said, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Ministers intend to act on the intention of their predecessors, and appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, or what course they intend to pursue in relation to the Act, which will expire with the present Session of Parliament?

Sir, the best course, in our opinion in this matter, is to introduce a new Bill upon the subject, founded upon the experience of the last general election; and when it is introduced, we shall propose to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session of Parliament, to bring in any measure for the abolition of the Turnpike System throughout England; or whether they intended to support the clause relating to Turnpikes contained in the Highway Act of last Session.

said, the subject was under the consideration of the Government at the present moment. When the late Government went out of office they had a Bill in the course of preparation, but he had not yet seen it, and, until he had, he could not give a decided answer to the question.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of the Board of Control whether the report is true that six months' batta is all that the army before Delhi is to have in lieu of prize money; or whether it is only the first instalment, and all that the Governor General was able to grant for their patient endurance and heroic bravery?

said the six months' batta awarded by the Governor General to the army before Delhi was the utmost sum which the law enabled him to grant; bat the cases both of the army before Delhi and of the garrison of Luck now were new under the consideration of the Government.

said, that he had given notice of a question which he meant to put to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of this despatch; but, as the hon. Gentleman was not in his place, he would defer the question.

(having received an intimation from the Ministerial bench) said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman might put his question.

said, his question had reference to the despatch recently sent to the French Government. It had been reported that the draft of the reply to the despatch of Count Walewski was submitted for the approval of the French Government, or that at all events a communication took place between the two Governments for the purpose of settling the terms in which the despatch should be couched. [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]

I considered, when I requested the hon. Member to put his question, that he had stated as much as the Orders of the House would permit, in the way of preparatory information.

said, he would endeavour to confine himself to the Rules of the House; but he wanted to point out certain dates upon which his question was founded. The papers which had been laid on the table of the House, bore certain dates. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on the 2nd of February it was announced to both Houses of Parliament that the Earl of Derby had undertaken to form an Administration. ["Order, order!"]

This does not appear to me to be necessary to lay ground for the question which the hon. and learned Member proposes to ask.

The first despatch which I have before me bears date on the 24th February. ["Order, order!"]

The hon. and learned Member can only ask the question which appears upon the Paper.

said, he would therefore beg to ask whether the despatch of the date of the 4th day of March, addressed by the Earl of Malmesbury to Count Walewski, was submitted formally or in substance either to the French authorities in Paris, or to their representatives in England, for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of the French Government thereon before the official presentation of that document to the French Government on behalf of the British nation?

It is, Sir, hardly fair of the hon. and learned Gentleman to address this question to my hon. and learned Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because he must know that if there were the slightest foundation for his gratuitous assumption on this matter it could not be within the cognizance of my hon. and learned Friend. There is on the part of Her Majesty's Government the utmost inclination to deal frankly with the House of Commons with regard to our foreign policy, but I must put it to the House whether they think that questions of this kind ought to be sanctioned. I should not have said another word in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, had he not, though very irregularly, gone into some comparison or calculation of dates, from which he would seem to infer that, from the interval which elapsed, there must have been some unusual, I may say some surreptitious communication with a foreign Government. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman, before he asked questions of this great delicacy, would have taken a little trouble to inquire into the circumstances, he might have found some sufficiently valid to account for that apparent delay in the date of the Secretary of State's Despatch. In the first place it was of course necessary that before a Despatch of that importance was transmitted by the Foreign Secretary he should have the advantage of deliberation with his colleagues. It was also necessary that it should be submitted not formally but complete and entire to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty was at that time at Osborne. There was such a state of weather that for forty-eight hours no one could cross the Channel. Under those circumstances the apparent delay in the transmission of this Despatch might easily have been accounted for by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but having noticed those circumstances, which I hope will be satisfactory to the House, I must again protest against a class of questions which can produce no advantage to the public. If we were to apply to misunderstandings and misconceptions in private life the spirit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to deal with pub-lie transactions, I do not think that the peace of society would long be preserved.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the erection of the Godrevy Lighthouse. He must, in the first place, beg to repudiate the charge which had been brought against him upon a previous occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe), that in moving for papers relative to the Godrevy Lighthouse he had asked only for those which supported his own view of the case. No gentleman who knew him would give the slightest credit to that accusation, and he stated without hesitation that he had called for every paper essential to show the merits of the question. He was willing to admit that, to some extent, the question was one of expenditure; but it was not true, as the late Vice President of the Board of Trade had stated, that the difference was whether the outlay should be an outlay of £8,000 or £50,000. There was a good deal of exaggeration in the Estimates which were prepared by Messrs. Walker, the engineers employed by the Trinity House, and he thought the respective sums might be fairly stated at £6,000 and £30,000 But, looking at the great interests at stake, he hoped the House would not attach much importance to the mere matter of expense, for considering the necessity for the work it was of little importance whether it cost £50,000 or even £100,000. Now, the opinion of all the authorities concurred that the proper situation for the lighthouse was on the "Stones," as they were called, outside the harbour. Attention was first directed to the necessity of establishing a lighthouse at Godrevy in 1855 by the wreck of the Nile steamer, and many other vessels on these "Stones," with the loss of forty lives. An application was then made to the Trinity House to erect a lighthouse, and the Elder Brethren reported that a lighthouse should be erected on the island, provided it could not be placed on the "Stones," for at that time it was supposed that there were insuperable engi- neering difficulties in the way of the adoption of the latter site. Those difficulties, however, had entirely disappeared upon examination, and all the authorities who had been consulted, including those connected with the Admiralty, Admiral Beechey and Captain Williams, concurred in recommending that the lighthouse should be erected on the "Stones," and not on the island; and their report, when submitted to the Trinity House, received their approval. The matter then slumbered for more than a year in consequence of a delay on the part of the Hoard of Trade. He believed that the Trinity House had ample funds at their disposal, and therefore he hoped no objection would be raised on the score of expense, as he saw by the Returns that there was a surplus of £2,000 a year from a lighthouse within thirty miles of the one now under discussion; and this surplus should be applied to the maintenance of so important a work as that proposed to be undertaken. If it should be determined to construct a harbour of refuge in this part of the country it would be impossible to leave the "Stones" without a lighthouse on them, as otherwise they would present great danger to the navigation. Now, he would call attention to the merits of the case as affecting the mercantile marine. This was not to be considered as a question merely affecting the local shipping, but it affected the whole of the shipping which came from the North and the shipping bound homeward, whether by the Bristol or the English Channel. It frequently happened that vessels coming from Liverpool were drawn up the Bristol Channel by the great in-draft of water, when their proper destination was round the Land's End. In consequence of the want of a lighthouse on this spot, many vessels, which really had no business there, being bound round the Land's End, were wrecked, and a similar fate sometimes befell homeward-bound vessels, in consequence of the North-West coast of Cornwall being mistaken for the coast of Brittany. Therefore, wherever the lighthouse was placed, care should be taken to distinguish the lights from those on the coast of France. He thought that the Trinity House did not figure very favourably in the printed papers, and there must be something wrong in the constitution of that Board, or they would have shown more adherence to their own judgment, and varied their own opinion less in com- pliance with the determination of higher powers. This circumstance, however, was the less surprising, when the constitution of the Trinity Mouse was considered. It had always been a close Corporation, and, according to the Reports of Committees of that House, had been in very bad odour in former days, being notorious for gross jobbing. It still continued a close Corporation; and the consequence was that the management of the Trinity House was in the hands of a small clique of the Elder Brethren, who allowed no one on the Board who was not a friend of their own. He trusted that a Motion would be made to inquire, not only into the whole system of the management of the Trinity House, but also into its constitution. He was not aware whether any other reasons than those which appeared in the papers influenced the decision of the Board of Trade; but, if that were so, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what those reasons were. As this was not a mere local question, but one which affected the whole mercantile marine of the country, on which its greatness so much depended, he hoped it would receive the serious consideration of the House of Commons. He concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the erection of the Godrevy Lighthouse, and to report their opinion as to the proper position for the same.

said, he would beg to second the Motion. He had presented petitions on the subject, and had had an interview with the late President of the Board of Trade, whom he had urged to reconsider the matter, but his Lordship had peremptorily refused to do so. That reply was so peremptory that he (Mr. Paull) believed nothing more could be done, and that it could only he left, for experience to demonstrate whether or not an error had been committed. The real questions were, whether Godrevy Island was a suitable site for a lighthouse, whether proper attention had been given to the recommendations of persons competent to give information on the subject, and whether due expedition had been used for the completion of a light-house. At any rate, he thought the House would be of opinion that a lighthouse erected a mile and a quarter from the point of danger was not calculated to insure the desired result.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was fully aware of the importance of the subject, but he hoped the House would be cautious as to the course they pursued. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Smith) had stated that attention was first called to the subject in 1855, but he (Mr. Henley) believed it would be more correct to say that some of the memorials were sent to the Trinity House in the autumn or winter of 1854, and three years had therefore elapsed without anything having been done. The attention of the authorities was called to the importance of erecting a lighthouse at Godrevy, by memorials from persons engaged in the coasting trade; and he believed that additional representations as to the necessity for such a structure were made in consequence of the sad wreck of a steam vessel, with the loss of many lives. But, be that as it might, the memorials represented the necessity of something, and it was somewhat remarkable that four out of eight memorials presented by the persons interested in the coasting trade indicated as the best site for a lighthouse the very spot to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) so strongly objected. There. were four other memorials, which requested that a lighthouse might be erected in some; suitable position, without naming any particular site. The subject was brought under the notice of the Board of Trade, and it seemed likely to be decided that a lighthouse should be erected upon the island of Godrevy; but circumstances induced the Board to inquire whether any more fitting place for such a structure could be found. The matter was referred to a Gentleman who was at that time adviser to the Board, and whose name he need only mention to the House to prove that the case had been referred to a competent authority—he alluded to the late Admiral Beechy. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) and the hon. Member who had seconded his Motion, seemed to think it was actually necessary, in order to affered the most effectual guard against the danger, that the lighthouse should be erected on the dangerous spot itself. Now, very considerable doubt was thrown upon that proposition, even by so high an authority as Admiral Beechy. For what had that gallant officer recommended? After a survey on the spot, he wanted to put the lighthouse, not within a short mile of the "Stones," but at St. Ives He arrived at the conclusion that that would be the best site for it. Well, this suggestion led to the introduction of a third party into the discussion, which had hitherto been conducted between the Board of Trade and the Trinity House — namely, Lord Panmure, the head of the War Department. Admiral Beechy recommended the erection of a lighthouse in a place where the War Department wished to establish a battery, and, as might have been expected, the battery succeeded against the lighthouse. Admiral Beechy then said, that in his judgment, the next best place for a light would be upon the "Stones" themselves. He (Mr. Henley) thought, therefore, as it seemed to be extremely doubtful which of the positions recommended was the more preferable, that some of the blame which had been thrown upon the Trinity House in connection with the subject might have been spared. He ought to have mentioned that Admiral Beechy, when on the spot, examined the master mariners of St. Ives, and, with one exception, all those with whom he communicated selected Godrevy Island as the best site for a lighthouse. After Admiral Beechy's death, the Board of Trade were advised by another gentleman, who, from his professional position and ability, was competent to give valuable advice, and his opinion was in favour of the original recommendation. Under these circumstances, it became the duty of the Board of Trade to determine what was the best course for them to pursue. He thought it was not unreasonable that, in a case of this kind, where great difference of opinion existed, both the questions of cost and of time should be fully considered. Three years had been lost in deciding what should be done, and it certainly was unfortunate that, up to the present time, nothing had been accomplished towards saving life. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the estimate for erecting a lighthouse on the island was some £8,000 or £9,000, and that the estimate for building it upon the "Stones" themselves would be £40,000 or £50,000. He (Mr. Henley) might inform the House, however, that persons would contract for the erection of works on dry land, such as Godrevy Island, at a certain price, and there was a reasonable prospect that such works would be executed for the estimated sum; but persons would not undertake contracts for works the foundations of which were under water, except at a very high rate. Indeed, it had been found in practice by the Trinity House that works of that nature could be carried out by day labour better than by contract. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that Mr. Walker's estimate of £40,000 might be reduced; but he (Mr. Henley) was afraid that experience would show that, in the great majority of instances, such works exceeded, instead of coming below the estimate. As to the suggestion that lighthouses should always be placed exactly on the spot which was considered dangerous, he had official returns which showed that that course had been anything but a general rule. Thus, the Manacles Rocks, between the Lizard and Falmouth, were a mile off the shore, and the nearest light Was six miles distant. Then, in the case of Trevose Head, Padstow, there was a rock a mile and a half off, with a passage between, and yet, though it Was much less difficult to build on than the "Stones," the lights were on the Head. In the case of Nash Point, the sands were dry at half tide one mile off the shore, with a passage inside, but lights were on the point. The outer Fain Light presented very similar features to the case of Godrevy. The rocks outside wore dry at half-tide, a passage was left inside them half-a-mile wide, yet the light was on the island. These were instances nearly in point, and they showed that the position of the lights was by no means uniformly on the spot supposed to be dangerous. In this case the greater part of the trade went between the "Stones" and the Godrevy Island. There was a channel half-a-mile wide, and many persons were of opinion that to place the light on the island was safer for the purpose of lighting the channel inside and outside the "Stones" than even to place it on the "Stones" themselves. The greater number of wrecks, too, appeared to have taken place on the "Stones" during the day time, and some of them even in fine weather. Now, he had shown that the "double Government" of the Trinity House and the Board of Trade had involved a delay of three years before anything was done; and if this question were carried into a Committee, what time would be lost then? If such matters were to be taken from the Executive Government and sent to Committees of this House, they would never get anything done at all in any reasonable time. If they squared two—the number of the Departments already involved in the dis- pute—they got a delay of three or four years. If they took the square of three they would have a delay of nine years. He might mention that the Trinity House had determined to place a floating light while this work was going on, so that its bearings should he as nearly as possible the same as those of the light now about to be placed on Godrevy Island. As to the proposal to put a sort of floating lighthouse on the "Stones," he presumed this would be somewhat on the principle of the beacon put up some years back on the Goodwin Sands, which beacon disappeared one fine morning, and no exact account had been received of it since. The Board of Trade, however, did not think it right to intrust lives in a floating lighthouse, when the Goodwin beacon had played so slippery a trick as to inarch off without notice. He thought no practical good could result from this inquiry before a Committee. On the contrary, he believed that such a proceeding would involve a further loss of time in providing against shipwrecks on the coast, and he, therefore, felt bound to oppose it. Further, he believed that if a Committee were to sit for six months they would obtain no more information than the paper afforded; and therefore, with all due respect for the hon. Member, he must oppose the Motion, and hoped that it would not be pressed to a division.

said, he did not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) satisfactory. He admitted the opinion of Admiral Beechey would, after St. Ives, have been in favour of the "Stones" for a site for the lighthouse. That was the ground on which the supporters of the Motion rested their case, and against that opinion the only authority adduced by the right hon. Gentleman was that of the four memorials. This was not so much a matter of expense as of utility; and he believed that the site selected by the- Board of Trade was not the best for the purpose. In the instances referred to, where lights had been erected at a distance from the point of danger, the channels, currents, and other circumstances were different. He did not think it unreasonable to ask for a Committee to obtain evidence on a question so deeply affecting the trade of the empire. The feeling of a very large portion of the county of Cornwall certainly was not in favour of the plan supported by the Board of Trade.

said, he was glad the subject had been introduced to the House, but he much regretted that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would not give his sanction to any further investigation. It struck him, with great deference to the acuteness which he (Mr. Henley) brought to bear on all questions which came under his observations, that he had not understood the object of the hon. Member for Truro in bringing this matter forward. There was one admission which he was happy to hear from his right hon. Friend. He had ascribed to the double Government of the Board of Trade and the Trinity House the inconvenience of the delay which arose in matters of this kind, and he (Mr. Bentinck) only hoped they should, on a coming occasion, have the powerful assistance of his right hon. Friend in removing that evil. He (Mr. Henley) had told them that nothing had been done during three years. Whose fault was that? The fault of the Board of Trade, because there had been repeated representations made on the subject, and that Board had not taken the active stops, which they were bound to take, where a case involving life and property was brought under its consideration. The delay was partly ascribable to the Trinity House also, which was composed of professional men, who were supposed to be peculiarly conversant with matters of this kind, and who were bound to impress upon the Board of Trade the necessity of attentively, but without delay, considering the question. It appeared to him that the conduct of the Trinity House, in first giving such a decided opinion upon the subject, and then all at once turning round and assenting to the objections of the Board of Trade, showed that they could not have been practically conversant with this question, or that they had neglected an imperative duty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had stated that many master mariners of St. Ives were of opinion that Godrevy Island was a more convenient locality for a light. That it might be as convenient for thorn, he (Mr. Bentinck) did not doubt, but more convenient it could not be. This, however, was not a local question, it was a general question, and a light of this kind would be of advantage to the whole trade of the Bristol Channel. The House was bound, therefore, to look upon it in a national point of view, and to deal with it as a matter which simply affected the port of St. Ives was not treating it in the manner it deserved. But, after all, it was a question of money versus life; and it would be found, not from any want of humanity, but from the total ignorance which prevailed on the subject, and which was attributable to the Board of Trade not being composed of professional men, that that Board invariably; set aside questions which affected the saving of life, and confined themselves to the saving of money. That, he contended, was not the spirit in which a national question of this kind ought to be treated. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to two or three other cases, and especially to that of the Manacles light, but any person at all conversant with that locality would at once see that the cases were not by any means parallel. He admitted that in some instances lights were badly placed, but he saw no reason in that for erecting others in positions equally objectionable and ill selected. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Smith) would consider it to be worth his while to divide the House; if he did, he (Mr. Bentinck) should feel bound to vote with him, and he hoped the House would bear in mind that the question was one which involved an attempt to save a vast amount of life and property which was now annually lost by the wreck of vessels upon the rocks in question.

said, that when local Members were dissatisfied with a decision on the subject of lights, and proposed to refer it to a Committee, it was a point well worthy the consideration of the House whether acceding to such a course was the means most likely to promote the great objects which they all ought to have in view — namely, first, the preservation of the lives of those who navigated the dangerous coasts of the kingdom; and second, the due administration of the revenue, which was raised by a charge upon the mercantile marine of the country. No doubt it would be the duty of the House, in the last resort, to step in; but before they resolved to institute an inquiry into the subject they ought, in his opinion, to ascertain whether those men to whom, because of their nautical experience and scientific knowledge, the consideration of the question had been submitted had honestly carried into effect the investigation which they had been intrusted to make. At the time when he had the honour to be connected with the Board of Trade that department had had the advantage of being served by a most efficient public servant— he meant Admiral Beechy; and all he could say with regard to the gentleman who at present filled that office was, that he believed he was the fittest man the navy could afford as a successor to that gallant Admiral. Admiral Beechy's opinion was in favour of placing a light at St. Ives' Head. It, had, however, been found that that locality was admirably suited to be made the site of a battery, and the consequence was that it had been determined, after the matter had been duly investigated to erect a lighthouse on the Godrevy Inland, and a beacon on the "Stones." The matter was carefully examined by scientific men, and when the hon. Gentleman spoke disparagingly of the Trinity Board, he (Mr. Cardwell) must say, that if it were in contemplation to bring forward a Motion, making a systematic attack on that body, it would be preferable to withhold those observations until the proper occasion should have arrived for stating them, and not to throw them parenthetically into a discussion of the present character. But in reference to the opinion which had been expressed, with respect to our system of lights he might be permitted to state in justice to the Trinity House, that a few years ago great dissatisfaction prevailed in the United Slates of America on occount of the manner in which the lightning of the American coasts was conducted. A Commission was therefore appointed, who came over to this country, and inquired into the mode in which the Trinity House conducted their business. They found that the works were entrusted to eminent engineers, and that the system of lights was under the superintendence of no less a person than Professor Faraday; and upon their return to America they advised that the management of the lights there should be assimilated as nearly as possible to that of the Trinity House in England. That, he (Mr. Cardwell) thought, should not be forgotten, when charges were brought against the body of men who were entrusted by law with the management of the lights of this country. An hon. Member had termed the Trinity House a "jobbing corporation; but he (Mr. Cardwell) denied that that was a term which could fairly be applied to them. That was not a charge likely to be made with good foundation against a body, of which, at the time, the late Duke of Wellington was the head. It was true that they formerly applied their money in a manner which that House thought objectionable; and, in consequence, a law was passed which rendered it impossible to apply the money in the same manner for the future. But it was never charged against them that they had made application of the money in a jobbing manner. On the contrary, it had been legally applied, and in strict accordance with the manner required by the charter under which they acted; and when they found that Parliament and the Executive Government were of opinion that it was not right to continue that mode of administering the funds, they had in the handsomest manner waived all personal consideration, and submitted to the judgment of Parliament and the Government. He would only further observe, that a contract bad already been entered into for this lighthouse; and, if a new inquiry were instituted, they would have to suspend the works, and certainly incur additional expense and delay. He submitted, therefore, that no sufficient case had been made out to induce the House to believe that a Committee would arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion than that which had been already come to by those who were entrusted by law with the administration of these affairs.

said, he must express his astonishment that such a matter as this should not be entrusted entirely to the Executive; who, moreover, according to the account given of the memorials sent them, appeared to act not only on the best opinion, but in accordance with the local wishes on the subject. He thought if the House wore to grant the Committee which had been moved for, they would be furnishing an excuse for continual applications hereafter to interfere in other similar matters. He would further remark that the late Admiral Beechy could have had no interest in recommending the erection of the lighthouse in one place more than another, and his only object could be to place it in that position where it would be of most service.

observed, that all he could say bad been so well stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that it was unnecessary for him to detain the House for many minutes. He only rose, lest by his silence it might be thought that he objected to any of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), who bad very accurately stated the facts and fully done justice to the noble Lord who had lately presided over that Department. There was only one point to which he wished particularly to allude. The question was, whether a lighthouse should be placed upon Godrevy Island or upon certain "Stones" which were covered at half-tide three-quarters of a mile to the northward, with a good navigable channel intervening. If the lighthouse were erected upon those "Stones," it must be placed upon the outermost part of them, and the effect would be that, unless there was a lighthouse also upon Godrevy Island, the navigation of the channel would be exceedingly dangerous, for the "Stones" extended over a considerable distance. That was the opinion of Captain Sullivan, who was a most able and efficient officer. In the report of the first committee of the Trinity House, it was stated that the erection of a lighthouse upon the "Stones" was an undertaking which, even if practicable, would require a much greater outlay of money than was considered compatible with the objects in view. The Committee also were of opinion, that the erection of a lighthouse upon Godrevy Island would indicate the vicinity of the "Stones" with sufficient precision to warn vessels of the danger, and that in that position it would be also very convenient for vessels steering along that coast, more especially those bound for St. Ives. In another part of the same Report the Committee pointed out the immense difficulties which would attend the construction of a lighthouse upon the "Stones," they being covered at half-tide, and consequently only a portion of the day being available for proceeding with the works, which would be, moreover, liable to interference and damage from storms and bad weather. Under those circumstances the Board of Trade did not think lit to undertake a work that would certainly have cost £45,000, and probably much more, especially as they were advised by competent authorities that the objects would be fully met by placing a lighthouse upon Godrevy Island. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had accused the Board of Trade of causing delay; but in truth one of the causes of the delay was the variation of opinion at the Trinity House. The Members of that body, whose opinion the Board of Trade was bound to respect, had at one time strongly advised one course, and subsequently they as strongly advised an opposite proceeding. He trusted that the House would not grant the Committee which was asked for, as to do so would be granting an appeal from a perfectly competent scientific officer—Captain Sullivan —to a certain number of Members of Par- liament who, however well qualified to deal with such matters, could not be supposed to possess that complete scientific knowledge that was necessary in the professional advisers of the Board of Trade. He thought it would be adopting a very bad principle, and whatever benefits might result from the appointment of a Committee would be neutralized by the danger of weakening the hands of the Executive Government.

said, he rose to move that it is expedient to establish a Standing Committee, or Unpaid Board or Commission, to consider and report from time to time on practical suggestions likely to he beneficial to the working classes. As he felt the novelty of his suggestion, he would admit that he was bound to give reasonable grounds for the demand he made on the House and the Government. He did not, however, ask for a paid commission, but he proposed that the Board should be selected from Members of that and of the other House of Parliament, and from such persons out of doors taking an interest in the question as the Government might think proper to select. In conducting the business of that Board, care should be taken not to excite unreasonable hopes or unfounded expectations; and it would only consider and report upon such practical suggestions as it might conceive to he adapted for the improvement of the condition of the working classes. One of the grounds on which he brought forward that proposal was that Committees of that House, to whom various matters affecting the industrial classes had been referred, had not been productive of that benefit which had been anticipated from them, or had traced out the causes of failure. What they wanted was a standing Board or Commission, always ready to receive suggestions of the nature to which he referred. Another reason for calling upon the House to consider the question was the great changes that had taken place in the circumstances of the working classes during the present century. The first circumstance to be noted was the enormous increase of population. The population of these islands had doubled within the last fifty years—a fact without precedent in the experience of any other country in Europe; of course this increase had greatly altered the position of the working classes. He admitted there had been a great increase in their average length of life, and in their general comforts; but at the same time there had been a great change in the comparative situations of a large number of these people. At the beginning of the present century the rural population was two to one to the numbers of the civic, but now the proportion was exactly reversed, and was two to one the other way. Every ten years the rural population had increased ten per cent, but for the same periods the increase in the population of the towns was thirty per cent. A necessary result of this increase was to drive the working classes to live in thickly-populated districts; it also led to a complete separation of classes. Formerly the working population dwelt among those above them in social rank, who used to watch over their comfort. But now as much as 70, 80, 90, and even 95 per cent of the population of our largo towns consisted exclusively of the labouring classes. Inhabiting close courts and alleys, or engaged in large manufactories, they were left entirely without the protection of their natural protectors, the richer classes, who availed themselves of the means afforded by modern locomotion to reside at a distance from the great centres of industry and of population. These great social changes had resulted from causes of which the country reaped the benefit—namely, from the rapid development of wealth and enterprise consequent upon forty years of peace. But at the same time it was most desirable that the humbler classes, the instruments in the production of the national wealth, should not be suffered to sink into a more and more depressed condition. A further consequence of the population being so much employed in manufacturing pursuits was that young persons and children were much more exposed to evil than formerly; and he thought the Legislature ought to step in to aid those who were unable personally to urge their own cause; and, as there was now a political lull, he trusted that dispassionate attention would be given to this subject, and that calm consideration would be given to the case which he was Urging, so that a tribunal might be appointed which should give attention to such suggestions as should from time to time be made for the benefit of the labouring classes. The great body of the population was now divided into two classes—the rural and the city; in 1810 there were great complaints of the distress amongst the peasants, especially in the southern comities; in 1817 it still continued, and a Committee was appointed which reported that the abuses in the administration of the Poor Law relief tended greatly to produce it; in 1819 a similar report was made, but nothing was done. In 1824 another Committee was appointed, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, on the subject of labourers' wages, but nothing was done on their report. In the year 1828 he himself had obtained a Committee of that House, before whom it was proved that in six or eight counties the workmen were depressed by the abuses which took place in the management of the poor rate; that in a Very widely extended district a scale of allowance was made out of the poor rate by which the able-bodied man was kept down and the pauper labourer placed beside him; that payments were made for cottages out of the poor rate, by which a fictitious population was stimulated and a supply of labour maintained much greater than the demand, and that in many instances the state of things was sanctioned by the magistrates. What was the consequence? Matters went on till there was nearly a rural insurrection in the country, till the poor rates were raised to 7s. in the pound over the whole county of Sussex, and till one parish in Buckinghamshire was thrown out of cultivation on account of the disorderliness of the peasantry. It was not till 1834 that any remedy was applied. Then, indeed, under the new Poor Law, the condition of the poor gradually improved; but still old people and children were subjected to great hardships in the workhouses, and it was generally admitted that it would take two generations to remove the evils caused by our neglect. If they had had a council of persons interested in the condition of the poor such as that for which he was now asking, this neglect would never have happened, He had shown the advantages which would accrue to the rural population from the establishment of such councils; but he believed a still greater benefit would arise to the town population—that population which was increasing at the rate of 30 per cent every ten years. Their condition also had been greatly neglected; and it was not till after long perseverance that the Factory Act was passed, through the exertions of a noble Lord now in the other House. He would also refer to the report of the Committee on the labour of children in mines, which showed that the greatest cruelty had been practised on them, and yet it was not till 1830 that it was thought worth while to inquire into their condition. So it was with regard to the health of towns. That was a question which, notwithstanding the great increase in our civic population, was utterly neglected till, in 1844, the attention of Government was attracted to the subject, and a Commission was issued by Sir Robert Peel, which ought to have been issued twenty-five years before, and which had only been neglected because there were no councils or tribunals to take up these questions. That Commission reported that there were 30,000 children living in close narrow courts with no outlet and no facilities for the admission of an adequate supply of fresh air. It also appeared that there were fifty towns, with a population of 3,000,000 forty-seven of which had a deficient water supply, while forty-eight had no proper system of cleansing and draining. Since then the Health of Towns Hill had been passed, and it had accomplished much good; but even now its provisions were not generally adopted, and there were many evils still existing which a council alone, he contended, would be competent to correct. He had no wish that these councils should meddle with questions in dispute between masters and their workmen, nor that they should rouse unreasonable expectations, but still he had confidence that great good might be done without their incurring either of those reproaches. Whenever a new discovery was made in science, a thousand minds were immediately at work to watch its results, and to see how it could be made available for practical purposes; and so he might say that there were thousands of minds at work at the present moment for the benefit of the working classes, but their suggestions fell still-born because they had no central institution to which to refer them. [Marks of impatience.] He was aware this subject was distasteful to some hon. Members; it had not the zest of party politics, but he felt himself bound to persevere from a conscientious conviction of the great importance of the subject. He would not, however, trespass upon their patience at much greater length; but he hoped that Government would take up the question. There was a Board of Agriculture, and commerce had its Board of Trade; and he thought that the condition of the working classes also was entitled to a Board—to an unpaid Board if they would—but with an office and a secretary, whose duty it should be to receive and consider all practical suggestions for the benefit of the labouring population. One of the points which would especially come under the notice of such a board would be the recreations of the working classes and their families. Facilities for recreation were now the more necessary since we had of late years been doing away with the fairs which were wont to be held in towns or their vicinity; and it might be desirable to consider how far it was practicable in the course of time to establish public parks in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns, such as had been opened and dedicated to public use at Manchester and other places. He was glad to say that a Member of the present Government (Mr. Adderley) had recognized the importance of this question, for he had generously presented a park to the people of Birmingham. He was convinced that if the House agreed to a committee or commission being embodied with objects such as he had indicated, the people for whose benefit the concession would be made and whose conduct richly deserved it, would return them their meed of gratitude. The hon. Member concluded with his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

said, no one could have listened to the speech of his hon. Friend but he must have respected the motives which had prompted him in bringing this question under the consideration of the House. It was the more creditable to his hon. Friend inasmuch as it was now hard upon thirty years since he began to direct his attention and to apply the energies of his benevolent mind to the practical amelioration of the condition of the working classes, and he was still treading in the same path. His hon. Friend had told the House that, though he had taken part in moving many Committees with this end in view, he had gained very little for the objects of his benevolence. The greater was his merit. He had hoped, however, that on this occasion his hon. Friend would have given the House some sketch of the plan he wished them to adopt; but he had been at a loss to see what was the practical measure at which his hon. Friend aimed. His hon. Friend would perhaps permit him to put this matter at once to the test. Let him (Mr. Estcourt) suppose this Motion acceded to, that such a Commission were issued, and that his hon. Friend were at the head of it, as he was entitled to be. The question that he (Mr. Estcourt) had to ask him was—what was the first step which, as the head of that Commission, he would take? He was quite at a loss to conceive what it could be. Perhaps his hon. Friend's object was to offer facilities to the labouring classes for laying out their money. He (Mr. Estcourt) was persuaded, if this Commission issued, that the real and practical business that it must take in hand would be to aid that class of the population in improving their incomes. Suppose an industrious mechanic had £20 in a savings-bank, and that he wished to invest it in a way which would bring him six per cent, instead of three,—he came to this Royal Commission, and applied to his (Mr. Estcourt's) hon. Friend for his advice how to do that. With this view the Commission would, he supposed, provide two tables—one setting forth the schemes which they recommended, and the other those which it wished to deter working men from embarking in. The first result of this would be that all who were connected with the schemes denounced would band together against the Commission, and benevolent as were his hon. Friend's intentions, perhaps he would not be able to reach his own office without the assistance of a body of police, He would suppose, however, that his hon. Friend recommended a certain scheme of investment, and that the £20 was invested in accordance with his advice. It might happen that the scheme so recommended might be mismanaged, and in that event what was the position of the mechanic whom he had sought to benefit? Then, he supposed, his hon. Friend would be anxious to give greater facilities for improving the condition of the working classes. Suppose, now, that he were to come down to this House and propose that the interest of money in the savings banks were to be raised from 3 to 6 per cent— [Mr. SLANEY: I expressly stated that I would confine myself to what was practical.] Well, it would come to this, that either the plans of his hon. Friend would lead to the wildest speculations, or that the whole thing would end in smoke. But he believed it would be worse than impracticable—it would have a mischievous tendency, in that it offered a kind of substitute for the caution and intelligence which every man was bound to exercise in the management of his own affairs. If this Commission came to anything the result would be in very many cases that men would come to lean upon it rather than upon their own exertions; and if nothing came of it, he could not help thinking that it would throw some discredit upon Parliament that they had given their sanction to a measure which turned out to he impracticable and visionary. His hon. Friend was no doubt actuated by the best motives in making this Motion; but if he (Mr. Estcourt) understood his hon. Friend rightly there was no need for his making this application to Parliament. Why might not his hon. Friend, as a private man, act as an unpaid Commissioner, and so seek to give practical effect to his views? No harm would come from that, and perhaps much practical good might be the result. He would still he in a position to offer advice to the working classes, and, if it were sound, it would be as acceptable coming from a private man as from any official if clothed with the authority of Parliament. In making this Motion, however, his hon. Friend had discharged his conscience, and he had done it in a manner calculated to elicit the respect of every hon. Member of that House, and the approbation of every man who had a heart within him. He hoped his hon. Friend would be content with that and withdraw his Motion. If, however, he carried it to a division he (Mr. Estcourt) should be obliged to vote against him.

said, after the kind manner in which his right hon. Friend had spoken of his exertions he felt he should not he deserving of his confidence if he did not take the advice which his right hon. Friend had given him. But his right hon. Friend had entirely misapprehended the functions of the tribunal contemplated by the Motion. He (Mr. Slaney) never thought of giving advice to poor men who might come there as to the mode of in- vesting their savings, or of distracting their attention from their own industry, or lessening their own forethought. What he intended was that such a Commission or tribunal should consider carefully practical suggestions for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, and digest them, or rejecting those which were useless, and reporting upon those which they thought ought to be carried out.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the treatment which, it appeared, the mutinous Sepoys and other insurgents in India had received and were receiving at our hands; and to move for certain papers on the subject. In the earlier slages of the revolt when men's minds were astonished by the suddenness of the outbreak and exasperated by the atrocities which attended it, a temperate discussion of the subject could not be expected; but the time had now arrived when we might look the frightful calamities which had occurred in India fairly in the face, and dispassionately hold up the scales of justice. He hoped, that in the observations he was about to make, he should not be misunderstood. He loathed and detested as strongly as any man the atrocious crimes which had been committed by the rebellious troops and other insurgents in India; but the very fact of this strong feeling which he shared with the nation at large, made him anxious that England should not expose itself to the charge of retaliating in a similar spirit. He had no wish to enter into a lengthened detail with respect to the commencement of the mutiny, and would pass over the violent outrages which then occurred, as well as the sharp repressions which were resorted to under the influence of uncertain dangers and exaggerated statements. One could well make allowance for those handfuls of our countrymen scattered in remote parts of India, who, suddenly finding themselves besot by treachery and murder, did as resolutely as sternly defend themselves and everything dear to them. One could make some allowance also for the inhabitants of Calcutta and the Lower Provinces who day by day were horrified by reports of the murder and mutilation of their relatives and friends in other parts of the country. But while making these allowances he felt all the more bound to applaud the manly fortitude with which Viscount Canning and his Council upheld the scales of justice, for the defence of the people of India, unswayed by the heartrending atrocities of the mutineers or by the impassioned demands for vengeance of our countrymen. He wished that the late Government, in defending Viscount Canning against the many aspersions which had been east upon him, had dwelt more strongly upon this very honourable part of his conduct at a time when it exposed him to much temporary obloquy; and it was, therefore, doubly creditable to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the present First Lord of the Admiralty that last autumn, when the outcry for indiscriminate slaughter was at its highest, that they manfully withstood it, and asked, not for mere mawkish mercy, but for justice — of strict justice if you will, but still justice. He could make small allowance for those gentlemen who won their popularity at the cost of Indian blood, giving currency, on the platform and in the press, to extravagant tales of horror, for which they had no honest authority. They told of ladies and children, violated and mutilated, arriving almost by shoals in Calcutta and in England; so that their tales ran through the country like wildfire, making the blood run cold with horror and hot with vengeance. For much of the results of this vengeance they are answerable, for their facts were false. A number of gentlemen fully competent to conduct such an inquiry—the members of the committee for relieving the distress of those who had suffered by the calamities in India—after investigating the whole matter, have declared themselves unable to discover a single case of a mutilated person having arrived in England. They do not deny that such cases may have occurred, but they distinctly state that, being in a position to ascertain them, they have not, after the most diligent inquiries extending over a period of six weeks or two months, been able to verify a single case. Lady Canning also makes the same declaration from Calcutta. He thought it right that this statement should be made in the House of Commons, because, while we detested and abhorred the atrocities which had been committed, it was our bounden duty to see that our countrymen were not hounded on to vengeance by false and wicked exaggerations. Let us remember that we had heard one side of the question only. It is probable that much of what was now accepted as true might be explained away or disproved if we could have had the evidence on the other side. So also he believed that a great number of what were heralded as the retaliatory exploits of our officers and detachments were gross exaggerations. The newspapers had published reports of the hewing down and the cutting to pieces of large bodies of mutineers, and of the burning of villages, upon the same reckless hearsay evidence, thinking to glorify our soldiers, while, in fact, they were doing them a cruel injustice. After all these deductions, enough, and more than enough, of cruelty and outrage had been perpetrated by the rebellious troops to demand, not that wholesale extermination which those who rivalled their opponents in bloodthirstiness demanded, but that justice, enlightened by facts and a due discrimination of guilt, which characterized civilized men. In this view we must search a little into the mutiny itself. We must see whether it had sprung from a deep-laid plot on the part of the Sepoys, or whether it had arisen from a combination of circumstances originating partly in our neglect and partly in their credulity. Now, no one could read the despatches and correspondence of Sir Charles Napier without seeing that a mutinous spirit occasionally cropped out in the Bengal army even in his time; but no one could read him attentively without seeing that he attributed this not to disaffection but to mismanagement on our part; and Sir Charles justly attributed this to an utter want of discipline, not that want of discipline which was implied in an inability to wheel into line or execute with precision any ordinary military manœuvre, but that fatal defect which was the root of evil in all armies — the absence of a thorough communication and confidence between officers and men. He would cast no reflections upon the Officers of the Indian army; it was not their fault that they were miserably under-officered, that nearly all the best officers were drafted off to the civil and other services, and that the Sepoy regiments were left in charge rather than under the command of a few young subalterns and one or two old worn-out officers. Lord Ellenborough testified in strong terms to the decreasing tone and confidence between men and officers. But, besides this fact of the ill-discipline of the Native army, there was another circumstance which ought to be borne in mind, and that was, that the European force which the Government was bound to maintain was most unjustly diminished, and so improperly distributed as not to hold in check the Native forces in our Bengal dominions. Out of 18,000 Europeans in the Bengal Presidency no less than 12,000 were in the Punjab and 4,000 in Pegu, leaving only one regiment of Europeans for the whole 800 miles length of territory between Calcutta and Agra. Now the Marquess of Dalhousie, in one of his despatches, warned the Government that the Russian war had produced a very serious effect on the public mind in India. Four regiments of cavalry had, notwithstanding his remonstrances, been withdrawn to feed that war, and two more regiments of infantry were called for. The noble Marquess then again remonstrated in almost pathetic, and certainly prophetic, words, for he said that if a war were to break out with Persia he would not answer for the safety of the country. But they were removed; that Persian war, too, did break out; and four more regiments were then removed; and we see the result. In this state of things, then, with the European troops placed at two extremes of the Presidency, on the Indus and in Pegu, the annexation of Oude took place. If the Marquess of Dalhousie could see how much the Russian war affected the public mind in India, he wished that noble Lord could have contemplated how much the violent annexation of Oude would increase that agitation. He would not enter on the vexed question of annexation. It was sufficient for him to say that the annexation of Oude did produce a very serious effect on the Indian mind, and more especially on the Bengal army, 40,000 of whose men came from Oude itself. With the Indian mind thus shaken by the Russian war, by the annexation of Oude, and subsequently by the war with Persia, which removed far more than those two regiments without which the Marquess of Dalhousie said he could not answer for the safety of the country—when opinion was thus alert, and discontented, when our means of repression were at their lowest ebb and most remote stations, the last blow was given, and fire set to the train by the weak and we all know wicked enforcement of the greasod cartridges, of the prejudices of the Natives, upon whom the fear of degradation from caste is stronger than the fear of death. It might be that these cartridges were not what the Natives sup- posed them to be, although a committee reported otherwise, and recommended a substitute. Still would it not have been well to respect prejudices so vital even though mistaken. A frank and manly public order would have calmed the Sepoy mind. But instead of this, all the mischiefs of alternate concession and repression were incurred. The cartridges were privately condemned — publicly upheld— then partially withdrawn—partially enforced, and finally publicly condemned and universally withdrawn. Amidst all this vacillation, the mutinies were breaking out. Still they were but mutinies, and were successively suppressed, until the fatal misconduct and disasters at Meerut changed the whole face of affairs. He was at a loss to understand why no inquiry had been instituted into those proceedings. He looked on Meerut as the focus whence the mischief exploded. He did not pretend to say upon whom the blame lay; but this he knew, that at Meerut there were nearly as many Europeans as Natives, and the country had a right to know by whose laches it was that those Europeans had not then and there crushed that mutiny on its outbreak. He would not dwell on the horrors which followed—cantonments burnt and women outraged. It was now no longer a mutiny, but an insurrection. For a few weeks we had 80,000 Sepoys, a vast military force, with many of the inhabitants of the province, in array against us. By a careless distribution, our European force was for a time out of reach, and our brave countrymen were shut up in detached posts of the country. He had entered into these details for the purpose of showing that there was less reason to believe in a preconcerted plan of revolt than that the outbreaks arose from a fortuitous combination of circumstances which, by due prudence, might have been averted. Be this as it may, the mutiny having resolved itself into an insurrection and struggle for supremacy, what became our duty? That question was nobly answered by Wilson, Outram, Havelock, and Colin Campbell. But a second question arose, how were the revolted men to be treated? Undoubtedly justice must take its course. But the face of things was changed—these men were no longer a handful of mutineers—they wore insurgents, waging a cruel war, with vast armies and great natural resources. This is a distinction which has not been sufficiently regarded. A savage cry had been raised in India, and to a certain extent re- echoed in this country, for indiscriminate slaughter. He trusted that such a cry would be put a stop to by the voice of that House, and by a declaration of opinion on the part of the Government. Viscount Canning, in reference to the treatment even of the mutineers, had in his proclamation laid down, with great propriety, different grades of offence and of punishment, and he trusted that the Government would give their adherence to those wise and humane views. There was a broad distinction between the deep-dyed scoundrel who rose in mutiny, murdered his officers, and burnt the cantonments, and the Sepoy who, hurried away by fear and dismay, left his colours and sought refuge in his own village; while between these two again there were various shades of guilt. Some regiments had been deprived of their arms for the time by the advice of officers of experience, and the men have faithfully obeyed these orders, had subsequently, under the force of example, or a not unnatural terror at the violent language which had been used with regard to all Sepoys, fled to the rebels or to their own villages. It should be recollected, too, that many of the revolted regiments had spared the lives of their officers, while in others many soldiers had risked or sacrificed their own lives in rescuing or striving to rescue those of their officers. He was aware that in martial law great latitude must be left to the commanding officer; but, at the same time, he should be glad to hear that some general instructions had been conveyed to the chief military authorities in accordance with the spirit of the instructions issued by Viscount Canning. That some such orders were necessary appeared from circumstances narrated in the public press. By the last telegram from India we had received information of four affairs with the rebels, in which cannon had been captured and 1,250 of the rebels cut down, with a loss to us of only three men in all those four affairs. Now it was clear that no real resistance was made by those insurgents; and it was unworthy of England and the English soldier that such a state of things—little short of butchery—should continue. Without looking higher, it was plain that such proceedings were highly detrimental to military discipline. Then, again, with regard to the contingent troops, our treatment of them was precisely the same as if they owed direct allegiance to the British Grown. He found a formal statement that on a recent occasion some 400 of the soldiers and subjects of an allied Native Prince had laid down their arms, and were subjected to trial by our commanding officer: that on the first day 149 of these men were tried, found guilty, and every one of them forthwith put to death by our people—by our European soldiers, who surely were not enlisted to be wholesale executioners for Native Princes. As a very natural result, the remainder, seeing the issue of this first day's trial, broke loose from confinement; and those of them who were not cut down by our dragoons, no doubt joined the hostile ranks. In private letters, too, gross and flippant expressions with reference to the slaughter of the Sepoys and other Indians were ostentatiously published in our newspapers, and thence retransmitted to India to work further mischief there. In one just published it stated, "We are hanging them by dozens; every Sepoy without a certificate is hung at once; the Zemindars are giving them up to us to be hanged right and left—those who harbour them, or who do not give instant information of their where about, are hung themselves. We are making good work of it;" and as an instance, the writer cites the "pithy remarks made on two ' brutes,' "as he calls two wounded Sepoys who were too much disabled to crawl, and therefore were handed up to the gallons, Now, those letters were no doubt written by young men without much thought, and who would shrink from doing that which they lightly affected to applaud. But as they were published and adopted by a certain portion of the public and the press, he felt anxious to hoar from Her Majesty's Government a declaration that they did not share in such opinions. It was sad to see how easily men and even nations apparently humane could be hurried away by their passions, and how thin then became the partitions between civilization and barbarism. In the early part of the American War, in which a largo portion of the people of England looked upon the Americans with feelings as fierce as those now displayed against the Sepoy, the zealots of that day, worthy of their present disciples, were loud for letting loose upon those rebels the Red Indians; and actually laid before Parliament a paper for providing five gross of scalping knives. Lord Chatham saved us from that ignominy; and Carlton, the English general, a pupil of Wolfe, shortly after a victory, issued a proclamation inviting those of the rebels who had retired into the woods, and who were suffering from wounds and from privations, to conic into his camp for relief, at the same time promising that they should, when relieved, depart without molestation. He would not compare those Americana with the Indian Sepoys, but he might say that a sense of justice and forbearance, and of the ties of kindred and of country, are not to be measured by degrees of longitude or latitude, or by difference of colour. This brought him to a consideration of the Oude insurgents, who surely stood on very diffeaent grounds from the mutinous Sepoys, and who were therefore entitled to very different treatment. The kingdom of Oude was, two years ago, governed by an independent or quasi independent Sovereign. That Sovereign and his ancestors, through many successions, had been most faithful allies of the British nation. True they had misgoverned their country, and it was our duty to correct this. We might even, by virtue of treaty, take the administration into our own hands, but specially and entirely apply the whole surplus revenue to Oude itself. This did pot suit our financial extravagance; and, therefore, in defiance of all remonstrance, we, by a coup d'etat, seized on the King and his territories. All his public officers were dismissed; his army disbanded; the whole system of government abruptly reversed; the leaseholders disturbed, and the great landowners called upon to show their title deeds. When a similar demand was made upon the mailed barons of England, they pointed to the hilts of their swords, and many of the men of Oude finally did the same; and they had some reason, for Sir William Sleeman tells us that in the half of Oude that was ceded to us fifty years ago, not a single great landowner is left—all is one dead level of Government officers and ryots. But those chieftains did not join in the mutinous rebellion against England. One of their leading members sheltered and defended English fugitives from the wrath of our own infuriated soldiery; others did the same. It is therefore a rank perversion of justice to confound these men of Oude and their followers with our own mutinous Sepoys. But even of those Sepoys, we must remember that some 40,000 had recruited our ranks from that kingdom, and, prior to its annexation, had owed allegiance to their Native Sovereign. Great numbers of these had, when their regiments revolt- ed, returned to their native villages without the commission of, or participation in, any outrage whatever; their regiments were broken up, and nothing remained for them to do but to return to their homes. These and other like facts ought to enter into the consideration of the Government when they were discussing how the Oude rebels should be dealt with. He (Mr. Rich) was prepared to do everything towards maintaining the superiority of England, hut he contemplated with horror the war of extermination which some people proposed that we should carry on in Oude. If we should capture Maun Singh and hang him, we should disgrace ourselves. He had sheltered some thirty-six of our wives, and sons, and daughters, in their hour of sorest peril; and if now he was indeed fighting against us, he was at least fighting a fair tight for his rights, his properly, and bis country. We should have no right to hang him; it would be contrary to the laws of God. Those were questions of deep importance; they touched the honour of our arms, the fame of England, and the peace of India. Were we to believe in the civilization of England or in the vengeance of Calcutta? He had seen in the Calcutta papers a recommendation that Oude should he made one great slaughterhouse, that all those who escaped our fire and our shell should be put to death by our bayonets, that those who escaped our bayonets should fall under the knives of the Ghoorkas, and the miserable remnant be driven to perish in the swamps, where it was humanely hoped that those whom famine and the pestilence spared, the wild beasts might devour. [Captain SCOTT: Hear, hear!] He should be glad to hear the hon. Gentleman who cheered those sentiments get up and declare that a nation fighting for its independence should have no quarter, no consideration, no mercy shown to it. It would grieve him (Mr. Rich) to find that the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman were in accord with those of this nation, of the House, or of Her Majesty's Government. They were, he trusted, actuated by very different and far more manly sentiments. There were some people very humane, no doubt in their own eyes, who declared that forbearance and mercy and generosity were all very well towards civilized nations, but that towards these black fellows nothing of the kind should be shown; that is to say, they desired to exorcise against the Indians that very absence of humanity which they cursed them for exercising against us Pharisees. Was this the dispensation that taught us to believe in the intrinsic value of mercy and forbearance, and to leave its issues to a higher power than to a mere debtor and creditor humanity. If a war of extermination were to be carried on, where would it end? If devastation were in the van, discontent and disaffection would follow in the roar. Some persons—half fanatics, half despots —said, that we must rule India by an English army alone; but that, fortunately, was impossible. The climate, population, extent, and remoteness of India forbade it. No, we must govern India mainly by Indians and for Indians, if we wish to retain it for any honourable and useful puposes. Let us not forget that the Sepoy had done us good service—that he had been tried during 100 years, and seldom found wanting. It was impossible to think of Plassey and deny that the Sepoy had a brave heart, nor should it be forgotten how he had resisted the temptations, the tortures, and the religious influences brought to bear upon him against our cause by Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sahib—that for us he had borne the pestilence of Burmab, and, what to his temperament was more trying, the snows of Jellahabad? Moreover, he had aided us in Java, in China, the Mauritius, Persia, and Egypt; and was he now, with 80,000 of his comrades, to be crushed under foot as a foul fiend, because, in a moment a fanatic and credulous phrensy, not unaided by our own acts and negligence, he had broken into a mutinous revolt, at the outbreak of which (as in all such mutinies, whether European or Asiatic,) villainous atrocities had been committed, not by the mass, but by individual scoundrels, and those generally not even Sepoys. Let us remember that we have two other Sepoy armies looking on, not altogether without observation. Indeed he (Mr. Rich) felt ashamed at having to defend such plain propositions. He hoped that he would not be supposed, in any expressions which had fallen from him, to have reflected upon the general conduct of our brave officers and men in India. No one could admire more highly than he did the courage and fortitude they had displayed, and no one was more anxious than he was, that stern and resolute justice should be dealt out to the villains and miscreants who had perpetrated loathsome atrocities and fomented mutiny; but he was sure Her Majesty's Government would admit that the punishment inflicted should be proportioned to the offences committed. It was by moderation and by the calm administration of justice, as much as by the force of our arms, that we had hitherto maintained India, and he trusted that it was by the same virtues that we should retain and civilize it. With regard to the papers for which he was about to move, he understood there would be no objection to the production of those which related to the case of Maun Singh. He believed those papers would show the manner in which that chieftain had acted at a period of great danger and difficulty. He was aware that there was an objection to the production of papers relating to military instructions; and as he felt certain that a declaration would be made in that House in full accordance with the views expressed by Viscount Canning, he would not press for any papers, as to the production of which there might be the least difficulty. With respect to the case of the Natives of Oude, he thought there was so wide a distinction between it and that of the Sepoys that some instructions must surely have been given by the Government of India with regard to the treatment of its inhabitants. He begged to move for Copies of any report or despatch relative to the protection afforded by Maun Singh and others to fugitive Europeans at the outbreak of the Sepoy mutiny; of any instructions given to officers in command of troops as to the treatment of mutinous Sepoys or deserters; and, as to Natives of Oude (not being Sepoys) found in arms within the territory of Oude.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to submit his Motion to the House, but he confessed he had been somewhat surprised that, looking to the terms of the Motion, the hon. Member should have entered into a general discussion as to the origin and cause of the Indian mutiny and the annexation of the kingdom of Oude. He (Mr. Baillie) was, however, the latter person who ought to complain of this latter subject being brought before the House, inasmuch as not many weeks ago he had occupied their attention upon that subject at some length, and he felt, therefore, that it was unnecessary for him now to trespass upon its attention by going over the same ground. The hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by referring to the excesses of the English soldiers. It might be perfectly true that, when in the first instance the horrible atrocities committed at Cawnpore and other stations were made known some exasperation was manifested on the part of the British troops; but he believed that feeling had now passed away, and that there wore very few who did not concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman, that little advantage was to be gained even by carrying out what, perhaps, might be regarded as the principles of stern justice. It had been said the offenders were so numerous that some other punishments must be adopted, for that it would be impossible to think of inflicting the same punishment upon so many different classes of offenders. The hon. Gentleman had asked what instructions had been sent out to the Government of India relative to the administration of martial law, but he must be well aware that the question of martial law was one of great difficulty and delicacy. The usual practice was, when the adoption of martial law became necessary, to leave its execution to those upon whom in duo course the duty of carrying it out devolved. No special instructions had been sent out on the subject, nor was it the practice to send out special instructions to the Governor General under such circumstances. If the English officers had received instructions on this subject, they must have been issued by the Commander in Chief, who was charged with the duty of carrying out martial law throughout the whole of India. The Commander in Chief, however, was perfectly acquainted with the views and opinions entertained by the Governor General of India and by the Government at home, for the Governor General and his Council had issued rules and instructions on the subject. The Government of India, by Resolutions dated the 31st of July, 1857, laid down rules and regulations for the treatment of every class of offenders, and some of those regulations referred expressly to persons in the situation of the inhabitants of Oude. The 8th Resolution said—

"The Governor General in Council is anxious to prevent measures of extreme severity being unnecessarily resorted to, or carried to excess, or applied without due discrimination in regard to acts of rebellion committed by persons not mutineers."

That Resolution would apply expressly to the population of Oude. The 9th Resolution was in those terms: —

"It is unquestionably necessary, in the first attempt to restore order in a district in which the civil authority has been entirely overthrown, to administer the law with such promptitude and severity as will strike terror into the minds of the evil-disposed among the people, and will induce them, by the fear of death, to abstain from plunder, to restore stolen property, and to return to peaceful occupations. But this object once in a great degree attained, the punishment of crimes should be regulated with discrimination."

Many other rules of the same kind wore laid down in these Resolutions, all tending to show what were the opinions of the Governor General, and no one could suppose that the Commander in Chief would not consider it his duty to act in accordance with those instructions. He (Mr. Baillie) had therefore little fear that such excesses as the hon. Gentleman had alluded to had really taken place. No doubt accounts had appeared in some newspapers of terrible executions, but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that they must have been exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Oude, and he (Mr. Baillie) thought no one could for a moment imagine that the people of that country, assembled under the banners of their Native Prince, and fighting for what might be in their opinion the independence of their country, could for a moment be placed in the same category with mutinous Sepoys who had murdered their officers and committed the most frightful atrocities. He did not entertain the slightest doubt that proper instructions had been given on this subject by the Commander in Chief. With respect to the case of Maun Singh, he had, since he reached the House, received some despatches relating to his conduct. The statement they contained was that, at the commencement of the rebellion Maun Singh declared himself in favour of the British Government, and took under his protection some ladies, children, and officers; but he was sorry to say that Maun Singh appeared subsequently to have changed his course, and to have marched at the head of a very largo army to the assistance of the mutineers. He was, however, quite ready to lay upon the table all the information which the Government possessed respecting the conduct of Maun Singh and the protection afforded by others to fugitive Europeans; but as to the other papers he had no information to give, and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the other two clauses of his Motion.

said, he rose at the invitation of the hon. Gentleman opposite to express a hope that the House would not be carried away by the feeling of morbid sensibility evinced by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) on behalf of our mutinous Sepoys. He was perfectly certain that this feeling was not generally participated in by the country; and as for India, he ventured to say that those who lived on the spot, and near the scene of the late frightful atrocities, entertained a very different feeling. As an instance of this, he need only mention to the House that on an Act being passed a short time since by the Legislative Council of Calcutta to enable Government to brand a mutineer, that Branding Act created the greatest alarm and apprehension among the inhabitants, and induced the belief that Government looked to transportation as the punishment of mutiny. Now, he was a civilian, but be had always understood that the crime of mutiny must be expiated by death. At the present moment such a penalty was required not only by justice, but by a political necessity. All India knew that Sepoys had outraged Englishwomen. All India knew that every man who mutinied expressed by his mutiny his sympathy with that outrage. All India was looking with intense anxiety to see whether the English would or would not avenge the inexpiable insult—

"Which turns the sluggard's blood to fire,

The coward's heart to flame."

If we did not—if any thought of the number of criminals, if any feeling of compassion, interfered with the executioner, there was an end of our character in Indian eyes. There was another order of the Government of India, which had also given great dissatisfaction, for the punishment was so inadequate and so unwisely lenient. It had reference to the disposal of Sepoys returned from furlough, who were divided into two classes. The Governor General said most justly, "The corps is dissolved by its own act, and they must take the consequences." In the same breath, however, he added, "that men belonging to mutinous regiments who returned to head quarters are to be paid and discharged." What, then, he asked, were the consequences? To him it seemed rupees and immunity! With regard to the second class, the Governor General said:—"Sepoys having proved themselves free from taking any part in the mutiny are to be readmitted to the ranks. What, then, became of the order, "the corps is dissolved by its own act"? There was no doubt that these Sepoys, who at best were waverers, were not to be trusted, and were quite ready to join their comrades at a moment's notice, should have been at once discharged, because, whatever their conduct, they ought to have rejoined their regiments and assisted in suppressing the outbreak. He believed it was distinctly specified by the English Mutiny Act that "neglect to use a soldier's best effort to suppress mutiny is a capital crime." Although a civilian, he did not hesitate to say that, in his humble opinion, this system of conciliation pursued by Viscount Canning towards the abettors and commuters of these crimes had been carried too far. To the treacherous Hindoo, to the bloodthirsty Mahomedan, and to the plundering Mahratta, conciliation meant fear, concession inability to command, and clemency was to be repaid on the very first opportunity by the infliction of the most inexpressible horrors and devilish torments that the human mind could conceive on poor unoffending women and helpless children.

said, he hoped that it would not be supposed that in supporting this Motion he was casting any slur on the men by whose wisdom and gallantry our empire had been re-established in the East. No one who recalled the splendid deeds done by our countrymen in the last few months but would anxiously shrink from seeming to throw any blame upon them, or to discourage them in the work they had so nobly begun. But so far from an expression of opinion by the House, such as that sought by his hon. Friend, having any tendency to throw cold water on the Indian Government, it would be of great help to them in carrying out the humane and conciliatory policy they were engaged in; it would strengthen their hands in putting a curb on the too passionate vehemence of those under them. The fury that had been kindled by Viscount Canning's humane and manly proclamation showed how hard it was for the authorities to keep their subordinates within due bounds amid such a whirl of excitement, and how needful it was for Parliament to back them up by speaking out its mind. That need was as strong as ever. There seemed to be no slackening in the tempest of rage against the Sepoys, and even against the whole Native population. Of course, there were thousands of high-minded men who had withstood the impulse by which their brethren had been carried away; but the bulk of the Europeans in India were possessed with an abhorence of the Natives, which though most natural—though after what had befallen, even excusable—yet if unchecked, would be most disastrous, both to the rulers and the ruled. The letters from India were filled with expressions of that feeling. In a pamphlet which had just gone the round of that House, a lieutenant-colonel was quoted as saying, that "such is the hatred towards the Bengalee, whatever his calling, that he will be treated like a ferocious wild beast." The English seemed to be now looking on the Natives as if they were mere tigers. He doubted not that had we seen what they had seen, had we stood on the spot where our countrymen with their wives and little ones had been butchered, had we looked into the well at Cawnpore, we should, like them, have been carried away by an irresistible access of indignation. In fact, we had all shared that feeling. Was there any Englishman so cold as not to have joined heart and soul in the cry for vengeance? Nor even now, when we had grown calmer, could any man scarcely ask ruth or pity for the butchers of our countrymen. Death would be the righteous expiation of every Sepoy who was present at the murder of his officers, either doing it or allowing it to be done. Let no man say that he was pleading for murderers. For all who had part, actively or passively, in those massacres, the bayonet-thrust and the gallows would be the fit reward. But he thought that it was our duty who were in a position to reflect, to exorcise that moderation which was not to be expected from our countrymen in India, and give our aid to the Indian Government, not in excusing the guilty, but in keeping down that wild zeal which would confound the guiltless with the guilty. The truth was that the awful tales of horror, of the violation of women, of the torture of children under their mothers' eyes, which wrung all hearts a short while ago, were enough to fill every man with boundless scorn and hatred for the whole race of those who were thought to have done such deeds. But we ought now to hear in mind that alter thorough investigation the highest Indian authorities had satisfied themselves that those tales, if not wholly groundless, were much exaggerated, while some were without any foundation. Sir J. Lawrence and Mr. Cecil Beadon and others had stated this to be an ascertained fact in their despatches to the Court of Directors. Doubtless, it was bad enough that so many of the mutineers were bent, not merely on upsetting the Feringhee dominion, but on rooting out the Feringhees themselves. At the same time it would not be just on that account to regard the whole race as made up of unmitigated scoundrels—one loathsome compound of treachery and murder. He would not excuse any one of those Sepoys who had murdered their officers from the full punishment of death, but at the same time we ought not to forget that, even in the midst of this outburst, in despite of the torrent of fanatic feeling, numberless deeds of faithfulness and valour had been done by the Sepoys themselves. In numberless cases, at the risk of their own lives, they had withstood the fury of their comrades, and saved their officers. We should remember the signal bravery and devotion with which the Native infantry fought for us in the unparalleled defence of Lucknow. He would be the last to palliate the atrocities that too many of them had committed; but it was unjust and shallow to assume, because under a panic which, though groundless, was intense, they burst forth into murderous mutiny, that therefore they were mere vermin, to he killed off without mercy. He would rather judge them by the experience of a hundred years, by the testimony of those who had fought with them, and lived with them, and watched their behaviour both in peace and war, than by the things they had done in a hurricane of panic and passion. With the exception of the Duke of Wellington the almost unbroken testimony of those who had dwelt most among them had been that, though tainted with Oriental vices, they possessed many eminent qualities and were worthy of affection and esteem. Sir Charles Napier called the Sepoy a "glorious soldier," and in the opinion of Sir Thomas Munro they were in many respects hardly inferior to the people of Europe. Taking all this into account, we ought to consider whether we were to look forward to a system of extermination, and whether in bayoneting every man, wounded or not, that we came across, we were acting in a manner worthy of ourselves. It might, perhaps, be said that they would do the same by us if they could. But were we to copy that cruelty which we decried so loudly? Our provocation had, no doubt, been terrible; so had been our vengeance. The plains of Hindostan were reeking with the blood of the mutineers. When would the time come when we should say that—

"Though by their high wrongs we are shook to the quick,

Yet with our nobler reason 'gainst our fury

Will we take part: the rarer action is

In virtue, than in vengeance."

Had not the time come to stay the avenger's hand, to revert to the usages of civilized, instead of going on with the atrocities of savage war? Ought we not to spare those who resisted no longer, at least until a careful trial had shown whether they belonged to a regiment that murdered its officers, or to one that saved them? He thought that a generous and Christian nation should now offer terms that would enable those who had been guilty, not of murder, but of insurrection, and of insurrection alone, to lay down their arms and undergo some lesser penalty. Let them bear in mind for what it was that the mass of the rebels were now fighting. No one would deny that since the mutiny burst forth the one aim of those misguided men Lad been to throw off our yoke—a yoke which, however beneficent, was hateful as being that of foreigners in blood, of infidels in religion, of haughty and ill-mannered masters. In Oude especially, the seat of the present campaign, this war had been a war of the people of Oude against our novel and abhorred dominion. It was but two years since our army had swooped suddenly upon that kingdom, snatched its King away, and set up an English Commissioner in his stead. With all that he found no fault. He had some hopes that there were fair grounds for that proceeding. But this was worth marking, that both in Oude and in Hindostan the cry of the rebels had been, "Away with the raj of the Feringhee! Up with our Native Kings!" Foolish enough, no doubt; we English were, of course, better rulers than their own Kings would be. But still the fact stood that, either because we were so skilled in taxation, or because we were alien from themselves in blood, in habits, in feelings, in colour, and in creed, our rule had not been to their mind. Seizing a moment when our power seemed wrecked, they rose against us. That uprising we were now putting down. And in what fashion were we putting it down? In this fashion—not only were we giving no quarter to those in arms, but we were tracking out every man, civilian or soldier, who had given countenance or food or shelter to the rebels, or written to them, or, in fact, in any way shown disaffection to our rule, and he was at once consigned to the gallows or the gun. The point with those who tried him was not, "Has this man taken part in massacres of our countrymen? Has he been within 100 miles of them?" but simply, "Has he shown disaffection to our rule?" And if that were shown, often, too, on the most slender evidence, he was at once doomed to die. He would not go back to events of three or four months ago, but he would simply take the last one or two numbers of Allen's Indian Mail, a journal which was favourable to the continuance of the rule of the Indian Government, and would therefore be desirous of softening down the case against our soldiers and officers, and see whether it bore out what he had been saying. The editor said—

"We have been willing to grant every allowance for the atrocious provocation afforded by the fiendish cruelties of the mutineers. We acknowledged, while we deplored, the necessity of making some terrible examples; but we hoped, against hope, that the first burst of fury would soon pass away, and give place to a stern, impartial sense of justice. But were we longer to preserve silence under this prolonged and barbarous system of retaliation we should render ourselves accomplices, as it were, in a state of things which we deprecate and abhor. British magistrates, we grieve to say, can bring themselves to write exultingly of the number of misguided fellow-creatures they have despatched to their last home. Such a one has boasted that he has already hanged ninety-five human beings, and that he ' hoped' to complete the round hundred on the morrow. Another affects to take pleasure in the shrieks of the writhing victims beneath the blood-stained lash. A third, in base imitation of the ancient tyrant, dares to express a wish that 'all the niggers had only one head.' Blood!" he went on, "the cry is still for blood! Is the reign of terror never to cease?"

Here, again, was a letter from an officer, describing what was going on in his own district, and describing it with jubilant approval. His letter began—

"December 29th. Capital news …;" and it went on—"Every village where the telegraph wires or telegraph posts are found injured has its head man hanged'"

We were hanging the chiefs of villages, not for having murdered our countrymen — not even for rebellion — but because the telegraph posts were injured. He besought the House to give its mind for a moment to this fact. He did not know what the House thought of it; but his opinion was, that the man who did that did murder. Another officer wrote—

"A lot more rebels were strung up this morning; they were being thinned fast. I wish the authorities would set some more of the higher class swinging; it would do a vast deal of good."

Listen, again, to this:—An officer wrote after a battle in which the Sepoys had been routed with great slaughter without the loss of a single European:—

"We champagned it that night, and drank confusion to the Pamdies…, Let not the people of England be in the least alarmed at proclamations of the Governor General, or of any one else. We do not care one straw for them… The stragglers that are brought into camp by the Natives (for the dear villagers are beginning to sell the Pandies to us—unarmed, thirty rupees; armed, fifty rupees) are hanged, shot, or blown away from guns. We polished off a russeldar yesterday."

The spirit displayed in those letters showed how little the subordinate officers could be trusted to act with due moderation, and how great was the necessity for that House to assist Viscount Canning in keeping them within due bounds. The principle of punishing simple disaffection to our rule with death was acted on even by that noble hero Sir Colin Campbell. In a despatch, also contained in that number of Allen's Indian Mail, Sir Colin wrote that "the march of the troops must be deliberate. Time was thus afforded to the magistrates to visit rebellious towns and villages" (this was in Oude) "and to display to the people, in an unmistakable manner, the resolution of your Lordship's Government to visit punishment on all those who have during the last few months set aside their allegiance." A few lines after he mentioned that some "rebels belonging to the villages in the neighbourhood had been disposed of by the magistrate." What being disposed of by the magistrate meant they could easily guess—"a short shrift and a long halter." In Oude, then, '' all those who had set aside their allegiance" were being put to death; and in Hindostan Proper we are acting on the same principle. Again, in that paper was the case of the Rajah of Bullubghur, who had saved the lives of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Roods, and in many other Europeans. He had been hanged, because, as he pleaded, under the compulsion of the rebels, and from mere terror, he had given them aid, and joined with them. Let no one, then, talk about our severities being aimed at murderers alone. Here was a Rajah who not only did not do murder, but who actually saved the lives of many Europeans. Yet he was calmly tried and hanged, simply and solely because he was a rebel. These cases, then, brought the matter to a most vivid issue. The question was, did the people of England think it right and good to hang in cold blood every man who sought to free his fatherland from the sway of strangers? That was the point at issue. They who stood here on behalf of their countrymen were called upon not merely to say, "It is well done, or it is ill done," to this doing or that; hut they were called upon, in the sight of God and the world, in the sight, be it remembered, of Italy, of Poland, of Hungary, of Austria, of Russia, to lay down a maxim which, if applicable to Oude, must be applicable in all regions and in all times. Was it, then, their clear mind that, when a land had fallen, by fraud or force, into the hands of conquerors, death was the fair and fitting penalty for ail who tried to shake them off? He for one felt assured that the heart of England would be with him while he repudiated such a dogma with horror and disgust, He could not but ask himself what would our feeling be if Italy had risen against Austrian sway, and every Italian who had given countenance to the rebellion were put to death in cold blood? Let it be not replied, "Oh, there is this difference, that in our ease the Europeans in many places were murdered." He had demonstrated that what we were now executing for was distinctly, not for murder, but for "setting aside their allegiance." Yes, that was the expression Sir Colin Campbell used,— "setting aside their allegiance." He remembered how our blood boiled within us when but some twenty-five of the Hungarian leaders were consigned to the gallows. What a harsh thing we thought it of the Pope and of the King of Naples merely to keep in prison those who tried to overthrow their power! And, turning to our own history, what names stank most foully? Were they not those of men who, after all, did but enforce the law against traitors; and those, traitors, not to foreign conquerors, but to their lawful king? And could it be that we, who were so horror-struck at such deeds when done by other men and in other times—could it be that we Englishmen, who had felt so warmly for every people that had risen to dash aside a foreign tyranny—could it be that we, who took such delight in a spirit of independence, who loved freedom so dearly, who paid so tender a reverence to human life—could it be that we, at this day, were encumbering the reputation of our country with memories bloody and terrible as the memories of Taunton and of Culloden? Yes, that was so. That was literally and accurately so. It was the case, and at this very day we were laying waste village after village with fire and sword, that we were hanging men in cold blood, he might say by thousands, on the sole ground that they had set aside their allegiance. He did implore the House to record that night its emphatic will that butcheries as cruel as those of Danton or Collot d'Herbois should cease. He was aware that he should be roundly abused for using such strong words. But he did feel from the very bottom of his heart that not merely in doing these deeds in India, but in not lifting up our voice against them here at home, we were involving our country in a crime worse than the crime of mutiny; in a crime that would be the ruin of our fame; in a crime that would make our remonstrances with such tyrants as the King of Naples seem a humbug and a sham; in a crime that would brutalize our own character; of a crime that would stir up the deadly hate of the men in India, and would thus cut away the only groundwork on which our sway over them could repose—the groundwork of their esteem and love. By acting thus we would be staining not alone our glory, but our souls, with that darkest and most awful stain—the stain of innocent blood.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Control in his opinion that the treatment of the Sepoys might, so far as official interference was concerned, be left with perfect safety in the hands of Lord Canning. That noble Lord had, throughout the whole of the difficult crisis with which he had had to deal, displayed a mixture of firmness and moderation which was beyond all praise, but which had exposed him to an unpopularity most unmerited among his countrymen in India, and on that account especially he (Mr. Mangles) regretted that any opposition should have been offered to the inclusion of the noble Lord's name in the Vote of Thanks, He had, however, been proof against the clamour which had been raised against him, and had pursued with undeviating steadiness that course which he felt to be right. Indeed, so strongly impressed was he with the feeling that his policy was the sound one to pursue, that in a letter, which he (Mr. Mangles) had received from the noble Lord some months ago, he had given expression to an apprehension that, although he was at the moment accused of exhibiting undue leniency, he should eventually be censured for having acted with too much severity. And he was happy to find that the noble Lord's policy was beginning to receive that approval to which it was entitled, and that he would be supported in his adherence to that policy by the opinions which the House of Commons had that evening so unmistakably pronounced. In the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Richmond.(Mr. Rich) he (Mr. Mangles) to a considerable extent concurred; but he could not at the same time help remarking that the hon. Member had sought to palliate the conduct of the rebellious Sepoys in a greater degree than they deserved. He had mentioned, among other things, that those greased cartridges, which might be termed the matches by which fire was applied to the train of disaffection, had been issued to all the Native regiments in India despite their protestations and remonstrances. The fact, however, was, as far as could be ascertained from the papers which he had seen upon the subject, in which some trifling contradictions occurred, that no cartridge had been issued to a single regiment of the line as a regiment, within our own provinces, although they had for some time been issued to some of the troops upon the Afghan frontier at Peshawur, without the slightest complaint upon their part. Cartridges had also in some instances been issued to those who were being instructed in the use of the rifle in the rifle schools, but that was the exception and not the rule. He might add, with reference to the case of the mutineers of the 3rd Cavalry, upon the treatment of whom, and the severity of their punishment, so much stress had been laid, that the cartridges which they had refused to use contained no grease whatever, and were of the same description as those which had been served out to them for years previously without any remonstrance being made. He should next advert to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton), who had referred to the exaggerated language in which the proceedings of the Sepoys had been characterized, and would submit to the House that it was no marvel that those newspapers which had so overstrained the case against Lord Cunning as to represent him as talking of "the poor dear Sepoys" had run into a similar error in describ- ing the conduct of the Sepoys themselves. That they had perpetrated in so many instances those frightful atrocities of which they were said to have been guilty in the mutilation of women and children he, for one, did not believe. Much had been said about the horrible cases which had arrived in England, but the strictest investigation had hitherto been unable to verify a single instance; so also with regard to the atrocities in India, he believed that in the majority of cases there was no proof whatever of any such outrages having been committed. There might have been isolated instances, but in passing judgment upon statements respecting them, it was but right to remember the fact that all the English witnesses, who could bear testimony as to the conduct of the Sepoys and rebels, had been removed by death, and that therefore the question of their guilt depended upon stories told by one Native to another—evidence upon which no reliance could be placed. To prove how exaggerated were the statements with respect to the atrocities which were said to have been committed in India, he might mention that he had been informed by Captain Lowe, who had acted as aide-de-camp to Sir H. Barnard, who had been engaged throughout the whole of the siege and storm of Delhi, that the captors Lad been unable to discover that there was the slightest foundation for the charges which had been made against the Sepoys in that respect, not withstanding that a strict investigation as to the truth of those charges had been made. He (Mr. Mangles) had particularly inquired from Captain Lowe as to the case of Miss Jennings, whose death was said to have been preceded by the infliction of the most horrible cruelties and indignities, the relation of which had excited so much horror in this country. Captain Lowe assured him that it had been established beyond all doubt that her death had not been attended by any circumstances of aggravation. She was simply murdered, as her male companions were. It was bad enough that our women and children should have been slaughtered in cold blood, but it was something to know that these horrible atrocities had been spared them. Most hon. Members, no doubt, had read the able letters in The Times, signed "Judex,"—written, it was generally understood, by Mr. G. Campbell, He stated that when at Delhi he did not hear of any atrocities being committed there, but he was told there was no doubt that such had been committed at Cawnpore. When he got to Cawnpore people said, "We've had nothing of the sort here, but there is no doubt that atrocities did take place at Delhi," and so on at all the places which public rumour had fixed on as the scenes of those occurrences. Then, again, with regard to the inscriptions which were said to have been found written on the wall of the room where the women had been confined at Cawnpore, he had been told on the authority of an officer, who was present with the English army, that on the first day, when the troops entered Cawnpore, there were no such inscriptions there, and that they had been written subsequently by some person who had a strange taste for exaggerating the real horrors of the spot, He differed entirely also from the hon. Member for Newport, in regarding the mutiny as a popular rising against a foreign rule. [Mr. BUXTON: I said that it was in Oude.] He had certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to speak much more generally; but, at all events, the hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake in supposing that the expressions which he had quoted from Sir Colin Campbell's despatch referred to Oude. They were confined entirely to the territory on our side of the Ganges, which had been a British province for more than fifty years, He did not believe that, in any place, any Native had been hung on mere suspicion of disaffection, without some overt act being proved against him. What might have been done in hot blood in the excitement of conflict was a different matter; but certainly no such acts had ever been perpetrated after the pretence of a judicial proceeding. It was said that a Rajah who had assisted the English refugees had been executed; be had previously heard the report, and a despatch had recently gone out to India, directing a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case. As to Oude, if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the India Board (Mr. Baillie) could have foreseen, a few weeks ago, that he would so soon be placed in his present office—in which no doubt he would do good service—it was more than probable that the House would not have been favoured with the speech which he then delivered on the annexation of Oude. He must wish now that he had said nothing about it; but, at any rate, now that they were in office, it was not likely that the House would hear anything more either from him or the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord J. Manners) on the duty of restitution. When the hon. Member for Newport) Mr. Bus-ton) compared the people of Oude to Hungarians or Italians fighting for their nationality, he ought to know that no Asiatic since the world began had ever been animated by what we call national feelings. It was not possible to translate "patriot," "patriotism," or "nationality" into any language in India. They had no idea there what those words meant. Many years ago he recollected Sir James Mackintosh telling him that there was no language in Asia which had a word for "republic," and in the whole course of Asiatic history there was no instance of an attempt to establish anything like constitutional government. All rulers there were despots, and when one despot became intolerable he was pulled down, and another despot was put up in his place. The people of Oude were not fighting for anything approaching to a national cause, and the more closely the matter was looked into the more certain it became to his mind that the annexation of Oude had very little, if anything, to do with the mutiny. True, there might be 50,000 or 100,000 rebels assembled now in Luck-now; hut the population of Oude was about 5,000,000, and this large force might easily be accounted for by taking into consideration the number of mutinied Sepoys who must be there, and the large force of armed retainers which the great Talookdars were in the habit of keeping up. The revenue measures which had set these people in opposition to our rule wore measures of right and justice. The Talookdars were not the real owners of the soil in Oude. They had got possession of largo tracts generally by most iniquitous means, and not unfrequently by murdering the rightful owners, and we had made them our enemies by endeavouring to do justice to the great body of the agricultural population. It redounded in fact, to the honour of the Government of India, that those spoilers were our enemies. He had no objection to the production of the papers for which the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) had moved, for he believed that their production would strengthen Viscount Canning's hands. So long as that nobleman remained at the head of the Indian Government—and it was to be hoped he would long remain — the country might be assured that no system of indiscriminate punishment would be adopted. Distinction would be carefully made between different offences, and justice would be tempered with mercy.

wished to mention one circumstance with which he was acquainted, and which he thought would show that the rebels did not deserve to be treated with too much lenity. A gallant officer under whom he had served for nearly twenty years, in the town which he had now the honour to represent, had a son and daughter who went out to India. The son, who was in the civil service, was a very young man, and when the mutiny broke out in Lucknow he fled with his sister into Oude for protection. The young man, however, was immediately taken and blown from a gun, while his sister, it was to be feared, had been reserved for even a worse fate. He (Captain Scott) was anxious to state that circumstance in order to justify his feelings upon this matter, and that the hon. Member for Richmond might not regard him as a bloodthirsty monster in desiring justice to be dealt out to those who had committed such frightful atrocities.

said, there was one body of men to whom justice ought to be done, and, as military men in that House were perhaps precluded by feelings of delicacy from dealing with the subject, he, as a civilian, felt himself called upon to express his sentiments upon that occasion. Throughout the discussion he could not but think that a very scanty measure of justice had been dealt out to the officers of the army at present employed in India. It had been assumed, he might say upon no authority at all, that those officers had committed acts that were totally inconsistent with the character which English officers had hitherto borne. The only authority for those charges appeared to be odd scraps cut from various newspapers, and even the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) had felt bound to admit that in many cases the charges were grossly exaggerated, while in others they rested upon no authority at all. While our officers were fighting the battles of their country under every difficulty in a distant land it seemed scant justice that all the apologies heard in that House should be for the Sepoys, and none for the British officer. He was glad to hear that evening from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) that the atrocities committed by the mutineers were not quite so bad as had been supposed; but still it must have been a horrible state of affairs when the best that could be said in palliation was that the women and children weré not tortured but only massacred in cold blood. If, indeed, under the excitement of almost witnessing the gross atrocities which certainly were committed in India, while the wail of the widow and the cry of the dying children rang in their ears, officers did in some degree exceed the prescribed limits of calm judgment, surely it was not an offence to be visited with too severe a punishment. The officers of our armies in India deserved the thanks of their country and every reward that could be bestowed for their gallant services, their many sacrifices, their persevering bravery under every difficulty, and it was an ill return for all their exertions that the House should be called upon to believe the slanders of anonymous accusers. Such charges as had been made should not have been suggested without some better foundation. All were agreed that indiscriminate slaughter would be a stain upon the character of our officers as well as upon the character of the nation; but what proof was there that such a thing had ever occurred? Although it was quite right to protest against any wild vengeance on the part of those in high command (of which there was no evidence), yet in the course of this discussion there had been too much of what might be termed maudlin sentiment—a desire to excuse those who were proved to be great offenders, and had, at all events, committed great atrocities. And when it was said that justice and mercy should be shown to those men now assembled at Lucknow, he asked the House to remember what those men were. They were not men fighting independently for the defence of their native land, but they were men who had eaten of our salt, had received our pay, and fought us with the arms we had supplied them. They were not enemies, but the remnants of bodies of rebels gathered from Delhi and all parts of the country in Lucknow, as a rallying place to make a final stand, and he only hoped, when that last horde was overcome, that although there ought not to be any indiscriminate slaughter, there would be nothing to prevent every step being taken that might be necessary to restore peace and quiet to a country so long distracted —in which so much blood had been shed by those rebels whom we had fostered and encouraged by the misplaced lenity and consideration which had been shown to them. He had been surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) an expression of regret at two recent occurrences in India, in each of which 200 or 300 rebels had been killed with only the loss of a single life upon our part. It appeared to him (Mr. Adams) that these facts testified the highest strategical skill on the part of the commanders. Unless it was intended to allow the rebels after a defeat to withdraw to another point where joining other bands they could reorganize their force and again make head against us, it seemed to be a natural course to pursue them in their flight, and thus prevent a renewal of their iniquitous warfare. As a civilian, connected with a very different profession from the military profession, he trusted the House would pardon any warmth which he might have exhibited in the course of his remarks; but he felt called upon to express a hope that, while. no indiscriminate severity should be shown in punishment, they would never forget the justice which was due to the British officers in India.

said, that he had addressed the House so often on the subject, that there could be no doubt what was the opinion which he himself entertained; but he was glad to learn that the views which he had formerly expressed were reciprocated by his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Board of Control. It was necessary to execute justice, but in dispensing justice, the officials ought to discriminate and remember mercy. These were the views of the Governor General, and it would undoubtedly give great satisfaction as well as encouragement to Viscount Canning to learn the sentiments of the Government. He had read the proceedings of the court martial in the case of the Meerut mutineers, and his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) was right in stating that no greased cartridges had been issued to the troops of the line; but what he had said might lead to the conclusion that the refusal of the men of the 3rd Cavalry to take the cartridges which were served to them was occasioned by no overt act of the authorities. Unfortunately, however, there had been a change in the cartridges, and new paper with a glaze upon it had been used which created suspicion. Three weeks before the mutiny the men had said that they knew these were not greased cartridges, because they were intended for their old carbines, and not for the new rifles; but yet they asked not to be forced to use them, as their comrades and relatives and friends would believe that they were greased, and would behave towards them as if they had lost caste in consequence. His hon. Friend had said, that in the East they had never known anything but despotism, and that therefore nothing but despotism ought to be dealt out to the people. He (Colonel Sykes) believed that statement to be contrary to historical facts. He learnt from the annals of Buddhism that at Vasali, the present Allahabad, 2,000 years ago the citizens elected their own magistrates, and that, under the ancient Hindoo system in India, remnants of which still existed, every village was a little republic in itself, consisting of a chief and a council, in which every man had a right to a seat who had land in the village constituting self-government. Political storms swept over the country, but did not touch those little republics, many of which had lasted to the present day; moreover, Arrian expressly said, that a characteristic of the Indians was, that they Were all freemen and had no slaves amongst them. With regard to their acceptance of despotism, several of the largest principalities in Rajpootana at this day elected their own Princes, and he was, therefore, justified in questioning the broad statement of the hon. Member for Guildford.

said, that on the part of the supporters of the hon. Member for Richmond he wished to disclaim the existence of any feeling of disrespect towards the officers of the British army. He respected them for the manner in which they had protected the interest of our countrymen in India and elsewhere, and therefore, he thought it was not altogether fair to endeavour to avoid the real question for consideration, by the imputation of motives by which those to whom they were imputed were not actuated. Happily the insurrection in India was now narrowed within a small space, and he thought that in our administration of that empire we ought to temper justice with mercy. Let it be remembered that there was a very great difference between the man who would free his country from oppression, and the assassin. And it would be a wise and a statesmanlike course to show that we had no idea of preaching an exterminating war, but of settling as soon as possible the state of society in India. He thought it right to raise that point as a disclaimer of the statements of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Adams).

said, that he thought they owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Richmond as the point raised in this discussion was one not to be dealt with by enactment, but by public opinion and the opinion of that House. He was confident that neither the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich), nor the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. C. Buxton), had any intention to apologize for the Sepoys or to cast reflection on the officers who were so gloriously fighting our battles in the East. They only meant to call attention to the state of feeling in India which supported officers and men, not only of the British, but of the Company's service, in inflicting greater severities than were just and politic. There was one point which he thought it, was worth while for the House to take into consideration—it was a negative fact, but spoke volumes as to the character the war had assumed. Let the House remember that we had been at war in India for ten months, had engaged with, perhaps, 100,000 mal-contents, in, perhaps, fifty different contests, and as far as official or non-official knowledge extended, there was not a prisoner of war—by which he meant a man taken in conflict or pursuit—in our hands. That was a great fact. The King of Delhi was understood to have given himself up, and could scarcely be properly denominated a prisoner, although he was a State prisoner. The inference that he drew, however, was that quarter was not given, and in many places it was stated broadly, and seemed almost to be gloried in, that quarter was not, and would not, be given. He did not mean to bring any general charge against the officers or men who had been engaged in the recent outbreak. Cruelty was not natural to Englishmen, or to brave men of any nation— and it could only be owing to extraordinary circumstances that our soldiers should lend themselves to the perpetuation of extreme severities. It was owing to the state of public feeling in the country. He could understand how when the outbreak first commenced, accompanied as it was by outrages against women and children, the feelings of Europeans in India would be aroused, and that they would entertain even a vindictive feeling against the Natives. That feeling had been transmitted to England and reflected back. What he looked for from this discussion was, that there should be such an expression of opinion as that which he believed had been produced, which he trusted would react upon India, and teach the people there that in England we did consider that the moment for mercy had arrived, that sufficient blood had been shed, and that now they might temper justice with mercy. In no way did he impute wanton cruelty to the officers, for he considered that what had boon done had depended on the state of public feeling. No orders had been issued by the Commander in Chief, or the officers under him, forbidding men to grant quarter; but the men, irritated and infuriated by what they had seen and heard, were in the habit of not granting quarter, and he trusted this feeling would no longer find favour in their sight. This mode of inflicting undue severity on the Indians was not only un-English and unchristian, but was also highly impolitic. If they looked to the future of India it was impolitic to widen the breach between themselves and the Natives more than was necessary. It was quite impossible that we could look to govern India as a conquered country through the fears of the people. If we attempted to do that we should suffer grievously on the score of the actual draining of our military resources, as well as on the ground of expense. The occupation of India, on such terms, instead of being a source of profit and glory to England, would be in the first instance a public loss, and ultimately end in dishonour. Looking, then, not only to the present but the future, we should seek to open up the means of reconciliation with the Natives. He did not say that an amnesty should be proclaimed at once such as been granted by Mr. Colvin, but that might be gradually prepared for; and that could only be done by mitigating the horrors of war and putting an end to the system of not giving quarter and other undue severities.

in reply, said it was easy for the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Adams), or any other hon. Gentleman, to catch a certain amount of applause in defending what no one impugned—namely, the honour and gallantry of the British soldier. If, however, hon. Members had attended closely to what he had said about the statements in the newspapers referring to the atrocities in India, it would have been found that he had said that those atrocities seemed to be grossly and wickedly exaggerated on both sides. He had also borne testimony to the general good conduct of the officers and men, and could do so with a warmer heart than the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Adams), inasmuch as he had enjoyed the honour of serving his Sovereign as a soldier. This discussion would prove advantageous to public opinion both at home and in India, where he trusted full attention would be paid to the humane declaration of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Control, that due discrimination would be shown in all the cases that might come under consideration. He rejoiced that the humane spirit displayed by Viscount Canning in his instructions to the civilians would be extended to the military authorities. It was satisfactory to know that the House applauded the merciful consideration of Viscount Canning. Some of the despatches it seemed could not be produced, but he should be glad to see the despatch relative to the conduct of Maun Singh without delay laid upon the table of the House,

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the freemen of the town of Galway, said it would be in the recollection of the House that a Committee sat last Session on this subject, whose Report he had himself brought up. That Report was followed by an Address, and the Address by the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the bribery alleged to be practised at elections for the town of Galway. That Commission sat for a fortnight last autumn, and examined a large number of witnesses. The witnesses in nearly every instance spoke freely, fully, and fairly; indeed there appeared to have been a charming exhibition of candour on all sides and among all classes. Nothing was denied or even apologized for, and it seemed as if bribery was an element in which the Galwegians were accustomed to dwell, a bribe being regarded as little more than a proper remuneration to a poor man taken from his work. He did not know that it was necessary for him to detain the House by going at length into the matter, but he might state that the right of voting in Gal- way was of a very peculiar nature. The charter of Charles II. admitted all persons to the freedom who were of any trade or art or seamen connected with the town by residence, on payment of 20s.— a sum which was a much greater amount then than at present. In the reign of George I. the Galway Act was passed, which repealed the payment of 20s. as a qualification, and substituted the condition that all claiming their freedom should be Protestants. Protestantism was thus insisted upon as an element of respectability in the place of the payment of 20s. The Irish Reform Act repealed this qualification, and almost every one who exercised any trade in the town and was resident could claim the franchise. The constituency amounted to 1,091, of whom 540, or about half, were freemen. Of the other moiety, some eighty or ninety were freeholders, and the remaining 450 were occupiers of £8 or upwards. It therefore appeared that if the freemen wore corrupt, they had in effect the place entirely in their power, and the question came to be what use they had made of their powers of late years. The Commissioners did not feel themselves empowered to go further back in their inquiries than the election of 1847. There was no contested election in that year, and the Commissioners could discover no traces of corrupt practices, so that according to their instructions they could not investigate into the circumstances of any previous election, but they reported that they had ample reason to believe that bribery had extensively prevailed anterior to that time. They inquired, however, into the elections of 1852 and 1857, and on both these occasions they found that bribery had taken place, 250 freemen, or nearly one-half of their number, having accepted bribes. The freemen were formerly admitted by the Mayor, but now that duty devolved upon a person appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. That person was a very respectable man, but he had no means of examining adequately into the character and circumstances of the applicants, and had not the power of administering an oath. The consequence was, that very many persons not entitled to be considered tradesmen or artificers were admitted to freedom. He would read a short extract from the Report of the Commissioners, to show what the peculiar features were of this constituency. They said:—

"There is, however, no doubt, and it is one of the most unfortunate results of the system, that for a considerable period before an election a general interruption of industry and employment takes place among the freemen. The more influential convene meetings of those whom they can, or hope to influence; make out lists of voters for whom they undertake to answer; and endeavour to negotiate with the agents of the various candidates for the sale of votes That these lists often contain the names of persons who did not authorize them has been suggested; but the system is too firmly established and too openly carried on to leave any doubt on our minds that in the great majority of instances the parties named are well aware of the whole proceeding. And accordingly money is given on the faith of these lists, and to treat and entertain those represented upon them as combined together. In this way, and by this habit of acting in bodies in concert, a constant excitement is kept up, and the poorer tradesman and artizans, having no capital or property whatever, earning their subsistence by daily labour, and wholly dependent upon it, abandon their employments for the treating and other temptations held out to them, and, except by obtaining money from the candidates whom they support, have no means of repairing to themselves and their families the pecuniary loss thus occasioned. That there are among the freemen many solvent and respectable for their class in life is unquestionable; but the great majority evidently belong to a very humble class, and a considerable number of those whom we examined exhibited the appearance of poverty. Indeed, so far was this from being denied, that it was urged by several witnesses as a reason and excuse for the receipt of pecuniary assistance by the freemen. And it certainly is not improbable, as was also suggested in evidence, that it is their poverty, and a notion that mechanics and artizans may not unfairly claim some compensation for loss of time, which have induced persons of station in society in this constituency to view the distribution of money and provisions among the freemen at the time of an election, if not without scruple, certainly with very mitigated feelings of disapprobation."

That opinion ought to be a sufficient reply to those gentlemen who might think it unjust to disfranchise a body of men for acts attributed to only a portion of them. At the election of 1852 there were three candidates, Lord Dunkellin, Mr. Martin Blake, and Mr. O'Flaherty. Lord Dunkellin spent at that election £2,000, and Mr. Martin Blake £1,200; but both those gentlemen appeared to be ignorant of the way in which the money was spent. At the election of 1857, Mr. O'Flaherty and Lord Dunkellin were the candidates; Mr. Patrick Blake was also for a time a candidate. When the last-named gentleman went to Galway, he was told that twenty-one butchers demanded £210, and twenty-three shoemakers £115. This alarmed him and he retired, observing that the Bank of Ireland could not stand such a contest. After his retirement Lieutenant Colonel French came upon the field, there being a great desire on the part of a large portion of the constituency to have another candi- date. At this is election Lord Dunkellin spent £1,200, and Mr. O'Flaherty, so far as could be ascertained, £400, Colonel French spending but a very small sum. The whole of the money, both in 1852 and 1857, was given among freemen, of whom 250 had received bribes, and the Commissioners stated specifically that very corrupt practices prevailed in Galway. As a precedent for the disfranchisement he now proposed, he might refer to the case of Yarmouth, where the whole of the freemen were disfranchised, though fourteen cases only were proved. No Commission was issued in that ease. Mr. Ker Seymor, the Chairman of the Committee, reported the facts, and the Bill was brought in. That was a precedent more than sufficient to justify the course he now proposed, and he was sure that a perusal of the Report of the Commissioners and the evidence they had taken must satisfy every impartial person of the justice of the step. The Bill he now asked leave to introduce was founded on that Report; and all he had to do was to refer the House to the Report, and then leave them to deal with the question as they thought best. With these observations he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the disfranchisement of the county of the town of Galway.

said, he rose to second the Motion for the introduction of the Bill, leaving the House to dispose of it as it saw fit on the second reading. He wished to say a few words in consequence of a very extraordinary petition which had been presented by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), affecting a noble relative of his (the Marquess of Clanricarde) in "another place," and for the allegations contained in which he could assure the House there was no ground whatever. Everything connected with the last election, in so far as the return of his noble Friend (Lord Dunkellin) was concerned, was carried on by him (Sir T. Burke). His noble Friend (Lord Dunkellin) was in Calcutta at the time, and his father (the Marquess of Clanricarde) asked if he would take the trouble to go down and canvass Galway in his behalf. He did so, and must say he did not find two respectable gentlemen or tradesmen opposed to him. He had no communication whatever with the Marquess of Clanricarde on the subject of expense. His Lordship wrote to his agent, saying, "Whatever money is required in the town of Galway I will see paid." [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but he was neither afraid nor ashamed of anything he had done throughout the whole transaction, and he challenged any one to say that this was not one of the most extraordinary cases ever brought before the House as regarded purity of election. It was, in fact, the want of spending money that had brought up this charge against them. It was brought by the freemen because they did not get the money they wanted. He would briefly state the facts of the case. The other candidates besides Lord Dunkellin were Mr. O'Flaherty and Mr. Blake. Colonel French canvassed the electors, and retired on the Friday, the nomination being on the Monday. Mr. Blake had previously withdrawn from the contest. He was ready to pledge his honour that not one farthing was spent by him on the freemen. What happened? The whole town was in an uproar. They were determined to get a candidate, but they did not know what to do. At last they discovered that Colonel French was in London; they telegraphed for him, and he arrived on the Sunday evening to his (Sir T. Burke's) utter astonishment. He had no more conception of Colonel French coming to the post than— On the Monday morning he handed Colonel French a document showing the result of the canvass, and how the constituency were likely to poll for the three candidates. On the morning after Colonel French's arrival, a number of the freemen came to him (Sir T. Burke) and said, "What will you give?" "Nothing," said he. He would not deny, although it had been used against him in the town, that he had pledged himself not to interfere with either candidate. His own relative was the whole and sole object of his solicitude; he did not care about either of the other candidates; he was determined, if he could, to place his relative at the head of the poll. There were upwards of 550 freemen, and he had a promise from every one of them but 180. What was he to do? On the eve of the election he sent a friend to Mr. O'Flaherty's committee, to say if they would poll him 100 men by ten o'clock next morning, he would give £250. What happened? Was there any petition against the return of Lord Dunkellin? No. Then the Commission was issued, and what happened? He (Sir T. Burke) was summoned to Galway to give evidence on oath before the three learned gentlemen of whom it was composed; he went, and he could assure the House that a more unpleasant hour he never spent. He told those learned gentlemen all that had been done in much the same terms as he was now doing. One word more and he had done. He hoped, for the sake of those poor people in Galway —for they did not get 2s. in the pound of this money—that the House would allow the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clive) to bring in this Bill.

said, he entirely agreed in what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the introduction of the Bill. He himself moved the appointment of the Commission, in consequence of the extraordinary circumstances proved before the Committee; and now he hardly knew which was the most extraordinary, the things reported by the Commissioners or the statement they had just listened to from the hon. Baronet opposite.

said, the course taken by the Committee on the Galway election was an extraordinary one. They were appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the election, and they reported that bribery had been committed not only at that, but at former elections. Subsequently a Commission of Inquiry was issued, and the proceedings of that Commission were before the House. But the Members of the Committee on the petition, not content with the investigation they there made, were now endeavouring to render their functions as it were, perpetual. He would ask the House, whether, under these circumstances, they had authority to proceed with this Bill, and if so, was it desirable to do so? The Act 15th and 16th of Victoria, chap. 57, sec. 9, expressly protected from punishment, disabilities, penal actions, and criminal prosecutions all persons who had been engaged in any corrupt practices at or connected with any election of a Member of Parliament, in respect of any evidence they might give touching such corrupt practices before any Commission appointed to inquire into them. Every person who was bribed, or supposed to be bribed, at the election in question was examined before the Commissioners at Galway, and a great number of them freed themselves from the imputation of bribery. The consequence would he, if the Bill now sought to be introduced were passed into law, that all those persons who had given evidence before the Commission in this case, under cover of the 15th and 16th of Victoria, cap. 57, would be subject to disabilities and incapacities, in as much as the Bill went to disfranchise the whole of them. Again, but a comparatively small number of the 558 freemen of Galway were proved to have been implicated in the bribery at the last election, while the gratuities given were of very small value, and in most cases did not compensate the recipient for his loss of time. He would ask was it just to disfranchise the whole for the culpability of a few? Besides, considering that there were now several Reform Bills "looming in the distance," each of which would probably attempt to deal with the class of freemen in the borough constituencies, he thought there was no necessity at this moment for such hasty legislation as this. Although he would not divide the House at this stage of the Bill, he should give it his most strenuous opposition on the second reading.

said, I venture to think, Sir, that the House will agree with me in this proposition—that the corrupter should be punished as well as the corrupted, the Briber as well as the party bribed. I believe, Sir, that the rich and powerful briber —the man who held the purse and administered the bribe—is far more guilty in the eyes of God and man, than the wretched creatures whose ignorance for whose necessities induce them to receive the bribe. Now, because this Bill does not propose to do equal justice to the briber as to the bribed, to those corrupting as to those corrupted, I hold it to be an unfair, unjust, and one-sided measure. It has been said by the hon. proposer of this Bill, the freeman of the borough "controlled and commanded the elections." I can easily understand why certain persons are so anxious to disfranchise the freemen—"cut off these freemen—these corrupt and rotten freemen —and we have the representation in our own hands." This statement of the hon. Member I regard as most significant of the object of the Bill. Two gentlemen contested the borough of Galway, one of whom disdained all party ties, and stood on independent principles. That gentleman and his party were inconvenient to the Government of the day. The other candidate had canvassed the constituency on more than one occasion, and still had his eye on the borough; but it was necessary for his success that the franchise should be left exclusively in the hands of a certain class, and therefore it would be most convenient to have this Bill carried, and these guilty freemen deprived of the franchise. Pass this Bill and what would be the re- sult?—why, there would he an additional Whig Member to back some in-coming Whig Ministry. Now, Sir, I ask, the virtuous Chairman of this inexorable Committee, where, in his Bill, is his condemnation of Dr. Browne, one of the Professors of the Queen's College in Galway, who made himself the conduit pipe of all this corruption? It positively flowed through this Professor. That gentleman was hound to neutrality by his peculiar position, and was called upon in a special degree to give a good example to those over whom he presided; but that professor undertook what is popularly termed the "dirty work" for others, without any such motive as had actuated others—viz.: the desire to bring in a relative, or to serve a friend. Not one of the wretched freemen whom these gentlemen debauched could get the stipend of corruption, unless he had the stamp of Dr. Browne's approval. The miserable devil of a starving freeman, on whose head all the indignation of this virtuous assembly is to be poured, having voted for Dr. Browne's candidates, was provided with a ticket, and then proceeded to a certain house, and put his hand in a hole in the wall; but unless his ticket bore the impress of the signet of pure Dr. Browne he could not get a penny of the wages of corruption. The House is called upon to visit these wretched victims of the briber's guilt with exemplary punishment, and to allow Dr. Browne, Professor in the Queen's College, and those associated with him, to escape scot free. Surely that would be one-sided justice. Feelings of delicacy, as well as other motives, preclude any allusion on my part to the conduct of the hon. Baronet below me; hut I cannot help remarking that, even were it only for his own sake, I wish that any other man had come forward and asked the House to pass sentence on the bribed of the town of Galway. The hon. Baronet has presented himself to the House as the amiable friend of the freemen of Galway; but well might those freemen exclaim, "Save us from our friends!" The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) presented a petition from the inhabitants of that borough, asking not for the disfranchisement of one class of offenders; but that equal justice should be dealt to the briber as to the bribed, the rich as to the poor, and I had the honour of presenting a second petition to the same effect. All that the people of Galway ask is, that equal justice should be done to all. The Commissioners report that some of the very magistrates were implicated in this corruption; and if hon. Members will glance over that Report before this Bill conies on for a second reading, they will find that a Mr. Perrse, a Mr. O'Flaherty, who are magistrates, a Mr. Carter, who is Deputy Clerk of the Peace, and other persons, were as guilty as Dr. Browne. And this being so, am I to be told that these rich and powerful offenders are to he absolved of their crime, and their wretched victims alone to be condemned. I contend that this Bill is not only partial in its intention, but that it also confounds the innocent with the guilty. The Report say?, and the hon. Mover repeats, that several of these freemen are solvent and respectable persons, who disdained bribery, and who never accepted, or thought of accepting a bribe; and are these innocent men to be punished while the Professor of the Queen's College and his associates in corruption are to be allowed to go scot free. There are 660 freemen in Galway, of whom 120 are of entirely new creation, having never taken part in an election; and are they to be held responsible for the acts of others? There were really but 180 guilty, while there were 480 innocent; and yet, by this Bill, it is proposed to condemn the whole, innocent and guilty alike. This, I assert, is not the justice that the House of Commons should be asked to deal. The fact is, the freemen of Ireland are not liked by a certain class of politicians, and I must confess that I am one of the number myself, because, being generally of the poorest class, they are most liable to yield to the arts of the tempter; and it was thought by some persons that the proposal now before the House would afford an admirable opportunity of inserting the sharp end of the wedge, to be driven home on a convenient occasion. It might be, and no doubt would be, a question with the House whether this particular franchise ought to be abolished or continued; but this certainly is not the time, nor is it the manner, in which the attempt should be made. This Bill was given notice of even while the late Ministry were in their places, and a Reform Bill, which the country had been promised, was ''looming in the distance." Why not have waited for the measure, which was to have been introduced after Easter? — why not wait for the Reform Bill, which we are to have next year? Surely, the authors of this penal measure need not be in such a desperate hurry to display their one sided virtue. At any rate, let them not be tolerant of bribery in broadcloth, and inexorable towards bribery in rags. Before the second reading comes on, I will arm myself with such facts as will bring shame on the concocters of this Bill, unless they include in it the names of the archbribers who are responsible before God and man for the corruption of these miserable voters, and unless they are prepared to punish the bribers as well as the bribed.

said, he thought the question raised by the gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) as to the indemnity given to corrupt voters could be easily disposed of. If these Royal Commissions were intended in certain cases to be followed by the disfranchisement of corrupt constituencies, as was undoubtedly the fact, à fortiori they might be followed by the disfranchisement of a corrupt class. The indemnity was an indemnity from criminal prosecution, and was never meant to preclude Parliament from meting out any measure of political or social justice which it might deem necessary. Allusion had been made to the disfranchisement of the freemen of Great Yarmouth. He was himself chairman of the Great Yarmouth Election Committee, which recommended the disfranchisement of the freemen of that borough, The practice of issuing Royal Commissions in these cases had not then been introduced, but it had been established before the Galway Election Committee sat, and therefore that Committee were right in suggesting its adoption in that particular instance. When he rose to move the second reading of the Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Great Yarmouth he was greeted with general cries of "Agreed!" He took the hint and cut short his speech; when the measure was passed unanimously. The corrupt freemen of Great Yarmouth did not find a friend in that House, but the men of Galway appeared to be more fortunate. A distinction, however, could not consistently be made in their favour.

believed that with a Reform Bill looming at no great distance it would be unwise to pass this measure. Without justifying the venality which formerly prevailed among the freemen of this country, it had yet to be proved that, under present legislation, and with the higher tone of morality that now pervaded elections, this class were peculiarly corrupt, and worthy of being specially selected for vengeance under a new Reform Act. They had in the last Session complaisantly refused, in accordance with the then Prime Minister, to entertain the small Reform Bills brought forward by Lord Ebury and by the hon. Member for Finsbury. If, on comparatively slight evidence, they passed this small Reform Bill, they would establish a precedent which they had no right to establish for the disfranchisement of a class of voters who ought not to be condemned wholesale without trial, and who, if Parliament was to be placed on a more popular basis, must be comprised in any measure which brought the masses within the electoral pale, involving, as the freeman's suffrage did, the principle of industrial suffrage. Those who had been proved guilty of having received bribes should be disfranchised, but the innocent should not be confounded with the guilty. If the Galway freemen were to be put on the black list the same fate should be extended to the gentlemen who so kindly took the £500 of which the hon. Baronet had spoken. The House ought to find out who Dr. Browne's friends were, and strike them off the roll for attending the learned Professor's "lecture."

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the real difficulty of the Bill. He thought that there was a great deal of weight in the objection which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), and that this proceeding must be looked upon as a prosecution against which all the persons who had given evidence before the Commission were indemnified by the Act of Parliament. The words of the statute appeared to him to be broad enough to cover every kind of penalty; and, as he understood it, they could not proceed to disfranchise these men without being guilty of a violation of the good faith of the House. But if he were wrong in his construction of the statute, then it must be held not to apply to any proceedings in Parliament, and he called upon them, if they resolved to punish the poor voters, not to exempt the greater delinquents. This was not a matter which could be disposed of by an hon. Member, who had been guilty of grave misdemeanours, getting up and laughingly confessing his offences. There was no occasion for such a confession, as it had already been made before the Commission, and its repetition there tended to cast discredit upon that House. It was no light matter that a Gentleman of edu- cation and station, a magistrate and a person holding a high position in the county, should have incited others to commit criminal acts of corruption, and should have paid them £100 or £150 for doing that which would render them liable to prosecution and imprisonment. Was it to he supposed that because he made light of what he had done, and excited the laughter of that House, therefore he was to be passed over, and that while penalties were to be imposed upon the victims of his offences, no notice was to be taken of his own misconduct? If the Hill before the House was to be proceeded with at all, it ought not to be permitted to reach another stage unless the names of all those gentlemen who had been guilty of corruption were inserted in it and proportionate penalties imposed upon them. Was it to be tolerated that a noble Lord should sit in that House by the votes of men who wore punished for giving them? Was it possible to proceed with the Bill without putting into it the name of that noble Lord, and declaring that he should no longer sit in an assembly which it was determined he had only been able to enter by poor people being induced to commit crime? These subjects could not be dealt with in a merely conventional manner, and that House would lose much in public estimation if they punished the poor and left rich delinquents to enjoy the fruits of the crimes of which they had procured the commission. Nor did it seem possible to proceed with the Bill without some reference to the conduct of another noble Lord in respect to this election. It was true that that noble Lord was not himself guilty of criminal acts, but he must have been aware that an election for Galway could not fairly cost an unlimited sum, and must have known from previous proceedings that elections for that town were carried by money spent for corrupt purposes. The course he appeared to have pursued was to give an unlimited credit to a relative of his in Galway and to desire him to carry the election by means of that credit. Remembering the evidence upon which persons had been convicted of conspiracies, he thought that in this case, where one man had found the money for the commission of a crime and another had committed it, such a charge might have been substantiated to the satisfaction of a jury, and the parties to the offence convicted and punished. It might be inferred that the noble Lord must have had some knowledge of the object for which it was necessary to place funds at the disposal of his relative, and must have understood that the election was to be compassed by bribery. Would it be possible for that House, remembering the Standing Order that no Peer should interfere in the election of Members of Parliament, to proceed with this Bill without asking leave of the other House that the noble Lord should appear at the bar and be examined touching his proceedings at this election? Because it was somewhat grievous that while all Her Majesty's other subjects, including the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Burke), paid a certain respect to Commissions such as this, the conduct of the noble Lord in question was rather different. The Report said: —

"It has already been mentioned that Sir Thomas Burke represented Lord Dunkellin, who was in India, during this election. This he did at the request of Lord Clanricarde, Lord Dunkellin's father, who had requested him to ascertain the feelings of the constituency, and it he found them favourable, to put forward Lord Dunkellin as a candidate. Lord Clanricarde having given this authority to Sir Thomas Burke, appears to have taken no part in the conduct of the election, and the subsequent proceedings which took place were, so far as we could ascertain, directed by Sir Thomas Burke. The outlay was supplied during or after the election by the land agent of the estates of Lord Clanricarde. At the time when the Commission was opened Lord Clunricarde was on the Continent; he, however, arrived in Dublin, as we afterwards learned, on the 14th of October, the clay on which we had finally closed the examination of witnesses."

The Commission was issued on an Address from both Houses, and the Marquess of Clanricarde must have known that it was about to sit. He knew that his agent had supplied funds and how his son had been returned, and yet when the Commission sat, the Marquess of Clanricarde was on the Continent, and when the Commission had concluded its labours the Marquess of Clanricarde returned. [Sir T. BURKE: Read the next paragraph.] He was going to do so. The Report went on: —

"And on the 17th of October addressed to us a letter intimating his readiness to attend for examination, if we required it. As, however, nothing appeared before us to show that Lord Clanricarde knew anything of the details of the election, and as Sir Thomas Burke, who was well acquainted with them, had given his evidence in the most candid manner, we did not feel it necessary to reassemble and reopen the Commission in the town of Galway, where alone we had jurisdiction, for the mere purpose of examining this nobleman."

He could quite understand that; but still it was not the less striking that the Marquess of Clanricarde did not appear upon the stage until the Commissioners had closed their labours and left Galway. They might have gone back to Galway, reopened their proceedings, and examined the noble Lord; but he wondered whether it ever occurred to anybody that when their labours were closed the Commission was at an end and could not be reopened. Still the question remained and it was one on which the House must, before it could proceed with this Bill, be informed what was the Marquess of Clanricarde's knowledge of the purpose to which his money was to be applied. That information the noble Lord alone could afford, and he hoped that he might be able fully to exculpate himself from any suspicion that the credit which he gave was to be employed for corrupt purposes. At any rate there were other persons of high rank who were implicated in this affair, and if this Bill was to be proceeded with, it ought to be gone on with not in the spirit in which it had been introduced, but for the purpose of doing equal justice to all; to punish all who had either given or received bribes, but not to disenfranchise those who had had no share in the offences which had been committed.

said, it was right that before proceeding further the House should understand the meaning of the indemnity clause in the Corrupt Practices Act. If there were no indemnity clause in the Act, each witness, as he was called to give evidence, could refuse to answer any question which might be put to him on the ground that he might expose himself to penalties or prosecution for bribery; and the object of the indemnity was to render the evidence of each witness available by protecting him from past consequences; but the Legislature never intended that, while it could issue a Commission to inquire into the circumstances attending an election, it should not have the power of preventing parties proved to have accepted bribes from again selling their votes. The question, indeed, was already settled, for the cases of Sudbury and St. Albans were provided for by special Acts of Parliament, and each of these Acts contained the very indemnity clause now under consideration. Passing by that point, he thought that the hon. Member for Hereford had brought forward this question in a most proper manner. He had abstained from entering into any party, personal, or political questions; and he (Mr. FitzGerald) thought the House ought not to compromise its honour and dignity by entering into such topics. But if an argument were wanted to induce the House to agree to the present Bill, it would be found in the speeches of the hon. Members for Roscommon (Colonel French) and the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). This was not a Bill for the punishment of individuals. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, was he to be told that they were punishing people by preventing them from selling their votes. The hon. Members to whom he had referred had described in glowing language a scene of corruption which, if the House had any regard for its own dignity and wished to stand well with the country, it would use its utmost efforts to put an end to. Such a case as that of Galway had never been brought under its consideration. There were 540 freemen upon the roll at the time of the last election, and the Commissioners stated, in their Report, that 250 cases of personal bribery had been proved to their satisfaction, but that they had not been able to reach the whole. Before the election a person named Hyland appeared in Galway. Nobody knew who he was or where he came from, and after the election he disappeared in the same mysterious manner; all that was known of his business in Galway being that it was to bribe. It was a remarkable fact, too, that there was no bribery except among the freemen, of whom about one-half had been proved by the clearest evidence to have sold their votes. There were only fourteen cases of proved bribery in Great Yarmouth, but, in addition, the Committee reported that they were led by circumstances to believe that extensive and systematic bribery prevailed among the freemen. The whole body of the freemen of Great Yarmouth were disfranchised. It further appeared, in the case of Galway, that such of the freemen as were respectable—if, indeed, there were any not subject to monetary influences—would come upon the roll as householders, although the household franchise was not so acceptable to them on account of its being coupled with the obligation of paying poor rates. He believed it was a fact that, as stated by some of the witnesses, nine-tenths of the freemen had been bribed, either at the election of 1857 or at that of 1852. The Commissioners, according to the hon. Member for Roscommon, had discovered that there was no bribery at the general election in 1847, when there was no contest, but they also stated that ample materials came before them to induce them to believe that pre- vious to 1847, and at one election in that year, though prior to the general election, there was gross bribery. What were the freemen of Galway? Any mechanic or artisan, provided he resided within the borough, could claim to be admitted upon the roll without the payment of a single farthing. In four days preceding the election in 1S41 no fewer than 491 persons were admitted as freemen; on the 15th of March, previous to the election of 1847, 322 were entered, and his hon. and gallant Friend had told them that 128 had been added since. He had no doubt that if a general election were expected to take place next year, a great number of additional freemen would be admitted to the roll. The person who admitted them was a Mr. Lynch, a gentleman of respectability, who was appointed under the Reform Act, but a gentleman with no responsibility or power of examining witnesses. When an applicant appeared before him and stated that he was an artisan and resided in the borough, he was put upon the roll as a matter of course. It was a curious fact, that the freemen of Galway were never satisfied unless there was a contest. In 1857, when the third candidate had retired, saying "that the Bank of Ireland could not stand Galway," they applied to Sir Thomas Redington, and subsequently to another gentleman. Disappointed in both quarters, a telegraphic despatch was pent to London, and in due course Colonel French made his appearance in the field. The freemen voted for him, but they sold their second votes to one of the other candidates; in other words, they voted for one candidate without payment in order to induce him to stand, but sold their second votes to the highest bidder, the payment being made by ticket through a hole in a wall. It was worthy of notice that, while there were only 551 registered householders in the town, there were 945 householders who might be registered. The remainder adopted the freemen's roll in order to avoid paying their taxes regularly. Under these circumstances, seeing that 250 cases of personal bribery had been proved, that, according to the Commissioners, there was every reason to believe that extensive and systematized bribery prevailed among the whole body of freemen, and that the few who were pure would come upon the roll as householders, he trusted the House would vindicate its own honour and character by passing the present Bill.

said, that the question brought before the House was one of very considerable importance to its character. For that reason, if for no other, he should strongly advise the House to agree to the introduction of this measure. What the House might do with the Hill in its future stage must, he thought, turn on some very grave and very serious questions, for in doing justice in such matters as this, they should not strike the low without at the same time striking the high. They might depend on it that any legislation which proceeded on the contrary principle to that which equal justice required would neither reflect credit on the House nor give satisfaction to the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just sat down, had stated very properly that the House should not view the question as a question of party, and be found a paragraph in the Report of the Commission which would enable them to discuss the particular Motion before the House in a manner entirely free from party considerations. The Commissioners stated: —

"The only mutter which occurs to us as important to mention in connection with the constituency is the fact that the great mass of the electors are of Liberal polities; that the candidates since the Reform Bill (with, as we are informed, but one exception) have been of similar opinions; and that the contests are generally not those of rival political parties, but of individuals belonging to different sections of the Liberal party."

Therefore the House had to deal with a matter affected by no party considerations, and they were simply called on to say whether, in furtherance of the endeavours which the House had made to put down bribery and corrupt practices at elections, they could not now, entirely independent of party considerations, take some course which would be effectual for the purpose and satisfactory to the country. Now, the doubts which he had in respect to the Bill, and which he thought it fair to state, while he strongly advised the House to agree to its introduction, were simply the following: It was proposed to disfranchise, first of all, the innocent with the guilty. There was on the face of the Report a distinct intimation that it was unquestionable that there were among the freemen many solvent and respectable men for their class in life. If that were so, it certainly became the House to consider whether it would in one indiscriminate censure strike those who were not guilty while striking those who were. According to the statement of the gallant Colonel opposite, 120 freemen had been put upon the roll since the time of the last election; and it would, therefore, be a most extraordinary kind of legislation if the House were to disfranchise those against whom not a tittle of evidence could by possibility be adduced. Again, they would have to consider on the second reading of the Bill whether they ought not to bear in mind the statement of the Commissioners contained in Schedules A and C, by which it appeared that the lists of persons there, who in 1852 and 1857 were guilty of corrupt practices by giving money or other valuable consideration to purchase, or for the purpose of purchasing votes, were not nearly so long as the lists of persons in Schedules B and D. It would become a grave question to consider whether they could deal with one class of cases without dealing with the other also, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet who had spoken in the course of the debate would forgive him for pointing his attention to the answer he made to question 1,421, which revealed a state of things which the hon. Baronet in his calmer moments must regret. He thought that the hon. Baronet would see that when that evidence was brought to the notice of the House it was impossible to be passed by in silence. The passage he referred to was that in which the hon. Baronet stated what took place on the Sunday when Colonel French had come down. The hon. Baronet stated:—

"On Sunday evening, when I went to Lord Dunkellin's committee room with his staff, Colonel French having arrived in town by the four o'clock train, I totted up the lists and saw that to make the election perfectly secure to Lord Dunkellin, we should bribe to some extent, and we wanted 200 freemen. That, however, was entirely of ray own doing, without saying a word to anybody. I considered how I could get them; they were offered to me in every direction, and I was told I could get ten or twenty in various ways, so I handed to Mr. Persse £250. To get them?— No, I understood I got 100 split votes for £250, and the same thing to Colonel French's party, for which it was arranged that I was to got 100 of their votes. I drew 100 from each and thought I had got myself secure."

That passage appearing in the evidence which was laid before the House for its guidance, and upon the confession of a Member, made it impossible for the House not to have some explanation of such a matter when proceeding with a Bill disfranchising others. One observation he should wish to make on the Act of Parliament under which the Commissioners were directed to proceed in their inquiry. It was "An Act to provide for the more effectual inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at elections for Members to serve in Parliament," and it stated the course of proceeding the Commissioners were to adopt, and what they were to in- quire into. It exonerated the witnesses and exempted them from all penalties, and the evidence was reported, but it purposely avoided stating in what way the House were to deal with the matter. The whole matter was in fact before them quite unprejudiced by anything that had occurred, and the House might deal with it in various ways. They might deal with it as they dealt with the cases of Sudbury and St. Albans, and disfranchise the borough, on the ground that the bribery and corruption were systematic and general, or as it dealt, as he had always thought, not very fairly, in the case of Great Yarmouth, by disfranchising not the borough but a particular class of voters. Now, he would put this case: suppose it were made manifest that a great number of £10 householders in a borough had been treated or bribed, would anybody say that the whole of the £10 householders in that borough should be disfranchised? But the consideration must come home to the good feeling and good sense of all persons in that House that if they could not disfranchise that class of voters on whom the Reform Bill conferred the right of voting, on what principle of justice could they disfranchise another class, who were allowed to retain the right, because a portion had been guilty of bribery? This was a very grave question. He did not wish to preclude all proper discussion of it, but he wished to point out that the matter was not so easily solved as might at first appear; and when they came to the second reading, and, still more, in Committee, they ought to reserve to themselves the fullest power to deal with all the cases, bearing in mind that whenever they dealt with them the first principles of justice and equity must be observed.

said, he rose to move for an Address for a Return of the expenses attendant on the prosecution of the Royal British Bank Directors. He said, he thought it high time that the directors of public companies should be made to feel that the public watched their proceedings with the greatest attention, and that all defaulters connected with them and men who violated the laws of the country would be punished with the greatest severity. The directors of the Royal British Bank were in comparative happiness—they were in Her Majesty's prison. As regarded the late trial, it appeared that there were no less than 300 witnesses, each of whom was subpœnaed three times, and not more than sixteen of them were actually examined. One reason for desiring the Return he moved for was, because he deemed the penal law as it stood to he in a most unsatisfactory state, and he was of opinion that it must necessarily come under the consideration of the House in a very short time. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an Address for a return of the expenses attendant upon the prosecution of the directors of the Royal British Bank.

said, that the information which the hon. Gentleman asked for was not yet in the possession of the Treasury. When that information was furnished to the Treasury, he did not think that there would be any objection to furnishing the Return moved for by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of directing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department to the tables of allowances to witnesses recently issued by the Treasury. He had presented a petition from an unfortunate gentleman who, after losing all his property in the bank, was summoned as a witness from the country, and remained in London for fifteen days, and at the close of that time, having never been examined, he was tendered by way of expenses 3d. a mile, or second-class fare for travelling expenses, 3s. 6d. a day for personal expenses in London, and 2s. 6d. a night for lodging. Of course the actual expenses of this unfortunate gentleman far exceeded the allowance. He was sure that the continuance of such a scale of payment by the Government would have a most prejudicial effect on the administration of criminal justice by inducing parties to conceal the information in which they were in possession, rather than incur the loss consequent upon attending as witnesses.

said, that several cases had been represented to him, in which it was clear that the scale of allowances to witnesses in criminal prosecutions was disproportionately low. He had therefore given instructions that the scale should be revised in order to see whether a better one could not be adopted. The case adverted to by the hon. Member who had last spoken had come before him on the previous evening. On consideration he was of opinion that the new scale of fees did not apply to witnesses on ex-officio indictments, and he had given directions that the witnesses on the British Bank case should be paid in the manner in which they would have been entitled had the new scale not been promulgated.

observed, that since it had been the policy of Parliament to repay to counties the costs of criminal prosecutions there had been a great tendency to abuse, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, while endeavouring to promote the ends of justice, would take care not to encourage abuse. The late Government adopted the existing scale after due inquiry, having found that the ends of justice were best promoted where the scale of allowance was the lowest. Under the former scale a great number of unnecessary witnesses, particularly witnesses belonging to the police force, were summoned, and the expense arising from that source formed a heavy burden on the rates.

said, he was quite sure that his right hon. Friend would earnestly direct his attention to the remedying of those abuses. These payments to police witnesses were, no doubt, crying abuses; but the late Home Secretary, with the view of putting an end to them, adopted a scale so low as absolutely to defeat the ends of justice. The allowance to witnesses belonging to the class of mechanics absolutely put them out of pocket, and the effect of such a course would soon be to prevent them seeing anything.

said, that having been on the Public Prosecutor's Committee, which sat some years ago, he would bog to direct the attention of the House to the evidence given before it as being of a very valuable nature, and such as to throw great light upon several abuses. He recollected that one of the cases brought before the Committee was that of £1 a day being allowed to a witness. It turned out that the witness who received that allowance was the gaoler of the town in which the assizes were holden.

moved to nominate the Members of the Select Committee. When this Bill was introduced by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, he was asked to serve on the Committee. He consented to do so, and said that he should go into it with a perfectly unbiassed mind. Since he had come into office he had become better acquainted with the Bill, hut he should still enter on the inquiry with the same unbiassed mind. Some of the clauses would certainly require consideration, but he should be sorry to preclude inquiry by any intimation of his own opinion before the Committee was appointed. Reference had been made in debate to the propriety of extending the area of the jurisdiction of the corporation; but he thought that that question would be better raised separately, and without reference to this Bill. He desired, at present, to give no opinion upon it.

said, he thought the Committee was not constituted in such a manner as rendered it likely to deal fairly with the question of an extension of the corporate jurisdiction to the metropolitan districts; for, while it included two representatives of the City of London, two Aldermen of London, and several hon. Members connected with the City, he found upon it the name of only one hon. Member for Westminster, who was the sole representative of the interest of the western portion of the metropolis. On a future occasion he would ask the House to consider whether the wards for the election of Common Councilmen ought not to embrace the whole metropolitan district.

said, that although he had to thank the Secretary for War for the explanation he had given on a previous occasion respecting the clothing supplied to British troops in India, great misconception still existed on the subject. The right hon. and gallant Member (General Peel) had expressed his belief that clothing adapted to the climate of India was supplied to Her Majesty's troops in that country, at the cost of the East India Company; but it appeared that such was not the case. The men were obliged to pay for the extra clothing, and also half the expense of their bedding. The cost was £2 to each soldier, and as there were now 92,000 Queen's troops in India, they were saddled with a charge of £184,000. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would cause this subject to be investigated. He might also state that soldiers on embarkation for India had another grievance to complain of. They were charged rather more than £2 each for what was called their "sea kit." He had received letters from two soldiers, who informed him that the articles in this kit were charged 50 per cent more than they could be obtained for elsewhere, and that many of them were totally useless. Each man, for a voyage of two or throe months, was supplied with nine cakes of pipeclay, which were said to be sufficient to last for twelve months; and they had also three boxes of blacking each, and two smockfrocks which were never worn at sea. The two charges to which he had referred, amounting together to £4, were deducted by stoppages from the soldier's pay, and amounted to two-thirds of his year's income. He had observed placards at the Horse Guards, offering bounties of £3 and £6 to recruits, but these inducements were calculated to mislead men who enlisted, and who were subjected to such deductions as he had mentioned. The right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) had some time ago argued in the country that, although the nominal pay of a soldier was only 13d. a day, it was practically almost double that amount; but he (Mr. Alcock) believed that it was not more than one-third.

said, that he had instituted inquiries immediately after the question had been put to him by the hon. Member, and representations had been made to Sir Colin Campbell, with a view to the reduction of the stoppages to which soldiers were subjected on their arrival in India.