said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the recommendation of the Committee which reported in 1856 in favour of opening a carriage way from St. James's Park to Trafalgar Square would be carried out, and if not, what were the reasons for such decision on the part of the Board of Works? He thought that there was at present a favourable opportunity for carrying out the Report of the Committee, owing to the Board of Works having purchased Berkeley House, and having widened the opening from the Park into Cockspur Street. The House, perhaps, was not generally aware that a Committee sat on this question in 1846, presided over by the present Lord Llanover, and they reported in favour of such a communication being opened; but the difficulty was the expense, which at that time would have been very considerable. This great and necessary improvement might now, however, be made by the purchase and removal of one house, which had only a lease of eleven years to run. Any one who would look at the neighbourhood would find that there was an immense traffic at the bottom of the Haymarket, and a crowd of carriages around the fine exhibitions open in Pall Mall. When Her Majesty held a levee or a Drawing room the power of moving was still further impeded by the carriages pouring into St. James's Street. There was, indeed, no part of London more obstructed in the afternoon than that extending from Pall Mall East to Trafalgar Square. The obstruction arose from the traffic being unnaturally forced from the south-west along this thoroughfare. A continuation of the road by Han over gate straight to Trafalgar Square would, be of the greatest possible advantage to the public. He had seen a letter the other day signed "A Parishioner of St. James's," which stated the case so clearly and ably that he should like to bring it under the notice of those who had not read it. The writer said:—

"The present moment is a favourable one for calling attention to the urgent necessity of diverting by every means in our power the overwhelming traffic which at present chokes the London thoroughfares. To do this will, in many instances, call for a vast outlay of capital; there are, however, a few cases in which little beyond good sense, good feeling, and energy are required to effect immediate relief. One of the mauvais pas of London, for instance, most detrimental to carriages, and most favourable to coachmakers, is the eastern end of Pall Mall, between Waterloo Place and Trafalgar Square. To the innumerable vehicles which, rolling down St. James Street, and crossing St. James's Park from the western suburbs, pass along Pall Mall proper, are added, as soon as they reach the Athenæum Club House, the whole northern traffic of London. Omnibuses from Baker Street, Kentish Town, and Hampstead, pour furiously down through Regent Street and the Haymarket on their way to the Strand and to Westminster, while the crowds of carriages waiting at the doors of the various exhibitions—of which there are no less than five within 300 yards of each other—contract the gangway and increase the dangers and delays of the conflux. An obvious mode of relieving this nuisance exists. Were a gate opened from St. James's Park into Trafalgar Square, and were the public permitted to use the deserted road within the park, every private carriage which now crosses from the south-west into Pall Mall, or which comes down St. James's Street, bound either to the Strand or to Westminster, would, avoiding Fall Mall, drive along the Park through the proposed gate into Trafalgar Square."

He was sorry not to see the Chief Commissioner of Works in his place, as he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was favourable to the proposed improvement. The expense was so small, and the advantage of the new carriage way would be so great, that he trusted this small modicum of Metropolitan improvement would not be refused.

said, he wished to point out the inconvenience of shutting at night the gate at the corner of St. James's Park, near Storey's-gate. A Member of that House walking down to the House from the Duke of York's Column was not bound to know that this gate was closed at ten o'clock. On one occasion he had to get over the paling on his way to the House.

said, that as the First Commissioner of Works was now in his place, it might be convenient to him to know that public attention had been very much directed to the subject of improved communication between Trafalgar Square and St. James's Park. The question had long been kept hanging over their heads, and the alteration might now be carried out at a very trifling expense, seeing that the Metropolitan Board of Works had done their part by putting the house which belonged to them farther back than the old Berkeley House, and that the house opposite was Crown property. He hoped his right hon. Friend would say whether he had sufficiently considered the Report of the Committee?

said, that having been a Member of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) he begged to remind him that the recommendation given in their Report was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman. He believed the reason why the Committee did not recommend the formation of the communication in a more decisive manner was simply because they felt that if it were true, as they were repeatedly assured, that the residents in that neighbourhood had a great interest in getting the communication opened up, these residents ought to exhibit that interest by forming a road from Charing Cross to the boundary of the Park, and then there would, doubtless, be no difficulty in inducing the Crown to afford access to the Park. No indication, however, of any willingness to take such a course had been shown by the public.

said, there was no doubt that the final recommendation of the Committee was, as had been stated by the noble Lord, only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. The recommendation, too, was not very decisive, because it only expressed the opinion that a communication between St. James's Park and Charing Cross ought to be formed, not at present, but at some future time. The Committee considered, moreover, that the expense of making a road direct from Charing Cross to the Park would amount to £100,000. They entered into the consideration only of the general question whether some such communication would not be convenient to the public at large, without going into the details of any particular scheme or of the expenditure involved. The recommendation of the Committee could not, therefore, be regarded as of a direct practical nature, and that was the reason why it had not been carried into effect. It was unnecessary, he thought, to enter into the general question whether the convenience to the public of affording access to the Park from Charing Cross would be so great as to counterbalance the inconvenience which would be caused by the admission of traffic into St. James's Park. At present it was sufficient to deal with the preliminary question whether there were any funds applicable for such a purpose. It could hardly be maintained that the funds for the improvement of the Park could be made use of, because the work was for the improvement, not of the Park, but of Metropolitan communications. He could not admit that the expense of the alteration would be so small as the hon. Member supposed. The house at the corner of Spring Gardens, which would have to be pulled down, belonged to the Crown, but, according to the invariable practice, it would, have to be purchased from the Lands Revenue Department before it could be taken. He had not heard that the Metropolitan Board of Works were willing to provide funds for the formation of this communication. He recommended his hon. Friend to ask the Board whether they were prepared to widen Spring Gardens in order to give public access to the Park in that direction. As to Storey's Gate, it was necessary that the gates should be closed at a fixed hour, and it would be very undesirable to leave them open during the whole of the night.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends, in consequence of the Bill for the abolition of the duties on paper having been rejected by the House of Lords, to remit some other tax equivalent to the amount of the paper duties? The present position of the taxpayers of this country, and of the House of Commons, was a very peculiar one with regard to the question of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, which had just been rejected by the other House. That question involved two different features — the one financial and the other constitutional. As to the constitutional view of the case, he, for one, was prepared at the proper time to go to the utmost length in vindicating the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. The position in which the House of Commons stood before the country with reference to this question was, as he had said, a very peculiar one. The position was not owing to any act of their own, and he trusted that proper steps would be taken at the right time to vindicate their rights and privileges. He, for one, did not at all approve of the course which Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to take with reference to this question. It appeared to him that the proper line to have been adopted by the Government, when the other House rejected a Money Bill, was to have re-introduced the Bill immediately with a different name, and to tack to it Resolutions to the effect that the House of Commons were determined to vindicate their rights and privileges. Instead of doing that the Government had sheltered themselves under a Committee, which had no power to take cognizance of the financial portion of the question, and would only have a very partial power to deal with the constitutional portion. With regard to the financial part of the question —and that was the part to which his question principally referred—he thought it would be seen that the House was in a very peculiar position. The state of the case now was this—that the people of England, in consequence of the rejection of that Bill, were about to be called upon to pay £1,500,000 of taxation, to which taxation their representatives in that House had not agreed—-nay, more, £1,500,000 of taxation which the representatives of the people in that House had condemned, and had declared ought to have been repealed. He wished to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was gratified or disappointed at the present state of things? Having confidence in the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's convictions, he believed that he was sadly disappointed, but he thought it right to say that there were many persons throughout the country who were of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from being displeased at his present position, was rather pleased that he had got more money at his disposal. He thought he was acting rightly in giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of removing that impression. During the debate that took place in that House about two months ago on the question of the paper duties the right hon. Gentleman declared that if the Paper Duties Bill were rejected—[An hon. Member: In this House.] —he would come down before many days had elapsed and ask the House to repeal the war taxes upon tea and sugar. The House was then discussing the financial view of the question, and he would ask his hon. Friend who had reminded him that that promise only referred to the contingency of the rejection of the Bill by the House of Commons, what difference did it make, as regarded the financial view of the question, whether the Bill was defeated in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons r His opinion was, that Her Majesty's Government ought to have come down before two days elapsed to that House to ask them to pass a Bill for the repeal of the paper duties. But, as they had allowed time to pass away, he assumed that they were not prepared to adopt that course. If they were not prepared to adopt that course, he would ask them to consider, not only the injustice which had been done to the Commons of England by this invasion of their rights and privileges, but the injustice done to the people of England in calling upon them to pay £1,500,000 of taxation more than their representatives in that House had declared to be necessary to meet the exigencies of the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in this dilemma'—he either thought that the Earl of Derby was right, and that the other House of Parliament was right in the opinion which they had pronounced upon his Budget, but then he was unworthy of the confidence of the House and the country; or he believed he was himself right, but then he was bound to give the House the earliest opportunity of adjusting the balance, and repealing an equal amount of taxation — of repealing £1,500,000 of the taxes paid by the consumers of tea and sugar, which concerned every man, woman, and child, in the country. He (Lord Fermoy) thought, at the same time, the Government were bound not to shelter themselves under the Committee which was to inquire into precedents— precedents every hon. Member could ascertain for himself in an hour—but that they should come forward boldly and manfully, and vindicate the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, The noble Lord concluded by putting the Question.

said, he was not present when the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone gave notice of his question, or he should have been spared the necessity of putting a similar question; but the noble Lord had not alluded very pointedly to the taxes which, now the paper duty was to be maintained, the country would naturally expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to repeal. He was not going to follow the noble Lord into a discussion of the constitutional part of the question, and he did not think with him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to propose another Bill this Session for a repeal of the paper duty. But he did think that if the right hon. Gentleman were resolved to maintain the substantial accuracy of his Budget, without the paper duty, he was bound to invite the House to consider the repeal of the tea and sugar duties. He had referred to the words of the right hon. Gentleman in Hansard, and he found that the right hon. Gentleman said he should, in the event of the paper duty not being repealed, invite the House to repeal the tea and sugar duties; but from a subsequent sentence he naturally supposed that the right hon. Gentleman meant the tea or sugar duties, because he stated that it would not be so well to meddle with the tea as it would with the sugar duties. He would not discuss the expediency of remitting the tea duties; but he thought that if there were any chance of a surplus they might repeal the 1s. 3d. by gradual instalments, spread over two or three years, without any eventual loss to the country, while it would prove of immense advantage to the country. It was the more necessary to discuss t he question, considering the view in which agitators out of doors placed it before the country. Those agitators represented those whom they described as selfish aristocrats as anxious not to repeal the taxes on knowledge for the sake of saving 1d. or 2d. in the pound of income tax. It suited the interests of hon. Gentlemen who wished the paper duty repealed to keep out of sight altogether the tea and sugar duties; but the working classes, who were not entirely their tools, must see that there was diametrical opposition between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who were trying to agitate the repeal of the paper duty. They said it was a question between the paper duty and the income tax; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles), distinctly stated that, in his opinion, it was a question between the paper duty and the lowering of the duties on tea and sugar; and if it were put to the working classes, he (Mr. Steuart) believed that nine out of ten would prefer the continuance of the paper duty to the continuance of the tea and sugar duties. He confessed that he should be surprised to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would invite the House to consider the repeal of the tea and sugar duties. He thought it much more likely that the right hon. Gentleman would be gratified at a considerable amount of revenue being-forced upon him. He thought, however, that the time was come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make some declaration of opinion whether the Estimates of a few months ago were likely to be realized. Many people were of opinion that disturbing circumstances had occurred to dislocate those calculations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in no way to blame for those disturbing circumstances. One was now very apparent—namety, that the Chinese Government were not likely to accept the ultimatum, and that there must be a war. He should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would afford him information with regard to the second part of his question. The reduced duty on wines had been in operation for three months. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the loss to the revenue as compared with last year would be only about £515,000, calculating upon an increase of consumption of 85 per cent. It was stated that in the last three months the increase was only at the rate of 6 per cent; and if there were no greater increase in the remaining nine mouths, the difference between 6 and 35 per cent must en- tail a much heavier loss than £515,000. Although he did not wish to lead the House into a debate upon a financial question, they had a right to expect to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he adhered to the estimate which he made of the amount of revenue; and, if so, whether he would carry out the pledge which he gave to the House upon the supposition that the paper duty was not repealed? He would conclude by asking Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having declared, in case of a similar contingency with regard to the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duty to what now has occurred, that he should take the earliest opportunity, probably within a few days, of inviting the House to repeal the War Tea and Sugar Duty, he still adheres to that intention; or what contingencies, then unforeseen, prevent such a course? Also, whether he is still of opinion, from the quantities of Wine entered since the lowering of the Duty, that consumption will increase to the extent of 35 per cent, and entail on the Revenue a loss, compared with last year, of only £515,000?

As representing to some extent colonial interests in this House, I beg to thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for bringing forward this question. Tea and sugar have much reason to complain of the inconsistency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to quote Hansard, for I think that too much time is already occupied in the House by hon. Members elaborately proving what every one acknowledges, that in these latter days statesmen have frequent occasion to change their opinions. But in this case the old love has been thrown over with more than usual heartlessness. The breach of promise has been unusually flagrant; for not only have those interested in tea and sugar been disappointed of their just hopes, but so far from reducing the duty, the right hon. Gentleman has imposed two additional quarters per cent, one without any pretext at all, the other on the pretext of furnishing information which it can never do, and which is already furnished at the expense of the merchants. A duty so oppressive, and involving so much extra account keeping that I really believe for every shilling paid into the Exchequer, another is lost to the taxpayer in increased trouble and risk; tea therefore may well lament that the Chancellor desires to introduce wine into the cottage of the labourer instead of "the cup which cheers but not inebriates." Sugar is differently situated, for I believe its consumption will be increased, in order to render palatable the class of wines likely to be introduced under the Treaty; and this makes it still more essential that it should be purchaseable at a low price. But hero I will take higher ground, and hero I claim the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and I will say that a tax of this kind is a serious tax upon knowledge. Everything which raises the price of the necessaries of life is a tax upon knowledge. When you see a country, or a portion of the community in a state of gross ignorance, you do not say, "What a tremendous tax there must be upon paper!" but you see that the material condition of the people is low, and that the necessaries of life are scarce and difficult to be procured. Juvenal does not tell us that we should not have had the imimmortal works of Virgil if tablets had been dear, or if there had been a duty on papyrus. He says, "Si tolerabile deesset hospitium caderent omnes a crinibus hydri." And this corresponds with the ordinary course of experience. When a man earns wages lie first satisfies his stomach, he then clothes his back, and if he has any surplus he spends it possibly on his brains; but unless he has that surplus, however cheap you may make knowledge, he cannot avail himself of it. Now, the tax on sugar is so onerous that it prevents its being used for many purposes for which it is essentially fitted. Any one who has been in the West Indies during harvest knows how soon lean cattle are fattened on the refuse of the boiling house. Sugar, were it cheaper, might be used as fodder, which in a season of scarcity of hay, such as this last spring, would be most valuable, and enable the farmer to keep his stock cheaper, sell them cheaper to the butcher, who would sell his meat cheaper, and so the working man would have a much larger surplus to spend on education. But it has been said that the paper duty has been condemned by the House, and how often have not the tea and sugar duties been condemned by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and by none more than the right hon. Gentleman himself; therefore, Sir, in the name of those who eat meat, as well as in the name of those who drink wine and tea; for the sake of education, and still more for the sake of his own consistency; I venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that at no distant day he will materially reduce this onerous and oppressive, and except on fiscal grounds, indefensible impost.

Sir, I have no objection to offer to the criticism of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone on the conduct of the Government with respect to the appointment of a Committee of this House, nor to the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite with respect to the financial proceedings of the Government or their supposed intentions, but I hope I may be permitted, without any disrespect, to be very brief; and, I am afraid also, to be negative in my reply. In what I may say in regard to their observations I must be understood, in a general sense, to make no admissions, and in fact, to offer no reply to their questions. That is the general and invariable rule with respect to the intentions of the Government in matters of taxation, and certainly the reasons which support and vindicate that rule have a double force at this peculiar juncture, when it so happens that important questions of taxation are, at any rate for the moment, inextricably mixed up with other questions if possible still more important than those of taxation—namely, the relation of the rights of the two Houses of Parliament, and the constitutional usages under which legislation is carried on in matters of taxation. The noble Lord seems to be curious about the exact state of my feelings with respect to the vote of the House of Lords. A Chancellor of the Exchequer is not usually supposed to have any feelings whatever, but, however, if I had any on this particular case, I do not think the time has yet come for declaring them. I entirely differ from the noble Lord's criticism, and I think it is the opinion of the House, without at all committing themselves as to what may be right at an ulterior stage of the question, that the Government have taken a becoming and judicious course in remitting it to a tribunal chosen by the House itself to make a careful collection of the facts bearing upon the case, in order that the House may have the fullest information before making up its mind on the subject. With that apology, which I hope will not be taken to be disrespectful, I must say that I am afraid it is not practicable for me to give any promise either as to the remission or non-remission of any particular tax whatever on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Steuart) is quite right in saying that on the second reading of the Bill I did state that it was the intention of the Government, if that proposal were not accepted by the House of Commons to submit to the judgement of the House a proposal for the repeal either of the tea or sugar duties; but I beg to observe that the contingency I then contemplated has not happened, and, consequently, the situation being totally different, the case in which that question might fairly be pressed upon mo has not arrived. As regards that great subject to which the noble Lord chiefly adverted, reserving to myself the right to enter into a discussion of it, if necessary, at the proper time, I am quite content to leave the question where it was left the day before the recess by the declarations of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and the more detailed declarations of my noble Friend the Member for London. The hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to know whether I still adhere to the opinion I expressed, that the consumption of wine would increase to the amount of 35 per cent, and that the loss to the revenue would not be greater than £515,000 in the first year of the change. It has alway been my opinion—and I believe I have expressed it in this House—that it would be impossible to form any trustworthy judgment on the effect of the reduction of the wine duties until the Wine Licences Bill had passed and had come into operation. It will be not less than two or three months before that Bill comes into practical operation, and I should not feel justified, therefore, in giving now any more confident opinions about the ultimate issue of that great experiment than I gave when I submitted my financial statement to the House. But this I may say, that so far as our present experience goes the results are quite satisfactory, and I have no reason to deviate from the Estimate which was naturally conjectural, but which, such as it was, I ventured to submit to the House.

Sir, I have listened with pleasure to the observations of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, inasmuch as they have exhibited great affection for the working classes, particularly with reference to the reduction of the duties upon tea and sugar; and, in all they have said as to desirableness of reducing those duties, I am disposed to agree. But I discovered from their observations that either they have not read the debate which took place in the other House of Parliament, or they entirely differ from their Friends there who took part in that debate. Of course I am aware that the Earl of Derby did not know at all that the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) had ever discussed the paper duty in connection with the income tax in this House; and if he was so entirely ignorant of what his Friends were doing here, it is not unfair to assume that his Friends hero do not know anything of what he was doing there. Now, if the hon. Gentlemen opposite had observed the debate, they would have discovered—what everybody, I presume, who knows anything of that debate must have discovered—that it was not a question then whether the paper duty was a good or a bad duty, or whether it was a better or a worse duty than the duty upon tea and sugar; but they would have learned that the whole ground of the case is this—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the House of Commons, has not provided adequately for the Ways and Means for the service of the year. That was the argument used in the other House of Parliament—and upon that argument almost entirely was based the policy which was adopted of rejecting that Bill. If that be so—and I am not about to discuss whether that argument was rightly founded or not—it clearly is not very reasonable to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce some other Bill which shall remit an equal amount of I duty—which Bill, I presume, could not become law, upon the new theory of the Constitution, without the consent of the other House of Parliament; and if there be any validity in the argument for the rejection of the Paper Duty Bill—namely, that the House of Commons had not sufficiently provided for the Ways and Means for the year—then clearly that House, upon the same argument, would not only be justified, but would be compelled to reject any new Bill that should be sent up, instead of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. Therefore, I presume that the House would not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that course; and I am only surprised that any hon. Member in this House should have imagined such a course was possible. Besides we must take into consideration that although the sugar and tea duties are mentioned in what was called the "Budget speech," yet that now we have got new masters with respect to the question of taxation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider much more minutely, and take far more circumstances into his view than heretofore, when he is deliberating what taxes he shall propose to remit, and what taxes he shall propose to impose. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Steuart) looking in this direction, took the liberty of making some reference to what he calls agitation out of doors. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not themselves been altogether free in past times from the charge of endeavouring to get up agitations on questions which they deemed of importance to their peculiar interests. But they had always this extreme difficulty in their way, that the causes they advocated, the measures they propounded, the principles upon which they acted, the course they recommended, all have been precisely of that nature that the great bulk of the population of this country utterly disapproved of them, and would not in any way assist them in the promotion of their objects. With regard to this very matter, surely the hon. Gentleman does not wish that a great question like this—one so great that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London thinks there has scarcely been one so grave and important during the period of his political life—that a question so grave shall not be discussed by a people of a free country. Does the hon. Gentleman presume—does he dare to say, or is he so afraid of his own case as to say, that if any hon. Member of this House takes the liberty before any audience of fairly and openly discussing this question, whatever his opinions may be upon it, he is not doing service to the people of this country in enabling them to judge of the facts of this case and the principles upon which the House of Commons may be called upon to act. I should not have been dissatisfied at seeing the House fake some more expeditious mode than that proposed with reference to this matter. But I am bound to admit, looking to the past proceedings of the House, and so far as I have been able to examine or learn of them, that the course which the Government have taken is that which has heretofore been followed in similar cases. A Committee has been appointed. That Committee has already sat, and its sittings will be continued next week. Evidence will be taken in a few days, and the whole matter, so far as it can be discovered, will be laid before the House, and I have great confidence that during that time the question will be more discussed in the country, and more reflected upon in the House. If it should happen that the Committee should report that the course taken by the House of Lords has infringed upon the just, recognized, and constitutional rights of the House of Commons, I confess I should feel ashamed of being a Member of this House if I thought that a large majority of the Members of it would not take such steps as may appear right for the purpose of resisting any such infringement of their privileges and their rights. I do not think that we could commit a greater treason to every branch of the Legislature, to the Crown, to the Commons, and to the House of Lords itself, than to permit a matter of this kind to be passed over as if it were of no importance, and I think the posterity I of the existing generation of Englishmen Would have reason to look back—with contempt, I will say—upon the Parliament of 1860, if it did not thoroughly sift this question to the bottom, and act in accordance with the principles of the constitution in the defence of those right and liberties, if we find that they have been in any degree assailed.

in rising to ask for an explanation of the circumstances under which Sir Henry Rawlinson had resigned or been recalled from the post of Her Majesty's Minister to the Court of Persia, said that it would be in the recollection of the House that that gentleman had been appointed by the Government which preceded that of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and he had given up a very lucrative appointment on the Indian Council, to proceed, as it was understood, at the special request of the Government, to Persia, where affairs were then in great disorder. It was, consequently, with infinite amazement he read a few days ago that Sir Henry Rawlinson was coming back from Persia, and that his successor had been already appointed. It was believed that the cause was that Sir Henry Rawlinson differed from the policy which Her Majesty's Government wished to carry out in Persia, and had declared that if the old and unwise course characterized as "the bullying policy," which had failed so completely on former occasions, were persevered in, he should be obliged to send in his resignation. It was also rumoured that no answer had been vouchsafed to his despatch, but that directions were at once telegraphed to Mr. Alison at Constantinople to take his place. Looking to the difficulties which had recently arisen, to our relations with Persia from the beginning of the present century, and to the important strides which Russia was making in the East, this question assumed a very grave character. The favourable impression created in Persia by the embassy of Sir John Malcolm and the men who accompanied him—all officers of promise, who afterwards attained the highest stations in their respective departments— still existed in that country. At that time, and down to the year 1835, the selection of officers was made by the Governor-General of India and the Indian authorities, and during that period they had never had a single difference with Persia, and the British name was respected in that quarter. In 1836, however, the Whig Government of the day transferred the control of Persian affairs from the Indian department to the Foreign Office. In two years afterwards the Affghanistan war broke out. Within three years the British Minister, Sir John M'Neill, struck his flag for the first time in Persia, and ever since there had been a succession of embittering quarrels and disgraceful petty disputes. In 1846, when he visited Persia, all the English residents lamented the loss of British influence and the extent to which our Embassy had deteriorated; and he himself found it pleasanter to travel as a Russian than as an Englishman, the British name, during the time that Colonel Shiel was there, not being much respected. But, although the British Embassy at Teheran then exercised very little influence either over the Court or the people of Persia, he found that one Englishman had left such a name among every class of Persian society that a letter from him would have been a passport throughout the whole of Persia. That gentleman was Major Rawlinson, of Bagdad, who was supposed to be gifted with almost supernatural powers, as he could dispute with the Mollahs of Ispahan, could write and speak the Persian tongue, was deeply skilled in the political learning of that country, and had filled with credit the highest posts during a disastrous war. It was due to his singular qualities and deep knowledge of the country that during the insurrection in Cabul the province of Candahar and the southern portion of Affghanistan were preserved intact. He was not guilty of exaggeration when he stated that there was no European who had made such an impression on the population of Persia, and that not merely on the learned societies or the higher and polished classes, which had been aptly called "the French of the East," but his influence extended to the wild chiefs of Koordistan, who respected him as the best shot and the boldest rider they had ever seen. When he went into their district, in which scarcely a European had before set foot, he was able to tell the genealogy of each chief, and possessed an intimate acquaintance with the customs and early history of the inhabitants. From hearing so much of him in 1846 he was led to ride all the way to Bagdad for the purpose of visiting this wonderful man, and the beginning of a friendship was then laid which he was happy to say had lasted till the present time. Colonel Shiel had remained in Persia from 1846 till 1853, and, although a Company's officer, pursued a totally different policy from his predecessors appointed under the Company's administration; he shut himself out from the Persians and carried on that bullying policy which in too many instances it was unfortunately the habit of England to adopt towards weak nations. On the return of Colonel Shiel at the outbreak of the Russian war in 1854, his successor might have been chosen from men who had served with distinction in Affghanistan; or in India, and it was of the utmost importance that the credit of the British name should be maintained in Persia. What, therefore, must have been the astonishment of every one to And Mr. Thompson selected as the Chargé d' Affaires? During the crisis of the Russian war, notwithstanding the opportunity which Persia, from her position on the borders of Russia, had of hampering that great empire, no effort was made to obtain her assistance—we had not even at the time a Minister at Teheran. At that period he gave notice of a Motion, but believing that he did not possess sufficient influence with the House he had not ventured to bring it forward; but seeing what had been the result of the course taken by the Government, and fearing that a similar rule in the selection of officers was again about to be acted on, he felt unable any longer to abstain from the discharge of his duty in calling the attention of the House to a policy which had caused a vast expenditure of blood and money, and might do so again. During the early part of the Russian war England had only a Charge d' Affaires at Teheran, who, notwithstanding his personal character, never possessed the smallest influence, and, consequently, during the period of his stay in Persia was a mere cipher, while Russia was successful in carrying out her designs. But the example of British Envoys who had gone before was strictly followed in quarrelling about small matters and in striking his flag on the question of protecting a Persian usurer, who was said to be a British subject. At last a Minister was chosen; but instead of being a gentleman thoroughly acquainted with the country, he was a man who had never before set foot in Persia, and was boot known to the public by his work on forth American Indians. Mr. Murray was selected for the post, though men like Sir H. Rawlinson or Major Edwardes, thoroughly conversant with Eastern diplomacy, could have been procured. It was true that Mr. Murray had smoked a pipe for a short time with Mehemet Ali in Egypt; but no acquaintance with Egypt, where European States are so powerful and Mahomedans so weak, could lit him for a post like that in Persia, where the power of western civilization is not directly felt, and an Ambassador, having to rely on his own resources, requires an intimate acquaintance with the habits, customs, and modes of thought of the people. In a crisis like the Russian war, looking to the pressure which Russia naturally exercises on Persia, the Ambassador chosen by the British Ministry ought not to have been a person who had then to make his first essay in the difficult diplomacy of Central Asia, but one who, like Sir Henry Rawlinson or Colonel Edwardes, was already thoroughly experienced in those matters. The result necessarily was that before he had been six months in Persia, Mr. Murray had quarrelled fully a dozen times with the authorities. Mr. Murray had begun his mission by setting about teaching the Persian King and the Persian people the rules and customs of their own country; and nobody could read the despatches written after his appointment without seeing how unfit he was to fill the position which he occupied. He quarrelled with the Shah and his Ministers because the husband of the sister of the Shah's wife was not allowed to be the agent of the British Embassy and to go to Shiraz and hence had arisen, those miser- able disputes which gave rise to that ill-feeling between England and Persia for which we had to pay so dearly. Mr. Murray had, however, eventually struck his flag, and the matter had at last got into the hands of an able man—Lord Stratford; the result being that the Persian Envoy had not been at Constantinople six weeks before that nobleman had obtained at the hands of the Persian Government what England, through the medium of Mr. Murray, had failed to secure. We had spent £3,000,000 sterling on the Persian war, nominally because Persia would not give up Herat; but we were informed by our own Envoy at Teheran that the object of seizing that city was to give it up to England in order to purchase peace. When, however, we were squandering the best blood of the nation in prosecuting that war, we seemed to have altogether forgotten that the Shah of Persia was the head of the Sheah sect of Mussulmans, who constituted one-seventh of the population of India, and who regarded him with the same sort of veneration as members of the Roman Catholic persuasion did the Pope. The consequence had been, as was shown by the evidence taken on the trial of the King of Delhi, that he had disseminated proclamations throughout India, and that the combustible matter which existed in that country had ultimately been set on fire. Mr. Murray, when lie went back to Teheran, was told that if any proclamations from Persia were found to exist in India, it must be borne in mind that they had been issued during the war, and that the Government of Persia, peace having been concluded, were ready to lend their aid to destroy, as far as possible, the effect of those proclamations. He (Mr. D. Seymour) believed that the thanks of the Foreign Office had been sent out to the Persian Prime Minister for his candour in making that statement to Mr. Murray. Now, seeing the discontent which the conduct of Mr. Murray had excited in Persia, he was of opinion that Sir H. Rawlinson had been most justly and sagaciously selected by the Government of the Earl of Derby to bring about a better state of things. The result of that appointment had been that in a very brief space of time England began to be as much respected as ever in Persia; the favour in which Sir H. Rawlinson was held being so great that the Shah jocularly called him his Prime Minister. At a moment, however, when he was getting on so well he was removed. It might, indeed, be said that he was incurring too great an expense; but when it was considered that we had been paying Dost Mahomed at Cabul £10,000 a month for the last few years, it might well be doubted whether, if Sir H. Rawlinson asked a few thousands a month to make the customary presents in Persia, the money ought not to be regarded as well laid out. He should, under those circumstances, wish to ascertain from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what policy he proposed to carry out in Persia, and to what cause the recall of Sir H. Rawlinson was to be attributed. He had been informed that the moment Major Taylor and the other Commissioners left Herat, after the treaty had been signed, almost all the stipulations which it contained had become a dead letter there. The Shah had proceeded to coin money in his own name, and to do other acts in defiance of the provisions of the treaty, notwithstanding that we had made war in order that Herat should be independent. He knew that Afghanistan was in a precarious position, Dost Mahomed being an old man; but he would entreat the noble Lord to follow out in its case and in that of Persia the policy which he desired to pursue with respect to the Italians— namely, to allow them to manage their own affairs in their own way. The sound way of acquiring influence in Affghanistan was by means of commerce, which was daily on the increase. He should conclude by asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to Sir Henry Rawlinson's recal or resignation.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in possession of any information confirmatory of certain statements made in a Pamphlet recently published in Paris, and quoted in The Economist Newspaper of Saturday last, relative to the proceedings of the Police Authorities in Sicily; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay such information upon the Table of the House? The House was, no doubt, aware of the barbarous treatment endured by Neapolitan prisoners, in utter violation of law and justice. The despatches of our own Minister at Naples described how persons of every age and condition of life were dragged from their homes, and thrust into prison, where they languished for years without inquiry, until all recollection of their cases had passed away, and no record remained of the circumstances under which they were apprehended. They were aware, too, that the director of police at Naples exercised an almost despotic sway; and that every commissary under him had his own peculiar species of torture, to which he subjected those whom he might think proper to arrest. Recently a Pamphlet had been published in Paris which threw light on some of these atrocities. He had not been able to provide himself with a copy; but an extract from it had appeared in The Economist of last Saturday, which he would read.

"Every commissary, every gaoler," says M. De La Varenne, "has his own method of applying torture. It is revolting to come to details, but they are unhappily exact and confirmed by official authority. The famous Pontillo owes his reputation to the species of torture which he applies in his own Commissariat. He makes the victim sit down in a railed arm-chair, set with razor blades, under which is placed a pan of burning coals. The inspector, Louis Maniscalco, the namesake of the General Director, applies to the accused little iron hands provided with a closing screw. This is called, in the language of the police, 'the angelic instrument.' The gaoler, Bruno, belonging to the Police Commissariat of the odious Carrega (there is a prison in each Commissariat), strips the victim of his clothes and binds his head between his legs. Others employ the torture of the tourniquet, drawing a cord with a stick inserted in it tight round the head of the accused till the eyes start out of the head and the skin cracks. Others have recourse to starvation, to blows, to the privation of light and of breatheable air. But the one satellite of the Director General who outstrips all the others is the notorious Captain Chinnici, a robber by profession, and now an officer of police, and rich proprietor. Sent by Maniscalco into the town of Nicosia, in order to discover the assassin of a certain Gorgone (a captain of this district, killed in consequence of incredible excesses of ferocity), from among thirty individuals, thrown into prison on the vaguest suspicion of complicity in this crime, Chinnici chose two, at hazard, to make an example of them, and to slake his thirst for torment. These two unfortunates were Rosario Chimera, and Pizzolo. They underwent the most atrocious tortures, such as the 'silence-hood,' the 'angelic instrument,' hunger, the bastinado in excess, without choosing to confess an action which they had never committed. The police agent then got hold of the wife of Chimera, a young and beautiful woman, twenty-two years old. After heaping on her the most horrible violence, he caused her to be tied naked on a bench, and gave her up to the brutality of his men. She remained there three days in this state, without food, till, half dead, the unhappy woman deposed that her husband had formerly said that he would 'kill the Captain Gorgone.' This evidence, extorted in this manner, is immediately received by a judge sent for the purpose, and Chinnici, delighted at having got his first piece of evidence, returns to the dungeon of the two wretches to tell them the confession of Chimera's wife; and as they persist in their denials, he has recourse this time to a torture of such monstrous obscenity that it is im- possible to describe it. The victims at last give in and confess all he wishes. Chinnici has them dragged with all the due preparations to the place where they committed the crime, in order to renew to the judge, and before the crowd, the confession of their guilt and their designation of the place where they had stood to fire. But when they found themselves again in the open sunlight and in the presence of their fellow-citizens, a little energy returned to the two martyrs. They lifted up their heads, and with a feeble but firm voice, they proclaimed themselves innocent, and denounced the infamous means employed to torture them. A cry of horror arose, and the police throwing themselves upon them, carried them back gagged to prison. The same torture is again applied. Chimera and Pizzolo confirm their first confession, and are conducted to Catana, the chief town of the province. There the great Criminal Court, seeing the too evident marks of all the tortures they had endured, receives their explanation, orders them to be visited by a commission of physicians, whose report courageously confirmed the sad truth, and, at the risk of involving themselves in a very disagreeable affair with the police, the Judges 'cancel the confession made by the pretended culprits, and proceeding to a new and more regular adjudication, by a sentence passed on the 20th December, 1859, declared the two accused innocent, and ordered them to be immediately set at liberty.' In spite of this solemn decree, the unfortunate men are still kept in prison, by the direction of Maniscalco."

It might be asked, why he brought forward such horrible details, seeing we could do nothing to prevent them. But an expression of opinion by that House carried with it the greatest moral weight all over Europe; and but one feeling of abhorrence must be felt wherever the details of these barbarities were made known. Another advantage would arise, having an important bearing on the subject of discussion a few nights ago, he meant with reference to the subscription now raising in this country in favour of Garibaldi's operations in Sicily. An hon. and learned Gentleman denounced that subscription as an infringement of international law, and took exception to the opinion given by the Solicitor General, that persons contributing to that fund could do so without rendering themselves amenable to the penalties of the law. Now, what the law of the case might be he did not know; but of this he felt perfectly convinced, if the diabolical outrages to which he alluded, were found to rest, not on the doubtful evidence of a foreign pamphleteer, but on the recognized authority of our own Minister, such a deep feeling of sympathy would be excited towards the sufferers, and such a sentiment of indignation against their oppressors, that no dread of consequences, no fancied liability to legal proceedings would deter the people of this country from giving expression to their feelings, by contributing their means and their names also, to a cause which promised to deliver both Sicily and Naples from a state of misgovernment, which was a disgrace to the age. He knew of one instance himself, where a person of no mean weight or authority was so struck by the statement he had read that, after making inquiry in quarters where he thought he should obtain authentic information, and having ascertained that the facts were not exaggerated, he at once handed over £50 to the Garibaldi fund, and authorized the use of his name in furtherance of the collection. He trusted this example would be extensively followed, and that the feeling of this country would not be expended in useless indignation. "With this view he would put the question of which he had given notice to the noble Lord.

Sir, before the noble Lord rises to answer the questions which have been put to him I wish to say a single word. Perhaps he will have no objection to state to the House the precise position of the Persian mission at this moment. I believe from the year 1835 to about the year 1858 the conduct of Persian affairs was exclusively vested in the Foreign Office; but during the administration of the late Government, by an arrangement between the Earl of Malmesbury and the noble Lord presiding over the Board of Control, the administration of Persian affairs was left to the Board of Control. Perhaps the noble Lord will state whether he has again transferred the conduct of Persian affairs to the exclusive direction of the Foreign Office; because I have some idea that the resignation of Sir Henry Rawlinson is connected with some change of that nature. This is a more important question than the House may at first sight be disposed to consider; because I believe that a great deal of the cause of the Persian war may be ascribed to the conduct of our affairs with that country being exclusively under the conduct of the Foreign Office. I hope the noble Lord will have no objection to state what is the precise position of matters at the present moment, and whether he has re-transferred the administration of Persian affairs to the Foreign Office.

said, before the noble Lord replied to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) he wished to allude to the appointment of foreign inspectors in the Chinese ports. Now, as it seemed that we were to have another war with China, which he trusted would soon be followed by peace, it was more necessary than ever that British affairs in China should be put on such a footing as would meet with the approval of the British subjects resident there. From what fell from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary a few evenings since, he seemed to think that there was a perfect concurrence and unanimity in this country in regard to the well working of the present system of inspectorship, but that was by no means the case. He was aware that some persons thought it the best one, but there were very many strong arguments against it. It was certainly a most anomalous state of things that foreign merchants should collect the revenues of another Tower and should hand over to its Treasury the funds that might be employed in carrying on hostilities against their own country. He would also call the attention of the noble Lord to the position of Hong-Kong. At the present moment that port was a free port but if this country was to persist in establishing a cordon of Custom-house ports along the whole coast of China, what would be the result as regards our own possessions? Why we should be actually doing our best to destroy the interest of the British establishments in that quarter, and the large amount of British property invested in Hong Kong. It was almost impossible that a complete organization of those Custom-house ports could take place. He doubted whether the Treaty powers would cordially co-operate in that arrangement. The Trench certainly had but little interest in it either way; but it was the opinion of those connected with the Chinese trade, that the Americans were very unwilling that the system should be adopted. At Shanghae they had declined to become joint assessors, and at Canton had also raised difficulties, in fact, had refused altogether. At Swatow the same objections were raised. He could not, therefore, conceive it possible that a full system of Custom-houses, with European inspectorship, could be introduced along the coast of China. But if it were not a complete system, the duties would be charged only at the regular ports, and smuggling would be encouraged at other points to the detriment of legitimate trade. He certainly hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office would give the subject his full consideration, and take the opinion of those who were most competent to form one, before adopting the system as if it were universally approved of.

said, he wished to say a few words in consequence of the disparaging remarks which the hon. Member for Poole had made against a deserving public servant. In the course of his historical sketch of our relations with Persia the hon. Member came to the name of Mr. Murray, and asked who he was, at the same time answering his own question by saying that he was a gentleman known to the public only through his having written a work upon North America.

I said he was best known to the public by that work—not that he was known only by it.

said, that neither of these disparaging descriptions was justified by Mr. Murray's previous career. Mr. Murray was a gentleman of extreme ability, talent, and energy, who had filled several situations of trust and responsibility, and he had always discharged his duties in a manner that gave complete satisfaction to those who appointed him. Was the hon. Member not aware that Mr. Murray was for a considerable period Consul General at Cairo— an office of very great importance, which brought him in direct connection with Constantinople, and commanded the key to all that was going on both in Persia and India? Than such a situation there could be no better training school for the high diplomatic employment which that gentleman had since obtained. By his acquirements as a linguist Mr. Murray-was also eminently qualified for the position he had held. With respect to the transactions connected with the late war with Persia, his conduct might or might not have been prudent. The matter had, however, been fully sifted in that House at the time when the hon. Member for Poole was himself in office; and, as the hon. Member did not then raise his voice against these transactions, he left it to be inferred that they had his fullest approval. Having had the privilege of Mr. Murray's acquaintance for thirty years, he trusted the House would excuse the few observations he had made.

as a personal friend of Mr. Murray, also wished to say a single word in his behalf, (Cries of "Spoke" when the hon. Gentleman resumed his seat.)

The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has so many very important questions to answer as to affairs in different parts of the world, that I would have postponed the inquiry which I now wish to address to him had it not been intimated that this would be a convenient opportunity for giving the House some information on the subject to which I am about to call his attention. A question was some time ago asked in this House by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke) with reference to an incident that took place at St. Petersburgh. The statement made was that the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs had called together the Ministers representing England, France, Austria and Prussia, omitting the representative of the Sultan, and had expressed to them the opinion of the Imperial Government that the time had come when representations ought to be made to the Turkish Government with reference to the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte, and more particularly with respect to the fulfilment of the promise given by the Sultan for the enforcement of the Hatti-Humayoun in favour of the Christians. When we remember what for a length of years has been the policy of the Russian Government with reference to that subject, and particularly when we recollect that it was a question with regard to it which gave rise to the Russian war, I think that the adoption of such a course as this by the Russian Government is an incident calculated to cause anxiety to all who are watching the course of events abroad. It becomes a matter of still greater moment when we recollect that the interference suggested by Prince Gortschak off is hostile not only to the spirit, but even to the letter of the treaty of peace by which the Russian war was concluded. In reference to a matter of so much gravity it is important that we should know, not in the loose manner in which it was stated some time ago, but precisely and definitively, exactly what the communication of the Russian Government was. I wish to know from the noble Lord exactly the terms in which this communication was made to the Ministers of the Four Powers by Prince Gortsohak off at St. Petersburgh. I should also be glad to know whether that communication has been repeated to him by the representative of the Russian Government in this country, and, if so, whether it was repeated in writing, and what were the exact terms in which it was made. The next point to which I wish to call the attention of the noble Lord is one of not less importance — namely, the course which it is said has been pursued, or is likely to be pursued, by the French Government with reference to the same question. This, I know, is delicate ground, and I will therefore not discuss the question whether it is probable that such a communication would have been made by the Russian Government unless there had been some understanding between the Imperial Courts in the first instance; but I cannot forget that not very long ago Prince Gortschakoff stated that it was possible that engagements—written engagements—might subsist between the Court of France and that of St. Petersburg, but that all that he could undertake to say was, that no English interests were menaced by those engagements. I only allude to this because it marks the extreme importance of our knowing exactly the course which the French Government have pursued, or propose to pursue, with reference to this delicate question. I shall therefore be glad to hear from the noble Lord whether he has had any correspondence with the French Government on the subject, and of what nature that correspondence has been, so far as he feels himself at liberty to communicate it. When a question was asked of the noble Lord with reference to this subject a short time ago by the hon. Member for Southwark, he stated that the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Paris, M. Thouvenel, had expressed an opinion, that if any such representation was made at Constantinople it ought to be made by the Five Powers, and not by Russia alone, as the adoption of the latter course might place that Power in the position which she occupied before the war, of claiming to be the protectress of the Christian subjects of the Porte. I will only remark that I cannot but think that such an interference as that on the part of the Five Powers would be quite as contrary to the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Paris as the original proposition made by Prince Gortschakoff. I wish further to ask the noble Lord whether he has communicated upon this subject with the Courts of Austria and Prussia, and whether he feels himself at liberty to state the views entertained by those Courts upon this question. My next question is the most important of all. It is whether the noble Lord can inform us what answer he has thought it his duty to return to the proposition made by Prince Gortschakoff to the English Government, it is possible that the noble Lord may not think himself at liberty to communicate the exact nature of that answer, and, if so, I should be the last person to press him unduly for it. This, however, I think I may say, that there are two points upon which it is most desirable that the noble Lord should either here or in his despatch express a decided opinion. One is that Prince Gortschakoff suggested, that a re presentation should be made by the Five Powers to the Turkish Government with reference to the policy of the Sultan as to the enforcement of the Haiti Humayoun, is contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the Treaty of Paris. On another point, also, I should be glad that the noble Lord should express a decided opinion. A proposition has been made that this question should be investigated by the Five Powers through the medium of their consular agents in the East. Now, I know that it was the opinion of the late Government, and is that of those whose experience of Turkish affairs give every weight to their opinion, that no more dangerous course could be adopted than one which would afford encouragement to the consular agents of the European Powers to act in such a manner as would interfere greatly with the prestige of the Turkish authorities in the internal arrangements of Turkey itself. That is the opinion of our representative at Constantinople, and I have good reason to know that he has expressed that opinion in the strongest manner to our consular agents throughout the Turkish Empire; and I should very much regret that the sanction of the noble Lord should be given to any proposition whatever by which the consular agents of the various European powers should be encouraged to make these inquiries as to the condition of the Christian population, and should thus be placed in a position to destroy the prestige of the Turkish authorities, and to interfere with the arrangements of Turkey in a manner which would be conducive neither to our interests nor to those of the Ottoman Empire. There is only one other subject to which I wish to call the noble Lord's attention. There is, I am aware, in the Foreign Office a despatch, written either by Mr. Alison, during the time that he was Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople, or by Sir H. Bulwer, with reference to the fulfilment of the Hatti Humayoun. In that despatch it is pointed out how far the Hatti Humayoun has been carried out, in what respect it would be beneficial that further advances should be made in that direction, and how some portions would be rather more hostile than favourable to the interests of the Christian population; and there is also in it a statement of the difficulties which the Turkish Government would have to encounter in carrying out the promise which they gave to the Powers in the Treaty of Paris. I should like to know whether the noble Lord will feel himself at liberty to place that most valuable document upon the table of the House along with any other correspondence upon this subject.

I will endeavour to answer the various questions—and they certainly are very various—which have been addressed to me; and, perhaps, if I should omit to answer any of the inquiries which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, he will have the goodness to remind me of it before I conclude my observations. The first question, relating to Persia, was put to mo by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), and is connected with another which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne). In the first place, I should say that the story which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour) has heard, that there were differences of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and Sir Henry Rawlinson as to the policy to be pursued in Persia, and that in consequence Sir Henry Rawlinson has been recalled, is altogether fabulous. Sir Henry Rawlinson is a very able man, and exceedingly well acquainted with the East. The influence which he exercised in Persia was very considerable, his policy was entirely approved, by Her Majesty's Government, and I was in hopes that he would have continued to discharge the functions of Her Majesty's Minister in Persia. The cause of his return is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) alluded. My noble Friend at the head of the Government, on finding that the affairs of Persia had been committed to the Secretary of State for India, inquired of my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) and myself what we thought of that arrangement. We both said that we were ready to abide by his judgment, and either to continue the arrangement as it stood when he took office, or change it. My noble Friend, after taking some time for consideration, said that he thought the chief part of the business in Persia, though there is other business, no doubt, connected with India, was to settle and carry on the relations between Persia and this country and Russia. That certainly is the case so far as my experience goes. Questions do arise between this country and Persia, and between Persia and Russia, and if there is a question between Persia and Russia, the English Minister is asked his opinion upon it; and whenever there is a question between Persia and England, the Russian Minister is consulted. My noble Friend, therefore, came to the decision that it was better that the Persian mission should again be placed under the Foreign Office. I accepted that responsibility, and I was then certainly in hopes that Sir Henry Rawlinson would have remained in charge of that mission. Not long after the intelligence that the change was about to be made had reached Persia, however, a gentleman in the Foreign Office informed me that he had received a private letter from Sir Henry Rawlinson, telling him that as soon as the change was officially announced— and the official announcement had at that time gone out—he should resign his office and come home. I do not know that I should fairly represent his objections if I attempted to do so; but I believe that they turned chiefly upon the difference between the mode of conducting business in the India and in the Foreign Offices, and one of them certainly referred to the greater latitude allowed by the former in giving presents, which had never been permitted by the Foreign Office. After a time, Sir Henry Rawlinson informed me by a private letter that he had sent in his resignation, and at the same time I received his formal resignation of his office. I did not think it was desirable that he should remain in Persia after it was known that he was about to resign, and I, therefore, immediately advised Her Majesty to accept the resignation of Sir Henry Rawlinson, and to appoint in his place a gentleman whom I have never had the good fortune to see, and with whom I have no acquaintance whatever, but a gentleman who has been long in the diplomatic service in the East, whose despatches (when he has been in charge of the Embassy at Constantinople) and Reports I have often had occasion to receive, and whose intelligence I have admired—Mr. Alison. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, see that Sir Henry Rawlinson has not been recalled—that he sent in his own resignation, and that for reasons which, although satisfactory to his own mind, I cannot but regret, he no longer serves the Queen in Persia. Our Persian policy is easily explained, and it has none of the characteristics attributed to it by the hon. Gentleman. It is to maintain the integrity and independence of Persia, but at the same time to recommend the Persian Government not to make aggressions upon other independent States. To that advice the Persian Envoy here has willingly assented, and the relations between the Shah of Persia and Her Majesty are of the most friendly nature. There is no question which we wish to press upon the Persian Government, or to coerce them about. Our interest is merely to maintain their authority, and to give them such advice when we are asked as may conduce to the maintenance of their independence. There is, however, one point upon which our opinion may perhaps be deemed peculiar. It is natural there should be and from time to time there has been a sort of rivalry between Great Britain and Russia in Persia. The effect of this has been that the supporters of Great Britain have always some story of oppression on the part of Russia, and those who are in favour of the Russian interest are in the habit of going to the Minister and even to the Sovereign, and informing them of some misdeed on the part of Great Britain. I confess I have thought it best to discourage that rivalry, and when I have had occasion to write to St. Petersburg, and to speak to the Russian Minister here I have always said that, provided we found Russia maintaining the independence of Persia, we were quite willing to join with her in giving the same advice; that we had no interest in Persia specially directed against Russia; that our only object was to support the Persian Government, which was always weak, and often threatened with internal dissensions; and that we trusted Russia would act in the same spirit with us. The answers we have received from Russia have tended to show the same disposition, and therefore we have every reason to believe that the course of the Persian Government will in future be more equable than it has sometimes been. The next two questions relate to China. I am informed that no despatch has been received at the Colonial Office with respect to the trial of Captain Saunders for murder. With regard to the appointment of inspectors, I am inclined to think that the hon. Member for Glasgow supposes that I have given a more distinct and decided approbation of that arrangement than I intended to give. It certainly is a very anomalous system that foreigners should be put in the collection of the revenue of Chirm; but the Earl of Elgin and others have said that there is a great deal of bribery and favouritism in the Chinese Custom-houses, and that the appointment of a few foreign inspectors would tend to put an end to many abuses and give greater confidence to merchants. I have not given to the new system that decided and unqualified approbation which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mr. Buchanan supposes, but I think it is one which ought to be tried, and that in the meantime we should refrain from approving or condemning the system. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Fortescue) has asked me some questions with respect to Sicily. He must he aware that the pamphlet which has been published is one to which we can give no authority. It rests entirely upon the responsibility of the gentleman who has put his name to it; but I am sorry to say there are in the Foreign Office reports from our Consuls— two or three in 1857, one which I hold in my hand dated the 24th of July, 1859, and some others—giving an account of cruelties, and even of torture, practised by the police of Sicily. The subject is a very painful one, and I do not wish to go through the delails of it; but there are accounts given by our Consuls of men who have come themselves and stated to our representatives that their wrists had been fastened together, that they had been gagged with an instrument called the "cap of silence," and that they had suffered various other inflictions which may be properly described as torture. I have no doubt that these things, together with other circumstances, have brought Sicily to its present state—a state, let me add, which to those who have known what the Government of the King of the two Sicilies has been for some time past cannot be at all surprising. I now come to the very important questions which have been asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald). Perhaps the best way of answering those questions will be to give a complete account of what has taken place at St. Petersburg and elsewhere with respect to the affairs of Turkey. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to what took place at the end of May. But before that, at the end of April, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at St. Petersburg, Prince Gortschakoff, informed the Turkish Ambassador at the Court of Russia that the accounts which which were received from the different Christian provinces under the Sultan, especially from Roumelia, Bulgaria, and Bosnia, showed such sufferings and at the same time such exasperation on the part of the Christian subjects of the Porte as might lead to an insurrection, and he added that if an insurrection should take place, and if it should produce massacre on the part of the Turkish troops, the Emperor of Russia would not remain a tranquil spectator of events. The Turkish Ambassador immediately sent an account of this conversation to Constantinople. A few days after that intimation a despatch was written to Paris to the same effect, and on the 5th of May the Ministers of the Five Powers were assembled at the office of Prince Gortschak off, in St. Petersburg. Prince Gortschak off began by making the same statement which he had made to the Turkish Ambassador and written to Paris. After a good deal of discussion three propositions were drawn up by the French Minister in the presence of the meeting, and were so far agreed to that the different Ministers said they would send them to their respective Courts. The first of these propositions was that the present state of the Christian provinces in Turkey had become intolerable; the second, that an inquiry should be made, such inquiry to be conducted by the officers of the Sultan, assisted by the Consuls of the five Powers; and the third, that the Hatti-Humayoun having failed in securing to the Christian subjects of the Porte that toleration and tranquillity which it was intended to produce, it would be necessary to have a new organization for the government of the Christian provinces. Nothing, it will be seen, could be more important than these different propositions. After receiving them we said, with respect to the first, that Her Majesty's Government had not received any such accounts as entitled them to say that the present state of the Christian provinces was intolerable. The House is aware that we can at no time speak with any great approbation of the Government of the Sultan in the interior of his dominions. We can hardly speak of it much more favourably than we can of the government of the King of the Two Sicilies; but, at the same time, we have no accounts showing to us that there has been that which the Government of Russia has from old times always laid peculiar stress upon—misgovernment and oppression, especially as regards the Christian subjects of the Porte. I have not only read carefully the different reports which have been received, but I have conversed with persons who have come from the Christian provinces of Turkey, and who have been engaged in the service of Her Majesty in one capacity or another, and they have invariably said to me that it is impossible to praise or to defend the details of the Turkish Government, but that the Christian subjects of the Porte are not the victims of any peculiar oppression; that their Mahomedan countrymen are quite as great suffererers from the irregularity of the Government. With respect to the third proposition, that of a new organization of the Government of those provinces, we said it was quite impossible we could agree, whether with reference to general principles or with reference to the Treaty of Paris of 1856, to a new organization of the Turkish empire. The House will recollect that the 7th Article of the Treaty of Paris guarantees and respects the integrity and independence of the Turkish empire. The 8th Article declares that if at any time dissension should arise between the Sublime Porte and any one of the Powers who signed the Treaty with respect to the interpretation of its articles, which might threaten a disturbance of pacific relations, neither the Sublime Porte nor that Power should have recourse to arms without endeavouring to obtain the mediation of the other Powers for the purpose of procuring a peaceful settlement of the difference. The 9th Article records that the communication of the Hatti-Humayoun is the spontaneous act of the Sultan, and goes on specially to declare that the contracting Powers acknowledging the importance of that communication record them, understanding that in no case it gives to the Powers the right to interfere collectively or respectively in the relations between the Sultan and his subjects, or in the internal administration of his territory. Now, the treaty being so positive in that respect, nothing but extreme urgency, insurrection, or the determination of a foreign Power, in spite of the treaty, to take the part of the insurgents and make war on the Sultan, would, I think, justify the other Powers of Europe in at all interfering in the internal government of Turkey; but, on the other hand, after such a declaration on the part of so great a Power as Russia, having, as we know, so much influence with the Christian subjects of the Sultan, which not only she does not disavow but has always professed and boasted that she holds, it would not be prudent to remain aloof and say that we do not concern ourselves upon that matter. We, therefore, consulted with other Powers, and at the same time expressed our own opinion that while we could not consent to the first and third proposition, yet it might be proper to make inquiry with respect to the present state and government of the Sultan's Christian provinces; but that that inquiry ought to be made by the government of the Sultan himself. The Austrian Government, in the same spirit, said that their object was to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey, and, at the same time to procure, by their influence and by that of the other Powers, a remedy for grievances which tend to provoke resistance and insurrection. The answer given by Prussia was not very different, though, not having consuls and agents spread through Turkey, she declared that she required further consideration before expressing her opinion as to the present state of the Christian provinces of Turkey. The Government of France has appealed to us to know what is our opinion on the subject, and M. Thouvenel stated that from his personal knowledge of Turkey he was aware that very great abuses and misgovernment prevailed there, and he thought that remedies might be pointed out which, while they provided securities for the European subjects of the Sultan, would give greater strength and stability to the Turkish Government. The opinion of a man of his ability and experience in Turkish matters must be allowed to have weight in the consideration of any remedies. At the same time he declared that any inquiry that should be made ought to be made with the greatest regard to the authority of the Sultan, and ought not to have the appearance in the slightest degree of impairing or shaking the Sultan's authority. Our opinion with respect to that point is of the same kind. We said that if it appeared to the Sultan that the Consuls or other Agents of the Christian Powers, might participate in the inquiry, we should be ready to take that view, but that if the Sultan, on the other hand, thought they could not participate in the inquiry without diminishing his authority we wore not ready to press a point of that kind upon an independent Sovereign whose authority we wished to maintain and were bound to support. Sir H. Bulwer, whose influence I must say here, by way of parenthesis, has always been exerted with the wish to maintain the authority of the Sultan, and increase the welfare of the people of Turkey, who has always, in my opinion, taken the most judicious means to effect those purposes, and by the mode in which he has given his advice, has obtained great influence with all the Turkish Ministers who have been successively in power, thought it was advisable to have the inquiry, but to have it by means of the Sultan's own officers. There has lately been a change in the Turkish Government. Redschid Pasha, who formerly held the office of Grand Vizier, is reinstated in that position; and the French Minister at Constantinople advised that the Grand Vizier should in person visit Roumelia, Bulgaria, and other places, with full authority from the Sultan to punish those guilty of outrages and establish such remedial measures as might be calculated to remove the evils complained of. In that advice the British and Russian Ambassadors concurred, and we have yesterday and to-day learned that the measure has been adopted; the Turkish Ambassador having communicated the intelligence that the Sultan willingly adopted the advice which has been tendered, and the Turkish Grand Vizier is to exercise those powers without any control or interference on the part of the Representatives of European States. I conclude that, as the Russian Ambassador has assented to the plan, the Prussian Government will very likely be also ready to assent to it. I cannot say what the effect of the proceeding will be, but it is one which preserves unimpaired and undiminished the authority of the Sultan, and likewise gives hope for the future. Of course, no man would be bold enough to say what may be the future course of the Turkish Govern- ment or the future destinies of these Turkish provinces, but I cannot but believe, from all I have observed, that there has been a considerable change of late years and for the better. Sir H. Bulwer declared that since he has known the country there has been a considerable improvement, greater anxiety being shown by the Government for the due execution of justice and the duo observance of all the rules of good administration. Still, he was dissatisfied with the present state of things. Though this proposal of the Russian Government at first appeared to contain in it something derogatory to the authority of the Sublime Porte, yet, as at present arranged, I hope there will be no dissension among the Powers of Europe with respect to it; for if ultimately we have to give advice to the Porte I believe we may do so in such a way as not to offend the just pride of an independent Sovereign, and finally that the advice we give and the remedial measures we suggest will be such as to benefit the population, and promote the stability of I the Sultan's throne.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the renewed agitation of the Metropolitan Operatives for a diminution of the time of labour to nine hours; and whether the Government will be prepared to protect independent labourers against the coercion and violence practised towards them on a former occasion, should similar illegal I proceedings be attempted by the men on strike. He had no objection to legitimate combinations carried on by fair means; but the agitation from which the Metropolis had but scarcely recovered was of a different character. It professed to be founded on the circumstance that the introduction of machinery had lessened the demand for manual labour, and instead of; offering more labour for the same price the operatives proceeded to offer less; in other words, they demanded ten hours' pay for nine hours' labour. The absurdity of this proposal ensured its failure; but in the attempt to carry it out the society men resorted to coercion and intimidation against the more rational and independent workmen. Workmen who did not join the unions were abused, illtreated, their tools were stolen from them, and in some instances they were compelled, in self-defence, though against their will, to join the forces of the rebellious labourers. That was a state of things which deserved the serious consideration of the Government, and summary means should be taken for the future to protect workmen who wished to maintain, their independence. He entertained no distrust of the natural good sense: and good feeling of English labourers generally; but the very honesty of their nature made them peculiarly liable to deception by the persons who professed to advise and to guide them. The nature of the rules drawn up for adoption in trade societies was such that no one could be astonished at the results which had developed themselves. The Friendly Society of Masons, for instance, was one of the most powerful and most advanced of these societies; and one would, therefore, expect to find in their rules nothing inconsistent with sound principles of general policy. But in the preface to their rules the following sentence occurred:—

"As no degree of human happiness can possibly exist without society, it is the great principle of the Friendly Society of Operative Masons to bring into force among its members the truly i valuable object of self-protecting power against the selfish and unprincipled proceedings of the capitalists."

Now, when he read an assertion so utterly at variance with common sense, sound principle, and proper fooling, he could not but entertain considerable suspicion as to, the rules which were to follow. In point of fact, he found this compilation to be not only a code of Friendly Society's rules to which allegiance might properly be given, but also a code regulating the action and proceedings of the members in all their relations with their masters, and amongst other matters containing a chapter on strikes. These strikes were not only advocated for the purpose of promoting the interests of workmen, but as an instrument of attack on masters when, by their selection of other than Society men, or by giving piecework, they incur the opposition of the Society. He was not surprised that, with such rules before them, workmen were apt to confound the obligations which, as members of the Society, they might properly observe, and those rules which he believed to be most illegal. He ventured to think that some notice should be taken by the Government of the illegality of these docu- ments, seeing that the rules were not certified under the Friendly Societies Act. During the existence of the strike last year, Mr. Potter, the Secretary of the United Trades Association, encouraged the men in their resistance to the authority of the masters by assuring them that, with the exception of the master builders, every person of position, influence, and wealth, sympathized with the operatives. A more unfounded assertion never was made, and it was so far from being true that you could find no man of intelligence, whatever might be his position, who did not entirely condemn proceedings so illegal in their character, so detrimental to the public at large, and so injurious to the prospects of the operatives, and the interests of their suffering families. It seemed that they were about to witness a renewal of those miseries; but he hoped the Government would feel it their duty to interfere to protect honest and rational workmen in carrying their labour where they pleased, and to warn those who, perhaps from ignorance of the law, were, he feared, about to break the law.

The fact to which the hon. Gentleman has referred— namely, that the building trades of London contemplate a renewal of the strike of last year—is only known to me by the ordinary means of intelligence open to every Member of this House. No communication has been made to the Metropolitan police upon the subject, nor has their assistance been in any way applied for. With regard to the statement which has been made that violence and intimidation were practised in the strike of last year, there is no doubt that it is, to a certain degree, well founded. But the general character of the strike was an abstinence from violent measures. No doubt some exceptions did occur, and I believe some cases were brought before the magistrates. What the results may have been I do not at this moment remember; but I think I am borne out in saying that, considering the length of time during which the strike lasted, and the large number of persons engaged in it, its general character was an abstinence from violent measures. I have inquired of the Commissioners of Police and I am not aware that in any instance they failed to afford assistance when applied to on the part of persons who were threatened or intimidated, and I am also informed that the Commissioners of Police are not aware that any complaints were made of any want of assistance upon their part during the continuance of the strike. I will only say, upon the general question, that I conceive it to be peculiarly the duty of the Executive Government to hold itself perfectly impartial with regard to these unfortunate occurrences, for unfortunate I must consider them. I think experience has shown that the policy of strikes is one which, in the long run, and upon general experience, is eminently disastrous to the working classes themselves; therefore I look upon an occurrence of this sort as disastrous. At the same time I shall feel it my duty, as a Member of the Executive Government to hold the balance with a perfectly even hand between the two contending parties, looking to no other principle than that of maintaining the ascendancy of the law, and of preventing, so far as is in our power, intimidation and violence. Before I sit down I will call attention to the fact that a Committee of this House has been sitting during the present Session upon the state of the law as between masters and workmen. That Committee have made recommendations, one of which is, that a Bill should be brought in to enlarge the facilities for arbitration between masters and men upon the occasion of strikes. I cannot say that I am myself very sanguine of the success of any such measure; but the proposal will come under the consideration of the House, and if any hon. Gentleman has any proposal to make for the Amendment of the existing law, that Bill will afford a favourable opportunity for its consideration.

said, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary for War, Whether he had any objection to produce an Estimate of the expenses to be incurred in the China war. It was now quite clear that this country was in for a war involving very considerable outlay, and it would be desirable for the information of the House that it should at least have an outline of the expenses, so far as they could be ascertained. There would, he thought, he no difficulty in framing an estimate, giving the probable expenditure on account of the naval and military forces engaged, of transports, stores, the Native forces which would be despatched from India, and the increased pay and allowances to which soldiers and sailors were entitled when serving in that part of the world. There could be nothing more affronting to the House than to ask it to vote vast sums of money without its knowing the manner in which it was to be expended. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to lay on the table an Estimate of the probable expense of the expedition to China?

said, he would beg leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he had omitted to answer the question which he had put on the previous evening, as to whether, when the command of the brigade of Guards fell vacant, it was intended to till it up again? The right hon. Gentleman, in answering the multiplicity of questions put to him, appeared to have overlooked that.

said, that he wished to state that, with reference to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the defences of the Colonies, he thought that the Government had done injustice to two of the distinguished civilians who had been engaged in that inquiry, namely, Mr. Godley and Mr. Hamilton; their recommendation being that the allowance made by the State should be in proportion to that provided by the colony, and not that the Colonies should be left wholly to their own resources in providing means of defence. He would also urge that the claims of those officers who retired under the general warrant of 1826 upon the captain's half-pay, taking the step in rank, had not been fairly considered. Many of them were still living upon the captain's half-pay, though there was at least an implied pledge in the arrangement under which they retired from active service that they should have the advantages of increased pay as they succeeded to the higher ranks by seniority, equally with their contemporaries.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary for War to the manner in which recruiting sergeants pursued their avocations. It was said that the British Army was an army of volunteers, but it was the common practice of the persons who were employed as recruiting sergeants to entrap young boys under age and unfit for the service, and under the influence of liquors induce them to enlist. He was acquainted with a case in which one of those persons, who were perpetually wandering about the streets of the Metropolis for the purpose of snapping up volunteers for the army, drugged a youth under sixteen years of age, and induced him to give a false name to the authorities before whom he went to have his enlistment properly attested. The youth was dismissed by the examining surgeon as unfit for the army Within a few days after, he believed, the same person induced the poor child to submit himself at another depôt for examination, and, he believed, the same surgeon who, six or seven days previously, rejected him as unfit, certified that he was fit for service in the army. He wished to know whether this system of entrapping and drugging youths had the sanction of the Horse Guards and was pursued by all recruiting officers, and whether the army was composed of persons who had been caught by these underhand means. "Would the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that children who wandered from their parents should not be entrapped into the army by persons who had the sanction of Her Majesty's principal Officers of State?

said, he had to state, in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby), that not only had he no objection to lay an Estimate of the expenses of the War with China on the table, but it would be his duty to do so. It would be necessary to bring forward such an Estimate, as it would be obviously impossible to meet the expenses of the war in which we were unfortunately involved with China without a Parliamentary Vote. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Knox), the facts of the case were these:—Formerly the command of the Brigade of Guards was taken in turns by the field officers in waiting—namely, by the Lieutenant-Colonels of each of the three regiments. That course, no doubt, produced bad results. There was a constant change of hands, and along with it often a change of system. It was represented by Sir Colin Campbell (now Lord Clyde), when Inspector of Infantry, that the officer in command had so little acquaintance with the interior economy of the Guards, that, though he could inspect them on parade, he was not acquainted with their interior financial arrangements, which, as was well known, differed in many respects from other regiments. Therefore, an officer was appointed to command permanently the Brigade, which the House knew was much larger than Brigades usually were commanded by Brigadiers in England. He believed that was the state of the case.

said, he rose to explain that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement. Lord Panmure when at the War Office divided the whole army into brigades, the Guards being constituted a brigade under the command of a brigadier. Sir Frederick Love, who was now the Inspector of Infantry, was the inspector of the troops over the whole country, and he had nothing to do with the internal economy of the regiments.

said, he apprehended that the duty of the Inspector General of Infantry was to inspect every portion of the infantry of the British army. [Colonel KNOX intimated that he never inspected the Guards] No, but he could; and, in the same way the Inspector of Cavalry had been sent to inspect the Guards. The opinion of Lord Clyde was that, from the peculiar organization of the Guards, there ought to be a Guards' officer to inspect them, and that arrangement was made. What might be done in future he was not prepared to say. It was a subject that must come under the consideration of the military authorities. The gallant Officer behind him (Colonel Sykes) complained that last night the Report made by the three civilian officers on the Colonial Military Expenditure had been received by the Government in a very unfriendly spirit. The hon. and gallant Member was not present in the House when he alluded to the subject, and was quite mistaken in supposing that he had mentioned the Report in an unfriendly spirit. He had the highest opinion of the talent of Mr. Godley, who had, he thought, contributed a very valuable paper to the public documents. It had been alleged against the Report of the Committee that it laid down a theoretical principle without any exceptions, but he was not at all certain that this was a departure from the duty of such a Committee, since it was for the Government to consider bow far they should apply those principles, and what exceptions should be taken. It was, as he had said, a valuable paper, but there was also much that was valuable in the exceptions taken to that Report by Mr. Elliot, but he should be the last man to undervalue the labours of Mr. Godley. He would not again enter into the case of the officers who retired on half-pay under the general order of 1826. He held the opinion he expressed the previous night, that there were two parties to be considered in the matter. They must look at the terms of the engagement, and he could not read them as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did. If he so read them, he would not hesitate for a moment to acknowledge the bargain, however improvident it might have been. He could not understand that an officer going on half-pay should have, not only all the advantages of full pay, but also advantages which he would not have it he had remained on full pay. With regard to the last question put by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), it was one of very great difficulty. There was no doubt that, although the days of Sergeant Kite were gone by, yet that in many eases young men, in thoughtless and heedless moments, when they were overcome by liquor, entered into engagements which they afterwards repented of. The same thing happened among all classes; but people did not instantly break their bargains. The apprentice, for example, might dislike his trade, and change his mind. Youth was fickle. It resolved hastily, and repented at leisure. Still, they forced the apprentice to abide by the articles of his apprenticeship, and in the same way they forced the soldier, when he had entered, to abide by the terms of his attestation. Whenever a clear case was made out that fraud had been practised he thought it his duty to bring the matter before the Commander-in-Chief. There was a certain sum, the payment of which released a soldier from his engagement, if his regiment was not much below its number. But if, on the other hand, the regiment was much below its complement, and was about to go upon foreign service, then every man was necessarily held to his bargain, for the good of the service and the good of the State. But if there were frauds—and he durst say that on the part of recruiting officers frauds were occasionally committed—there were also frauds on the other side. The best course to be taken in every case where a young man had enlisted with a declaration that he was of a greater ago than was really the fact was to prosecute the party for that false declaration. The man who told a lie, too, in the first instance might tell it in the second. In one or two cases certificates of birth had been produced before the Adjutant-general, and had been followed by the release of the soldier, when it afterwards turned out that the certificate of birth belonged to a different person. It was extremely difficult to ascertain the identity of a person from a piece of parchment brought from a distant part of the country. It was the duty of the military authorities to release men when it could be proved they had been enlisted under false pretences; but, on the other hand, persons who had made false declarations ought to be punished. At the same time when a man merely changed his mind there was no sufficient reason why he should not be held to his bargain, if the exigencies of the service required it.

said, that the young man to whom he referred was both under age and under size. He should take an early opportunity of bringing the case under the notice of the House.

said, that the principal ground which the hon. Member for Dudley had for complaint was that a person had been enlisted under the proper age. The hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the difficulty of ascertaining the ago of recruits. A rule existed that no youth's service should begin to count until he arrived at the age of eighteen. But this regulation was insufficient to check the practice of false declarations of age. The recruiting sergeant had no means of knowing a youth's age, and if a young man appeared to be eighteen, but was only seventeen, how could the sergeant know that he was under age?

said, that no man was attested until twenty-hours after he was enlisted, and he went for that purpose publicly before a magistrate. He would venture to speak from his own experience, and he believed that such cases as had been described could not occur. He did not believe a magistrate in the country could be found who would attest a person under the circumstances which had been detailed.

said, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give an estimate of the China war. He confessed, however, he did not know on what elements the right hon. Gentleman could frame that estimate. He might give an estimate for the armaments, the cost of transports, and the ammunition; but how he could give an estimate of the cost of the war he could not understand. He hoped he would give a large lump sum and a wide margin. The right hon. Gentleman said that the former system of the field officer in waiting being in command of the brigade had been followed by bad results. He would rather say that the present system had given better results. No troops were in a state of better discipline or bad rendered more gallant services than the Guards. He thought the Guards were the finest troops in the world. He would admit, however, that the frequent change of commanding officers did sometimes give unfortunate results. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member (Mr. H. B. Sheridan), being an old officer, and having had some thousands of recruits brought under his notice, he did not remember a single instance of a man complaining of having been entrapped into the service. Nor did he think that the practice of drugging was ever had recourse to.

observed that a recruit could within twenty-four hours after his enlistment, if he desired, obtain his release on the payment of a small fine, called the "smart money," and not exceeding £1. It was utterly erroneous to suppose that men were enlisted in a drunken or unconscious state.

said, he did not think that a case had been made out for the continuance of an Inspector General of the brigade of Guards. The office had only been created about four years, and it was understood at the time that it was created for a certain officer. Those Guards ought to be the most disciplined troops in the world. [Colonel LINDSAY: So they are.] So they ought to be. But there was no reason why they should not be inspected by the same officer as the regiments of the Line. To show how the Guards were favoured above the Line, he would mention that out of the officers who entered the army from the 1st of January, 1841, to 1st of January, 1849, seven battalions of Foot Guards created 43 Lieutenant-colonels, while 164 battalions of the Line created only 28 Lieutenant-Colonels.