, after presenting a large number of petitions from Sussex and the Weald of Kent, praying for a repeal of the Excise Duty on Hops, which the petitioners stated amounted in many cases to more than 50 per cent on the price, said, he begged to call the attention of the House to the Motion of which he had given notice. In bringing forward this Motion, he wished to impress on his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that though the Hop Duty was of comparatively small amount, yet that it pressed with great severity on his unfortunate constituents. He believed if his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to accounts on this subject, he would find that the average amount of duty of the last three years was only 269,000l., and that if the right hon. Gentleman went back for a period of twenty years he would find that the annual average had not exceeded 280,000l. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to returns on this subject, he would find that the Sussex collection ranged from 80,000l. to 120,000l. a year. He believed that the proportion of land under hop cultivation in the hop districts of that county was about five or six acres out of every hundred that were cultivated. That could not be considered excessive, and yet the duty levied on the produce of these five or six acres was almost invariably greater than the rent paid to the landlord for the whole 100 acres. He had in his hand a statement, which had been, sent him by a most respectable farmer, whose family he knew, and whose farm was within a short distance of the residence of his hon. Colleague. The quality of the land was not inferior, because it could grow four quarters of wheat an acre. The extent of the farm was 503 acres, and the statement contained the quantity of hop land cultivated on it for the last five years:—

In 1847 the amount was	…	35 acres.
In 1848 the amount was	…	30acres.
In 1849 the amount was	…	25 acres.
In 1850 the amount was	…	22 acres.
In 1851 the amount was	…	20 acres.

The average annual amount was somewhere about 26 acres 32 perches, and the average amount of duty was 256l. 17s. 8d. During the same period the rent for the 503 acres was 280l. in 1847, and reduced to 230l. in 1850; average, 249l.; so that the amount of duty paid on the produce of the twenty-six acres of hop land was greater than the rent of the whole 503 acres. He asked whether—such being the case—the tax could be considered a fair one? He had also another statement from a farmer in the same parish. The quality of the land of this farm was very superior, and the rent was higher than in the former case. The extent of the farm was 210 acres, and the rent was 350l. The number of acres under hop cultivation was twenty-five. For the last five years the average amount of hop duty paid was 253l. 17s. 10d., being 72 per cent on the rent. He could bring forward a number of similar cases, and many in which the duty paid on hops exceeded the rent of the whole farm. The tax was one which had never been mitigated or repealed since the war. The present state of things should not be allowed to go on, because it was producing a frightful state of ruin and depression. Combined with free trade and other causes, the existing state of taxation was bringing ruin on the cultivators of the soil. He knew of quantities of land which had been thrown up. Only a short time ago he had heard of a man, whom he knew well, and who possessed about 700 acres near Hastings, having the whole of his farms thrown upon his hands by respectable tenants. If there was to be a revision of taxation, he thought the hop duty was a tax which might fairly be considered by the Government. Another objection to it was, that the hop duty had always been the subject of an excessive amount of gambling. There was more betting about what the hop duty would be for the year, than there was about any horse, either at Newmarket or Epsom. He had even been told that very large bribes had been offered to the Excise officers to reveal what the amount of duty would be, and the quantity of hops gathered in particular districts. He certainly thought the subject was worthy consideration by the Government. He knew that Government was most anxious to do what they could to relieve the excessive burdens on laud. All that he asked in the Resolution was this, that in any remission of taxation, the repeal of the Excise Duty on Hops ought to be taken into serious consideration.

seconded the Motion.

had on former occasions brought this subject under the consideration of the House, and he more particularly urged one portion of it on its attention. It would be recollected that Sir Robert Peel removed the whole of the duty on foreign hops; and when that was done, one would have thought that it would have been but an act of common justice to give some mitigation to the British planter. But that he refused to do. The increased hop duty was imposed by Mr. Pitt, in 1804, and the British hop grower should be relieved at least to the extent of the increase of duty then imposed.

Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex has made a very proper statement, and has moved a very temperate Resolution. He has placed before the House very fairly the position of his constituents, and has expressed an opinion, from which I do not by any means desire to dissent, that in any revision of taxation the repeal of the Excise Duty on Hops ought not to be omitted from the serious consideration of this House. Nothing, I think, can be more reasonable than that sentiment. Her Majesty's Government are (they regret to say it) quite aware of the sufferings which unfortunately exist in that part of the country which the hon. Member represents, and I can declare, in all sincerity on their behalf, that if it were in their power, by any proportion, to remedy the sufferings of the hon. Member's constituents, or of any class of Her Majesty's subjects, they would be only too happy to do so. With regard to the present case, I hope that my hon. Friend will himself perceive that, regard being had to the present state of public business, and to the peculiar position of the Government, it would not be in any degree proper or expedient to press the Government to the expression of any definite opinion on the subject. All that the hon. Member seems to be anxious for is, that in the event of the House undertaking a revision of taxation, the duty on hops shall not be omitted from our consideration; and I can assure my hon. Friend that in that anxiety I participate quite as warmly as himself. He desires that in any general revision of our taxation there shall be consideration for the hop planters; and I can assure him that, so far as it may be in the power of the Government to regulate the matter, such shall be the case. Even in the event of a more limited view of the fiscal condition of the country being taken, with a view to ascertain the incidence of taxation upon agriculture, the case of the hop growers shall not be forgotten. Most assuredly, in any effort that may hereafter be made to place agricultural taxation on a more satisfactory footing, the tax on hops ought not and shall not escape our consideration. But my hon. Friend having now stated with great moderation and force the facts of his case, and having accurately described th position of his constituents with regard to this tax, I do hope that he will feel that he has done his duty, and that he will not deem it necessary to press the matter further on the present occasion. Deputations on this subject have already waited on my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and have presented a memorial embodying their views. To that memorial, as to all other memorials that may he presented by any class of Her Majesty's subjects on the question of taxation, it will be the duty of the Government to devote their most earnest consideration. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be content with having drawn public attention to this subject, and that having stated his case to the House with great propriety, he will not feel himself called upon to press the Government to a definite declaration of their intentions in the matter.

said, though this was brought forward as an agricultural question, he considered the duty on hops pressed most unequally upon all classes, and therefore ought to be removed. They had freed the food of the poor man from tax, and why should they not relieve his beverage from taxation? The food of the people had been freed from duty, and it was consistent as well as just to let them have untaxed drink. The working people of this country should be placed in a similar position to that of the working people of Belgium and other countries, in which, in consequence of there being no tax upon beer, it was drank in considerable quantities, but not so as to produce drunkenness. A plentiful use of beer would prevent the consumption of ardent spirits, which worked so much evil in these Kingdoms. He must say that he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was plainly impossible anything definite could be said till the financial statement was laid before the House. He called upon those agricultural Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches who so loudly proclaimed themselves to be friends of the farmer and his labourers, to give their support to a proposition to the entire repeal of the Malt Tax. There was not a tax levied upon Her Majesty's subjects which was of a more injurious characters—economically, physically, and socially—than the tax upon malt. There was no tax that he would sooner see removed. A repeal of half that tax would be entirely useless. He hoped that when the general taxes of the country were next submitted to revision, this tax would be most seriously considered by Her Majesty's Government, with a view to its entire abolition.

said, that year after year, upon this Motion being brought forward, whilst the hon. Member for Montrose, and those with whom he generally voted, occupied seats on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House, he (Mr. Hume) was in the habit of deprecating the pressing of such a Motion through the House. [Mr. HUME: I beg your pardon. I always voted for the repeal of the Malt Tax.] He was ready to admit that the hon. Member for Montrose was an exception, but he claimed attention to the promise on this subject of Sir James Graham. ["Order, order!"] He was speaking of an historical fact. He was not alluding to ft Member of that House, but he was speaking of a Gentleman who had made a speech before the Corn Laws were repealed. In order to induce the farmers to consent to their repeal, Sir James Graham said, "Of course, the very year after the Corn Laws are repealed, the Malt Tax must go." But never on any single occasion since the repeal of the Corn Laws was Sir James Graham to be found recording his vote in favour of that Motion. In like manner, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had said to the farmers that the Malt Tax must go immediately after Corn Law Repeal; nevertheless, whenever this Motion was brought forward, that hon. Gentleman in variably voted against it. The fact was this: those hon. Gentlemen who were advocates of free trade had but one idea in their heads, and there was no room in them for another Whenever this question was brought forward, they exclaimed, "Fee fo fum! I smell the ghost of a bread tax; you call it hops or malt, but call it what you will, this proposition refers to nothing less than a bread tax." Now those hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well that there was no intention to restore the old bread tax. They might as well talk of restoring the Heptarchy. Their opposition on that ground, therefore, was but a sham, got up for party purposes. There was a certain strange chronological fact in reference to this subject. He did not mean to say, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but, it was a fact, that whenever there was an increase in the quantity of bitter beer in this country, there was also an increase in the importation of gentian.

said, that he was one of those free-trade Members to whom the hon. Member for West Surrey had alluded; but he (Mr. Cobden) voted last year with the hon. Gentleman for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen) and would vote with him again that night if he pressed his Motion to a division. He did not consider the hop duty most obnoxious on account of the burden it imposed on the consumers of beer. But be thought that the pressure of the hop duty fell more severely on the producer than other kinds of taxes. Indeed the hop duty was exceptional in that respect. The tax was so irregular in its amount that the cultivator could not calculate the amount he might have to pay. The amount of duty was therefore a subject of constant gambling, and the hop market in the Borough was like another Tattersall's. It was so precarious in amount, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer could ever tell the sum it would produce, and it was also exceedingly oppressive on the producer. But besides this, the tax bore most unequally on the producer. A person growing hops in Kent sold them for double the price at which the Sussex grower sold them, but the latter paid the same amount of duty. He paid the same duty per cwt. that the Kent grower paid. His hon. Friend, therefore (Mr. T. L. Hodges), who represented the Kent growers, did not want a repeal of the whole duty, but only of that part of it which was known as the war duty. This would leave the duty as much a protective duty in favour of his constituents as he could well obtain. This tax was therefore a most oppressive tax on the unfortunate farmers who grew hops on the heavy soil of Sussex, and it appeared to him that both on the ground of justice and of fiscal expediency it ought to be abolished. If the tax were repealed, it would obviate the necessity of the hop growers coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in formâ pauperis, as they frequently did, to ask for a remission of a part or of the whole of the duty. Nothing could more clearly show the oppressiveness and obnoxious character of the tax, than the fact that the duty varied from 120,000l. to 400,000l. a year; therefore the amount ought not to show any serious obstacle in the way of its repeal. He could not agree with the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) that this tax and the malt tax were of the same nature, because if the malt tax were repealed, it would be necessary to find a substitute for it; and he defied any man to find a new tax as a substitute for the malt tax which would be accepted by the country. The feeling in favour of the repeal of the malt tax was not so strong as it was some years ago. There was a large party in this country who were opposed to the use of fermented liquors. There was a large amount of public opinion in favour of that view, and he was happy to say, it included the best portion of the working classes in this country. They might be right, or they might he wrong, as to the view they took of the effect of fermented liquors; but this he knew, that any Gentleman who represented a large constituency in that House, might vote against the repeal of the Malt Tax without giving that offence to his constituents which he would have given twenty years ago by taking such a course. He remembered some twenty years ago, when the repeal of the Malt Tax was the most popular cry in Manchester. But now he was sure his hon. Friends the Members for Manchester might vote against its repeal without incurring much danger of losing their seats on that account. But if the hon. Member for West Surrey and his Friends in that House had, as he said, no idea of putting on a Corn Law, then there was no other Way of getting rid of the Malt Tax, except by a reduction of expenditure. If they would only join him in effecting that reduction of expenditure, they would find but little resistance to the abolition of the Malt Tax. But what was the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman and his friends, the "late" Protectionists? Did not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it a boast a few nights ago, that When he (Mr. Cobden) brought forward a Motion in favour of a large reduction of taxation—not a sudden reduction, but a gradual retain to the expenditure of 1835—the then Government were enabled by the aid of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) party to defeat that Motion? And now the hon. Member for West Surrey charged them with being the cause of the Malt Tax not being repealed. Tim hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Frewen) took a courageous part last Session. He (Mr. Cobden) well remembered that he resisted all the appeals of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to withdraw his Motion, and not to divide the House on it; but the hon. Member persevered, and he (Mr. Cobden) applauded him for it. He congratulated the men of Sussex upon having got a Member who would go through with the question, and who was not to be put off by the blandishments of any party. He had no doubt that their cause would succeed in such hands; but, judge his surprise, when he had read the report of the interview which had taken place between the hon. Gentleman and his Sussex friends and the Earl of Derby, on the subject of the Hop Duties. There he found that without any promise being made by the Government, that they would support the repeal of those duties, an understanding had been come to, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was not to be pressed to a division. Now he (Mr. Cobden), after a good deal of experience in that House, begged to tell the hon. Gentleman, that if he wished to succeed in obtaining relief from this obnoxious tax for the hop growers of Sussex, he must be prepared to press it forward, notwithstanding the inconvenience it might give to a Government or to a particular party. And if he found that a Government were in straits and difficulties, and that a party were vibrating and oscillating in their places, then was the tune for pressing his Motion with the greatest perseverance. The hon. Gentleman stood a better chance for a successful division that evening than he did when he made his Motion last Session. Last year the Budget had been launched when the hon. Gentleman made his Motion, and he came late upon the field. On the present occasion the Budget had not been produced, and he was amongst the first claimants, for consideration. A still stronger reason for his persevering was this, that the present was a condemned Parliament. It was in a state of penitence, and many men would give a good vote now, when they would not do so in the beginning of a new Parliament. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his Motion in the mildest and most milk-and-water manner possible, he hoped he was not going to waste the time of the House by withdrawing, but that he would be found staunch enough and true enough to his friends to press it to a division.

said, he understood the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) to have said that he (Mr. Frewen) yesterday attended with the deputation that waited on the Earl of Derby. He was not present, and did not know of what had taken place until seven o'clock in the evening. The Committee sent a report to him, stating that they had urged the matter on the consideration of the Earl of Derby—that they were so satisfied with his answer that they hoped he would not press the House on the question. He said he thought it was only due to his constituents to bring the question under the consideration of the House, in order that he might have an opportunity of urging the amount of the tax, and the unjust way in which it pressed upon his constituents. Feeling quite satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was not his intention to divide the House on the present occasion.

said, when the House knew that during the last year and the present the price of hops had more than doubled, it would be of opinion that that was a sufficient inducement to increase the cultivation, for the foreigner had still the inducement of a high price to import. Instead of the cultivation of hops being ruinous to the farmer, he believed that it was much more profitable to grow hops at 9l. 10l. or 13l. a cwt., than to grow wheat at 30s. a quarter; and if he might be permitted to take such a liberty, he would say to the hop growers of Kent, Worcester, and some other parts, that in the present depressed state of agriculture they could not direct themselves to a more profitable pursuit than to the cultivation of hops. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond), he must be well aware that no brewer could have recourse to the ingredient to which he had adverted without an infraction of the law of the land, and without exposing himself to certain conviction. It was scarcely worthy of the hon. Member to impute to a respectable class of trades- men an infraction of the law from the use of a deleterious article,

rose to move an Address for copies of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and foreign States, respecting the protection afforded to Refugees. He wished to confine himself strictly within the words of his Motion; and in so doing he wished to state, that at the commencement of the Session he applied to the noble Lord then at the head of the Government for information as to whether he intended to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence between the British Government and foreign States with respect to foreign refugees. The noble Lord informed him, that it was his intention to lay those papers before the House, and they accordingly were so laid upon the table of the House. Those papers concluded with a despatch of Earl Granville, in reference to communications received from foreign Powers upon that subject, with the addition of certain answers from foreign Ministers after the issue of that despatch. The Earl of Westmoreland stated that Prince Schwartzenberg at the time of receiving that despatch was so occupied that he was unable to give an immediate reply. A short time after the date of that letter we were informed by the public press that a despatch was sent by Prince Schwartzen-berg to the Austrian Minister in this country, and also to the Foreign Office in this country. That despatch was received during the Administration of Earl Granville at the Foreign Office. He (Mr. M. Milnes) thought it was very important to this country that that despatch should be formally laid upon the table of the House. The tone of it, as far as he could judge from what appeared in the public prints, was of a very peculiar and painful character. He would content himself with describing it in such language for the present. He thought it was most important that the correct text of that despatch should be laid upon the table of the House. He thought it also important, for the character of the late Government, that the House should be informed whether Earl Granville answered that despatch—whether he answered it directly and implicitly, or whether it remained for the present Government to answer it. He asked his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, soon after his accession to office, whether he would have any objection to lay those papers on the table of the House. He understood from him, at the time, that he was unwilling to do so, because the correspondence was not then complete. Would his right hon. Friend permit him to say that such answer merely meant that he did not think it convenient to lay the papers on the table of the House, because despatches of that kind might be procrastinated from time to time, and it would be impossible for a long time to obtain a complete copy of the correspondence. He wished his right hon. Friend to understand that he (Mr. M. Milnes) confined his request upon this subject to the despatch of the Austrian Government in answer to that of Earl Granville, and to any answers which might have been given by the late Government. Of course if it was convenient for him to do so, or if he thought it would furnish more light upon the subject, he might add such correspondence as had taken place since the accession of the present Government to power. The House would, no doubt, be grateful to him for such additional information. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had no desire whatever to embarrass his or any other Government, because he felt most deeply that our foreign policy was too important a matter to be trifled with by party manœuvres. He would content himself with now moving for the papers mentioned in his Motion. In asking for the production of those papers he did not believe that he was making an unjust demand.

Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract appears to entertain the notion that the essense of diplomacy is mystery. He thinks it quite impossible, whenever our diplomatic interests are concerned, for any Member or Members of Her Majesty's Government to give a straightforward answer. My hon. Friend wishes to bring a subject of great interest under the consideration of the House; but before he makes his Motion, he wishes to be put in possession of certain despatches which the Government of this country have received from foreign Powers. My hon. Friend has been furnished with some partial information respecting that correspondence. He inquired of me the other day whether I would lay on the table of the House some further correspondence connected with this subject, namely, that relating to foreign Refugees. I then told my hon. Friend that the correspondence was not complete, but when complete, I would lay it before the House. And now, I can tell my hon. Friend that that correspondence is complete. Within a day or two I believe it will be printed, and when it is printed, I shall, by command, lay it on the table of this House. My hon. Friend assures me that he has no desire to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by bringing forward this question. I can assure him that the question is not embarrassing, nor am I conscious of having attempted to evade it. I cannot suppose that my hon. Friend is going to press this Motion to a division, particularly after the statement which I have made. I have entirely fulfilled my promise to the House. I told the House that, when the correspondence was complete, it would be placed before them. I now inform the House, that the correspondence is complete, and that in due course it will be laid upon the table, so as to be in time for my hon. Friend's speech.

still thought the remarks of his right hon. Friend were characterised by diplomatic mystery.

hoped, after the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract would withdraw his Motion.

begged to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He felt that the questions now pending between the Ottoman Porte and the Pacha of Egypt were questions in which this country had a deep interest; and in illustration of the nature of that interest he might refer to the saying of the celebrated Mehemet Ali—that Egypt had become the bridge between Europe and Asia. What country, he (Mr. Anderson) inquired, had the greatest interest in that bridge? He would ask hon. Members to accompany him in imagination to a spot which he might call the centre of the bridge, namely, the middle of the desert of Suez, which he had himself recently visited. What a few years since was a desert, was now the great thoroughfare of commercial traffic, and of travelling and postal intercourse between Europe and the East. He might show them there a long train of camels, stretching as far as the eye can reach, passing through, laden with merchandise; he might show them two or three hundred camels carrying on their backs merchandise and travellers' luggage—another division laden with boxes, containing specie to the value of 400,000l. to 500,000l.; and then, again, another division conveying the letters and correspondence between the East and the West; and, lastly, numerous relays of commodious carriages advancing at a rapid pace, filled with travellers. The route through Egypt had reduced the time of this intercourse to nearly one-fourth of what it formerly was. Let hon. Members consider the importance of this traffic, and how great would be the disappointment of British merchants, and of the British people, if it had again to be conveyed round by the Cape of Good Hope. If something were not speedily done, however, to check the mischievous interference of the Divan of Constantinople in the internal administration of Egypt, it was to be feared that it would either be stopped altogether, or materially impeded. The noble Viscount lately at the head of the Foreign Department, had in a sort of stereotyped reply which he made to the various memorials from British merchants and others on this subject, alluded to the differences between the Porte and the Viceroy of Egypt, as matter of mere form and etiquette. But be (Mr. Anderson) was able to show to the House that the pretensions now put forward, since the accession of the present Viceroy, by the Porte, and only put forward, had a far deeper object. And he would now state the origin and object of these pretensions. The present Viceroy of Egypt, Abbas Pacha, when he succeeded to the government of the country, became a reformer. He found many abuses which had existed undisturbed under former administrations. He found in the country a number of manufacturing establishments which he wisely considered to be of no use in Egypt, the proper manufacture of which was corn; and when those manufactories were broken up, a number of employés were necessarily dismissed, including some Frenchmen. There were also some men who had held important posts under his grandfather's government, whose cupidity was checked under the new system. The parties thus dismissed or disappointed, flocked in a discontented frame of mind to Constantinople, and there originated a conspiracy against the Pacha, the object of which was to deprive him of the government of Egypt. He was not making this statement on mere hearsay. He had it in the handwriting of the chief conspirator, and it clearly appeared that what was aimed at by the Porte was the dismissal of the present Pacha, and the reduction of Egypt to the condition of an ordinary Turkish pachalic. It was for this country to consider what was likely to be the result of such a state of things. Among the pretensions of the Porte was one which struck at the very root of all authority in Egypt. It went to deprive the Pacha of the power of inflicting capital punishment—a power without which it would be impossible to maintain due subordination, or to rule the country advantageously. Industrious efforts, also, were being made to sow dissensions between different members of the Pacha's family; and as many of them were in possession of large tracts of land, the effect would be to produce a civil war. A large number of emissaries were actually now in Egypt endeavouring to persuade the people that the Pacha had no authority. Now, it had been asked why Egypt could not be governed as well through the Porte, residing in Constantinople, as through a Pacha in Egypt. His first answer was, that our national honour was pledged to the maintenance of the Pacha of Egypt in the political position assigned to the family of Mehemet Ali by the settlement of the Eastern question in 1841; and to this he would add, that his claim to our support was strengthened by the fact, that British interests of most important character were involved in the tranquillity and efficient government of Egypt, and that no Pacha had ever done so much to protect and to promote these interests as the present Pacha. Why, during the last twelve months only British property of the value of 3,000,000l. sterling had passed through his territory in safety without a single soldier to guard it. This was a great contrast to the state of, things in Turkey, the Government of which was so impotent that it was unable to protect either property or person. He had that day received a letter from Constantinople, an extract of which he would read, and which he thought would fully confirm this of his statement:—

"The weak administration of the Turkish Government, as to affording protection to life or property is Made manifest by facts out of number. Evan in this capital we are scarcely more secure from murder and theft than persons residing in the provinces, the only difference being that here toe acts are perpetrated during the night, and by gangs of organised thieves; whereas those in the country take place during the day, and in sight and call of the houses of the victims, and frequently within gunshot of men who are called guards. At Smyrna two cases occurred not long since of a particularly glaring description, namely, first, that of the Dutch Consul, who was taken out of his own vineyard at 3 p.m., and within call of his house, and kept by the banditti who infest the neighbourhood of that city until his friends ransomed him for a sum equal to about 500l.; and that of Mr. De Youngh, the Danish Consul-general, who was actually taken from his house in the centre of a village of upwards of 500 houses, haying a so-called military force of upwards of 200 strong quartered in it. The payment of a sort of black mail by the Smyrna merchants to these robbers for permission to get the fruit and other produce brought there for shipment exempted from plunder, is well known."

When such was the contrast of Turkey to Egypt, this country could scarcely desire a transference of the government of Egypt to the Sultan. It was considered by many persons that there had been some insubordination among our diplomatists on this question, and that our Ambassador at Constantinople had not fully carried out the wishes of the Foreign Office; and as affording a ground for this opinion, he would refer to one fact which would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, namely, that the noble Viscount then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs declared in his place in this House, that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that the Pacha of Egypt had a right to make the railway in Egypt without the permission of the Porte. Yet almost immediately following that declaration, the Pacha was strongly urged by instructions from the British Ambassador at Constantinople to ask that permission—a step which he (the Pacha) now bitterly regretted, as having compromised Ms political position—a step, also, which was likely to be seriously detrimental to the improvement of the transit to and from the East. For he might explain to the House that the railway for which permission, had been asked and obtained from the Porte, and about which so much was thought in this country, was not, after all, the railway which we required for the communication with India. The railway now about to be constructed was only a railway between Alexandria and Cairo, and how-ever advantageous it might be to the Internal improvement of Egypt, Would do but little for the improvement of the overland route, unless it be continued from Cairo to Suez. Now, the Pacha, by the unfortunate step which. British diplomacy had advised him to take in subjecting himself to the control of the Porte in such matters, now felt it prudent studiously to keep out of view, and even to repudiate, any intention of making a railway from Cairo to Suez. But for this unfortunate circumstance, as the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. R. Stephenson) could confirm, instead of the commencement only at Alexandria of a railway, we should have five to ten thousand labourers commencing at Suez as well, and thus get a railway completed from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean in a short time, instead of having the most important part of it indefinitely postponed. On this subject he had some personal knowledge. He had had several communications with the Pacha of Egypt, and he knew that the Pacha felt very strongly and indignantly the manner in which he had been treated by the Government of this country. He had been taunted by the French party in Egypt that had he sought an alliance with France he would have been in a much better position. The prompt and decided interference of the French in the dispute between the Porte and their protegé, the Bey of Tunis, had been cited to him; and he (Mr. Anderson) considered this a serious matter. Much was now said about a French invasion. He did not fear any on our shores; but he would warn the House that it was not improbable that instead of our having a French expedition on the coast of Kent, Sussex, or Hampshire, there might he one sent to the shores of the Mediterranean and the banks of the Nile once more.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) has reference to one of the most delicate questions in the whole range of our foreign policy, namely, the relations between Turkey and Egypt. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, that not only the present, but, I believe, also the late Government, feel the full importance of the question, and that we are not influenced by the information to which he referred, nor the authority to which he alluded. If he thinks that the contending claims between Turkey and Egypt (as he seems to think) have their foundation only in the discords of workmen and the little plots of Constantinople, I can easily understand from what source he derives his information. The claims to which he alludes are founded upon existing treaties—upon the interpretation of those treaties, and upon traditional interests of the utmost importance. It is, however, quite impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. If it were acceded to, the House would have a variety of information thrown before it referring to the negotiations which are now pending. The whole question is involved in those negotiations. The mutual relations between Turkey and Egypt are no doubt of the greatest importance to the interests of this country, and also to the interests of the world; the Government feel the full importance of those relations being established on a proper and legitimate basis. I feel it to be my duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; and I do so on the simple intelligible ground that the transactions to which he refers are at this moment in an imperfect state, that they are the subject of negotiation at this present moment in Constantinople, and that it would most injuriously affect the public service if those papers were laid upon the table of the House.

Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a subject of the greatest importance and delicacy. I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in refusing to accede to the Motion. I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) is not correct in his construction of the guarantee respecting the mutual relations of Egypt and Turkey; nor do I think he is correct in his inference of the relations which the guarantee implies between the Sultan and the Pacha of Egypt. I am of opinion that our interference between the Sultan and the Pacha is a matter of the utmost delicacy. We are on the most friendly terms with the Sultan and with the Pacha—we may advise the Sultan—we may counsel him to allow the Pacha to inflict capital punishment, if he should think proper, without referring to Constantinople; but such interference can only be received as friendly counsel, and to give it any chance of success, it ought to be couched in the most conciliatory langague. Now, I cannot help thinking that the production of those documents for which the hon. Gentleman calls, would prevent such success. At the same time, not only with respect to the contraction of the railroad—with respect to the power of inflicting capital punishment where capital sentences are pronounced—I think it most desirable that the Pacha of Egypt should have the same power conferred upon him as is conferred by our Sovereign on the Governors of our colonies and provinces, and that better government would be thereby secured. But all this must be left entirely in the hands of the Executive Government; and I think we ought not unduly to interfere between the Sultan and the Pacha, but that a conciliatory course would be the surest road to success. I am sure that our Ambassador at Constantinople, Sir Stratford Canning—than whom there is no man of higher diplomatic talent, or more fit for the position he holds, will execute with fidelity and zeal any instructions that may be transmitted to him by the Home Government.

said, that in 1839 this country despatched to Egypt some fifty vessels of war to conquer the Pacha, and to place Egypt under the Sultan, with a guarantee that certain powers should be continued in the hands of the Pacha. He did not know what his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) referred to when he spoke of a conspiracy, but it appeared from documents laid before Parliament that the Sultan, whilst speaking in the fairest and most flattering terms to the Pacha, was concocting plans to overthrow him. When England stepped in, one of her objects was to secure certain rights to the Pacha and his descendants for ever; and, though he was sorry at the time to see the arms of England so employed, he knew no tribunal to which an appeal could now be made with so much justice as the country which had supplied the forces that fought against Mehemet Ali. He could have hoped that on such an occasion the noble Lord the late head of the Foreign Office would have been present. Though convinced that Egypt could not be in better hands than those of the present Pacha, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion, with the view of renewing it if hereafter he thought the Pacha did not obtain that protection which both the honour and the interest of this country required that he should receive.

did not believe that the noble Lord the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs had ever consented to such an interpretation of the Treaty by which England guaranteed the independence of Egypt, as that this country would be justified in interfering by force of arms in the affairs of Egypt. But he believed the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) and the public sense of diplomacy in Europe, agreed that the parties to that engagement were morally bound, by every means in their power, to support the Pacha of Egypt in a just and independent authority. At the same time he (Mr. M. Milnes) must say that it was hardly fair to look upon this question of capital punishment without taking into consideration that it was one intimately connected with the advance of civilisation in the dominions of the Porto. If it could be shown that the right of inflicting capital punishment would only be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner by the Pacha, he (Mr. M. Milnes) did not think that the Porte would deny to the Pacha that power which was granted by Her Majesty to the governors of our own colonies. It would be found that it was mainly owing to the efforts of the English Government, that there was now every hope of the successful establishment of an important railroad in Egypt. That great question might now be said to be settled; and he did not think that there could have ever been any serious intention on the part of the Sultan of preventing the formation of so valuable a work in what might still be considered a portion of his own dominions. He had heard with great satisfaction of the prospect there now was of the improvement and better government of Egypt. He believed that the present Pacha had the real welfare of the country very much at heart, and that he would endeavour to advance the cause of civilisation by the introduction of practical reforms, not more ostentatious perhaps, but not less useful, than those of his predecessor. The present question was one that did not concern this or that Government; and he (Mr. M. Milnes) did hope that Her Majesty's advisers, assisted by the mediation of Sir Stratford Canning, would be able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

, in reply, said, that with reference to the vagueness alleged to be in the terms of the firman of investiture of the Pacha, which was the same as that granted to Mehemet Ali in the year 1841, and under which the administration of Egypt had been carried on ever since; if it was vague on one side, it must be vague on the other; and where was the best interpretation of it to be found? Why, surely, in that which one party had done, and the other had permitted, during the ten years in which it had been in operation. During that time the barrage of the Nile, certainly as great an undertaking as the railway, had been undertaken by the late Mehemet Ali, without permission from or question by the Sultan; and in like manner he had undertaken and completed the extensive fortifications of Alexandria—works that might even be turned against the Sultan. And with regard to the Fanzimat, or new code of laws, it was expressly stipulated by Mehemet Ali, in accepting the firman of investiture, they should only be applied to Egypt so far as the circumstances of that country might render them practicable. The noble Lord lately at the head of Her Majesty's Government had dwelt much on the extreme delicacy of our interference in a question which was one between the Sultan and his vassal. But he (Mr. Anderson) would ask, where was all this delicacy in the years 1839 and 1840? What was the question then but between the Sultan of Turkey and his vassal the Viceroy of Egypt? What right had we then to interfere in that domestic quarrel, when the superior intelligence and energy of the Pacha of Egypt had placed the capital and power of the Sultan at his feet? Yet we did interfere: we expended millions of British treasure, and employed British ships of war and men to prop up the prostrate power of the Sultan, a power which he is now employing to damage important British interests. To talk of the Porte as an independent Power, was indeed a complete farce. Let any one look into the published correspondence on the Eastern question, and he will there see a most ludicrous picture: a Government assuming the most magnificent attributes of power and dominion, yet humbled to the dust before an intelligent vassal; unable to adopt the most trifling measure either of defence or diplomacy except under the tutelage of the Ministers of Foreign Powers. Now, having set up the Sultan and put down the Pacha, as we then did, he (Mr. Anderson) maintained that we not only had a right, but were hound in honour to see that the Pacha of Egypt should not he pushed down into a still lower position, and to the detriment of our own national interests. And where, he would ask, was the necessity for this new interference with the Pacha? Had his administration been injurious or tyrannical to the people of Egypt? On the contrary, no Pacha had ever done so much to improve the condition of that people, nor had administered the government of Egypt with so much leniency. He had relieved the people to the extent of nearly a million and a half sterling amount of taxes, and that of the most obnoxious kind of taxes. He had emancipated them from that abject slavery which, under former régimes, bound the fellatreen or agricultural peasantry to their respective villages, to labour there for the benefit of the r masters, and from whence they durst not move under pain of the bastinado; in short, they were adscripti glebœ in the most rigid sense. They are now at liberty to proceed anywhere in Egypt where they can get the best employment, with the exception, indeed, of those on the extensive estates of the sons of Ibrahim Pacha, who are patronised and protected by the Powers at Constantinople, and are therefore considered too powerful to be interfered with. With regard to capital punishments, he (Mr. Anderson) had obtained from what he considered undoubted authority, a statement of the number of executions in Egypt during the three years prior and three years subsequent to the accession of the present Pacha. During the former period they amounted to sixteen annually; but during the latter period they had only amounted to seven annually. This surely could not be considered excessive in the efficient government of four millions and a half of a semi-civilised population. Of the marked improvement in Egypt, he (Mr. Anderson) could speak in the most confident manner, as he had visited it about ten years since, and again very recently, and nothing could be more gratifying to any one feeling an interest in the subject, than the favourable change which has taken place during that period. He trusted the facts he had stated would induce the Government to bestow an active attention to this most important subject. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. M. Milnes) had passed an high encomium on our Minister at Constantinople and our Consul General in Egypt, and claimed a sort of implicit confidence for the former; but it was well known that these two functionaries did not pull together on this question—that they in fact pulled in opposite directions, Sir S, Canning pulling in his (Mr. Anderson's) opinion the wrong way, while Mr. Murray pulled the right. Of course, after the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the prejudice which might arise from the publication of the correspondence, he had no alternative but to withdraw his Motion; and, with the permission of the House, would withdraw it accordingly.

said, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers to the subject matter of a petition presented from the town commissioners of Ennis. The petition was one of no ordinary importance, both from the repectability of the parties who had signed it, and the motives which had induced them to come forward. The town commissioners of Ennis were comparatively uninterested in the question, and their motive in addressing the House of Commons was to obtain protection from the deep wrong which had been inflicted upon the poor of the town which he had the honour to represent. The river Fergus took its source eight or nine miles above the town of Ennis. A loan had been obtained by the proprietors of the land between the source of the river and the town from the Commissioners of the Board of Works, for the purpose of effecting the drainage of the land. But in place of commencing the outlet for the purpose of facilitating the exit of the water below the town of Ennis, the Commissioners of Works had made an outlet in the river near its source, whereby the water was drawn from the surrounding lands, and the town in consequence was made liable to inundations. The petitioners prayed that the Commissioners should be called upon to complete the works which they had undertaken. It was a part of the. agreement that the proprietors were not to repay the money that was advanced for effecting this drainage until the works had, been completed, and it was alleged that a great portion of the money was already expended. The resident gentry refused to contribute until the Board of Works had done their part, which was to complete the works. The Board, however, would not complete them, and the consequence was the district was inundated. The town of Ennis was the centre of a district containing a population of 150,000 souls, whose trade was greatly interested in the river Fergus being rendered navigable to that entrepôt, and that could only be done by the removal of a bar below the town, which prevented vessels sailing up to it. For the trivial expense of about 30,000l. that invaluable boon could be secured to a wretched but peaceable population; and he hoped the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a favourable consideration to their claims. He had repeatedly brought this subject before the attention of the Government, and everything was in train for the execution of the project, when the late Administration took it into their heads to throw up the reins of power. Hence he was obliged to renew his application, and to make the present appeal to the new Government. His object, in the first instance, was to induce the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to insist on the Board of Works completing that portion of the drainage which they had undertaken above the town of Ennis; and, in the next place, to obtain the first moiety of 15,000l. as a grant from the Government, and another 15,000l. as a loan, to be advanced on the security of the tolls of the town of Ennis.

said, he could bear testimony to the persevering manner in which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had pressed the subject upon the attention of the late Government. With regard to the drainage of the river Fergus, and the improvement of the navigation to the town of Ennis, he (Sir C. Wood) did not consider it was an object for which a grant of public money should be made, but he thought it one for which a loan might be advanced. At the same time, if a loan was to be advanced, it would be necessary that it should be made in the name of commissioners for the improvement of the river Fergus, in order to secure its repayment. But at present there were no such commissioners in existence, and therefore before the loan could be granted it would be necessary to pro- ceed by introducing a Bill on the subject.

could assure the hon. Member for Ennis that he was not at all influenced in the reply about to be given, by the consideration that it might affect the return of the hon. Gentleman at the next election. He had read the petition of the Commissioners of the town of Ennis, but he had arrived at an impression different from that of the hon. Member. It did not appear by the petition that the fault lay with the Commissioners of Works, but, on the contrary, with the landowners of the district, with whom the hon. Member must be most intimately acquainted. The petition stated that the loan by which the works were to be carried out, was obtained by the Board of Works on the understanding that it was to be repaid by the gentry. The proprietors, notwithstanding the great benefit they have undoubtedly derived from the operations that had been effected, refused to sanction any further expenditure. The House would recollect that under the Arterial Drainage Act, Clause 50, a certain expenditure might be incurred by the Board of Works; but the payment of a certain amount was also required from proprietors in order to complete such works. In this case it was the proprietors who had declined to permit any further outlay. They ought to come to some decision among themselves before asking assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; at the same time if an application were made to the Government of the nature suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), he should be happy to give it every consideration.

said, the complaint was that the Commissioners had spent the money in the most useless way, doing only a portion of the work here, and another there; and if it were to be completed in the same manner as it had been begun, the cost would be very enormous. A sum of 195,000l. had already been expended, and he understood 160,000l. more would be necessary to finish the original plan.

said, that the work had been done for relief purposes during the late famine, and no doubt the outlay was not so advantageously made as it would have been under other circumstances. He had instructed the solicitor to the Board of Works to make a return of the Public Works begun but still unfinished in Ire- land, in order to enable the Government to ascertain which, and how many of them ought to be carried to their completion. He (Mr. Napier) intended to direct his attention to the numerous Acts which had from time to time been passed for promoting works of improvement in Ireland, with the view of consolidating them into one uniform and intelligible code.

was glad to hear the announcement just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought the Irish proprietors had been much ground down by taxation in every shape, and they had substantial reasons for refusing their assent to the completion of these works, as alleged by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. They complained of mismanagement in the execution of them, the original estimates having been doubled and tripled in many instances by the actual sums expended; and they were, therefore, reluctant to make themselves further responsible for the payment of consolidated annuities and other similar charges. That was the reason why so many of these works remained in an unfinished state. He hoped that the Government would yet entertain the present application favourably.

, in reply, said, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was under a misconception as to the conduct of the local proprietors. The real cause for their refusal to contribute was, that the Board of Works were legally bound by the litera scripta of their contract to complete the works before the proprietors should be called upon to pay. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) for pointing out a mode in which his object could be secured, and he should therefore now withdraw his present Motion, giving notice at the same time of his intention to bring in a Bill on the same subject.

said, he rose to move for copies of corespondence between Mr. Robert Burns and Viscount Palmerston, relative to the obstructions and discouragements he had received to his commercial affairs in Borneo. He (Mr. Hume) should content himself on the present occasion with simply moving for the production of these papers, which were necessary to complete the narrative of the transactions in Borneo which had already engaged the attention of that House. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Drummond) was anxious for a discussion on the conduct of Sir James Brooke, it was his (Mr. Hume's) intention to gratify him without much delay; but he trusted that the matter would not be debated at that moment. Address for—

"Copy of Letter from Mr. Robert Burns to Viscount Palmerston, dated Singapore, 28th day of June, 1851, with its Inclosures, complaining 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, he must complain that the hon. Member for Montrose should, as last Session, put repeated notices upon the paper which were not literally true, and which implied censures of which the House had no means of forming an accurate judgment. For instance, this notice stated that Mr. Burns was prosecuting, his lawful commercial proceedings. Now, the fact was that these proceedings were, pandering to slander at the instigation of the society who instructed the hon. Member for Montrose. The unfortunate gentleman (Mr. Burns) had given evidence (though he thought he could not have been such a goose as to have thought so) that there were no such things as pirates; but having gone amongst them, he lost his head, and the consequence was that his boat and papers fell into the hands of the Government authorities, and amongst these papers was his journal, which would show what were the commercial proceedings in which he was engaged in Mallaheu Bay. [The hon. Member then read extracts from this journal, to show that the unfortunate gentleman in question, and Mr. Motley, the agent of the Eastern Archipelago Company, had been engaged in endeavouring to persuade the Sultan of Borneo to write to Her Majesty, complaining of the conduct and proceedings of Sir James Brooke.] He had not the smallest objection to meet the hon. Member for Montrose whenever he might bring forward the Borneo question; but he objected to charges being insinuated in these resolutions, instead of being made in a bonâ fide and honest manner, when and where they could be answered; which he knew that they could not be on those occasions. It was too bad that an honourable Gentleman, who was esteemed (and he believed, deservedly) by his friends as a man of benevolence and kindness, should be possessed with such a monomania as to take a delight in blackening in that House the character of one of the most valuable servants whom the country had ever possessed.

said, that the transactions alluded to by the hon. Member took place many months after those with respect to which he (Mr. Hume) wished for an explanation. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that he (Mr. Hume) had anything to do with the company to which he had referred. The letter, for a copy of which he was now moving, was direct from, and was signed by, Mr. Burns himself, and he (Mr. Hume) knew nothing of any other party. He denied that the present Motion contained one word of censure, and therefore the remarks of the hon. Member upon that point were not well founded.

said, that he did not rise for the purpose of opposing any further obstacles to the progress of the Bill. He thought that he had done as much as could be expected under such circumstances for the defence of his constituents. He merely wished to express a hope that the crusade against corruption at elections would not terminate with the disfranchisement at St. Albans, for if that were so, he thought this measure would be a source, not of satisfaction, but of dissatisfaction to the public. If Her Majesty's Government, taking advantage of the information that they had received through the St. Albans Commission, would, before the dissolution of Parliament bring in a Bill that should more effectually check this corruption, than was done by any present Act of Parliament, he felt certain that such a course would give great satisfaction to the country, and that it would receive the support of every honest man in the Kingdom.

said, that the noble Lord who was lately at the head of the Government would on the following evening move the Second Reading of the Corruption and Bribery at Elections Bill, and that Her Majesty's Government intended to give him their support. They had every desire to adopt effectual measures for the suppression of corruption at elections.

hoped that the Government were sincere in the declaration that they would adopt the most effectual measures for the suppression of corruption. He did not believe that corruption could be wholly put an end to, but he believed that the best means to diminish it would be to adopt Vote by Ballot. He would press that both on the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord as a test of their sincerity.