several cases. For example, the Standing Orders had successively prohibited the questions in respect of all judicial questions, on divorce cases, and on votes of censure.
On Question, resolved in the Affirmative; Returns ordered accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.