wished to call the attention of the Government to a matter of ssme importance. He had seen a letter, dated from Florence, on the 11th of this month, in which it was stated that a British officer, in the full uniform of the Royal Marines, had been cut down in the streets of Leghorn by the Austrian authorities. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information on the subject of this transaction, and, if so, whether any measures had been taken to obtain redress?

I believe it to be quite incorrect that a British officer, in the uniform of the Royal Marines, has been cut down, as stated, at Leghorn. But information has reached the Government to the effect, that a petty officer of Marines, being on shore on leave of absence from his ship, has been maltreated by the Tuscan Customs police at Leghorn; that, in consequence, the commander of the vessel, the Firebrand, Captain Codd, communicated with Mr. Scarlett, our Secretary of Legation at Florence, between whom and the Tuscan Minister much correspondence had taken place; and that the result was, that the head of the police, who, it appears, was involved in the transaction, has been imprisoned for eight days. That is the substance of all the information that Her Majesty's Government has received upon the subject.

I should wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on a subject which may be said to be in some respects similar to the matter that has just been mentioned. It may be in the recollection of the House that some time ago an outrage of a very aggravated character—an outrage which would have been unmanly under any circumstances, but which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, might be said to be cowardly—was committed on an unarmed British subject at Florence, by an armed officer of the Austrian service, who was marching at the head of his regiment, That outrage was made the subject of an inquiry in this House; and the noble Lord who was then at the head of Her Majesty's Government stated that communications having reference to the officer were going on at the time, and he did not hesitate to express it as his opinion, that reparation was unquestionably due on the part of the Austrian Government to Mr. Mather, the English gentleman who had been so shamefully outraged. Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware whether the Austrian Government have inflicted any punishment on the officer who so grossly misconducted himself, and whether any kind of reparation has been made by the Austrian Government to Mr. Mather?

As the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has not given me notice of his intention to ask me any question on this subject, I must be pardoned if I cannot immediately give him an answer upon this particular point. But, Sir, although the noble Lord has not given notice of the question, I am in a position to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have insisted on the Tuscan Government giving reparation to Mr. Mather; for the Tuscan Government, being an independent Government, is not in an condition to avail itself of the excuse in the case of an outrage of this kind, that it was committed by the Austrian authorities; and we have, therefore insisted upon reparation from the Tuscan Government. With regard to the correspondence between the British Government and the Government of Austria on the subject, I believe—though I could have spoken with more certainty had notice been given—I believe I may say that it has terminated, or is approaching to a speedy termination, and that the result will most probably be satisfactory to the House.

said, he wished to know whether the inquiry into this transaction that had been promised on the part of the Tuscan Government had taken place; and if so, what had been the result?

I must repeat my regret that due notice has not been given me of these questions. I will, however, be prepared to give all possible information on the subject to-morrow.

said, he rose to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the losses sustained by the sufferers in the late Cuffe-street Savings Bank, Dublin; and to make some arrangement for granting them a compensation. He had had the honour of placing Her Majesty's late Government in a minority twice in the same night on this subject; but, unlike other Members who had done the same, he had not received Her Majesty's commands to form a new Ministry. A Select Committee had been appointed to consider the losses sustained by the depositors in the late Cuffe-street Savings Bank in Dublin. That Committee sat in 1848, 1849, and 1850, and in the month of August, 1850, they made a Report favourable to the claims he advocated. His object in bringing forward his present Motion was to obtain the balance of 34,000l. still due to the sufferers by the failure of this bank. When he accepted the sum of 30,000l., he did so as an instalment, and he gave notice then that he should press for the balance. He did not seek this as a gift, or solicit it in the name of charity or benevolence, but as a right; and he undertook to prove that this money was due from the public Exchequer to the unfortunate persons whom he repoesented. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that 30,000l. be voted for the depositors; and, on his own showing, admitted that if the Commissioners for the Seduction of the National Debt had notified the insolvency of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank in 1838, the assets would have enabled them to divide 16s. 6d. in the pound. If they had closed the bank in 1845, the Report stated that there would have been 15s. in the pound to be divided. But he (Mr. Reynolds) had proved from the books of Mr. Higham, the Assistant Controller of the National Debt Office, that from the year 1833 to 1849 inclusive, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had official knowledge that the Cuffe-street Savings Bank was insolvent, and that this knowledge had been concealed from the depositors on "grounds of public policy." Being asked for the meaning of this term, he said, it meant that if they had closed the Cuffe-street Savings Bank, it might have led to a panic, and that a run might have taken place upon all the savings banks in the United Kingdom, the total balance to the credit of the depositors in which amounted to not less than 33,000,000l. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), in the debate on this subject last year, repudiated altogether the repayment of the money lost by the depositors upon the grounds of charity. He said if the claim were founded in equity, the Government ought to pay it in full; and if it were not so, that none should be paid. He added that it was unworthy of the British empire to compound for 10s. in the pound with a parcel of paupers. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) said he would willingly vote for the payment of the whole 64,000l. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) also supported him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed an opinion that the Commissioners were liable for the debts of the bank; and he believed it would be found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion on that point had undergone no alteration. The 30,000l., or at least a portion of it, was paid, but not until the Government had sent over Mr. Martin to make a thorough examination of the accounts. After a year's investigation of the books, he found that the total defalcation was 64,976l. 10s. 7d.; and, when the unclaimed allowances and the claims disallowed for informality had been deducted, there was a balance of 56,229l. 16s. 4d. due to the depositors, to whom there was paid, including about 600l., the expenses of the Commission, the sum of 28,767l. 11s. 5d., leaving a surplus of 1,230l. 8s. 7d. in hand. Of the 1,977 depositors who received the grant—and he mentioned this to show the misery which the failure of the bank must have occasioned—there were 507 whose deposits did not exceed 5l., 306 not exceeding 10l., 354 not exceeding 20l., 238 not exceeding 30l., 233 not exceeding 50l., and 294 exceeding that amount. About two-thirds of these poor persons were females—old, decrepit servants, who had placed their savings in this bank as a small provision against a rainy day, and who were therefore placed in circumstances of extreme misery by the fraud of which they had been the victims. From the report of Mr. Martin, it appeared that in 1830, the bank was insolvent to the extent of 4,448l. 10s. 5d.; in 1831, 17,888l. 13s. 5d.; in 1832, 22,825l. 17s. 3d.; in 1838, 35,211l. 2s. 1d.; in 1845, 56,415l. 16s. 6d.; in 1846, 58,341l. 7s. 11d.; in 1847, 60,839l. 6s. 5d.; and in 1848, 64,683l. 7s. 1d. It might be asked why they did not look to those who had acted as trustees and managers? He had a very simple answer to that question. The Savings Banks were established under the 9th of Geo. IV., c. 92, the ninth section of which made the trustees personally liable for their wilful neglect or fraud; but in 1844, when the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were aware that the Cuffe-street Bank was insolvent to the extent of more than 40,000l., they repealed that section, and made the trustees only liable for the amount to which they would sign a guarantee. And how many of the trustees of this bank did they think had signed? Just two, for 100l. each. Surely, then, the Government ought to make good the whole of the deficiency. It was established by Mr. Higham's evidence that every account from 1833 showed a deficiency, beginning with 3,671l. in that year, and amounting to 32,000l. in 1847. These were not the real deficiencies, for Mr. Martin, the accountant sent over, found them to be above 60,000l. All this time the Commissioners of the National Debt were aware of this insolvency; and yet, when it amounted to upwards of 64,000l., there was only 83l. to meet it. When the Motion was last before the House, the whole of the daily papers had condemned the course pursued, and said that the whole amount ought to have been voted. Though he and the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) had carried the Motion for a Committee, they had not even been allowed to name the Committee; and the Government had striven all in their power to obtain a less favourable report than was given. The case of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank was essentially different from those of the Kerry and Tralee Banks. In the latter cases the Commissioners did not know of the insolvency. To a tribunal of honourable and honest men he confidently appealed for the payment of the remaining instalment of the debt.

said, this was one of those distressing cases with which every Member of the House must sympathise. No doubt a large number of poor persons, in Ireland, had suffered severely by the failure of this Cuffe-street Bank; and he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion, while he was so indignant against certain branches of the Administration for their assumed negligence, had not bestowed some of his indignation on the managers of the bank, whose conduct had certainly been as profligate and iniquitous as could well be imagined. The House must not allow itself to be wholly carried away by sympathy for the sufferers, without inquiring into all the circumstances. There were many cases where Savings Banks had been conducted with a great want of ability and honesty, and a very considerable loss had necessarily occurred to the depositors; but no one could contend that it was the duty of Government to come forward and offer compensation for the want of ability and want of faith with which these institutions had been managed. The only ground on which an appeal had been made to the House in respect to this Cuffe-street Bank was, that there were some peculiar circum- stances which distinguished it from the usual instances where great losses had been experienced by the depositors from the malversation or mismanagement of the trustees. The question had been frequently discussed in the present Parliament, and had been the subject of the elaborate inquiry of a Committee. Were it viewed in a very rigid spirit, he thought they must arrive at the conclusion that no relief whatever ought to have been granted. He did not regret that that rigid decision had not been arrived at. Instances would arise where it was not politic, and hardly possible, to come to a conclusion which could be supported by very severe principles of justice. There were certain appeals which, under peculiar circumstances, would enter into the management even of pounds, shillings, and pence; and, although he was not bound to support, still he could fairly say he sympathised with the case, and could comprehend how, after a painful and elaborate discussion, first the Committee, and then the House, had sanctioned the arrangement which took place in 1850. But this was the real state of the case. The grant of 30,000l. was then brought forward by the Government, and accepted, he believed, by the majority who required it, as a settlement of the question. It was very possible that one or two Members, while voting for that grant, might have protested against accepting it as a settlement of the case; but he insisted upon this as the proof that it was so offered by the Government. He could comprehend and sympathise with the arrangement thus made in 1850, and having carefully examined the subject, he could discover nothing to induce him to believe that the Government, under the circumstances, could have made a more considerate arrangement. The exceptional circumstance which marked the case of the Cuffe-street Bank from other Savings Bank failures in England and Ireland, no doubt arose from a certain appearance of negligence on the part of the Administration, which was alleged as the real cause of the loss; but he was certain that, were the case examined rigidly with respect to its merits, they could not, upon the conduct of the Commissioners of the National Debt and the Government of the day, found any legal or equitable claim for compensation. That being so, he might be asked upon what principle the 30,000l. had been voted. It was not necessary to go into that question. He remembered the temper of the House with which that proposition was received and sanctioned; but it was brought forward by the Government, he asserted, as a settlement of the question; and though there might be originally ground for disputing the wisdom, justice, or expediency of making a grant at all, or, if it were proposed, of proposing a complete one—as far as that House was concerned, the Vote at which it arrived was most certainly a settlement of the question. Believing this, and having great doubts, and more than doubts, whether with a rigid application of those principles of justice to which the hon. Member had referred, the Government would have been authorised in making any advance whatever—Seating the question as a settled question—though he hoped he sympathised as much as any one with those who had suffered from the conduct of the trustees nnd directors of the Cuffe-street Bank—he did not feel authorised to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, considering all the circumstances of the case, and the prolonged malversation that had occurred, the hon. Gentleman's clients might consider themselves very fortunate to have obtained the assistance they had done from Parliament. He did not know one instance where the sufferers from the mismanagement of a Savings Bank had been so compensated. Under these circumstances, it was his duty to resist the Motion. He did so with unaffected pain. It would be very agreeable to him to consent to a proposition which would give an entire repayment to those depositors; but the House must recollect that a great number of them had made deposits in contravention of the well-known laws and regulations of Savings Banks. Therefore, they had suffered not merely by the mismanagement of the trustees and directors, but they had made deposits which they were perfectly aware were contrary to the rules of the institution. These cases were mentioned in the Report, in the schedule of rejected claims, A woman named Doherty, of St. Stephen's-green, Dublin, had three accounts, all in fictitious names, altogether amounting to nearly 300l. Her claim was consequently discllowed. The hon. Gentleman could hardly say that that was an instance of suffering which had entirely arisen from the mismanagement of the trustees and directors. There were several cases of the same kind, which had been disallowed: in one the depositor had taken out three pass-books; in another, the party claimed under a will without having proved it. Of course, such cases could not be entertained. A sum of nearly 30,000l. had been appropriated amongst the depositors, and it was very difficult to establish the justice of that original Vote. He should be sorry to seem to oppose what any one thought a just claim, on the part of a suffering class; but if the House established a precedent, after having settled a case of this kind by a very liberal arrangement—if they once admitted as a claim to relief the plea that the Government had been cognisant of the mismanagement of a Savings Bank, there would be no end to the claims that might be made. The Cuffe-street Savings Bank, instead of being a case of unprecedented hardship, was remarkable for receiving relief, which no other, sufferers had obtained. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. The whole subject of Savings Banks was now under the consideration of Government, with the most anxious wish to meet the great difficulties of that very difficult subject, and, if possible, to place their affairs on such a footing as to render catastrophes like this impossible in future. With regard to the victims in the present case, remembering what had occurred, he could not feel it his duty to sanction the views of the hon. Gentleman, and he must be placed in the painful position of opposing the Motion.

could have wished the subject not to be again discussed on the present occasion. Considering the impossibility of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer having yet devoted his attention to it, it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for the city of Dublin had now brought it forward. He (Mr. H. Herbert) had been the original mover of this question, for the appointment of a Committee, and not the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, as he had stated. He (Mr. H. Herbert) contended that this was not merely an Irish question. It was one equally affecting England, as there had been as many failures of Savings Banks in this country as in Ireland. He admitted that if the trustees had done their duty, no loss would have been incurred; but it should be remembered that in 1844, up to which time they were legally responsible to the depositors, the Legislature had stepped in and relieved them from that responsibility. The consequent was, when the failures occurred, the depositors had neither the responsibility of the trustees nor the Government. In the failure of a private bank, the creditors could come on the private resources of the banker; and why should not the depositors in Savings Banks have some such security? It had been thought necessary, by reason of the great sums now deposited in Savings Banks, to relieve the trustees from their responsibility; but surely some substitute should have been provided. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was the only case where the sufferers had been compensated by the Legislature. But in the case of the Exchequer Bills' frauds in 1844, where the sufferers were rich merchants, compensation had been provided; and surely the poor depositors in Savings Banks, who had suffered, had as good a claim. He rejoiced to hear that the whole question was under the consideration of the Government. After that pledge was fulfilled, he should bring forward a Motion on the subject. Till then he would recommend that the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin should be withdrawn. If the hon. Member divided, he (Mr. H. Herbert) should support the Motion, being an advocate for a full measure of justice.

would also strongly recommend the hon. Member for the city of Dublin to withdraw the Motion, at the same time he was bound to say a few words in explanation of the opinions he had formerly expressed on the question. He still retained those opinions, and had formed them in consequence of the admissions in the Report that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had greatly neglected their duty in not exercising the powers with which they were entrusted. No question was of more importance to the community than that of Savings Banks, and he rejoiced to know that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to direct his attention to the subject. He hoped—indeed he had reason to believe—that arrangements were in contemplation for putting those institutions on a basis which would give that security to depositors to which they were entitled. Under these circumstances he recommended the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division.

said, the evil arose in consequence of the fault of the public officers, whose duty it was to ascertain the solvency of the bank. The depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings' Bank had lodged their money with as much confidence in its safety as if they had placed it in the Exchequer chest. He believed that the Government was liable to make good those losses; but he put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin, whether, after the declaration of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would press his Motion to a division, as he did not think he would gain anything by taking so premature a course.

said, that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt permitted the Cuffe-street Savings Bank to go in long after its affaire had become insolvent. In his opinion, the House was bound to find the remaining 34,000l., because, as the Legislature had stepped in, and taken away the responsibility of the trustees, it was only just and fair that it should make good the losses caused by the ignorance and misconduct of public officers. Put Savings Banks under the care of the Comptroller General, or of some responsible persons, and these malversations would no longer occur. He should vote for the Motion if it went to a division.

did not think the Motion could with justice be resisted, for the Report of 1850 showed the Cuffe-street Bank to be wholly distinct from every other Savings Bank in the United Kingdom. The fact of the House of Commons having sanctioned the vote of 30,000l. two years ago, was an admission of the principle that the depositors ought to be fully compensated. He believed that the depositors in this bank had suffered very severely from its stoppages, and that the fault lay with the public officers, who had neglected their duty. Should the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer give a promise to the hon. Member for the City of Dublin that he would consider the case of the Cuffe-street Bank, per se, when the general question should come before the House, he (Mr. Scully) would advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion; but to press it in the absense of such a promise.

had heard with great pleasure the announcement made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole question of Savings Banks was to be fully considered; but the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to the effect that he considered this question finally settled by the grant of 30,000l., pained and disappointed him. A Committee, consisting of the leading financiers of that House, had been appointed solemnly to consider this subject, and the result was that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a vote of 30,000l. for the mitigation of the injuries suffered by the depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings Bank. Now, if the guardian of the public purse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, found the case so strong as to induce him to make that proposition, on what ground could the remaining 10s. in the pound be withheld? He admitted that the moment chosen for bringing forward the question was premature; but that did not alter the justice of the case, and he wished to be understood that he was not advocating the claims of those depositors who had violated the Act of Parliament.

said, in this case the public had been placed in a most unfortunate and anomalous position, for if the principle were laid down that these losses should be paid out of the public taxes, every other Savings Bank would have an equal claim. He trusted the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the propriety of making an alteration in the existing law so as to afford protection to the public as well as to the depositors.

in reply, said, he must decline to respond to the appeal made to him to withdraw the Motion, after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these depositors were fortunate in getting so much as they did, and had made a most capital bargain. Were the right hon. Gentleman to promise, without pledging himself to any particular decision, that when the whole question of Savings Banks was investigated, the particular case of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank would also be considered, he would, in that case, withdraw the Motion for the present. He had been asked privately why he did not bring forward this subject last year. His answer was, the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill stood in the way. Until the dogdays almost there was hardly a single night in which he had not some quarrel with Her Majesty's Ministers about that Bill, and from the cat-and-dog life he then led with them, they were, of course, anything but disposed to go out of their way to accommodate him with reference to this or any other subject. But now the case was altered, because he found upon the Ministerial benches opposite no fewer than seven hon. Gentlemen who voted with him in 1850, including the noble Lord the Mem- ber for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier); and, therefore, he thought it a favourable opportunity to bring the subject again before the House. He regretted that the eloquence of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had had so little effect upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had hoped he would have taken counsel of his Irish advisers on this subject, for they knew its merits well, and could give him good advice upon it. He begged to say that he had no anxiety to call for a division on this occasion, provided he had something like a reasonable ground to hope that, when the whole question of Savings Banks came to be considered, this subject would be taken into consideration at the same time; but, unless this assurance were given him, he must divide now.

, after presenting two petitions in favour of Industrial and Provident Partnerships, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to legalise the formation of such partnerships. He said that the discussion which had just taken place was not a bad introduction to the Motion of which he had given notice, showing, as it did, how difficult it was for the humbler classes of society in this country to find a safe mode of investing their scanty savings. His attention had been devoted to the subject for many years. So far back as 1830 he obtained a Committee of the House to consider the means of lessening the evils arising from the fluctuation of employment in manufacturing districts. On that Committee he had the able assistance of the late Lord Spencer, and the Report which the Committee afterwards presented to the House stated the difficulties under which the working classes laboured with respect to their investments, and pointed out certain remedies for the purpose of removing those difficulties. In 1840 it was his good fortune to obtain another Committee on the evils affecting the humble classes in large towns; and it was his lot, in connexion with that inquiry, to meet with many intelligent operatives in different parts of the Kingdom, who all expressed their earnest desire that facilities should he given to them to make investments of their savings. In 1850 he was fortunate enough to obtain a Committee to investigate the legal obstacles which stood in the way of investments of the middle and humbler classes, and those obstacles were clearly pointed out in the Report of that Committee. Last year a Committee sat upon the Law of Partnership, and the obstacles which that law placed in the way of these humble parties, and they reiterated the recommendations stated in the first report, that those obstacles ought to be removed which prevented the advantageous employment of small savings. The main principle which affected the welfare of the wages of the people, was simple and clear. It was too often neglected, but was of the first consequence to be understood. Their wages must depend upon the proportion of the supply to the demand, and the amount of capital employed. The legal obstacles which stood in the way of the accumulation of capital, and of the use of that capital in the demand for labour, were extremely great. When these parties joined together their capital and industry, if one single person took hold of the partnership property, there was no tribunal before which he could be brought to answer for his misdeeds; there was no mode in which they could sue or be sued. What they asked was this: the enactment of a simple law, enabling them to invest in directors of their own choice their own property, and the establishment of a simple tribunal for the settlement of those disputes. They did not ask for unlimited liability, but simply that the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act (13 & 14 Vict., c. 115) should be extended to them.

said, that on the part of the Government he should not offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill, the details of which could be discussed on a future occasion.

moved—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of Letter from Mr. Robert Burns to Viscount Palmerston, dated Singapore, 28th day of June, 1851, with its Inclosures, complain- ing of the obstructions and discouragements he had received to his commercial affairs in Borneo, at the hands of Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General to the Sultan and independent chiefs of Borneo, whilst prosecuting his lawful commercial proceedings in that country; together with Copy of any Answers thereto."

said, the lion. Gentleman a few nights ago had given notice of a Motion similar to the present, but that Motion contained a statement that was not the fact. The same operation was performed by the hon. Gentleman several times last year. He kept continual Motions on the paper relating to the conduct of Sir James Brooke; and, upon the same principle, he (Mr. H. Drummond) supposed, that calumny, like flattery, should be laid on thick enough, so that some of it at last might stick, the hon. Member had contrived to keep that gentleman's name before the House until the end of the Session. The hon. Gentleman had had the kindness and urbanity to write him a private letter to bog him to take the earliest opportunity, when this subject came before the House, to make some amende respecting some observations which he (Mr. H. Drummond) had made as applied to a Mr. Miles last year. He (Mr. H. Drummond) replied to the hon. Gentleman in general terms that he would not do in private that justice to Mr. Miles which the hon. Gentleman had requested him to do, but he would do that justice to Mr. Miles in his place in that House whenever an opportunity occurred. Repeatedly had he sought that opportunity, but never had he been able to get one; and he was not now going to apologise for, or extenuate, or deny one word he had said last year; on the contrary, he only insinuated last year that which now he was going to assert positively, that this Miles was a runaway convict. The hon. Gentleman had himself not clean hands with respect to this Miles, for he had published in the papers read in this House a letter from this Miles, which he (Mr. Drummond) had shown to be a forgery. He proved it to be a forgery from the handwriting of that gentleman—a gentleman he would not call him—of that man, and that he could neither spell nor write. Nevertheless, that false testimony the hon. Gentleman made use of, and never had he explained either to Sir James Brooke or to that House why he brought forward that false testimony. He (Mr. H. Drummond) had asserted that Miles, upon whose information the hon. Gentleman relied, was a runaway convict. He insinuated it before; he now said it, and he said that Miles was worse—that he was a thoroughly worthless fellow, and he would now proceed to prove what he had stated. He had an affidavit by a Mr. Henry Adams, which was as follows:—

"Western Australia, Perth, Oct. 10, 1851.

"I, Henry Adams, late of Adelaide, in the province of South Australia, but now of the colony of Western Australia, master mariner, master and owner of the schooner Unknown, solemnly declare as follows:—That is to say, that I was in the police force in the province of South Australia for about fifteen months; that a person who passed by the name of Peter Loyd kept a house of ill fame called the Scotch Thistle; that the police force always had their eyes on the said Peter Loyd, as he was considered a very had character, and that the Scotch Thistle was frequently searched by the police for stolen goods, and for persons suspected of robberies; that I saw a man called William Miller accuse the said Peter Loyd openly upon a racecourse in South Australia of having picked his pocket, when several bystanders declared they had seen the theft committed by the said Peter Loyd, and when I saw the said Peter Loyd return the said William Miller the sum of 3s., being the amount alleged to have been stolen from him on that occasion by the said Peter Loyd; that the stores of Messrs. Murray and Gregg, of Adelaide, were robbed, and that there was very strong ground for suspecting the robbery had been committed by the said Peter Loyd and a man named—Ring; that a reward was offered by the local Government for their apprehension, and the police were sent in search of them, but were unable to arrest them, as they rode to Cape Jervis, and succeeded in getting on board a vessel shortly before the arrival of the police in pursuit; that I knew him, Peter Loyd, well during his residence in Adelaide, and that he there lived with a woman who passed as his wife, and who escaped with him from Cape Jervis; that I heard this woman state that he, Peter Loyd, was a runaway convict: that I did not again see the said Peter Loyd, until the year 1844, when he arrived at Freemantle, in the said colony of West Australia, as owner of the Buffalo, from Singapore, and passed under the name of William Henry Miles; that I at once recognised him, and could not be mistaken as to his identity; that I then heard he was about to be married to a daughter of a Mr. Wickstead, who kept a public-house at Freemantle, and that I conceived it to be my duty to, and I accordingly did, communicate to Mr. Wickstead what I knew of the said Peter Loyd or William Henry Miles, and particularly that I had reason to believe he was then a married man; that I afterwards met at Singapore several persons who informed me that the woman whom I had formerly known as the wife of the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, at Adelaide, and also Mrs. Miles, the daughter of the said Mr. Wickstead, whom the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, married at Freemantle aforesaid, had both been resident at Singapore together; but I did not on that occasion see the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, as he was then at Labuan, where I learned he had gone to lease or work a coal mine.

(Signed) "H. E. ADAMS."

"Subscribed by the abovenamed H. E. Adams in my presence, at Perth, Western Australia, this 10th day of October, 1851.

(Signed) "W. H. MACKIE, J.P.,

Commissioner of the Civil Court of Western Australia, and Chairman of the Court f Quarter Sessions."

It was upon the authority of that man that the hon. Gentleman brought forward all his charges against Sir James Brooke last year; and that was the man whom the hon. Gentleman called upon him, on the authority of a respectable London merchant, to do justice to. The respectable London merchant stood godfather for the respectability of Peter Loyd, a partner in his veracity and in his respectability. Would the hon. Gentleman be so good as to tell the House who was that respectable English merchant? Respectable!—yes, perhaps he kept a gig.

hoped the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would tell the House where he had got the document from which he had just read. For himself, he would say that he did not believe a word of the allegations contained in it. He had stated to the hon. Gentleman, that as he had in his place calumniated Mr. Miles, he thought it was an act of justice to explain it, and he asked the hon. Gentleman whether he had seen the proceedings that had taken place in the Court of Singapore against the Singapore Free Press for a libel, in consequence of the statement mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Miles's letter was given to him by a merchant on whose authority he relied, and he published it on that authority—the authority of a respectable English merchant in this country. The hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion produced a document, and said that Mr. Miles could not write. The letter, certainly, was badly spelt; and, if that was a type of what that individual could write, he should say it was not very creditable. But how did that letter get into the possession of the hon. Gentleman? Was it stolen when the troops made the attack which had before been referred to, at the suggestion of Sir James Brooke? and did that hon. Gentleman know that Mr. Miles had brought an action in the Court of Singapore against Sir James Brooke or his agent? In the opinion of the Judge at Singapore, the real libeller was the hon. Member for West Surrey. As to Sir James Brooke, his conduct had continued as monstrous as it had begun. Before any satisfaction had been made for his previous excesses, Sir James Brooke, on the 31st of July, had an ambush laid for 4,000 persons, whom, in order to create a pretext for plundering them, he; chose to call pirates, whereas they wore not pirates, nor anything of the sort: they were Dyaks. If there were any pirates, they are Malays. Of those 4,000 persons, 500 were barbarously slaughtered, and 1,500 more or less injured; for the massacre and injuries of these poor people the Government had to pay 20,700l.; yet no inquiry was to be granted into this barbarous and disgraceful outrage.