said, that he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India, to the statements published in The Times of the 23rd inst., which represented the conduct of the Indian Cadets in passing through Egypt as "systematically outrageous," and to ask him whether there was any truth in the charge thus made; and if so, whether he was prepared to take steps for discovering and punishing past offenders, and for exercising more control over those young gentlemen for the future. It was alleged that the Cadets entered the great mosque at Cairo while a religious ceremony was being performed, and the Viceroy was present; and they misconducted themselves so grossly, that by the direction of the Viceroy they were turned out of the building. This was not a mere ordinary disturbance. It was most important for the safety of our Indian Empire that the privilege of transit through Egypt should be maintained; but could we expect to maintain it, considering the sensitiveness of Eastern nations in matters of religion, if such outrages were continued? If the officers alluded to in The Times were really guilty of such conduct, they showed themselves ill qualified for their future position in India, a country where it was essential that every respect should be paid to the religious prejudices of the Natives. If, on the other hand, the offenders were not officials, it was necessary that some special power should be given to our representatives in Egypt, by which they should I be enabled to exercise some control over the English passengers. The question was not merely whether the transit should be made unpleasant to succeeding passengers—far more important results were at stake. The Mahomedans had the means of spreading, with extraordinary rapidity, any news relating to their religion; and who could tell that what was done out of contempt for Mahomedanism in Cairo might not produce a bad effect among the fanatical tribes on our north-western frontier? France had always been carrying on intrigues against us in Egypt, her object apparently being to render our tenure of the transit route precarious, and, upon a favourable opportunity, to interrupt it altogether. The Suez Canal was, no doubt, projected with this view; for a large number of Frenchmen would thereby have been brought into Egypt, and would have established for France a greater hold upon the country. Hitherto we had been able effectually to maintain the transit, owing to the friendly relations which existed with the Porte, and the profit derived by the latter; but, if these outrages upon the Mahomedan religion were repeated, the Porte might no longer be inclined to allow the use of this route by England.

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, he wished to observe that gentlemen going to India had a right to complain of an anonymous accusation, charging them with the commission of systematic outrages. The account in The Times set forth that "we" had ascertained that the Indian Cadets were guilty of these offences. Who were the "we" here referred to? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would try to ascertain this, and, if necessary, would prosecute the accuser for gross calumny. As to the specific case mentioned, it was stated in a letter in The Times that at the moment when this outrage was said to have taken place at Cairo, the Bombay passengers had left Suez and were on the voyage to Aden. Under the old règime the Court of Directors were in the habit, when they sent out Cadets, of placing them in the charge of an officer who was bound to send a report to the Court of Directors of the conduct of the individuals under his charge, and if any one misconducted himself, the Court of Directors would send orders with regard to his disposal afterwards in India. In this way they were enabled to ascertain what was the conduct of Cadets after leaving this country, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) whether he had received systematic reports from India on this point, and whether there was on record a single instance of outrages of this description?

said, he was anxious to put a question to the President of the Poor Law Hoard upon a subject that was just then of considerable importance. In the course of the discussion upon the Reform Bill many doubts had been cast upon the accuracy of the Returns which had been obtained by the Government, and which had no doubt been taken as the basis for their Reform Bill. For instance, his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had stated it to be notorious that premises were very frequently rated at amounts below the rent for which they were let. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had told the House that these Returns made out the addition to the number of voters in that borough to amount to only 50 per cent, whereas, after a careful examination, he found that the actual increase would be 90 or 100 per cent. As the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department contended that the Returns were accurate, the matter was a vexata quœstio, and an effort ought to be made to settle it. The instructions from the Poor Law Board to the proper authorities in the different boroughs were clear and precise, but they required, in addition to the Returns that had been published, a return of all those who paid rates from £5 to £6. Such a Return had accordingly been furnished, but the Government having determined upon a £6 franchise had not thought it necessary to lay before the House the return of persons assessed at £5 and under £6, yet it was really important to have it, as affording information on a most material point. In reference to Hertford, one of his constituents, who was very well informed on the subject, in reply to an application from himself, had favoured him with a communication in which the whole matter was so conclusively stated that he would read it to the House. His correspondent said:—

"In answer to your inquiry, I do not think that the Parliamentary paper No. 124 shows the maximum increase that may be expected under the £6 franchise. The parish returns may, I think, be relied upon. The instructions from the Poor Law-Board, on which they are founded, are so clear and precise that the parish officers could not misunderstand them; but the whole of them are not given in No. 124, and I think that, in order to obtain the maximum under a £6 franchise, the returns from the parish officers in the column '£5 and under £6' gross estimated rental should be taken into consideration. The returns from Hertford wore as follows:—£5 and under £6, 135; £6 and under £7, £75; £7 and under £8, 38; £8 and under £9, 98; £9 and under £10, 27; £10 and upwards, 541; but the '£5 and under £6' column is not given in No. 124. The number under that column is, you see, 135, and from inquiries that have been made, I am told that positively sixty of these are paying rents of £6 and upwards, and that probably more of them would come in under a £6 franchise. The error in the Government calculation, if an error it should turn out to be, appears to mo to be that they have taken the 'gross estimated rental' of the parish books as amounting to the same thing as the 'clear annual value' of the Reform Act. Perhaps, in law it ought to do so, but certainly in fact it does not. As far as Hertford is concerned, part 2 of No. 124 gives 238 only as the maximum increase for Hertford under the £6 franchise, whereas the real maximum would be, for the reasons I have stated above, about 300. Again, part 1, No. 124, seems designed to show the excess which the £6 franchise would give over the number of electors now on the register. The column relating to the number of electors gives 613 for Hertford in 1858–1859, whereas that is the number of names on the register book: but the real number of electors, as was clearly stated in the Hertford return, was only 539; the difference of 74 arises from the fact of duplicate qualifications. Then take the last column, for 'excess over electors,' this gives 166 only for Hertford, whereas, if the correct number of electors had been given, the excess would have been 240; and, if we add to this the number that would come in from the '£5 and under £6' column, the maximum would be at least 300 of excess, instead of only 166. I merely state how the matter stands as to Hertford. I know nothing about other boroughs, but it seems to me that return No. 124 does not give the maximum under a £6 franchise."

"Lord John Russell's notion that about 220,000 voters will be added to the borough constituency is incorrect, and I feel persuaded that the increase will be at least 400,000. The fact is, that he bases his calculation upon the returns from the poor-rate; but the words in his Reform Bill are 'value or rental,' and my own impression is that if you take the two columns in the rate-book and find a house with a gross value of £5 and a rateable value of £4, it will nearly always command a rent of £6, and will consequently confer the vote as I understand; but all these cases are omitted in Lord John Russell's calculations as to the increase, because his returns only included properties which have a value of £6 attached to them in the poor-rate book. Everybody who has had any experience in the mode of making poor-rates well knows that the gross value in the poor-rate does not represent the rent, and of course the rateable value is still less."

"I enclose you an account of the number of houses rated at sums varying from £5 to £6 but not including any at £6, which I have personally extracted from the rate-book, and can, therefore, rely upon. The rateable value of houses in "Windsor is at about two-thirds of the actual rent, and I have known several eases in which parties have claimed to be on the register as £10 householders, although only rated at £6 or £7."

said, in answering the question which had just been asked upon this subject, he should not enter upon a matter which belonged to the general subject. He was asked whether the instructions for a Return of the male occupiers did not extend to that of £5 occupiers. His reply was, that the instructions did so extend. The reason why that information was not laid before the House in the Return numbered 124 was that he (Mr. Villiers) did not move for that Return. In the first place, these Returns were not made on any Motion of the House, but were Returns made for the information of the Government before they decided on the measure of Parliamentary Reform to be submitted to the House; and when it was decided to limit the franchise to £6 occupiers, he did not think it would be interesting to the House to know the number of male occupiers of a lower denomination. A wish had, however, since been expressed in the House for that Return; a Motion had been made on the subject; and he believed that the document would be laid on the table that evening. Up to this moment not the least reason had been found, in the department with which he was connected, for doubting the accuracy of the Returns. Whenever an instance of inaccuracy had been cited in the House, a particular inquiry had been instituted, and the correctness of the Returns had been verified. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had stated, for instance, that there was a difference of 50 per cent between the numbers on the Returns and the real numbers in that borough, referring to the addition which would be made to the constituency. He thought that noble Lord must have had very precise information, and, in consequence, he directed special inquiries to be made as to the Return for King's Lynn, and the result of those inquiries was that the Return was perfectly accurate; therefore the statement of the noble Lord must have been made on somewhat inaccurate information. It was almost exactly the same with every other case of supposed inaccuracy which had been brought before the House. He did not pretend that the Returns in question were infallible; he did not say that there might not be some way of accounting for the discrepancy between the numbers stated by hon. Gentlemen and those which appeared in the Government Returns; but whenever an inquiry had been made, the accuracy of the Returns had been verified. The statement made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had made a statement as to the inaccuracy of the Returns, offered no exception to this observation. He did not pretend to question the inquiries which his hon. and learned Friend said he had himself made, not only into the Return for his own borough, but into those of not less than eighty other boroughs to which he had extended his investigations. His hon. and learned Friend had stated the result of those inquiries very distinctly and emphatically to the House; and when any hon. Gentleman made a statement on his own word and honour, the House was bound to pause. He repeated that he did not deny the accuracy of his hon. and learned Friend's statement; but he did say that inquiries of the parochial officers had been instituted, and that up to that moment the Returns had been verified. He did not believe that a Return of those persons who were rated at £5 would prove of much more importance to hon. Members, because no one is likely to be placed on the rate-book at a higher valuation than the rent which he paid, and if he were placed on it at a lower value that fact would attract the notice of his neighbours, who would not allow him long to be favoured at their expense.

Sir, I must express my surprise at hearing the right hon. Gentleman state that he adheres to the opinion that the Returns are accurate. I presume that what he means is this—that they are fairly copied from the rate-book. Is that his reason? [Mr. VILLIERS intimated his assent. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, I for one do not doubt it. I never imputed to the right hon. Gentleman that these are falsified lie-turns, or that the Government had any intention to deceive the House. What I have said is this—that these Returns convey to the House an erroneous impression as to the number of voters which will be added to the register under these respective amounts. And why? Because I maintain that the column in the rate-books headed "gross estimated rental" affords no accurate information as to the amounts of rental really paid. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly or not? Is that what he means when he says these Returns are accurate—that they are correctly copied from the rate-book? [Mr. C. P. VILLIERS: Yes.] I am very glad to hear that admission; the right hon. Gentleman has only told us what we never doubted; and I tell him that his answer is no answer at all to the point really at issue, and which is a point of immense importance in discussing this subject,—namely, what is to be the real addition to the constituencies. Since I brought this matter before the House I have had communications from, I was about to say, all parts of England; but, I may say, letters from many places containing local information as to what will be the real effect of a £6 franchise if adopted. They are unanimously to the effect that in the local knowledge of the parties writing, these Returns give no information whatever that can be relied on. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to what was said on a former occasion by my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). He says he has caused inquiry to be made in King's Lynn, and that he finds the Return for that borough to be perfectly correct; that the addition will be 50 per cent and not 100, as my noble Friend says. But the two statements are quite compatible. The right hon. Gentleman has been to the rate-book, and finds the addition to be 50 per cent; my noble Friend inquires into the real state of the case and finds it 100. Among the gentlemen from whom I have received letters on the subject is one who fills the office of Revising Barrister. His letter is not marked "private," and I presume he has no objection to my repeating its contents. He says he revises the lists of voters for three of the most populous boroughs in Staffordshire, the Potteries, the town of Stafford, and Newcastle-under-Lyme; and that in those three boroughs he is in the habit of adding numbers of persons to the electoral roll who come before him and prove that they pay £10, or more than £10, rent, though they appear in the rent column of the rate-book at much lower amounts. I have no doubt the Returns are correctly copied from the rate-books; but that is no criterion; and the only complaint I make against the Government is this—that in making this Return to the House of Commons, professing as it does to be the guide as to what will be the real addition to the constituencies, they did not candidly state on the face of it that which is notorious to every person acquainted with these subjects, namely, that the "gross estimated rental" column of the rate-book is not a fair criterion by which to judge of the number of persons who pay a rent of £6. But within the last few days a little light has been thrown on the omission on the part of the Government. Every hon. Gentleman must have seen a very long letter which appeared in The Times newspaper a few days ago, signed "W. V. H." I read that letter because it bore on this interesting question, and I was struck with two things; first, that it was perfectly evident on the face of that letter that the writer of it, whatever he may know of the law, knows nothing of the practice of rating; secondly, that while he betrays his own want of knowledge on the subject, he indulges most indecorously and offensively in the abuse of every one who differs from him. But since I read that letter I have heard with surprise that the writer is a person who was employed by the Government to collect information for the purpose of compiling this very Return. I know nothing but common rumour for the authenticity of this report; but if it be true that the Government were induced by any reason whatever to intrust the collection of this information to a gentleman who, though he is a master of vituperative language, knows very little of the subject on which he writes, I am not surprised that the Government were misled, and that they did not convey to the House that information which it had a right to expect, but which it is quite clear that this gentleman was little calculated to impart.

said, he thought it right to take the opportunity of making an explanation to the House relative to statements which he had made a few evenings previous, when the accuracy of the Government Returns was under discussion. On that occasion he incidentally took part in the debate, and he then mentioned the fact that the Government estimates of the addition which would be made to the £10 constituency by the Reform Bill differed very materially from a private estimate which he had received. It would be recollected that on that occasion he carefully guarded himself from expressing any personal opinion as to which return was correct and which was incorrect, and that he contented himself with simply stating that the fact afforded a fair ground of inquiry. He felt bound, however, in fairness and justice to state to the House that he had that day received a letter from the gentleman who supplied him with that private estimate or return, in which he stated that, after having looked over and compared it with the official document they were now discussing, he was inclined to think that his own estimate was overrated, and that he did not doubt the general accuracy of the Government Returns. He hoped the House would do him the favour to bear in mind that he had expressed no opinion of his own on the subject, and he had now thought it his duty to state to the House what had since occurred with reference to the subject.

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor-Law Board, if he had it in his power, would add to the Return a column, showing the number of persons who lived in houses between £4 and £5; because without that the House would not get full and accurate information on the subject. He begged to say he agreed with every word which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich. Every one conversant with rating knew that the column of gross estimated rental did not represent the actual rent paid to the landlord. They were, therefore, attaching different meanings to the same words. The President of the Poor Law Board had supposed that the accuracy of the Returns had been doubted. That was not the fact. The fact doubted was whether that Return represented the actual rent paid. He (Mr. Henley) confessed he was never more astonished in his life than when he heard the President of the Poor Law Board express an opinion that it did accurately represent the rent paid. He knew very well, and he (Mr. Henley) knew, that it ought to represent the rent, but whether it did or not was a totally different thing. There was another thing that ought to be mentioned. All who were acquainted with rating knew that the difference between the real and estimated value was much greater, as they went lower in the scale. For what was called cottage property the rent, which was usually paid weekly, was always estimated at a figure proportionally much lower than the rent of larger houses, the rent of which was paid annually. He believed that in order to come to a correct estimate on this subject, they must give Returns as far down as £4, or the House would be misled as to the number of voters who would come in under the £6 rental. He did not say that without consideration. He had recently had an opportunity of comparing in a place very recently valued, under circumstances of very sharp litigation, within the last few years; and he had an opportunity of comparing the persons in the register as £10 householders, and he found that many of them were rated at a much lower figure than £10. Parishioners would not be at the trouble of a revaluation, and certainly there was no tendency to deteriorate in rateable value. He further thought the Government might have an opportunity of testing the accuracy of these Returns by means of the Returns to Schedule A of the property tax. He thought that these Returns, if the Government possessed them, though they would tell them nothing about the tenements, would give them something about the rentals. But throughout the whole country he did not believe the gross estimated rental was anything like the rent actually paid.

said, he had made inquiries into the Returns for Nottingham and it might interest the House if he stated that the rate-book contained three columns—one for the rent actually received by the landlord, another for the net-rent, a third for the rateable value. The first column consisted, with regard to the houses which were compounded for, of the total payment by the tenant to the landlord for rent and rates; the second contained the net-rent, the point on which the House was seeking information; and then the rateable value was a calculated amount. He had received from several collectors of rents in Nottingham the actual amount of rent they re- ceived for several hundreds of houses. He had had these compared with the rate-book, and the result was that the latter was found to be substantially correct, if not correct in every instance. His own belief was that they were entirely correct; and, contrary to his expectations, he found that the additional constituency in the ease of Nottingham would not be greater than had been stated by the Government.

said, he had made inquiries into the case of Liverpool, and was told that the Returns were correctly given by the Government. He thought, however, that they would give a very imperfect idea of the probable constituency owing to the wandering habits of the population, under £10 rental, and from the circumstance that so very few paid their full rates. He believed the additional number of voters would not be higher than from 4,000 to 5,000. Under the present qualification there are 39,730 tenements, but there were so many occupiers who did not pay the whole of their rates, that although at present the constituency was considered to be 18,000, after making the necessary deductions it was not in reality more than 16,000. On the supposition that the Reform Bill passed, the number of the constituency, according to the information he had obtained, would not exceed 20,000, or about 4 per cent of the whole population of Liverpool.

said, he had taken considerable interest in the question I of rating, and his belief was that in the rural districts the gross estimated value did not represent the real rent of house property. He did not see how the Government could have obtained any Returns as to the real rental in all the parishes of England, as the rent was entirely a matter between the landlord and the tenant; and the Government was obliged to take the best Returns they could get. There was another consideration, that at present the £10 franchise did actually exist with respect to those who were entered on the rate-books for £10. A largo number of these would get themselves entered on the rate-books at less than £10, and these must be deducted from the gross estimated number of votes, whilst there must be added a certain number living in houses which were below £6 in value, though rated at that amount. So that the result would be pretty nearly six on one side and half a dozen on the other. It was impossible to obtain strict- ly accurate Returns, but he believed that the Poor-law Returns were as accurate as could be.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Home Secretary to an observation he had made to the House. There was no person in the House whose authority was greater than the right hon. Gentleman's on that particular subject. He had been President of the Poor Law Board; he was now Secretary of the Home Department. It was well known that he paid great attention to the subject, and great weight had been attached to a statement he had made the other night, in his reply to the hon. Member for Leominster, that he believed the Returns which had been furnished to the Government of the gross estimated rental upon the whole represented fairly the number of persons who would claim under the £6 franchise. It was no doubt very difficult to obtain information from different parts of the country on this subject. In some places the Returns were very accurate, in others very inaccurate. In order to furnish himself with information relative to the mode of rating, he turned last evening to the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1850 on the Parochial Assessment Act, and to the most valuable Report made in 1843 by his hon. Friend the Secretary of State on local taxation. In the first the House would find it stated, on the authority of Mr. Lumley, the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, and of Mr. Hyde, the Inspector of Taxes, that the differences in valuation were very great, amounting, according to the former, to a large percentage on the estimated rental, and according to the latter, in one instance at least, to no less than 100 per cent. [Sir G. GREY: In rating?] In rating and rental both. The Report on local taxation stated that 4,400 tenements out of 15,000 had been valued, some by professional and others by independent valuers; that even when professional men made the valuation there was a difference between the real value of the tenements and the value as represented in the rate-book of 25 or 30 per cent; that when independent parties made the valuations, the inaccuracies were in some cases still greater—being, in some respects, greater than they had been before the valuation was made. The Report was signed by his right hon. Friend. It seemed to him that when a valuation took place under the Parochial Assessment Act, within six years of the time when it was made, and when subsequent valuations had not taken place, the gross estimated rental would not furnish them with accurate data as to the number of persons brought in under the Reform Bill.

said, he could give an illustration of the difficulty of getting accurate Returns of the value of property for rating. He had been Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for Devonshire, and they had the Woodbury case brought before them for settlement, after considerable delay and litigation. That was the first occasion on which he had anything to do with making a rate, and he inquired of his brother chairman what was the principle upon which the column of gross estimated rental was made up. His reply was as follows: "Get the gross estimated income by asking the tenant what he would give, he paying all taxes and tenant's rates. After that one-eighth would have to be deducted for repairs and cost of collection, and for house property take off 20 per cent." That was the rule laid down in Devonshire, which he merely mentioned as an illustration of the principle.

said, he very much agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, that if the Government had other information with regard to £5 or any other class of occupiers, the more information the House had the better. He was satisfied himself that it would show the enormous magnitude of the class of householders who, after the Reform Bill of the Government was passed, would be still excluded from the franchise. He wished, not in an unfriendly spirit, to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite were acting not very intelligently or fairly in the matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire admitted, he believed, that the investigations were complete, and as good probably as he himself would have drawn up. He (Mr. Bright) himself thought, at one time, from reading some paragraphs which had appeared in some of the newspapers, that the Returns were not accurate; but he had taken the trouble to get from the borough in which he lived the most minute information, and also to see the instructions which had been sent down to the officials. He submitted those instructions to a friend who was more competent than himself to discuss the matter, and that gentleman had come to the opinion which he (Mr. Bright) had previously formed, that was utterly impos- sible for human ingenuity to frame instructions more complete, comprehensive, and to the point, in every particular, than the instructions which were sent out by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board. Those instructions went down to the officers of the several parishes, townships, and boroughs throughout the kingdom. The House could not, however, be sure that all the men who made the Returns were of equal capacity or intelligence, and it was possible many mistakes were made. He was told that there was a very curious mistake from the borough represented by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade. It was quite possible that that might be so; but what he (Mr. Bright) complained of was that hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed the question as if the Government had intended to lay before the House unfair Returns. He did not think the hon. Member for Hertfordshire meant that, but he was sure the House would feel that in every discussion which had taken place upon that measure there had been rather a passionate disposition shown to lay a charge against the Government as if they wanted to conceal the actual number of voters that were about to be admitted to the franchise. With regard to the main question, he was disposed to agree with the Earl of Derby, who said—and he wished hon. Gentlemen opposite would act upon the noble Lord's advice a little oftener—that he was not afraid of numbers, and that what he wanted was the quality of voters. Whether the number was 200,000 or two millions was altogether indifferent to Lord Derby if the quality of the voters was satisfactory. ("Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) He was delighted to find such a general agreement upon that point. He wished to make one observation with regard to the £6 voters, whether according to those or any other returns, a house, to get upon the list, must have a £7 rental, because the amount of rate upon a £7 house should he so much—taking the borough rate, the church and poor rates, &c, into consideration—as to bring the holder of a £7 house down to £6, or even below £6; and the. House would find that the vision which some hon. Members had of the extravagant number of persons to be enfranchised would turn out to be visions indeed. He believed it was utterly impossible even to collect a constituency at all approaching to the numbers which were stated in the Returns. He took the trouble, in the borough of Rochdale, where he resided, and also with regard to Birmingham and Manchester and Salford, to make inquiries as to the accuracy of the Returns, and he found that there was no complaint whatever that they were inaccurate. There was another point in the Returns to which he would allude. The Government deducted 27½ per cent from the number in the Returns, and some friends of his in Manchester who were connected with a political reform association, not knowing in the slightest degree, any more than he did, what course the Government were taking in the matter, made some calculations based on the number of £10 electors which were produced by a certain number of £10 occupiers, and they came to the conclusion that, at least, 28 per cent was necessary to be deducted before the number of persons was obtained who were at all likely to have the franchise. It must also be borne in mind that all the causes which, above £10, diminished the number of electors as compared with occupiers, would have almost a redoubled force in the constituencies below £10 occupiers. He was therefore satisfied that the number of electors would be very much less than was feared by some hon. Members of that House, and, he was sorry to add, very much less than he wished.

said, he rose simply to state that so far from supposing the Returns were placed before the House by the Government in any unfair spirit, he actually said to the right hon. Baronet opposite that he only asked for information, and that he made his request in no hostile spirit.

said, that his information as to the operation of the noble Lord's Bill in Liverpool differed very much from that of his hon. Colleague. His hon. Friend stated that the whole constituency of Liverpool under the new Bill would not exceed 20,000. Now, the constituency at present numbered 18,700, and, adding the 3,000 or 4,000 new voters admitted by his hon. Friend to be enfranchised, the number, on his hon. Friend's own showing, would be more than 23,000. He estimated, on the contrary, that the whole number, with the additions under the present Bill, would exceed 30,000. The value of houses in Liverpool was such that the suffrage under the Bill would be really and truly a household suffrage.

said, he had no doubt that this would prove an unpleasant question for the hon. Member for Birmingham. His attention was called to the subject in consequence of what had taken place in the other House in a discussion which took place there the other night—

said, that the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that he was incorrect in the course he was pursuing of alluding to what had taken place in the other House.

apologized, and stated that from inquiries he had made, he was satisfied that these Returns contained great inaccuracies. Having heard that the question whether or not the gross estimated rental and the actual rental were the same, had been raised in "another place," he wrote to a gentleman in Bodmin for information as to the state of matters in that borough. The answer of his friend was that he had very carefully gone over the whole of the rate-book, and as he knew perfectly well the rental of all the houses in Bodmin, he was prepared to prove that there was a difference between the gross estimated rental and the actual rental, varying from 15 to 35 per cent; and, as an instance, he gave a house of his own, which was let for £37 10s., while it stood on the rate-book for £28, and was rated at £21. He (Mr. Kendall) thought there could not be a stronger evidence than this that the gross estimated rental and the actual rental were two very different things. No one meant to insinuate that the Government, in giving these Returns, wished to mislead the House; but what they wanted to show was this—that the Government had no data before them on which they could construct their Bill. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary refer, in proof of the accuracy of these Returns, to the auditors of the unions. Why, the fact was that the auditors of unions know nothing whatever about the matter.

said, he could not suffer the discussion to close without giving the house his personal knowledge on the matter. He had made inquiries on this subject from the overseers of a parish of moderate size, who told him that there were a number of houses in the parish not included in the Returns at all, because they were compounded for by the landlord as under £6, though the actual rental was above that sum. He was satisfied, therefore, that no dependence could be placed on those Returns. But he rose to suggest to the Government that they had gone to the wrong office for information on the point, and that they might ascertain exactly what was the number of £6 rented houses throughout England if they had applied to the surveyors of taxes, who could call the assessors of taxes to their aid when they found it necessary. In that way the Government might have obtained accurate information, which was most material to them in the present measure, though he admitted the point was of no importance at all if they were to come to universal suffrage.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Lord Advocate, upon what grounds instructions had been issued to the Queen's Remembrancer to limit the Allowances in Exchequer, under the head of "Unreported Criminal Prosecutions?"

said, he was informed that, in the opinion of the Lord Advocates in the late and the present Government, it was desirable to introduce the change, in order to get rid of unnecessary expense.

said, that before he put the question, of which he had given notice, he wished, as his name had been mentioned in the somewhat interlocutory discussion which had taken place on the returns of householders, to say but one word. There had been a great deal of assertion on one side, and of counter assertion on the other; but the critical analysis, which was to be performed in "another place," would soon show who was in the right, and who was in the wrong. He desired to say that he had never himself impugned, nor had he heard any other hon. Member in the House do so, either the intention of the Government in procuring the Returns, or the accuracy of the figures in themselves. All he meant to express was, his opinion that the noble Lord, the Member for London, was inaccurate in stating that the Returns he laid on the Table would show an additional number of voters of 150,000 only. [Lord J. RUSSELL: 190,000.] He believed the noble Lord's statement was about 200,000 in round numbers. That was all the charge he made—that the noble Lord's statement was inaccurate. That point would probably soon be decided: and the sooner the better; for it was painful to find the hon. Members for Liverpool differing so widely as to the number of their future constituents—one saying it would be 21,000— the other 30,000. He rose, however, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure to provide for the registration for this year of many persons who become entitled to vote in the event of the Representation of the People Bill being passed into law during the present Session of Parliament? This was a question of very considerable importance. As the Bill stood, it had no machinery whatever for the registration or revision of a new constituency. He was anxious to know whether that arose from an oversight on the part of the Government, which would be corrected by bringing in a Subsidiary Bill to supply the defect, or whether it had been intentionally done, and they meant to leave the law as it stood, without proposing any new measure on the subject. Assuming the Reform Bill to pass into law during the present Session, the Government could not hope that it would do so before the 20th of July. The system of registration, as at present provided for, commenced in July; and this being so, it would not include the new constituencies to be created under this Bill. The Reform Bill of 1832 received the Royal Assent on the 7th of June; and it prescribed, for the first time, the whole system of registration and revision. The operation began on the 20th of June; lists were made out; and all the new voters were placed on the register. The Reform Bill of last Session, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, contained a series of elaborate clauses, most ably drawn, and conferring great credit on the lawyer who prepared them, regulating the system of registration, and also a provision, necessary to any Reform Bill, that in the event of the Bill passing into law, a new system of registration should be at once commenced. Unless the Government meant to introduce a subsidiary Bill, there would be a perfect chaos of confusion. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) provided that the registration should commence immediately after the new Bill passed. The present Bill made no such provision; but he inferred, from one of its clauses, that the Government did not in- tend the new constituencies to be registered, or become voters, until 1862; and he would tell the House why. He hoped that this Bill, though a mere skeleton, would pass in the present Session: but if it did so it must be too late for the coming registration, county claims being made on the 20th of July, and borough claims on the 31st of August. As the law stood, the registration of the year 1860 would last until the 31st of December, 1861: therefore, in the event of the Bill passing, and being too late for the present year's registration, the register of the year 1860 would be the register of voters until the end of 1861; and assuming that an election occurred next year, the new constituent body would not be on the register at all. By the 20th section of the Bill the new voters were to remain, subject to the conditions at present affecting voters, and were to be entitled to be placed on the county and borough registers, on and after 1860. But the register of 1860 was in force for the whole of 1861; consequently those not registered in 1860 could not vote till 1862. This being the case, he wanted to know whether the Government contemplated a dissolution on the passing of this Bill; if so, they surely could not mean the election to take place on the old constituency. What a manifest injustice this would be, and what alarm and confusion it would excite in the country. He did not ask the Government whether they meant to dissolve on the passing of this Bill; that was a question of policy for themselves to decide; but circumstances might bring about a dissolution in the spring without the Government intending it. The Government were just then in the heyday of their popularity; but in the height of prosperity calamities might sometimes happen; and the Government might be wrecked suddenly—

"Like ships that have gone down at sea,

When heaven was all tranquillity."

said, the Government were quite ready to go into Committee on the Reform Bill whenever it should please the House to read it the second time, but he did not think their debates on the Bill would be abridged by their proceeding then to discuss its clauses with respect either to registration or any other point. He trusted therefore that the hon. and learned Member would forgive him if he did not follow him through the somewhat long argument he had addressed to the House. He could only say that the clauses relating to registration which had been introduced into the Bill were not the result of oversight, but were deliberately considered by the Government, who thought they had a clear view of the effect which those clauses would have in the event of the Bill passing in time for the registration of the present year. The Bill of last year necessarily contained a number of elaborate clauses with respect to registration, because it introduced a number of new and peculiar franchises which could not have been dealt with under the existing law. But inasmuch as the present Bill merely proposed to extend existing franchises, and not to introduce any franchise of a new description, all the Government intended to do was simply to make the existing machinery for registration applicable to the extended franchises. The provisions of the Bill were quite adequate for that purpose; but if it should turn out that, owing to the lateness of the period at which the Bill might be passed, Amendments would be required in the clauses, he and his Colleagues would be glad to consider that question in the Committee. Before he sat down, he wished to refer briefly to a statement made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), with respect to a gentleman who was employed in the first instance to collect electoral statistics. He was glad to find that it was the general opinion on both sides of the House that the Government acted with good faith and sincerity in seeking to obtain the Returns in question, with the view of guiding their own decision and ultimately the decision of the House. They were uncertain, when they began their inquiries last autumn, as to the best mode of obtaining the information. The mode which first occurred to them was that of employing certain persons, chiefly barristers, to make inquiries in a number of selected boroughs, in the hope that those boroughs might serve as specimens for the entire country. Mr. Vernon Harcourt was the first of the persons so employed. He visited two or three boroughs, but he reported to the Government that it was extremely difficult, without going through the rate-books, and submitting to an amount of drudgery which barristers would not willingly incur, to obtain accurate results, and he added that, in his opinion, a partial inquiry into a limited number of selected boroughs would not be satisfactory. Thereupon the Government abandoned the mode of inquiry which they had adopted in the first instance, and determined to send instructions through the Poor Law Board to every borough in the kingdom. Mr. Vernon Harcourt had no connection with the second inquiry, but it was conducted entirely by the officers of the Poor Law, who received a small remuneration in order to insure greater accuracy. The Return on the table was obtained by the Poor Law Board. His impression, derived from all the information he had received on the subject, and confirmed by inquiries instituted for the purpose by the Poor Law Board, was that, in respect to boroughs, the column of gross estimated rental, as distinguished from the column containing the rateable value, represented on the whole with tolerable accuracy the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord. He was quite aware that in particular cases inaccuracy existed, but for legislative purposes it might be taken as an approximation sufficiently close to guide that House to a practical conclusion. It was clear that no statement of that kind could be strictly correct, and some discrepancies between the rent really paid and the gross estimated rental as entered in the rate-book must exist, though it was not likely that in any considerable number of cases a higher rental was entered in the rate-book than that actually paid. It might be presumed that, where there was a difference, it was something less than more than the real rent. Therefore, the error must undoubtedly be on the side of deficiency. The matter was one of fact, no doubt, and it was no imputation on the accuracy of the Returns if it should prove on inquiry that the gross estimated rental did not approximate closely to the real rental, for that was a question beyond the Return. If it could be shown that the belief of the Government on that point was wrong, he should be quite ready to admit, like the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that he was in error. The Government had no particular object in the question except to ascertain the truth. A material circumstance, however, had been pointed out by the hon. Member the original author of the Assessment Act, that in the original estimates founded on these Returns credit had been given for every- thing between £10 and £6. If the hon. Member's arguments were correct it was clear that a large portion of those under £10 must in fact be existing voters; therefore, whatever was added from those between £6 and £5 must to a certain, if not to an equal, extent, be compensated by the deductions made for those between £10 and £9, or between £9 and £8, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had remarked, there might probably be a greater tendency to undervalue in the lower than in the upper strata.

said, he should like to know if any application had been made to the Income Tax Commissioners relative to these Returns. He had heard of a case where the Commissioners had put 25 per cent on the gross estimated rental, and when remonstrated with, the reply was that the properly of the parish was notoriously rated low to reduce the quota to be paid towards the county and highway rates.

said, there could be no doubt the Government had done their best to obtain correct information; but he believed a mistake had been made in addressing the returns to the poor law auditors, men who practically knew nothing about the subject, instead of the magistrates at quarter sessions, or barristers who had been at quarter sessions, and who knew practically what the fact was. He was in a position to inform the House, on the authority of the town-clerk, that the gross estimated rental in Guildford was in every case below the actual value, but that the proportion in which that difference existed was anything but uniform; and the town-clerk added that he noticed, on inspecting the rate-book, that some houses were put down to the gross rental at little more than one-half of the actual rent, and he thought that from one-third to one-fourth was about the average difference between the gross estimated rental and the actual rental. Under all the circumstances it was evident that more accurate information should be obtained.

said, he rose to reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Mildmay) at an earlier period of the evening. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether there was any truth in the statements that had been published respecting transactions which were alleged to have taken place at Cairo. He had received a Report from the Consul General of Egypt announcing an outrage of the grossest possible character. The right hon. Baronet read an extract from the Report of the Consul, stating that a party of from twenty-five to thirty persons, including two ladies, visited the Great Mosque, and, not content with being permitted to enter, sought to in- trude upon the space set apart for the family of the Viceroy, and when there conducted themselves with great impropriety, ridiculing and mocking the genuflections of the worshippers. Nothing could exceed the kind and proper conduct of the Viceroy. He sent remonstrances, and when those were found to be unavailing a body of cavasses surrounded the offenders, not only to remove them from the Mosque, but also to protect them from the anger of a justly irritated crowd. The Consul, on receiving intelligence of the affair, called the next day upon the officers of the Mosque and offered them an apology, which they received very kindly. By that time the passengers had gone on by railway, and he had no certain information as to who were the parties. The Consul did not report that any of them were officers in the Indian service, but it might be inferred from some expression in the Report that such was the case. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had submitted the account to him (Sir C. Wood), and he sent out directions by the last mail that the senior officers who arrived by that steamer should be called upon to report the circumstances of the affair, and the names of those persons in the Indian service if any, who were engaged in it. Those directions had been sent to Madras and Calcutta, and would be sent to Bombay by the next mail. With respect to the future, he might say that the Consul in Egypt had been instructed, in case of a similar occurrence, to act upon the powers he possessed, and to arrest upon the spot every British subject that might be guilty of such conduct.

asked whether the right hon. Baronet had previously received any unfavourable account of the conduct of Indian officers?

said, he had intended to add that he should be very sorry to have it supposed that such conduct was habitual among Indian officers, and in respect to this case he hoped the House would suspend its judgment on the individuals until the details were known.

said, pursuant to notice, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as stated lately in the public prints, M. Thouvenel has informed the representatives of those powers who signed the Treaties of Vienna, that, as soon as the cession of Savoy shall have been sanctioned by the "universal suffrage of the inhabitants," and ratified by the vote of the Sardinian Parliament, France will take possession of those provinces, submitting only subsequently a limited part of the question to the consideration of the proposed Conference; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State intends to consent to the taking possession by France of the neutralized provinces of Savoy, until a Conference or Congress, or other joint diplomatic action, shall have previously determined on the whole question, of the manner in which due consideration for the independence of Switzerland, requires that the provinces placed in a state of peculiar and exceptionable neutralization by repeated Treaties, shall be ultimately disposed of. The subject of the annexation had arrived at a stage when he apprehended negotiation was almost illusory, and might was about to take the place of right. As far as could be learnt from the public sources of information, the French Emperor was about to take absolute possession of the neutralized provinces of Savoy; and, that done, he would then graciously condescend to submit for discussion to the proposed Conference some secondary matter, which would not at all affect the question of the disposal of those provinces. He disclaimed any intention to impute blame in the matter to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the Government; but he must say it appeared to him that the expectations in connection with it which the noble Lord had held out to the House had, up to this point, in every respect, been disappointed. Notwithstanding that all along the House had shown a disposition to place confidence in the noble Lord in dealing with the question, the hopes in which he had indulged from time to time as to a satisfactory settlement of it remained entirely unfulfilled. He by no means underrated the difficulties by which the question was surrounded, but as the efforts of the Government appeared to have very little force, he thought those efforts should be supported by an expression of opinion on the part of Members of the House generally. The despatches of the noble Lord asserted the true principle of the neutrality of Savoy, as settled by the Treaty of 1815 and the necessity of securing the independence of Switzerland as against France, by transferring to Switzerland the provinces comprised in that neutralization; but it appeared that while he had been negotiating and writing despatches, the Emperor of the French had been acting, and had turned a deaf ear to all the noble Lord's remonstrances. If they considered the illusory and unfair manner in which the subject of the annexation had been put to the popular vote, it was not to be wondered at that in the larger towns of the country, where French cafés and gambling-houses abounded, such as Chambéri and Annecy, the valleys of which inclined towards the French territory, the inhabitants might be favourable to a union with France. He did not, however, believe that such was the feeling of the inhabitants generally. If the two valleys of the rivers Dranse and Arve running down to the Lake of Geneva were to be taken possession of by France, the aggression could not be too much reprobated. France was entering on a course that would lead it to the Lake of Geneva, and, if it once got there, that lake would be covered by French gunboats in less than three months, and Geneva would be cut off from the rest of Switzerland. If our alliance with France was worth anything, it should be an alliance that would give us influence with France on such questions as these; but, if it meant nothing more than submission to that Power, we were better without the alliance. There had been joint expeditions with France against China and other places; but if such expeditions are made use of by France only as a school for her navy, and as a means of learning our naval tactics, the fewer we have of them the better. He had been struck with an observation made in the Prussian Chambers, by the deputy for the city of Berlin, when speaking of the position of Prussia and the other European Powers with reference to the Savoy question. After referring to Russia as engaged at home, and Austria as meditating vengeance on Italy, perhaps on Germany, he said England had almost made up her mind to sell her birthright for a mess of pottage in the shape of a treaty of commerce. He (Mr. Griffith) was very far from objecting to the most complete realization of free trade between ourselves and France, but it should not be purchased at the price of our complete independence on matters of the general policy of Europe. If this question was to be redeemed from the sphere of excellently written despatches, and debates in that House, England must take a higher stand than she had hitherto done, other- wise she would become a mockery to every country in Europe.

said, it appeared to him that the question of the hon. Gentleman was far too important an one to be discussed in an incidental or desultory manner. But there was one other question which, perhaps, the noble Lord would be kind enough to give the House information upon. He should be glad to know whether the House was to understand that it was finally arranged that this question was to be referred to a Conference of the Great Powers; and, if that were so, whether it was arranged what Powers were to be parties to the Conference; and, further, whether the information received was correct, that Prance had made a proposition to the effect that the question to be referred to the Conference should relate only to what means should be adopted to secure the neutralization of particular provinces in Savoy for the future, and that question should be raised by the Conference that might lead to what the French Minister called the dismemberment of Savoy. He wished to know whether any other propositions were to be submitted to the Conference. He begged to remind the noble Lord that he had asked him a few evenings ago a question which he was then unable to answer. He hoped that the noble Lord would be kind enough to give him now an answer to that question also.

said, that before the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary rose to reply, he wished to bring a matter under his notice, for which he was sure he would receive the indulgence of the House. He meant the disgraceful condition of the' graves of those British soldiers who had fallen at Sebastopol. On this subject a letter from an Englishman had appeared in The Times of that day, which he would take the liberty to read to the House. The letter said:—

"Being on a short visit to this place, and feeling very desirous to see the last resting-places of our fallen countrymen, I called on Lieutenant-Colonel Gowen (American contractor with the Russian Government for raising the sunken ships in the harbour) for some information—he being the only person who knew their relative positions—who very kindly offered to accompany me. Our first visit was to Cathcart's Hill, where we found the beautiful largo black marble cover on the tomb of Sir Robert Lydstone Newman, Captain of Grenadier Guards, had been removed by some sacrilegious hands, doubtless seeking for jewellery or other articles of value. We endeavoured to replace the cover in its proper position, but were unable to move it. Colonel Gowen proposed having it replaced in a few days. We also found the hinges on the gates partly hacked off, evidently for the paltry value of the copper. I also learned from Colonel Gowen that there had been previously a number of shot and shell placed over and around several of the graves by relatives and friends who had visited the spot; these, together with the large shot surmounting the corners of the wall enclosing the cemetery, and on each side of the gate, are now all gone. We next visited the Artillery graveyard, and discovered that they had also disturbed the tablet from the tomb of Captain W. K. Allix, Aide-de-Camp to General Sir De Lacy Evans. The walls around this cemetery were sadly broken down. We then proceeded to the graveyard of the Naval Brigade, where a ghastly sight presented itself. We found the slabs that covered the grave of Commander Lacon Usser Hammett, of Her Majesty's ship Albion, had been turned over and the remains of that lamented officer entirely exhumed, the bones as well as some remaining portions of the uniform being scattered around the grave, which evidently had been opened only a few days before. It was truly a heart-sickening spectacle to behold the last mortal remains of this brave officer he bleaching in the sun. Colonel Gowen assured me that on the following Sunday he would have the remains carefully restored to their former peaceful state. We then visited several other graveyards, and found them more or less in a very dilapidated state—the walls broken down in many places, and in some instances so much so that even the cattle have been found grazing within the enclosures. Notwithstanding, however, the mutilated and neglected state of many of the graves of those brave men who fell in the Crimea, still the sincerest thanks of every true Englishman are due to Colonel Gowen for the truly Christian and sympathizing interest he has so disinterestedly taken in having, entirely at his own expense and trouble, already repaired and restored many of the English graves and cemeteries, as well as several of the French and Sardinian, and preserved them from violation and decay. It is sincerely to be hoped that our Government will take such speedy and necessary measures for putting our graveyards in a proper state of repair as to preserve from oblivion the last resting places of so many brave men who fell during the Crimean campaign."

Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald) that this question of Savoy, and the neutralized parts of Savoy, is too important a matter to be discussed in the incidental manner in which it has been brought forward this evening. I shall therefore not refer to the statements I have made at various times to the House, only saying that they were founded at the time upon the declarations which were made by foreign Governments, or upon the despatches which I have received from Her Majesty's Ministers abroad. With regard to the immediate question, and which the hon. Gentleman opposite and the House regard with considerable interest, as to what is to be done now in regard to that part of the subject which remains open for consideration, namely, the neutralized parts of Savoy, I wish to give to the House such information as I can, but it is very far from being complete. It is proposed that there should be a Conference of the Powers of Europe who signed the treaty of Vienna on a particular subject, and that subject is, as it is stated by the French Government, to reconcile the 92nd Article of the treaty of Vienna, to which all the Powers of Europe who signed that treaty are parties, with the second Article of the treaty of Turin, which has lately been concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia. I do not believe that the French Government wish either to go any further in the way of stating what other questions are to be considered or to place any further restrictions on the questions to be discussed at that Conference. I do not certainly apprehend that the French Government mean to impose such a restriction as the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. At the same time, from communications I have received, and from the declarations which the Emperor of the French has made from time to time, I conceive that to any measures that may be properly called the dismemberment of Savoy, we should find in the Conference that the French Government would be decidedly opposed; but it is obvious that there may be other measures which would not amount to dismemberment, but which would yet give a military frontier to Switzerland, which might be proposed by Switzerland. However, when Switzerland has made such proposal will be the time for Her Majesty's Government and the, other Powers to consider it. With respect to the parties to the Conference, they are, as I have stated, the eight Powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna, and I believe there is no doubt that all these Powers will agree that Switzerland should be likewise represented at that Conference. With regard to Sardinia, there is some discussion still going on, and likewise as to the question in what manner Switzerland and Savoy are to appear at the Conference. The Conference in London in 1831–2 is cited as affording a precedent. According to that precedent, the parties not comprehended among those who signed the treaty of Vienna may appear at the Conference, either always, or only on certain occasions. That is a matter which, as I have stated, is under discussion. The time of the meeting of the Conference has been likewise a matter of discussion, but the French Government state on that subject that they consider a Conference cannot be properly assembled until the treaty of Turin is complete. That treaty of Turin is not complete until the Assembly of Turin shall have given their assent to the treaty. The King of Sardinia has no doubt given his assent to the treaty, but it is a part of the constitution of Sardinia that no cession of territory shall be valid until the treaty giving it is confirmed by the Votes of the Parliament of Sardinia. The French Government say that, supposing the Vote of the Parliament of Piedmont should not be in favour of the cession, and should be against the ratification of the treaty, there would then be nothing for the Powers of Europe to deliberate upon, and therefore they cannot be called together until that vote has been come to. It is understood that the Parliament of Piedmont is to consider the question about the first week in May, or the first ten days in May, and it is proposed that the Conference should meet after that time. Then there comes the question to which the hon. Member for Horsham called my attention the other evening, and to which we attach, as he does, considerable importance—namely, what shall be the state of possession of the neutralized portions of Savoy after the treaty has been confirmed, supposing it to be confirmed at Turin, and before the Conference has met? We have stated more than once at Paris, and Earl Cowley has stated it even since his return to Paris, that, in our opinion, it is most desirable that no civil or military occupation by France should take place until the Conference has considered this question of the neutralized parts of Savoy, and under what restrictions those neutralized portions shall be hereafter held, and in what manner they shall be disposed of. The French Government, however, I must say, on the other side, state that they see great difficulty in assenting to such a proposition, because it would seem to assume that the Treaty of Turin did not perfectly do what it purported to do—namely, transfer the whole sovereignty of Savoy from the King of Sardinia, its late or present Sovereign, to the Emperor of the French. They therefore raise this difficulty, without laying any stress, however, upon the practical objections to any other course. With regard to any practical result, they say that Her Majesty's Government may be assured that there will be no precipitation in taking possession of that territory, but that there must be some authority, and that the territory cannot be left without some authority during the Conference. That discussion between the two Governments is not yet concluded. It still appears to me, I must confess, that it would be more satisfactory that some arrangement should be come to by which the whole of that territory should not be in the possession of the French authorities during the time of the Conference, because, as from the complication of documents there arises every day questions of wounded pride or injured honour, it is desirable that the French authorities should not be required to withdraw from any portion of the territory of which they are in actual possession. This is a matter like other matters which depends very much on the opinion of the different Powers in Europe. I believe that the Government of Prussia takes the same view as we do on this subject. With regard to the other Powers, we have had communications on this particular point, and I can only say that it is not at present decided. I will not go further into this subject at present. I have only wished to give such information as I am able, and I do not think the question is one for discussion at the present moment. With regard to the cemeteries of Sebastopol, I am sorry to say that I am afraid the statement of the hon. Gentleman is in conformity with the truth, since it agrees in every respect with the statements we have received. We have given such directions as we think may prevent any further continuance of such shocking outrages upon the feelings of this country and the relatives of the great and gallant men who are buried there; and I have desired Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg to remonstrate in very strong terms with the Russian Government on the subject.