said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any and what steps had boon taken by the Government of India for bringing the subject of the repeal of the Regulation XIX. of 1810 of the Bengal Code, and the Regulation VII. of 1817 of the Madras Code, under the consideration of the Legislative Council of India as directed by the Despatch of Lord Stanley, dated the 24th day of February, 1859? He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of the Correspondence which has taken place between the Cultivators of Indigo and the Government in relation to the recent disturbances in Bengal?

, in reply to the first question of the hon. Member said, he observed that Notice of the Motion had been given for the production of the papers relating to the subject of the repeal of the XIX. Regulation of the Bengal Code, to which he had no objection, and they would give all the information on the subject. In answer to the last question, he could only say he should have no objection to produce the Correspondence if he were in possession of it, but at present only a portion had reached him.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to a Letter from the India Office addressed to the Manchester Cotton Association, and dated the 16th day of April, 1860, stating that the proposals of the Madras Irrigation and Canal Company for constructing works of irrigation, drainage, and navigation in the Province of Orissa are under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, Whether such serious consideration applies to that portion of the scheme which involves the guarantee of a minimum dividend to I the Shareholders of this Company upon the whole or any portion of their Stock?

said, "the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government" did not apply to that portion of the scheme which involved a guarantee of a minimum dividend. The Government were not prepared to give that guarantee.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as no Clause in reference to the Forgery of Trade Marks has been introduced in the Bill for Consolidating and Amending the Law of Forgery, he will at the earliest opportunity, introduce the Measure he has prepared on that question?

said, a measure upon the subject would be introduced shortly, or at least as speedily as the state of public business would permit.

said, he rose to ask the Lord-Advocate, Whether he intends at an early period to propose a Bill for establishing greater uniformity in the interpretation of the Law of Scotland as regards the definition of Lunacy; for removing doubts as to the obligation of Counties to provide accommodation for Lunatics; and for giving to the Commissioners in Lunacy extended powers with regard to the custody of Pauper Lunatics?

said, it was his intention to introduce a Bill to remedy some of the defects which were found to exist in former Lunacy Acts, and he hoped soon to lay it on the Table of the House.

said, he rose to say a few words of explanation with reference to a statement he had made when moving for the production of the Civil Service Ex- animation Papers a few nights previously. On that occasion he had said that in the case of the particular candidate of whose rejection he complained, there had been but one single mistake in his spelling. He had since been informed that there was more than one mistake. He had also stated that he was unacquainted with the names of the Commissioners. He had now ascertained that two of them were Sir Edward Ryan and Sir John Lefevre, and he might say that if there were any gentlemen whom he would entrust with the duties of such a position with confidence, those were the two he would select.

said, he wished to ask what course the Government intend to pursue with respect to the Orders on the Paper?

said, he had already announced that it was proposed to proceed with the Wine Licences Bill on Monday, and should that not occupy the whole of the evening—he would proceed with Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal Bill.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the measures adopted for subjecting to a strict system of inspection while they are being built, Gunboats and other Vessels, built on contract by the Government? The subject, he said, was one of great interest to this country, as it was believed that those gunboats, from their light draught of water, were admirably fitted for the defence of our coast. He wished to know what sort of inspection had been exercised over the construction of those gunboats that were now said to be defective. He had occasion to see a vessel built for the Russian Government, and which was inspected by a Russian officer, and he found on inquiry that so vigilant was the inspection that not a screw could be driven into the vessel without the officer being present.

said, he rose for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the real extent of injury by decay which has been discovered in Her Majesty's Mortar Vessels and Gunboats; whether it is true that improper workmanship and fastenings have also been discovered; and what steps the Board of Admiralty have taken, or intend to take, in consequence of the present slate of those vessels? But before he put those Questions he should express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would give a satisfactory answer to the appeal which had been addressed to him by the hon. Member for Sunderland on the subject of the construction of harbours of refuge. He coincided in every word that had fallen from his hon. Friend with respect to the immense importance, for the protection of life and property, of establishing better harbours of refuge than those which we at present possessed along our coast; and he trusted that no considerations of economy would deter Her Majesty's Government from carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in that matter. He should also say that he hoped his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to offer to the House a satisfactory explanation as to the intention of the Admiralty to carry out the warrant relative to the medical officers of the navy. He had upon a former occasion mentioned that a statement had reached him to the effect that an assistant surgeon had been unable to obtain a cabin on board the Queen, although there were four cabins vacant, one of which had been given to the band master, and the rest appropriated to stores and other purposes comparatively unimportant. His noble Friend had told him that there was no truth in that statement; but he (Sir John Pakington) had still some reason to doubt whether his noble Friend himself might not have been misinformed upon that subject. He would next proceed to put to his noble Friend the Questions of which he had given notice with respect to the state of our gunboats and mortar vessels. For several weeks past, and almost every day, the public journals had been full of statements with regard to the decay of those vessels; and not only that, but very serious allegations had been repeatedly made with respect to the conduct of the contractors who had undertaken the building of that portion of our naval force. Considering the publicity that had been given to the matter, he hoped his noble Friend would consider that the best course for him to take in that matter would be to tell the truth, lie did not, of course, mean to imply any doubt of the veracity of his noble Friend, but he trusted that his noble Friend would candidly lay before the House the whole of the facts with regard to the state of those vessels, and that he would, at the same time, inform them whether there was any fair ground for casting these serious imputations on the contractors. His (Sir John Pakington's) attention was called to the state of those gunboats in the year 1858; and he, in consequence, felt it his duty to subject to an inspection the boats hauled up on the slips at Haslar. It was then found that a certain amount of the elm planking had decayed; but the decay did not appear to extend any further. The Admiralty gave orders to have the defects made good, and we had every reason to suppose that those vessels had been placed in a sound condition. But they were now told that instead of a few decayed elm planks the whole framework of those vessels was rotten; and within the last few days it had been stated in the newspapers that four of Her Majesty's mortar vessels had been recently examined and found so thoroughly rotten that the Admiralty had no choice but to break them up. That was not, however, the worst part of the case. They were informed, through the same channels, that the workmanship of those vessels was very defective; and he was sorry to have to add that there were charges of what must be called dishonest work—charges to the effect that the bolting of the vessels had been such that they could not go to sea with safety. These were most serious statements, and the time had come when they ought to know what were the real facts of the case. He had not, as far as he was at present informed, the slightest intention of imputing any blame to the Board of Admiralty of the period when the vessels were built; nor, indeed, had he any information which would justify him in imputing any serious blame to the contractors. Great allowance must he made for the haste with which those vessels were necessarily constructed. The contracts were taken up by houses of undoubted reputation, and there appeared to have been no suscipion at the time that they had not been faithfully carried out. But the statement which had recently been made deeply affected the public service, and had an important bearing upon the question how far they could resort to the contract system in the building of ships for the Royal Navy without endangering the public interests. Under these circumstances it was only fair to the contractors that the whole truth should be made known. He begged, therefore, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the real extent of injury by decay which has been discovered in Her Majesty's mortar vessels and gunboats; whether it is true that improper workmanship and fastenings have also been discovered; and what steps the Board of Admiralty have taken, or intend to take, in consequence of the present state of those vessel?

Before the noble Lord answers the Questions, it will be only fair if he would state whether it is true that any officers connected with the Royal Dockyards from time to time visited, superintended, and gave their opinion as to the efficiency of these vessels.

Sir, I need scarcely say that I will follow the advice of my right hon. Friend opposite, and state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with regard to these gunboats, as far as it is known to us at the Admiralty. The first duty I have to discharge upon this occasion is to allay the anxiety which has been created by the apprehension that the whole of the gunboats and mortar-boats now in the Royal Navy are rotten and unfit for sea. Up to the present time we have evidence that a certain number have been more or less decayed, and measures either have been taken or are being taken for their repair. I will state the number of those which have been repaired; but I am not at present able to give the House a correct Estimate of the cost of the repairs, because the accounts have not yet been sent in. The noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) has, however, moved for a Return which will show the expense of building each of these contract gunboats, and the expense of repairing them, which will give a fair idea of the decay that has taken place in them. It must be remembered that when shipbuilders were invited to enter into contracts for the construction of those gunboats and mortar-vessels the country was very anxious that they should be ready for the campaign which was to open in the ensuing spring; and it is only fair to the contractors that I should state that some of them candidly and distinctly informed the Admiralty that they had no seasoned timber on hand, and that no seasoned timber could then be procured. I have myself seen a letter addressed to one of them, in which the Admiralty, after they had learnt from him that he had no seasoned timber, desired him to go on building with that which he had. So that, as regards the timber, I am bound to observe that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the contractors. But when we come to the question of short bolts, I must say that that is a fraud of a most abominable nature, inasmuch as it is manifest that a vessel fastened in that manner going to sea and meeting with bad weather might go to the bottom with all her crow. The House will easily understand, therefore, that the Admiralty make a great distinction between those two defects, of unseasoned timber and short bolts; and I have to state that we are now taking legal advice for the purpose of ascertaining whether it would be desirable that we should take further proceedings in respect to this case of defective bolting. I will now proceed to inform the House what is the number of boats that have been repaired, and what is their present state. Besides a great number of those boats which are now on foreign service we have in the yards twenty-three that were found in a partial state of decay, and that have since been completely repaired, and are now perfectly efficient; and we have now six boats in hand. There remain to be examined sixteen of those hauled up on Haslar slip; the condition of which has not been ascertained. There are forty in the steam reserve. We have no reason to suppose that those forty which are afloat show any serious signs of decay; but I cannot positively state to the House whether or not they will require repairs. I do not think that is a matter which need alarm the public any more than the condition of the sixteen which have not yet been examined on the Haslar slip, but which may be found defective. With regard, however, to those that are afloat, I am rather more hopeful that they will not require such extensive repairs as some persons seem to suppose. With regard to the mortar-vessels, undoubtedly those which have been examined have been found extremely defective. The right hon. Baronet is quite correct in stating that two of those at Chatham have been broken up, in consequence of their timber and planks having been found one mass of decay. But with regard to two others which I find it stated in the newspapers to-day are in a similar condition, we have not yet received any report at the Admiralty. I should state also that some of the boats built in the Government yards have been found defective and that eleven of them also have had to undergo considerable repairs. I now wish to say a few words with respect to the question of inspection. Undoubtedly it is advisable that there should be a very careful inspection by Admiralty offi- cers of all vessels that are being built by contract, and as a general rule the Admiralty always appoint a superior officer, who acts as an inspector in every yard where those vessels are being constructed. One officer, however, does the duty of inspector in a yard where several vessels are built, and hence it is that it is desirable on the score of economy that we should have as many vessels as possible constructed in one yard. We have at this moment twenty-four vessels being built by contract and we have seventeen inspectors attached to the yards in which the works are carried on; but as there are two or more vessels being constructed in some of the yards there is none of them without a Government inspector. This question of inspection, however, is one involved in some difficulty. Private shipbuilders are usually only invited at some period of public emergency to contract for the supply of vessels for the Royal Navy, and at such a time we are at full work in the Royal dockyards, where men are employed during extra hours and on task jobs; and it then becomes a matter of great importance that in the dockyards themselves the most vigilant superintendence should be exercised by the inspectors. The consequence is that it is more than usually difficult at such times to find inspectors for overlooking the work done in private establishments. We are at this moment, however, most careful that an efficient system of supervision should take place with regard to all vessels being built by contract; and we have a variety of checks against abuses in that matter. We have not only an inspector in each yard, but we send clown officers periodically to examine and to report how the work is being performed; and the vessels afterwards undergo a survey when they are delivered up to the Admiralty; and this they have to go through before the contractors receive the certificate that entitles them to payment. We thus take every possible precaution against bad workmanship and bad material. While I am upon this subject I will appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) whether he does not think that the Admiralty have shown great anxiety to arrive at the truth in those cases in which we had any reason to suspect that fraud had been practised by contractors. The only other Question I have to answer is that which has been put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of Dublin, with regard to the position of surgeons in the navy. I have to inform the hon. Baronet that surgeons are now about to receive a new uniform of a more ornamental character than their present dress. The reasons for the delay which has taken place in that matter are, that we have felt it necessary that all the non-executive officers in a ship should have a uniform distinct from that of the executive officers, and that we did not wish to decide what should be the uniform of the first of these classes until the House of Commons bad agreed to grant the sums necessary for improving their general condition, which has now been accomplished. With regard to cabins, I cannot hold out the least hope that the Admiralty will give the surgeons a better class. We are anxious that proper cabins should be provided for surgeons, and also for the assistant-surgeons, but we cannot place them in the same position in that case as captains. My right hon. Friend opposite has stated that, according to the information which he received, a cabin was refused to an assistant surgeon on board the Queen, while that accommodation was afforded to the bandmaster and other inferior officers. Captain Hillyard, however, who commands that vessel, has informed me that he gave every cabin he could for the use of the assistant-surgeons, and that at last one of them wished to turn him out of his own steward's berth, as it was called. He refused to accede to that demand, and that is the only foundation for the story to which my right hon. Friend has alluded.

Are we to understand that it is the intention of the Admiralty to prosecute contractors in all cases in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting them of fraud?

We are taking legal opinions for the purpose of ascertaining how far we have the power of instituting such proceedings.

said, it must be satisfactory to know that the contractors who built the gunboats had frankly told the Government they could not procure any but unseasoned timber. The question then arose whether the Government were to blame for accepting the unseasoned timber. For his own part, he acquitted them of all blame. Considering the emergency that had arisen, they were perfectly right in accepting unseasoned timber when they could not get seasoned timber, though it was no doubt a pity they had not exercised the foresight of getting the right sort of timber beforehand. But he should like to learn from the noble Lord who wore the contractors who employed short bolts, and who had thus shown themselves ready to expose the lives of every man on board their ships to the most imminent peril. He wished to know who it was that had resorted to that fraud in building the Caroline gunboat. The name of such a man ought to be made known to that House, and he was sure they would all feel that no punishment could be half severe enough for men who would so risk the lives of British officers and British seamen. He wanted to know heir names that very night, that the House might judge of their conduct. He should like to know also who were the inspectors; whether there were any, and who appointed them. Why had the Admiralty not sent and examined every one of the gunboats one by one? Why had not the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, who it was understood was to do wonders with the navy, ascertained the actual state of the sixteen boats at the Haslar slip? He said that he "hoped" things were not so bad as had been supposed. Why, good God Almighty! he ought to know whether it was so or not. We had plenty of men at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and if not, let us send down a junior Lord of the Admiralty to see that the inspectors do their duty. There ought, at all events, to be a regular system of inspection. But there was another point to which he wished to revert. The gunboats built by contractors were not the only boats which were complained of; the Government had built a certain number of boats under the direction of their own officers, and in their own yards. Had those boats been satisfactorily constructed or not? It was well known that they were as bad as had could be. The nation ought not to be trifled with any longer, and he hoped that the contractors, whoever they might be, and the persons under whose directions the inferior gunboats built in the Government yards were constructed, ought to be brought to book. The inquiry would be a very difficult one. Would they get those who built the boats to speak the truth, and say what sort of timber these boats were really built of? At all events, no one could doubt that there ought to be an inquiry, and that it ought to be a very searching one. The noble Lord says he will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:—but will others do it? If a Commission was appointed to investigate the matter, he hoped they would not be contented with the mere statement of witnesses before them, but that they would go down and personally inspect every one of the defective gunboats. We were spending millions of money annually on the navy, and it was really disgraceful to find that the work was so deficient as it had turned out to be. Why, he was told that the stern of the Princess Royal, the very vessel which his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget) himself commanded, had been recently taken to pieces, and had been found to have been originally constructed of very unsound timber. Every one of the line-of-battle ships which were now being converted from sailing vessels into screw steam-ships were being converted, as he was informed, with green and unseasoned timber. It was all very well for the Admiralty to say that they had no seasoned timber. His simple reply to that was the inquiry—Why had they not? They have had plenty of money for it. His hon. Friend on the opposite side (Mr. Bentinck) had pointed out to the House that there was not a sufficient quantity of well-seasoned timber for two years kept in the dockyards? Why was that? Surely it could not be said that they had not money enough voted by Parliament. If they were converting all our ships of war into screw steamers with unseasoned timber, as he was informed they were, no sooner should we have finished the conversion of them than we should have to begin again with the first and repair them. He could tell the House that as long as such carelessness was suffered in the mode of doing the work, it would be quite a delusion to suppose that our Naval Estimates would ever be reduced. He did not say that it was not necessary to convert the line-of-battle ships to steamers; on the contrary, it was absolutely necessary, for, in the present juncture of affairs, and when the whole system of naval warfare had undergone a change consequent upon the introduction of steam, it became more than ever necessary that we should use every available means which science afforded to strengthen our navy, and place it in such a condition that we should maintain our naval supremacy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, the other night, said, that the state of Europe was such as to make the boldest man quake and the wisest men tremble. He was neither the boldest or the wisest man, yet he both quaked and trembled, and therefore it was that he was most anxious to take every opportunity of warning the Government of the danger we incurred in neglecting the navy. He hoped the hon. Member would insist either on a Committee or a Commission.

said, that some of the gunboats which were inspected at Haslar slip were quite rotten, and in an absolutely dangerous condition.

What I said was, some of them required very small repairs.

could only say, that two years ago when he happened to be at Haslar, and examined the gunboats, he poked the end of his umbrella through the bottom of some of them, and he could not well understand how they could require very small repairs after that. The noble Lord would probably bear in mind that, not only a great many Members of Parliament, but a great many officers and naval authorities were entirely against the system of hauling up vessels on dry slips and exposing them to all the influences of the weather. He believed that the best thing in the world for ships was to keep them afloat, and he should be very glad to see a comparison instituted between those that wore kept afloat and those that were laid up in reserve. There was no doubt that a great deal of the decay was owing to the boats having been originally built of unsound timber; and he thought himself, that so far as the Royal Arsenals went, they should supply seasoned timber to the builders, and for that purpose keep a good supply themselves. It had been mentioned that two of the mortar boats at Chatham were so rotten that it was very doubtful indeed whether they ought to be repaired or not. He hoped that the Admiralty would not throw good money after bad, but that if the boats were found to be very defective they would be broken up at once.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend had made a statement that he could not possibly believe to be correct—that the Admiralty, from want of seasoned timber, had been compelled to convert line-of- battle ships with unseasoned timber. They really ought to hear whether there was any foundation for that statement or not. He could not himself believe that such had been the case; but the statement was one of snob importance, and was calculated to create so much alarm throughout the country, that they ought to have a full, fair, and satisfactory explanation upon the matter. A great deal had been said with respect to the condition of the gunboats at Haslar. It was stated, two years ago, that the rotten state of these vessels was owing to their being hauled up on slips and kept dry, instead of being kept afloat. Why there was no carpenter's boy commonly conversant with the subject, who could not have told them what the result would be. The simple fact was, that ships which were hauled up invariably became rotten. No less than seventy gunboats had been hauled up into a position in which they could not be got at, and the cost of the operation was £70,000. Everybody who knew anything about the matter, knew that they must rot; and he had no doubt whatever that when they came to be examined, the sixteen remaining gunboats would be found to be in the same state. No doubt a system of inspection was very good; but it required the closest and constant observation on the part of the inspectors, to detect frauds of the description which had been adverted to on the present occasion. Short bolts might be put in without the knowledge of the contractor himself; and it was very easy for a shipwright to cut the bolt in two, put in the two heads, and clinch them. It might be done in five minutes, when the inspector's back was turned; and therefore it would be necessary that the inspector should see every one put in. The rot in timber, after it bad begun, showed itself in a moment; but it was impossible to say that timber was in a perfectly sound state, and would not rot, without examining it in the heart of the wood, in which the rot commenced and extended outwards. He had seen a vessel which appeared perfectly sound, and when the wood was opened no unsoundness appeared for several weeks. As, however, the wood dried by exposure to the atmosphere, the rot in the heart of the wood became perceptible. It was impossible that any system could prevent the occurrence of rot to the frame of vessels; but he believed it was false economy not to have a sufficient number of inspectors to watch every large vessel during the whole time it was being built.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Commission on the Costs of Prosecutions; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, or take any other steps, in relation to the subject of the said Report? In the year 1851 powers were given to the Home Secretary to promulgate new forms for the allowance of these costs, and that power had been exercised so stringently that, though theoretically the cost of prosecutions were defrayed by the Treasury, in fact at least 16 per cent fell on the counties. The Treasury had also assumed the power of defining the items of which the costs of prosecutions should consist. This led to a constant antagonism between the counties and the Treasury, to say nothing of a large amount of delay and uncertainty.

said, the subject had been under the careful consideration of the Home Office and the Treasury; but, as yet no conclusion had been arrived at, and he was unable, therefore, at present to promise any Bill on the subject.

, reverting to the matter of the gunboats, said, be certainly could not yield to the appeal made to him by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, not to press his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. All that had fallen from the noble Lord and other Members made him more anxious that this Committee should be appointed. He bad no desire to attach blame to anybody—it was in perfect ignorance as to where the blame lay that he wished for an inquiry. It might be with the Government—though he did not believe it; it might be with the contractors, or it might be with the inspectors; but the House ought to know who was to blame. No doubt there was a great deficiency of seasoned timber, and he quite agreed with the gallant Officer opposite that on an emergency it was better to have gunboats built of unseasoned timber than no gunboats at all; but the House ought to know what sort of designs had been given out; whether proper specifications had been drawn up; whether they had been complied with; whether the terms of the contract would inflict penalties on the contractors for their shortcomings, and whether the inspectors had done their duty. He believed that the whole matter hinged on this question of inspection. The Admiralty might say that it was difficult to get inspectors; but they might be got if they were properly paid. The Secretary of the Admiralty, he had no doubt, would do his best to probe the matter to the bottom; but everybody who knew what a public department was would acknowledge that a Committee of the House of Commons could perform the duty much more effectually. The Government should ascertain where the fault lay, and should then visit the real offenders. They ought to find out the inspectors by whom these vessels were passed, and take steps to punish them if they deserve it.

was understood to say that the Admiralty had no objection to furnish a return of the cost of the gunboats, but it was right that the House should know the exact position of this question. The Admiralty had referred the matter to their legal advisers. There was not the least intention on their part to screen any contractor who had been guilty of these practices complained of; but the question which remained for the decision of their legal advisers was whether, having had inspectors to overlook the construction, and having received these vessels, they now had the power to institute legal proceedings against the contractors. It would be singular to have legal proceedings going forward and a Committee sitting at the same time; and the course he would suggest, therefore, was that the subject should be deferred until that day week to ascertain the exact position in which the Admiralty stood. They would then be able to acquaint the House whether they intended to take legal proceedings, and, if not, it would of course be in the power of the House to appoint a Committee if it thought fit to do so. The same answer applied to the proposal of the gallant Admiral, that the names of the contractors should be published. Pending legal proceedings it was not right to do so; but hereafter, if the House thought it necessary that the names of these contractors should be given, it would be in their power to call for them. As to the best mode of keeping gunboat3, whether afloat or hauled up high and dry, it was not yet settled by the authorities which of the two modes was the better. Recently a gunboat which had been kept afloat for a number of years was examined and found to be as defective as any of those which were kept ashore. As to the question respecting the timber in the Government yards, he was not aware that there was any foundation for the statement that the Government were now using unseasoned timber there.

said, that as soon as this discussion went forth to the world every one who had had a contract for the construction of these gunboats would more or less become an object of observation or suspicion. It would therefore be only right that the Admiralty should publish as soon as possible a list of vessels which had been honestly and truly built. While proceedings were taken against the guilty it was due to those with whose vessels no fault had been found that their conduct should be vindicated. The iniquity of driving these short bolts could not be portrayed in too strong characters. In his opinion it was an offence little short of wilful murder to send a ship to sea so constructed that she would probably go to pieces, and it displayed an amount of wickedness for which no punishment that the law could inflict would be too great. With regard to harbours of refuge, he wished to express his earnest hope that the question would be seriously entertained by the Government. The expenditure necessary might be spread over a series of years; but no one could hear of the casualties which took place every year on the shores of the United Kingdom, so many of which casualties might be averted if there were a harbour to run to, without feeling that the question was one of national importance. The four harbours most strongly recommended by the Commission on this subject were one on the north coast of Scotland, another on the east coast of England, a third on the north coast of Cornwall, and a fourth on the west coast of Ireland. Others might be wanted, but as everything could not be done at once the Government might take these four first, and it would be well to set about them immediately.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law with regard to Collisions at Sea, so far as Foreign Vessels are concerned, and to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to urge on the Governments of other Countries the expediency of establishing some international rule for assimilating the liability of Shipowners in cases of Collision, at home and abroad. The subject was one of great importance to the mercantile marine of this country, especially now that our foreign trade was increasing so rapidly. The question involved principles of international law, and was one on which there was great diversity among the different systems of law recognized by the principal commercial nations of Europe, as well as the United States. By the law of France if a vessel belonging to that country damaged one belonging to another nation, the owner, by abandoning his ship, might save himself from further consequences. A similar rule prevailed in Holland, Sardinia, and other countries of Europe; while the law of the United States of America bore more analogy to that of England. The liability of the British shipowner was fixed and defined by the Merchant Shipping Act; but, while that liability was limited in the case of collision between two British vessels, the limitation did not apply when a collision took place between a British ship and a foreign ship. It was only just that all parties should be placed upon the same footing, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the Government to the subject. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of coming to some international arrangement upon the subject, with which an Act of Parliament was necessarily incompetent to deal.

said, that communications had already passed between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office in reference to the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention. The Government were quite alive to the importance of this proposal, and were very desirous that some international arrangement should be entered into for assimilating the laws of the different countries, so that a British ship in a foreign country might receive a similar treatment in that country to a ship of that country, and that we should in turn reciprocate that protection to ships of other countries. It was desirable, in fact, that some arrangement should be made by which each country would give national treatment to the ships of the other. That matter was under consideration by the Foreign Office, and so far as the Board of Trade was concerned, they would give their best attention to it. He would also beg to reply to a question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who had inquired whether the Government intended to introduce a measure to carry into effect the recommendations of the Harbours of Refuge Commission. Of course there could be no difference of opinion respecting the desirableness of having harbours of refuge upon the coasts of this country, and especially upon the eastern coast, which was passed by a much greater number of merchant vessels, because every one must be struck with the loss of life and property that annually took place at sea. The question was, as regarded harbours of refuge, from what source were the necessary funds to be obtained? The Royal Commission and the Committee of the House were not of the same opinion as to the source from which the funds were to be derived. The Committee considered that a portion of the expenditure should be derived from tolls levied on merchant vessels passing those harbours. The Commission recommended that the expenditure should be met by Votes in Parliament, and by the expenditure of the public money. He did not find on inquiry that the shipowners and insurers valued those harbours of refuge sufficiently to be willing to take upon themselves any considerable portion of the charge; and with regard to a large expenditure of public money, it was a matter on which he was not at liberty to speak; it was a question for the consideration of the Treasury, rather than for the Department with which he was connected. The Government were fully impressed with the importance of these harbours of refuge; but no decision had been come to as to whether any plan could be laid before Parliament with the view of carrying out that part of the recommendation of the Commissioners. With regard to the question as to whether the Government were ready to do anything to facilitate the construction of harbours of refuge, and the improvement of such harbours as now exist, he begged to say, that instructions had been given to prepare a Bill to effect that object; and when the state of public business would permit he should state the provisions of that measure to the House. It was a Bill that he thought would materially assist the object in view, though certainly it would not go to the full extent of all the recommendations of the Commissioners. It was proposed to introduce a provision to give facilities for obtaining powers to make improvements without the necessity in each particular case of parties incurring the expense of coming to the House for a special Act of Parliament. The Government were quite alive to the importance of the whole question, and the hon. Member for Sunderland would admit with him that it was a matter that could not be undertaken without more consideration, involving, as it would, a large grant of public money.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, said that during the Indian outbreak the English Government and the East India Company bought some horses in Candia. They treated with various persons for this purpose, and the British Consul at Aleppo, Mr. Skene, applied to Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, a Turkish subject, to buy some horses and camels for service in India, at the same time acknowledging the services he had rendered to the Allied Army in the Black Sea. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein accepted the offer, and on the 8th of June, 1858, Mr. Skene wrote to say he was glad he had undertaken the affair and that the matter might now be considered as settled. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein accordingly bought a number of camels and horses. A change of Government at home meanwhile took place, and while lie was waiting for the officers to come and receive the animals he was told that the whole matter was referred from Aleppo to Bagdad, that he had no claim upon the British Government, and that the British Consul had transcended his powers. Now, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to stand upon their power as a Government and do nothing for Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, or whether they would consent, to refer the matter to arbitration, and say what claim, if any, this gentleman had upon the Government. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein was a Turkish subject, unsupported by powerful connections, and the Government had the power to be unjust, but he appealed to the noble Lord to submit the matter to arbitration. He wished therefore to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consent to submit that case to the decision of an arbitrator to be chosen by the Government?

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the case of the Contractors for the supply of Forage to the Troops quartered in the counties of Dublin and Kildare. The case of these contractors was one of great hardship and severity. In the month of May, 1859, those contractors entered into an engagement to supply the horses of the troops with hay at £3 10s. per ton, which seemed at that time a fair price, the usual price of hay in Ireland averaging from £2 10s. per ton to £3 10s.; but in consequence of the unfavourable state of the weather during the summer of 1859 the price of hay in Ireland rose to £5 or £6 per ton, and in November last it reached the extraordinary price of—7 10s. The contractors went on supplying the troops at a daily loss of—70, and they had actually lost lay the contract no less a sum than—9,000. He was fully aware of the danger which might result from not compelling persons to stand by their contracts, and if this were an ordinary case, he should not have asked the Government to do anything in the matter. He found that in the year 1846 the Government did compensate certain contractors for losses which they unavoidably sustained. The present case was one which could not be construed into a precedent. If the Government enforced the contract strictly, it would inevitably ruin these contractors. He trusted he had shown that the circumstances of this case were not of an ordinary nature. The contractors might have thrown up the contract, as the bonds were not actually signed, but they preferred executing it and trusting to the mercy of Her Majesty's Government to compensate them for the great loss which they would sustain, and they followed that course the more freely as they had been given to understand by the Commissary-General that their case would be taken into consideration.

said, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to introduce provisions applicable to Ireland into the Representation of the People Bill for England and Wales? He said the noble Lord ought to feel indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone for giving him an opportunity of disavowing the charge of insincerity which was made, not only against the noble Lord, but generally against the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had made one of the most damaging speeches against the Reform Bill which had yet been delivered. He had done a great service by culling attention to facts and figures, and he had also given notice of his intention to move the insertion of a clause which would confer the franchise upon lodgers, and the omission of the provision which made the payment of poor-rates a condition precedent to the exercise of the franchise. It was said that nobody wanted this Bill, and that if a vote by Ballot were taken upon it, only two Members would be found to support it—the noble Lord and his backer, the hon. Member for Birmingham. He wanted to know how they were sure that if it were put to the Ballot there would be two votes in favour of it at all. They were all accused of being insincere, and be confessed himself guilty of that very soft impeachment. But if there were no sincerity about passing the English Reform Bill, there was no insincerity about the Irish Re- form Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a question, had stated that he would not take up the Irish Reform Bill until the English Reform Bill was passed through Committee. He, therefore, asked the noble Lord last night, whether he would postpone going into Committee on the English Reform Bill until after the second reading of the Irish Bill; or, if he would not do that, whether he would incorporate the Irish in the English Bill. The noble Lord took no notice of the second branch of this question, and as he could obtain no answer to a question put in a very quiet and modest form, he thought he was justified in using the privilege of a Friday night to draw the distinct attention of the noble Lord to it. It was not a new idea, I because so long since as December last he had written to the Chief Secretary suggesting uniform legislation for the two countries, and the omission of the provision which required payment of poor-rates as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the franchise. He knew how injuriously that provision operated in Ireland, and he believed it was found even more injurious in England. He bad long been of opinion that it was better to have a bad law for Ireland incorporated in the same Bill for England than to have it exclusively applicable to Ireland, because a bad law which affected England would soon be changed, but if it only affected Ireland there was not the same certainty of a speedy alteration. The country imputed insincerity to the House of Commons, but what was the sincerity on the part of the country itself? The whole of the petitions for and against and about reform did not bear 90,000 signatures, and only 9,711 signatures were in favour of the Representation of the People Bill. The signatures in favour of the Representation of the People Bills were only two—that was to say, in favour of all the three Bills of the Government. There were only 23,670 signatures to petitions in favour of Reform from England, while there were 27,620 signatures to petitions from Ireland. He saw a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) shaking his very learned head at that statement, and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that the people of Ireland cared nothing at all about Reform. Well, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for he had lately visited his own constituents, and found they were very well satisfied with their present representatives; but still it appeared from their petitions that the people of Ireland cared more about Reform than the people of England. The noble Lord said yesterday that until he had consulted the Cabinet he could not tell whether there would be any Scotch or Irish Reform Bill at all, and there seemed so much uncertainty that they might perhaps safely make up their minds there would be no Irish or Scotch Bill. He did not deny that a Reform Bill was wanted; but, if there was to be legislation for England, for the reason he had given, he thought Ireland ought to be included. There were important principles in the English Bill which Irish Members had a right to discuss. The Irish Members had taken very little part in the discussions hitherto, lest it should be said, "Why do you intrude? There will be time enough for you when we come to the Irish Bill." But if the Bill was to be deferred to the Greek calends there would be no opportunity to discuss the important principle of the franchise being based on population alone, which was acknowledged in the English Bill, and was of vital interest to the Irish people. The English Bill also conferred the elective franchise upon the principle of clear yearly value or rent, whilst the Irish Bill was based upon poor law rating. Where there was a will there was always a way; and the noble Lord, if so inclined, could easily have clauses applicable to Ireland introduced into the English Bill. An hon. Member who had supplied the House with some statistics had informed them that the English Reform Bill had already occupied them seven tiresome nights, upon which about eighty speeches had been delivered, so that it might be truly said of it:—

"Seven nights, nine times nine,

Did it dwindle, peak, and pine;"

"Though the Bill may not be lost,

Yet it shall be tempest tost."

rose to appeal to the Government not to go into Committee on the English Reform Bill until the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills had been considered. He ventured to ask some Member of the Government the course they meant to take with reference to each of the Reform Bills.

The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton) on a former occasion called my attention to the question of the fortifications at St. Pierre, and I am very sorry that the answer which I then gave was not satisfactory to him, because I can now do little more than repeat what was the substance of that answer. In the year 1856—I think in the month of January—an order was sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, directing him to inquire what were the fortifications which the French were erecting upon the island of St. Pierre. In the month of April following the Governor replied, and stated that there were fortifications commanding the entrance to the harbour—namely, a battery, mounting four 84-pound guns and two 42-pound guns, commanding the roadstead, and another battery at the entrance, commanding the south-east passage and mounting eight 42-pounders; that there was also a third battery, and a barrack capable of holding between 300 and 400 men. The whole of this Report was submitted to the law officers of the Crown, who were asked, not as to any particular fortification, but whether that state of things was conformable to the treaty or was at variance with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated very truly that from 1713 to 1814, with respect to fortifications at St. Pierre, the answer of the law officers of the Crown was, that the fortifications mentioned by the Governor of Newfoundland did not amount to an infraction of those various treaties. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to produce the question submitted to the law officers and their answer; but to do so would be quite contrary to the rule which has always been acted upon in these cases. It is not considered right to produce the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown. I believe that practice to be founded upon very good reasons, and, therefore, I cannot comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The subject of the fisheries is an entirely different one. The hon. and learned Gentleman states, and, I dare say, very truly, that there are 30,000 Frenchmen engaged in these fisheries. It is, as he says, the practice of France, and he might have added also of the United States of America, to give large bounties to promote their fisheries; and that is done, I believe, rather with a view to the training of a large number of seamen, than to any commercial profits which arise from the prosecution of those fisheries. That is a matter of policy with regard to trade, not relating to treaties at all, with respect to which it would not, at this moment, be convenient to enter into a discussion. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman can, if be thinks fit, upon some future occasion find fault with the policy according to which, some years ago, the giving of bounties was discontinued by the Government of this country. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovaine) asked me a question with respect to the convention concerning the fishery off Newfoundland. That is a matter of very great importance. The negotiations have lasted considerable time; but I hope that they are now approaching a termination. Cap- tain Dunlop, who was sent to Paris to assist in conducting them, has returned to England, and has had an interview with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am told that the explanations which he gave were satisfactory to the noble Duke, and that he is about to return to Paris with the hope of bringing the negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion. The opinion of the Commissioners has been that it was not necessary to have any new treaty upon the subject, but that the treaties at present existing, with proper interpretations and proper measures for carrying them into effect, would suffice for the regulation of the fisheries of the two countries. I need not, therefore, enter any further into that matter; but I hope that we shall soon be able to announce the conclusion of these negotiations. The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield will be answered by the Secretary of the Treasury, to which department the subject properly belongs. To go on with foreign affairs, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith) asked me whether we had any assurance that no French troops should be inarched into the districts of Chablais and Faucigny. I think I have, upon former occasions, stated to this House that the French Government entirely refuse to enter into any engagement upon that point. They have stated that they should not send any troops into the neutralized districts of Savoy until the Vote of the Parliament of Sardinia had completed the Treaty of the 24th of March, and entitled them, as they conceive, to the possession of Savoy; but after that time they would enter into no engagement whatever. I think the hon. Gentleman is so far right that any prospect of making a difference in the arrangements after the French troops should have occupied the provinces would be very much governed by that event. I did not understand at first what it was the hon. Gentleman proposed that we should do. I did not give any assurance to the House that has not been fulfilled. I stated to the House the arrangement which the Government wished to see carried into effect; but I did not state that we felt sure of attaining our object. The hon. Member thinks we ought to withdraw from all further negotiation in the circumstances to which he refers. That is certainly a matter for very grave consideration, and I will not at present give any engagement to the House on the sub- ject. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone has asked me a question with regard to the Reform Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman has shown great candour in admitting that the Government have given some ground for the charge of insincerity which has been made against them. I will be equally candid with respect to his conduct. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has given considerable ground for the impression that he is neither favourable to this Reform Bill nor willing to give it a fair consideration. The 1st of March was not a very late period of the Session for bringing forward such a measure. But the hon. and learned Member supposes we have postponed it to the Highways Bill, the London Corporation Bill, and other measures. That is a total misapprehension on his part, arising, I think, from his want of experience as to the proceedings of this House. If I had said that, instead of the Highways Bill coming on, we propose to go into Committee on the Reform Bill this evening, being a notice evening, I think the Members of this House generally, and with reason, would have said that the measure was far too important to be left to the chance of being taking at 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and that it ought to stand as the first thing for some clay on which Orders of the Day have the precedence. Many measures of great importance and likewise of great urgency have been introduced into this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the financial arrangements of the year; and everybody knows that nothing can be more inconvenient than to have fiscal questions and matters touching duties of Customs or Excise postponed till a late day, thereby keeping all the trade of the country in suspense. Therefore it appeared to me that there was good reason for not bringing on the Reform Bill till the decision of the House had been taken on the principal portions of the Budget. To enable my right hon. Friend to proceed with those measures—one of which certainly did not progress at a very rapid rate in Committee last night—I fixed the Committee on the Reform Bill for the 4th of June. It is our intention then to bring it on. Of course, with regard to days we must be a good deal dependent on what may be the pleasure of the House, because on Notice nights, as the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, we cannot take the Committee on a Government Bill without the consent of those hon. Members who properly have the pre- cedence. But we certainly wish to have as much time as the House may be willing to give us for proceeding with this measure. The hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork asked me whether I would introduce a clause making the Bill applicable to Ireland. I thought, when I said we should postpone the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill, he would have understood that we could not adopt the course he recommended, because if we were to do so it would almost be necessary to discharge this Bill and bring in another. The Chairman of the Committee would naturally say that provisions relating to Ireland could not find a fit place in a measure to "amend the representation in England and Wales." It is impossible, then, for us to propose such a clause as the hon. and learned Member suggests. We mean, as I stated the other night, to proceed with the Reform Bill for England; and, the question respecting the franchise having been decided in this Bill, that would make the discussion of the Irish Bill much more easy than if we had to debate the same point over and over again. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem very friendly to this Bill; but he has only to take the course which is the direct one, however much hon. Gentlemen who dislike the Bill may be averse to pursue it—namely, to vote against the measure altogether. What we have done is to bring forward a Bill which we believe will be useful. If other Members of this House think it a useful measure, let them support it. If they think it mischievous and dangerous, let them throw it out and take upon themselves the responsibility of such a step. But at one time to say it is a very small Bill, which does nothing at all, which is totally ineffectual and futile because it attempts so little, and at another moment to say it is a most dangerous and revolutionary Bill, calculated to overthrow the whole constitution of the country—surely there is a striking inconsistency in such double criticism. I shall propose that we go on again with the consideration of this measure, and then the House can, in Committee, discuss what is the best franchise and what the best distribution of seats to adopt. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone proposes to introduce a lodger franchise. That is a very fair proposal; and I can assure him, on the part of the Government, that it shall be discussed, like all other Amendments—with a due consideration of all the reasons which may be advanced for or against it; and then let the House decide whether or not it shall be adopted.

said, he had never thought and he had never stated that the noble Lord was insincere in that matter. What he had said was, that there was an impression in the country that the Government were not sincere in their mode of dealing with the question.

said, he protested against the term inconsistency being-applied to his conduct. He had never charged the Bill with being revolutionary.

had not said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made such a charge. He by no means intended to refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that before asking the Question of which he had given notice, he wished to explain why he put it in the fewest possible words. It had been suggested to him that if he put this question he might be asked why he did not rather put a question with respect to the recruiting that was going on in Ireland for the troops of the Pope. His answer was a very simple one—that recruiting was so perfectly illegal that he could only suppose the reason why the Government did not interfere to put a stop to it was that, while other countries were sending the sweepings of their gaols to reinforce the cutthroats of Perugia, they might allow the example to be followed in Ireland. But the Sicilian insurrection was an entirely different affair. The Sicilians were really fighting for a noble cause, which, as far as possible, should be untainted by any illegality. If the Government were disposed to treat the recruiting for the Pope in Ireland with contempt, they could not so treat the expedition to Sicily of General Garibaldi. Once let him penetrate into the interior of that island, and the contest would become a very serious one indeed. It was true that the great towns of Sicily lying on the seaboard would be in the power of the Neapolitan Government so long as they could keep the sea; but it must not be forgotten that there were large parts of that country most admirably adapted for guerilla troops. Even in the most fertile districts the villages stood almost always on rocky eminences; they were built with narrow streets; and altogether they were of that character that a mere handful of men could defend them against better troops than could be sent against them by the King of Naples. If this turned out a long struggle, the attention of Europe would be drawn very much to the subscription which was getting up in this country. Not that he believed that subscription would ever amount to any sum that would be a very considerable assistance to the Sicilian cause; but it would be so considerable as at least to attract attention; and if there was anything illegal in it, he thought it wise and proper that the Government should declare it to be so. Our position with regard to Sicily was a very peculiar one—for two reasons. In the first place, not only in France, but over the whole Continent, we were suspected of having views of our own with regard to Sicily. Now, although our temporary occupation of it might be of immense advantage to the island—although it would soon recover its prosperity, and become again the granary of the Mediterranean—yet he was perfectly sure that before five years passed the English rule would become unpopular, and the country would become the greatest possible burden and nuisance to us. There was another reason why we should disavow all connivance with illegal assistance given to the Sicilians. It seemed to him that the true and wise course for this country to take, as the head of the constitutional Governments in Europe, was to strive that the principle of national boundaries should be respected, and that every nation should settle its quarrels within its own territory. They might be certain that the Liberal cause in all countries was steadily gaining ground, and, if they only prevented one despotic Power from assisting another despot, before long the Liberal party would be able to completely crush their oppressors. His object in asking the question of which he had given notice was most friendly to the Sicilians. He wished success to their revolt. He wished it might spread into the mainland, and before long overwhelm the King and Government in utter destruction. Still, he hoped he had made it clear that the Government should do nothing to support the insurrection, and that English subjects, as individuals, should do nothing illegal to promote it. He begged to ask Mr. Solicitor General whether his attention has been drawn to an Advertisement which appeared in The Times of Wednesday, the 9th of May, announcing that a Subscription had been opened in London in aid of the Sicilians; and whether Persons in this Country who contributed to the Fund which it was proposed to raise would render themselves liable to any legal proceedings?

said, he hoped he should not be considered wanting in respect to the House, or to the hon. Gentleman, if he confined himself to giving a precise answer to a precise ques- tion, and abstained from following the somewhat discursive strain of observation, in which the hon. Gentleman had considered it right to indulge. He had therefore to state that his attention had been called to the advertisement, by the Notice of the hon. Gentleman's Question. He had a copy of that advertisement before him; he had read it, and, as he thought the hon. Member had not stated the substance of it, his observations would be rendered more intelligible, if he referred to it more particularly. The advertisement solicited subscriptions in aid of the Sicilians, and requested that the sums, which persons in this country might be disposed to give, should be paid into the hands of certain persons living in this country, whose names were published; and the proposal, was that the subscriptions, so paid into the hands of those persons, hero, should, as money, be transmitted to Genoa, to be there disposed of by a committee, stated to be presided over by General Garibaldi. The Question was, whether the subscribing of money in this country, by paying it into the hands of foreigners or others, living here, with the purpose and object described by the advertisement, infringed any rule of common law, or was an offence against any prohibitory statute? Now, it appeared to him that, so long as what was done was kept within the bounds of a mere subscription in this country, such as this advertisement described, no law of this country would be violated. The only statute in any way bearing on a case of this description was, the 59th George III., commonly called the Foreign Enlistment Act. It prohibited two things—the enlisting of soldiers, and fitting out or equipping vessels of war for service, under or against, foreign Governments. It did not in any way touch subscriptions. As far as he was able to form an opinion, any man who thought proper might put his hand into his pocket, take out his money, and put it into the hands of another, on the faith of its going to Genoa, to be disposed of by General Garibaldi; without violating either the common, or statute, law of the country.

said, he had given notice of an important Question, the answer to which would be looked to with interest throughout the whole of India; it was to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it be true that he has recalled Sir Charles Trevelyan from the Governorship of Madras. He might be permitted to express a deep interest in this question, because he was personally acquainted with the state of the Madras Presidency. Six or seven years ago, under a former Government, he had the honour of detailing to the House what were his observations with regard to a state of things that ought never to have existed—a most chaotic state of things—Government abdicating its first functions in providing for the security of life and property, grinding the ryots by the most oppressive taxation, and compelling the cultivators to pay 50 per cent—one-half of their gross produce—following in the track, but with more than the severity, of the Native Governments that preceded them. On the other hand, there was a province where, in the short reign of one year, through the personal influence of the Governor, the population was reconciled to the Government it before hated; in which an assessment was equitably carried out; and land for the first time, contrary to all the traditions of the old East India Company, principally through the influence of Sir Charles Trevelyan, had been sold in fee simple to anybody who wished to purchase it. This was but a small portion of the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman had conferred upon the country; and it was with the very deepest regret, with feelings of astonishment and great pain, that he now said that the right hon. Gentleman had committed acts which cut him off, if he might so speak, in the middle of his most beneficent career. It was only that evening he understood that Sir Charles Trevelyan had for certain been recalled from Madras, and that his successor had been appointed. The ground upon which that recall was based was, he believed, the Minute which Sir Charles Trevelyan had written in reference to the financial statement which Mr. Wilson had laid before the Legislative Council at Calcutta; and he must say that, having read both, he fully agreed in the general principles which in the Minute were laid down, and regarded Sir Charles Trevelyan as being justified in taking the decisive step which he had adopted if he were in a position to prove that no further taxation was required in India. In saying he was justified, he might, perhaps, be employing language which was somewhat too strong; but he should endeavour to assign a good reason for the use of that expression by entering into a brief explanation of what he believed to be the motives by which Sir Charles Trevelyan had been actuated in taking the course which he had pursued. He had not, he felt assured, adopted that course in a fit of petulance, or without being fully alive to the fact that he would thereby he likely to incur the displeasure of a Government who could mar or make his fortune. Before, however, he entered into an explanation of the motives of Sir Charles Trevelyan's conduct in the matter, he should like to state what the stop was which he had actually taken. Mr. Wilson, in proposing his Budget to the Legislative Council, setting forth the financial difficulties under which the Government of India laboured, and in stating the views which he entertained as to the best mode of meeting them, informed the Government that he had discovered a deficit for the year of upwards of £9,000,000, and a prospective deficit for the year after of £6,000,000. He however, admitted that his calculations with reference to the subject were extremely vague. In order to meet the deficit he stated that it would be necessary to impose three new taxes, one of which, the tobacco tax, had already cost three rebellions in that part of the country in which it had been levied. And although in favour of the other two taxes Mr. Wilson might quote the institutes of Menu—which, as Sir Charles Trevelyan said, had no more weight than the common law would have in this country—it was quite evident that he took rather a European than an Indian view of the subject. Those two taxes would, he might observe, be extremely heavy in their incidence on the population of India. The licensing tax, for instance, like the old moturpha tax, which had been condemned by the Court of Directors ever since 1846, was one of the most oppressive which had ever been collected. The other tax to which he referred was the income tax, which, as the House was aware, was to be levied in India upon incomes of £40 per annum, which would probably correspond to £150 in this country. Now, he did not feel disposed to quarrel with the imposition of these taxes if it were actually necessary to levy them, even though, as was proposed, they were levied upon that part of India which had exhibited the greatest loyalty during the late rebellion of our overgrown Bengal army, and which since then had shown the strongest signs of attachment to the Government. Be that, however, as it might, Sir Charles Trevelyan, who when the taxes in question were projected had been engaged in a tour of inspection of his Presidency, immediately stopped short in his progress, returned to Madras, and penned that able Minute the publication of which was the cause of his recall. Now the House, he felt assured, would not, when they became thoroughly acquainted with the principles which were laid down in that document, and the manner in which Sir Charles Trevelyan therein considered the proposals of Mr. Wilson, fail to perceive that its author had displayed a very largo knowledge of the subject with which lie dealt, of the principles of taxation, and of the condition of the country; and that it was desirable the Legislative Council should have seen, and been able, if possible, to refute his arguments before they resorted to so heavy an increase of taxation as that which was contemplated. In his Minute Sir Charles Trevelyan contended that that increased taxation was unnecessary, that the military expenditure in India was far greater than was requisite; at the same time he declared that, after the experience of years, he looked to the simple method of cutting down her expenditure as the best mode of removing the financial difficulties by which India was beset. Entertaining those opinions, and believing that great danger would result from the contemplated increase of taxation, he felt that he could not do otherwise than place upon record his disapproval of a policy which he was unable to avert. He understood that the motive which bad induced Sir Charles Trevelyan to make public his Minute was the fear that unless he did so he should be unable to stop this increased taxation. His friends in India remonstrated with him, and told him that he would offend the Government here: his reply was that his views were fixed, that he thought the proposed scheme would be ruinous; and he sacrificed himself for the good of India. Such were the heroic motives which bad caused Sir Charles Trevelyan, to his own prejudice, to take the course which he had adopted; and when full information on the subject had been laid before the House they would, he was convinced, see that there were good grounds for entertaining the opinion that no additional taxation was required in India, and that its expenditure might very well be cut down to the amount at which it stood in 1857. He could not, under these circumstances, help regretting the hasty step in recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had deemed it to be his duty to take. Let hon. Members for a moment call to mind who Sir Charles Trevelyan really was. It had been stated that he knew nothing of India; but those who made that statement must be ignorant of his career. He had lived in India among the last of those great men who had won for us an empire which we seemed determined to lose. He had, under the auspices of Lord William Bentinck, become familiar with the policy of that eminent statesman, one of whose main features was to avoid increasing taxation, and to cut down the expenditure to correspond with the income of the country. Sir Charles Trevelyan, having served his Sovereign in India for a period of nearly twenty years, and having earned for himself the friendship of its foremost men, returned to England, where, instead of enjoying a life of otium cum dignitate. he entered into the service of the Treasury, and did much towards the adoption of the system which had made our public accounts a model for the imitation of foreign nations. In that position he remained until the sagacious eye of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) marked him out for the Governorship of Madras—an act which was, perhaps, one of the brightest of the noble Lord's intelligent administration of Indian affairs. In his now capacity Sir Charles Trevelyan united with the most exact knowledge of details, views the profoundest and most comprehensive, and in one short year showed himself capable of mastering difficulties by which many statesmen had been perplexed, standing out in distinguished contrast to those by whom he had been preceded. This was the Gentleman the Secretary for India had thought proper to recall: these were the grounds on which he had done so. Sir Charles Trevelyan was opposed to the enormous military expenditure in India; his opinion was that they should make the expenditure and the income meet, and he believed that in two years it might be done. Sir Charles Trevelyan had been intimately acquainted with India for a quarter of a century, was a high authority in the Treasury at home, and master of its system of accounts; he had been in intimate communication with all the statesmen of the present generation; this was the man who said he could make the expenditure and revenue of India meet in two years. Was that a man to recall? Why, the Government ought rather to send for him to Calcutta, to the fountain head of authority in India, and, if Mr. Wilson could not answer his arguments, let his plans be carried out. If increased taxation in India was not only unnecessary, but deeply prejudicial to their empire, there was reason to pause, and not decide on the instant, as the Secretary for India had done. He should have paused to hear what was doing in India, and give all who were equally interested in its government time to confer together on the differing views placed before them. The recall of the Governor of Madras bore out the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the centralization of the Government of India was carried too far. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's extreme opinions on its decentralization, but no doubt some degree of it was necessary. The Secretary of India also approved of decentralizing the power of the Government to a certain extent. But the right hon. Gentleman only gave them a mass of words, never a single act. India could no longer bear this "hope deferred" that "made the heart sick;" they must have action; they must have decentralization immediately carried out, or what men of ability would they get to be minor Governors in India? There was the form, but not the substance of a Legislative Assembly; the Governors were tied so that they could not move hand or foot; and none but inferior men, willing to pocket their £12,000 a year without carrying into effect the plans they knew to be right, would accept such a post. These were the only men they would get under the present system; or if they did get able men they would be likely to kick over the traces. It was not Sir Charles Trevelyan who was to blame for this; the home system was imperfect, and the recent change had done nothing to remove the defects of the Government of India. But Sir Charles Trevelyan did not stand alone among the high officials in India in denouncing Mr. Wilson's Budget. If Sir Charles Trevelyan said he could govern the whole South of India without the troops the Government forced on him, why not let him do it? If he could do with £500,000 less than had before been considered necessary for the Government of Madras, and still pay a quota into the Imperial Treasury, common sense would say—let him do it. The public did not want to hear of the quarrels of officials; it did not care whether Sir Charles Trevelyan published his Minute prematurely or not. The question was, did it show a way out of the difficulties? Was it right or not? Did Indian stockholders and Indian railway shareholders wish to see the revenues of India spent on a large military force, or go into their own pockets as dividends and legitimate profits of enterprise? The people of England wished to see India well governed; they cared nothing for the redtapist reasons for dismissing one of the best men the Government had had in India for a quarter of a century because he had—injudiciously, he thought—sent his Minute to the newspapers before the Secretary for India received it. But were the opinions it contained only those of Sir Charles Trevelyan? The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces fully agreed with him. Another gentleman, a thorough official, who had served thirty years in India, and now held the position of Member of the Council of Madras, in endorsing the Governor's Minute as to the danger of carrying out the views of the Central Government, said if an income tax was to be introduced into India it would be politically wise to try it first in the part of India that afforded the greatest facility for the experiment; they would thus avoid the danger of raising a flame of discontent throughout the whole of the Empire; he stated also that, unless they were content with such a military force as the Treasury could maintain, their difficulties would not cease. This was the opinion of one of the ablest civilians in India, Mr. Maltby. He supported the views of Sir Charles Trevelyan. He would ask, therefore, if it was true that Sir Charles had been recalled, and that his successor had been appointed? He understood he was to be Sir Henry Ward, the present Governor of Ceylon. If that were true, the Government intended to send another Colonial Governor to India. He warned the House that the last Colonial Governor sent to India was not a success. Though an able man, Lord Harris was not a success in India; he was an admirable man, but not fit for the post. A Colonial Governor must be an exceptional character if he succeeded in India; and now the right hon. Gentleman was going to send them another. When he before addressed the House on a similar subject he had compared the whole of the south of India to a hive of bees that the Government would not permit to make honey. They would have enriched the Government; by its absurd management it seemed determined they should not do so. The system of Government had denuded the province even of silver spoons; the foolish and infamous system of the Government had reduced the whole of that unhappy country either to beggary or emigration. They had now got a man who had restored confidence to the people and increased the revenue by half a million. He had had the courage to do what Lord Harris had only written about. When Lord Harris was sent there his intentions were good; and lie wrote the most admirable Minutes in the world on what ought to be done, but what, unfortunately, he never attempted to do; or, if he did, there was a feebleness in the attempt, to which the state of the Government of India proved a successful obstruction. It was the system of Indian centralization that prevented Lord Harris from carrying out his intentions. Now they had a gentleman with energy enough to break through its trammels, and do what ought to have been done by the Government at home. Here was a man of sufficient energy and powerful intellect to accomplish the undertaking and they refused to back him up! It was but seldom a citizen was found who had shown such distinguished talents as Sir Charles Trevelyan, and who to enormous experience of detail added such wide and comprehensive views; every year of such a man's life ought to be treasured up, and now in the fulness of his years—for he was of ripe age—his services, which were so precious to the State, ought not to be wasted in deference to any red-tapist notions of the Secretary of State for India. If it were true that he had been recalled and that the right hon. Gentleman was about to leave India, his memory would be treasured by those he left behind; and he would receive such a greeting from his friends in England, as would make him rejoice that he had only quitted Indian soil to return with still greater honours; for either in the capacity of Governor General, or Secretary of State for India, he would not fail to distinguish himself as highly as any of his predecessors.

I certainly was not prepared by the notice of a simple Question as to whether Sir Charles Trevelyan has been recalled from the Governorship of Madras, for the earnest declamation of my hon. Friend, in which he has raised questions of very considerable importance. Through those questions I shall not attempt to follow him, because the re- call of Sir Charles Trevelyan does not depend in any way in the opinion which he chose to profess—and professed most ably—but simply on the fact of his publishing that opinion most improperly, most unnecessarily, and as we think most dangerously for the welfare of India. While, however, I abstain on this occasion from going into any other question than the simple grounds of the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan, it will be necessary for me to refer to one or two points which my hon. Friend has stated most inaccurately, and with great injustice, to a nobleman who lately occupied an important position in India. My hon. Friend says Lord Harris only issued Minutes for the reduction of the land tax, but effected no reductions; and that Sir Charles Trevelyan on going out accomplished in one year what his predecessors had for a long period failed in doing. Any Gentleman who hears me, I am sure, must see that Sir Charles Trevelyan, who only entered on the government of Madras for the first time a year ago, has not had time, and could not possibly have had time, to effect reductions of the land assessments. Those reductions were carried into effect years ago by Lord Harris, acting by my instructions; the results had shown themselves before Lord Harris quitted Madras, and the same good results have continued to manifest themselves during the rule of Sir Charles Trevelyan. I am not going to enter into an eulogium on Lord Harris, whose character as an able administrator was established by his Government of Trinidad, neither do I wish to say anything derogatory to Sir Charles Trevelyan; who is an old friend of mine; but I can not allow such accusations as those that have been made by the hon. Gentleman without any foundation to go forth uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman talks now of the abominations of the moturpha tax, of the licence tax, and others of that description; but it is not a year ago since he himself recommended the more extended application of the moturpha tax, and upheld the very system which he now so strongly condemns. The hon. Gentleman having pointed out certain things which ought not to be done, recommended the House, on that occasion, "To have recourse to forms of taxation which would not offend the Oriental mind in Southern India," he said, "There was the moturpha, a collection of small taxes. No doubt some of those were bad ones, but there were some of them that were not. Again, why not adopt a tax which has existed in every country in the world—namely, a poll tax?" When the hon. Gentleman now talks of a tax which ought not to be imposed because it presses on the population of India, what on earth am I to understand by his recommending a poll tax, which must reach and press on every man, woman, and child in the country? His views on taxation vary so strangely, and seem to be so very loose, that I really hope the House will not be led away by his eloquent declamation to adopt his statement as matter of authority.

explained, that his arguments had only been intended to apply to the house tax.

I do not think this is the proper time for entering into any discussion on the merits of the scheme of taxation proposed for India; and I have already said that the grounds for recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan are quite independent of his opinion on the question of finance. But I shall certainly be surprised if the House does not agree with me that in the measure which Her Majesty's Government have taken with regret—and by no one with greater regret than myself for I have always entertained the greatest, the highest regard for Sir Charles Trevelyan—the grounds on which we have acted are such as to justify us in the opinion of the House and the country, and to free us from the reproach which has been cast upon us of having acted in the spirit of red-tapists. In order that the House may clearly understand the question, it will he requisite for me to give a few details. It may be remembered that the financial condition of India exhibited for last year a deficit of £13,000,000, and for the present year of £9,500,000. With a view to meet this deficiency, the Government of India last year proposed a licence tax, which was very soon modified into a quasi income tax and also a tax on tobacco. The Governors of the different provinces of India, including the Presidency of Madras, were all invited to send to the Government of India their opinions on the subject of taxation, and in the autumn Sir Charles Trevelyan stated broadly and distinctly the views which he entertained against the imposition of these taxes; and his opinion not only that no additional taxation was necessary, but that the expenditure might be reduced within the limits of the revenue. The hon. Member has asked why we do not do what Sir Charles Trevelyan recommends. There is a wonderful difference between saying and doing. Before the financial measures of the Government were proposed a return was called for of the estimated and actual military expenditure of the several Presidencies; and the military expenditure of Madras which had been reported to the central Government—who alone are responsible for the government of India—at less than £3,000,000, was found in December, when they received the reports of their own accountants, to have considerably exceeded the sum of £4,000,000, so that, instead of the reduction in the military Estimates of which my hon. Friend has spoken, there was an increase on the military expenditure in Madras of nearly £1,500,000. Those responsible for the financial arrangements of the Government must be guided rather by facts than by promises; and it is accordingly upon facts that their financial measures have been based. After full consideration, and having not only the opinions of all the best authorities in India before them, but knowing likewise the feeling of the Home Government, the Budget was introduced on the 18th of February in a very able statement by Mr. Wilson. And here I must beg to correct a misstatement of my hon. Friend, who is under the impression that the financial plans of the Indian Government were arranged with Mr. Wilson before he left this country. He is entirely mistaken in that supposition; and the mistake which I presume he has fallen into is this:—Before Mr. Wilson left this country, a plan was discussed and substantially arranged for introducing a paper currency; Mr. Wilson, the Governor of the Bank, and myself were the principal parties to that discussion, and it was agreed not only that a plan for establishing such a currency should be carried out, but the details were pretty well arranged before Mr. Wilson's departure. But on the subject of finance no arrangement of any kind took place; Mr. Wilson did not propose his scheme till he had been up the country and had communicated with the Commissioner of Oude, the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces, the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, and all the principal local authorities; and it received the full and entire concurrence of the Governor General, of every Member of the Council, and of all the principal officers. It was then introduced on the responsibility of the Supreme Government, It was introduced on the 18th of February, and was trans- mitted to Madras. On the 4th of March an open telegram was sent to Calcutta indicating the opinions of the Governor of Madras against the financial scheme, and asking for time. On the 9th of March a confidential letter was sent to Madras, stating the views of the Central Government and objecting to the use of an open telegram, on the ground that it was not right that communications between one Government and another on such a subject should be known to the public. On the 17th of March a letter was sent to the Central Government, acknowledging the receipt of that letter, and stating that though the Government of Madras saw no objection to an open telegram they had in consequence of the letter of the 9th sent a telegram in cipher. On the 21st of March a telegram was sent from Calcutta informing the Madras Government that a Bill would be introduced on the 24th of the month, and would be referred to a Committee, who probably would not report for five weeks from that time. From the 20th to the 26th of March the opinions of Sir Charles Trevelyan and the Members of his Council were recorded in Minutes, and the publication did not take place of course till after the 26th. I place these dates before the House to show that at the time Sir Charles Trevelyan's Minute was made and published he knew that in the opinion of the Government of India it was not for the public advantage to give these views to the world, and that he also knew that ample time would be afforded for any remonstrance which he might choose to address to them on the subject. I quite admit that the Minute of Sir Charles Trevelyan is a most able production. It contains forcible arguments against the views contained in Mr. Wilson's speech; and if it had been made on the other side of the House in answer to views expressed upon these benches, I do not know that a better answer could have been given than is contained in the Minute. But whether it is a document which ought to be published to the world is quite another matter. It was forwarded to the Supreme Government of India; it was sent to the Madras Member of the Legislative Council, who was desired to move that it should be printed. No doubt it would have formed a remarkable speech if made in the Legislative Council by the Madras Member; and if the majority of the Council had thought it prudent to publish the speech, it was in their discretion to have done so. The Madras Mem- ber of the Legislative Assembly is not a mere delegate, and, of course, is free to exercise his own discretion as to the course which he thinks best calculated to promote the interests of India. But Sir Charles Trevelyan published this Minute without the knowledge, without the concurrence, and, I am justified in saying, against the opinion of the other Civil Members of his Government. To their utter surprise, those Gentlemen saw his Minute and theirs in a public newspaper of Madras. At first it was supposed that the documents must have got into circulation through misconduct or negligence on the part of some of the clerks of the Council. Inquiry was instituted; no such misfeasance could be discovered; and, application having been made to the Private Secretary of Sir Charles Trevelyan, he admitted that he was responsible for the publication. In a recorded Minute Sir Charles Trevelyan most honourably avowed and justified his act. "I take the earliest opportunity of stating," he says, "that, acting upon my sole responsibility, I freely distributed copies of the Minutes of the Members of the Government upon Mr. Wilson's financial statement, with a view to secure for them the greatest publicity." The Supreme Government of India, as I have said, were in possession of the views of the Madras Government upon this portion of the financial scheme. That is also stated by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the same Minute. "All three taxes proposed by Mr. Wilson," he declares, "had previously formed the subject of correspondence with the Supreme Government, and we had made earnest representations against them." He had been told that ample time would be afforded him for making any remonstrance; and, no doubt, he was perfectly justified in remonstrating. Indeed, it was his duty to state his views to the Government of India for their consideration before they came to any final decision. But he went further, and took a step which in his position in any country, but above all in India, seems to mo utterly indefensible. He appealed to the people of India against the measures of the Supreme Government. He avows this distinctly. "The key-stone of the budget," he says, "was English public opinion in India and in England." And again, "This mistaken state of public opinion had to be corrected in order to influence the budget, and I therefore accepted Mr. Wilson's challenge to public discussion, and disregarded the subsequent injunction to secrecy." Mr. Wilson challenged the fullest public discussion in the Legislative Assembly; but he stated that he thought it undesirable that the Government of India should be engaged in public discussion with one of it subordinate Governments; and I confess I shall be surprised if my hon. Friend thinks it was a seemly act, or one calculated to maintain the authority of the Indian Government, or the character of any Government at all, that the Governor of Madras, the head of a subordinate Presidency, should invite opposition to the measures of the Supreme Government, and should constitute himself the leader of the Opposition. It would be impossible to maintain the authority of any Government if such conduct were allowed. I think of late years we have seen mischief enough from insubordination in India to induce us to prevent it from extending further, if it be possible to stop it. We have had a mutiny in the Native army, and of the Local European army; we now have the mutiny of one Government against another; and, much as I regret the person upon whom this decision falls, much as I regret the loss of Sir Charles Trevelyan's services, I think we should have been wanting in our duty if we had for one moment hesitated to take the most prompt notice of an act so insubordinate and so dangerous to our rule in India—if, in short, we had left Sir Charles Trevelyan in his position. To have sent him a severe reprimand, which no man of honour could have received without throwing up his office, would, I think, have been a shabby course. The responsibility rested upon us, and it seems to me that it was more just, and, in point of fact, more kind to Sir Charles Trevelyan, at once to recall him. The question was brought before the Government, and the Government decided that it was their painful but imperative duty to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan from the Government of Madras. It was necessary to support the authority of the Supreme Government, and no other course was open to us but to deprive Sir Charles Trevelyan of his office. I cannot sit down without saying that in much which my hon. Friend has said respecting Sir Charles Trevelyan's personal merits I entirely concur. He is a very old personal friend of mine. I have acted with him for many years in office; and I may say that in the course of a long public life I never had a more painful duty than that which I performed yesterday in recalling him. A more honest, zealous, upright, and independent public servant, I believe never existed. I gladly admit that he had many great qualities for the post which he was selected to fill; in many respects I believe he was doing exceedingly well for the Presidency, and I have no doubt that, if he could have abstained from a course so mischievous to the authority of the Indian Government he would have made a most able administrator. In recalling him, I have recorded the approbation of the Government as to the general course he has pursued during his tenure of office, and the loss of his services will, I am sure, be a public loss; but still greater danger would have ensued if a public servant in his position had been allowed to remain in office after taking a stop so utterly subversive of all authority, and so likely to weaken our rule and excite insubordination and disaffection in India. These are the grounds on which we thought it our duty to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan. In doing so, I think it was equally our duty to take care that as little delay as possible should occur in providing a successor to him in the Government of Madras: it is not a state of things in which an interregnum is desirable; and therefore, last night's mail, which took out the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan, also conveyed a commission to Sir Henry Ward as Governor of Madras. Sir Henry Ward has administered with great success the Government of Ceylon, between which and the Presidency of Madras there is an intimate connection. He has improved the Government and increased the revenue of Ceylon, and I do not think I could have found a more fit person to succeed Sir Charles Trevelyan at Madras. It is desirable that hon. Gentlemen should know what I learnt by telegraph last night—namely, that upon receipt of this intelligence Lord Canning left Simla for Calcutta. The conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan has of course greatly aggravated the difficulties of the Indian Government, and it is indispensable, therefore, at such a time that the Governor General should he on the spot to meet any emergency. I was very glad, therefore, to hear that Lord Canning had disregarded the personal inconvenience—I might almost say the danger—of travelling at this time of year, and that he left Simla on Monday last to resume his duties at Calcutta.

I am not quite sure it is wise to take up the time of the House on an incidental discussion like this, when there are other matters to come before it; but possibly the strong interest I have taken in Indian affairs for many years, and the real importance of the question, will be a sufficient excuse for delaying the House for a few minutes. I think the question that has been introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Poole is of a somewhat painful character, and places the House in considerable difficulty. I quite understand the pain which must have been experienced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India in taking the step which he has felt it his duty to take. We should all view the question dispassionately, and I hope, if there be a discussion, that it will be conducted with the greatest moderation. The finance of India is a question of almost transcendent importance;—it is a question of greater importance than the House has hitherto been able to realize. The state of the finances of India is a state, I was going to say, of absolute chaos, utterly disreputable to the past Governments of India, and presenting great difficulties to every one engaged in the attempt to restore it to a sound condition. We have more than 1,000 civil servants in India, and we have frequently heard it said in the House that there is no service in the world which so abounds with able men as the civil service of India. I never gave a flat contradiction to that statement, though I never for one moment believed it. If we required any proof to show that there is no truth in it, it is furnished by the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley) could not find anybody amongst the 1,000 able men in India who understood his multiplication table so far as to be able to conduct the finances of the country, and the present Secretary of State for India sent out Mr. Wilson to undertake that which no man in the civil service of India was found competent to undertake. I would be the very last person to say a word against Air. Wilson in connection with this matter. I know no man better acquainted with matters of finance and taxation as they are found in this country, and I never have known a man possessing such capabilities for persistent laborious work as Mr. Wilson always exhibited in this country. I am sure he went out to India with the honest intention of devoting all the powers of his mind and body to effect the great object which the Government has committed to his care. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for India, has characterized the speech of Mr. Wilson, in the Council at Calcutta, as an able performance. I have read it with attention, and have studied it with the greatest care; I also examined the details of his Budget, and have given such consideration as I am able to it. I do not deny the ability of it at all. I think there is a great deal of courage—approaching almost to rashness—in some of the propositions he has made; but I should be disposed to find fault with it, because it went on the principle of balancing the income and expenditure by increasing the income by the imposition of new taxes, instead of reducing the expenditure, which we all must feel is enormous, and which I believe most of us think is, to a considerable degree, unnecessary. I shall refer to one only of his propositions—that for the imposition of an income tax throughout all parts of India. So far as I can learn, the general opinion seems to be that that tax is not practicable, and that it will be impossible throughout the whole of India to levy that tax. I do not say that it will be impossible to levy it throughout Lower Bengal. That may be so or not; if it be so, the attempt to impose such an unusual tax on the whole population of India, without reference to the different conditions of different portions of that vast country, is a very perilous undertaking. I must not be understood as making any charge against Mr. Wilson, because I think a man sent out to India under the difficult circumstances in which he went there, having as it were to elicit order from chaos, should be judged with the utmost fairness; and no kind of prejudice or hostility should induce any one to look with an unfavourable eye on any one of his propositions. So much with regard to Mr. Wilson. Not long ago a Governor was sent out to Madras, after many years of previous experience of Indian affairs, and, judging from his former career in India and at home, probably no man could have been found in this kingdom more competent to go out as the Governor of an Indian Presidency, or whose appointment would be likely to do more credit to the judgment of the Secretary of State. During his short reign at Madras I believe Sir Charles Trevelyan has conducted his Government in a manner which has done more to heal the wounds that previously existed among its population, and to bring that population to regard the English rule with favourable feelings, than any Indian governor since the time of Lord William Bentinck. He would seem to have been of opinion that the projects of Mr. Wilson and the Calcutta Government were not applicable to the whole of India; if he made any exception it would probably be of Lower Bengal; but as for the 30,000,000 of people whom he governs, he is distinctly and clearly of opinion that the proposition is not a wise one, and that it may be attended with consequences disastrous to the peace of the country. He says it is not necessary for the Government at Calcutta to raise new taxes in India, and he strongly recommends that the military expenditure should be reduced, chiefly by a large diminution of the Native army. The House knows that when the mutiny was afloat everybody who had paid attention to the subject said that all that mischief had arisen from our maintaining an enormous Native military force; but, although at that time there was a very penitent feeling in this House, throughout the country, and in the press, no sooner is the mutiny suppressed than we find the Native army growing to higher dimensions, and the patronage and expenditure connected with the establishment and maintenance of that army on a much larger scale, than at any former period. I can understand Sir Charles Trevelyan saying that any proposition to raise new taxes in India is a very dangerous experiment. We have heard of "the ignorant impatience of taxation" in this country; but in India it is an experiment a hundred times more perilous to introduce new descriptions of taxes, and to add to the already overburdened condition of the great bulk of the population. This is the simple case. Sir Charles Trevelyan believed—I may say what the conclusion is to which I have arrived—that the course about to be taken by the Government of Calcutta was a course full of danger to the peace of the country, and absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of restoring a balance in the finances of the empire; and he, with a courage and a determination which I greatly admire, wrote—I confine myself to the exact words I am using—a Minute which is a most able argument against the proposition of the Calcutta Government, and in favour of the other principle which is explained in that Minute. We have before us the two schemes—one of the Calcutta Government, and one of the Governor of Madras; and the question to-night is not whether the House shall uphold the one or the other; but judging from the course of the Calcutta Govern- ment and that of the Government of Madras, I hold that Sir Charles Trevelyan, in his views on this question, has shown himself to be much more of a statesman than those who have announced this new scheme in Calcutta. There is another question, which, after all, is the point, and that is the course which Sir Charles Trevelyan has taken in publishing this despatch. There are cases in which the publication of a despatch, although officially wrong and contrary to official etiquette, may still, after all, looking at the matter from a high point of view, be perfectly justifiable. The House will recollect that Lord Ellenborough, when in office as President of the India Board, wrote a despatch which obtained great celebrity, enouncing great principles, and written in powerful and unmistakeable language. He was blamed very much at the time for the course he took in permitting that despatch to be published, and the consequence of that blame was that he retired from the Government, and Lord Derby had no longer the benefit of his services. I approved that despatch, believing it, though it was condemned by some over-fastidious people, to be of great public advantage, though it might be open to the condemnation of those who think that an adherence to official etiquette is of more consequence than a great public service. In this case you have two bodies in opposition—the Government of Calcutta and the Governor of Madras. Sir Charles Trevelyan sees a great emergency, and he takes a step, I admit, altogether unofficial, in publishing this despatch; but I think I understand the feeling under which he acted, and see some excuse for his conduct. The Calcutta Government itself has served the Secretary of State for India very much in the same way. In a couple of years we have had two Secretaries of State for India who could not get an answer to a despatch from Calcutta. Sir Charles Trevelyan, acting with a similar spirit of independence, has shown that he was not hound absolutely by the orders of the superior Government at Calcutta. But I think the recall which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) states that he has now decided upon is not without justification. I have not risen for the purpose of blaming that course. I see all the difficulty, and, if you like, even the danger of the course which Sir Charles Trevelyan has taken—at the same time, I believe he has been actuated by this motive,—that he knew if he had sent the despatch to Calcutta nothing more would have been heard of it; and that if he had sent it to the Secretary of State at home it would have been thought—I would not say a piece of impertinence—but I think it would not have had much weight as against the united opinion of the Government of Calcutta. Sir Charles Trevelyan believed the project of the Calcutta Government to be a perilous experiment, and he determined, at all hazards, to invoke what he could of the public opinion of; India against it, although he knew that course of action on his part must result, as it has resulted, in his being recalled from the high office he has filled with such distinguished ability. I have some reason to believe—at least to suspect—that before the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan reaches India he will have resigned his office. I believe he will see that the issuing of that Minute must be incompatible with the retention of his office. Holding these views, I am unable to join the hon. Member for Poole in any language of condemnation which he may have used with reference to the course taken by the Secretary of State for India. But still I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman might not have taken some other course than that which he has taken; though no doubt he says that had he issued a reprimand it would have been more humiliating to Sir Charles Trevelyan than the fact of his recall. I am in this difficulty. I must say that I think there is no Governor in India at all to be compared with Sir Charles Trevelyan for the services he has performed to the Presidency under his control. I regret more than I can express that a state of things has arisen that justifies, if it does not render necessary, his recall; but I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been able to discover some other course than he has seen it his duty to take, and had retained Sir Charles Trevelyan for the service of India. But there is one other point which is really the question to which I desire to allude. There is a moral to be drawn from this event. The House, or at least some Members of it, will recollect that I have on several occasions addressed it at considerable length with regard to the Government of India, and urged the House to change the whole system of that Government—to abolish the supremacy of the Government at Calcutta, to separate India into several Presidencies, to give to each Governor of a Presidency equal rank with the rest, to put each in direct communication with the Secretary of State at home, and to give to each Presidency the enormous advantage of a direct power in its own Government to watch over, to protect, and to foster the prosperity of its own population. Admit, for the sake of argument, that the propositions of the Calcutta Government are possible in Lower Bengal; we have the authority of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and not his only, but that of those associated with him in the Government, that the propositions are not practicable, are even very perilous, in the Presidency of Madras. But yet, if you pass an Act in Calcutta, it spreads over the whole of India. Bengal, in which it may be possible, is included, and Madras, in which it may be, if not impossible, at least very perilous, cannot be excluded. I argue that this is a case which proves to the House—and ought to prove to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench—that it would be far better to have five or six separate Governments in India, and that the laws to be passed should be passed by each Government for each Presidency, with reference to its own condition and its own wants. I believe we should have an infinitely better Government under that system, partly national and partly municipal, than we can ever have with one unworkable Government in Calcutta, pretending to legislate for 150,000,000 of people, comprising not less than twenty nations, speaking twenty different languages, not one of which languages, probably, is accurately known to any single Member of that Government. I said before that I have not risen to say anything in blame towards the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. I hope the time may come when the services of Sir Charles Trevelyan may again he employed in India. I am quite sure, from all I have heard through private sources, that his withdrawal from the Government will be felt as a positive calamity by the great body of the Natives of Madras—and that is just the state of things which we ought to cultivate—which every Governor ought to aim at; and, if it be possible, every Governor who has attained such a result ought to receive the support of the Home Government in every just and practicable way. I believe that although Sir Charles Trevelyan has not proved himself by what he has done to be a judicious subordinate, yet he has proved himself to be a wise Governor of Madras; and I only hope that in the measures which the Govern- ment at Calcutta are prepared to carry out none of those calamities may follow that Sir Charles Trevelyan has anticipated. I ask the Secretary for India that he will study that Minute of Sir Charles Trevelyan's with great care; and, if he cannot adopt it, it may at least induce him to modify and greatly improve that project of legislation which is described to be so perilous, and which the Calcutta Government is about to establish all over India.

said, the House ought to know that it was not Sir Charles Trevelyan, but Mr. Wilson, who first published to the world the fact that Sir Charles Trevelyan disapproved his financial views. In a speech delivered in the Legislative Council at Calcutta, and which was published and circulated all over India, Mr. Wilson stated that men of high position in Madras were opposed to the financial scheme which he had announced. Of course, everybody knew that this could apply only to Sir Charles Trevelyan, and those associated with him in the Government, and it was natural that Sir Charles Trevelyan, after such an intimation, should have taken the liberty to express his own views in his own way. He rejoiced to hear the expression of regret for the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan which had fallen from every speaker that night. He had in every respect shown himself to be a statesman, and had shown more energy, ability, and zeal in the public service than any official that had gone to India for the last twenty years.

said, he thought that the expressions of the hon. Member for Birmingham as regarded Sir Charles Trevelyan were perfectly just, and wished to know whether it was by the Indian Council in this country that Mr. Wilson's measures had been approved of and adopted. Formerly India, was represented in that House by Members of the Court of Directors; but the Members of the present Indian Council were prevented sitting in the House, and therefore they were now peculiarly called upon, and more than ever, to legislate for that country in a spirit of the utmost forbearance, and to try and ascertain the opinions of those who really represented the opinions of the people of India.

said, that the question of the relations between colonial Governors and the home Government had now assumed a character of the deepest importance. This was not the first instance in which a Colonial Governor had been dealt with by the Government. In the course of the last year, Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, had been recalled by the late Government for an undue exercise of his authority. The present Secretary of State, however, reinstated him, stating in his despatch that though they approved the grounds on which he had been recalled and that such a repudiation of the authority of the home Government, in matters of general policy could never be tolerated, yet that the home Government were unwilling to interrupt the good work which he had begun in the colony in establishing amicable relations between the natives and the colonists, and that therefore they had determined on reinstating him. He (Mr. Lygon) was puzzled to find any distinction between the case of Sir George Grey, and that of Sir Charles Trevelyan, upon whom such high encomiums had been passed, and he could not understand why a different measure of justice should he meted out to the latter. If anything, the case against Sir George Grey was the strongest, because he acted in defiance of instructions from the Colonial Secretary; while all Sir Charles Trevelyan did was to record his dissent from the financial measures of the Calcutta Government in what was perhaps a too public manner. Supposing it to have been consistent with Imperial authority to restore Sir George Grey to his post, then Sir Charles Trevelyan must feel that a scanty measure of justice had been dealt out to him. Looking to the admirable manner in which Sir Charles Trevelyan had discharged his duties he thought that Her Majesty's Government had far better reconsider their decision; and he hoped that in future all relations between the Home and the Colonial Governments would be placed on an intelligible and satisfactory basis.

said, he had carefully read Sir Charles Trevelyan's protest, and he could assure the House that no document could have been couched in more respectful terms. Sir Charles being responsible for the tranquillity and well-being of 30,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects and anxious to govern them through their sympathies, and appreciating the loyalty of the Madras army and of the people, both he and his Council were very much alarmed at the tremendous taxes which Mr. Wilson proposed to impose. He did not attribute much importance to Sir Charles publishing his protest in the Indian journals; but the protest had done a great deal to allay the excitement which had been caused among the Native population by Mr. Wilson's financial scheme. Sir Charles Trevelyan could not be accused of any disrespect or insubordination, because his protest was not directed against Her Majesty's Viceroy, Lord Canning, but was notoriously directed against that entirely ignorant body the Legislative Council of Calcutta; and they ought to be very much obliged to him for such practical and sound suggestions. Though he seldom agreed with anything that fell from the hon. Member for Birmingham, yet he certainly did agree with him on the present occasion that at the present moment the absence of Sir Charles Trevelyan would be a great calamity at Madras. He had dealt with the enam, or rent question, in a prompt and satisfactory manner. When he arrived there he found 350,000 claims which had never been looked into; and within six months afterwards he had made arrangements for the adjudication of those suits in a way agreeable and satisfactory, not only to the Government, but to the rent freeholders themselves. He also appointed a Commission to consider the advisability of uniting the Supreme and Suddur Courts. Comparing his energy with that of the Secretary of State for India he found that though twelve months had elapsed since the Royal Commission had reported upon the organization of the Indian army the right hon. Baronet had not yet made up his mind as to what he should do on the subject; nor had he made up his mind about the union of the Supreme and Suddur Courts. Under all the circumstances, he thought Sir Charles Trevelyan had been treated with undue severity and harshness—more than enough to curb his spirited devotion to the cause of his country, but which he trusted would not impair his future career.

wished, as a personal friend of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and for other reasons, to say a few words on this subject. He did not wonder that an event of so much importance as the recall of the Governor of Madras, had provoked a question at the earliest opportunity; but for public reasons be regretted that the question had been brought forward on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and before any papers had been presented to the House, and in the absence of the late Secretary for India. It was hardly to be expected that such a discussion could have arisen, and those who felt a warm interest in the character of Sir Charles Trevelyan, could not but think that nothing said to-night ought to be allowed to prejudice him, before the House had the whole case before it, and was able to judge of its merits. In judging the conduct of public men, their individual characteristics must be taken into consideration; and those who knew Sir Charles Trevelyan, knew that he was not only a man of great energy and ability, but of a very warm and courageous character; and the House must be prepared to find, combined with the merits, the faults of such a character. The act to which reference had been made, was, no doubt, au unfortunate one, but as to how far it was blameable he suspended his judgment. At all events, it was consistent with that character which induced a man to sacrifice himself under all circumstances for what he considered the public good. Though he was far from saying, until he had an opportunity of seeing the papers, that the conduct of the Government, in recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan, was wrong; yet one could not help regretting that the matter had been put in such a way before the population of Madras, as to make it appear that, their Governor was recalled for standing up for their interests. He thought that the House should, by and by, have an opportunity of discussing this matter, with all the papers before it.

rose to express his very deep regret, in common with many others, at finding they were to be deprived of the services of a man of the ability and independence of character, and resolution in purpose of, Sir Charles Trevelyan, which characteristics were not common in India. Sir Charles, with chivalric devotion, had sacrificed himself to a conviction that the tranquillity of India at the present moment was at stake by a mode of taxation proposed by the Supreme Government of Calcutta, in which the Governor of Madras had had no part whatever. But this chivalric devotion was no new thing in India. At the battle of Satabuldee, near Nagpoor, a battery of the enemy was thinning the ranks of the brigade of Sepoys and a squadron of Native regular cavalry, commanded by Captain Fitzgerald. Captain Fitzgerald sent to the Brigadier to be allowed to charge the battery and the enemy's line. The disproportion of numbers was so great that the Brigadier would not allow the risk to be run. With his men falling, the Captain again sent to the Brigadier, and the reply was "At his peril if he disobeys." "At my peril be it then," said Fitzgerald; and putting his squadron to the gallop, carried the guns, saved the brigade of infantry, and was made a C.B. for his successful disobedience! Nor would any Englishman forget Nelson at the battle of Copenhagen who could not see the signal of recall with his blind eye, and who was made a Peer for his successful disobedience! If he understood his right hon. Friend right, Sir Charles Trevelyan was challenged by Mr. Wilson as to the merits of the two systems, that of reduction without taxation, or that of keeping up those large establishments in India with taxation. Under these circumstances, how was Sir Charles Trevelyan to blame for coming forwar and saying "these are my convictions, let them be tested by the public as between us two." He trusted that, after discussion had taken place on this subject, they would find Sir Charles Trevelyan's character come out with that degree of éclat that should ensure to him the continuance of that respect which his distinguished services had hitherto associated with his name.

I think the character of this discussion cannot be otherwise than satisfactory to Sir Charles Trevelyan and his best friends, because all who have spoken have borne testimony to his great merits and abilities, to the honesty and integrity of his mind, and to the firmness with which be performs what he considers his duty, regardless of any consequences that may arise to himself. I entirely concur in all those opinions. It is impossible for any man who has had the advantage of knowing him both personally and officially not to be deeply impressed with his merits as a public servant. But, at the same time, there are occasions when all personal considerations must yield to a sense of public duty on the part of those who are responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Certainly, the decision the Government has been compelled to come to was one of a very painful nature; because Sir Charles Trevelyan is a public servant who has discharged with eminent success important duties to his country, and whose continuance in this appointment would have been most desirable to the Government, and most advantageous, no doubt, to the public interests. But on the other hand, an act of insubordination and of the violation of official duties has been committed which is calculated to entail consequences of the most dangerous character to the interests of India, and I hold it would have been a breach of public duty on the part of the Government if we had not taken the steps that we have felt it to be our duty to adopt. There has been one great mutiny of the Sepoys; there has been dissatisfaction and discontent among a portion of the Native troops; there has been something like insurrection, or disturbances, at all events, in various parts of India; and yet here was a publication, made by an officer in a high and responsible situation, the tendency of which, from the very nature of the document itself, was to create the utmost dissatisfaction on the part of the Native population of India. I am not going to enter upon a comparison of the merits of the two systems—of Lord Canning and Mr. Wilson on the one hand, and of Sir Charles Trevelyan on the other. Sir Charles Trevelyan was perfectly right, if he entertained the opinion that the former's system of taxation would be productive of the most disastrous consequences to India, and would create the greatest dissatisfaction and discontent among the population of India, in stating that opinion in the strongest possible language and the utmost possible detail. It was his duty to explain all the disastrous consequences that in his opinion would follow the adoption of that system; but those explanations should have been addressed to the Governor General, to the Council at Calcutta, to my right hon. Friend and the Council of India here, to the Executive Government, with whom it rested to determine whether that system proposed should he adopted or not. But I hold that to make an appeal to the people of India—to tell the people of India that that system would lead them to revolt—was a course so disastrous in its consequences as to be subversive of the British authority in India. I say it was a step so extraordinary that I cannot bring myself to imagine how a man so versed as Sir Charles Trevelyan is in official duties, who has been so long a public servant, and therefore was so distinctly aware of the consequences of an act of that sort—I can hardly persuade myself how he could have brought himself to commit such a violation of duty as that act implied. The only explanation is that which has been given—namely, that Sir Charles Trevelyan, being honestly and strongly convinced of the correctness of his opinions, and being reckless of personal consequences, was so impressed with the notion that to prevent by any means the execution of those plans would be a great advantage to the country that, as the hon. Member for Poole freely avowed, he voluntarily, and with his eyes open, sacrificed his official situation in order to accomplish what he thought a public good—although it was a course, as I think, calculated to produce the greatest possible public evil. I, as one of those who concurred in the decision, should have felt that I was shrinking from my public duty if I had not acquiesced in the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan. Now, if that recall was to take place at all, it was important that it should take place at once. It has been suggested in the course of this discussion that the Government might have sent a reprimand to Sir Charles Trevelyan. But in order that this reprimand should have had any effect in counteracting the bad consequences of the publication, the reprimand must have been made as public in India as the offence of which it was a censure. And if that had been the case I would put it to any man whether, under such circumstances, Sir Charles Trevelyan, as a man of honour, could have continued to hold his situation if a severe reprimand, explaining especially the evils that his act was calculated to produce, had been published all over India, and his authority, therefore, entirely destroyed for any useful purpose. Painful as the decision was, it was one which I hold the Government had no option but to take; and though it was painful and undoubtedly conveyed a strong censure upon one public act of Sir Charles Trevelyan's, yet Sir Charles Trevelyan has merits too inherent in his character to be overclouded and overshadowed by this single act. And I concur with those who hope that Sir Charles Trevelyan may, in his future career, be useful to the public service, and do honour to himself as well as service to his country. I must pay a tribute of acknowledgment to the hon. Member for Birmingham for the temperate manner in which he addressed the House on this question. I must, however, also say, if my hon. Friend the Member for Poole will allow me to do so, that the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham formed a very advantageous contrast to that which he (Mr. Danby Seymour) delivered. The hon. Gentleman on the opposite side (Mr. Lygon) attempted to draw a parallel between the case of Sir Charles Trevelyan and that of Sir George Grey. But the two cases are essentially and fundamentally different. What was the offence of Sir George Grey, and what was the offence of those gallant officers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) adverted? Their offence was disobedience of orders issued by a superior authority. The Secretary of State for the time being felt it his duty to recall Sir George Grey. But that disobedience of orders did not entail any danger to the colony under his command—it was, on the contrary, if I recollect aright, a measure of over energy for the defence of the colony. That was totally different from the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who, by the publication he had made, tended to disorganize, to disturb, and to distract the internal peace and security of India, and to endanger the authority of the Government in that vast and extensive part of Her Majesty's dominions. Therefore the two cases are wholly different. No one will think, on reflection, that Her Majesty's Government had any other course to pursue than to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan. On the other hand, I am quite sure that no one will impute to Sir Charles Trevelan anything but an exaggerated belief in his own opinions, and a recklessness of consequences which I feel was a great fault in a person occupying so responsible a situation, but a fault which, nevertheless, does not detract in any degree from those eminent qualities which every one who knows Sir Charles Trevelyan must acknowledge he possesses.

said, in answer to the Question put to him four hours ago by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he believed that a short statement to the facts of the ease would put the subject in a very different light before the House. In 1857 the British Consul at Aleppo received an intimation from our Ambassador at Constantinople that the Government contemplated making considerable purchases of horses, mules, and camels, in that district, and that officers were about to be despatched from England for that purpose. The Consul communicated with Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, and that gentleman made an arrangement with an agent to purchase a large number of horses, mules, and camels, on commission. Shortly after, the Government altered their views, and there was no necessity for any purchase. Mr. Goldstein then sent in a claim for £68,000 being the amount of his loss upon the purchase of from 8,000 to 10,000 horses, camels, and mules. The Consul at Aleppo had no authority whatever to enter into any contract, and he had only informed Mr. Spitz-Goldstein of the intention of the Government, in order that that person might do something in the way of a private speculation for his own advantage. That was the state of things in the autumn of last year; and at that time, to use a phrase which had almost become classical on these occasions, "from certain information" which had reached the Treasury, it was resolved that a Commission, consisting of a Secretary of Legation and an Assistant-Commissary general, two highly respectable and competent gentlemen, should proceed to Aleppo to make inquiries into the case. The result of the investigation was to bring to light a more astounding transaction in the history of horse-dealing than had ever come to his (Mr. Laing's) knowledge. It was established on the most incontrovertible evidence that not a single animal out of the whole number had a real and bona fide existence. The manner in which that transaction was effected might be interesting to hon. Gentlemen who approved of the provisions of Sir John Barnard's Act. It appeared that there was a sort of Horse-Exchange in Aleppo, similar to the Stock Exchange of this country, with the sole difference that, whereas in the latter people speculated in what were technically known as "bulls and bears," in the former horses and camels were bought and sold; and the whole of the transaction now before the House was effected by the simple process of time bargains. From the Report of the Commissioners it would appear that Mr. Spitz-Goldstein's agent, for the purpose of establishing his principal's claim on Her Majesty's Government, effected a series of simulated purchases of horses, with persons in a low condition of life; that fictitious receipts and contracts were entered upon the register of the American Consulate, and legalized copies were furnished to Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, on payment of the usual fees. The evidence in support of this statement was very voluminous, and of a thoroughly unimpeachable character, and included that of the Consul of Aleppo, who said that no purchase could have been effected without his knowledge, that no such purchase was effected, and that the whole nature of his communications with Mr. Spitz-Goldstein had been to put him up to a good speculation, and not to enter into any contract. The Vice-Consul also said that no purchase was made, and can- didly admitted having signed one of the documents lodged with the American Consul, being a receipt for £650, nominally for a commission of £1 per head for 650 animals, without any consideration whatever. The evidence of Mr. Walsh, one of the most respectable merchants in Aleppo, and of the Consuls at Antioch, and other places, corroborated those statements. Under these circumstances the proposal to refer the claim of Mr. Spitz-Goldstein to arbitration was perfectly out of the question. Her Majesty's Government would simply contest the claim, and if the parties by whom the transactions were attempted should come within the reach of British law, he believed an indictment for conspiracy to defraud would very soon bring the question to an issue. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), he would say that the papers in reference to the Gas Act had been laid on the table of the House ten days ago, and would, he hoped, shortly be in the hon. Member's own hands. With respect to the models, he had merely to exonerate the officials of the Treasury from the blame imputed to them. The Act was not a Government measure, and was passed through the House without the knowledge of Ministers; but as it required a model to be deposited to measure a cubic foot of gas, the Treasury had referred to the Astronomer Royal, who had kindly given them his assistance, and the result was that a model was deposited within the three months required by the Act. The trade, however, was of opinion that although the model might have been constructed on the most scientific principle it was not practically what was required, and a great deal of discussion arose on the point. The result was that the Treasury, although of opinion that the Act had been fully complied with, thought it would be preferable to strain the letter of the law, and agree to have a model constructed according to the wishes of the trade. The work, however, had been found one of great difficulty and nicety, and though he had hoped that the new instrument would have been deposited in the Exchequer by the beginning of the present month, he had been disappointed. He believed, however, that it would be in its place by the first week in June.

thought it was the duty of the Government to watch every Bill to which the assent of the House was asked; and if the Government had paid the neces- sary attention in this instance, he felt convinced that this particular measure would never have passed. He wished to state that in default of any other Member doing so, he himself should call the attention of the House to this act, and ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend or repeal certain of its provisions which were found to be exceedingly objectionable.

complained of the general tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), in reply to Mr. Roebuck, in which the hon. Member spoke disparagingly, and in an uncalled-for manner, of the honour, honesty, and social character of the Oriental nations.

Sir, I am anxious to draw attention to a question of considerable importance connected with the forms of the House which regulate the order of our business. I have observed with great surprise in the Votes that last night the House having gone into a Committee of Ways and Means, and certain Resolutions imposing licence duties upon refreshment-houses having been adopted by the Committee, those Resolutions were, contrary to the universal practice of the House, reported forthwith, and without the usual interval of at least a day. I cannot but conceive that this course of proceeding was taken entirely by inadvertence. I believe I am correct in stating that no precedent whatever can be found for the Report of Resolutions to the House immediately after their adoption in Committee of Ways and Means. I beg the House to observe this is not a mere matter of form; there is a great deal of substance in this as in many another form of the House. I must beg the House to observe that these Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means are the first step taken towards the imposition of a tax, and we all know that in the case of certain taxes the moment the Resolutions imposing them are reported to the House the Revenue Department at once begins to make the levy. So that by reporting such Resolutions to the House forthwith—immediately upon their passing the Committee—no opportunity is afforded to the House, or to those hon. Members who were absent from the Committee—of reconsidering the matter, and finally determining whether it is expedient to levy a tax of the kind proposed. As I said before, I cannot help thinking that these Resolutions were so reported by mistake, and I hope the House will agree with me in holding that the respect which is duo to our forms renders it necessary that in reference to the future we should revert to this proceeding and perhaps declare the Report null and void; so that it may appear on our Journals that this irregularity is not to be established as a precedent.

Sir, I wish to make a few remarks on the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and which is certainly one of the most important which can possibly engage the attention of the House. It is one of the gravest possible questions. It is unnecessary for me to dilate at all on the value of the forms of the House, which have been devised by the experience of our predecessors for the welfare of the public. It may sometimes be a question whether some of these forms may not be insisted on too closely, and whether they may not be unnecessarily multiplied; although I believe that all those in this House who are most experienced in the conduct of public affairs are of opinion that we should approach the revision of them with the utmost caution. But there is one point upon which it is impossible there can be two opinions, and that is, that when a question of taxation is concerned it is incumbent on the House to observe with the greatest nicety, and even reverence, the forms which have been devised to prevent any rash decision on a subject which may involve the most vital interests of the country. It always has been the rule in all questions of Supply and Ways and Means, where the House has come to a decision in Committee, that decision should not be reported on the same day. If there were no formal Standing Order to that effect, the spirit of all our Standing Orders goes to that effect; but we have among our Rules one which positively directs that "Any Report of Resolutions from the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, is ordered to be received on a future day." I believe there is no precedent upon our Journals of a contrary course having been taken; and I think every Gentleman who has given any consideration to the subject will agree with me that a more prudent regulation was never adopted by this House. I recollect a case, if my memory does not deceive me, in which even the prorogation of Parliament was postponed one day in order that a Resolution agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means that the Government were rather unexpectedly called upon to enter into should be duly reported. I was aware of the circumstance to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and it was my intention to have asked the House to consider it this evening; but in consequence of the interesting, though rather various nature of the business that has engaged us, I thought that on the whole it would be better to delay the matter till Monday, which was the first Government day after the thing complained of happened, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer should ask us again to go into Committee on the Wine Licences Bill. I should have been unwilling on that occasion to make any observations which might have conveyed any censure even by implication upon any Member of this House, whether on the Treasury bench or elsewhere, and the only reason why I should have brought forward this very grave subject would have been that the House should take steps to prevent the course which was followed last evening from being hereafter quoted against us as a precedent; because there probably might be circumstances in which, with such a precedent, public business might be hurried through in a manner which would have a very injurious effect upon even the public fortunes. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward the subject, it is impossible for me to pass it over in silence. I agree with him that it is not sufficient that the Government should express their opinion that the course taken last evening was an inadvertence, and should not be drawn into a precedent:—I think we ought to have some record of the opinion of the House itself upon the point, because an expression of opinion on the part of the Government, however satisfactory to us, would not at all influence our successors, and upon our Journals this very dangerous precedent would appear without any countervailing record. I think, moreover, that where there is no doubt that a mistake has been committed merely from inadvertence it is more suitable to the dignity of the House and more agreeable to all of us that the remedial course should be undertaken by the Government themselves. I do not at all wish to take the matter into my own hands, and I dare say the right hon. Gentleman who, with his knowledge of the forms of the House, has properly introduced the question is equally averse to undertaking it; but if the noble Lord, the leader of the House, would on Monday take some steps in the matter, I think it would be satisfactory to the House. I think that it should be recorded that the proceedings of last evening, so far as they relate to the Resolution adopted in Committee of Ways and Means, are null and void, and that care should be taken that in future such Resolutions should be duly and properly reported to the House.

, the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, said, if there was any irregularity in our proceedings last evening, I am bound to say that I am primarily responsible for it. It will be fresh in the recollection of the House that last evening there were on the paper two Orders of the Day, one preceding the other. The Order for a Committee of Ways and Means stood first, and in that Committee there appeared upon the paper a notice of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move certain Resolutions imposing a duty upon wine licences. The next Order was the Wine Licences Bill. It was necessary, in order to pass that Bill through Committee, that the preliminary Resolutions imposing a duty upon wine licences should, in the first instance, be adopted in a Committee of Ways and Means. The Committee of Ways and Means sat, and the Resolutions, which were discussed at considerable length, were framed by the Committee after more than one division. After they were passed, and after I vacated the Chair, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as is the usual course, upon what day he proposed that the Resolutions should be reported. I do not at all wish to convey to the House that the right hon. Gentleman expressed a desire that the usage and practice of the House should be departed from; but I understood him to intimate that it would be convenient if the Resolutions could be promptly reported, in order that they might be inserted as clauses in the Wine Licences Bill, which stood next upon the list of Orders of the Day. I said—not having at the moment any opportunity of consulting the Journals or the authorities of the House—that upon principle, and with reference to the practice of the House in cases of emergency, I saw no objection to that course. I was aware that there was no Standing Order against it, and therefore I thought, if circumstances existed which rendered it desirable to depart from the ordinary practice of the House, that the House was the master of its own proceedings. But at the same time I did say that the Motion was one which I could not make on the steps of the Speaker's chair in the usual manner, and that the Minister who desired to have it made should himself state his wish to the House, and I did intimate—not, I think, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that in my opinion, if any hon. Gentleman objected to the course proposed to be taken, it should not be insisted upon. I considered that with that precaution there could be no objection to the immediate reporting of the Resolutions adopted in Committee of Ways and Means, with a view to their insertion as clauses in the Bill which stood as the next Order of the Day. It is not for me to say whether it is incumbent upon the House to suffer no departure whatever, under any circumstances which may arise, from its ordinary practice. My own private opinion is, that for the House to impose such a restriction upon itself would be to create an unnecessary impediment to the despatch of public business; and not having any opportunity of consulting the Journals or the authorities of the Douse, I certainly did, upon principle, and with regard to the practice in the case of ordinary Bills, which are sometimes passed through their several stages without the usual intervals, intimate my belief that if the House consented, upon the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the prompt reporting of the Resolutions passed in the Committee of Ways and Moans, there could be no objection to that course being taken. However, I am free to say that if I had had an opportunity of consulting the Journals, and if I had found that they were entirely destitute of precedents, I should not have advised such a step to be taken. But at the same time I trust the House will not assent to the extreme measure of declaring the proceedings of last evening null and void. They are not null and void; they are perfectly valid. In the absence of any Standing Order prescribing a particular mode of procedure, it is competent for the House to vary its own practice. Putting it as high as you please, this is merely a matter of practice. The practice of the House is departed from when a sufficient emergency arises; nay, the Standing Orders of the House themselves are suspended for the purpose of facilitating public business; and therefore to say that the proceedings of last evening are null and void is to make an assertion contrary to the rules and the practice of the House. They may have been inexpedient; the emergency may not have been sufficient; but, in the absence of any Standing Order bearing upon the point, it is not competent for the House to say that they are null and void. I contend, without fear of contradiction, that, however inexpedient it may have been for the House to depart from its ordinary practice in this particular instance, the prompt reporting of the Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means was perfectly regular and in accordance with our Standing Orders, and that the action taken upon that Report cannot be impeached. I am prepared to admit having had an opportunity of consulting the authorities of the House and of examining the Journals, though not very carefully, and not having found an instance of a similar departure from the ordinary practice of the House, that the course taken last evening should not be drawn into a precedent; but, at the same time, I confidently maintain that it is perfectly valid and cannot be impeached.

I do not propose to enter at present into any argument as to what ought to be done on a future occasion, because I think that should be deliberately considered by the House. But I rise to express, on the part of the Government, their concurrence with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, that adherence to the Orders and Rules of proceeding in all matters of Supply and Ways and Means is much to be desired, and ought very carefully to be observed. In the Book which contains the Rules and Orders of Proceeding, at page 94, I find it stated that any Report of Resolutions from Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means is ordered to be received on a future day. Everybody is aware that that is not only the usual, but the uniform practice. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has correctly stated what occurred last evening. When the Committee was concluded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked what day the Resolutions should be reported. A suggestion was passed down that if he thought proper it might be reported immediately. On the spur of the moment, feeling the convenience of putting the clause in the Bill as soon as possible, he adopted that suggestion, but he called attention to the circumstance; so that there was no concealment. Therefore, at the moment, there was no practical inconvenience in the departure from the rule; but I quite agree that it is unfortunate there should be any departure from an established rule of that kind. Having so stated my opinion, the House will see that it is far from the desire of the Government that this departure should be drawn into a precedent or occur again. I am extremely sorry that this discussion should have arisen after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had left the House; but before he left I had a conversation with him, in which I expressed my own opinion with regard to the irregularity, and he stated to me he entirely agreed with me, and he would consider whether on Monday he should not take the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested—namely, make a statement to the House on the subject at the commencement of business.

I wish to address the House on the subject of the order of their proceedings last night, which has just been brought under discussion. There is no doubt whatever about the correctness of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman of the force of the rule which he has mentioned, that no Resolution should be reported to the House on the same day that it has been passed in the Committee. I think that, whether our Standing Order actually extends to that point or not, there is no doubt that the practice and the spirit of the Standing Order does so extend, and ought to have the same force in our proceedings. When I returned to the House, after an absence of some time, the Chairman reported to me in' the usual way that the Committee had come to certain Resolutions, and that it should be reported forthwith. I did not put the Question. I said to the Chairman "What can the Resolution be which should make it fitting to report it forthwith?" I was in fact discussing that point with the Chairman when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and moved that the Report should be received forthwith. I understood that the matter had been previously spoken of in the House, and I imagined that the House was aware what was to be done, and that it was done by general consent. I did not feel that it became me when a Resolution was proposed to the House to decline to put it. No observation was made, and no objection was raised, on either side. I put the Motion to the House that the Report should be received forthwith; and as it passed, the Report was accordingly received. But I must express my opinion that the course was irregular; and I think that it will be better for the general conduct of business that we should not pass by this irregularity with simple observation, but that on a future occasion and on the earliest occasion—I see no objection myself to this evening—it should be corrected.

, referring to some observations which had been made by the Solicitor General at an earlier period of the evening, said that there was a case reported in 2 Bingham, page 13, which established the principle that it was illegal to raise loans in this country to carry on war against a sovereign who was in amity with England.

I am sure, Sir, that the whole House listened with great attention to the observations which you addressed to us with regard to the irregularity of our proceedings last night; and I took particular notice that, among other matters, you suggested that it was competent to us to amend that irregularity without further notice this evening.

Not until this Motion has been disposed of.

Quite true, and I am not about to conclude with any proposition; but after the highest authority in the House has suggested to us that an irregularity has been committed in our proceedings, and that it is competent to us without further notice to amend it to-night, I think that it is a duty incumbent upon those who lead the House not to allow it to separate this evening without the correction of that irregularity. The leader of the House and the Gentlemen around him will advise as to the mode of proceeding proper to be adopted, and will, no doubt, consult the highest authority in the House upon the subject; but I do think that, after such an intimation from the Chair, it would not be becoming for us to separate without the irregularity being corrected.

If the House will permit me, it will, perhaps, be better that I should make a single observa- tion with regard to the irregularity committed last evening. I quite admit the propriety of your suggestion, Sir, that some proceeding should be adopted to mark that it was an irregularity, and to prevent any similar irregularity occurring in future. At the same time I think that in what we do no blame ought to be imputed to any persons who were parties to that irregularity, because no blame properly attaches to any of them. It was an inadvertence, and as such it ought to be treated. I think that the best course would be for the House to allow us till Monday to consider what will be the best course to adopt; and I will undertake on that day to propose something that will attain the object which we have in view.

, in rising to move that an humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to reconsider the Warrant granting Pensions and Allowances to Officers of the Land forces, limited to Wounds and Injuries received in Action, disclaimed any intention of impugning the manner in which the Secretary of State for War had carried out the warrant; and said that his only object was to extend the powers of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the granting of pensions to wounded officers. The warrant was dated the 13th of June, 1857, and contained eleven clauses. At that late hour he would only refer to two or three clauses, and particularize one or two cases bearing upon each. The first clause to which he would call attention was that which permitted the recommendation for a pension of an officer who had lost a limb or an eye, or had totally lost the use of a limb, or had sustained a severe injury in action equal to the loss of a limb. The officer whoso case he would mention with reference to this clause served with that gallant band of heroes which was commanded by the late Sir Henry Havelock. At the outbreak of the mutiny in India he found himself in command of the light company of his regiment, and was sent to keep open the communication between Allahabad and Benares—a duty which he performed with the greatest success. When Mr. Moore, a ma- gistrate of the district, was murdered, he proceeded with only forty men to the scene of the murder, defeated a body of 1,500; rebels, and destroyed the village. He afterwards escorted a battery of artillery a distance of 150 miles, and then joined the force under the command of Sir Henry Havelock, and assisted in the relief of the Residency of Lucknow, during which operation he prevented the rebels from carrying off a gun which they were most anxious to secure. In that service he was wounded in the elbow. It was a day or two before the wound could be attended to, and the amputation was at last performed in a house in Lucknow through which shot and shell were falling at the time. The operation was performed with an instrument so blunted by use that hospital gangrene ensued, and on his arrival in England he was obliged to undergo another amputation of the arm. Nor was that all, for after the greatest suffering, he had had within the last six weeks or two months to undergo the same operation for the third time. That officer—like the others he had alluded to—with a modesty that did him great honour, had requested that his name might not be made public. The commander of his regiment had recommended him to the favour of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief as a young officer who had charge of the light company for a period of two years, and had commanded it in six actions, in each of which he had acquitted himself with a quickness and intelligence deserving of the highest praise. Wishing to obtain further compensation for having to undergo all the suffering incident to so protracted a cure, that officer made an application to the War Department. The answer he received from the Secretary of State was, that the pension awarded to officers sustaining injuries in action only commenced one year after the date of their wounds; and that, as the applicant had had awarded to him the utmost amount to which he was eligible under the regulations in consideration of the wound he had received on the 25th of September, 1857, the Secretary of State for War was precluded from complying with his application. It must have been very painful for a man of his right hon. Friend's kindly feelings to write such a letter as that to so meritorious an officer. The next case he had to mention was that of a young officer who distinguished himself very much in the attack on the Redan, and was severely wounded on the 8th of September, 1855. The wound was followed by partial paralysis, but he was able to rejoin his regiment in the following year. He was examined by a medical board at Gibraltar, who reported that his wound was equal to the loss of a limb, and he received a pension. He came home to England, and was again examined by a medical board, who reported that his wound was nearly, but not quite, equal to the loss of a limb. On that report his pension was taken away from him, and he was told that he must go on half-pay before he would be allowed a pension. But to go on half-pay would be to deprive himself of all prospect of professional advancement. He was at present the second captain in his regiment; if he were on half-pay, and supposing he ever got back again on full pay, he must go to the bottom of the list. The last case he would mention was that of an officer who was shot in the thigh at the battle of Inkermann. A medical board reported in his case that his wound was nearly equal to the loss of a limb; that his leg had been shortened four inches, and that he was incapacitated from performing the duties of an officer of infantry. He applied for a pension, and the answer he thought went far to prove that the notorious Shylock must at one time have been War Minister, and that the forms he instituted kept their place to the present day. The reply stated that Mr. Secretary Herbert was prepared to recommend him for a pension of £70 a year for two years, from the date of his retirement on half-pay, and on his expressing his willingness to refund six out of the eighteen months' gratuity he had already received. This, he thought, was Shylock's pound of flesh without the penalty of the one drop of blood. He could scarcely believe that this application had come under the notice of the Secretary of State, for, with his kind heart, he never could have directed such an answer to be written. It certainly never could be the desire of Parliament or the people that such bargains as this should be made with men who were ready at any moment to sacrifice their lives for their country. He had spoken to many officers on this subject, some of whom had themselves been wounded—the Duke of Richmond, for instance—who all agreed that the working of this warrant was most unjust. All he wished was that the Secretary of State should have the power of dealing with distressing cases, such as these be had quoted, and in order to secure responsibility, he would propose that all cases dealt with beyond the terms of the warrant should be entered on the Estimates every year, as in the case of officers receiving good-service pensions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.

seconded the Motion.

said, it was time some specific regulations were made on this subject, both as regarded the army and navy. He read the regulations as to pensions with respect to the navy, from which, he said, it appeared Her Majesty reserved to herself the right of granting annual pensions; but it was provided that if there was a wound equal to the loss of a limb the party should receive a gratuity equal to one year's pay, and the expense of his cure. Upwards of a hundred years ago the Admiralty made an order that no officer whose wound was not equal to the loss of a limb should receive a pension. His was a case in point. He received a severe wound, and made application for a pension; but the answer he received was that his wound was not equal to the loss of a limb. The men were in a worse position than the officers. They did all they could to get men to enter into the navy; and was not one of the inducements to enter that if they got wounded they would be provided for? and yet there was no provision for that.

thought these warrants were not Acts of Parliament, and might easily be altered by the Secretary of State with the assent of the Commander-in-Chief. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration, with the view of framing a warrant better calculated to meet the jus-tics of the case. He could multiply the instances of hardship, such as those that had been so well detailed by his hon. and gallant Friend in respect of officers; and the grievance was, if possible, worse in the pensioning of soldiers.

It is extremely difficult in cases of this kind to oppose the feelings of generous men, after listening to descriptions of cases of great affliction endured by officers after long service; but I must put it to the House, and to the gallant Officer opposite, whether it is quite just and fair to bring forward cases of this description in the House of Commons before any notification has been made to the military authorities of the cases to be adduced, and the facts by which they are to be supported. We are told that warrants are not Acts of Parliament; and that they can be altered by the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief; but if I am to adopt proposals such as that now submitted in deference to the feeling of this House, what becomes of the authority of the Commander-in-Chief? He has not been consulted; his opinion has not been taken; and I, as a civilian, should have altered a regulation without going to the military authorities for their opinion at all. In all cases of this description you must have rules laid down by which those in authority are to be guided, and those rules must be founded on some intelligible principle. I take the case of the very gallant officer mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, and who underwent three amputations of his arm. He has done eminent service—his service is not to be rewarded by the amount of pension for wounds—pensions are not given in compensation for the suffering or amount of pain that may have been endured, but for the disability consequent on the loss of a limb, or equivalent to the loss of a limb. An officer cannot receive the pension unless he goes on half-pay, because the fact of his being on full pay shows that he is able to follow his profession. In this particular case the officer received, and most justly received, at the hands of the Commander-in-Chief promotion to a company in another regiment without purchase. The question is simply whether under the peculiar circumstances of the loss of a limb, aggravated in his instance by the increased personal suffering of throe different amputations, you can apply a different principle to this particular case; not that I undervalue suffering, but the principle being that you compensate not for suffering, but for disability consequent upon suffering. The gallant Officer asks how I could make such a bargain, awarding two years' pension if the officer gave back six months' gratuity. I am bound while the warrant exists to act upon it. I have no power to depart from it. Either a year's gratuity may be given or, in an aggravated case, 18 months' gratuity; but, if that be followed by a pension, the gratuity must be confined to a year's gratuity, and six months of that gratuity must be refunded. The other ease mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer is one, I am ashamed to say, I am unacquainted with. But on the whole of this subject let me say that it is impossible for me, on a Motion made in this House, to give at once an opinion as to what should be done. I am bound to consult others—I am bound to let others have the full weight of their authority. I am against giving an unlimited authority or enlarged powers to an official in the situation I hold. I have no objection to take the responsibility of these decisions, but you will not find two Secretaries of State whose decisions are the same. I find in a particular case unlimited discretion given as to the giving of pensions to the widows of general officers. I am very much perplexed as to the amount of those pensions. I have tried to frame a rule that should be followed; but here is the result. I looked back to the decisions of several Secretaries of State, and find that they have never been guided by the same rule. One said, "Such and such a general officer's widow was born in a high rank in society; her requirements, therefore, are greater;" and she would be awarded a pension on a higher scale than another general officer's widow, who had not been so high-born. I have not acted on that rule. I thought the sole rule should be not the rank of the lady but the rank of the deceased husband—military, not social rank. There are numberless decisions, however, proceeding on exactly the contrary principle; and I also find pensions given to ladies without children larger than those given to widows with a numerous family to support. And what is the consequence? Why, nobody knows on what principle you act; one person is refused, and another in a similar position has her claims allowed—and such different treatment is imputed to partiality. It is dangerous then, I say, to give great discretionary powers without strict rules being laid down as to how the discretion should be exercised. There is undoubtedly a disposition to give all you can, but in dealing with a large department and a large profession that is impossible. I do not think large discretionary powers would work well; yet I quite admit that there are points in the warrant that might be improved. But as to what we should do, and to what extent we should go, I must consult others before forming or giving an opinion. I trust, after what I have said, the gallant Officer will not press the Motion to a division, or I shall be obliged, from the duty I owe to myself and the service, to resist it.

said, that the Motion was merely for a recommendation of the reconsideration of a warrant which was the cause of cases being treated with undue severity. As that was the only object, and as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the warrant was not perfect, he thought it would be better that the Motion should be withdrawn, and the matter left in the hands of the Government.

said, he could not agree with the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, and he considered the explanation of the Secretary of War most unsatisfactory. A great deal of injustice was done by the present system. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he should vote with him.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take the advice which has been given him by an hon. Gentleman on his own side of the House, and withdraw his Motion, resting satisfied with the assurance which he has received from my right hon. Friend near me, that he will communicate with the officers of those departments concerned in this question, and endeavour to find out whether the existing regulations may not be improved, in reference to the particular points under our notice. For my own part I confess that I should, even if this Motion were carried, feel very much at a loss how to act upon it, inasmuch as I was unable to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the special matters are in reference to which he wishes the existing state of things to be altered, and to what extent that alteration, if we agree to make it, should be carried. I myself have had some experience in this question, and I may state that when I was at the War Office I found it extremely difficult to frame regulations which should include every case which ought to be included, and to exclude those with respect to which allowances ought not to be made. The temper of the House itself, I may add, interposes no small obstacles in the way of dealing satisfactorily with the subject. At one time it is disposed to make the most liberal grants of every sort and kind, while at another time a different mood comes on, and it complains of the great expense which is incurred, and urges the Government to limit the amount laid out in the shape of grants and pensions. This has happened, for instance, in the case of pensions for wounds; for, when first the warrant with regard to them was established, the pension allowed increased with the promotion of the recipient, so that the pension granted to a lieutenant became augmented as he reached the ranks of captain or major. Subsequently the House relapsed into a more economical frame of mind; that regulation was altered, and the pension continued to be of the same amount as that which was originally conferred. The House will, I think, under these circumstances, perceive that it is hardly dealing fairly with a Government to make such alterations as are now proposed without specifying more particularly in what those alterations are actually to consist. I trust, therefore, that hon. Members will be disposed—seeing that they give my right hon. Friend credit for being anxious to adopt as far as possible the existing: regulations to meet the claims preferred by officers in consequence of the wounds which they may receive—to look upon it as the wisest course to pursue to allow my right hon. Friend to take the matter into consideration in conjunction with the officers of the several Departments interested in the subject—receiving also any suggestions which the hon. and gallant General opposite might wish to make to him in private with all the attention which they deserve. That being done, my right hon. Friend would then on a future occasion be in a position to state to the House what, upon full consideration, and with a due regard to public economy, he would be able to effect in the matter. A more satisfactory result would, in my opinion, by that means be brought about than by the adoption of an Address which points to no specific objects.

, in reply, said that when he brought the subject under the consideration of the House four years ago, a promise was made that the warrant should be reconsidered. As, however, nothing had since been effected in that direction, he felt it to be his duty to persevere in his Motion.

proposed that—Sir Joseph Paxton, Lord John Manners, Mr. Cowper, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Sir John Shelley, Mr. Stirling, Mr. Tite, Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Walter, Sir Morton Peto, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Roupell, Mr. Yorke, and Mr. Beamish—be appointed Members of the said Committee.

thought the Metropolis was not fairly represented on the Committee, and moved that the name of Sir James Duke be substituted for that of Alderman Cubitt.

said, the hon. Member could not suggest the insertion of another name on the Committee without due notice.

would move that the name of Alderman Cubitt be omitted.

thought it quite necessary that the Metropolis should be fully represented.

hoped that the name of Alderman Cubitt would be retained.

begged, on the part of his absent relative, to say that Alderman Cubitt was by no means disposed to encourage an unnecessary expenditure of the public money.

moved that the debate be now adjourned.

was astonished that any person should object to retaining the name of Alderman Cubitt on the Committee. If the advice of the noble Lord were taken, they would have eight Metropolitan Members on the Committee, and he should like to know what respect would be paid to a Report emanating from such a Committee?

complained that the inhabitants of London, upon whom it was plainly intimated that, if this plan for embanking the Thames were carried out, the expense would mainly fall, were by no means adequately represented, although I the Committee was largely composed of contractors, engineers, and others, whose interest it was to promote expensive undertakings.

referred to the names of four or five Gentleman intimately connected with the Metropolis, for the purpose of showing that its claims had been very fully considered in the formation of the Committee. Considering that the functions of that Committee were only to inquire as to the practicability of the embankment, he did not think there were grounds for any serious opposition to its appointment.

said, it was perfectly understood that the Committee was only to be appointed for the amusement of its Members, and therefore the nomination of individual Members was of no consequence whatever. No practical results were to follow.