said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to alter the scale of allowances to prosecutors and witnesses at Assizes and Quarter Sessions in certain cases, as suggested by deputations from Yorkshire and Lancashire during the present Assizes?

said, he had carefully examined into the subject of the question of the hon. and gallant Member, and it appeared that, although the present scale of allowances was strongly objected to in some of the northern counties, and by persons who were in a position to give great weight and authority to their complaints, nevertheless, in the great majority of the counties, and particularly in the metropolitan districts, no complaints arose. The great diminution which had recently taken place in the number of prosecutions had been by some persons explained on the theory that the allowances to witnesses were insufficient; but that diminution was general throughout England, and pervaded counties in which practically there had been no reduction in the scale of allowances. The diminution also extended to Scotland and Ireland, in which no change had taken place in the scale of allowances. Under those circumstance he did not feel himself justified in recommending to the Treasury a general increase in the allowances; but he would be prepared to bring in a Bill to enable any county which thought those allowances insufficient to make an addition to them from the county rates.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum of £250,000 allotted to Navy Services out of the Vote of Credit of £850,000 for the China War, and found not to be required in the financial year 1859–60, has been or is to be surrendered; or whether any portion of it has been expended on or is still available for Army or Navy Services in connection with the China "War? It appeared by the accounts recently delivered, that the sum of £250,000 was not required for the services of the Navy in the China War; and in November last the money was repaid by the Admiralty into the Treasury chest. He wished to understand what was to be the final disposition of that £250,000.

said, the whole Vote of Credit was applicable to the expenses of the China war after the ordinary grants of the year had been exhausted. He stated the other night that, in the case of the navy, the ordinary grants had been found sufficient for the whole expenditure, both ordinary and extraordinary. In the case of the army the expenditure had not yet been finally ascertained; but the whole of the Vote of Credit, including the sum of £250,000 which was allotted, in the first instance, to the navy, and which had since been retransferred to the Treasury, would be available if required to defray the charge of the military operations in China.

Available for the army?

Available for the army.

then gave notice that in going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates he would call attention to the subject.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to make his Financial Statement?

said, he was not able at that moment positively to state the day when the financial statement would be made. It was very desirable that it should be made on as early a day as possible after the 1st of April, and he should hope by Thursday, the 11th of April. If any other day were selected he would give due notice to the House.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If no Despatches were sent to Sir James Hudson between the 31st August and the 27th of October last; and if so, why those Dispatches are omitted in the further Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Italy; and also what are "the interests which Great Britain has in the Adriatic," which the Despatch of 31st August states "Her Majesty's Government must watch with careful attention." He wished to know why the despatches written during the period to which his question referred had been suppressed. There was a period of two months with respect to which they had no information whatever, and that he thought was a very considerable time indeed when the importance of the subject was considered. The Government took great credit to themselves for what was called non-intervention with the proceedings and acts of the people of other countries; but he was informed, and he was not making the statement without authority, that their boasted non-intervention was all a hoax. They certainly had not interfered in regard to Naples and Rome, because their interference was not asked by the people of those places, who did not seek the permission of the British Government to act as they chose. But where Austria and Hungary were concerned Her Majesty's Government had been ready with their interference. They had assisted the strong against the weak; they had assisted the strong against those who had been too long oppressed and tyrannized over. One despatch in particular had been suppressed, but all that would come out by and by. The very despatch of the 31st August would never have seen the light of day if it had not been published first in Germany. In that despatch the noble Lord said, "England has interests in the Adriatic which must be watched with careful attention." Now there was not a man from the Land's End to John o'Groat's House who could tell where those interests were. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to tell the House what they were? There was another despatch—a very important one—wherein, as he was told, the noble Lord instructed Sir James Hudson to say that the Government of England would not allow any fleet to leave the Italian coast for Dalmatia. With that menace there was the fact that we had a fleet at Corfu of 800 guns. Now if that was not intervention he did not know what the meaning of the word was. He asked why should not a fleet leave the coast of Italy for the coast of Dalmatia, even if it were intended to support Hungary? He was told also that there were despatches in which the noble Lord said that Austria was required as a counterpoise to France, and, therefore, of course, Hungary was not allowed to attack Austria at the same time that an attack might be made by Sardinia upon Venetia. There was another despatch which the noble Lord wrote to Sir James Hudson at a time when Louis Kossuth was in Turin. The noble Lord, as he (Mr. Duncombe) was informed, said in that despatch, "Keep your eye upon the doings of Louis Kossuth." To that despatch Sir James Hudson replied in terms worthy of an Ambassador of this country—namely, that he did not conceive it was the duty of a representative of England at a foreign Court to keep an eye upon the doings of a foreign exile, and he declined to do the noble Lord's bidding. But there was another case of interference on the part of the noble Lord. It appeared that a railway was projected, called the Genoese Railway, of which Louis Kossuth was a director. A despatch was written by the noble Lord, in which Sir James Hudson was instructed to inform the Sardinian Government that it would give great offence to England if the Sardinian Government granted a concession to any railway of which Louis Kossuth was a director, because they considered it a means of putting money into the hands of Kossuth for revolutionary purposes in Hungary. That despatch was sent to Sir James Hudson, and again he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that Sir James Hudson declined to do the dirty work, or to be the instrument of communicating such a message to the Sardinian Government. Sir James Hudson told the noble Lord so, and said—

"You little know the Sardinian Government or Count Cavour if you suppose that if they wished to enter into negotiations with Kossuth they would not do it openly and before the world; and that they would not ask the permission of England to enter into such negotiations."

Sir James Hudson declined to communicate that despatch to the Sardinian Government. There, again, Sir James Hudson had shown himself worthy of the high office of Ambassador of England, and would not condescend to take that underhand way of trying to prevent Hungary rising and shaking off the tyranny of Austria. He (Mr. Duncombe) said that those things wanted clearing up, and they must be cleared up by the noble Lord. If there were a shadow of foundation for them, the honour of England was at stake, and the non-intervention principle was a perfect farce. They would act in a manner discreditable and dishonourable if they did not repudiate such conduct on the part of our Minister. It was, however, all of a piece with the conduct of our Government in regard to the Hungarian notes, in respect to which an injunction would be moved for in the Court of Chancery next week, with the view of preventing Louis Kossuth furnishing to his countrymen the means of rising against the tyranny of Austria. Now, he asked, could England be justified in interfering in that manner, and then talking of nonintervention? Hungary was a great country, with 15,000,000 of inhabitants, and 20,000 square miles larger than the whole of the United Kingdom. She was originally, and was now entitled to be, an independent nation in Europe. She had been defrauded of her rights by Austria, and was now on the point of regaining them. The interference of England in that underhand manner, on the ground that Austria ought to be supported as a counterpoise to France, was a policy that could not but create the greatest distrust in the latter Power. Nothing was so well calculated to strengthen the interests of this country and to secure the peace of Europe as a close alliance with France. Everything had been done by the Emperor of the French to promote that object. The Emperor had no distrust of England. The whole distrust was on the part of this country. He had no jealousy of us and no wish to rival us. On the contrary, when the Emperor saw us strengthening our fortifications, he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that his language was, "the stronger England is, the better ally will she be to France." Look what he had done with regard to passports. Had he not opened his country to Englishmen; and had not his own subjects murmured at the superior advantages enjoyed by Englishmen in France? England then wanted no such counterpoise as Austria, with her tyrannical Government. He rejoiced to believe that the days of Austrian tyranny were numbered, and that we should soon again see Hungary taking her original rank as a continental nation. He trusted that the Hungarians would not be driven into premature outbreak, and such a caution was the more necessary because he had seen letters from Turin stating that Austrian agents were hard at work trying to instigate and excite the Hungarians to rebellion. That was one of their anniversary days of freedom, and, therefore, the greater danger existed of their being provoked into an outbreak. If the Hungarians allowed themselves to be tempted into such a premature movement martial law would be at once proclaimed, and a great effusion of blood would be the result. At the same time he would advise Hungary not to give up one iota of her rights but to bide her time, letting the Government of England do what they liked to conspire with Austria against her. Hungary would still recollect that the people of England were with her in sympathy—with her if she wished to see her nationality restored, and to be free, happy, and independent of the tyranny of Austria. If those despatches to which he had referred wore not forthcoming, they might depend upon it they would be soon dragged to light, and then he thought that the Government of England would not stand in a very enviable position in the eyes of the world.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether information was received from Sir James Hudson, previous to the 31st day of August last, to the effect that the expedition of General Garibaldi was secretly assisted by the Sardinian Government; and whether the Foreign Office did, previous to the 11th day of September last, receive official information that the Sardianian Government contemplated the invasion or seizure of a portion of the Papal States? And, whether any and what Answer was returned by the Austrian Government to the Despatch, No. 96, addressed to Lord A. Loftus, and referring to a despatch from Consul General Perry? No one could peruse the despatches printed in the Italian blue beok without being satisfied that there was a number of events of great importance which had not received any notice whatever. In regard to his first question, the noble Lord, soon after Garibaldi landed in Italy, made a statement in that House to the effect that Sardinia did not in any way contemplate the invasion of Naples, and that he had a positive assurance from that Government to that effect. The noble Lord also stated that the Sardinian Government had in no way inspired the expedition of Garibaldi, but, on the contrary, looked on it as a mad enterprise. He confessed that early in August he (Mr. Bentinck), as well as others, had come to the conclusion that that statement ought to be received with great caution, not only on account of the deceit and duplicity which had unfortunately become the characteristics of the Sardinian Government, as illustrated by their conduct during the events of 1849 and 1859, but also by the manner in which they had misled this country on the occasion of the cession of Savoy and Nice. Therefore, he was not surprised to hear from persons of reliable authority that the Sardinian Government, so far from not encouraging the expedition of Garibaldi had assisted it to the utmost of their power. He had heard it stated over and over again on good authority that the King of Sardinia and his Government had actually furnished money and arms to Garibaldi, and further that they were under an engagement sooner or later to meet him in the South of Italy. He (Mr. Bentinck) visited Italy in the month of August last, and he found the people generally entertained that opinion. He also learned that Admiral Persano had received instructions from the Sardinian Government to protect to the utmost of his power not only the original expedition of Garibaldi, but also any ships conveying supplies and succour to him. It was also rumoured that the arrangement was that Admiral Persano was to protect those ships, and then, in the event of disaster, Persano was to be quietly disavowed, and to receive an ample compensation afterwards for his services. He was greatly surprised at seeing no mention made of those facts in the despatches, because it was impossible that a Minister of Sir James Hudson's vigilance should not have known them. The opinion that Garibaldi had an understanding with the Sardinian Government was universally entertained in Italy. To show this he referred the noble Lord to the memorandum of Mr. Elliot, enclosed in a letter dated the 31st of August, in which Mr. Elliot stated that it was generally believed that the expedition of Garibaldi was secretly encouraged by the Sardinian Government. There was another point, the question of the invasion of the Papal States. It seemed to him (Mr. Bentinck) most surprising that the Government had not been informed of that event earlier than they appeared to have been. He apprehended there was no doubt whatever that during the summer of last year the Sardinian Government had positively determined to invade the Marches and Um- bria. As there was no pretence for war an insurrection was planned, and under the pretence of suppressing it the Sardinian army was to enter the Papal States without declaration of war, and, with the excuse of restoring order, to remain in military occupation of the country. Such was the universal belief in Italy. Whether the success of Garibaldi was more rapid than had been expected, or whether in consequence of the interview which took place between a deputation of the Sardinian Government, General Cialdini, and the Emperor of the French at Chambery, he (Mr. Bentinck) did not know, but the Sardinians intervened before any insurrection took place under the flimsy pretext of a demand upon the Papal Government to disband their foreign mercenaries, and most flimsy was that pretext, because the Sardinian troops entered the Marches and Umbria before an answer was received from Cardinal Antonelli. Moreover, it was certain that Admiral Persano's fleet received orders to leave the west coast of Italy for the east for the purpose of attacking Ancona when the proper time should arrive long before the invasion took place; so that it was perfectly clear that the whole affair was settled from the first. Under these circumstances he could not conceive why the noble Lord was not informed of the matter. The only despatch on this point from Sir James Hudson was dated the 7th of September. It was received by the noble Lord on the 11th. The invasion of the Papal States of Umbria and the Marches took place on the 11th, actually on the very day the noble Lord received the despatch. Sir James Hudson, in that despatch, stated to the noble Lord that information had been received that an outbreak was imminent in Umbria and the Marches. Now there was no outbreak. The proclamation of the Piedmontese general to the army, upon an order being given for an invasion of those States, was found in p. 64 of the blue book, and assigned as an excuse, nothing but the employment by the Pope of foreign mercenaries; not a word was said about insurrection. He must say he thought it most extraordinary that Sir James Hudson did not lay the projects of Sardinia before the noble Lord earlier than the 7th of September. Sir James Hudson, in his next despatch, did not say he had been wrong with regard to the insurrection in Umbria and the Marches. He did not allude to the interview of the deputation from Sardinia with the Emperor of the French at Chambery. He did not allude to the fact that Admiral Persano's fleet had gone from the west coast to the east. All that was extraordinary; for it was impossible that Sir James Hudson should not have known all the facts. He (Mr. Bentinck) was in Milan at the time, and on the 2nd of September he saw a great assemblage of National Guards and military. He inquired what it meant, and was told that it was for the purpose of receiving volunteers who were to be mobilized. He inquired the object of the mobilization; and the answer given without reserve was that the mobilized National Guards were to take the place of the troops which were on the point of being sent to the Papal States; The inference on his mind was that Sir James Hudson was either culpably negligent of these matters, or that he purposely suppressed them. The only other point to which he would advert was a letter of our Consul General at Venice on the subject of Austria He did not wish to get up a debate on Austria. As a conservative power she had always been useful to us, and perhaps the existence of Austria might be considered as an absolute necessity and safeguard to Europe. There was a nice little office at Venice, with very little to do in it, and plenty to get. There was a Consul General with £800 a year, besides a Vice Consul with £200 a year. Last summer the Consul General was Mr. Perry a gentleman who had been transplanted from some obscure part of America to Venice, a gentleman of worth and respectability, but with a very imperfect knowledge of the country and its language; and shortly after his arrival he thought to write a letter to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. It was dated the 4th of September, and it stated that the authorities considered they had discovered a plot against the Government, and that in consequence many arrests had been made. The writer said he believed that nothing of a compromising nature had been discovered, although it was well known that secret societies existed all over the country. (Well, if there were all over the country secret societies against the Government, it was not very wonderful that there should be a plot!) The writer went to say that many respectable persons had been imprisoned for months without trial. (Well, there was nothing wonderful in that. People were kept in prison even in Eng- land many months without trial;) and that within a few days a painter, named Caffi, had been imprisoned on a trifling charge. He (Mr. Bentinck) knew that individual. He was a revolutionist, and had been such for many years; and, therefore, it was not very surprising that, under the circumstances, he should be imprisoned. He was told that the imprisonment was a very short one. Now he did not wish to defend the Austrian system. All that he (Mr. Bentinck) asked was that fair play should be shown to the Austrian Government, and if our Ministers repeated complaints of the treatment of the Austrian people, they should at the same time state what were the circumstances of vexation under which the Austrian Government acted. If the noble Lord would look to the correspondence of the late Consul General at Venice, Mr. James, he would find some insight into the difficulties under which the Austrians laboured. Then the noble Lord wrote to Count Rechberg, and lectured him pretty severely on the statements contained in Consul General Perry's letter. In that case the noble Lord wrote only two days after his receipt of Consul General Perry's despatch. That formed a striking contrast with the course of the noble Lord with regard to Mr. Elliott's letter relative to the wholesale massacres ordered by General Cialdini, which letter he never answered at all. The noble Lord wrote to Count Bechberg—

"The real danger of Austria is that she invites foreign interference by her own conduct in arbitrarily imprisoning her subjects. Her best friends deplore the absence of all her attempts to conciliate her Italian and Hungarian subjects."

But how was Austria to conciliate them? If she gave a Reform Bill to her subjects there would be no chance of conciliation any more than there was of Russia conciliating the Poles, or the English gaining the affections of the Ionian people. He did not profess to understand diplomatic relations; but he thought our Ministers abroad ought to be loyal to the Courts to which they were accredited, and loyal towards those powers with whom England was at peace. If that was not to be the usual character of our diplomatists, why the sooner what had been called its barbarous pomp was done away with the better.

My hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, had occasion just now to find fault with the noble Lord for his interference in Italian affairs. The question that I have to put to the noble Lord relates rather to what may be regarded as a recommendation of the very policy which the Member for Finsbury condemns, for I have to solicit at his hands the interference of the Government of which he is the Foreign Secretary. The question I have to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of Spain respecting the imprisonment in Spain of certain persons for religious opinion; and if so what has been the tenor of such Correspondence? Now, the House is probably aware that this evening I had occasion to present petitions from various parts of the country, I may say from the most important towns in England, bearing on this subject; and petitioning Parliament respecting the imprisonment and persecution of these people. I have presented petitions from Carlisle, Cheltenham, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Plymouth, Manchester, and Liverpool. I only mention this fact to show the interest that is taken in the subject, to show that that interest is universally felt—is felt by people generally throughout the country—and by people of different sects and denominations and political feelings. And, therefore, in calling the attention of the House to what I know is a very difficult and delicate question to deal with, I admit that it must be handled with moderation and a sense of justice; and, therefore, I am quite sure I shall not ask in vain when I respectfully ask the indulgence of the House while I offer a few observations. In bringing this subject under the consideration of Parliament, of course I do not for a moment pretend to appear in the character of one suddenly smitten, if I may so say, with religious zeal. Far from it. That is an idea which I wish at the outset to dispel from everybody's mind. But I appear here on principles which every hon. Gentleman must feel. I present myself to the House on this occasion as a man duly sensible of the advantages which this nation derives from the principles of civil and religious liberty, and with a desire to see those principles expanded and extended for the blessing and advantage of other countries. And I may add, that I think it is no inappropriate position that I now hold in discussing this question. It is well known that the name I bear is inti- mately connected with the removal of the last vestige of penal disability in the case of the Roman Catholics of this country. I contend that when we have so freely relieved the Roman Catholics from disabilities, we surely have a right to expect, and a right to demand, that other countries in friendship with us should equally extend that liberty—at least, in a moderate degree—to those of their subjects who entertain a faith and opinions similar to our own. I may further remark that I am able to bear personal testimony to many of the facts to which I shall allude; and that although on many occasions in this House I have strenuously opposed the interference, the undue interference, of this country, and of any other country, in the internal affairs or concerns of other nations, yet I maintain that the case which I shall now submit to the House is one of a totally different character from those in reference to which I have on more than one occasion had reason to address this assembly. I present myself to you tonight in the name of civil and religious freedom, and in the cause of common humanity, which has been outraged in the persons of a persecuted sect of Bible Protestant Dissenters from the Church of Rome. I appear as the advocate of two poor Christian men, whose only crime—if crime it can be called—is nothing political; but simply consists in the circumstance that they possessed copies of the Holy Scriptures, and used them in connection with others. I say that in the name of the persons for whom I have presented petitions to-day I have a right to protest against the intolerance and against the persecution to which they have been subjected, with every indignity to harass and afflict the body, coupled with every aggravation of moral torture. I know very well that in this free country, and in this assembly, even, if I were not fortified by precedent to justify me in the course I am taking, I need not—indeed I should not be ashamed to—stand up in defence of men suffering such persecution. But, happily for me, the precedents of Parliament relieve me from every responsibility of initiation in the matter and directly sanction the course I pursue. For a period of fifteen years Her Majesty's Government, no matter what party has been in power—for a period of fifteen years have, to my mind, wisely exercised a direct influence; sometimes on political, sometimes on religious grounds, in the affairs of other countries so as to enable me to look with confidence to this appeal. I recollect well that in 1850—just to show that the Government of this country is justified on certain occasions in exercising a political and moral influence as regards the concerns of other countries, if it does so with the approval of the Parliament and the people—in 1850 I remember that a question arose with respect to the Hungarian refugees which had no intimate connection with us; but such, nevertheless, was the sympathy with those refugees of the English people that it was deemed not inexpedient that Parliament should exercise some interference in the matter. Then, again, in the same year of 1850 in the eases of Italy and Poland—and the name of the latter country it is impossible to mention without calling up to one's mind with pleasure the prospect which once again appears to present itself of liberty being restored to her—the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in answer to a question which was put to him, respecting the Polish and Italian refugees in the territory of the Sultan, informed the House that the Government of England, as representing the public opinion of the country, felt a strong interest in the fate of those people, and that negotiations on the subject had taken place through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. These facts must prove to the House that Her Majesty's Government have from time to time directly applied the influences of moral interference in matters of this description. And in referring to Constantinople, and the religous condition of very many of the subjects of the Sultan, it is impossible to allude to the name of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe without acknowledging in this House the ability and zeal with which for a great number of years he has sought to ameliorate the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte, Well again, in proof of the assertion that I have made that the interference of Parliament is sometimes justifiable, who does not recollect that when that gallant band of patriots, Poerio and his fellows, Italian subjects of an Italian sovereign, were confined—who does not recollect the sympathy of the people in this country of behalf of those men? Then, again, the case of the Cagliari excited the sympathy of the people of this country. Those were political interferences which received the approval of the House. We have also made interference on the ground of religious sympathy. It was in vindication of the principle of the right of every human being to liberty of conscience that Parliament made allusions of a severe character to the abduction of the boy Mortara in Rome. Then, again, with regard to the Christian subjects of the Porte in Syria, the voice of Parliament and the country has condemned the flagrant violation of sacred rights in the horrible persecution to which the Christians in Syria have been subjected by ruthless and implacable infidels. The case, however, which more particularly bears upon the question which I am now about to bring before the House is that of the Madiai, which occurred in 1851 and 1852. Francis and Rosa Madiai were sentenced and put into prison exactly on the same grounds as those in whose favour I now appeal to Parliament. They were sentenced by the Tuscan authorities in July 1851, to imprisonment with hard labour for the respective terms of fifty-six and forty-five months on the charge "of impiety shown in making proselytes to the so called pure gospel confession," and in possessing and reading the Holy Scriptures, with the express declaration of the Government of Tuscany that the charge was totally unconnected with politics. Her Majesty's Government, not only Members of the present Government but also the Government represented by the Earl of Malmesbury, directly and successfully interfered in that case. Having mentioned these instances of interference beth on political and religious grounds, I am quite sure that now, if I can make out a case of suffering, a case of persecution and of intolerance which I believe to be unequalled in any Christian country in the world since the abolition of the Inquisition, I am quite sure I shall be supported by the House in my desire to obtain the moral influence and the active influence of the Government to relieve the sufferers. Well, Sir, what is the cause of this persecution? The House will remember that I have said that in dealing with this subject I speak of my personal knowledge of the actual facts. There are residing in Spain, especially in Malaga, Granada, and Barcelona a religious sect of Bible dissenters from the Church of Rome. The chiefs of that sect are two men named Alhama and Matamoros. Alhama, at the beginning of last year, was seized and put in prison solely because he happened to be in possession of a copy of the Scriptures, and had read them in conjunction with others. Having been confined for some time in prison he was brought to trial. And does the House, I would ask, know what the punishment is which, in accordance with the penal code of Spain, awaits the offence which he committed? Why, the sentence according to the 125 article of the Spanish penal code is that he may be condemned for ten or twelve years to the galleys, and be made the associate of the worst of criminals. Such a state of things is, I contend, a disgrace to a Christian country. Matamoros was found guilty on a similar charge, and it was only the other day that a gentleman who visited him in prison said to him—"I wish your offence, instead of being against the Roman Catholic religion, were a political one, a robbery, or any other crime; you would in that case have been long ago set at liberty." Matamoros, I may add, was condemned to prison owing to some papers which were found in the possession of Alhama, and was dragged from Barcelona, his home where he was residing, to Malaga and Granada. It was my lot to travel with him in the same vehicle from Malaga to his destination, and I could not but admire the simple piety with which he bere the suffering to which he was exposed. I afterwards saw him in prison at Granada, and the House will hardly credit it when I tell them that for no other crime than that which I have mentioned this poor man was in this 19th century and in a Christian country thrown into a dungeon only a few feet wide, shut out from the light of the day, and deprived of everything which could tend even in the smallest degree to lighten the weight and cruelty of his punishment. I said to Matamoros, when I visited him in prison, "Have you interfered in politics, or are you in any way connected with men engaged in a conspiracy against your Government?" He replied, "No; I am in prison solely and simply on account of my religious faith." Let me read to the House a letter from one of those men, to show the sufferings they are undergoing. ("Oh! oh!") If the House is not inclined to grant me that liberty I will not read it. (Cheers.) The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks seems much amused at my observations. I am extremely sorry that, in dealing with a matter of such great importance, I should say anything calculated to excite his risibility. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire is highly amused at my observations. I am extremely sorry. ("Order.")

Sir, I rise to order. These personal observations of the hon. Baronet are not justified by anything which I have done. They have no foundation, and there is no Motion before the House which would afford me a legitimate opportunity of vindicating myself. I am not aware of any observation of mine, or of any part of my deportment denoting dissent from the remarks of the hon. Baronet, that would in any way justify his observations. In the course of the whole time I have had the honour to sit in Parliament I must say that I never was before subjected to observations of this kind.

I am sure the hon. Baronet, without my interposition, will see that his observations require some explanation.

I must say that I am not aware that my observations require any explanation.

Then the hon. Baronet will impose on me the necessity of expressing a more decided opinion.

I at once apologize for my error in having made allusion to the right hon. Gentleman. The subject is a very difficult one to deal with, and a speaker standing immediately opposite to a Gentleman who is always laughing is not in an agreeable position. ("Order.") However, I beg to apologize for the allusion I made to the right hon. Gentleman, to withdraw anything which I may have said disrespectful to him, and to assure the House that I did not mean to give offence. To resume my statement—I asked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day whether he would interfere in this matter, and he replied he would not. "The Spanish Government," he said in effect, "is so very sensitive and touchy that I won't make anything else but a private remonstrance." I do not think the noble Lord should limit his interference to what he called a private remonstrance to the Government of Spain. The Spanish Government may be exceedingly sensitive. All bad Governments are so, particularly when their acts are criticized; but the noble Lord should have recollected that the fact that the Spanish Government are very sensitive about the slave trade did not prevent the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, whose exertions for the abolition of that abominable traffic are so well known and so de- servedly appreciated, from describing their conduct in that matter in terms which they richly deserved, and with most excellent effect. The observations of the noble Viscount were very severe. He said it was impossible to express the indignation he felt at the profligate, shameless, and disgraceful conduct of the Spanish Government and nation with reference to the treaties concluded with England, and he added—

"It is extraordinary that a nation which consists of men who, taken singly, would blush to do anything that was not perfectly honest and straightforward, should, when taken in the aggregate, be guilty of so shameless and abominable a violation of good faith."

Talk about the touchiness and sensitiveness of the Spanish Government! The speech of the noble Viscount was canvassed in the Spanish Cortes, and what did the Prime Minister General O'Donnell say? He said that he did not believe that the noble Viscount had made use of the expressions attributed to him, but that if he had he could only have done so in the heat of debate. It is very evident that General O'Donnell does not know the noble Viscount, who is not in the habit of making use of expressions in the heat of debate which in his calmer moments he would condemn. The observations of the noble Viscount had an immediate effect with the Spanish Government, who, without delay, sent out a squadron for the purpose of removing from themselves the odium arising from the encouragement which they were supposed to give to the slave trade. The inference I draw from these circumstances is that if the noble Lord had made vigorous representations to the Spanish Government on the subject of the persecution of Alhama and Matamoros he might have produced a beneficial effect. I may here refer, and I do it with pleasure, to a letter which was written from Spain by a countryman of ours, when the Earl of Clarendon was Minister there. The same persecution was going on in Spain at that time as now; and what was the opinion of the Earl of Clarendon—what countenance did he give to those that were accused. The letter thus refers to the conduct of the Spanish Government and to the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon—

"The bishop having denounced the Bible, the Ministry have withdrawn the permission which I temporarily obtained (namely, to sell copies of the Testament); but throughout this affair I cannot find words sufficiently strong to do justice to the zeal and interest which Sir George Villiers displayed in the cause. He has had various interviews with Ofalia (Spanish Minister) on the subject, and in these he expressed to him his sense of the injustice and tyranny which has been practised."

Such was the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon when he was our Minister at Madrid with respect to religious persecutions. The letter which I have quoted contains the words "injustice and tyranny." Those were the very words which the noble Lord applied to the Government of Naples in its treatment towards their own Italian subjects when France and England withdrew their Ministers from that Court. I am, therefore, justified in asking the noble Lord to mark his sense of the injustice and tyranny practised by the Spanish Government, not by withdrawing our Ambassador from Madrid. I do not ask for any violent demonstration, but by using his good offices, and the moral influence of the British Government in a matter which concerns us all. I have already alluded to the parallel case of the Madiai. Those hon. Gentlemen who sat in this House in the years 1851 and 1852, and in the early part of 1853, will recollect the great interest which that case excited not only in this House but in the country generally. The Madiai wore condemned, one to fifty-six months' imprisonment and the other to forty-five; but the British Government—the Government of the Earl of Derby as well as the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen—as represented at different periods by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), and the Earl of Malmesbury, strongly reprobated the conduct of the Tuscan Government in that transaction, and the words then used in the despatches from our Foreign Office are directly applicable to the present case. They show what the spirit of the British Government was at that period; and, I am sure, that beth the noble Lord and the noble Viscount are too generous and noble to refuse to say to a strong Government what they have already said to a weak one. Writing on the 17th of November, 1851, to Mr. Scarlett, our Minister at Florence, the noble Viscount said—

"The only offence of the Madiai seems to be that they entertain religious opinions which are shared by the great majority of the people of Great Britain, and by a large portion of the inhabitants of the continent of Europe, and the British Government, as the Government of a Protestant country, deems itself entitled to ask the Government of Tuscany whether such a system of persecution and punishment on account of religious opinions, sincerely entertained, can tend to promote the diffusion of the doctrines of that Church, at the instigation of whose priesthood it is practised."

The noble Viscount continued, in his own eloquent and spirited style—

"Her Majesty's Government forbear from asking whether such a system of persecution on account of religious belief is in accordance with the enlightenment of the present age, or is reconcile-able with the mild and charitable principles of Christianity."

I apply these words to the present persecution in Spain, and I ask whether that persecution can in any way be reconciled with the mild and charitable principles of Christianity or with the enlightenment the present age? The Earl of Malmesbury also wrote a very able despatch on the 27th of October, 1852, in which he said the British Government were anxious to use its good offices on behalf of the Madiai. Finally, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London wrote a despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer on the 13th of January, 1853, which I should like to see copied on the present occasion. The noble Lord said—

"According to the last accounts received from you, the Duke of Tuscany still hesitates on the subject of the Madiai. Throughout the civilized world this example of religious persecution will excite abhorrence. As this is a matter affecting a Tuscan subject, it may be said that Her Majesty's Government have no right to interfere. If this means that interference by force of arms would not be justifiable, I confess at once that nothing but the most extreme case would justify such interference; but if it is meant that Her Majesty has not the right to point out to a friendly Sovereign the arguments which have prevailed in the most civilized nations against the use of the civil sword to punish religious opinions, I entirely deny the truth of such an allegation."

These are the opinions of three Ministers of Foreign Affairs who have, almost between them, held the seals of the Foreign Office for the period of fifteen years. These were their opinions on the case of the Mediai, a parallel one to the present. I ask the noble Lord to endorse that opinion now and to write a despatch in a similar spirit to the Spanish Government, and I am sure the effect will be immediate and beneficial. I have, moreover, authority another which the noble Lord, at all events, will not refuse to accept. It is the authority who was quoted in a memorable despatch recently written by the noble Lord, and I ask his attention to the opinion of the eminent jurist to -whom I refer. The case of the Protestants in Spain under the severe persecution to which they are exposed comes within the principle laid down by Vattel in his work on the law of nations. Vattel says—

"It must then be concluded that liberty of conscience is a natural and inviolable right. It is a disgrace to human nature that a truth of this kind should stand in need of proof. When a religion is persecuted in one country the foreign nations who profess it may intercede for their brethren; and when it becomes a case of manifest tyranny all nations are permitted to succour an unhappy people."

The authority of Vattel must certainly have a great impression on the conduct of the noble Lord. I would also draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that the policy of this country for very many years has always been to assist in the relief of those people who have been suffering from such persecutions. I would only allude to the conduct of Cromwell. What was his course? When he had sown the seeds of regeneration in his own country, he immediately took in hand the case of those who were suffering for their religious opinions abroad. He interfered on behalf of the persecuted Vaudois, the descendants of the Waldenses, who were maintaining their faith and discipline according to the Reformation in the midst of persecutions. And a very remarkable fact occurred at that time to show the interest which Cromwell took in this matter. Cardinal Mazarin wanted to make an alliance with England, but Cromwell declined to treat with him except on the distinct understanding and as an indispensible condition of the alliance that the faith and discipline of the Vaudois should be respected, and that they should enjoy the peaceful exercise of their religion. That, Sir, is, I think, a very decided proof of the interest which this country has taken in those who have been suffering for their religious belief abroad. There is only one other authority I shall quote bearing on this subject; and I am sure the House will listen to it with very great attention, because it is the opinion expressed by one who stands highest of all in the enunciation of his ideas on the great question of religious liberty in his History of England. I allude to Lord Macaulay, and I would desire the attention of the House to an extract from his fourth volume in regard to the conduct of William III. Lord Macaulay says—

"It must not be supposed that William ever forgot that his especial, his hereditary mission was to protect the Reformed Faith. His influence with Roman Catholic princes was constantly and strenuously exerted for the benefit of their Protestant subjects. In the spring of 1691 the Waldense shepherds, long and cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy returned to their homes. Children who had been taken from their parents to be educated by priests were sent back. Congregations which had hitherto met only by stealth, and with extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew that their fate had been, a subject of discussion at the Hague, and that they owed the happiness of their firesides, and the security of their humble temples, to the ascendancy which William exercised."

Sir, I trust the House will excuse me for having detained them at so much length, and will admit there are reasons why the Government should now bring the active influence of this country to bear for the relief of those who are suffering in Spain for their religious faith. I could wish that any expression from me as a private Member of Parliament would induce the French Government to join with the British to use their influence—as it has been used for good in Syria—in order to induce the Government of Spain to relax in this case their spirit of persecution. But, if that cannot be, it rests with our Government to take the matter in their own hands. I do not accuse the Government of Spain. It is priestcraft and the bigoted Court that are the real agents in this matter. I believe the Government of Marshal O'Donnell is doing more to develop the resources of that country than any other Government Spain has had for a long series of years. It has made vast progress in the material civilization of the Peninsula, as I have had occasion to witness on my recent visit to that country, after an absence of some years; and there is no longer that system of gaspillage or tampering with and plundering the public revenues which was so notorious under governments presided over by Sartorius and others. If that be the case, it surely rests with Her Majesty's Government to use their influence with the Government of Spain to relieve these poor people from their suffering. I will only ask the noble Lord to be true to the principles he has so long avowed, and be good enough to take an early opportunity, not by private representation, but openly in a public despatch, to remonstrate with the Spanish Government on the sufferings of these poor people, and the flagrant violation which has taken place in their case of the great principles of religious liberty.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Charles Wyke, who was appointed on the 23rd of January, 1860, Minister Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Mexico, has as yet proceeded to his mission; and if not, when he is likely to do so; and whether the Foreign Office has received any official intimation of any measures adopted by the present Mexican Government to carry into effect the engagements entered into with the holders of the bends of the Republic? He would remind the House, that though Sir Charles Wyke had been appointed as our Minister to Mexico more than a year ago, he had not till lately, if at all, left Europe, and yet during that time events of great importance had occurred. An arrangement had taken place in 1846, and again in 1850, by which a portion of the revenues of Mexico were pledged to the British creditors. But that pledge, he need hardly remind the House had not been fulfilled, though he believed that that pledge gave our Government a right to interfere in the matter. There was, indeed, scarcely a spot in the globe where it was more important that Britain should be represented than in Mexico, at the present moment, and that from reasons independent of the pecuniary question to which he had alluded. Since President Comonfort had been driven out of Mexico a dispute had been going on as to his successor. Miramon had been lately driven out of the country, and Juarez, his successful competitor, had called a Convention with a view to the establishment of Constitutional Government. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that our Minister should be on the spot to sustain the Government by the moral influence of England against the reactionaries on the one hand and the revolutionists on the other. It was also said that General Juarez had promised Captain Aldham, of the Valorous, an officer who had ably supported the interests of this country in the absence of the Minister, that he was prepared to renew the pledge of the revenues of Vera Cruz and Tampico for the payment of the dividends of the British bendholders. He would be glad to know if any information of that kind had reached the Foreign Office. He should also wish to ask the noble Lord whether there would be any objection to lay on the table copies of any dispatches that would put the House in possession of the facts relating to the events that had lately taken place in Mexico?

said, he cordially concurred with much that had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) who had called attention to the conduct of Spain. At the same time it should be remembered that the House had only heard the facts on one side, and therefore it ought to suspend its judgment until it had the Spanish Government's version of the matter before it. He rose, however, to inquire of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether he had instructed Mr. Odo Russell to ask Cardinal Antonelli whether the Papal army would act on the defensive against the Sardinian invaders, or would attempt to regain the Romagna? There was a despatch from Mr. Odo Russell, stating that he had spoken to Cardinal Antonelli and asked him certain questions respecting the Papal army. He wished to know whether that was done by the noble Lord's orders, Perhaps the noble Lord would also answer another question. There was a despatch of the noble Lord's calling the attention of the Court of Austria to its having spoken of Lombardy as the Lombardo-Venetian Provinces, which the noble Lord stated to be inaccurate and a violation of the Treaty of Zurich. He would, therefore, like to know whether the noble Lord had also asked for an explanation from the Sardinian Government relative to the much more flagrant violation of the Treaty of Zurich in the assumption by King Victor Emmanuel of the title of King of Italy?

The House, Sir, will perhaps think that I have now to answer a good many questions, almost as many in fact, as are contained in what on the other side of the Tweed is called The Shorter Catechism; and certainly they are as multifarious in their nature as they are numerous. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) began by stating many reasons why he thought my conduct in the Foreign Office had been unduly partial to Austria. A few minutes afterwards the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) rose on the other side of the House, and gave what he thought conclusive proof that I had acted very unfairly towards Austria, and in a manner anything but that to which a friendly nation was entitled. These are the inconsistent accusations to which we are exposed through pursuing a policy which we think is impartial and tending to preserve the peace of Europe. In reply to those hon. Gentlemen I have only to say that without adopting any violent interference, there are occurrences from time to time which appear to us calculated to lead to a rupture between the different Powers of Europe; and in those cases I hardly think anybody will deny that it is very desirable to preserve the general peace. In the next place, when those occurrences come to our knowledge, it is a friendly as well as useful act to point out the facts to the Powers concerned, and ask for such an explanation or for such a change of conduct as the circumstances may seem to require. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) has heard of a great many things that did not happen, and appears very ignorant of many that did. He supposes that Her Majesty's Government have communicated or indicated to Sardinia that if any expedition should leave the coast of Italy for that of Dalmatia, which is Austrian territory, it would be opposed by the naval forces of Her Majesty. Now no such intimation has been given. The hon. Member seems to have been crammed with many unfounded tales of that kind. There was one thing, however, in regard to which I did put a question to Sir James Hudson, but in regard to which the answer he gave was a very different one from what the hon. Gentleman supposes. I had heard from persons in the City of London that a contract was about to be entered into for a railroad through the Sardinian territories, the first clause of which provided that a large sum of money should be paid to M. Kossuth. It was conjectured, and naturally so, that if that large sum was to be paid to Kossuth in the Sardinian territory it would be used for purposes of aggression against Austria. Now Austria might have said—I do not say that she has said, but she might have said—that if hostile preparations were made in the Kingdom of Sardinia, and these resulted in troops, ships, men, and money being employed against her, the expedition so prepared would not be regarded as the act of mere individuals, but she would think herself justified in asking for explanations and redress from the Power on the soil of which these aggressive measures had been matured. Of course that principle may be just or unjust according to the mode of its application. But it is evident that circumstances like these, whether there be negligence on the one side or too great suspicion on the other, may lead to a disturbance of the peace of Europe. I, therefore, directed an inquiry to Sir James Hudson, to ascertain whether he knew anything of this contract, and whether it was true that a large sum of money was to be paid to Kossuth by Sardinia in connection with it. As far as I can recollect, the reply of Sir James Hudson was that such a contract had been in contemplation, but had since been entirely abandoned. I must say that so far from Sir James Hudson returning to my inquiry such an answer as the hon. Gentleman supposes—an answer, that is, of very indignant virtue—as an honest and faithful servant of the Crown he gave me every information which his great intelligence and knowledge of Italy enabled him to afford. With respect, then, to any ominous omission of the despatches between the month of August and the 27th of October, I looked over the chief of them to-day, and found that they were mostly upon very trifling matters—such, for example as that an English ship had been seized by some Garibaldians and carried to Malta, and that the question was how compensation was to be obtained for that violent act. Then, again, there was a question about the Irish Legion—how it was to be brought back, and what had become of Major O'Reilly. There was another relating to the expediency of establishing a consulate at Florence; and also another respecting an English gentleman who, being in very embarrassed circumstances, was thrown into prison at Milan for a debt to his tailor. These are fair samples of the contents of those despatches. And I may observe that, having before the Session to settle with my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State as to which of the papers in the Foreign Office should be printed, I remarked at the time:—"It often happens that, if a bulky volume is presented, Members of Parliament are almost as much at a loss for information as if no despatches were given at all. Therefore let us endeavour to extract all that is most interesting, all the despatches that turn on the great points in dispute, without giving such a voluminous mass of documents as are sometimes laid on the table of the House." That is the explanation of the absence of any despatches between the two dates to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Member next asked me what I could mean by saying that the British Government have interests in the Adriatic. Well, I must inform him—although I suppose all the rest of the House are quite aware of the fact—that there were treaties made in 1814 and 1815, by which the protectorate of the Ionian Islands was given to Great Britain; that a British garrison is kept in Corfu; and that at the time when there was a great discussion whether the whole of the provinces neighbouring to Greece might not rise in insurrection, and an attempt be made to set up a great Greek Empire, a Greek Minister told me that his Government had no means of preventing any public manifestation of that kind. I say, then, it is obvious that we have such interests; and, although the hon. Member may never have heard of Corfu, let me tell him that it is a very important position, and one not to be wholly neglected by the person charged with the foreign affairs of the country. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me several questions to which I fear I cannot give him so very satisfactory an answer.

I asked the noble Lord whether he did not send a despatch desiring Sir James Hudson to keep his eye on Kossuth; and also whether, in his despatch relative to the railway concession by Sardinia, he did not direct that an intimation should be made to the Sardinian Government that it would displease our Government if Kossuth was made a director of the line?

I never remember desiring Sir James Hudson to keep his eye on Kossuth, or anything of the kind stated by the hon. Member. I did say that the payment of a large sum of money to Kossuth, to be used for purposes of war against Austria, might be very inconvenient to Sardinia, and therefore I hoped he would make some observations upon it. I must repeat that I do not think it is for the interest either of Sardinia or of that new Italian kingdom which I should regard without those feelings of apprehension entertained by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hennessy) that she should send out an expedition of Hungarians, not to take part in any struggle in Hungary, but to act against the coast of Dalmatia, and thereby, perhaps, to involve her in war with Austria. I do not deny that I wished to prevent this. I should be very sorry to think that either Austria should have a just cause of war against Italy, or that Italy should have a just cause of war against Austria; and, in consequence of my feeling on that subject, I do not know that I ever let pass a week, during a considerable period from the last recess without impressing upon each not to give any such cause to the other. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) asks me whether information was received from Sir James Hudson, previous to the 31st of August last, to the effect that the expedition of General Garibaldi was secretly assisted by the Sardinian Government. Neither before the 31st of August nor since have we been informed—have ever had any official, or indeed any reliable, information whatever—that the expedition of Garibaldi at its first setting out was in any way assisted by the Sardinian Government. Count Cavour in his despatch of the 30th of May says, and I think with great fairness and candour—

"The irresistible impulse which has caused so many subjects of Her Britannic Majesty to testify with such noble generosity the sympathy they feel in the misfortunes of Sicily manifests itself in a far greater degree in the States of the King. Without being in any degree more desirous than the Government of Her Britannic Majesty to violate in any manner the principles of the law of nations, the Government of the King is, as well as the British Government, unable to prevent these proofs of sympathy. As a free Government it could not punish acts which international feeling may disapprove, but which do not come under the sanction of any positive law; as an Italian Government it cannot oppose itself to the current of public opinion, which is openly pronounced in favour of the population."

Now, whether Count Cavour or the Sardinian Government did not exceed what they might fairly do according to international obligations is a question into which I do not think it necessary to enter. I am not bound to defend all the conduct of the Sardinian Government; but certainly I did not receive any information, nor do I believe that the Sardinian Government was concerned in fitting out the expedition of General Garibaldi. The subsequent conduct of that Government it is not for me to criticise, for it is not the duty of the British Government to defend the acts of a foreign government, The hon. Gentleman further asks me whether previous to the 11th day of September we received official information that the Sardi- nian Government contemplated the invasion or seizure of a portion of the Papal States. The only information which we received on the subject was that contained in the despatch of the 7th of September, which is on the table of the House. Of course, ever since I entered on the duties of the office which I have the honour to hold, I have received various intimations that portions of the Papal States were very much disaffected towards the Pope. Various missions were sent from Umbria to Turin asking Sardinia, through deputations, to take that province under its protection. We were always told that those deputations were discouraged, but at the same time disaffection continued to prevail. When it was likely that this disaffection would break out was not, of course, in our power to foresee. The hon. Gentleman also asks a question with regard to the mercenaries employed by the Papal Government. Now, I stated, in the despatch so often alluded to, of the 27th of October, that Her Majesty's Government did not propose to dilate on the question of whether the Pope was justified in defending his authority by means of foreign levies; but I must say that I think the enlistment of those foreign levies was a subject which naturally excited great attention on the part of the Sardinian Government. As soon as it was decided, after the peace of Villafranca, to reduce the Austrian army, Austrian soldiers in great numbers went to Ancona. They were enlisted by a Papal envoy at Venice, and sent to Ancona. Many of them were in Austrian uniforms when they engaged to serve the Papal Government. At that time we pointed out to the Austrian Government what might be the effect of this, and said—

"No doubt you are able to allow your men to engage in foreign service. Nobody denies your right to do so. But with respect to expeditions of this kind, recollect that if great numbers of Austrians should be formed into battalions on the Papal territory on the one side, and Austrian troops and an Austrian garrison should occupy Verona and Mantua on the other, nothing is more likely to induce Sardinia to believe that she is not safe, and that she must rid herself of a force of that kind. Therefore, I think, although that is not itself a case of war, yet it is one of those circumstances which might produce a collision with Sardinia."

With regard to all the circumstances which then took place, I must say that I have no complete information, but they were in that state that at any moment the Piedmontese Government might think their safety was compromised and begin to arm. That is what Sir James Hudson pointed out. He said that if Garibaldi were to proceed from Naples to the Papal States an insurrection would follow, and the Piedmontese would throw their arms into it. Of course, I am not entering into the general question, as I have no official information. Well, the hon. Gentleman asks me what answer was returned by the Austrian Government to the Despatch 96, addressed to Lord Adolphus Loftus. There, again, was another circumstance which we have pointed out to the Austrians. It is no doubt very difficult, some will say impossible, for the Austrian Government to reconcile to their rule the subjects of Austria in Venetia; but this, I think is quite certain, that the arrests made from time to time, not during the last year, but during the last twelve or thirteen years, and the confinement of persons without open trial, or their being secretly condemned, or kept without trial, is one of the circumstances that has worked most strongly on the minds of the people of that country, and induced them to refuse to be reconciled with Austria. We pointed out this to the Austrian Government, and observed how very likely it was to incite revolution. The Austrian Government replied that, as no doubt was too true, there were secret societies meditating insurrection. I do not think it necessary to produce that correspondence, but if the House thinks it would be desirable we have no objection to do so. I may observe that we made a further statement, recommending open trial. Next, with respect to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth (Sir Robert Peel), I entirely agree with him that punishment for religious faith totally unconnected with political opinions is in utter violation of those rights which every one of us ought to enjoy. The opinion of this House is, I believe, that every person, no matter what his faith, ought to be at liberty to profess his religious belief and express his religious opinions without being punished by the authority of the Government. That is an established principle in this country, and I have never failed in stating it to other nations when an opportunity presented itself for doing so with advantage. I may refer to the case of the Madiai family. In that case, knowing the opinions which prevailed in Italy, and know- ing likewise that, though they were not very numerous, there was a certain number of Protestants in Tuscany, I thought that a representation from the British Government might be attended with a good result. Accordingly, I made one; and we know that the family were subsequently liberated. Then I may mention a case which arose in Mexico. There are in that country two parties—one called the Church party, and the other the Constitutional party. The former have laid it down as an invariable rule that there should be but one religion, and that persons who did not belong to the Roman Catholic religion should not have the right of public worship. We were anxious—France was anxious—Spain was anxious to induce the parties who were engaged in civil war in Mexico to come to an agreement that would restore tranquillity; but we added that we could not advise such a peace without recommending to both parties that the principles of religious liberty should prevail. However, as to Spain, the right hon. Baronet may be right, and we may be wrong as to the effect of an official representation; but I confess that, seeing it written in the Spanish Constitution that there shall only be one religion, the Catholic; seeing the penal laws enacted for the punishment of all who shall attempt to worship in a different manner; and knowing that that provision in the Constitution and those penal enactments are strongly supported by the clergy of Spain, who have immense influence over the people, I, like others, thought that an official remonstrance would meet with an immediate negative. My opinion is that the public opinion which is growing in the various countries of Europe, together with the great improvement that Spain has lately made in wealth and commerce, will, before many years, introduce toleration into that country. Therefore, I did not interfere on that subject. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Butt) asks me a question with regard, to the affairs of Mexico, and especially with regard to Sir Charles Wyke. The answer I have to give is that our Government had engaged to give a sort of moral support to the late Government of Mexico—that is to say, such a recognition of that Government as would give some strength to those in authority in Mexico. But when the office of Minister from this country was vacant Sir Charles Wyke had gone to Central America to attempt to settle questions of great intricacy and difficulty that had arisen. I had no personal knowledge of Sir Charles Wyke. All that I knew of him was that he had rendered great public service to the country. He had served a great many years in tropical climates. I recommended him to Her Majesty for the appointment to Mexico. He did not come home from his duties in Central America till the month of May. I was in hopes before that period that he would have been able to go to Mexico; but when he arrived here his health was so entirely shattered by his public services in those tropical climates that he was unable to go, and he asked leave of absence for six months to recruit. For that purpose he went to Germany, and in the middle of winter I asked him to proceed to Mexico, but he said his health at that time was not restored, and he went to the waters of Carlsbad. Since that time his health has much improved, and he will be able to go by the next packet to Mexico. Sir Charles Wyke has been fifteen years in a tropical climate, and during that period he has been only one year and ten months at home, so that he was fully entitled to the short leave of absence he had obtained. I should say that the management of our affairs in Mexico has during this interval been conducted by Mr. Mathew, a gentleman who has great knowledge of the circumstances of that country. There were great difficulties to contend with there, for there was one Government at Mexico and another at Vera Cruz; and although he might enter into an agreement with the Government at Mexico he Could obtain no redress at Vera Cruz; and if he made an arrangement with the Government at Vera Cruz he could obtain no redress at Mexico. Now there is but one Government, and when Sir Charles Wyke proceeds there, he will have to deal with one Government only, and I trust he will be as successful there as he has been elsewhere. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said of the republics of South America. Those countries are possessed of great fertility, and much natural wealth, and it is to be hoped that in time better views will prevail among all classes of the people; but so long as they remain in the distracted state in which many of them now are, one consequence will be that the property of British subjects will not be safe. There is nothing which it is more difficult for a Foreign Minister to obtain than redress; and it is frequently found in South Ame- rica that a Government which commits an injury is dissolved and another in its place before redress can be obtained. I am sorry that it has not been in our power to send Sir Charles Wyke out earlier; but he is going in April.

CAIRNS said, he rose to ask a question relative to the intentions of Government with reference to the money of suitors in the Court of Chancery. The House might not be aware that the funds in the custody of that Court amounted to no less a sum than £2,000,000, in which a vast number of individuals were interested. A few evenings ago his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) asked for information respecting a Royal Commission which had been issued to inquire into the custody and management of the funds in the Court of Chancery, and he stated that considerable surprise and even alarm had been felt in consequence of the issuing of that Commission. He did not think the alarm felt was much dispelled when the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared himself sponsor for that Commission—not from any reason personal to him, but from the circumstance that almost all Chancellors of the Exchequer for many years past had looked with rather longing eyes after, at least, a portion of those funds. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) gave two reasons for the issuing of the Commission. The first was that a Committee of that House had inquired into the subject of fees in all the courts of justices, and that the recommendations of that Committee not having been followed out, it was necessary to have a Commission to examine into the nature of those recommendations. Now he was aware of only one recommendation of the Committee that had not been carried into effect. The Committee found that there was in the Accountant General's Office, when a large amount of stock was sold, and at the same time another quantity of stock purchased, a habit of making a charge on both. The Committee recommended that the difference only between the purchase and the sale should be operated upon. That recommendation had not been complied with; why, he did not know, but surely it could not be necessary to issue a Commission on such a subject. The next reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Commission being issued was that a Commission on the Consolidation of the Courts of Justice had recommended that the Suitors' Fee Fund, amounting to £1,400,000, should be dealt with in connection with the building of the new courts. That reason he regarded as more extraordinary than the other, as the Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred had supplied them with every information that could be desired. Those reasons, then, were not considered satisfactory, and had increased the alarm already felt by the suitors. But the composition of the Commission was even a greater source of surprise. The Commission consisted of seven or eight Members. The first name which he would mention was that of Lord Kings-down, in whose nomination all would agree, as his presence upon the Commission would insure a vast amount of learning and experience. The next two Members of the Commission were the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir George Grey). The present was the first occasion upon a question of reform in the Court of Chancery when it was proposed to grace a Commission by the presence of two Cabinet Ministers; but he and the public also were less impressed with a sense of the honour than with a sense of alarm at the presence of such distinguished personages upon a Commission to inquire into the manage of a Ministerial office of the Court of Chancery. If the Government had any scheme of future action in relation to this matter, it was sufficient to say that the views of the two Cabinet Ministers upon the Commission would be to carry into effect the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The next Member of the Commission was to be the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), who upon questions of banking and commerce was a high authority, but that hon. Gentleman was a staunch supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and could not be supposed to be free from the same kind of considerations which he had suggested in the case of the two Cabinet Ministers. Then there was a clerk in the Treasury-—a gentleman, no doubt, of great skill and experience in that department, but who had nothing to do with the management of the Accountant General's Office and the funds of the suitors of the Court of Chancery. This was the first time at which it had been proposed by any means to establish a connection between the Treasury and the funds of the Chancery suitors, and was a subject of alarm to the public. The remaining Members of the Commission were two solicitors,—one, Mr. Cookson, a gentleman of high honour and great experience, but a strong advocate of the plan of the Commissioners for concentrating the courts, and the appropriation for that purpose of the funds which, hitherto, had been considered as the funds of the suitors in Chancery. The last gentleman was Mr. Field, a solicitor of large business, who was examined before the Commission, and whose views, therefore, were known. That gentleman was of opinion that the office of the Accountant General was perfectly useless, and that the whole staff of clerks should be sent over to the Bank of England. He also expressed an opinion that the fee paying question should be taken out of legal hands and intrusted to a department of justice or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would deal with it in a practical and commercial spirit rather than upon legal or theoretical considerations, the legal and theoretical considerations being that the money was the property of the suitors alone. Mr. Field also thought it would be well to call the attention of the Commissioners to the provisions of the Savings' Banks Bill which had been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer^ in which he proposed to take the funds of those institutions upon a State guarantee of 3 per cent. Thus Mr. Field was an advocate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer being allowed to deal with these funds. But the question was not so much who were upon the Commission as who were not upon it. It was the first time when a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the Court of Chancery that there were not placed upon it some of those who were most experienced in the working of the Court, and responsible for its action—the Judges in Chancery. A reason for their exclusion did present itself, which he would mention in order that it might be contradicted if it were not the true reason. Upon the former Commission several of the Chancery Judges, the Master of the bells, Lord Justice Turner, Vice Chancellors Wood and Stuart were examined, and they all thought it was a most grave and serious matter to deal in any way with the funds of the Court of Chancery, except for the benefit of the suitors, and that it was a question deserving great consideration, and in their minds one involving much doubt whether it was a legitimate course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any one to take the money which had always been regarded as the sole property of the suitors. All circumstances seemed to argue that the Commission was intended to carry out and establish a foregone conclusion at which the Government had arrived, and in some way to connect the Treasury with the funds of the Court of Chancery. He had heard a rumour that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that some new stock should be created, to be called Chancery stock, and that the funds of the suitors in Chancery should be required to be invested in that stock at a fixed rate of interest. He did not know whether there was any ground for that rumour, but he must say that he could conceive nothing more at variance with the legislation of the last few years than any such scheme. By an Act passed last Session suitors were enabled to invest their funds in other securities than Consols, such as Bank Stock and India Stock. If, in the face of such legislation, giving suitors an option of investment, Parliament were now to pass a compulsory measure restricting the investment to one particular stock, that would indeed be going backwards. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that no such scheme was in contemplation. He desired to ask what were the specific purposes which the Commission was intended to work out; next, at what time the Commission would commence its sittings; and lastly, whether the Government would object to do that which had hitherto been an invariable practice, and to advise Her Majesty to add to the Commission other names, and especially those of some of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, who might be able and willing to give them assistance.

said, he wished to explain that he had not intended to say a word that could be considered disagreeable by the hon. Gentleman. He had referred to the hon. Gentleman being a supporter of the Government only for the purpose of suggesting that it was convenient that the Committee who had to take such a question into consideration should be taken from both sides of the House.

said, that before giving a reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last on the subject of the wine duties, he would advert to the other topic which had been opened by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns)—namely, that of the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery. He had not heard from any quarter, except from the hon. and learned Gentleman and from a question put by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire, any of those alarms which had acted so powerfully on their minds, and he was, indeed, sceptical as to their prevalence. He was not conscious of having any such longing after the Chancery Fund as the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested, nor did he know that any Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever had such a longing. His feeling was entirely of a different description as regarded judicial funds; for whenever any defalcation took place in them recourse was always had to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace them. A burnt child dreaded the fire, and it had been his unfortunate lot to ask the House six or seven years ago to vote between £60,000 and £70,000 for the purpose of making up a defalcation in a judicial fund—namely, that of the Court of Admiralty. Then, when they complained of the insufficiency of the arrangements under which such funds were managed, they were told that judges were not financial officers, and that it was the fault of the State and the House of Commons for not having taken wiser measures to pre- vent these defalcations. In point of fact, it was the State which was ultimately liable for all these funds; that, at least, was the practical working of the system. Therefore, although with respect to the possession of the funds he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, entertained no such feeling as the hon. and learned Gentleman evidently supposed, yet he could not help confessing that he did feel great anxiety that the management and security of them should be placed in the best position, and that he felt it his duty in the office which he had the honour to hold, to provide against a recurrence of any such disagreeable incidents as that to which he had just referred. With respect to the appointment of the Chancery Funds Commission, he wished it to be distinctly understood that it undoubtedly did not arise from a suspicion in the mind either of the public or of the Government, of any neglect or deficiency on the part of the Accountant General or the officials in his department. On the contrary, he believed the duties devolving upon that department were performed with perfect integrity and accuracy. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had been but partially informed as to the nature of the answer he had given to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), on a former occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted two reasons he gave, but omitted a third, which was more general in its character and quite sufficient to justify the appointment of this Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the most important recommendation of a Select Committee had been entirely unfulfilled, but he said the matter was one that might be settled by an order from the head of the Court. If that were the fact, why had it not been so settled? His belief was that there would be considerable difficulty in getting rid of these transactions in the market, and that it would require a larger change than the head of the Court would be disposed to make consistently with those principles of prudence on which he usually acted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had heard a report that the Government had a plan for the creation of Chancery stock in which it would be obligatory upon the suitor to have these moneys invested. He had great satisfaction in assuring the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was entirely misled. So far as he was cognizant of the individual opinion of Members of the Govern- ment, the subject not having come before them in their collective capacity, there had never been, on the part either of the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, or himself, any dream or notion of any such scheme for the creation of Chancery stock, still less of interfering with the liberty enjoyed by the suitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the legislation of last year, and said he hoped the Government would not recede from that. [Sir Hugh CAIRNS: On the contrary, I said I hoped it would be receded from. He was glad to find he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he was bound to say that with regard especially to its hearing on private trusts, that was the most extraordinary legislation he had ever witnessed, and showed great error on the part of Parliament. The Commission alone would construe the instructions which they received, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had a perfect right to ask with what views the Commission had been appointed, and to state the general circumstances out of which the appointment of the Commission arose. There were, however, very important questions which he had omitted from his statement. The immediate occasion of the Commission no doubt arose out of the proposal for the concentration of the law courts, but if reference was had to that circumstance alone, the Government would not have been justified in issuing the Commission. There were, however, other considerations which would render the inquiries of the Commission highly seasonable and useful. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring to the plan for the consolidation of the law courts, naturally viewed it from the position of a most distinguished advocate, and failed to regard it in the light in which it must present itself to a Minister of Finance. The proposal not only contemplated the appropriation of suitors' money, but likewise involved large though undefined public liabilities. If they set out with the idea of paying for the construction of these new courts with the funds in the possession of the Court of Chancery, who was to answer for their sufficiency? Hon. Members would remember that the estimate for the new Houses of Parliament at first was only £750,000; but the cost had grown to £3,000,000 and was not yet completed. What he might call the residuary liability of the public, therefore, became a very important matter, and it was his absolute duty, before consenting to the introduction of a Bill to concentrate the law courts, to take the best measures in his power to ascertain that the management of the Chancery Funds was as econonomical and prudent as was consistent with the civil rights of the suitors, and so that no unnecessary burden might be laid upon the public. Such was the nature of the connection between the concentration of the law courts and the issuing of the Commission; but he did not hesitate to say that, so far as his opinion went, there were ample grounds in the general question as to this vast fund, entirely apart from any liability of the State, actual or possible, to recommend a careful inquiry into the whole subject. There were many persons who entertained the opinion that the suitors of the Court of Chancery were very hardly used—he did not mean in respect of fees, the arrangements with reference to which would be brought to a greater or less extent under the notice of the Commission—but with reference to the fruit and benefit of their moneys while deposited in the Court of Chancery. It was said that there was British property to the extent of £50,000,000, to the owners of which they said—

"We give you this option, and this only, either to forfeit all the fruits and interest of your money whilst it remains in the Court, or to consent to place your money in a fund where the value of the capital is varying, and consequently subject to heavy loss."

Now, the reason why such a state of things had been borne so long was that if they took the value of the public funds for the last sixty or seventy years it would be found that, with rare exceptions, their tendency in price was upwards, and that what was worth in 1795 £50 or £55, and which afterwards fell to something lower, had been since moving upwards, so that that investment had been one in which the capital was almost sure to increase. But those who were conversant with the state of things which existed 100 years ago, knew that a cruel grievance was then inflicted upon those who had invested in Mr. Pelham's Consolidated Fund when the Three per Cents were at par, and who on selling out during the American war found that that fund had fallen some 30 or 40 per cent lower. It was quite plain that they were in that state of things when they could no longer expect a progressive increase in the value of the public securities, if the rate which had existed for the last eight or ten years was maintained, it was as much as they had a right to expect. The factitious and accidental advantage which had hitherto induced suitors to bear their position, consequently was likely to be lost. If the option could be given them of having their money invested in other kinds of funds or public stock with this condition, that it should be an investment without risk to their capital, and at the same time yielding a fixed moderate rate of interest. That was a question which to the suitors was far more important than any question of the reduction of £10,000 or £20,000 a year in the fees of the Court. He held in his hand a pamphlet, purporting to be a speech of Lord St. Leonards, a very high authority on the question, in which he said—

"In my own view the Court of Chancery stands in the light of a trustee, and the suitors of a cestuique trust, and I think that there might be given a certain small interest—2 per cent for example—while the funds will admit of it."

The noble, Lord, however, dismissed in a sentence what was really a financial question of the greatest complexity, for it was clear that whatever rate of interest was given to one suitor should be enjoyed by all. If it is to be the practice it must be regular, definite, and equal. There were other questions no doubt that might come under the view of the Commission, for instance the whole system of keeping accounts of the funds in the Court of Chancery, which was no doubt an antiquarian curiosity, for it was regulated under an Act which passed in 1727, and he did not suppose that there was any other instance to be found from John o'Groat's to Land's End where sums of money were governed by a process fixed in 1727. That was a matter very proper for review. There was no audit of accounts, but there was a process of fitting and welding the operations of two bodies who carried on the same operations in parallel lines. There was another important question as to the effect of the system upon the market. In speaking of transactions in the market the hon. and learned Gentleman had made a mistake in supposing that the principal question was that of brokerages. The turn of the market, as everybody conversant with the subject knew, was a very important item, and it was no easy matter to determine whether any change could wisely and safely be introduced. As regarded the composition of this Commission it was in his power to give some satisfaction to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the first place he would doubtless, admit that one of its members (Mr. Crawford) had that night given proof of his independence, for, not only had he come to the House fully prepared, without giving him notice of his intention to discuss the question which he had raised, but he had likewise undertaken to revive the subject and to elicit the opinion of Parliament with reference to it. It was not alone on account of his independence that he had been chosen as a bank director, even more than as a representative of the Metropolis, it had been thought desirable that he should give the benefit of his experience to the Commission. This he felt bound to say, that he had not the smallest conception of what his hon. Friend's opinions were upon any question connected with the Chancery Funds Commission, and he did not believe that his hon. Friend had any notion, except from what he had heard that night, of what his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinions were, for there had been no communication between them upon the subject. The politics of his hon. Friend were an entire accident; for if he had sat on the opposite side of the House he would have been requested to serve upon the Commission in precisely the same way. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) had also complained that no Judge of the Court of Chancery had been placed upon the Commission, but the Government in appointing Lord Kingsdown felt they were selecting one who not alone was intimately acquainted with the constitution and working of the Court but was likewise remarkable for an intelligent mind and for great sagacity and impartiality. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew nothing at all as to what Lord Kingsdown's opinions were, but they would be able to see ultimately whether he agreed or not with the majority of his colleagues upon this subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked whether there would be any objection to appoint a Judge of one of the equity courts. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not answer that question without consulting the Lord Chancellor; but he confessed that he did not see any particular connection between the office of a Judge of the equity courts and the management of these funds. It was not their specialty at all, nor did their position bring them into particular connection with the manipulation of these funds. Then there was upon the Commission a gentleman belonging to the es- tablishment of the Court of Chancery, Mr. Rogers, who no doubt was considered qualified by the particular attention which he had paid to the subject, and by his intimate acquaintance with the practice of the Court in reference to the fund as the registrar in the Accountant General's department. Now, as to the case of Mr. Anderson—and here he must complain of the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) and also tender an apology to him for having replied to him the other night with a certain sourness, caused by an expression used by him, he was sure unintentionally, where he described this very distinguished public servant as "a clerk in the Treasury." The name "clerk in the Treasury" was in letter and in spirit entirely misapplied; for the name was retained in the Treasury for civil servants of the highest quality in point of respectability and responsibility. No civil servant was charged with duties of greater weight and importance than Mr. Anderson; but it would be asked, why put him upon this Commission; the Accountant General's department was that department which had to deal with the management of £50,000,000 of property, subject to an infinity of details and complications, and Mr. Anderson was the man who of all men alive had had the greatest share in all the reforms in keeping accounts which had taken place in the administrative system of this country during the last thirty years. He was discovered by Sir James Graham in 1830 when a clerk in the Admiralty. When comparatively a young man he was the right-hand of Sir James Graham in reference to the reforms introduced by him, and ever since Mr. Anderson had had much acquaintance with accounts. His natural gift and skill, in addition to his immense experience, would have rendered it almost absurd to have appointed the Commission without having given them the benefit of his aid. There remained the names of two Cabinet Ministers and two solicitors. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks seemed to think that there was something improper in the appointment of two solicitors; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) looked upon solicitors, if properly chosen, as almost the backbone of a Commission of that kind. They were conversant with the forms of the Accountant General's Office; they knew where the shoe pinched, and were best qualified to suggest improvements. He knew nothing of the po- litics of either of the solicitors who had been selected, but Mr. Cookson had been appointed upon the simple ground that he was the representative of the entire body of solicitors, he being the President of the Incorporated Law Society. With regard to Mr. Field, he had heard that that gentleman was in favour of the business being transferred to the Bank, and that there should be some fixed system under which the suitors might receive interest for their money in a manner different from the present system. Then there were two Cabinet Ministers went into the Commission without any foregone conclusion upon the matter. The Government had no plan framed upon the subject, and he believed that those two Gentlemen would discharge their duty with great impartiality. Hon Gentlemen would ask, "Why put them upon the Commission?" And to that he would give a distinct answer. On a Commission involving important financial questions it was material that the State should be represented. There had been of late years examples of the mischief resulting from the omission to act on that principle. There had been Commissions appointed under the authority of the Crown to examine questions involving matters of finance without any one representing the Treasury or the State being upon them, and Reports had come forth recommending, perhaps, an expenditure of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of public money, and the Government then found itself in conflict with an authority appointed by the Crown. That was a state of things which it was desirable to prevent by placing on the Commission some of the responsible advisers of the Crown. The Commission, he believed, had held its first formal meeting that day. Passing to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member for London, said that the letter referred to by the hon. Member would have been written with a fuller explanation if intended for publicity; but the meaning desired to be expressed was that relatively to the state of things and the stage of the process he was content with the working of the test. The hon. Member stated that he could produce a hundred instances of erroneous classifications of wine; still it was important to consider whether there were not 10,000, or 20,000 other instances in which there was no error. It was not by particular instances but by the general operation that a decision should be arrived at. But his hon. Friend only 'produced one instance where two portions of the same wine were differently charged with duty, one being rated at below 40 degrees of strength and the other above 40 degrees. That distinction was introduced at the special request of the wine trade, and had it not been for the change in the law wine above 40 degrees of strength would have been rejected by the Customhouse officers altogether or made subject to the spirit duty. The hon. Gentleman had said that this process would occupy three hours; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never heard that from any other quarter, and he believed that it would not have taken a Custom-house officer more than twenty minutes to complete this inquiry. His hon. Friend had summed up by describing the wine trade as having been thrown into a state of great confusion and excitement owing to the present state of the law; but how did the matter really stand? Under the old system we imported 6,000,000 gallons of wine in the year, whereas in the first two months of the present year we had introduced as much wine as we had formerly done in five. The fact was that immense facilities for bringing in wine into the country was now afforded, and it was only yesterday he had received one of many letters which had reached him from merchants, and in which the writer expressed a hope that the alcoholic test would not be altered, adding that he was now selling good sound wine at the rate of 14s. a dozen. [_A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but he should like to know, when they thus express their incredulity on the matter, whether they were really conversant with the wine trade. For his own part, he believed that the hindrances imposed on the importation of wine by the old system amounted to ten times that caused by the duty, inasmuch as there was then a monopoly of the sources of supply, which, now that the breath of free competition was let in upon it, would be destroyed. More respectable gentlemen than those engaged in the wine trade did not exist; but their habits had been formed under the system to which they had been long accustomed, the demand for wine having been confined to limited selections. They had now, however, produced a system which would leave the wine trade free. A new class of wine merchants had sprung into existence, who were selling-wines at half, and less than half, the price for which the same wines were sold two or three years ago. That was a great shock to the habits and practice of the trade—hinc illæ lachrymæ. In conclusion he had simply to say that the Government did not intend to accede to the prayer of the petition and propose an uniform duty on foreign wines, but they did intend to adhere to the principle of classification, by means of the alcoholic test, at the different rates now in force. Though he did not pretend to deny that the present system had faults and inconveniences, these were yet less than other evils that might be substituted in seeking to remove them. As to the scale, it was not the intention of the Government to propose any change in the present Session; he thought they should have fuller experience of the system before they considered any specific modification. He had no objection to produce the memorial addressed to Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury, and he should probably accompany the document with the report and comments of the officers of the Customs. He might add that he had heard it stated that negotiations had been set on foot with the French Government with the view of affecting a negotiation on the wine duties, but that no such negotiations were pending.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for India to the judgment of the Privy Council, delivered on the 27th of July, 1859, in the appeal Kamachee Boye Sahibee v. the East India Company, and to ask if any orders have been sent to the Government of India for the disposal of the property under litigation in that suit; and if any adequate permanent provision will be made for the support of the descendants of the Princes of Tanjore He hoped the question would receive some attention, though it related to an Indian family whose interests had been very little attended to. The family in question was that of the Prince of Tanjore, who in 1799 ceded to the East India Company, in perpetuity, the whole of his little principality on consideration that he and his heirs should receive annually a stipulated sum, about one-fifth of the revenues of his state, and amounting to about £60,000. That agreement had been faithfully carried out by the East India Company for a long series of years From 1799 to the present time the family had ceased to exercise sovereign rights, and had been in receipt of a stipend from the East India Company. In 1855 the last of these Princes died, leaving behind him several widows and two daughters, one of these daughters having a son. No sooner was the death of that Prince in 1855 announced than the East India Company declared the principality had lapsed to them because the Prince had left no heir male claiming through a male. The Company further alleged that the engagement of 1799 had terminated, and that the stipend payable in consideration of the agreement had lapsed. He was not going to argue whether that was so or not; it might or might not have been the case, though he thought the assertion that it had was questionable. But the late Prince had saved a large amount of property, including jewels, lands, and houses, amounting in value to not less than £400,000. What did the East India Company do? They declared that that property had also lapsed to them along with the principality. The family, considering themselves despoiled, sought the protection of a British court of law, and a Bill was filed by them against the East India Company in the Supreme Court of Indicature at Madras; the Company appeared by their counsel before the Judges; the case was disposed of before Sir Christopher Rawlinson and Sir H. Davison, a decision was given against the East India Company, and the eldest widow was declared to be the successor. An appeal was carried to the Privy Council, which was disposed of in 1859, the result being that the decision of the Court at Madras was reversed on a technical point—the want of jurisdiction. It was said that seizing the property of the late Prince was an act of the State, for which no municipal tribunal could give redress. Lord Kingsdown, whose name had been referred to very recently in terms of such high eulogy, delivered the judgment of the Committee, and made use of the following emphatic language:—

"It is extremely difficult to discover in those papers any ground of legal right, on the part of the East India Company, or of the Crown of Great Britain, to the possession of this raj, or of any part of the property of the Rajah on his death; and indeed the seizure was denounced by the Attorney General (who, from circumstances explained to us at the hearing, appeared as counsel for the respondents, and not in his official character for the appellants) as a most violent and unjustifiable measure. The Rajah was an independent Sovereign of territories undoubt- edly minute, and bound by treaties to a powerful neighbour, which left him, practically, little power of free action; but he did not hold his territory, such as it was, as a fief of the British Crown or of the East India Company; nor does there appear to have been any pretence for claiming it, on the death of the Rajah without a son, by any legal title either as an escheat or as bona vacantia."

When the decision was reported at Madras Sir Charles Trevelyan was Governor. Sir Charles, treating with contempt the views the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at once proposed to appropriate the property of the Prince, allowing small salaries to the family to lapse at the death of the incumbents. But new blood had been infused into the Council at Madras; the Commander-in-Chief dissented from this opinion on the ground that it would be unbecoming to appropriate the property in any other manner than according to law. Two other Members supported the opinion of Sir Patrick Grant, and Sir Charles Tre-velyan was not able to carry out his proposal. The matter was, therefore, still in abeyance, and the family concerned was still left in a state of uncertainty. He did not make the Motion in any spirit of hostility to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood). He was glad to see the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had acted with reference to the Mysore Princes, and to know that he intended to carry out the views he had announced. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that these parties had met with greater consideration at his hands than they had succeeded in obtaining hitherto; and that the family of an ancient ally would meet with the justice which they merited.

said, he rose to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India would not be deterred by the clamour raised in Calcutta, on account of the grant to the Mysore princes, from doing simple justice to the descendants of the princes of Tanjore. The seizure of the private property of the family by the Government of the Marquess of Dalhousie was an act of plunder and robbery. It was done by a Government who seemed to think that the necessities of the case justified spoliation. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his serious consideration, because the people of India would look upon the conduct of the Government with regard to it as a test whether they were sincere in their desire to carry out the pro- mises in the proclamation issued by Her Majesty when she assumed the direct government of India, and which had done more for the pacification of that country than all the bayonets of Lord Clyde.

said, his attention had been called to the case of the Princes of Tanjore, with many other similar cases. He did not wish to bring any charge against the right hon. Gentleman, because he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had under consideration both the position of the family, and the redress that might be afforded to them. He believed that the whole question remained in some degree undecided. He heard that the case had been referred to the Governor General of India, and that the right hon. Gentleman was waiting for information from India before he came to a final determination. He (Mr. Bright) did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give back the "raj" to the family. The late rajah was dead and gone and it might not be necessary to establish his family in any title or position; but nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of England in India than that the Government, on the death of a man against whom there was no charge, whose memory was unstained by any act of aggression against England or the English Government, should by main force step in and seize everything he had—the whole accumulations of a life of prudence and economy—and leave his relatives entirely unprovided for. To do that was to act in violation of every promise made to the people of India in the proclamation of the Queen on the extinction of the Government of the East India Company. When they heard that a most eminent Judge (Lord Kingsdown), speaking in the judicial Committee of the Privy Council, had expressed a strong opinion as to the injustice of the course that had been taken, he (Mr. Bright) could not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India would delay much longer his determination to come to some arrangement that would place the members of the rajah's family in a condition of independence and comfort consistent in some degree with the status which they held in their own country. It would be only just to them individually, and it would be the best policy the right hon. Gentleman could adopt, for the purpose of affecting the general opinion of all portions of India when the facts should become known, and impressing the people with a conviction of the truth, justice, and morality of the Government of England in that country. He (Mr. Bright) had told the hon. Gentleman who brought the case before him that he thought the Secretary of State, on reviewing the matter, would take a liberal and just view of the whole question. He also undertook, if the case were brought before the House, to make the observations he had made, and to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman to do that which his own sense of justice should induce him to do. To treat the people of India with liberality would be the best economy and the wisest policy the right hon. Gentleman could pursue.

said, that the Government of India seemed to imagine that when they were not subject to the decisions of tribunals they might act according to their own will and pleasure. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would teach them they were bound to deal with the natives of India according to principles of right and justice, and were not at liberty to plunder those over whom they had authority.

said, that he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, What information it is in his power to give respecting the administration of relief to the sufferers by the famine in India, and whether works of irrigation will be vigorously promoted, as the best means of preventing such calamities in future? Although he thought that the Government of that country could interpose with very little effect in cases of the kind generally, and that it rather belonged to private enterprise to mitigate the evils of a famine, nevertheless, under the deplorable circumstances of the inhabitants of the north-west Provinces, who were the victims of much suffering at the present moment, he thought the Government was called upon to step aside from their usual course with the view of alleviating the privations of the starving people. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able at all events to give the House some information in reference to the adoption of measures calculated to supply in some degree the loss that had been sustained by the failure of the crops. Of course it would be absurd to attempt to make the Government responsible for the famine; but he was convinced that if works of irrigation had been encouraged some years ago, there would have been fewer dearths in India than had lately occurred.

ventured to suggest, in addition to what had been proposed by the hon. Member opposite, that a plan might be organized for bringing some of these poor people down to Calcutta in families, in order that they might emigrate to Mauritius or the "West Indies. He was induced to make this suggestion in consequence of his attention having been directed that very day to a minute of the Governor of Mauritius, which had just been received, complaining of the unusual scarcity of emigrants offering at Calcutta for the Mauritius. It was well known that both there and in the West Indies they would obtain abundant employment and good wages; and that their condition would under any circumstances be better, but at the present moment more than ordinarily better than in their native country.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether in future all the services in India will be open to all the Natives of India, without distinction of Caste or Creed? As. his question had reference to 150,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects in India, it ought to command the best attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India was aware that many of the Natives of India were pursuing a course of study in our universities with the view of preparing themselves for passing the competitive examinations required to enable them to enter into the public service. They had been led to do so on the faith of a clause in the Act 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c, 5, which was as follows:—

"And be it enacted that no Native of the said territories, nor any natural horn subject of his Majesty residing therein, shall by reason only of his religion, creed, birth, sect, or colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or emolument under the said Company."

The rights under that clause, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had declared to remain intact on the assumption of authority by the Queen. In 1858 Her Majesty issued a proclamation in which she declared it to be her will that all her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be freely and impartially admitted to offices in her service the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge. One of the students, however, to whom he had referred having read the answer given by the right hon. Baronet in that House, to the effect that the Natives of India had no right to enter Her Majesty's army, had asked him (Colonel Sykes) his advice, whether he ought, under the circumstances, to give up his status in this country, and go back to India. By the last mail from India, also, he had received a letter from several Native Nobles and Gentlemen of the Deccan, enclosing a petition from the sirdars, jaghiredars, bankers, and others of the Deccan, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to the Legislative Council of India, and also to the House of Commons, stating that the Natives of India were precluded from filling various offices in that country, whilst the Natives of Ceylon were permitted to associate with the Europeans in the Government, and praying that the same rights might be extended to the Natives of India. It was idle to say that a person born in India was physically disqualified for service in European climates, and that the health of the Natives would suffer by their appointment to offices in any part of the world where Europeans could serve. There was no foundation for such an assertion; as they were aware, there were hundreds of Native Indians living for years in this kingdom without any injury to their health. If that argument were good it would go to the extent of excluding from offices here the sons of all Europeans born in India. The question was one of great gravity for we could not maintain our position in India but by our amalgamation to a certain extent with the Natives of India, and by respecting their rights and feelings. He hoped the answer he would receive from the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of removing those doubts and suspicions regarding our treatment of the Indian people which existed in the minds of the Natives. He had no hesitation in saying that if an appeal were made to him of any violation of the Act of Parliament or of Her Majesty's proclamation he should consider it his duty to take the sense of the House whether an Act of the British Parliament was to be treated as a mere mockery and the pro- clamation of Her Majesty to be of no effect.

said, that with regard to the first question put to him, he could only say he entirely agreed in the principle laid down by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Although in many cases the proceedings of the Governments in India were exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law, the Native Princes were not the less entitled to justice at the hands of the Government. He was glad to find that two hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House approved of the conduct he had pursued in reference to the Mysore Princes. He trusted they only did him justice in saying that the fair and liberal treatment of those princes was an indication of the course he was disposed to pursue in the case of all other princes. That policy had been found fault with in Calcutta and by persons in India. He could only say that he was thoroughly convinced in his own mind that the course he had pursued was just and right, and that he should not be deterred by any attack made upon him from doing that which he considered to be just and equitable. With regard to the property of the late Rajah of Tanjore, the state of the case was this: a recommendation had been sent up by the Governor of Madras—Sir Charles Trevelyan, he believed—very much to the effect of what the hon. Gentleman had stated to the Government of India. It had not, however, as yet come to this country from the Government of India. He did not know why; but it was no fault of his. Last summer he wrote to the Governor General of India desiring that the Report from the Governor of Madras, with the recommendation, should be forwarded to him. It had not, however, as yet come to him in an official form. He believed the recommendation was that the whole of the property should be distributed amongst the relatives of the rajah. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned the marriage of the rajah's daughter. No doubt it would be the duty of the Government to make provision for all persons who had a claim upon the property. The hon. Gentleman had also spoken of a son of the rajah's daughter, the grandson of the rajah, and the son of a person of considerable property in Tanjore. There was no pretension to say that any of those persons were in distressed circumstances. It appeared that that child was only born a few weeks ago, and long after all the transactions which had been referred to had taken place. "With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) as to the existence of famine in a portion of India he (Sir Charles Wood) was sorry to say he was afraid it was too true, and there was every apprehension of much suffering in consequence of the scarcity of provisions. The last accounts from India were, however, of a much more favourable character than the preceding. There was no doubt a great drought last autumn in the North-Western Provinces, but by the last accounts it appeared that rain had fallen. He hoped that the sufferings of the people, though unfortunately very severe, would be confined to a much smaller area than was previously feared, while the Government of India had taken every possible precaution to alleviate these sufferings. It had been truly observed that it was impossible for the Government to deal with the population on a great scale; but large subscriptions had been raised in Calcutta and elsewhere in India for the relief of the sufferers, and he believed that both the Government and the colonists had done everything in their power to mitigate the distress which prevailed in the famine-stricken districts. It happened that the part of the country in which the greatest destitution might be apprehended was that in which the Indian Government had executed the most gigantic work of irrigation that had been undertaken in India for many years. The Ganges Canal passed through the central part of the district, and he was happy to say that the people in its neighbourhood had at last become aware of its value. These works of irrigation were most advantageous to the country and profitable to the Government, and as far as their means would permit, the authorities were prepared to proceed with them. He hoped that before long the easier state in the money-market would enable them to raise the money necessary for these great undertakings. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) he had to say that he had not seen the letter to which he alluded from the sirdars and others of the Deccan. He confessed he did not see the cause of alarm to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred. No alteration had been made in the treatment of the Native Indians since 1833, nor had anything occurred to show that any different system had been employed. What was true in 1833 was true now. What was considered right then was equally right now. His hon. and gallant Friend, however, must pardon him for observing that some of the questions put, and some of the observations made by himself, had more than anything else tended to create alarm in the minds of the Natives of India.

I rise, Sir, to put a question to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, with regard to the case of Mr. Turnbull. I may premise by stating that it is not my intention to enter into the merits of the case, and I shall abstain from doing so for two reasons. In the first place, it is one which peculiarly affects the feelings and susceptibilities of Roman Catholics; and I, speaking for myself, as a Catholic Member of this House, should much prefer that the initiative were taken by a Protestant Member, should any hon. Gentleman of that persuasion deem it right, at any future time, to ask the House to pronounce an opinion upon it. And, in the second place, were I inclined to enter into the merits of the case, it would be impossible for me to do so, because the materials are wanting for a full and fair judgment on the whole matter; and this brings me directly to the object of the question I am about to put to the noble Lord. My complaint is, that all the documents relating to this transaction have not been laid before the House; and it is indispensable to a fair and honest judgment upon this case that all the documents connected with the appointment and resignation of Mr. Turnbull—I may say the compulsory resignation of that gentleman—should be in the possession of Members. This case has excited considerable interest out of doors, and even in this House—an evidence of which will be found in the fact of two Motions for papers being almost simultaneously moved by two hon. Members—the Member for Harwich (Captain Jarvis), and the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling). I hold in my hand a return of the result of the Motions made by those hon. Gentlemen. The Motion of the hon. Member for Harwich, for copies of the correspondence between the Master of the Rolls and Mr. Turnbull relative to the appointment of the latter gentleman has been complied with. The hon. Member for Perthshire moved for "all the letters and minutes which had passed between the Government and the Master of the Rolls relative to the appointment and resignation of Mr. Turnbull;" but, instead of all the letters and minutes having been granted, only one letter and one minute have been printed. Personally, I have no knowledge of the transaction; but I have Mr. Turnbull's authority for saying that the returns which have been laid before the House will not enable Members to form a full and fair judgment on the merits of his case. I may briefly state that on the 13th of August, 1859, the Master of the Rolls wrote to Mr. Turnbull offering him the appointment of Calendarer of Foreign State Papers in the State Paper Office; expressing, at the same time, his confidence in that gentleman's personal honour and integrity, and his literary competency for so important a task. On the 28th of January, 1861, Mr. Turnbull sent in his resignation. Shortly after the appointment of Mr. Turnbull, a large and influential deputation, headed by the Earl of Shaftesbury, a nobleman of great public piety waited upon the noble Lord to remonstrate with him in reference to the appointment; and it has been stated by a Minister, in "another place," that, in conquence of that deputation, the noble Lord entered into communication with the Master of the Rolls, the head of the department to which the matter rightly belonged, and that a correspondence ensued. Where is this correspondence? It has been withheld, although contemplated by the hon. Member for Perthshire, and essential to a proper understanding of the case. There was, however, a still more important correspondence between the noble Viscount and the Master of the Rolls, which has also been omitted from the return. Late in December, of last year, or early in January, this year, the Secretary to the Scottish Reformation Society communicated on the part of that body, with the noble Lord, complaining of the appointment, and remonstrating against the continuance of Mr. Turnbull in his office, and intimating to the noble Lord that the subject would be brought before a public meeting of the Society, which was to be held on the 9th or 10th of January. I am instructed to say that that communication from the Scottish Reformation Society was transmitted by the noble Lord to the Master of the Rolls, with an intimation that, if the question came before the House of Com- mons, the Master of the Rolls should be prepared to defend the appoinment. I make this statement not upon my own authority, but on that of Mr. Turnbull. That gentleman has authorised me to state that the Master of the Rolls had officially communicated with him, stating that a correspondence to this effect had taken place between the noble Lord and himself. The Master of the Rolls distinctly understood, from the tenor of this correspondence, that if the question of the appointment came before the House of Commons, the Government would not defend it. What, then, under such circumstances, could Mr. Turnbull do? No doubt, many persons considered Mr. Turnbull to have acted foolishly in having tendered his resignation without having been called upon to do so; but what was the fact?—what were the real motives which influenced his conduct? The Master of the Rolls from a feeling of friendship, and knowing how competent Mr. Turnbull was to discharge this particular duty exercised his patronage to the best of his ability by conferring this appointment upon Mr. Turnbull: in fact, he became the patron of Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Turnbull was thus under a special obligation to the Master of the Rolls; and when he found that the Master of the Rolls was placed in this false position—the Government having abandoned a public officer, whose conduct Was blameless, and on whom no reproach could be cast, and the Master of the Rolls unfortunately having no longer a seat in the House of Commons, where he could vindicate the appointment—he (Mr. Turn-bull) felt it his duty, as a gentleman and a man of honour, to surrender his own interest out of consideration for his patron. This statement, which I make upon the authority of Mr. Turnbull, with whom I had an interview this very day, places his resignation upon a much more intelligible basis than that disclosed by the imperfect return now before the House. It was stated the other night, in "another place," that the noble Lord did not write this letter to the Master of the Rolls, putting, as it were, a moral screw on Mr. Turnbull, to drive him as a man of sensibility and honour out of his place. It was said that the noble Lord was too chivalrous ever to think of abandoning a public servant, especially one who had discharged his duty, according to the testimony of the head of his department, with ability and fidelity. In fact the whole issue was put upon that occasion, and in that other place, on the known character of the noble Lord for chivalry and manliness. But was the Master of the Rolls under a delusion?—or did he only imagine that he had received such an intimation from the noble Lord? Mr. Turnbull had this from the Master of the Eolls—that the noble Lord threw upon him the responsibility of vindicating the appointment. This statement Mr. Turn-bull believed, and on that belief he resigned. No doubt he was instigated to that resignation by clamour and persecution; but he would not have done so if he had received the protection of the Government—if, in fact, he had not been abandoned and thrown over by the Government. I say then, if there be such a letter in existence as that, which I have described—a public letter written by the head of the Government, in the name of the Government to a high public functionary, in reference to the exercise of his public patronage—it ought to be produced. I am told there passed between the noble Lord and the Master of the Rolls, not two letters, but six or seven letters, in some of which the wisdom and prudence of the appointment were, I assume, fully vindicated; and when a man's personal honour and literary reputation are at stake, as they are in this instance, these letters should be laid before the House. "We shall presently hear from the noble Lord whether such a letter as that which induced Mr. Turnbull's resignation was written to him by the Master of the Rolls, and if the Master of the Rolls had not written in reply. If so, where are those letters? Neither of them has been produced. There is a passage in the only printed minute in the return, to which, in justice to Mr. Turnbull, I shall call the attention of the House. The Master of the Rolls was so impressed with the ability which Mr. Turnbull had displayed in the performance of his important duty, and the loss to the public which would be occasioned by his resignation, that he urgently pressed the Lords of the Treasury not to accept his resignation, but to retain him in his office. And in answer to this testimony and appeal of the Master of the Rolls, here is this public acknowledgment by the Government in the Treasury Minute of February, 25, 1861—

"Write to the Master of the Rolls that my Lords readily accept his Honour's testimony to the manner in which Mr. Turnbull has performed his duties, and willingly acknowledge that no cause has been shown for doubting: that the work has been executed with ability and fidelity."

If, then, such a man has been driven from his office, are we not entitled to some explanation of the fact from the Government? I ask the noble Lord why he has not frankly given to the House all the communications which have passed between him and the Master of the Rolls on this subject? The Return ordered by the House has not been granted. It is—if I may be excused for so fade an illustration—like the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet cut out. We have the parts of the Gravediggers and of Polonius; but the Prince himself—the chief actor, the noble Lord opposite—has been omitted. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am right in saying that a full return should have been given. In the production of Foreign Despatches, there may at times be necessity for some reserve; but here the principal part—the important part—that by which a judgment could alone be fairly come to—has been entirely left out. The personal honour and literary reputation of Mr. Turnbull are here at stake; and the noble Lord is bound to afford the House the fullest means of forming an opinion on the real merits of the case, and to this gentleman every facility for his vindication. I now beg to ask the noble Lord the question of which I have given him notice, and I call his attention to the precise and comprehensive manner in which I have framed it. The honourable Member concluded by putting the following question:—Whether any other letters than those printed in the Return, dated the 15th day of February, have passed between the Government and the Master of the Rolls relative to the appointment and resignation of Mr. Turnbull; whether, in fact, several letters have not passed between the noble Lord himself and the Master of the Rolls prior to the resignation of Mr. Turnbull, and directly bearing on Mr. Turnbull's case; and if such letters have passed between the noble Lord and the Master of the Rolls, whether there is any objection, and what objection, to their immediate production?

Sir, I am quite ready to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. But in the first place I may be allowed to say that, although I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Turn-bull, although I never saw him, and only have heard of him in consequence of the discussion which has taken place with re- gard to his appointment, I believe him to be a man of perfect honour, and I regret very much that a person of his abilities and his high character should, by circumstances over which he had no control, have been placed in a situation very irksome to the feelings of a man who naturally has a high respect for himself. I think the course which he took was highly honourable to him. I think that a man who finds himself placed in a situation in which, in the discharge of duties conscientiously performed, he finds that a very great amount of public prejudice has arisen against him, and that he is the object of attack from a great number of persons—I think that that person, with those feelings of self-respect which ought to actuate him, does rightly when he withdraws from a situation which has become invidious, and in which he is exposed to what he naturally thinks misrepresentation and unmerited censure. So far from thinking that he acted foolishly in tendering his resignation, I think that is the course which any man of honour and self-respect would have pursued in the position in which Mr. Turnbull was placed. The hon. Member has stated that he will not enter into the case of Mr. Turnbull and discuss his merits and demerits. I do not wish to do so either, Mr. Turnbull was appointed, not to an office, but to a temporary employment by the Master of the Polls. The Master of the Rolls is not the servant of the Government. He holds an entirely independent situation, over which the Government have no control, and over which I cannot pretend to have any control whatever. He is not my servant, and I am not his servant. The Master of the Rolls, having chosen Mr. Turnbull to perform certain duties for a limited period, applied to the Treasury, as is shown by the papers, to recommend that he should be employed and a certain; salary given to him. That was in the 1 month of August, 1859. Soon after that the appointment took place. It was sanctioned by the Treasury as a matter of form—as a matter of course, upon the recommendation of the Master of the Polls. I knew nothing of it. It did not come naturally within my cognizance. But very soon after that appointment representations were made to me from various quarters that Mr. Turnbulll, on account of peculiar opinions which he entertained, and from his temperament and character, was not the person who ought properly to be employed to perform the particular duty which devolved upon him. I communicated, no doubt, immediately afterwards with the Master of the Rolls to let him know the representations which had been made to MR. Those representations came frequently and from large bodies of persons both in England and Scotland—persons just as fully entitled to entertain the opinions which they expressed as Mr. Turnbull was entitled to entertain the opinions which he expressed. I thought it right to let the Master of the Rolls know that the current of public opinion was setting against employing Mr. Turnbull in that particular duty. Several letters passed between me and the Master of the Rolls between the period, I think, of September, 1859, and the mouth of January in the present year. Those letters were private letters, most of them written from my private residence in the country. They were not letters from the Government, and did not express at all any opinion on the part of the Government. But they were letters to the Master of the Rolls as an old friend and an old colleague, which I thought I was entitled as an individual to send, and he answered them in the same way. The object of those letters was to urge on the Master of the Rolls that I thought the selection made by him upon his own responsibility had been an unfortunate one, that it had created a great amount of public misunderstanding, and I earnestly urged him that he should employ Mr. Turnbull on some other duty in the performance of which he would not be liable to the same suspicions, unfounded as they might be, or to the same amount of prejudice which prevailed with regard to the appointment which he held. The Master of the Rolls, in answer, gave me reasons why he did not think it expedient to follow the course which I recommended. It was perfectly competent for him on his own responsibility to take that line. Towards the end of December last year I wrote the letter to which the hon. Member has more particularly alluded, and in that letter I repeated a statement I had made before—that I had received a petition signed by some thousands of people and applications from various quarters; I said further that I thought it very probable the matter would be brought under discussion in this House, and that I hoped, in that case, he would furnish somebody with arguments in defence of the course which he had taken. I hold that there was nothing unbecoming the relations between the Master of the Rolls and myself in that statement. If I employ any officer, whether naval, military, or diplomatic, in the performance of a duty under instructions from the Government, and if I believe that, placed under whatever difficulties he may have had to encounter, he has performed it to the best of his ability and judgment, it is my duty to defend him to the utmost of my power in this House, and everywhere else. And I fancy I have always performed that duty. I am responsible for the instructions under which that person is acting, and if I think he does not act according to the best of his ability, judgment, and integrity, I am bound to recall and dismiss him; and if he is not recalled and dismissed, it is my duty as a Minister and as a man to defend a public officer when I believe he deserves to be defended. But here the case is of a totally different kind. Here was an independent public servant, totally free from any orders or instructions from me, who upon his own responsibility declined the advice which I gave him—not to dismiss Mr. Turnbull, or to do anything to affect his private or public character—but to employ him in different work in which he would not be liable to the same objections. The Master of the Rolls, acting upon his own judgment and upon his own responsibility, did not choose to do that—he saw no reason for doing it. But why am I, if that decision of the Master of the Rolls is called in question—why am I to come and give an opinion which I do not entertain? and, having told him repeatedly that I thought the selection unfortunate, and that he would act judiciously both for himself and Mr. Turnbull in employing him in some other occupation—why am I to come and say "black is white," and to give an opinion diametrically the reverse of that which in private communications I had expressed? Such a course would be neither manly nor chivalrous. It would be mean and disgraceful. I am not the servant of the Master of the Rolls. I stand here to defend my own opinion and conduct. I am not bound to defend the opinions or conduct of a totally independent authority when I do not think those opinions right or that conduct judicious. I have now put the hon. Gentleman in full possession of everything which he could know if those letters were produced. I do not choose to produce those letters, for this reason—that they were private let- ters, written in private intercourse, dated from my own house, and not one of them recorded in any public department. They are totally different from letters written on the part of the Government, and they form a correspondence which it would be inexpedient to make a precedent of producing to Parliament. If every man in a public situation were to he liable to have produced all communications which from time to time in the confidence and unreserve of private intimacy he might write to another person holding a public situation, I am sure I need not explain to the House, it would be a bar to intercourse essentially necessary for the conduct of public business. It is not that I shrink from an avowal of any opinions which I expressed in those letters, for I have stated them. The hon. Gentleman is as fully in possession of everything which I wrote in substance as if those letters were laid upon the table. But, as a matter of principle, I protest against calling for the production of private correspondence, taken out of the drawer of my table, or out of the pigeonholes of a desk in my house, which are in no respect public documents, or documents which it is at all advisable Parliament should require. I am not responsible for the appointment of Mr. Turnbull. I deemed it my duty to make known to the Master of the Rolls the objections which were taken to his selection. I concurred to a certain extent in those objections. I do not mean to say that I concurred in any of those suspicions which may have existed in some quarter that Mr. Turnbull really would, in consequence of the peculiarity of his opinions, swerve from the honest performance of his duty. All that I have heard leads me to the conviction that he would perform his duty honestly, however it might conflict in its exercise with any private or personal opinions of his own. But it appeared to me inexpedient, in a matter connected with the historical records of the country—in a matter connected with the compilation of documents which are to serve as guides to those who study the history of past transactions in which this country has been concerned—that a person should be employed of whose fidelity a large portion of the community entertained doubts which might affect the trust reposed in the accuracy of his labours. The Master of the Rolls himself, in the papers produced, tells Mr. Turnbull, in the first letter of appointment, that it is of great importance that there should be no imperfection or inaccuracy in the records which he was to compose and draught, and, therefore, I think it was unfortunate a person should have been chosen in respect of whom it could possibly be imagined on the part of anybody that the work would not be correctly and perfectly prepared. I say, again, that I think Mr. Turnbull acted as a man of honour. I am far from throwing any reproach on him for having resigned; but, as he resigned from motives connected with his own personal feelings, I do not think the Master of the Rolls had any right to require me or the Treasury to urge him to continue in an office which consistently with those feelings he could not retain. Be it remarked that in his letter the Master of the Rolls, while he accepts Mr. Turnbull's resignation, says distinctly that he will not press him to continue in his situation. Yet having stated this, and having in his letter to the Treasury declared that it was not for him to suggest any course to the Government, he goes on in that same letter not only to suggest a course, but earnestly to recommend the Treasury to do that very thing which he declined to do himself—namely, to press Mr. Turnbull to remain in his office. I thought it consistent neither with Mr. Turnbull's comfort, nor his character, nor with the interest of the public, that he should be urged by me to continue in the performance of a duty which exposed him—undeservedly if you will—to great public obloquy, and which was evidently incompatible with his own feelings and personal satisfaction.

said, that however much he might regret the decision arrived at by the noble Lord that Mr. Turnbull's appointment was one that could not be defended, he must admit that the noble Lord was fully entitled to come to his own conclusions on the subject. Still, the painful fact remained that a most respectable and accomplished man, who received an important appointment from the Master of the Rolls, was persecuted on account of his religious opinions to such an extent that he was ultimately induced to resign his office, and that so great, indeed, was the virulence of that persecution that the Prime Minister was compelled to come to the conclusion that it would not be wise or expedient in him to uphold that Gentleman's appointment. The House of Commons and the community at large were deeply interested in setting their faces against a system of that kind. At an earlier period of the evening they had heard an ardent appeal from an hon. Member against the persecution of Protestants by Catholics in a neighbouring State; but the position of this country as the champion of religious freedom would be far stronger and better if that neighbouring State could not point to such an incident as the resignation of Mr. Turnbull as a reply to our strictures upon its own conduct. Indeed, we might almost be reproached with seeing the mote in our neighbour's eye without removing the beam from our own. He strongly protested against the proceedings adopted towards Mr. Turnbull. Though not of the same religious persuasion as that gentleman he thought he had been very unfairly used; and he was equally convinced that had Mr. Turnbull been allowed to remain in his office he would have completed his task with the same fidelity as he had hitherto executed it. He would next refer to the answer given earlier in the evening by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Finsbury. That answer he thought by no means satisfactory. The noble Lord had not shown in what manner our interests in the Ionian Islands justified the menace he had addressed to Sardinia through his despatch to Sir James Hudson. A united Italy would be a far better counterpoise against France than Austria; and, as the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was impending, the emancipation of Hungary and the union of the Rouman and Slavonian races were objects of much greater importance to us than the maintenance of an effete power like Austria, which must soon sink to the level of Spain. If we must seek for new alliances lot them be not mere dynastic alliances but alliances with the free and emancipated peoples of Europe.

I was one of those, Sir, who signed a memorial representing the strong opinion of no less than 2,500 of the educated classes of society, that Mr. Turnbull had proved himself by his writings to be a person of such exaggerated opinions as must disqualify him altogether from the performance of duties so important as those of calendaring the State papers of the country from the period of the Reformation, since these papers have particular reference to the conduct of the Jesuits of whom he has expressed himself in terms of unqualified admiration. Entertaining, in common with the other gen- tlemen who signed that document, a very strong opinion that no person so biassed and prejudiced ought to be employed to assort, and to compile an index of those papers which are to furnish the basis of the future education of England, I concurred in the representation to the noble Lord; and I can attest this fact, that from the very time that it was even rumoured that Mr. Turnbull was about to be appointed by the Master of the Rolls, representations were addressed from numerous persons entertaining like opinions, who made them known to the noble Lord and likewise to the Master of the Rolls. It is a most unfortunate circumstance for Mr. Turnbull himself, and for the Master of the Rolls, that he seemed determined to set educated public opinion at defiance, in such a manner as the result has clearly manifested, that he could not maintain his decision. That, Sir, is a very great misfortune. The noble Lord has explained the position in which he was placed, and has, I venture to say, amply vindicated his conduct before the country; but I must add that it was scarcely worthy of any one in this House to endeavour to cast upon the noble Lord a responsibility which really does not attach to him. The noble Lord honestly represented to the Master of the Rolls the strong opinions which had been expressed to him, notwithstanding which the Master of the Rolls chose to exhibit a total disregard of those opinions. Well, Sir, under the pressure of public opinion Mr. Turnbull retired, and it is altogether unreasonable to expect the noble Lord, who sympathized in some degree with, or at all events did not scout, as the Master of the Rolls scouted, public opinion, to have reinstated Mr. Turnbull in his situation, when if he had so reinstated him, the appointment would have been of the noble Lord's own making. "Who could expect the noble Lord to do this when from the first he had disapproved of Mr. Turnbull's appointment? The thing is too unreasonable to be entertained by the House for one moment. I may, perhaps, be permitted to state to the House what first attracted my attention to this subject. Three years ago Mr. Jardine, a barrister of the Middle Temple, published a narrative of the great conspiracy of the Popish party in this country—I mean the Gunpowder Plot, and if the House will permit me, I will read a few words from the preface to the work, which will show that important documents have been abstracted from the State Paper Office. This is a portion of the subject which has not come before the public, and in vindication of those with whom I have concurred in this matter, I hope the House will allow me to read a passage from a perfectly impartial author, who has deeply investigated the subject. He says, referring to certain documents which are missing—

"When Sir Edward Coke was discharged by James I. from his judicial station, in 1618, his papers were seized by order of the Privy Council, and deposited in the State Paper Office, and it appears from an inventory of the articles so deposited, in the handwriting of Sir Thomas Wilson, who shortly afterwards became keeper of the State Papers, that among many other documents of a public and private nature, there was ' a black buckram bag, containing papers about the Gunpowder Plot.' Although the documents upon the subject of the Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State Paper Office are numerous, the collection is not by any means complete. Many important papers which were particularly mentioned and described by Bishop Andrews, Dr. Abbott, Causabon, and Other contemporary writers, and some of which were copied by Archbishop Sancroft from the originals so lately as the close of the seventeenth century, are not now to be found. It is remarkable that precisely those papers which constitute the most important evidence against Garnet and the other Jesuits are missing; so that if the merits of the controversy respecting their criminal implication in the plot depended upon the fact of the original documents now to be found in the State Paper Office, impartial readers might probably hesitate to form a decided opinion upon the subject. The missing papers of particular importance are minutes of an overheard conversation between Garnet and Hall in the Tower, dated the 25th of February, 1605–6; an intercepted letter from Garnet addressed to ' The Fathers of the Society of Jesus,' dated on Palm Sunday, a few days after his trial, and an intercepted letter to Greenway, dated April 4, 1605–6. That all of those papers were in the State Paper Office when Dr. Abbott wrote his Antilogia, in 1613, is evident from the copious extracts from them published in that work, and a literal copy of the first of them made by Archbishop Sancroft many years afterwards from the State Papers is still in existence. The originals of these documents, however, do not appear to be now contained in the proper depository for them, and it is undoubtedly a singular accident, that amongst so large a mass of documents, precisely those should be abstracted upon whose authenticity and effect the point in the controversy between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants in great measure depended. Many of the facts in the following narrative are taken from a manuscript relation of Father Greenway, brought by Dr. Lingard from Rome, and much relied upon by him in the interesting account of this conspiracy given in his History of England. … Though little is known of the history of this manuscript, there is strong internal evidence that it was written by Greenway, probably at the suggestion of the Pope, or of the Father General of the Jesuits, in order to vindicate his own conduct and that of Garnet from the charge of having encouraged the plot.… Some allowance must be made, however, for the partial colours in which he depicts the character of the conspirators. That they were not the brutal ruffians, as described in the popular representations of them, is beyond all doubt, but, according to Greenway's statement, the men who contrived this monstrous and cruel treason were the gentlest, the most benevolent, and the most pious of the human race; and if we are to believe him, 'the seven gentlemen of name and blood,' as Faukes truly calls them, who worked in the mine, together with those who afterwards joined them, composed as amiable a company, with respect to virtues and accomplishments, as could have been desired."

Now Sir, when we know that documents so important in the history of this country as these have been abstracted, I say it was not unnatural that, finding a person appointed to make extracts, and calendar and index, the State Papers, who had expressed himself in the terms which I am about to read, we should object to his appointment. We have reason for the following opinion, I which is expressed in the memorial—

"Mr. Turnbull is not only a Roman Catholic, but an avowed defender and admirer of the Jesuits, ' for whom he expresses, in his Life of Father Southwell, a ' natural bias,' and holds them in 'the highest veneration, honour, and esteem,' and has, in the same work, manifested this 'natural I bias' by calling the Jesuit priest Garnet, who was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot, a 'well-known martyr,' and the conspiracy of Babington against the life of Elizabeth and the State of England a 'gallant confederacy;' that in another work he designated the Reformation 'a mischievous event,' and has declared that 'he would rather be condemned with a Papist than saved with a Puritan.'"

These are the opinions of the person to the appointment of whom to this important office the gentlemen who hold the same opinions as myself object. "We never said that Mr. Turnbull would steal the papers; but we say this, that it requires an impartial mind to prepare extracts and indexes on which the teaching of future history depends. One man might be sorely tempted to leave a passage which another man would extract. He might omit a number from the index, or a page from the calendar. Suppose that this was suspected, and a person went to the State Paper Office and applied to look at the index, and not finding there what he sought, were to say, "I am confident it ought to be there;" what is the answer he would get? It would be, "You are not appointed calendarer; we shall not allow you to search;" and that document would be as completely lost to the public as if it were buried in the bottom of the sea. These are things which we did not wish Mr. Turnbull to be tempted to do, because he had told us that he had a natural bias which would tempt him. He had published the Life of Father Southwell. [Mr. MAGUIBE dissented.] The hon. Member will forgive MR. I am sure I do not wish to speak uncharitably of any man, but I hare not studied history in vain, and it is idle to say that any one, connected with the Jesuits can be judged by the same rules as other men. I say, upon the authority of those who have studied the morality and rules of the Jesuit among others, on the authority of the Abbé Lamenais, that every man connected with the Jesuit body loses his individuality. I say that on the testimony of all history with respect to that order, and I further say that the loss of their individuality makes them anti-social; that the complete obedience to which they are bound, and which they yield makes them tyrants over others. These characteristics of the Order of the Jesuits have led to their expulsion from Italy, as they have done fifty times from different States, from this country among others, and this fact affords a strong proof that the Order is anti-social. Theirs is a morality which all other Christian sects condemn. No man who has been once subject to their influence can be judged by the same rules as others must be judged by. I will not further detain the House; but having attached my signature to this document, I felt it due to a large number of gentlemen, many of whom are not connected with the Protestant Alliance, but with whom I consulted, to state our reasons for our conduct, and that we are not ashamed of them.

The noble Lord has mistaken the object of the inquiry addressed to him. He was not asked why he did not defend Mr. Turnbull, but why there was not given full, fair, and complete evidence of all that had taken place. The noble Lord says that the correspondence between himself and the Master of the Rolls was a private one, and I will allow that to be a good reason why it should not be published; but is that a good reason for writing it? He must recollect that the accusation against Mr. Turnbull was laid before him as Prime Minister, and every act of the noble Lord in that capacity is a public act. He had no right to write a private letter. The noble Lord seems to combat that proposition, but I think it is a very fair one. Here is a man whose character and whose livelihood are at stake; an accusation is made against him before a competent authority, and what I complain of is that the competent authority should have taken a course by which his conduct can be shrouded from the public view. I do not accuse the noble Lord of any sinister intent, but I think it was an unwise proceeding. I do not want to say a word about the accusation itself, nor a word in defence of the Jesuits, but at the bottom of the whole of this transaction is a feeling which I think the country will deprecate, it is that intolerance of which the hon. Gentleman has just given a proof. It is said that some twenty or thirty years ago Mr. Turnbull wrote a book, and that in that book he expressed certain opinions; but when I look round me and know what men here have written and said and done I am sure a great number of them would feel very strong repugnance to having their juvenile follies brought up against them. The question is whether Mr. Turnbull has done anything in the prosecution of his office which calls upon him the reprobation of society? The Master of the Rolls is the person who is responsible for the appointment. He is known well to this House and the country; he is a candid and a liberal man; and I take it that all the world will admit that he is a highly moral man. He is a man who has been before the public all his life, he sits now upon the judgment-seat, and his life is passed as it were in a glass-house. He appointed Mr. Turnbull, and appointed him in terms of the highest eulogy. He said to him, "I appoint you to a delicate office; but I have that confidence in you that I am sure you will perform your duties in it as becomes your character," Thereupon, all of a sudden, certain gentlemen, and among them the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) are inspired with dread and alarm lest an incorrect index should be made. Recollect that the papers from which that index is made remain. It is not as if the papers are destroyed after the index is made. The papers remain, and then the hon. Member says that if anybody were to go to the State Paper Office and say "I want to look over the papers," he would be told "You cannot look over them; you must look at the index." Suppose I were to go to the State Paper Office and were to say, "I am writing the history of the period, and I believe the index to be a false one; let me see the documents themselves;" does anybody imagine that I should not get immediate access to these papers. And then what was the system at the Record Office? A catalogue was taken of all the papers given to Mr. Turnbull. After the papers were taken back they were compared with the catalogue. And yet a Protestant Association is so very nice in its view of morality and Christian justice as to insinuate that a gentleman would be fool enough to abstract a paper when there was a catalogue to act as a check against him if he did so. Upon the face of it this is the result of intolerance. I do not say that the noble Lord has helped the manifestation of the intolerance. I am sure that a more tolerant man and a more chivalrous patron does not exist. I think the noble Lord was not bound to defend the appointment, but he was bound in everything he did regarding the appointment to act so that it might be laid before the public. And the charge I make against him is a want of care and circumspection—nothing more—in writing private letters, when every-thing ought to have been done, as indeed it was done, in his character of Prime Minister. I say that he was and is bound to lay before this House, and before the world, every word he has written on this question, because he wrote it in a character of which he cannot divest himself save by resignation—the character of Prime Minister of this country.

said, there were two Motions standing on the paper in his name; but with one of the Bills, that for amending the Merchant Shipping Act, he did not intend to proceed at present, as it was thought better to await the production of the Report of the Commissioners who were appointed by the late Government to inquire into the subject of lights, buoys, and beacons, and which Report was expected to be made in the course of a few days. The other Bill which he would ask leave to introduce was one to facilitate the construction and improvement of harbours by authorizing loans to harbour authorities. It had appeared to the Government that in past times the State had been very generous—not to say lavish—in making grants of money for the construction of harbours, whether for defence or for refuge; but while so much had been given little had been done towards seconding local efforts for the improvement of existing harbours by loans of money upon easy terms and upon conditions likely to be acceptable to harbour authorities. He found that from 1851 to the present time no less than £3,144,190 had been voted for the purposes of harbours, while all that had been lent to assist local energy and enter prize in England was only £38,000. He did not exactly know how much had been lent to Ireland, but the amount was not considerable. The Government proposed by the Bill which he asked leave to introduce to assist in the improvement of existing harbours and in the construction of new harbours, by making loans upon easy terms as compared with the conditions upon which money was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Now, there had been a Committee on harbours of refuge; and there had been a Royal Commission to inquire into the sites for harbours, and generally to provide shelter for merchant shipping. They had had recommended that, whatever might be done in respect of the construction of new harbours, a system of loans upon relaxed terms should be adopted for the improvement of existing harbours. It was obvious that any plan of making existing harbours more accessible at all times of tide, especially upon the eastern coast, must lead to a saving of life and property that rendered its adoption of the highest importance. The Commissioners in their Report stated—

"There are many tidal and other harbours susceptible of great improvement situated on various parts of the coast, exclusive of those to which we have recommended that grants be made, where a sum of money expended in deepening or in improving them would contribute in a very great degree to save life and property. In fact, the improvements of existing harbours would, in many instances, do more to promote these objects than. the expenditure of an equal sum applied to only one harbour."

In order to effect that object it was proposed by the Bill that a sum of £360,000 should be annually placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purpose of being advanced to harbour authorities for the construction of new and improvement of existing harbours. That money would be advanced at 3¼per cent interest, and the repayments to be made within fifty years. It was also proposed that the practice which had prevailed with the Public Works Loan Commissioners of insisting that repayment of loans made by them should have priority over all other advances made upon the same security should cease, and it was intended by this Bill that priority should not, as a matter of course, be insisted on. Thus, loans would be made to the authorities managing existing harbours in all cases where there remained a sufficient margin of income to secure payment of the interest. Without that provision it would be impossible for many-existing harbour authorities to obtain loans. It had in former times been the custom for the State to derive a profit from transactions of that nature by lending money at a higher rate of interest than it was worth. In the present instance it was not desired that the State should reap any profit from these loans; but that it should lend money at a rate which only would not cause a loss, otherwise the advance would be a grant and not a loan. In that way, however, the credit of the country would be used for the purpose of enabling the authorities of local harbours to bring to bear their own resources. He did not know that it would be necessary for him to go further into that particular branch of the subject. He hoped and believed the loans would be the means of improving many harbours, especially on the eastern coast, where such large losses of life and property had taken place. The loans he had described would not be considered as substitutes for the greater measures the Committee had recommended for constructing harbours of refuge by grants; that was a matter for the Treasury and Parliament to consider; but loans on these terms would be productive of great advantage. They were sound in principle, and no portion of the country would object to such advances. All the evidence, as well before the Commission as before the Committee, proved that considerable importance was attached to a system of this kind by those best qualified to judge of its possible effect. The next proposal was the abolition of what were called passing tolls. The Bill provided that all the tolls paid by ships passing certain harbours, but not entering them, should cease to be levied from the end of the year 1861. He felt great confidence in making that proposal to the House. A succession of authorities had declared that passing tolls ought to be abolished. The Ramsgate Harbour Committee of 1850 distinctly recommended that these tolls should no longer be levied on passing ships. The Report of the Commission on Local Dues contained a recommendation to the same effect. There had been a remarkable agreement of opinion on both sides of the House on this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, when he held the office of Chancellor of Exchequer in the Government of the Earl of Derby, said—

"We think that all that is levied on the shipping interest under the name of passing tolls is a vexation, a grievance, and a burden, to which that interest ought not to be exposed."

And he further stated that it was the intention of the then Government to relieve the shipping interest of that burden. When his right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Council of Education (Mr. B. Lowe) brought in a Bill on the subject of local dues on shipping he also proposed to abolish passing tolls. On that occasion the late Lord Chancellor and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) stated that if the Bill had been confined to that object, and had not interfered with corporation property, they should not have opposed it. Therefore, as far as the abolition of passing tolls was concerned, both sides of the House had assented to the principle; and in support of that principle they had an unvaried succession of Parliamentary authorities. Indeed, it was very difficult to justify a tax upon shipping for the support of harbours into which they never entered, and into which a great proportion of the ships that passed them could not enter. It was clear that Dover could not be considered a harbour of refuge for which ships passing down the Channel should be called on to pay a tax. Ramsgate, perhaps, might afford advantages as a harbour of refuge to a greater extent than Dover, but a large proportion of ships which were called upon to pay for the support of Ramsgate derived no benefit from the harbour whatever. Therefore, however Ramsgate might have to be supported, it was in the highest degree unjust to levy a tax on an unlimited class of vessels merely because they passed down the Channel. The four harbours mainly affected by the Bill were Dover, Ramsgate, Whitby, and Bridlington. Of neither of these could it be said that they had any right to tax passing vessels. He would next consider what amount of benefit would be conferred upon the shipping interest by relieving them of this tax. The amounts levied by the various harbours were, in 1858, by Ramsgate, £15,000; by Dover, £12,000; by Whitby, £5,000; by Bridlington, £3,000: a total of £35,000 a year; or, allowing for the increase of trade, perhaps £38,000 for the year 1861. From that amount the shipping interest would be relieved at the close of the present year. This might appear a small amount, but it was equal to the interest of a capital of a million sterling. In abolishing these tolls the Government had taken care to guard and studiously to respect the rights of creditors. Where money had been advanced on the security of the tolls the Government gave even a better security, the Consolidated Fund; the creditors, therefore, would not be at all injured by the abolition. For the support of these harbours, after the cessation of the tolls, provision was made by the Bill, without any charge upon shipping, except on the vessels that might enter the ports. At Dover there was property that would be adequate to support the harbour; at Ramsgate, if there should be a small deficiency of income after the tolls ceased, the Government would supply that amount. "When Bridlington was free from debt, the harbour could be maintained from its own resources, and the Government proposed to take the debt upon itself. So also with Whitby. With regard to the harbour authorities at Dover no change would be made in the trust if the present trustees were prepared to undertake the management of the harbour. If they would not, of course other authorities would be found. At Ramsgate it was proposed to transfer the present trust to the Trinity Corporation. But that plan was not proposed as indispensable; another arrangement was under consideration, though it was not yet matured. But the House might feel assured that the harbour of Ramsgate would be maintained, and that the rights of creditors on all these passing tolls would be properly secured. The next proposition made in the Bill was to abolish certain dues which were now levied on ships by charitable corporations for charitable objects. That abolition was made on the principle that those corporations ought not to levy dues on ships entering particular ports for the purpose of keeping up a system of almsgiving, in which those ships which had the dues to pay had no interest, and from which they derived no benefit. Those charitable corporations were the Trinity House of Kingston-on-Hull, the Trinity House of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the Fraternity of Postmen of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the Trinity Corporation of Leith, the Guild and Corporation of Perth and Dundee. The dues levied by the latter corporations were of small amount, the corporations that levied the principal dues being the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull and that of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It was not proposed to interfere with vested interests or with the property of any individual, or of any member of a corporation by the abolition of these dues; but it was proposed that these dues should cease with the existing pensioners, and that when they died no new pensions should be created. He thought it might be said that a Parliamentary sanction was given to the principle, that possible future recipients of these benefits should not be considered, when his right hon. Friend (Mr. Card well) dealt with the question of the Trinity Corporation. By the adoption of that proposition of the Bill an ultimate relief would be afforded to the shipping interest of £18,000 a year. He believed that at the period to which he had just referred the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire gave it as his opinion that those dues levied for charities ought not to be continued. That was when the question as to whether charities should be paid under the name of light dues was under consideration. Another relief, small in amount, but removing dues of a vexatious character, would be given by the Bill. Dues were levied on the trade of Dublin which were taken by the Treasury in payment of interest of money advanced years ago for the improvement of Dunleary harbour. By a provision in the Bill those dues, which amounted to £3,000 or £4,000 a-year, would be abandoned, and that special tax on the trade of Dublin abolished. He might here observe that it was also proposed by the Bill that the Trinity House of Newcastle-on-Tyne should not levy duties on Sunderland and other towns for the purposes of Newcastle-on-Tyne. The concluding portion of the Bill related to a subject of a totally different character. Every one knew that there were what were called "differential dues," which were dues levied on foreign ships somewhat greater in amount than those levied on British shipping. The Government proposed, in accordance with the policy of this country, to abolish those differential dues. Their amount was inconsiderable, because, in consequence of reciprocity treaties which existed between this and a great many foreign countries, to a considerable extent—indeed, almost entirely—foreign ships had no higher dues than those paid by British ships. For instance, the reciprocity treaty made with France in 1826 bound England to levy no higher dues on French than those levied on English ships when the former were engaged in direct trade between England and France; but before the treaty of 1860 differential dues would have been levied on any French ship engaged in indirect trade, and at present differential dues were levied in some cases on foreign vessels. There was compensation money paid by the Treasury to different ports for the loss of diffferential dues which these ports were obliged to abandon under reciprocity treaties. The first of these treaties was made with Portugal in 1810; the next with the United States in 1815; and afterwards similar treaties were entered into with Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Hanse Towns. Then, the reciprocity treaty with France came in 1826. In that year England had made reciprocity treaties with the principal maritime countries in the world. Previously to 1810, under Acts of Parliament and under charters, various ports were entitled to levy higher rates on foreign than on British ships—in some cases dues to double the amount. The object of these differential duties was not, in fact, to give an income to the local authorities who levied them, but to keep the foreign ships away in order that all the trade should be carried on in English bottoms. He believed that the abolition of these double dues had been a great advantage to the ports that used to levy them, for the increased number of foreign ships at the reduced dues gave them a much greater income than they had ever received under the old system. It was, however, thought necessary to compensate these ports, and to pay them an annual sum for the double dues they relinquished. That compensation was, perhaps, a gift to get rid of their resistance to a free trade policy. A paragraph in the charter of one of these bodies showed the object with which these differential dues were originally granted. The Trinity House of Hull had received a large amount of compensation for the loss of these dues. Well, the charter gave power to the guild when any merchant should hire any stranger-bottomed ship, when the like ship might be had of English bottom, to exact and levy as a fine for every such offence the sum of 20 nobles current money for the use of the guild. In its origin it was, then, a fine to prevent the merchants from using foreign ships. This body had received from £12,000 to £13,000 per annum as compensation, and had altogether received about £200,000 for the loss of differential dues formerly levied under their charter. The House would observe that that was a formidable question, as it involved a growing charge on the Consolidated Fund. Fortunately it happened that a great number of ports that used to receive this money from the Consolidated Fund as compensation for the loss of differential dues, had given up the receipt of the money, the Trinity Corporation among others. In some cases the payment had been got rid of when the bodies in question had occasion to come to Parliament for a Bill, which was refused to them unless they abandoned this unjust claim on the Treasury. This was, however, an inconvenient system, because it deterred these bodies from coming to Parliament to promote private Bills demanded by the wants of their respective localities. It was therefore desirable that such compensation money should cease to be paid. Year after year the payment was increasing. If when the new policy was inaugurated the Legislature had given the ports 20, 50, or even 100 years' purchase, it would have been a great gainer. In 1826, after reciprocity treaties with all the maritime Powers had been agreed to, the present recipients received £10,000 a year. In the present year they received about £60,000. How long was that to go on increasing with the increase of commerce, and was the House prepared to pay in a few years £100,000 as compensation for those dues, which were actually £10,000 a year when they ceased to be levied on foreign ships, and which had since entailed such an increasing charge on the Consolidated Fund, because, by the increase of trade, by lowering the tariff, and repealing the navigation laws, they had encouraged the entrance of foreign shipping into the ports? The rapid rate of increase was the effect of a free trade policy; but what justice was there in calling on the taxpayers of the country to pay the stipend for nothing? The parties who received it had given up nothing, and they did nothing in return for the large sum paid to them. If it could be imagined possible to restore the former system, to reverse their policy of free trade and reciprocity, and say to those parties, "You shall exact, as formerly, the double dues on foreign shipping, and we will not pay you this compensation," they would not be able to complain, but they would not gain for fewer foreign ships would come to their ports. Therefore, it did not seem to him that there was any foundation in justice for that annual payment. The Government proposed to discontinue this payment; but they wished to touch the matters with rather a tender hand, as the claim had existed so long. He, therefore, proposed that at the end of five years the compensation for differential dues should cease, and that during the next five years the sum to be paid should be taken on the average of the payments during the last five years. If in 1826 the House of Commons had given twenty years' purchase for these dues the ports would have been bought off for £200,000, but since 1826 they had actually received £900,000. He thought the Government now proposed to deal most liberally with them, and he did hope that Parliament would help the Government in relieving the Consolidated Fund from a charge that in justice it ought not to pay. A portion of the compensation money, however, had been granted in pensions, and should any of the present recipients be living at the expiration of the five years, the amounts would be continued to them during their lives. He hoped the House would understand the statement which he had made. The Government proposed to give facilities to harbours, and to relieve shipping from a variety of unjust and obnoxious charges, without interfering in the slightest degree with what might be called legitimate corporate property, or with the vested interests of individuals; and they likewise proposed to discontinue the unjust payments in the shape of compensation for differential dues. One case stood on peculiar grounds, and would form an exception to the general rule; the Hull Dock Company, in consequence of a certain arrangement made with the Treasury, had engaged to perform certain works, and to receive a fixed payment in lieu of differ- ential dues. With that arrangement, therefore, it was not intended to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the construction and improvement of harbours, to abolish passing tolls, and for other purposes.

said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of thanking the Government for the announcement of so refreshing a measure as one involving, though to a very limited extent, relief to the shipping interest. The Government, by their proposal to assist the construction of harbours of refuge, even to the moderate extent stated by the right hon. Gentleman, had made a good beginning and that at the right end. There was such a thing as beginning at the wrong end, but the step now taken was in the right direction. But he need not remind the House that the loan of £360,000 to be annually provided for the improvement of existing harbours would go only a very short way. Considering that the Government had been instrumental in the appointment of the Royal Commission, to which the investigation of questions of difficulty and intricacy had been delegated, he regretted that they had laid aside some of the chief recommendations of that Commission. He regretted that they had only adopted that portion of the recommendations which referred to existing harbours; but the step taken was in the right direction, and would tend to a great saving of life and property on the coast. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman said that this proposal was not to be considered as a substitute for a larger measure, it seemed that there was a lurking impression in the mind of the Government that they had not done all that might have been done. Much testimony concurred in the fact that enormous sums were spent in the lump without that House receiving any details by which they could judge whether they were expended properly and profitably or not. He referred more especially to Alderney and Jersey harbours, on which £1,100,000 had been expended already—(MR. HENLEY: Hear, hear!)—whereas the whole of the money stated by the Committee of 1858 as requisite for the construction of two great national life harbours on the north-east coast and in the British Channel, was less than that expenditure by £4,000 or £5,000. No check had as yet been placed on that particular expenditure. He hoped that the Govern- ment would see that the existing works were brought to a close, and that a proper system of audit would be provided. He hoped, moreover, that the Government would take into consideration the recommendation of the Commission that one or more national harbours should be constructed by means of a loan, and that they should be set on foot in the most speedy and economical mode. It was estimated that the loss of property on the coasts of England every year was a million and a half. That was so much national capital wasted which might have been expended in industrial works or in the payment of labour. It was so much national wealth sunk annually in the sea. Such a sum would more than pay the interest of a large loan, and leave a handsome surplus to the nation, and he implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he would not make a temporary sacrifice to secure a permanent national benefit. He hoped that in carrying the proposed measure precautions would be taken against the larger communities obtaining assistance in preference to the smaller ones in inverse proportion to their deserts. They ought not to lose sight of the fact that the fishermen had not the same means of giving security for national loans which were possessed by other communities. The right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that the particular corporation in the part of the country he (Mr. Liddell) represented, namely, the "Houstmen Company" charged dues on ships for charitable purposes. [Mr. MILNER GIRSON: On the goods carried in ships?] It was only on a particular description of goods, namely, the article grindstones, and the company was a trading and not a charitable corporation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he wished to touch the differential dues with a delicate hand. It was, indeed, a delicate subject, and trenched very much on the rights and property of corporations. He regretted that those dues were not bought up some years ago when their value was comparatively small; but he hoped that the example of the right hon. Gentleman would be followed by the Foreign Secretary who, he trusted, would before long be able to inform the House that all differential dues levied in other countries on English ships had ceased. In conclusion, he again thanked the Government for the measure, which was a movement in the right direction, though portions of the scheme were liable to great objections, and ought in his opinion to form the subject of separate Bills. He believed the proposition would be felt as a boon by the shipping interest, inasmuch as the Government expressed their desire to make no profit by the system of loans.

said, he had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and was only sorry that it had not been delivered ten years ago. He, however, regretted that the recommendations of the Royal Commission were not to be carried out in all their integrity. The money expended in that way would be much more advantageously spent than upon many of the sums now expended upon the navy, or the army, or upon those coast defences, for which they voted £10,000,000 last Session. However, this loan of £360,000 would be of some value, and would tend to the saving of life and property; but he trusted that in making loans the Government would in the first place consider the safety of life. "With respect to the great harbours of refuge, he did not think in the present state of the finances he could press the Government to act on the Resolution formerly carried in that House, because a large sum of money would be required for their construction; but there were some points where a small sum would be of much service indeed; as, for instance, Waterford and Carling-ford might at little cost be converted into magnificent harbours. In regard to the main question, it deserved serious consideration as speedily as possible, for the average loss of property every year along the British coasts amounted in value to £1,500,000, and the average loss of lives to 1,000. And in the present year he feared that the loss had been much greater. He deemed the notion of making a harbour of refuge at Alderney truly absurd, for in bad weather no sane man would run for Alderney. It would be certain destruction to do so; yet he apprehended that £1,100,000 had already been spent upon it, and before it was completed £2,000,000 would be spent. Besides, the harbour comprised an area of but eighty acres, and that was filled with rocks and shoals. The notion of completing it should at once be abandoned, and a saving of the £900,000 required to complete it would thus be effected. Then, with regard to Dover, it was fit for nothing else than a packet station. He agreed with the propriety of abolishing passing tolls. As an instance of the absurdity of the claims of parties who now levied those taxes for the maintenance of what were termed harbours of refuge for the use of vessels thus taxed, he referred to the harbour of Bridlington. When he (Mr. Lindsay), with others appointed as Commissioners, went to that harbour for the purposes of inquiry, after trying every means they could think of to enter the harbour even in a small boat, they, Her Majesty's Commissioners, were obliged to be carried into the harbour on the backs of sailors. And yet £3,000 or thereabouts a year for passing tolls was paid in respect of that so-called harbour of refuge. Then there was Sunderland, to which double the amount of tonnage and trade to that which went to Newcastle resorted. And yet Sunderland was called a creek of Newcastle, and paid £3,000 a year as dues to Newcastle, for which it receives no equivalent whatever. He then contended that the compulsory payments for pilotage were unjustifiable, and he hoped the Government would introduce a Bill to relieve shipowners from the liabilities to which they were at present subject.

said, he could not give his consent to the principles which had been enunciated, and which interfered unjustly with vested rights. There was no more right to take possession of the property which was vested in the corporation of the Trinity House, of Hull, for instance, than the corporation had to take possession of the right hon. Gentleman's yacht. Having entered his protest he should postpone what further he might have to say until another occasion.

asked what charge the measure would impose upon the Consolidated Fund?

said, he also must protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the dues payable to the Trinity House of Hull.

said, on behalf of his constituents, that they never wished to stand in the way of the public interest; but no measure hitherto brought forward had fairly dealt with the interests of individuals. However, until he saw the details of the scheme he would not express any opinion upon it. When he saw the details of the Bill he should more fully express an opinion on its merits.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the clear statement which had been made in introducing this measure. He hoped the general provisions of the Bill would be extended to Ireland.

said, he wished to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the great benefit which the measure would confer on the port of Dublin by abolishing the double duties. The right hon. Gentleman would confer a further benefit if he would abolish the Is. 6d. duty payable upon entrance into the port of Dublin at once, by a Resolution of the House, instead of waiting for the passing of this Bill.

in replying, said that the Bill would apply to Ireland. The charge imposed upon the Consolidated Fund under its provisions would amount to £45,000. The Bill contained a provision that no port should receive an advance of more than £100,000, which would prevent a few wealthy communities from swallowing up the whole of the benefit. He could not interfere with the special taxes of Dublin in the manner suggested by the hon, Member for that city.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for putting an end to dues which were a serious injury to his (Mr. Vansittart's) constituents. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would abolish the dues by Resolution.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws regulating Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member said the subject had undergone very full discussion on that night week, and the attention of the House had been called at considerable length to what appeared to be the defects in the existing system of Grand Jury Laws in Ireland. Now, he did not deny that there were certain objection which were of a tenable character, and that amendments might, in some particulars, be introduced with advantage. But the grand jury system, as a whole, had been very much, and, as he thought, unjustly decried in the course of that debate. His object, therefore, in asking for leave to introduce the present Bill was to afford an opportunity of calmly considering the present state of the law, with a view to the introduction of amendments where they appeared to be required. A great objection which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) was, that it was a system of taxation without representation. But he hoped to show the House, not alone that all taxation must originate with the cesspayers, but that every step was carefully guarded by law to prevent expenditure from being incurred, except where it was imperatively required by the circumstances of the district. In the first place, no person could make application for the repair of a road, or for any new work, in any barony, unless he was himself a cesspayer in that barony; and the application was further required to proceed from two persons. The most extensive publicity was insured, for, in the first place, notice of what the presentment was to be—what road was to be repaired, or the work to be performed, should be served on the secretary to the grand jury, on the county surveyor, and also on the clerk of sessions in the district where the greater part of the work was to be performed. Copies of such notice to be posted on the churches, chapels, and police barracks in the district. Before any notice could be taken of the application it must be proved to the satisfaction of the cesspayers and the justices that these notices had been served. These cesspayers before whom, conjointly with the justices, application for power to execute these works was to be made, consisted of a certain number—not less than five and not more than twelve—selected by the grand jury from among the highest rated. These cesspayers were influenced in a double manner: they had a material interest in the improvement of the roads for the conveyance of their produce to market, and they were likewise interested in seeing that the work proposed was executed as economically as possible, as the expense of the work was to be borne by themselves. In arriving at a conclusion they had the professional assistance of the county surveyor, who was in attendance to answer any questions as to the condition of the roads—ascertained by actual inspection—as to the quantity of material required for the repair, and generally to give his opinion whether the application was one that ought or ought not to be entertained. Upon him, likewise, devolved the duty of seeing that proper plans and specifications were prepared. In case the application received the approval of a majority of the magistrates and cesspayers, public advertisement for tenders was made, and the lowest offer was of necessity taken, provided the contractor found security which could be approved of. These were not the only safeguards. After all these steps had been taken, a schedule of presentments had to be laid before the grand jury, which was composed of the chief persons in their respective districts, who met in open court, where the county surveyor was again in attendance to give his professional assistance. The grand jury had not the power of originating taxation; but they could impose a veto upon it whenever a proper case was made out. In the event of any person being discontented, either with the decision of the magistrates and cesspayers, in the first instance, or with that of the grand jury in the second, without incurring any expense, he had a double power of appeal. In the first place, it was competent for him to apply to the Judge before whom the presentments were laid to be fiated, and to obtain his opinion as to their legality; and in the next, if he doubted the utility of a particular presentment, he might enter a traverse, and from the jurors who were in attendance on criminal business a jury would be impanelled, and their opinion obtained on the particular question, without any expense being incurred. He did not think it possible for any other system to be surrounded with so many guards to prevent abuse. It had now been at work in Ireland for about a century, and everybody had derived from it the greatest advantage. If the presentment sought for was for a new work it had to come twice before the baronial sessions, and twice before the grand jury. The roads in Ireland were maintained for the sum of £480,000, and there was not one shilling due by the counties—whilst in England, 26,000 miles of road were bankrupt for £3,000,000 sterling—£3,000^000 were likewise levied in England for private roads, which in numberless cases were admittedly in a very bad state; whilst in Ireland the private roads were as good as the public. In England this tax was levied by the magistrates in quarter sessions, without any associated cess-payers. To show the economical working of the system, he might mention that the preliminary expenses of any work brought before an Irish grand jury did not exceed 50s. or 60s., whereas in England the costs attendant on obtaining a private Act of Parliament to make a new road were not less than £600 or £700. The objections to the system, as well as he had been able to gather them from the speeches of the, hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy), were three-fold. The first was, that the Parliamentary requirement—that a grand juror should be called to represent each barony in a county—could be evaded by the high sheriff, who had only to call a person whom he knew would not answer to his name. He proposed to remedy that defect by making it incumbent on the sheriff to call another gentleman from the same barony in case the first did not answer. Another objection was, that magistrates came from distant parts of the county, not having property in the particular barony where the sessions were held, and swamped the local cesspayers. This objection he proposed to remove by enacting that no magistrate, not resident in the barony, nor having a fee simple or freehold qualification of £200 a year should vote in the particular instance alluded to. The third, and by far the most important, objection was, that cesspayers were nominated by the grand jury in place of being elected, and that thus there was a system of taxation without representation. The remedy which he proposed in this case was the same which had been advocated in a Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kerry (Colonel Herbert), when Chief Secretary for Ireland. He proposed that the grand juries should retain the power they at present possessed of declaring the number of associated cesspayers, and that the individuals should be elected by all persons rated from property of the annual value of eight pounds. In this way the legislative institutions which were required would be secured without difficulty. He thought he was not asking too much in requiring under his Bill that imperative presentments, by which he meant the expenditure for lunatic asylums under the Board of Works and in connection with the Post Office &c., should not be sent down to the grand (juries in the middle of their fiscal business, but should be put forward five clear: days before the county at large sessions, in order that they might be fairly considered and included in the printed schedule. There was an item which he considered totally unnecessary, but which was at present compulsory—namely, that for auditing the treasurer's accounts. He believed this might be omitted with safety and advantage. Such were the leading features of the Bill which he now begged permission to introduce; and from the encouragement to private Members, thrown out a few nights since by the Government, he hoped their assistance might be given in passing it into law.

was unable to understand the exact principles of the Bill which his hon. and gallant Friend proposed to bring in. It seemed as if it ought, in his eyes, to be altogether unnecessary to amend the grand jury system, after the very elaborate defence of their action and constitution which the House had just listened to. He did not believe that a subject so important ought to be left in the hands of private Members. On a former evening his right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, made a suggestion to private Members to bring in Bills on this question; they had now the fruits of that appeal, and he could not say much in their favour. It was a subject of all others which the Government ought to deal with, and which they only could deal with efficiently. Everybody but those directly interested denied that the grand jury system required to see a reform. The only persons who attempted to stand up in defence of the system were grand jurors themselves—the body of all others in whom the country on fiscal questions had entirely lost confidence. The question was one involving a million of taxation levied on the poor ratepayers of Ireland. Even the thick and thin advocates of grand juries, like his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon, could not deny that blemishes existed; and it was therefore peculiarly a question with which the Executive Government should deal on its own responsibility.

thought it scarcely fair to a question of such great magnitude, that an attempt should be made to discuss it at such an advanced hour. On the suggestion thrown out by the Chief Secretary, the other night, he had himself given no- tice of a Bill on the subject, but finding it utterly impossible to do justice to it at such a time of night, he had postponed it till an evening when the state of the paper led him to hope for a more favourable opportunity. Although he did not hope to be able to effect that extensive change which he desired to see in the grand jury system, he felt that he was bound not to shrink from the responsibility cast upon him by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There were questions on which legislation was admittedly required, that might be left to the discretion and responsibility of the Government; but, in the present instance he protested against blame being thrown on the right hon. Gentleman for declining to bring in a Bill.

said, it would be impossible, at such an hour, to renew the discussion on the financial Government of Ireland, All he wished to say on that occasion was, that in the history of this question, both in England and Ireland, the measures brought before the House had been usually in the hands of private Members, although, he was sorry to add that neither in the hands of private Members nor of the Government had that satisfactory progress been made which the advocates of alteration desired. A Bill was now proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roscommon, which he understood to contain some of the principal changes recommended by the Committee which reported in 1842. When that Bill was printed and in the hands of the House, they would be able to see whether it deserved a second reading. Other changes were contemplated in the measure promised by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt); and the House, when it had both these schemes before them, would be better able to decide on their respective merits.