said, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made towards the settlement and distribution of the Delhi and Lucknow Prize Money, and of Indian Prize Money generally.

said, that with regard to the Delhi, and also the Lucknow Prize Money, he stated some time since that the necessary application had been made to the Treasury on the subject. Then came the question as to the scale of distribution which was to be adopted; and the Treasury, upon whom the responsibility rested, thought the same scale as that, adopted in the Crimean war should be applied to the Indian Prize Money. The Treasury asked the opinion of the Indian Council, and the Council thought that the new scale, which was far more favourable to the soldier than the old Indian scale, should he adopted. But a number of objections seemed to have arisen on the part of Officers, and accordingly a Commission of Official men from Chelsea Hospital, the Treasury, the Horse Guards, the Indian Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office, had been appointed to consider and report upon the proper scale to be adopted, he believed that a Report from this Commission had been sent either to the Trea- sury or the War Office. But if so, it had only been a day or two since, and no official step had been taken in the matter. The next step would be for the Treasury to consider whether it would adopt their Report, or if not, what scale should be decided upon.

said, he rose to ask the Secretery to the Admiralty whether, in the contemplated scheme of Naval Retirement, time served in a Revenue Cruiser for the suppression of Smuggling, and therefore in Her Majesty's Service, is to be counted as sea time.

said, that sea time would be allowed for time served in a Revenue Cruiser for the suppression of smuggling, and at the same time he would beg to call the attention of Officers to Her Majesty's Order in Council on the subject in the Gazette of that day.

said, he begged to be allowed to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting the proposed conference with reference to the neutralized Provinces of Savoy. On the 25th of June last he believed the House was informed that the English Government had acceded to the proposals which had been made by the French Government for the appointment of a Conference to 6ettle how the arrangements connected with the annexation of the northern provinces of Savoy should be carried out. He begged, then, to ask the noble Lord as to the time when, the place where, and the mode in which, such Conference will be held?

said, that the noble Lord had stated quite correctly that Her Majesty's Government had accepted a proposal for a Conference. That proposal, together with two other modes of settlement, were submitted to the great Powers by the French Government; and Her Majesty's Government immediately accepted the proposal for a Conference. But the Governments of Austria and Prussia stated that for various reasons they thought there would be no advantage in assembling a Conference. There had been no meeting of the great Powers since, nor had any time been submitted as to when the Conference should be held. Therefore so the matter must remain until those two great Powers withdrew their opposition, or until some other proposal should be made.

rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the Papers respecting the disturbances in Syria, and more especially to the Telegraphic Despatch (No. 20) of the Consul at Smyrna, of the 11th July; and also to the Despatch from the Admiralty (No. 21), covering the Reports of Captain Paynter, of Her Majesty's ship Exmouth, off Beyrout; and to ask a question thereon of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The country had a right to expect that some expression of opinion should take place with respect to the deplorable and flagrant outrages on humanity which had recently occurred in Syria, and especially before Parliament separated, there should be some more explicit declaration from the Government as to the course which they might be prepared to adopt. Indeed he felt convinced that unless strong measures were at once taken with a high hand, the tranquillity of Turkey would be seriously shaken, and serious consequences would follow to Europe in general. In a despatch addressed to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary on the 27th of June, Sir Henry Bulwer stated, that with deep regret he had to observe the Ottoman Government were the more to blame for what had occurred in Syria, since a week had not passed during the last year in which he had not brought the state of that province under the notice of the Turkish Ministers. It appeared from the first despatch of Mr. Consul Moore, dated the 18th of May, that even at that early period he considered an outbreak imminent. He had to report, he said, a marked increase within the last fortnight of agitation and insecurity in the Druse district of the Lebanon. Assassinations and reprisals were of almost daily occurrence between the Christians and the Druses. The last took place two days before. A party of Christians on their way to Deir-el-Kammar were attacked by the Druses, and four of them were killed, including a Maronite priest. This, he added, would probably provoke retaliation on the part of the Christians, if it did not lead to a general rising of both sects, of which there were many symptoms. About the same period the Christians, seeing the imminence of the danger which threatened them, addressed Kurschid Pasha in a memorial setting forth the assassinations perpetrated upon them by the Druses, and the absolute impunity with which the assassins escaped. The reply was one of those stereotyped answers promising protection and doing nothing. On the same day the Consular body at Beyrout, at the request of the merchants residing there, waited on Kurschid Pasha, and requested him to take steps for averting the impending horrors. They too were assured that proper measures would be taken for the protection of all parties and the suppression of all violence; but, while this answer was being given, the outbreak which the Pasha told the Consular body should be prevented was actually taking place. Mr. Moore wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer that the Druses had attacked some villages in the Lebanon, and had killed several of the inhabitants; that it was reported the Turkish irregular troops fired upon the Christians; that after the flight of the Christians their houses were pillaged and burnt; and that the Bashi-Bazouks had cut the throat of the ex-Governor of Mount Lebanon, a man eighty-five years of ago, and quite blind. This outrage was followed by an attack upon Deir-el-Kammar, the Christian capital of the Lebanon, of which a report was made to Mr. Moore by Mr. Burn, an American missionary. The greatest atrocities were perpetrated upon the inhabitants, and Mr. Burn distinctly stated that the Druses were the aggressors, and that the Christians there had received letters from the Pasha praising their forbearance. Mr. Burn asked for succour both in men and provisions. These were as usual promised by Kurschid Pasha, upon an application from Mr. Moore, but its fulfilment is illustrated by a despatch of Mr. Moore, written a few days later, reporting that Deir-el-Kammar had been surrendered unconditionally to the Druses; and that the Turkish garrison had joined in the attack upon the inhabitants; that after the surrender the Druses plundered and burned down 150 of the houses, and then withdrew. It was thus that the pledge given by the Pasha to relieve the Christians had not been redeemed. Three days later he wrote to say that the Mahomedans were rising against the Christians at Beyrout; hut the unexpected arrival of a Russian frigate had checked the outbreak. The Consul then spoke of Damascus as early as the 4th of June, where a spirit was described as arising which was of a menacing character to the lives and property of the Christians. During the whole of this time Sir Henry Bulwer was representing at the Porte, week by week, the imminence of the danger which overwhelmed the Christian population of Syria. The Co I ml and European inhabitants petitioned the Pasha to protect their lives and property, and received promises of support which were treacherously falsified. Warning had been given, and protection asked and promised; but none was sent till the town had been sacked and destroyed. Mr. Moore stated that the Turkish troops,' reported as having been sent by the Pasha to save one town, left it to its fate, although they were encamped at a place only two miles distant. He cited six or seven more instances in which this Pasha promised protection, but withheld it, leaving the Christians to be murdered by the Druses. Then came the assault on the Christian capital of Lebanon. Mr. Moore reported the inhabitants were induced by the Turkish authorities to give up their arms, and were then basely slaughtered. Their dead bodies showed numerous sword wounds about the arms and wrists, evidently arising from the vain attempts of these defenceless men to parry the blows aimed at their heads. There were 2,000 thus treated. Mr. Paynter, of Her Majesty's ship Exmouth, described the horrid scene. He states that all the male inhabitants were murdered. On Wednesday, the 10th of June, the Druses began to plunder, assisted by the Turkish troops; after this the town was fired in several places, and the massacre of the men took place, while all the women who did not fly were violated. In the midst of the massacre Kurschid Pasha, the Governor General and promiser of protection arrived, but calmly passed on to a station which overlooked the town, whence he issued an order to stay the slaughter, which he took no steps to arrest. When Mr. Paynter's letter was written, 1,500 males were lying unburied in the ruins; and the women who had fled from the scene of slaughter were making their escape to the European ships on the coast, hunted like wild beasts. The treachery of Osman Bey the perpetrator, and of Kurschid Pasha, the secret abettor of the atrocities, appeared in the present age without a parallel. He first induced the Christians to surrender their arms. They then crowded the poor creatures into the Court of the Serail, with only sufficient food to keep them alive; and, when their strength had vanished, flung open the gates for the Druses to rush in and consummate the cowardly massacre. Other papers had since confirmed these atrocious details. On the 9th of June, the storm which had been gathering over Damascus drew to a head. It was shown that the Governor of Damascus had 5,000 troops under his command. But in the face of these troops, or rather in concert with them, a rabble of half that number destroyed the whole of the Christian quarter, and put to death from 2,000 to 4,000 persons, including the Dutch Consul. The slaughter would have been still worse but for the conduct of one noble man, and he an exile—Abd-el-Kader,—who, with a truly humane spirit, irrespective of creed, had afforded an asylum in his own house to the proscribed Christians. With these details before them, the House had a right to demand what was to be done to those treacherous wrongdoers and to prevent the recurrence of like outrages. It appeared that Turkey, making a virtue of necessity, had consented to join in a convention for inquiry and redress. For diplomacy's sake he supposed that this wicked and effete empire, which had wallowed in blood, treachery, and corruption for the last fifty years, would be allowed thus to conceal its connivance. He trusted, however, that the petty jealousies of European States would for once be buried in the graves of the poor Christians who had suffered within the last few months in Syria, and that the Great Powers would join with one heart in hanging up on gallows high as Haman's the Turkish pashas and rulers who had permitted and, indeed, connived at these atrocities. He recollected the massacres of Chios and the atrocities in the Morea, which had in like manner led to a European intervention to rescue the Greeks from the abominable rule of Turkey, and he should rejoice to see a similar result in Syria. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Foreign Secretary what course he was prepared to take in the present emergency.

said, before the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary rose to reply, he wished to make a few remarks, as he took a great interest in the subject. He believed Her Majesty's Government were addressing themselves to the task of putting an end to the unhappy state of affairs in Syria. He thought misapprehension might occur if the deductions which had been drawn by the hon. Member were supposed to give a correct account of all that had taken place in Syria. He (Sir James Fergusson) had received from an intelligent English gentleman, living in the part of the Lebanon in which these disturbances had been most prevalent, carefully written journals, dating from the end of May down to the end of the first week in July. He had also had a conversation with a Beyrout merchant of great respectability, who left the country a little before the outbreak took place. With regard to the blue-book from which the hon. Member had quoted, a more unprofitable one was never issued, for, while it gave painful details of the occurrences in the Lebanon, it furnished no information either as to the circumstances which had led to the outbreak or the state of politics in that part of the world. From information on which he could rely he believed that the Christians were in the first place entirely in the wrong, that the Druses were most reluctant to fight at all; and that for some time previous to the disturbances, which began about the 27th of May, great excitement prevailed among them from an impression not wholly without foundation, that the Christians of the Mountain—the Maronites—would attempt to sweep them from that part of the country. He was told by the gentleman with whom he had conversed that several Druses in his service, who lived some miles from Beyrout, and who had to pass through Christian villages on their way home at night, found it necessary to make a circuit in order to avoid these Christians and to escape from insult, their lives, in point of fact, being in danger. About the end of May these disturbances began by the assembling of a large Christian force, consisting of from 1,000 to 3,000 men at a village situate a few miles from Beyrout. The Pasha of the city sent out troops, who dispersed the Christians, and had he followed the same course with regard to the Druses these calamities might have been avoided. When, however, the Druses came down to avenge the insult which had been offered them the Pasha took no steps to disperse them, but, on the contrary, his troops stood by while the Christian villages were acked and burnt. Prior to this, the Druse chiefs had urged upon the Maronites the expediency of not beginning the war until the silk harvest was over. There had been bad harvests, and the Druses represented that if the crops were again spoiled by the destruction of the mulberry trees great misery would ensue. The Maronites, urged on by their priests, paid no attention to this re- monstrance, and the outbreak began. From that time the Druses behaved in a way deserving the greatest condemnation; but it should be remembered that when Asiatics went to war they did not observe the niceties of European warfare—that when these tribes, which had an hereditary hatred of each other, engaged in war, their doctrine was to destroy their enemies root and branch wherever they could find them. It should also be recollected that Syria virtually had no Government, or one that was worse than none at all, and that this war brought together a great number of the Bedouins and wild tribes from the surrounding country, who assembled like vultures, eager for the prey, and committed many outrages for which the Druses were in no way responsible, but which were attributed to them. Putting aside these considerations, however, the question then was what was to be done, and he thought it a wise course to send out a Commission, and he hoped that the Government would in this way prevent the dangerous step which seemed imminent—the despatch of French troops into Syria. He would say nothing about the alleged great cause of the outbreaks; but it would be most unfortunate if that event for which the Ma-ronites had long been looking, and which was so much dreaded by those interested in the maintenance of English influence in the Mediterranean, should now take place, and the French troops should enter Syria. He hoped that the Commission would not interfere with the Turkish Government, or all the blood and treasure which we had expended a few years since would be wasted if we allowed any European Power to interfere with the Turkish Government. At the same time the Turkish authorities in Syria had shown themselves so unworthy of unrestricted power, and European intervention had been so long recognized in the affairs of the Lebanon, that it would be well not to allow them to act alone in future, As the hon. Member for Richmond had stated, the Turkish authorities at Beyrout had shown, if not complicity, at least culpable negligence. When our Consul (Mr. Moore) addressed himself to the chief of the Druses, with whom he had deservedly great influence, he was answered that the Pasha had taken steps to protect the Christians; but it seemed that after the Christians, relying upon that protection, were all disarmed, the Pasha, having in the meanwhile received a higher bribe from the Druses, admitted them into the seraglio, where the Christians had taken refuge, and where they wore slaughtered. It further appeared that this same Pasha prevented Yusuf Bey, who was prepared with a strong force, from interfering on their behalf by assuring him that the Serail was taken care of. There was no doubt, however, that the Serail fell in consequence of the interference of Yusuf Bey being prevented by the Pasha, and it was also, he believed, notorious that it fell by the connivance of the Turkish troops. But notwithstanding the atrocities that had been committed, the Western Powers would commit a great error if they permitted the Druses to be given up to the tender mercies of the Turks. The Christians were, for the present, put down, but if the Druses also were put down, there would be nothing to prevent the Turkish Pashas from oppressing people generally, for the purpose of enriching themselves. Neither would it be just that those who had looked on while these atrocities were being committed should be allowed to escape without notice, and he hoped the Western Powers would insist upon a searching investigation being made into all these occurrences. They should also find out who furnished the arms. Yusuf Bey brought 1,000 rifles from Tripoli, and arms were freely distributed in the mountains, and he hoped that the Commission would draw up a plan for the future better government of that district. It had been attempted to have a Christian Kaimakan and a Druse Kaimakan, but the result had been that each screened offenders against the other, and did not at all act together. There would never be good government until the power of one able man was substituted for the present unsatisfactory form of Government. The recent events read almost like a chapter out of the Old Testament, so little had the country changed in character. When there was a weak Government disorders were prevalent, but when there was a strong Government people could travel with safety, as in the time of Mehemet Ali. He thought the plan which had been found so effectual in India should be adopted in Syria, and that no man should be allowed to have arms unless he was the personal attendant of a chief. If some such step were not taken there would be a recurrence of these outrages, which would afford an excuse to some European Power to interfere for its own selfish objects, and thus our influence in that part of the world would be seriously affected.

said, he wished, before the noble Lord replied to the remarks that had been made, to put a question of which he had given notice—Whether, since Her Majesty's Government have absolutely declined to join in any measures for preventing, by force of arms, any descent upon the Neapolitan Territory by the Troops under General Garibaldi, it would not be expedient to refrain from the expression of any strong opinion of their own, or from endorsing that of others in an opposite sense, which it appears, from recent circumstances, is liable to lead to great misapprehension of their intentions by Foreign Authorities? He had no wish to make any attack on the policy of the noble Lord, which perhaps was the only one which could be adopted under the circumstances, still there was an apparent discrepancy between the declarations of the British Government and their acts or, rather, their negation of action, which might give rise to much misconception abroad. Some time back the noble Lord at the head of the Government, amid the cordial cheers of the House, which was responded to by the country generally—said that what was really wanted in Southern Italy was the ejection of those governments that had misconducted themselves. Afterwards, on the 12th of July, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary gave an opinion not altogether unfounded, and in which many shared, that under certain circumstances it might be desirable that the change should go no further, and that the kingdom of Naples should be left intact. He would admit the difficulty of stating beforehand what changes should take place. But it was very doubtful whether Sicily should be separated from Naples, and whether, seeing how closely the two countries approximated, being only divided by a strait of a couple of miles broad, they could remain separate. Some time ago he asked the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) what pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government of Sardinia in reference to the expedition to Sicily, and the noble Lord, upon the authority of the British Minister at Turin, stated that no pressure had been put upon that Government in any way, but that, the expedition to Sicily having taken place, and been successful, the King of Sardinia had written to Garibaldi to stop in his victorious career; and the noble Lord went on to say that the text of that letter was approved by Her Majesty's Government. But Garibaldi having declined to accept the advice given in that letter, and consequently having refused to act in accordance with the views of the British Government, the question arose how far the abstract opinion which Her Majesty's Government had given when they approved of the letter ought to be followed out to its logical consequence—namely, by the intervention of military force. The Neapolitan Government had been led to believe that it was the desire of the British Government to preserve the kingdom of Naples to the present King, and had been led to look to France and England to give practical effect to the noble Lord's opinion. That was evident by the instruction given to the Neapolitan Envoy who was sent to Her Majesty's Government, and who passed through Paris on his way. The noble Lord had also made a statement as to the proposal made to him on the part of the Neapolitan Government by the Marquis de la Greca, and on the following day he read a letter from that nobleman, giving a different version of the object of his mission. It was not to be supposed that either the noble Lord or the Neapolitan Envoy had made a misstatement, and it was clear that the difference arose entirely from the noble Lord having endorsed the opinion expressed in the King of Sardinia's letter to Garibaldi, which opinion and letter it was obvious was not the spontaneous act of the King of Sardinia, but was written under pressure. The position of England in the matter, however, was somewhat undignified; for Garibaldi, having refused to act upon the letter, had refused to act upon the recommendation of the British Government, and it was for the noble Lord to consider how far that recommendation should be enforced. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government having explicitly stated his views, and the opinion of the country being so unmistakeably with him, the Government should take care not to encourage, even in appearance, an opposite idea, and that our actions should not be at variance with our declarations. They had recently received an assurance from an important personage that there was no aversion on his part to any arrangement suitable to the circumstauces for settling this question. He should have been glad had that statement been made earlier, and it would have more effect now if our recommendation in reference to the boundaries of Savoy and Switzerland had been accepted. The negotiation upon this matter, as conducted by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), reflected great credit upon him. There was but one fault, so far as he could judge from the papers before them, which the noble Lord had fallen into, and that was a want in some respects of sufficient candour, added to which the noble Lord had certainly favoured the Government of France, and allowed them to gain a great advantage in the Savoy question. In putting the question he had read he would add another, namely, whether the noble Lord had received any account of the noble conduct of Abd-el-Kader in protecting some thousands of Christians in his house in Damascus—his house and that of the British Consul being the only ones that were not sacked in that quarter of the city, and whether any acknowledgment of that conduct was contemplated?

I did not intend to address the House with reference to the question raised by the lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rich) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), but it is a matter of importance to know, as far as may be consistent with the interests of the public service, the exact state of affairs in regard to the signature of the convention with Syria. No one must be more sensible than the noble Lord of the importance of supporting the authority of the Turkish Government, and of not adding to their weakness by any unnecessary interference on the part of the European Powers. The House will therefore be glad to know the terms and nature of this convention, and what stipulation has been made or is to be made with reference to the contingents that the various European Powers are to supply for the expedition to Syria, whether any stipulation has been made as to the course which the European forces are to take, and whether they are to act in a manner contrary to the instructions which the Turkish commander may receive from Constantinople. I do not wish to say a word of doubt as to the policy of the French Government in Syria. Considering their claims to the protectorate of the Latin Christians of the East, it is almost impossible for the French Government to avoid taking active steps as to the terrible outrages that have occurred in Syria. But the Crimean war chiefly arose from the jealousy of the Russian and French Governments, the one claiming to protect the Latin, the other the Greek Church in the East. It is clear that if the French Government interfere in a manner likely to raise the jealousy of the Russian Government great evils will ensue, and it will be almost impossible, if the French Government interfere in Syria in favour of the Latin Christians, for the Russian Government not to be almost compelled to interfere in favour of the Greek Christians in many other parts of the Turkish dominions. A rumour is current in Paris that the delay in the signature of this convention has arisen from a desire of the part of the Turkish Government that the intervention should be extended in favour of the Christians in other parts of Turkey. If that be the case it will show that out of these disturbances there may grow questions that may endanger the peace of Europe in future. The noble Lord has, I believe, received reports from our Consuls in the Levant, and, among others, a communication from our Consul at Salonica, with reference to the proposed convention which I hope it will be consistent with his duty to lay upon the table.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) has stated, from the papers before the House and from the accounts in the newspapers, the unfortunate transactions which have taken place in Syria. I, therefore, feel it to be quite unnecessary to go into further details of the facts that have occurred; but the House will naturally expect that I should state what has been done, both by Her Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government, in consequence of these acts, showing, as they do, so much cruelty on the part of one of these tribes, and so much negligence, to say the least of it, on the part of the Turkish authorities. The last accounts state that since the 13th of July the massacre has to a great degree ceased, and by the latest account we have received, we learn that order has been restored at Damascus. Fuad Pasha had, at the date of that account, arrived at Damascus, and the late Governor, who showed such culpable negligence, who appeared to be indifferent to the murder of the Christians, who never interfered at all when these murders were going on, and of whom it is said that if he had interfered with 80 or 100 men he might have stopped these disturbances—that Pasha has been sent to Constantinople to be tried. Sir Henry Bulwer states that he is to be sent again to Damascus, where the witnesses are, but that there will be no disposition en the part of the Porte to show any lenity to that Governor, and that he will be treated with the severity of justice that he deserves. The Turkish Government have sent to Damascus Fuad Pasha, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a man of great energy, with not less than 25,000 men for Syria. It appears true that on the 10th ultimo a sort of truce, for I cannot call it a peace—was signed between the Druses and Maronites, the terms of that truce being that no inquiry should be made into past transactions on the part 'if the Maronites, and that all attacks upon the Maronites shall cease. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) is, I think, justified in saying that with regard to these unfortunate events we are not to consider the Maronite Christians as persons totally defenceless, and as by no means intending to attack their neighbours, but that, on the contrary the Druses and Maronites were both armed, and, having sentiments of most bitter hostility to each other, the question really was who should attack the other first. Undoubtedly, however, the atrocities practised have been those practised by the Druses on the Christians. The Christians have been the sufferers, and the lives of thou-ands of the Christians have been sacrificed. Such have been the proceedings on the part of the Porte, and now with regard to those of the Christian Powers. When these accounts were first received the French Government proposed a Commission of Inquiry, and that it should not be limited to Turkish officials or Commissioners, but that European Commissioners should be joined with it, that they should endeavour to search out the authors of these massacres, and that they should determine what measures would secure peace for the future. To that proposal not only Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers but also the Porte at once willingly assented, and it was agreed that the Commission should be issued. But on the receipt of further accounts from Damascus, including the facts connected with the attacks on the house of the French Consul and the destruction of the convents that were especially protected by the French Government, that Government represented to us that they did not wish to take up any separate case, or to ask for reparation for any separate injury or insult, but that they wished the Powers of Europe to con- sider whether the evil was not of a magnitude, and whether the crimes perpetrated were not of a nature so horrible, that the Powers of Europe ought to take up the case and endeavour to provide a remedy against the recurrence of such scenes. Her Majesty's Government readily acceded to that view. I must say that the Russian Government stated at once that what they wished with regard to Turkey was that there should be no separate action, that no Power should act alone, but that whatever was done should be done by general consent. The French Government, as I have stated, proposed that European forces should be at once sent to Syria with the view of strengthening the Turks, and enabling them to adopt measures for the pacification of that country. That was a course which was, no doubt, one of grave importance, and which no one could say was without danger, but it did seem to be dictated by the necessity of the case, and Her Majesty's Government agreed to consider, in conference with the representatives of the other Powers in Paris, what should be done. Those negotiations have occupied several days. There were questions as to the form in which the Resolutions of the Conference should be embodied, but it was finally agreed that in the shape of a protocol provision should be made for sending European troops to Syria. I have, since I came into the House, received intelligence that at three o'clock to-day a protocol was signed by the representatives of the five Powers and of the Sultan at Paris. The protocol, or it may be the two protocols, which have been signed, is to the following effect:—That, upon the representation of the Sultan that he wishes for the aid of his Allies in order to restore tranquillity in Syria, the European Powers agree that a body of troops not exceeding 12,000 men shall be sent to that country. The next article provides that half of these troops shall be furnished by France, and that immediately after the signature of the protocol they shall be at liberty to depart, with the view of resorting immediately to the coast of Syria. It is provided that when they arrive there all their movements shall be made in concert with the Commissioners of the Porte, and that the Sultan, on his part, shall furnish provisions and every other facility for their accommodation and march. By a further article of the protocol it is provided that the stay of the foreign troops in Syria shall not be prolonged beyond six months, it being believed that the object for which they are sent there can be attained within that time. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked whether there were any representations on the part of Russia on this subject, and whether they had not caused some delay in the signature of the convention. As I have said, there is not at present any convention; but, with regard to the substance of his question, it certainly was the view of the Russian Government—a view which is no new one on their part, because in the month of April Prince Gortschak off expressed to the representatives of the other Powers the same opinion—that it was desirable the five Powers, with the Sultan, should declare that their serious attention was turned to administrative measures with the view of ameliorating the condition of the Christians in Turkey. It is stated that the Powers, together with the Porte, recollect the engagements which were entered into in 1856, and that, together with the Sultan, they engage that those measures of amelioration shall be adopted. I must upon this subject say that Sir Henry Bulwer lately sent out queries to the various Consuls in European Turkey, and that some of the answers which have been received—answers which evince the great intelligence and knowledge of the country possessed by the Consuls—without indicating that the Government of the Sultan is wilfully tyrannical and oppressive, certainly show that there exist under it a great many abuses, some of them abuses difficult to remedy, but others such as, in my opinion at least, might easily be removed, and which therefore justify the proposal which has been made by the Russian Government. The article which refers to that subject is in the most general terms, and will not justify the intervention of any foreign Power with regard to any future case. Every such case will be left to be dealt with upon its merits. Of course, what is now taking place may be alluded to as a precedent, but there is no provision for the future. According to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would be most imprudent and most dangerous to make any provision for the future under which there might be interference with the Government of the Sultan. There is, besides, a protocol, declaring, nearly in the terms of that of 1840, that in interfering in the affairs of Turkey none of the Powers will seek any addition of territory or any exclusive in- fluence or any separate commercial advantage. In the difficult and, I must own, perilous condition of the Turkish Empire, and considering the necessity which there seems to be that the Powers of Europe should from time to time interfere in the affairs of that empire, it seems to Her Majesty's Government, and I believe that it is the opinion of all the Powers of Europe, that the only path of safety lies in concert, in combination, and in endeavouring, without seeking separate advantages, to point out to the Porte in what manner his throne may be made secure and satisfaction be given to all his subjects, Christians as well as Turkish. The task is a most difficult one, and nothing but the most disinterested conduct on the part of the Powers, as well as the inclination of the Sultan, to adopt the reforms which are necessary, will enable us to tread safely in that direction. At the same time, while advice is given and while reforms are suggested, it is necessary that their ultimate execution should be left in the hands of officers appointed by the Porte. If we or any other Power were to attempt to interfere directly in the administration of Turkey there is this great danger; that we should not only diminish the authority of the Sultan, but might awake the fanatical passions of the Moslems, who might think that they were betrayed, and might involve the whole empire in bloodshed and sedition. The question is one of the greatest difficulty. When the protocol has been received I will lay it upon the table; but I trust that the House will not press the Government to produce papers relating to difficult negotiations which have taken place, or will be taking place, upon this subject. We must endeavour, according to our views of policy, to do what seems to us best adapted to preserve the peace of Europe, and to improve the state of Turkey; and until something definite is settled I trust that the House will not ask us to produce papers relating to the subject. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith), I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have formerly said with regard to the state of Italy. We do not propose to interfere by force in the affairs of Southern Italy, or to prevent the Italians settling their Government in their own way. They may adopt very wise Resolutions, they may adopt what we may think very impolitic ones, but the Governments both of England and France are determined to act upon that principle of non-intervention. With respect to the conduct of Abd-el-Kader, I have today received despatches from our Consul, but I cannot state accurately what are their contents.

Considering the difficult position in which the noble Lord is placed with regard to this question, I am not disposed to find fault with the explanation he has made, or with regard to the intervention which is proposed, and which is about to take place. Probably, there is no intervention within our memory which could be so well excused as this which is now about to take place in Syria, because it takes rather the aspect of a movement of a police force, than an expedition of troops with any special political object. I have seen with satisfaction what appeared to me the moderate and fair course, which, so far as we can judge from what we learn from the papers, that has been pursued by the different Governments in regard to this very difficult and perilous question. I hope that the course which has been pursued by the French Government, at least so far as we can judge from what we read, will be admitted to be another ground for lessening some of that distrust which has been excited with regard to the intentions of that Power. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald), in putting his question to the noble Lord, expressed his hope and belief that the noble Lord was as strong as ever he was in the intention of maintaining the integrity of the Turkish Empire, and of supporting the Sultan's Government. I do not quote the words of the hon. Gentleman; but I understand that to be what he meant. Now, Sir, I have risen for the purpose of entering my protest against any such policy. I know something of the difficuly of the position, and I can feel for the extreme difficulty in which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary finds himself. Now, we have been supporting the Sultan for a considerable period, and hitherto with very indifferent success. I think the hon. and gallant Member who sits below me (Sir Charles Napier) can toll us something of what took place in 1840, and I have no doubt that if he were to give his unbiassed testimony—as I am sure he would if he stood up to say anything about it—he would tell us it was not a very fortunate achievement in which he was engaged in 1840, and that probably his vessels had not left sight of the shores of Syria before the Turks returned to their tyranny, and the Christians again passed under the yoke of their oppressors. It is notorious to everybody that whilst that part of Asia was under the government of the Egyptian Pasha there was tranquillity throughout the land, and travellers might pass wherever they liked with at least a fair security; hut when that rule was withdrawn, the country returned to the condition of its former, and of its present anarehy. I contest altogether the wisdom and right of the Government of this country in interfering to support a Power which is utterly and obviously, according to the noble Lord's own statement, doomed to extinction from a decay which it is altogether impossible, in my opinion, for any human aid to avert. Well, then, coming down from 1840, we have had that sad calamity, the Crimean war. I am one of those not responsible for that war. When war was declared, and a message came down to this House from the Crown, I expressed my disapprobation of it on the ground that that which you were undertaking to do, and upon which you were willing to sacrifice unknown millions of English treasure and many thousands of English lives, was a thing which every man in this House, who knew anything of the circumstances, at that moment must have known was an impossible task; and yet you rushed into it as if it were a matter of easy achievement, and persuaded the people of this country that you were doing a meritorious work for freedom. A noble Lord in the other House of Parliament went so far as to make a speech to show that the Mahomedans, in their practices and character, were better Christians than the Russians themselves. Why, I recollect the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who is not at all particular in that which he states when he has an object in persuading the House to take a certain course—adverse often, I believe, to the honour and to the interests of the country—the noble Lord—I recollect it as well as if it had been said only last night—stated that he believed there was no country in Europe in which improvement and improved administration had made such progress within the last twenty years as in Turkey, and in its government. I do not say the noble Lord did not believe that; but if he did believe it, he was the only man at all acquainted with Turkish affairs, who could possibly entertain so erroneous a notion. The thing was utterly inaccurate, and without foundation. After you had made the war, and, as you said, chastised Russia, and re-established the power and dignity of the Porte, and secured the integrity of the Turkish Empire, by a treaty of the various Powers of Europe, you come now, nearly seven years after the commencement of that war, and four years only after its termination, and you find that country in a worse condition of anarchy than it was before you meddled with it. Your war did several things for Turkey. It destroyed what it had of a fleet; it destroyed what it had of an army. It left its finances in a more embarrassed condition than before; it left its revenues from Egypt, and, I think, from Syria, also pledged and mortgaged to the Powers which had lent it money; and it did that to which the noble Lord has referred as a thing greatly to be dreaded—it depreciated and stained altogether, in the eye of the Mahomedan population, the dignity of the Sultan, which they had been previously so much accustomed to regard. You have maintained upon the throne a man totally incapable of doing any single thing in the way of Government. We hear every three months that the Sultan has issued a severe order about something connected with the finances. That is all pretence; done with the idea of bolstering up, in the markets of Europe, Turkish Stock, and to force people to believe there is going to be some improvement. But there never is any improvement made. When you hear there is a wedding in the Sultan's family, in that of any of the Grand Pashas, the extravagance and expense is something that can hardly be credited in any Christian country. All this we hear; but we find, from time to time, that there is growing up in every part of the empire suspicion and distrust of the Government, hatred of the system under which they live—the tribes, as in Syria, massacring one another; and yet the very authorities of the Sultan, the pashas, who were receiving his wages—men whom, for aught I know, you decorated during that war—did not lift a hand to stay the shedding of the blood of your fellow-creatures, and, to some extent, your co-religionists. What is to be the end of it? I was speaking the other day to a gentleman possessing very extensive knowledge of the condition of the Turkish Empire. He believed that five years will not pass over before the Turks themselves, if nothing else occurs, will rise and pull down the Government, which has no longer dignity in their eyes, and which has no longer the power to protect any portion of its subjects. He also says that in European Turkey such is the helplessness of the Government, and the unprotected condition of the people, that the Christians are everywhere providing themselves with arms for their own defence, and for the purpose, of course, of maintaining their own political views in the circumstances that may arise. What I want to impress upon the noble Lord is this, and I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I do not think on this question of foreign matters he is of very teachable material—and perhaps he may think that I am not a very qualified adviser; but seeing that his noble Colleague at the head of the Government did no good by the expedition of 1840—he nearly quarrelled with France, not showing them the moderation which France is showing now—and seeing that both were concerned in the war of 1854, which has produced no useful result, I would seriously ask whether we are to be led again into a struggle with any European nation with the view of maintaining the integrity of a decaying and doomed empire? What has the Crimean war done for us? The only visible result presents itself in the shape of the Commissionaires in the streets of Loudon, unfortunate men who lost their arms in endeavouring to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. The unseen consequences are an enormous addition to our debt and thousands of ill-fated Englishmen buried on the heights of Sebastopol, for whom all you did or could do was to send the Bishop of Gibraltar to consecrate the ground in which their bones repose. The noble Lord hopes that whatever may be done for Turkey will be done by general concert. It appears to me that there are only two modes of dealing with the question which have any argument to recommend them. One is the course of entire abstention. It is very likely that the adoption of that policy by the Powers of Europe would be followed before long by a sanguinary contest both in Asiatic and European Turkey. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord, by the approbation he gives to that statement, puts his seal to all I have said with respect to the perilous condition of Turkey. I say let the European Powers agree to consult together as to what should be done, not for the purpose of sustaining the Turkish Empire, which I hold to be utterly impossible, but for the purpose of deciding what shall take place when the Turkish Empire comes to an end. For instance, it would he a positive blessing to the Sulton if there could be a separate Government organized for Syria which should he independent of Constantinople; and probably before long the rebounds from these atrocities committed in Syria will be found in European Turkey, and you may have there risings and disturbances similar to those which have taken place in Syria. If this should occur, instead of caring very much that Russia should add a province to her bulk—-for the addition of provinces does not always give power to kingdoms and Governments—do in the name of common sense and common humanity abstain, at any rate, from attempting longer permanently to sustain a government, which everybody in Turkey believes to be unsustainable. Judging from the tone of Russia, of France, and of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office—and I take it Austria and Prussia would not throw obstacles in the way—if you do not adopt the policy of abstention, why should there not be some discussion with a view to establish new, separate, and better governments. The question of Constantinople, which is supposed to be the great political question, is surely not an insuperable difficulty. It cannot be said that Heaven permitted a great city to grow up in a favoured spot to form continually a bono of contention between the nations of Europe, or that the statesmen who have settled so many questions cannot suggest what can be done with this. What I am myself most anxious for is that England should hold itself aloof from that policy—should, in point of fact, repudiate it as altogether a mistake—that the integrity of the Turkish Empire is to be maintained, and that not this power, but the pretended power—the feebleness and dignity of the Sultan, is to be supported; and that all that is to be done again at the expense of the taxes drawn from the English people, and of the blood of Englishmen squandered like water in the endeavour to do that which nature says is impossible, and that all experience tells us we must fail in if we ever attempt.

Sir, the hon. Member for Birmingham has charged me with being not very particular in the statements I make when they are to support my argument. I think I might return the compliment, but there is this difference between us, that upon certain questions of foreign policy and foreign affairs I happen, from a variety of circumstances, to he better informed than the hon. Member appears to be. I take leave to say that I derive my knowledge more especially from a long superintendence of the Foreign Department of the Government, while the hon. Member obtains his chiefly from persons who, from their race, their prejudices, and their interests, are not the most impartial judges of the matters to which he has referred to-night. The hon. Member says that I stated on a former occasion that there was no country in Europe which, in the same space of time, had made such great progress in internal improvement as the Turkish Empire had since the death of the late Sultan. [Mr. BRIGHT: Previous to 1853.] My observation referred to the period since the accession of the present Sultan. I repeat that assertion, and I do so with the utmost deliberation and perfect knowledge of what I am stating. I am quite sure that everybody who really knows anything about Turkey will confirm the assertion I made,—that is, anybody who speaks impartially, free from prejudices, and with large and enlightened views. I give the hon. Member credit for the most perfect sincerity in what he states, but I must say that he takes a very limited view of the matter on which he speaks. It is very easy to say that the Turkish Empire will fall to pieces, and therefore you had better arrange what is to be done with the fragments; but the answer to that observation is, "only leave the Turkish Empire alone and perhaps it will not fall to pieces." If the course suggested by the hon. Member were adopted, and it were to be arranged beforehand what should be done with the fragments of the Turkish Empire, it is not very likely that that empire would last very long, for when once parties who are strong begin to divide prospectively the spoil of the weak, it is probable that the unfortunate party whose spoil is to be divided will not be very long lived. But I differ from the hon. Member in this. I admit that there is immense progress to be made in order-to bring Turkey up to the point of any European nation; yet, in looking at Turkey, we are too apt to think of what remains to be done rather than of that which has been done. Still, it is my opinion that if the Turkish Empire be left to itself, free from constant interference, except by good advice and support, it will not fall to pieces as the hon. Member fancies. It is exceedingly easy to say, "You must make a partition of Turkey," but has the hon. Member considered what the political consequences may be, and must be, on the balance of power in Europe, and on the interests of other countries, of that system of partition which he now so earnestly recommends? I venture to say that, in this respect, the hon. Member takes a very limited view of the matter. He sees only the evils of the present day, and shuts his eyes entirely to those more large and serious consequences which would inevitably result if the principles he recommends were adopted. This is a very large question, and the subject is of too great importance to be discussed on a Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday; but I only protest against the adoption of the maxims and policy of the hon. Member, and I can assure him that there are much graver, more serious, and more extensive results than be imagines involved in the policy he recommends. I trust that a different policy may tend to avert the evils which would inevitably ensue from the adoption of the policy of the hon. Member.

said he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any proceedings on the Report from the Select Committee on Military Organization? He wished to advert to some of the recommendations of the Report, which he considered a most valuable document. Among other matters the Report called attention to the fact that there were 3,000 men employed at Woolwich on Sir William Armstrong's guns, that they were under the supervision of Sir William Armstrong, who received £2,000 a year, which was to be continued to him for seven years; that the only place except Woolwich where the manufacture of Armstrong guns was carried on was a factory at Elswick, which was conducted by one of Sir William Armstrong's partners, for which, though Sir William Armstrong had no proprietary interest in it, he had advanced money, and had reserved the right to join in the concern in the event of his leaving the public service. The Report stated that Sir William Armstrong was well worthy of every confidence, but that he was placed by this arrangement in a false position, for he could not watch two great concerns so distant from each other as Elswick and Woolwich, and ought not to be the inspector of guns made by his own partner. This was undoubtedly an improper arrangement, and he was sure that, now it was brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Secretary for War, it would not be allowed to go on any longer. The Report ended with a recommendation worthy of attention, and he hoped that during the recess it would be carried out by the right hon. Secretary for War, who had proposed a scheme for reorganizing the War Department. The scheme thus proposed would secure the infusion of new military blood into the War Department, which would give vigour to the system and confidence to the army. In his opinion the Report was a very sound one. The right hon. Secretary of State would have around him professional advisers, whose opinion he might consult, either separately or collectively, and he recommended that one or more of the heads of department whose appointment was proposed should have seats in the House of Commons. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to carry out those recommendations.

said, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies relative to the British Territory on the Red River and the Assiniboine. He remarked that the statements which he made on a former occasion about that territory, and which were contradicted then by the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), had been entirely confirmed by the report of local investigations since received. There could be no doubt that in those regions there was an extensive territory, one of great fertility, and perfectly adapted for colonization. He would ask whether the Government had yet come to any decision with a view to the opening of that territory to settlement and colonization?

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Two Millions of Taels on account of losses sustained by British subjects, and the further sum of Two Millions of Taels on account of the expenses of the War, as stipulated for by the Treaty of Tien-tsin, be in the course of payment: and, to call the attention of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the increased ability of China to pay a pecuniary indemnity? The tael represented about 6s. 8d. and consequently the amount claimed by the merchants amounted to £670,000. A like sum of £670,000 was claimed by the Government, making together £1,340,000. He was quite aware that the treaty had not been ratified, but he wished to know if arrangements were in progress for the payment of British subjects who had suffered losses in China. It was rumoured that the French had received some portion of their claims, and that the Americans, by an arrangement, had obtained the whole of their claims; and really some specific arrangement should be made with regard to the payment of the amount claimed by the British merchants and Government. A much better arrangement was made in 1842, when it was agreed that the payments should be made within a specific time. He hoped the Government would be able to tell him that instructions were given to the Earl of Elgin to make a specific arrangement for the payment of the money. The Chinese were capable of paying the money, and if authority were given to the Earl of Elgin he would be able to collect the whole amount. The amount now claimed was much smaller than the amount of the claim on the former occasion, and they should take care of themselves, and see that some portion of the funds was appropriated to them by the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government were in a better position now than ever to pay any claims made upon them.

said he was afraid he could not give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer. The sums to which the question related were not in course of payment, and no portion of them had been obtained. The French, under their treaty, had already received at least one instalment of between £300,000 and £400,000 on account of their expenditure during the last Chinese war, but England had received nothing whatever, because, although there was a stipulation contained in the treaty for the payment of the money, yet there were no particulars of time, or place, or means by which it was to he paid, and therefore no valid claim had arisen. The suggestion that the money might be taken out of customs received by the British agents was a matter for the consideration of his noble Friend the Foreign Minister, and so likewise were the instructions which might be sent to the Earl of Elgin. All he could say was that in the ultimatum sent out to Mr. Bruce this payment was included, but, as they knew, that ultimatum had been rejected. He did not like to form any very sanguine estimate of the pecuniary or other results of the operations in China. Fie hoped for the best, and trusted that we might soon arrive at some final settlement. The law of chaos and confusion which regulated their debates on a Friday evening entitled him to turn to the subject of the Superannuation Act, with respect to which he might say that the case of the dockyard labourers had never been reported to the Treasury, and the Treasury therefore had taken no proceedings with respect to it. The Admiralty had been asked for a statement of the classes of persons who would be brought within the operation of the system of superannuation, in consequence of the now Act, but the official answer had not yet been received. What he had to say, therefore, was merely of the nature of cursory remark. The hon. Member for Stamford seemed to think that the Treasury should proceed in the administration of the Act, not upon the law as it stood, but upon the intentions which were entertained by himself or others at the time of the passing of the Act, whether the law had given effect to them or not. Now, the law had laid down the condition that no person was entitled to superannuation unless he had a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Stamford contended that certain labourers in the dockyards ought to receive certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners, in order that they might thereby become entitled to superannuation. But in the Superannuation Act the most incongruous subjects were mixed up together. The question of having a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners had nothing to do with the right to superannuation. A temporary clerk might be subjected to an examination by the Commissioners, but he had no title to superannuation; while, on the other hand, certain artificers and labourers might justly be entitled to superannuation, though not bound to undergo an examination. For his own part, he could not see the propriety of making use of the Civil Service Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining the ages and state of health of the labourers who were employed in our dockyards in the performance of mere manual labour; nor could he at all assent to the doctrine laid down by his hon. Friend to the effect that the position of those labourers and the letter-carriers ought to be regarded in the same light, inasmuch while the former were mere labourers and nothing else, the latter were very frequently called upon in the pursuit of their avocations for the display of a ready and offhand intelligence. His hon. Friend had also observed that there were in our dockyards different classes of labourers, all receiving the market price for their labour, and had contended that a distinction should be drawn between those classes, by means of which one portion of the men should continue to receive the market price of their labour, while another portion should, in addition, be entitled to a retiring pension. The House would, however, at once perceive that if the Government were to act on any such principle as that which his hon. Friend advocated without the authority of Parliament they would justly be open to the charge of having acted in the matter with undue precipitancy. The case of artisans in our dockyards stood, he might add, on quite a different footing, inasmuch as their engagement was of a permanent nature, and they were not enabled to take advantage of passing events; for instance, as the Russian war, to sell their labour in the dearest market. He should not on the present occasion enter more into detail on the subject, but should content himself with having made those few general obserservations.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if it is the intention of the Government to take any further measures for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the condition and management of the Public Lunatic Asylum at Kingston in the Island of Jamaica? Various abuses connected with the building, its want of accommodation, conveniences, cleanliness, ventilation, and proper separation of the sexes, had been discovered by Dr. Bowring, a physician, practising in the island, and laid before the Government; who, however, declined to appoint a tribunal for their investigation.

said that the subject of the lunatic asylum in Jamaica deserved and had received full inquiry. The Colonial Office had done all they could to remedy the evils complained of, but he must remind the House that the institution was in Jamaica and not in England. The Government had not felt warranted in asking the assent of the House either to the sum of money or to the Act of Parliament which would be required before a Commission of inquiry could be sent out to Jamaica. They were unwilling to take any course which could be considered offensive to the colonial Government or to the Legislature; and all they had done was to endeavour, by the influence of the Secretary of State, and of a very able governor, to have inquiry made into those abuses, with a view to their being remedied. All the information which the Government had obtained had been forwarded to the Commissioners of Lunacy, who, with the Earl of Shaftesbury, had interested themselves in the matter. With reference to the question which had been asked in relation to the Red River territory, he was bound to express his opinion that over a great portion of their territory the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company had proved of incalculable advantage. Communications had passed between the Colonial Office and the company, which showed that the expectations of colonization on a large scale, which by some had been entertained, were as yet premature. The district, however, was very favourably situated for the purpose, and, doubtless, in the course of time a large settlement would take place. The Session was now too far advanced for the introduction of any Bill; but he hoped that during the recess some understanding would be arrived at, which next year might be made the foundation of a satisfactory measure.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for war, if any decision has been arrived at with respect to the Colonels promoted to that rank for distinguished service in the Crimea, who were, upon the revision of the Lists by the Commissioners of 1858, unfortunately omitted from consideration in the Report of that Commission? On a former occasion ho had called the attention of the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to this question, and was told that some technical difficulties surrounded it, but that if he could propose any plan by which these would be obviated it would receive favourable consideration. Accordingly some two months ago he brought certain plans under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal which he ventured to make might be regarded as opposed to the rules of the service, and as forming a precedent; but where justice was to be done, he thought the Government would be only acting properly in establishing a precedent which would only be followed where the circumstances were exactly parallel. Most of these officers had been very unfortunately placed. They were abroad in India at the time of the revision, and could not, therefore, defend their claims. The consequence was that while they were serving their country abroad their country was doing them an injustice at home. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had come to any decision as to the alternatives laid before him, one of which he knew the right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to adopt.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. George Keogh, who has been lately appointed Crown Prosecutor for the county of Meath, continues to act as Registration Agent for the Liberal interest in the city of Dublin, and that he also acts as Solicitor to the Wicklow Liberal Registry Association; whether any general rule exists on the subject of Crown Prosecutors interfering in politics, and whether that rule will be enforced in the case of Mr. Keogh; and, if no such rule exists, whether such interference in political matters by a party holding the responsible office of Crown Prosecutor meets with the approbation of the Attorney General?

said, that when be appointed the gentleman to whom the question referred, he was aware that he had acted as registration agent for the Liberal party in Dublin and the county of Wicklow, but he did not know whether Mr. Keogh intended to continue to act in that capacity, and he had not imposed any special condition on the subject. Mr. Keogh had since communicated to him that he was ready to conform to any rule or special order which he might make. He was not aware that any general rule or practice existed. He had heard of Sessional Crown Solicitors acting as election agents in the counties in which they officiated. He did not think they ought to do so. Whether any restriction should be placed on their professional services in other counties was worthy of consideration, but he did not wish to give a specific pledge on the subject. His own experience having been short he would inquire what had been the practice of previous Attorney Generals, and take care that any rule which he might make should be applied to Mr. Keogh. He should make no exception in his favour, but he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish that any exception should be made against him.

brought up the Report of the Resolution which was agreed to in Committee yesterday, on the subject of fortifications.

I do not rise with any intention of offering opposition to the reception of the Report. My object is simply to reiterate the conviction which is universally prevalent and accepted as irresistible, that the British Navy forms the first line of defence which England professes in case any foreign Power should have the hardihood to attempt a descent upon its shores. Such a design could never be entertained by any nation whose resources did not rise far above a parity with our own. The first step—one indispensable—to secure a prospect of success must be the complete annihilation of our fleet. Should the vessels engaged on either side be crippled in an engagement, to whichever of the combatants the better issue of the battle should fall, both fleets would be com-elled to return to harbour to be refitted. Even under these conditions it would be possible for an enemy to cross the Channel with the steamers and transports on board of which his troops were embarked. It therefore appears to me to be a paramount necessity on our part, as a simple provision of precaution, to have in reserve a flotilla of steamgun and mortarboats, as a second line of defence, supported by a strong division of steamrams. I should propose that the length of the latter vessels should be 200 feet, instead of 380 feet, the size of the Warrior—thus enabling them to he bandied with greater ease and promptitude. They should carry a broadside of 18 guns and command a speed of 10 to 14 knots an hour, in order to afford a ready protection and assistance to the smaller vessels, which should be disposed in numbers sufficient to defend every vulnerable point along our shores and every spot practicable for a hostile landing. Such is the obvious system for a complete and practical defence against an invading force. And the recommendation gathers force from the consideration that in order to maintain our vast commerce there was not a sea on which a ship could float where the British colours were not displayed; and that independently of our widely scattered Colonies and numerous dependencies, each of which demanded the presence of our navy. In the outlay of money designed for sea defences or land fortifications this protection of our country and its settlements must form a paramount object. Let me guard myself against any misconception. I by no means would be supposed to underrate the importance of keeping up or strengthening our defences by land. To neglect them would be an act as criminal as to count too curiously for the purpose of a misplaced economy, or of resisting the expenditure, the outlay which must be indispensable to secure their efficiency. Hon. Members have expressed an apprehension that the estimated cost of £12,000,000 may be doubled. Even if I grant that their opinions are well grounded, I must remind them that the premium is small indeed in comparison with the insurance for our security which it will effect. Should our naval arsenals and dockyards, the cradle of our fleets and armies, be left without a sufficient protection, in what manner and in what place—upon the presumption of a reverse at sea—could we hope, or rather be able to repair or replace a crippled navy? If an enemy can once force his way through those wooden walls which have for centuries formed the impregnable outworks and floating bulwarks of this country, and been at once the admiration and envy of every antagonist, let me ask to what source of protection we are to look? Never could I persuade myself that either an enemy will venture upon an attempt to land upon these shores, or should he make the endeavour, that the event would be other than a summary failure or complete annihilation on his part. But even if my assurance is groundless; if I allow, but for a moment, the improbable—nay, Sir, may I not truly say, the impossible contingency, that the British Navy could lose its ancient reputation and lower its proud flag—and, with equal argument I might suppose that the British Army would suffer itself to be overpowered and surrender its time-honoured name—I foresee an event which cannot prove untrue.

Let us be backed with God, and with the seas,

Which lie hath given for fence impregnable,

And with their helps only defend ourselves:

In them and in ourselves our safety lies.

The population of this country has armed itself calmly, deliberately, in no moment of hot panic, it has resolved that as England never did, so it never shall, lie at the proud foot of a conqueror. Our watchword, Pro aris et focis, loyalty to our Sovereign, our homes, our country, will lend a giant's strength to even the stripling's arm. Defence, not defiance, is the spirit that animates England at this moment; the foe-man may land, but not one will return to tell the tale; we shall be true to ourselves, but our trust lies in the heartstirring words, "May God defend the right!"

said, that if there were but the most remote danger of an invasion being successful he would be the first man to support the Vote, but he believed that our means of defence were now such, that if the whole world were in arms against us, an invasion would be hopeless. The Emperor of the French had shown in his letter that his army, deducting the men in Algeria, Rome, and China, was little more than 300,000 men. By a return dated the 1st of June, he found that we had an actual force under arms of 323,000 men. An addition of 10,000 more riflemen of the Irish constabulary, of the Militia, and of the dockyard battalions, in all 80,000, must be made, and that gave a force of not less than 400,000 men. It would be perfectly impossible for 100,000 French soldiers to land in England if the British Navy were in an efficient state, and if it were not sufficient to protect the shores of England he should be ready to increase its force. The worst of all these fortifications was, that it would end in a vast increase to the standing army to man them, and, believing that if the whole French army were to land here the male population of the country would surely defeat it, he could not support the proposition of the Government.

said, he would not enter into the question of the wisdom of the Government proposals respecting fortifications, though he would gladly give them his support, as he considered them wise and proper. Before proceeding to the subject to which he wished to call the attention of the Government, he would make a few observations on the mode of conducting the business of the House. It was the clear understanding that the order of business on the paper of the House should be adhered to, and yet the Report on Fortifications, which was the third order on the paper, was made the first business. That was not the usual course of proceeding, though there might be in the present instance some good reason for it. He would now advert to two suggestions to which he wished to draw the attention of the Government. He was disposed to think that the arrangements necessary for carrying out the proposed fortifications must involve a very considerable addition of barrack accommodation and of available space in the arsenals, and he ventured to think that the Government could do nothing more tending to increase the efficiency of the naval service than by establishing naval barracks and naval prisons. Nothing was more important than to improve the discipline of the navy, for it was not what the country and naval officers wished it to be. He believed that for the improvement of naval organization no object was more desirable than to provide the means of giving the sailors barrack accommodation on shore, whereby the discipline of the navy might be maintained, and a gradual approach might be made to what was called a standing navy. He was supported in this opinion by naval officers and he hoped the suggestion would receive the attention of the Government. The other suggestion he had to make was, that there ought be naval prisons as there were army prisons. One result of the recent concessions made with respect to the punishment of sailors was that, as corporal punishment was so much done away with the imprisonment of sailors was increased. Now, there were no places in which to imprison them, except the common gaols of the country. Sailors were consequently sent to the county prisons, and there exposed to association with, and contamination by, all the felons inhabiting those prisons, the inevitable result being that they came out worse characters than they went in. He read the other day a statement perfectly startling respecting the proportion of the crews of the present Channel Fleet who from various causes had passed through the county prisons of England. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War state that the barrack accommodation for soldiers was far short of what the army required; but in respect to fortifications, the fortifications could not be made without casemated barracks, and thereby the barrack accommodation would be increased, and whatever might be the case under the pressure of war, in ordinary times some amount of barrack accommodation would be set free. Of course, any barracks for the accommodation of sailors must be near the sea, and he asked the Government to take into their serious consideration whether the establishment of naval barracks and naval prisons would not afford facilities for improving the character and efficiency of the navy.

said, he entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to both the matters referred to; and it was with the view of establishing some naval prison that the Admiralty had called for returns of the number of seamen imprisoned in various county gaols for some time past. Therefore the Admiralty had not lost sight of this very important matter; but with respect to barracks, he must remind the House of some observations he made on this subject about two years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was First Lord of the Admiralty. He then suggested, that the barrack system should be tried on a small scale. It was true that there were conflicting opinions among naval officers with respect to naval barracks; some holding that they would not suit the habits of sailors, who would rather, it was said, prefer the hulks. He did not agree in that opinion, but believed it would be advantageous to have naval barracks established at the naval ports. He had said to his right hon. Friend, "Try it on a small scale. you have plenty of barracks contiguous to dockyards, and you may give the scheme a trial there." In reply to this, the War Secretary declared that they were borrowing hulks from the navy, because they had not barrack accommodation for the troops; but he still could not help being surprised that his right lion. Friend, while at the Admiralty, did not attempt to effect these improvements.

The fortifications were not going to be made when I was in office.

expressed his concurrence in the suggestion which had been made for the establishment of naval barracks and naval prisons. The imprisonment of seamen in the county gaols had been found exceedingly detrimental to naval discipline.

said, the sea defences recommended were a matter of immediate necessity; but the land works required great consideration before they were proceeded with. He thought, especially, that, in the present state of knowledge as to fortifications, the works on Portsdown-hill ought not to be at once carried on. In reference to some of the other fortifications at Portsmouth, he would mention that, in case of a siege, the water works would be beyond the lines of defence. It was said that in the event of a siege the inhabitants might obtain a supply from the wells; but all the shallow wells were brackish, and the water would be sure to engender sickness. Then, again, in the case of a bombardment, the value of the works in throwing water all over the dockyard, and in thus keeping down any fires that might break out, ought not to be overlooked. Moreover, the old fortifications, though useless, were to be kept up; although they would be, when the new fortifications were completed, much in the way. He thought that it was prudent that the railway should be carried down to the pier so as to facilitate communication with the Isle of Wight. With regard to the present system of lodging men in hulks, nothing could be more barbarous. These hulks were cold and miserable, there was no proper police on board, the men were suffering often from rheumatism and sickness, and were driven to the public houses, and it was altogether a most demoralizing system. There were barracks at Sheer-ness, and the men were better satisfied and better conducted than at other places. Sir H. Douglas's opinion was, that the land fortifications were too extensive for our force to man them; which opinion was supported not only by Sir Frederic Smith, hut, he believed, by Sir John Burgoyne. Under these circumstances, he thought that further time should be taken for consideration whether, in the event of an invasion, it would not be possible to transport from the interior of the country to the coast a body of workmen who could, in the course of a few hours, throw up defences that it would take weeks, if not months, to over-come.

"That it is the opinion of the Committee that, towards providing for the Construction of Work for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dovor and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum not exceeding two million pounds, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall he charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund."

said, he hoped that the House would allow them to go into Committee at once, and he should propose that they should only take the Vote which had been partly discussed in the morning. It would be impossible to do more; and hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper would perhaps at that hour (half-past eleven) think that it was too late to discuss those Motions with satisfaction to themselves.

in the Chair.

complained that the Vote was not prepared in a more business-like form; and he proceeded to criticise some of the details of it. There was a large sum amounting to several thousand pounds for the purchase of land, mixed up with the ordinary expenses for gas, and coal, and other things for the two Houses of Parliament. He would next advert to the "balances in the Exchequer," a matter which had been previously referred to. The Vote under this head last year was £58,000, but not a shilling of this had been spent, and, therefore, there was now in hand nearly £90,000 to meet an estimated expenditure of about 140,000. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had told them that the Government could not spend more than the total sum voted for the year; hut it was doubtful whether the right hon. Baronet, notwithstanding the attention he had paid to the question as a member of the Committee on Public Moneys, really understood the rule in regard to the balances which remained in the Exchequer. He wished distinctly to understand whether the Government, although asking for a new Vote of £39,000, actually had at their command the whole of the £58,000 voted last year.

said, he wished to direct attention to the estimate of £800 a piece for statues of the British Sovereigns, in a series, to be placed in various parts of the Palace of Westminster. He also wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works what chronological period the series was to embrace? Was it to begin with the Norman conquest, or did they intend to go back to King Arthur? It was proposed that commissions should first be given for two of these statues. What were the two statues to be commissioned, and by whom were they to be executed? At the morning sitting the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had raised the question whether, among the series of British Sovereigns, there was to be a statue to Oliver Cromwell. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner did not give a distinct answer to that question, but lie was understood to say that a certain Commission of the Fine Arts had recommended that there ought not to be a statue to Cromwell. He thought that that was the proper time to discuss this question before they embarked upon a large expenditure for statues of British Sovereigns; and, therefore, he wished to know whether Oliver Cromwell was to be included in that series. That was a question not only of art, but of a sentiment in the English mind. He thought there should he a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Whether it should be placed between Charles I. and Charles II. was a matter of taste. For his own part, he (Mr. James) thought, if it stood alone in solitary grandeur, it would be regarded as superior to all the Sovereigns. Unless he obtained a distinct reply, he should move to reduce the vote by £1,600.

said, he would not enter into an historical disquisition about Oliver Cromwell, who was undoubtedly a men of talent and genius, who did much to raise the power of this country, but, it must be remembered, that he was also a great tyrant. How any Gentleman, who prided himself on professing Liberal opinions, could praise Oliver Cromwell was most astonishing. What had he done? He had said "Take away that bauble." He had taken away that "bauble," shut up the House of Commons, and governed England by means of majors-general. Oliver Cromwell cut off the head of his Sovereign Charles I. because he said the King had betrayed the liberties of his country; but did Charles I. ever do anything against the liberties of the country compared with the act of Oliver Cromwell in shutting up the House of Commons? He cut oft the King's head because it was necessary to gratify his own ambition. He (Sir George Bowyer) said that Oliver Cromwell was a murderer, and if a statue of that man was placed in that building, it could only be regarded as a declaration against monarchical principle. He would be sorry to see in that House the statue of a man who murdered his Sovereign, and destroyed the Constitution.

said, he rose to call attention to an item of £4,000 for decorating the Palace of Westminster, respecting which he desired explanations, fie found that Mr. Maclise was employed to execute paintings in fresco for £5,300. The amount already voted was £2,500; less than that sum had been expended, and yet now £1,000 more was asked. Then for the Peers' corridor the estimate of works to he done was £4,800. The amount already voted was £3,000, the amount expended was only £1,800, and yet now the Committee was asked for £600 more on account. For the Commons' corridor there were votes somewhat similar. He thought these and other facts showed that the Fine Arts' Commission had money enough in band, and he would give three instances of the evils resulting from allowing them to have money on account. In 1848 the Fine Arts' Commission entered into an agreement with Mr. Dyce to paint a work in fresco for the Queen's robbing-room, for which he was to be paid £800 a year for six years, making altogether £4,800. That contract expired in 1854, but an additional year's time and a further sum of £600 were granted. Mr. Dyce, according to the Estimates, had been voted £5,400, but where was the fresco? And yet that gentleman had in the meantime executed a very important work for a church in Margaret Street. He did not wish to make any charge against Mr. Dyce, hut he did think it was Mr. Dyce's duty to execute the frescoes entrusted to him by the Government before he entered upon any other work. No private individual would dream of paying for work before it was done. What difference, then, ought there to be made in the payments by the nation? But he found upon examining the Report of the Fine Arts Commission, that they had a sort of suspicion that all was not right, for they made observations on Mr. Dyce, saying that lie had not done his work, and they hoped he would. Then, again, Mr. Herbert was to paint frescoes for the Peers' robbing-room, for £9,000 in nine years, ending in April, 1860; but, although Mr. Herbert had been voted £6,000, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could find no frescoes. If anything happened to Mr. Herbert, how would the nation be placed with regard to the £6,000 already paid? Mr. Maclise was to paint the Painted Chamber in ten years, for which he. was to receive £9,000. In 1855 a Vote of £1,500 on account was taken, but Mr. Maclise became dissatisfied, and requested that the contract should be cancelled, which was done, and the £1,500 applied to painting certain "signs," called the "Tudor portraits, in the Painted Chamber, of which there were twenty-eight, and for which £70 each was paid. The House ought to be told under what authority money voted for one purpose had thus been applied to another. These "Tudor portraits" were the universal derision of every one connected with art. They were not the work of any painter, but were executed by the Kensington Museum—by the Head of the School of Design and his pupils—the head being taken from one portrait, the legs from another, and the coat from a third; a pasticcio, in fact, from different authorities, and fitted in to suit the absurd mediaeval decoration of that chamber. The Commons' corridor was to be painted by Mr. Ward, and the Peers' corridor by Mr. Cope. There were eight compartments in each corridor. By the original contract Mr. Ward was to paint eight oil pictures, at £450 each. In 1857 the Commission determined to change the pictures from oil paintings to frescoes, and that was accomplished by the payment of £600 a piece instead of £450, and by allowing Mr. Ward to retain the first oil-paint- ing executed for his own benefit. The result was, that there were now only three; frescoes in each corridor, which was equal I to £1,800. The amount already voted to Mr. Ward was £3,600, and a further sum: of £600 was now asked. He did not, however, believe that either Mr. Ward or any j other man could paint three frescoes between this and next year. Mr. Cope had painted three frescoes for the Lords' corridor, for which £1,800 had been expended, but the Fine Arts Commission had already got £3,000 for this corridor, and they ought to be satisfied with the money they still had in hand, without asking for £600 more. With regard to the Vote for the statues of British Sovereigns, it was desirable the House should have some information as to the manner in which they were to be erected. For himself, he was fearful lest they might repeat those medieval, dreadful objects now in the House of Lords. He was not prepared to state what those black gentlemen cost, but he believed it was £4,000, and anything more detestable in art could not be conceived. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would tell the Committee that the statues should be erected by the best British artists in the best manner.

said, he believed that the Commission of Fine Arts was at the bottom of all this jobbing in the fine arts. The Commission had done no good, and the sooner it was abolished the better. Oliver Cromwell was a great man, and the memory of our great men was a sacred inheritance. To treat him as a tyrant and impostor was, he had thought, a symptom of a bygone period. A literary man of celebrity had recently collected his letter* and written a sketch of his life, and it was thought, had rescued his fame from those who had calumniated him. As Lord Protector, England never had a greater or more powerful ruler than the man who had extended his protecting hand to our coreligionists on the Continent. The hon. Gentleman who had contended that Oliver Cromwell ought not to have a statue, was an ardent admirer and defender of the paternal Government that prevailed in the Eternal City. [Sir GEORGE BOWTER: Hear, hear!] That hon. Gentleman was the champion of the most execrable system of Government that now prevailed on the face of the earth, except, perhaps, that of Naples. He trusted that the insurrection that had broken out in Sicily would spread to the mainland, and that an end would be put to the system of Government now prevailing in Naples.

remarked, that Oliver Cromwell was not a Sovereign, and no such office as Lord Protector was known to the laws of England. He had been looking to the statutes of the Parliament of Oliver Cromwell, and he found that the oath of allegiance was abolished, and the oath ordered to be taken by any freeman admitted to his freedom was that he would be "faithful to the Commonwealth." An ancestor of his had been legal adviser to General Monk, and he was of opinion that Oliver Cromwell never had been legally, properly, or in any sense Sovereign of this country. He had been head of the Commonwealth, and be trusted that his statue would not be placed among those of British Sovereigns. Let his statue be placed elsewhere, among those of the very greatest men that England had ever possessed; but there were many considerations that rendered it highly improper to place his statue among the crowned heads.

said, he hoped that on the 3rd of August, and at that hour (midnight), the House would not enter into a discussion upon Oliver Cromwell. The Fine Arts' Commission had recommended that certain portions of the building should contain statues of the Sovereigns of this country. The Report of the Commission did not, however, give a list of them; and different opinions had been expressed as to whether Oliver Cromwell was to be reckoned to have been during his supreme rule one of the Sovereigns of this country. The question did not, however, press for a decision, because the proposition of the Fine Arts' Commission was that the artists should begin with the later Sovereigns, William IV. and George IV., and go backwards. Proceeding in that manner, at the rate of two Sovereigns a year, a considerable time would elapse before they reached the Commonwealth. The artists who were to execute these statues were Mr. Thornyeroft and Mr. Theed. The Fine Arts' Commission was composed of men whose names would carry the greatest weight on such subjects; and upon their recommendations this Vote was framed. It was usual for private individuals, who gave commissions to painters, to pay them a sum of money at the commencement of their work, and another sum at its conclusion. This enabled them to obtain their pictures for a less amount than if they made no such advance. A similar rule had been adopted by the Fine Arts Commission; their practice being to give the artist a sum of money when the cartoon was completed, and before the painting was executed on the wall. Mr. Herbert was to receive £6,000 for four pictures which he bad in hand. He had already received £3,500; and, although he had executed very little on the wall, he had given three or four years of intense labour to the composition of these works, and had produced very noble cartoons, which were of themselves worth all the money. They could not deal with men of artistic genius, who threw their whole souls into the it work, as with a contractor for a building, who was limited in respect to the time in which he should finish his contract. Mr. Herbert bad devoted himself exclusively to these Pictures, and had refused other orders, being anxious to produce something which should be worthy of the place in which it was to be put, and hand his name down to posterity. To tie him down, therefore, as to the time, would be to deprive themselves of the benefit of his sustained thought and study. So, again, with Mr. Maclise, who, though perhaps he had not advanced quite so rapidly in his work as might have been anticipated, had yet bestowed immense labour upon it, and was executing paintings that would uphold his great reputation. Mr. Dyce might not have devoted himself to his work so exclusively as Mr. Herbert and Mr. Maclise; but ho also had finished his cartoon, which was the result of great labour and skill. With regard to the Tudor portraits, they might be obnoxious to those who were exclusively devoted to the Classic period; but they had been copied very carefully from valuable originals; and their production had been useful in forming a school of young artists, whom it was desirable to accustom to minute and faithful drawing. With regard to the state of the cash balance, to which an lion. Member (Mr. A. Smith) bad referred, there was, on the 31st of March, 1859, £96,000 in the Exchequer, and taking, also, what was in the Paymaster-general and Sub accountant's hands, that gave £107,000 standing to the credit of the new Houses of Parliament. The important thing was to know how far the balance was available. It was clearly available for the purposes to which it was devoted; and it would lead to the greatest irregularity and confusion in the accounts, if the residue of the Vote of last year were mixed up with the present vote. The right course was to pay over any unexpended sum to the Consolidated Fund. He thought it very convenient to have placed under a single head all the various items of expenditure upon the Houses of Parliament. During the first year of his term of office, the present Speaker lived in his own house, to which his own stables were attached. It was only lately that the official residence had been occupied by that right hon. Gentleman; and that it became necessary to provide stables for him. That arrangement was desirable on the score of economy, and it was proposed to purchase a site for the purpose in the neighbourhood of the House. He did not think the House would consider the sum placed in the Estimates too high for a site in that neighbourhood, where sites were very expensive. Due economy would be observed in the erection of the stable; and be would ho prepared afterwards to give a detailed account of the expenditure.

said, that as regarded the items for portraits of British Sovereigns, he hoped that if they were to proceed, they would begin at that period of our history when the Sovereigns engaged by statutes to defend the rights of their subjects, and he believed that the fresco on which Mr. Herbert was engaged would exceed in merit any we had ever seen in Italy.

said, he thought it was time they came to a vote. He should therefore move that the £4,000 fur divers works be totally omitted. They had already spent too much money about the lobbies of that House, and among the items included in the Vote he would reduce was the sum of £1,600 for statues. He could by no means give his consent to enter upon a new course of expenditure, which he considered this to be. Another item was the two sums of £600 for what was going on in the corridors.

said, that the Vote should be taken first upon the first item of the £1,600 for the two statues of William IV. and George IV.

said, he would certainly Vote for the reduction. Had it been proposed to commence with our early monarchs, some scope might have been given to the fancy and genius of the artist, but with all his loyalty to the House of Brunswick, he must protest against pigtails and pigtail statues. He trusted they would not continue encumbering the corridors of Parliament with statues which had cost a great deal of money, which were no credit to the country, and which had already drawn down ridicule on the ornamentation of the House.

said, he hoped, with a view to reason, propriety, and the interests of art, that this matter would be reconsidered. So far a3 the wish to convert Oliver Cromwell into a Sovereign was concerned, he was afraid there was no possibility of giving it effect, inasmuch as no process of reasoning could alter the fact that he was not a Sovereign. He would further observe that, considering bow much more than one of our monarchs cost us in their lifetime, £800 a piece did not seem so large a sum to expend upon erecting statues of them when dead; but before a project of that nature was sanctioned by the House, the Government ought to bring to bear upon it more intelligent consideration than it was evident they had done. Hon. Members ought to know what was to be the character of the works for which the Vote was asked—whether they were to be in the mediaeval style of art; for if so ho thought it would be found that the House was sick of works of that description, as represented by the miserable images which were stuck upon the walls of the House of Lords.

said, the Committee were very naturally alarmed at the idea of assenting to a scheme to erect statues to the very formidable number of English Sovereigns. He would admit that much consideration was desirable before they pledged themselves to so large an expenditure as would be requisite in order to carry out that object. He begged, at the same time, to remind the Committee that the effect of passing the Vote as it stood would simply be to sanction the erection of statues to two of our latest Sovereigns, and that they would not in any way be bound by taking that course to proceed with the whole series, if hereafter it should be deemed expedient to stop at a certain point. He might add, that he was assured by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the architectural arrangements to be made in connection with those statues would not require that more than four of them should be erected. In reply to the appeal which had been made to him to resist any further expenditure in the direction which was proposed by votes he would merely observe that, while he did not hesitate to admit that the ornamentation of the Houses of Parliament had been in many instances enormously and ludicrously overdone, yet a distinction might very properly be drawn between works of art and those which were purely of an ornamental character. As Mr. Herbert had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, he might state that he was of his own knowledge aware that that Gentleman had devoted the great bulk of his time for some years past to the collection of materials and the institution of inquiries with the view of rendering the work on which he was engaged as accurate as possible; and that he had, moreover—and no doubt something of the same kind must have occurred in the case of Mr. Dyce—left several private commissions unexecuted for the last twelve years, in consequence of the earnestness with which his attention was directed to the one great task which he had undertaken in connection with the Houses of Parliament.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the words contained in the Vote were "for the purpose of erecting statues to the British Sovereigns in series;" so that, if the present Vote were agreed to, and two statues as the result erected, the Committee would find it extremely difficult to halt in the course on which they would have entered, or to refuse their consent to Votes for the completion of the series in future years. With regard to the fresco paintings on the execution of which Mr. Herbert was employed, there could be no doubt that a good deal of time and labour had been expended upon them by that Gentleman, while Mr. Dyce had not, he thought, done so well in these respects as the House had a right to anticipate. But, be that as it might, our great painters of the present day were not, he should contend, able to complete works in fresco fit to adorn the walls of the Houses of Parliament; the fact being that those which had already been placed there had better be erased. The only fresco, indeed, executed in this country which he believed likely to last as a great work of art was that of Mr. Watts.

said, that the original intention was to have statues of the whole series of English Sovereigns, beginning with Egbert and Canute. Since that proposal was made in the year 1845 the opinion of the House and the Government had changed, and it was now intended to have only four statues, one at each corner of the Royal Gallery. Under these circumstances he should be willing to withdraw this item with the view of considering whether some selection of Sovereigns could not be made which would be generally acceptable to the House.

moved the omission from the Vote of the sum of £1,200 for the Lords' and Commons' corridors.

said, he thought that, after the candid manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House, it would hardly be fair to reject this item. If it was agreed to, they might have a picture of Oliver Cromwell before they had a statue of George IV.

said, that on the 31st of March, 1859, there was in the Exchequer a balance of £25,000 upon this Vote. There was now, in addition, the whole of last year's Vote. He wished to know whether the Government had surrendered any part of that balance?

asked whether the accounts for the building of the Houses of Parliament were now closed and settled. He wished to know whether all the debts were paid, and, if not, the amount of those which were outstanding, distinguishing between the money which was still in the Exchequer and that which had been drawn out and issued to the Pay-office.

said it was an entire mistake to suppose that because a balance remained over from one year to the other it could be applied to any purpose other than that for which it had been voted. These unexpended balances were either spent for the purpose for which they had been voted, or, according to the usual course, if it were found at the end of three years that the amount was not required, it was considered as forfeited, and was surrendered back into the Exchequer. Without inquiring into the particular items, he could not undertake to state the exact sum which remained in the Exchequer, or had been issued to the Pay-office; but ho was able to say generally that the whole expenditure on the Houses of Parliament had been as nearly as possible completed. The Committee appointed during the Session to investigate the accounts had recommended a very material improvement, which consisted in printing along with the Estimates the amount of the unexpended balances, and he would take care that the suggestion should be faithfully acted upon.

said, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, as far as it went, was satisfactory; but he had not answered the exact question addressed to him. He found in the Estimates sums taken for particular objects last year, and other sums for similar purposes were included in this year's accounts, though not a single penny had been drawn on account of these items in the meantime. He wished to know out of what funds these amounts had been paid. £7,600 was voted last year for casual and internal repairs; only £5,000 was asked for this year, but not a single sixpence of the former amount had been drawn. In the same way £4,900 was taken last year for warming and ventilating, and £4,300 was asked for this year, though the amount voted last year remained untouched. For the supply of gas £5,000 was now required, though £5,800 granted last year was still unexpended. These sums must all have been paid out of the unexpended balances of a former year, and what he objected to was, that the Government should ask for money for the same purpose for which they already had funds in their hands.

said, the Estimates were often not voted till August, though the financial year began in April, and in the interval it was requisite that the amount should be paid out of the unexpended balances of the previous year. The accounts were then got into order again by voting in the Estimate sums which had already been so paid out of those balances.

said, he thought the question might safely be left in the hands of the Government, after the precaution which the Committee had adopted and the assurance given by the Secretary to the Treasury.

said, he had been very much astonished to find that the cost of fuel, gas, and lighting for the House of Parliament was nearly £10,000 a year. Having applied to Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney for an explanation, he found that this outlay was not consequent on the new scheme of ventilation, but was mainly due to the quantity of fuel burnt to counteract the bad system of chimneys, by which every one of the residences connected with the House was completely spoiled. He wished to know whether it was not possible to devise some plan by which the annual consumption of £2,000 worth of fuel, merely to make a draught, might be rendered unnecessary.

said, he had given much consideration to the subject, and he had asked Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney to make a Report on the best means of getting rid of the smoke. He entertained great hopes of a successful result.

asked, out of what fund the salary of the superintendent of warming and lighting, which did not fall due till October or January, and which ought to be taken out of the Vote for the year, had been defrayed.

asked, what was to be done with the great bell? It had been a perfect nuisance to the whole Metropolis, and he hoped would never be used again for striking the hours.

said, he trusted that the bell would be kept quiet, at all events during the sitting of Parliament.

said, the Bill was irretrievably cracked, and he had no proposition to make with respect to another. The quarter bells would be used in future.