said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Florae Department whether he was able to furnish more information respecting the late catastrophe at the colliery near Barnsley than had yet been given to the public?

Sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot furnish any further information than the public are in possession of with regard to the very melancholy and lamentable accident at the Lundhill Colliery, and for this reason—that, as my hon. Friend knows, the pit has been closed with the advice of persons of the greatest authority and experience in these matters, as the best means of extinguishing the fire in the pit, and as, in fact, the only course which could under the circumstances be adopted until it was safe to reopen the pit to examine it. It is, I fear, impossible to obtain any further information at present. All that I have done is to take care that there shall be the fullest investigation into the cause of the accident, and I have no doubt that every possible means will be taken to acquire such information as may tend to prevent such accidents in future.

said, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had any objection to lay the Bill upon the table?

A Bill, Sir, has been prepared founded on the Report of the Committee that sat last year to make inquiries respecting the operation of the Ecclesiastical Commission. It includes all those recommendations of the Committee which require legislative sanction. Some of these recommendations may be adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners without the authority of an Act of Parliament. I have referred the Bill to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I understand that they desire to introduce some additional provisions, but I have not yet received the Bill back from them. I therefore think that it would not be desirable to lay the Bill on the table this Session.

said, he would beg to inquire of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether the attention of the Charity Commissioners had been directed to the complicated state of the finances of the Foundling Hospital, and to the effects of the existence of that institution?

in reply, said, that the Charity Commissioners had instituted an inquiry into the state of that foundation, including both its financial condition and its management, and he believed that their Report would shortly be presented.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether a major, having been promoted to the rank of brevet lieutenant colonel for service in the field, is entitled (having afterwards succeeded to the command of his regiment) to reckon his service as brevet lieutenant colonel towards his promotion to the rank of colonel, although he was not in command of his regiment during that time.

said, that the case put by the hon. and gallant Member had not yet occurred, and no regulation had been made by the Horse Guards on the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having expressed in that House his hopes that the Report of the Royal Commissioners upon the Civil Service Superannuation Act would be laid upon the table before Easter, he had intimated to them his expectations upon that point; and, if not, whether he will do so, reminding them, at the same time, that they have had this question in charge ever since October, 1856?

said, that it would be impossible for him to give the Commissioners any instructions as to the time at which they should make their Report; but he understood that it would be ready before Easter. The Commissioners had, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of last Session, called for a Report from eminent actuaries upon the subject.

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with reference to the statement made by him that four-fifths of the Danish Transit Dues were to be abolished, he had considered the expediency, before any treaty was signed, of stipulating for the abolition of the remaining fifth also.

Sir, the question of the Transit Dues has been very carefully negotiated by our Minister at Copenhagen, and by the Ministers of other Powers who are interested in the remission of these dues; and I understand that the settlement embodied in the treaty about to be signed has given satisfaction, not only to our Minister, but also to the agents of the Hanse Towns and of other Powers more directly interested in the transit. I have every reason to believe that the stipulations contained in the treaty are reasonable and equitable ones.

Is the treaty signed?

It may be signed now, but it was not at the time our last advices left Copenhagen.

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether casual poor are admitted on application into the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover Square; and, if so, for what purpose a notice is affixed to the walls of that workhouse, stating that on and after the 7th of July, 1856, the tramp wards of that house will be closed?

said, that he had made inquiry, and had found that the notice referred to in the question of his noble Friend had been affixed to the door of the workhouse. He was also informed that such casual poor as were brought there by the police, or as the master of the workhouse deemed to be actually destitute, were received; but that what were called regular tramps were not admitted into the workhouse. As might have been expected, no tramps had, since the affixing of this notice, applied for admission.

said, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was able to give an assurance that the influence of the Government would be used to prevent the appropriation of the vacant site of Smithfield Market to any other purpose than that of the enjoyment and recreation of the public.

in reply, said, that since he last addressed the House upon the subject a letter had been received from the City Remembrancer, stating that the Markets and Improvements Committee of the Corporation of London had had the subject under their consideration for some time past, and he expected in the course of next week to be able to communicate with the Government. Therefore, they might hope speedily to be put in possession of the views of the City upon this matter.

rose to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to that clause of the treaty concluded with Persia by which it was alleged that England was to abandon her right to protect Persian subjects. He dared say that benefits might arise from this stipulation which would counterbalance its disadvantages; but he understood that the only way in which we could obtain information from Persian subjects without compromising them with their own Government was to extend to them our protection. This country would be placed in a disadvantageous position if she made this concession, and other Powers did not do the same. It was rumoured that the Minister sent over to arrange the present difficulty, Ferukh Khan, was himself, though a near relative of the Shah, under the protection of Russia. Whether that was true or not, there could be no doubt that many Persian subjects were under the Russian protectorate, and likely, therefore, to act in the interest of Russia. He wished to know whether the noble Lord, in framing this treaty, had taken care that whatever was abandoned by England should be equally abandoned by other countries. The hon. Member said that to put himself in order he would conclude by moving, "That the House at its rising adjourn till Monday."

I must object to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, because I think it would be convenient for the despatch of business that the House should meet at 1 o'clock to-morrow, and sit for a short time to pass some Bills. With regard to the question that he has started, perhaps, he will allow me to say that it would be very inconvenient that hon. Members should discuss in this House a treaty of which they are not in possession, and more especially a treaty which, although already concluded, has not yet been ratified by the contracting parties. It is obvious that discussions of the supposed objects of such a treaty are calculated to have an injurious bearing on the conduct of those by whom it is negotiated; therefore I will not follow the hon. Member's example by stating anything with regard to this particular treaty. With respect, however, to the point to which his observations were directed, I may say that great inconvenience has arisen, and is likely to arise, from the practice prevalent in Persia, under which foreign missions are entitled by prescription to exercise a protection over Persian subjects not employed in their service. For the permanence of friendly relations with the Government of Persia I think it is most desirable that that practice should be discontinued. At the same time, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would not be becoming in one country to abstain from a practice that would continue to be pursued by other Governments. The abnegation should be general; and I can assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government will be happy to renounce all protection in Persia over persons not actually employed in the service of our missions and our consulates, provided Russia and other Powers are ready to do the same.

said, he was very glad to hear what had fallen from the noble Lord, who had laid down a very just doctrine. The rule of granting British protection to persons who were not our subjects, and who used to be constantly getting us into trouble, had happily been withdrawn in the case of Turkey; and he rejoiced to find that the same right, which had been grossly abused, was to be relinquished in Persia. Individuals having no connection whatever with this country, and some of whom were actually members of the Royal family, often put themselves under British protection, and led our embassy into infinite difficulty and disgrace. Another important question, to, which, however, he was afraid he should receive no answer, was this—whether the terms which had been granted to us by the Persian Minister at Paris were not previously offered at Constantinople, and whether, in fact, the Persian Ambassador at the latter place had not been willing to give us even better terms than those which had been agreed to at Paris? He (Mr. Layard) believed that such really had been the case. The negotiations took place at Constantinople before active steps had been taken, and before it was known that our expedition had reached the Persian Gulf; and if the terms were then rejected which had lately been accepted the whole of the bloodshed that had ensued had been utterly in vain. The attack on Bushire would materially weaken our influence where it had hitherto been predominant. The chiefs of the tribes bordering on Affghanistan had, over and over again, taken sides with the British; but these tribes had lost many men in our attack on Bushire, and their chiefs, who never forgot such injuries, were consequently now converted into our blood enemies. This subject ought to have been discussed in that House long ago, because it affected the position of this country, and all other nations in Central Asia, and he thought that before England entered into a treaty binding her to certain guarantees in reference to Central Asia, that House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon those guarantees. It might he inconvenient, pending the negotiation of this treaty, to debate its specific terms; but the question of policy as to our relations with Central Asia ought to have been discussed upon general grounds. He would not now trouble the House further, because he knew that other matters were under consideration, and that was not the time to bring about a discussion on such a subject; but he should like to know if what he had heard were true, that these terms were offered at Constantinople before the expedition sailed?

was understood to say, that it would be found that the treaty concluded at Paris was better than any likely to have been obtained at Constantinople. The negotiations at Constantinople were not broken off by the British Minister, but by the representative of the Persian Government.

inquired whether the Government had received intelligence of any further disturbances in China?

The last accounts which have reached us represent the northern Chinese ports to be in a state of complete tranquillity.

wished to call attention to a matter affecting the character of the House, as well as the honour and the security of individuals. It would be in the recollection of the House that after the last general election in 1852, a large mass of petitions were presented, which, if their allegations were true, gave ground fur the belief that the constituencies were greatly demoralized by bribery and corruption. Many of these petitions went off upon some technical ground, but the majority met a different fate. Agents from the two great political parties conferred together, and agreed to pair off county petitions against borough petitions, a great number were thus got rid of, and many disappeared altogether. This practice was, however, improved upon in regard to Ireland, because not long after Parliament met every gentleman who had contested a borough or a county in that country, and had obtained a seat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, had a petition presented against him. These petitions could all be traced to the same laboratory. There was evidence to prove that they were the work of a man who had held a high position in that House—namely, the late Mr. John Sadleir, whose private solicitor, and the solicitor of the County Joint Stock Bank, were the dramatis personæ in the proceeding. Those two individuals used to exchange their parts, each acting as agent for the petitioners in one case and as surety for them in another. The result, as he had said, was that every Member on that side who had contested an Irish borough or county was petitioned against. This naturally produced a little retaliation, and petitions were also presented against nearly every Gentleman who had contested a seat on the other side. There was a meeting of the agents to arrange matters, when, and with two or three exceptions, the petitions were all amicably paired off, and not one against Gentlemen on his side of the House was proceeded with. His reason for bringing this subject forward was that they had no security against the same thing being repeated at the ensuing elections. It was most scandalous that every successful candidate for an Irish county or borough should indiscriminately be petitioned against; and he was, therefore, anxious to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to propose any sessional order at the beginning of the next Session with a view to putting a stop to this system? Could they not either attach some penalty to the act of pairing off petitions, or obtain some security for their being proceeded with when presented? A remedy might be provided by rendering conduct such as he had described a misdemeanor at Statute Law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose to the House a Resolution for the purpose of giving effect to the gracious Message sent by Her Majesty to this House in reply to the Address praying that Her Majesty would be pleased to confer some mark of signal favour upon the present Speaker. Her Majesty's reply was, you will remember, that it would require the concurrence of Parliament to enable Her Majesty fully to carry out the wishes of this House: I therefore propose a Resolution That the annual sum of £4,000 net be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to commence and take effect upon the day on which the Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre, now Speaker of the House of Commons, shall cease to hold the office of Speaker of the House of Commons: to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon, and to continue during the life of him, the said Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre.

Sir, I was not in my place last night when the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) made some observations in reference to the Board of General Officers lately sitting at Chelsea. I find it reported that the hon. and gallant General said that I had imputed a political bias to the General Officers who sat on that Board in the conduct of their proceedings, and in the decision at which they arrived. I wish to state distinctly that I never made any such charge; in fact, what I said was exactly the reverse. The only occasion on which I had to refer to the politics of the General Officers was in defending myself here against exactly the same charge made against me elsewhere, and I then said that I did not believe that they had been influenced by any political bias, and that I had not collected anything from what they said during the whole of the proceedings which could give me the least idea as to what their politics were. I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon did not impute that to me, and I only regret that upon that occasion, stating what I had heard, I should have said that they were all on the Conservative side. I regret that I was in error in that respect, and that that error has been made use of for the purpose of charging them with political bias. Although my statement was made seven or eight months ago, I never heard any complaint on the subject until two or three weeks ago, when the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon informed me for the first time that three of those General Officers thought themselves aggrieved by that reference, and I understand that Sir Alexander Woodford, General Knollys, and General Bell have all declared themselves not to be of the Conservative side. I regret very much that I should have imputed that to them, though I am very glad to hear that it is not the case.

wished to put again to the Under Secretary for the War Department a plain question, to which, however, he would confess at once he did not expect a more favourable answer than that which was offered by the hon. Gentleman last night, for if he had had any real reform to announce, he probably would not have been silent upon it. His question had reference to the Army Medical Department. What he complained of was, and what he entered his most earnest and mournful protest against was, that, with respect to the thousands of troops now being sent to China, on their disembarkation the new hospitals there would be opened upon precisely the same principles—if, indeed, principles they could be called—subject to the same confusion of departments—to the same clashing of authority, which had made Scutari what it was. All the expectations held out to the people of England two years ago—all the hopes entertained by the medical department—were, it seemed, at an end; all the promises made by the Government when they; first came into office—promises proceeding from the mouth of the Prime Minister himself—were now worse than ever. It was right to bring such a question forward at the moment when they were discussing the military estimates, because it related to that most precious commodity the life of the British soldier. As was well known, the mortality amongst soldiers was higher than that in any other class of the community, and, therefore, as a matter of economy—as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence—this subject ought not to have been held of such slight importance as not to have been dealt with a long time back. He would, therefore, repeat his question to his hon. Friend, whether he was prepared to state that the Government were ready to assure the House that hospital accommodation upon new and proper principles would be ready for the reinforcements about to proceed to China. He thought that the medical profession generally had a right to complain of the manner in which the medical staff of the army had been treated. And his recommendation— not to the Government, for it would be hopeless to make any recommendation in that quarter—but to the officers of the medical profession, would be to demand of all those who either through their own agency or the agency of their friends were returned to Parliament, to see that justice was no longer denied to the claims of the army medical staff.

said, the question now put to him by the hon. Gentleman was not exactly a repetition of that which he asked last night. The question asked by the hon. Member last night was whether the Government had taken or contemplated taking any steps to carry into effect the Resolutions agreed to by a Committee of last Session with reference to the state of the Army Medical Department. Since last evening he (Mr. F. Peel) had read those Resolutions, and he found that the more important recommendations contained in them were, that there should be an increase in the scale of pay of medical officers, and that additional facilities should be afforded for their retirement upon half-pay. He agreed with those Resolutions. He would not deny that the advantages offered in other services had the effect of preventing the most able medical men from competing for employment in the Army Medical Department, and he was anxious that the medical officers of the army should possess at least equal advantages with those enjoyed by the same class of persons in other services. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the amount which the Government could expend upon the army was restricted, and it was necessary to make a selection among the various improvements that were suggested. Those improvements, which were regarded as of the greatest importance, were first carried into effect, and others which, though important, were of less pressing necessity, were postponed. This was the reason why the improvements to which the Resolutions referred had not been carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman had expressed his confidence that there was no prospect of anything being done by the Government. He (Mr. F. Peel) did not know on what grounds the hon. Gentleman could justify such a statement. He believed that the hon. Gentleman was as well aware as he was himself that it was the intention of the Government to issue a Commission to inquire what alterations and improvements could be effected in the existing arrangements of the Army Medical Department, and he (Mr. F. Peel) confidently believed that the recommendations of that Commission, coupled with the Resolutions of the Committee of last Session, would enable the Government to deal with this question in a manner which would be satisfactory to the medical officers and beneficial to the service. The hon. Gentleman had indulged in very gloomy predictions with regard to the sanitary state of the troops who were about proceeding to China. The climate of that country was undoubtedly unfavourable to European constitutions, but he was confident that all possible arrangements for preserving the health of the troops would be made, so far as that object could be effected by the provision of ample hospital accommodation, the supply of all requisite medical stores, and the sending out of a numerous body of medical officers.

had said nothing about the unhealthiness of the climate of China; what he had stated was, that the defective organization of the general hospital system was one of the chief causes of the mortality at Scutari, and that that system had not been improved.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had referred to the inefficiency of the hospitals at Woolwich; but he could assure the hon. Member that he had been totally misinformed on that subject. He (Sir W. Williams) invited the hon. Gentleman, and any other Members of that House, to visit those hospitals. A few weeks since he had the honour of escorting Miss Nightingale over the whole of the establishments, when she expressed herself highly pleased with the arrangements; and on the following day Colonel Lefroy wrote to him expressing the great gratification Miss Nightingale had derived from her visit to the Artillery and Cadet Hospitals, and her opinion that they were the best military hospitals she had seen, with the exception of that of the Guards at Windsor.

said, he had seen it stated that the Transit, Sanspareil, and Himalaya steamers were being prepared for the conveyance of reinforcements to China. Now, he believed Gentlemen in that House had had some experience of one of these vessels, the Transit, and he should say nothing about her. But it was also very well known that the Sanspareil was one of this very worst sailers in the navy. With regard to the Himalaya, she, no doubt, was a vessel of great capacity, but it had been stated that her engines were defective. He thought, therefore, that these were scarcely the ships which ought to have been selected for such a purpose.

was understood to say, that every care had been taken that human ingenuity could devise to fit out the vessels going to China as efficiently as possible. With regard to the Sanspareil in particular, she had been tried, and was found to be admirably suited for the purpose, as her engines had been much improved, and she was a very good sailer.

said, with regard to the ships going to China, he most earnestly hoped they would be in somewhat better order than was the Megæra when she was taken up to convey troops to the Mauritius. And perhaps he might here be allowed to renew a question which he had put some time back to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, namely, whether any compensation would be allowed to the officers who incurred upon that occasion a very great expense and a great loss of property by the unsatisfactory manner in which the Megæra had put to sea? The 85th did not leave Newcastle until it was reported that the vessel was fit for sea; but when they arrived at Portsmouth she was not even then ready, so that the regiment was detained nearly a week before sailing. But when they did sail, she sprang a leak, and the officers' property was greatly injured in consequence. He would ask, therefore, whether any compensation would be afforded to the officers for their detention at Portsmouth, and the injury to their property?

If the right hon. Gentleman would renew his question upon a future day, he would be prepared with a categorical answer to it.

wished to make an explanation, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Calne (Sir W. Williams). He had no doubt that when Miss Nightingale went over the Woolwich Hospital she found everything there in a most satisfactory condition. But was the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to say, that in the opinion of medical men the hospital at Woolwich, either as regarded its situation or ventilation, was what it ought to be? That was all that he had implied against Woolwich Hospital, and he had not intended to say a word against the medical officers there.

said, that the Vote included a salary to the Professor of Medical Surgery in Dublin. That chair had, two years ago, become vacant in Edinburgh; yet two other chairs which had become vacant in the meanwhile, had been filled up. He had heard a report that it was not intended to fill up this chair. He knew that a requisition to this effect, had been sent to the Government; but, considering the great importance of the medical school in Edinburgh, second to none in the world, he trusted that it was not the intention of Government to suppress the chair. Economy would not be an object, the salary was only £100 a year.

was happy to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question. The Government had appointed a successor to the late Professor, and the arrangements would be completed in a short time.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was right in believing that the unfunded debt of the country had increased since 1854 by £12,041,000?

I cannot answer the question of the hon. Baronet off-hand. I should say, however, his calculation is correct. There were about £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued, but I cannot charge my memory with the amount of the Exchequer bills. However, I will look into the matter, and inform the hon. Baronet later.

asked, whether horses employed at yeomanry races would be charged duty as racehorses? At present those who received the duty did not charge it against yeomanry horses.

said, the object of the Bill was simply to make an alteration in the manner of collecting the duty. It was not intended to add to the stringency of collection, or to apply to any case where the duty was not enforced at present. Yeomanry horses employed in horseracing were now, strictly speaking, within the terms of the Act; but the Commissioners of Inland Revenue did not intend to make any alteration in their system under the present Bill.

said, the question was, whether every horse that ran a race was a racehorse? The duty could only apply to what were strictly racehorses.