brought up papers by command of Her Majesty containing the Correspondence respecting the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France.

wished to ask the noble Lord, Whether he has any information to communicate upon this subject. He wished to know whether the Emperor of the French did intend either by force or intrigue to obtain possession of Savoy and Nice, or whether he intends to submit the question to the four great Powers, and, if so, whether the fact of one or more of them dissenting from his view will prevent him carrying out his object?

said, before the noble Lord answered the question he wished to ask him whether he is prepared to fix a day for the discussion of the subject referred to in those papers?

said, that, before the noble Lord replied to those questions, he wished to ask, Whether he has any information to communicate as to the existence of any Treaty or arrangement between Sardinia and France in respect to the proposed annexation?

Sir, I think the best course for me to pursue will be that of moving the Adjournment of the House until Monday; and in making that Motion, I will take the opportunity of replying to the questions that have been put to me. With respect to the last question asked me, as to whether there existed any treaty between France and Sardinia in relation to the annexation of Savoy, I can only say that we have no knowledge of any such treaty, nor do we believe in the existence of any such treaty. I stated on a former occasion that the Emperor of the French had said—and that fact will appear by the papers just produced—that he will net take any steps towards the annexation of Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe. I think it will be as well that I should read what the Emperor himself has said in His Speech—which I can only do from a newspaper—because we have no other knowledge than a telegram—and the Emperor of course must be the best interpreter of his own views on the subject. He first speaks of the contingency of Piedmont becoming a great country—and it is now a kingdom with more than 9,000,000 inhabitants—and he proceeds to say—

"Looking to this transformation of Northern Italy which gives to a powerful State all the passes of the Alps, it was my duty, for the security of our frontiers, to claim the French slopes of the mountains. This re-assertion of a claim to a territory of small extent has nothing in it of a nature to alarm Europe and give a denial to the policy of disinterestedness which I have proclaimed more than once, for France does not wish to proceed to this aggrandizement, however small it may be, either by military occupation, or by provoked insurrection, or by underhand manœuvres, but by frankly explaining the question to the great Powers. They will doubtless understand in their equity, as France would certainly understand it for each of them under similar circumstances, that the important territorial re-arrangement which is about to take place gives us a right to a guarantee indicated by nature herself."

Now, what I understand, and what appears by the correspondence that has taken place on this subject, is that it is the opinion of the Government of the Emperor of the French, and it appears to be the opinion, certainly, of a great portion of the French people, that the creation of a State in Northern and Central Italy, with a population of 9,000,000, and still more of 11,000,000 or 12,000,000, is a change for the worse in the situation of France; which, instead of having a small State on the frontiers towards the Alps, would have a considerable State. In case of war, supposing that Sardinia combined with other Powers she would have the means of placing considerable armaments on the frontiers, and of invading France by the side of Savoy as well as by the side of Nice. And it is asserted that in consequence of France having contributed by her arms in the war of last year in Italy to make the situation, which situation, the French contend, would be the worse for themselves—that under such circumstances it is but fair and equitable that she ask for a more secure frontier on this side of the Alps. This I believe I stated in substance upon a former occasion. But it appears that, upon entering into a conversation on the subject in Paris, the Emperor declared that he did not mean to proceed to any such annexation without consulting the great Powers of Europe. My hon. Friend now asks me whether that means that the Emperor will not proceed to carry out the annexation if all, or any portion of, the great Powers of Europe disapprove of it. It is obvious that I cannot precisely answer that question. I cannot go beyond what the Emperor and his Government have declared—namely, that they would not proceed in this course of annexation without consulting the great Powers of Europe. But I should infer myself—without the authority, of course, as to what the French Government will do—that if that opinion was general and unanimous among the great Powers of Europe, that France did not require that annexation for her security, and that such annexation would occasion alarm and disquietude to other Powers—if that were, I say, the unanimous opinion of the great Powers, I should infer that the Emperor would not proceed to that annexation. At all events, it is declared that it is a matter which will be discussed by the great Powers of Europe, and that France is not going—as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose—to establish a military occupation of Savoy; but will rely upon what she calls the equitable consideration of the case by the great Powers of Europe. I do not know that I can give the House any further information on the subject. I can only repeat what I have said—that I understand—though only as a matter of personal belief —that, if the opinion is general on the part of the great Powers against that annexation, that that annexation will not take place. If, on the contrary, it is declared by them that the proposition on the part of France is a fair one, then France will proceed to annex Savoy. With regard to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, they are contained in the papers I have just laid upon the table. An hon. Gentleman has asked me upon what day I propose to take the discussion upon those papers. I can only say that it is not usual, unless Government has some measure to bring forward in connection with it, to fix a day for mere discussion of papers. The hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I am going to invite a vote of censure upon the Government. On the other hand, I do not intend to ask for a vote of approbation. These papers will be distributed among Members; and if any Member should think it necessary to bring them under discussion, he may propose such a Motion, as he thinks it necessary; and it will be for him, and not for the Government who have no Motion to propose, to fix any day he may think proper.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce the Bill in which he proposes to embody Resolution No. 15 of the Budget, and to regulate the system of the granting of Wine Licences to the Keepers of Eating-Houses and Refreshment Rooms?

stated, that he hoped in a day or two to lay such a Bill on the Table.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as he proposes transferring temporarily the business of the India Office to apartments in the Victoria Hotel, Westminster, he will take into consideration the question of the purchase of the hotel, which contains accommodation for all the departments of the India Office, and the Museum and Library. The rental was, he understood, to be £6,000 a year. The cost of removal to Westminster and back again to the City would be enormous, and the loss would be very considerable.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what number of Her Majesty's Regiments of Infantry and Cavalry it is proposed to retain for service in the East Indies after the 1st of July, 1860?

, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), said, he did not consider a noisy street the most convenient site for a public office, but he should be better able to judge of the convenience of the situation when he had tried it. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Herbert) as to the regiments to be retained for service in India, he feared he could not give a more definite answer than he gave a week ago to the same question, when put by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). The number of regiments retained on service must depend on what the Indian Government considered necessary for the safety of India. They could not be quite certain of the number of regiments that could be sent home at the end of five, six, or seven months. The 14th Dragoons, he knew, was on its way from Bombay. The Indian Government had general orders to send home whatever regiments it could spare. He would take that opportunity of stating the particular regiments that were ordered on service in China, which he had ascertained since he answered the question of the hon. and gallant Officer (General Peel). The 3rd and 67th were sent to China some time ago; he believed the 99th left early in February, and the second battalion of the 60th in the course of that month. The 31st and 44th were to follow; and if a seventh regiment were required, perhaps the 87th.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government when the Battle of the Styles —in reference to the architecture of the Public Offices—will take place?

said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received and Address from certain Catholics in Ireland, calling upon him to interfere in the affairs of Italy, with a view to the full and complete restoration of the Pope's authority; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of his reply?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury what were the intentions of the Government with respect to any reward to Captain M'Clintock and the crew of the discovery-ship Fox. It was right to say that the Question he had put had not been suggested to him by Captain M'Clintock or any other of the gallant officers who served in the expedition referred to. Indeed, if he were at liberty to state he the knew, he could satisfy the House that the last thing those distinguished officers had looked to was pecuniary reward for the services they had rendered. Every one, from the Sovereign herself to her humblest subject, had felt an interest in the result of that expedition; but he did not therefore press on the Government the claims of those by whom it was accomplished, he did not come there to say that those who had done their duty in the service of the country should therefore dip their hands into the public purse and expect a reward; but in this case some promises were held out by Her Majesty's Government to which he wished to call the attention of the House. He would state as plainly as possible the grounds of the application he was bringing before them. In 1850 a proclamation was issued by the Admiralty offering £20,000 to any one who should discover, and effectually relieve, the crews of Her Majesty's ships Erebus and Terror. There had had also been a second reward of £10,000 offered to any persons who should relieve the crews of Her Majesty's ships Terror and Erebus, or who should give such intelligence as might lead to their succour. In the case of those two rewards he need hardly say that no claimant for them had appeared. But another sum of £10,000 had been promised to "any person or persons who, in the judgment of the Board of Admiralty, might by virtue of his or their efforts first succeed in ascertaining the fate of those crews." It was to that last promise that he wished more especially to call the attention of the House. He might, perhaps, take this opportunity of removing any confusion which might exist in the minds of any person who had not looked into the question, as to the reward given to Captain M'Clure. Captain M'Clure had had a sum of money granted him for services of an entirely different nature. A reward had been offered by Parliament for the discovery of the Northwest Passage—and after an inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons had taken place a sum had been granted to Sir P. M'Clure and his crew. That reward, therefore, had no reference to the question which he was about to bring under the notice of the House. In 1856, Dr. Rae had made a claim, and the Admiralty had awarded him the sum of £10,000, promised under the third condition of the Pro- clamation, and he (Sir F. Baring) for one was not disposed to offer any objection to the course which had been in that instance pursued. But when it was borne in mind that that which in Dr. Rae's case was, comparatively speaking, conjectural, had been rendered perfectly certain by the aid of the crew of the Fox, and when it was recollected how the gallant men of whom that crew was composed had fulfilled the letter of the conditions which were held out in the proposal to which he alluded—though, perhaps, their claim could not be argued as a legal claim—it could hardly, he thought, be denied that they had some claim on the good faith of the country. He did not, however, desire to rest that claim upon merely legal grounds. He preferred appealing to his noble Friend at the head of the Government to look upon it in that generous spirit in which he felt assured the nation at large was anxious to see it viewed, and not to turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the great body of the people. He hardly thought it necessary, even for one moment, to call the attention of the House to that which Captain M'Clintock and his officers and crew had effected. The whole country knew it. He had in a small ship, fitted out by private contributions, been enabled to satisfy the English public upon a question with respect to which they had felt the deepest anxiety—an object which large expeditions had year after year been sent out to accomplish, but without success. Nor should it, he thought, be regarded as matter of small satisfaction that the subject was one which had been finally set at rest, inasmuch as the sad fate of our poor countrymen had at length been but too clearly ascertained; and it was therefore likely to be the last time the subject would come before the House. Under these circumstances, he hoped his noble Friend would state to the House that he was not unwilling to confer on Captain M'Clintock that reward to which he was so justly entitled. Hon. Members would perhaps pardon him if he now proceeded to advert to another point which was connected with the subject with which he was dealing, and with respect to his intention to refer to which he had given his noble Friend notice in private. He did not know what the feelings of others might have been when perusing the narrative of Captain M'Clintock, but he must say for himself that when he had come to the conclusion of that simple story, he had been deeply pained at the recital which was there given of the expense by which the expedition had been attended, and at the mention of her by whom that expense had mainly been incurred. He had no authority to allude to the name of Lady Franklin; indeed, he believed that in doing so he was acting in opposition to her wishes; but it was not so much for her sake as for that of the country that he did not wish to see her bear the burden of the charges which she had so nobly defrayed. The subject was one which reminded him of a celebrated monument which had been raised to one of the most distinguished of the Austrian Generals in the Seven Years' War, and upon which, after the usual recital of his eminent services, the following words were inscribed —"Non Patria, non Imperator, Conjux posuit." It was not the country whose battles he had fought; it was not the Imperial master whom he had so long and so nobly served, but the money Order that had raised the monument to the memory of Laudohn. He trusted, however, that England would furnish no just ground for such a reproach, and that, instead of allowing the expense of the expedition to which he was referring to be borne by Lady Franklin, the country at large, as a token of the high estimation in which it held such a man as her lamented husband, would claim it as a right to defray that expense as a mark of respect to his memory. So far as Lady Franklin herself was concerned, she had her reward; and if perchance—as he understood was the case—the exertions which she had made to attain the object of her wishes, had diminished her means of subsistence, and deprived her of many comforts for the remainder of her life, everybody who knew her, knew she would rejoice in any sacrifice incurred in effecting what had been the great object of her life. It was on other and public grounds that he made the present appeal to his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and in making that appeal he might be allowed for a moment to remind the House who Sir John Franklin was, and how distinguished had been his career. He was no doubt first known as the great navigator of the Arctic Regions; but in his early life he was a gallant sailor who fought at Copenhagen and Trafalgar, and who had rendered himself eminent as a volunteer on board an East India ship in the celebrated defence which had been made under Captain Dance, in repulsing a French squadron commanded by Admiral Linois. He after- wards served his country in a civil capacity, and later in life, when he might fairly have claimed repose upon an honourable career, he did not shrink from dangers which he knew so well, and in encountering which he had found his grave. A man who died thus, reflected honour on his country as much as if he had fallen in the battle-field he was one to whom a grateful nation might not hesitate to erect a monument in that place where her greatest and best lay buried. He died in the strict execution of his duty, at the very moment of success—when he saw before him the North-west Passage, though it was not allowed that he should effect it, and had made the discovery for which he had been sent out by his country. In speaking of their chief, let him not forget the conduct of those who served under him—of Crozier and Fitzjames, and many other younger officers, who if their lives had been spared would have been ornaments to their profession. He believed that conduct such as this raised the character of England, and of that flag under which these men had served. He did not ask his noble Friend any specific question; he was anxious to leave the subject with him. Indeed, he did not know anybody in whose hands he would more readily leave a question of this kind. To his noble Friend's own generous and kind feelings he would intrust the entire case, with all the more confidence that it deeply affected one whose own nature was so extremely sensitive as Lady Franklin's. He was almost ashamed of having taken up so much of the time of the House; but the peculiar nature of the case which had been put into his hand would be his excuse for going so far out of the way in bringing before them what he felt satisfied, from the manner in which his observations had been received, did not run counter to the general feeling of the House.

said, that before the noble Lord answered the question which had been put to him, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words on the subject, in consequence of the interest he had always taken in it, and of his personal friendship with the gallant commander of the Fox. It would be in the recollection of the House that in June, 1857, his right hon. Friend Mr. Napier, at the earnest desire of Lady Franklin, brought forward a Motion that the Government of the day should fit out another expedition to endeavour to discover the fate of that brave sailor, Sir John Franklin, and his gallant companions. That Motion was refused, not from any indisposition to carry out the humane wish of Lady Franklin, but, as was then expressed by the head of the Admiralty, from the belief that the enterprize would be fruitless, perilous, and might cost a sacrifice of human life, and therefore the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) could not advise the Government to sanction it. After that Motion a number of persons contributed towards an expedition; but the greater portion of the expense of the last voyage of discovery was borne by Lady Franklin herself. Captain M'Clintock did not undertake the command in a spirit of reckless adventure; for he (Mr. Whiteside) happened to know from scientific men, who were now preparing a work on the results of his discoveries in geology and science, that Captain M'Clintock had studied carefully and clearly the whole question, and arrived at a firm conviction that if he was enabled to reach the Polar regions, he should certainly discover what had become of Sir John Franklin and his companions. In a ship, the smallest, he believed, that ever undertook a voyage of discovery, with a crew of twenty-two men and three officers, M'Clintock sailed in July. In September he was beset in a pack of ice, where he remained till the following month of April. He drifted 1,200 miles, and the day he was relieved, instead of thinking of returning to England, the intrepid sailor was only the more determined to prosecute his gallant enterprise. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the result of that voyage was told in simple words, and he must say a most romantic interest attached to the narrative. He had heard it said by a very eminent person that if Franklin had been better acquainted with the present mode of sledge travelling, he would most probably have survived; the incidents connected with this adventure formed, in fact, the most interesting part of the narrative. The last Arctic voyage, as had been truly said, had called forth qualities—and he excepted none of the twenty-five men who formed the crew of the Fox—a higher nature than were displayed even on the battle-field. The soldier had a quick death or a joyful victory; but there were a more enduring spirit, and a loftier resolution, and nobler qualities of mind and body required, successfully to conduct such an enterprise as this than were required for the field of battle. He happened to know Captain M'Clure, and when that officer mentioned to him (Mr. Whiteside) the subject of his own services, he (Mr. Whiteside) told that gallant Officer the best resort he could have was to the House of Commons. The House, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had behaved with the utmost generosity to M'Clure and his crew, and what he (Mr. Whiteside) had suggested, had been verified by the decision of the House. No assembly in the world was more ready to acknowledge and reward conspicuous merit than the House of Commons. With regard to Lady Franklin, it was quite correct that she declined to accept anything from the Government in the shape of pecuniary recompense. Her hope, her wish, was that in recognition of the services and name of her gallant husband, as the true discover or of the North-west Passage, which many men of science said he was, they might perhaps raise to him a public monument; while, in doing so, an act of justice might be also rendered to the living. He left the matter to the generous nature of the noble Viscount, and he could not help thanking him for the mark of distinction that had already been conferred on his gallant Friend.

rose to remind the noble Viscount that Sir John Franklin had gone forth on no volunteer expedition; he was called on by his country to undertake the expedition in which he lost his life; and it was because the Government had not taken the proper measures to search for him and his gallant companions—because they had not adequately fulfilled their duties—that Lady Franklin had sacrificed almost her entire private resources. The search hitherto made had been chiefly conducted by sea, and he was told by Dr. Rae, no mean authority on questions of this kind, that the only real and effectual search for the remains and journals of the officers engaged in the expedition would be by land and during summer; and there would be no danger whatever, he understood, in such an expedition. The only danger would be if the expedition were compelled to pass the winter in those desert regions. Not only those who were interested in Polar discovery, but the great bulk of this nation and the civilized world were interested in obtaining all the information that could be collected as to the fate and history of Sir John Franklin's expedition; and he really thought the Government would be wanting in their duty to the relatives and memory of those whom they had sent out on such dangerous adventures if they did not take steps to recover what traces they could of their history and endurance.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if it is in contemplation to remove the Natural History Collection from the British Museum; and, if so, to what place it is proposed to remove it?

Sir, I will first address myself to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Iverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), as to whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to the designs for the Public Offices. No decision has yet been come to with regard to those designs; but whenever a selection has been made, I may say, the design will be fitted up in some public place, so as to enable hon. Members to form an opinion respecting it. With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke), there have been two meetings of the Trustees of the British Museum, at which the question was considered whether the existing buildings wore sufficient in point of space to accommodate not only the existing, but the annually increasing collection of interesting objects to be found there; and, if not, whether it was desirable to increase the space by adding to the buildings of the Museum on the spot, or would be better to remove to some other place a portion of the collection. The opinion of the Trustees was that it was better to remove a portion to some other place, where a building could be obtained at a comparatively moderate expense, than incur the charge of purchasing land immediately adjoining the Museum, in order to erect on it buildings adequate to the purpose. They were further of opinion that if any portion of the collection was to be removed, the Natural History department was that which could be most easily and advantageously removed. No decision was taken as to the particular spot to be chosen; it was agreed to defer the selection of the place and the manner in which the Natural History collection should be removed. The matter therefore stands at present thus:—The Trustees have agreed that the antiquities, books, and articles of that kind should remain, and that the lighter things should be removed elsewhere. The hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), has asked me whether I had received a memorial from certain Peers and Commoners in Ireland, calling on the Government to interfere in the affairs of Italy with a view to the full and complete restoration of the Pope's authority in his temporal dominions. Sir, I did receive a memorial to that effect very numerously and respectably signed. The only answer I could give was to acknowledge the receipt, and remit it to the consideration of the Government. If I had gone into any answer, I am afraid my opinion would not have been found quite to agree with that of the memorialists, and I thought it better to avoid making any reply. It is well known that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is to leave the Italian people to settle their own affairs, and therefore that no interference of the British Government should be exerted either in the one way or the other in regard to any arrangements that might be made in Italy. Our only wish is that the Italians should take their own affairs in their own hands, and, free from any foreign intervention or control, should arrange them in the manner most consonant with their own feelings. With respect to the subject to which my hon. Friend (Sir Francis Baring) has adverted, and which I am sure engages the sympathies not of this House only, but of the whole country, it is impossible to speak too highly of the courage, the perseverance, and devotion displayed by Sir Leopold M'Clintock and his brave companions in the expedition which they undertook in search of the remains of Sir John Franklin. It is quite true, as the hon, and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) has stated, that the duties which brave men perform in so distinguished a manner are not less honourable than those performed on the field of battle, and that throughout his perilous enterprise all the great qualities which adorn the soldier or the sailor were most conspicuously exhibited by the man who was enabled to discover the fate and bring back some vestiges of the Franklin expedition. At the same time it is but fair to say that there were others who went out at an earlier date, and who, although not equally successful with those who followed them in the object of their search, nevertheless displayed all those high qualities which so eminently distinguished the last expedition. It is right that the names of these men should not be forgotten while we are doing honour to those who voluntarily set out in search of the remains of Sir John Franklin and his party. It is true that the Motion referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman was made in this House to induce Her Majesty's Government to send out at the public expense an expedition to ascertain the fate of Sir John Franklin. And I must confess that I never acted more at variance with my own personal feelings than when, from higher considerations, we declined to undertake such an enterprise at the public charge. At the same time we did think that it would not be justifiable in Her Majesty's Government, at the cost of the country, to send out men on a search which at that period appeared very hopeless, and to be attended with dangers to which we should not have been warranted in exposing them. Fortunately, however, Sir Leopold M'Clintock succeeded, with, I believe, scarcely any loss, or no loss at all, of human life, in accomplishing the object which that noble lady who sent him out had so long and so frequently attempted to effect. Now, Sir, there was a reward of £10,000 offered to anybody who should ascertain the fate of Sir John Franklin and bring back any vestiges of his expedition. The whole of that sum was awarded to Dr. Rae and the associates of his adventure. Therefore there does not now remain any portion of the votes of Parliament applicable to the rewarding Sir Leopold M'Clintock and his companions. Nevertheless, I am ready to say, that if it should appear to be the opinion of Parliament that this is a fit occasion on which to make within moderate limits a grant over and above the amount already sanctioned, Her Majesty's Government certainly would not be disposed to stand in the way of the generosity of the House of Commons. With respect to the other topic which he mentioned, undoubtedly it would not be right to follow the example of such a monument as my right hon. Friend has described—namely, a monument that should record that it was not by the country, that it was not by the Sovereign, but by the widow, that the memory of a great and gallant man had been perpetuated. I think, on the contrary, it would be fitting that there should be a monument to show that the country, the Sovereign, and the widow had all united to erect an enduring memorial of the distinguished services of Sir John Franklin. The expense this would involve would not be considerable in comparison with the gratification which I am sure it would afford to the whole nation, and I think to Lady Franklin, who as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, disclaims all desire for any re-imbursement of the great outlay she has so nobly incurred in endeavouring to ascertain the fate of her husband. But, no doubt, it would be highly satisfactory to her feelings if Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament were to concur in handing down to posterity some memorial of her deceased husband. I believe in this case one may say that the husband and the wife were worthy of each other; and I am persuaded that it would be grateful to the feelings of the country if, with the consent of Parliament, some monument were erected which should recognize, not only the services of the husband, but the devotion of the wife.

Sir, I am convinced that the announcement just made by the noble Viscount on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be most gratifying to the country, as it evidently is most gratifying to this House. No one can have read the narrative of Sir Leopold M'Clintock, or marked the progress of his singular expedition, without feeling that their adventure will form a memorable chapter in the heroic annals of the mariners of this country. With regard to that noble Lady through whose energy and inspiration that expedition was so gallantly undertaken and so successfully accomplished, I feel, as I am sure we all must feel, the liveliest admiration and the warmest sympathy for the rare intelligence, the indomitable perseverance, the womanly, the high and enduring spirit, with which Lady Franklin urged on the prosecution of the search for her brave husband —they will make her name illustrious among the daughters of England. I repeat that I am sure the resolution at which the Government have arrived, and which the noble Viscount has communicated to us in so sympathetic a spirit, will afford the utmost gratification to all Her Majesty's subjects.

, in putting a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting the Channel Fleet, said, that before making that inquiry he could not refrain from saying how warmly he concurred in all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, with respect to Sir Leopold M'Clintock and Lady Franklin. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded in the most delicate manner to the reimbursement of Lady Franklin herself, and he could not help adverting to what had fallen from the noble Viscount on that part of the subject. All who were acquainted with the views of Lady Franklin knew that her feelings upon that matter were of the same noble and generous nature as those which induced her to make such efforts to discover the remains of her lost husband; but he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the House and the Government ought rather to consider what was due upon public grounds to the memory of Sir John Franklin, and to the noble efforts of his widow, than to pay too rigid a regard to the delicate feelings by which Lady Franklin was actuated. He hoped that the noble Viscount would allow him to remind him that in the statement which he had made to the House he did not advert to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman and from his noble and learned Friend upon this part of the subject. He hoped the noble Viscount, in whose hands he for one was perfectly content to leave the matter, would not forget it; but he felt that, considering the efforts which Lady Franklin had made, something beyond what the noble Viscount had mentioned was due as a tribute to that noble Lady.

trusted that before the Government proceeded to remove the Natural History collections from the British Museum, they would take some means of consulting the general feeling of the public, and also of scientific men, upon the subject. The proposed removal would be very unpopular with those who were in the habit of visiting those collections; and the dissatisfaction it would produce would not be lessened by the fact that the step had been decided upon, as he believed, by a mere majority of one—that bare majority having, moreover, only been obtained through the attendance of a number of ex officio trustees, who were not usually present at the ordinary meetings of the Board. There was obviously the greatest advantage in having these Natural History collections under the same roof as the splendid library of reference which the British Museum now boasted; but that advantage would be wholly sacrificed if the contemplated removal were persisted in.

said, that he wished to put a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting some accidents reported to have occurred to the ships of the Channel squadron. The Times of that morning contained the following paragraph:—

"A letter dated Torbay, Tuesday, received at Plymouth, from one of the officers of the Channel squadron, says that off the Lizard the ships were taken all aback, and could not again form a line. The Edgar, Queen, and Donegal remained out. Besides the casualties to the Queen, Diadem, Algiers, and Mersey, already reported in The Times, the letter states that the Aboukir lost her cross-jack yard and starboard quarter-boats, the Royal Albert pitched her jib-boom under at times, and the Trafalgar lost her jib-boom; she will probably call at Plymouth before proceeding to the Tagus."

He wished to know whether the Admiralty had received any account of this dispersion, as he might call it, of the fleet off the Lizard, and whether the damage which had been caused was to be considered as the inevitable result of the late gale, or whether there was reason to attribute any blame to the officers in command of the squadron. A much more important question, however, and one upon which he was still more anxious for an explanation, arose with reference to the casualties to the Queen, Diadem, Algiers, and Mersey. Was he right in believing that these casualties had arisen from these magnificent ships having on three recent occasions come into collision with each other in the open Channel? He understood that on one occasion the Diadem and Queen ran foul of each other, and that on another, the Algiers and Mersey came into collision; the fact of these great and splendid ships coming into collision in the open Channel, while sailing in open order of battle, was one of serious import, to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, It was impossible that these collisions should take place without great danger and serious public loss. He understood from the report that in both cases the collisions occurred when the ships were sailing in two lines, and were tacking in succession. If that were the case it was impossible to escape one or two inferences—either that the sailing order under which the manœuvres were executed must be of a defective and unsafe character, or there must be a want of seamanship among the officers who were in command of those ships. He therefore asked his noble Friend to give some account of these circumstances, and he trusted that it would be in his power to give such an explanation as would remove the unpleasant feeling on the part of the public, to which the statements contained in this paragraph had given rise.

called the attention of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to the case of Mr. Tarrant, the editor of the Friend of China, who, after conviction for a libel had been sentenced to be imprisoned in the felons' gaol in Hong Kong for the period of twelve calendar months. Mr. Tarrant was convicted in September last of a libel on Colonel Kane, who held an official position at Hong Kong. Mr. Tarrant was a gentleman and a scholar. He had himself held a position in the colony, and had afterwards become the editor of the newspaper called the Friend of China and he wrote some able articles exposing the system of corruption which beyond all question was practised in Hong Kong, for Sir John Bowring had stated before a Committee that he was bound to confess that there was a system of corruption among the officials there which he had in vain endeavoured to suppress. Mr. Tarrant was tried on the 29th of September, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the criminal side of the gaol. He was tried, in the absence of the Chief Justice, by Mr. Adams, the former Member for Boston; and it was due to Mr. Adams, so far as his humanity was concerned, to state that he had recently arrived at Hong Kong, and was not aware of the severity of the punishment, the character of criminals Mr. Tarrant would have to associate with, or the wretched accommodation of the prison. Mr. Adams went himself and saw the gaol, and joined in a memorial to the Government, with the whole of the jury who had tried the case, for a remission of the sentence and Mr. Tarrant's removal from the criminal side of the gaol to the place allotted to misdemeanants, as would have been the case in England. This was refused: and Mr. Tarrant endured the greatest possible privation and misery. He suffered so much in his health from the association with criminals, from the heat of the wretched place—for the gaol was constructed for Chinese prisoners—that he was, after a time, removed to an hospital, whence, however, he was subsequently again sent back to the gaol. The punishment was altogether most severe, and not warranted by the circumstances of the case. He had thought it his duty to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State to this matter, and he hoped that Mr. Tarrant would receive some consideration and some alleviation of his sufferings.

said, that his information on this subject did not quite coincide with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. According to a private letter from the then acting Attorney General, from the first Mr. Tarrant was treated with as much leniency as the gaol regulations permitted; and in November last the visiting justices revised and altered the rules of the goal so as to permit Mr. Tarrant to be placed apart from the other criminals, and accorded as much accommodation as the gaol allowed. At the same time it was to be admitted that a gaol in the climate of China was different from a gaol here, and the gaol at Hong Kong was one which urgently required enlargement and improvement. This operation was in the course of being carried out, and a large sum of money expended for the purpose. But with respect to Mr. Tarrant himself, the case was only a question as to the discretion of the Government in carrying out the sentence of a court of justice; and he must say that the exercise of that discretion was not quite so easy a matter as some gentlemen thought; the fact being that these libels, personal libels in the newspapers of Hong Kong, had gone on for many years past to such an extent as to render it necessary that no excessive lenity should be shown to a person who had so conducted himself. Perhaps, however, he could best answer the hon. Gentleman's question by reading an extract from a despatch addressed in December last by the noble Duke now at the head of the Colonial Office to the Governor of Hong Kong, and which would have reached him by this time. The direction given to the Governor in that despatch was, that if, on its re ceipt, Mr. Tarrant's health had suffered, or was in danger of suffering, be was to be at once removed from the criminal side of the prison to the debtors' side; that whether his health suffered or not, at the end of six months from the date of his imprisonment he was at all events to be removed to the debtors' side of the gaol. And the despatch ended, "it has been urged"—it was written by the Duke of Newcastle—

"It has been urged upon me by some who disavow the slightest sympathy with Mr. Tarrant's writings that the latter half of the sentence should be altogether remitted, and that he should be discharged from prison. I must leave to your judgment how far such an act of leniency should be resorted to."

No answer had yet been received to this despatch. When it did arrive he would be happy to give his hon. and learned Friend the information which it contained. But he must say that he had every confidence in the good sense and judgment of Sir Hercules Robinson, who had just gone to the colony, and who was perfectly free from all the local and personal quarrels that agitated society there, and he had little doubt that before this time the punishment of this gentleman was ended. Before he sat down he trusted the House would forgive him if he said one word with regard to the gallant men whose deeds had formed the subject of discussion. It so happened that the Irish Members could claim both the first and second officers in command of the late expedition as their countrymen. He had himself had the additional honour and pleasure of claiming Captain M'Clintock as a member of a distinguished family in his county; and the second in command of the Fox, Commander Hobson was a relation of his own. He had not the honour of Captain M'Clintock's acquaintance, but that gallant officer was related to a gentleman who represented his county in the last Parliament; and if, in the chances of politics that Gentleman had now been in the House, he would have more right to return thanks for Captain M'Clintock than he could possibly pretend to have. He begged, however, to thank the House for the generous manner in which it had recognized the services of those distinguished officers.

hoped that before answering the Question of the right hon. Baronet, he might be permitted, on the part of his brother officers, to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth for the handsome way in which he had mentioned the services of Captain M'Clintock and others connected with Arctic exploration and discovery. All belonging to the navy felt that a great debt was due to those gallant Polar officers, and, without desiring in the slightest degree to deprive Captain M'Clintock and his brave band of any portion of the credit to which they were justly entitled, he was bound to say that there were other officers who, although they had not been so successful, had equally deserved success. It would be in the recollection of the House that Captain Inglefield penetrated into the Arctic regions in the Isabel —a vessel very similar to the Fox, and succeeded in discovering some relics of the Franklin expedition. There were various other officers, whose names unfortunately he could not recall at that moment, but he was sure the House would permit him to call attention to their services on the present interesting occasion. In reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he would admit that undoubtedly there had been two collisions in the Channel, one of which had been of a very serious nature, inasmuch as it had resulted in the loss of the bowsprit of the Diadem. He was disposed to think, however, that the right hon. Baronet was rather inclined to listen to what he must call midshipmen's yarns. The statement which had appeared in The Times of that morning had evidently been prepared by the youngest midshipman in the fleet. He had looked over it very carefully, and he confessed that neither he nor any of his brother officers at the Admiralty had been able to make head or tail of it. The fleet started from Portland on Thursday, and proceeded with a moderate breeze down the Channel, until it arrived off the Lizard. There, during the night, the squadron being in two lines, a signal was made to tack in succession. The Diadem was the stern ship of the weather line, and the Queen fell foul of her in stays and carried away her bowsprit. A very detailed report had been received from the captain of the Diadem, but the Admiralty had not yet obtained a very distinct report from the captain of the Queen. They had, however, ordered an inquiry into the circumstances. The other collision took place between the Algiers and the Mersey. The only information which the Admiralty had received was contained in a letter from the Mersey, which had put into port for some slight repairs; and in this case also a minute investigation would be instituted. The right hon. Baronet had expressed opinions with respect to the conduct of the Channel squadron, which, if they had not come from a person intimately acquainted with the navy, he should have regarded as undeserving of notice.

I expressed no opinions, but merely asked for information.

appealed to the House whether the right hon. Baronet had not talked of extreme mismanagement in the conduct of the fleet —or words to that effect. There could be no doubt that when two vessels came into collision a certain amount of blame attached to one party or the other,—generally, indeed, to both; but he could not at that moment state whether any, and, if any, what degree of censure had been incurred in the late collisions in the Channel. He could perfectly understand, considering the terrific gale experienced by the squadron during their cruize, that there should be a loss of spars, a pitching away of jib-booms, and various accidents of that nature; but the Admiralty had at present no reason to suppose that there had been any mismanagement whatever. Accidents might always be expected, especially in the night time, when a squadron, with young inexperienced officers of watches, and manned by raw crews, put to sea for the first time. But that only showed the importance of keeping our squadrons at sea. He believed the right hon. Baronet would find that our Channel fleet, notwithstanding the recent collisions, was well commanded and officered, and that the accidents which had occurred at starting would be followed by complete success.

said, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had brought this subject before the House. He thought if there was blame at all, it was in sending a young squadron to sea, totally inexperienced, to face the equinoctial gales. When that was the case, they must expect to meet with accidents. But he could not agree with the Secretary to the Admiralty that these collisions had been caused by weather. It was said that the sails were taken aback, and that orders were given to tack. Now, there was a stringent order which all Bailors knew, that when a squadron tacked, the vessels in the port line were to give way to the vessels on the starboard line. He thought, therefore, blame must attach to the captain of the ship on the port tack. But then, if the Admiralty would not send the fleet to sea in fine weather, when circumstances compelled them to go to sea in bad weather, accidents were sure to occur, because it could not be expected that young officers would be familiar with all the rules and regulations connected with the conduct of a squadron at sea. He believed there was not an officer in the Channel fleet who had ever sailed in a fleet before. How could they expect but that accidents would happen when officers who had had no previous experience of sailing their ships with the stern of one at the stem of another were sent to sea in dark nights to face the equinoctial gales? He thought great blame attached to somebody in not having years ago maintained a squadron at sea; and the Admiralty were to blame in not having sent them to sea sooner. If they had gone last year from June to September, they would have been got into proper order before the equinoctial gales came on.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements has been made by the Police for the preservation of order at St. George's Church on Sunday next. He put this question because Sunday was now near at hand, and from all the information he could collect, there appeared to be a want of harmony between the Police and the Rector and the Churchwardens on former occasions. He thought it would tend to the preservation of order if the Rector were informed by the police what the law was, and how far they intended to aid him in carrying it out. For want of a common understanding, the Police seemed to have gone one way, and the Rector and Churchwardens another; whereas, if there was a previous understanding, the danger of a collision might be avoided.

said, the Government would undertake a very difficult task if they were to make themselves responsible for maintaining a good understanding between the rector of St. George's-in-the-East, and either the churchwardens, the police, or any portion of his parishioners. It was the business of the police, and of those who instructed them, to take measures for the maintenance of the public peace during the celebration of Divine service in the church. He must say, however, that he did not consider it to be one of the ordinary duties of the police to mount guard during the performance of Divine service in any church. If such a state of things were to become common, it would be necessary that there should be a change in the law, so as to make it somewhat analogous to that which existed in Ireland, by which, when a district was disturbed, it was possible to impose a fine upon it for the maintenance of an addiditional body of police. In answer to the question, all he had to say was, that such instructions had been given to the police as would, he hoped, prevent any disturbance which might be offensive to public decorum during the performance of Divine service.

I wish to put a question to Her Majesty's Government which, I think, the House will agree with me is one of considerable importance. I am afraid I shall not be able to elicit a reply from my noble Friend at the Foreign Office or my noble Friend the Prime Minister, as both of them have already addressed the House; but perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took considerable interest in the question the other night, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may reply to it. Perhaps, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be the more proper person, for it is, as the House will see, a question of great subtlety and nicety. I am sure the House must be far from satisfied with the reply which we have received to-night from the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The reply which he gave is far from satisfactory, and I do but interpret the opinion of every Gentleman in this House when I say that we have all read the official announcement contained in the recent Speech of the Emperor of the French with the deepest emotion and concern, because it is now evident that the Emperor of the French is determined, in spite of this Government and in spite of Europe, to avail himself of the opportunity which the existing state of affairs presents, and to take by force Savoy. It would be unfitting to enter upon any discussion now; only I hope that an opportunity will soon be afforded, for it is one of the very greatest importance. I have been told that the discussion which took place here the other night, and especially the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has had considerable effect in Paris; and it is reported that the Emperor of the French says that after all the sacrifices he has made to England, both politically and commercially, he finds he has gained nothing whatever, except the support of his hon. friend, Monsieur Milnes. The question, Sir, which I have to put refers to a reading in the Speech of the Emperor of the French. The House will not have failed to remark that that Speech is given differently in The Times and The Daily News from what it is in The Morning Post. Now, The Morning Post, it is currently reported, represents not only the opinions of a portion of Her Majesty's Government, hut the general bearings of the policy of the Tuileries. The sentence to which I refer reads in The Times and The Daily News as follows:—"En présence de cette transformation deI 'Italie du Nord, qui donne â un état puissant tous les passages des Alpes, il était de mon devoir, pour la sureté de nos frontieres, de re-clamer les versants Francais," &c. His Majesty goes on—"Cette revendication d'un territoire de peu d'étendue," &c. But in The Morning Post the words are "Cette reclamation," &c. Now, the difference between these two terms is most important, and I call on Her Majesty's Government to state to Parliament and the country what is the proper interpretation to be put upon those phrases of the Emperor of the French. In 1792 the French took possession of Savoy. Now, according to the one phrase France claims—revendique—that is, it asserts a claim to that which it pretends it has a right to have. I hope I make myself understood by the House. While, according to the other, France only hopes to obtain a frontier which she thinks is essential to her security. I, therefore, call the attention of the Government to this question, and I say that not one day should be allowed to pass—if the sense of the House coincides with the opinion which I entertain—without our having an opportunity of discussing this question of Savoy, which involves the handing over the liberties of many thousands of people like so many slaves to the will and pleasure of the Emperor of the French, and against the popular sentiment of the people themselves. Something of the kind was done at the end of the last century, in the partition of Poland; but I hope this will not be the case with Savoy. I know that the universal feeling in Savoy is opposed to the annexation—they look with pride and pleasure to their connection with Piedmont; but if that connection must be severed then—as it is a curious fact, however it may be accounted for, that all mountainous and secluded people have a tendency towards republicanism—they naturally desire not to be tied to the discipline of tyranny and despotism, but their desire is to join the free, liberal, and glorious country of Switzerland, their neighbour. I do not throw out this as my opinion alone, and I regret that the noble Lord was so quick in his reply to former questions, as to prevent him from giving any expression of opinions now in explanation; but I hope the House will allow him to reply. It is most important for the House to know whether France is "claiming back" what she once had in 1792, and which Europe took from her in 1815, or whether she is submitting to Europe that the formation of an immense State, containing 9,000,000 of people in Northern Italy united under one dynasty, does not make it necessary for her "to obtain possession" of a property which will give her command of the"versants" of the Alps towards France?

Before any Member of the Government answers this question, I should like to put a question to the hon. Baronet himself, and that is, what is it he proposes to do in this case? because it is merely idling away our time—not only idling away our time, but creating greater complications in a matter of this nature, if there be no policy which the House and the Government can take upon it, or which the hon. Baronet can recommend. We are not the Parliament of France—we are not the Parliament of Savoy—we are not the Parliament of Europe—but we are the Parliament of England; and, unless it can be shown that there is any direct and obvious interest which this country has in some of these foreign questions which are constantly brought before us, what an absurd spectacle do we offer to Europe and the world with these repeated discussions! What can be more extravagant than the language in which the hon. Baronet has addressed us on this question? One would suppose that, not only Europe, but England itself, was on fire; and I am afraid the hon. Baronet's language would not extinguish it, but make it more extensive, and, if possible, hotter. Let us examine the question a little. It is not a matter which we ought to view with passion. Perhaps we are all agreed that it would be much better that every State in Europe should remain content—if its condition would permit—and that there should be no attempt on the part of anybody to disturb the boundaries of any of the existing States. But that is not the state of things, nor can we expect it. At this very moment we know that our own Government, with the approbation probably of a large majority of our fellow countrymen, are consenting parties to alterations of the boundaries of several States in Italy; and it is quite possible to imagine that the right hon. Member for Bucks and his colleagues, if they had been on these benches, would have had to consent to changes which, if no disturbances had occurred, they would not at first have recommended. But hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose that because things were settled in 1815—a settlement which was merely an unsettlement of everything—that, therefore, we, as a Conservative nation, are to stand by that settlement, and resist any disturbance of it; and that after having been consenting parties to the separation of Holland from Belgium, and to that which is now going on in Italy, we are to rouse ourselves to some new exhibition of virtue on behalf of Savoy, and are to charge the Emperor of the French with some grievous treason to Europe, because he does not regard the Treaty of Vienna as the Government and the governing classes of this country do. What is the Treaty of Vienna to him but a great compact which signed for the moment the overthrow, if not the degradation, of his family. He must regard with pleasure—any man in his place must—the crumbling into ruin of a fabric which never should have been erected, and which never, by any possibility, could for a long time have subsisted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in regretting not only that this question has been raised here, but that it should have been raised in Paris. I say that this step will produce no accession of power and no advantage to France. [Oh!] Well, if France can become more powerful by the addition of the scanty population of a mountainous region, it is more than I can exactly calculate or appreciate. I do not believe that Sardinia will be sensibly weakened or changed if the transfer takes place. I doubt extremely whether any disadvantageous circumstances will arise to the people of Savoy. But let us for one moment suppose that Franco and Sardinia are agreed —I know not if they are—but let us sup-pose they have determined to apply to the people of Savoy the principle which the Governments are now willing should be applied to the people of Central Italy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth argued on the assumption that the people of Savoy are about to be transferred by some great force from a state of blissful freedom to a state of degradation and servitude. Well, that is certainly not very complimentary to the French people, who may be quite as well pleased with their institutions as we are with ours, and who may feel satisfied with the social liberty which we have not, and may even prefer it to the political liberty which we have, I do not pretend to know more than the hon. Baronet, but I have heard from persons of high authority that the inhabitants of Savoy have not only no objection to the transfer, but would prefer to be annexed to France. We may all be sorry that it is so; but I will tell the House the reason. The best authority that I have been able to consult in this matter has assured me that the annexation of Savoy to France would go far to double the value of all the landed property in that country. I would not give much for the loyalty of other persons besides the people of Savoy, if I could promise them to Jouble the value of all the landed property in the kingdom. I am told further that the intelligent portion of the labouring classes of that province are well aware that the annexation would add greatly to the value of labour in the district. Lyons is not more than from two to three hours journey, if so much, from Chamberry; the manufacturers of Lyons, with their capital, their looms, and their industry, would instantly spread through the valleys of that province, and an immediate addition would be made to the value of everything which now exists in Savoy. Now, I don't want the Government to give the slightest countenance to this transference; I do not want them, on the other hand, to give the slightest opposition to it. The opposition, if you give it, must be futile; you cannot prevent the transference of Savoy, but you may, if you like, embroil Europe and bring England into collision with Fiance. I say, perish Savoy—though Savoy, I believe, will not perish and will not suffer—rather than we, the representatives of the people of England, should involve the Government of this country with the people and the Government of France on a matter in which we have really no interest whatever. But Savoy would not perish nor even suffer. I find, unfortunately, that the more remote a foreign question appears to be from our own interests, the more it appears to absorb the sympathies of certain Members of the House. Have we not for generations past endeavoured to settle the map of Europe? Have we not—as if it were not worth a thought—spent blood and treasure for the purpose of fixing certain boundaries, and de- claring that certain provinces and kingdoms should belong to certain families; and have we not utterly and ignominiously failed in every attempt that we have made? Let us, then, in the name of common sense, and of the interests of the people of England, judge, if we can, this question calmly and dispassionately, as a matter which really concerns only the kingdom of France, the kingdom of Sardinia, and the people of Savoy. And if these two kingdoms have agreed on the transfer, and the people of Savoy themselves are favourable to it, I say it is contrary to the interests of England, and to the honour of the English Government, to pretend to interpose against a transaction which, though I would never have recommended or promoted it, is yet, I am sure, not worth the imposition of a single tax on Englishmen, or the expenditure of a single drop of blood, for one moment to prevent.

I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that this is the Parliament of England, and not of France. But I think we at least have made this discovery from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that if this be the Parliament of England, and not of France, at any rate France is not unrepresented in our body. Suspicions may have been previously entertained throughout England as to the reasons which have induced the hon. Gentleman to show such marked attachment and to profess such unwonted affection for certain treaties and engagements which have recently formed the subject of discussion in this House; but we now know that there is no price which the hon. Gentleman is not willing to pay rather than these objects, to which he attaches so much importance, should fail of being carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman, I hope, does not speak the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government on this question. Certain I am that he does not speak the sentiments of the people of England. We now know the measure and bounds of the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman—if he gets fourpence where he used to get twopence he does not hesitate to tell us that transfers his loyalty and his allegiance. For great as is the opinion which the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly entertains of himself, I do not attribute to him such overweening vanity as to suppose that when he said there were great classes who would not hesitate to trausfer their loyalty if their incomes were doubled; he meant that he himself was above such considerations. He spoke, I doubt not, from an intimate knowledge of his own heart and sentiments; and there I leave the hon. Gentleman. But I trust the Government do not sympathize with the statement which we have heard from his lips. "Perish Savoy," says the hon. Gentleman; perish the freedom of the Press; perish Constitutional Government; perish everything which stands in the way of the realization of our treaty with France! But the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say it mattered nothing whether France annexed this or that country; for the statement which he made was general. Annex Savoy! it is natural that it should be annexed; he has received information—he does not tell us from what quarter—that the people of Savoy wish it. Annex Belgium! The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, will be able, at the proper moment to inform the House of Commons he has information in his pocket that the people of Belgium wish to be annexed. Annex the Rhenish provinces of Prussia! We shall have a similar statement from the hon. Gentleman. But, I ask, is this the language of an English Member of Parliament? Does this language represent the feelings of the people of England? Is the determination of the hon. Gentleman the determination of this House and of those who sent us here? I believe, nay, I am confident, the hon. Member stands alone in the expression of those opinions. I wish now to ask one further question of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, which I trust he will be good enough to answer. The noble Lord, at the outset of this somewhat irregular discussion, stated very correctly that a short time ago he informed the House that he was told by the French Government the Emperor of France would not proceed to annex Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe. This afternoon the noble Lord read a statement of the Emperor of the French made in Paris yesterday, of which the language is as follows:—"France does not wish to proceed to this aggradizement, however small it may be, either by military occupation or provoked insurrection, or by underhand manœuvres, but by frankly explaining the question to the great Powers." The question I wish to ask is, whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, there is any divergence from the language held a fortnight ago in that which is now employed, or whether Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that when the Emperor of the French says he intends to "ex- plain" the question to the great Powers, he is still inclined to "consult" them previous to the annexation; for the House will at once see there is an important difference. If you consult a person, you may be fairly presumed to be willing to act upon the advice which you receive; but if you merely explain the motives for an act, it is not so apparent that any opportunity for advice will be given, or if it be given that it is at all likely to be followed. Therefore, I should like the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, what construction Her Majesty's Government put on the more recent language as compared with that of a fortnight ago on the same subject.

said, that this was a question of much gravity, and he would entreat the House to approach its consideration neither wholly in the spirit of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tain-worth, nor in that of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. On a question of great European interest of this kind the House would not be doing justice to themselves or to their country by any personal recriminations, or by representing that any Member really had at heart any other desire than that the peace of Europe should not be disturbed. He trusted that when they came to the consideration of this question they would remember there were two elements which had been strangely left out of sight;—namely, the relation of this question to the general arrangement of Italian affairs, and the re-establishment of that great nation to which they were all looking forward with impatient and interested eyes. The question of Sardinia only came before them incidentally in relation to the great question of the nationality of Italy, and was no way essential as an Italian people to the re-establishment of an Italian nation in Europe; and he did not think any one would say that the liberation of three millions of people in Lombardy from the yoke of centuries, and their transference to a constitutional government, was not well worth the prize now sought for. In his opinion the people of Savoy had always represented the opinions of the Government of France, and had been opposed to every principle of civil and religious liberty in the Piedmontese Parliament. They had very little sympathy with the struggles in which the people of Italy were engaged, and his belief was that they would prefer to join a country which was more in accordance with their notions of religion and politics. This certainly could he done without in any degree disturbing the peace of Europe; and, supposing all other circumstances to be satisfactory, the annexation of Savoy would be no unjust compensation to France for the 50,000 lives she bad sacrificed and the millions of money she had expended in the cause of Italy. What had we done for Italy which could for a moment compare with what France had done for her? He had not approached this question as a Member representing the interests of France. He trusted none of them were representatives either of Sardinia or France, but that they only represented English interests and English honour.

I cannot allow this discussion to close without answering the question of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), and making some observations on what has occurred in the House just now. The noble Lord asks whether I understand that the Emperor of the French means merely to explain his case for the annexation of Savoy, or whether he means to consult the Powers of Europe. Upon reading the speech of the Emperor of the French, and on hearing the explanation which the Ambassador of France has given mo to-day, I can have no doubt that it is the intention of the Emperor of the French to consult the great Powers of Europe with respect to the annexation of Savoy. And now, if the noble Lord will permit it, let us a little consider what is the position of the Emperor of the French with respect to this question. This is not a question relating solely to his own power and position, but it is a question relating to the position of France and her security in Europe. It is alleged by a great portion of the French people, and certainly alleged by statesmen attached to very different dynasties from the Emperor's, that the aggrandizement of power beyond the Alps and the addition to the kingdom of Sardinia of a considerable territory would make France worse as regards her security, and would enable the King of Sardinia, in case of war, and being engaged on the side of other Powers, so to threaten the French frontier as to make it necessary for the Sovereign of France to keep two armies, one on the side of Savoy the other on the side of Nice in order to guard against the danger of invasion. Wishing, therefore, as he and his Government state, to maintain the same security as they hitherto have had, and thinking that that security would be impaired by the creation of such a kingdom as I have mentioned, the Emperor of the French says that it is hut due to the security of France, if the consent of the people of Savoy can be obtained, to annex that country to France; but he has also stated some time ago, and I understand he states it now—and this in my opinion is the meaning of the speech which has just been pronounced —that he wishes to consult the great Powers of Europe on that very annexation. I beg the House to consider that it cannot be a matter of indifference to any ruler of France what is the opinion of Europe generally, and of the great Powers, upon his position. In this very Speech the Emperor of the French states that he is not going to annex Savoy by way of military conquest. What does that mean? It means that he is not ready to encounter the general disapprobation and distrust of Europe, but that he believes that his Government can lay such statements before the different Powers of Europe as would enable him, without reproach and with their consent, to make this annexation of Savoy. I differ from the Government of France in these sentiments. I, as belonging to one of the Powers of Europe concerned, not being in the situation of either France or Sardinia, conceive that the annexation of Savoy and the occupation of the passes of the Alps would be more threatening to Italy than the present situation of affairs is threatening to France. At the same time, I must beg to impress on the House this further consideration. The Powers of Europe are to be consulted; —but England is a Power which does not merely consist of the executive Government, but also of the Crown and the Parliament of the United Kingdom; therefore, I should be far from wishing that on this matter the Parliament of England should not hold and pronounce its opinion; but there is this to be said, that if we are to raise, as I think the hon. Member for Tamworth seemed disposed to do, angry discussions on this subject,—if we are to take mere assertions in the place of truth, and to suppose bad motives on the part of a friendly Sovereign,—I say the only effect of debates carried on in such a temper would be to excite angry feelings, not only between the executive Government of France and the Government of England, but between the people of France and the people of England; and I cannot conceive, however much the noble Lord opposite may vaunt his own patriotism as opposed to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that a man could render a worse service to England than endeavour to raise feelings which would necessarily lead to sentiments of suspicion and hostility on the part of both countries. It is from such feelings that ruptures arise. I have already said that I think that the Emperor of the French is wrong on this subject, and that he has proposed an annexation which he was not justified in asking for; but I say that this is a question to be fairly considered, and there can be no advantage to this country or to Europe in making it a question of anger, and not of calm consideration in respect to all the reasons that can be alleged on the one side and on the other. I have stated that the Emperor of the French had declared that after consulting with the great Powers of Europe, and obtaining likewise the consent of the people of Savoy, he wished to make this addition to his dominions,—I say "with the consent of the people of Savoy," because our Ambassador at Paris has pointedly asked that question of M. Thouvenel. M.Thouvenel being so applied to, in consequence of the Emperor's speech not mentioning the consent of the people of Savoy, with the view of its being ascertained whether the Emperor of the French had changed his determination on this point, gave the assurance that no change had taken place in that respect, and that the Emperor was as determined as before not to attempt the annexation without the consent of the people of Savoy. I must say that I heard with concern the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and I should not be conveying my impression of the discussion if I did not add that I also heard with great concern the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham. I believe that these questions are mixed up with the general relations of the Powers of Europe to each other; that they have an important bearing on the confidence which one State is disposed to place in another; and that the independence of the different States does constitute that security in Europe without which neither trade nor commerce nor social intercourse can subsist. A great change has been brought about in Italy. That change, while it will be, I trust, for the benefit of the people of Italy, breaks off old relations, establishes new ties, and cannot be accomplished without the risk of further disturbance and of further collision between Powers which ore now to be separated by new boundaries, and which, at the same time, are animated by old hatreds and by old animosities. Sir, it appears to me that it is the duty of the English Government, and, I will add, it is the duty of the English Parliament to consider in this state of affairs how best the peace of Europe can be maintained and consolidated, to give no reason for an increase of suspicion and animosity towards us on the part of other Powers, and above all, not by premature discussion, while the papers on this subject are yet unread, come to conclusions which may be unwarranted, and to form judgments upon the conduct of foreign Sovereigns, which afterwards, when the full evidence is before you, you may find to be inconsistent with the position of this country and unfair towards the ruler of a country like France, with whom it is our interest to keep on terms of friendship and alliance.

assured the House that nothing was further from his intention than to raise angry discussions as regarded the relative positions of this country with France. He was a warm adherent of the alliance with France, and he would be the last man to sow seeds of dissensions which would endanger its further continuance. As regarded the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he could only assure him that when he (Sir R. Peel) endeavoured to advocate the interests of Savoy, he had reason to believe that he was representing the opinions of a very large number of the inhabitants of that country.

I omitted to notice the question asked by the hon. Baronet as to the versions of the Emperor's speech which appear in different newspapers. We have only got a telegram, which may be incorrect, and I do not think the House can judge which is the correct version of the speech until it appears in the Moniteur, which I think will not have taken place until this morning.

wished to revert for a few moments to a subject respecting which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) had already asked a question. It appeared that the decision of the Trustees of the British Museum in favour of the removal of the Natural History collection had been carried by the casting vote of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The House would recollect that a Select Committee of that House had reported against building a National Gallery at Kensington, on the ground that that locality was too far removed from the great mass of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and that to place it there would be to consult the interests of the rich alone. The same argument applied with increased force to the removal of the collection of Natural History from the British Museum. The noble Lord had not given a full and satisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Honiton. The noble Lord said the Trustees had determined to remove the collection, but that they had not determined to what place. He (Mr. Danby Seymour) found that at the meeting at which that decision was come to, and which was called in a very extraordinary manner, two questions were raised—first, whether the collection should be removed, and next, whether it should go to Kensington; and a committee of Trustees was appointed to ascertain what would be the difference in the cost of buying five acres of land at Kensington and five acres near the British Museum. It therefore appeared that the removal to Kensington was nearly determined upon. But he really thought that before it was, contrary as it virtually would be to the decision of the Select Committee, the whole subject should be brought before another committee. It was said that the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition would sell the land required at a low rate, and that the gain which would result from fixing the site at Kensington instead of in the neighbourhood of the Museum would be £212,000. But it must be remembered that if the collection were taken to Kensington, a most expensive museum would be required. But even supposing there was a gain of £100,000 by the transaction, that would not counterbalance the objection to removing the collection to a portion of the town entirely inhabited by the rich and luxurious. To take away the Natural History collection was to destroy one of the most attractive portions of the British Museum, which was largely resorted to by the working classes. Surely before a determination was taken, which virtually ignored the decision of a Committee of that House, the subject should be brought under the notice of Parliament. He believed that some underhand means were used by certain influential persons in this country to remove the National Col- lections to the west-end of London, in spite of the popular branch of the Legislature. He said "underhand means," because, while no attempt was made to popularize the other national collections, large sums were being spent at Kensington in giving lectures, in lighting with gas the buildings erected there, in registering day by day the number of visitors, in establishing schools, opening the galleries at night, giving conversaziones, and sending out cards of invitation to all whose support might be valuable hereafter. Everything, in fact, was done to popularize the Exhibition at Kensington, with the ultimate view, he believed, of removing the natural collection to that end of the town. The British Museum was now accessible to the mass of the population, and for all purposes was far better in its present position. With regard to the new building which would become necessary, it was certain that if the present system of nepotism continued, and the Smirke family was employed from father to son to make the estimates, the public money would be wasted in the future as it had been in the past. Mr. Smirke was not a proper person to call in for the purpose of making these estimates. For nearly a century the Smirke family, from father to son, had received pay from the nation; it was time that talent should be called forth from some other source. The trustees of the British Museum, on which large sums of public money were yearly spent, ought not to be allowed to take so important a step by such a bare majority as the vote of the noble Lord the head of the Government.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to the interests of the public service, the Treasury contemplates, in the revision of the Customs Department which must necessarily take place consequent upon the alterations in the Tariff, placing those Officers on the Superannuation or Redundant List who have hitherto been found unworthy of reward or unfit for promotion; and further, whether any provision will be made for the purpose of bringing forward those Officers, without regard to the mere routine system of promotion, who, from their knowledge of commercial matters, and possessing the confidence of the mercantile world, are more likely to carry out the new arrangement to the satisfaction of the public.

entirely sympathised with the spirit in which the hon. Member had put his Question. He was probably aware that for many years promotion in the Revenue Department had not been in the hands of the political advisers of the Crown, but had been left to the heads of that Department. That was a very wise arrangement, made originally by Lord Liverpool, and it had worked very well. The promotion which would take place in consequence of these changes would be made by the Treasury, and he certainly thought the hon. Member had given a just description of the principles on which it ought to proceed—namely, that advantage ought to be taken of the opportunity to place on the superannuation list, or even on the redundant list, if necessary, such persons as are of inferior or declining efficiency, on account of age or ill health, and that the consequent promotions ought not to be made in the spirit of routine, but with a view to further improvements in the administration of what he believed was, on the whole, a well-governed service. He hoped the House would not consider it necessary to continue the discussion of the removal of any part of the collections of the British Museum. There were other questions more urgent as to time. It was very inconvenient to keep the commercial interests of London and other places in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. Hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the British Museum might rest assured that nothing would be done to fetter the free discretion of the House without the fullest discussion of the subject.

gave notice that on Monday after the report of the Resolutions, it was his intention to move that a humble address be presented to Her Majesty expressing the concurrence and approval of the House in regard to the Commercial treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French.

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland, having given notice of an Amendment on the Address, was anxious that the terms of it should be put in writing in order that he might know how to meet it.

promised that the hon. Member for Sunderland should be in possession of the terms of the Address on Monday morning.

asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it was their intention to move that the Motion of the hon, Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) with reference to the French Treaty should have precedence of the other orders on Monday.

It is in. tended to move the Address in question after the Resolutions of the Committee have been reported. I apprehend it will be competent for the House to allow the Motion to come on then.

Does the Government intend to move that the Motion shall have precedence of the orders of the day?

Care will be taken to do only what is regular.