said, the Bill was one of those which had passed the House very quietly, having only been delivered to Members the day preceding, when it was also read a second time, though it proposed to add 7,000,000l. to the unfunded debt of this country. He (Sir H. Willoughby) was opposed to such a course, as well as to the Bill, for which he saw no necessity, and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain its object and causes. The unfunded debt of the country now stood higher than it did at any period since the last war, with the exception of the years from 1812 to 1820, when it was 56,000,000l., which in 1829 was reduced to 24,000,000l. But in that time the state of the country was very different from what it was at present, for cash payments had been suspended, and the state of things which then existed had always been considered to be a blot upon our system of finance. The creation of a great mass of unfunded debt was only a postponement of the funded debt; and the funding would probably be attended with great disadvantages in consequence. In the last two years the unfunded debt had been nearly doubled. In 1853 it stood at 17,000,000l.; in 1854 it stood at 23,000,000l.; and now it was somewhere about 30,000,000l., or would be at the end of the financial year. The unfunded debt, thus added to the national burden, also was of a different character from the former unfunded debt, inasmuch as it consisted partly of Exchequer bonds redeemable at the rate of 2,000,000l. a year every successive year after two years—namely, 1857, 1858, 1859. The income of the country up to that period was, therefore, forestalled. That was his (Sir H. Willoughby's) objection to the scheme of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) when he introduced this system of finance, and he had foretold that it would give rise to considerable embarrassment to introduce a plan of repayment every two years. At the end of this year, therefore, the unfunded debt would stand at 30,000,000l., with the inconvenience of being composed in part of Exchequer bonds, which could only lead to great disadvantage in future. He did not believe that there was any absolute necessity for the full amount of 7,000,000l. proposed to be taken by the present Bill. The House had granted supply in the most handsome and liberal manner; it had voted in one shape or in another 92,000,000l. of supply—critically 91,500,000l.—but he (Sir H. Willoughby) would take it at 91,000,000l. That Vote consisted of three items—namely, 69,000,000l. raised by taxes, 16,000,000l. taken as loan, and the present addition to the unfunded debt of 7,000,000l. He would say 69,000,000l. of taxes, because last year 59,500,000l. had been brought to account by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford; but 5,200,000l. were stated to be outstanding—making in all 64,750,000l. The right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to increase the taxes 5,250,000l., 1,000,000l. of which was not to be levied this year; this brought the sum absolutely levied and raised up to between 68,000,000l. and 69,000,000l.; add to this the 7,000,000l. of Exchequer bills, and the loan of 16,000,000l., and it would give a sum of 91,500,000l. Looking at all the papers before the House on the subject, however, he (Sir H. Willoughby) could not find the expenditure in either No. 1 or No. 2 Estimates to be more in the aggregate than 88,500,000l. Taking the expenses of the debt and the charges on the Consolidated Fund at 29,500,000l., and the civil service at the enormous sum of 6,500,000l.; and the packet service at 730,000l., and the two war estimates at 49,750,000l., it gave an expenditure of 88,500,000l. The Estimate (No. 1) were about 81,750,000l., leaving a margin of 4,440,000l. or, say 4,500,000. The Estimates (No. 2) were 6,125,440l., which added to the first Estimates made a total of 88,000,000l. or rather more. These second Estimates, deducting the 4,440,000l.—or rather 4,240,000l., for 200,000l. had been lost in the skirmish about bankers' cheques—and there would be a deficiency of about 1,900,000. For this deficiency it was not necessary to raise Exchequer bills or bonds to the extent of 4,000,000l. Did the House know exactly what it was about in the matter? So extraordinary were the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman, that he (Sir H. Willoughby) greatly doubted if it did. All wars were doubtless expensive; but taking into consideration the enormous amount of supply, and the enormous estimates, he was bound to say that it did not meet the whole case; 49,722,000 was the most formidable supply ever granted, even in the wars with France. No doubt the Government then resorted extensively to the system of loaning, but yet that sum, he believed, was not the whole that was granted. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that 1,750,000l. Ways and Means bills had been issued before the loan had been made, and that these absorbed the assumed surplus. But supposing that to be the case, why were not these bills, which formed a part of the current expenditure, paid for out of the proceeds of the loan? Was the House to understand that the expenditure of the country required the loan and the Ways and Means bills also? Nothing was more reasonable than to raise money for current expenses by Ways and Means bills; but was it also right to pay them out of a loan? Were these bills, he would therefore ask, to remain outstanding, or were they to be paid out of the loan? If they were not, it gave another character to the question. The system of Exchequer bonds led to an involved system of finance. He (Sir H. Willoughby) was, therefore, opposed to them. In conclusion, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had drawn any stock from the savings-banks fund, and if it was his intention to resort to such a mode of raising money? He should be glad to learn what was the actual estimate of the Ways and Means, and the expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1856, and whether any real necessity existed for an increase of 7,000,000l. to the unfunded debt of the country. An increase of that debt, especially at the present moment, was to be viewed with jealousy by the House.

With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet, as to the increase of the unfunded debt, I would merely refer him to the facts which I mentioned on a former occasion, and which showed that the amount at which the unfunded debt would stand, even if increased to the full extent which is proposed by this Bill, would not be so very considerable when compared with the amount at which it stood not only during the late war, but for a considerable period after the termination of that war. No doubt a sum of 17,000,000l. of Exchequer bills, and the sum of 6,000,000l. of Exchequer bonds, together with the further sum of 7,000,000l. of Exchequer bills which it is proposed to raise by this measure, will produce a sum of 30,000,000l. sterling. That, I admit, is a large sum to constitute an unfunded debt. It is larger than any person would wish it to stand at, if there were any option; but it is not a larger amount than that at which it stood, not only during, but since the termination of the late war. There is one point to which I would particularly call the attention of the House, and that is, that the interest on the last issue of Exchequer bills was only 2d. per diem, whereas during the last war the interest, instead of being 2d., was 3d. per diem. There is another matter which the House ought also to bear in mind—which is, that during the late war there was a considerable amount of Government bills in circulation, issued by various departments and under various names—such, for instance, as Ordnance bills, Navy bills, and so on; but which, practically, were all a part of the unfunded debt in circulation. No such bills exist now. The whole unfunded debt consists either of Exchequer bills or of Exchequer bonds. With regard to another part of the speech of the hon. Baronet, I own it would give me great satisfaction if he were right, and could prove that my calculations were wrong, as the effect would be to show that the nation is two or three millions richer than I believe it to be. The hon. Baronet says, that the amount to be raised by taxation in the present year is 68,500,000l., whereas I stated in my budget that the amount raised last year was only 63,000,000l. Now, what I did state was this—that the revenue derived from taxes last year amounted to 63,339,000l.; and retaining that amount of revenue for this year, I added to it 4,000,000l. of new taxes to be received in the present year, making the total amount of taxes 67,339,000l. Then there was the loan of 16,000,000l.; and I also estimated the prospective power of issuing Exchequer bills to the extent of 3,000,000l. sterling, thus making altogether a sum of 86,339,000l. That was the amount of revenue which I calculated for the current year in the month of April last. Since then, I have proposed to add a further amount of 4,000,000l. of Exchequer bills, thereby producing a sum of 90,339,000l. That is the sum (including the addition made on Friday last) which I estimated to be the amount of revenue for the present year. The hon. Baronet has stated the amount to be 91,500,000l. The difference in amount between us is not great, and I am not able to understand how it is that he considers that there is any real difference in his mode of calculation and that which I submitted to the House. From the sum of 86,339,000l., which I estimated to be the amount of revenue in April last, 1 have since deducted 200,000l., being the amount I thought likely to be produced by a stamp on bankers' cheques, but which I have since abandoned. The real amount, therefore, will be 86,139,000l. The expenditure was estimated at 81,899,000l., which left, as the hon. Baronet correctly stated, a margin of 4,240,000l. That is the statement I made in April last. The additional amount of 4,000,000l. of Exchequer bills, which I proposed on Thursday last, and which the House voted, will produce a sum of 8,240,000l. From that is to be deducted the supplementary estimate, which has since been voted, amounting to 6,135,000l., leaving a margin of 2,105,000l. That is shown in my last statement to the House, and the hon. Baronet will, I am sure, see that there can exist no doubt as to the correctness of that statement. The hon. Baronet has asked me a question as to Ways and Means bills having been issued to the extent of 1,750,000l. since the commencement of the year. The issue of those bills was to pay a large demand on the Exchequer at the very beginning of the financial year, and before the loan was available. The payment was made in anticipation of the revenue of the current year, and a considerable portion of the amount has been paid out of the produce of the loan; but it is unnecessary to take account of this particular mode of anticipation of the revenue, as the result must be the same whether the bills were paid out of the produce of the loan or out of the taxes. In either case the effects must be to diminish the available amount of the margin for the service of the year. I have now, I believe, answered every question put by the hon. Baronet, and I think he will find, on consideration of the matter, and on a re-examination of the figures, that there is no ground to suppose that there has been any error in my calculations, or that there is a difference between the Ways and Means and the Estimates to the amount which he seems to imagine. With regard to the deposits of savings-banks, no advance has been made from that money since the loan was obtained; and it is not my intention at present to resort to this source of supply.

having moved the third reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,

said: Sir, I rise to speak upon this Bill, and not only to refer to the subject to which I yesterday stated that I should call the attention of the House, but likewise to speak for some minutes, at least, upon the prospects which we have before us. I do not wish either to diminish or to aggravate the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; but I think it worth while to notice that there never was a Government in this country which had a more responsible task before them, or which, on approaching the interval between the sittings of Parliament, were likely to have so many grave questions brought under their consideration. We have heard from the hon. Baronet who has spoken upon the last Bill, that more than 49,000,000l. have been voted this year as war expenses, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that his Budget at the commencement of the financial year amounted to 86,390,000l., to which 4,000,000l. have since been added, making an amount of upwards of 90,000,000l.; and that he reckons upon no more than 2,105,000l. as surplus. Now, it must be owned that, whether we consider the amount of this sum or the expenditure of former wars, especially that great war of life or death in which we were engaged with the French Republic and the French Empire, there is enough in these sums and in our prospects to induce most serious reflections; and I do not think that the gravity of those reflections is at all diminished by the consideration of the immediate prospects of the war. It will no doubt be the object of Her Majesty's Government to administer those sums in the manner in which they will be most efficient for the purposes of the war. It will be their duty likewise to consider of the preparations to be made for another campaign; and it will also be their duty, if any occasion should arise, to consider of any proposal for negotiations with a view to the re-establishment of peace. Now, taking these matters in their several order, if we look first to the prospects of the war, we perceive that with regard to our navy, which has been always our great arm for war, that, while we have no reason to doubt either its efficiency or its gallantry if called into action, it is evident that our enemy does not mean to meet us on the sea, and that therefore we cannot expect to end the war by great naval victories or great blows to be struck by our navy. No doubt it is possible that Admiral Dundas may perform in the Baltic feats which Sir Charles Napier could not accomplish; but we are now in the month of August, and a season has arrived which, instead of being more favourable, it becomes less so for naval operations. We therefore cannot be very sanguine on that subject, even admitting the utmost skill on the part of the commander, and the utmost gallantry on the part of the fleet. With respect to our prospects in the Black Sea I do not wish to say anything; but I must say that I do consider that there is danger on the Asiatic frontier of Turkey. I was in hopes, when the proposal for a Foreign Enlistment Bill was made last winter, that we should have been able, seeing that our own force, and probably that of the French, would be required for the campaign in the Crimea, to obtain a subsidiary force by means of that foreign enlistment, and that 20,000, or 30,000 men, perhaps, might have been sent to the Asiatic frontier to support the Turkish army. That hope has hitherto been disappointed—from no fault, I must say, of Her Majesty's Government, though not, perhaps, entirely without fault on the part of the Opposition, because of the discouragement which was given in Germany to the obtaining of that force, and which so much delayed its enlistment. Still, however, our present prospect is that no such force as I have mentioned, properly equipped and disciplined, can be sent to the scene of action in Asia, or, if it were thought necessary, to the Crimea, during the present campaign. We have, therefore, neither in regard to our naval force in the Baltic, nor with respect to the Asiatic frontier, any immediate prospect of gaining such a decided success as might lead to the termination of the war. It will be for Her Majesty's Government, of course, to direct what use shall be made of the very large force that is now collecting in the Crimea; but it is obvious that that force, however large it may be—and no doubt, every effort has been made to increase it and to make it efficient—will be met by a large Russian army, that army being now augmented by troops which are sent from Poland and from other frontiers of Russia bordering on the Austrian Empire, which are now set free owing to the present policy of Austria. I cannot but think that these matters, without in the least imputing blame, are matters deserving very great reflection, and that the prospect before us is such, not, indeed, as to induce us in the slightest degree to limit or cripple the powers which this House has already granted, and which have been granted with a most liberal hand, but to require that when Parliament shall meet again—which may not, perhaps, be for six months—there shall be an inquiry into the use which has been made of the means that have been given and into the general prospects of the country. I have said, Sir, that it will be the business of the Government to consider the preparations for the next campaign. On that point, of course, I can say nothing, because any discussion upon such a subject could not but be mischievous. I am afraid too much publicity has been given already to plans of operation, and I should be sorry that any further information should be given as to the views of the Government on that subject. Sir, with regard to the proposition for peace, I must say a few words, not intending to revive the discussion which has taken place with respect to the particular questions of limitation or counterpoise, or any other scheme by which the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea might be destroyed, but with a view simply to our future prospects. As far as I am myself concerned, though I entirely acquiesce in the decision of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that it would not be for the advantage of the public service that the despatches containing an account of my proceedings at Vienna should be produced, yet so far as I am myself concerned, I must say that I could not but wish that those despatches should be laid upon the table, and that Parliament should see everything which I had written containing an account of my proceedings at Vienna, and of what I thought were sufficient motives for the conduct which I pursued. They have not been produced; but I hope that the time may come when they can be given entire, without garbling or omission, for the public will then be able to judge of the course of conduct which I adopted. But, Sir, with respect to the future, very serious questions arise, because it will have been observed that the Turkish Ambassador at Vienna—a man of as much intelligence, perhaps, with regard to European affairs as almost any person I ever met of any nation, and who knew well the interests of his own country—was perfectly satisfied with the terms which were then proposed by the Austrian Government. I have never heard whether there was any decision in Turkey similar to that which was arrived at in London and Paris; but if there has not been—if the Turkish Government are of opinion that terms of peace have been proposed which would be sufficient for the security of Turkey; and if the war is to be carried on henceforth, not for the security of Turkey, but for the maintenance of the military and naval reputation of France and of Great Britain, then the position of this country and of France will be very much changed. It is true that, as we have assisted Turkey, and have in a great degree contributed to save her, we may ask her to continue the war with us. In that case, however, we can no longer have Turkish loans or guarantees, but we must give plain and downright subsidies to Turkey—and subsidies of a large amount, to induce her to fight with us. Such, therefore, appears to me to be the inevitable result if the Turkish Government should be of opinion at any future time that sufficient terms of peace have been proposed. With regard to the French Government, I would only say that the Emperor of the French has been not only so faithful, but altogether so prudent and just an ally, that I should be disposed to pay the utmost consideration to any opinion which he might hold with regard to any negotiations for peace. Of course it will be for Her Majesty's Government to consider the whole of the circumstances if such an opportunity should arise. If it should arise, I hope, upon the one hand, that they will not consent to any terms which they do not think honourable and safe and sufficient for their purpose—but those are very general words—and, upon the other hand, that they will not continue the war for one moment when such terms have been proposed. With respect, then, to those three questions of the carrying on of the war at present, the preparations for a future campaign, and any negotiations which may possibly arise, I can only say that I think there never was placed by this House greater confidence in a Government than is displayed by the Bill which is now about to be read a third time; and that the House will have a fair right, therefore, to call upon the Government next Session to show that they were deserving of that confidence. I will now advert, Sir, to one particular part of that measure to which I said yesterday, that I should call the attention of the House. Part of the sums which have been granted have been applied for the purpose of transporting the Piedmontese troops to the seat of war. The sending of those troops was in consequence of a treaty made with Sardinia; and I cannot help calling the attention of the House to the fidelity to the cause of Europe, and to the general spirit which has animated the King of Sardinia and his Ministers. The King has waved all minor points, he has declined to press for any concessions which France and England might be expected to grant him; he has come forth boldly and generously as an ally; he has sent some of the best troops in Europe to the field of battle, and I am quite sure, if the occasion should call for it, that those troops will sustain the reputation which they have acquired in every period of the history of Europe. But, Sir, if the King of Sardinia and his Ministers have thus acted—if with no immediate peril to their own State from the war, they have acted on behalf of the general balance of power in Europe, it is not to be supposed that they do not expect to obtain the moral support of this country to a cause which that Government have always had deeply at heart. It is perfectly well known to those who are at all conversant with the leading men who have taken a part in the affairs of Piedmont and of Italy, that there is nothing which that Government has at heart so much as that a better system should prevail in Italy. I cannot wonder at that anxiety; on the contrary, I give them credit for it. The Government of Piedmont have been able to do that which until lately it seemed very difficult for any State of Southern Europe to accomplish—they have established a free representative Monarchy, and they have established it without violating any rights and without any bloody revolution, while they have maintained most firmly those principles of freedom which they have adopted. They wish naturally that the general state of Italy should be at least improved, and, if no constitutions should be established, that, at all events, such disorders as now prevail, and such oppressions as are brought to their knowledge from day to day, may receive some check, and he no longer consecrated, as it were, by the name of Government. They perceive that in the Papal States there is a system of outrage and oppression prevalent in the chief towns; that persons are imprisoned without cause; that dreadful punishments are inflicted without the means of redress, or of innocence escaping; and that, while that is going on under the cover of a legitimate Government, there is outside those towns an organised system of brigandage which makes the roads unsafe, which disables persons from going from one part of the country to another to seek their own dwellings, and which makes the whole territory insecure. With regard to the kingdom of the Two Sicilies I need hardly speak, because the sufferings of the best men of that country have been most powerfully brought to light by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. Some of those victims whose sufferings he then portrayed, some of the best men of Europe and of the most patriotic, are still suffering in Neapolitan dungeons, and I cannot find that the extent of suffering and outrage has been at all diminished. Time after time, no doubt, our Government have advised an amnesty to that Sovereign, in order to end these scenes of oppression; but it seems that his past oppressions make him dread the liberty of any of those persons, and no such plans of clemency have been adopted. In Tuscany, which has recently been occupied by Austrian troops, the system which was initiated nearly a century ago by the Grand Duke Leopold, of religious toleration, and of great mildness in the administration of the civil government, if not of political freedom, has been exchanged for a tormenting and inquisitorial religious persecution which is a disgrace to that country. But, Sir, what seems to aggravate this whole matter is, that those oppressions and persecutions are taking place, not because there is domestic misgovernment, not solely because the people themselves are unable to check those evils and to seek a remedy for those difficulties, but because one part of the principal States of Italy—the States of the Church—is occupied by an Austrian army, while Rome, the capital of the country itself, is occupied by the troops of the Emperor of the French. It has already been said, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Powers of Europe, that it was necessary that the Pope, as the head of the Roman Catholic religion, in order to have entire liberty of judgment, should have perfect independence of action. I was only the other day reading an account of a conversation held between the Emperor Napoleon and Monsieur de Narbonne. Napoleon had seized Rome, and Monsieur de Narbonne, in controverting the opinions which he entertained upon the subject, said to him, "In order to be free in these days it is necessary that the Pope should be master in Rome and possess an independent territory." Now, that is an intelligible position; but at the present moment the capital of the Pope and his provinces are occupied by foreign troops, and where is the freedom or independence of the people, when it is obvious that under the present system the Pope must be dependent upon one or both of the foreign States whose forces occupy his territory? I wish also to point out to the House that this occupation of the territories of the Pope by foreign troops is, in its character, different from those other military occupations which have taken place in the history of Europe since the year 1815. The principle of such occupations is certainly of doubtful application; but when they have taken place there has generally been this alleviation—that those Powers who have occupied with their troops the territories of foreign States have alleged as a cause for doing so that there had been disturbances, that there had been anarchy, that it would take some time to settle the minds of men, that, after a great convulsion, foreign coercion for a time—let the time be as short as possible—was necessary; and they have always promised that when the proper time arrived, that when it became clear that the institutions of the country had regained their force, that the authorities had reacquired their power, their troops should be withdrawn. Such has been, not only the theory, but also the practice of those occupations, and those who have considered the subject are aware that in most instances the promises so made have been faithfully fulfilled, and the foreign troops withdrawn as soon as domestic authority had reassumed its sway. But in the present instance the case is very different; for not only has the foreign occupation of the Roman territory continued for, I believe, now a period of five years, but I perceive no symptom whatever of the Papal authority gaining root, or acquiring more force than it had at the commencement of that period. On the contrary, every man who is acquainted with those States will tell you, and the statement cannot be controverted, that if the French and Austrian troops were withdrawn the authority of the Pope would be denied, and that in his stead some sort of government would be established more consistent with their notions of right and justice, one which would afford some liberty of opinion, and which would not employ the odious means of exercising its control which have hitherto been employed by the ecclesiastical Government. If this be true, what prospect is there under the present system that either the Emperor of Austria or the Emperor of the French will consider himself able to withdraw his troops from Italy? If, however, this occupation continue it will afford not only a logical contradiction to the theory that the Pope in order to be free must possess due authority, and must have an independent territory, but it will also be likely to cause a disturbance of the balance of power in Europe. It is not possible that England can be carrying on a war at the enormous expense which I have mentioned, because Russia has occupied part of the territory of her neighbour, and yet allow the occupation of the territories of the Pope by foreign troops. Is this disturbance of the balance of power of Europe one to which the influence of the British Government should be exercised in order to put an end? What is to be the end of this occupation? Is it not possible that the English Government, in concert with the Government of France, may succeed in devising some system of government for those Roman States more consonant with the interests and wishes of the people and more charged with the elements of justice? Were the war terminated, I believe that one of the first acts of the King of Sardinia would have been to ask his allies to turn their attention to this subject. I cannot doubt that he, as an Italian Prince reigning over a free people, and having the happiness and welfare of Italy at heart, would have called upon the Governments of France and Great Britain to assist him with all their influence, and to ask for the assistance of Austria, in the task of devising some durable system of government for the Roman States, thereby enabling France and Austria to withdraw their foreign forces, and that foreign power that now prevails there. Such, I am sure, would have been the course adopted by that Monarch. We have now, unhappily, no immediate prospect of obtaining peace, but I call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to this subject—not, I am confident, his unwilling attention—for I am sure that the noble Lord, if he could perceive any opportunity for exerting the influence of this country for the benefit of the people of Italy, for the improvement of their condition and for placing them more in accordance with the general interests of Europe, would be not only willing, but most glad to embrace it, I cannot see that there ought to be anything very difficult in the task. I do not enter into the question of the original occupation of Rome by France, or into the graver question of the title of Austria to the dominion she exercises; but, I cannot but think that the Emperor of the French would be most happy to consult with us as to the best method of improving the condition of the Italian people as preparatory to the withdrawal of his forces from the Italian territory. It may be said that this is an old grievance—that from the time of Petrarch to the present day, nothing has been heard but laments of foreign dominion in Italy; that this beautiful and unhappy land has been subjected to oppression of every kind, and that she has never had that freedom which a people of so much genius, so much industry, so much capacity for physical and intellectual enjoyments ought to have possessed. But I do not see any reason why, because this is an old grievance it should be a perpetual grievance. During the past year we have seen that Spain, not under foreign control, has made vigorous efforts to improve her government; those efforts are still going on, and I hope to God that they will prove successful; but such efforts in Italy are prevented and crushed by foreign influence, and I trust that the voice of England will be roused in order to improve the system of government in that country, not by introducing, but, on the contrary, by checking and controlling that violent spirit which Mazzini and his fellows seek to encourage, and by substituting a rational and temperate spirit, and above all, by introducing those laws which, founded upon the real principles of justice, possess eternal power. I have felt it my duty to offer those observations to the House, because I could not allow the Session to come to a close without commending this subject to the attention of my noble Friend at the head of the Government when the close of the Session shall have given him leisure to look into it.

trusted the noble Viscount would forgive him, if before the noble Viscount replied to the noble Lord, he (Mr. Wilkinson) offered a few observations from an independent Member upon the speech which they had just heard. The reputation of the noble Lord belonged to the House and to the country, and everything which fell from him could not but be of importance. Yet he (Mr. Wilkinson) could scarcely understand the drift of the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord urged upon Her Majesty's Government an interference in the affairs of Italy; no doubt the sympathies of the people of this country were with the Italians, the Poles, and the Hungarians, but it did not appear to him (Mr. Wilkinson) that the present was the fitting time to call upon the Government for active interference, although certainly the Government should not be unmindful of the position of those countries, and the noble Viscount might well reply to the appeal of the noble Lord, in the words of Hector to Andromache—

"That post shall be my care,

Nor that alone, but all the posts of war."

The noble Lord objected to the occupation of Rome by French troops. He (Mr. Wilkinson) regretted this occupation, but he could not help thinking that the necessities of the position of the Emperor Napoleon might have some connection with that occupation, and probably, when the Emperor was more firmly seated on the Throne of France, as we all hoped, for the peace of Europe, that he would be—that occupation might cease. Before, however, he proceeded further with his remarks upon the noble Lord's speech, he wished to refer shortly to what had taken place on a former occasion. He had, on Friday last, listened, almost with dismay, to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. Such a speech, from a man calling himself a statesman, he (Mr. Wilkinson) had never had the bad fortune to read or to hear. He had never heard sentiments so astounding uttered by an Englishman. That right hon. Gentleman had risen in his place and after a maze of words and mystification, had drawn disastrous, and unfounded pictures of the resources, and prospects of this country, of France, and of Sardinia,—and then proceeded to eulogise, and at the same time, give an exaggerated account of the resources of the Government, and the enthusiasm of the people of Russia. He (Mr. Wilkinson) trusted that there was no other man in that House who would venture to adopt a similar course. With respect to the terms proposed by Austria, and which Her Majesty's Government were blamed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) for not accepting, he (Mr. Wilkinson) had always understood, that the noble Lord had been of opinion that those terms ought to have been accepted—but that when he came to London from Vienna, he altered his mind, and was of opinion that they could not be accepted. Now, however, he appeared to have changed again, and thought that these terms ought to be accepted [Lord J. RUSSELL, No!] so he (Mr. Wilkinson) had understood the noble Lord. Now with regard to these terms, when the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) said, that the whole question had turned upon the two plans of limitation and counterpoise, one thing had struck him forcibly—namely, that only one of these proposals could be called a plan. He could understand a plan of limitation, by which each party should agree to limit the amount of its force—but as to what was called the plan of counterpoise, that by which, if the ships of one power were augmented the ships of the other might likewise be augmented, it was no plan at all; for of course there could be no hindrance offered to such augmentation. [Lord J. RUSSELL: In the Black Sea.] Yes, in the Black Sea; but what was to hinder the other Powers from going into the Black Sea? The supposition was, that Turkey was menaced, and then she was to have leave to call her allies to her assistance; but this she could always do without any stipulation or treaty. In short one was a plan, the other was not. The noble Lord said, that was a point which had considerable weight with him, and that the Turkish Plenipotentiary, a man whose opinion commanded great influence, believed the plan proposed by Austria likely to be satisfactory to Turkey; and then he (Mr. Wilkinson) understood the noble Lord to argue that the object of the war being so far accomplished, we should have no right to carry it on for the purpose of establishing the military glory of England and of France. [Lord J. RUSSELL: No, no!] He understood the noble Lord to say, or to infer, that if Turkey were satisfied with the terms of peace proposed, we could not call on her to assist us without subsidising her. Now, he (Mr. Wilkinson) had always thought the protection of Turkey was but a means to an end, and that the main object in view was to curb the ambition of Russia, and to cheek her schemes of aggrandisement. He agreed that it would be improper to carry on that war for one moment after its objects were attained; but he could not think that those objects were yet attained. Entertaining this belief, he could not help regretting that the House was about to separate without a distinct expression of opinion on the subject of the continuance of this war; for every vote they had yet come to on this question, had been mixed up with some other matter. He had risen on Friday night to move an Amendment on the proposition of the hon. Member for the Wick Boroughs, which would have had the effect of eliciting this opinion; but the hon. Member for Aylesbury had caught the Speaker's eye, and after that, the House would remember how his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding had led the debate away into a personal encounter with the right hon. Bart, the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir W. Molesworth) upon an entirely different subject. He (Mr. Wilkinson) was one of those who thought that if a firmer and more uncompromising tone had been taken by Her Majesty's Government in the first instance, this war, for the present at least, might have been prevented. He did not blame the Government of Lord Aberdeen on this account, because he felt the grave responsibility which rested upon any Minister, who, after forty years of peace, should plunge this country into war. But now we were in the war, and it appeared to him that the only secure and speedy mode of obtaining and maintaining peace, was by the most vigorous prosecution of the war. We wanted that which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said it was wicked to desire—we wanted success, and success we must have. There was no middle course, England and France were embarked in the war and they must fight it out, and succeed they must, or fail altogether. The object of the war, as he understood it, was to show to Russia and the world, that the peace of Europe is not to be lightly disturbed, and that if it be, the penalty of the disturbance shall fall upon the head of the disturber. Until that was shown, he believed the country would never be satisfied.

Sir, I do not rise to complain that my noble Friend has called the attention of the House to matters and topics of the deepest national importance, and with regard to which he himself, when in office, took a prominent part. It is natural that in those great questions which occupied his attention when he was in office he should feel great interest now when he has more time to devote to them; and it is not at all unnatural that at the close of the Session, when the probability is that Parliament may not meet again for some months, he should avail himself of this opportunity not only to state his own views, but to call upon the Government, so far as they can consistently with their duty, to state what are their views upon the maters to which his observations referred. Sir, my noble Friend began by stating the amount of the responsibility which weighs upon Her Majesty's Government. I can assure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of the gravity and importance of that responsibility. No man, Sir, could have been a party to entering into the great contest in which we are engaged—no man, at least, ought to have been a party to such a policy—without having deeply weighed in his mind the gravity of the contest in which he was about to engage the country, and without having satisfied his mind that the cause was just—that the motives were sufficient—that the sacrifices which he was about to call upon the country to make were such as a statesman ought properly to call upon the country to endure. But it must indeed be a grave reason which could induce a man who had been a party with Her Majesty's Government to this line of policy, I who had, after full, and perhaps unexampled deliberation sanctioned its commencement, who, having concurred after that full and mature deliberation, had also joined in calling upon the country for great sacrifices in order to continue it, and who had up to a very recent period assented to all the measures that had been proposed I for its continuance—I say it must indeed be a grave reason which could induce a man who had so acted utterly to change his opinions—and to declare that the war to which he himself was a party was unnecessary, impolitic, and unjust—to exaggerate the resources of the enemy, and set before the country all the imaginary disasters with which his fancy could furnish; his speech, and to magnify and exaggerate the force of the enemy and the difficulties of our own position. Sir, I am not such a man as that; my right hon. Friends, my colleagues in the Government, are not men of that stamp; and therefore, in answer to my noble Friend, to whom nothing that I have said in the slightest degree applies, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government, fully conscious of the great importance of the contest—fully conscious of the immense exertions which may be necessary to bring it to a successful termination—are prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility attaching to their position, and will not be afraid when Parliament meets again to render an account of the manner in which that responsibility has been borne by them. Sir, we are conscious also of the generous support which the House and the country have given to us throughout the exertions which we have felt it our duty to make. Whatever may be the opinions of some few Members of this House—and, indeed, I may say of a few persons out of this House—for I do not believe that the opinions which we have heard here against the continuance of the war have any echo whatever out of doors—I am satisfied that the great majority of this House, as proved by the votes which they have given, are the faithful representatives of the manly spirit of the country, and that the confidence of this country, and the support of the country, will be given to any Government, whoever they may be, who may conduct the great contest in which we are engaged, and who may perform the duties which devolve upon them to the best of their ability, and in accordance with the wishes of the people of this country. Sir, my noble Friend has thrown out his notions, or his doubts, as to the operations of the war, and has made observations as to the terms of peace. It cannot, I am sure, be supposed that Her Majesty's Government can enter into any explanations upon either of these subjects. It would be most unfitting indeed, and would obviously tend to defeat the policy of the country if we were to sketch out what we thought might be accomplished by the prosecution of the war, or if we were to state to the House what should be the terms of peace upon which we think the contest may be terminated with safety to the country. The operations of the war must, in their nature, be dependent upon the circumstances that may arise. The conditions of peace must depend upon the circumstances under which the negotiations mey be begun, and upon the suc- cess which either party in the war may have obtained at the moment when these negotiations may commence. But there is one point to which my noble Friend has adverted, which calls for some remark—I mean the opinion which he seems to have entertained that the Turkish Government was of opinion that the Austrian proposals ought to have been accepted, and that that opinion was overborne by the contrary decision of the Governments of England and France. Sir, my noble Friend must know far better than I can the personal opinion upon that matter of the Turkish representative at Vienna; but I can only say that I have no reason whatever to believe or to suppose that the Turkish Government differ in opinion from the Governments of England and France as to the necessity of not accepting the propositions to which my noble Friend has referred. No doubt, if the time should come when the Turkish Government should think deliberately that certain conditions were consistent with its future security, that opinion ought to weigh much in the scale when the Governments of England and France shall be called upon to deliberate upon the conditions of peace; but I think that the remark which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) made, ought not to be lost sight of—namely, that the objects for which this war was undertaken are far wider and more important than to depend solely upon the decision of the Turkish Government. The war was undertaken not only for the protection of Turkey, but, as the hon. Gentleman well observes, as a means to an. end. No doubt the protection of Turkey, as a question affecting the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, is an object which it would be the duty of all the other Powers of Europe to contend for. But, as I have said, beyond the question of the protection of Turkey lies the still greater question of the grasping ambition of Russia—an ambition which no man has more forcibly or more fully explained than my noble Friend himself. That ambition aims at the moral and physical subjugation of the Continent of Europe, and the extinction of all those principles of political and commercial liberty upon which the power—and, I may even say, the independent existence—of the kingdoms of Europe mainly depend. Therefore, I should not be prepared to say that it ought to rest with the Government of Turkey to decide what are the conditions which may be consistent with the future security and the permanent peace of Europe. I should say that the Governments of England and France have even greater—at least, fully as great—an interest in this matter as the Government of Turkey itself—and that their enlightened views upon matters of European policy arc perhaps more likely to be right than even the views of the Turkish Government. But there is no reason to suppose that that difference of opinion is likely to occur; and I can only say that at the present moment, and I hope it may so continue, there is perfect unanimity and concord between the Governments of England, France, and Turkey. In mentioning the Government of France, I must express my entire concurrence in the opinion which my noble Friend has expressed as to the perfect sincerity, cordial friendship, and entire unity of opinion which have prevailed between the Governments of England and France. The two Governments, indeed, may be said, upon these two great questions, to form but one Cabinet, of which some members are sitting in London and some in Paris. There is between them a perfect unity of views and of purpose, and I cannot but anticipate that that entire union between those two great countries must, in the end, accomplish the great objects for which they are united. Sir, my noble Friend has observed upon the fact that we have not hitherto been so successful as we expected to be in carrying into execution that power which Parliament gave us before Christmas for the enlistment of foreign troops for the purpose of reinforcing the troops of this country and of France. My noble Friend has adverted to the cause of our failure in that respect. I do not wish now to go back to former debates, but I will say this, that it is mainly owing, not to men on the Continent, but to the unfavourable impression which was produced on the minds of men on the Continent by the difficulties which were thrown in the way of the Foreign Enlistment Bill in its progress through the two Houses of Parliament that that measure has not been successfully carried into effect. We are now, however, proceeding with greater rapidity than hitherto in carrying into effect the provisions of that law, and I do trust that, before the autumn sets in, we shall be enabled to send a considerable reinforcement to our army in the Crimea by means of the power which Parliament has given to us. With regard to the war, then, Sir, I have nothing more to say, except that we feel that it is our duty to carry it on by all the means which Parliament has so generously placed at our disposal, and we humbly trust that we shall so perform our duty that, when Parliament meets again, we shall not be found to have forfeited that confidence which Parliament has hitherto been pleased to repose in us. Now, Sir, my noble Friend has adverted to other topics also of great public interest. My noble Friend has directed our attention to the condition of Italy. Sir, that is, no doubt, a painful subject. He has adverted to the frightful character of the kingdom of Naples. He has also dilated most eloquently, but most justly, upon the admirable example which is afforded by the kingdom of Piedmont to all Europe. He has pointed our attention to a people wise enough to know the value of constitutional institutions, and temperate, moderate, and firm enough to know how to work them well without almost any previous experience. That country affords an example almost unparalleled in the history of Europe; because we have seen many countries which, from arbitrary Government, have suddenly obtained representative institutions, but which, owing to want of previous practice and experince, have, for years and years, found those institutions unavailing for any practical promotion of rational liberty. Not so with Piedmont. There the people seem as if they had enjoyed for centuries the excellent institutions which they have only recently obtained; for there had been few of those conflicts and violent antipathies which frequently take place in and disfigure the earlier periods of constitutional government; and while the people, on the one hand, have shown that wisdom and steadiness of purpose which dignifies them in the history of Europe, they have, on the other hand, had the good fortune to be ruled by a Sovereign who well understands that the real power, dignity, and reputation of a Monarch depend upon his gaining the affections of his people, and who has respected the institutions which his country has obtained, and which, while they appear to curb his power, place that power upon a firmer foundation, and who has set to his people an example worthy of the exalted position in which he stands. Sir, no doubt it is only natural that such a people and such a Monarch should look with painful anxiety upon the condition of other parts of Italy. No doubt that condition is as deplorable, as it has been described by my noble Friend. In many parts of Italy, and especially in the Roman States, and in the kingdom of the two Sicilies, events take place and circumstances arise which form a most painful contrast with the state of things in the kingdom of Sardinia. Foreign influence in all countries is fatal to the well-being of the people; but foreign influence, maintained by arms, is still worse even than that which is maintained by political ascendancy. But in Italy, unluckily, both have had their sway. In the kingdom of Naples we see the ascendancy of foreign political influence—for it is vain to disguise the fact that the influence of Russia is predominant there. And that is one example of that which has been denied by many of the manner in which, even in countries divided from the Russian Empire by large tracts of land, the influence of that Power weighs heavily. Upon more occasions than one the Government of Naples has shown its hostility to England and France by its prohibitions against the export of things of which their neutrality did not forbid them to permit the export; and I am concerned to say that only recently there have been cases of cruelty and oppression committed by that Government which really do not belong to the age in which we live. On the other hand, the occupation of the Roman States by French and Austrian troops has naturally increased the ability of that Government to commit acts which are not in consonance with the feelings of the people of this country. But the House must, I am sure, see that that is a topic most difficult and delicate for the British Government to touch. There cannot, at the present moment, be anything less desirable for the interests of the country than that either discussions in this House or that any proceeding should be taken by Her Majesty's Government which would tend to cast a shade of coldness over the relations between this country and France on the one hand, or between this country and Austria on the other. But I may say this, that, with regard to France, without entering into the motives which led to the occupation of Rome, or the effects which that occupation has had, and which, indeed, I am bound to say have been those of tranquillity—I believe that no complaints have been made of the conduct of the French troops during that occupation, but that, on the contrary, their conduct has been most exemplary. With regard to the French occupation the House is probably aware that the number of the occupying troops, instead of being increased has been materially reduced. And with regard to the Austrian occupation, it has altogether ceased in Tuscany. An Austrian garrison occupied Florence till very recently; but that garrison has been removed, and the Government of Tuscany has been left to its own resources in the administration of its own affairs. There has been a report, I know, prevalent, that recently the Austrian force in Italy has been considerably augmented. I do not believe that that report is well founded; on the contrary, information which Her Majesty's Government has recently received goes to show that though a certain number of Austrian troops—3,000 only, or 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000, according to different accounts—have entered Italy, they have only replaced a certain number of Italian troops, to whom leave of absence for a certain period, in the usual course, has been given. The present actual number of Austrian troops in Italy has, therefore, not been increased. Whether that portion which occupies Ancona is greater or less, I am unable to say; but I believe that the aggregate amount is not larger than it has been for some time past. And, therefore, any notions that may have prevailed as to a change of policy on the part of Austria with regard to Italy, and which it was said was totally incompatible with her relations with England and France, are, I am persuaded, utterly unfounded; and I am perfectly convinced that whether Austria may or may not, at a future time, find it to her interest to take the field in conjunction with England and France, of one thing I am perfectly satisfied, that we shall not see Austria take the field against England and France in concert with Russia. My noble Friend, however, has said that he thinks it would be becoming for Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of any circumstances which might from time to time arise, with the view of endeavouring, by means of the Governments of France and Austria—or without them, according to the state of things—to ameliorate the condition of that fine country which he has so well and so justly described. Sir, it must be painful to see that great people—for I must call the Italians a great people—who, by nature, are endowed with the finest qualities, and are capable of becoming, as they have been in former times, models of everything that elevates and dignifies human nature, debarred, by the accidental circumstances of their political condition, from pursuing that career which would enable them as a great nation, to rival the most of the world. It must therefore be an object of great interest to any British Statesman—as it was on a former occasion the object of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford—not only to endeavour to alleviate the pressure now weighing upon the Italians, but to open to them a nobler career, more congenial to those qualities with which nature has endowed them. But every man must be aware how difficult it is to alter the state of things which circumstances have brought about. At the same time, I can assure my noble Friend and the House that no fair or proper opportunity which may present itself to Her Majesty's Government, by which the condition of the Italians may he improved, will be lost. It must be in the recollection of many hon. Gentlemen that, so long ago as 1832, the five powers of Europe, by their representatives at Rome, did suggest to the Roman Government changes and administrative improvements, which, if carried into effect, would have gone far to improve the condition of the people of the Roman States. Those recommendations made not only by the representatives of England and France, but by those of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, unfortunately fell to the ground. They were recently partially taken up again and acted upon so far that a council of finance had been established. I am afraid that that council of finance has remained a powerless body; for though they have, I know, made reports and representations, those representations have led to no advantageous results. There were also combined with that measure certain provincial annual assemblies, in which there were the elements, I will not say of representative Government, by which the feelings of the people might have been made known to the Government, and by which the Government might have become better acquainted with the true interests of the people. But there has been one great difficulty in the way of the adoption of those arrangements, namely, what is called the secularisation of the administrative departments. That difficulty has not been overcome. My noble Friend thinks that, if the troops were withdrawn, the Italian people themselves would establish a form of government which would be more con- genial to their feelings and more conducive to their interest than that which now exists. If those changes could be made with that deliberation and calmness which are most calculated to accomplish a satisfactory result, I should say, for myself, let the troops go to-morrow, and let such improvement take place. But, unfortunately, the road from bad to good government is not always smooth, easy and rapid. There are difficulties in the way—there are dangers to be passed—there are evils to be encountered which sometimes, for the moment, almost counterbalance the good which is seen in the distance; and I should be afraid that, unless arrangements were previously made, and the way carefully prepared beforehand, any sudden introduction of such changes as my noble Friend suggests would set loose the wild notions which may here and there be entertained, and might lead, perhaps, to disturbances and inconveniences which no man would be more anxious than my noble Friend, I am persuaded, to avoid. But I think I can somewhat answer for the Government of France—and I am sure I can answer fully for the Government of England—that the attention of both has not been withdrawn from this most interesting subject, and that we should be most anxious to avail ourselves of any opportunity which may present itself, for the purpose of furthering those benevolent objects to which my noble Friend has directed the attention of the House. I am not aware that there is any other topic which he has mentioned to which it is necessary for me to refer. I have said that a due sense of the responsibility of the Government, with reference to the war, is entertained by them, and that it is our intention to do the best that we can in discharge of that responsibility—that we are conscious that we shall have to render a strict account when Parliament meets again as to the manner in which we shall have discharged our trust; and I will only add that we hope and trust that our conduct may then be satisfactory to Parliament and to the country.

I hope, Sir, the noble Lord may not prove to be too sanguine in his expectation that on the reassembling of Parliament he will be able to render an account of the proceedings of the Government which will be satisfactory to the House and to the country. For my own part, I ardently trust that that account may be satisfactory, and may redound to the honour of the noble Lord, who has, with a spirit which well becomes him, assumed for himself and for the Government the deep responsibility of our present position. I believe the noble Lord has correctly stated that the country at large is most desirous that the war should be prosecuted with vigour and determination. I confess I was somewhat at a loss, till the noble Lord at the head of the Government rose, to understand the why or the wherefore this discussion was raised. The noble Lord has had long experience, and I have no doubt the reason he stated was the true one. He stated that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was now in a position that enabled him to compass an enlarged view of a great number of things, and that he had taken this opportunity to give vent to an expression of opinion on several matters that he had found leisure to study and understand. That is not an unnatural solution of the difficulty, because it is in my recollection that the noble Lord himself (Viscount Palmerston) has, when similarly situated, favoured us with a similar line of conduct, and we generally find that in such cases men judge of others by themselves. Some of the questions raised by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London are not only of some interest, but, considering the high position of the noble Lord, may almost be regarded as causes of some apprehension. On a recent occasion he took an opportunity of discussing the question of the negotiations, when he found himself in a warlike mood, and he then opened up to us the important subject of the nationalities of Poland and Hungary. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: No, never!] The noble Lord dissents. How far I am right or wrong in saying that he opened up the whole question may give rise to a difference of opinion; but this at all events is clear, that the noble Lord called, in the most forcible language, the attention of the House and the country to the conduct of Russia in those particular countries, and this, by an easy transition of the mind, may be called an opening up of the whole question. The condition of those countries was used by the noble Lord in a warlike mood as a sort of makeweight to show us the kind of Power we had to deal with in Russia. The noble Lord then slipped, in a peaceable mood, to other topics.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I do not remember saying a word about Hun- gary. What I referred to was the Russian government of the Polish provinces.

The noble Lord says his observations were confined to Poland, and no doubt that country was enlarged upon as his greatest point. However, the noble Lord afterwards fell into a peaceable mood, and the House certainly did not find him drawing a very sanguine picture of the prospects of the country with regard to the war. He said but little, but that little was not calculated to lead us to believe that the noble Lord's opinion was a very sanguine one with regard to the success of the war; and having that opinion, the noble Lord suggests a very odd way of helping us out of our difficulties. He suggests, on the one hand, that he would have been better pleased if the whole of his opinions that are on record in the Foreign Office had been laid before the House, leading us to infer that the country is not now in possession of all those facts that would enable it to come to a sound judgment on the matter; and, on the other hand, he suggests—what certainly is of great importance, because the noble Lord the First Minister admits that in this particular the noble Lord the Member for London had better opportunities of forming an opinion than anybody else—he suggests that it was possible Turkey might have been quite satisfied with one of the arrangements that had been proposed, and that, if this were so, ordinary justice required that instead of granting a loan to Turkey we should supply her with subsidies. Now, when the noble Lord makes a suggestion of that kind, with the consequence which he infers from it, people are naturally led to suppose that he has stated what was his own impression, because men do not usually draw inferences of that kind unless their own minds have arrived at a definite opinion on the subject. Passing from these matters, the noble Lord, as if things were not complicated enough, had recourse to his historical recollections, and pointed to operations of various kinds which the noble Lord at the head of the Government has had to do with in other parts of the world, and not unnaturally he thought of Italy. Here is a nice matter, he no doubt thought to himself, to take up when it is convenient to be in the warlike mood again—Poland does not answer the purpose well, it is out of reach—but here are fresh nationalities in Italy. The noble Lord now at the head of the Government is well known to have performed certain feats in that country, and to have originated a certain roving diplomatic expedition, for what precise purpose many different opinions were formed at the time. This, however, may be said, that if it did not cause certain things, they happened very oddly together. Seeing all these matters have been fermenting in the mind of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) during his period of leisure, why should he not call attention to them? But the noble Lord at the head of the Government has not, as we might have expected, chosen to give us much information on those points. After a great deal of description, which I have no doubt is perfectly true and sound, of the good faith and good sense of our ally, he went the length of saying that the two Governments might now be considered as one Cabinet. That was a very satisfactory statement to make to the country and to the House, because, no doubt, unity of action in all great operations is essential to success. Then the noble Lord glanced rather slightly at the existing state of Italy, though he did so with his usual ability. We all remember that the year 1832 was a period when ultra-Liberal principles were in the ascendant. Everybody blazed away in the full swing of the Reform Bill; and we recollect that the five great Powers of Europe made sundry propositions to the Roman States which were attended with very little success. There are many things connected with that matter on which the noble Lord might have enlightened the House, but he has not seen it his duty to do so. After a reference to Sardinia, the noble Lord turned to Naples, and called upon us to see how completely that country was under the thumb of Russia. He points to the cruelty and oppression there perpetrated, and uses many hard words, though I am ready to confess not one jot harder than the occasion requires. But then the noble Lord immediately alludes to those parts of Italy which are occupied with foreign troops; and I ask the House to perceive how differently he describes the acts that are done there. He speaks of them as acts not in accordance with the feelings of the people of this country. That is the easy and ingenious way in which the noble Lord deals with countries that are not circumstanced like those which are under the influence of Russia. He speaks of the sad influence of Russia as a despotic Power; and so also of Austria as a despotic Power; but I have yet to learn that France is not also a despotic Power at this moment. The noble Lord very conveniently skips over the eventful period of 1848. It would have been instructive to this House to hear from the noble Lord a little information as to what took place then. He had it in his power to do so, and a most graceful opportunity was presented him of enlightening the House on subjects with respect to which there is reason to believe considerable misapprehension exists; but the noble Lord did nothing of the kind. He told us that the Austrian troops had been withdrawn from Tuscany, and that there are now a smaller number of French troops in the Papal States than formerly there were, and the noble Lord adds, that it is a painful thing to see Italy misgoverned as it is; but that unless they are prepared at all hazards to place themselves in a better position, the people of that country will be apt to fall into acts of violence and disorder which all must lament. How far the noble Lord had the same opinion in 1848 I do not know; but so far as we can judge from what has since taken place, 1 should say he had not. The noble Lord then went on to say that it was absolutely necessary that foreign troops should continue in occupation of the country—for what? For the purpose of keeping order. But with all the strong wishes which he has expressed that the Italian States should be better governed, he did not give us the least reason to suppose that now that order has been kept in those countries during five or six years by means of foreign bayonets, there is any intention to get things into a better state than they were in when the troops went there; neither has he held out the least expectation that the time was approaching when these foreign troops might be withdrawn. I must confess that I regret that this matter has been brought forward at all, for I think that it will lead to no good, and that it is only throwing down another apple of discord, when there can be no doubt that the Government, without interfering in this matter, will find sufficient employment in carrying on the war with efficiency and in obtaining a secure peace. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Lambeth, and believe that this country was got unnecessarily into this war, and that if the Government had been in different hands this country would have been kept out of it. But what we must do now that we are en- gaged in the war is a very different question. We must do everything in our power to bring it to a safe and honourable termination; and I must confess that I have not been of opinion that there has as yet been afforded any fair opportunity of bringing it to such a termination. I do not believe, in those negotiations which took place at Vienna, that any of the parties who went there were actuated by any real intention of making peace. Judging from the papers giving an account of those transactions, neither what took place on the part of the Allies, nor on that of Russia, conveys to my mind the impression that any of the parties went to Vienna to make peace; they appear to have gone there to endeavour, through negotiation and diplomacy, to gain for their respective countries an advantage, and to place them in a position to make peace. The negotiations, at all events, have failed; and that being the case, I believe that the Government has now nothing to do but to fight out this war, for I think that is the only mode of obtaining a secure peace.

in moving for an Address for Copies of Returns respecting the Naval and Military Hospitals in the East, said, that one of the first debates of this Session was an eager and anxious debate with reference to the subject he was now about to bring forward; and it was occasioned by accounts which had reached this country from the Crimea relating to the sufferings of our army there and on the Bosphorus, and from a deep desire that the sick and wounded of our army should have every protection afforded them in the hospitals at Scutari and elsewhere. The result was a division, which dismissed the existing Government by one of the largest majorities on record. Six months had passed since that discussion, in which no allusion was made to the nature and objects of the war, but which emphatically confined itself to the conduct of the war; and now that party debates were over, and the Session was about to close, it was not too much to ask the Government for a statement of what had been done to redress the grievances then brought forward, and to ameliorate the evils which were then alleged to exist; seeing that it was on those conditions of redress and amelioration that they ex- pressly accepted and still retained office. The returns for which he intended to move (to which he ought to expect no opposition) related not only to the naval hospital (which the First Lord of the Admiralty had invited him to ask for), but to all the information which was to be obtained relating to the health of the army, and which had appeared from time to time in the public press, having been communicated by the Horse Guards, and which he thought ought to be collected in such a form as to become recorded in that House. He also proposed to move for the Reports of Sir John M'Neil on the sanitary condition of the camp. He could see no reason why they should be withheld, and he hoped that it was not founded in fact he should meet with great opposition. Before he proceeded to state the cases which he intended to bring forward he wished to allude to a circumstance connected with a gentleman who, being now absent from this country, had every right that his friends should be heard as speedily as might be. A near relative of Dr. Hall, with reference to some observations made not by him (Mr. Stafford), but by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), was anxious that it should be stated to the House that he had received a letter from Mr. D. Fitzgerald, of the Fusiliers, relative to the circumstances of the death of Mr. Stowe, the gifted and accomplished commissioner of The Times. In that letter, Mr. Fitzgerald staled that he communicated to Dr. Hall at the "same time the illness of Mr. Stowe, and its cause; and on his being asked who he was, he stated that he was the correspondent of The Times." That was in reference to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Pontefract, and this letter contained a complete exculpation of Dr. Hall from the charge of not admitting Mr. Stowe into the military hospital. The letter also referred to an anonymous letter received by him (Mr. Stafford) respecting the treatment of the wounded on the 18th; and it contained this satisfactory language:—"That the inquiry he asked would be the best means of clearing Dr. Hall from blame in this matter." He was glad that it was Dr. Hall's wish that there should be an inquiry. He (Mr. Stafford) knew that some things he was about to say would not be palatable to some persons in the country, who thought it was not wise to bring before the public the sufferings of our soldiers, or the evidence on the subject from those in authority. It was among those people permitted to pray for the soldiers, but it was not permitted to express any commiseration for their unnecessary sufferings, or to condemn in any respect those who were the authors of those sufferings, and who might have prevented them. But, looking to the mass of evidence brought before the commission sent out by the Duke of Newcastle, at the time the statements were made as to what was going on in the Crimea and the hospitals at Scutari, it was certain that state of things could never have been remedied if the system of secrecy and silence had prevailed; and he was of opinion that the men who revealed those things deserved well of their country. He would read a few extracts from the evidence before the Commission, to show that men who have had such experience ought to have their suggestions attended to. The hon. Gentleman then read several extracts from the evidence, which were in substance as follows. The first extract was from the evidence of Mr. Robert Cooper, of the 4th Dragoon Guards, who said—

"He would express himself freely on the various topics which had been brought under his notice, and was glad to avail himself of the present opportunity."

That extract went to show the animus against the surgeons who ventured to express their opinions. Then Mr. Robert de Lisle said—

"It was impossible for him to state how often he had made requisitions for medicines and medical comforts in vain. His sick asked for soup, &c., and expressed some impatience; but few of them would have been impatient had they had proper food and clothing. He was three hundred blankets short at a time when the thermometer was at 26; rum, which was so necessary, was not forthcoming when wanted; the issue of meat was very irregular, and on Christmas-day it was issued so late that it could not, along with the coffee, be cooked. On the 28th December they were forced to return as a working party to the trenches; as they could not cook their food, they must have been two days without meat, unless they ate it raw."

Mr. Eyre, of the 1st Royals, said—

"Much of the suffering of the troops in the trenches was horrible, owing to the apathy and neglect of the authorities; and that of the sick and wounded equally so."

Dr. Anderson, of the 90th, said—

"That his men had been on salt provisions and raw coffee for three weeks; a great proportion of the sickness was caused by the imperfect preparation of the coffee; the men had no means of cooking, and were ill-fed and overworked."

This was not only the evidence of respon- sible witnesses, but it was written, and not oral evidence. Mr. Wyatt, of the Coldstream Guards said—

"There was great difficulty in getting any medical comforts; he was unable during the prevalence of cholera to get a drop of brandy, though he made a special report on the subject."

Mr. Bostoc, of the Fusilier Guards, said—

"About a month ago Dr. Smith's cots were issued, but they had no framework and no feet, and were quite useless. Previously to that there were no beds or bedding; there were blankets, but not enough to provide one for each man. The consequence was, that they were soon saturated with mud, and in that severe weather there was no alternative for patients suffering from cholera and dysentery but to lie on the wet ground."

Colonel Walker, of the Fusilier Guards, said—

"He had formed a table out of a discarded pork barrel, which had actually been borrowed by Mr. Bostock for an amputating table."

Dr. Anderson, staff surgeon, stated—

"I went in daily to the landing place to see the principal medical officer. On my telling him how we were situated as regarded medicines, comforts, &c., I was informed that 'I was making difficulties.' I replied, 'Those of the Light Division never make difficulties.' He then said, 'Make a requisition.' Dr. Pine, who was present, asked him, 'If one were made, could the same be complied with?' when it was elicited that some supplies were on board some ship, but where she was was quite another thing. With a sick list of 636 of cholera, dysentery, diarrhœa, fever, &c., on the 1st of December, four ounces of opium, and the same of calomel, were issued for the division, which was three doses of one grain of each of these two medicines to each patient."

The hideous experience of such men having been before the Government for six months, he would now proceed to read some of the suggestions for remedies which they had made. Mr. Patullo, of the 30th Regiment said—

"That the subordinate medical officers were deterred from making requisitions for what they needed by their superior officers."

Mr. Watts, of the 23rd Fusiliers, suggested—

"The training of a set of men something like those in the French service, who should be under the surgeons, and be taught how to use a tourniquet, and to place a fractured limb in an easy position till the surgeons could attend to the patient."

Mr. Painter, of the 13th Light Dragoons, said—

"That every medical officer should be independent of his neighbour, and have his own packhorse and panniers for the conveyance of what he required; as it was, the supplies of the different medical men were broken in upon, as the staff surgeons often drew on the regimental surgeons for what they required."

Among all the names of the younger officers which had been sent home with honour, there was none more remarkable, as well for his gallantry as his philanthropy, than Lord West's, and in his evidence it was stated—

"The deputy inspectors and staff surgeons of divisions appear to possess no power whatever. If, for instance, they send an indent to the Commissariat for straw for the patients to lie upon, or for carriage, it is most probably refused. The surgeon must then try to obtain these and similar things through another channel—through the commanding officer of the regiment, who refers it to the assistant quartermaster general of the division, who forwards it to the quartermaster general of the army. It is this perpetual travelling to and fro of requisitions from one department to another—the furnishing of some portion of hospital diet by the Commissariat, and another, including medical comforts, by the purveyor, that creates the delay and embarrassment prevailing at present. Unless the medical board is reconstructed on a basis of greater authority and independence as regards the procuring of carriage, of hospital accommodation, furniture, and utensils, and unless it is provided with an efficient staff of purveyors, clerks, and apothecaries, present on the spot where the army is encamped, or in quarters in the field, the unfortunate scenes of misery and destitution, and consequent loss of life, such as I have witnessed among the sick in the camp during the inclement weather of the last six weeks, will inevitably, under similar circumstances, again occur."

The story of these difficulties and defects had been written in letters of blood, to attract public attention to them, and Government had received many suggestions for the remedy of them; and he wanted to know what the Government had done? He would tell them what they had not done. They had not got any official documents, of any kind, from any of these hospitals in the East, since Parliament came together, and except the letters that had appeared from time to time from Dr. Hall, the whole of the past was a blank, so far as the official records of the Government were concerned. He had moved for those papers, and after a considerable time the return was laid upon the table of the House, and that return was, nil. If the present occupants of office were to quit their places, and take away, as they might if they chose to do so, the private letters they had received upon the subject, there would remain no official record of these hospitals except the vast expenditure incurred in the establishment of them. There was no authentic statement of the amount of disease there, of the climatic influences, or those of the site of the hos- pitals, of the nature of the wounds and sickness, of the patients sent there, of the number of deaths, or the causes of those deaths, or of the effect of the different seasons and months upon the condition of the inmates. Two rival systems of hospitals had now been established—he used the word rival not invidiously—those under the management of civilians, and those under military medical authority; but was there any concurrent jurisdiction to prevent the military authorities in the Crimea from sending, if they were so disposed, all the worst cases to the civil hospitals? The civil hospitals, too, were further from the Crimea than the military hospitals were, so that unless there were some concurrent jurisdiction—if the medical authorities in the Crimea were permitted to assign to which hospital the cargoes of unfortunate sick should be conveyed—no fair comparison could be instituted between the operation of the two hospitals, because those which were furthest from the seat of war would receive their patients under a disadvantage to which the others would not be liable. And suppose the military authorities determined to send no patients to the civil hospitals, and to give the civil surgeons no objects upon which to exercise their skill and benevolent attention, then the civil system would not have a fair trial, and the country would have spent there enormous sums of money in vain. There were important questions of situations and climate in comparing the different hospitals; and Scutari might be good for one kind of disease, and Smyrna might be better, as he believed it was, for another. He wanted to know the result of these costly experiments, which now, and as he thought wisely, the Government were trying. If the civil hospitals were at some disadvantage, on the other hand he believed the military hospitals felt themselves, in their relations to the commissariat, to be in a position of greater difficulty, and less assisted by the public funds so profusely expended. What was the position of the army surgeons? The first batch of civil surgeons were sent out at a remuneration of two guineas a day, and if the Government should cease to employ them at the end of the first year, they were to receive a year's pay as a gratuity, upon their return, which would make altogether about 1,600l. for a twelvemonth's service. For less than that sum, assuming them to be thirty or thirty-five years of age, one might buy an annuity of 80l. or 90l. a year for life. But the assistant army surgeon, who must not only have his diploma, but must also have been examined by the Army Medical Board, received 7s. 6d. a day for twenty-five years, at the end of which time he would have perhaps 200l. a year. Could we be surprised, therefore, that the assistant-surgeons were leaving the army, and seeking other occupation? The civil surgeons enjoyed the places which should be given to those young men who deserved promotion. The army surgeons were required to pass an examination; but what examination were the civil surgeons subjected to? Were they required to know something of medicine, as well as of surgery? There were now upwards of a hundred of these civil surgeons with the army in the East, and whether for good or evil, they were a new and a very important element in the service. How was it intended to deal with them, in relation to the army surgeons? or was it intended that there should be none but civil surgeons with the army? It was a singular fact that there was one hospital that was not even named in this Report. It was strange that while the hospital at Gallipoli, where he believed there were only some eleven patients last year, was mentioned in the Commission sent forth by the Duke of Newcastle, the hospital of Abydos, on the opposite side of the Dardanelles, was not mentioned in the instructions given to that Commission, and was therefore not visited by them; yet that was a hospital calculated to hold 400 soldiers, and as it was generally full, must have had thousands of soldiers passed through it within the last few months, although the House had not got any statistics or the slightest information about it. Luckily for the soldiers and for the service, that hospital had been under the direction of one of the most talented and influential medical men that he (Mr. Stafford) ever met, Dr. Jameson, who had been toiling through much discouragement to improve the condition of the poor men under his care, and had obtained their gratitude for his reward. What arrangement did the Government intend to make finally about the female nurses? Would nurses be sent out continually to supply the places of those who came home from failing health or other causes? In the hospital at Woolwich, with 350 patients, female nurses worked most satisfactorily, although the confined and insalubrious sites, both of that and of the General Hospital at Portsmouth, were very disadvantageous. There ought also to be some responsible officer employed to examine all the hospital ships, and report upon their state either to the Admiralty or War office. He wished also to know whether the ships that conveyed home the sick and wounded were sufficiently under the control of the medical officers? Had those officers the power of stopping at different places on the voyage to procure fruit and vegetables when necessary, or were the sick officers and men looked upon as mere cargo, to be shipped straight to England? When they arrived, why should they not be accommodated in the vacant wards of Haslar Hospital? He protested against their being kept in the Britannia, or in any other vessel, for it was impossible to give sufficient ventilation, and soldiers hated being on shipboard worse than anything else. It was a great evil that men were regarded as making the transition from sickness to health too rapidly, and were sent upon hard service when only just recovered. Some place on the South Downs might be provided, where the convalescents might be restored to strength, and made fit to return to their duty, as they were anxious to do. He (Mr. Stafford), while he made these suggestions, acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) and the War Office, as well as the Horse Guards, had received in the kindest spirit every suggestion he had made. Mr. Hawes and Lord Hardinge were most anxious for the welfare of the poorest soldier. The appointment of Dr. Storks to the Smyrna Hospital was a most satisfactory one, and if he were now to leave it, he would go, it was hoped, only to take the great charge of the hospital at Scutari. The hon. Member then spoke of the pattern management of two military hospitals in this metropolis—those of the Scots Fusiliers and the Coldstreams, under Dr. Richardson and Dr. Munro. It might be said, the hospitals of the household troops were not under the Inspector-General. This led him to ask, what was to be done with Dr. Andrew Smith? That gentleman was anxious to be relieved of a post of harassing anxiety, for which his age and weakness unfitted him. Why had not a successor been appointed? If not Dr. Guthrie, whose warnings were so disastrously neglected, some other man of energy to effect the needed reforms. He must also urge upon the Government that some mode should be devised of rewarding the army surgeons with special distinctions conferred for peculiar merit. Was it less honourable, he asked, to save life than to destroy it? And were not the men who encountered dangers as great as those of battle, in the attempt to mitigate the miseries of war, entitled to share the dignity of the combatant officers? He would bear testimony, as having conversed much with our private soldiers, to the sincere attachment which existed between them and their superiors in command. One poor fellow, whom he (Mr. Stafford) had known at Scutari, came to him the other day to bid him good bye, as he was returning to his native place, in the north of England, and said to him, "Well, Sir, I'm going home now, nothing but a poor cripple; but if I had my soldiering days to come over again, I would rather be in the camp than in the barrack; for in the camp we see more of our officers. Give me a gentleman to lead me, and I would follow him far and wide." Such were the feelings which these men entertained, and communicated to eager friends and relatives as they told the stories of the war. And though hon. Gentlemen in their clubs might require a new topic of conversation every week, it was not so with the people. They still thought and talked of our army in the East, looking eagerly for news of it, and sternly beholding its unnecessary sufferings. The most trying season was coming upon it, and there was nothing to rely upon but the skill of our medical officers. Let not the Government, therefore, neglect to secure that skill, and prefer to lose a life rather than acknowledge a mistake. Let them not be less jealous of the life of the soldiers who fought our battles, than they were of that of the felons who broke our laws. Better that official etiquette should be violated, and frivolous complaints attended to, than that one soldier should perish. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman said he was going back to visit the hospitals, not in order to make out a case against the Government, or find materials for invective and recrimination; but as a friend, he hoped to be admitted to cheer the soldier's bedside. He felt this nation was responsible to Providence for a great waste of human life; and that all efforts should now be used to redeem it, lest an awful visitation should one day come upon us for the blood which was lost, and which better diligence would have saved. He concluded by moving for an—

"Address for Copies of any Reports from the Hospitals at Smyrna, Renkioi, Anydos, Kululee, or Scutari:

"Returns from the Naval Hospital at Therapia; stating the number of Sailors admitted, the number discharged, and the number who have died; distinguishing the diseases and wounds:

"Copies of any Reports made by Sir John M'Neill or other Commissioners, in reference to the sanitary condition of the Camp in the Crimea:

"And, of any Communications on the health of the Army in the Crimea to the Commander in Chief from the Inspector General there."

said, he would endeavour, as concisely as he could, to afford the information which the hon. Member asked, at least on the more important points. There were two prominent cases for which Dr. Hall had been held responsible—that of Mr. Stowe, and the case alluded to by "An Army Surgeon" in The Times. Certainly, when the hon. Member on a previous occasion asked him (Mr. F. Peel) a question with regard to Mr. Stowe, he understood the hon. Gentleman to insinuate that Dr. Hall had, in a most unfeeling manner and in a spirit of vindictiveness towards this Gentleman, refused to admit him into the military hospital, and he was therefore very glad to hear the hon. Member avow that he had received information which satisfied him that Dr. Hall was not chargeable with the conduct imputed to him in regard to Mr. Stowe. On the next point he could not allow that the hon. Gentleman deserved any credit for the way in which he had brought forward in this House the letter which appeared in The Times from "An Army Surgeon." He had stated to the hon. Gentleman that immediately on the appearance of that letter in the newspaper the Government thought it right to direct that an inquiry should be made in the Crimea before an impartial tribunal into the truth of the statements contained in it. This inquiry was now proceeding, and the result, when communicated to the Government, would undoubtedly be made public, but he was glad, in the meanwhile, that the result which he had looked for from the institution of this inquiry had been anticipated by testimony perfectly impartial, and to which no exception could be taken. A letter had appeared from two civil surgeons attached to the staff who were employed in attending to the wounded on the day of the action in question, and who were able, from their own personal knowledge, to declare that there never had been so gross an imposition upon the credulity of the public, or a statement so utterly at variance with what was really done by the surgeons for the benefit of the wounded soldiers on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman, in the next place, proceeded to refer to extracts from a great number of letters written by surgeons attached to regiments in the Crimea, which were to be found in the appendix to the Report of the Commission appointed by the Duke of Newcastle, and sent out to the Crimea at his instance. It appeared from those letters that at the time to which they referred there was a great deficiency of medical stores, medicines, medical comforts and hospital appliances—that the sick were treated in bell tents, and that they were altogether exposed to great privation in addition to the wounds and sickness from which they were suffering. Now, it had not been stated by the hon. Member with sufficient prominence that these Reports had reference to a time which had long passed by. Those letters represented a state of things which existed in the winter of last year, and he could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman desired to know from him whether that state of things remained the same at the present time. It was matter of notoriety that these scenes had long ceased to exist, that the sick were now lodged in hospital buildings which afforded perfect protection against the weather, and that there was an abundance of medicine, medical stores, and of every article which could possibly be required. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a statement by Dr. Anderson, which appeared to convey that Gentleman's impression that Dr. Hall had thrown difficulties in the way of obtaining the supplies he wanted; and, judging from this, the hon. Member's object was to leave on the House the impression that Dr. Hall was undeserving of the confidence placed in him by the Government. Now, Dr. Hall had not denied that at that time there was a deficiency of medical stores and of other articles; but the Commissioners themselves hesitated to declare that Dr. Hall was responsible for this deficiency; and when the House considered how much allowance ought to be made for the difficulties of transport, both by sea and by land, he thought it would be somewhat unjust to hold Dr. Hall wholly responsible for that state of things. The hon. Gentleman, in adverting to the course which the Government had taken in engaging civil surgeons, said that it had resulted in the creation of a rivalry between the civil and military surgeons; that the military surgeons com- plained of the civil surgeons receiving a much higher remuneration than themselves and that the civil surgeons complained of being unfairly treated by the military surgeons, in consequence of being placed under the control of a principal military medical officer. It was quite true that a large number of civil servants had been engaged by the Government, though the number mentioned by the hon. Gentleman probably included those who were serving with the army of Omar Pacha and the Turkish Contingent under General Vivian. No civil surgeons were employed in the field or in the general hospitals in the Crimea, or were mixed up with the military surgeons serving there; but they had been added to the medical staff at Smyrna, to the new hospital at Renkioi, and to the staff employed at one or more of the hospitals at Scutari. They had been employed simply because the military medical corps was insufficient to discharge the whole of the duties required from them, but it was quite untrue that the military medical corps had been in any way reduced, or that the military surgeons were quitting the service in disgust at the course which had been taken by the Government. The hon. Gentleman had drawn an invidious contrast between the pay of the civil and of the military surgeons. Undoubtedly the pay of the civil surgeons was very liberal; but the army surgeons had nothing to complain of, inasmuch as the pay of the civil surgeons included everything to which they were entitled, whereas the military surgeons received additional allowances in the shape of field and servants' allowances, which went far to place their pay on an equality with that received by the civil surgeons. Then, again, the services of the civil surgeon might be dispensed with at any moment, while the employment of the army surgeon was permanent. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to the small amount of labour which the civil surgeons had been called upon to perform, and had endeavoured to account for it by saying that the principal medical officer had an interest in sending the great bulk of cases to the military surgeons, and in withholding from the civil surgeons at Smyrna and elsewhere their fair proportion. The assumption of the hon. Gentleman was entirely erroneous. It was quite true that at present there was a very limited number of sick and wounded soldiers in the hospital at Smyrna, and so there was also at Scutari; the chief reason being that the health of the army was much better than it was anticipated some time ago that it would be, and if the Government had provided more surgeons than there were sick to treat, their error was upon the right side, and he hoped they would continue to be, as they had been of late, in advance of any emergency that might arise. It was confidently said at the beginning of the year that great and severe as the sickness had been in the winter it would be still greater when the hot weather set in. The Government had acted upon the assumption that such might be the case, but he was glad to say that their anticipations had been falsified. Cholera, though it had carried off many victims, might now be said to have disappeared, while the epidemics which occasionally showed themselves were kept under by the army surgeons. It would, however, be most unwise if they were to make no provision for any possible increase of sickness, and, therefore, they had endeavoured to supply hospital accommodation for any amount of sick likely to be thrown upon their hands even in the event of the army being compelled to pass another winter before Sebastopol. For his own part, he was inclined to believe that the fall of Sebastopol might occur before the winter set in. It must, however, be remembered that a similar anticipation was entertained last year, and that the Government, who too confidently expected the fall of Sebastopol before the arrival of winter, were much blamed for not having made provision for every possible contingency. They were anxious not to commit a similar error again, and they had therefore made provision for the army upon the supposition that it would have to pass another winter in the Crimea, and that sickness might prevail to a very great extent. It was with that object that great attention was being paid to the hospitals at Scutari, and that every improvement was being effected which could be suggested by the able men who had been sent from this country to the East for the express purpose of superintending any changes which it might be desirable to make. Dr. Sutherland, one of the Sanitary Commissioners recently sent out by the Government, in a report to Lord Panmure, dated July 17, said—

"Having just returned from Constantinople, where I have inspected the hospitals at Scutari and Kululee, I lose no time in sending to your Lordship the following general report on their present condition. Speaking generally, the barrack and general hospitals at Scutari, and the greater part of the palace hospital and of the hospital at Kululee, in respect of their sanitary condition at the present season of the year, will bear a favourable comparison with any hospital establishments with which I am acquainted. There are no hospitals which cannot be improved by experience; and, no doubt, the hospitals at Scutari may be further improved; but, taking them as they are, I am justified in stating that the atmosphere within them is as pure as it is in any civil hospital I was ever in, and very much more pure than I have found it in most hospitals."

Thus it would be seen that as far as the hospitals at Scutari and Kululee were concerned, nothing could be more satisfactory. The hospital at Smyrna would afford accommodation for only 550 sick, although when the building was handed over to them by the Turkish Government it was intended to make arrangements for 2,000, and the hospital staff had been arranged accordingly. Therefore fifteen of the medical officers appointed to that hospital, would be transferred to the new hospital at Renkioi, which would accommodate 3,000 patients, and would be placed under the charge of civil surgeons. As there were now 2,500 beds vacant in the hospitals at Scutari, and there would be room for 3,000 patients at Renkioi, and for 400 at Smyrna, he thought ample provision had been made for any contingency which might arise. He might observe that Lord W. Paulet having been appointed to a command in the Crimea, Colonel Storks, the late commandant at Smyrna, where he had effected very valuable improvements in the hospital department, had been appointed to succeed Lord Paulet at Scutari. With regard to the nurses, he could only say that there was at present a sufficient number of nurses employed in the hospitals in the East, and it was not the intention of the Government to make any addition to that department. Great complaints had been made of the inefficiency of the orderlies who had been employed in attending upon the sick, and steps had consequently been taken to establish a corps of orderlies for service in the general hospitals. The number of the corps had for the present been fixed at 100, and a sufficient number of orderlies for ten hospitals would thus be obtained. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had referred to Dr. Smith, and to the constitution of the army medical departments. He (Mr. F. Peel) had stated on a former occasion that Dr. Smith had applied for leave to retire from his post. The Government, recognising the justice of the application in consequence of Dr. Smith's long service, had complied with his re- quest, and he now only held office until his successor was appointed. He (Mr. Peel) was unable to announce the name of his successor; but the matter was under consideration, and the vacancy would be filled up as soon as possible. With regard to the Army Medical Department, it was intended to introduce such reforms as would assimilate the constitution of the Board to that of the new Ordnance Department. Officers would be appointed who would be individually responsible for every distinct branch of the department—as, for instance, for the Purveyors' and the Apothecaries' Departments, and who would be responsible to a superior officer, who would exercise a general control. The public might rest assured that there would be good sense in the mode in which this branch of the duties of the war department would be conducted, and might place confidence in the capacity of the medical service to treat in a proper manner the sickness and wounds to which the army in the East might be subjected. With regard to the first paragraph of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, he (Mr. F. Peel) might observe that he had very recently laid upon the table returns relating to the hospitals in the East, and he had no objection to continue those returns. There was, he believed, no objection on the part of the Admiralty to furnish the returns for which the hon. Gentleman asked with respect to the naval hospital at Therapia. The hon. Gentleman also asked for the Reports of Sir J.M'Neill, and the other Commissioners who had been sent out to ascertain the sanitary condition of the camp in the Crimea. He (Mr. F. Peel) believed that no complete Report had been received on that subject, but the communications made to the Government by those Commissioners consisted of letters which had passed between themselves and the Commander in Chief, and which could not be produced; but when the Commissioners made a formal Report it should be laid before the House.

hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to the painful position of many officers of the army, who had arrived in this country from the seat of war sick and wounded. Some time ago he asked whether the Government had taken any steps towards hiring houses for the accommodation of such persons. They all knew that the pay of a subaltern officer was so small that it was quite impossible he could afford to hire lodgings in the metropolis, and yet such persons were obliged to reside there in order to obtain military attendance, gratis. He did hope that the subject would be taken into serious consideration by the Government, with the view of providing the requisite accommodation for a class of officers who were daily and hourly arriving from the Crimea.

observed that he had not stated he had received any complaints on the part of the civilian surgeons with regard to the rate of their pay. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the state of the transport service, and that he had said nothing as to the intention of the Government to bestow any honours or decorations on the medical department of the army. He would strike out from his Motion that part of it which related to the Reports of Sir J. M'Neill.

did not rise either for the purpose of replying at length to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman or of condemning anything he had done as President of the Board of Control. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him more than commonly interesting, and it had been delivered in a manner which the House would know how to appreciate. He began by explaining how it was this great question was brought forward for discussion at this period of the Session, and here the right hon. Gentleman's argument was inconclusive, for surely the Government could, without much difficulty, fix a day for the discussion of Indian affairs earlier in the year. There were many hon. Members who believed that a full discussion upon this question would be highly advantageous to the public, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, if he happened to hold office this time next year—though he could hardly say he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would—would take an opportunity of introducing the question at an earlier period in the Session. He (Mr. Bright) believed that it was Sir Robert Peel who pointed out, in one of his great speeches upon the finance of the country, that ultimately, whatever calamity might fall upon the finances of India must be felt by the finances of this country. In India, probably more than in any other country, the question of finance lay at the foundation of all prosperity and progress, and the House might rely upon it that if they were wrong with regard to Indian finance they would be wrong with regard to almost every other question that affected India. He could not help thinking that, instead of holding out a hope of improvement, the future promised to bring them into still greater difficulty than at present with respect to this particular department; and, believing that one object of the discussion was to afford an opportunity for bringing public opinion to bear upon Indian politics, he wished to call the attention of the House to some statements of a somewhat contradictory nature that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. The subject, however, was so confused and perplexed that it was hardly possible for any two men to enter into an examination of it, and come out of the examination with the same results. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the statement of his predecessor in the office which he held with regard to the state of the revenue of India at the end of the year 1853. In the year 1853 the House discussed the Company's new Act, and a Committee sat upstairs to inquire into the general question of Indian Government. At the end of April, 1853, the cash balances were represented to be 14,400,000l.; in June, in the same year, they rose to 17,800,000l.; in July they fell to 16,900,000l.; and in October they fell to 12,800,000l.—thus showing a rise of 3,000,000l. from April to June, a fall of about 1,000,000l. in July, and a fall from June to October of 5,000,000l. In July, when the balances had fallen to the extent of 1,000,000l., the Government de- termined upon the conversion of the 5 per cent loan. This conversion had been going on for some months, and in October, when the balances had fallen to 12,800,000l., the Government opened a 3½ per cent loan, with the view, according to the Indian papers, of creating an impression that the Government would require no money for a long time, and that no country was in so prosperous a condition with regard to its finances as India. Two years later—in April, 1855—the cash balances, which stood at 14,400,000l. in April, 1853, and 17,800,000l. in June, had fallen to 7,800,000l., and, finding themselves hastening to the verge of bankruptcy, the Government announced a new loan at 5 per cent, with a guarantee of fifteen years. With such facts as these before him, he was driven to the conclusion that there had not been fairness and scarcely common honesty on the part of the Government of India in dealing with the public upon this matter. It would seem that some great effort was made in 1853 to exhibit the revenue in a very prosperous light; but such a course could only tend ultimately to embarrass the Government. The large balance that existed in July, when the conversion of the loan began, was altogether of a temporary character. and its existence merely acted as a deception upon the Indian public. It was curious to remark, that in India it appeared to have been believed, not that the balances of 17,000,000l. in June, and 14,000,000l. in April, were sums of money in the treasuries of India for the payment of the current expenses of the Government, but that they were large sums of money lying idle, which the Government possessed beyond the amount required for conducting the ordinary business of the country. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) shook his head, but the hon. Gentleman would not deny that there existed an impression in the country that the Government had a large surplus in hand, amounting to many millions. Dr. Marshman, the editor of the Friend of India, seven months after the conversion was announced, and when it was necessary to decide the still undecided stockholders, wrote—

"The cash balances are still enormously in excess of the actual needs of the State. They cannot long remain so. India for the first time in thirty years, has a surplus revenue. If peace continues the accumulative process will rapidly proceed, the 3½ per cent loan will fill, and the Government, oppressed with a plethora of resources must take at least one more step in advance."

On the 25th of May, 1854, Mr. Marshman wrote,—

"With respect to money there is and can be no permanent difficulty. Whether shares are or are not at a premium at home does not signify one jot. The supply required can be raised in this country. In the last resort, should English capitalists decline five per cent, and natives refuse the Company's guarantee, there is a balance of 16,000,000l. sterling in the treasuries, bearing no interest, and of no earthly use, and the idea of a stoppage for want of funds is one which could only be entertained by those who believe India to be perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy."

It was evident that it was intended to create an impression that there was a large disposable surplus in the hands of the Government, and it was also evident that that impression was absolutely erroneous. This impression was created, the deception was kept up, and what had been called a successful operation was accomplished; successful it certainly was as far as the Government were concerned, but most disastrous to the holders of stock. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee that the course taken by the supreme Government with regard to this loan was a flagrant violation of the instructions of the Court of Directors and of the Board of Control—but that was the case; for, on the 20th of December, 1854, a letter was addressed to the Government stating that no outlay for public works was to be made without the express sanction of the home Government. That Minute was disobeyed, and, more than this, the mail, which left India on the 9th of March, contained not a syllable with respect to the loan which was announced on the 12th of March, and which Lord Dalhousie was said to have sanctioned. The effect of that announcement was a fall in the Indian funds of upwards of fifteen per cent. in one day; this was absolutely ruinous to some, and very disastrous to a great many people. A statement had appeared in The Times and in some of the Indian papers to the effect that on the very morning of the day on which the loan was announced the Government of Calcutta offered for sale 300,000l. worth of opium, and the consequence of the announcement was that the persons who had entered into contracts for the purchase of the opium were obliged to sell out their stock at the low rate in order to fulfil those contracts. Such a transaction would be thought rather sharp among private merchants, but it was disreputable when a Government were parties to it. He would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another point with respect to the name of the loan. It was called a "Public Works Loan," in order to induce people to believe that it was to be devoted to public works, but he was afraid it would be applied to a very different object. Mr. Dorin, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Peacock seemed most anxious in their Minutes to make excuses—"they do protest too much, me thinks"—for the name of the loan, but they mentioned no facts which justified the statements they made. He wished to call the attention of the present First Lord of the Admiralty to this point, for he would show that the right hon. Gentleman's statements and those of Mr. Grant on the subject of the amount which had been expended of late years on public works were entirely contradictory. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the amount so expended in 1851 was 400,000l.; in 1852 was 400,000l.; in 1853 was 700,000l.; in 1854 was 802,000l.; and in 1855 would probably be about 800,000l., which he (Mr. Bright) would call 850,000l. Mr. Grant, on the other hand, stated that the amount expended in 1851 was 1,120,312l.; in 1852 was 1,532,812l.; in 1853 was 1,706,250l.; in 1854 was 2,367,187l.; and in 1855 was 2,810,156l. The total for the five years, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, was 3,152,000l.; while, according to Mr. Grant's statement, it was 9,536,717l.; there was thus a difference of no less than 6,384,717l. He must say he thought the representations in the paper laid before the House were altogether fraudulent—he would retract that word, and say they were erroneous. In a note to the sum stated to have been expended upon public works, it was explained that a portion of the amount had been applied to civil and military works; but these civil and military buildings were an ordinary and inevitable charge upon the resources of the Government, and had no relation to the public works which had been demanded in Parliament—namely, the establishment of water communications, the formation of roads, the building of bridges, and the works required for irrigation. He considered that an attempt had been made to deceive that House and the people of India when works which were intended for the civil and military purposes of the Government were classed under the head of "public works." An attempt had been made to show that the deficit in the Indian finances had been occasioned in consequence of the vast ex- penditure upon public works, but he was prepared to deny that that was the fact. In 1853 the Indian Government had a balance of 14,400,000l., which two months afterwards was nearly 18,000,000l., but which had now fallen to 7,800,000l., so that there had been a positive decrease in the balance of about 10,000,000l. The actual increase of expenditure upon public works in 1853–54, according to the statement of the late President of the Board of Control, was only 102,000l., and, supposing such expenditure had amounted to 150,000l. in the subsequent year, these were the only items of expenditure which could be regarded as rendering a loan necessary. According to the Friend of India, there had been extra remittances to England to the amount of 1,000,000l., but the Indian Government had derived, during two years, a gain upon exchanges which would amount to 380,000l., and the receipts from the Nagpore territory, which for two years were estimated at 670,000l. With regard to the annexation of Nagpore, he might observe that the territory was said to comprise from 70,000 to 80,000 square miles; it contained a population of about 5,000,000; and it returned a revenue of more than 500,000l. a year; but although this extensive territory had been added to the dominions of the Crown no mention of the circumstance had ever been made in the Queen's Speech, the fact of such annexation had never been communicated to Parliament, and their opinion on the transaction had never been asked. He must say it was a mere illusion to term the loan which had been contracted a Public Works Loan. He considered that a radical reform was required in everything relating to the finances of India—in the mode in which the accounts were kept, and with respect to the manner in which, and the time at which, they were placed before that House and the public. He thought that if there was one thing which should be avoided by the Indian Government more than another, it was any attempt at secrecy with regard to the condition of their finances. This country could not hope to maintain its credit if it attempted to conceal its financial position, and if the Indian Government considered their own interests alone they would wholly abolish the system of secrecy. The consequence of the present state of things was that the commercial public of India, both native and European, were placed in a position of the greatest difficulty; and the money market was deranged to such an extent that persons who had acted with the utmost prudence and caution were involved in inevitable ruin. A letter that he had received from the Chamber of Commerce of Madras, dated June 23rd, 1855, pointed out the evils arising from the secrecy in which the Indian Government enveloped its financial arrangements, as illustrated by the opening of the Five per Cent Loan; and stated that on the morning of the day on which that loan was announced the Four per Cent Stock was quoted at from 95 to 96 per cent, but on the evening of the same day it fell from 80 to 82 per cent—that these fluctuations were mainly traceable to the ignorance in which the people were kept as to the state of the yearly revenue and expenditure, there being no means by which they could by any foresight prepare for the probable pecuniary wants of the Government. The letter then recommended the adoption of an organised system of public accounts to be published quarterly, and also suggested that an annual budget of the anticipated revenue and expenditure, ordinary and extraordinary, of India, for each year about to ensue, was essential to the safety of the commercial community, while it would likewise serve to inspire confidence in the Government. There would be no difficulty in following this course, because, according to the Friend of India of May 31st 1854, a statement of the balances, both at the different Presidencies and at all their subordinate stations, was made up monthly in the financial department, by which means the Government of India was enabled to understand its exact financial position from month to month. The Friend of India suffered the agony of a man who had a friend that he was desirous of extricating from embarrassment, but whose case he found could not bear examination. That publication on the 9th of June last stated that "it would appear that the Indian authorities at home had no knowledge of the Five per Cent Loan except from the newspapers!" that "whereas the loan was opened on the 12th of March, the first mail in March left Calcutta on the 9th of that month without any intimation that so important a measure was in contemplation;" that "there has evidently been a great leaven of mystery and mystification throughout the transaction, and the Indian Government would seem to have involved itself in a labyrinth of difficulties;" that "a fatal error has been committed by the veil of mystery which has been thrown over the loan;" and that "the Public Works Loan may prove the Crimea of the Indian Government." These were the statements of a writer who was the greatest friend of the Indian Government, from whom he received many hundreds a year, and who had been brought to this country to cram Members of that House who wished to speak in favour of that Government. A country like India, with 30,000,000l. of revenue and 50,000,000l. of debt, ought to have some one person specially chosen for his financial aptitude to act as its Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to whom they could look as primarily responsible. The right hon. Gentleman thought the resolution of which he (Mr. Bright) had given notice, suggesting that the annual accounts of the revenues of India should be made up to the 30th of October, instead of the 30th of April, was impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman could not understand much about double entry, or he would not have said that it had anything to do with the matter. When Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country he changed the period for making the financial statement of the United Kingdom, and the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, when recently in that office, intended to carry out a similar measure. The President of the Board of Control had only to send out a despatch on this subject, and what his (Mr. Bright's) resolution contemplated would be instantly done. There was really nothing to prevent a complete statement of the receipts and expenditure of the Indian treasury for the preceding year, with an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the current year from being annually laid before Parliament in March, in order to bring the condition of India fairly before that House and the public. The President of the Board of Control had pronounced a panegyric on the new Governor General of India. These panegyrics were pronounced on the appointment of all Governors General, and we were generally told that they were to add nothing to the area of our dominions in India, although when they returned home titles and pensions were usually claimed for them for extending our territory. He would not detract from the praise that had been bestowed on Lord Canning, of whom he knew nothing that he could condemn. He had always considered that nobleman to be a man of good intentions, who was both intelligent and laborious. But, in governing India, besides these qualities, a firm will was wanted that would do what was necessary to be done in spite of opposition from large and compact interests in the public service, which long habit had indisposed to many needful changes. If he might give a word of advice to the new Governor General, he would tell him that this question of finance lay at the foundation of success in the government of India and of prosperity to its vast population. The finances of India were in an unsound state because its foreign policy resembled that of this country. War was ruinous to all finance, whether in England or in India; and incessant war had caused the almost constant deficit in the revenues of the latter country. A country with a population so industrious and docile, with a climate and soil which produced in One portion or another of its surface almost everything that the earth yielded to man, were it only governed with ordinary wisdom, prudence, and economy, ought to have a surplus revenue, if any country in the world could have such a thing. Yet for the last twenty-five years it had been in debt, the amount of which had gradually swollen to 50,000,000l.—with a gross revenue of 30,000,000l. a year, and a balance in the exchequer of 17,000,000 only two years ago, but which was now down to 8,000,000l. He would say to Lord Canning that there was in India one particular class of persons of whom he ought to beware—a kind of men not uncommon in India, who, like Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, were ever getting up disputes, and if he found such a person, he should of all things be careful to avoid him in connection with the public service. His advice to him was not to go to war, like Lord Dalhousie, for a paltry sum of 900l., which the King of Ava was willing to pay, and because two inferior officers had been left standing in the sun longer than they thought was consistent with their dignity. There was a story of a Resident about to be sent on a distant embassy to a native prince, who, on his farewell interview with the Governor General, said, "My lord, is it to be peace or war?"—knowing well that it was in his power to cause either, just as might be most desirable. This was a class of men of whom Lord Canning ought to beware; for there was no possibility of relieving the pressure of taxation on the natives of India if war was to be perpetually waged with native States. He would not go into the question of the opium trade further than to say that a more dreadful traffic, or one more hideous in its results, never existed, except, perhaps, the transport of Africans from their own country to the continent of America. With regard to the salt duty, he would say that so long as such a tax was continued, the character of the Indian Government could not be what it ought to be. To tax the salt of a people, whose entire food was vegetable, so that in the interior it cost at least twenty times more than it did in this country, was positively disgraceful. The system was economically wrong and hideously cruel, and must of necessity be bad, and he trusted, therefore, that it would be speedily abolished. Another point he could not help referring to was that of torture, with regard to which the hon. Member for Stafford had given notice for another Session. The hon. Member for Newcastle last year brought forward this subject, and an inquiry had since taken place which justified everything that had been said regarding the torture prevalent in India. The inquiry, indeed, proved far more than had been alleged, and yet a tenth of what might have been told was not brought to light, for vast numbers of persons had presented themselves too late to be examined. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) and other Members of the India House, always professed to know infinitely more of India than he or any other person in that House did. The hon. Member for Honiton was regarded as the great luminary in Indian matters, and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) shone as a lesser light in the same direction. Last year the hon. Member for Honiton did not deny that torture existed in India; but he pointed to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. D. Seymour) with indignation and scorn, and endeavoured to throw contempt upon his inquiries by representing him as having gone to Madras and travelled up and down the country, asking the natives about the kind of torture they were subjected to, and then coming back and emptying his "carpet bag" of the calumnies and slanders he had collected in order to bring them against the Indian Government. The hon. Member for Guildford declared that he had never heard of any case of torture whatever in connection with the collection of the revenue in India. He (Mr. Bright) did not say that was not a true statement. He never believed that these gentlemen knew half so much of India as they said they did. This great enormity was known in Leadenhall-street and in Madras to have existed; and yet the hon. Member for Guildford was ignorant of the fact, though he had been for many years in India, and many more in Leadenhall-street. The hon. Member for Honiton deserved still greater condemnation. He (Mr. Bright) had seen the tables turned on that hon. Gentleman. He remembered that a few years ago all he said on the subject of India was received as gospel in that House. Whenever he opened his mouth, Sir John Hobhouse, who sat on the Treasury bench below, took all he said for gospel, and those who opposed the hon. Gentleman were regularly snuffed out. But this hon. Gentleman, who had held high office in India, who had received large emoluments, and who had been the principal leader of the Government at the India House—he (Mr. Bright) had once pictured him astride all the other directors—knew nothing of the existence of torture in India, and poured abuse upon the hon. Member for Poole when he stood forward as the advocate of the poor natives of that country. The hon. Member for Poole, at great expense and labour, and risk even of health, went over the interior of Madras, and gathered the most conclusive evidence upon this question, doing more real service for India than the hon. Member for Honiton could ever hope to accomplish. He denied that either the hon. Member for Honiton or the hon. Member for Guildford were authorities on this subject. If they were ignorant they were no authorities, and if they were not ignorant then they were not to be trusted. This was the dilemma on the horns of which he placed those gentlemen, and he hoped the hon. Member for Honiton would endeavour to get rid of it in the speech he was about to deliver. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Resolution which he now offered them, as unquestionably it would strengthen his hands in any attempt he might make to hasten the production of the Indian accounts. He confessed he was sometimes betrayed into a little warmth when speaking on Indian subjects, because he never looked into the question but he felt a degree of sympathy which he had no language to express adequately to the House. The population was so great, the interests were so vast, and the wrong done so great, that he could not but feel the deepest interest in the subject, and it was with these feelings he beseeched the House to take the matter more under their care than they had hitherto done, and give a better government for India. He felt deeply the responsibility that pressed on us as the governors of so many millions of people, and he felt that responsibility increased by the cruelty, the rapine, and the guilt that had too often marked our career in the East. He was anxious that England and England's Parliament should spread before the world a brighter picture for the future. There would be history besides that which was past for India to come, and, when the story of her latter days came to be narrated, why should we not have to tell something else than of the mere successes of conquest? Why not have wise laws and such an administration of the law as would prove a blessing to India, and do more than anything else to confer imperishable renown upon the English nation?

said, that the hon. Member for Manchester commenced his speech by stating that it was not his intention to make a personal attack either on the Government or the Court of Directors. He then dwelt on the subject of Indian finance, which he said could only be in a prosperous state in a time of peace; but he soon waxed so warm, so virulent, so personal, that any one coming into the House would have thought that the hon. Member was descanting on the blessings of peace. Whenever the question of India arose, the hon. Member made a personal attack not only on the conduct but on the motives of those whose duty it was to take part in the government of that country. The hon. Member had alluded to the appointments and emoluments which he (Sir J. W. Hogg) had held and received in India; such allusions were surely not very usual nor very seemly, but he had an honourable pride in telling the Member for Manchester that he was indebted to no patronage or favour for the independence he possessed—that he proceeded to India without any appointment, and dependant solely on his own exertions. He had, perhaps, as great practice at the Calcutta Bar and was in as large professional receipts as any man of his age and standing ever had at any Bar. He accepted office, because his health began to fail, and he did so for ease and at a sacrifice of income. The hon. Member adverted to what was called the "Torture Report," and in doing so alluded to the hon. Member for Guild-ford (Mr. Mangles) and himself as having denied that this practice existed. As regarded himself, this statement was incorrect. When the subject had been alluded to on a former occasion, his mind was so occupied by other matters that he omitted to reply to the remarks that had been made, and had been taunted by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire for that omission. He never would have ventured to assert that no improper practices were ever resorted to by the subordinates that the Indian Government were compelled to employ. Crime existed in India as elsewhere, but the Government used its best efforts to repress it. The Board of Directors had sent out, not only lately, but years ago, despatch after despatch, and circulars had been issued by the Government, calling attention to the cases of misconduct and extortion which were brought under their notice. It was well known that even up to the present time these improper practices prevailed in the Native States, and that whenever these States came under the rule of the Indian Government, its best endeavours were used to eradicate these practices, and that it had to some extent succeeded in so doing. Such being the case, he had heard with surprise what the right hon. President of the Board of Control had said upon this subject, and he begged to tell that right hon. Gentleman that he had used an expression which he was not justified in doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government of India was participes criminis. This, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) emphatically denied. The expression of the right hon. Gentleman distinctly implied that the Government of India, connived at the crime, or, at least, were aware of its existence, and did not exert themselves to repress it. Upon what did the right hon. Gentleman found such an imputation? It was not supported or warranted by the Report of the Commissioners by which he (Sir J. W. Hogg) was content to be bound. When the statements in regard to this subject were made during the last Session of Parliament, a despatch was immediately prepared by the Directors, and was sent out to India in the course of a few days. But the Government of the Madras Presidency had anticipated the instructions sent from home, and, as soon as the statements with respect to torture were seen in the public prints, it sent circulars to every judge and collector, and to all the civil and military servants of the Government throughout the Presidency of Madras, desiring them to make inquiries, to obtain information on this subject, and to adopt such measures as would enable the Government to bring the offenders to punishment. A Commission was then appointed to inquire into the subject, of which Mr. Norton was a member. He was a gentleman of great talent and energy; he entertained almost as strong a feeling as the hon. Member for Manchester as to the misgovernment of India; this gentleman, however, was selected to be one of the Commissioners by the Government of Madras, in order to show that it was desirous this matter should be probed to the fullest extent. This Commission issued notifications in six languages. These notifications were announced by beat of tom-tom in all the villages, and every possible means were taken of making it known that the Government was desirous that statements should be sent in, and that persons should come forward and give evidence to enable the Government to put an end to such practices if found to exist. It was thought that many persons might, on account of the expense, be prevented from personally coming forward, the Government of Madras offered to pay the expenses of all who would come forward and give information which would lead to the suppression of this system. The result was, that out of a population of nearly 23,000,000, covering a territory of 130,000 square miles, only 384 applications were made in person, and 425 in writing. He thought these facts showed that though the evil complained of did exist—and it was deeply to be lamented that it should be so—yet that it was not very general or far spread. The Parliamentary paper containing the Report of the Commissioners had not yet been generally circulated—though he perceived that some hon. Members by special favour had got copies of it—and it would not, therefore, be fair to refer to the evidence which the House had not yet had an opportunity of studying; but he would call their attention to the general finding of the Commissioners. After recapitulating some portion of the evidence, they went on to say:—

"From the evidence which has been brought before us we have been obliged to come to the conclusion that personal violence has been practised by native revenue collectors and police officials, both in the collection of the revenue and in police cases; but we are bound at the same time to state our opinion that the practice has been of late years steadily decreasing both in severity and extent."

It was also gratifying to learn that the Commissioners were satisfied that the Native officials—from the highest to the lowest—were well aware of the abhorrence in which the practice was held by their European superiors, and that they had seen nothing to impress them with the idea that the people themselves entertained any idea that the maltreatment to which they were subjected was countenanced or tolerated by the European officers or by the Government. "The cry of the people," they said, "which has come before us, is to save them from the cruelty of their fellow Natives, and not from the effects of un-kindness or indifference on the part of the European officers." He would not go into the evidence taken by the Commissioners, because to do so might only tend to mislead those who had not a copy of it before them; but he thought it was clear that the practice of torture did not go to the extent that was supposed. The Commissioners stated that there was great conflict of opinion among the Commissariat officers as to the existence of torture—that few of the civil engineers or missionaries examined before them could testify of their own knowledge to the existence of torture, and that few of the medical men attached to the Zillah stations had any knowledge of the practice; and they went on to remark that, considering that these medical men had charge of the gaols, and that it was their duty to inspect the prisoners, "their testimony was a cogent argument in favour of the secrecy and comparative lightness of the violence." Speaking of the degree of violence used, they said, "It is impossible to believe that the atrocious kinds of torture are of ordinary occurrence; the cases in which death from wounds or injury to limbs has occurred must be regarded as highly exceptional." On the whole, the Report certainly showed that this misconduct did exist to a greater extent in India than he had previously been aware of, and if this ignorance of his were a crime he was ready to plead guilty to it. He now came to the subject of finance, and, not being such a master of figures as the hon. Member for Manchester, he found it difficult to follow that hon. Member through his statement, especially as he had taken a bit of it from one source and another bit from another source, adopting the Friend of India when it suited his purpose, and repudiating it when it did not answer his views. The hon. Member said that the Indian balances varied very much; this was quite true—they diminished when disbursements were made, and increased when payments came in. That might seem marvellous to the hon. Member, but it was nevertheless true. In India the revenue came from different districts, about the same time; and so it was not strange, but in the natural course of events, that the Indian balances should suddenly increase, and that they should as suddenly diminish when payments were made to the whole of the civil and military establishments. The hon. Member also complained of the large sums of money lying idle in the Treasury. But considering the enormous area of India, and the difficulty and expense of transporting money, all payments being made in silver—it was necessary to have a large balance, or the machine of Government could not go on. He hoped that the railways, when completed, would enable the Government to reduce very much the amount of the balances. He now came to the subject of the loan, which he was prepared to defend. The President of the Board of Control, looking towards the hon. Member for Manchester, said, with seeming timidity, that he was not there to defend the Governor General; but he (Sir J. W. Hogg) maintained that it was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to defend the Governor General if right, and to denounce him if wrong. If the Governor General and the Indian Government deserved defence the right hon. Gentleman abandoned his duty if he left these authorities undefended. The Indian Government were bound to do the best they could for the public, and if they could borrow money at 4 per cent, they ought not to pay 5 per cent; and if they had a surplus not wanted for the public service, they ought to employ it in the payment of the debt. Now, what were the facts? Let them look first at what took place in 1853. In July of that year there Was a sum of 18,000,000l. in the public Treasuries, being at least 7,000,000l. more than was required for the public service. The Four per Cent Stock being then at par, the Governor General determined to convert the Five per Cent Stock, and with what success might be judged from the fact that of 25,000,000l. of Five per Cent Stock, 20,000,000l. were converted into Four per Cent Stock; that only 5,000,000l. of Stock was required to be paid off; and that whilst the operation was in course of being performed the rate of Four per Cent Stock did not vary 1 per cent. That sufficiently proved that the Indian Government were then justified in converting the Five per cent Stock. But in March of the present year it was found that from unforeseen causes there was an excess of expenditure over revenue of about 2,000,000l.; that the balances in the public treasuries would be reduced to 8,000,000l. or 2,000,000l. less than they ought to be, as he had already stated; and that at Calcutta they would be nearly exhausted. The Russian war had broken out, and Consols fell to 90. At the same time money was so scarce, and the rate of interest in India so high, that the Bank of Bengal was charging 11 per cent for loans on deposit of Government securities, and within six weeks the home Government drew on the Indian Government bills to the amount of two millions sterling. Under these circumstances it was that the Indian Government was compelled to issue the New Five per Cent Loan. The hon. Member for Manchester complained that while the negotiation of a loan at home had only affected Consols to the amount of two or three per cent, the negotiation of the new Indian loan had affected the price of the Four per Cent Stock to the extent of 14 or 15 per cent. But the hon. Member forgets that while the new Stock created here bore the same rate of interest as that already in existence, the Indian Government was forced to contract their new loan at 5 per cent interest, while the existing Stock was a Four per Cent Stock. While such was the pressure in India the home authorities had been under the necessity of drawing on the Indian Government, within the six weeks preceding the loan for 192 lacs, or nearly 2,000,000l. It had been asked why did the home authorities draw for so large an amount within so short a period? Why did they not distribute their bills equally over the year? These questions were easily answered. The lenders were bound to adopt measures not to interfere with or disturb the course of commercial and monetary affairs, and with this view they published at the commencement of the year a statement of the amount intended to be drawn upon India, and their treasury remained open until that amount was actually drawn, so that mer- chants at home and their agents at Calcutta and elsewhere could know exactly the amount to be drawn. So long as any part of the amount notified remained un-drawn the treasury remained open, and the only way of stopping the issue of bills was by raising the rate of exchange. In order to prevent one party from gaining an advantage over another by a variation in the rate of exchange, the rate was never altered until the steamer had sailed, so that all persons remitting bills paid the same rate. With respect to public works, the Directors did, in July, 1834, give directions that those works should be proceeded with, and the expenses be defrayed from the balances, and when those were exhausted that then a loan should be raised, but that no public works loan should be raised without their previous consent. However, under the circumstances, the loan was wisely raised without waiting for the consent of the Directors. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had treated somewhat cavalierly the statement of the Members of the Council respecting the loan; but those gentlemen were men of the highest character and abilities, in whom all who knew them would place implicit confidence. The statement which they made was true, and, the revenue being reduced, the public works could not go on unless a loan was raised; the amount required for public works for the year was 3,000,000l., while the loan was for 2,700,000l. There was a little disparity between the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control and those of Mr. Grant, the explanation of which appeared to be that the expenses for public works in the North-West Provinces and the Punjab, where the principal expenses arose, were charged against the revenue of the subsequent year as works in progress. Thus, in one year Mr. Grant made an estimate which was below the actual amount, while in the next it exceeded it. The hon. Member for Manchester had complained of the arrangements of the India House for affording information to inquirers; but the fact was that there was an officer expressly appointed to answer questions respecting the estates of deceased persons. Every will, every administrator's account current, every executor's account, was sent home, and any person requiring information could obtain it immediately on application at the India House. He was as anxious as the hon. Member for Manchester that the financial statement should be made at an earlier period of the Session, and he was as unable as the hon. Member to understand the excuse assigned by the President of the Board of Control. As to the Government not giving a night, he had seen nights enough uselessly consumed, and he was not aware how they could apply a night more advantageously to the public interests than to the subject of India. There was necessarily some delay in obtaining the accounts, because each collector sent his accounts to the Presidency, whence they were transmitted to the India Government in the first place, and subsequently to this country; but he pledged himself that the Directors would make every effort to bring up the accounts to the preceding April.

thought the hon. Baronet had succeeded in placing the subject of the loan upon a different footing from that on which it was left by the hon. Member for Manchester; but, with regard to the question of torture, the hon. Baronet had endeavoured to gloss over statements which should make the blood of every man tingle with indignation. The following was from the pen of the Commissioners themselves—

"Among the principal tortures in vogue in police cases we find—twisting a rope round the entire arm or leg so as to impede circulation, lifting up by the mustachios, suspending by the arms while tied behind the back, searing with hot irons, placing insects on the navel, the scrotum, or other most sensitive parts, dropping in wells and rivers until half drowned, putting pepper and chili into the eyes, or introducing them into the private parts of men and women."

These were the practices with regard to which the hon. Baronet tried to throw dust in the eyes of the House by talking of them as exceptional. He believed among the worst races that ever disgraced the human shape such practices could be only exceptional, and they were totally indefensible by any Englishman. The hon. Baronet said he did not deny the existence of torture in India; but when the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) gave that denial the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not contradict him, and it was not owing to the hon. Baronet or the Indian Government, but to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), that these abominable practices were exposed. Among the witnesses examined by the Commissioners, Lieutenant Groves said he was shown two thumbscrews, and all the natives spoke of their use as a matter of course. Another witness saw a dozen ryots who were in arrears undergoing the ordeal. They were all ranged under a meridian sun in the hottest period of the year; all had heavy stones placed upon their heads and on their backs between their shoulders; their bodies were bent double, and several were kept in that position standing on one leg, the other being raised by tying a stick round the toe. He was present two hours, and none were released during that time. Other witnesses said the police were the pest and bane of society, and originated half the misery and discontent in the country. Violence, torture, and cruelty, were their chief instruments for detecting crime and extorting money. Robberies were day and night committed, and not unfrequently with their connivance. If when cruelty was practised the person accused persisted in his innocence, he was only released upon incriminating some wealthy man, who in his turn was only permitted to depart on payment of a heavy fine. That was the description of the Indian police, concerning which they had never heard a syllable from any one representing the Government of India in that House. He would conclude this portion of the subject by mentioning one more case of torture, which resulted in the death of an old man, who, having been tied up in the sun in the manner he had described, that treatment brought on a fit of apoplexy, which resulted in the death of the sufferer. And what was the reason why this unfortunate victim was thus tortured? Because he was supposed to be deficient in the payment of 2 annas and 10 pice—not quite 4.d.! Now, although he was much gratified by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith), as evincing a desire to remedy the evils inflicted upon the people of India, he was much mortified to hear what he had said about the salt tax, which appeared to be as unjust a mode of extorting money as human ingenuity could devise. He trusted that before long the Government would take that subject into their serious consideration; and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the collection of the gabelle in the seventeenth century led to the French Revolution, and that they had it from Sully that nothing could be more cruel than a tax upon salt. He contended, also, that an improved tenure of land was loudly called for, and that it was imperative to establish a proper judicial system. No person could efficiently perform the offices of judge and revenue collector, and the attempt to combine them in the same individual frequently led to the infliction of gross injustice. Indeed, the administration of justice in India—he did not mean by judges sent out from England to administer English law—was a scandal to the country. He also alluded to the enormous amount of the salaries attached to some of the civil appointments, and from which appointments the natives of that unhappy country were excluded. He hoped that the time had at length arrived when the evils which had been suffered to accumulate in India for the oppression of the people would be removed.

said, that before he referred to the question of torture he must express his regret at the tendency to annex the territories of native princes which had of late developed itself. If they had only a return of the annexations made under Lord Dalhousie, he had no doubt they would find that they exceeded all those which had been made by the five or six Governor Generals preceding him. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) with respect to Oude were also somewhat ominous. He (Mr. Otway) was afraid that the Governor General had already his eye upon that territory; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give him a strong intimation that its annexation would not be a policy that would meet with his approbation. He hoped that, if better feelings did not prevail, a regard to such authorities as Sir Thomas Munro, the Duke of Wellington, and other great Indian statesmen, would deter the Government from a course which would be detrimental to the interests of this country. With regard to the question of public works, he noticed a very wide discrepancy between the figures of Sir Charles Wood and Mr. Grant. Sir Charles Wood stated the outlay for public works at 3.152,000l.; whereas Mr. Grant set it down at 9,152,900l,, having included in that sum the building of barracks and other military expenditure, which it was not fair to call public works. He (Mr. Otway) complained, first, that the expenditure was quite incommensurate with the extent of area to which it was applied; and, secondly, that the objects were by no means judiciously chosen. He thought the money ought to be applied chiefly to water communication, which was much more adapted to the wants of India than railways. Besides, railways could only be extended at a rate of a hundred miles per annum, whereas water communication could be supplied very much faster indeed. The Report of Colonel Cotton showed that the outlay on public works had realised seventy per cent. He now came to the question of torture. Much as he had been surprised at statements made in that House by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) on the subject of India, he had never been more so than by that which the hon. Baronet had made that night; for the hon. Baronet, after declaring that he had not had an opportunity of seeing a certain Report, immediately proceeded to give copious extracts from it. He must also remark that those extracts were by no means calculated to afford an accurate notion of the Report itself. The hon. Baronet dwelt first on the fact that the number of letters received in answer to the notification had been but small; and, secondly, that no complaints had been made against Europeans. That, however, was a statement which was hardly borne out by the document itself; but, as he (Mr. Otway) had given formal notice that he would call the attention of the House to the subject next Session, he would not now go into the question at any length. He must, however, remark that the Commissioners themselves noticed the fact that the receipt almost simultaneously of so many as 1,959 complaints was strong evidence that the objectionable practices were of very common occurrence. But the gravamen of his (Mr. Otway's) charge against the Directors was, that these practices had been carried on for years with the full cognisance of the East Indian Government; and the Directors had written despatches, condemnatory of them, indeed, but still showing that they were fully aware of them. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), who, on a former occasion, said that he had been thirty years in India, and had never heard of the practice of torture. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be in his place next Session when he (Mr. Otway) brought forward his Motion on the subject. There was the evidence given in the Report, not only of natives, but of several European gentlemen, affirming that in their sight the use of the thumbscrew had been practised by the police for the purpose of extorting a confession with a view to obtaining money. It was clearly proved that they had been guilty of inflicting the most horrible tortures, the result of which had been that confessions were made by innocent persons which led to their being condemned to death. The hon. Baronet had said that no missionaries had given evidence as to the existence of a system of torture. This was contradicted by the Report of the Commissioners, in which he found the names of several clergymen, who had given the most conclusive testimony to the existence of the practice. He had in his possession at this moment an instrument of torture of the most horrible character, which had positively been used upon a native of India. He trusted, then, he should hear no more denials of the practice of torture existing in India, and being exercised under the cognisance of Europeans. In the words of Mr. Lewin, he asserted that the practice of torture within the territories of the Madras Government were universal, systematic, and habitual, and that mutilations and death were its frequent results. He wished he could say that the system was confined to the Madras Presidency. In the Bombay papers he found a gross case of torture, which resulted in the death—the murder he might say—of an individual, and the persons charged with it received a most inadequate punishment, two years' imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the appointment of Lord Canning as the Governor General of India. When that noble Lord was appointed to that office, endeavours, he thought not fair ones, were made to disparage a man at the outset of his arduous duties. He had read the speech of the noble Lord at the entertainment given to him by the East India Company, a speech replete with noble sentiments, and all he could say was that if the noble Lord acted upon that speech, and appointed to public office persons who from their character and qualifications were fitted to take part in the government of 150,000,000 of persons, he might render illustrious in India a name that was famous in Europe.

tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) for having brought this subject to the knowledge of the House and the country; for until he did that, he believed that scarcely anybody in this country had any knowledge of it. Another matter had also come painfully out in consequence of this inquiry, that those parties who had had long experience in India must now be held to have little knowledge not only of what went on in the country, but of what was done by parties in their own employment. It was impossible altogether to acquit the Government of India of some share in this matter. The Commissioners said it was generally prevalent, that it was now diminishing, and that the whole cry of the country came up against what was being done. It was extremely painful to have this matter brought up, and to hear it treated, as it had been by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg), because he stated that it did not exist to a considerable extent. Then again the hon. Baronet would have them believe that merchants, and missionaries, and Europeans were wholly ignorant of it; but if that were so, that only showed what an unfortunate state they were in, when the Government did not know what was going on by their own subordinates. It forced itself irresistibly on his mind that this practice had gone on to a considerable extent, and yet it was by an accident almost, by an hon. Member of that House choosing to go to India, that they had become aware of it. The existence of the evil, however, now stood upon record; there could be no longer any doubt about the fact; and he hoped that public opinion would so operate upon the Indian authorities as to insure that it should not much longer continue.

explained that he did not say that missionaries and Europeans did not know of it. He gave the words of the Commissioners, who expressed their surprise that so few of the Europeans and civilians knew of it.

entirely concurred in the expression of gratitude which had been used with regard to his hon. Friend the Member for Poole for the information which he had afforded the Government upon the subject, and he had no doubt that the Government on the spot and the home Government would spare no effort to put a stop to such practices. With respect to the statements of the hon. Member for Manchester, it was obvious that they referred to another period as regarded the actual expenditure on civil works. He (Sir Charles Wood) stated the average expenditure on civil new works in 1852 at 700,000l. Mr. Grant's statement of expenditure, namely, 1,600,000l, in 1854, offered no discrepancy as to the facts.

said the figures might be made to agree, but it would be by including things which were not strictly public works.

said, the discrepancy was none; because for Mr. Grant's purpose all money for repairs, as well as for new works, was included. The hon. Gentleman said the statement of Indian finance on the subject of the loan made by him (Sir Charles Wood) was intended to deceive the House. There was no use in talking of the balances, as they varied. That in April, 1853, was 15,500,000l. This gave about 5,500,000l. available for any purpose to which it was requisite to be applied. For four years there had been an annual increasing surplus. For that the 4 per cent loan was kept open, and it being obvious that the 5 per cent loan was unnecessary, it was the duty of the Government to reduce the 5 per cent to 4, as it would be unjust to call upon the people of India to pay the difference. After this operation had been effected a change of circumstances took place, rendering it necessary to raise a 5 per cent loan for the purposes of the country. The first circumstance he gave his attention to, when he accepted the post of President of the Board of Control, was to endeavour to establish friendly relations on the western frontier of our Indian dominions. He could not too highly praise the conduct of Lord Dalhousie in the war, which had been, as it were, forced upon him. That noble Lord had acted with so much judgment that he was enabled to put an end to wars, to obtain large acquisitions of territory, and to lay the foundation of amicable relations with other Powers. The successor was well selected, and he augured the best for the appointment.

wished to say a few words on the administration of justice in India. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) on a former occasion said that the appointment of a Commission on judicial establishments in India was about to be followed up, but he had not heard that anything had been done. While Englishmen and Scotchmen were selected for judicial offices, Irishmen seemed to be systematically excluded. If a pamphlet which had been sent to him, containing the judgment of the inferior courts, reported them truly, it was no wonder that so many of their decisions were reversed in the superior courts, for such a farrago of folly, ignorance, and absurdity he had never read.

said, it might have been the case that torture had been inflicted by native police officers in India in order to extort confessions in criminal cases, and the recent investigation of the Commissioners had proved the lamentable fact that it had also been employed to enforce the payment of rents. When he stated last year, on occasion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett), that he had never heard of torture having been used in India for that end, or otherwise, than by native officers of police, in order to extort confessions, he spoke in ignorance; that ignorance arising from his personal knowledge of India having been confined to the north-western provinces, in both of which the system of land revenue was essentially different from that which prevailed in Madras. The Report recently published exonerated the European servants of the Company from being implicated in these practices. In considering this subject it was only fair to remember the extreme difficulty in procuring information relative to the commission of murders and other offences in India. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in saying that the servants of the Company were open to blame with regard to the administration of torture in the Madras Presidency, and he was sure those servants would not need the stimulus of public opinion to do all in their power to put down so abominable a system.

was sorry to find that the statements he had made in this House last year on the subject of torture had turned out to be well founded, and he had found upon inquiry that there appeared to be some some sort of understanding on the subject between the officials and the collectors. He thought there were various circumstances which justified the statement of his right hon. Friend that he could not wholly exculpate the civil servants in this matter. The Government had neglected reports which had called their attention to the infliction of torture, and when cases had been brought before the Judges in the Presidency of Madras they had failed to administer that severe punishment which would have been likely to prevent a repetition of the offence. With regard to the Native servants, they were extremely underpaid, and he thought a great deal might be done to improve their character and their position. As to the loan, there certainly had been no intention to deceive on the part of the Government of India; but he admitted that they were to a certain extent liable to blame for having allowed themselves to be taken by sur- prise in this matter. He trusted that before the next Session of Parliament measures would be devised to put an end to the system of torture, and that the finances of India on the next Budget night would present a more favourable appearance than they had shown that evening.

withdrew his Motion.